Rating: 
Summary: good material, cheesy writing
Review: I read this book as a precursor to Janet Malcolm's excellent "The Journalist and the Murderer;" anyone interested in this case should check out that book as well. (And contrary to some reader's opinions, Malcolm does not attempt to exonerate MacDonald, which should be extremely obvious from her title). While the evidence and court proceedings are fascinating to read, McGinnis's inclusion of MacDonald's monologues is as pointless and dull as the contents of the monologues themselves. I'm sure McG's point was to show MacDonald's relentless narcissism, but that aspect of the man is thoroughly obvious simply from observation of his behavior as laid out in the book. Additionally, McGinnis's dime store psychological analysis is pathetic. The contradiction between MacDonald's account of what happened and the evidence is a thousand times more telling than any of McGinnis's dopey editorial. Once you read the Malcolm book, you'll also be appalled at McGinnis's repulsive tactics in getting MacDonald's cooperation. That said, it's a fascinating case. As you examine the evidence yourself, a sad and frightening picture emerges of MacDonald's cold-blooded destruction of his family. Cut 300 pages, and you'd have a really engrossing, horrific true crime story. Don't be daunted by the book's length; there's plenty of stuff to skip.
Rating: 
Summary: Caliente!
Review: Joe McGinniss' Fatal Vision is the main true crime book that has shaped my own writing. His treatment of courtroom scenes, and his transcripts of Dr. Jeff MacDonald just talking, plus pithy quotes, make for an interesting blend of technique as he leads the reader to his or her own conclusion. By the end, it's obvious who McGinniss believes killed the doctors pregnant wife and daughter. Also obvious is the fact that MacDonald probably believed McGinniss' book would show his innocence. MacDonald's arrogance comes shining through, mainly from his own words as quoted in the transcripts. McGinniss didn't have to tell anyone what kind of person the doc was -- MacDonald let it all hang out!
Rating:
Summary: The man in the surgical mask
Review: Dr Jeffrey MacDonald presented to the world the face of a charming, sensitive healer, but behind this mask was an arrogant individual who, from the time the murders were committed in 1970 until his final appeal was rejected in 1985, tried his utmost to avoid punishment for the horrific act he perpetrated. This story stands as a monument to the laudable persistence of MacDonald's parents-in-law, who refused to give up their crusade for justice until MacDonald was convicted, and the souls of his wife and children were finally at peace. It is also a tribute to the experts who by sheer talent and technology have advanced the field of forensic science to the degree where it is now viewed as indisputable evidence. This is by far McGinniss's best book, as his in depth analysis of the case also compels the reader to reach a guilty verdict. It is my wish that this man will never be paroled to administer his "deadly medicine" on a new generation of patients.
Rating:
Summary: My two cents
Review: This is a fascinating book (read it three times now), mostly because the case is in itself fascinating. Anyone with a passing interest in crime or investigation should read it. Now, for my opinions. I have never met either McGinniss or McDonald. So I can't make judgments on who is honest and who is not (I've lived in a household of cops for my whole life and think I am pretty good at reading people). Nobody who has not met the men can, and as a Zen proverb says, just because 3 (or 5-1) say something is doesn't necessarily make it truth. Now, knowing that cops (like everyone else on Earth) make mistakes, one thing jumps out. There was only one thing that really strikes me about the whole mess, and when you REALLY think about it, everything else fades away. Here were three people viciously beaten and stabbed; the fourth received superficial head wounds and a two inch incision (very precisely done HINT HINT) in the chest. It doesn't match up; the wounds on the dead are so vastly different from those on the living that all the lies, truths, theories, and DNA evidence in the world can not alter one simple undeniable fact. So he is guilty, because that eliminates all reasonable doubt. PS. How does DNA evidence prove anything in this case, because if I recall there were no A) unidentified blood samples and B) each member of the crime had a different blood type, so we already know who was there and where they bled.
Rating:
Summary: Portrait of a Darkly Chilling Monster
Review: Fatal Vision is, without a doubt, the most frightening book ever written. Why? Because it's true. More than a novel of one of history's most heinous crimes, Fatal Vision is, at its heart, a darkly chilling character study of the deranged, narcissistic family slayer, Jeffrey MacDonald. That Joe McGinniss was able to so perfectly catch both MacDonald's veneer of charm as well as his megalomaniacal self-centeredness, is a tour de force unmatched by any other author. A masterpiece of the written word, Fatal Vision stands alone in the annals of "true crime" literature. The emotional impact will leave you reeling for years.
Rating: 
Summary: Were Bill Clinton and Jeffrey MacDonald separated at birth?
Review: The physical evidence against Jeffrey MacDonald is clearly laid out and presented in this intelligent and well written book. The enormous dedication and personal involvement of the author and everyone who was involved in the case is remarkable and very touching. The transcripts from the 1974 Grand Jury hearing and the trial in 1979 are indisputable and very powerful. MacDonald has never been able to explain the contradictions between his story and the evidence itself. Instead he resorts to name calling and sarcasm. It seems MacDonald will always have his groupies willing to defend him. As the 30th year of this tragedy approaches, I wonder if Colette, Kimmy, Kristy and their unborn son will ever be able to rest in peace.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant--I'd Give It Ten Stars If I Could
Review: Joe McGinniss is one of the two or three greatest writers of the century. Although many contend that McGinniss's book is "biased" I firmly believe he began with a "blank slate" and only later came to the conclusion that MacDonald was guilty.(And to MacDonald supporters who contend that McGinniss is "persona non grata" is the literary world--check out his latest, published by Little, Brown & Co.) I rarely read a book more than once, but I've read Fatal Vision time and time again. McGinniss is absolutely perfect in the way he lets MacDonald himself create his own darkly monstrous character with his own words. This is the ONLY book that ever really scared me. McGinniss's enormous talent takes us inside the mind of a convicted murderer like no one ever has before or since and the result is a revelation horrifying beyond belief about the dark side of the human soul. The only thing in the book I don't buy is the diet pill theory, and McGinniss lets us know this is his own theory and we are free to accept it or not. I don't and believe instead that MacDonald simply has a vicious temper when out of control and he certainly was out of control on the night of February 17, 1970. Why? We'll never know. McGinniss does a brilliant job of presenting the facts surrounding the murders and subsequent trial without ever letting them become dry and boring as many true crime stories are. But it is the characterization of Jeffrey MacDonald that sets this book apart from all others. Even if you firmly believe in MacDonald's innocence, I'd still urge you to read "Fatal Vision." It can teach all of us more than we'll probably ever need to know about writing. The best true crime book ever written and one of the top five books of the century. Unforgettably perfect.
Rating:
Summary: MacDonald should come clean
Review: I find it sickening every time I see the smug face of Jeffrey MacDonald on television, talking about supposed "new evidence" he has uncovered which will exonerate him 100%. His "new evidence" is the same rehashed nonsense about Helena Stoeckley that he's been spewing for the past 20 years. He hasn't produced ONE SHRED of solid evidence to prove that she or anyone she knew was anywhere near his house that night. Apparently his vaunted DNA test didn't go the way he wanted it to either, therefore the results have not been made public. The fact remains (and this book conclusively proves it) that HE, and he alone, had the time, the means, and the motive for committing this atrocious crime. MacDonald has spent 20 years conning soft-minded people. It is time that he stops besmirching the good names of his slain wife and daughters and simply admit the truth. He has nothing to lose by doing so.
Rating:
Summary: Hang 'em all!
Review: First of all, I have not read this particular book, but I do know some information about the case. This is indeed a fascinating case, in that sensational tradition that draws people to ponder the details and formulate their own verdicts. But let us all not forget, that this book is only that, a book written by an individual with biases and prejudices. From these user comments, I am getting this feeling of a lynch mob sentiment brewing. With only one individual's account as a reference, people are piling on to the back of that pickup truck, shotgun cocked and loaded. I say it is an individual's account because it is the author who assembles and edits, choosing to add or delete elements to support a point of view. Any book, whether it is a history text book or an authorized biography, is subject to biases and can not be accepted as the absolute fact without scrutiny. I plan to read "Fatal Vision" and compare its content with the wealth of facts that continue to come to light. The Crime Library website has an interesting feature on the MacDonald case and I recommend those with an interest to visit the site at va.crimelibrary.com, under the "Classic Crime Stories" section. Several facts are presented that have only come to light after McGinnis's work. There are new insights on the evidence (much of which was suppressed in the initial trials), as well as confessions from individuals as to their involvement in the murders (including that woman in the floppy hat that night). But I urge those who visit this site, keep an open mind and do not take everything you read necessarily as true. As more facts emerge (ie, those DNA tests), perhaps we may all begin to attain a better grasp of the truth.
Rating:
Summary: subsequent "proofs" aside,JM wasn't harmed--any explanation?
Review: regardless of new allegations, new lawsuits, new evidence of prosecutorial mal or misfeasance, misquotes or even old lies, herein we have the proven philandering of the green beret. will anyone SATISFACTORILY explain the brutality of 4(yes i believe the fetus counts)murders and the slight wounding. the manson family was not frightened by any defensive attacks on them. it seems,in fact,they relished the power of fear that they had created. though the verdict was wrong because of the reasonable doubt, JM is guilty. he and his God know it,the rest of the masses won't know, or care, in the next life.
|
