I'm not sure how many of you remember this segment. Its not shown on Lifetime very frequently nor has it been mentioned on the board much. Eileen Mangold was abducted, raped and murdered while working at a gas station in Tampa in 1989. Here are some newspaper articles about the case:

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

http://www.sptimes.com/News/051900/Hillsborough/DNA_key_in_11_year_ol.shtml

This story is so sad on so many levels and now the killer (whose dna was found on the victim) has been acquitted and will never be incarcerated for the crime. I have had conversations recently with someone VERY close to the case. They ask to remain anonymous at this time but have given me a lot of additional info on the case, some info even the media doesn't know, and said I could post it.

Eileen (according to UM) had only taken the job in order to buy her young son school clothes. She was murdered just 5 days after her grandson was born. :( She didn't appear to know her killer nor did she "wait in the car" while he robbed the gas station like the reenactment shows. She was drug into her car by the killer and forced to drive off immediately. By all accounts she did not know her killer. In fact Eileen's young son had called her shortly before her abduction and she told him that there was a strange man hanging around outside even though she was no longer selling gas that night. Eileen appeared nervous and told her son not to worry and abruptly hung up the phone. Eileen mouthed her pleas for help and didn't yell them like the reenactment shows, undoubtedly as to not aggravate her captor. The savage beating she suffered was unspeakable and I'll spare you the details. As in the articles I've posted above Franklin Smith was arrested 10 years after the murder. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. The second trial resulted in an unbelievable acquittal. There is a Florida statute that says the person on trial must be tried using the laws that were in effect at the time of the murder. DNA found on Eileen matched Smith but in 1989 when the crime was committed was just before dna was being used routinely. Most of the jurors regretted acquitting Smith and said they only did so because they didn't understand all the dna info being thrown at them. So much concerning Smith was thrown out and when the jurors ended the trial and read the info in the newspaper that wasn't permitted to be admitted in court they said they would have given him the chair in minutes. Smith's 17 prior convictions for various forms of assault couldn't be mentioned for fear it would taint the jurors minds when they found out he was a career criminal! Well if anyone has any other questions my anonymous source said they would be happy to answer them. Such a sad and appalling case!

So that piece of crap is free is what you are saying? If so, I say we all chip in 200 bucks a piece and get a contract on his head :mad:

oh dear! What the F's going on here? Surely this is a joke? :( This is very sad like you said, I really think that the laws are there to protect the criminals. What I also don't understand is why this guy's 17 prior convictions aren't allowed into court. Surely the jury should be aware of this sorta stuff to see if this guy is capable of committing this type of crime and clearly he is and then make a judgement, and by the sounds of it the appropreate sentence should have been death.

This was mentioned in a previous post a few months back. And yes, it's appalling that the Eileen Mangold's accused killer got off scot-free. :mad:

But considering the fact that Franklin Smith is a career criminal, my suspicion is he will eventually be in trouble again (that is, if he has stayed out of trouble since his murder acquittal nearly six years ago). Besides, they say a leopard doesn't change its spots.

yes, he will be in trouble again, but someone will be robbed, assaulted or killed again too.

I really think that the laws are there to protect the criminals. What I also don't understand is why this guy's 17 prior convictions aren't allowed into court. Surely the jury should be aware of this sorta stuff to see if this guy is capable of committing this type of crime and clearly he is and then make a judgement, and by the sounds of it the appropreate sentence should have been death.


Federal Rule of Evidence 404b prohibits any evidence of "Previous Bad Acts" from being admitted into court. Basically, that means that even if you had assaulted a woman prior to the offense that you're on trial for, it wouldn't be allowed into evidence due to the prejudicial nature of it all (basically, it could taint the jury.)

HOWEVER... I'm surprised that there wasn't an attempt to bring the information out in court, as the exception to Federal Rule 404b is that if you're trying to prove a PATTERN, it should be allowed into evidence. I could see it being denied into evidence if there was only one other conviction. However, SEVENTEEN makes me raise my eyebrows a bit.... I'm gonna go study my evidence book for a while and hammer this out. Frankly, I'm SHOCKED if the prosecutor didn't try to get the evidence in.

yes, he will be in trouble again, but someone will be robbed, assaulted or killed again too.

True. But the reason I suspect that Franklin Smith will one day be in trouble again is because he's a career criminal, and there is no cure for that (except death). The plain truth is that some people are incapable of being reformed. If anything, a career criminal (or serial offender) might stay out of trouble for any length of time, but they eventually resume their criminal behavior. It's only a question of time. And there's no guarantee that the next person they strike against will be lucky enough to survive. :(

Wow, I hadn't heard about this case and I used to live a few miles from Gibsonton Drive. I also lived near where Oba Chandler abducted those 3 women and brought them on the boat. Very creepy.

Federal Rule of Evidence 404b prohibits any evidence of "Previous Bad Acts" from being admitted into court. Basically, that means that even if you had assaulted a woman prior to the offense that you're on trial for, it wouldn't be allowed into evidence due to the prejudicial nature of it all (basically, it could taint the jury.)

HOWEVER... I'm surprised that there wasn't an attempt to bring the information out in court, as the exception to Federal Rule 404b is that if you're trying to prove a PATTERN, it should be allowed into evidence. I could see it being denied into evidence if there was only one other conviction. However, SEVENTEEN makes me raise my eyebrows a bit.... I'm gonna go study my evidence book for a while and hammer this out. Frankly, I'm SHOCKED if the prosecutor didn't try to get the evidence in.

This reminds me of the trial of John Sweeney. In 1982, he strangled his girlfriend, actress Dominique Dunne (she was the star of Poltergeist, and the daughter of Dominick Dunne). During the 1983 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce Sweeney's history of violence (including physical abuse towards a previous girlfriend), but it was deemed irrelevant and prejudicial. The jurors didn't know about Sweeney's violent past until after the trial was over. Sweeney was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to six years in prison, and was paroled after serving nearly half that sentence.

I've gotten some more info from my source and this story just keeps getting worse for her family! First off they erected a memorial at the site where she was murdered and have had to replace the cross numerous times because people were vandalizing it with a baseball bat and/or pipe. The heresay around town was that Franklin Smith's relatives were responsible but nothing could ever be proven.

Also at the second trial the same day some relatives of Eileen's were set to testify they got a call at their home saying if they testified their children would be killed! The call was traced as having come from the same jail where Franklin Smith was being housed. The jail was put on lockdown and great effort was taken to try and figure out who placed the call because of course they were trying to intimidate a state witness but as far as I know they were never able to prove for sure who made the call.

Is there any chance of a civil suit? It's amazing that the jury didn't understand all the dna evidence thrown at them. Isn't DNA matching either like being pregnant or not? There's really no in between.

This reminds me of the trial of John Sweeney. In 1982, he strangled his girlfriend, actress Dominique Dunne (she was the star of Poltergeist, and the daughter of Dominick Dunne). During the 1983 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce Sweeney's history of violence (including physical abuse towards a previous girlfriend), but it was deemed irrelevant and prejudicial. The jurors didn't know about Sweeney's violent past until after the trial was over. Sweeney was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to six years in prison, and was paroled after serving nearly half that sentence.

Yeah Domi was pretty cool and its a true tragedy that JS got off with such a light sentence. However it should be noted that despite his parole Dominique Dunne fans (and given just the small number of films she was in there is a very loyal fanbase there, myself included) have made JS life pretty miserable over the past twenty four years.

JS has been fired from at least three jobs that I know of (he was/is a chef) because of Dunne fans protesting his employment. He has also been repeatedly harassed by fans or people who knew Dominique Dunne to the point of him having to change his name and basically live a hermit's existence. Recently JS emailed the webmaster of a Dominique Dunne memorial site requesting that the fans let him move on with his life (which in turn of course resulted in more harassment) - At first I along with others were skeptical that this was the actual JS who wrote this email to the webmaster of this site but is it now generally believed to be JS himself who wrote the letter.

Although I don't necessarily condone some of the things that Dunne fans have done to JS - I will say it couldn't have happened to a "nicer person".

You may notice that I only refer to Domi's killer by his initals - I believe Domi's brother (or someone who was close to her) requested that much like in the case of John Lennon's killer we only refer to the murderer by his initals therefore denying him the fame/recognition he sought by committing this deplorable act.

Wow, did they ever look at the guy that did this to Eileen Mangold and try to connect him to Deborah Poe and other Florida gas station abductions? That is pretty incredible to me he got acquitted but if the guy is a career criminal he will be back in prison at some point. It is sad though that someone else will probably have to get assaulted or murdered before this scumbag finally gets put behind bars. You cant really fault the jury. Yeah it stinks they acquitted him, but if they dont have the evidence to convict him they dont have much choice but to acquitt even if they personally dont want to.

Also as I have said recently, I think it is probably unlikely but not impossible that the Florida abductions that took place in 1989 and 1990 and the Missouri abductions that took place in 1990 and 1991 could be connected. Any thoughts?

Also as I have said recently, I think it is probably unlikely but not impossible that the Florida abductions that took place in 1989 and 1990 and the Missouri abductions that took place in 1990 and 1991 could be connected. Any thoughts?

That never occurred to me. But at present, there's not enough information to convince me of any connection between the cases.

Just watched this today, and my god I was so angry at those 2 who saw Eileen call out. I guess its slightly less bothersome knowing it didn't quite play out as UM showed. Then you read the murderer was let FREE!!!

Augh!!!!!!!!

Well in this case I am torn. It stinks that the guy that did the crime was acquitted. But at the same time, a jury either acquits or convicts with what they are given at the time. I do think the judge did the right thing in not allowing the prior bad acts in. However whether or not this guy is a career criminal is really a moot point. The jurors on this case must not have been particularly bright. I get how your average person can be overwhelmed by certain types of forensic evidence. However if you are told that DNA on a dead woman matches a given suspect, what is so hard to understand? I mean, do people need to be told the guy had 17 prior convictions to convict a guy of murder when there is DNA matching him?

I am assuming when confronted the guy said he didnt know her, never had sex with her, etc. Being a career criminal he probably denied everything and held up well under police questioning because he was so used to it. Either that or he claimed his DNA was there because he had consensual sex with Mangold.

But again. this is a perfect example of a jury simply being overwhelmed by evidence they dont understand except in this instance instead of convicting which is what they do over 95 percent of the time, they acquitted the guy. But still, I dont really have a lot of sympathy for the jurors. You are told a guy's DNA is on a dead woman, yet you for whatever reason dont understand it. I was also not too happy with the fact they said they would give the guy a chair because he had 17 prior convictions. Just because a guy has 17 prior convictions doesnt make him a murderer automatically. The fact his DNA is present on a dead woman though, unless he has some great explaination for why it is there you have your murderer.

There are many cases where people are wrongfully convicted of murder because they had multiple prior felony convictions. It amazes me some people try to argue that this is acceptable because they werent pillars of society and had prior felony convictions. However I do feel bad for Eileen Mangold's family as they know who did the crime and they also know he isnt in prison for it. It sounds like Smith didnt just kill her, that would be bad enough, but he didnt just get it over with, from what the cops said in the segment, she was brutally beaten, I cant imagine how savage, nor do I care to find out.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!

Well, cant expect much from Florida...

:mad: Well, I believe in KARMA, and I hope Franklin Smith gets what's coming to him...

:mad: Well, I believe in KARMA, and I hope Franklin Smith gets what's coming to him...

If it could happen to OJ Simpson, then it could certainly happen to Franklin Smith.

:lol: True....

Well though, I wouldn't compare these two trials. Smith, a poor defendant, probably having to use a public defender or a lower level retained lawyer versus Simpson and the dream team. Plus Simpson had the whole scandal of the Rodney King beating cops being acquitted and I have long felt that was payback by the black community as the majority of the jurors in Simpson's case were black.

But Florida, it is such a corrupt state, most men proven innocent in the country right there. So yeah, a rarity that a jury would get it wrong in acquitting a guy that almost certainly did what he was accused of and there is strong physical evidence to prove it.

I mean, I simply can not believe it.

They found his semen on her body...last time I check, semen just doesn't get on bodies.

Well though, I wouldn't compare these two trials. Smith, a poor defendant, probably having to use a public defender or a lower level retained lawyer versus Simpson and the dream team. Plus Simpson had the whole scandal of the Rodney King beating cops being acquitted and I have long felt that was payback by the black community as the majority of the jurors in Simpson's case were black.

The irony is that OJ basically turned his back on the black community long before the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But as former LA prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi noted in his book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder, there are other contributing factors that resulted in OJ's acquittal.

One of those reasons is that a lot of the evidence was never introduced in the criminal trial. This included the tape recorded interrogation in which Simpson made a number of incriminating statements, such as his answer about the deep cut on one of his fingers. During a TV interview on Geraldo Rivera's now-defunct CNBC talk show in 1995, Bugliosi called that "strong circumstantial evidence of guilt."

Another piece of evidence that Bugliosi believed should have been introduced was the "suicide" letter Simpson wrote before he took off. He said it "reeks" with guilt, and has challenged anyone to name an innocent person being accused of murder who would write a letter like that.

If you haven't read Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder, then you should. It is so detailed that you end up learning how the Simpson verdict could (and should) have been different. In addition, you can tell by reading the book that Vincent Bugliosi pulls no punches.

Just saw this again - and this case makes me so, incredibly angry. To know this worthless piece of scum got away with it... :mad:

Hey Crystaldawn! Are you still here?

Yes I'm here. :)

Great!! I'm going to send you a message.

I can't believe I had never seen this segment until today. One of the most terrifying segments I've seen. Also cannot believe her killer was acquitted.

I can't believe I had never seen this segment until today. One of the most terrifying segments I've seen. Also cannot believe her killer was acquitted.

This segment upsets me to this day...never get murdered in Florida.

I remember the segment. I'm beyond outraged that the POS got away with murder. I hope he gets what is coming to him.