Skip to comments.Flashback: 1987 Killer Wins Settlement Against Author Joe McGinniss ($325K)
Posted on 09/26/2011 11:23:28 PM PDT by MN_Mike
Sleazy book author, Joe McGinniss and his publisher are currently being sued by Sarah Palin's lawyer. But this is not the first lawsuit against McGinniss. Jeffrey MacDonald, the former Army Green Beret and physician convicted of the bloody murders of his wife and two young daughters, won a $325,000 settlement Monday from the author (Joe McGinnis) who portrayed him as a killer in the book "Fatal Vision."
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.latimes.com ...
“Joe McGinniss and his publisher are currently being sued by Sarah Palin’s lawyer. “
Lots of loose journalism going on. Nobody has sued anybody yet.
Semantics. I consider a Letter of Intent the start of a lawsuit procedure.
BTW Are you are journalist? I’m not nor are many of those who post on Free Republic. A certain level of “looseness” is to be expected, tolerated, and accepted.
So, besides picking nits.....
“A certain level of looseness is to be expected, tolerated, and accepted.”
I prefer facts, but each to his own, I guess.
I prefer an absence of sanctimony, try it. What exactly is not factual? Are you a trial lawyer?
I certainly don’t think the world is going to fall apart! I’ve seen a lot more heinous errors then saying someone is suing (whose lawyers have sent letters of intent) by the LSM. The main point of the article is McGinnis has been slimy for a long time.
Sanctimony? Better get out the dictionary and try again.
You seem terribly condescending. Have you read “How to win friends and influence people?”
Thanks. I thought it was useful to show the record on Joe McGinniss dating back to his 1987 settlement. It’s actually quite a story in a story.
Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness.
— Works for me
The suit wasn't over MacDonald's guilt, but rather, over some supposed agreement that McGinnis had with MacDonald to portray him as innocent in exchange for information. MacDonald was guiltier than hell.
Whether a suit goes forward or there is a settlement before, I suspect $325k is going to look like chump change.
I actually thought he’d been proved innocent. Guess I’ve watched The Fugitive too many times, LOL!
What is it with all these n00bs lately being such jerks? I’ve seen so many lately that just start snarking the minute they hit a thread. Maybe they’ve never heard the fly/honey analogy or just haven’t learned how to have a decent online conversation. And this one’s actually better than some of them I’ve encountered. When I signed up I kinda thought “snark” was something I had to earn.
Moomieeeeeee! He called me a bad word!
Actually, I wasn’t referring to you. You didn’t pick a fight with me, did you? That would be a personal attack. You wouldn’t do that, therefore I was not referring to you.
Right. It demonstrates a long-standing pattern of ethical problems and ulterior motives. Don’t you agree?
“And this ones actually better than some of them Ive encountered. “
Sorry! I was just having too much fun to stop! I’ll be quiet now. Can’t speak for the other guy, of course.
I agree. I thought posting an interesting article with background on McGinniss would be relatively easy.
No doubt. But to me that’s a side matter. I found it interesting because of Joe McSleazes long history of double-dealing and the settlement amount even for such a evil man as the killer.
Hey dude. You may want to back down the foul language against fellow FReepers. It is no way to argue a point and it really won’t lend to your longevity her, especially since you have no mileage on your odometer.
You have an odd sense of fun.
Don’t you find the substance of the article, the historical background on the author of interest?
No, I don't agree. I fail to see what other conclusion he could have come to. It would have been dishonest to portray MacDonald in any other way.
I just read the Writers name and the Killers name and they make me want to equally throw up. McLiar is done anyway. I have a feeling this book will never see the light of day and his days on the cocktail circuit are over for his abject failure in destroying Palin.
Right. But he was hired by the murder to portray a good image. At least that was the basis of the settlement as I saw it. That he was hired for one thing and turned around and did another.
Moreover, McGinniss had a television deal about the book.
You certainly don’t have to be quiet, just be tactful and cut people some slack. Debate and discussion is what keeps this site going.
I agree, Lazlo, this McGinniss should be out of business over this one. The 1987 lawsuit concerned a different publisher and the settlement was paid with the G. P. Putnam’s, Sons, insurance policy.
It’s remarkable to me that the jury couldn’t reach a verdict. Then, months later they agree to settle for $300k plus.
The murder situation is terribly upsetting, I’ll grant you that.
“Maybe theyve never heard the fly/honey analogy”
The trouble with the fly/honey analogy is that there’s a substance that attracts way more flies than honey does.
“On the verge of being sued” picky picky picky. It will doubtless proceed into a lawsuit because McGinniss doesn’t give up easily and neither does Sarah Palin.
Shoo fly pie is not made with horse manure....
McDonald and McGuiness- two McSlimebags
McGinniss was contracted to write a “favorable” book, which I guess he found hard to do given the circumstances. I suppose he should have just dropped it.
I’m not sure a guy who slaughtered his family is someone Palin would want as an ally.
In less kinder and gentler days, gentlemen would settle matters by means of a duel. Duels did not have to be fought to the death, but only until one’s honor was restored. Both the insulter and insultee agreed to that resolution before the actual duel took place. The job of the Second was to assure that no cheating (on the part of the duelist or his Second) happened. The problem was that kind of rude justice cutout the lawyers and it had to stop.
The trial lawyers made dueling illegal and now you have to bankrupt yourself by retaining an attorney to go after sleazy characters like McGinniss. And no, there is no guarantee of justice or that your reputation will be made whole or the amounts of money you've paid will ever be reimbursed.
“Some” are here on behalf of certain candidates... to promote them and their message... they stick around and get involved... like most beltway controlled drones... they are mostly a$$hole$.
McDonald was guilty as hell. He has never been parolled.
In this case, McDonald was given access to McDonalds defense, but in the end, came down on the side of the prosecution and wrote Fatal Vision, a damning indictment of sociopath Jeff McDonald.
McGinness was unethical in that he used his access to inside info against McDonald.
This is one of those cases where neither side deserves much sympathy.
oops, McGinnis, thanks for pointing that out.
It is early yet! LOL
If that is your belief, you are part of the problem for what is now propaganda journalism.