For 3 years, the defense
team persistently complained the government held them off, preventing
them from conducting their own independent investigation of the
evidence. Just days before the trial, the defense was finally
allowed to see the evidence but did not allow time to run their
own independent studies. The judge should have ordered the prosecution
to give allow the defense ample time and access to all the evidence.
Human skin found under
Colette’s fingernail on left hand was lost. The loss was
The heavy, splintery
stick, used as a club, belonged to the MacDonald household, without
a doubt. But there are questions as to if it was kept indoors
or outside. Colette used it in the backyard when she painted Kimberly’s
The club, knife and
ice pick, initially found in the yard, were handled so poorly
by CID investigators, the investigators actually returned the
weapons to the yard, for photographs during a staged, second "official
finding" according to overwhelming evidence.
Under oath, Military
Policemen testified the weapons were first discovered and reported
at 5:00 am. However, the weapons were not photographed, at that
time, as they should have been. A medic’s statement suggests
the weapons evidence was carelessly handled. The Fort Bragg CID
leader gave confirming testimony that he was shown the weapons
at 5 am. Yet, under oath, the 2 lead detectives swore the weapons
were found shortly before 7 am, at first light. Records prove
that neither the Medic nor the Military Policemen, who testified
they saw the weapons at 5:00 am, were at the murder scene when
lead investigators insist the weapons were found. How is this
mystery is the knife MacDonald pulled out of his wife’s chest
and threw on the floor in the bedroom. No finger prints were found
on the knife. MacDonald’s
print’s should have been on the knife.
witnesses saw the bloody knife next to the dresser.
Grebner and MP’s Mica and Trevere documented they saw blood
on the knife blade and handle. Trevere told the Grand Jury there
was blood on the knife.
lab techs reported only a minuscule trace of blood on the blade
and none on the handle. Clearly, someone had to wipe the knife
clean, but why?
had already been taken to the hospital, yet almost all of the
mysterious, this same knife, was later proven not to be one of
the weapons used!
Despite extensive efforts,
neither knife found was traced to the MacDonald house.
The CID thought they
had a witness, a baby sitter who had seen the bent, dull Geneva
Forge Knife in the MacDonald apartment, but she was misunderstood.
Her mother accused the CID of trying to manipulate her.
At the Army Article
32 hearing, when the baby sitter testified, the prosecution didn't
question her about the weapons. Later when the CID interviewed
her again she denied ever seeing either knives, the club or ice
pick in the MacDonald house.
At the Grand Jury investigation
she testified that she had not seen the Geneva Forge knife, but
the Old Hickory knife. On the stand however, she surprised the
prosecutor when she refused to confirm seeing the knife. Later
that day, she took the stand to claim she did now remember using
an ice pick in the MacDonald home.
Five years later she
again told the same story to the trial jury.
At 4:50 am, when an
investigator arrived, reported he saw a footprint still drying.
It takes very little time for a thin layer of blood to dry on
a hardwood floor.
It is unrealistic to
believe the foot print was wet after 90 minutes, as the government
claimed. A bloody footprint on the hardwood floor was lost as
it was collected to take to the lab.
They claim the footprint
fell apart when they sawed the wood out of the floor. Government
documents described, a wet, A type blood found on the floor in
the master bedroom on and near the throw rug.
Shortly before MacDonald
was taken from that room, he was seen standing on his feet in
that bloody area. Three witnesses told how he struggled off the
gurney in the hallway, attempting to enter his children’s
rooms. To get off the gurney in its low position, 8" from
the floor, MacDonald would have had to put his lower body into
one of the doorways leading off the 3' wide hallway, such as the
door where the bloody footprint was found just 10" inside
Imbedded within the
bloody foot print was a fiber matching a throw rug in the master
bedroom where MacDonald stood earlier. Also if one’s foot
is wet, there would be more than just one foot print. Stepping
once will not completely remove it. So the evidence suggests that
MacDonald made the footprint when he struggled off the gurney,
A brown hair found
in Colette’s left hand did belong to MacDonald or anyone
else in the home.
A month after the murders,
CID Agents secretly removed hairs from one of MacDonald’s
sweaters and labeled the samples as the "known hair of MacDonald."
They were disappointed when the lab identified it as horse hair.
Due to this error, the government untruthfully reported they were
to small to test, according to CID lab notes note R-11, CID exhibit
The government added
a new evidence claim
Long after the murders,
at the 1974 grand jury investigation, an FBI Lab Technician introduced
new evidence he claimed was delivered to him, that year, in a
vial, marked as "part of the debris evidence collected by
the CID from the bloody bedspread at the crime scene, on the bedroom
floor." He then introduced a bloody hair matching Colette’s,
allegedly found entwined with a long sewing thread, said to be
from MacDonald’s pajama top. (The original lab note seems
to suggest that the entangled items had already been mounted on
a slide. A general note written later however indicates otherwise.)
This was viewed as
damning evidence that Supports the government’s claim that
Jeffrey and Colette had a vicious fight.
It is a common forensic
requirement for photographs to be taken of the hair and thread
before separating them, but the FBI Lab Technician did not do
this. He washed away the alleged blood on the hair to make a microscopic
examination. So the only "proof" that a bloody hair
was entwined with a fiber is solely based on the word of the FBI
There is something
drastically wrong with this claim. In previous years, numerous
examinations of the debris from the bedspread were recorded by
the Army CID. These lab notes revealed a bloody hair was among
the debris found, but the hair matched Kimberly’s hair, not
Colette’s. The FBI found only one hair matching Colette in
the debris from the bedspread. As documented, the CID had already
found, examined and cataloged that hair. In a deposition prior
to the Army hearing in 1970, the CID Technician who controlled
this evidence explained how he washed hairs taken from the bedspread
in preparation for microscopic analysis. So the question is, how
did entwinement develop? If the bloody hair was Colette’s,
why was it identified as Kimberly’s? If the hair was washed
by the CID, how did it remain bloody for the FBI?
A Bloody Adult Palm
A bloody adult palm
print found on the foot board of Jeffrey and Colettes bed on
the morning of the murders. The print did not match Jeffrey, Colette,
Kimberly or Kristen. It also did not match any of the people known
to be at the murder site that morning. Despite extensive efforts
by the FBI, the source of this bloody palm print continues to
remain unidentified according to CID lab reports, CID lab notes,
prosecution memo, FBI report on palm print.
The Pajama Top
According to the government
theory, MacDonald forgot he put his pajama top over his wife and
proceeded to stab her with the ice pick. They say the pajama top
was in folds was not flat on the body. The 48 circular holes in
the fabric could be matched to the 21 ice pick wounds, but there
were in fibers where out fibers should have been and out fibers
where in fibers should have been.
No examination was
made to determine how much Colette’s pajama top shifted with
the ice pick thrusts into her chest, there had to be some shifting
of her pajama top because there were 3 holes in the back, yet
she had no ice pick wounds to her back. This would also bring
about some shifting of MacDonald’s pajama top. No attention
was paid to the relative sizes of the thrusts holes to MacDonald’s
pajama top by the Lab Technician. One of the FBI Technicians testified
that some of the holes in the blue pajama top were maximum width
for the ice pick representing thrust up to the hilt.
report showed no such up to the hilt wounds were inflicted. 1
-1/2" was the deepest ice pick wound listed on Colette, in
the autopsy report. The ice pick blade was measured by the government
as .120" wide. According to government’s measurements,
the ice pick blade would have penetrated an additional 1 -1/2"
to cause a maximum width hole as found in the pajama fabric.
Another oversight was
the lack of attention paid to the direction of bent fibers in
the garment holes. CID conducted a study of directionality in
1971 and drew certain conclusions concerning 11 holes. An independent
study a short time later by the FBI resulted in the same conclusion.
The FBI stabbing through the pajama top experiment ignored these
An example: The experiment
concluded holes numbered 20, 21, and 22 in that sequence, one
above the other, represented a single thrust through folded material
into Colette’s chest. However, both the CID and FBI directionality
studies concluded that hole 20 penetrated the pajama top from
the inside to the outside, while holes 21 and 22 penetrated from
the outside to the inside. It is impossible to fold a cloth so
a single thrust through 3 holes can duplicate these directions.
Who Removed the
This concept becomes
irrelevant if the eye witness accounts of the 3 Military Police,
first on the scene, are true. When independently interviewed,
early on, they each said the blue pajama top was not on Colette’s
body when they arrived. One MP stated he was sure he knelt on
the pajama top while giving Jeffrey mouth to mouth resuscitation.
The 3 MP’s recalled
that one of Colette’s breasts was visible. This gives credence
to MacDonald’s version of why he laid his pajama top on her
chest. Yet, the question remains, who removed it? Why do the government’s
photographs show the pajama top covering both breasts?
A bath mat was photographed
on Colette’s lower body. The government contends MacDonald
used the bath mat to wipe the murder weapons before he threw them
out the back door, under bushes. Then he placed the bath mat on
Colette’s body to disguise the stains, they claim. The
bath mat had been clean, initially it was thought to have been
among freshly laundered items on the chair.
deny that the bath mat was on the body when they arrived. One
MP stated part of Colette’s abdomen was exposed and that
the bath mat did not appear on the body until 15 minutes after
his arrival. This corresponds with another eye witness who first
saw the bath mat at her feet. Even though the wiping marks of
the weapons on the bath mat do not point to any specific individual,
prosecutors insisted MacDonald placed the bath mat on his wife’s
A crime scene photograph
shows this bath mat at her feet, the edges slightly turned up,
as if her feet had pushed it when MacDonald slid her down from
the chair to perform CPR. Yet in the evidence, two different CID
photographs show the same bath mats on different areas of the
body. So where was the bath mat? If it were at her feet, how did
it get on her body in the photographs? Obviously someone moved
it. MacDonald had already been taken to the hospital. The only
people who should have been there were investigators.
Much has been made
of the blood evidence found at the crime scene. According to the
government, they were able to reconstruct what happened due to
the fact that each member of the MacDonald family had a different
blood type. While this is true, it does not take into account
that any person committing this crime could have carried blood
from one victim to another and throughout the apartment.
Now the logical question
would be -- How seriously was MacDonald really