Larry Race question

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Ok, in the broadcast they make mention he had a second raft, Larry stated he had a second raft that had a hole in it so he therefore ditched it into the lake...but was it never recovered? I can't see the significance of this? Also about the raft that was found, the prosecutor guy says the one raft found had knife cuts in the air chambers, Larry never mentions this nor does he give any explaination how this could have occured, he never even talks about the raft that was found. I would have liked to have heard him speak about this. Can someone smart please enlighten me?

[wiseguy182]

I would speculate that the significance of two rafts would be to show that Larry was safety-concious. It appears as if he was stopped by someone before they went out that asked him about the safety of the boat. Plus, Larry said that although the rafts are supposed to carry two people, you could only really fit one on there and that's why we saw Larry in the water trying to pull Debby's raft to shore.

Good point about the holes in the raft there, SpaceInvaderz. I would have liked to hear more discussion on this, and I wondered if this was an important part of the trial. One possible theory is that the raft crashed against some rocks or something, and that might explain the cuts.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

I would speculate that the significance of two rafts would be to show that Larry was safety-concious. It appears as if he was stopped by someone before they went out that asked him about the safety of the boat. Plus, Larry said that although the rafts are supposed to carry two people, you could only really fit one on there and that's why we saw Larry in the water trying to pull Debby's raft to shore.

Good point about the holes in the raft there, SpaceInvaderz. I would have liked to hear more discussion on this, and I wondered if this was an important part of the trial. One possible theory is that the raft crashed against some rocks or something, and that might explain the cuts.

Yeah but that first raft that he claimed he had tried to use was never found...is that correct? I still don't see the how it makes a difference if he had one or two rafts.

Yes I would love to hear Larry say SOMETHING about the raft that was found.... probably because he is guilty. Also I think there is a difference between punctures/scratches of a raft hitting rocks and a knife slash and not just once but 5 times. I think UM should have focused a little more on this raft because that's what makes me believe he is guilty.

[kadrmas15]

I am honestly stunned to see someone think Larry Race is guilty because of a cut up raft. I mean to be honest I think the prosecution's case had more holes in it than the raft did. That is just an opinion. I mean of course it is certainly possible that Larry did do it but I just dont believe he did. I thought he was innocent from the first time I saw the case. It just seemed to me that the prosectuor was more out to bust someone's balls for the death of Larry's wife more than anything else.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

I mean to be honest I think the prosecution's case had more holes in it than the raft did.

Ooh, snap! ;)

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

I am honestly stunned to see someone think Larry Race is guilty because of a cut up raft. I mean to be honest I think the prosecution's case had more holes in it than the raft did. That is just an opinion. I mean of course it is certainly possible that Larry did do it but I just dont believe he did. I thought he was innocent from the first time I saw the case. It just seemed to me that the prosectuor was more out to bust someone's balls for the death of Larry's wife more than anything else.

Your explaination of the cuts in the raft is?

[wiseguy182]

You are correct SpaceInvaderz, the second raft was never found. In the segment, it shows Larry throwing the first raft (which had holes in it and wouldn't work) out of the boat in a hurry, presumably since it was taking up space and they were in a hurry to get to safety.

I always thought the prosecutor was arrogant and I never cared much for him. When I first saw this case, I was kind of 50/50 on it, nowadays I Lean towards Larry being innocent, but this guy didn't think the case was even appropriate for Unsolved Mysteries. That's going too far, this isn't an open and shut case and there is definitely some evidence that Larry is innocent.

[kadrmas15]

Well SI there is a number of possibilities. The raft could have had wear and tear. It could have bounced up against rocks and been cut. IT could have been cut by an object in the water. I mean there are a number of things that could have happened to cause the cuts. It is also possible that Larry himself cut the raft. But I think it is a bit of jumping the gun to say he for sure did it end of story. I mean I think there are a number of things that could have happened besides him cutting the raft himself. I mean I just think if he was going to kill his wife he would have done it differently. If for no other reason I dont see him taking that big of a gamble on his own life just to knock off his wife.

[kadrmas15]

I think the prosectuor in this case was the Nancy Grace style in being just very arrogant and over zealous. He took what was very cirumstancial circumstances and turned that into a murder investigation. Rarely does a prisoner in Minnesota get paroled on the first try if they are in for life yet Larry Race would have been paroled when he first became eligible had he just admitted he did it. I am glad Larry is out and living his life. It is just unfortunate he lost 22 years of his life when he is most likely innocent. I agree the prosecutor was quite arrogant, assuming that he for sure could not have made a mistake and that anyone that he convicted must be guilty no ifs ands or buts. He kind of seems like Nancy Grace in that in their opinions everyone that comes in their court is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

You are correct SpaceInvaderz, the second raft was never found. In the segment, it shows Larry throwing the first raft (which had holes in it and wouldn't work) out of the boat in a hurry, presumably since it was taking up space and they were in a hurry to get to safety.

I always thought the prosecutor was arrogant and I never cared much for him. When I first saw this case, I was kind of 50/50 on it, nowadays I Lean towards Larry being innocent, but this guy didn't think the case was even appropriate for Unsolved Mysteries. That's going too far, this isn't an open and shut case and there is definitely some evidence that Larry is innocent.

I agree that regardless of whether Larry really did murder his wife or not the prosecutor made a huge diick of himself on national TV.

Oh hang on... Larry didn't say anything but is he implying the first raft that had holes in it that he tossed aside was the one that was actually found?

Well SI there is a number of possibilities. The raft could have had wear and tear. It could have bounced up against rocks and been cut. IT could have been cut by an object in the water. I mean there are a number of things that could have happened to cause the cuts. It is also possible that Larry himself cut the raft. But I think it is a bit of jumping the gun to say he for sure did it end of story. I mean I think there are a number of things that could have happened besides him cutting the raft himself. I mean I just think if he was going to kill his wife he would have done it differently. If for no other reason I dont see him taking that big of a gamble on his own life just to knock off his wife.

There is a difference between wear and tear, puncture marks or scratches and knife cuts. We never saw photos of the raft that was found so no one here knows for sure. I would like your thoughts on why Larry mentioned absolutely nothing about the raft that was found. Maybe Larry didn't take his wife out to kill her but perhaps her life was put in danger and Larry took advantage of this.

Come to think of it, there is another thing that bothers me about Larry. He openly discusses his affairs. Why bring this up? This is irrelevent and information we didn't need to know.

[wiseguy182]

SpaceInvaderz, to answer your questions, Larry said that the first raft had holes in it and wouldn't work, so he tossed that one aside. He said he grabbed the second one, and that appeared to work fine. This second one was the one that was found and that had the cuts or whatever on it.

The significance of the two rafts was the following: Larry said that the rafts are supposed to be two person rafts, but can really only carry one person. The two rafts were important, because in the event of an emergency (which did occur) both Larry and Debby would each have a raft in order to make it to shore safely. Since the one raft didn't work, Larry (realizing he was the better swimmer) decided to try and pull Debby's raft to shore.

I can't remember if the segment stated what Debby died of. She was found with a life preserver on, so I'm guessing she didn't drown. Perhaps she died of the cold temperatures/hypothermia.

Even though this is one of the longer segments (I believe it hovers around the 18-22 minute mark), there does appear to be several key elements left out.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

The significance of the two rafts was the following: Larry said that the rafts are supposed to be two person rafts, but can really only carry one person. The two rafts were important, because in the event of an emergency (which did occur) both Larry and Debby would each have a raft in order to make it to shore safely. Since the one raft didn't work, Larry (realizing he was the better swimmer) decided to try and pull Debby's raft to shore.

I still don't understand this n it looks like I never will. Anyways one other thing nagging at me, don't you think it's rather odd that Larry pushes his wife out a little way, then returns to his own boat and then can't find where he left his wife? That doesn't make much sense to me.

[wiseguy182]

Anyways one other thing nagging at me, don't you think it's rather odd that Larry pushes his wife out a little way, then returns to his own boat and then can't find where he left his wife? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Well you have a good point there, this is one of the things that is left out of the segment. We find Larry making it back to the boat, but the re-enactment ends kind of abruptly after that. There could be a rational explanation of it, we just never heard it. It was dark out, so that could have an effect on his attempts to relocate her.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Well you have a good point there, this is one of the things that is left out of the segment. We find Larry making it back to the boat, but the re-enactment ends kind of abruptly after that. There could be a rational explanation of it, we just never heard it. It was dark out, so that could have an effect on his attempts to relocate her.

I think, think they said once he got back onboard his own boat he fired some flairs and couldn't find her....? His whole story doesn't add up to me. I think what happened was this; Larry killed his wife, probably by pushing her out a little way, used a knife that he would have been carrying on him, cut the air chambers then ditched the knife. Then he returned to his boat. He then made up a story of a second raft so the investigation focused on finding that rather looking for the knife that's lying on the bottom of the lake. I can only wonder how long it took for Larry to report his wife missing..?

[wiseguy182]

SpaceInvaderz, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I do respect your opinions.

When I listen to suspects' stories, I ask myself, "How plausible is their story?" For some examples of people I think had holes in their story and/or their stories just don't add up are Paul Pollis, Chad Noe, Steven Marfeo, Mark Nichols and Rob Page, or as I like to refer to them as the Not-So-Fab-Five.

However, the Jenny Lee (the name of Debby and Larry's boat) almost sank the year before, as a similar incident occured when Larry took his daughters out that year. Also, an expert tested the boat engine and found that it would have intermittent starting problems, which might explain why the boat didn't initially start, but started for Larry later on. (I don't think any of this found its way into court, but I'm not sure). So, I do believe that the boat experienced the problems that Larry claimed it did that night. Now, the main question was Larry's decision to leave Debby and try to make it to what he thought was another boat. Larry had an explanation for this, and it does seem believable to me: he decided to try to swim to the other boat, knowing that Debby had both a raft and a life preserver, so I think he thought that she would be relatively safe (even though it didn't turn out that way.) His rationale was that Debby would be safe either by her making it to shore herself or Larry making it to the boat and getting help. I think Larry just suffered from a lot of bad luck that night, and spent 25 years paying for it.

As I mentioned above, the re-enactment ends kind of abruptly after Larry makes it to the boat, and I'm curious as to what happened after that, and why Debby wasn't found until the next morning.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

SpaceInvaderz, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I do respect your opinions.

When I listen to suspects' stories, I ask myself, "How plausible is their story?" For some examples of people I think had holes in their story and/or their stories just don't add up are Paul Pollis, Chad Noe, Steven Marfeo, Mark Nichols and Rob Page, or as I like to refer to them as the Not-So-Fab-Five.

However, the Jenny Lee (the name of Debby and Larry's boat) almost sank the year before, as a similar incident occured when Larry took his daughters out that year. Also, an expert tested the boat engine and found that it would have intermittent starting problems, which might explain why the boat didn't initially start, but started for Larry later on. (I don't think any of this found its way into court, but I'm not sure). So, I do believe that the boat experienced the problems that Larry claimed it did that night. Now, the main question was Larry's decision to leave Debby and try to make it to what he thought was another boat. Larry had an explanation for this, and it does seem believable to me: he decided to try to swim to the other boat, knowing that Debby had both a raft and a life preserver, so I think he thought that she would be relatively safe (even though it didn't turn out that way.) His rationale was that Debby would be safe either by her making it to shore herself or Larry making it to the boat and getting help. I think Larry just suffered from a lot of bad luck that night, and spent 25 years paying for it.

As I mentioned above, the re-enactment ends kind of abruptly after Larry makes it to the boat, and I'm curious as to what happened after that, and why Debby wasn't found until the next morning.

As do I for yours (opinions) even though we don't agree on his innocence and I certainly don't believe Larry didn't have enough where-with-all to not know that he was returning to his own boat. I really want to get some answers to several nagging questions.

btw, according to the UM boardcast, the "Jenny Lee" was tested 2 years after the "incident" (I originally typed murder :D) I couldnt agree more with your last paragraph.

[kadrmas15]

Well Space Invaderz I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think you are wrong and that your stubborness to consider that there is even a 1 percent chance he didnt do it I think clouds your judgement. I mean I dont mind it when someone disagrees that is what is great about a free society. However it does bother me when someone assumes that because a person was convicted of a crime that it for sure means they did it and that there is not even the smallest of possibilities that they did not do it. Now can I acknowledge there is a chance Larry did it? Of course. He for sure would have had a motive in that he was having an affair amongst other things. However I just think this was truly a bizarre way of going about a murder and I think had he planned a murder in this way I think he would have got it to go off better than it did. It just doesnt add up to me. But it amazes me there are Larry Race haters just like there are Dr. MacDonald haters. It just seems to me that a string of bad luck happened to Larry that day. What happened to Larry is the same thing that happened to MacDonald. While there was a motive it was a weak one at best and neither one of them should have been convicted but they should not have even been charged in the first place and they would not have been had it not been for overzealous prosecutors that will do ANYTHING to get that conviction no matter how much they have to lie, cheat or steal to do it. Like in MacDonald's case the prosecutor in LArry's case was very arrogant and assumed that there was not even a 1 percent chance he could have been wrong. In Larry's case I just think the prosecutors a nd cops needed someone to blame and Larry was a very convienent person for them to blame. I am done with this because we can go around in circles debating this like in Dr. MacDonald's case and no one is going to change their minds and the arguments will just continue to get more nasty and people will just keep hating on someone so that is my two cents.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Well Space Invaderz I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think you are wrong and that your stubborness to consider that there is even a 1 percent chance he didnt do it I think clouds your judgement. I mean I dont mind it when someone disagrees that is what is great about a free society. However it does bother me when someone assumes that because a person was convicted of a crime that it for sure means they did it and that there is not even the smallest of possibilities that they did not do it. Now can I acknowledge there is a chance Larry did it? Of course. He for sure would have had a motive in that he was having an affair amongst other things. However I just think this was truly a bizarre way of going about a murder and I think had he planned a murder in this way I think he would have got it to go off better than it did. It just doesnt add up to me. But it amazes me there are Larry Race haters just like there are Dr. MacDonald haters. It just seems to me that a string of bad luck happened to Larry that day. What happened to Larry is the same thing that happened to MacDonald. While there was a motive it was a weak one at best and neither one of them should have been convicted but they should not have even been charged in the first place and they would not have been had it not been for overzealous prosecutors that will do ANYTHING to get that conviction no matter how much they have to lie, cheat or steal to do it. Like in MacDonald's case the prosecutor in LArry's case was very arrogant and assumed that there was not even a 1 percent chance he could have been wrong. In Larry's case I just think the prosecutors a nd cops needed someone to blame and Larry was a very convienent person for them to blame. I am done with this because we can go around in circles debating this like in Dr. MacDonald's case and no one is going to change their minds and the arguments will just continue to get more nasty and people will just keep hating on someone so that is my two cents.

Don't pretend to know me. Sure I've considered that Larry might not have done it and I wouldnt say I'm 100% sure, just answer the questions...if you can? And FFS where did I say I hate either Larry or MacDonald????

[kadrmas15]

I didnt mean you literally hated Larry or Dr. MacDonald. I meant you were hating on them. I am assuming you know what it means to hate on someone but not necessarily hate them personally so I wont bother to explain it. I am sorry you took it so personally Space Invaderz. I was not really trying to personally slam you but rather I was trying to understand your opinion on this. I can see why you would think he might be guilty but do not agree with that. But I am glad you responded and I actually liked your response. I am glad you cleared up my misconceptions about you. With that I think we can move on from this and bury the hatchet.