Murder

This post is for Jeff, who requested a post about murder. I've spent a good portion of my free time over the past few months puzzling over a couple of murders that have found prominent places in American pop culture.

Part I - Serial

I heard about Serial about halfway through the series and immediately became hooked. This is out of character for me, because I usually don't get into something until years after it's popular (if at all). Normally it takes years of pressure for me to watch/read/listen to something. Anyway, Serial hooked me from the moment I started listening. It was the first podcast I ever listened to and I haven't found anything quite as addicting since the first season ended. The best podcast I've found since then is Mortified, but it's a very different genre. I have high hopes for Serial season 2. I hope it doesn't take a nosedive between seasons one and two like True Detective did.

If you haven't listened to Serial yet, you should for two reasons: 1. because it's awesome 2. so you and I can talk about it (not kidding). I fully immersed myself in anything Serial-related I could get my hands on and it got me through some very long, cold outdoor runs last winter. I listened to the Slate podcast about Serial. I read every article on Slate online and every other website writing about the case. I read Rabia's blog and followed her on Twitter (once you listen to Serial, you will know who Rabia is).

I drew the line at Reddit. I did not go down the Reddit rabbit hole, although there's a very active board dedicated to Serial.

I think Adnan is innocent. I thought he was innocent when Serial ended, but I'm even more convinced now that I've been listening to Rabia's follow-on podcast that goes deeper into the legal side of the case. If you already listened to Serial and aren't convinced, you need to listen to Undisclosed. It does not have the high production value that Serial did--it's a lot more dense and harder to stick with than Serial--but Rabia and the two other hosts prove more definitively than Serial did that a lot of things related to the case were mishandled.

If you haven't listened to Serial yet and want everything to be a surprise, skip over the next section (I haven't included any huge spoilers, but I discuss some of the stuff covered in episodes)

Part II - Jeffrey MacDonald

The other murder I've been puzzling over lately is the killing of Jeffrey MacDonald's family in 1970. If you were alive during the 70s and 80s, you probably remember the case as "green beret doctor who killed his family at Ft. Bragg." A book about the case was published in 1983 and turned into a TV miniseries, which formed much of the public's opinions about the case and whether Dr. MacDonald was innocent or guilty. 

I just finished reading a 500-page book about the case written by Errol Morris. The story is long and convoluted, but here are the basics:

Jeff MacDonald's wife and two daughters were murdered in their home in 1970. They were bludgeoned and stabbed repeatedly. Dr. MacDonald was also stabbed, but survived. Since he lived on a military base, he called the military police, who arrived at the scene and traipsed through with a ton of people, probably contaminating the scene (Morris goes into great detail about their treatment of evidence). Dr. MacDonald claimed his family had been killed by a group of four intruders, one of whom was a blonde woman wearing boots and a floppy hat. One of the military investigators saw a woman matching this exact description standing by the side of a road as he was on the way to the crime scene. It was about 3:45 in the morning and raining outside. Why would someone be standing by the side of the road at that time? And a woman matching the exact description that MacDonald gave?

The woman in question--Helena Stoeckley--was a drug abuser who worked as a police informant. She confessed to being present at the murders multiple times over the years and even gave names of others involved, but this was not enough to secure MacDonald's innocence. He was originally investigated in a military Article 32 hearing. Although the Army's Criminal Investigation Division was convinced of his guilt, he was cleared of all charges and released from the military. After his discharge, he went back to practicing medicine and tried to restart his life in California. 

Nine years later, he was brought to trial after being indicted by a grand jury. He was convicted and given three life sentences.

During the second trial, MacDonald hired a journalist to write a book about his innocence. The journalist in question (Joe McGinnis) had full access to everything in MacDonald's life. Somewhere along the way, McGinnis turned from his originally contracted task and decided to write a book about MacDonald being guilty. In Errol Morris' book (the one I just read), he puzzles over whether McGinnis truly believed MacDonald was guilty or if he just realized that a story of guilt would make for a more popular book. I tend to think it's the latter and that McGinnis seized an opportunity to make money for himself, at MacDonald's expense. 

McGinnis' book inspired ANOTHER book, this one by Janet Malcolm, plus a lawsuit from MacDonald. I actually read the Malcolm book earlier this year but had forgotten about it. I might read it again now that I know more about the case. 

So where is MacDonald now? Still in jail. He's an old man now. Just like Adnan, I think he's innocent. In both cases, I can't figure out plausible motives. Why would someone murder their family in such a brutal way for no reason, and then go back to living a normal life? I know stranger things have happened, but in this instance I am not convinced. 

Although the cases and evidence are very different, there are some similarities between the Adnan Syed and Jeff MacDonald. Both individuals were judged based on their grief, or lack thereof. MacDonald lost a lot of support because after the military hearing he restarted his life, moved across the country, and lost touch with his former in-laws. When he did a TV interview, he talked more about his mistreatment at the hands of the Army than the shock of losing his family. He didn't act the way people expected a bereaved, innocent man to act. Adnan's grieving process is also covered in a Serial episode, and people who knew him can't agree on whether or not he grieved in the "right" way that would prove his innocence. What is the proper way to react when you're 17 years old and your ex girlfriend has been murdered? 

This is connected to the process most of us rely on to form opinions about innocence or guilt: does someone seem like they could have committed the crime? Never mind physical evidence or lack of motive. The prosecution in Adnan's case knew they could get him convicted based on painting him as a villainous "other", which is why they spent so much time constructing a fable built around vague cultural stereotypes. People believe they can tell if someone is innocent or guilty based on impressions of character, regardless of what conflicting facts are presented. 

The other main similarity that I see is that both Adnan and MacDonald were convicted because the defense teams did not present convincing alternate theories for the crimes. In a Serial episode, Deirdre Enright from the Innocent Project tells Sarah Koenig (the host) that even though you don't legally have to present an alternative timeline for a crime to exonerate someone, in reality, you have to. It's usually not enough to only prove someone didn't do something. Adnan's team really couldn't put together a convincing alternate timeline for how/why the murder was committed, and I think that's probably the murkiest part of the whole story (we know Jay has some connection, but how? Why?) In Jeff MacDonald's case, there was an alternate timeline/theory that was supported by some of the physical evidence, but it did not help him. I admit that his version of the story has some fanciful details, but Helena Stoeckley's repeated confessions and the aggregate of all the other details convinced me that MacDonald is actually innocent. He's turned down the option of admitting guilt so he can get out on parole. If he's actually guilty, it's strange to keep professing innocence when he has an option to get out. 

Errol Morris' book on Jeff MacDonald took me a long time to read (about a month). It is very dense, and if Morris knew how to write more concisely it could have been about 200 pages shorter. He includes way too many transcripts of conversations and letters. But if you're looking to get deep into the weeds on something, this would be a good case to devote your attention to. It is completely mind boggling. And it all comes down to one question--what crime was committed by Jeff MacDonald? Is he guilty of murder or just guilty of being unlikeable?

Part III - a terrible movie about murder

Eric and I watched Basic Instinct the other night. Neither of us had seen it before. Somewhere along the way I got the misguided impression that this movie qualified as a modern classic. Boy was I wrong. This movie is terrible! If I had known this was directed by the same guy who did Total Recall, I probably wouldn't have watched it. 

Part IV - a great movie about murder 

I'll end this post on a more positive note with a recommendation for a movie that also involves a murder but is much better than Basic Instinct. I first saw The Secret in Their Eyes a few years ago and have been recommending it to everyone I know ever since then. It's an Argentine movie and even though Hollywood is releasing a remake this year, I can guarantee the original is better. Watch it. It has one of my favorite supporting characters of all time, whom I will probably write about in a future post. It's a pretty dark movie overall, but really well done. Definitely one of my favorite movies made in the last 10 years.