11 Comments
Sep 18, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

I've listened to the podcast and have been pleasantly surprised. Hearing that the FX series it's a companion to is named after Errol Morris' book left me skeptical. I'm firmly in the MacDonald did it camp and it's like, do I really in the year of our lord 2020 really want to go down this "What if?" path with this case? Not really! So I am curious to see what the perspective of the show is. I'm continually surprised how interested I remain in this case. I grew up in North Carolina where it has loomed large for decades. I remember Fatal Vision being the first true crime book I was ever aware of. I probably first read it when I was 14 or so and have revisited it since along with Malcolm's book and a lot of other associated content. It's all very compelling these many years later and I guess I attribute that to the many paths it takes you (journalism, ethics, sociopathy, capitalism). In fact, just this week I went back and read this classic piece from the Washington Post magazine: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/since-1979-brian-murtagh-has-fought-to-keep-convicted-murderer-jeffrey-macdonald-in-prison/2012/12/05/3c8bc1c6-2da8-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_print.html?buffer_share=35194&src=longreads&utm_source=buffer

Expand full comment
Sep 18, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

When I re-read it last year, I realized that I had skimmed much of Fatal Vision the first several times I read it (starting at age 11) because I've never had much patience for what happens in a courtroom. (Notable exception: Bundy and Judge Cowart.) I am looking forward to the documentary, and I will binge the podcast as soon as all of its episodes are released (last one drops September 24th.) I have never read the Malcolm book and probably never will, unless I'm stuck in a rental property on a rained-out vacation, my Kindle breaks, and my other analog choices are a Bill O'Reilly novel and The Art of the Deal.

Expand full comment
author

I'll also note, apropos of nothing but because properties that want to raise doubts as to MacDonald's guilt never seem to, that said properties always seem to omit the anecdote about the good doctor driving a 16yo family friend across the country, and having sex with her during the entire trip. I understand that McGinniss's means of acquiring information about MacDonald's infidelities is not the klassiest, but...neither is MacDonald. And that particular instance wasn't an infidelity, but it was a felony. Acting like McGinniss is the only sleaze in the conversation is specious at best. - SDB

Expand full comment
author

...Just filed my review of A Wilderness Of Error for Primetimer. As frustrating as the book was, is the short version. - SDB

Expand full comment
founding
Sep 22, 2020Liked by Best Evidence

Just catching up. (I was honestly too depressed over the weekend to do anything else but read the NYT and cry.) I feel I’ve read everything about this case that isn’t a police report, but somehow I didn’t realize that fairly recent DNA tests did reveal the presence of blood that was neither McDonald’s nor his family’s at the scene. Now, there were no hits in CODIS, so whose blood it is and whether it’s related to the case may never be known. I also listened to Smerling on with Billy Jensen and Paul Holes, where he may have given a few more hints about where he (Smerling) stands on the case. Jensen and Holes were fairly clear about where they stood, and it’s firmly in the camp that McDonald is guilty. Leaving the issue of guilt or innocence aside, I honestly don’t have a problem with McGinniss’ actions. (Can’t believe I’m saying that, since I’m an obsessively play by the rules kind of girl.) McDonald was hoping to use McGinniss to promote himself as the all-American male. He thought he could control the narrative through charm and access. McGinness was hoping to use McDonald to write a bestseller. I might feel differently about the situation if McDonald were less intelligent and less well-educated. There doesn’t seem to be an imbalance of power in this equation. AND, while I enjoyed Janet Malcolm’s book, I thought she was full of shit. (As my niece would say, “Language!”) Unless you are not particularly bright, when a journalist reaches out to you, s/he is doing it for his/her benefit. Mike Wallace ain’t calling because he wants to have a cup of tea. Anyone who allows a journalist full access cannot then put the lid on Pandora’s box. McDonald played the odds on that one and lost. Again, I probably would feel differently if a sophisticated and intelligent journalist abused the trust of an ill-educated or mentally slow individual. In this case, I don’t think McDonald gets to claim he was done wrong.

Expand full comment