Customer Reviews

Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Fatal Justice does nothing to convince me of Jeffrey MacDonald's innocence. In my opinion, every point raised can easily be refuted. First, I discount EVERYTHING Helena Stoeckley ever said. This pitiful woman had no idea where she was or what she was doing on the night of February 17, 1970. Additionally, many reliable witnesses place her far away from the murder scene on the night in question. Helena was well-known for lying and she lived, in part, to please Prince Edward Beasley. It has always been my thought that Beasley, seeking his "fifteen minutes of fame" tried to convince Helena that she had something to do with the murders.

Ken Mica, who says he saw a woman in a floppy hat on a street corner near the MacDonald home has always been well-known as a MacDonald "groupie."

The book tells us that drug-crazed hippies broke into the MacDonald home and committed the murders, yet there was no sign of forced entry and no sign of mud or grass or footprints even though the night was damp and rainy. All of the murder weapons came from within the MacDonald home. It just doesn't make sense that four people intending to commit premeditated murder would fail to bring weapons, counting instead on finding them inside the home of the victims. The book talks of MacDonald being awakened by four intruders, yet MacDonald himself says that while he was fighting the four intruders near the sofa, he heard his wife screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me?" To my way of thinking, a normal mother whose life is in danger, not to mention the lives of her children, would scream as loudly as possible and perhaps even run from the home, seeking help, yet none of the neighbors heard anything. The book asks us to believe Helena Stoeckley, but in ALL versions of her many confessions she names only three intruders and herself.

The book states that MacDonald gave his wife and daughters mouth-to-mouth several times and saw bubbles coming from their chests. The first MPs on the scene couldn't even see the children without shining flashlights on them and MacDonald says he did not turn the lights on or off, which would be an illogical thing to do anyway, so how could he see something like bubbles? MacDonald claims he pulled a knife from his wife's chest. No doctor, let alone a surgeon would do this. No fingerprints were found on any of the weapons. I believe MacDonald wiped the weapons, not to conceal his own prints, which would naturally be on them since they came from his home, but to conceal the lack of prints from intruders. The many unmatched hairs and fibers found in the home could only show that Colette was a less-than-perfect housekeeper.

MacDonald received only very minor injuries while his wife and daughters were the victims of "overkill." The book asks us to believe the ringing of a phone scared the intruders off.

Whether you believe MacDonald to be guilty or innocent, everything this book presents is "old stuff" that has already been litigated and will do MacDonald no good. A book only for those intetrested in the details of the case, as it is cumbersome and lengthy.

Forget any account on the case. You can read Fatal Vision, which may be somewhat more one-sided. However, by now the case seems clear. The DNA-evidence that has been asked for by the defense team showed that the hair in Colettes hands was 1. her own 2. that of Jeffrey MacDonald, the defendant. None of the hair found at the scene belonged to the so-called "hippies". Making this case clearer than ever. For more read about the case go to the Jeffrey MacDonald information page (where 1000s of documents and pictures are available in a scanned form).

On its face, this book appears to be an accurate accounting of the case. However, one only needs to begin comparing the footnotes to the actual CID reports to see that the authors have misrepresented evidence. Stombaugh's trial testimony is also falsely reported, and in general the book is so filled with errors and misrepresentations and inaccuracies that it's a worthless purchase.

I think the authors of this book took a lesson from Michael Moore in propaganda. Or perhaps Oliver Stone.

This book pretends to be a "re-investigation," but is nothing of the sort. It is a one-sided money-grab that was written with the help of the MacDonald defense team. In fact, Jeff MacDonanld himself assisted with the final editing. The book is not only factually inaccurate, but it omits much valuable information. Such as: 1) Gunderson & Beasely (the books' primary sources) were trying to shop a movie deal in which they "solved" the case; 2) Gunderson (a first class wack job) later reported that the so-called cult was trying to kill him, causing him to live life on the run; 3) Gunderson & Beasely posted bail for Stoekly's husband & promised them they would be provided with jobs & new identities in California in exchange for their "testimonies," which they later recanted anyway.

The authors' also try to convince the reader that Stoekley was a reliable source, but the truth is she would say anything to anyone, and recanted her so-called "confessions" many times. At other times, she reported that she saw MacDonald kill his family. Nothing she said can be taken seriously.

Further, the authors make large use of FOIA documents, but are deceitful in their use of them. For example, they report one note in which an investigator describes the failure of a match on a hair found at the crime scene, and says "this won't be reported by me." What the authors don't show you is the complete note, in which it becomes clear that the analyst is simply reporting that she is not going to label the hair, because another analyst will catalog and write the final report.

Additionally, the book fails to address the major points of the prosecution's case: 1) there was no forced entry; 2) not one single hair, fiber, foot or finger print linked to intruders 3) Jeff MacDonald, a well-trained & conditioned Green Beret, had no significant injuries, while his family was absolutely slaughtered; 4) MacDonald's story doesn't fit the crime scene - no fibers were found where supposedly a horrible fight took place; lots of fibers where there shouldn't be; 5) despite that fact that at least 6 "hippies" were wreaking all of that carnage, and the victims were screaming for help, no neighbors heard anything; 6) MacDonald cheated on his wife constantly, was spending every possible minute away from home, and lied about a trip to Russia during which time his son would be born, and never visited the graves even once (he even sold the contents of the family home, though he kept the stereo); 7) MacDonald lied about taking a polygraph, but in actuality failed two separate exams by defense friendly experts; 8) even the defense forensics expert acknowledged the fabric impression evidence was accurate & quite damning (in fact, Segal was advised by another defense expert who was quite shaken by this presentation to get as much into the record for appeal as he could).

To believe MacDonald, is to believe the impossible, such as 1) at least 6 hippies strung out on multiple drugs such as LSD found the back door unlocked; 2) carried candles (even though it was raining); 3) brought no weapons; 4) left no finger or footprints behind 5) killed a woman & two children, even though they were supposedly after him 6) did this quietly enough not to wake the neighbors; 7) knocked him unconsious with a couple of superficial blows, then left him alive as the only possible witness; 8) carefully cleaned the fibers from where they attacked him, then spread them out in the other rooms to fool the police; 9) inexplicably staged the crime scend by putting each of the children back in their beds & tucking them in, and carrying Mrs. MacDonald back to her bedroom; 10) escaped without anyone noticing them, and letting Helena walk home.

I could go on and on. But at the end of the day, though the crime scene was badly managed, it still all points to him.

One final note - my challenge to anyone who thinks MacDonald innocent is for you to view the crime scene & autopsy photos, which are easily found on-line from several websites. They are gruesome, but it shows the true disparity between the horrible injuries his family received, and the absolute lack of injuries MacDonald received. In fact, you have to look really hard to see any scratches on him at all. Viewing those photos, it made me wish for the death penalty (though I'm opposed to it).

The so-called "new" evidence has been reviewed by appeals' courts dozens of times, and the Supreme Court multiple times. To believe MacDonald, and the 10 or so people in the world who still think he was framed, is to believe the ultimate conspiracy, which of course involves hundreds of law enforcement personnel, judges, FBI agents, criminologists, DNA analysts, family members (which have turned against him), former friends & supporters, etc.

It requires believing in the impossible. Don't waste your time with this book.

My final recommendation for the authors' of this piece of trash is to write a follow-up on how O.J. Simpson is really innocent, the victim of a conspiracy.

When I read Fatal Justice I was hoping for a work of investigative journalism that slugged it out over the evidence (I understand that it's supposed to be an answer to Fatal Vision by Joe McGinniss), but FJ puts anything that supports it's central thesis - no matter how minor - under a spotlight and happily glides over anything that doesn't, even the most persuasive physical evidence. There's also an annoying reliance on retrospective testimony and dark hints that a massive conspiracy had taken place (and possibly continues) to silence witnesses.

FJ presents a mix of conspiracy, misinterpretation and selective use of facts to stitch together a very contentious case for the innocence of the book's subject - who was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife and two young daughters. It's dull and repetitive and a lot of the "killer" facts can eaily be disputed, if not proven incorrect by a basic google search.

"Reinterpreting the Jeffrey MacDonald" case would be a more accurate sub-title as everything is put though a filter so that there can only be one conclusion. Like all conspiracies FJ is self referential and self fulfilling. The authors simply assign sinister motives to anyone that challenges their logic - the Army was out for revenge, the Justice Department wanted glory, the victim's father in law supposedly tuned on the subject because he moved to California! He then launched a life long quest to have him charged and convicted (anyone planning a move beware).

I think the authors mention that no one from the presecution side would take part. This may well be the case, but isn't an excuse to then throw out all the evidence, except that which supports your particular point of view.

The authors also seem to be fixated on Fatal Vision by Joe McGinnis which they spend and awful amount of time trying to discredit (unsuccessfully). This is strange, and distracting, as the book came out years after the trial and clearly had nothing to do with MacDonald being found guilty.

This book will only interest hardcore MacDonald junkies, and only those on the "He's innocent, crazed hippies did it" side. There's nothing here for anyone else. The book is dense, slow and not really persuasive. You kind of have to believe the central idea already - it doesn't take you with it. This is it's greatest weakness - it fails as a book.

There's no need to buy FJ, you can read it all quoted as gospel by the MacDonald supporters on their websites.

I kept thinking that FJ is what the trial would have been like if the prosecution weren't allowed to take part.

This book just kept telling the same stuff over and over again which may be what some do to make a point, but in this case it got just a bit boring. The writer could just have made a list and put it on ever page. I have been interested in this case since the day I picked up my hometown newspaper and read the horrible headlines all those years ago. Maybe because I had daughters the same age as the McDonald children and another was on the way. I do believe there were many errors and wrongs done in the investigation and trial of McDonald, but it doesn't make him an innocent man. I don't presume to know his guilt or innocence.If he is guilty then I think he is a monster. Over the years I have read where he was announcing new evidence was forth coming that would prove him innocent, but that has not been the case. It does seem to me that as many times as he appealed his case he would have at least gotten a new trial but that hasn't happened either. It hasn't been just the judge and investigators in the original trial who have looked at all the evidence and questions of wrong doing. I am swayed to believe him guilty for the following reasons: The blood evidence,his injuries being so minor compared to what was inflicted on his family,the blue fibers found in so many places, his obvious lie about his own injuries on the Dick Cavett Show, and his in-laws turning from full support of him to belief in his guilt. I was hoping this book would show convincing argument to counter this evidence. It didn't. It may have proven that he didn't get a fair trial, but it gave no convincing argument to counter those points.

Joe McGinnis was originally convinced of MacDonald's innocence, but came to believe in his guilt during the 1979 murder trial. His book, Fatal Vision, is the one book to read, not this. Fatal Justice appears to be nothing more than a sad commentary from people MacDonald has commissioned to write for him. It's merely his side, without any objective perspective. The authors were not there in the courtroom for weeks as McGinnis had been, nor had access to the amount of evidence McGinnis saw. What person in their right mind would believe a 26 yr old man could fend off 4 ice pick wielding attackers(Hell bent on killing him specifically)in his home---fighting for his life and that of his entire family---and suffer only a bruise and a small cut to the chest,while his entire family is slaughtered like animals? Remember, all this takes place in a small apartment, but almost no mess is made. Need more convincing? Just take a look at the autopsy and crime scene photos that are on-line, and judge for yourself. MacDonald, stressed out over feeling trapped in a marriage with his family (and longing to go far away as possible with his girlfriend) freaked out over the issue of his daughter's bedwetting (a sign of deep stress for any child who is already toilet trained) late one night. What probably started out as a slap or push turned into a fight to the death between a husband and wife protecting herself and her family. He is an animal and he belongs behind bars.

I read fatal justice years ago giving Macdonald the benefit of the doubt,after all who wants to admit that a father can butcher his own children? What I read was very one sided, and full of lies. I found a website which shows all evidence from the case and matched Macdonald's book to Fatal Vision on the website. The website showed more evidence that matched Fatal Vision to Fatal Justice in fact there was no evidence supporting Macdonald at all. He points fingers to innocent people who left no sign of ever being in his apartment in the first place, and shows no mercy to a woman who can't even recall what she did that night and was tormented by it for years! If you want to believe Macdonald's lies read it if you want the truth read Fatal Vision or Final Justice by the author of the website that shows the actual evidence.That's were you'll find the truth!

After following the MacDonald case and reading "Fatal Vision" , I wanted to read this book to see if there was any possibility of MacDonald being wrongly accused and convicted. My conclusion is that the "reinvestigation" while interesting is a pathetic attempt by MacDonald to pin the murders on some really sad individuals. Bad enough he killed his family but to try and convince everyone that others ( of course all now dead) were responsible is appalling. He really is a sick man and it is always shocking when some people will believe his lies. He even remarried a woman who visits him in prison and speaks out on his "truth". This case was always fascinating from a forensic standpoint. His story never added up to what the blood left behind told. His lies and behavior just added to all the evidence . Interesting that there are people who may read this book and actually believe it. They must want to believe everyone else is wrong.

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. There is a tremendous amount of distrust among advocates on both sides, participants in, and sources of information about this long, convoluted case; the back-and-forth accusations and interpretations of dishonesty and bias are very similar to the current political debate in the United States. MacDonald's supporters dismiss the contents of McGinniss' FATAL VISION, and his detractors dismiss those of Potter & Bost's FATAL JUSTICE, just as Democrats/liberals/Bush opponents dismiss every word spoken on the Fox News Channel and Republicans/conservatives/Bush supporters dismiss every word printed in The New York Times; i.e., that the source itself implies an inobjective and self-serving bias and therefore cannot be truthful.

I have also noted that a good deal of the debate surrounding this case has involved efforts to DISPROVE, rather than prove, certain elements of MacDonald's account of the murders and the government prosecutors' hypothetical scenario.

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 essentially 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.

It is unlikely that MacDonald will ever receive a new trial, though even some of his detractors believe he should have one, if only to put the issue to rest once and for all. If he does receive a new trial, the lawyers on both sides, I think, will face a remarkable challenge. But lay advocates will still try this case in their own minds, and to them I offer the following:

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.