UM showed the Ted Binion story last week. For those of you who aren't aware of the story, he was one of the heirs to a huge casino empire who was found dead in his home, the victim of an apparant heroin overdose. The way UM covered the story, it appeared that Sandy Murphy (Binion's girlfriend) and Rick Tabish (Binion's friend who was sexually involved with Murphy) had been convicted of conspiring to kill Ted Binion. It's been discussed a bit on this forum, but in 2003, the convictions against Tabish and Murphy were overturned and upon a retrial, they were both acquitted (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-24-Wed-2004/news/25339516.html) of Ted's murder.

Being a law student, I understand that if a jury finds an individual not guilty of a crime, there must be a reason for it. However, I fail to see it in this case. I thought that prosecutors had established a firm motive for Ted's death, the means in which Tabish and Murphy did it, and an opportunity as well. Not only that, they had witnesses who placed Murphy at the scene of the crime at the time that Ted had died. Combining this with the evidence that he had been held down and suffocated, I thought this would have been a slam-dunk case for the prosecution.

Your thoughts?

Agreed. Excellent summation. I watched both cases intently and the second verdict still makes be boil. They were guilty as sin city.

Classic case of lawyering having an impact. The first case featured the best prosecutors in Las Vegas, David Rogers and David Wall. Both moved up as a result of the case, Rogers to district attorney and Wall to judge. Wall, in particular, was superb in the first trial. I think he should have remained a prosecutor. In contrast, the first trial featured two local defense attorneys who were adequate but made noticeable gaffes.

The second case had all different attorneys. The prosecutors were young and competent, but mostly forgettable. Meanwhile, the defense hired flamboyant attorneys and they were always dictating the flow of events. It was the same judge, Bonaventure, and he seemed to be much more reserved in the second trial, since the first verdict was overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court based on errors made by Bonaventure. He tied two cases together, even though supposedly unrelated, into the same trial and also allowed a questionable comment into the record about Ted Binion's request for Murphy to be taken out of his will.

The most pivotal aspect was the jury's take on testimony by Michael Baden. He was the one who came up with the burking theory, basically choking, after the drug overdose was not enough to kill Binion. I thought it was exactly what happened and the first jury agreed, but the second jury rejected Baden's account and that swung the verdict. The foreman of the first jury remains livid at the outcome of the second trial.

There was tons of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt, including phone records, asking the maid not to show up on the day of the death, etc.

I worked at the Horseshoe sportsbook as a supervisor in the early '90s and while I didn't know Ted, I dealt with his brother Jack Binion every day.

:rolleyes: UM showed the Ted Binion story last week. For those of you who aren't aware of the story, he was one of the heirs to a huge casino empire who was found dead in his home, the victim of an apparant heroin overdose. The way UM covered the story, it appeared that Sandy Murphy (Binion's girlfriend) and Rick Tabish (Binion's friend who was sexually involved with Murphy) had been convicted of conspiring to kill Ted Binion. It's been discussed a bit on this forum, but in 2003, the convictions against Tabish and Murphy were overturned and upon a retrial, they were both acquitted (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-24-Wed-2004/news/25339516.html) of Ted's murder.

Being a law student, I understand that if a jury finds an individual not guilty of a crime, there must be a reason for it. However, I fail to see it in this case. I thought that prosecutors had established a firm motive for Ted's death, the means in which Tabish and Murphy did it, and an opportunity as well. Not only that, they had witnesses who placed Murphy at the scene of the crime at the time that Ted had died. Combining this with the evidence that he had been held down and suffocated, I thought this would have been a slam-dunk case for the prosecution.

Your thoughts?
Being found NOT GUILTY means that the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It never means the person is INNOCENT. That is the mistake a lot of people make when they hear those words NOT GUILTY. I too am shocked with the amt of evidence. Then again, look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake...:rolleyes:

Wow. I didn't hear about their acquittal and UM just showed a segment on this case without a proper update. Maybe since they will be showing more UM episodes they might take the time and update their website and update their updates.

I worked at the Horseshoe sportsbook as a supervisor in the early '90s and while I didn't know Ted, I dealt with his brother Jack Binion every day.

Being a huge poker fan and player (that being my main source of income for the past 3 years) this case interests me very much. The Horseshoe is legendary for being the home of The World Series Of Poker and the stomping grounds for a lot of poker's elite players. It's cool as hell that you got to work there deal with Jack Binion (Doyle Brunson's best friend, according to his book) and what not. I too feel that Murphy and Tabish are guilty as hell and I hope one day that the right people realize this. This is truly a tragic case.

Being a huge poker fan and player (that being my main source of income for the past 3 years) this case interests me very much. The Horseshoe is legendary for being the home of The World Series Of Poker and the stomping grounds for a lot of poker's elite players. It's cool as hell that you got to work there deal with Jack Binion (Doyle Brunson's best friend, according to his book) and what not. I too feel that Murphy and Tabish are guilty as hell and I hope one day that the right people realize this. This is truly a tragic case.

Yeah, it was cool working there. One of my most memorable times in Las Vegas. Actually, I screwed up in not working there longer. We had an employee strike and they decided to lay off two sportsbook supervisors for the summer months, which are very slow. Only myself and one other supervisor weren't "juiced" with ties to the family, so naturally they chose us. The sportsbook manager kept apologizing since I was the his lead supervisor, but he was a young guy who was worried about his job after being fired twice elsewhere and seeing two sportsbook managers fired ahead of him within two months, so he had no backbone and did as directed. He was still apologizing profusely years later. They asked me to come back in football season, but I feigned how-dare-you and declined. At least I was smart and traveled to Europe that summer, including Wimbledon and the British Open.

I dealt with Doyle Brunson and all the big poker guys. They were inevitably bigtime sports bettors and Jack Binion raised the limits significantly for them. One day Doyle bet $10,000 on every baseball underdog. He kicked our butt, winning maybe two/thirds of them. Then in the bowl games he bet $50,000 on every game, again winning the vast majority. The sportsbook manager was begging for the final game, the Sugar Bowl, to turn our way, practically crying in the little sportsbook office. Somehow we got two scores by Alabama in the final two minutes and beat Brunson by half a point.

You're probably also familiar with the late Stu Ungar. He was polite as heck to me, always asking if it was okay to exceed the stated betting limits, usually for a baseball bet. Most of the other poker players just barged up there like they owned the joint. Ungar always called me Jerry instead of Gary, for some reason. I'd correct him but he never remembered the next time. :lol:

You're probably also familiar with the late Stu Ungar. He was polite as heck to me, always asking if it was okay to exceed the stated betting limits, usually for a baseball bet. Most of the other poker players just barged up there like they owned the joint. Ungar always called me Jerry instead of Gary, for some reason. I'd correct him but he never remembered the next time. :lol:

Well, Stu Ungar was one of the greatest players who ever lived. It's a shame he chose to go down the path that he did though. I have heard from many people that he was indeed a very humble and extremely generous person. Phil Hellmuth mentioned in his book that Stuie (as he refers to him) would routinely tip $100 for a $5 drink.

Oviously the jurors in the second trail were only interested in watching the 2003 world series of poker, than making a ligitimate verdict in this case. To discount the opinions/findings of Dr Baden- the foremost guru of all forensic gurus- is about as ridiculous as checking with ace quads in poker. Not only that, but how the heck do you get a muligan- and get a retrail that quick. When you put this case up against Jeffery McDonalds case- which has been crying out for a retrail for over 25 years- it just makes you scratch your head and say ............what the @#$% is going on.

Oviously the jurors in the second trail were only interested in watching the 2003 world series of poker, than making a ligitimate verdict in this case. To discount the opinions/findings of Dr Baden- the foremost guru of all forensic gurus- is about as ridiculous as checking with ace quads in poker. Not only that, but how the heck do you get a muligan- and get a retrail that quick. When you put this case up against Jeffery McDonalds case- which has been crying out for a retrail for over 25 years- it just makes you scratch your head and say ............what the @#$% is going on.

Interesting point. The Jeffrey McDonald case is one that truly baffles me. I doubt we'll ever know what truly happened.