09-08-2012, 04:33 PM
To me the case really dismissed facts about the woman in the floppy hat. McDonald described her while being tended to immediately at the scene. She was witnessed in the area the night of the murders by MP's responding to the scene. She then came forward, and was dismissed. Seems damn odd to me.
Add to that lost evidence by a poorly equipped CID team, hairs in the hands and under the fingernails of the murdered children than belonged to no one in the house, and an author (McGinniss) who had to settle a lawsuit with a guilty criminal... well, there is enough weird stuff with this case to think maybe an innocent guy went to prison.
McDonald may not be a nice guy, but he may have been railroaded as well.
Add to that lost evidence by a poorly equipped CID team, hairs in the hands and under the fingernails of the murdered children than belonged to no one in the house, and an author (McGinniss) who had to settle a lawsuit with a guilty criminal... well, there is enough weird stuff with this case to think maybe an innocent guy went to prison.
McDonald may not be a nice guy, but he may have been railroaded as well.