The Journalist and the Murderer (4 page)

BOOK: The Journalist and the Murderer
4.08Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

We ate dinner together at 5:45 p.m. (all four). It is possible I had one diet pill at this time. I do not remember, and do not think I had one, but it is possible. I had been running a weight-control program for my unit, and I put my name at the top of the program to encourage participation. I had lost 12–15 lbs. in the prior 3–4 weeks, in the process using 3–5 capsules of Eskatrol Spansule. [Quoting this passage in
Fatal Vision
, McGinniss dropped the clause “and do not think I had one.”]

Not implausibly, McGinniss interpreted “3–5 capsules” to mean three to five capsules a
day
, which is an overdose, and he went on to propose in
Fatal Vision
that MacDonald killed his wife and daughters in a fit of rage—a rage against the female sex that he had been repressing since early childhood and that the drug (in combination with stress,
fatigue, and Colette MacDonald’s threatening “new insights into personality structure and behavioral patterns,” picked up at the psychology course she was taking and had just come home from) finally permitted him to vent. McGinniss based his theory of the crime on an uncritical reading of three moral tracts—Otto Kernberg’s
Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism
, Christopher Lasch’s
The Culture of Narcissism
, and Hervey Cleckley’s
The Mask of Sanity
—in which the terms “psychopath” and “pathological narcissist” are confidently offered as the answer to the problem of evil (as if labelling were ever anything more than the restatement of a problem). In the MacDonald-McGinniss trial, to lend credence to McGinniss’s labelling of MacDonald as a pathological narcissist, Kornstein invited Kernberg himself to appear as an expert witness and apply to MacDonald the adjectives he applies to the patients in his book—“grandiose,” “cold,” “shallow,” “ruthless,” “exploitative,” “parasitic,” “haughty,” “envious,” “self-centered,” “lacking in emotional depth,” “deficient in genuine feelings of sadness”—who suffer from the malady he has invented. Kernberg prudently declined, and suggested a colleague of his, Michael Stone, for the role of moralist-in-shrink’s-clothing, which Stone accepted and played to the hilt.

Another arresting find of McGinniss’s at the MacDonald apartment was a letter from Joseph Wambaugh, dated March 28, 1975, spelling out the conditions under which he would consider writing a book about MacDonald. The letter’s tone is more like that of the charmless writing in small print on a baggage-claim check than like the communication of an author to a prospective subject. As he read, McGinniss must have marvelled at, and possibly envied, Wambaugh’s
je m’en foutisme
. But then Wambaugh
was an ex-cop (he was once a detective on the Los Angeles police force), and, maybe even more to the point, he was one of America’s most successful popular writers, who apparently could afford to be blunt (as McGinniss, strapped for cash, apparently could not). “You should understand that I would not think of writing
your
story,” Wambaugh wrote, and he went on:

It would be
my
story. Just as
The Onion Field
was
my
story and
In Cold Blood
was Capote’s story. We both had the living persons sign legal releases which authorized us to interpret, portray, and characterize them as we saw fit, trusting us implicitly to be honest and faithful to the truth as
we
saw it, not as
they
saw it.

With this release you can readily see that you would have no recourse at law if you didn’t like my portrayal of you. Let’s face another ugly possibility: what if I, after spending months of research and interviewing dozens of people and listening to hours of court trials, did not believe you innocent?

I suspect that you may want a writer who would tell
your
story, and indeed your version may very well be the truth as I would see it. But you’d have
no
guarantee, not with me. You’d have absolutely
no
editorial prerogative. You would not even see the book until publication.

McGinniss quotes this letter in
Fatal Vision
, and also quotes from a note that MacDonald sent to Segal about the letter: “What do you think? He sounds awfully arrogant to me, but it will be an obvious best-seller if he writes the book.” McGinniss goes on, “Wambaugh, of course, had not written the book.… Now I was writing it.” He adds, assuming some of Wambaugh’s toughness, “As would have been the case with Wambaugh, MacDonald
had absolutely no editorial prerogative. And the ‘ugly possibility’ to which Wambaugh referred had now become a reality.”

But toward MacDonald himself McGinniss continued to behave with his customary ingratiation. For almost four years—during which he corresponded with MacDonald, spoke with him on the telephone, received his tapes, and, on two occasions, visited him—he successfully hid the fact that in the book under preparation he was portraying MacDonald as a psychopathic killer. In 1981, writing to his editor at Dell, Morgan Entrekan, about the book’s narrative strategy, he expressed his concern lest its protagonist seem “too loathsome too soon,” and proposed that the worst revelations about his character be “postponed until the end, when we draw closer and closer to him, seeing the layers of the mask melt away and gazing, at least obliquely, at the essence of the horror which lurks beneath.” He added—referring to his uneasy relations with the actual MacDonald—“The ice is getting thinner, and I’m still a long way from shore.” But he need not have worried; MacDonald never twigged to the ruse. Like the dupe in the Milgram deception, the naïve subject of a book becomes so caught up in the enterprise and so emotionally invested in it that he simply cannot conceive of it in any terms other than those the writer has set for it. As the Milgram subject imagined he was “helping” someone to learn, so MacDonald imagined he was “helping” McGinniss write a book exonerating him of the crime, and presenting him as a kind of kitsch hero (“loving father and husband,” “dedicated physician,” “overachiever”). When, instead, McGinniss wrote a book charging him with the crime, and presenting him as a kitsch villain (“publicity-seeker,” “womanizer,” “latent homosexual”), MacDonald
was stunned. His dehoaxing took place in a particularly dramatic and cruel manner. McGinniss had steadfastly refused to let him see galleys or an advance copy of the book. In a letter of February 16, 1983, he had written sternly, “I understand your impatience, and it is to that that I will attribute the unpleasantness of your tone.… At no time was there ever any understanding that you would be given an advance look at the book six months prior to publication. As Joe Wambaugh told you in 1975, with him you would not even see a copy before it was published. Same with me. Same with any principled and responsible author.” MacDonald had accepted the rebuke, and had enthusiastically lent himself to the pre-publication publicity campaign for the book. His assignment was an appearance on the television show “60 Minutes,” and it was during the taping of the show in prison that the fact of McGinniss’s duplicity was brought home to him. As Mike Wallace—who had received an advance copy of
Fatal Vision
without difficulty or a lecture—read out loud to MacDonald passages in which he was portrayed as a psychopathic killer, the camera recorded his look of shock and utter discomposure.

Milgram, in the chapter on methodology in
Obedience to Authority
, explains that he did not use Yale undergraduates as subjects because of the risk that word of the experiment might get out among the student population. But there is reason to think—extrapolating from the writer-subject experiment—that even subjects who had heard of the Milgram experiment would have fallen into its trap after only a slight alteration of its character. MacDonald, after all, had heard of people who were displeased with what was written about them (sometimes to the point of suing the writer), and still he behaved as if there were no
possibility that his “own” book could be anything but flattering and gratifying. Perhaps even more striking is MacDonald’s continuing and, under the circumstances, crazy trust in the good intentions of journalists. To this day, after all that has happened to him, he continues to give interviews to journalists, continues to correspond with them, continues to send them material (through an out-of-prison information office run by a woman named Gail Boyce), and does everything he can to be helpful to them, just as he did with McGinniss. Something seems to happen to people when they meet a journalist, and what happens is exactly the opposite of what one would expect. One would think that extreme wariness and caution would be the order of the day, but in fact childish trust and impetuosity are far more common. The journalistic encounter seems to have the same regressive effect on a subject as the psychoanalytic encounter. The subject becomes a kind of child of the writer, regarding him as a permissive, all-accepting, all-forgiving mother, and expecting that the book will be written by her. Of course, the book is written by the strict, all-noticing, unforgiving father. During our conversation in Williamstown, McGinniss quoted the following passage from an essay by Thomas Mann, which he had come upon in a book by another of his literary heroes, Joseph Campbell:

The look that one directs at things, both outward and inward, as an artist, is not the same as that with which one would regard the same as a man, but at once colder and more passionate. As a man, you might be well-disposed, patient, loving, positive, and have a wholly uncritical inclination to look upon everything as all right, but as artist your daemon constrains you to “observe,” to take note,
lightning fast and with hurtful malice, of every detail that in the literary sense would be characteristic, distinctive, significant, opening insights, typifying the race, the social or the psychological mode, recording all as mercilessly as though you had no human relationship to the observed object whatever.

“This isn’t something that you can argue before a jury of people who don’t read books,” McGinniss said to me, “but it seems to me to get right to the heart of it.” He told me that he had “compartmentalized” his conflicting attitudes toward MacDonald. “The first letter I got from the guy, written eighteen hours after his conviction, brought tears to my eyes. I felt genuine sorrow. He wrote, ‘All I want to know is that you’re still my friend and you believe in me.’ So what’s the appropriate response? To send back a paragraph that says, ‘I reserve the right to my own opinions, and I remind you that I’m the author and you are the subject, and we have to keep things on that level’? Or do I write back and say, ‘You sound terrible, prison must be awful, I really feel bad for you’? All of which was an expression of genuine feeling at that time on my part. Not a lie. But I was compartmentalizing. I was suspending my critical faculty long enough to allow me to write that letter.”

The letter in question was written on September 11, 1979, twelve days after MacDonald’s first letter to McGinniss. It read, in part:

Dear Jeff,

Every morning for a week now, I’ve been waking up wondering where you are. A bus! Christ! It seems that the only function a ride across country in a prison bus might
serve is to make your destination seem not quite as awful as it otherwise would have. On the other hand, I’m sure your destination seems awful. Is awful. Terminal Island. Pretty terrible name, on top of everything else.…

I am glad to see that you are able to write—to describe and analyze both what happened to you and your own feelings about it. I have plenty of my own thoughts, which I’ll be getting to sooner or later, but mostly I am relieved to see that you are apparently able to function constructively despite the extreme limitations. Also, I’m glad you didn’t kill yourself, because that sure would have been a bummer for the book.…

There could not be a worse nightmare than the one you are living through now—but it is only a phase. Total strangers can recognize within five minutes that you did not receive a fair trial.…

Well, I’m sure when I see you we will have plenty of chance to talk about that as well as many other things. Bob Keeler, incidentally, told me he planned to spend quite a bit of time interviewing you at Terminal Island. Told me also he wants to write a book on the case & is talking to Doubleday about it. I would just as soon he did not write a book; & Delacorte will be announcing my book—and the full and exclusive access aspect of our relationship—this week to try and keep the field reasonably clear. Frankly, I am not sure what Keeler’s attitude toward you is. I’m not implying that he believes you are guilty—I just don’t know, but I think it would be better on many counts if you did nothing to encourage or to assist anyone else who might be planning to write about this.…

You must fear—on top of everything else—that you will somehow become a non-person. Just—poof—there is no more Jeff. There is just this big empty space where he was. Well, that’s not going to happen, because there are too many people who care too much about you, and please try
to remember that during those hours and days when you feel at your worst.… I will be back home by Sept. 25—into N.Y. on Sept. 26 for meetings about this book with Delacorte—it’s a dinner, actually, where the president of the company & Sterling [Lord] & I will try to block out a reasonable timetable & where I explain to them how things managed to take this drastic & unexpected turn for the shitty.… I have much, much more to say, but I do want you to receive at least this much from me by the time you reach Cal.… I’ll write again in a couple of days. Jeff, it’s all so fucking awful I can’t believe it yet—the sight of the jury coming in—of the jury polling—of you standing—saying those few words—being led out—and then seeing you in a fucking prison. It’s a hell of a thing—spend the summer making a new friend and then the bastards come along and lock him up. But not for long, Jeffrey—not for long.

More soon—      
Joe

On September 28, 1979, McGinniss wrote again:

 … I am very relieved that you are at last in a place where they do not keep you in shackles all day.… I am hoping that you won’t even be there very long; that the folks in Richmond [the federal appeals court] recognize and act upon the validity of the bail appeal.…

What I propose is to fly to California, prepared to stay for a while. To see you, as much as possible, either at this location where fate and bureaucracy have combined to put you, or, far better for both of us, in Huntington Beach. In any event, that is when our real work can begin. Aside from the money, and the fact that someday the full story will be told, it seems to me that one very important benefit of the book is that it gives you something constructive to do
day by day. Something real; something valuable; something essential. A way to channel your anger and reflections. A book about the case; no convict should be without one. (Even in jest, it doesn’t feel right to type the word “convict” in reference to you, and I am hoping like hell this phase will come to as quick and merciful a halt as possible next week in Richmond with the granting of bail.…

Jeff, it is still very hard to accept all of this. To have you writing about prison and life on the bus. To be trying to answer all the questions about what went wrong: the most obvious answers, of course, are the ones you’ve already come up with. Jury selection. It was utter madness … was, all by itself, probably all the answer anyone would ever need as to what went wrong.…

Goddamn, Jeff, one of the worst things about all this is how suddenly and totally all your friends—self included—have been deprived of the pleasure of your company.… What the fuck were those people thinking of? How could 12 people not only agree to believe such a horrendous proposition, but agree, with a man’s life at stake, that they believed it beyond a reasonable doubt? In six and a half hours?…

As you have no doubt gathered, I do not devote the care to word selection and organization in my letters that I do in my books. Generally, I don’t write letters at all. One of the reasons my phone bill each month is almost as high as the mortgage. Writing, for me, is work, and I do not like to do my work carelessly, but if I waited until I got a letter into the shape I’d be happy with, you would never hear another word from me and would think I had perished on a mountain or had instead undertaken to write the life story of Freddy Kassab. So, even as imperfectly as I have expressed it, what I mean is I am still sorry as hell this whole thing ever happened, and am impatient to see you again and to plunge into the book, and, hopefully, once again to share
with you many laughs and good stories and new experiences as well as re-living, in sorrow, some of the bad ones from the past.…

BOOK: The Journalist and the Murderer
4.08Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

To Say I Love You by Anna Martin
Ramage's Challenge by Dudley Pope
Familiar Spirits by Leonard Tourney
Virtue Falls by Christina Dodd
Short Bus Hero by Shannon Giglio
Angel Isle by Peter Dickinson
What Happened to Ivy by Kathy Stinson