Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders

For anyone wanting to read the facts, and just the facts, on the MacDonald case, "Fatal Justice" is your book. Unlike its counterpart, "Fatal Vision", it doesn't fall prey to fictionalized propaganda set forth by the author in order to sell books. Whether you believe in MacDonald's guilt or innocence (and this case seems to invoke very passionate debates about both sides), this book will give you much to think about. I am not going to argue MacDonald's supposed guilt or innocence one way or the other, but it is obvious that he did not receive a fair trial and the government withheld key points of evidence from his defense team that would have supported his story of intruders committing these heinous acts on him and his family. It definitely makes you ponder why on earth, in a country that is supposed to presume all innocent until proven guilty, our government (or persons acting on its behalf) would suppress ANY evidence that would bring the truth to light, whether it supported their own case or not. Definitely Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald were victims, but this book will make you question whether Jeffrey MacDonald has been the victim of an overzealous prosecution for the last 30 years. Hard hitting, far reaching and contemplative.

I just finished FJ. I remember the murders as a 13 year old boy, living near Raleigh, NC and my father a regular Army man who visited Ft. Bragg often. At the beginning, even at 13, I was entriged by this horror of MacDonald's family. My family believed he was guilt from the start , and strongly shared that view after Fatal Vision on TV. But I always had my doubts. Then watching a point-counterpoint show on PBS, in the mid 80s, I heard that their WAS a real live woman who fit the description of Helena Shockley (sp?). After reading the details of FJ, I am conviced that people wanting to help their careers with a shocking murder and maybe hide drug crimes in Ft. Bragg (which were numerous in 1970 living near such), that MacDonald was innocent. The criminal behavior of the prosecutors, mostly Brian Mutagh, is scarey. If there is any justice, Mutagh should be thrown in prison, sued by MacDonald and made to suffer like MacDonald has. The book did repeat evidence and situations, but to bring the complex world of many items into focus at critical junctions i.e. the Appeals and FOIA documents. If you have an open mind, and think that Fatal Vision was true (instead of a bio-fiction), then read Fatal Justice. This is a book "Joe Friday (just-the-facts-sir)" would read.

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, convolute

This story has been the most fasinating i have come across. since the time i had seen the movie " fatal vision", it has interested me. I always felt that capt. macdonald was innocent, and now this book takes the true story and allows the reader to make up his/her own mind in the innocence of dr. macdonald, in my case it confirms my belief in his innocence.