A look at the past of the Palin family stalker, Joe McGinnis:
[I don't know if Jeffrey McDonald was guilty or innocent, but we CAN be sure Joe McGinnis is a thoroughly disreputable liar.
Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want Joe McGinnis living next to you. ]
....
Let's take a look at how McGinniss put together his book Fatal Vision, the story about Jeffrey MacDonald, and see how well regarded and highly respectful he is.
Joe McGinniss was hired by MacDonald's defense team to write a book that would exonerate him. McGinniss, to research his book, became MacDonald's shadow during the trial. He had full access to every aspect of his defense. He even moved in with him for a while.
He became MacDonald's most loyal supporter. He wrote letters to him in which he professed his belief that he was innocent. Joe McGinniss gained MacDonald's confidence to the point that MacDonald opened his soul to him. He told McGinniss everything: about his relationship with his wife, his father in law, his kids. Everything. Through it all, McGinniss continued to tell MacDonald that he was on his side and that he would make sure the world knew of MacDonald's innocence. MacDonald was eventually convicted, but McGinniss remained loyal and told him to be patient until the book came out because it would prove his innocence and the nation would rally to his side.
When the book was finally published, MacDonald realized he had been brutally deceived. McGinniss portrayed MacDonald as a psychopathic, enraged, drug crazed murderer. It turned out the entire time McGinniss fawned over MacDonald and told him how much he believed in his innocence, McGinniss was writing the exact opposite.
MacDonald was so disgusted at McGinniss' deception that he filed a federal lawsuit against him. During the course of the trial McGinniss admitted under oath during questioning by MacDonald's lawyer that he didn't even believe the theory he promoted in the book:
Fourteen years ago, Joe McGinniss's best-selling book, Fatal Vision, depicted MacDonald as guilty. McGinniss theorized that MacDonald had abused diet pills, had suffered a violent amphetamine psychosis, and in a fit of rage, had murdered his family because one of the children wet the bed. The book and the pursuant movie convinced millions that this actually occurred. Yet, in a sworn deposition on October 30, 1986, McGinniss, incredibly, admitted he did not personally believe his own theory. He explained, under oath, that he had introduced the diet pill theory as a dramatic device in his "new journalism" where the story is more important than the facts. When asked why he said that he'd learned MacDonald had ingested an overdose of diet pills (which he had not learned at all), he said he hadn't wanted to give his readers the same old "rehash of the trial."
McGinniss finally revealed his true feelings about his central theory, the theory that had made him rich, and had convinced millions of people that MacDonald was guilty. Under oath, during hard questions by MacDonald's attorney, he admitted, "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."
The trial ended in a 5-1 hung jury in MacDonald's favor. According to MacDonald's account, "the hold out juror had refused to deliberate after fellow jurors rebuffed her attempts to spend time listening to her views on animal rights."
McGinniss paid MacDonald $325,000 to avoid a retrial he knew he would surely lose.
Janet Malcolm wrote about MacDonald's law suit and Joe McGinniss' shocking duplicity in her book The Journalist and the Murderer.
In the early 90's Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost took up MacDonald's story and reexamined the case against him. What they found really was shocking. The authors, through Freedom of Information Act requests, learned that numerous documents, pieces of physical evidence, and witness testimony that supported MacDonald's account of what happened the night his family was murdered had been suppressed by the judge and the prosecution. Potter and Bost published it in their book Fatal Justice that outlines how Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent. The author of this San Francisco Chronicle book review detailed some of the evidence that was suppressed, and the details from this account alone are so damning that I could not help but yell at my computer screen, "why the hell is this man still in prison?" Take a look:
Relying on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act -- more than 10,000 pages of investigative reports, witness statements, affidavits, handwritten lab notes, transcripts, official letters and other documents, Potter and Bost deftly chart a snowballing chain of events leading to a virtual legal whiteout by the time of MacDonald's 1979 trial.
The authors say that key findings supporting MacDonald's version of events -- that a Manson-like group had committed the crimes -- were never presented to the jury. They found, for example, evidence of fresh candle wax drippings that did not match any candles in the home and were found precisely where MacDonald reported he saw flickering candlelight while struggling with his attackers; three bloodstained gloves; (the implication was that one person would not need three gloves, whereas four people likely would); blonde wig hairs found on a hairbrush (MacDonald said the candle was held by a blond woman in a floppy hat) and numerous unidentified fibers and hairs near the bodies of Kimberly, Kristen and Colette that did not match MacDonald's or anything in the home. In all, Bost and Potter describe in detail 21 items of physical evidence never presented in MacDonald's defense that clearly point to the presence of others. Among them: a bloody syringe and an unidentified piece of skin under Colette's fingernail that was extensively tested and subsequently disappeared when it did not match MacDonald's.
Potter and Bost document new witnesses, including neighbors in the building where the MacDonalds lived who remember sights and sounds on the night of the murder but were never interviewed by the Army. They also review the testimony of witnesses interviewed earlier -- most notably drug abuser Helena Stoeckley, who on at least six occasions revealed details of the murders that only someone involved could have known, such as the S shape poked into Kristen's chest with an ice pick. Stoeckley, who died in the early 1980s, said the S stood for ``Satan.'' Despite such confessions and a lack of alibi, Stoeckley and two of her companions, who fit descriptions provided by MacDonald, were never brought in for questioning.
``The army said the crime scene was well protected. It was not,'' say the authors. ``They said it was competently searched. It was not. They said they could prove the scene was staged by MacDonald. They did not. They said neighbors saw and heard nothing that night. Not true. The army and the government said nothing was found to support the presence of intruders at the scene. That was false. And, now that we know about the hair in Colette's hand, the bloody syringe, the multiple bloody gloves, the piece of skin, the wig hair, and the black wool fibers, this was the cruelest lie of all.''
After looking at the case, how it was handled, as well as the suppressed evidence, Alan Dershowitz, too, was convinced that the government suppressed critical amounts of evidence that would have proven MacDonald's innocence. He discussed the government's cover up in his book America on Trial. Judge Andrew Napolitano (yes, Judge Andrew Napolitano at Fox News) thinks the government framed MacDonald as well and wrote about the government's blatant misconduct in his book Lies the Government Told You.
MacDonald and his lawyers had the chance to appeal his conviction on March 23 of this year, and they may get a new trial because of this previously suppressed evidence. I hope he gets it, primarily because from where I sit, this is one of the most egregious examples of government abuse that I have ever seen (I would expect nothing less from China) and partly because I'd like to see McGinniss's book blow up in his face.
Now, if Joe McGinniss truly was the "well regarded" and "highly respectful" investigative journalist his publishing house said he is, why he didn't actually do the legwork MacDonald's defense team paid him to do and investigate and report MacDonald's story? The answer is obvious: a book about a handsome Army doctor who turned psychopathic and drug crazed and viciously murdered his beautiful - and pregnant - wife and two young daughters is far more compelling and sells far more books than a book about prosecutorial misconduct, as evidenced by the fact that many people have heard of Fatal Vision but few have heard of Fatal Justice.
All this makes it even more disturbing that McGinniss has now targeted Sarah Palin for the same kind of treatment he gave Jeffrey MacDonald. Even though Sarah Palin is in a position where she can defend herself against McGinniss's lies, whereas MacDonald could not, there are still a lot of people in this country who hate her and her family so much that they will believe anything negative about her, no matter how untrue.
wizbangblog.com
-------------------------------------------------
The Journalist and the Murderer (Paperback)
~ Janet Malcolm
.....
From Publishers Weekly
In a work that sparked controversy when it first appeared in the New Yorker, Malcolm suggests that journalist Joe McGinniss may have betrayed convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald in McGinniss's bestselling book Fatal Vision.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
Every journalist is "a kind of confidence man . . . gaining . . . trust and betraying . . . without remorse," says Malcolm. This is an expanded and reworked version of Malcom's New Yorker essay on the "pscyhopathology" of the journalist/subject relationship, sparked by Jeffrey MacDonald's libel suit against Fatal Vision author Joe McGinniss. Even nonjournalists will be fascinated by Malcolm's discussion of the still puzzling MacDonald case; McGinnis's rather two-faced missives to the imprisoned MacDonald; and Joseph Wambaugh's libel trial testimony about journalistic "untruths." In an afterword, Malcolm comments on the heated debate her essay invoked in the journalism community, and concludes that, like it or not, every journalist must, to some degree, tussle with this ethical dilemma. An elegantly written, thought-provoking, and sometimes outrageous essay that should be in every media collection.
-Judy Quinn, "Library Journal"
......
Joe McGinniss put himself on the map writing the classic 1969 book, THE SELLING OF A PRESIDENT. That book detailed how Richard Nixon was sold to the public like any other consumer product. It's worth reading if you can find a copy. The Nixon book was such a hit and McGinniss was so young he couldn't find material good enough to follow it up and his next few books were mediocre.
Determined to find another worthy subject, he tackled the case of Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, a man accused of killing his wife and children. That story became the bestselling FATAL VISION and this book, THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER, chronicles the techniques that McGinniss used to get close to McDonald, and how he pretended to support McDonald through the years of legal proceedings although he always thought him to be guilty and wanted a guilty verdict for a better book. McGinniss' technique led to unfettered access to legal files, evidence, but most importantly access to McDonald. They'd drink together, strategize together and were pals during the experience.
The central question is how far can a journalist go to get the story? Although a jury found McDonald guilty of murder, a later jury found in favor of McDonald in his suit against McGuinniss because they felt that his techniques were so underhanded and self-serving that even a murderer deserved better. The book shows the divide between the win-at-any-cost media and the public that grows weary of the techniques used against people to create news. Does the public have the right to know enough that journalists can lie to subjects to bring the story to press?
This short book makes you question a number of journalistic techniques and it doesn't hurt either that McDonald has strong supporters and could possibly be innocent of the murders, at least in the context of this book.
.....
In 1970, a respected army physician named Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald claimed that four strangers broke into his home in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and killed his wife and two daughters. Although an army tribunal tried Dr. MacDonald and cleared him, years later the case was reopened. This time, MacDonald was convicted and sent to prison, where he still is today.
Janet Malcolm does not reopen the MacDonald case in her book, "The Journalist and the Murderer." Rather, she examines the issues behind a libel suit that MacDonald brought in 1984 against his supposed friend, Joe McGinnis, author of "Fatal Vision." Joe McGinniss posed as an ally of Jeffrey MacDonald for years. McGinnis lived with MacDonald for a while and even joined his defense team. McGinniss sent MacDonald sympathetic letters in support of his cause. In these letters, he frequently expressed his belief in MacDonald's innocence.
It was only after "Fatal Vision" was published that MacDonald discovered the truth. McGinniss did not believe in MacDonald's innocence; on the contrary, he portrays MacDonald as a psychopathic murderer. The author posed as a friend for the sole purpose of keeping MacDonald in the dark so that McGinniss would continue to have access to his subject. "Fatal Vision" became a huge bestseller and it eventually became a miniseries.
Malcolm's book, written in 1990, takes on added significance in 2003, when the ethics of journalists are under fire as never before. Time and again, a small number of journalists have been accused of plagiarizing and fabricating stories. The public is beginning to recongnize that reporters are fallible people who suffer from the same pressures, ambitions, and even psychological disorders as other ordinary mortals.
Malcolm's book is not merely a condemnation of McGinniss's behavior towards MacDonald. Her premise is that the journalist's relationship to his subject is, in its very essence, a perilous one. The gullible subject babbles away to his "sympathetic" listener, revealing more of himself than he realizes. When all is said and done, only the journalist and his editors have control over the final product. They are sometimes tempted to distort the facts to make the piece more interesting.
Malcolm asserts that certain journalists are con men who prey on people's loneliness, credibility, and narcissism to get a good story. Journalists have their own agendas and the "truth," which is elusive at best, is not always their top priority. Malcolm's book is a warning not to believe everything that is printed in a newspaper or a magazine, since each story is only one version of reality.
....
amazon.com |
