1. If Michael O’Laughlin committed the crime he’s accused of why did he come out of his apartment in his boxer shorts at 2:15 AM and talk with the police? Wouldn’t a person just having committed a crime stay as far away from the police as he could? 2. If Michael’s motive was robbery why did he pick a person that was known to be home? Michael was a caretaker at the apartment complex where he lived and had a master key to all the apartments in the complex. Some of the homeowners in the complex, including some of the wealthy homeowners, were known to be away from their homes for extended periods of time. Michael had knowledge that two people were in Egypt and one in Europe. Not even in the same country, never mind not home 3. If Michael needed money to purchase drugs, why wasn’t anything stolen from the victim’s apartment? There was $522.00 in cash in the victim’s dresser drawer, a pocketbook hanging from the bedroom door handle containing cash, and expensive jewelry on top of the dresser. Yet NONE of the money or jewelry was taken. In addition Michael had an uncashed check from his job at the church and $250.00 in cash in his bureau that he counted in front of a state trooper. Michael had three jobs and worked over sixty hours a week.
4. Shortly after the incident the victim spoke to the investigating police officer in the hospital and acknowledged that Michael O’Laughlin was NOT her assailant. Why did Michael's lawyer never cross-examined the lead detective on the case to bring this information in as evidence during the trial?. 5. There was a large amount of blood found in the victim’s apartment. Why wasn’t any of the victim’s blood found on any part of Michael’s body or in his apartment? 6. Why wasn’t any of Michael’s blood, fiber, hair, DNA, fingerprints, footprints found in the victim’s apartment or on the victim? 7. There were many footprints in the victim's apartment. Michael voluntarily gave the police an impression of his foot. Yet NONE of the footprints in the victim's apartment matched Michael's footprint. Why not? 8. The police have a foot impression from the crime scene that is unidentified. It does not match Michael's foot or footwear. Whose foot impression is it? 9. The police took scrapings from the victim's fingernails but the results were destroyed along with blood samples from the victim's husband's forearm and many other samples. Would these samples have proven Michael's innocence?
10. The victim, according to police, was brutally beating on the head and hands. Michael is a
strong person with powerful forearms from his many years spent working as a carpenter. If he used the bat, identified as the weapon, on the victim and clubbed her as often as the police claimed (at least 15 times) why wasn’t the victim killed and not just brutally beaten?
11. When the neighbor, who made the 911 call, reported screaming in the victim’s apartment
below he also stated he heard a sound of “wood on wood.” Yet the bat claimed as the weapon by the police was aluminum. Anyone hearing an aluminum bat strike a baseball knows it makes a very different sound than a wood bat striking a baseball.
12. If Michael intended to attack the victim why did he choose a 34”, 33oz. baseball bat with his
name engraved just below the barrel on the yoke? Michael was a carpenter and had all the tools required to perform his trade. He had hammers, wrenches, 3' wrecking bars, 4' crowbars, etc. laying on his living room floor because he had just gotten his truck worked on and didn't want any of these expensive tools stolen. Why didn’t he choose one of these tools, without his name being engraved on, to commit this brutal beating?
13. There was a large wooden canopy on the top of the victim’s bed. It would have been
impossible to swing the bat, described by police as the weapon, with any force without damaging the top of the wooden canopy. Yet there wasn’t any reported damage found on the top of the wooden canopy.
14. Why wasn't any of the victim's blood found on the bat if her blood was transferred onto the
canopy and flung across the room?
15. The prosecution’s expert witness, along with the District Attorney, implied that whoever
committed this crime was most likely right-handed. Michael is left-handed.
16. There were three spots on the bat that the prosecution said tested presumptive for blood. Two
of the spots, one on the handle and one on the barrel tested negative for blood. The other spot that tested positive for human blood ended up getting destroyed. Without these blood spots there was no blood evidence that linked the bat as the weapon used to commit the crime. Yet this bat was allowed into evidence at the trial as the weapon used to commit the crime.
17. A tiny, tiny speck (nanogram) of DNA not visible to the human eye (barely visible under a high
powered microscope) was found on the handle of the bat. The testing by the police indicated there was a 1 in 2 chance that the DNA could have come from Michael and/or the victim. Or to put in another way the DNA could have come from one-half (½) of the ENTIRE world's population (those of you reading this would have a 50% chance that the DNA results from the bat were yours). DNA testing is very, very conclusive. If the DNA were indeed Michael’s and/or the victim’s the results would have come back as one in a billion or even one in a trillion, not one in two. The testing would have conclusively shown that no other persons on the planet besides Michael and the victim would have that DNA.. This inconclusive DNA testing should never have allowed the bat into evidence as the weapon used to commit the crime. Yet the bat was allowed into evidence at the trial.
18. The trial judge denied Michael’s request for a Daubert/Lannigen hearing on the admissibility of
unreliable DNA (see #13). Instead of holding the required hearing the trial judge requested the defendant submit an affidavit from Michael’s expert witness. The expert witness had observed the testing on the DNA evidence and after reviewing the contamination problem of limited samples, he reached the conclusion that the test results were inconclusive, and stated that according to the results both the victim and Michael could be excluded. The court denied Michael’s request to allow it’s expert witness to testify before the jury in regards to inspection and witnessing of the DNA samples taken from the alleged weapon “baseball bat” and the results of the testing. Had the jury heard this witness testify the trial might have had a different outcome.
19. At the trial the prosecutor submitted a photograph of a pillowcase from the crime scene, which
had a bloody handprint on it. The prosecutor, in his closing argument, implied the handprint was that of Michael O’Laughlin. Yet a previous witness, a Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant, had already established the bloody handprint on the pillowcase excluded everyone except the victim’s boyfriend, leaving no doubt the handprint could not be that of Michael O’Laughlin.
20. A hair follicle was found on the victim that was blondish brown. The police did not test this hair
follicle. Why wasn't this hair follicle tested? Who's hair follicle was it? Michael has black hair.
HOW DOES THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXPLAIN ALL THESE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS?