Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the Macdonald Murders

Rating:
Summary: Fatal Ridiculousness
Review: First of all, I would like to say that the book "Fatal Vision" is not perfect. Joe McGinnis took liberties in devising a "possible motive" with the whole drug angle. He did misrepresent his intentions to Jeffrey MacDonald and paid the price in a jury award in favor of MacDonald. Despite these facts, there is no doubt in my mind that Jeffrey MacDonald committed these murders. Fatal Justice does nothing to convince me otherwise.

The book begins with a silly narrative of a conversation between Jerry Allen Potter and a former FBI agent working as a PI for Jeffrey MacDonald. You would think even the most mediocre author could make up better dialogue than "Hey, don't you know, he's innocent" So supposedly from that, Mr. Potter decided to get thousands of documents and write a book.

Now that the book has set us up, Potter and Bost proceed to tell us things that really we already know. Most specifically, that Helena Stockely confessed to being in the home at the time of the crime. Helena had long ago been established as a pathological liar (thus the reason Judge DuPree would not allow her to testify) She accused a man of being in the house at the time of the killing when this man was in prison at the time of the crime! Hardly a credible witness.

I can sum up for you the supposed "new" evidence here shortly. There were "unidentified" fibers in the house. Some were found behind the washer and dryer (presumably the "hippie" intruders were doing a little laundry in between stabbings), there was three different types of candle wax found (please name me one house that doesn't have at least two types of candles in it) A supposedly synthetic blond fiber was found on a hairbrush (presumably the female hippie intruder with a blond wig and floppy hat on decided that she needed to brush her wig) This fiber was never tested to confirm if indeed it was a wig fiber (most wigs at that time were made of real hair, not synthetic) This hair could have come from the pony (remember, it had a blond mane)

I could go on and on here, but space does not permit. The bottom line is that Jeff MacDonald is guilty. He has somehow convinced himself that he is innocent (psychopath that he is) and the only book that could be written is one about his supposed innocence (one has already been written about his guilt). Read both books for yourself and decide, but if you look at the evidence honestly and logically, the finger can only point in Jeff MacDonald's direction.

Rating:
Summary: Inspires passionate debate, on both sides.
Review: I've been studying the Jeffrey MacDonald case since reading FATAL VISION for a college journalism class in 1991, and more recently I've become more interested in the phenomenon surrounding the case than the case itself. Specifically, the white-hot passion exerted by detractors and supporters alike, both firmly entrenched in their respective beliefs regarding MacDonald's guilt or innocence.

Many of these individuals seem not only thoroughly convinced, but react with strong negative emotion to arguments postulated by the other side. The venom and vitriol that spews back and forth between camps is a wonder to behold, and begs two questions: what is it about this case that makes it so polarizing, and why do people who are interested in it take such a vociferous stand on their conclusion, whichever it may be?

FATAL VISION is a damning portrait of a narcissistic, psychopathic murderer slaughtering his family in a blind rage and making up a ludicrous story in order to get away with it. FATAL JUSTICE is a meticulous account of prosecutorial malfeasance of the highest order. Each book is convincing in its own way. Both arguments have merit.

Both sides in this case snipe viciously at each other with vastly different interpretations of the same evidence; what is meaningful and damning to one side is "irrelevant" or "nonsense" to the other; what one side believes is real or crucial evidence, the other believes is false or meaningless evidence; where witnesses or participants have said different things at different times, each side believes the person was telling the truth in the instance that suits its position, and lying the other time. Both sides make false, exaggerated, or presumptuous claims to support their arguments, and claim their interpretation is the "ONLY way to see it;" the "ONLY logical conclusion." They refer to the other side and its arguments as "stupid," "ignorant," "ridiculous," "absurd," "cockamamie," "misguided," "biased," "brainwashed," "blind," "incredible," "startling," "delusional;" call each other "fools," "zealots," "idiots," "true-believers."

Why all this passion? It seems as if the folks on both sides have some sort of personal stake in MacDonald's culpability; something to gain by his being guilty or innocent of the crimes. Very few cases inspire such vitriolic advocacy on BOTH sides.

Detractors seem to feel that MacDonald is guilty because he was found so by the trial jury, and in turn because his account was not, and is not, believed or supported by the physical evidence.

Supporters seem to feel that MacDonald is innocent because of the aforementioned chicanery on the part of the prosecutors, who knowingly suppressed evidence that DID support his account.

Both sides can and will argue forever about this and never agree, because they interpret the same evidence in different ways.

But it occurs to me that MacDonald was NEVER, EVER in the history of this case, afforded the presumption of innocence that is required for criminal defendants in this country. Not since those first moments when Mr. Ivory didn't like what he saw in the apartment after MacDonald was wheeled out on the gurney, and decided immediately, before testing any evidence or interviewing any witnesses, that MacDonald was lying and therefore guilty. No effort was ever made to prove MacDonald's account, only to DISPROVE it.

As a point of logic, you can't prove a negative, i.e., you can't prove that something DIDN'T happen. The only way to prove a negative is to prove an incompatible positive; to prove something DID happen which nullifies the other possibility. This is why MacDonald was found innocent by the Army in 1970, and guilty by the jury in 1979.

Disbelief in, or lack of evidence supporting, MacDonald's story DOES NOT make him guilty. Prosecutorial misconduct and/or suppression of evidence in this case DOES NOT make him innocent.

Here's a suggestion for all the MacDonald debaters out there: Go back to the beginning. Forget everything you know and everything you've read about this case and return to the rainy morning of February 17, 1970. Start over, and this time consider everything we know now, not just what was known at trial in 1979, in the pages of FATAL VISION in 1983, and FATAL JUSTICE in 1995. Give MacDonald the presumption of innocence he never got in this case.

You want to convict him? You can't do it by disproving his story; you have to actually prove that he did it.

You want to acquit him? You can't prove that he didn't do it; you have to prove that someone else (or others) did.

Good luck.

Rating:
Summary: Sheds enough light to create doubt.
Review: My wife has told me about this McDonald case and I finally read "Fatal Justice". From just reading this one book on the subject it appears that McDonald is innocent. It is persuasivley argued and I believed well written. I enjoyed reading it, and found myself asking "How does the other side respond to this author's arguments" and that is what a good book is supposed to do. It's supposed to get you to have an emotional reaction to the subject, to make you interested, to create a desire to find out more about the subject. This book does all that. Those who find him guilty should consider this book before coming to a final judgement, just as I'm going to read other books on the case before I come to a final judgement.