p36mohawk

There has been so much written about the MacDonald case that it's hard to find an objective opinion. There is indeed circumstantial evidence to convict MacDonald, but there are many troubling aspects of the case, including the lack of any coherent motive.

Those who believe in his guilt claim he's a sociopath, but this is largely based on Joe McGinniss' book, "Fatal Vision" and the TV movie. However his (McGinniss) credibility has been severely compromised through the years, the most recent example being his book on Sarah Palin, which has been condemned even by those hostile to her. There has been no psychological evaluation proving MacDonald capable of such a brutal murder, and his actions before and after the murders likewise do not support that theory.

DNA hair evaluation has been inconclusive, showing hairs with MacDonald's DNA but also showing that others were in the apartment.

Did MacDonald murder his family? He could have . . . but I would not judge him on the basis on a TV-movie obviously biased against him, and written by an author whose objectivity has been discredited.

Based on what I know, I would have to find MacDonald innocent. The prosecution simply has not proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it must do according to our laws.

Following Star Treks II & III I was eagerly anticipating this movie but I thought it was a colossal letdown when I saw it in 1987, and still do. It seemed cheap and superficial, nothing more than the ST cast running around in present day San Francisco. In the series, and in the previous movies, some attempt was made to justify events with some sort of science fiction, even if far-fetched. But flying around the earth three times and winding up in 1980s SF? An invisible spaceship in a public park? It seemed like an SNL gag or a Mad magazine send-up.

Not even a very good TV episode, IMHO. The City on the Edge of Forever was vastly superior. My least favorite ST movie.

Despite its length I thot Gettysburg was a gripping movie that for the most part captured the drama of this epochal event. My main complaints with it were the rotten treatment given to Union Gen. George Gordon Meade and one of his staff officers, Governeur Kimble (G.K.) Warren. Meade is given hardly any exposure in the movie, and Warren none, despite the pivotal role both played. Meade had only been in command for a few days and was under tremendous pressure from Lincoln, yet showed remarkable coolness when faced by Lee and his formidable army. It was Meade's decision to fortify the Union center in anticipation of Lee's attack, a fact not mentioned in the movie, nor was Warren's rapid reinforcement of Little Round Top. But at least Meade got more respect in the movie than in Shaara's book.

Throughout the movie one got the impression that the proper command decisions should have been obvious for both sides, but this is only possible with 20-20 hindsight. If the Federal center had been weak and Pickett's charge had succeeded, Lee would have been hailed as a genius. His daring gamble at Chancellorsville, when he split has forces, was a success. He gambled again at Gettysburg and this time he lost. The entire Union Army was not made up of the Irish, as the movies seemed to imply. Despite this it was an enjoyable movie & I'm looking forward to Gods & Generals.