View Single Post
Old 8th May 2018, 09:35 AM   #43
Henri McPhee
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,994
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
I'm willing to throw out the pajama fibers on the club as "not absolutely proven".

Much of it just common sense. For example, we have a minimum of 6 adults [by inmate's own testimony], and drug-addled in the bargain, barging into his quarters from a heavy rainstorm. Why isn't there water all over the place?

So, yeah, agents made coffee, threw out trash, etc., but they never sopped up water. Inmate never mentions water on the floor. There simply was none. But if six adults come from pouring rain into a house, there WILL be water, and lots of it. Particularly since these adults had no reason to worry about or avoid bringing water into the house.
That's just the, 'no muddy footprints in the apartment', theory without facts which has been discussed endlessly on the MacDonald forums for years. The fact is that visitors or intruders to an apartment hardly ever leave muddy footprints, even if it is raining outside, and added to which the crime scene was chaotic and the police investigation idle and incompetent. The MacDonald case crime scene is discussed at this website:

Fred Bost and I agreed, after reading the MP and CID statements, that the prosecutors’ claims of a protected crime scene were overstated, to say the least. In those first fifteen minutes, major errors had occurred.

We then addressed a more crucial question: Did the failure to guard the scene during that fifteen minutes lead to contamination of any key pieces of evidence, items which, specifically, led to Ivory’s theory, and to the army’s accusation?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th May 2018 at 09:41 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top