Stream It Or Skip It: ‘A Wilderness Of Error’ On FX, A Docuseries That Re-Investigates The Jeffrey MacDonald Case For The Umpteenth Time

On February 17, 1970, Jeffrey MacDonald made an emergency call from his home on Fort Bragg in North Carolina. He claims that hippies who said that “Acid is Great!” killed his wife and two young daughters. MacDonald was a Princeton grad, a Green Beret, and Army surgeon, and there were friends and witnesses that didn’t think he did it. But all evidence pointed towards him. His case is so famous that numerous books and TV miniseries have been made about it. The latest is A Wilderness of Error, by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, who has doubts about MacDonald’s eventual conviction in 1979. A new FX docuseries, based on the book, reinvestigates the case 50 years later.

A WILDERNESS OF ERROR: STREAM IT OR SKIP IT?

Opening Shot: We see a slate for an interview with filmmaker and author Errol Morris. He smiles and jokes, “So what brings you here today?”

The Gist: A Wilderness of Error, based on Morris’ book of the same name, reinvestigates the Jeffrey MacDonald case. If you’re not familiar with the case, then you haven’t seen the thousands of news reports on it, the dozens of books written about it, the network miniseries based on one of those books (Fatal Vision), or the various docuseries that dedicated episodes to it, like the original Unsolved Mysteries.

Director Mark Smerling talks to Morris as well as investigators and attorneys on both sides of the case, trying to address Morris’ doubts about the evidence that led to MacDonald’s eventual conviction in 1979. The idea is if the narrative about the case has taken over for what really happened.

The first episode details the murder, through interviews, news clippings and reenacted scenes. Testimony during MacDonald’s Article 32 hearing, where the Army decided whether he should stand for court martial on the case, were also recreated. What all of this does is paint a picture of a man who insisted that Manson family wannabes killed his family and left him for dead. As his account of the killings, and how he went from room to room, checking on his family and calling the base MPs, is recreated, there seems to be credibility in the account. The word “PIG” is even smeared in blood on their headboard.

But, as the investigators reported, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was forced entry or that anyone but MacDonald did the crime. His defense thought that the CID did a sloppy job securing the crime scene, with dozens of people walking through, moving items, sitting on the furniture. Then there was a coffee table that seemed to be in a position that wasn’t possible given the accounts of how MacDonald might have done the killings. One of MacDonald’s defense attorneys even followed the “woman in the floppy hat and white boots”; the woman, Helena Stoeckley, said it was entirely possible she was at the scene, though she didn’t remember.

All of this led to the Army deciding not to bring MacDonald to court martial. But the case was far from over.

What Shows Will It Remind You Of? A Wilderness of Error is one of many true crime docuseries that have been floating around. It’s like Making A Murderer, but with a hugely famous case, and an angle that tries to dispute the evidence that got the accused person convicted.

Our Take: When we found out that A Wilderness of Error was about the MacDonald case, we let out a sigh. Fifty years later, with all the books, series, documentaries and news reports over the decades arguing this case, we need yet another show about the case? After the first episode, we’re still not sure, despite the amiable presence of Morris and the very legitimate doubts that hang over the case even now.

Why is this case so fascinating to people? Probably because it involves a guy who was a Green Beret army surgeon, a guy whose friends had no clue would be capable of such violence. But it also involves such a horrifically violent crime that it hit every note for news media that wanted to sensationalize the case.

But, given the fact that this case has been investigated over and over, and the fact that this case was a half a century ago, it feels like Smerling is stretching to make it interesting once again. Bringing the crime scene and other scenes to live via recreations is one thing, but recreating police interviews and court testimony felt a little too much, given how much he relies on the device. We get it, it’s better presented as audio than video, but we can hear the acting through our speakers, and it reduces the credibility of the docuseries just a hair.

The first episode didn’t hook us at all, mainly because it doesn’t detail anything that people who have followed the case don’t already know. Maybe as we go through the twists and turns of his appeals, higher court rulings, claims of double jeopardy and finally his trial 9 years later, things will pick up.

Parting Shot: We see an actress representing Helena Stoeckly write a letter to a friend after MacDonald was released; “I’m in deep, deep, trouble,” as we get a circular fade closes in on her floppy hat.

Sleeper Star: All of the investigators and lawyers that are interviewed are likely in their late 70s or their 80s. Their recall of the night, even the weather, is pretty good given how long ago it was.

Most Pilot-y Line: The recreations are very clumsily done, and we wish there were a few less of them.

Our Call: SKIP IT. The recreations on A Wilderness of Error are irritating, and it doesn’t really feel like it’s going to answer any questions or break new ground in the 50-year old MacDonald case.

Joel Keller (@joelkeller) writes about food, entertainment, parenting and tech, but he doesn’t kid himself: he’s a TV junkie. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Slate, Salon, RollingStone.com, VanityFair.com, Fast Company and elsewhere.

Stream A Wilderness Of Error On Hulu