, the infamous novel about the Green Beret killings. So when I saw Fatal Justice at the Palmyra book sale, I decided to grab it. Fatal Vision was about Jeffrey MacDonald's guilt. Fatal Justice is about his innocence.In February 1970, MacDonald was found wounded in his quarters in Fort Bragg. His wife and two young daughters were beaten and stabbed to death. He blamed hippies. The army investigators blamed him, but an army investigation found no reason to court martial him. In 1979 he was tried in a civilian court and found guilty. Joe McGinnis spent the entire trial and short time afterward promising to write a book trumpeting MacDonald's innocence and ended up with Fatal Vision in which MacDonald was portrayed as a monster. Various investigators and lawyers have tried to get MacDonald free on appeal, but the only thing they have accomplished is the book Fatal Justice.
In the trial, the prosecution won on the basis of physical evidence from what they had claimed was a contained crime scene. The appeals have been based on the fact that the prosecution failed to provide various lab notes and other exculpatory evidence to the defense. While it is true that some information was withheld, I've got to agree with the courts refusing to grant an appeal based on that fact. The defense could have gotten a not guilty verdict without that specific evidence and was simply too incompetent to do so.(I could be wrong about some tings below since I'm going off of what I read in the book and not the actual trial transcripts.)
Between the time the crime was reported and the crime scene was secured, up to two dozen assorted MP's, neighbor, and looky-loos wandered through disturbing evidence. Why did the defense not call these people to dhow the physical evidence was unreliable?
Knowing that the prosecutor was withholding evidence, why did the defense agree to a stipulation on the prosecution's fiber expert's evidence? Fiber evidence was of supreme importance in this case, the defense should have insisted o a chance to cross examine.
The defense called Helen Stoeckley, the supposed girl in the blond wig and floppy hate MacDonald saw during the attack. Her supposed confessions consisted largely of "I think I was there but I'm not sure since I was on drugs". In other words, a extremely unreliable witness. After the testimony of those she supposedly confessed to was not allowed, why didn't they call the people who claimed to see her in the neighborhood and with bloodstains the night of the murder?
Why were MacDonald's doctors not called to give evidence that his injuries were worse than the prosecution let on?
Finally, why why why did they put MacDonald on the stand? One of the reasons he ended up on trial was that he came off as an ass in his media appearances made right after the army decided not to prosecute. In a big trial, you should never put the defendant on the stand. On cross, the prosecution will ask questions based on their theory which the defendant of course disagrees with. The defendant than appears evasive or deceitful when he can't answer those questions, and when he starts getting annoyed at the line of questioning, the jury will start to think that yes, he is the kind of guy who could fly off in a fir of rage.
Did MacDonald commit the murders? I don't know. The evidence was poor and there are too many inconsistencies in both the hippie theory and the MacDonald as killer theory. But, he got a fair trial and really has no grounds for an appeal.
As for the book Fatal Justice, at 4 00+ pages it was about twice as long as it should be. In the end, it was more like the authors had an axe to grind than a desire to present a clear and accurate telling of the story. Their argument would have been mush more compelling had it been a bit more succinct.
0 comments:
Post a Comment