View Single Post
Old 15th August 2018, 09:43 AM   #192
Henri McPhee
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,028
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
WRONG! Kristen got the pj fiber under her nails while she was fighting off her father stabbing her. We know this because the pj fiber was totally saturated in her blood and was at first thought believed to be a blood clot. We also know this because of the defensive wounds on her poor little hands. NOT ONLY THAT BUT INMATE'S STORY OF INTRUDERS HAD YET TO TAKE PLACE SO HIS PJ TOP WAS NOT YET TORN WHEN (according to his lies) HE "TOOK" Kristen back to bed so he would not have been shedding fibers not would Kristen have been bleeding.

inmate's story does not match the evidence. that is plain and simple truth.
That's sheer ignorance of the facts. I have mentioned a bit on this forum in the past about all this stuff about pajama fibers being 'entwined' in blood in the MacDonald case. MacDonald's wife thinks a human hair with no known source was found under Kristen's fingernail. That's forensically significant:

"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 Lab Technician.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?"
The source for that quote is at:


Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th August 2018 at 09:49 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