Jeffrey MacDonald and Fatal Vision

 

Once again this has become a blog in which I have started, erased, started again and erased again. The Jeffrey MacDonald case is an extremely long and complicated case. In fact, it has been called one of the “most litigated” and the “longest” criminal/murder case in U.S. History. The murders of MacDonald's pregnant wife and two young daughters occurred in 1970. There was an Article 32 Hearing through the Army in 1970 that ended with a recommendation that charges be dropped against him but no actual trial. Over the next several years both the Army and the Federal Government were investigating the murders and MacDonald remained their prime suspect. He was officially federally indicted on three counts of murder in January of 1975.

For the next few years things were in and out of the courts considering whether there were issues involving double jeopardy or MacDonald's right to a speedy trial. MacDonald finally went to trial in July of 1979 and was convicted. However, the following year an appeals court reversed the conviction saying his right to a speedy trial had been violated and he was freed on bail. In 1982 the United States Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the conviction.

From 1982 until 2018 it seems that there was always something, almost consistently in one court or another relating to Jeffrey MacDonald's conviction. There have been appeals against prosecutor misconduct, “new evidence,” asking for DNA testing and more. In the meantime MacDonald, despite having three life sentences to be served consecutively (one after another), became eligible for parole in 1991. He did not apply then. He was denied parole in 2005. Most believe, including MacDonald himself, if he were to confess to the crime he would likely get out of prison. However, at least for many years, MacDonald has claimed that this will never happen. He has professed that he will live in prison forever before admitting that he murdered his family. I guess we will not know if that is true until either he breaks that vow or he dies inside prison. It appears that his next parole hearing is in a few months in November of 2023. I am unclear whether he has applied or plans to speak. Most can be certain though that someone representing his wife's family will be there and may play an audio tape prepared by her stepfather. Alfred Kassab prepared the tape in 1989 when his health began to fail and asked that it be played at any future parole hearings for MacDonald. Kassab died in 1994.

What I will say is that it appears that his fights within the courts may be over. His last filing, and let me be fair after all of the filings and claims made in this case over the years it is not clear what exactly this filing was specifically other than a habeas corpus (arguing a wrongful detainment) filing, in 2019 was denied and once again his convictions were upheld. As we talk about the Fatal Vision case and allegations made by others we will likely discuss what some of the filings throughout the years were about.

In November of 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic MacDonald filed for relief through a federal prison system option called compassionate relief. I am going to take a minute to discuss this because it may be the only time that I disagreed with the court decision related to this case. Let me start by saying that I do not disagree with the fact that the courts denied him relief, I just disagree with their reasons, despite it apparently being legal. They issued their decision in April of 2021 saying that they were denying MacDonald's request because compassionate release did not apply to cases prior to November of 1987. Initially MacDonald's lawyers appealed the decision but apparently finding they had no real legal recourse they asked in September of 2021 that the appeal be dismissed. This means that unless he is granted parole, probably at his next hearing as it seems he is only up every fifteen years and he is almost eighty years old now, he will likely die in prison. But again, let's talk about this last decision by the courts and about compassionate release and then I promise we will get into the issues and controversies surrounding Fatal Vision.

Compassionate release, again is available in the federal prison system only. I am sure there are states who may have their own version of such but the term itself is a federal policy. Basically it is asking the courts to release an inmate and depending on the terms set by the judge no longer have them serve their time in a prison. To even qualify the inmate must claim one of two things. The first option is that a loved one to the inmate must be in the need of a caregiver and the only option left would be the inmate themselves. The second, and most asked for, and probably granted, is that the inmate themselves has medical issues that are either terminal or so severe that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) cannot adequately care for them or conditions inside risk their health more. Now, let's be fair, neither the BOP nor judges are extremely keen on granting this relief. They of course also have to consider the nature of the crime as well as the risk the inmate poses to the community. And, it is all subjective, meaning just because one person thinks the inmate qualifies under the terms, does not mean a judge will agree. In fairness judges are not doctors and are making a medical decision and we know that every side of a case can find someone to agree with them but that is the American Court System at all levels. When COVID hit and prisons were hit hard the BOP expanded their qualifications for compassionate release to include those who were at high risk. This opened the door to a multitude of filings based on pretty much anyone with an autoimmune disease and the courts were flooded with these filings. Most will argue that while on paper they had the right to file, the likelihood of having it granted still, as always, remained very slim.

Jeffrey MacDonald filed for compassionate release citing kidney disease, skin cancer and high blood pressure. Again, he was in his late seventies at the time of his filing. I personally cannot tell you how advanced these diseases are nor how much he suffers from them. The judge would have had to weigh these health issues and consider the crime in which MacDonald was convicted and determine whether he, or she, felt he was worthy of being released. In a sense it would have been a “parole hearing” of sorts, just not at the scheduled time. So, the fact that MacDonald has never taken responsibility for the crime could weigh heavily with the judge. But, in the end it would have been the judge's decision to make. Where I disagree with the decision, although again apparently legal, is that his case could not be considered because the crime was committed before 1987. It is my opinion that it was inmates such as Jeffrey MacDonald in which compassionate release was enacted and yet then to say because his crime was committed seventeen years prior to apparently the passing of the law disqualifies him seems rather unfair. Of course as time goes the number of inmates on the inside serving time for crimes committed before 1987 will dwindle but until then those inside will grow older and older and their health will deteriorate, which is what compassionate relief is about.

Aside from Jeffrey MacDonald's own court issues revolving around his conviction in the murders of his family there have been other controversies and court filings involved. The biggest and main one has revolved around the publication of a book called Fatal Vision by Joe McGinniss in 1983. A television mini-series was released the following year. There have been some, wrongly I might add, that have said that the book influenced the trial against MacDonald and in essence the jury. By the time the book was released MacDonald had been convicted, released on appeal and had his conviction reinstated and his sentence affirmed.

I will agree that especially those from my generation were heavily influenced not just by the book but the television movie, but again, the courts had already spoken on MacDonald's guilt, at least twice by then. I will also admit that the movie takes a few liberties and being young the first time I saw it I did not understand that was how things were done. I grew up in the era of true crime television movies and mini-series. It took a while to understand the difference between “based on” and “inspired by” for starters. For those who still may be confused, “based on” when referring to a book as this case was, means that the names will stay the same as those in the book and that events are basically as they were stated. That does not mean they cannot omit things or “combine things” if you will. They generally use the excuse of time restraints for the latter issue. From time to time, at least now you will sometimes see a disclaimer saying some things were changed for dramatic purposes. Really that is a legal way (so the producers cannot be sued) of saying, they made some things up. Now, “inspired by” is more often less about a book, although it can be, and will rarely use real names, or the names in a book, but the story is enough like the real one that they need to have a disclaimer, again more to prevent lawsuits than anything. But, in the end neither one has to follow the facts to the letter.

In some instances if you were to ask someone what they think about or know about Fatal Vision as it relates to the Jeffrey MacDonald case they will express that the book is false and that the author, Joe McGinniss lied about things to make money for the book. Some of these same people will tell you that Jeffrey MacDonald sued Joe McGinniss for publishing a false accusation against him and that MacDonald won. This candy coated statement is only partially true. It is true that MacDonald sued McGinniss over the book. He claimed a lot of things such as he was owed more money than he had received through the contract they agreed to and he also claimed that McGinniss had deceived him into believing he was his friend in order to gain access to his life and confidential information only to smear him in his book. The case was taken to trial with a jury of six and ended in a mistrial after the jury failed to come to a conclusion on any of the allegations. While I have never seen a ratio number related to where they were on the issue of whether McGinniss deceived MacDonald there was a ratio of 5-1 that MacDonald was likely owed more money than he had received. There was a portion of the contract that gave MacDonald a percentage of the profits. MacDonald's lawyers vowed to continue the fight and in the end the insurance company representing the publishing company decided to settle in the amount of $325,000. This is not an uncommon thing as the financial burden of continuing the fight could outweigh the court decision. In this case the insurance company and publisher felt that the $325,000 that was offered was far less than it would cost for yet another trial, added to what they had already paid in legal costs. They cut their losses before they lost anymore financially. It is unclear exactly how the settlement read but it does not appear that the company or McGinniss ever admitted that anything regarding the case was false or that MacDonald had been misrepresented.

In fact, until his death in 2014 McGinniss continued to maintain that he had an agreement with MacDonald that regardless of what he was allowed to view, see and be a part of that in the end it was his book and his opinions that would be published. He made it clear to MacDonald that when it was all over if he thought MacDonald was guilty, he would say so. It was McGinniss' belief that MacDonald's ego did not allow him to even consider at the time that McGinniss would come to any conclusion other than he was innocent of the crime. This became a huge contention and something that supporters of MacDonald have used for decades not only to discredit McGinniss, but also Fatal Vision itself.

I do want to point out that MacDonald did not retain all of that $325,000 that he received from the publishing company. It was said that he only received about $50,000 of that money and while I cannot say for certain I am going to guess that the bulk of that money either went to his attorney's from that case, or in the end was spent to keep the case in the courts which probably helped it gain the title of the longest criminal case in U.S. History, although to be fair $50,000 would not have got him far and I suspect a lot of his filings were done pro bono, meaning free from the lawyers. The rest of the settlement was said to have gone to Colette's mother and stepfather, Mildred and Alfred Kassab. I am going to be fair in saying I am uncertain if they had filed a wrongful death suit, this is most often the case, or revolved around some form of a “Son of Sam” law.

A “Son of Sam” law was the name given to the original such law in New York. Many states have their own versions of such laws now and I am sure they may be called something else but in essence they are all the same. It was enacted after the acts of David Berkowitz, a serial killer from New York. The law was in essence to prevent criminals, particularly murderers, to benefit from their crimes in any way. The media was, and continues to be, fascinated by crime and were willing to pay for information and exclusives, especially from the criminals themselves. The thought behind it was that large settlements from selling their stories would give a criminals not just more comforts in prisons but would give them the funds, not available to the average person to keep the cases in court and more of an opportunity to file what the court would consider frivolous lawsuits. To the general public these payments were seen as rewards for committing criminal acts so it should be no surprise that while there has been some push back and some states have had to revise some of their laws a bit, it is a rule that is well received for the most part.

Despite knowing a lot about this case as I have read several books and articles, watched many true crime and documentaries on the case and researched things more than once over time I researched once again to prepare for this blog. Initially it was going to be basically about the entire case, beginning to end. In the end I spent several days going over the multitude of things I found, along with information that has come about since my last research quest, and it was overwhelming to say the least. This is ultimately why pulling it all together was such a daunting task and has had me restarting and changing directions, more than once. My research stated that the two best resources on this case would be a website called Just the Facts: on the Jeffrey MacDonald case and Fatal Vision. To be fair supporters of MacDonald, would like disagree, especially about Fatal Vision. It would be more difficult to argue the website since there are lots of documents and they seemed to do a very good job of presenting arguments on both sides but also pointing out the flaws in the defense (and supporters) theory.

There are two main sources MacDonald supporters point to, at least in more “modern” times to tear down Fatal Vision, Joe McGinniss and the case in general. The first is a book called The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm. This book is mainly about the lawsuit and a rebuke of McGinniss. Ironically Malcolm was a journalist herself and she not only criticizes McGinniss but journalists and their tactics. Yes, a bit hypocritical. There is more information about a book called A Wilderness of Error by Errol Morris. It was also made into a documentary and it is a complete rebuke of the case, although not exactly based on facts.

Many of the arguments made within the book have been resolved through the courts yet Morris fails to mention that. Morris spends a lot of time on two people in particular. One is Helena Stoeckley, which if you know anything about this case then you know it is hard to mention the case without mentioning her. The second is retired U.S. Marshall Jim Britt. So, let's discuss these two individuals.

For MacDonald supporters Helena Stoeckley was the answer to everything for them. MacDonald had claimed to see four intruders in the home, three men and one woman. It is said that he told some that it was two white men and one black man and others that it was two black men and one white man. The only thing that remained consistent was a white woman with long blonde hair (was it a wig??), boots and a “floppy hat.” Early in the investigation a tip was called into the authorities that the “floppy hat” woman could have been Helena. One thing that has never been disputed is that Helena had an issue with drugs, something that would remain an issue throughout her short life. She would die in 1983 at the age of thirty of cirrhosis of the liver. She was also said to be a confidential police informant. This latter information would cause a lot of stir because there were those that believe(d) that it was this status that caused investigators to allegedly not consider her to be a serious suspect in the crime.

Helena herself was an issue. It seemed like every time Helena was spoken to she would change her position. Sometimes she claimed to not remember anything of that night; sometimes she would claim that both she and her boyfriend at the time, Greg Mitchell were at the scene; and other times she would say she was not there. In 1970 both she and Greg were given lie detector tests. Greg denied being at the MacDonald home and passed; Helena claimed at that time she was there and she also passed. It was a prime example of why lie detector tests are not allowed in court. Psychologists would say that they believe that she passed because she had convinced herself at times that she was there. It should be noted that along with all of the drug use and rehabilitation efforts that she went through, she was also treated several times for mental illness. It additionally it should be said that even on the occasions that Helena did claim to be in the home and told her version of what happened it never matched the time and evidence at the scene.

Greg Mitchell would die in 1982, also of cirrhosis of the liver. Upon their deaths people would claim that they had both confessed to several people that they were involved in the murders. Add to this the second person I mentioned earlier, Jim Britt, helped perpetuate the theory that Helena and Greg were involved. I will get more into him later though. So throughout the years it was believed by supporters that at the very least Helena was the “floppy hat” woman and if she was there then Greg must have been also.

This was all kind of blown out of the water in 2006 after DNA results were released and nothing matched to either Helena or Greg. Supporters had pushed for the DNA testing and while they expected there to be matches to Helena and Greg they had also touted for decades that hairs found in Colette's hands (one in each) would point to the killer. In their minds, or at least out their mouths, they would claim that the courts had not done the testing or were delaying because they did not want to admit they were wrong about MacDonald. In another blow to the supporters DNA showed that one of the hairs belonged to Colette herself, while the other belonged to MacDonald.

For me the fact that his hair was found in her hand, or even in any other places throughout the crime scene was not necessarily damaging to him, nor disproved his story. It was his home, his hair and DNA would be expected to be all over. Blood was another story and that had been proven long ago. But, then against I was not one of those going around claiming there was a conspiracy among people and the courts keeping MacDonald in prison and that DNA testing would absolutely prove his innocence.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, there are those who still firmly believe Helena Stoekley was involved in the murders. The overwhelming theory among them is that the authorities knew she was involved and while they could not control her completely and keep her quiet they first ignored, later suppressed and even later than that fabricated evidence that could have proved she was involved. People do not seem to realize that in order for this to happen there have to be so many people involved, through many agencies, and they must be working together with the ultimate goal of framing a man for the murders of his wife and daughters. The old adage “three people can keep a secret if two of them is dead” is not a saying for nothing. In this situation there would have had to have been dozens of people in on the cover up. And this brings us to the next person supporters want to hang their hat on.... Jim Britt.

By November 2005, when he came forward, Jim Britt was a retired U.S. Marshal. He would tell the defense attorney's that he had overheard Helena confess to being at the MacDonald home to prosecutor James Blackburn at the courthouse during the 1979 trial. He reported that he then heard Blackburn threaten Helena that if she testified she would be prosecuted. He gave them his story of how he had been able to hear this conversation. He told them that Helena was in a county jail and he had brought her to the courthouse the day of her testimony. The defense was convinced they had what they needed. They had a man, who worked for the government, willing to say that he saw and overheard the prosecutor threaten a defense witness. It all fit into the theory believed by MacDonald's supporters. Well, it appears that the defense jumped the gun in getting Britt in front of a judge and a hearing for MacDonald, or at least they did not do any research on him.

The prosecution was able to tear Britt's story apart. First, he was asked why it took him twenty-six years after the event to come forward with his claims. His story was that he had not told the story out of respect to the judge, Judge Dupree. The problem with that answer was even if it was true, Dupree died in 1995, still ten years before he came forward. Next Britt had claimed to have picked up and transported Helena from a particular county jail to the courthouse. Well, while Helena was held at a county jail, it was not the one Britt claimed. It was also discovered that not only was Britt not involved in the transporting of Helena at all, but was not even working that day. So all of his claims of hearing the conversation fell apart.

There was never even proof that the conversation even took place at all. Some have argued that the idea of the conversation made little sense because while the defense planned to call Helena she had insisted to them at the time that she either could not remember or was not at the home. So it was not like she had told them she was there and planned to testify to that and Blackburn was attempting to stop her. But, even if we want to believe that this conversation did occur, maybe even how Britt claimed it was not necessarily wrong. There are many scenarios in which if Helena had testified saying that she was present in the home at the time of the crime that she could have been prosecuted, just as Britt claimed that Blackburn told her.

In court her story would be under oath and sworn to be the truth. If she claimed under oath to have been in the home and involved in the murders she could have been prosecuted with anything from perjury (if they believed her statement in court to be a lie), to lying to police when she had previously told them she was not there, to obstruction of justice, to ultimately murder if they thought they could later make a case. The problem was that her statement of events when she did say she was present did not match the evidence and nothing in the decades since has pointed to her so the likelihood of her being charged with murder would have been unlikely.

In my opinion in the last fifty-three years nothing has been discovered to exonerate, or even point the finger way from, Jeffrey MacDonald in the murders of his wife and daughters. I obviously did not touch every piece of evidence here and you are welcome to research it all yourself but be prepared to fall into a very, very deep rabbit hole. I believe the courts have been very lenient in entertaining any and pretty much all things that the defense attorney's over the years have asked for or presented. Yet, each and every time the courts have agreed with the prosecution and they have repeatedly upheld the convictions and sentence.

Some may believe that since Jeffrey MacDonald himself has stated he knows that he could likely be released from prison if he admitted the murders, and he has been married 2002, that his refusal to do so must mean he is innocent. I admit that this stumps me a little but then I remember all the things said about him and his personality and all of the things I have seen from him myself on video. Joe McGinniss claimed in Fatal Vision that MacDonald's ego was huge and he was convinced that McGinniss would never believe in his guilt because he would convince him differently. I believe that ego stands today. He has a band of followers; he remains in the news.

Others may want to argue that since in recent weeks Leslie Van Houten, a Charles Manson follower, was released from prison after spending over fifty years in prison why not release MacDonald. It is a valid point but I think one of the big sticking points is that Van Houten admitted her crime and has expressed remorse over the years. Whether you believe her or not is not the issue. The last I have heard MacDonald has not only refused to do so and he has vowed he never will. MacDonald is not a stupid man and at almost eighty years old he has to know his next parole chance will likely be his last. If he dies inside his supporters will continue to argue that an innocent man died in prison but we cannot know that would be the reason. It is possible that at his age and health he could receive parole without admitting guilt; it is possible that he does admit guilt just to be released before he dies, but I to not believe if he dies inside that it will mean he was innocent. He is likely “Shawshanked” by now. This is a term I use for people who have been in prison for so long the fear of the outside life or an inability to thrive on the outside is present. Surely MacDonald is there. Only time will tell what happens but regardless where MacDonald is when he does die, I will never believe in his innocence.