McBevis
05-16-2010, 10:51 PM
One of the hot topics revolving around general UM discussions is trying to determine whether or not a suspect claiming innocence is truly innocent, and I thought it would be interesting to present my assessments of several people, and get the opinions of other posters.
Here are my takes of 9 people. Please remember that these are opinionated statements, and should never be used for any kind of legal purposes.
Michael Haim - My opinion: Guilty
Suspected of killing his wife, Bonnie, there has been much to point to the probable guilt of Michael Haim, most notably the footprint found in the car, the fact that someone else was almost certainly driving it, and the generally stormy nature of the relationship (why would a husband have such a fit about his wife having her own separate checking account), and the staunch claims by those that know her best that Bonnie was a responsible wife who would not abandon her family. Also, you know something has to not be quite right when members of your own family think that you're guilty, but your spouse's family believes otherwise, and the part where Bonnie Haim's father says "my footprint is in my wife's car and it doesn't mean I've ever hurt her" is almost laughable. Not everybody's car has footprints in the footwells, and from the way things were described in the segment, it sounded like a fresh footprint that had most likely not been there for long.
Michael Scott Martin - My opinion: On the fence, but leaning towards innocent
This is a really tough one. This is the one where Martin was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison for an armed robbery in Texas in 1979. From what we get to know of Martin, he is a very imperfect person who had been in some trouble with the law before. However, when speaking about the previous incident involving Polish sausage, Martin readily admits that he was drunk and/or high that night, did pull a knife and fire a gun in the air, and said "that was really stupid and I know that I shouldn't have done that." Plus the distance between his home and the gas station would have made it rather difficult for him to be in both of those places at roughly the same time, and 3 or the 5 people who say he was at home when it happened barely knew him, and it was thought to be unusual that they would outright lie for him. Taking just a slight bit of credibility from away from that theory, it was later discovered that one of those witnesses failed a lie-detector test, however I would not always consider that to automatically mean that someone is lying. I've never given much creedence to lie-detector tests, as there are all kinds of things that can factor into them being inaccurate. Finally, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally think that that Doyle, the robbery victim, came across as a self-righteous hothead who probably doesn't think that there's any way he could possibly be mistaken.
Christie Mutzfeld - My opinion: A little bit on the fence, but probably innocent
For those who don't remember, she was Todd Kelley's girlfriend, and while never thought of as the actual murderer, she's long been suspected of knowing more about what happened than what she's admitted. Todd Kelley's family members always thought that she gave her other boyfriend (the prime suspect in the case) a ride home in the middle of the night, and may have helped him tamper with the crime scene. My personal opinion is that, while I don't completely discount the possibility of her being an after-accomplice, I also believe, due to the fact that she often gets very emotional during the interview, that if she was involved in the aftermath of the murder, it was most likely unwillingly and out of fear.
Mike Riemer - My opinion: On the fence, but leaning more towards guilty
One of the more intriguing "victim or killer" debates on UM, there seems to be fairly strong evidence on both sides, but from my viewings of the segment, I think there's more that points to him not being a victim. On the victim end of things, it is suspected that there might have been a serial killer running loose in that area, and if he had gone on the run, it does seem a bit odd for him to ditch his little daughter in a busy public place (as opposed to leaving her with relatives and making up some story about having to take off in a hurry). However, there is equally strong evidence that he's probably missing on purpose. It's mentioned during the segment that his relationship with Diana Robertson was often volatile on his part, he was extremely familiar and at home in the setting where the body was found, and of course the most controversial piece of evidence, the card found inside the truck with "I love you, Diana" written on it. It seems unlikely that a complete stranger would think to do something like that.
Leonard Rizzo - My opinion: Guilty
If there's actually anybody out there who doesn't think that this guy is guilty, I'd probably lose sleep wondering what makes you think so. No matter who the anonymous phone caller is, he can't be just anybody if he knows that there are bones buried in Leonard Rizzo's back yard, and even where to look for them. Between that and his later arrest for assaulting another woman, it definitely doesn't make him look good. I don't know if anyone's ever explored the possibility of the caller being the killer, but I think it's probably unlikely, because even if you don't identify yourself, it still wouldn't be wise to open your mouth to the extent that the guy did, because the call can probably be traced, and if suspicion ever shifts to the guy, he'll have all but incriminated himself with the detailed statements that he gave.
Darlie Routier - My opinion: Slightly on the fence, but definitely leaning towards innocent
I would think everybody knows this one, so I won't lay a lot of groundwork, but despite many people's opinions to the contrary, I don't have as strong a feeling that she killed her children. The long-standing police theory was that she staged the whole thing, and that the probable reason was that she was a haughty, selfish woman who didn't like the responsibilities of being a mother. Personally, I think it's kind of preposterous that a mother would commit such a vicious murder just for that reason, and some of the physical and circumstantial evidence argues strongly against it. First, while in the hospital, it was discovered that Darlie Routier's own injuries, which police believed were superficial and self-inflicted, turned out to be much more serious, with one of the knife wounds supposedly being less than a quarter of an inch away from severing one or more major arteries. Second, testing revealed that the blonde hair stuck in the window screen (originally assumed to be that of Darlie Routier), was actually that of a local law enforcement officer. Third, and I'm surprised this seemed to be such a big issue in the case, was that everybody seemed to get majorly worked up about the dust on the windowsill being undisturbed. If you look closely at that window, it's low enough to the ground that just about anybody could step over the windowsill without touching it, and certainly if you're a burglar, you're going to be extra careful about not making any noise, and I also think that if Darlie did stage the whole thing, she would probably want to disturb the dust on the windowsill, because that would actually look less suspicious. There was also another theory that she had killed her children to collect on their life insurance policies, but that kind of gets weighted down by the fact that those policies were only worth a few thousand dollars each (versus the one on her husband being worth several hundred thousand dollars), and a question that was posed during the segment was why, if this was her motive, didn't she kill her husband instead? Finally, the husband, who was never a suspect, comes across in his interview as a sincere, likeable guy who keeps very straight face when defending his wife.
Sheriff Wampler - My opinion: Guilty
The strongest and most likely suspect (IMO) in the Eric Tamiyasu case, it's hard to imagine anybody with even half a conscience doing the things he did and having the guts to not only be interviewed but to actually smile through half of it. First of all, you don't purposely destroy the single most important piece of physical evidence in a case, and the fact that Don Dixon didn't argue that one with him makes me think that he probably is guilty in some way. Also, it's chillingly eerie the way he smiles and seems so full of himself when trying to dispel any notions that he's hiding something (especially when he talks about the possibility of his wife having an affair).
Cynthia Wismiller - My opinion: On the fence, but leaning towards guilty
She's the lady who was employed as an ATM re-stocker who disappeared along with a lot of the money that she handled on a daily basis. There are compelling theories on both sides of the coin, unfortunately I believe that the guilt theories are stronger, and I also am strong believer that the temptation of money can sometimes cause people to do drastic things that might generally be out of character for them. From the interviews given by her boyfriend and son, it sounded like Cynthia most likely was a caring, down-to-earth person. However, one very big nail in the coffin of guilt for this case is that when she was supposedly spotted in the company of someone while performing her duties (which was, in itself, not something that should have happened in the normal routine of her job), she did not appear to be scared or put upon by this person, and that it overwhelmingly appeared to be a conspiratory partnership.
Frederick Young - My opinion: Innocent
For those who may not remember, this is the case of the identical twin who landed himself in prison until he turns 91 for his supposed involvement in an armed robbery. Frederick Young claims that his twin brother, Cedric, is the culprit, and from what I can gather from viewing the segment, I am very much inclined to believe that that is the truth. For starters, it is a well established fact that many people have difficulty telling the two of them apart. Secondly, the twins' mother firmly states that "I'm their mother, so if I can't always be sure which one said or did what, then you sure as hell can't either." Third, when the female victim fingered Frederick in the courtroom, it had been stated that she was someone who had casually seen Cedric around but didn't really know them very well, so it's possible that she may not have known that he had a twin brother, or at the very least, had never seen them together. Fourth, while we may never know what Fred was up to when he decided to take a drive even though he had no driver's license, he readily admitted upon arrest that he had pretended to be his brother, and I personally think that whatever the reason for his decision to get behind the wheel that night probably has little or nothing to do with the central issue in this case. Fourth, when the footage of Cedric and Frederick appearing on the talk show was shown, I thought that Cedric was wooden, emotionless and extremely insincere, whereas whenever Fred is being interviewed, even though he doesn't lose composure, it's easy to see the despair in his eyes and the sense of depression and defeat in his voice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the accomplice, Chris Ross (who has nothing to gain since he's already looking at 20 years for his involvement), insists that Cedric is the guilty one, and also admits to planting the shotgun that was in the car when Fred was pulled over. And last but not least, who the hell gets sentenced to 68 years in prison for a robbery where nobody was killed or even seriously injured, especially when it's the first time that person's apparently ever been in serious trouble for anything? That in itself seems kind of unusual.
Here are my takes of 9 people. Please remember that these are opinionated statements, and should never be used for any kind of legal purposes.
Michael Haim - My opinion: Guilty
Suspected of killing his wife, Bonnie, there has been much to point to the probable guilt of Michael Haim, most notably the footprint found in the car, the fact that someone else was almost certainly driving it, and the generally stormy nature of the relationship (why would a husband have such a fit about his wife having her own separate checking account), and the staunch claims by those that know her best that Bonnie was a responsible wife who would not abandon her family. Also, you know something has to not be quite right when members of your own family think that you're guilty, but your spouse's family believes otherwise, and the part where Bonnie Haim's father says "my footprint is in my wife's car and it doesn't mean I've ever hurt her" is almost laughable. Not everybody's car has footprints in the footwells, and from the way things were described in the segment, it sounded like a fresh footprint that had most likely not been there for long.
Michael Scott Martin - My opinion: On the fence, but leaning towards innocent
This is a really tough one. This is the one where Martin was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison for an armed robbery in Texas in 1979. From what we get to know of Martin, he is a very imperfect person who had been in some trouble with the law before. However, when speaking about the previous incident involving Polish sausage, Martin readily admits that he was drunk and/or high that night, did pull a knife and fire a gun in the air, and said "that was really stupid and I know that I shouldn't have done that." Plus the distance between his home and the gas station would have made it rather difficult for him to be in both of those places at roughly the same time, and 3 or the 5 people who say he was at home when it happened barely knew him, and it was thought to be unusual that they would outright lie for him. Taking just a slight bit of credibility from away from that theory, it was later discovered that one of those witnesses failed a lie-detector test, however I would not always consider that to automatically mean that someone is lying. I've never given much creedence to lie-detector tests, as there are all kinds of things that can factor into them being inaccurate. Finally, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally think that that Doyle, the robbery victim, came across as a self-righteous hothead who probably doesn't think that there's any way he could possibly be mistaken.
Christie Mutzfeld - My opinion: A little bit on the fence, but probably innocent
For those who don't remember, she was Todd Kelley's girlfriend, and while never thought of as the actual murderer, she's long been suspected of knowing more about what happened than what she's admitted. Todd Kelley's family members always thought that she gave her other boyfriend (the prime suspect in the case) a ride home in the middle of the night, and may have helped him tamper with the crime scene. My personal opinion is that, while I don't completely discount the possibility of her being an after-accomplice, I also believe, due to the fact that she often gets very emotional during the interview, that if she was involved in the aftermath of the murder, it was most likely unwillingly and out of fear.
Mike Riemer - My opinion: On the fence, but leaning more towards guilty
One of the more intriguing "victim or killer" debates on UM, there seems to be fairly strong evidence on both sides, but from my viewings of the segment, I think there's more that points to him not being a victim. On the victim end of things, it is suspected that there might have been a serial killer running loose in that area, and if he had gone on the run, it does seem a bit odd for him to ditch his little daughter in a busy public place (as opposed to leaving her with relatives and making up some story about having to take off in a hurry). However, there is equally strong evidence that he's probably missing on purpose. It's mentioned during the segment that his relationship with Diana Robertson was often volatile on his part, he was extremely familiar and at home in the setting where the body was found, and of course the most controversial piece of evidence, the card found inside the truck with "I love you, Diana" written on it. It seems unlikely that a complete stranger would think to do something like that.
Leonard Rizzo - My opinion: Guilty
If there's actually anybody out there who doesn't think that this guy is guilty, I'd probably lose sleep wondering what makes you think so. No matter who the anonymous phone caller is, he can't be just anybody if he knows that there are bones buried in Leonard Rizzo's back yard, and even where to look for them. Between that and his later arrest for assaulting another woman, it definitely doesn't make him look good. I don't know if anyone's ever explored the possibility of the caller being the killer, but I think it's probably unlikely, because even if you don't identify yourself, it still wouldn't be wise to open your mouth to the extent that the guy did, because the call can probably be traced, and if suspicion ever shifts to the guy, he'll have all but incriminated himself with the detailed statements that he gave.
Darlie Routier - My opinion: Slightly on the fence, but definitely leaning towards innocent
I would think everybody knows this one, so I won't lay a lot of groundwork, but despite many people's opinions to the contrary, I don't have as strong a feeling that she killed her children. The long-standing police theory was that she staged the whole thing, and that the probable reason was that she was a haughty, selfish woman who didn't like the responsibilities of being a mother. Personally, I think it's kind of preposterous that a mother would commit such a vicious murder just for that reason, and some of the physical and circumstantial evidence argues strongly against it. First, while in the hospital, it was discovered that Darlie Routier's own injuries, which police believed were superficial and self-inflicted, turned out to be much more serious, with one of the knife wounds supposedly being less than a quarter of an inch away from severing one or more major arteries. Second, testing revealed that the blonde hair stuck in the window screen (originally assumed to be that of Darlie Routier), was actually that of a local law enforcement officer. Third, and I'm surprised this seemed to be such a big issue in the case, was that everybody seemed to get majorly worked up about the dust on the windowsill being undisturbed. If you look closely at that window, it's low enough to the ground that just about anybody could step over the windowsill without touching it, and certainly if you're a burglar, you're going to be extra careful about not making any noise, and I also think that if Darlie did stage the whole thing, she would probably want to disturb the dust on the windowsill, because that would actually look less suspicious. There was also another theory that she had killed her children to collect on their life insurance policies, but that kind of gets weighted down by the fact that those policies were only worth a few thousand dollars each (versus the one on her husband being worth several hundred thousand dollars), and a question that was posed during the segment was why, if this was her motive, didn't she kill her husband instead? Finally, the husband, who was never a suspect, comes across in his interview as a sincere, likeable guy who keeps very straight face when defending his wife.
Sheriff Wampler - My opinion: Guilty
The strongest and most likely suspect (IMO) in the Eric Tamiyasu case, it's hard to imagine anybody with even half a conscience doing the things he did and having the guts to not only be interviewed but to actually smile through half of it. First of all, you don't purposely destroy the single most important piece of physical evidence in a case, and the fact that Don Dixon didn't argue that one with him makes me think that he probably is guilty in some way. Also, it's chillingly eerie the way he smiles and seems so full of himself when trying to dispel any notions that he's hiding something (especially when he talks about the possibility of his wife having an affair).
Cynthia Wismiller - My opinion: On the fence, but leaning towards guilty
She's the lady who was employed as an ATM re-stocker who disappeared along with a lot of the money that she handled on a daily basis. There are compelling theories on both sides of the coin, unfortunately I believe that the guilt theories are stronger, and I also am strong believer that the temptation of money can sometimes cause people to do drastic things that might generally be out of character for them. From the interviews given by her boyfriend and son, it sounded like Cynthia most likely was a caring, down-to-earth person. However, one very big nail in the coffin of guilt for this case is that when she was supposedly spotted in the company of someone while performing her duties (which was, in itself, not something that should have happened in the normal routine of her job), she did not appear to be scared or put upon by this person, and that it overwhelmingly appeared to be a conspiratory partnership.
Frederick Young - My opinion: Innocent
For those who may not remember, this is the case of the identical twin who landed himself in prison until he turns 91 for his supposed involvement in an armed robbery. Frederick Young claims that his twin brother, Cedric, is the culprit, and from what I can gather from viewing the segment, I am very much inclined to believe that that is the truth. For starters, it is a well established fact that many people have difficulty telling the two of them apart. Secondly, the twins' mother firmly states that "I'm their mother, so if I can't always be sure which one said or did what, then you sure as hell can't either." Third, when the female victim fingered Frederick in the courtroom, it had been stated that she was someone who had casually seen Cedric around but didn't really know them very well, so it's possible that she may not have known that he had a twin brother, or at the very least, had never seen them together. Fourth, while we may never know what Fred was up to when he decided to take a drive even though he had no driver's license, he readily admitted upon arrest that he had pretended to be his brother, and I personally think that whatever the reason for his decision to get behind the wheel that night probably has little or nothing to do with the central issue in this case. Fourth, when the footage of Cedric and Frederick appearing on the talk show was shown, I thought that Cedric was wooden, emotionless and extremely insincere, whereas whenever Fred is being interviewed, even though he doesn't lose composure, it's easy to see the despair in his eyes and the sense of depression and defeat in his voice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the accomplice, Chris Ross (who has nothing to gain since he's already looking at 20 years for his involvement), insists that Cedric is the guilty one, and also admits to planting the shotgun that was in the car when Fred was pulled over. And last but not least, who the hell gets sentenced to 68 years in prison for a robbery where nobody was killed or even seriously injured, especially when it's the first time that person's apparently ever been in serious trouble for anything? That in itself seems kind of unusual.