About 20 years ago, I read Fatal Vision, Joe McGinniss' account of the MacDonald murders. I was convinced, beyond any doubt whatsoever, of MacDonald's guilt. How could you NOT be? 60 Minutes, 20/20, and countless other news programs and organizations all drew the same conclusion. The problem, as I now see it, is the "source" material for many of them was the fatally flawed McGinniss book. Errol Morris has, once again, delivered a stunningly provocative look at what happens when bad people do bad things, when good people do bad things and when good people get led astray. I am not 100% sure if MacDonald is innocent, but what I am sure of is that there could be no doubt that there was, at bare minimum, significant reasonable doubt of his guilt, and that alone should have led to a very different outcome. It's ironic that the famed book's title seems to be drawn from the only true Fatal Vision that existed between the interested parties -- and that was McGinniss. Overzealous prosecutors, inept CID crime scene investigators and a judge who cared less about a fair verdict and more -- much more -- about not wanting to be shown up by a hotshot lawyer, led to an unjustifiable verdict. This case, once and for all, needs an completely fresh lens placed on it, and Morris' own exhaustive research needs to be brought into an unbiased courtroom.

I am a prosecutor and know we don't always get it right, but this author's biases and his lack of understanding of the judicial system are so glaring that I'm having real trouble forcing myself to finish this book. I was hoping to find an objective review of the case but this book is far from that.

Our justice system is very scary...