The excellent literary essays constructed by Joe McGinniss, Gene Weingarten, Robert Sam Anson, and a slew of dedicated case researchers explains why the approach by Bost/Potter/Morris and other MacDonald advocates lacks critical thought. I understand why MacDonald advocates have a fervent desire to ignore logic and plunge headlong into the largely irrelevant and irresolvable minutiae that is the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case.
It is far easier to focus on the fact that Stoeckley confessed on multiple occasions or that the CID's original investigation was not a model of its kind, but as McGinniss pointed out, "Facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they can't be overcome by hype." MacDonald advocates have no salient retort to most of the government's massive forensic case against inmate, so they rely on an artificially-created dichotomy between "MacDonald is the lone perp" and everything else, where everything else is most commonly (and pseudo-categorically) written as "Some of kind of conspiracy."
No amount of failure to prove a conspiracy of any kind (e.g., CID, FBI, DOJ, or all three) confirms the categorical-only inference of a conspiracy in this case. Illogical as it is, this conspiracy theory stands on two legs. Kick either one out from under you and you fall flat. The problem in debating this theory is how easy it is for conspiracists to bait their critics into having to defend the CID/FBI investigations while they themselves lay out a purely passive, presumptive case.
Fortunately, the case records became part of the public domain and researchers were able to fact check the work produced on both sides of the fence. Much to the chagrin of Bost/Potter/Morris, FJ and WOE were exposed as literary propaganda and the only readers who took their "work" seriously were those who embraced woo. In essence, FJ/WOE joined a journalistic brotherhood that specialized in advocating for cold-blooded killers and having the ability to spot a conspiracy around every corner.