Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, "Fatal Vision". Guilty or Innocent?

I watched this today on "Unsolved Mysteries" and had read the book (a few time) by McGinnis. I had, based on the book, thought the case was a slam dunk and that MacDonald was guilty of murdering his wife and daughters. After all, the author had changed his mind (and was later sued for fraud and settled out of court) He has recently won an appeal, to have the lower courts consider new DNA evidence that corroborates his version of events (3 strung out druggies killed his family after knocking him out). A strand of hair found under the fingernail of his daughter does not match any family members. Also, various other fibers match his story of a woman in a wig.

Here's the story:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/1.html

Project Innocence has taken on this case. I don't know if it's been discussed here before. But I'm on the fence. And,if he is innocent, how horrible to spend 40 years in prison after losing the ones you love.

Your thoughts?

The motivation seems flimsy.

And they convicted him on blood type and not DNA.

But he gives me the heebiejeebies.

As in I think I could be cold enough to kill his wife and then kill his babies to try and concoct a story to cover up the initial crime.

I hate that I initially thought he was guilty based upon that book. When I found out that some of the stuff in the book is completely made up...

But, as you said, there is something a little odd about him.

What gives me pause is the blond wig fibers where no wig was found and the hair under his daughter's fingernail.

He gives me the heebiejeebies too.

Even McGinniss, who clearly wanted to hang MacDonald from the highest yardarm from the outset, never presented anything remotely resembling a plausible motive.

and family because he felt trapped.

Cf. "List, John."

Not once did the prosecution fail to present evidence of some kind of motive.

Even if the real killer(s) are ever found, he'll never get any vindication, thanks to that inflammatory book.

The fact that there appeared to be a witness (or witnesses) that corroborated his story is sickening. McGinniss should have gotten into a lot more trouble over that book than he did.

about this one...because of the fact that McGinniss has admitted, in a court of law, that he made up a theory and added a bit of juice to the book. Everything I had previously thought about this case came from the book "Fatal Vision". A settlement was won because of the errors in that book. That is what concerns me. :shrug:


On edit: the witness I am talking about is one of the MP's, who saw a woman fitting the description MacDonald gave as he was going to the crime scene.

I've read the book several times; true murders are one of my "things."

Let me put it this way: If MacDonald, OJ, and the Ramsays are NOT guilty of their respective family members' murders, you nor I will NEVER see the "real killers" in our lifetimes.

did not present at the time of the original trial. Some of this evidence is DNA based, some is testimony from the original investigators. Book or not, this is what I have a problem with. True murders are also one of my "things". If you get a chance, or haven't yet, read the book "A Deadly Affair". Leann Fletcher was a friend and co-worker. And her husband was guilty as hell.

Every time I see her story on one of the true crime shows, I think of you. Mick was one big POS, wasn't he?

One time, Leann nail glued her ring to her hand and I was trying to keep her from panicking (so it wouldn't swell) so that we could try and get the ring off. Anyone who knew Leann knew she was terrified of guns. The world lost a kind, caring, down to earth person. :(

finished after the trial?

(read that any way you want) story about going to Russia with the Army wrestling team; etc.

He's a sociopath of the first order, griping about law enforcement and the media instead of, you know, THE MURDERER(S).

wrote a book summarizing their extensive research into the case. I read it and came away convinced that the authorities decided at the outset that MacDonald did it and rigged the case accordingly. The sheer number of leads that went totally uninvestigated - documented at length by the book's authors - establishes that much. Many of these leads unambiguously corroborated MacDonald's version of the story.

At the very least I'd give MacDonald what they call over in the UK a Scotch Verdict: Not proven.

And very probably not even guilty at all.

One thing about cases like this is, if one shines a light long enough and bright enough and listens to quacks long enough, then all sorts of theories and things can be developed and implausible things grow into formulated newly plausible things.

The one issue that seals my mind in this ongoing debate by this sociopathic man is his minor injury in relation to the over-kill of his family. Which is further illustrated by his claim of a violent struggle and a barely disturbed living room.

That room would have been a shambles. And he would have sustained a lot more damage-or they would have. Or both. He covered the murder of his wife with the murder of his children.

That's what I was looking for. People's reasoning. I threw out everything I had read in the McGinniss book and am now trying to reformulate an opinion.

BAke

why you felt that he was guilty or innocent. I, too, was firmly in the "guilty as hell, guilty as Cain...etc.." (nice little comments guys :) ) based upon the original book. I am now on the fence and looking into the other aspects of the case. He was granted an appeal and I am wondering why now. Again, I'm not convinced either way...and I do think he's a cold character.

There's no way anyone would have entered his home and butchered his pregnant wife and two small daughters and left MacDonald with basically superficial wounds. It just doesn't work that way. There would have been a mighty struggle in those rooms, and they were barely disturbed.

On a United States military base, in 1970, with the Manson murders fresh in everyone's mind, there's no way a maurauding band of hippies would have gone unnoticed. And the whole 'acid is groovy, kill the pigs' thing is just a little too reminiscent of the Manson murders. How convenient.

As far as motive, I think Jeffy was a known womanizer, was used to being the handsome big man on campus, and was saddled with a wife, two kids, and another on the way. I think he wanted a fresh start and found a way to do it. People have killed their spouses for far less. And if that doesn't work, consider that Jeff was using amphetamines, which are known for creating all sorts of violent behaviors. Maybe he and Colleen had a fight, he snapped and killed her, and then decided that the only way to pull it off was to take out the little girls, too.

He's guilty, plain and simple. And for the person upthread who said that the author was out to get MacDonald from the outset - McGinniss started writing that book at the behest of MacDonald, as a way to vindicate him. It was only as the details of the case came out that McGinnis changed his mind and decided that MacDonald was guilty.

on drugs and that's why he did it" chapter was a theory. MacDonald actually had no drugs in his system at the time of the murders. MacDonald had approved McGinniss writing the book, no matter whether he ended up thinking him guilty or innocent.
Thanks so much for your comments. Your belief is exactly how I felt upon reading McGinniss' book, and then I watched the Unsolved Mysteries show, and found out that McGinniss actually recanted a lot of the book.

Neither was OJ.
J/S.

nt

The forensic evidence---wounds; knives; blood spatters (including Jeffrey's AT THE SINK where he cut HIMSELF), each victim's blood type being different from the others' so the authorities could re-enact the crimes;---plus the psychological aspect = a sound verdict.

He was strung out on speed, which he took both to keep his weight in fighting trim, and also to maintain a punishing work-pace. Like the Ramsays, the daughter's bed-wetting was the final straw that flipped him out that fateful night. THEN? He was in for a penny, in for a pound.

Jeff wanted out, big-time.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/25.html

Jerry Allen Potter & Fred Bost's Fatal Justice.
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Justice-Reinvestigating-MacDonald-Murders/dp/0393315444

about 25-ish years ago in Durham, NC. He was a friend of some friends. He had been detective on the force at the time of the murder - and after he left the force did independent work on it.

He was convinced that he was innocent. Although initially he thought going in that he was guilty as hell. He said the evidence just did not add up to the man having done it.


Our courts are designed to be "innocent until PROVEN guilty". I don't know whether he IS guilty, but it seems pretty obvious that he was not legitimately PROVEN guilty.

Hopefully justice will finally prevail.

Hopefully justice will finally prevail.

blood evidence might be quite good for reconstructing the probable sequence of events: these were messy murders, and a troop of drug-crazed maniacs could scarcely have avoided leaving complicated blood traces all over the place, while a single killer would likely have left a simpler pattern of traces, consistent with rather fewer sequences of events

Wife, repeatedly clubbed, both arms broken, 16 knife stabs, 21 icepick stabs; 2-year-old, 33 knife stabs, 15 icepick stabs; 5-year-old, clubbed, 8 or 10 knife stabs; husband, minor cuts and bruises, slight concussion, 1 small clean incision in torso. Must have been plenty of blood around. Surprisingly light injuries for him, considering the vicious attacks on the others