I watched CBS’s 48 Hours again this week. This week they profiled the case of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald.

In the first few moments, after I saw Jeffrey MacDonald talk, I believed him.

I believed he was innocent.

Then I sat at the edge of my seat, watching, listening and wondering. While I can determine a lie rather quickly, I have no idea of the facts behind the case — so I sit with anticipation to see if things logically fit with what I see.

Some of the evidence that 48 Hours presented caused me to doubt myself and to wonder about the case. Logically, I must say from what was presented on this TV show, you couldn’t help but look suspiciously at Dr. MacDonald.

Yet every time I saw him spoke, I felt he was telling the truth.

So, I make this post as a test for myself. Talk is that DNA evidence will be released this year which might help determine the truth in this case once and for all. If DNA exonerates Dr. MacDonald, I will have a solid belief in my abilities.

Right now, I am confident that I am capable to about 80%. Beyond that, I don’t have enough facts to know if I am right — or not. Cases hang in the balance to show my accuracy.

May this be a test…

Update: 7/06/07
I’ve come to understand my abilities a little better — and as of today, July 7th, I no longer stand by this opinion. I am not changing my mind — and stating that I disbelief MacDonald either. Rather, I refrain from judgment, and here is an explanation as to why.

On that note, if you see any old video of Jeffrey MacDonald shortly after the murderers, or anytime up to and through the trial — point me to them!

There is a very interesting video segment on MSNBC today about the Horowitz murder. It’s a long segment, so to get to the point, move 3 minutes and 40 seconds into it and then play it.

A criminal prosecutor, Jonna Spilbor, takes on the role of the defending the accused young man in this case — and in attempting to “protect him” because we don’t know for sure if he or someone else killed Pamela Vitale — she does the only logical thing in our legal system: she attacks Horowitz.

How else can you legally defend someone in this situation?

Seriously?

She makes a great case to show the public how the legal system works. She makes you question Horowitz — even though she says herself she doesn’t think Horowitz did this. She is left with little else as she clearly states — baring that no DNA is found.

Imagine being appointed by the state to defend this guy. Imagine being his attorney — especially if you believe he is guilty (not that I am saying he is).

She gives you the chills at what she would have to do. She is clear, she makes you ask great questions, she makes you want to naturally question Horowitz. She gives you instant doubt!

It’s amazing how we can bend the truth — even what we believe — if we need to. This defense attorney is GOOD!

Doesn’t this seem to go against the attorneys sworn oath — that they will defend the truth at all costs? That is what the oath was meant to do — but when you look at the oath, you clearly see the loopholes — don’t you?

Ms. Jonna Spilbor sure points that out clearly. Doesn’t she?

What a flawed system.

* * *

On the Horowitz case, I must say that I am anxious to see if they find any substantial evidence that this young man actually did this. So far, we haven’t heard any to conclusively show us that HE did in fact kill Pamela Vitale. How do we know that there isn’t a killer at large still? I am hoping this poor guy gets a fair trial because the media and the police have unequivocally stated that Horowitz couldn’t possibly be the murderer — without taking any of the normal investigative avenues. The police have really dropped the ball in this case the way they handled Horowitz.

I don’t believe Horowitz killed his wife either. His face is genuine and honest and match his words, but regardless — it is really setting this case to be botched now matter what comes forward.