The Innocence Project and the West Memphis Three case have taught me that there are an alarming number of people who have been convicted of heinous crimes which they did not commit, and I champion their cause of righting the wrongs that have been done to these innocent people. But… if there’s one thing I’ve been sure of for decades, since reading Fatal Vision (by Joe McGinniss) and watching the miniseries based on that book, it’s that Jeffrey MacDonald is a cold-hearted, psychopathic killer who refuses to admit, once and for all, that he’s guilty. I mean, Karl Malden wouldn’t lie to us, would he? If you can’t trust Karl Malden, who can you trust?But what if he refused to admit his guilt because he ISN’T guilty? After all, the man could have been paroled several times over if he had admitted his guilt to the parole board, but still he maintains his innocence. Psychopath, or wrongfully convicted?Enter Errol Morris into the fray - a well-respected documentary filmmaker and one of my favorites since The Thin Blue Line and Fog of War. He’s not an in-your-face type like Michael Moore. He quietly lays out the facts, through interviews and timelines of events while slowly building his case. His writing has the same quality, and you start doubting everything you read about the case all those years ago. That being said, he did not convince me of MacDonald’s innocence. He talks about how the investigation was botched from the beginning, where the crime scene was not maintained, evidence was lost or corrupted. But I’m pretty sure that was all brought out in Joe McGinniss’ book.Morris focuses heavily on Helena Stoeckley, a young woman from the Fort Bragg area who could have matched MacDonald’s description of one of the “hippies” who supposedly broke into his home and caused all the death and destruction. I’m willing to bet any number of women around her age around that time would fit a description of “blonde hair, floppy hat, and high boots.” She’s a troubled young woman who is addicted to numerous drugs. She’s brought in for questioning, and so begins the roller coaster ride of confessions and recantings from Stoeckley that will continue for years. It’s hard to take her seriously. But Morris puts a lot of stock into her confession and blames everyone involved in the case basically for not taking her seriously enough – or for taking her seriously and purposely shutting her down in some sort of conspiracy against MacDonald. One example of her credibility he cites is the fact that Stoeckley keeps coming back to the fact that the rocking horse that belonged to one of the girls was broken. How would she know it was broken, he says, unless she was there??? Well… WAS it broken?? I don’t know. That’s never actually brought out. (The fact that there was even a rocking horse in the house could have been known by anyone who read the paper, since it appeared in a photo that was published.)He also says MacDonald didn’t do himself any favors, by acting like an arrogant prick after he was cleared by the Army of any wrongdoing (sort of) and was living as a free man before being indicted in federal court. When MacDonald appeared on the Dick Cavett Show, he came off as a smug, smooth operator, who showed no remorse over the death of his wife and children, who focused more on the wrongs that had been done to him by prosecutors than the horror that was visited upon his family. Apparently that appearance is what made Freddy Kassab, his father-in-law, see him in a different light and start thinking that he could possibly be guilty.Also, he informs us, Freddy Kassab (who went after MacDonald with a vengeance once he was convinced of his guilt) was actually a drunken, flaming asshole, not at all like Karl Malden, who portrayed him in the miniseries. And Mildred, his wife, was no Eva Marie Saint, apparently. She couldn’t stand her daughter and thought she was a “lazy bitch.” Oooookaaaaaaaaay. Still, this has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of MacDonald.It does sound like the trial was mishandled and the defense not given some evidence they were entitled to and not allowed to bring out certain testimony, and if they had done things differently and just let them bring all this stuff out, there wouldn’t have been any questions left open in people’s minds, and I believe the jury would have come to the same conclusion – guilty.(And now I have to go reread Fatal Vision, and I’ll have to reread Janet Malcolm’s book too, The Journalist and the Murderer, which discusses the ethics of journalism and the relationship, and ensuing conflict and lawsuit, between MacDonald and McGinniss. Both McGinniss and Malcolm were roundly criticized by Morris in the book. And then I’ll probably want to reread Wilderness again when I’m done with those, and it’ll just be a neverending loop! Ay, ay, ay) What happened that night on the Fort Bragg base in NC over 40 years ago? Morris unravels the crime through an unbelievable amount of interviews of people indirectly involved. Errol is not only a documentary film maker he is was also a detective during the 1980s. His keen interview skills and attention to detail are apparent in A Wilderness.. I couldn't put it down. Its one of the most famous unsolved crimes of the century. And a must read for anyone remotely interested in true crime or the criminal justice system.
What do You think about A Wilderness Of Errors (2000)?
if you've ever had any level of interest in the Jeffrey MacDonald case, you have to read this book
—kennyeng
can't wait to read this! the tv movie scared the crap out of me as a little kid.
—Brad
Thick book but easy to read if you're interested in the Jeffrey MacDonald case.
—arod
More of a 3.5. Wish I could figure out if he did it or not though!
—Alex
If you like fiction or the truth, read it.
—pp2wteam
