Abstract
Criminal investigations have been completely transformed by the advances of modern forensic science. Evidence that was once undetectable or of little probative value can now have tremendous investigative value because of forensic science techniques. These techniques enable scientists and investigators to extrapolate relevant information from even the tiniest of samples. Before forensic science, there would be no way to test a small, dried blood drop found at a crime scene. The advent of forensic science combined with police and investigative efforts make it much more difficult for criminals to go undetected. But as amazing of feats forensic science has conquered, it is not a universal answer to solving all crimes. The case of Jeffrey MacDonald is a prime example where forensic science had little value in solving the puzzling mystery of the military family. Therefore, the field of criminal justice still relied on solid police work and sharp attorneys to uncover the truth.
Introduction
Forensic science has equipped law enforcement and investigators with modern tools needed to solve crime. Crimes used to go unsolved simply due to lack of evidence or suspects. Today, forensic science uncovers and reveals evidence that would have gone completely unnoticed just a few years ago. The advances of forensic science have made a breakthrough in preserving, collecting, and analyzing evidence recovered from a crime scene. Advanced scientific testing can now be performed on the smallest, most microscopic evidence samples and still contain high investigative value. One of the most important advances in the field of criminal investigation is the advent of DNA and fingerprint analysis.
The history of fingerprints dates all the back to ancient China (Owen, 2000, p. 160). Legal contracts were endorsed by the fingerprints of the parties that were bound (Owen, 2000, p. 160). The Japanese also endorsed legal instruments through fingerprints (Owen, 2000, p. 160). What makes fingerprints such a valuable investigative tool is fingerprints are highly unique, making fingerprints a highly accurate means of identifying persons (Kaushal and Kaushal, 2011, p. 1). Galton once estimated that the chance of discovering two identical prints was 1 in 64 million (Kaushal and Kaushal, 2011, p.1). And unlike facial features or body characteristics, the ridge patterns on a person’s fingerprints remain the same throughout time, from birth to death (Kaushal and Kaushal, 2011, p. 1). The ridge patterns on fingerprints are classified into three different categories; loops, whorls, and arches (Kaushal and Kaushal, 2011, p. 1). Between 60-65 percent of the population has loops, 30-35 has whorls, and only 5 percent fall into the arches category (Kaushal and Kaushal, 2011, p. 1). While there have been a few high profile cases revealing identifiable fingerprints of two different individuals, the probability of finding identical fingerprints remains extremely rare.
Jeffrey MacDonald
In the early morning hours on February 17, 1970 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, someone viciously attacked the MacDonald family in their home (Anthony, 2013). MacDonald’s pregnant wife was stabbed repeatedly in the check and her arms were badly broken (Anthony, 2013). The family’s five-year-old daughter was found beaten in the head and stabbed multiple times (Anthony, 2013). The couple’s other two-year-old daughter was stabbed nearly 30 times all over her body (Anthony, 2013). Jeffrey MacDonald sustained only superficial injuries, except for one stab wound (Anthony, 2013).
Word of a military family being stabbed to death in their home quickly attracted media attention. Jeffrey MacDonald was the opposite of what most would consider an evil, cold-blooded killer (Anthony, 2013). MacDonald was a handsome, ivy league graduate who went on to marry his childhood sweetheart and become a Green Beret. While it seemed unlikely that MacDonald was the murderer, suspicion soon grew (Anthony, 2013). Investigators soon began to suspect that MacDonald had stabbed his family and had stabbed himself to make it appear like he was attacked (Anthony, 2013).
The house was treated as a crime scene. Police discovered a bloody and gruesome scene (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). MacDonald’s wife was found in the master bedroom, covered in blood, lying a top a rug (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). Both daughters found in their rooms (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). In an unlikely fashion, all members of the MacDonald family had different blood types (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). Jeffrey MacDonald had type O, and a great deal of type O blood was found in the master bedroom (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). A woman named Helena Swokely came forward as a witness, confessing to taking part in the murders (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). But when she was placed on the stand to testify, she recanted and claimed that she did not remember what happened the night of the murders (Jeffrey MacDonald, 2015). While the evidence was largely circumstantial, MacDonald was convicted and sentenced to prison for the murders.
Like fingerprints, biological evidence is unique and can be extremely helpful in identifying persons and suspects. Biological evidence includes bodily fluids like blood, saliva, and semen. What gives biological evidence its significant evidentiary value is its ability to form an accurate DNA profile, even with very small samples. While many criminals attempt to get rid of blood or other biological evidence from a crime scene, it is almost impossible to fully eliminate it. This is because the tiniest blood drop can be detected and tested for DNA evidence through modern forensic science techniques (Owen, 2000, p. 190). Forensic scientists have a number of chemical tests at their disposal to differentiate between blood and other substances that might resemble blood to the naked eye (Owen, 2000, p. 190). A tiny bloodstain enables forensic scientists to produce a DNA profile that is completely unique to one particular individual.
Conclusion
The Jeffrey MacDonald case raises the problem of circumstantial evidence and the problem of the media frenzy. The media immediately latched onto the high profile case. There was very little evidence directly incriminating MacDonald as a suspect. Although one could assume that because he was the sole survivor and had very minor injuries he committed the crimes, the evidence did not strongly support this theory. Investigators inferred from the blood type O in the master bedroom where the wife was found that MacDonald had killed her. While type O blood is relatively rare, simply because MacDonald had type O blood and type O blood was found in the bedroom does not equate to murder. While it is circumstantial evidence, it does not directly link MacDonald to the murder.
References
Anthony, A. (2013, Apr. 13). The Fort Bragg murders: is Jeffrey MacDonald innocent? The
Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/apr/14/jeffrey-macdonald-murder-errol-morris
Jeffrey MacDonald. (2015). Crime Museum. Retrieved from
http://www.crimemuseum.org/blog/jeffrey-macdonald
Kaushal, N. and Kaushal, P. Human identification and fingerprints: A Review. Journal of
Biometrics & Biostatistics 2(4): 1-5.
Owen, D. (2000). Hidden evidence: Forty true crimes and how forensic science helped solve
them. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books Ltd.
