She was the lady who was abducted at the gas station where she worked and later raped and murdered. I remember in the reenactment a brother and sister in the car witnessed her driving off with the abductor. Thankfully they seem to have caught the sleaze who did this and here's an article:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/120399/TampaBay/Suspect_arrested_in_1.shtml

Franklin Alfred Smith was found not guilty of this murder. How this happened is a mystery. DNA tests on the blood-semen stain on her clothing was consistent with Smith's DNA. His prints were also found on the hood of her car. He also had a prior arrest for an aggravated assault. I don't believe that police are pursuing any other suspects.

Thanks for the info newmanator, I wasn't aware of that. It makes me sick! I did some research and it seems his first trial was declared a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked. He was acquitted at the second trial because the defense was probably able to confuse the jury enough about dna that they didn't vote to convict him as he could have faced death. His dna matched so it looks like another murderer is free to roam the streets! :mad:

Thanks for the info newmanator, I wasn't aware of that. It makes me sick! I did some research and it seems his first trial was declared a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked. He was acquitted at the second trial because the defense was probably able to confuse the jury enough about dna that they didn't vote to convict him as he could have faced death. His dna matched so it looks like another murderer is free to roam the streets! :mad:

I hadn't known about the final result of the case until a while ago. Considering the DNA evidence against Franklin Smith, it almost goes without saying that the jury made a serious mistake. But his lawyer obviously created just enough doubt to get him off.

Some of us should be thankful that we are not lawyers. Don't get me wrong, lawyers are important to a society of laws (whether a defendant is guilty or innocent). However, the problem is that establishing truth has too often become secondary to winning.

It reminds me of what Michael Savage said on his radio show last year (just after Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molestation). He said that when he was growing up, people suggested that he become a lawyer. At one point, Savage said: "If the truth doesn't have an impact on the outcome of the trial, why should I be in that business?"

Now, going back to the subject of Eileen Mangold's murder, here's what I think about that scum Franklin Alfred Smith: Considering the fact that he had previously been arrested for aggravated assault, I don't think his arrest for Eileen Mangold's murder will be his last brush with the law. My suspicion is that sooner or later he'll be in trouble again (if he hasn't already been in trouble since his murder trial). Once a violent offender, always a violent offender. Sad but true.

Besides, since violence is typically a compulsion, there is no method of treatment that will cure it. If anything, you can only lock a compulsion away, but it will eventually get unlocked. Sometimes, it just takes a small thing to set it off.