Update: Fascinating book! I was expecting a bit more of her conversations with McGinnis and would have been interested in whether or not her own view of MacDonald's guilt or innocence had changed in the course of the project. It struck me as an oddly chilly book, though completely engrossing.Apparently Joe McGinnis has written a rebuttal at the end of his new edition of Fatal Vision:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DC103AF93BA25754C0A96F948260~~~I don't know what to think about this book. It's certainly holding my attention, but I have to admit, when one side of this moral hoo-hah is guilty of ingratiating himself with his subject and being disingenuous about his motives and the other, hacking his family to bits, I find it hard to muster up the outrage on behalf of journalistic integrity that I think is expected of me.Besides, MacDonald wasn't convicted because he trusted Joe McGinnis. He was convicted because of his shocking ignorance of hippie lexicon. The jury knew, as did we all, that the only hippies in the universe who would chant "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" were the imaginary hippies of Jeffrey MacDonald's Life Magazine fueled imagination.