Une intime conviction

One of the better "true crime" dramas (and I think that between a&e, court tv, and lifetime, I have seen almost all of them ...). As another reviewer pointed out, there is another side to this story, so don't go thinking the movie presents the gospel truth, but it's still a very compelling flick. Question to others who have seen it: am I nuts, or is Liam Neeson on the jury? He's not credited, but only the jury foreman got a line ... still, there's a guy in the back row who looks amazingly like Neeson. Anyone else catch this?

I remember being riveted by this movie when it first appeared on TV in 1984. It was a really well done TV movie, especially the acting by Gary Cole. As far as McDonalds guilt goes, I really don't know, but the film will make you lean towards definite guilt. The one question is why? Those children being brutally slain goes beyond comprehension. The movie gave me a real feeling of being there by capturing the mood of the late sixties-early seventies. If McDonald was a true sociopath this film did an over the top job of presenting it. To this day McDonald vehemently denies his guilt and actively pursues legal routes to free himself from jail. I'm waiting for the DVD release, and I think I'll be waiting a long time. I have the rare laserdisc which will have to do.

When I first saw this movie over 10 years ago, it convinced me of MacDonald's guilt. I saw it again last night and this time I'm not so sure.

This movie is looking more and more like a propaganda film, intended to cement the audience's hatred of MacDonald, and convince the audience that he is, indeed, guilty. That's quite frightening -- what if it's not the only one like this? What if many Hollywood movies are, in fact, propaganda? Isn't that what we accused certain dictators of making over the past 100 century.

After I watched last night's showing, I went to MacDonald's website. Yes, I know, if I'm worried about "propaganda", I have to view his site with skepticism too. And I did. Yet I couldn't help coming to an uneasy conclusion: if MacDonald really is guilty, why is he so willing to have his DNA tested?

After all, if you are guilty of murder -- and knowing that mitochondrial DNA testing is highly accurate today -- you know for a fact that if you agree to DNA testing, you will be caught. Yet MacDonald is willing to go ahead with it. Sorry, but I just can not shirk the nagging feeling that this means he is convinced of his own innocence (notice I said "convinced" -- it may well be that he did indeed commit the murders, but is so horrified about them that they are now part of his repressed memory and he, in fact, believes he did not commit them!).

The other thing that disturbs me is that the North Carolina prosecutors themselves seem very reluctant to allow full DNA testing. For instance, they are willing to allow nuclear DNA (requiring a larger sample size) or mitochondrial DNA testing, but not both.

Why not? Wouldn't you, as a prosecutor, want to exhaust every possible avenue to find a killer? How can there be such a thing as "too much" information when trying to solve a murder? I find this disturbing. In fact, combined with MacDonald's willingness to undergo DNA testing, I find the prosecutors' reluctance to be evidence that they are far less than certain that they convicted the right man for the crime. Perhaps the prosecutors have something to hide?

In conclusion, I must also agree with another writer that perhaps the most perplexing (and disturbing) aspect of this case that alludes to MacDonald's innocence is the apparent lack of motive. There seems to be no financial nor love-triangle motivation for MacDonald to kill his family.

There is a phenomenon known as "family annihilators", men who kill their entire family because they sense impending ruin (usually financial), and feel that their family can not survive without them. In their misguided way, these men believe they are doing their family a favour by killing them, saving them from the misery that follows financial ruin. However, these men invariably break down in court and completely confess to such crimes. MacDonald didn't do that. So that explanation is likely out of the picture for him, especially since the movie does not portray him as facing imminent financial ruin.

Sometime later in 2002 the full mitochondrial DNA test will be performed. Stay tuned; the results will have significant ramifications. If, in fact, the test results cast doubt on MacDonald's guilt, the producers of "Fatal Vision" will have a lot of explaining to do ...

The movie shows how guilty he was, but read the book by Joe McGinness. Ironically, the book MacDonald wanted written about his case actually incriminated him even more.

I have my own opinions on the guilt or innocence of Jeffrey McDonald, but I do not intend to get into a sparring match over it here. I wanted to comment on the movie itself.

I found this to be a very well made and well acted movie. I'm not a real big fan of Gary Cole but I thought he was great here--he had to display a whole gamut of emotions and did so quite admirably. The only thing I could really remember Karl Malden from other than this was "Pollyanna" and his acting has definitely improved over the years--I thought he did an excellent job. And Andy Griffith is a hoot, even in such a serious role! I also liked the flashback scenes that were used to help fill in the blanks in the couple's past.

The only complaint I have is that by the movie starting with the minutes following the murders, you don't really get to feel you "knew" Collette and Kimmy and Kristy. It was a VERY effective opening scene but at the same time it sort of robbed the viewer of having any kind of relationship with Collette and the girls. The flashbacks helped--maybe if they had found a way to squeeze in a couple more? You couldn't help but feel horrified by what had happened to them, but I think it could have been felt more deeply if you had time to get more "attached" to them.

Overall it was a good made for TV miniseries.