Henri McPhee
Illuminator
HENRIBOY:
The fact that the defense only requested exemplars from two members of the Stoeckley Seven, speaks to the defense team's lack of confidence that Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle had any involvement in this horrific crime. Heck, the defense never even attempted to contact Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle for permission to provide DNA samples to the AFIP.
It took several months for you to admit that no lab documentation exists that sources a known intruder suspect to this crime. It has now been a few weeks since I issued a new challenge, yet you have failed to provide documentation that proves the CID and FBI failed to investigate a viable intruder suspect.
Considering the depth and scope of the CID's 4 year reinvestigation and the FBI's 3 year investigation into suspects not named Jeffrey MacDonald, I would wager it's going to take another several months before you admit that you cannot come up with the goods.
Two days away from the government pounding the final nail in inmate's legal coffin.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There is exculpatory forensic evidence in the MacDonald case, but it has been disregarded. There were black wool fibers with no known source around the mouth of Colette and on her arm and on the murder weapon. There were blonde synthetic hair-like fibers found which was withheld at the MacDonald trial. There was candle wax found which the Army CID lab said was not MacDonald candle wax. I think there was a match, or matches, found when the MacDonald family did not use matches. An expert at the trial said that the surgical glove fragment did not come from a MacDonald glove.
The investigation of suspects by the FBI was a poor investigation and only really happened when MacDonald was imprisoned. Those suspects only had to keep their mouths shut and say they couldn't remember or recall anything and they were excluded as suspects by the FBI. Mazerolle is being protected by the drug barons in the Army CID and CIA who don't want the truth to come out. The reinvestigation was Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be and the same with the threads.
Circumstantial evidence is good enough if there is no DNA or fingerprints linking a suspect to a crime. I am not sure if those suspects could have been forced to provide DNA samples if they didn't want to under American law at the time. It was only because Helena Stoeckley refused to confess in court for obvious reasons that MacDonald's defense collapsed.
There is a bit about this matter on the internet:
"The Innocence Project had this to say on the case
Since MacDonald was convicted of the murders in 1979, considerable evidence of his innocence has come to light. Most recently, retired US Marshall Jimmy Britt came forward with information that another suspect in the case, Helena Stoeckley, admitted to the prosecutor that she was in the house on the night of MacDonald’s murder and that he threatened to indict her for first degree murder if she admitted that in court. In addition, DNA testing on evidence that was recovered from the fingernails scrapings of one of the victims and a hair found under another victim did not match MacDonald. Earlier, evidence came to light that a FBI forensic examiner mislead the jury about synthetic hair evidence. MacDonald claimed the hairs were from the wig of one of the murders, but the forensic examiner incorrectly claimed they were from one of the children’s dolls."