Jeffrey Macdonald's Story Analysis

Some people say he did it! Other say the evidence tells a different story. Books have set forth theories of the murders and experts have sounded off with their opinions of the case. And multiple appeals have been made to find the true justice. No matter what side of the truth you fall on, there is no doubt that the other side has some validity to its case. As with most cases that stir the public’s opinion, the case of Jeffrey MacDonald, a Green Beret and medical base doctor who was accused and convicted of murdering his wife and two children in 1970, split the American public in half; half seeking answers to who would commit such a horrific murder to an American family and the other half wanting an explanation to the facts and evidence of
But why? He had multiple body wounds, including bruising and sharp-force trauma. He also had a reasonable story, for the time period, of three hippies, high on drugs, attacking him and his family. And he was living the American dream, the kind that made you ask “why or what motive did he have to murder his family?”. Once the shock of the murder wore off, the evidence began to tell a different tale.
The dichotomy of forensic science as it relates to death investigation is its magnificent yet potentially defeating explanation and interpretation of evidence. That is to say, where one forensic expert sees a bloody palm print, another describes it as the print of pajama clothing. And that’s exactly what happened in the MacDonald trial and appeals. First, did MacDonald have a gash or contusion on his head? The prosecution led the jurors to believe that Jeffrey MacDonald only had a small bruise on his head, while “doctors Paul Manson and Robert McGann both observed and testified to seeing ‘a large contusion’ over his left mid-forehead area, and another one over the right temple, slightly obscured by the hairline” (website – case facts), while another
The collection and analysis of the evidence was straightforward and reliable. Although there was a difference in opinion of the bloodstain patterns and the seriousness of MacDonald’s injuries, they did not determine the case. Rather, it was the deficiencies in the investigation and the defense that lost Jeffrey MacDonald his freedom. A visual documentation of MacDonald’s wounds would have reinforced the extent of his injuries and could have convinced the jury of a different opinion. Additionally, if admissible, the suppressed hair and fiber evidence would have been damning to the prosecution’s case. And if the convincing testimonies of Heather Stoeckley and her friend were allowed and investigated, the jury may have viewed the entire case thru a different lens. Ultimately, America is still divided on this case. There are still those that believe justice was served, while others assert that the plethora of evidence was not given the proper light of day and that reasonable doubt should be a serious