'Fatal Vision' murder case revisited
Could Jeffrey MacDonald really be innocent?
- Duration 6:32
- Date Sep 23, 2012
Could Jeffrey MacDonald really be innocent?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
33 years after the murder trial of former green beret doctor Jeffrey MacDonald.
The men convicted of killing his pregnant wife and two young daughters is back in court.
He might soon be a free man take a look.
-- did not murder nor did I hurt my family in any way.
I was innocent 1970 and listen now.
A jury disagreed and -- Jeffrey MacDonald guilty of the murder of his pregnant wife and two young daughters more than thirty years ago.
The army doctors seem to have -- all married to his high school sweetheart too beautiful girls and a baby on the way.
On the morning of February 17.
Police found a scene of horror.
The -- dead bodies of his wife and children and blood everywhere.
The killings happened here at their Fort Bragg North Carolina home in 1970.
-- Donald himself suffered only minor stab wounds.
He acted like a celebrity at first even appearing on late night TV -- the suspicions of his wife's family.
He claimed for drug crazed hippies broke into his house knocked him unconscious.
And stamped his family to death.
His father in law believed he was innocent and then things changed.
I became furious that the fact that he said he had all of -- That I know we didn't have.
This story captivated the nation and was the subject of -- best selling book and the TV miniseries.
McDonald was convicted nine years later and ordered to serve three life sentences.
McDonald -- 68 years old now and still proclaims is innocence.
This week a federal judge considers whether to grant a new trial based on DNA evidence and witness testimony.
That DNA evidence three hairs tested six years ago found at the crime scene do not belong to McDonald's or -- family.
In addition potential bombshell testimony from one Eugene Stokley.
Who claims his sister a drug addict confessed she was present at the killings.
The latest -- died in 1983.
But McDonald's defense team says her confession proves he is innocent.
But the author of fatal vision believes nothing has changed.
Jury made the correct decision in 1979.
It's been upheld -- every appellate court has ever looked at it for 33 years.
-- -- now -- Bob Stevenson collect McDonald's brother Bob thank you for being with us thank you very much for having me well and and of course I you know we all so many years later offer condolences for the death of your sister her two children and she was pregnant with another.
But initially Bob you thought.
That's McDonald was innocent and you change your mind when did you change your mind and why.
The day after the murders that began.
The fact was as we first went down there stood in the lobby along with -- MacDonald -- mother my mother.
And my wife.
Has my mother and and she spoke said how do you know he didn't do it.
I didn't make much of that.
A few moments later we entered the bedroom that he was -- -- the hospital room.
He set up bright eyed bushy -- He looked better than anyone of us he almost had to leave -- smile on his face.
His eyes were bright his wounds were.
Is flirtatious nature was there immediately.
My wife had been a fur -- model and the first thing he said -- -- was a cup it was one of -- world -- So I mean if he he set me on edge immediately.
What kind of danger did he have and was -- ultimately shown that they could have been self inflicted.
The other wounds were entirely superficial.
The numbers that he claimed and buried in changed.
The only wound that in -- way had any form of substance was one wound.
Inflicted with a nice pick the lower part of the long.
And one which a doctor as skilled as C.
Trust me he's a very skilled doctor could easily have done.
In order to save himself.
Bob and me you -- at the hearing this week the federal court hearing it's reviewing that now.
Give me -- your take on the evidence and where did bring you emotionally and what do you think will happen.
Frankly I was shocked and startled to see what the cards with -- he held in his hands he didn't happen.
The -- claims were were under testimony to -- -- was shown to be absolutely false he was the man that said that he.
Was present during the transportation of -- -- -- Stokley and overheard.
A conversation in which he admitted it.
He wasn't there all right so this -- the US Marshal who is now dead set -- a woman admitted to being there when the -- -- but he's in debt.
Yes and then he said also that he was present under the questioning.
That was done by Jim Blackburn when he alleged that he Blackburn had threatened her with prosecution.
If she admitted to having been there again he wasn't in the room and what turns out is that I never knew his.
Marshals are not allowed in the room of course circumstance -- that there is a violence perhaps -- there's a risk of danger.
Let me ask you what do you think is gonna happen Bob well very clearly first of all there is.
You know more about twenty to 55 this is a civil case.
And in the civil case the burden of proof is extremely heavy.
Even if this evidence were to get by to rule twenty to 55 -- keeping the fact is that as I understand it.
All use it in quotes the evidence must be clear and convincing to prove that you are actually yes that's correct -- they couldn't possibly that this -- hand of cards could not possibly stand up under that withering.
Requirements say what borrowers to -- sorry Bob Stevenson I want to thank you for being with us an.