APRIL 15, 2010
I have been receiving a lot of questions regarding the hair that MacDonald's defense is alleging was found under Kristen's fingernail. This hair originates back to “so-called” reporting of Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter that bloody hairs were found under the fingernails of both MacDonald children.
To regress a little: MacDonald for years, every chance he got, spouted off about the unidentified hair found in Colette's left hand stating that it came from her killer. However, the DNA test results of that hair in fact inculpate MacDonald because the unidentifiable hair was matched through mitochondrial DNA to none other that Jeffrey MacDonald.
Thus according to the defense's Opposition filed, it would appear that he has apparently conceded that the DNA result of that mystery hair do not exculpate him because it does not call into question any of the evidence that was introduced at trial by the prosecution to establish his guilt.
Instead he moves on to yet another hair. This time it is one of the hairs that Bost and Potter reported in Fatal Justice that they allege was found under the fingernails of Kristen. MacDonald claims that this hair got there because Kristen was struggling with her killer and that he is exculpated because he is not the source of the hair. My question is, did they toss a coin to decide whose hair they would use this time?
In Fatal Justice it is reported in part that -
(1) “An unidentified hair with its root intact in tact was found under one of Kimberly's (sic) bloody fingernails.
(2) “An unidentified hair with its root intact was found under one of Kristen's bloody fingernails.”
And the defense maintains the above was not disclosed to the defense and jury.
They reference this as coming from CID lab note R11.
When I go the CID lab note R11, I find the following -
(1) Fingernail scraping from the right hand of Kimberley MacDonald.
2 small fragments and debris
(2) Fingernail scraping from the left hand of Kimberley MacDonald.
Questionable hair fragments
(3) Fingernail scraping from the left hand of Kristen MacDonald.
1 hair? 2 fragments.
(4) Fingernail scraping from the right hand of Kristen MacDonald.
The problem with this claim is that it comes from MacDonald's own memorandum of evidence, not from the actual records of the case.
The truth of the matter is there is no evidence of record that a hair was observed, found, or removed from under the fingernails of Kristen MacDonald at the crime scene before her remains were removed or during her autopsy.
The documents that MacDonald relies on for the assertions that hair was bloody and that it was forcible removed does not support his claims.
Instead, it simply states that “D-237, fingernail scrapings from left hand of Kristen MacDonald indicated blood.” It does not say anything about a hair. (D-237 was also referred to as Q-137 and 91A)
What appears to have occurred here is that the defense has relied on the notes of AFIP technician Grant Graham for the assertion that Graham found that the hair had an “intact” root which “strongly suggests” that Kristen grabbed at an intruder.
In essence what the report reported in my opinion was not that at all. The report stated the slide was reported as being in poor condition with dried mounting medium on top of the cover. That it contained one fiber with red adhering material that appeared to be blood. That it also contained one human hair with root but no tissue, approximately 5 mm long...
So in fact Graham never said the hair had an “intact root.” What he said with respect to 91A was “one human hair with root but no tissue.” Hair was reported as white in color.
The defense wants people to believe that the "evidence as a whole" shows that MacDonald is a victim, not the perpetrator of the murders of his wife and daughters. Furthermore, they claim that his theory of defense based on DNA testing is the same as his theory of defense at trial and would establish his actual innocence of the charges. This is BS. This is not nor has it ever been a who done it. Colette, Kimberley and Kristen are the victims. Their lives were taken in a brutal inhuman way, and although their voices were silent, their remains told the true story of what happened to them.
The problem is MacDonald, thinking he was smarter than anyone else told his story before he knew what the evidence showed. He had diarrhea of the mouth which resulted in him having to make changes in his original story.
What was Bernie Segal thinking to allow him to testify before the grand jury knowing full well, in my opinion that his mouth would results in him not answering the questions, while creating more questions.
He complains of his constitutional rights being violated. It was his constitutional right not to testify, so he himself is the one who gave up his constitutional right. The same thing occurred at the 1979 trial. The choice was his and Segal's if he would testify.
It is the same old shit, that he has been denied his constitutional right. How many appeals does he deserve? He just had his eight hearing before the 4th COA in Richmond.
As to the 1979 trial, the government's case was completely circumstantial, built on scientific evidence, a crime scene that had been somewhat disturbed immediately after the deaths, and the subsequent stories that MacDonald himself told during the intervening years of what happened that night. The government contended his statements were untrue and totally at odds with what the physical and scientific evidence showed.
As Brian Murtagh said at the trial, “Our duty was to take you through a tour of a slaughterhouse, not a slaughterhouse for the Defendant certainly but a slaughterhouse for Colette, Kimberley and Kristen.”
Jim Blackburn was determined to tell the jury and anyone else who wanted to listen exactly what he, and everyone else on their side believed happened that night at 544 Castle Drive. In his own calm, quiet way he found the words to express on behalf of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen the emotional and physical pain that they suffered and who did it. He made it clear that the trial was not about Jeffrey MacDonald. Instead it was what happened to his family, and what he did to them.
If the jury then decided he was not guilty, they would do so with the full and complete understanding that they would be allowing acts of monstrous evil to go unpunished. They would be letting a murderer go free. They would be allowing Jeffrey MacDonald to get away with the perfect murder.
Throughout the trial, Judge Dupree brandished his gavel with a no-nonsense wisdom, practicality and fairness. The evidence was presented by sides. MacDonald's fate was then in the hands of jury. Their decision, based on the evidence presented was that he was guilty.
At the trial Blackburn and Murtagh in their own inexperienced way, vowed “to kick ass” and these two neophytes did exactly that. Now another generation of lawyers is attempting to achieve what their predecessors have not been able to do and that is to free a mass murderer. Brian Murtagh, John DePue and John Bruce continue the fight and are dedicated to not letting this happen.