The Jeffrey MacDonald Case - The Lies of Joe McGinniss
Dave Parkhill
hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:
>This is a repost from a lengthy discussion I had with a prosecutor
>about the MacDonald case over a year ago.
>
>I have reposted it because of the continuing claim by many that Joe
>McGinniss did not write a fictionalized account. He helped damn Dr.
>MacDonald to serve over 17 years in prison for a murder he did not
>commit. Courts to date have refused to consider the evidence that
>proves MacDonald innocent.
(snip of account from MacDonald/McGinnis lawsuit)
Terry, you make some valid points. Maybe McGinnis did misrepresent himself
to MacDonald. Maybe he did embellish. Maybe he even lied, who knows. If so, he
obviously has compromised his integrity as an author. I personally believe his
account looks pretty cogent. But, let's say you're right. It doesn't change what
happened inside 544 Castle Drive on February 17th 1970. McGinnis wasn't there.
Nobody was there except Jeffrey, Colette, Kimberly and Kristen MacDonald. The
upstairs neighbours heard no intruders. They heard no violent struggle. They
heard what sounded like two raised voices: one belonging to Jeff and one belonging
to Colette. Ann Rule could have written Fatal Vision. Jack Olsen could have written
Fatal Vision. Hell, Truman Capote could have written it. The evidence inside the
blood-soaked apartment would have been the same. The blood points to MacDonald.
The fibres point to MacDonald. The inconsistencies in his story (and there are many)
point to MacDonald. No matter which author wrote the book, it couldn't have been
written the way MacDonald wanted it to be written, because his account of what happened
that night is a fabrication (no pun intended <g>). Maybe Jeff had affairs, maybe he didn't.
Maybe he was on drugs, maybe not. Maybe he abused Colette, maybe not. But I firmly
believe he committed these crimes. The evidence is just way, way too overwhelming.
But Terry I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. <bg>
Tammy
******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************
Dave Parkhill
park...@fox.nstn.ca
http://Fox.nstn.ca:80/~parkhill/
"In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of
another. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of
doing so" Immanuel Kant
Terry Hallinan
This is a repost from a lengthy discussion I had with a prosecutor
about the MacDonald case over a year ago.
I have reposted it because of the continuing claim by many that Joe
McGinniss did not write a fictionalized account. He helped damn Dr.
MacDonald to serve over 17 years in prison for a murder he did not
commit. Courts to date have refused to consider the evidence that
proves MacDonald innocent.
gri...@usa.pipeline.com(Craig Morgan) wrote:
>OK, Terry: what do YOU have, or know, that exculpates MacDonald? I have
>followed this case since 1970, when it first happened. I have read ^every
>trial transcript^, seen ^every bit of evidence^, etc, and read MacGinnis'
>books, as well as seen articles by Freddie Kassab. Apparently, you know
>more -- so, what is it?
Perhaps you might be interested in this passge from "Fatal Justice" by
Jerry Allen Potter & Fred Bost (page 353) regarding the civil trial
when MacDonald, already serving three life sentences for murdering his
wife and two daughters, sued Joe McGinniss for fraud:
"Alternate juror Jackie Beria, who sat through the entire trial,
stated that while McGinniss presented MacDonald as a monster in his
book, it 'was clear that the monster in Fatal Vision really was Joe
McGinniss. He was the character he tried to make his readers believe
MacDonald was.'"
The defense attorney had opened the trial by declaring that after
muderiing his wife and two daughters Capt. MacDonald was now trying to
victimize Joe McGinniss. MacDonald had some problems filing a lawsuit
for libel considering his situation. It was difficult to imagine how
a man serving three life sentences might have his reputation harmed by
a few lies. The jury actually hung 5-1 in favor of MacDonald. Five of
the jurors complained the sixth would not discuss the evidence. She
smiled and waved to Joe McGinniss as a mistrial was declared.
MacDonald agreed to a $325,000 settlement from Honest Joe for a few -
ummm - inaccuracies. There was a bit of a problem for MacDonald with
an empty bank account and hungry lawyers to feed.
On the stand for 5 days Mr. McGinniss had a few problems with his
rendition of facts. One you have mentioned, Craig, was McGinniss's
claim "that MaDonald had lied to to Collette [his wife] about being
offered a trip to Russia to serve as physician on the army boxing
team. Yet McGinniss had failed to interview Sherriedale Morgan, the
Fort Bragg boxing coach, to check on the issue, even when the author
and the coach appeared together during a court hearing. Morgan later
veriified that MacDonald had not lied." (page 325)
Tests for drugs turned up negative but Joe McGinniss was told that
only lethal amounts of amphetamines would show up in the blood tests.
From this tidbit of information, a diary entry regarding diet pills
MacDonald had taken (which Mr. McGinness multiplied by 30 or 40 times
- reasonably below the lethal limit I presume), and a zeal for justice
and fame there came a drug-induced rage that resulted in the murders.
It took a little manipulation of the pharmaceutical references but
what the hell, the guy was where he was supposed to be anyway.
For example in the "Physician's Desk Reference" signs of amphetamine
intoxication are "Marked insomnia, irritability, hyperactivity and
personality change." Joe got kind of carried away in "Fatal Vision"
and wrote "'marked insomnia, tenseness, and irritability,
hyperactivity, confusion, assaultiveness, hallucinations, panic
states,' and 'the most severe ... psychosis.'" Maybe he lost his
place. :-}
McGinniss' descriptions of MacDonald's supposed problems with females
may have been from some drug-induced hallucinations of his own.
MacDonald was taken to an interview with the kindly Mike Wallace of
"60 Minutes" where he expected to discuss the exculpatory evidence
which Joe McGinniss told him he was putting in his book and was
treated to an interview about various charges that were new to him.
[MacDonald had been led to believe McGinniss was on his side and
McGinniss was even made a part of the defense team and privy to inside
information]. A few of the goodies Mike Wallace wanted to know about
was an illicit secret affair with an old girl friend, the
cross-country seduction of a 16-year-old, and physical abuse and
threats against the life of a 10-year-old.
The girlfriend claimed McGinniss had never asked her about an affair,
she had never told him about one, and there wasn't any. The
cross-country trip with a 16-year-old girl did occur complete with
momma, "another sibling," and the family dog. The mother knew of no
seduction. The mother of the ten-year-old told the authors (page 324)
"that Dr. MacDonald and her son, Danny, had 'rough-housed' together
and at one time when Danny had acted up Dr. MacDonald had kiddingly
threatened to throw him overboard or to hit his head against a
bulkhead. She added that her son liked Jeff a great deal, that they
kept in touch, that MacDonald advised the boy on his choice of
colleges, [etc.]." Quite a card, that Joe McGinness.
I wonder if this is the narcissistic personality type Craig posted
about. :-} A psychiatrist testified incidentally that MacDonald was
perfectly normal in the criminal proceeding and again in the civil
trial. He said he had never changed his opinion though Joe McGinniss
had noticed a softening in his position when writing "Fatal Vision."
Maybe the psychiatrist was unable to recognize his own mental state.
From page 353 there is an encounter between the author and Joe
McGinness after the civil trial which some might find reminiscent of
the OJ trial in some ways:
"After the mistrial I encountered McGinniss standing in the hallway
talking to a goup of young journalism students. I hadn't seen most of
these kids at the trial, so I wasn't surprised that they didn't take
exception to McGinniss thelling them that 'This was a real victory for
free speech.'
"I listened for a moment, then, against my better judgment, moved
nearer the circle of youths surrounding him, and I said, 'But, don't
you think you shouldn't have misquoted the medical books?'
"He turned quickly to me and said, 'I didn't.'
"'Joe, the judge asked you to read from the books you said you'd
quoted, then they projected your words from Fatal Vision onto the
screen. They had been changed in favor of your drug theory.'
"'In my mind,' McGinniss said, 'I didn't misquote.'
"'Joe, I was there.'
"'I don't want to talk to you,' he said. He turned on his heel and
stalked down the marbled hallway. His admirers turned angry faces on
me, then, in a flurry, charged away to seek him out again."
Seems to me the perfect narcissistic personality is more likely OJ
than Jeffrey MacDonald. OTOH Joe McGinniss is a fine candidate.
Best, Terry
"'Lucky' F... died today after a long fight for his life
with his doctors." - from a newspaper obituary
Mark
Terry Hallinan wrote in article <5ja8de$i...@ns2.borg.com>...
>This is a repost from a lengthy discussion I had with a prosecutor
>about the MacDonald case over a year ago.
>
>I have reposted it because of the continuing claim by many that Joe
>McGinniss did not write a fictionalized account. He helped damn Dr.
>MacDonald to serve over 17 years in prison for a murder he did not
>commit. Courts to date have refused to consider the evidence that
>proves MacDonald innocent.
Well, whether you believe Fatal Vision or what, that doesn't matter. What
matters is that the jury convicted MacDonald without reading Fatal Vision.
MacDonald supporters just seem to think that book is his big problem.
That's not what put the man in prison, so you can't defend MacDonald by
attacking McGuinniss and "evidence" that wasn't even part of the trial
(such as his excerpts from the PDR (which can change from edition to
edition depending on percentages of patients reporting side effects) and
cross country trips with children).
Terry Hallinan
"Mark" <TheBe...@USA.Net> wrote:
> Terry Hallinan wrote in article <5ja8de$i...@ns2.borg.com>...
>>This is a repost from a lengthy discussion I had with a prosecutor
>>about the MacDonald case over a year ago.
>>I have reposted it because of the continuing claim by many that Joe
>>McGinniss did not write a fictionalized account. He helped damn Dr.
>>MacDonald to serve over 17 years in prison for a murder he did not
>>commit. Courts to date have refused to consider the evidence that
>>proves MacDonald innocent.
>Well, whether you believe Fatal Vision or what, that doesn't matter. What
>matters is that the jury convicted MacDonald without reading Fatal Vision.
Not true. What matters is that fraudulent evidence was presented to
the jurors that convicted MacDonald and an innocent man remains in
prison.
>MacDonald supporters just seem to think that book is his big problem.
The inability to have courts look at the evidence is the problem. It
would seem after decades it is time for the evidence to be examined
fully. It never has been.
Most posters in this group do not seem interested in examing the
evidence.
Because of Joe McGinniss.
>That's not what put the man in prison, so you can't defend MacDonald by
>attacking McGuinniss and "evidence" that wasn't even part of the trial
>(such as his excerpts from the PDR (which can change from edition to
>edition depending on percentages of patients reporting side effects) and
>cross country trips with children).
It is part of public opinion. Surely you are not foolish enough,
Mark, to think that courts care nothing at all about public opinion.
In fact MacDonald's character and temperament were part of the trial.
How could they not be? McGinniss also lied about the forensic
evidence. People still believe the frauds perpetrated by the court.
Let's take you for example, Mark. What is your problem? Is someone
attacking one of your sacred cows? What? Why do you defend a liar?
Pilgrim
In article <5jdjfg$l...@ape-server.inetone.net>, "Mark"
<TheBe...@USA.Net> wrote:
> Terry Hallinan wrote in article <5ja8de$i...@ns2.borg.com>...
> >This is a repost from a lengthy discussion I had with a prosecutor
> >about the MacDonald case over a year ago.
> >
> >I have reposted it because of the continuing claim by many that Joe
> >McGinniss did not write a fictionalized account. He helped damn Dr.
> >MacDonald to serve over 17 years in prison for a murder he did not
> >commit. Courts to date have refused to consider the evidence that
> >proves MacDonald innocent.
>
> Well, whether you believe Fatal Vision or what, that doesn't matter. What
> matters is that the jury convicted MacDonald without reading Fatal Vision.
> MacDonald supporters just seem to think that book is his big problem.
> That's not what put the man in prison, so you can't defend MacDonald by
> attacking McGuinniss and "evidence" that wasn't even part of the trial
> (such as his excerpts from the PDR (which can change from edition to
> edition depending on percentages of patients reporting side effects) and
> cross country trips with children).
You're right, Mark, that Fatal Vision didn't "put" MacDonald in jail.
However, it increased public awareness of the case -- and did so with a
distorted and innaccurate version of the facts of the case. The public
opinion against MacDonald is mainly due to the popularity of the Fatal
Vision book and miniseries -- heck, that Karl Malden gets me every time.
And I think much of the zealousness of the prosecutors and Judge Dupree in
wanting to keep MacDonald in jail is related to the notoriety all of them
gained from Fatal Vision-related publicity.
For all those O.J. followers out there (the cases, not the man): Consider
how much the prosecutors and judges were affected by the degree of
publicity in the case, and ask how Fatal Vision could have failed to
affect the attitudes of at least some of the MacDonald prosecutors.
-Pilgrim
Pilgrim
In article <5jb5m7$1...@news.istar.ca>, park...@fox.nstn.ca (Dave Parkhill)
...
> Fatal Vision. Hell, Truman Capote could have written it. The evidence
inside the
> blood-soaked apartment would have been the same. The blood points to
MacDonald.
> The fibres point to MacDonald. The inconsistencies in his story (and
there are many)
> point to MacDonald. No matter which author wrote the book, it couldn't
have been
>
> Tammy
This is just silly, Tammy. The blood and fibers do not point to
MacDonald, which is what some of the people on this list, and the authors
of Fatal Justice, have been trying to explain. The fibers in particular
point to someone *other than* MacDonald. (E.g. the black wool fibers found
in Colette's mouth which could not be matched to any items in the house,
and the 22" blond wig fibers.)
As for inconsistencies in MacDonald's story, I'd be interested to hear of
any you have discovered, since I haven't found any.
-Pilgrim
Terry Hallinan
Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com> writes:
>Warning: what follows is opinion only.
Hope you will allow a counter opinion.
>It seems to me that, unless you think Joe McGinniss is some kind of
>pathological liar, with a real mental illness involving a vicious
>ability to betray intentionally a man who was already in prison, you
>have to give some weight to the spirit of McGinniss' opinions of MacD.
I believe Joe McGinniss is a monster. Joe reported he had dreams of
killing his family among other great things before MacDonald's family
was killed. That's real honesty. Joe is noted for that kind of
admission.
I never had such dreams. (My family is long grown.) Believe that as
you will, Maybe I am exceptionally naive but I doubt most men have
such dreams.
Joe's lies are obsessive. Did you really read Malcolm's book? Her
whole point was the depth of the lying by McGinniss to MacDonald and
some others in writing "Fatal Vision."
>He came to this writing job wanting to believe in MacD's innocence.
How do you determine that?
>MacD is a handsome, charming, intelligent man, and McGinniss said he
>liked him immediately. He *wanted* to help set him free.
>He had unprecedented access to MacD's personal life, thoughts, secrets.
>He probably got to know MacD as well as, if not better than, anyone else
>on earth. Forgetting any fabrications, or lies, or misunderstandings,
>or exaggerations, or untruths: Wouldn't his "gut feelings" about MacD
>have some weight? Shouldn't his opinion of this man whose "friend" he
>became, no matter on how dishonorable grounds, count for an awful lot?
>Other defenders of MacD have had to deal with evidence, some of it
>provided by MacD himself; McGinniss had access to the soul of the beast.
We all see ourselves in others. It is unlikely Joe McGinniss sees
much good in anyone IMO.
>I am convinced of MacD's guilt based on the impressions of Joe
>McGinniss; the change of heart experienced by Mrs. MacD's parents, who
>had been strong supporters of MacD; my own first-hand knowledge of what
>life was like back then, and what speed was like. I leave the forensic
>evidence to experts who know what it means, and to the jurors who
>convicted MacD based on that evidence.
The evidence the jurors saw and heard was falsified and suppressed.
>Martha Sprowles
Terry Hallinan
he...@Hawaii.Edu (Virginia E Hench) writes:
>Brian Baumbarger (bcb...@infinet.com) wrote:
> ...
>i: when the author himself admitted under oath that he fabricated
>: most of the story, including the crucial speed addiction that supposedly
>: triggered the murders? ...
> Hi Brian - do you have a cite for that? If so, I might
> be able to look it up and post it for whatever value
> it might have to the group.
> Thanks - Ginny Hench (law prof)
Brian may have a better cite but from "Fatal Justice" the following
delightful exchange occurred in McGinniss' deposition:
Q: Are you personally convinced that the explanation that you
suggested with respect to the diet pills and the psychotic snap
actually happened?
A: I'm not convinced that it actually happened.
Transcript of Continued Deposition of Joe McGinniss by Gary L.
Bostwick, October 30, 1986, pp. 130-133.
Most of the country actually believes Joe's fiction.
Dave Parkhill
donts...@please.com (Pilgrim) wrote:
>This is just silly, Tammy. The blood and fibers do not point to
>MacDonald, which is what some of the people on this list, and the authors
>of Fatal Justice, have been trying to explain. The fibers in particular
>point to someone *other than* MacDonald. (E.g. the black wool fibers found
>in Colette's mouth which could not be matched to any items in the house,
>and the 22" blond wig fibers.)
>
>As for inconsistencies in MacDonald's story, I'd be interested to hear of
>any you have discovered, since I haven't found any.
>
>-Pilgrim
Well, the inconsistencies in his story are obvious if you've read Fatal Vision.
But since you probably think FV is a lie, there isn't much point in me posting
the many inconsistencies here. Your mind is made up that he's innocent.
Nothing I say will change that. It's pretty simple: if you believe McGinnis' account
and the jury's verdict, he's guilty. If not, he's innocent.