HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017282.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

The Suppression of Science: The Case of Jeffrey MacDonald

A case in which science has not yet produced a victory—or, in my view, justice—is the 40 year old “whodunit” involving the murder of the family of Jeffrey MacDonald. Science could perhaps provide a definitive answer to this highly publicized case, but so far the doors of the courtroom have been shut to newly discovered scientific and other evidence that was suppressed by the prosecution. The courts in this case have placed the alleged need for “finality” above the search for truth. But history and science knows no finality. Nor should finality trump the desire for closure in a court of law, as long as a possibly innocent defendant remains convicted of a crime that science can prove he may not have committed.

I had followed the Jeffrey MacDonald case in the media from its grisly inception on February 17, 1970, when the wounded Green Beret doctor told authorities that his pregnant wife, Colette, and his daughters, Kimberly, five, and Kristen, two, had been murdered by drug-crazed intruders. Like most Americans, I had my doubts about his story. It seemed so conveniently modeled on the notorious Manson murders that had occurred just __ years earlier. I knew that the statistics showed that wives are more likely to be killed by husbands than by strangers. I wondered why there was no hard evidence—no fibers, hairs, or fingerprints—left by the alleged intruders. My doubts were confirmed by reading Joe McGinniss's best-seller Fatal Vision, which concluded that MacDonald was indeed guilty, or by seeing the TV movie, which was even more persuasive of his guilt.

Several times during the course of the lengthy legal proceedings, Jeffrey MacDonald had written and called me, pleading with me to help him. Each time I declined. But then, in 19__, I went to Terminal Island Federal Prison in California to visit another inmate, and as I left the room in which lawyers confer with prisoners, a graying man quietly introduced himself. He was Jeffrey MacDonald, and he asked if he could have five minutes of my time to show me some documents. I agreed. What I learned that day—and afterward—convinced me that I had to try to help him.

In one of the most dramatic scenes in the TV movie Fatal Vision, investigators dig up the graves of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen MacDonald. The government's chief lawyer (played by Andy Griffith) explains to the grieving Freddie Kassab (played by Karl Maiden) why the bodies of his stepdaughter and grandchildren must be exhumed:

We've got to know if the hair found in Colette's hand was her own, Jeff’s, the kids’ . . .
[Freddie Kassab interjects] . . . or someone with a floppy hat.

In the actual trial conducted in 1979, the prosecution's case against Jeffrey MacDonald relied heavily on this evidence: blonde hair found in the murdered Colette MacDonald's hand. It had already been found not to match Jeffrey MacDonald's hair. Thus, if it did not match Colette's own hair or the hair of the children, that finding would lend support to MacDonald's claim that there had been intruders - - including a woman with long, blonde hair who was wearing a floppy hat and boots - - in his home on the night of the attack. It would also indicate that at least one of these intruders had come in contact with Colette.

195
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017282