A Wilderness of Error

In 1970, Army surgeon Jeffrey MacDonald is the sole survivor after his wife and daughters are murdered in their home. He claims that three men and a girl with a floppy hat broke in and killed his family. At first, the hippie panic spreads but eventually the authorities use the evidence to convict him for the murders. He maintains his innocence and there is one witness, Helena Stoeckley, who supports him.

The show had two issues. The first is that all the physical evidences point to MacDonald being guilty from the first episode. If one concentrates on only the hard physical evidences, I don't see how anyone can come to another conclusion. Then it becomes a case of hippie panic. These four are all automatically guilty for being helter skelter. In an age when we are dealing with false confessions, one would hope that the defense could dig up more than just confessions. The physical evidence is still there staring in their faces but the defense offers no alternative explanation of the CSI. I am willing to listen to Stoeckley but one can't automatically believe her. It takes a long time for the show to name the other names. She has three comrades and those names would be my first priority. Track them down. Take their testimonies. Fingerprint them. Take blood samples. Get physical evidence. In a way, I understand the defense attorneys. They are ball players in a game. They complain about balls and strikes but the truth is not a game. The only witness that seems to have any hope is Jimmy Friar who called the phone and claims to get hung up on by Helena. And he's a criminal with mental issues. Is there no phone log? It's the same thing over and over again. It's a lot of talk but no physical evidence.

If they don't have the physical evidence, they use what's available. What's available are unreliable witnesses. The best they could do is that the prosecutor threatened Helena with murder charges after confessing to murder. She's a part of the break-in and that break-in led to murders. Even that claim is questionable as the witness becomes questionable. The most disappointing person here is Errol Morris. I hoped that he would be more logical and smarter than this. In the end, he's a story teller and a good story wouldn't let facts get into the way. He would be better off doing a movie about Prince Beasley and Stoeckley. Those are fascinating character studies. More than anything, this mini-series seems to be a sly take down job on Errol and it's his book.

Some good points, but not nearly enough time spent on the forensic evidence. The entire case was resolved through forensic science, which proved Macdonald committed the crimes. Endless rambling on Helena Stoekley distracts from an otherwise fascinating documentary.

Rest of series, episodes 3 & 4 are mere, useless padding, only there to make money by stretching out the series. Episodes 3 & 4 are full of red herrings, e.g., woman in floppy hat.

Morris is more than a little annoying with his BS about "narratives," a worn cliche that. He adds little.

He sure has declined from his former glory, e.g., Fog of War, Vernon Florida, etc.

MacDonald did it. Helena Stoeckley is a red herring. It was good seeing my old director (the polygraph examiner). I don't know what the deal is with Errol Morris.

This series is more of a response to Morris's book than a video adaptation of it. The filmmakers view MacDonald's story with plenty of skepticism, as does Morris himself in one clip.