"Fatal Vision" is an excellent TV movie, based on the novel by the same name. All of the cast give top performances. Karl Malden clearly deserved the Emmy he won for playing Freddy Kassab. Eva Marie Saint was equally good as Mildred Kassab. Gary Cole portrayed Capt. Jeffrey MacDonald, MD, superbly. The supporting roles all were played very well – from the defense attorneys, to the prosecutors, to the judges, to author Joe McGinniss, to the murder victims.
I haven't read the book, so I have only the movie to go on as to MacDonald's guilt or innocence. But, I have checked other historical sources for accuracy, and checked the Internet for Web sites about MacDonald. The story seems to be presented factually, and the screenplay, direction and technical aspects of the production all excel.
All of the opinions in the world on the Internet won't change a court verdict or determine the guilt or innocence of a person convicted of a crime. Yet, one can understand how people will form opinions or be interested in expressing their views. I wouldn't do it normally, but for one thing. In all the reviews on this film as of the time of my writing, no one has said they have the experience of jury service. Perhaps such comments will help people understand the jury process and the resolution of this case.
I have served on three juries for criminal cases in the past. In each case, I sat through the jury selection process. Out of the 12 people finally selected for a jury (or 9 or fewer in lesser crime cases), there always will be some, however few or many, who take the charge seriously that a person is innocent until proved guilty; and that a verdict of guilty can only be reached when the jury is convinced beyond a doubt. The three cases I sat on were not murder, and ranged in type and seriousness. One of them was dismissed before the jury deliberated. In both other cases, the juries found the accused innocent. I was one of a few people who had many doubts and questions based on the prosecution's case.
The only sure-fire, clear-cut cases of a person's guilt in committing a crime are when there are witnesses. But, most murders don't have witnesses. Therefore, circumstantial evidence often is the only basis on which to try and judge a case. And that's precisely where the conscientious conclusion of each and every juror must be the same to find a person guilty.
So it was in the MacDonald case. Regardless of the poor handling of the crime scene, what was there and wasn't there amounted to a mountain of circumstantial evidence along with MacDonald's testimony. The movie shows how Colette's parents believed in their son-in-law's innocence for so long, and how Freddy Kassab campaigned to have him cleared. But after the lengthy investigations failed to turn up any of the hippies that MacDonald said committed the murders and attacked him, Freddy went over the transcript of MacDonald's original military hearing. The discrepancies he found there moved him to pursue further and that led to his belief that MacDonald had lied and had committed the murders himself.
These various matters are covered in the movie. One thing that wasn't in the movie was a demonstration by the prosecution of how the puncture wounds through MacDonald's pajama top could be so clean and smooth, as they were found to be. The prosecution used an ice pick on a shirt identical to MacDonald's, and stabbed it repeatedly against a ham. The results were just as those with his PJ tops that were found on his wife's body, which had been stabbed multiple times. They also repeated the demonstration shown in the movie. One person held the shirt as MacDonald said he did, while the prosecuting attorney stabbed at the shirt with the ice pick. As in the movie, that action tore the shirt in the various punctures. Yet, MacDonald repeatedly stated that he defended himself in that way against his attackers.
Now, if I'm sitting on that jury, I have just seen proof beyond a doubt that MacDonald has lied about fending off attackers with his pajama top. How much more has he lied about, or will he lie about? But even more obvious, then, is the question – who stabbed his wife's body through his pajama tops if not him? And why would they? You see, the man convicted himself. There was a mountain of evidence against him. The different blood types of each family member, his foot print in blood, the use of weapons from his house that he denied were his and were all left behind with no finger prints, his being overpowered by three addicts high on drugs at the time that he says he heard his wife screaming in the other room, the lack of any signs of a real struggle – all of these things built a case of undoubted guilt in the minds of the jurors. I would have come to the same conclusion.
Reading the Web sites today that keep alive MacDonald's protest of his innocence, I find nothing to question or challenge his conviction. Nowhere do his defenders refute the core evidence – the blood samples and locations, MacDonald's pajama top, and the murder weapons found so conveniently with fingerprints wiped off. Nowhere do his defenders provide any new evidence. They just protest his innocence while picking at straws of legal procedure and loudly blame everyone else. These seem to be red herrings, perhaps to elicit sympathy and donations to milk this horrendous murder case for all it can earn the protesters.
I haven't read the book, so I have only the movie to go on as to MacDonald's guilt or innocence. But, I have checked other historical sources for accuracy, and checked the Internet for Web sites about MacDonald. The story seems to be presented factually, and the screenplay, direction and technical aspects of the production all excel.
All of the opinions in the world on the Internet won't change a court verdict or determine the guilt or innocence of a person convicted of a crime. Yet, one can understand how people will form opinions or be interested in expressing their views. I wouldn't do it normally, but for one thing. In all the reviews on this film as of the time of my writing, no one has said they have the experience of jury service. Perhaps such comments will help people understand the jury process and the resolution of this case.
I have served on three juries for criminal cases in the past. In each case, I sat through the jury selection process. Out of the 12 people finally selected for a jury (or 9 or fewer in lesser crime cases), there always will be some, however few or many, who take the charge seriously that a person is innocent until proved guilty; and that a verdict of guilty can only be reached when the jury is convinced beyond a doubt. The three cases I sat on were not murder, and ranged in type and seriousness. One of them was dismissed before the jury deliberated. In both other cases, the juries found the accused innocent. I was one of a few people who had many doubts and questions based on the prosecution's case.
The only sure-fire, clear-cut cases of a person's guilt in committing a crime are when there are witnesses. But, most murders don't have witnesses. Therefore, circumstantial evidence often is the only basis on which to try and judge a case. And that's precisely where the conscientious conclusion of each and every juror must be the same to find a person guilty.
So it was in the MacDonald case. Regardless of the poor handling of the crime scene, what was there and wasn't there amounted to a mountain of circumstantial evidence along with MacDonald's testimony. The movie shows how Colette's parents believed in their son-in-law's innocence for so long, and how Freddy Kassab campaigned to have him cleared. But after the lengthy investigations failed to turn up any of the hippies that MacDonald said committed the murders and attacked him, Freddy went over the transcript of MacDonald's original military hearing. The discrepancies he found there moved him to pursue further and that led to his belief that MacDonald had lied and had committed the murders himself.
These various matters are covered in the movie. One thing that wasn't in the movie was a demonstration by the prosecution of how the puncture wounds through MacDonald's pajama top could be so clean and smooth, as they were found to be. The prosecution used an ice pick on a shirt identical to MacDonald's, and stabbed it repeatedly against a ham. The results were just as those with his PJ tops that were found on his wife's body, which had been stabbed multiple times. They also repeated the demonstration shown in the movie. One person held the shirt as MacDonald said he did, while the prosecuting attorney stabbed at the shirt with the ice pick. As in the movie, that action tore the shirt in the various punctures. Yet, MacDonald repeatedly stated that he defended himself in that way against his attackers.
Now, if I'm sitting on that jury, I have just seen proof beyond a doubt that MacDonald has lied about fending off attackers with his pajama top. How much more has he lied about, or will he lie about? But even more obvious, then, is the question – who stabbed his wife's body through his pajama tops if not him? And why would they? You see, the man convicted himself. There was a mountain of evidence against him. The different blood types of each family member, his foot print in blood, the use of weapons from his house that he denied were his and were all left behind with no finger prints, his being overpowered by three addicts high on drugs at the time that he says he heard his wife screaming in the other room, the lack of any signs of a real struggle – all of these things built a case of undoubted guilt in the minds of the jurors. I would have come to the same conclusion.
Reading the Web sites today that keep alive MacDonald's protest of his innocence, I find nothing to question or challenge his conviction. Nowhere do his defenders refute the core evidence – the blood samples and locations, MacDonald's pajama top, and the murder weapons found so conveniently with fingerprints wiped off. Nowhere do his defenders provide any new evidence. They just protest his innocence while picking at straws of legal procedure and loudly blame everyone else. These seem to be red herrings, perhaps to elicit sympathy and donations to milk this horrendous murder case for all it can earn the protesters.