Tim2020 - I'm not exactly sure, but it may be because the suitcase had no blood on it. Many people believe the suitcase indicates that JRM considered going on the lamb. But maybe the prosecution felt it did not tell a clear enough story, and the defense could postulate other stories that would create reasonable doubt.
And they also had a lot of evidence to present to the jury. Perhaps they didn't want to overwhelm them.

Hi Grandfather, thinking more about it, I think it could have been used as evidence.  First off it was on top of a chair that had blood stains on the chair seat but not on the suitcase, so it had to have been put there my the murderer.  If he teied to argue that hippes put the suitcase on the chair, that sounds so ridiculous, not one would believe it.  But if the prosecution stipulated that maybe Colette had it out had was planning on leaving that could have been the start of an argument, which we know took place,  Then after the murders cm considered packing and leaving and that is why the suitcase was on the blood stained chair.

Grandfather wrote:

Tim2020 - I have to disagree. I think the suitcase wasn't very useful as evidence, and that is why the prosecution didn't use it at trial. Here is a short discussion of it:

https://macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/misc_evidence.html

First of all, it was found near the foot of the bed, not on a chair. But you are correct that it  had no blood spatter, while the area around it and underneath it did. Indicating it was set there after the violence was completed, most likely by the killer.

We know that JRM was the killer from other evidence, so he likely placed the suitcase there. The problem is, there is no proof he placed the suitcase there. Other than the separate evidence that he was the killer, so therefore, he must have placed it there.

You speculate that Colette may have gotten it out initially, and then JRM moved it later. Already we are into conjecture, and the story is not clear.

With so much other good evidence, it was wise to ignore the suitcase.

Hi Grandfather,

I agree with you that the “suitcase evidence”  would have been an unnecessary distraction, and might have given the defense ammunition for distraction. The Defense might have argued that the “hippy intruders” got the suitcase out to fill with drugs and/or loot, and then became alarmed and fled. There were, of course, no intruders, and it was a wise move by the prosecution to ignore the suitcase.

On the other hand the pristine suitcase, it’s position, and the blood beneath it, might have been powerful evidence of MacDonald’s state of mind; guilt. He believed he had attacked and slaughtered his pregnant wife Colette and daughter Kimberley, he knew he was guilty, he knew he would be accused and tried, and his “golden boy” image was destroyed. He was preparing to flee! The suitcase also could have been evidence of his eventual premeditation and motive for viciously murdering Kristin.

But, it’s irrelevant now. The case is over and justice has been done.

Photo and discussion of the suitcase;

https://criminalmisconduct.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-macdonald-case-suitcase.html?m=1

Be well and safe.

Last edited by TexasPoet (6/26/2023 12:52 pm)

Advocat wrote:

The evidence is simply overwhelming. But for me, one thing stands out as complete baloney: who could CV perform CPR after checking „pulses and stuff“ with a collapsed lung?

Advocat;

Yes, and he talked about being breathless, cold, shivering, and how he had to get down on his hands and knees. Very bad lying. Also MacDonald claimed he performed CPR in a dark room (never turned on the lights), and on a soft surface (the beds). Something no competent physician would ever do, much less a special forces, and emergency room trained surgeon, that he was.

The only thing MacDonald performed that night was the cold, vicious assault and murders of his pregnant wife Colette and little daughters Kimberley and Kristin.

Last edited by TexasPoet (6/26/2023 1:04 pm)