Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the Macdonald Murders

by Jerry Allen Potter, Fred Bost

Demonstrating that the MacDonald jury did not hear the whole truth about the evidence in the sensational 1970 murder case, a shocking book reveals why physical evidence and witness testimony that could have freed MacDonald were withheld from the jury.

Genres: True Crime, Nonfiction

463 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[Lewis Weinstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book describes in heart-wrenching detail the evidence of innocence that was covered up by the prosecutors in one of the great travesties of justice in our history. I believe MacDonald was innocent, and there is no question he did not receive a fair trial. The likely murderers were linked to the base "brass" and were protected by the prosecutors.

Anyone who has read Joe McGinniss' Fatal Vision should read Fatal Justice. In my view McGinniss is an unscrupulous author who believed MacDonald was innocent but changed his book when his editor told him no one would buy it if he stuck to that conclusion.

I corresponded with Jeffrey MacDonald in prison as part of my research for my novel A Good Conviction. The man has lost 40 years of his life, in addition to his wife and children, and is still trying to prove his innocence. I believe a new trial is scheduled.

[Giulia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Coming up on the 52nd anniversary of Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen's murders, I picked this book up expecting to get some kind of understanding on the defense's position that Jeff Macdonald did not kill his family. This book is basically just filled with old arguments slanted toward Jeff Macdonald's innocence.. Frankly, I believe the evidence and trial transcripts not these authors.. The DNA on the hair found in Colette's hand was finally tested and was proven to be one person's- Jeff Macdonald's. Also, Jimmy Britt was proven to be a liar!! Helena Stoeckly was not the woman Ken Mica saw that night by the bus stop with the floppy hat and boots.. Ken Mica says he knew Helena Stoeckly and she was NOT who he saw. So many red herrings thrown up by the authors-- Jeff Macdonald did receive a fair trial and his case is the most litigated murder case that I believe the US has ever had. I pray he will just finally admit the truth. It is a slap in the face to actually innocent people (who don't even have a portion of the resources Jeff has had) in prison to say that Jeff did not get a fair trial. The supreme court even heard arguments on Jeff's behalf-twice. Why did I bother to read this? Joe McGinniss is not the one who killed his wife and children-Joe could have made a lot more money by stating that even after the trial etc he still believed Jeff was innocent.. But, Joe McGinniss wrote a book based on the evidence.. The fact that is very hard for some people to believe because it is so heinous and horrible... Dr Jeff Macdonald murdered his innocent wife and two kids -brutally.. End of story. If you really want the balanced story based on facts please read- "Scales of Justice" by Christina Masewicz.

[Walter · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Fatal Justice" is the best answer to the question, "why should you never read a true crime book that was commissioned by the defense attorneys of the book's subject." This book is hopelessly biased and fairly ridiculous in its reasoning. The basic premise of "FJ" is the contension that the McDonald family murders at Fort Bragg, NC in 1970 were the work of a crazed band of hippies, not Jeffrey McDonald, the man who was convicted of the crimes. Despite what the authors contend, the evidence that they present in favor of the "crazed hippie" theory of the crime falls into one of two categories. Much of the evidence was considered and rejected by McGinniss in his book "Fatal Vision". For example, the contension that people who are high on LSD could organize a murder party, commit an organized murder targeting a very specific household, and then leave without being seen or suspected is crazy. "FV" deals with this contension at length, and the mind-altering drugs that these hippies were supposedly taking would have made any organized activity impossible. The second category is the horde of supposed witnesses that the authors of "FJ" pulled out of the woodwork to support the "hippie theory" of the crime. Granted that "FJ" was written after "FV" had already been a best-seller, and after a TV mini-series about the murders had already aired on national TV. It is amazing how, after a case like this becomes so notorious, so many people come forward claiming to have information about the crime. The authors take the testimony of these "Johnny come lately" witnesses at face value, without considering the possibility that these people may be trying to cash in on their "15 minutes of fame" after the launch of the McDonald case into the national spotlight. Of course, why would the authors of "FJ" question the credibility of witnesses, no matter how ridiculous, who bolster their case? It is the duty of the defense attorney to present all evidence that points to their clients' innocence, and to ignore evidence that points to his guilt. While this may be good for defense attorneys, it is bad for authors of true crime books.

I would only recommend this book to someone who wants to understand the side of the McDonald case that is opposed to that presented by "FV". For anyone else, this book is really not worth your time.

[Mary Ronan Drew · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the book jacket: ...a well-documented argument for the other side of the Jeffrey MacDonald case--an argument that the prosecution mishandled key crime-scene evidence, withheld potentially exculpatory material, and even discounted confessions from other suspects. Whether you change your mind about MacDonald's role in the murder of his family, you will learn much about the case that puts it in a new light. For example, the army narrowed in on MacDonald as their prime suspect very early in the investigation, and discouraged the FBI from developing alternate theories. And the judge in the case, Franklin Dupree Jr. appeared to have been biased in favor of the prosecution. Janet Malcolm, the New Yorker writer who wrote The Journalist and the Murderer (about MacDonald's relationship with McGinniss), called this book "quietly convincing."

2011 No 187

[Kid · Rating 2 out of 5]

I defy anyone to read the first couple of chapters of this book and not have their strong belief in MacDonald's guilt at least somewhat shaken. However as the book goes on, its impact becomes more and more diluted. Ultimately the book suffers from a myopic view of the case and rather stodgy writing style. Time has not been kind on its conclusions.

The book begins with a story of one of the authors meeting with Ted Gunderson, a former FBI agent turned private detective. Gunderson tells the author that MacDonald is not guilty- not just on legal loopholes, but truly innocent. The author begins his investigation with a grandiose piece of spiel- that (with his co-author) they would not take anything for granted, and would look solely at the evidence and follow it wherever it goes. If the book had stuck to this premise it would have proven to be far more convincing. Ultimately it hammers only the defense point of view for 450 pages which becomes a bit of a slog when the same issues repeat over and over again.

That said, the book has some genuine highlights. It begins at the crime scene at 544 Castle Drive and lists out in great detail quite how botched the crime scene was. Certainly, for those who have only read Fatal Vision there are some points which are clear winners here- for example could the 'pajama fibres' have come from MacDonald's bottoms (on him the entire time) rather than his top? This would mean there was no longer any necessary clash between MacDonald's story of only ever entering his daughters' rooms without his pyajama top versus there being plenty of fibres found there. There are plenty of little points like this throughout the book- some convincing, others not.

Another positive is that the book adds a lot more 'colour' to what most people know about the case. The two authors have chased down various people- from previously anonymous officers who were first at the crime scene, to jury members at trial, to FBI lab assistants, to just people on Fort Bragg at the time. In Fatal Vision for example one police officer holds Helena Stoeckley and a group of friends and waits assistance to arrest them all, but when assistance does not come he leaves them. I always thought there must be more to that story, and in this book you get the full backstory of what actually happened. It's nice to see a wider view of the crime from different perspectives- especially when the authors are not using it as a stage to force their viewpoint on you. Whether you agree with what individual says, it's interesting to hear different views.

The chapters on Helena Stoeckley are both the high points of the book and the beginning of the low points that eventually derail the argument. On the high points, making use of government files the authors paint a picture of how the crime could have happened. There are a series of events that Stoeckley would bring up time and time again which the authors feel could be corroborated. For example Stoeckley recalls going to Dunkin Donuts on the night of the murder. The manager there recalls there being blood in the sink that night (and possibly even recalls chasing people out of the shop after someone leaves blood in the sink). For me, it is this sort of thing that is the best proof- evidence corroborated by people who did not know each others stories. There is also proof that a black guy who wore a military jacket used to hang around on Fort Bragg with Stoeckley, with a baseball bat, and was very aggressive.

It's hard to read these early chapters and think that the investigators were not either corrupt or stupid to not immediately drag Stoeckley into an interview room and get a full, coherent story. However the book's unyielding defense of MacDonald's innocence and Stoeckley's guilt becomes tenuous as the book continues.

The other book protesting MacDonald's innocence is Errol Morris's A Wilderness of Error. I found this book more readable than Fatal Justice, better researched, better presented, less biased- and because of this, far less convincing. Morris delves into every statement Stoeckley makes, and in truth he spends far too long talking about her. The more time you hear what Stoeckley was up to and what she was saying to different people, the more certain you become that she was talking nonsense in a dark and strange way to gain something between respect and attention. Her story changes every single time, often saying things that could not have happened or that had been proven incorrect.

This book avoids that conclusion by simply removing from the record anything that Stoeckley said that made no sense. Stoeckley in her 'confession' to Gunderson explains how they had a discussion with MacDonald before attacking him- something that did not happen according to MacDonald. This is not mentioned in the book. Stoeckley mentioned dozens of people over the years who perpetrated the crime with her- this book mentions briefly that she said in her earliest confession that one of the perpetrators she named was actually in jail at the time, but concludes that Stoeckley deliberately told this lie because otherwise the real murderers might kill her, which stands out as a particularly unconvincing explanation.

Crucially also, when Gunderson 'interviewed' Stoeckley and got her confession, Gunderson paid and coerced Stoeckley to make that confession. This is something noted in Morris's book and pretty much discounts anything that came out of these sessions. Gunderson had all the investigation files, and he forcefed a story to Stoeckley (which could plausibly have been corroborated by the existing evidence, including a trip to Dunkin Donuts) that she then repeated to him. The co-authors would have known this at the time of writing, but made no mention of any of this. The cross-contamination of evidence in the mid-1980s as private investigators under MacDonald's pay
dragged out any story they could, even if the stories did not make sense, mean that a lot of the so-called witnesses (few of whom mentioned anything in 1970) are aware of all the other stories that others are telling and have stories that miraculously link up perfectly with these- despite having spent 15 years without telling anyone.

The idea of 'following the evidence' has therefore been swiftly abandoned. The reader from this point on has to constantly second guess what the 'other side of the story' might have been to all of this evidence- no such 'other side' is ever mentioned in the book (unless the authors consider it weak enough evidence to successfully argue against it).

By the time we hit the physical evidence section, it becomes obvious that the authors are no longer interested in actually proving innocence, but rather rely on the defense not having sufficient time to investigate the physical evidence pre-trial. This is the authors looking for loopholes, while pretending they are actually establishing innocence. The point over disclosure becomes something of a tortured point through the book, and again we do not hear the other side of the story. The point the authors are trying to make- that a fake hair was found on a hairbrush (which could have come from a wig, such as the one an intruder was wearing), blood evidence that MacDonald's blood was found where he said he lay down, black wool on the murder weapon that did not match clothing in the house, wax not matching candles in the house, and a hair which did not belong to MacDonald was found in Collete's hand- was all exculpatory evidence that was deliberately hidden from the defense. (All of this evidence was in fact available to be seen by the defense, but as they were not furnished with notes explaining what each piece of evidence was there was no way the significance could have been found- 'needle in a haystack' is the phrase the authors regularly use).

Whether the prosecution try to get one over on the defence or vice versa is likely to happen in every case. Whether any of those items they list proves MacDonald's innocence is unlikely. Is it not more likely that the fake hair was from one of the daughter's dolls, rather than a wig-wearing intruder stopping to brush her wig? The blood evidence is sketchy and not detailed, and does nothing to disprove the fundamental story that MacDonald's story could not have happened due to the way the blood of his family was distributed. Pages and pages are dedicated to the black wool in the book, with absolutely no potential explanation from the prosecution given. My interest was piqued and I had to go to the official appeal transcripts to find the other side of the story about these- and found that they are far less consequential than the book makes out. In fact the book deliberately obscures what the black wool actually is. The wax, when you again reach out to copies of the appeal, was very old and some of it could be tied to wax from birthday candles.

And finally you come to the hair found in the palm of Collete's hand. Paragraphs and paragraphs are dedicated to this hair- which is strongly insinuated could ONLY come from the body of the killer. MacDonald has blonde hair, the hair found is brown. Therefore, MacDonald is not the killer. This is what the authors tell us time and time again. And this is where time has not been kind to this book.

In 1997 the DNA on this hair was tested. The hair belongs to Jeffrey MacDonald. One wonders whether the authors now therefore believe in his guilt- or rather they have come up with another reason why this is definitely not the hair of the murderer, despite their previous statements.

By the final few chapters the book is a slog to get through. Hammering the same points again and again it occasionally lightens the mood only to propose a very strange reading of events with far less proof than it took to convict MacDonald (Brian Murtagh deliberately falsified evidence; the daughter of a general was involved in the killing so there was a mass cover-up; a man who had escaped a mental institution and was so drunk he could barely stand up ten years later remembers phoning the MacDonald house on the night of the murders and remembers hearing a coffee table being flipped over).

The book spends a lot of time denigrating Fatal Vision and its author, Joe McGinniss. Unfortunately the authors have managed to create a book more one-sided, less readable, and fundamentally less convincing than McGinniss managed.

In one chapter they suggest that McGinniss should have been punished in court for writing a book that entirely ignored the piles of evidence that did not support the author's viewpoint.

One hopes that the authors understood the irony of that statement.


2 stars- one to read for MacDonald completionists only, and those willing to dive into official documents to find the full stories around each claim made.

[Monica Colley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I still believe MacDonald is guilty, but I think all the evidence should have been given to the defense especially the lab notes then have the jury decide from all that. Jeff is the only one who really knows what happened. I hope we find out before he dies in jail!!!

I love the quote in the beginning of the book, perfect for the point Bost is trying to say in the book

"Let the jury consider their verdict," the king said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

-Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

[Carl Wells · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have known some of the MP's there that night. They honestly believed MacDonald did it. They were street MPs, not investigators. What has been shown in this book from the FOIA documents present one of the worse cases of wrongful & malicious prosecutions ever perpetrated by the US government. Over the near 20 years at Bragg I drove by those quarters when they were under DOJ control and after returned to government control many times. I always wondered, despite the the evidence why the Kasaabs turned on MacDonald. This book answers that question.... This is one of the most disturbing books I have read in some time.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Fatal vision long ago, then Janet Malcolm's book about the civil trial.

Finally this book.

WOW, how an author can twist and selectively choose "the facts" to prove a case.

No sensible motive has ever been advanced to explain why MacDonald would have killed his family.

And so much abuse by investigators and the prosecutor in withholding evidence that MacDonald is innocent!

Not a fair trial by any standard.

2012, a few years ago he was up for parole and he refused to admit guilt.

His parole was denied.

He is still in prison.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeff MacDonald, guilty or innocent? If you read "Fatal Vision" then he is guilty and no one else could have murdered his wife and children. If you read "Fatal Justice," then it is impossible for him to have committed the crimes. When it all comes down to it, only Jeff MacDonald truly knows what happened.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost’s Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders is a rebuttal written by Joe McGinnis in his work Fatal Vision. While Potter and Bost’s work is full of documentation, as is the work of McGinnis, it is a little harder to follow their logic in proclaiming MacDonald’s innocence as opposed to the outcome you determine as a reader of McGinnis. Unless you like to follow the case of MacDonald, you will not want to plod through the mire of most of the same information only packaged differently. First, they claim that a great deal of evidence has either been suppressed or kept from the jury but my logic thinks their approach is a “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense. In addition, MacDonald has had Cracker Jack legal defense teams since he was formally charged in the mid-1970s. At no time does this writing team suggest that this evidence leads to MacDonald’s innocence, but only that he may not have been convicted had it been, which begs the question why couldn’t they prove reasonable doubt. At least McGinnis indicates that two of the initial MacDonald jurors had tears because they didn’t want him to be guilty. Nothing like this was even remotely suggested in Potter and Bost’s work. Another claim they make is that at no time was Helen Stoeckley, the daughter of a retired lieutenant colonel, seriously investigated, even though she “confessed” to having been there on the night of the murders. Within this book is also a detailed account of MacDonald suiting McGinnis for not giving an account of what MacDonald wanted but something else and then the authors flagrantly telling its readers that McGinnis had the power to convict MacDonald from his pages. The last item that I have taken exception with this book is that the authors, who clearly are fans of MacDonald, extol his virtues of helping others while incarcerated. What I have taken away from reading both books is that no author has dared to “out” the name of her connection as being a military brat.

[Tomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having grown up near where this crime happened and having a grandfather who was a local sheriff, I can remember the panic and horror. At six, this made a huge impression. I was in high school when the trial occurred. I remember meeting one of the prosecution team, as well as the judge, at a cookout. I am reading all of the books written, and this one brings home how many games can be played in the courtroom. Guilt or innocence doesn't seem to matter, just the manipulation of the rules.

[Ryan Nary · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Too often in modern forensics, a desired conclusion is reached first, and science is given the task of interpreting the facts in such a way as to validate this conclusion, even in defiance of common sense."

--Harvey Silvergate, former MacDonald attorney

[Rhoda D'Ettore · Rating 5 out of 5]

This case took place a few years before I was born, and I have been fascinated with it ever since. I never thought the man was guilty, and as an adult, I fail to see how he could have been convicted since:
1.) He was tried first by the Army, then by the federal govt when the Army Judge dismissed and apologized to him! That is double jeopardy

2.) The MPs tore apart the crime scene. Any evidence against him would be contaminated--- in that scenario, even had he done it, he still should have been released on a technicality.

3.) The woman who admitted to being there, not only had owned elements of the outfit MacDonald described, but admitted she was there-- AND an MP saw her at 4am down the street, in the rain. This equals reasonable doubt.

This book however, delves into the requests for DNA, the wig hairs, Prosecutorial misconduct, and even the analysis of the candle wax-- the dripped wax did not make the home candles. So... he killed his family, then poured wax around... ran down the street in the middle of a rainy night to dispose of the candle so it would never be found, ran back and stabbed himself? But when the MPS got there he wasn't wet???

NOT GUILTY --- Nice going defense team with this book to show the truth. Only sorry the man is still in prison! :(

[J.M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read everything else I could on the MacDonald murders, I was convinced of his guilt going into this book. I doubted anything in this could change my mind. However, I was wrong. Apparently a LOT of evidence was suppressed during the civil trial in 1979, evidence only found after documents were released using FOIA. Evidence that shows there were others in the MacDonald home, even though the book "Fatal Vision" claims there was not.

I didn't think my opinion would change, but it did. If nothing else, MacDonald deserves a fair trial with ALL evidence presented, not just what the prosecution showed the jurors in '79 to implicate him in the crime. The case is appalling, not only the murder but the miscarriage of justice that followed.

Extremely interesting book. A must-read for anyone who's read "Fatal Vision" by McGinniss if only to get both sides of the story and decide for yourself.

[Mark Moore · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book features tons of research in the FOIA documents on the case. Regardless of whether MacDonald is innocent or guilty, this much is certain: the crime scene was badly mismanaged, evidence was lost, and—even worse—evidence was purposely withheld from trial. The judge was corrupt and was the father-in-law of the Assistant U.S. Attorney who pressed the Justice Department to prosecute MacDonald after he was acquitted by the army. The book also provides in-depth coverage of the Helena Stoeckly issue.

[Gayle Gordon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Borrowed from Dallas Public Library through ILL via Commerce Public Library.
Not an easy read. I had to slog through lots of information and notes, but it did make me think. Made me wonder what was going on in the MacDonald case. I'm not convinced he's innocent, but there might have been some shady stuff going on there. He probably didn't get a fair trial.

[Kim · Rating 3 out of 5]

More facts than Errol Morris' recent book - this one finally convinced me MacDonald is probably innocent. The McClesky decision is scary. Let him out already.