What do you think?
Rate this book
Fatal Vision
Fatal Vision is the electrifying true story of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, the handsome, Princeton-educated physician convicted of savagely slaying his young pregnant wife and two small children, murders he vehemently denies committing. Bestselling author Joe McGinnis chronicles every aspect of this horrifying and intricate crime, and probes the life and psyche of the magnetic, all-American Jeffrey MacDonald, a golden boy who seemed destined to have it all. The result is a penetration to the heart of darknes that enshrouded one of the most complex criminal cases ever to capture the attention of the American public. It is haunting, stunningly suspenseful-a work that no reader will be able to forget. With 8 pages of dramatic photos and a special epilogue by the author
684 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
791 people are currently reading
13309 people want to read
About the author
Joe McGinniss
34books230followersJoe McGinniss was an American journalist, non-fiction writer and novelist. He first came to prominence with the best-selling The Selling of the President 1968 which described the marketing of then-presidential candidate Richard Nixon. It spent more than six months on best-seller lists. He is popularly known for his trilogy of bestselling true crime books � Fatal Vision, Blind Faith and Cruel Doubt � which were adapted into several TV miniseries and movies. Over the course of forty years, McGinniss published twelve books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 703 reviews
January 2, 2022
“There was a day, a very hot and humid Saturday in early August, when in the company of two criminologists who were preparing to testify for the defense, I went inside 544 Castle Drive. I remained for five hours, amid the mustiness, the clutter, and the dust. For the most part it was the little things to which my attention was drawn…Eventually, I became aware of a noise. A low hum, being emitted by the refrigerator. The [Criminal Investigation Division] agent who had opened the apartment that morning told me the refrigerator had never been unplugged. There was a standing order at CID headquarters: every six weeks send an MP to defrost it. For nine and a half years, the Army, as part of its continuing crime scene supervision, had been preserving the food that no one had eaten, that no one would ever eat…I shut the door. The hum of the refrigerator seemed to grow louder. After a while, I lost all desire to open closet doors or to check under beds, or to make lists of personal effects or household furnishings. I didn’t want to find any Christmas tree tinsel on the living room rug, or any threads from a blue pajama top, anywhere…�
- Joe McGinniss, Fatal Vision
“Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.�
- Janet Malcom, The Journalist and the Murderer
Here’s a warning before you start Joe McGinniss’s Fatal Vision: The door that you are about to enter leads to a rabbit hole.
At 663-hardcover pages, Fatal Vision is a beast, and that doesn’t even include the afterwords to the updated editions. But that’s only the start. Because once you’ve read McGinniss’s controversial classic, you need to follow up with Janet Malcom’s 176-page study of McGinniss’s journalistic ethics. And of course, there is Errol Morris’s Wilderness of Error, which comes to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to McGinniss, and also weighs in at nearly 500 pages.
Starting to get tired just thinking of all these words?
I hate to break it to you: This is just a sampling of the literature. Once you get started, you’re going to want to go to the primary sources. That is, you’re going to want to read the actual legal documents that chart the many twists and turns in the case of United States v. Jeffrey MacDonald. The last opinion issued in this case � from December 2018, by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals � runs to 154 pages. Hell, this review itself adds approximately 2,000 more words to a prodigious pile.
So, if you are going to start this journey, do so with the understanding that it’s going to take a while.
Oh, you think you can stop? Maybe, maybe not. But once you are in this thicket, you might have a hard time finding your way out. This grisly true crime story seeps into you like the damp.
***
On the night of February 16-17, 1970, military policemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, responded to the scene of a triple murder. The dead: Colette MacDonald, pregnant with her third child; Kimberly MacDonald, age five; and Kristen MacDonald, just two. Seemingly unconscious but still alive was Captain Jeffrey MacDonald, educated at Princeton and Northwestern University Medical School, a Green Beret, a husband and father.
Soon, as well, to be a suspect in one of the most celebrated, compelling, and utterly tragic of all murder cases.
According to MacDonald’s version of events, a Manson-like party of four had killed his family and injured him, all while chanting “acid is groovy� and “kill the pigs.� This far-out tale did not convince CID agents, who singled him out as the culprit. However, after a lengthy Article 32 hearing (sort of like a preliminary hearing in civilian court), he was cleared of charges and was free to leave the Army and continue his life. This included going on talk shows, moving to California, dating beautiful women, and buying a yacht.
Hounded by a vengeful parent � stepfather Alfred “Freddy� Kassab � the Justice Department eventually convened a grand jury, which indicted MacDonald on three murders. Initially, the indictment was thrown out, when the Fourth Circuit determined that MacDonald’s speedy-trial rights had been violated. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, and MacDonald went through a jury trial nine years after the murders. After the trial, he was duly convicted and sent to prison. But then, the Fourth Circuit reversed again, on speedy trial grounds, and ordered his release. Again, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and reversed the Fourth Circuit’s reversal, sending MacDonald back to prison.
This serpentine case is covered mostly in its entirety by Joe McGinniss’s famous and provocative Fatal Vision.
(Published in 1983, with periodic afterwords added to later editions, the book does not cover MacDonald’s various postconviction actions).
In my mind, McGinniss’s big accomplishment is in compiling a tremendous amount of information, and weaving it into an interesting narrative, one that artfully intercuts the main storyline with flashbacks to MacDonald’s life narrated by none other than MacDonald himself, in long, apparently unedited chunks. There are also lengthy excerpts � seemingly verbatim � of various legal hearings, including the trial. As a sometimes-courthouse junkie, I appreciate the word-for-word transcription, rather than the author’s summation.
It should be noted, however, that you have to take all this material on faith, as McGinniss does not provide endnotes, or even an explanation of his research. From bits and pieces found in the text and the afterwords, it becomes clear that McGinniss imbedded himself in the MacDonald legal team shortly before MacDonald’s trial, signing a contract that gave him incredibly deep access to the legal files. Still, this does not entirely explain how McGinniss was able to give such detailed accounts of certain events, such as the supposedly-secret grand jury proceeding that handed down the MacDonald indictment.
For most of Fatal Vision, I mainly appreciated McGinniss’s workmanlike ability to project a comprehensive and coherent structure on a veritable legal epic that otherwise threatens to burst at the seams.
At the end, though, in his final chapters, McGinniss strives for something more, an effort to reach a higher plain, such as that surmounted by Capote in In Cold Blood. This attempt climaxes in a scene set in the abandoned MacDonald family home, now a crime scene, which has been dutifully preserved for nearly a decade. This chilling sequence reaches the core of the best true crime, finding the lost humanity in the midst of an inhuman mess.
Had Fatal Vision ended there, I might have been content. But it does not simply end there. The version I read contained two afterwords, in which McGinniss tried, with diminishing success, to explain the fallout of his hugely successful book (and accompanying miniseries).
To put it plainly: I have to mention McGinniss’s journalistic ethics.
***
Called into question by Janet Malcom in The Journalist and the Murderer, the issue boils down to McGinniss’s promises � or lack of promises � to MacDonald at the outset of their project together. McGinniss said he made no promises about what he would write; MacDonald said he did. Eventually, MacDonald sued McGinniss, and they settled out of court � after a hung jury � for between $200,000-300,000. In a rather whiny, churlish, and prickly manner, McGinniss defends the settlement while lashing out at the federal judge who heard his case; at Janet Malcom for daring to impugn him while being a female journalist; and at everyone else who dared look at him askance.
Without knowing the full truth of the matter � both McGinniss and MacDonald having plenty of reasons to massage the truth � it is worth noting that both the Kennedy family and Sarah Palin have accused McGinniss � who is deceased � of being factually challenged. It is not dispositive, but it’s possible that the truth lies at the intersection of agreement between Kennedys and Palins.
In a certain sense, the ethics of Fatal Vision matter not. The book came out after MacDonald’s conviction, and after the resolution of his direct appeal. Thus, it did not influence the outcome one way or another. Indeed, the notoriety has helped MacDonald by keeping his case in the spotlight (and attracting powerful advocates, like Errol Morris).
Still, the scent here is a bit off, and it taints the volume.
***
As hard as he tried, McGinniss never turned up a smoking gun proving MacDonald’s ultimate guilt. His most impressive “discovery,� which came after the trial, was nothing more than an additional piece of circumstantial evidence in an entirely circumstantial case. Viewed together, and with just a bit of squinting, you can see a guilty verdict clearly in those tea leaves. At the same time, you can also see reasonable doubt.
What McGinniss does � in the absence of unequivocal evidence � is engage in a trial of character, ending in MacDonald being entirely guilty of narcissism and raging asshole-ism. This is what unsettles. Much of the proof comes from MacDonald’s own words, which McGinniss provides without comment, and without provenance. There is also a constant authorial shading, whereby scenes with MacDonald and his lawyers are given a negative slant, while the prosecutors are presented as faultless angels who sing but of the truth.
McGinniss’s interpretations of various incidents bely his later assertions that he liked MacDonald as a person, and enjoyed spending time with him. This contradiction makes it easy for me to imagine that McGinniss � who actually spent time in MacDonald’s SoCal condo while doing research � did in fact lie to MacDonald about being on his side, all while fitting him for the noose.
***
The reason this case, this book, gets into you � and the reason this review has gone on so long � is that it is hard to square. Murder can not be excused, but most can be explained. An explosion of temper. A tempestuous affair. Financial gain. This one defies any sense whatsoever.
MacDonald had everything going for him. Yet he is probably guilty of killing his family. More to the point, he slaughtered them in the literal sense of the word, blow after blow. This was not rage; this took too long to be rage. Rage expends itself quickly. No, this was close, heavy work. None of his family died quickly. MacDonald’s arms and shoulders would have tired; his lungs would have burned. He would have felt the hot breath of his kids on his face, their hot blood on his hands. He would have looked into their eyes as he had on the first day, then took it all away with full consciousness of his actions. The prosecutors say he laid one of his children across his lap to stab them, repeatedly. If that be so, the sooner the flood comes to take us all the better.
As I read, I kept thinking MacDonald dzܱ’t do it, that it was impossible. Because who could? That’s the trap, though, to judge people based on ourselves.
Even reconciled to MacDonald’s guilt, I am still troubled by the problems in the case.
McGinniss has no such qualms. He is certain.
I find that certainty to be troubling and simplistic. That, more than McGinniss’s questionable ethics, is what dogs Fatal Vision.
Oftentimes the best true crime writing embraces the reality that sometimes � despite all our striving � there is no final answer. The riddle remains a riddle; a mystery a mystery. Life is filled with unknown unknowns, especially in the realm of inexplicable crimes.
Fatal Vision harbors no doubts. It is confident in its ability to judge a man’s actions at a discrete point in time based on his likeability, or lack thereof; on whether he expresses grief “normally� or “abnormally�; on how he tells his own story. I find this some flimsy proof, but McGinniss is positive, and that certainly feels better than the imponderable possibility of convicting a skilled surgeon for a crime he might not have committed, adding a lifetime in prison to the immeasurable loss of his family.
This near-certitude - call it smugness - on McGinniss’s part serves to strip Fatal Vision of some of its otherwise-formidable power.
- Joe McGinniss, Fatal Vision
“Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.�
- Janet Malcom, The Journalist and the Murderer
Here’s a warning before you start Joe McGinniss’s Fatal Vision: The door that you are about to enter leads to a rabbit hole.
At 663-hardcover pages, Fatal Vision is a beast, and that doesn’t even include the afterwords to the updated editions. But that’s only the start. Because once you’ve read McGinniss’s controversial classic, you need to follow up with Janet Malcom’s 176-page study of McGinniss’s journalistic ethics. And of course, there is Errol Morris’s Wilderness of Error, which comes to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to McGinniss, and also weighs in at nearly 500 pages.
Starting to get tired just thinking of all these words?
I hate to break it to you: This is just a sampling of the literature. Once you get started, you’re going to want to go to the primary sources. That is, you’re going to want to read the actual legal documents that chart the many twists and turns in the case of United States v. Jeffrey MacDonald. The last opinion issued in this case � from December 2018, by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals � runs to 154 pages. Hell, this review itself adds approximately 2,000 more words to a prodigious pile.
So, if you are going to start this journey, do so with the understanding that it’s going to take a while.
Oh, you think you can stop? Maybe, maybe not. But once you are in this thicket, you might have a hard time finding your way out. This grisly true crime story seeps into you like the damp.
***
On the night of February 16-17, 1970, military policemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, responded to the scene of a triple murder. The dead: Colette MacDonald, pregnant with her third child; Kimberly MacDonald, age five; and Kristen MacDonald, just two. Seemingly unconscious but still alive was Captain Jeffrey MacDonald, educated at Princeton and Northwestern University Medical School, a Green Beret, a husband and father.
Soon, as well, to be a suspect in one of the most celebrated, compelling, and utterly tragic of all murder cases.
According to MacDonald’s version of events, a Manson-like party of four had killed his family and injured him, all while chanting “acid is groovy� and “kill the pigs.� This far-out tale did not convince CID agents, who singled him out as the culprit. However, after a lengthy Article 32 hearing (sort of like a preliminary hearing in civilian court), he was cleared of charges and was free to leave the Army and continue his life. This included going on talk shows, moving to California, dating beautiful women, and buying a yacht.
Hounded by a vengeful parent � stepfather Alfred “Freddy� Kassab � the Justice Department eventually convened a grand jury, which indicted MacDonald on three murders. Initially, the indictment was thrown out, when the Fourth Circuit determined that MacDonald’s speedy-trial rights had been violated. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, and MacDonald went through a jury trial nine years after the murders. After the trial, he was duly convicted and sent to prison. But then, the Fourth Circuit reversed again, on speedy trial grounds, and ordered his release. Again, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and reversed the Fourth Circuit’s reversal, sending MacDonald back to prison.
This serpentine case is covered mostly in its entirety by Joe McGinniss’s famous and provocative Fatal Vision.
(Published in 1983, with periodic afterwords added to later editions, the book does not cover MacDonald’s various postconviction actions).
In my mind, McGinniss’s big accomplishment is in compiling a tremendous amount of information, and weaving it into an interesting narrative, one that artfully intercuts the main storyline with flashbacks to MacDonald’s life narrated by none other than MacDonald himself, in long, apparently unedited chunks. There are also lengthy excerpts � seemingly verbatim � of various legal hearings, including the trial. As a sometimes-courthouse junkie, I appreciate the word-for-word transcription, rather than the author’s summation.
It should be noted, however, that you have to take all this material on faith, as McGinniss does not provide endnotes, or even an explanation of his research. From bits and pieces found in the text and the afterwords, it becomes clear that McGinniss imbedded himself in the MacDonald legal team shortly before MacDonald’s trial, signing a contract that gave him incredibly deep access to the legal files. Still, this does not entirely explain how McGinniss was able to give such detailed accounts of certain events, such as the supposedly-secret grand jury proceeding that handed down the MacDonald indictment.
For most of Fatal Vision, I mainly appreciated McGinniss’s workmanlike ability to project a comprehensive and coherent structure on a veritable legal epic that otherwise threatens to burst at the seams.
At the end, though, in his final chapters, McGinniss strives for something more, an effort to reach a higher plain, such as that surmounted by Capote in In Cold Blood. This attempt climaxes in a scene set in the abandoned MacDonald family home, now a crime scene, which has been dutifully preserved for nearly a decade. This chilling sequence reaches the core of the best true crime, finding the lost humanity in the midst of an inhuman mess.
Had Fatal Vision ended there, I might have been content. But it does not simply end there. The version I read contained two afterwords, in which McGinniss tried, with diminishing success, to explain the fallout of his hugely successful book (and accompanying miniseries).
To put it plainly: I have to mention McGinniss’s journalistic ethics.
***
Called into question by Janet Malcom in The Journalist and the Murderer, the issue boils down to McGinniss’s promises � or lack of promises � to MacDonald at the outset of their project together. McGinniss said he made no promises about what he would write; MacDonald said he did. Eventually, MacDonald sued McGinniss, and they settled out of court � after a hung jury � for between $200,000-300,000. In a rather whiny, churlish, and prickly manner, McGinniss defends the settlement while lashing out at the federal judge who heard his case; at Janet Malcom for daring to impugn him while being a female journalist; and at everyone else who dared look at him askance.
Without knowing the full truth of the matter � both McGinniss and MacDonald having plenty of reasons to massage the truth � it is worth noting that both the Kennedy family and Sarah Palin have accused McGinniss � who is deceased � of being factually challenged. It is not dispositive, but it’s possible that the truth lies at the intersection of agreement between Kennedys and Palins.
In a certain sense, the ethics of Fatal Vision matter not. The book came out after MacDonald’s conviction, and after the resolution of his direct appeal. Thus, it did not influence the outcome one way or another. Indeed, the notoriety has helped MacDonald by keeping his case in the spotlight (and attracting powerful advocates, like Errol Morris).
Still, the scent here is a bit off, and it taints the volume.
***
As hard as he tried, McGinniss never turned up a smoking gun proving MacDonald’s ultimate guilt. His most impressive “discovery,� which came after the trial, was nothing more than an additional piece of circumstantial evidence in an entirely circumstantial case. Viewed together, and with just a bit of squinting, you can see a guilty verdict clearly in those tea leaves. At the same time, you can also see reasonable doubt.
What McGinniss does � in the absence of unequivocal evidence � is engage in a trial of character, ending in MacDonald being entirely guilty of narcissism and raging asshole-ism. This is what unsettles. Much of the proof comes from MacDonald’s own words, which McGinniss provides without comment, and without provenance. There is also a constant authorial shading, whereby scenes with MacDonald and his lawyers are given a negative slant, while the prosecutors are presented as faultless angels who sing but of the truth.
McGinniss’s interpretations of various incidents bely his later assertions that he liked MacDonald as a person, and enjoyed spending time with him. This contradiction makes it easy for me to imagine that McGinniss � who actually spent time in MacDonald’s SoCal condo while doing research � did in fact lie to MacDonald about being on his side, all while fitting him for the noose.
***
The reason this case, this book, gets into you � and the reason this review has gone on so long � is that it is hard to square. Murder can not be excused, but most can be explained. An explosion of temper. A tempestuous affair. Financial gain. This one defies any sense whatsoever.
MacDonald had everything going for him. Yet he is probably guilty of killing his family. More to the point, he slaughtered them in the literal sense of the word, blow after blow. This was not rage; this took too long to be rage. Rage expends itself quickly. No, this was close, heavy work. None of his family died quickly. MacDonald’s arms and shoulders would have tired; his lungs would have burned. He would have felt the hot breath of his kids on his face, their hot blood on his hands. He would have looked into their eyes as he had on the first day, then took it all away with full consciousness of his actions. The prosecutors say he laid one of his children across his lap to stab them, repeatedly. If that be so, the sooner the flood comes to take us all the better.
As I read, I kept thinking MacDonald dzܱ’t do it, that it was impossible. Because who could? That’s the trap, though, to judge people based on ourselves.
Even reconciled to MacDonald’s guilt, I am still troubled by the problems in the case.
McGinniss has no such qualms. He is certain.
I find that certainty to be troubling and simplistic. That, more than McGinniss’s questionable ethics, is what dogs Fatal Vision.
Oftentimes the best true crime writing embraces the reality that sometimes � despite all our striving � there is no final answer. The riddle remains a riddle; a mystery a mystery. Life is filled with unknown unknowns, especially in the realm of inexplicable crimes.
Fatal Vision harbors no doubts. It is confident in its ability to judge a man’s actions at a discrete point in time based on his likeability, or lack thereof; on whether he expresses grief “normally� or “abnormally�; on how he tells his own story. I find this some flimsy proof, but McGinniss is positive, and that certainly feels better than the imponderable possibility of convicting a skilled surgeon for a crime he might not have committed, adding a lifetime in prison to the immeasurable loss of his family.
This near-certitude - call it smugness - on McGinniss’s part serves to strip Fatal Vision of some of its otherwise-formidable power.
November 9, 2019
One of the best true crime stories ever! Joe McGinniss could not have written this book any better. I have followed this case ever since I read this book. If you don't know of this case,you truly want to believe this husband, father, surgeon and career military captain innocent of these crimes. The murders are based on circumstantial evidence but as the story unfolds you will come to your own conclusion of this man's guilt. This is a fascinating yet horrific and extremely bloodchilling murder (murders) case. The murders took place during the Manson murders era. Today this man has finally used all his appeals and he still claims his complete innocence of any involvement of these crimes. A Must Read for any true crime lover or any reader who wants to see how a conviction based on circumstantial evidence told the whole story of how these murders took place. This book is so well written, you won't want to put it down! Unbelievable shocks, twists and turns throughout the story! Johnny Carson shows up as well, but you have to read the book to find out why. Highly highly recommend!!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 3, 2010
A friend told me "Green Beret" murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted in 1979 of killing his pregnant wife, Colette and their two young daughters, Kimberley, five, and Kristen, two at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina on February 17, 1970 now has a motion for a new trial being considered before the Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia.
This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of Jeffrey MacDonald’s guilt or lack of guilt or even his chances of getting a new trial. However, the discussion did lead me to reread Fatal Vision by Joe McGinness. Now, I’m not a "true crime" aficionada. Generally, I have no interest in "true crime" at all. But Fatal Vision was and still is a special book. It reads more like a spellbinding novel than a non-fiction book about one of America’s most notorious family slayers and the man whose murder conviction has become the most litigated conviction in American history. Once you pick up Fatal Vision and begin reading, it’s very difficult to put the book down. The final sentence resonated with me years after I read it the first time, and I was as enthralled and horrified on rereading as I was the first time through.
Fatal Vision is an incredibly well written book. Joe McGinniss obviously knew his material and his subject extremely well. He did, after all, attend MacDonald's trial and even live in MacDonald's California condo. Better yet, he knew how to present that material and that subject so the reader gets to know them incredibly well, too. An intelligent reader finishes Fatal Vision knowing, beyond even a reasonable doubt, that Jeffrey MacDonald and only Jeffrey MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife, his daughter Kimberley, and his daughter Kristen. If one goes on to learn a little more about the facts in this case since the time Joe McGinniss wrote Fatal Vision, one becomes even more convinced of MacDonald’s guilt. Take just one aspect of MacDonald’s story. He claims four "hippies" broke into his home and killed his wife and daughters, three men and one woman. (The woman was, according to MacDonald, wearing knee-high boots, but his version of the color of those boots has run the spectrum over the years.) MacDonald claims that he was being attacked by all four of the "hippies" in the living room and at the same time he could hear his wife screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me," and one of his daughters screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."
Okay. But if four "hippies" were attacking MacDonald in his living room, and four people are the only people who broke into the very tiny MacDonald home as MacDonald has said many times, then who was attacking his wife and daughters? If all four attackers were busy fighting with MacDonald, why didn’t his wife gather the girls and run (there was a backdoor right through the master bedroom). And, it should be pointed out that while MacDonald's wife and daughters were the victims of overkill, MacDonald, himself received only very minor, non-life threatening wounds.
There are other, more complicated reasons why MacDonald’s story doesn’t wash with readers endowed with even the most casual of critical thinking skills, but they are far too complex to go into here.
Strangely, Jeffrey MacDonald, who has been in prison for a little more than thirty years now and who has long since had his license to practice medicine revoked, still has his followers who will go to the ends of the earth to proclaim either his guilt or his innocence, depending on whether or not MacDonald, himself took the time to write to them. His most vocal detractors are, strangely, women who still see him as the "golden boy" he once was, the brilliant and compassionate doctor, with the bright, shining future and the world at his feet. The fact that MacDonald married a Maryland woman several years his junior in prison in Victorville, California in 2002 doesn’t sit well with these women who used to live for the receipt of one of his letters.
Now, even Joe McGinniss found Jeffrey MacDonald to be a charismatic and, on occasion, a charming person, but McGinniss saw through this veneer, this façade, to the heart of darkness underneath. I believe the women who wrote MacDonald before his marriage and are now spending their days on forums creating posts about what an "evil" man he is do see through the gloss of charm and charisma, but simply choose not to do so. Why MacDonald has this hypnotic hold on some people is beyond my understanding, even after reading Fatal Vision and getting a much better "look" at MacDonald. One woman even perjured herself and swore under oath in an affidavit that another, innocent man told her he was guilty of the murders. That man, however, never confessed to anyone, and it’s been proven that he was far, far away from MacDonald’s home on the night of the crimes. I guess these women simply like to keep their "golden boy" intact. It’s a strange phenomenon, but one I think Joe McGuinness could have predicted would happen. But, back to the book because that's what's interesting.
Fatal Vision is a riveting, spellbinding, and ultimately, tragic book. It’s the story of a man who had it all � a stellar career in the Green Berets, a life in medicine, a life for which he had a brilliant natural talent, a caring and compassionate wife, who loved him dearly, two lovely and intelligent daughters, and the son he’d always wanted about to be born. It’s the story of how, in one fatal night, he destroyed it all. Joe McGinniss doesn’t know exactly why, but he is able to give us clues along the way. How those clues add up will no doubt be different for different readers. In the end, the only person who knows why Jeffrey MacDonald destroyed Jeffrey MacDonald and every member of his immediate family is...Jeffrey MacDonald. And he isn’t talking. At least not about that. My guess is he never will.
Even if you’re like me and true crime isn’t your cup of tea, I can’t recommend Fatal Vision highly enough. Once you pick it up, I think you’ll be hard pressed to put it down. The writing is as fresh and riveting as it was when McGinness wrote it, and since there is an outside chance that MacDonald may be granted a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct by an attorney who was subsequently disbarred for embezzlement, among other things, it's still timely as well.
5/5
Recommended: Definitely. Even if you don't care for true crime, this book holds its own with Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, but in the case of Fatal Vision, nothing is fictionalized.
This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of Jeffrey MacDonald’s guilt or lack of guilt or even his chances of getting a new trial. However, the discussion did lead me to reread Fatal Vision by Joe McGinness. Now, I’m not a "true crime" aficionada. Generally, I have no interest in "true crime" at all. But Fatal Vision was and still is a special book. It reads more like a spellbinding novel than a non-fiction book about one of America’s most notorious family slayers and the man whose murder conviction has become the most litigated conviction in American history. Once you pick up Fatal Vision and begin reading, it’s very difficult to put the book down. The final sentence resonated with me years after I read it the first time, and I was as enthralled and horrified on rereading as I was the first time through.
Fatal Vision is an incredibly well written book. Joe McGinniss obviously knew his material and his subject extremely well. He did, after all, attend MacDonald's trial and even live in MacDonald's California condo. Better yet, he knew how to present that material and that subject so the reader gets to know them incredibly well, too. An intelligent reader finishes Fatal Vision knowing, beyond even a reasonable doubt, that Jeffrey MacDonald and only Jeffrey MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife, his daughter Kimberley, and his daughter Kristen. If one goes on to learn a little more about the facts in this case since the time Joe McGinniss wrote Fatal Vision, one becomes even more convinced of MacDonald’s guilt. Take just one aspect of MacDonald’s story. He claims four "hippies" broke into his home and killed his wife and daughters, three men and one woman. (The woman was, according to MacDonald, wearing knee-high boots, but his version of the color of those boots has run the spectrum over the years.) MacDonald claims that he was being attacked by all four of the "hippies" in the living room and at the same time he could hear his wife screaming, "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this to me," and one of his daughters screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."
Okay. But if four "hippies" were attacking MacDonald in his living room, and four people are the only people who broke into the very tiny MacDonald home as MacDonald has said many times, then who was attacking his wife and daughters? If all four attackers were busy fighting with MacDonald, why didn’t his wife gather the girls and run (there was a backdoor right through the master bedroom). And, it should be pointed out that while MacDonald's wife and daughters were the victims of overkill, MacDonald, himself received only very minor, non-life threatening wounds.
There are other, more complicated reasons why MacDonald’s story doesn’t wash with readers endowed with even the most casual of critical thinking skills, but they are far too complex to go into here.
Strangely, Jeffrey MacDonald, who has been in prison for a little more than thirty years now and who has long since had his license to practice medicine revoked, still has his followers who will go to the ends of the earth to proclaim either his guilt or his innocence, depending on whether or not MacDonald, himself took the time to write to them. His most vocal detractors are, strangely, women who still see him as the "golden boy" he once was, the brilliant and compassionate doctor, with the bright, shining future and the world at his feet. The fact that MacDonald married a Maryland woman several years his junior in prison in Victorville, California in 2002 doesn’t sit well with these women who used to live for the receipt of one of his letters.
Now, even Joe McGinniss found Jeffrey MacDonald to be a charismatic and, on occasion, a charming person, but McGinniss saw through this veneer, this façade, to the heart of darkness underneath. I believe the women who wrote MacDonald before his marriage and are now spending their days on forums creating posts about what an "evil" man he is do see through the gloss of charm and charisma, but simply choose not to do so. Why MacDonald has this hypnotic hold on some people is beyond my understanding, even after reading Fatal Vision and getting a much better "look" at MacDonald. One woman even perjured herself and swore under oath in an affidavit that another, innocent man told her he was guilty of the murders. That man, however, never confessed to anyone, and it’s been proven that he was far, far away from MacDonald’s home on the night of the crimes. I guess these women simply like to keep their "golden boy" intact. It’s a strange phenomenon, but one I think Joe McGuinness could have predicted would happen. But, back to the book because that's what's interesting.
Fatal Vision is a riveting, spellbinding, and ultimately, tragic book. It’s the story of a man who had it all � a stellar career in the Green Berets, a life in medicine, a life for which he had a brilliant natural talent, a caring and compassionate wife, who loved him dearly, two lovely and intelligent daughters, and the son he’d always wanted about to be born. It’s the story of how, in one fatal night, he destroyed it all. Joe McGinniss doesn’t know exactly why, but he is able to give us clues along the way. How those clues add up will no doubt be different for different readers. In the end, the only person who knows why Jeffrey MacDonald destroyed Jeffrey MacDonald and every member of his immediate family is...Jeffrey MacDonald. And he isn’t talking. At least not about that. My guess is he never will.
Even if you’re like me and true crime isn’t your cup of tea, I can’t recommend Fatal Vision highly enough. Once you pick it up, I think you’ll be hard pressed to put it down. The writing is as fresh and riveting as it was when McGinness wrote it, and since there is an outside chance that MacDonald may be granted a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct by an attorney who was subsequently disbarred for embezzlement, among other things, it's still timely as well.
5/5
Recommended: Definitely. Even if you don't care for true crime, this book holds its own with Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, but in the case of Fatal Vision, nothing is fictionalized.
February 2, 2022
That MFer did that shit!!!
February 20, 2008
A true-crime classic. Definitely read it in tandem with Janet Malcolm's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant "The Journalist and the Murderer," which analyzes the lawsuit of prisoner Jeffrey MacDonald (convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two children in 1970) against author Joe McGinniss, whom he claimed libelled and defamed him in this book. "How can you slander a convicted killer?" you ask. That's what Janet Malcolm wanted to know, too, and her answer -- her book -- is ingenious. And whatever its ethical problems, "Fatal Vision" is one of the most absorbing true-crime books I've ever read.
September 1, 2024
�This man could not have done that to those people. Yet every day the evidence mounted. Concrete physical evidence; unambiguous, clear. It could not be, yet it was. He could not have, yet he did. The evidence demonstrated that Jeffrey MacDonald, this gracious, charming, affable man, had fractured the skull of his pregnant wife with a club; had broken both of her arms with a club; had stabbed her sixteen times in the neck and chest with a knife; had shattered the skull of his five year old daughter with a club; had stabbed her in the throat eight to ten times with a knife; had hit her again so hard with the club that he’d shattered an entire side of her face, leaving a piece of cheekbone protruding through the skin; and then, with full awareness of what he was doing, had walked into the bedroom of his two year old daughter and, laying her across his lap, had stabbed her twelve times in the back with a knife and four times in the chest and once in the neck and then, again, fifteen times in the chest with an icepick. ... More disturbing, if he could have done this, how could I have liked him?� ~ Joe McGinniss, author
Eventually, McGinniss came to terms with the facts, something MacDonald’s supporters still can’t manage, fifty years later.
At almost a thousand pages, Fatal Vision leaves no stone unturned, exploring the contrast between Jeff’s fairy tale claims (about his life, relationships, marriage, career, murders) and reality.
Over and over again, Jeff is proven wrong - incorrect, false, a liar. But like the most successful politicians, Jeff will never, under any circumstances, ever, admit his transgressions. Like the best charlatans, grains of truth anchor his falsehoods, lending them the weight of believability. Relying on his accomplishments and eloquence, Jeff can convince almost anyone of almost anything. As long as he’s never fact checked, the charade is perfect. This is a man so sure of his own invincibility he stood in a courtroom and told a grand jury to “shove your evidence up your ass.�
Why would this man with such a promising future commit brutal acts of violence against his own family; his own children? I’m not sure Jeff is self-aware enough to answer that question, and we certainly can’t. All we can do is speculate based on his behavior.
Jeff claimed he was “rarely� unfaithful to his wife. But if you scratch the surface of his life, dozens of women fall out. His sexual conquests appear never ending. That’s not unheard of, even for a married father of two, but it hardly fits the picture of marital bliss Jeff painted. He minimizes these affairs as “meaningless� and apparently suffers no guilt. However, he does appear susceptible to social shame, keeping his less savory encounters quiet.
And truly, some of his trysts are stomach turning. Jeff’s first sexual experience was at age fourteen ... with a friend of his mother’s. He was late to his own bachelor party because he and a bridesmaid “got lost� for hours. The day after Jeff’s daughter was born he gave a negligee to his old high school flame. When he should have been at home with his young children, Jeff offered to teach a neighborhood girl to drive, spending hours alone with her. Colette’s third baby was due in July of 1970. Jeff told his wife he’d be away that summer for an Army boxing team trip to Russia - a trip that didn’t exist. What better way to keep your pregnant wife off your back than to pretend to be in Russia? After the murders, Jeff drove a friend’s sixteen year old daughter across the country, having sex with her at every stop. The list goes on and on. Clearly, Jeff was trying to fill some endless void in himself with sex, his family (and the law) be damned.
If you go back further, to high school, you find that Jeff took a trip to Texas to essentially live with a male friend of his father’s for months, even enrolling in a new school. This odd vacation has never been explained. The friend’s wife said she just suspected her husband was “attracted to the boy� which hints at abuse.
Telling lies was not unique in the MacDonald bloodline. Jeff’s mother testified under oath to several things that were untrue - for example, that Mildred Kassab refused to put a marked gravestone over her first husband’s resting place because he’d committed suicide.
Nor were the MacDonalds strangers to mental illness. Jeff’s brother, Jay, was a serious drug user who suffered a “schizophrenic break with reality� during which he assaulted his mother and ended up in a mental facility. He reportedly “got messages� out of the TV. It’s tempting to think Jeff killed his family in an altered mental state, hallucinating intruders. But given his efforts at concealment, that’s wishful thinking.
Family members observed that Jeff was a perfectionist who could lose his temper with Colette, slapping her on at least one occasion.
In January of 1970, the babysitter remarked that the MacDonald family no longer appeared happy. Jeff seemed pale, tired, and sullen. Colette didn’t bother chatting with her anymore.
Jeff told his lawyer, and only his lawyer, that during the early months of 1970, he was taking Eskatrol, a diet pill that is essentially a methamphetamine. (Note: Darlie Routier was also taking diet pills when she stabbed her children to death.)
Post-murder / pre-conviction, Jeff became enraged at the teenage son of one of his girlfriends, pushing the boy off his boat and threatening to make him swim to shore. So severe was his anger, the girlfriend packed up and left at the first chance.
The lengthy interpretation of Jeff’s Rorschak test is fascinating. I agree with McGinniss that Jeff suffers from “pathological optimism.� (see Donald Trump) Jeff simply doesn’t admit to imperfections. In his mind, flaws don’t exist. According to Jeff, everything is always wonderful. His job is perfect. His children are perfect. His marriage is perfect. No matter the evidence to the contrary.
I might as well toss in my two cents about the murders. Here goes �
At heart, Jeff had no desire to be a husband or father. He was impatient and insulted by the demands of a young family. His schedule was inhuman. He hadn't slept in days, taking Eskatrol to stay awake. He finally climbed into bed, utterly exhausted, and found his sheets wet with his daughter’s urine. He snapped, unleashing all his frustration on Colette, the soft-hearted wimp who wouldn't keep the children in their own beds and wouldn't deprive Kristy of her nightly comfort bottle. The argument turned physical, and within seconds it was too late to turn back. He savagely beat his wife to death. Hearing the struggle, Kimberly came to the doorway. Jeff either accidentally hit her or intentionally silenced her as the witness she’d become. Jeff came to his senses, realizing life as he knew it was over. He grabbed a suitcase. But then � he reconsidered. With the Manson murders fresh in the collective conscience, a story of crazed intruders might work. His reputation would carry him. (His fabrication of this group was based on real people he’d met through his brother, Jay.) But Kristy dzܱ’t live. It needed to be a clean sweep. Maybe Jeff talked himself into a frenzy of Green Beret fanaticism. A Green Beret can do anything to survive. Impossible things. Or maybe it wasn’t hard for him at all. He stabbed his two year old daughter to death, staged the scene (poorly), gave himself an injury, and called the MPs. Ever the pathological optimist, he locked what he’d done up in some deep, dark room of his mind and went about his life, annoyed every time the subject popped up to haunt him.
He’s a man with the selfishness of Satan, the will power of a Green Beret, and the PR strategies of Donald Trump. That’s it. That’s Jeffrey MacDonald.
Helena Stoeckley is pitiable, a women so drugged out she asked for a polygraph because she thought it would reveal whether or not she had been in the MacDonald house that night. Because she didn’t even know. I envision Detective Gaddis taking her out for a “romantic� dinner, running his fingers through her dirty hair to obtain a strand for testing, and I want to weep. Poor Helena was an easy target for anyone and everyone.
Then there’s Mildred Kassab who lost two baby girl Colettes before managing to raise a child to adulthood. Mildred, who advised Colette to break up with her high school boyfriend and date Jeff MacDonald instead, the up and coming doctor who would give her a secure future. Mildred, who told Colette to wait until spring to bring the girls for a visit. The new pool would be ready then. Mildred, who describes her grief like hugging a cancer to herself as the pictures in her albums lose meaning and just become pictures.
And Freddy Kassab. I would give anything to have a Freddy in my life. He read the Article 32 transcript over and over again. His handwritten notes in the margin reveal every inconsistency in Jeff’s testimony. He visited 544 Castle Drive himself, performing his own experiments and measuring every bloodstain. He wore out his shoes walking the halls of Congress, hand delivering letters to keep Colette’s case alive. And he vowed to spend the rest of his life seeking justice. After all, he said, he was only fifty-two.
Freddy is the hero of this tale, and Jeff is Judas. Because of the hero, Judas is exactly where he belongs.
Eventually, McGinniss came to terms with the facts, something MacDonald’s supporters still can’t manage, fifty years later.
At almost a thousand pages, Fatal Vision leaves no stone unturned, exploring the contrast between Jeff’s fairy tale claims (about his life, relationships, marriage, career, murders) and reality.
Over and over again, Jeff is proven wrong - incorrect, false, a liar. But like the most successful politicians, Jeff will never, under any circumstances, ever, admit his transgressions. Like the best charlatans, grains of truth anchor his falsehoods, lending them the weight of believability. Relying on his accomplishments and eloquence, Jeff can convince almost anyone of almost anything. As long as he’s never fact checked, the charade is perfect. This is a man so sure of his own invincibility he stood in a courtroom and told a grand jury to “shove your evidence up your ass.�
Why would this man with such a promising future commit brutal acts of violence against his own family; his own children? I’m not sure Jeff is self-aware enough to answer that question, and we certainly can’t. All we can do is speculate based on his behavior.
Jeff claimed he was “rarely� unfaithful to his wife. But if you scratch the surface of his life, dozens of women fall out. His sexual conquests appear never ending. That’s not unheard of, even for a married father of two, but it hardly fits the picture of marital bliss Jeff painted. He minimizes these affairs as “meaningless� and apparently suffers no guilt. However, he does appear susceptible to social shame, keeping his less savory encounters quiet.
And truly, some of his trysts are stomach turning. Jeff’s first sexual experience was at age fourteen ... with a friend of his mother’s. He was late to his own bachelor party because he and a bridesmaid “got lost� for hours. The day after Jeff’s daughter was born he gave a negligee to his old high school flame. When he should have been at home with his young children, Jeff offered to teach a neighborhood girl to drive, spending hours alone with her. Colette’s third baby was due in July of 1970. Jeff told his wife he’d be away that summer for an Army boxing team trip to Russia - a trip that didn’t exist. What better way to keep your pregnant wife off your back than to pretend to be in Russia? After the murders, Jeff drove a friend’s sixteen year old daughter across the country, having sex with her at every stop. The list goes on and on. Clearly, Jeff was trying to fill some endless void in himself with sex, his family (and the law) be damned.
If you go back further, to high school, you find that Jeff took a trip to Texas to essentially live with a male friend of his father’s for months, even enrolling in a new school. This odd vacation has never been explained. The friend’s wife said she just suspected her husband was “attracted to the boy� which hints at abuse.
Telling lies was not unique in the MacDonald bloodline. Jeff’s mother testified under oath to several things that were untrue - for example, that Mildred Kassab refused to put a marked gravestone over her first husband’s resting place because he’d committed suicide.
Nor were the MacDonalds strangers to mental illness. Jeff’s brother, Jay, was a serious drug user who suffered a “schizophrenic break with reality� during which he assaulted his mother and ended up in a mental facility. He reportedly “got messages� out of the TV. It’s tempting to think Jeff killed his family in an altered mental state, hallucinating intruders. But given his efforts at concealment, that’s wishful thinking.
Family members observed that Jeff was a perfectionist who could lose his temper with Colette, slapping her on at least one occasion.
In January of 1970, the babysitter remarked that the MacDonald family no longer appeared happy. Jeff seemed pale, tired, and sullen. Colette didn’t bother chatting with her anymore.
Jeff told his lawyer, and only his lawyer, that during the early months of 1970, he was taking Eskatrol, a diet pill that is essentially a methamphetamine. (Note: Darlie Routier was also taking diet pills when she stabbed her children to death.)
Post-murder / pre-conviction, Jeff became enraged at the teenage son of one of his girlfriends, pushing the boy off his boat and threatening to make him swim to shore. So severe was his anger, the girlfriend packed up and left at the first chance.
The lengthy interpretation of Jeff’s Rorschak test is fascinating. I agree with McGinniss that Jeff suffers from “pathological optimism.� (see Donald Trump) Jeff simply doesn’t admit to imperfections. In his mind, flaws don’t exist. According to Jeff, everything is always wonderful. His job is perfect. His children are perfect. His marriage is perfect. No matter the evidence to the contrary.
I might as well toss in my two cents about the murders. Here goes �
At heart, Jeff had no desire to be a husband or father. He was impatient and insulted by the demands of a young family. His schedule was inhuman. He hadn't slept in days, taking Eskatrol to stay awake. He finally climbed into bed, utterly exhausted, and found his sheets wet with his daughter’s urine. He snapped, unleashing all his frustration on Colette, the soft-hearted wimp who wouldn't keep the children in their own beds and wouldn't deprive Kristy of her nightly comfort bottle. The argument turned physical, and within seconds it was too late to turn back. He savagely beat his wife to death. Hearing the struggle, Kimberly came to the doorway. Jeff either accidentally hit her or intentionally silenced her as the witness she’d become. Jeff came to his senses, realizing life as he knew it was over. He grabbed a suitcase. But then � he reconsidered. With the Manson murders fresh in the collective conscience, a story of crazed intruders might work. His reputation would carry him. (His fabrication of this group was based on real people he’d met through his brother, Jay.) But Kristy dzܱ’t live. It needed to be a clean sweep. Maybe Jeff talked himself into a frenzy of Green Beret fanaticism. A Green Beret can do anything to survive. Impossible things. Or maybe it wasn’t hard for him at all. He stabbed his two year old daughter to death, staged the scene (poorly), gave himself an injury, and called the MPs. Ever the pathological optimist, he locked what he’d done up in some deep, dark room of his mind and went about his life, annoyed every time the subject popped up to haunt him.
He’s a man with the selfishness of Satan, the will power of a Green Beret, and the PR strategies of Donald Trump. That’s it. That’s Jeffrey MacDonald.
Helena Stoeckley is pitiable, a women so drugged out she asked for a polygraph because she thought it would reveal whether or not she had been in the MacDonald house that night. Because she didn’t even know. I envision Detective Gaddis taking her out for a “romantic� dinner, running his fingers through her dirty hair to obtain a strand for testing, and I want to weep. Poor Helena was an easy target for anyone and everyone.
Then there’s Mildred Kassab who lost two baby girl Colettes before managing to raise a child to adulthood. Mildred, who advised Colette to break up with her high school boyfriend and date Jeff MacDonald instead, the up and coming doctor who would give her a secure future. Mildred, who told Colette to wait until spring to bring the girls for a visit. The new pool would be ready then. Mildred, who describes her grief like hugging a cancer to herself as the pictures in her albums lose meaning and just become pictures.
And Freddy Kassab. I would give anything to have a Freddy in my life. He read the Article 32 transcript over and over again. His handwritten notes in the margin reveal every inconsistency in Jeff’s testimony. He visited 544 Castle Drive himself, performing his own experiments and measuring every bloodstain. He wore out his shoes walking the halls of Congress, hand delivering letters to keep Colette’s case alive. And he vowed to spend the rest of his life seeking justice. After all, he said, he was only fifty-two.
Freddy is the hero of this tale, and Jeff is Judas. Because of the hero, Judas is exactly where he belongs.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 2, 2019
Read this book back while in high school and was my first taste into the true crime genre. At the time, I couldn't fathom how some people could be so narcissistic and lacking in empathy as to murder those near and dear to you. It still resonates with me!
February 1, 2015
I thought this was phenomenal from a "true crime" perspective.
Though long, I felt the overall organization of the book worked quite well. I also appreciated the sections told in Jeffrey's MacDonald's own words. Having first heard about these murders via the very popular mini-series while growing up, I had a tendency to lean toward his guilt. However, reading this, I found my opinions vacillating continuously between "of course he did it" and "maybe he didn't do it."
The case itself is sensational, a Princeton-educated physician and charismatic Green Beret is accused of brutally murdering his two young children and his pregnant wife. He, however, claims it was four hippies/satanic cult members. But that is only the starting point for a bizarre quest for justice, which among other things includes the complete 180 turnabout of MacDonald's biggest supporter initially,his father-in-law Freddie Kassab.
For someone who is fascinated by the foundations of behavior and basis for belief, this was a smorgasbord of psychological pondering. For example, how does someone's biggest supporter become their most tireless opponent? How does a seemingly All-American, intelligent, and compassionate doctor become the primary suspect in his family's murder?
Then of course, you have to wonder if the revelation of MacDonald's infidelity while married made it easier to believe him a murder, as if somehow committing one makes you legitimately more likely to commit the other. Obviously, it says something about his integrity, it also suggests maybe he was unhappy and unfulfilled in his marriage. But again, why is it easier to believe someone we "dislike" is capable of murder or vice versa?
Add to that the legal implications of the case and it makes for interesting reading.
McGinniss, who I think writes a fairly balanced recounting, ultimately confesses that he is convinced of MacDonald's guilt, however, I think his personal bias is admirably subdued throughout most of the book.
In addition to watching some old interviews and re-watching the mini-series, I have also purchased and plan to read A Wilderness of Error written by Errol Morris, in which he contends that MacDonald is innocent along with his case, as well as Final Vision a short update written by McGinnis...sort of a last word/rebuttal to assertions made in Morris' book. Anxious to see if my opinion of this book changes by the end of my reading.
Did I mention it was long? Personally, I was so engaged I didn't mind, and given the choice, I'm not sure what I would've cut.
The most important question...do I think he was guilty. Given what he's gone through, I hope so. Do I have reasonable doubt...based on this book, no...but we'll see after reading Morris' book.
Though long, I felt the overall organization of the book worked quite well. I also appreciated the sections told in Jeffrey's MacDonald's own words. Having first heard about these murders via the very popular mini-series while growing up, I had a tendency to lean toward his guilt. However, reading this, I found my opinions vacillating continuously between "of course he did it" and "maybe he didn't do it."
The case itself is sensational, a Princeton-educated physician and charismatic Green Beret is accused of brutally murdering his two young children and his pregnant wife. He, however, claims it was four hippies/satanic cult members. But that is only the starting point for a bizarre quest for justice, which among other things includes the complete 180 turnabout of MacDonald's biggest supporter initially,his father-in-law Freddie Kassab.
For someone who is fascinated by the foundations of behavior and basis for belief, this was a smorgasbord of psychological pondering. For example, how does someone's biggest supporter become their most tireless opponent? How does a seemingly All-American, intelligent, and compassionate doctor become the primary suspect in his family's murder?
Then of course, you have to wonder if the revelation of MacDonald's infidelity while married made it easier to believe him a murder, as if somehow committing one makes you legitimately more likely to commit the other. Obviously, it says something about his integrity, it also suggests maybe he was unhappy and unfulfilled in his marriage. But again, why is it easier to believe someone we "dislike" is capable of murder or vice versa?
Add to that the legal implications of the case and it makes for interesting reading.
McGinniss, who I think writes a fairly balanced recounting, ultimately confesses that he is convinced of MacDonald's guilt, however, I think his personal bias is admirably subdued throughout most of the book.
In addition to watching some old interviews and re-watching the mini-series, I have also purchased and plan to read A Wilderness of Error written by Errol Morris, in which he contends that MacDonald is innocent along with his case, as well as Final Vision a short update written by McGinnis...sort of a last word/rebuttal to assertions made in Morris' book. Anxious to see if my opinion of this book changes by the end of my reading.
Did I mention it was long? Personally, I was so engaged I didn't mind, and given the choice, I'm not sure what I would've cut.
The most important question...do I think he was guilty. Given what he's gone through, I hope so. Do I have reasonable doubt...based on this book, no...but we'll see after reading Morris' book.
April 24, 2014
Rating 5* out of 5. I have read 952 pages with attention, with horror, with fascination and not once been bored. That is a pretty incredible achievement, on the part of the author. This is the most engrossing read I've read in a long time and by far the best book I have read so far this year.
On February 17th, 1970 pregnant Colette MacDonald and her two young children, Kimberly and Kirsten, were brutally murdered. All of them had been stabbed multiple times, far more than needed to actually kill them. In the same house was Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, Colette's husband and father of the murdered children. He was insignificantly wounded, but claimed four hippies had come in and assaulted them.
Jeffrey MacDonald was considered a succesful and charming young man. No one could believe that he would be guilty and the army dismissed his case. It took years before the case was brought to court. During those years, Fred Kassab, Colette's step father, went from being MacDonald's most adherent supporter to his staunchest opponent.
The initial investigation into the murders was severely bungled, yet the evidence against him was massive at a closer look. Besides, his statements as to what happened where inconsistent to say the least. Despite this, the case was almost not brought to trial.
This book takes you into the psyche of a man who appears charming and well adapted. It's a tremendously scary ride, but well worth it. It is absolutely mindboggling how, despite knowing how it must end, this book could be so riveting. Highly recommended.
On February 17th, 1970 pregnant Colette MacDonald and her two young children, Kimberly and Kirsten, were brutally murdered. All of them had been stabbed multiple times, far more than needed to actually kill them. In the same house was Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, Colette's husband and father of the murdered children. He was insignificantly wounded, but claimed four hippies had come in and assaulted them.
Jeffrey MacDonald was considered a succesful and charming young man. No one could believe that he would be guilty and the army dismissed his case. It took years before the case was brought to court. During those years, Fred Kassab, Colette's step father, went from being MacDonald's most adherent supporter to his staunchest opponent.
The initial investigation into the murders was severely bungled, yet the evidence against him was massive at a closer look. Besides, his statements as to what happened where inconsistent to say the least. Despite this, the case was almost not brought to trial.
This book takes you into the psyche of a man who appears charming and well adapted. It's a tremendously scary ride, but well worth it. It is absolutely mindboggling how, despite knowing how it must end, this book could be so riveting. Highly recommended.
July 20, 2024
A heavy-paged crime book that could be used as a murder weapon itself, blunt force trauma to the head 💀🩸🔪🧠💀 Highly recommended!
Read
November 20, 2013One of the best true crime books of all time. I should re-read it, along with A Shot in the Heart, the Executioner's Song and The People Who Eat Darkness. Also, all great true crime.
June 14, 2022
Lies, lies.
This book is long. This story is quite unbelievable. I give this book a 4.5. There sometimes was repetition and what I felt could be superfluous information. Mostly the writing was engaging. Toward the end I began to struggle a bit with wanting to finish this book, finally. It seems the author was grateful to be finished as well.
This book is long. This story is quite unbelievable. I give this book a 4.5. There sometimes was repetition and what I felt could be superfluous information. Mostly the writing was engaging. Toward the end I began to struggle a bit with wanting to finish this book, finally. It seems the author was grateful to be finished as well.
June 15, 2020
If you are a lover of true crime you absolutely should put this book in your TBR pile. The writing, research, detail, dedication to the facts is spot on. The horror of the crimes itself is hard to read and wrap your head around. But, McGinniss writes about it with horror as well as compassion for the victims and their families. I really could not put the book down. I had to know if Jeffery McDonald really killed his pregnant wife and two daughters. After reading I must say I believe he is 100% guilty. It's hard to argue the evidence that was given. I don't understand how someone can claim to love their family and brutally murder them. Four lives were taken before their time and I think this book honors their memory and brings some justice to their horrible fate.
November 3, 2007
Great use of how different people see the same thing differently. Convinced me the good doctor killed his wife and kids
June 4, 2018
True Crime Classic on sale:
$1.99 today, 6.4.18
$1.99 today, 6.4.18
September 8, 2018
spooky and wow. HE DID IT it is clear even before dna. and now after dna it proves he did it.
December 20, 2012
I had to stop reading this halfway through, which is still an achievement since it is a 600 page behemoth of crap. I have no idea how this book gets such glowing reviews!
McGinniss is not only highly biased and fails to present a convincing case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, a doctor accused (and later convicted) of killing his family in 1970. First, the book is poorly written and lacking in editing. It seems that McGinniss includes anything anyone ever said about anything related to this case at all. It's not exhaustive, it's exhausting. McGinniss' book is basically a character assassination rather than a forensic argument for guilt. MacDonald is an asshole, but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. I am not so sure that McGinniss understands this.
My breaking point was when McGinniss begins over-analyzing the class notes Colette MacDonald took in her Child Psych class the night of her murder, as if her study notes were some kind of diary. Come on.
I have read neither Janet Malcolm nor Errol Morris' book about Fatal Vision, but I am eager to. Seems like we are on the same page (yuk yuk).
McGinniss is not only highly biased and fails to present a convincing case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, a doctor accused (and later convicted) of killing his family in 1970. First, the book is poorly written and lacking in editing. It seems that McGinniss includes anything anyone ever said about anything related to this case at all. It's not exhaustive, it's exhausting. McGinniss' book is basically a character assassination rather than a forensic argument for guilt. MacDonald is an asshole, but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. I am not so sure that McGinniss understands this.
My breaking point was when McGinniss begins over-analyzing the class notes Colette MacDonald took in her Child Psych class the night of her murder, as if her study notes were some kind of diary. Come on.
I have read neither Janet Malcolm nor Errol Morris' book about Fatal Vision, but I am eager to. Seems like we are on the same page (yuk yuk).
June 21, 2023
This book is long, just like the story. Some information seemed superfluous, and at times a bit repetitious. I rate this book a 4.5. The writing is engaging, but I admit that I struggled with wanting to be finished with the murderer behind bars, finally and permanently. What a dreadful, horrible tragedy.
"... but it is fact that the father was given to outbursts of anger and that Jeffrey’s only brother was hospitalized after a psychotic episode involving violence. It is also fact that if Jeffrey MacDonald were taking three to five Eskatrol Spansules daily, he would have been consuming 75 mg. of dextroamphetamine—more than enough to precipitate an amphetamine psychosis.
"... it retains a capacity to produce unpleasant side effects, including a syndrome known as akathisia, which is characterized by “the compelling need of the patient to be in constant movement . . . the patient feels that he must get up and walk or continuously move about . . . akathisia can be mistaken for agitation in psychotic patients.�
Can't help but to think about the Chris Watts case.
"... but it is fact that the father was given to outbursts of anger and that Jeffrey’s only brother was hospitalized after a psychotic episode involving violence. It is also fact that if Jeffrey MacDonald were taking three to five Eskatrol Spansules daily, he would have been consuming 75 mg. of dextroamphetamine—more than enough to precipitate an amphetamine psychosis.
"... it retains a capacity to produce unpleasant side effects, including a syndrome known as akathisia, which is characterized by “the compelling need of the patient to be in constant movement . . . the patient feels that he must get up and walk or continuously move about . . . akathisia can be mistaken for agitation in psychotic patients.�
Can't help but to think about the Chris Watts case.
September 14, 2020
4.5 rounded up. Really interesting... I'm still not sure what i believe happened! I remember hearing that there was another book written about this case- I'm definitely going to hunt that 1 down asap.
& obviously no matter who or what was responsible it was a horrific crime.. RIP to those 2 little angels & their momma.❤️
& obviously no matter who or what was responsible it was a horrific crime.. RIP to those 2 little angels & their momma.❤️
January 14, 2023
I remember my mother reading this book when I was a kid. I also might or might not have seen the miniseries based on this book. This was incredibly detailed account of the case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. It follows what became a very complicated case that took a decade to conclude.
I enjoy true crime stories and this has to be included as one of the original OG's in the field.
I enjoy true crime stories and this has to be included as one of the original OG's in the field.
April 1, 2008
great classic
August 4, 2013
This is my second time reading this book. Why read it twice, you may ask. Because I recently found a book contradicting the guilty verdict of Jeffrey MacDonald. Alright, settle in, this will be a long review. These murders occurred before I was born. The eventual actual trial occurred before I can remember. The book and the eventual two part mini-series that came out afterwards (back in the day of the popularity of the mini-series) had huge ratings were before I would have been allowed to know of such things. But, I feel I have known of this case my entire life. I grew up approx. 50 miles from Fort Bragg. Things like this didn't happen in NC. I've since seen the movie on Lifetime or somewhere on cable. I read the book in high school. Since then I've become an attorney - mostly working in criminal prosecution. The first time I read this book - and now the second time - I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeffrey MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife, Colette and his two daughters. I don't believe it beyond ALL doubt, but I do beyond a reasonable doubt. The author, Joe McGinniss, was hired to write a book sympathetic to MacDonald. He lived with MacDonald during the trial at the Kappa Alpha house on the campus of NC State during the trial. He was there for the entire trial. And, he just couldn't do it. He couldn't write a book sympathetic to MacDonald - why? For no one particular reason, but one doubt, built on another doubt, built on another. MacDonald - in this book - comes across clearly as a narcissistic pathological liar. Psychotic breakdowns were not unknown in his family and it is highly likely, from the evidence and his own written words, that he was taking a form of amphetamine at the time which can precipitate psychotic breakdowns - as it did in his brother, Jay. If you like true crime, this is practically a classic. Also, just to note - I have started on the book that just came out trying to proclaim MacDonald's innocence (when I think the author really just wants a movie deal) and...on page 38, a quote from MacDonald himself convinced me more of his guilt than anything else b/c of what I know from Fatal Vision and my own personal knowledge of the law and defendants. I'm still not convinced beyond ALL doubt, like I am that Casey Anthony is guilty and O.J. Simpson is guilty and George Zimmerman is nothing but a murderer...but, at this point, I do believe beyond a reasonable doubt that MacDonald did kill his pregnant wife and his two daughters. Let's see how I feel after I finish the new book.
October 29, 2012
The book about Jeffrey MacDonald and the murder of his family is not without controversy and detractors. Janet Malcolm's 1990 book, The Journalist and the Murderer," accused McGinniss of acting like a confidence man, pretending friendship to gain MacDonald's trust long after McGinnis had been convinced of his guilt. As she herself posits in her book, this is part of journalism's stock and trade. I've seen it in action myself. I found myself misquoted once in a national, very famous magazine--and I had considered the writer of the article a friend. He caught me when I was upset and I just blurted out how I felt, only to find it used and distorted on the page. I asked him why he made up the words he put into my mouth and his answer to me was simple: "The way I wrote it was funnier." I've been peripherally involved twice in events surrounding news stories--what I read in the newspapers and magazines bore little resemblance to what I knew first hand. So Malcolm's accusation that McGinniss tarted up MacDonald's personality, forcing him into the profile of a narcissist to better sell the book does hit home with me. It's a serious and on the face of it a plausible charge given my own experience.
However I vividly remember the 60 Minutes interview by Mike Wallace of MacDonald confronting him with passages from Fatal Vision in manuscript. His story just didn't wash, for multiple reasons you can read about in this book. I certainly have no doubts, especially after reading this book, that MacDonald is guilty beneath his glossy, charismatic surface. Those defending him try to blacken McGinniss' motives and methods, but I don't see them disputing his facts. Yes, there's something unsavory about how McGinniss got his story, just as there was with the documentary of Michael Jackson put together by Martin Bashir that put forth allegations about Jackson's relationships with young boys. Both men betrayed a trust, but that doesn't mean either story is inaccurate. One thing for sure, you can't question McGinniss got very close to his query: enough for us to get a very intimate picture of, if not a narcissist as claimed, then a man who murdered his own family. And McGinniss is a good writer. I'm not a regular imbiber of true crime books, but this book has been in print since 1983 for good reasons: it's a compelling, completely engrossing well-written book.
However I vividly remember the 60 Minutes interview by Mike Wallace of MacDonald confronting him with passages from Fatal Vision in manuscript. His story just didn't wash, for multiple reasons you can read about in this book. I certainly have no doubts, especially after reading this book, that MacDonald is guilty beneath his glossy, charismatic surface. Those defending him try to blacken McGinniss' motives and methods, but I don't see them disputing his facts. Yes, there's something unsavory about how McGinniss got his story, just as there was with the documentary of Michael Jackson put together by Martin Bashir that put forth allegations about Jackson's relationships with young boys. Both men betrayed a trust, but that doesn't mean either story is inaccurate. One thing for sure, you can't question McGinniss got very close to his query: enough for us to get a very intimate picture of, if not a narcissist as claimed, then a man who murdered his own family. And McGinniss is a good writer. I'm not a regular imbiber of true crime books, but this book has been in print since 1983 for good reasons: it's a compelling, completely engrossing well-written book.
October 27, 2017
I've been on a bit of a true crime reading binge lately, and I grabbed this book at the bookstore after years of avoiding it. Maybe it was because I remembered the miniseries on TV so many years ago, or maybe the age of the book put me off. I can admit now that it was a mistake to discount it. Once I started, I couldn't bring myself to read anything else until I'd finished it.
Joe McGinniss was invited to tell the story by Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, the man accused of murdering his wife and children. On the eve of his murder trial, he brought McGinniss in and gave him unprecedented access to the trial and to his life.
I suspect it didn't turn out the way MacDonald hoped.
The account jumps from transcripts of MacDonald's comments to background for the crime and then the Byzantine maze of investigations and trials. All the time, the reader is slowly brought to the same horrifying conclusion that McGinniss faced: that a charming, successful, all-American Army doctor could--and did--kill his family.
It's been almost 50 years since the murders, and if anything has changed since then, it's that we've seen more stories of superficially charming sociopaths, and thus find McGinniss's conclusions far more plausible than people did in the 1970s.
Joe McGinniss was invited to tell the story by Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, the man accused of murdering his wife and children. On the eve of his murder trial, he brought McGinniss in and gave him unprecedented access to the trial and to his life.
I suspect it didn't turn out the way MacDonald hoped.
The account jumps from transcripts of MacDonald's comments to background for the crime and then the Byzantine maze of investigations and trials. All the time, the reader is slowly brought to the same horrifying conclusion that McGinniss faced: that a charming, successful, all-American Army doctor could--and did--kill his family.
It's been almost 50 years since the murders, and if anything has changed since then, it's that we've seen more stories of superficially charming sociopaths, and thus find McGinniss's conclusions far more plausible than people did in the 1970s.
November 14, 2018
fascinating. I still don't know what to think.
August 22, 2024
Bardzo kontrowersyjna sprawa, o której było głośno w Stanach, popełniona w lutym 1970. Zbrodnia, która bardzo przypomina tą popełnioną przez Chrisa Wattsa - wzorowy mąż i ojciec, z zawodu lekarz wojskowy, zabija ciężarną żonę Colette (26) i dwie córki, Kimberley (5) i Kristen (2). Z tym, że tutaj oskarżony i później skazany Jeff MacDonald nigdy nie przyznał się do winy, i utrzymywał, że jego rodzina została zaatakowana przez grupę hipisów przypominającą gang Mansona. Na początku wszyscy mu wierzyli, bo wszyscy go uwielbiali, no i jaki mógł mieć motyw? Sąd wojskowy oddalił zarzuty. Ojciec zamordowanej Colette po dokładnej analizie 2000 stron zeznań Jeffa ( zajęło mi to 3 miesiące) zauważył 123 stwierdzenia, które były według niego fałszywe, albo co najmniej nieprawdopodobne. Nic się nie kleiło jeśli chodzi o przebieg wydarzeń. A Jeff szybko się pocieszył nową kochanką.. Sprawa ciągnęła się kilka lat, podczas których jego teść Alfred Kassab zbierał skrupulatnie wszystkie nieścisłości jako dowody, podpierając się rzeczoznawcami i manewrując wśród prawnych procedur. Proces odbył się w 1979. MacDonald nadal odsiaduje wyrok, ma dziś 80 lat. Chyba jescze nie czytałam tak skrupulatnie napisanej książki, i emocjonującej ze względu na walkę ojca i dziadka o sprawiedliwość, i psychologiczny portret sprawcy. Powoli ukazuje nam się portret narcyza, kontrolującego manipulatora, kobieciarza i dobrego aktora. Szkoda, że nie ma po polsku. Jest film na youtube, jakby ktoś chciał zobaczyć, pod tym samym tytułem.
August 18, 2019
One of the classics of the true crime genre
This is one of the most chilling of true crime tales, and one of the most intriguing. Former Green Beret officer Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald (still in prison last time I checked) called the police early one morning to report that his pregnant wife and two young daughters had been murdered by a marauding gang of hippies shouting "Kill the pigs, acid is groovy" while he received some superficial wounds trying to fight them off.
Joe McGinniss who at the time was best known for his Nixon campaign book (The Selling of the President 1968) jumped on the case and made arrangements with MacDonald to follow him around and interview him. McGinniss has said that initially he believed MacDonald was innocent, but as he grew to know MacDonald, and as he sifted through the evidence he began to change his mind until in the end he believed along with the prosecution and the jurors that MacDonald had murdered his family. McGinniss reports all this in such a compelling manner that the reader is lead step by step to the same horrific conclusion (or at least most readers are). Also changing their minds about MacDonald were the wife's parents who at first refused to believe that he could have done something like this. Yet in the end they too were convinced.
Not convinced however were MacDonald's many supports including as I recall members of the Long Beach, California police department, many of MacDonald's co-workers, and a number of women who found the doctor very attractive.
All of this is interesting but what I think most fascinated McGinniss and what most fascinates me is an answer to the questions of Why did he do it? and How could any human being do something like that?
The most plausible theory (this is basically McGinniss's theory as well) to explain why he did it goes something like this: In a rage (possibly induced in part by amphetamine use) MacDonald badly or fatally injured one of his family. Rather than own up to this and face the consequences he had the "fatal vision" (thought to have been conjured up in part from an Esquire Magazine article or in remembrance of the Mason family murders) of acid-crazed hippies breaking into his home and attacking his family with him in heroic defense. To make this work he would have to kill everybody except himself and construct a crime scene that would support his story. The prosecution and McGinniss careful show how MacDonald's crime scene construction failed. Readers interested in forensic science will find this aspect of the book absolutely fascinating, even if not entirely convincing.
But to convict a man of murdering his family based on circumstantial evidence especially when the motive is not another woman, or money, but is instead merely a desire to hide what at worse would be manslaughter, seems quite a stretch for any jury, or so MacDonald apparently figured. But what went wrong was not only the evidence, but his personality.
As McGinniss spent time with MacDonald he came to realize that Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald was not like other people. He was charming and very bright but there was a cold aspect to his personality, what in autism is called a "lack of affect." Obviously he was not autistic, or perhaps his is a form of autism. Anyway, according to the current psychiatric wisdom, such a person is called a psychopath or a sociopath. The words mean approximately the same thing, that is, a person who values only his or her own life and welfare, a person who has no real feelings of warmth for others, a person who has no compunction about taking the life of another if he or she can gain from it and get away with it.
The compelling psychological argument for me (and perhaps for the jury that convicted him) is that ONLY such a husband and father could have done that. The fact that he fit the psychopathic personality type was what led to his conviction as much as the forensic evidence. I should add that even though over the years there have been tips about, and bizarre manifestations of, possible hippy suspects, MacDonald has remained the only real suspect.
But did he do it? This book makes a powerful case that he did. Followers of sensational crimes such as the Jon Benet Ramsey case or the current case of Scott Peterson (reported as "laughing and joking" with his attorneys in court today as I write this) will see similarities here. In the Jon Benet case there is the sense of an attempt to cover up some violence inflicted on a member of the family because somebody (probably the mother) lost her temper, while in the Scott Peterson case there is the phenomenon of the sociopathic personality to explain an otherwise unthinkable crime.
I originally thought that MacDonald was guilty and I still do, but I admit there is some doubt. Whether that doubt is "reasonable" is for you to decide. The jury has already decided. Someday there may be another trial. If so, that jury will decide. You might also want to read the "answer" to this book, Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders (1992) by Jerry Allen Potter. Or go to the various Websites. I think you'll discover, as I did, why we have trials by jury in which both sides present their arguments. Just hearing one side seems so convincing until you hear the other side.
Bottom line: one of the very best true crime reads, the book that made McGinniss's career and helped to end MacDonald's: one of the classics of the genre.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri�
This is one of the most chilling of true crime tales, and one of the most intriguing. Former Green Beret officer Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald (still in prison last time I checked) called the police early one morning to report that his pregnant wife and two young daughters had been murdered by a marauding gang of hippies shouting "Kill the pigs, acid is groovy" while he received some superficial wounds trying to fight them off.
Joe McGinniss who at the time was best known for his Nixon campaign book (The Selling of the President 1968) jumped on the case and made arrangements with MacDonald to follow him around and interview him. McGinniss has said that initially he believed MacDonald was innocent, but as he grew to know MacDonald, and as he sifted through the evidence he began to change his mind until in the end he believed along with the prosecution and the jurors that MacDonald had murdered his family. McGinniss reports all this in such a compelling manner that the reader is lead step by step to the same horrific conclusion (or at least most readers are). Also changing their minds about MacDonald were the wife's parents who at first refused to believe that he could have done something like this. Yet in the end they too were convinced.
Not convinced however were MacDonald's many supports including as I recall members of the Long Beach, California police department, many of MacDonald's co-workers, and a number of women who found the doctor very attractive.
All of this is interesting but what I think most fascinated McGinniss and what most fascinates me is an answer to the questions of Why did he do it? and How could any human being do something like that?
The most plausible theory (this is basically McGinniss's theory as well) to explain why he did it goes something like this: In a rage (possibly induced in part by amphetamine use) MacDonald badly or fatally injured one of his family. Rather than own up to this and face the consequences he had the "fatal vision" (thought to have been conjured up in part from an Esquire Magazine article or in remembrance of the Mason family murders) of acid-crazed hippies breaking into his home and attacking his family with him in heroic defense. To make this work he would have to kill everybody except himself and construct a crime scene that would support his story. The prosecution and McGinniss careful show how MacDonald's crime scene construction failed. Readers interested in forensic science will find this aspect of the book absolutely fascinating, even if not entirely convincing.
But to convict a man of murdering his family based on circumstantial evidence especially when the motive is not another woman, or money, but is instead merely a desire to hide what at worse would be manslaughter, seems quite a stretch for any jury, or so MacDonald apparently figured. But what went wrong was not only the evidence, but his personality.
As McGinniss spent time with MacDonald he came to realize that Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald was not like other people. He was charming and very bright but there was a cold aspect to his personality, what in autism is called a "lack of affect." Obviously he was not autistic, or perhaps his is a form of autism. Anyway, according to the current psychiatric wisdom, such a person is called a psychopath or a sociopath. The words mean approximately the same thing, that is, a person who values only his or her own life and welfare, a person who has no real feelings of warmth for others, a person who has no compunction about taking the life of another if he or she can gain from it and get away with it.
The compelling psychological argument for me (and perhaps for the jury that convicted him) is that ONLY such a husband and father could have done that. The fact that he fit the psychopathic personality type was what led to his conviction as much as the forensic evidence. I should add that even though over the years there have been tips about, and bizarre manifestations of, possible hippy suspects, MacDonald has remained the only real suspect.
But did he do it? This book makes a powerful case that he did. Followers of sensational crimes such as the Jon Benet Ramsey case or the current case of Scott Peterson (reported as "laughing and joking" with his attorneys in court today as I write this) will see similarities here. In the Jon Benet case there is the sense of an attempt to cover up some violence inflicted on a member of the family because somebody (probably the mother) lost her temper, while in the Scott Peterson case there is the phenomenon of the sociopathic personality to explain an otherwise unthinkable crime.
I originally thought that MacDonald was guilty and I still do, but I admit there is some doubt. Whether that doubt is "reasonable" is for you to decide. The jury has already decided. Someday there may be another trial. If so, that jury will decide. You might also want to read the "answer" to this book, Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders (1992) by Jerry Allen Potter. Or go to the various Websites. I think you'll discover, as I did, why we have trials by jury in which both sides present their arguments. Just hearing one side seems so convincing until you hear the other side.
Bottom line: one of the very best true crime reads, the book that made McGinniss's career and helped to end MacDonald's: one of the classics of the genre.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri�
June 26, 2012
This was my true crime book of the summer - I've been trying to get through the classics of the genre, but you really can't read more than one of these at a time. Last summer I read Helter Skelter, and a few years ago I read In Cold Blood. I tried to read The Executioner's Song, but couldn't get through more than 100 pages or something. For another time, maybe.
But ANYWAY. Fatal Vision is an incredible book. It's exhaustively detailed and clocks in at 684 pages, but I read it pretty fast, even just on my commute to and from work each day. As the reader, you learn about Jeffrey MacDonald's life before and after the murders, his presumed innocence, the damning physical evidence against him, the many hearings and trials and indictments, and finally how the author, Joe McGinniss, became convinced of MacDonald's guilt.
While MacDonald sued McGinniss for defaming him, there really is no page saying, MACDONALD IS GUILTY. THAT'S IT. BELIEVE IT. McGinniss says explicitly at the end that that's what HE believes (and I think you'd be pretty dense not to agree with him), but there's definitely room to draw your own conclusions.
As a human, I loved the detail about all the people involved in the case. As a journalism student, I found McGinniss's tales of the struggle to report this story heartbreaking and invaluable.
The only criticism I have of this book is that it can get a little repetitive. Because the case was heard so many times as it went through the army, then the grand jury, then the trial, then the 4th circuit (sorry if I forgot one), and because McGinniss wants to be as exhaustive as possible, he repeats the same evidence many, many times. This is good because it drives the points home (I would have no problem explaining to a friend in detail why MacDonald is guilty), but after a while I was like, okay, I know about the holes in the pajama top matching up with Colette's wounds.
I love this book and I think any fan of mystery, true crime or just really good reporting would feel the same. It will stay with me for a very long time, and I'm happy about that.
But ANYWAY. Fatal Vision is an incredible book. It's exhaustively detailed and clocks in at 684 pages, but I read it pretty fast, even just on my commute to and from work each day. As the reader, you learn about Jeffrey MacDonald's life before and after the murders, his presumed innocence, the damning physical evidence against him, the many hearings and trials and indictments, and finally how the author, Joe McGinniss, became convinced of MacDonald's guilt.
While MacDonald sued McGinniss for defaming him, there really is no page saying, MACDONALD IS GUILTY. THAT'S IT. BELIEVE IT. McGinniss says explicitly at the end that that's what HE believes (and I think you'd be pretty dense not to agree with him), but there's definitely room to draw your own conclusions.
As a human, I loved the detail about all the people involved in the case. As a journalism student, I found McGinniss's tales of the struggle to report this story heartbreaking and invaluable.
The only criticism I have of this book is that it can get a little repetitive. Because the case was heard so many times as it went through the army, then the grand jury, then the trial, then the 4th circuit (sorry if I forgot one), and because McGinniss wants to be as exhaustive as possible, he repeats the same evidence many, many times. This is good because it drives the points home (I would have no problem explaining to a friend in detail why MacDonald is guilty), but after a while I was like, okay, I know about the holes in the pajama top matching up with Colette's wounds.
I love this book and I think any fan of mystery, true crime or just really good reporting would feel the same. It will stay with me for a very long time, and I'm happy about that.
January 3, 2012
Very insightful, revealing, and horrifying portrait of a murderous psychopath and how he attempts to manipulate others to his own advantage. I read this book with an open mind about the case, unsure if I believed MacDonald had killed his wife and two young daughters. It lays everything out there clearly for the reader...from the physical evidence, the circumstantial, the hard to believe story MacDonald told...and perhaps most disturbing, transcripts of the author's interviews with MacDonald showcasing his thought processes and priorities. His narcissism, cool disregard for his murdered wife, and preoccupation with bedding women and bragging about his conquests was astonishing.
I found it amazing that the author set out to write this book alongside MacDonald to proclaim his innocence and tell his story...but became sickeningly convinced that actually he was indeed guilty. The book pulls you in and steadily ramps up the real life, true crime horror aspect as it steadily unfolds and reveals piece by piece every bit of information relevant to the case. I was also impressed by Colette MacDonald's stepfather Freddy Kassab's relentless pursuit of the truth. He refused to give up even when it seemed pointless, and wouldn't stop until he'd done everything possible to seek justice for his daughter and granddaughters. His hands on research and investigation (esp going back to the scene of the crime at the house at night, in the front room, disproving things that MacDonald had claimed, etc) was very enlightening and disturbing.
Good case study and good character study...although creepy and heart wrenching as well. If you like true crime and psychology, you'll enjoy this one!
I found it amazing that the author set out to write this book alongside MacDonald to proclaim his innocence and tell his story...but became sickeningly convinced that actually he was indeed guilty. The book pulls you in and steadily ramps up the real life, true crime horror aspect as it steadily unfolds and reveals piece by piece every bit of information relevant to the case. I was also impressed by Colette MacDonald's stepfather Freddy Kassab's relentless pursuit of the truth. He refused to give up even when it seemed pointless, and wouldn't stop until he'd done everything possible to seek justice for his daughter and granddaughters. His hands on research and investigation (esp going back to the scene of the crime at the house at night, in the front room, disproving things that MacDonald had claimed, etc) was very enlightening and disturbing.
Good case study and good character study...although creepy and heart wrenching as well. If you like true crime and psychology, you'll enjoy this one!
February 8, 2012
Jeffrey MacDonald used to be a household word in the US in the 1970s. He was an MD, an army captain whose wife and two children were murdered. He was in the house when the murders took place and he had minor injuries whereas the attacks on the others were brutal. This is about all that everybody involved can agree on.
MacDonald claimed three hippies did the murder; the initial US Army investigation concluded that MacDonald had killed his own family. He was found not guilty in an army hearing but after an extensive civilian investigation he was found guilty. He's been in and out of jail since then, mostly in since he lost his last appeal. But the controversy has not gone away.
McGinnis' book has been just as controversial. He befriended MacDonald and his team of supporters and lawyers and led everyone to believe he was convinced MacDonald was not guilty. Indeed, he probably did think so until late in the appeal when he changed his mind. Meanwhile he had gathered an enormous amount of information with the help of the team. The issue of journalistic ethics was widely discussed.
MacDonald is probably guilty, but there is a window of doubt through which one might glimpse innocence. In any case, the book is very well written and the whole case is fascinating even four decades later.
2011 No 185
MacDonald claimed three hippies did the murder; the initial US Army investigation concluded that MacDonald had killed his own family. He was found not guilty in an army hearing but after an extensive civilian investigation he was found guilty. He's been in and out of jail since then, mostly in since he lost his last appeal. But the controversy has not gone away.
McGinnis' book has been just as controversial. He befriended MacDonald and his team of supporters and lawyers and led everyone to believe he was convinced MacDonald was not guilty. Indeed, he probably did think so until late in the appeal when he changed his mind. Meanwhile he had gathered an enormous amount of information with the help of the team. The issue of journalistic ethics was widely discussed.
MacDonald is probably guilty, but there is a window of doubt through which one might glimpse innocence. In any case, the book is very well written and the whole case is fascinating even four decades later.
2011 No 185
Displaying 1 - 30 of 703 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.