A Shadow of Doubt

Digg ThisShare via email

In 1979, Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of the 1970 murders of his pregnant wife and two daughters. At his trial, the relatively inexperienced prosecution team initially seemed to be at a disadvantage compared to the slick defense team; but ultimately it was clear that the evidence supported the former’s case rather than the latter’s.

MacDonald maintained that his family was killed by a gang of hippies that broke into their apartment. But the physical evidence — particularly the blood around the apartment, from four family members who happened to have four different blood types — clearly told a very different story. It showed what his actual movements and actions had been that night; and it gave no particular indication that any outside persons had been in the apartment at all, especially given how rainy and muddy that night was. While his family members had been brutally stabbed and clubbed, MacDonald sustained only one notable injury; and this had every appearance of having been self-inflicted (using his skills as a surgeon) as part of his trying to cover his tracks.

In spite of the rock-solid case against MacDonald, though, there continue to be people who believe he is innocent — that he was railroaded by a corrupt and incompetent system. Those in his camp have found many a way to cast a shadow of doubt on the case against him. They point to sloppiness in the initial investigation; to the mentally unstable person who “confessed,” apparently just to call attention to herself (giving various accounts that didn’t line up with MacDonald’s story, or with each other); and to whatever else they can find that would seem to raise a question as to MacDonald’s guilt. None of this, however, even begins to counter the story that’s told by the physical evidence and supported by many other factors.

Various people have their own reasons for believing in MacDonald’s innocence. For some, the railroading of an innocent man makes for a more compelling narrative than the truth does. Some simply cannot believe the man to be capable of doing what he’s accused of. Either way, though, what they believe is about what they prefer to believe, rather than what the evidence should lead them to believe.

I bring all this up not to comment on the MacDonald case, but merely to use it to point to an unfortunate human tendency I’ve observed. It is, in part, the tendency to base beliefs on preference and emotion rather than on facts and reason, but it is also more than that. Specifically, it is the tendency of people to act as if they can take a clear truth that they are uncomfortable with, and somehow cause it to become not true by casting whatever shadow of doubt upon it that they can. The simple obviousness of the truth is beside the point, as is the strength of the evidence that supports it. If they can find ways to raise questions about it, to misrepresent it so that it appears wrong, to drum up evidence that can appear to counter it, etc., then they can convince themselves — and others — that it really isn’t the truth at all.

People have been falling for this kind of deception ever since the first humans were convinced by the Enemy — appearing as a “wise serpent” — that God didn’t really say what he said. In the present day, all one has to do to see this tendency in action is to observe how various controversial issues are discussed. On one side of the controversy there will be facts that are simple, clear and practically self-evident, but there may also be quite a few questions that aren’t easily answered. On the other side there may be valid questions and even good intentions, but there will also be emotional arguments, wrong assumptions, and observations that don’t actually prove what they’re supposed to. And, generally, there will be all manner of subtle tricks — including outright lies — that attempt to distract from and get around the clear, inconvenient facts. And there will be many who fall for these tricks instead of seeking to learn things for themselves.

There are several matters in our world about which the clear truth has become unpopular. It’s always interesting, and instructive, to observe how people respond when confronted with the basic facts in each of these areas. The questions and objections they can raise are practically endless, and can sound quite convincing to those inclined to agree with them. But the hard, clear, overriding reality always remains. It can be ignored, avoided, dismissed, misrepresented, mocked and argued against… but it can never be shown to be anything other than what it is.

There will always be people who don’t like the truth and will try to cast shadows of doubt on it. Those of us who seek to know truth, and to make it known, are not responsible for having answers to every possible question. But we are responsible for remembering, and reminding others, that truth does not cease to be truth just because some people can find ways to raise questions and doubts about it.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

• Byron Case: Justice or Theft of Liberty by Deceit?
• Getting ‘Creative’ With the Bible
• The Court of Law v. The Court of Public Opinion
• A Primer on Counterfeit Marriage
• Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?

David Mann is a Christian who lives in Florida.

David Mann

View all articles by David Mann