I have written before about my complicated relationship with Gene Weingarten and his writing.
I have a tremendous admiration for Errol Morris as a filmmaker.
I own, but have not yet read, A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald
.
The intersection of these three things: Weingarten in the WP profiling Brian Murtagh, the federal prosecutor in the MacDonald case. And, in the process, taking on Morris and his book. Weingarten believes MacDonald is guilty:
I’ve concluded this both because I have researched the case extensively, and because, as a writer, I see exactly how Errol Morris prejudiced his account while shrewdly appearing not to do so. I admire his skill but not his book. I think the media have been careless and gullible in reviewing it, perhaps partially because the story of a grievous, enduring miscarriage of justice presents a more compelling narrative than the alternative.
So Weingarten should maybe be taken with at least a small grain of salt. But he does bring up several places where Morris himself admits problems. For example, a woman named Helena Stoeckley allegedly confessed to a federal marshal, Jimmy Britt, that she was present when the killings took place. Britt filed a sworn affidavit stating that Stoeckley confessed while he was transporting her to the trial. Both Britt and Stoeckley are now dead.
None of what was about to come out was in Errol Morris’s book, though it was available to him in public records.
Jimmy Britt, evidence suggested, had not transported Helena Stoeckley from South Carolina at all; he’d never had hours to talk to her. The transport had been done by a tag-team succession of other marshals. Some of the paperwork still survived. Two of the transporters testified.
More:
There are many significant, incriminating facts glossed over in, or completely omitted from, “A Wilderness of Error.” Conversely, much is made of nonsense. An entire chapter is devoted to the supposedly startling fact that Helena Stoeckley reported seeing a broken rocking horse in Kristy’s room. Yes, the horse had been clearly visible in newspaper photos, but no one, Morris argues, had ever publicly disclosed it was broken.
Punchline: it wasn’t broken. And:
Just before this story went to press, Errol Morris and I spoke for nearly an hour; he concedes there are some things he wishes he’d written differently — for example, disclosing that there were some credible challenges to Jimmy Britt’s story. Morris allows that he may have used some facts selectively to make a case for what he believes — selectivity, he says, is part of all journalism — but adds that his belief remains solid that MacDonald did not get a fair trial. He also thinks MacDonald is innocent, but of that is less certain.
The entire article is pretty long, but I commend it to your attention if you have any interest in the MacDonald case.
(Hattip: Ted Frank by way of Popehat on the Twitter.)
This entry was posted on Friday, December 7th, 2012 at 10:34 am and is filed under Books, Clippings, Law, Movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.