Originally Posted by
Henri McPhee
That's just the, 'no muddy footprints in the apartment', theory without facts which has been discussed endlessly on the MacDonald forums for years.
That is a ridiculous statement. THE FACT is there were no muddy footprints, no wet footprints, no grassy edged footprints, no sandy footprints and only a couple of bloody footprints at the crime scene. THE FACT is that IF intruders had entered the apartment bent on creating havoc then there WOULD have been some type of footprints left behind them since it was pouring down rain and evil doers would not have stopped to wipe their feet. THAT is FACT.
Also a FACT is that the only footprints found were those of inmate himself. barefoot prints - inmate said all of the "alleged intruders" were in boots or shoes AND a print examiner found the prints matched inmate's exemplar.
Oh, AND the footprints were EXITING the room not entering the room.
Originally Posted by
Henri McPhee
The fact is that visitors or intruders to an apartment hardly ever leave muddy footprints, even if it is raining outside,
Most visitors to an apartment would have the courtesy to wipe their feet before entering. Intruders? No, they'd leave prints behind or attempt to wipe the prints up. There were not prints that had been wiped up, the only prints were inmate's own bloody footprints. FACT henri not your "I don't like that piece of evidence so I will ignore it or try to cheat the facts in an attempt to make my murderous bastard hero look less guilty".
Was the crime scene perfectly preserved - No, it was not. But the MPs were sent to a domestic situation, they operated within the SOP "preserve life first, crime scene second". Even with the difficulties there was still more than sufficient evidence to prove inmate guilty. and THAT IS FACT!