Giadzy - Shop now
Your audiobook is waiting!
Enjoy a free trial on us
$0.00
  • One credit a month to pick any title from our entire premium selection to keep (you’ll use your first credit now).
  • Unlimited listening on select audiobooks, Audible Originals, and podcasts.
  • You will get an email reminder before your trial ends.
  • $14.95 a month after 30 days. Cancel online anytime.
Learn more about membership
Sold and delivered by Audible, an Amazon company
List Price: $18.91
By completing your purchase, you agree to Audible’s Conditions Of Use. and Amazon's Privacy Notice. Taxes where applicable.
Sold and delivered by Audible, an Amazon company

A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald Audible Audiobook – Unabridged

Errol Morris (Author), John Pruden (Narrator), Tantor Audio (Publisher)
4.0 4.0 out of 5 stars 418 ratings
See all formats and editions

Early on the morning of February 17, 1970, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a Green Beret doctor named Jeffrey MacDonald called the police for help. When the officers arrived at his home they found the bloody and battered bodies of MacDonald's pregnant wife and two young daughters. The word "pig" was written in blood on the headboard in the master bedroom. As MacDonald was being loaded into the ambulance, he accused a band of drug-crazed hippies of the crime.

So began one of the most notorious and mysterious murder cases of the 20th century. Jeffrey MacDonald was finally convicted in 1979 and remains in prison today. Since then a number of best-selling books - including Joe McGinniss's Fatal Vision and Janet Malcolm's The Journalist and the Murderer, along with a blockbuster television miniseries - have attempted to solve the MacDonald case and explain what it all means.

In A Wilderness of Error, Errol Morris, who has been investigating the case for nearly two decades, reveals that almost everything we know about that case is ultimately flawed, and an innocent man may be behind bars. In a masterful reinvention of the true-crime thriller, Morris looks behind the haze of myth that still surrounds these murders. Drawing on court transcripts, lab reports, and original interviews, Morris brings a complete 40-year history back to life and demonstrates how our often desperate attempts to understand and explain an ambiguous reality can overwhelm the facts.

A Wilderness of Error allows the listener to explore the case as a detective might, by confronting the evidence as if for the first time. Along the way Morris poses bracing questions about the nature of proof, criminal justice, and the media, and argues that MacDonald has been condemned not only to prison, but also to the stories that have been created around him. In this profoundly original meditation on truth and justice, Errol Morris reopens a famous closed case and reveals that, 40 years after the murder of MacDonald's family, we still have no proof of his guilt.

Previous slide of product details
  1. Listening Length
    14 hours and 31 minutes
  2. Author
    Errol Morris
  3. Narrator
    John Pruden
  4. Audible release date
    September 25, 2012
  5. Language
    English
  6. Publisher
    Tantor Audio
  7. ASIN
    B009GKGSEC
  8. Version
    Unabridged
  9. Program Type
    Audiobook
  10. See all details
Next slide of product details

Read & Listen

Switch between reading the Kindle book & listening to the Audible audiobook with Whispersync for Voice.
Get the Audible audiobook for the reduced price of $11.99 after you buy the Kindle book.
$0.99/month for the first 3 months
For a limited time, save 90% on Audible. Get this deal

Product details

Listening Length 14 hours and 31 minutes
Author Errol Morris
Narrator John Pruden
Whispersync for Voice Ready
Audible.com Release Date September 25, 2012
Publisher Tantor Audio
Program Type Audiobook
Version Unabridged
Language English
ASIN B009GKGSEC
Best Sellers Rank #114,187 in Audible Books & Originals (See Top 100 in Audible Books & Originals)
#196 in Criminology (Audible Books & Originals)
#610 in Murder True Crime
#1,313 in Criminology (Books)

Customer reviews

4 out of 5 stars
418 global ratings

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review

Customers say

Customers find the book interesting and well-researched. They appreciate the thorough examination of evidence and interviews. However, some readers feel the book is biased and wrongfully convicted. There are mixed opinions on the writing quality, narrative, and evidence retention. Some find it well-written and detailed, while others consider it repetitive and contrived.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

Select to learn more
ReadabilityResearch qualityWriting qualityNarrative qualityEvidence retentionOrganizationBias
65 customers mention "Readability"53 positive12 negative

Customers find the book interesting and well-written. They say it's fun to read, thorough, and worth their time. The writers keep things lighthearted and interesting, providing reliable footnotes. The story is compelling and worth the price.

"...However, his marshaling of all that evidence into a coherent book is admirable and readable...." Read more

"Very well done book...." Read more

"...Morris is infinitely patient, examining each shred of evidence and reassembling interviews and transcripts into a coherent thread which eventually..." Read more

"...His musings on Poe, Dumas and other writers were actually the best part of the book...." Read more

49 customers mention "Research quality"37 positive12 negative

Customers find the book's research thorough and detailed. They appreciate the author's careful examination of evidence and reassembling interviews. The book provides new insights and analyses the tragedy in a comprehensive manner.

"...The book is clearly meticulously researched...." Read more

"...Morris is infinitely patient, examining each shred of evidence and reassembling interviews and transcripts into a coherent thread which eventually..." Read more

"...Morris' book enthralled me because he included evidence. He did not just tell, he SHOWED...." Read more

"...author's contrarian sensibility is so blatant that it undermines his reportorial credibility: you don't have the sense that he's in any way soberly..." Read more

35 customers mention "Writing quality"17 positive18 negative

Customers have mixed opinions about the writing quality. Some find it well-written and readable, with nice poems and quotations. Others feel it's not as well-written as other books, tedious, and poorly structured. The prose is wooden and the format lurches from interview to narrative with poor transitions.

"...marshaling of all that evidence into a coherent book is admirable and readable...." Read more

"...case, making this an important book to be sure, but, alas, not a terribly readable book." Read more

"...This book - in an immensely readable fashion - details all the terrible facts." Read more

"I'm almost finished with this pretty long, tedious book and in the remaining few pages expect little to change my very negative view of it...." Read more

16 customers mention "Narrative quality"5 positive11 negative

Customers have different views on the narrative quality. Some find it comprehensive and interesting, with a detailed account of justice being retried. Others find it repetitive, tedious, and lacking cohesion. The premise seems contrived, with misuse of psychobabble and incompetence.

"...reinvestigation and prosecution of this case was a gigantic, epic, monstrous clustersomething, an assessment that's hard to dispute irrespective..." Read more

"...this book, we are even more upset that invesigative ineptitude, insanity (his "folie a deux" suffering in-laws), prosecutorial misconduct and the..." Read more

"...Anyway, an interesting story, but nothing new." Read more

"...biased judge, intimidation of a defense witness, and the stunning misuse of psychobabble...." Read more

9 customers mention "Evidence retention"6 positive3 negative

Customers have different views on the evidence retention in the book. Some find it interesting and well-documented, with transcripts of what people said. They say it's an excellent update on events surrounding the case. Others mention issues like falsifying or withholding evidence, intimidation of a defense witness, and biased judges.

"...is a brief summary/re-hash of Fatal Justice, some of it revisits contemporaneous testimony and takes us "behind the scenes" thereof, and a lot of it..." Read more

"...excellent books establishes the unfairness of his trial, the withheld evidence, the mishandled crime scene, witnesses hid, a biased judge...." Read more

"...Don't write him off too fast. The book has interviews with an incredible number of those who were involved in the case...." Read more

"...I do like that this book has a lot of transcripts of what people said rather than a summary...." Read more

6 customers mention "Organization"3 positive3 negative

Customers have differing views on the book's organization. Some find it well-organized with evidence and diagrams, while others find it repetitive and poorly organized with gaps in coverage.

"...Now, all the evidence is here in a neatly ordered pile for us "jurors" to go through without the hinderance of someone pre-screening it for us...." Read more

"...that it he did not, it is hardly convincing because it is so poorly organized, lacks cohesion, and a narrative drive...." Read more

"...easy-to-read and the author presents his arguments in a coherent, organized and reproducable way...." Read more

"Repetitive, poorly organized, with quite a few gaps in coverage...." Read more

8 customers mention "Bias"0 positive8 negative

Customers are unhappy with the biased and unconvincing case. They say the evidence was exculpatory, the judge was biased, and the prosecution side made mistakes. The man was framed, railroaded, and wrongfully convicted.

"...the withheld evidence, the mishandled crime scene, witnesses hid, a biased judge...." Read more

"...Even a guilty man can be framed, railroaded, wrongfully convicted and put away for all the wrong reasons by all the wrong methods...." Read more

"...ineptitude, insanity (his "folie a deux" suffering in-laws), prosecutorial misconduct and the mendacity of witnesses resulted in the destruction of..." Read more

"...evidence, willful blindness toward exculpating evidence, an openly biased judge, intimidation of a defense witness, and the stunning misuse of..." Read more

Top reviews from the United States

  • Cerinthe Major
    5.0 out of 5 stars Thoroughly researched
    Reviewed in the United States on June 24, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    I come to this book with little preconceived notion of what happened to Colette, Kimberly, and Kristin MacDonald. I read the book Fatal Vision and saw the miniseries when I was 10 years old. (Now that I'm a parent, I'm not entirely sure why my parents let me do that, but that is beside the point.) I was convinced that Jeffrey MacDonald did the murders, but I remembered few details of the case clearly.

    I still think that the most likely explanation of what happened is that Jeffrey MacDonald killed his family. Morris, however, makes a very compelling case that his trial was unfair. Even a man who is very likely guilty is entitled to a fair trial. One of the most interesting aspects of the book is his discussion of question-begging evidence. The Thin Blue Line, Morris's documentary about a man wrongfully imprisoned, showed how the man's lack of remorse was used as evidence of his guilt, when it was actually evidence of his innocence. Likewise, the only evidence of MacDonald's psychopathy are the murders themselves. If he didn't do them, there is no evidence of psychopathy. The book is clearly meticulously researched. After I read it, I read two criticisms of it - an article by Gene Weingarten and the e-book by Joe McGinniss. Both claim that Morris cherry-picked evidence to prove his favored point. They pointed out very few specifics. One was an over-reliance on a witness who turned out to be untrustworthy. The witness, however, is hardly central to Morris's case. One was a bloody footprint, which Morris did deal with (albeit quickly). The other was whether it is in fact the case that the holes in MacDonald's pajama top could be made to line up with the stab wounds in Colette's body if it wasn't covering her body at the time. Morris should have dealt with this. Can't someone get a mathematician on the case to figure this out? Another was that they believe Helena Stoeckly, who confessed to the murders, was more unreliable than Morris suggests. Morris perhaps gives too much credence to her confessions, but I hardly left the book thinking she was a reliable witness. The last was about the extent of MacDonald's injuries. They criticize Morris for exaggerating the extent of them. This criticism seems fair.

    Morris is definitely too apt to see ambiguous evidence as exculpatory. If you read this book, you should realize that you are reading the defense case against the prosecutor's Fatal Vision. However, I think the defense ought to be made, which is why I liked the book so much. I got the sense Morris was trying to make another Thin Blue Line and free another innocent man. I do wish he could have been more neutral about the evidence. He does present evidence that counts against MacDonald, but usually follows it up by trying to explain it away. However, his marshaling of all that evidence into a coherent book is admirable and readable. My favorite part of the book is his discussion arguing against relativism. He criticizes Janet Malcolm for writing a book criticizing McGinniss's journalistic ethics without bothering to find out if MacDonald did it. On the one hand, Morris is a bit hard on her since the book she was writing was on journalism, not on the case. However, Morris is right that the question of MacDonald's guilt or innocence is relevant to McGinniss's journalistic ethics.

    A very effective technique that Morris uses in his NY Times columns is also effective here - that is, he transcribes his own interviews with participants. I wish more writers of non-fiction employed this.

    Anyhow, after reading the book I am indeed convinced that MacDonald did not receive a fair trial and ought to be re-tried. There is some exculpatory evidence that was not heard by the jury. Even if a jury would still convict, they should do so on all the evidence.

    As for the case itself, we are down to two implausible options. (1) If MacDonald did it, a man with no history of violence suddenly and savagely beat and killed his wife and daughter, and then went into a room and coldly killed his other daughter who was asleep and who didn't witness the crime. The relatively detailed description he made of one of the killers, by amazing coincidence, matched someone who had no alibi and was the type to make repeated false confessions. This was also someone whose mother and brother would testify that she confessed. That is one heck of a lucky stroke for MacDonald. (2) That three people broke into the MacDonald house that night, acted like cartoonish versions of what a conservative at the time would think hippies acted like (e.g., saying "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs), savagely kill three people (including two little girls), and leave MacDonald himself relatively unscathed.

    While the book certainly does not establish MacDonald's innocence, it effectively raises interesting questions about the nature of evidence and the fairness of trials.
    21 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report
  • Maa
    5.0 out of 5 stars a book his editors knew would sell better if MacDonald was convicted
    Reviewed in the United States on August 8, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    Very well done book. Morris points out the many disturbing things and events that those determined to convict MacDonald did and said to accomplish that muscarriage of justice. When this case first happened, the main thing that struck me was how could MacDonald describe one of the intruders immediately, then you not only have a cop say he saw someone meeting that description (and Stoeckely also admitted she was on that corner), but more importantly it's an awfully compelling coincidence that Stoeckley herself - who admitted having the wig and clothing MacDonald described and burning them shortly after the murder - would confess so many times to so many different people that she was there. MacDonald describes a woman in a floppy hat, and Stoeckley with her wig and floppy hat conveniently confesses to numerous people, and that's not important to those trying to prosecute MacDonald? I don't believe in coincidences, so IMO it can only mean that Stoeckley was there and that MacDonald is innocent. Morris brought this out in the book, and it's only one piece of the pie...the other pieces consist of a prosecution determined to convict MacDonald at all costs, including subverting justice. They didn't care about putting the actual killers behind bars; they wanted to put MacDonald behind bars and close this case. The fact that over 40 years later this is still going on should tell many people that there's much more to this case. Another piece of pie is how a self-serving, narcissistic writer can influence people by bending and omitting the facts; how they can form their own theory and fit and omit evidence to make their theory seem correct. This is what McGinnis did in his book, IMO. And Morris shows us how he did it through McGinnis' letters to MacDonald and the abuse of his position within the group defending MacDonald. McGinnis may not have been a part of the defense team per se, but he had access to them and IMO used that access to get information for his book...a book his editors knew would sell better if MacDonald was convicted...and as the communication between McGinnis and his editors shows, they structured that book in their own self interest, and not in the interests of truth and justice. That's despicable IMO, and it's a slap in the face to not only MacDonald and his murdered family, but to truth, justice, and to anyone interested in the facts of this case. If a writer can do this so boldly, then who among us in a similar situation is safe? The same can be said about the prosecution. How can anyone believe anything Blackburn says, especially considering he faked his own mothers death in order to get a continuance on a case? IMO anyone who could do that, could and would do anything to win their case...and IMO that's exactly what Blackburn did in the MacDonald case. I believe he did threaten Stoeckely with murder charges if she testified...and if she did testify, Blackburn knew that would mean an acquittal for MacDonald.

    The big question is why there was such determination to convict MacDonald. The Army didn't even charge him after the article 32 hearing. Could it be as simple as the fact that because they botched the investigation so badly, and many people voiced their unhappiness with that (especially Fred Kassab), that the government, of which the Army is a part, decided to to after MacDonald? Morris points out a lot of interesting 'coincidences' throughout his book that lead this reader to think that may be the case. He also points out some interesting things about the Kassabs; after supporting MacDonald for years, they suddenly turn on him when he wants to move away...Mildred threatens him and Fred becomes obsessed that MacDonald is guilty...and we find out Mildred wasn't very complimentary about her own daughter, yes raved about MacDonald...I've always felt the Kassabs were a bit strange, and the information Morris shows in his book simply confirms that. It all makes me feel that without a government embarrassed that their botched investigation was seeing the light of day, and without the Kassabs self righteous motives, MacDonald would never have spent one week, leg alone all these years, behind bars. The worst tragedy is that justice has not been done for Colette, the kids, and for MacDonald.
    5 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report

Top reviews from other countries

  • Avid reader
    5.0 out of 5 stars Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde??
    Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 26, 2016
    Verified Purchase
    Did the army doctor murder his pregnant wife and two little girls or was it someone else? I just don't know but this book is a wonderful reading of the complete crime and trials. See if you come to your own conclusion.
    Report
  • Kathleen YO!
    5.0 out of 5 stars Truth and Injustice
    Reviewed in Canada on August 30, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    I have followed the Jeffrey MacDonald trial since around the year 2000 when I saw the American Justice episode on A&E. While that episode was supposed to leave you feeling that MacDonald was guilty, it still left me with a lingering sense that the wrong man was in prison, and that he had been imprisoned based mostly on the fact that he was a pretty unlikeable guy who came off quite cold. When I found out Errol Morris, he of The Thin Blue Line wrote a book on this trial, I knew I had to read it. At its heart it is a book about injustice, truth and how once we choose our own narratives they become self fulfilling prophecies. The world chose the Fatal Vision narrative and then every other fact about MacDonald fell into place for the public. Oh, he ran off to California and started a new life. Oh, he didn't show enough emotion in the interviews I saw him in. Oh, he doesn't talk about his family enough, only about himself. Morris shows that if you use the actual facts of the trial, not MacDonald's (right or wrong) way of coping with this tragedy, it pretty much points to the fact he didn't do it. Fascinating read.
    Report
  • MASTER J S TELFORD
    4.0 out of 5 stars A Wilderness of Error or: how I learned to stop worrying and love an easy narrative...
    Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 26, 2015
    Verified Purchase
    Those familiar with Morris' work on film will have come to expect a certain level of investigative rigour. A Wilderness of Error may well be the apogee of his extraordinary research practice. The wealth of detailed information presented in this book is, frankly, extraordinary. Combine this information with Morris' knowledge of literature (he is notoriously a compulsive reader), allowing him to invoke some deeply perceptive literary analogies and throw into stark relief the desperate tragedy of the case, and you have a piece of investigative writing raised to the status of art, offering insight far beyond the details of the case itself. Why, then, only four stars? Morris' greatest strength can sometimes work against the narrative urgency of the text; his constant fixation upon detail and desire to pursue every line of investigation as far as is possible can become tiring. At times, you feel he has proven his point to almost total certainty and yet there are further pages of detail to work through, hammering the point home from every possible angle. Whilst this is useful in a courtroom, in the case of a book they might have been better served as appendices so as not to impede a more swift apprehension of the arguments presented. These instances are rare, however, and can be forgiven as they appear out of an earnest pursuit of truth above all else. Another criticism is that, on one or two occasions, Morris takes jabs at the less likeable characters in the story, which feel cheap. Having established that these people are untrustworthy or manipulative through more objective means (such as documentary evidence of the ways in which they behaved in relation to the case) the (very rare) cheap shots slightly undermine the otherwise excellent work Morris has done.
    These are extremely minor quibbles though. Overall, the book stands as an argument for the ennobling power of knowledge sought through evidence, not superstition, and the dangers of succumbing to the easiest and most palatable narrative.
    Report
  • Raven Shaddock
    1.0 out of 5 stars Simply too one-sided to be a persuasive defence of a triple murderer
    Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 20, 2013
    Verified Purchase
    I have taken huge interest in the MacDonald case since reading Fatal Vision in the early 90s which was closely followed by seeing the superb documentary False Witness by Christopher Olgiati. My interest piqued, I then read the Journalist and the Murderer and Fatal Justice. It is a very troubling case - either MacDonald massacred his own pregnant wife and two children or they were the victims of a sick Manson-esque gang of intruders. There is evidence and argument for both.

    Having read a lot about the case, including Morris' new book, it is clear to me that:

    1. there was poor conduct on the part of the prosecution which could amount to a miscarriage warranting MacDonald's release; and

    2. there is no question that MacDonald is guilty.

    Morris' book reinforces point 1 in its portrayal of prosecutorial misconduct; it also inadvertently reinforces point 2, even though it is completely one-sided in its support of MacDonald and his innocence.

    The principal problem with the book is that it studiously avoids the main problem with MacDonald's defence - himself. MacDonald's explanation for what happened during and after the attack has never rung true and Morris never confronts it, focusing instead on the evidence supporting the Helena Stoeckley / intruder angle for almost the entire tome.

    Here is a summary of the problems I have with MacDonald's story which are never addressed by Morris:

    - MacDonald says he was awoken by his wife screaming for help to see four intruders next to him (allegedly Greg Mitchell, an African American with sergeant stripes, another male and Helena Stoeckley). So four intruders break into the home, start attacking the wife and kids, wander into the living room and only then does MacDonald wake up? Totally improbable.

    - Why did the four intruders standing next to MacDonald not attack him while he was asleep? Why wait for him to wake before assaulting him?

    - MacDonald says when he woke he waited a beat and then made to get up and only then was he attacked. Again, why wait to attack him? Also, if I woke to see four strangers, I would be leaping up and freaking out, not just lying there waiting for them to hit me and thinking to myself "wow, he's got a solid punch!" as MacDonald claims. I would be making enough noise that the entire neighbourhood woke up! Bear in mind, the upstairs neighbour heard crying from the MacDonald house in the middle of the night, apparently after the murders, yet they didn't hear a man raging against a gang of four or more people as he defended his family?

    - MacDonald says his wife cried out "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doing this?" This has never made sense to me. The likelihood of someone saying this when being attacked seems so utterly remote (notwithstanding the fact that Colette had her head bashed in and neck slashed). Brian Murtagh's view that Collette screamed "Jeff, Jeff, why are you doing this?" when he initiated the attack is much more likely. Murtagh concludes that MacDonald changed it to why are "they" doing this as she must have shouted it and he was worried someone must have heard, so he subtly changed the meaning (only now it makes no sense).

    - MacDonald was woken by his wife and children screaming. So who was attacking them? Four people were allegedly attacking MacDonald when he woke so at least one more person was attacking his wife/kids. So at least five people were in the house attacking the family. The lack of evidence of such intruders is incredible, as is the lack of evidence of neighbours seeing or hearing this gang of people.

    - How (and why) did at least three male attackers leave such relatively minor wounds on MacDonald compared to the rest of his family? Surely a Green Beret would be the first person the intruders would seek to incapacitate?

    - Why did the gang go to MacDonald's house anyway? Surely it wasn't random and if it was a revenge attack against MacDonald for his harsh treatment of drug addicts, why would they leave MacDonald unscathed? And why would a gang of drug-fuelled murderers not steal a single thing from the house - why not take some of the copious drugs stored in the premises, or a wallet or jewelry to fund their drug abuse? Again, it makes no sense.

    - Why would a gang of crazed murderers go to a house without a single weapon on them and then commit mass murder using a piece of wooden bed slat, a bent knife, a small knife and an ice pick all of which were already on the premises? And why, as they left the premises, would they put all the weapons under a bush by the back door? Why not dispose of them away from the house or throw them over a fence or chuck them in a bin? It makes no sense. It only makes sense that Jeff didn't want to leave the premises so he threw them from the back door under the nearest bush.

    - Why would Stoeckley, 30 minutes after the murders, be possibly wandering the street near the MacDonald house as claimed by MP Ken Mica? Why not flee? Where were the rest of her gang, did they just leave her?

    - If MacDonald was attacked and used his pyjama top as a shield in the living room, how come the living room is not littered with blue threads from the top and why is the pocket of the top in the master bedroom and threads from it all over the bedroom and under Colette?

    - How did Colette's blood get on the pyjama top before it was torn and shredded?

    - Why would the killer hippies have written Pig using a surgical glove? The prosecution claimed that MacDonald wrote Pig on the headboard using a surgical glove, the tips of which were found on the floor near the headboard. At the hearing, I understand the defence brought evidence to show that the glove used was from a different batch unassociated with MacDonald's gloves. Okay, even if that is true, how was it in the house? Did hippies bring a random surgical glove to the house just to write the word Pig? No. A surgical glove was used because MacDonald feared leaving a fingerprint when he wrote Pig on the headboard.

    - When he was supposedly checking on the bodies of his families, why did MacDonald do it in the pitch dark and not turn any of the lights on? The MPs arrived to a house in darkness - why? If MacDonald was desperately trying to save his family, why didn't he turn the lights on so he could see what he was doing?

    - Why did MacDonald repeatedly tell the MPs that he took the paring knife out of Colette's chest (which in itself is such an odd thing to repeatedly worry about in the circumstances) when the evidence showed that the paring knife did not inflict any of her chest wounds? The most likely reason is that he panicked and wondered whether he had wiped his fingerprints off of it and said this to explain away any subsequent prints.

    - If Colette and the children were dead by the time MacDonald tried to resuscitate them, how could a trained doctor not have noticed that?

    - How is it Colette had some of Jeffrey's hair in her dead hand?

    - Overall, the most damning thing for me is that, if MacDonald's wife and children were being attacked and he loved them as he claimed, I would expect any husband / father to fight to the death to get to them to protect them. As it is, a fit, young and athletic MacDonald says he was bashed on the head leaving a single bump and was knocked unconscious after a short scuffle that barely disturbed the living room. Preposterous.

    As for the Helena Stoeckley angle that Morris focuses on, I think she may well have visited the house either on the night in question (perhaps she stimulated the argument that night) or some other time, perhaps looking for drugs and that may explain her obsession with being in the house and MacDonald's description of her. As for her testimony, although Judge Dupree comes across as biased and dislikable, he was probably right that her evidence - which was all over the place and ranged from holding a candle dripping blood during the murders, to thinking she was there to dreaming she was there - was probative of virtually nothing. MacDonald must not have believed his luck that someone as suggestible and spaced-out as Stoeckley would try and incriminate herself.

    Regarding Morris' book, it is not a good start for anyone unfamiliar with the story as it treats the reader as knowledgable about the case and there are no traditional photo / exhibit pages as you would expect in a normal real-life crime book. The structure of the book is actually rather annoying. Chapters are no more than 4-5 pages in length which makes for easy reading, but it makes the story choppy and disjointed. Each chapter contains a black page with a drawing of some point of reference in the chapter which is pointless and pads out the book needlessly - there must be close to 100 of such unnecessary pages. As I mentioned, there are no photos / exhibits in the traditional sense, instead there are graphics and pictures from the case which are given a stylistic twist through the use of windows zooming into the text (which didn't add much in my view).

    Some of the arguments Morris postulates are also infuriating and border on being disingenuous. For instance, Morris claims that Murtagh's exhibition of a pajama top being stabbed is "silly-silly" and unscientific even though it represented MacDonald's testimony, whereas he puts great stock in John Thornton's "scientific" contraption using a slab of ham which proved that the holes could be round and not torn. What Morris doesn't mention is that Thornton's experiment does not in any way replicate MacDonald's version of events. Of course Thornton's holes were perfectly round - he was stabbing the moving pajama top wrapped around a ham. The ham stopped any tearing occurring. Murtagh's demonstration proved that if MacDonald was defending himself as he claimed, the pyjama top would have been ripped to pieces and full or jagged holes. Also, something again not mentioned by Morris, MacDonald's hands would have been lacerated. In court, Murtagh's hand was stabbed during the demonstration under controlled circumstances. In the dark, fighting off three men, if MacDonald's version of events was true, his hands should have been lacerated and punctured as he warded off blows. But they weren't.

    Another rather annoying moment relates to Dr James Brussel. Morris' view is that there is nothing remotely psychopathic about MacDonald (indeed, he questions the whole concept of a psychopath). Dr Brussel concluded that MacDonald was a manipulative psychopath and this is dismissed by Morris. Which is fine as far as it goes - indeed, there is no evidence of fire starting or animal harming or other anti-social behaviour in MacDonald's youth). He then recounts MacDonald's interaction with Brussel in which MacDonald portrays Brussel as a seriously demented loon who probably should be have been in a secure institute (he babbled about losing a hat, had no idea where he was, and no idea where he was going after the meeting). This is repeated without challenge. To me, MacDonald's recollection of the meeting is totally unrealistic, preposterous even, and smacks of exactly the manipulative, controlling psychopathy that Brussel identified in his report.

    The treatment of Stoeckley's confessions is also inconsistent. Morris clearly takes Stoeckley's story about being present when the murders take place very seriously and sees it as a central plank in MacDonald innocence. The middle half of the book is devoted to stories of Stoeckley confessing to just about anyone, with Morris setting out in detail her statements. What Morris does not focus on at all is just how inconsistent and contradictory Stoeckley's stories are. One verbatim report has Stoeckley saying that the gang went to MacDonald's house and it was only when he went to the phone to alert some MPs that he was attacked and it got out of hand. This is relayed by Morris without comment even though it flatly contradicts MacDonald's own account and is completely at odds with the other confessions Stoeckley gave. This ludicrous confession is indicative of Stoeckley having invented her involvement in the whole thing, something Morris never even tries to address. Stoeckley also gave video evidence to Ted Gunderson, hired by MacDonald, during which she said her gang went to give him a hard time about drugs, and when he refused to give them drugs, it got out of hand. Again, the fact that these recollections are completely contrary to MacDonald's own account, is ignored by the MacDonald apologists. Morris also ignores the fact that Stoekley's confessions were almost always accompanied by promises of a financial reward. He also avoids, perhaps sensibly, the confessions in which Stoeckley claimed to have been a nanny to Kristen and Kimmie and had had an affair with Jeff...

    The last quarter of the book is mainly devoted to the book Fatal Vision and Joe McGinniss' relationship with MacDonald and his diet pill theory. There is no doubt that McGinniss behaved in an unethical and underhanded manner to trick and deceive MacDonald. This is hardly new as Janet Malcolm has already written a whole book about it. More importantly, it is also completely pointless. Why focus so much attention on a book published years after MacDonald had been convicted? Is the reader meant to feel sorry for MacDonald? The fact is Fatal Vision is spot on in relation to MacDonald and his involvement in the murder of his family.

    As for the diet pill theory, it probably is nonsense. It is interesting that Morris dismisses the whole psychopath concept as MacDonald seems to fit the bill perfectly to me. I suspect he and Colette had drifted apart and were tense with a third child coming. MacDonald wanted a new start, was having multiple affairs including a long-term secret relationship with an old girlfriend, and lied about travelling for months to a boxing event in Russia. Colette was angry as it meant he would be away when she gave birth to their third child and had expressed her concerns about this to her mother, Mildred Kassab. Colette was also studying psychology in the evening and had made notes about just the sort of narcissistic, controlling, sociopathic traits that MacDonald exhibited as a husband. I suspect she confronted him the night of the killings about his personality, multiple affairs, and lack of commitment to the family, challenging his manhood, which triggered MacDonald's deepest rage leading to a heated argument which got out of hand and led to him killing his family.

    That MacDonald had multiple affairs shortly after the murders and during his CID hearing, expressed "relief" to a psychologist to be away from his family, and then went to the West Coast and lived the high life of performance cars, yachts and a string of beautiful women rather than live a dull family life with 3 kids and an unhappy and slightly frumpy wife reinforces my view that MacDonald wanted a way out of his suburban life. In his own words he pointed out that Colette was unphotogenic, broad in the beam, and stick legged. She clearly was not the sort of attractive, glamorous women he wanted to be with no matter what he later professed about loving her.

    One of the most telling incidents for me of MacDonald's mentality was when he was first challenged by the army. At the end of the lengthy interview session, when the Army put to him that there would be a hearing and MacDonald broke down, he asked why he would do something to jeopardise his happily family life. He was then presented with some photos of women with whom he had had recent affairs. MacDonald then sneers "You're more thorough than I thought". What a thing to say.

    The fact that MacDonald continues to receive support from high profile lawyers and boosters who plead his innocence - like Morris - just proves to me that he is one of the most compelling, believable and manipulative psychopaths of the 20th century.

    Overall, I found the book rather frustrating and too one-sided. The steadfast refusal to address the overwhelming circumstantial and forensic evidence against MacDonald is ridiculous. The brilliant Olgiati documentary covered basically the same ground, only much better and in a more balanced manner.

    As a counter-point to this book, I strongly recommend the Gene Weingarten article about MacDonald and Murtagh published by the Washington Post in 2012 which to me paints the most likely portrait of what happened that night at Fort Bragg and is thoroughly compelling and persuasive in a way that Morris' book simply is not. Another excellent analysis of the case was published in Vanity Fair in 1998 by Robert Sam Anson called The Devil and Jeffrey MacDonald.
    2 people found this helpful
     Report