This sounds more like fiction to me, but I wasn’t there:

NON-FICTION: TRUE CRIME
Attorney Matt Dalton with Bonnie Hearn Hill’s PRESUMED GUILTY: What the Jury
Never Knew About Laci Peterson’s Murder, and Why Scott Peterson Should Not Be on
Death Row, to Peter Borland at Atria, for publication in December 2005, in a
very nice deal, by Laura Dail of the Laura Dail Literary Agency (world).

On the admission front:  I am a true crime enthusiast.  By that, I mean true crime books not the actual commission of crimes.  Unfortunately for the accused, I tend to believe whatever the authors say in this context.  Very bad, I know.  One memory I have is of reading Joe McGinniss’ book Fatal Vision about Jeffrey MacDonald’s  conviction for the murders of his pregnant wife and children.  I read it the first time and thought - the bastard is guilty.  Since its original printing there’s been quite a bit of controversy about this book.  The argument goes something like this:  McGinniss "lured" MacDonald into talking, McGinniss had an agenda and McGinniss edited the facts to fit his conclusion. 

You’re probably thinking: what’s wrong with McGinniss, doesn’t he know that’s the job of the prosecutor?  Anyway….

A few years later another book came out.  This one, Fatal Justice, had a very different view of who killed the MacDonald family and the culprit they fingered wasn’t daddy MacDonald.  If you look at the comments for both books on Amazon or B&N, you can see people - many who likely are planted commentators - have very strong views on the who, what, where and why of this one.  MacDonald’s site is pretty clear where he stands, but that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.  You don’t actually expect him to say, after all this time, "hey, I did it" do you? 

In the interest of more disclosure:  I know one of the members of his current defense team, Tim Junkin.  Good lawyer.  Good writer.  Good guy - when I got married he sent me the biggest bunch of flowers I have ever seen in my life and that kind of thing wins my life-long devotion.

So, what’s interesting about this - except the flower thing, of course - is that I’ve read both books and find that my initial impression hasn’t changed.  See, I read the McGinniss book first and more than once before reading the opposition book.  There’s no question my views on MacDonald and his guilt have been shaped by McGinniss (and the TV movie that followed).  Is that fair to MacDonald?  Don’t know, but it will be interesting to see what happens when the DNA testing is done. 

Bottom line: I still think Peterson is guilty as hell.  It’s hard to imagine this book will change my view, but I’ll likely read it anyway.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 29th, 2005 at 6:53 am and is filed under About Books, About Publishing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.