So I’ve been looking into this theory that Perry Edwards Jr. was the real mastermind of the murders. It’s certainly compelling, but there’s one key question which prevents me from latching onto it. We know that Perry Jr. supposedly remained in Georgia with his family while his family traveled to Florida to celebrate Christmas with Eunice. According to the “Tommy Zeigler is Innocent” website, the Edwardses were planning to take Perry Jr’s daughter with them on their trip to Florida and even showed up at their house to her up, but Perry Jr’s wife wouldn’t let her go and apparently told her daughter: “There might be trouble down there”. The implication seems to be that Perry Jr traveled from Georgia to Florida to help commit the murders and that his wife might have supplied him with a fake alibi.

My only question is: would Perry Jr have known that his entire family was going to be at the furniture store on Christmas Eve after closing? The reason the Edwardses were there was because Tommy and Eunice were going to give them a recliner from the store as a Christmas gift. Unless someone from his family told him, I can’t be sure if Perry Jr knew about this beforehand. If Perry Jr didn’t have prior knowledge of their meeting at the store, then I don’t see how he would have been able to orchestrate this elaborate murder plot involving multiple accomplices.

I still lean towards Zeigler being innocent, but the botched robbery scenario seems more plausible to me. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Perry Jr had nothing to with the murders, but still made a calculated effort to fabricate lies about Tommy’s homosexuality and direct all the suspicion towards him, so he could inherit everything.

I didn't see this post, obviously, before posting myself. RobinW, we think alike!

If the Edwards' were getting s recliner for a Christmas gift, unless they were traveling in a pick up truck, how were they supposed to get it home? Were they choosing a chair from the store, or ordering from a catalog to be delivered to their home?

Either way I'm sure they would have had no trouble having it delivered. I've never heard of a furniture store that didn't have a truck, and indeed I think Zeigler's did.

That theory has a gaping hole as far as I can tell:

How would Perry Edwards Jr. have known his parents and sister would be in the store at 7:00PMish the night they were killed? He might have been able to manipulate getting Charlie Mays and Ed Williams there if he was in cahoots with them - but since he had no involvement with the store or the chair, how could he know they would be there so late on Christmas Eve, enough to tell his co-conspirators when and where they had to be?

I don't know if the theory was that Edwards Jr. wanted his parents dead, but rather Zeigler. Zeigler was the executor of the Edwards's will, and apparently this rubbed Edwards Jr. the wrong way. I believe the theory is that Edwards Jr. hired these men to kill Zeigler, and didn't anticipate Eunice and her parents arriving at the store. I don't buy it. It's too convoluted. I still think the best possible Zeigler is innocent theory is a robbery gone wrong (with possibly one of the men involved having a motive to off or harm Zeigler).

Either way I'm sure they would have had no trouble having it delivered. I've never heard of a furniture store that didn't have a truck, and indeed I think Zeigler's did.

True, and Zeiglar could've easily had this done, but it's 245 miles one way. That's a long way to deliver a recliner. Wouldn't it have been easier to gift them with money and have them pick out a chair in their home town, or order from their supplier and have it sent directly to the Edwards. Has anyone besides TZ ever said they were going to be there to select a chair?

I've said it before, but the Zeigler defense team trying to pin everything on Perry Jr. (Zeigler seems on board with this now) seems like a huge red flag to me. They waited until they guy was dead before going public with this scenario. It seems like at this point, they're grasping at straws. First it was a botched robbery, then it was a murder for hire plot that got out of hand, then it was someone who wanted to get back at Zeigler's father over a land deal, and now it's Perry Jr. being involved.

Yeah, it sounds like Perry Jr wasn't a particularly good person and it seems like he had issues with his family, but him orchestrating the murders just doesn't make complete sense. But honestly, even if Zeigler were completely innocent, I can still see why his defense team might be desperate enough to latch onto this theory. Nothing else has worked for them and since Zeigler doesn't have much time left and pretty much nothing left to lose, I could see why they might try changing their strategy again in an attempt to get him out.

However, even though there are a lot of holes in the theory of Perry Jr masterminding the murders, there are still a considerable amount of holes with Zeigler being the guilty party. Such a complex case!

There's an appeal that Zeigler had denied in the early 2000's (I can't find the link now) but there was a pretty damning part against Zeigler. He had cast off blood (like Darlie Routier) from Mays on his back, which he had no explanation for. He claims to have gotten Mays's blood on him after crawling over his dead body, but the State contends for this to have happened, he would have had to have laid himself on top of Mays for several seconds. Zeigler's defense had no rebuttal for this.

One thing I've always wondered: if Zeigler was knocked out or playing dead a few feet away from Mays when he was beaten to death, couldn't this have been the reason behind the cast off blood found on his back?

True, and Zeiglar could've easily had this done, but it's 245 minutes one way. That's a long way to deliver a recliner. Wouldn't it have been easier to gift them with money and have them pick out a chair in their home town, or order from their supplier and have it sent directly to the Edwards. Has anyone besides TZ ever said they were going to be there to select a chair?

Curtis Dunaway mentioned this during the trial, IIRC. He offered to help Zeigler deliver the goods, but Zeigler told him he'd get Williams to help him instead. Apparently, Dunaway had a family gathering to go to that night.

Curtis Dunaway mentioned this during the trial, IIRC. He offered to help Zeigler deliver the goods, but Zeigler told him he'd get Williams to help him instead. Apparently, Dunaway had a family gathering to go to that night.

The recliner was to be delivered that night? Or was he talking about a local delivery? It doesn't make sense they would deliver the recliner Christmas while the Edwards were still away from home.

The recliner was to be delivered that night? Or was he talking about a local delivery? It doesn't make sense they would deliver the recliner Christmas while the Edwards were still away from home.

There were other scheduled deliveries that night (Don Ficke bought a large potted plant for his wife); perhaps Zeigler figured it would be easier to load them all up at the same time to get it out of the way while he had help?

There were other scheduled deliveries that night (Don Ficke bought a large potted plant for his wife); perhaps Zeigler figured it would be easier to load them all up at the same time to get it out of the way while he had help?


Yes but we aren't talking local delivery for the recliner, we are talking 245 miles from winter garden to Moultrie, GA. That's one way.on Christmas Eve. And then who would be there to let the delivery person in to deliver the recliner?

Interactive map showing various locations that night:

-Street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5523846,-81.5835143,3a,75y,270.08h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spYzGmopwuEDJxOf0a2vLdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of the furniture store, today.

-This little alleyway (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5524792,-81.5835143,3a,15y,275.34h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0kaM8svaHL99dVMJLi351g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) was where the side fence was located, where you would go through to access the rear of the furniture store.

-Directly across from the furniture store (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.551995,-81.5835137,3a,75y,92.04h,71.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbjwgur9Iht7ouszGuj2hfQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) is where the KFC was located that Edward Williams claimed to have gone right after Zeigler attempted to shoot him 3 times.

-This (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5521568,-81.5835142,3a,30y,297.06h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2zlqjm3E-660LURut0NmBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) would have been a reasonable place for Mays to have parked if he were there to pick up a television set that he intended to buy for Christmas. The front lot where the Edwardses' sedan was found parked.

-Next (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5511247,-81.584295,3a,15y,9.62h,87.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slGaKPjTo4w4mkynhw5RbkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) to that garage structure (behind the furniture store) was where Mays's van was found parked.

-Aerial (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dillard+Street+Elementary+School/@28.5521919,-81.5844175,102m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x1052527507cb0001!8m2!3d28.5707659!4d-81.5829828) view, showing approximate placement of Mays's van in relation to where the store was. He parked directly in front of a fence in the back of Zeigler's furniture store. This whole area of the Winter Garden Inn was fenced in: how did Mays expect Zeigler to meet him there or even know he had arrived if they in fact had a pre-arranged meeting for the television?!

-Orange Grove (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.548995,-81.5832535,3a,75y,96.42h,69.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYo_6wQ4zewWjaAzHIG99XA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) area where Zeigler allegedly took Thomas and Mays to fire the guns. It's much more of a developed area now than it was back in 1975. This is literally a stones throw away from the furniture store.

-Zeigler's house (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5664229,-81.6012693,3a,60y,93.95h,80.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKgqhaS7EfYS-ODKNj9aU6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1), which looks much more developed than what it was back in 1975. You can see his garage here on the side. Next door, to the right (if facing forward), was where his parents lived.

-Apartments (https://www.google.com/maps/place/521+S+Park+Ave,+Winter+Garden,+FL+34787/@28.5590212,-81.5918588,3a,60y,98.41h,77.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN7TJKuBXNS0FI6J-ctaQyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x88e78370b8feeea5:0xbc06bccde3d8c401!8m2!3d28.559039!4d-81.591329!6m1!1e1) where Edward Williams lived at the time. He claims to have left his apartment "before dark" before arriving at Zeigler's house at 7:28 p.m. that night. Which would have been impossible, because Zeigler's house was literally less than 5 minutes away.

Yes but we aren't talking local delivery for the recliner, we are talking 245 miles from winter garden to Moultrie, GA. That's one way.on Christmas Eve. And then who would be there to let the delivery person in to deliver the recliner?

I think he was taking the recliner to his house, and he had a grill that was going to be delivered to his father's house.

I think he was taking the recliner to his house, and he had a grill that was going to be delivered to his father's house.


The reason I keep asking about this is......

Has anyone other than TZ said the recliner gift was why Eunice and her parents were at the store that night? IF he Got them there with plans to kill them, he could've told them anything. But he would've needed a reason to tell publicly for them being there. Choosing a gift makes it sound like everything is fine in the relationship between TZ and Eunice as well as his in laws.

But it just doesn't make sense to me that they would be choosing a gift that would require such effort to get delivered to their home in Moultrie. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it isn't very logical. Perhaps TZ had to come up with a reason for them being there and this was the best he could come up with in a hurry, without thinking out the practicality of it.

The reason I keep asking about this is......

Has anyone other than TZ said the recliner gift was why Eunice and her parents were at the store that night? IF he Got them there with plans to kill them, he could've told them anything. But he would've needed a reason to tell publicly for them being there. Choosing a gift makes it sound like everything is fine in the relationship between TZ and Eunice as well as his in laws.

But it just doesn't make sense to me that they would be choosing a gift that would require such effort to get delivered to their home in Moultrie. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it isn't very logical. Perhaps TZ had to come up with a reason for them being there and this was the best he could come up with in a hurry, without thinking out the practicality of it.

Earlier in the week he had asked Edward Williams to help him with the deliveries, and mentioned the recliner for his in-laws. I believe the reasoning behind them going to the store that night was to pick one out.

I'm very curious to know the plan to Get the recliner from Winter Garden to Moultrie.

I'm very curious to know the plan to Get the recliner from Winter Garden to Moultrie.

I have no idea about the specifics. Perhaps the Edwards's planned on taking it back to Moultrie at a later date, Zeigler was going to take it there at a later date, maybe they were going to keep it at Zeigler's house for the time being, etc. I just don't know.

What wouldn't make any sense would be for them to be at the store at all that night, if they didn't have pre-arranged plans to pick something out. What other reason would their car be parked out front and why would they go to the store in the first place, if there wasn't a plan for them to be there?

I have no idea about the specifics. Perhaps the Edwards's planned on taking it back to Moultrie at a later date, Zeigler was going to take it there at a later date, maybe they were going to keep it at Zeigler's house for the time being, etc. I just don't know.

What wouldn't make any sense would be for them to be at the store at all that night, if they didn't have pre-arranged plans to pick something out. What other reason would their car be parked out front and why would they go to the store in the first place, if there wasn't a plan for them to be there?


That's what I'm getting at. TZ could've contrived a plan to get them there. Then when he had to tell the police a reason, he told them about the chair as a gift. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it's something that came to mind the other day.

Maybe the Edwards were there on a pick up so its a moot point anyway.

That's what I'm getting at. TZ could've contrived a plan to get them there. Then when he had to tell the police a reason, he told them about the chair as a gift. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it's something that came to mind the other day.

Maybe the Edwards were there on a pick up so its a moot point anyway.

I guess my main point is that Zeigler's main motive, as contended by the prosecution, was to kill Eunice and collect the life insurance. But that doesn't explain why he murdered his in-laws as well. If guilty, he had to know they were on their way to the store minutes after he and Eunice arrived. And even if he succeeded in getting them to the store under a false pretense of a Christmas gift, that doesn't explain any reason as to why he would want to murder his in-laws to collect his wife's life insurance. Phillip Finch summed up all this confusion in "Fatal Flaw".

Second, if Zeigler intended to murder his wife for money, why should he commit the crime at such a time, and in such a way, that he would be forced to kill his in-laws? For if he is guilty, then the evidence is clear: Perry and Virginia Edwards did not walk into the store by chance. Zeigler knew that they were only a few minutes behind. He must have arranged for them to be there. This is the most glaring drawback to the purported insurance motive that Robert Eagan carefully laid out at trial: It does not explain the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Edwards.

Don Frye's answer is what might be called Version B of the motive, based on Cheryl Clafler's statement. This theory is that a great rift had opened between Tommy and Eunice because she had discovered his homosexual affair, that she had told her parents of her unhappiness and her fears, and that she intended to leave with them after Christmas; therefore Tommy was forced to act quickly. He also had to kill the Edwardses. Knowing what they knew, they would have instantly accused him of Eunice's murder.

This idea has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that by all the evidence, the Edwardses' visit was cordial and normal. Perry Edwards, Jr., who lived near his parents in Moultrie, gave no indication that they had planned anything but a routine visit. Rita Ficke spent some time with Eunice on Christmas Eve, and saw nothing amiss. Also, Tommy invited Curtis Dunaway into his home a little before 7:00 P.M. on Christmas Eve—an odd gesture for someone who knows that within half an hour he is going to kill everyone in the house—and the scene Dunaway later described was peaceful, domestic, ordinary.

Furthermore, if Eunice truly feared for her life and wanted leave Winter Garden, as Cheryl Clafler claimed, she had had opportunity to do so. She had gone alone to Moultrie in October, when her father took ill, and could have stayed. (This forced her to postpone one of the medical exams for her insurance.)

If Eunice really did know some awful secret that threatened Tommy's reputation in Winter Garden, then his interests would be best served by getting her out of town, out of the state, as quickly as possible—thereby, incidentally, clearing the field for him to continue his homosexual affair without interference.

But let's assume that this wasn't good enough for him, that for reasons of greed and depravity he couldn't allow Eunice to leave. Let's assume, against all evidence, that Cheryl Clafler's accusations are actually true, that his wife had caught him in flagrante with another man, that she had told her parents, that Zeigler knew she had told her parents, and that he decided to kill all three in order to preserve his secret. Unlikely as it may be, this is the only scenario that addresses Zeigler's motives for killing Perry and Virginia Edwards. It answers all the questions but one: if all this is actually true, what were Eunice and the Edwardses doing in the furniture store with Tommy, whom they must have despised? The state's theory depends on the proposition that Zeigler was able to manipulate his wife and his in-laws into leaving the house almost to the minute on Christmas Eve; and not only that he was able to do so, but that he knew he could do so. Otherwise his elaborate preparations with Edward Williams and Charlie Mays would be useless.

Under the circumstances, Tommy would have no influence on Eunice and the Edwardses. If the state's theory is to be believed, Eunice willingly went to the store, alone, with the husband whom she was going to leave in less than a day, and who she feared was planning to kill her. And the Edwardses willingly, compliantly, gave them a head start of five to ten minutes before they, too, drove to the store to pick out this La-Z-Boy chair, which they must have desperately desired.

From my understanding, Zeigler is alleged to have asked about the untraceable guns months prior to December. Why did he wait until Christmas Eve to carry out his ultimate plan on offing Eunice? It would have been much easier for him to have done this sometime prior to December when the Edwards's would be in town, killed Eunice, and then used Williams, Mays, or any other person he wanted to cast in his "Ski Mask Bandit" fantasy crime scene, and carried it out exactly the same, without involving his in-laws. It creates much less confusion, and a "robbery" would be more believable.

I don't remember if this has been brought up but at the time of the killings there actually was a group of black criminals operating in central FL called The Ski Mask Bandits. They were eventually caught but they killed two people and raped five others. They committed home invasions and people were quite nervous every about it. Especially people who lived in rural areas like I did.

This is one of those rare cases where it seems like there is an absence of anything in the Zeigler is guilty camp on the internet. Everything I've come across is pro-Zeigler. At the risk of sounding like a flip-flopper, I'd like to amend my previous assertion that Zeigler is most likely innocent and change it to he's more than probably guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't know. But my gut tells me, after re-reading over "Fatal Flaw" (which can be read online for free here (http://www.freetommyz.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FatalFlaw.127180051.pdf)), that he's guilty. I'll detail below:

Forensics:

Over the years, Zeigler has maintained that he was the victim of a robbery gone bad turned into a plot to set him up. Now granted, if Zeigler is truly innocent, he would have no way of knowing what the exact motive would be for murdering his wife, in-laws, Mays, and then attempting to kill him, so it's not necessarily out of the question to think that he would grasp at straws to try and find any possible motive for the crimes to have been carried out. With that being said, the blood found in the store contained only the blood of Eunice, Perry, Virginia, Charlie, and Zeigler. Zeigler's story has 3 unknown men attack him in the back of the store, meaning at the very least there was 7 (assuming Charlie Mays was one of the attackers) people in that store. With the amount of bullets fired, and Zeigler's account of swinging his .357 all around and fighting for his life, I just find it odd that there are no unknown blood sources found in the store. There have been secondhand accounts of a man who was a perpetrator who was shot that night, but lived and escaped. But where was his blood? There was no evidence that anyone other than Zeigler and the 4 victims bled in that store on that night. Is this overly damning? Not necessarily. But it did plant a tiny seed in my head about Zeigler's possible guilt. Plus, there was the testimony at several of his appeals (which his defense never challenged) about how there was cast off blood splatter found on the back of Zeigler's shirt, which matched Charlie Mays. Now I'm not 100% sure on this, but if it's possible that Zeigler, knocked out, lying feet away from Mays when he was beat to death could have produced these cast off splatters, this could go either way. But coupled with the other blood evidence, it does seem damning to his story. The state's expert says that he would only have been able to get these stains 2 ways: standing/leaning over Mays while beating him with the crank, or by crawling on top of Mays and laying on top of him for minutes. Which seems more likely?

The Guns:

Zeigler is alleged to have asked Edward Williams to contact someone he knew about getting "hot" guns, months prior to the murders. In turn, Williams contacted Frank Smith, who used his own money to buy the guns, and then give them to Williams to give to Zeigler. Now, Zeigler is also alleged to have told Edward Williams's friend, and Frank Smith's mother-in-law, Mary Ellen Stewart, that he was on the market for some "hot" guns, because of some new law which allegedly would prevent the sale of hand guns (this is what Zeigler told her, according to her story). Here we have 3 people, all with similar stories, compared to Zeigler, who denies ever speaking to anyone or attempting to buy untraceable guns. Who's more believable? It's easy to say that Frank Smith would want to distance himself and implicate Zeigler, being that he was the owner of 2 guns found at the crime scene. And it's also easy to say that perhaps Mary Ellen Stewart was just lying to protect her friend and son-in-law. But why would Edward Williams lie in this instance? Zeigler's story never once implicated Williams as a possible perpetrator. Right before Zeigler was attacked, he said he had seen Williams backing his truck up to the bay area in the back lot of the furniture store. So what did Williams have to gain by lying about the guns? And if Edward Williams is lying, that means that not only was he a co-conspirator in the murders, but he knew about a nefarious plot for well over 6 months in advance. Williams went to Smith in May of 1975 to say that Zeigler wanted to buy some untraceable guns, and Williams phoned Zeigler from Smith's apartment. Zeigler's defense was quick to point out that Smith did not know Zeigler prior, and that it could have been anybody on the line pretending to be Zeigler. But again, this would mean Williams was complicit in some odd plot to set Zeigler up months in advance. Because if it wasn't Zeigler who Frank Smith was talking to, why would Edward Williams tell him otherwise? And assuming against all probability that Williams honestly talked to an unknown third party, and had assumed that the guns were honestly for Zeigler, wouldn't this elaborate plan (whatever it was) go up in smoke had Williams ever simply asked Zeigler, "hey did you ever get those guns I ordered for you"? And speaking of this elaborate plan, what exactly was it? If Eunice and her parents were simply victims of happenstance, what was this plot of ordering untraceable guns (which it turns out, they weren't because they were bought at a pawn shop and registered to Frank Smith) for Zeigler supposed to accomplish? Were they going to be used in a homicide on Zeigler? Why wait over 6 months? Why pick the furniture store of all places? Why not just cancel the plans when Eunice and her parents showed up? But back to the guns for a second, Williams's own testimony says that he picked up the guns from Frank Smith and delivered them to Zeigler's house and gave them to Eunice. He says that later Zeigler told him that he got the guns. Why would Williams lie about these details? And, assuming that Zeigler is innocent, again, this would mean that Williams was in cahoots with someone months in advance pretending to be Zeigler. It just seems too convoluted, IMO. It's much easier to believe that Williams, Smith, and Stewart are telling the truth, rather than have too many unanswered questions and rabbit holes assuming that they are lying.

Brian Nedd:

Brian Nedd was a 16 year old fruit picker who was with Charlie Mays and his wife on Christmas Eve when they went to the furniture store earlier in the day. Brian Nedd testified that Zeigler took Mays to a back storage area and showed him a television set for sale. Zeigler's story is that he told Mays the TV was for $350 cash only (apparently due to Mays not being up to date with his payments). According to Charlie Mays's wife, she had said that Charlie told her Zeigler offered to sell the TV to him for $128 on credit, and that Charlie was to pick it up later that evening. Mays's wife did not hear this, and it was told to her second hand from Mays. And if Mays was involved on the plot to kill Zeigler and rob the store, he certainly would have to lie to his wife to have a plausible reason as to why he went to the store that night. However, this doesn't explain the testimony of Brian Nedd. Because he said he overheard the conversation, and that Zeigler did in fact offer to sell it to him for $128 and on credit, and that he heard about the meeting arranged later that evening. This testimony is largely ignored in Fatal Flaw. And this testimony is what ultimately drove me to the side of Zeigler being guilty. Because if Brian Nedd is telling the truth, that means that Mays did not have a nefarious reason for being at the store that night, and that he was not a perpetrator, and that for over 40 years an innocent husband and father's name has been dragged through the mud as a murderer for simply showing up after someone promised him a television set that he wanted to use as a surprise for his family. Brian Nedd would have no reason at all to lie about overhearing this conversation. Because during his initial deposition, Charlie Mays was not considered a suspect. So there goes the theory that he was lying to save the reputation of Mays (as unlikely as it sounds).

Charlie Mays:

After re-reading portions of Fatal Flaw, I started to feel bad about the way that Charlie Mays has been cast as this shadowy murderer for the past 40 years. And it makes me sick to my stomach to realize that this rich white guy had used these poor black men (and sometimes women) in this bizarre scheme to set them up as the "Ski Mask Bandits" (who were coincidentally black men terrorizing the area at the time, but they were later caught and had no connection to the Zeigler store murders). The only reason Mays went to the store that night was to surprise his family with the TV set. He did make remarks to his family about how this would be a Christmas to remember, but it's obviously a reference to the television set he was promised. Not only that, but think about this for a second: if Mays was involved, why would he go around town with his wife and Brian Nedd Christmas shopping all day, lining up linoleum at his house, etc. if he was going to go rob the store later that night? And if Mays was in fact only there to burglarize the store, why did he wait around after Eunice and her parents were killed? Why didn't he bolt? According to Zeigler's story, Mays was alive when he was being attacked. Plus, if Felton Thomas is telling the truth, why would Mays drive up and suddenly involve an unknown into this burglary/murder plot? Thomas wasn't from the area and didn't know Zeigler. What's more likely here? That Mays suddenly saw Thomas and figured he'd ask this acquaintance of his to help rob the furniture store and possibly commit murder, or that Mays saw Thomas and figured he could use the help in transporting the television set? And Mays was seen in the company of his wife and Brian Nedd virtually the entire day on Christmas Eve. At what point was he approached about this plot to burglarize the store? Who approached him? How did they know he would go along with it? How did they know he wouldn't tell his wife? If he was approached days, weeks, months, prior to Christmas Eve, why was Christmas Eve the set date for this act to be carried out? Shouldn't it have been earlier, so Mays would have had money (assuming it was a burglary attempt) to go Christmas shopping with? And how could he keep this ruse up the entire day, knowing full well what was going to happen later that evening? And if Mays was a perpetrator, and was shot, why did his cohorts brutally beat him to death? Why not shoot him with one of Zeigler's weapons to implicate him more? When you sit and think about it, there's too much hoop jumping you have to do to believe in this elaborate plot involving Mays. And once you come to the conclusion that Charlie Mays was not involved and was a victim, the entire house of cards surrounding the "Zeigler is innocent" theory crumbles.

Cars, that all makes perfect sense. You know my opinion. It has never changed other than I feel TZ did not get a fair trial.

Another little tidbit that gets glossed over in Fatal Flaw: Leigh McEachern was a sheriff's deputy at the time of the murders, and was alleged to have been present during a meeting between the prosecution and Judge Paul where Paul said something to the effect of, "Get me one first degree conviction and I'll fry the son of a bitch!"

McEachern was convicted of embezzling funds from the sheriff's department in 1979. He came forward with this story in 1981. Coincidence? Seems like he was bitter about being "outed" as crooked, and wanted to take others down with him. He's presently one of Zeigler's staunchest supporters.

Brian Nedd:

Brian Nedd was a 16 year old fruit picker who was with Charlie Mays and his wife on Christmas Eve when they went to the furniture store earlier in the day. Brian Nedd testified that Zeigler took Mays to a back storage area and showed him a television set for sale. Zeigler's story is that he told Mays the TV was for $350 cash only (apparently due to Mays not being up to date with his payments). According to Charlie Mays's wife, she had said that Charlie told her Zeigler offered to sell the TV to him for $128 on credit, and that Charlie was to pick it up later that evening. Mays's wife did not hear this, and it was told to her second hand from Mays. And if Mays was involved on the plot to kill Zeigler and rob the store, he certainly would have to lie to his wife to have a plausible reason as to why he went to the store that night. However, this doesn't explain the testimony of Brian Nedd. Because he said he overheard the conversation, and that Zeigler did in fact offer to sell it to him for $128 and on credit, and that he heard about the meeting arranged later that evening. This testimony is largely ignored in Fatal Flaw. And this testimony is what ultimately drove me to the side of Zeigler being guilty. Because if Brian Nedd is telling the truth, that means that Mays did not have a nefarious reason for being at the store that night, and that he was not a perpetrator, and that for over 40 years an innocent husband and father's name has been dragged through the mud as a murderer for simply showing up after someone promised him a television set that he wanted to use as a surprise for his family. Brian Nedd would have no reason at all to lie about overhearing this conversation. Because during his initial deposition, Charlie Mays was not considered a suspect. So there goes the theory that he was lying to save the reputation of Mays (as unlikely as it sounds).

So I've been reading "Fatal Flaw" as part of my research and I think I might have a possible explanation for this part. After the first few pages in the book, there's no mention of Brian Nedd at all, other than a brief description of a shoving incident between Nedd and one of the investigators on Zeigler's defense team, but no details are provided about this incident. This is during a section where they mention that there was a major sense of betrayal in the town's black community because Zeigler was one of the few white residents who had always been supportive of them, but now they believed that he had murdered Charlie Mays and tried to frame him for his other murders. It sounded like most of the black community believed he was guilty before the trial even started.

Before I read this part, I had no reason to believe that Nedd would lie in his deposition, but if Nedd was angry enough at Zeigler and thought he was guilty, it's not impossible that he could have made up the part about overhearing the conversation between Zeigler and Mays in order to help the prosecution's case. Nedd was present when Mays told his wife about going to the store to pick up the TV set, so he would have known all the details about the alleged meeting with Zeigler and it wouldn't have been difficult for Nedd to fabricate a story about overhearing a conversation. But unfortunately, we just don't have enough information about Nedd's character to determine if he would do this.

However, I've got a lot more material to sift through before I come up with a definitive opinion about Zeigler's guilt or innocence. I may keep popping in to ask for your insights :) .

Before I read this part, I had no reason to believe that Nedd would lie in his deposition, but if Nedd was angry enough at Zeigler and thought he was guilty, it's not impossible that he could have made up the part about overhearing the conversation between Zeigler and Mays in order to help the prosecution's case. Nedd was present when Mays told his wife about going to the store to pick up the TV set, so he would have known all the details about the alleged meeting with Zeigler and it wouldn't have been difficult for Nedd to fabricate a story about overhearing a conversation. But unfortunately, we just don't have enough information about Nedd's character to determine if he would do this.

That is a very good point.

I still can't see any reason as to why Felton Thomas, who wasn't from the area, would lie and continue to lie as of 2012 (telling essentially the same story that he told back in 1975, with some slight changes) if Zeigler were innocent.

I've always pitied Ziegler. I think the only hope he has to be released would be if the judge allows him to enter either a nursing home, or hospice clinic, prior to his death.

Oh, florida. You are just as bad as Texas.

I've always pitied Ziegler. I think the only hope he has to be released would be if the judge allows him to enter either a nursing home, or hospice clinic, prior to his death.

Oh, florida. You are just as bad as Texas.

Dunno, man. It's the same state where juries let Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman loose.

But yes, Ziegler seems to be getting a really REALLY bad deal.

Were they unable to determine whether or not his gunshot wound was self inflicted? that would make or break the case.

It's kind of inconclusive either way. I believe the state's theory was that the wound was produced by having the muzzle of the gun 6 inches away from Zeigler's shirt at the time it was fired. So that's pretty inconclusive, IMO. It does however, seem to suggest that this would be an odd way/angle to shoot yourself.

-2 guys come to pick up a TV and Tommy pretty much says the hell with the TV and suggest they go out for drive and these guys were gung-ho?...mind you this is Christmas Eve at 7:30 at night. these guys had no prior arrangements that night? clear schedules huh?

Back in Winter Garden in the 70's it was still a highly segregated area, where there were even murmurs of a KKK presence. I've read/heard that when a well-to-do white man like Zeigler would come along and ask for the poor blacks in the area to help him or go somewhere, they would do it, no questions asked. Plus, Mays really wanted the television set for Christmas. I don't think he would have wanted to anger Zeigler enough to make him renege his offer.

-All 3 men arrive back at the store and only Tommy/Mays go into the store, while Thomas is standing outside? Thomas becomes scared and leaves? whaaat?

This one puzzles me too. The only thing I can figure is that Zeigler, thinking that since Thomas was an outsider to the area, no one would know him enough to even bother to check his story. In Zeigler's mind, he probably thought Thomas might not even come forward with his story. And there were no witnesses who place Thomas with Mays that night. At the very least, Zeigler figured it would be his word versus Thomas's. And he probably was arrogant enough to believe that they'd believe his story over the poor black man's.

-Tommy goes to pick up Williams who has been sitting in Tommy's driveway since the great depression :lol: and takes him back to the store. now Tommy supposedly tries to shoot Williams but the gun jams

Williams flees with the gun Tommy tired to shoot him with and tries to call the police in a restaurant that was supposedly open on Christmas Eve, but doesn't think to alert anybody in the restaurant that somebody just tried to kill him and books it to Orlando?

That is a really good point. If Williams is being truthful, he had no idea that any murder had just taken place. Only that he thought Zeigler was trying to shoot him. So he hightails it out of the area and doesn't tell anyone (including Roegina Thomas, who Williams knew, who gave him a ride that night) about what had happened until hours later. This is one aspect of the case that I can't explain.

Originally Posted by Axl Rose
-2 guys come to pick up a TV and Tommy pretty much says the hell with the TV and suggest they go out for drive and these guys were gung-ho?...mind you this is Christmas Eve at 7:30 at night. these guys had no prior arrangements that night? clear schedules huh?

Back in Winter Garden in the 70's it was still a highly segregated area, where there were even murmurs of a KKK presence. I've read/heard that when a well-to-do white man like Zeigler would come along and ask for the poor blacks in the area to help him or go somewhere, they would do it, no questions asked. Plus, Mays really wanted the television set for Christmas. I don't think he would have wanted to anger Zeigler enough to make him renege his offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rose
-All 3 men arrive back at the store and only Tommy/Mays go into the store, while Thomas is standing outside? Thomas becomes scared and leaves? whaaat?

This one puzzles me too. The only thing I can figure is that Zeigler, thinking that since Thomas was an outsider to the area, no one would know him enough to even bother to check his story. In Zeigler's mind, he probably thought Thomas might not even come forward with his story. And there were no witnesses who place Thomas with Mays that night. At the very least, Zeigler figured it would be his word versus Thomas's. And he probably was arrogant enough to believe that they'd believe his story over the poor black man's.

Read more: Any updates and/or your opinions on the Tommy Ziegler case? - Page 19 - Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=205728&page=19#ixzz4EVOs064V


Forgive me, but I can't multi quote like I should be able to. I just wanted to add that I totally agree with you on both of these statements Cars. That's exactly how Winter Garden was in 1975. Anyone going there now, having never seen the "old" Winter Garden would probably have a hard time believing this.

I’m still reading “Fatal Flaw” and one of the most questionable aspects of Ed Williams’ story is his claim that he attempted to call the police at a Kentucky Fried Chicken near Zeigler’s furniture store at 8:45 PM. However, a customer named Ed Nolan claimed that Williams entered the store around 9:20. The reason I don’t think Nolan is mistaken about the time is because he saw his brother and sister-in-law driving down the street at the exact same time, where they were nearly sideswiped by a patrol car which was arriving at the furniture store. So if the police were arriving at the scene at that time, then Williams couldn’t have entered the KFC at 8:45 like he claimed and that opens up a whole bunch of unanswered questions.

I have to wonder what would have happened if Nolan had been able to testify at the trial. He was dying of cancer at the time and while he was able to give a deposition, he did not live to see the actual trial. Theoretically, Zeigler’s defense team could have presented Nolan’s deposition at trial, but unfortunately, Nolan had decided to use the N-word to describe Williams. Since half of the jurors were black, the defense was paranoid that Nolan’s racial slur was going to alienate them and undermine his entire testimony, so they decided not to present it! I really can’t decide if Nolan’s racism destroys his credibility, given that this seemed to be the prevalent culture in the area during this time, but I don’t think he’d have any reason to lie about something like this.

This case is one hell of a rabbit hole!

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this has been mentioned. I've always felt the case deserved a second look along with a retrial. The only thing that makes me question Ziegler's innocence is his multiple alibi options. How was this man going to meet a customer to pick up a TV, meet a friend to deliver Christmas presents, help his in laws pick out a recliner and attend a Christmas party in the same 90 minute time frame?

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this has been mentioned. I've always felt the case deserved a second look along with a retrial. The only thing that makes me question Ziegler's innocence is his multiple alibi options. How was this man going to meet a customer to pick up a TV, meet a friend to deliver Christmas presents, help his in laws pick out a recliner and attend a Christmas party in the same 90 minute time frame?

According to Zeigler, the part about Mays meeting him at the store to pick up the TV was a complete fabrication and was never supposed to happen. His story was that Ed Williams was supposed to meet him at his house at 7:00 PM and they would drive to the furniture store to meet Eunice and her in-laws to give them the recliner. Williams would then help Tommy make two more deliveries that night (one to his parents and one to the police chief) before he headed to the Christmas party. But according to Zeigler, Williams showed up at his house about a half hour late and, of course, he was attacked right after he arrived at the store.

Zeigler's cover story just sounds a lot more plausible to me than him driving back and forth to multiple locations within a 90-minute time frame in order to pull off a convoluted murder scheme.

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this has been mentioned. I've always felt the case deserved a second look along with a retrial. The only thing that makes me question Ziegler's innocence is his multiple alibi options. How was this man going to meet a customer to pick up a TV, meet a friend to deliver Christmas presents, help his in laws pick out a recliner and attend a Christmas party in the same 90 minute time frame?

Winter Garden was very small in 1975. All the places you mentioned were close together. He could've traveled from one place to the other in a matter of minutes. If he watched the timing, and ended up at the party last, it was doable.

Thank you both for the additional details/explanation.

Random thought I had about this case while driving home yesterday:

What if Zeigler was using two guns simultaneously while shooting at his in-laws? This would explain the "ear witnesses" who said that the shots that they heard were so rapid, that they couldn't have been fired by one person. But what if Zeigler was firing two guns at once?

Random thought I had about this case while driving home yesterday:

What if Zeigler was using two guns simultaneously while shooting at his in-laws? This would explain the "ear witnesses" who said that the shots that they heard were so rapid, that they couldn't have been fired by one person. But what if Zeigler was firing two guns at once?

It's possible, but I will say that it is extremely hard to fire two guns at once as rapidly as you see on tv. Even for experienced gun users, which Ziegler did not appear to be.

Random thought I had about this case while driving home yesterday:

What if Zeigler was using two guns simultaneously while shooting at his in-laws? This would explain the "ear witnesses" who said that the shots that they heard were so rapid, that they couldn't have been fired by one person. But what if Zeigler was firing two guns at once?

Even though you see it all the time in movies, I've read that it's very illogical to fire two guns at once in real life, as it will completely screw up your aim. That said, there were 28 shots fired throughout the entire store, so Zeigler could have fired off a bunch of shots from two guns and while most of them missed, some of the errant bullets still could have still struck his in-laws. A bunch of bullets scattered throughout the store would create the illusion that there were multiple shooters.

My Tommy Zeigler podcast episode is currently in the midst of being edited and will be released next week, so this case has been on my brain non-stop this past month. I know there was no trace of gunshot residue found on Zeigler's pants, so that makes it difficult for me to believe that he could have fired 28 shots from multiple guns without leaving leaving any sort of residue. However, the thing I found confusing is that Zeigler's story has always been that he fired a few shots in the dark after being attacked by intruders, so shouldn't there be at least SOME trace of gunshot residue on him? But then, Zeigler claimed that the gun he carried in his pocket jammed on him and that the weapon he did fire came from his desk drawer, so it's possible he could have done this without leaving any residue on his trousers.

It's possible, but I will say that it is extremely hard to fire two guns at once as rapidly as you see on tv. Even for experienced gun users, which Ziegler did not appear to be.

Maybe he just fired the guns haphazardly after the fact to set up the scene of multiple gunmen?

Some other things that have been bugging me all day:

Zeigler claims that he was waiting around for Edward Williams (supposed to meet him at 7:00) to arrive at his house to pick him up to meet Eunice and her parents at the furniture store, and he grew impatient (after waiting 5 or 10 minutes past 7) and headed out to buy some bourbon for the Christmas party he was supposed to attend later that night (at the Van Deventer's house). He made it about 5 minutes down the road, and then turned around and went back to his house where he met Williams and they drove to the store together. He says that he figured going to get the bourbon would put him even further behind schedule, which is why he turned around and went back home. More on this below.

According to "Fatal Flaw", the Van Deventer party was to start at 7:00 that night on Christmas Eve. Zeigler and Eunice were supposed to drive to the party later that night with their friends Don & Rita Ficke. Eunice and her parents were supposed to attend church services at the local church that started at 7:30 that night, which was to be over at 8:30. The Ficke's left their home shortly after 8 that night (they remembered the time because a television show came on that Don Ficke didn't like) and headed over to Zeigler's house to see if they were home. The Ficke's saw Edward Williams sitting in his truck in the driveway. This was around 8:10. What is important here, is that by Zeigler's account, he, at the very latest, left his house with Edward Williams at roughly 7:20ish that night. They drove to the store, where Zeigler was attacked, etc. Williams' truck had a faulty carburetor, which caused it to flood the engine and not have it start. Remember, Williams' truck was found at the scene, and the engine wouldn't turn. So if Williams and Zeigler arrived at the store (again going off of Zeigler's own story) prior to 8:00, why did Williams drive back to the Zeigler residence to be seen by the Ficke's at 8:10? If Williams was driving Zeigler, knowing that there was someone there to kill him, why would Williams brazenly drive back to the Zeigler residence and wait around being seen by the Ficke's? I suppose it could be to establish some sort of alibi ("I waited for Tommy but he never showed"), but that doesn't explain why he would then drive back to the furniture store and back his truck into the bay area in the rear of the store. And with regards to the bourbon trip, if Eunice and her parents were to be in church until 8:30 that night, how would a trip to the liquor store (6-7 minutes away from Zeigler's house) put him behind schedule? He had 2 deliveries with Williams that night, all in close proximity to the store. Buying bourbon wouldn't have put him behind schedule at all, because by his own admission, he says that he was going to have Williams stop by there when they were done delivering the gifts. So why head out for 5 minutes, and then turn around and go back home when the store was less than a minute away? IMO, he added this part into his story just in case there was a witness who saw him out driving around at some point that night.

I also find it a bit odd that the Ficke's went out looking for Zeigler and Eunice shortly after 8, knowing that Eunice and her parents were attending the church service. They did drive by the Van Deventer's house 3 times looking for their car, and they also drove by the church when it was letting out around 8:30 looking for Eunice, but found nothing. They went to the furniture store and saw the dark store and the Edwards's car parked out front, and gave up looking for Zeigler and Eunice, and went to the Van Deventer party without them. They made several attempts to find them, to no avail. So it does seem like the part about Eunice and her parents attending church services that night is corroborated by the Ficke's. Don Ficke did not like the Van Deventer's. The only person he knew that was attending was Zeigler. And who invited him? Zeigler. On the 23rd. Ficke said that Zeigler had also asked if Ficke would hang a bulletin up at the Winter Garden police headquarters inviting all of the officers to the Van Deventer party on Christmas Eve. Ficke complied. I can't believe I missed that part after reading "Fatal Flaw" several times. Zeigler wanted Ficke and the other officers to attend the party (which started at 7), so there would be no police presence around town while he was killing Eunice and her parents.

ETA: Zeigler claims that he drove Curtis Dunaway's car one time that night, during his failed bourbon trip. The Ficke's, when arriving at 8:10 that night claim that the garage door was open, and only Zeigler's pickup truck and Edward Williams' truck were in the driveway at the time. The garage was empty. After driving around town trying to find them, they went back to Zeigler's house around 8:30, and saw the same thing: empty garage, and Williams waiting in his pickup. About 10-15 minutes later (after driving around again looking for Zeigler and Eunice), they returned to Zeigler's house for the 3rd and final time and saw the garage door shut, and Dunaway's car parked inside. If Zeigler is innocent, who in the hell was using/driving Dunaway's vehicle from the time Zeigler left with Williams, up until about 8:45 that night??? And why? If the plan was to kill Zeigler, and Eunice and the in-laws got caught in the crossfire, why would they then devise a plan to frame Zeigler, which required going to his house (with the hopes that no one would see them) driving Dunaway's car around for roughly an hour, and then return the car to Zeigler's residence? Why would one of these perpetrators think it was prudent to go take Dunaway's car out of the garage, only to return it later that night? Why not leave the car at the furniture store, which would implicate Zeigler more? Seems way too convoluted to believe. It's much easier to believe that it was Zeigler who was driving around in Dunaway's car, doing the things that the prosecution says he was doing. Guilty.

Zeigler claims that he was waiting around for Edward Williams (supposed to meet him at 7:00) to arrive at his house to pick him up to meet Eunice and her parents at the furniture store, and he grew impatient (after waiting 5 or 10 minutes past 7) and headed out to buy some bourbon for the Christmas party he was supposed to attend later that night (at the Van Deventer's house). He made it about 5 minutes down the road, and then turned around and went back to his house where he met Williams and they drove to the store together. He says that he figured going to get the bourbon would put him even further behind schedule, which is why he turned around and went back home. More on this below.

Yes, this has always been the most troublesome part of Tommy Zeigler's story to me. He has no verifiable alibi during the exact time frame when Eunice and her parents were probably murdered. Driving halfway to a destination and then changing your mind and driving back home sounds like a pretty flimsy way of trying to account for your whereabouts during this crucial time period. It's not completely implausible that it could have happened that way, but it sounds awfully convenient.

While “Fatal Flaw” did a very solid job at poking holes in the prosecution’s case, it really didn’t address the problems the Fickes’ testimony caused for Zeigler’s story. Near the end of the book, Zeigler’s attorneys try to account for this by presenting a theory about how the real perpetrators drove Curtis Dunaway’s vehicle back and forth from the house to the store in order to orchestrate a frame-up job, but you’re right, that sounds way too convoluted. But there are two questionable things which prevent me from automatically thinking Zeigler's guilty...

1. According to the Fickes, the Zeiglers had made arrangements to meet them at their home that night to go to the Christmas party together, but they decided to drive to the Zeigler home when they didn't show up. I just don't know why Zeigler would agree to meet up with the Fickes that night if he was planning to commit the murders. His plan required him to travel back and forth to his house multiple times, so he must have known the Fickes might come looking for him before they went to the party. What would have happened if they bumped into him at his house during one of the times he was with Williams, Mays or Thomas? So Zeigler wants all the town’s police officers to be at the party, so he would have free rein to orchestrate his elaborate murder plot, yet he deliberately breaks an appointment to meet up with the police chief?

2. While the Fickes’ testimony seems to contradict Zeigler's story, it also seems to contradict Edward Williams’ story as well. Apparently, the first time the Fickes visited the house at 8:10, they claimed did not see Williams or his pickup truck there and didn’t see it until they returned at 8:25 (though there seem to be some sketchy reports that Ficke and his wife initially disagreed about seeing the pickup truck the first time until Ficke changed his statement; I think it’s possible some confusion might have been caused by the fact that Zeigler’s pickup truck was parked there as well). This time, Ficke claimed he went up and tried knocking on the door and saw a black man in Williams’ pickup truck. But this goes against Williams' account that he stood outside the house for nearly an hour before Zeigler showed up. In addition, Williams told police that he saw a white couple briefly pull into the driveway and leave, which would seem to correspond with the Fickes’ arrival at 8:10, yet as far as I know, he never mentioned anything about the second arrival where Ficke walked to the front door even though Ficke apparently saw Williams inside his pickup truck. I don’t think the Fickes are lying, but it makes me wonder if they misremembered some details and if their testimony is 100 % reliable. And of course, this is only one of the many holes in Williams’ story, which further cements him as an unreliable witness.

So, yeah, while this sequence of events is problematic for Zeigler’s story, there are just many other problems with the overall case for me to be 100 % certain of his guilt. The theories about his innocence are way too convoluted, but so are the theories about his guilt. I fluctuate, but at the moment, I’d say I’m 60-40 in favour of innocence. Call this one of those cases where I lean toward innocence, but would not be overly surprised if it turned out he was guilty.

Yes, this has always been the most troublesome part of Tommy Zeigler's story to me. He has no verifiable alibi during the exact time frame when Eunice and her parents were probably murdered. Driving halfway to a destination and then changing your mind and driving back home sounds like a pretty flimsy way of trying to account for your whereabouts during this crucial time period. It's not completely implausible that it could have happened that way, but it sounds awfully convenient.

On the surface, I could believe this. But when I pulled up a map of where the liquor store was, to where Zeigler (according to "Fatal Flaw") turned around, he was literally less than a minute away. Unless he hit some traffic, or stop lights (which is possible and plausible), I don't see why he didn't just go get the bourbon. Overall, this was just a nitpick on his story, and I don't think in the grand scheme of things matters all that much.

While “Fatal Flaw” did a very solid job at poking holes in the prosecution’s case, it really didn’t address the problems the Fickes’ testimony caused for Zeigler’s story. Near the end of the book, Zeigler’s attorneys try to account for this by presenting a theory about how the real perpetrators drove Curtis Dunaway’s vehicle back and forth from the house to the store in order to orchestrate a frame-up job, but you’re right, that sounds way too convoluted.

If Zeigler is innocent, he gets to the store with Williams before 8:00. By that point, everyone in the store is dead, save Charlie Mays. He gets attacked, shot, and left for dead, and then Mays is killed. Williams, for reasons unknown, goes back and sits in Zeigler's driveway. The other perpetrators take Dunaway's car out of the garage, for unknown reasons and take it to unknown destinations. They bring the car back roughly 45 minutes later, park it and leave, and then Williams drives back to the store and abandons his truck before heading over to the KFC. They did all of this after their plan was already accomplished. They (presumably) thought Zeigler was dead, and everyone else in the store was dead. Why not get the hell out of dodge? And while it's plausible that Williams went back and sat in Zeigler's driveway as kind of a "lookout" for the perpetrators, why would he return back to the store (the scene of the crime), with the murder weapons?! Why would these "masterminds" behind all of this want Williams to go back to the crime scene with one of the principal murder weapons? What would've happened if the cops did believe Zeigler, and implicated Williams? Could he have been trusted that much to not blow the cover on the conspiracy?

What would have happened if they bumped into him at his house during one of the times he was with Williams, Mays or Thomas? So Zeigler wants all the town’s police officers to be at the party, so he would have free rein to orchestrate his elaborate murder plot, yet he deliberately breaks an appointment to meet up with the police chief?

I could say the same thing and say what would have happened had the Ficke's came upon several unknown men parking Dunaway's vehicle into Zeigler's garage? I believe Zeigler figured on the off chance that he ran into the Ficke's, he could use the excuse of running late, getting bourbon, waiting for Williams, Eunice was still in church, etc. and to go to the party without him.

While the Fickes’ testimony seems to contradict Zeigler's story, it also seems to contradict Edward Williams’ story as well. Apparently, the first time the Fickes visited the house at 8:10, they claimed did not see Williams or his pickup truck there and didn’t see it until they returned at 8:25 (though there seem to be some sketchy reports that Ficke and his wife initially disagreed about seeing the pickup truck the first time until Ficke changed his statement; I think it’s possible some confusion might have been caused by the fact that Zeigler’s pickup truck was parked there as well). This time, Ficke claimed he went up and tried knocking on the door and saw a black man in Williams’ pickup truck. But this goes against Williams' account that he stood outside the house for nearly an hour before Zeigler showed up. In addition, Williams told police that he saw a white couple briefly pull into the driveway and leave, which would seem to correspond with the Fickes’ arrival at 8:10, yet as far as I know, he never mentioned anything about the second arrival where Ficke walked to the front door even though Ficke apparently saw Williams inside his pickup truck. I don’t think the Fickes are lying, but it makes me wonder if they misremembered some details and if their testimony is 100 % reliable. And of course, this is only one of the many holes in Williams’ story, which further cements him as an unreliable witness.

I just chalk this up to 3 people who had no idea what was going on that night, never made a note in their minds to remember these things, so they were off on certain details. I do find it really strange that neither Ficke or Williams spoke to each other that night. If Ficke saw Williams (as he claims on at least the 2nd trip), why not go over to him and ask if he knew where Zeigler was?

So, yeah, while this sequence of events is problematic for Zeigler’s story, there are just many other problems with the overall case for me to be 100 % certain of his guilt. The theories about his innocence are way too convoluted, but so are the theories about his guilt. I fluctuate, but at the moment, I’d say I’m 60-40 in favour of innocence. Call this one of those cases where I lean toward innocence, but would not be overly surprised if it turned out he was guilty.

My biggest setback for Zeigler's guilt is him just letting Felton Thomas leave the furniture store. According to Thomas, he wouldn't go in until Zeigler turned on the lights, and when he wouldn't, he told Thomas to wait in the car. Was he stupid enough to think Thomas would continue to wait in the car while he was inside shooting Charlie Mays? What would have happened had Thomas stayed in the car long enough to hear the gunshots before running over to the KFC (or another place in the shopping center) to call the police? It seems really odd to me that Zeigler did not seem overly concerned with the fact that Thomas fled the area, because he still took the time to go back and pick up Williams and return to the store.

But on the flip side, assuming Zeigler is innocent, I can't think of a reason as to why Thomas would implicate Zeigler and lie about the orange grove trip, if he did indeed flee the area after hearing gunshots, or seeing a dead body. He obviously wanted no part in the murders, so why not be truthful about what happened that night? Especially if his friend Mays was betrayed by the other perpetrators and beat to death?

Found another interesting nugget on page 7 here (http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/74663/74663ans.pdf). This was in 1989, and a resentencing hearing for Zeigler, who had just been ordered off of death row.

"The state presented evidence that when Zeigler was on death row he set up a plan with Eddie Odum in which another death row inmate, Danny Thomas, would confess to the Zeigler murders. Zeigler wrote letters telling Thomas how to give a convincing confession and relating details of the crime. Because Zeigler never obtained the money required, the plan was abandoned. Zeigler told Odum that he killed his wife because she was filing for divorce and alleging homosexual activity. A defense witness, Richard Smith, also had heard rumors about Zeigler's homosexuality."

Now, I could believe that after 14 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit, he became desperate to try anything to get out of jail. But, according to Odum, he confessed the crimes to him.

If Zeigler is innocent, he gets to the store with Williams before 8:00. By that point, everyone in the store is dead, save Charlie Mays. He gets attacked, shot, and left for dead, and then Mays is killed. Williams, for reasons unknown, goes back and sits in Zeigler's driveway. The other perpetrators take Dunaway's car out of the garage, for unknown reasons and take it to unknown destinations. They bring the car back roughly 45 minutes later, park it and leave, and then Williams drives back to the store and abandons his truck before heading over to the KFC. They did all of this after their plan was already accomplished. They (presumably) thought Zeigler was dead, and everyone else in the store was dead. Why not get the hell out of dodge? And while it's plausible that Williams went back and sat in Zeigler's driveway as kind of a "lookout" for the perpetrators, why would he return back to the store (the scene of the crime), with the murder weapons?! Why would these "masterminds" behind all of this want Williams to go back to the crime scene with one of the principal murder weapons? What would've happened if the cops did believe Zeigler, and implicated Williams? Could he have been trusted that much to not blow the cover on the conspiracy?

While I find Edward Williams’ version of events to be highly, highly suspect, I do find it hard to swallow that he would be chosen to be a key cog in a very elaborate murder plot to frame Zeigler. I don’t think the guy had a criminal record and if you believe Jeff Ashton in the UM segment, Williams continued to live as a law-abiding citizen after the murders took place. By the sound of things, Williams was experiencing financial troubles at the time, which would explain why he might get roped into doing something illegal, but it seems weird to entrust him with such a big part of an alleged conspiracy. I know there were rumours that Mays was involved in gambling and had committed another murder years earlier, but the only alleged player in this conspiracy who had a major criminal record was Robert Foster and we don’t even know if this guy was involved.

My biggest setback for Zeigler's guilt is him just letting Felton Thomas leave the furniture store. According to Thomas, he wouldn't go in until Zeigler turned on the lights, and when he wouldn't, he told Thomas to wait in the car. Was he stupid enough to think Thomas would continue to wait in the car while he was inside shooting Charlie Mays? What would have happened had Thomas stayed in the car long enough to hear the gunshots before running over to the KFC (or another place in the shopping center) to call the police? It seems really odd to me that Zeigler did not seem overly concerned with the fact that Thomas fled the area, because he still took the time to go back and pick up Williams and return to the store.

Yes, this is always what’s bothered me so much about the prosecution’s version of events. Zeigler’s elaborate murder plot has so many risky elements and leaves so many things to chance, and he seems remarkably unphased when things don’t go according to plan. I can concede that Zeigler might be lax about letting Felton Thomas escape since Thomas wouldn’t have been a part of his original plan because Mays brought him to the store unexpectedly. But after Thomas ran off, I just don’t think there’s ANY chance Zeigler would have been so lax about allowing Edward Williams to flee the scene later on since framing Williams was essential to his plan.

Edward Williams kinda reminds me of Jay from the Adnan Syed case: even if Zeigler is 100 % guilty, Williams’ story is so problematic that it’s hard to take him seriously as a credible witness. We’ve got witnesses placing Williams at the KFC across the street at around the exact moment the police arrived at the furniture store, which doesn’t match up with the timeline of Williams’ story at all. He then disappears for a few hours and turns over his clothing to police, which doesn’t match the description of the clothes he was seen wearing at the KFC. I’m on the fence about whether Felton Thomas was involved or just an innocent victim in all this. If Mays was actually part of a murder-robbery plot, I could see him convincing Thomas to join him. If Thomas was involved in something illegal that night, then that would explain why he’d continue lying about certain events from that night all these years later because he doesn’t want to implicate himself. There were some details of Thomas’ original testimony which didn’t match the facts (like claiming he saw a car parked in the Zeigler driveway instead of Williams’ pickup truck, and claiming that Zeigler wore light-coloured clothing and drove a light-coloured Cadillac), but this could be attributed to him mis-remembering things.

Honestly, in my eyes, if Zeigler was guilty, I think the evidence would lean towards him hiring the likes of Williams, Mays or Thomas to visit the store and murder Eunice and his in-laws. After they do this, Zeigler’s plan is to double-cross them and kill them all to pin the murders on them, but he only manages to kill Mays before Williams and Thomas escape. This would explain why the testimony of Thomas and (especially) Williams is filled with holes and inconsistencies: they have to implicate Zeigler without implicating themselves in the murder plot. This theory is highly flawed, but I’d argue it doesn’t make any less sense than the prosecution’s convoluted version of events.

Found another interesting nugget on page 7 here. This was in 1989, and a resentencing hearing for Zeigler, who had just been ordered off of death row.

"The state presented evidence that when Zeigler was on death row he set up a plan with Eddie Odum in which another death row inmate, Danny Thomas, would confess to the Zeigler murders. Zeigler wrote letters telling Thomas how to give a convincing confession and relating details of the crime. Because Zeigler never obtained the money required, the plan was abandoned. Zeigler told Odum that he killed his wife because she was filing for divorce and alleging homosexual activity. A defense witness, Richard Smith, also had heard rumors about Zeigler's homosexuality."

Now, I could believe that after 14 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit, he became desperate to try anything to get out of jail. But, according to Odum, he confessed the crimes to him.

Wow, great find! Of course, you always have to take the testimony of jailhouse informants with a grain of salt, but this seems to be the only alleged instance of Zeigler ever confessing to the murders or his homosexual affairs. As far as I’m concerned, the only logical motive Tommy would have to murder both Eunice and her parents is if the rumours about the divorce and the homosexual affairs were true and she planning to go back home to Georgia with them, but these rumours have never been substantiated.

I actually uncovered another interesting document. In “Fatal Flaw”, they discuss how one of Eunice’s friends spread rumours that Eunice had caught Tommy in bed with another prominent male citizen of Winter Garden, but they withhold this person’s name. Well, according to this document, the person Tommy was supposedly caught in bed with was Don Ficke!
http://tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Perry-Jr.-26-homosexuals-sex-ring.pdf

I doubt there’s any truth to that, but man, it would complicate the case so much if true, considering that Ficke’s testimony about what he saw at the Zeigler home that night is some of the most damning evidence against Zeigler.

Yes, this is always what’s bothered me so much about the prosecution’s version of events. Zeigler’s elaborate murder plot has so many risky elements and leaves so many things to chance, and he seems remarkably unphased when things don’t go according to plan. I can concede that Zeigler might be lax about letting Felton Thomas escape since Thomas wouldn’t have been a part of his original plan because Mays brought him to the store unexpectedly. But after Thomas ran off, I just don’t think there’s ANY chance Zeigler would have been so lax about allowing Edward Williams to flee the scene later on since framing Williams was essential to his plan.

I agree. According to Williams, Zeigler said something to him in the back lot (after Williams says he tried to shoot him) to the effect of, "please go back in there with me Edward, if you don't you're going to frame me"...always thought that was weird. The prosecution's theory was that Zeigler was going to kill Eunice, her parents, and then Mays and Williams and then stroll over to the Van Deventer party as if nothing was wrong. Which is ridiculous. For one, he wouldn't have an alibi. He also would need to explain why he never bothered to check the store (where the Edwards's sedan was found parked out front) for Eunice or her parents. Plus, if Williams and Mays were the "robbers", and both were dead, who shot them?

IMO, Zeigler's plan was not to set Williams up as a robber, but another victim. In "Fatal Flaw", Phillip Finch brings up a salient point: if Zeigler was to set up Williams as a robber, why did he drive to the store with Williams? Because once he killed Williams, how was he going to drive away from the store and make it to the Van Deventer party? Finch says it would've been easier if Zeigler would've just driven over to the store separately from Williams, so he could then use Dunaway's car to leave after killing Williams. And I agree. But I don't think he planned on framing Williams at all.

I had wracked my brain about this over the past 24 hours, and I couldn't think of any probable reason as to why Zeigler would let Williams run away if he planned on framing him. But then I remember what Zeigler had said during his testimony at trial. He says Williams was backing his truck up as he entered the store before being attacked. He never implicates Williams at all. And if he's innocent and telling the truth, his overall version of events that night doesn't really implicate Williams at all. So here's what I think his intended plan was:

Zeigler was going to drive to the store with Eunice, then kill her. Her parents were coming a few minutes later, and when they arrive, he kills them next. Then he meets Charlie Mays and Felton Thomas, does the whole orange grove trip, attempted break in, etc. before going into the store with Mays alone, and Thomas flees. Then he kills Mays. He stuffs the cash into Mays's pockets and leaves. I think his intention was to go to the store with Williams, and after shooting Williams, he was going to call the Van Deventer house to speak with Ficke (or another officer) and say that he and Williams just arrived at the store (for the deliveries) and Charlie Mays was there and shot at them, killing Williams, before Zeigler shot Mays and then fought with him before killing him in self defense. I think once Williams fled the area across the street to the KFC, Zeigler, in a panic decided to shoot himself and invent the idea of other intruders. This would explain his odd remark to Williams in the back lot ("you're going to frame me"), too. He was trying to reassure Williams that he was spooked because the lights were off and he thought he was an intruder, in an effort to go back into the store so he could finish him off.

Edward Williams kinda reminds me of Jay from the Adnan Syed case: even if Zeigler is 100 % guilty, Williams’ story is so problematic that it’s hard to take him seriously as a credible witness. We’ve got witnesses placing Williams at the KFC across the street at around the exact moment the police arrived at the furniture store, which doesn’t match up with the timeline of Williams’ story at all. He then disappears for a few hours and turns over his clothing to police, which doesn’t match the description of the clothes he was seen wearing at the KFC.

Both strong points. The only explanation I have for the KFC timeline is that Williams had no idea what was going on inside the store prior, and that he honestly didn't know what, if anything, he could do at that point. He had no idea anyone was shot, just that Zeigler dry fired a gun at him 3 times, and he saw the blood on Zeigler. Perhaps he did consider it possible that Zeigler got scared and didn't realize it was Williams entering, or maybe he didn't think anyone would believe his story. I honestly don't know how to explain the time discrepancy, other than Williams mulling it over before just deciding to leave the area altogether.

I’m on the fence about whether Felton Thomas was involved or just an innocent victim in all this. If Mays was actually part of a murder-robbery plot, I could see him convincing Thomas to join him. If Thomas was involved in something illegal that night, then that would explain why he’d continue lying about certain events from that night all these years later because he doesn’t want to implicate himself. There were some details of Thomas’ original testimony which didn’t match the facts (like claiming he saw a car parked in the Zeigler driveway instead of Williams’ pickup truck, and claiming that Zeigler wore light-coloured clothing and drove a light-coloured Cadillac), but this could be attributed to him mis-remembering things.

If Thomas was involved in a robbery plot, I don't see how, or why he would make up the story about the orange grove trip, or the trip back to Zeigler's house to get the key. He even implicates himself by saying that he was the one who tripped the breakers. I would think that if he was involved somehow, he wouldn't freely admit to that. And even on the off chance that Mays and Thomas were involved in a robbery plot (or so they thought) and arrived after Eunice and her parents were killed (by the real killer/s), wouldn't Thomas at some point wanted to actually enter the store? What scared him off? There are 2 newspaper clippings that I've seen, that say that "Robert Foster" (or Felton Thomas) was the witness who ran away from the scene scared to death. Both clippings say that as Mays and "Foster" were entering the store, Mays saw a dead white woman, and yelled to "Foster" that there's a dead body in here, which caused "Foster" to run away. So, IMO, the only plausible way Thomas could be involved is that if he and Mays had no idea about the murder plot prior, and they just so happened to arrive at the store minutes after Eunice and her parents were killed, and then met the "real" killer, who tried to break into the store, which spooked them (why, I don't know since they were there to rob the place), then they went to Zeigler's house where the killer got a key, before returning and going in where Mays (or Thomas) saw a dead body which caused Thomas to run away before Mays was caught by the killer and killed. This doesn't explain why Thomas would lie about the orange grove trip, or why he would finger Zeigler as the man he accompanied that evening.

Honestly, in my eyes, if Zeigler was guilty, I think the evidence would lean towards him hiring the likes of Williams, Mays or Thomas to visit the store and murder Eunice and his in-laws. After they do this, Zeigler’s plan is to double-cross them and kill them all to pin the murders on them, but he only manages to kill Mays before Williams and Thomas escape. This would explain why the testimony of Thomas and (especially) Williams is filled with holes and inconsistencies: they have to implicate Zeigler without implicating themselves in the murder plot. This theory is highly flawed, but I’d argue it doesn’t make any less sense than the prosecution’s convoluted version of events.

It's possible that Mays was in on it with Zeigler, and that Thomas was an unwilling participant, set up by Mays to be the "dead robber". When he fled, this of course altered the plan, so Zeigler double crossed Mays and killed him instead. This could explain why Zeigler let Thomas flee, because he wasn't part of the original plan. But this would still mean that Zeigler was the sole murderer, because Mays picked Thomas up shortly before 7:30 that night, which was right around the time that the Edwards's were killed.

Wow, great find! Of course, you always have to take the testimony of jailhouse informants with a grain of salt, but this seems to be the only alleged instance of Zeigler ever confessing to the murders or his homosexual affairs. As far as I’m concerned, the only logical motive Tommy would have to murder both Eunice and her parents is if the rumours about the divorce and the homosexual affairs were true and she planning to go back home to Georgia with them, but these rumours have never been substantiated.

Yeah, I went back and saw that they mention this guy in "Fatal Flaw", and he gets discredited. Seems like he was trying to extort money from Zeigler's parents in some sort of financing an elaborate escape scheme.

I actually uncovered another interesting document. In “Fatal Flaw”, they discuss how one of Eunice’s friends spread rumours that Eunice had caught Tommy in bed with another prominent male citizen of Winter Garden, but they withhold this person’s name. Well, according to this document, the person Tommy was supposedly caught in bed with was Don Ficke!
http://tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Perry-Jr.-26-homosexuals-sex-ring.pdf

I doubt there’s any truth to that, but man, it would complicate the case so much if true, considering that Ficke’s testimony about what he saw at the Zeigler home that night is some of the most damning evidence against Zeigler.

Wow, that's very interesting. I don't think anyone ever uncovered any concrete proof of the gay angle in this case. You would think Perry Edwards Jr. would have heard something from Eunice or his parents, but there was never any proof of any of it, IIRC.

Zeigler was going to drive to the store with Eunice, then kill her. Her parents were coming a few minutes later, and when they arrive, he kills them next. Then he meets Charlie Mays and Felton Thomas, does the whole orange grove trip, attempted break in, etc. before going into the store with Mays alone, and Thomas flees. Then he kills Mays. He stuffs the cash into Mays's pockets and leaves. I think his intention was to go to the store with Williams, and after shooting Williams, he was going to call the Van Deventer house to speak with Ficke (or another officer) and say that he and Williams just arrived at the store (for the deliveries) and Charlie Mays was there and shot at them, killing Williams, before Zeigler shot Mays and then fought with him before killing him in self defense. I think once Williams fled the area across the street to the KFC, Zeigler, in a panic decided to shoot himself and invent the idea of other intruders. This would explain his odd remark to Williams in the back lot ("you're going to frame me"), too. He was trying to reassure Williams that he was spooked because the lights were off and he thought he was an intruder, in an effort to go back into the store so he could finish him off.

That’s a pretty good theory. You’re right, Zeigler never named Williams as one of his attackers. He claimed he was attacked in the darkness after entering the store while Williams was parking the truck. I guess my biggest issue with this theory is that it only makes Zeigler’s plan all the more convoluted. If he’s not planning to frame Williams, why bother involving him at all? He could just not ask Williams to help him with the deliveries that night and just go with the scenario that Mays’ tried to kill him when he went to meet Eunice at the store. Involving an extra person just causes another risky complication. And if he’s not planning to frame Williams, it’s pretty stupid for Zeigler to hand him the SAME MURDER WEAPON he used to murder Perry and Virginia Edwards and then just let him run away since planting that gun on Mays would be essential part of his plan! But this is still the best explanation I’ve heard thus far about why Williams was allowed to escape.

If Thomas was involved in a robbery plot, I don't see how, or why he would make up the story about the orange grove trip, or the trip back to Zeigler's house to get the key. He even implicates himself by saying that he was the one who tripped the breakers. I would think that if he was involved somehow, he wouldn't freely admit to that. And even on the off chance that Mays and Thomas were involved in a robbery plot (or so they thought) and arrived after Eunice and her parents were killed (by the real killer/s), wouldn't Thomas at some point wanted to actually enter the store? What scared him off? There are 2 newspaper clippings that I've seen, that say that "Robert Foster" (or Felton Thomas) was the witness who ran away from the scene scared to death. Both clippings say that as Mays and "Foster" were entering the store, Mays saw a dead white woman, and yelled to "Foster" that there's a dead body in here, which caused "Foster" to run away. So, IMO, the only plausible way Thomas could be involved is that if he and Mays had no idea about the murder plot prior, and they just so happened to arrive at the store minutes after Eunice and her parents were killed, and then met the "real" killer, who tried to break into the store, which spooked them (why, I don't know since they were there to rob the place), then they went to Zeigler's house where the killer got a key, before returning and going in where Mays (or Thomas) saw a dead body which caused Thomas to run away before Mays was caught by the killer and killed. This doesn't explain why Thomas would lie about the orange grove trip, or why he would finger Zeigler as the man he accompanied that evening.

Good points. I looked into the recent defense investigators’ interview with Thomas, where he admitted that police never asked him to identify Zeigler and only told him to saw Zeigler was the perpetrator. Since Thomas never met Zeigler that night and Zeigler actually resembled Perry Edwards Jr. a bit, the investigators thought that maybe Thomas’ version of events was 100 % true, but it was actually Perry Jr. who drove him to the orange groves instead (which might explain Thomas’ inaccurate description of Zeigler’s clothing and vehicle). However, this theory was shot when Thomas denied that Perry Jr. was the man he met that night.

It's possible that Mays was in on it with Zeigler, and that Thomas was an unwilling participant, set up by Mays to be the "dead robber". When he fled, this of course altered the plan, so Zeigler double crossed Mays and killed him instead. This could explain why Zeigler let Thomas flee, because he wasn't part of the original plan. But this would still mean that Zeigler was the sole murderer, because Mays picked Thomas up shortly before 7:30 that night, which was right around the time that the Edwards's were killed.

Looking back at “Fatal Flaw”, I’m very curious about their mention of Charlie Mays having cat hairs on his shoes when his body was found, which seemed to match hairs from cats that the Zeiglers kept in their garage. This would imply that Mays had walked around in the Zeiglers’ garage at some point that night, but I can’t see how this fits any of the theories. The closest scenario is the prosecution’s version of events, where Zeigler drove Mays and Zeigler to his house, but Mays supposedly never left the vehicle while he was there. I just don't see how Mays being in that garage fits into any timeline.

Whatever Mays’ actual involvement was, I still don’t believe he was there to simply there to pick up a TV that night since his van was parked behind a large fence in the adjacent motel parking lot. In fact, I noticed that earlier in this thread, you said you visited this very location years ago and saw firsthand just how illogical it was to park in that spot if you wanted to load a television set into your vehicle.

Wow, that's very interesting. I don't think anyone ever uncovered any concrete proof of the gay angle in this case. You would think Perry Edwards Jr. would have heard something from Eunice or his parents, but there was never any proof of any of it, IIRC.

Yes, given that Zeigler’s supporters are now pointing to Perry Edwards, Jr. as the mastermind of the murders, it’s weird to go back and read “Fatal Flaw” and see that Perry Jr. barely gets a mention at all in the book. At the time, it was believed that the main source of divorce and homosexuality rumours was one of Eunice’s friends, but it turned out Perry Jr. was working as a confidential informant for the lead investigator, Don Frye, and feeding him all this info. Frye himself even confirmed this in that Investigation Discovery documentary about the case which was released a few years ago. Incidentally, in that same documentary, one of Tommy’s relatives confirmed that the aforementioned “letter” Perry Jr. received from Eunice naming 26 homosexuals in Winter Garden never did surface.

Whatever Mays’ actual involvement was, I still don’t believe he was there to simply there to pick up a TV that night since his van was parked behind a large fence in the adjacent motel parking lot. In fact, I noticed that earlier in this thread, you said you visited this very location years ago and saw firsthand just how illogical it was to park in that spot if you wanted to load a television set into your vehicle.

I'm glad you brought this up because I forgot to mention this part in my post. The location of his van was suspicious, but I believe Felton Thomas mentioned in his testimony that when he and Mays arrived at the store, they saw the Edwards's sedan parked in front, and that Mays mentioned that "the guy" wasn't there yet, and that he told him to park on the side of the Winter Garden Inn. Also, Felton Thomas says that the "guy" pulled up in the "cadillac" and met them there shortly after 7:30. One would think, if Zeigler did indeed plan on meeting Mays that night for a television set, he would have pulled up to the store wondering where Mays was. But according to Thomas, Zeigler pulled up to Mays's van as if he knew he was going to be there. With the way Mays went along with the orange grove trip, and climbing over the back fence (even though according to Thomas he was reluctant), I don't think it was that much of a stretch to think he simply was asked to park there by Zeigler. Had Mays parked his van out front, or if a witness saw Mays and Zeigler walking into the store together, there goes Zeigler's story about intruders. I firmly believe that Zeigler told Mays to park his van on the side of that fence to make it look more suspicious on Mays. I think Mays would have done anything Zeigler had asked him that night, outside of breaking the law.

I guess my biggest issue with this theory is that it only makes Zeigler’s plan all the more convoluted. If he’s not planning to frame Williams, why bother involving him at all? He could just not ask Williams to help him with the deliveries that night and just go with the scenario that Mays’ tried to kill him when he went to meet Eunice at the store. Involving an extra person just causes another risky complication.

I could see this going another way. If he didn't involve Williams, it would look suspicious to law enforcement as to what Zeigler was doing for the hour or so before he went to the store. Having Williams with him, strengthens his story, and it gives him a legitimate reason as to going to the store (with the deliveries). Plus, he had told Dunaway when they were closing up the store about the last minute deliveries, and Dunaway had offered to help, but Zeigler said he had already asked Williams. So at that point, he needed to involve Williams. Zeigler could tell his bourbon trip story, coming back and seeing Williams, then leaving to go to the store with him. IMO, it may have been an oversight on Zeigler's part in involving Williams, but once he had told other people (IIRC, he told his mother and the Ficke's about Williams helping him deliver the gifts), he couldn't go back.

And man, poor Edward Williams. He was dragged through the mud in "Fatal Flaw". It would be more believable had Williams been some lowlife in constant trouble with the law, but Williams was a decent guy who had never (or since) been in trouble. So I can't fathom as to why he would get involved (also involve his friend/possible girlfriend and her son-in-law) with this conspiracy to kill Zeigler. And I also can't fathom as to why Zeigler would think it would be believable to cast Williams as one of his intruders. I hope I don't sound like I'm stretching it here, but I think there is even a possibility that after the gun misfired on Williams, Zeigler could have (at that point after murdering 4 people) figured "enough is enough" and had he been able to coax Williams back into the store had him as another witness to the deaths. Unlikely, because Williams would tell the cops about the attempted murder in the dark hallway, but Zeigler could've been arrogant enough to believe that he could talk his way out of it by saying that the lights were off, the store was dark, the light switches wouldn't work, fear of the ski-mask bandits, etc. and he had assumed that Williams was an intruder. This could also explain why he gave Williams the gun. Once Williams ran and hopped the fence, I think he became desperate but also figured it would be his word vs. Williams's. And because of his friendship with Ficke, I think he was arrogant enough to think they would believe him. I don't think he anticipated the blood evidence, or the forensic evidence.

And man, poor Edward Williams. He was dragged through the mud in "Fatal Flaw". It would be more believable had Williams been some lowlife in constant trouble with the law, but Williams was a decent guy who had never (or since) been in trouble. So I can't fathom as to why he would get involved (also involve his friend/possible girlfriend and her son-in-law) with this conspiracy to kill Zeigler. And I also can't fathom as to why Zeigler would think it would be believable to cast Williams as one of his intruders. I hope I don't sound like I'm stretching it here, but I think there is even a possibility that after the gun misfired on Williams, Zeigler could have (at that point after murdering 4 people) figured "enough is enough" and had he been able to coax Williams back into the store had him as another witness to the deaths. Unlikely, because Williams would tell the cops about the attempted murder in the dark hallway, but Zeigler could've been arrogant enough to believe that he could talk his way out of it by saying that the lights were off, the store was dark, the light switches wouldn't work, fear of the ski-mask bandits, etc. and he had assumed that Williams was an intruder. This could also explain why he gave Williams the gun. Once Williams ran and hopped the fence, I think he became desperate but also figured it would be his word vs. Williams's. And because of his friendship with Ficke, I think he was arrogant enough to think they would believe him. I don't think he anticipated the blood evidence, or the forensic evidence.

Yes, one reason I actually believed there might have some sort of plot within the police department to frame Zeigler was how willing they were to believe Williams' story. It seemed remarkable to me that in a racially segregated southern town in 1975, the police would take the word of a blue collar black man who had the murder weapon in his possession and left his vehicle parked at the murder scene over a wealthy well-respected white citizen. But it sounded like police zeroed in on Zeigler right from the outset after looking at the physical evidence (even though I still think the physical evidence lacked a real "smoking gun" against Zeigler).

Yet even after thinking about the possibility of Zeigler trying to set up Williams as a victim or another witness, I keep remembering this troubling question posed in "Fatal Flaw": what was Zeigler's plan if Charlie Mays hadn't shown up at the furniture store to purchase linoleum on the morning of Christmas Eve? He originally made the arrangements to make the deliveries with Williams on December 22, which seems to indicate he'd set his murder plan in motion. Yet there's no indication that he approached anyone else during the next two days to meet him at the furniture store on Christmas Eve. When Mays showed up at his store that morning, Zeigler makes an arrangement to meet him that night to pick up a TV set. So if Mays never stopped by the store that day, what would Zeigler have done? By all accounts, he spent the rest of the day working in the store, so when would we have the time to approach anyone else? Without Mays' involvement, was he just going to pin the whole thing on Edward Williams? I guess his idea to involve Mays could have been a last-minute improvisation, but I'm still bothered by this contradictory notion that Zeigler masterminded this elaborate plan, yet seems to be relying on chance and dumb luck most of the time.

Man, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the furniture store that night!

Yet even after thinking about the possibility of Zeigler trying to set up Williams as a victim or another witness, I keep remembering this troubling question posed in "Fatal Flaw": what was Zeigler's plan if Charlie Mays hadn't shown up at the furniture store to purchase linoleum on the morning of Christmas Eve?

Finch also concedes the possibility that Eunice did something that triggered Zeigler on Christmas Eve, which got the ball rolling on the plot. Finch contends that Zeigler would have "had to have break the appointment with Williams" that night for the plan to move forward. I disagree. It would look suspicious if Zeigler cancelled the delivery plans at the last minute. Zeigler wouldn't have an alibi for the time that Eunice and her in-laws (according to his version) went to the store. Including Williams gives him an alibi of sorts, since he could claim that he waited at his house, grew impatient, headed to the liquor store, etc. Without Williams, Zeigler's whereabouts at the time that Eunice and her parents were killed would've been called into question.

Finch also asserts this:

"Zeigler's actions during the day on Christmas Eve, and later that night, do not fit the image of a predator planning to murder and trying to cover his tracks. Just the opposite: the evidence shows that throughout that day and evening, Tommy Zeigler behaved like a man with nothing to hide."

But he also, according to Mattie Mays and Brian Nedd, made arrangements to meet Mays at the store that night, had Ficke put a bulletin up inviting police officers to the Van Deventer party, made Williams wait at his house for close to an hour, told Dunaway to turn off the store lights, switched cars with Dunaway (huge red flag), and told multiple people of his intention to return to the store later that night for the deliveries. He wasn't attempting to "hide" anything per se, but he sure as hell seemed to want to draw attention to certain details that could back his account up later when he finally called to report the murders.

Yes, one reason I actually believed there might have some sort of plot within the police department to frame Zeigler was how willing they were to believe Williams' story. It seemed remarkable to me that in a racially segregated southern town in 1975, the police would take the word of a blue collar black man who had the murder weapon in his possession and left his vehicle parked at the murder scene over a wealthy well-respected white citizen. But it sounded like police zeroed in on Zeigler right from the outset after looking at the physical evidence (even though I still think the physical evidence lacked a real "smoking gun" against Zeigler).

Yet even after thinking about the possibility of Zeigler trying to set up Williams as a victim or another witness, I keep remembering this troubling question posed in "Fatal Flaw": what was Zeigler's plan if Charlie Mays hadn't shown up at the furniture store to purchase linoleum on the morning of Christmas Eve? He originally made the arrangements to make the deliveries with Williams on December 22, which seems to indicate he'd set his murder plan in motion. Yet there's no indication that he approached anyone else during the next two days to meet him at the furniture store on Christmas Eve. When Mays showed up at his store that morning, Zeigler makes an arrangement to meet him that night to pick up a TV set. So if Mays never stopped by the store that day, what would Zeigler have done? By all accounts, he spent the rest of the day working in the store, so when would we have the time to approach anyone else? Without Mays' involvement, was he just going to pin the whole thing on Edward Williams? I guess his idea to involve Mays could have been a last-minute improvisation, but I'm still bothered by this contradictory notion that Zeigler masterminded this elaborate plan, yet seems to be relying on chance and dumb luck most of the time.

Man, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the furniture store that night!

What if TZ had planned to carry out the murders alone, then blame them on the " ski mask bandits" or some other intruders? Fear was rerunning rampant about the Ski mask bandits at that time.
When Mays made arrangements to pick up the TV after closing, that fit TZs,plans even better to set him up as killer so that is what TZ did.

BTW, I am really enjoying this conversation between the two of you. You are both bringing up excellent points.

What if TZ had planned to carry out the murders alone, then blame them on the " ski mask bandits" or some other intruders? Fear was rerunning rampant about the Ski mask bandits at that time.
When Mays made arrangements to pick up the TV after closing, that fit TZs,plans even better to set him up as killer so that is what TZ did.

BTW, I am really enjoying this conversation between the two of you. You are both bringing up excellent points.

This is actually a very good theory. As a matter of fact, had Zeigler simply went to the store with Williams and found the dead bodies (and not attempted to kill Williams or involve Mays), I wonder if he would have come under suspicion, or if they would have had much of a case against him.

One thing that's always bothered me, in the multiple trips to and from Zeigler's house to the store, why didn't he bother to change clothes or attempt to clean up at all? Especially prior to joining up with Williams.

A couple of possible reasons. Maybe he was so caught up in all that he was doing that he just forgot. Or, ego. He thought he was so smart, so good at what he was doing that he wasn't going to get caught, so why bother? There was ego involved with TZ. I can still hear him him remarking in an interview that he didn't buy cheap guns , he bought good, quality guns, so there was no way he bought the ones the prosecution said he used in the murders.

Glad to see that this topic is still going strong - I originally posted this in 2007.

I assume Tommy is still in prison, but I have not read all 22 pages of board members posts.

Assuming this - he has been in jail over 40 years. Whether guilty or innocent, does he qualify for any more paroles or is he in life without parole?

I remember back around 2002 (again I have not read every posting here) that Tommy said there were new trial date possibilities in the works. Now this was 13-14 years ago, but has anything happened since then?

BTW, I am really enjoying this conversation between the two of you. You are both bringing up excellent points.

Thanks, I also enjoyed going back to read your posts from earlier in this thread to get the perspective of someone who lived in Winter Garden. I'm actually releasing a two-part podcast episode about the Tommy Zeigler case next week. What's funny is that I originally recorded it a few weeks ago before TheCars1986 and I started this conversation and he's putting up some pretty good rebuttals to some of the pro-innocence points I make on the episode.

Glad to see that this topic is still going strong - I originally posted this in 2007.

I assume Tommy is still in prison, but I have not read all 22 pages of board members posts.

Assuming this - he has been in jail over 40 years. Whether guilty or innocent, does he qualify for any more paroles or is he in life without parole?

I remember back around 2002 (again I have not read every posting here) that Tommy said there were new trial date possibilities in the works. Now this was 13-14 years ago, but has anything happened since then?

Yes, Tommy Zeigler is still in prison and he's actually still a death row inmate even though he has never been executed. The main reason his case has been getting more exposure in recent years is because Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a new bill called the Timely Justice Act, which is supposed to speed up the execution process after a death row inmate runs out of appeals. So in spite of Zeigler's advanced age, his supporters fear there is a possibility his execution could conceivably still happen because of this new act. All attempts at a new trial have been rejected and just one month ago, circuit court judge Reginald Whitehead (who has rejected all the previous motions for a new trial) rejected Zeigler's motion for further DNA testing, so unless some amazing piece of evidence surfaces which completely exonerates him, I don't think he'll ever get out.

A documentary about the case was released by Investigation Discovery a few years ago which presented the new theory that Eunice's brother, Perry Edwards Jr. was the mastermind behind the murders because his father was apparently planning to cut him out of his will and make Tommy the beneficiary of his $3 million estate. Perry Jr. then had his entire family murdered before the will could be changed, so he inherited everything. It's a compelling theory, but there are quite a few things about it which don't make sense and since Perry Jr. is currently deceased, it will be difficult to prove if he was the true guilty party.

If it were just Felton Thomas and Edward Williams against Zeigler, I could buy that the 2 were lying to frame him to save their own hides. But it's not just those 2. In order to believe Zeigler is innocent, the following people perjured themselves at his trial:

-Mattie Mays
-Brian Nedd
-Frank Smith
-Mary Stewart
-Barbara Woodard (testified to seeing a tall white man standing in front of the store shortly before 8:00 p.m.)
-Thomas Hale (testified to seeing Eunice and Zeigler driving on Dillard towards the furniture store at 7:15 p.m.)
-James Lee Bryan (testified to finding the spent shell in the orange grove)

There is an interesting part that's briefly touched on in "Fatal Flaw" about one of Zeigler's neighbors leaving around 8:00 p.m. that night to go to the liquor store. Edward Williams should have been sitting in Zeigler's driveway at that point. But the neighbor, Ed Reeves, testified that a "dark car" was parked behind Zeigler's pickup truck in the driveway. When he returned "about 40 minutes later", the same car was parked behind Zeigler's pickup. He was adamant that it was not a pickup truck that he saw. If Reeves is telling the truth, this opens up a whole can of worms:

-Where was Williams at shortly before 8?
-Who's car was parked in Zeigler's driveway?
-Who moved the car shortly after 8, and why? (Ficke's said they saw no vehicle in the driveway at 8:15 p.m. other than Zeigler's truck)
-Where was Williams at from 8:15 to roughly 8:30 when the Ficke's returned and saw him?
-Why did someone in the dark vehicle return to Zeigler's house later (around 8:40ish) and park in the driveway?

ETA: Saw this (http://tommyzeigler.com/in-tommys-words/) link to a website that has "In Tommy's Words". I thought this tidbit was interesting:

"At lunch Eunice and I discussed her schedule for the afternoon. She and her mother and father were going shopping and would end their day up at the store for Mr and Mrs Edwards to pick out a recliner chair for their Christmas present. Then they were planning to go to the candlelight service at church. After that, Eunice and I were to go to the Van Deventers’ Christmas Party at their home. At the last minute, Eunice had to take one of our cats to the vet and this disrupted her schedule. So now they had to go by the store to pick out the chair on their way to church. If it hadn’t been for the sick cat and Eunice having to take it to the vet, they would have picked this chair out during business hours and would not have been there that night."

If this account is accurate, and according to "Fatal Flaw" there seems to be some sort of record that verified she took the sick cat to the vet that day, this is a huge blow to the prosecution's theory that this was a carefully orchestrated and calculated murder plot. Unless Zeigler seized on this opportunity to murder Eunice (highly unlikely, since he would also at that point have to realize he would have to murder her parents too), I don't see how this wasn't looked at further (it's briefly mentioned in "Fatal Flaw") proof that the state's theory is wrong. Because if the cat did not get sick that day, Eunice and her parents would have went to the store while it was open. And therefore, Zeigler would have never had any reason to get Eunice (or her parents) to return to the store that night. If Zeigler was intent on murdering Eunice for the life insurance, why not insist that her parents come to the store to pick out the recliner while the store was open, and then lure her back to the store alone at some point that night and kill her then?

If it were just Felton Thomas and Edward Williams against Zeigler, I could buy that the 2 were lying to frame him to save their own hides. But it's not just those 2. In order to believe Zeigler is innocent, the following people perjured themselves at his trial:

-Mattie Mays
-Brian Nedd
-Frank Smith
-Mary Stewart
-Barbara Woodard (testified to seeing a tall white man standing in front of the store shortly before 8:00 p.m.)
-Thomas Hale (testified to seeing Eunice and Zeigler driving on Dillard towards the furniture store at 7:15 p.m.)
-James Lee Bryan (testified to finding the spent shell in the orange grove)

Yes, when you put all those elements together, the idea of this massive conspiracy to frame Tommy Zeigler seems pretty absurd. Yet I still have problems with at least some of this testimony…

-Frank Smith and Mary Ellen Stewart: I’ve always found their stories suspicious. Neither Stewart nor Edward Williams shared the story about Zeigler contacting them to buy untraceable guns when they were initially questioned by police or when Williams testified at the preliminary hearing. It wasn’t until after the hearing that police discovered these guns were last purchased by Frank Smith from a pawn shop and the story about Zeigler buying the guns from him did not even enter the record until a few days before the trial. It’s almost like Smith needed to concoct an explanation to explain why these weapons he purchased had shown up at a murder scene, so he enlisted Williams and Stewart to go along with a story about selling guns to Zeigler even though he never met him and only spoke to him over the phone. Since Stewart was good friends with Williams and once had furniture repossessed by Zeigler for non-payment, this might give her motivation to lie. I still don’t understand why Zeigler would go through this elaborate scheme to buy untraceable guns six months before the murders and then use his own registered weapon to shoot his in-laws

-Mattie Mays: I don’t think she deliberately lied about anything. As far as I can tell, she never actually heard Zeigler tell Charlie to come pick up a TV set that night and only took her husband’s word for it. If Charlie was lying about what he was doing, I doubt she knew that.

-Brian Nedd: This is a strange one since he claimed he actually overheard a conversation between Zeigler and Mays. “Fatal Flaw” never talks about him at all after the first few pages, save for a brief mention of Nedd getting into a shoving match with one of the defence investigators. I see no reason for Nedd to lie, but I know nothing about Nedd’s character and would like to know more context about this shoving match. Since the town’s black community felt incredibly betrayed by Zeigler’s actions (since he always presented himself as one of their biggest supporters) and thought he was guilty from the outset, I guess it’s possible Nedd could have fabricated his story to help the prosecution

-Barbara Woodard: I don’t think she was lying and probably did see the white man at the store, but since it was dark, the question is whether the man was actually Zeigler. I know his defenders put forward the theory that there was another white man involved in the murders and that Woodard may have actually seen Perry Edwards Jr., who apparently resembled Zeigler from a distance.

-Thomas Hale: This is another strange one. I know he misidentified the car the Zeiglers were driving and the defense produced character witnesses to say he loved making up stories to make himself the center of attention, but I don’t know if he’d be willing to go so far as to commit perjury.

-James Lee Bryan: An ex-convict from the work crew claimed he overheard the cops suggest they were going to plant a slug at the scene. Of course, this may not be true and I’m willing to believe that Bryan is telling the truth about finding the slug. But since the slug couldn’t be matched to any of the specific murder weapons, it may not even be connected to the case.

There is an interesting part that's briefly touched on in "Fatal Flaw" about one of Zeigler's neighbors leaving around 8:00 p.m. that night to go to the liquor store. Edward Williams should have been sitting in Zeigler's driveway at that point. But the neighbor, Ed Reeves, testified that a "dark car" was parked behind Zeigler's pickup truck in the driveway. When he returned "about 40 minutes later", the same car was parked behind Zeigler's pickup. He was adamant that it was not a pickup truck that he saw. If Reeves is telling the truth, this opens up a whole can of worms:

-Where was Williams at shortly before 8?
-Who's car was parked in Zeigler's driveway?
-Who moved the car shortly after 8, and why? (Ficke's said they saw no vehicle in the driveway at 8:15 p.m. other than Zeigler's truck)
-Where was Williams at from 8:15 to roughly 8:30 when the Ficke's returned and saw him?
-Why did someone in the dark vehicle return to Zeigler's house later (around 8:40ish) and park in the driveway?

Oh wow, I’d forgotten about that. I know “Fatal Flaw” tries to present this theory that the real perpetrators spent the night moving vehicles back and forth from the store to the Zeigler home to orchestrate this elaborate frame-up job, which sounds too convoluted to be true. But this sighting of a dark car in the Zeigler driveway, if accurate, would lend a bit of credence to this theory.

This is what’s so problematic and fascinating about this story. I can’t recall another murder case in which so many different witnesses contradicted each other. There are numerous few independent, third-party witnesses with no reason to lie who blow holes in both the defense and prosecution’s cases. For example, we have Don Ficke contradicting both Tommy Zeigler and Edward Williams’ accounts of what happened that night, but we also have the neighbour, Ed Reeves, contradicting ALL OF THEM, including Ficke!

ETA: Saw this (http://tommyzeigler.com/in-tommys-words/) link to a website that has "In Tommy's Words". I thought this tidbit was interesting:

"At lunch Eunice and I discussed her schedule for the afternoon. She and her mother and father were going shopping and would end their day up at the store for Mr and Mrs Edwards to pick out a recliner chair for their Christmas present. Then they were planning to go to the candlelight service at church. After that, Eunice and I were to go to the Van Deventers’ Christmas Party at their home. At the last minute, Eunice had to take one of our cats to the vet and this disrupted her schedule. So now they had to go by the store to pick out the chair on their way to church. If it hadn’t been for the sick cat and Eunice having to take it to the vet, they would have picked this chair out during business hours and would not have been there that night."

If this account is accurate, and according to "Fatal Flaw" there seems to be some sort of record that verified she took the sick cat to the vet that day, this is a huge blow to the prosecution's theory that this was a carefully orchestrated and calculated murder plot. Unless Zeigler seized on this opportunity to murder Eunice (highly unlikely, since he would also at that point have to realize he would have to murder her parents too), I don't see how this wasn't looked at further (it's briefly mentioned in "Fatal Flaw") proof that the state's theory is wrong. Because if the cat did not get sick that day, Eunice and her parents would have went to the store while it was open. And therefore, Zeigler would have never had any reason to get Eunice (or her parents) to return to the store that night. If Zeigler was intent on murdering Eunice for the life insurance, why not insist that her parents come to the store to pick out the recliner while the store was open, and then lure her back to the store alone at some point that night and kill her then?

Wow, quite an interesting revelation! But what’s weird is that this also blows a major hole into the defense’s main theory that Perry Edwards Jr. was the mastermind of the murders! My big question always was whether or not Perry Jr. could have known that Eunice and his parents would be at the furniture store that night. But if Perry Sr. and Virginia were planning to pick up the chair during business hours and made a last-minute decision to visit the store after closing, then it’s highly unlikely Perry Jr. could have known this and orchestrated the whole thing. If the cat story is true, then that it makes it sound more likely that the victims simply walked into the store at the wrong time during a robbery and were murdered.

I just don’t know anymore… :crazy:

-Frank Smith and Mary Ellen Stewart: I’ve always found their stories suspicious. Neither Stewart nor Edward Williams shared the story about Zeigler contacting them to buy untraceable guns when they were initially questioned by police or when Williams testified at the preliminary hearing. It wasn’t until after the hearing that police discovered these guns were last purchased by Frank Smith from a pawn shop and the story about Zeigler buying the guns from him did not even enter the record until a few days before the trial. It’s almost like Smith needed to concoct an explanation to explain why these weapons he purchased had shown up at a murder scene, so he enlisted Williams and Stewart to go along with a story about selling guns to Zeigler even though he never met him and only spoke to him over the phone. Since Stewart was good friends with Williams and once had furniture repossessed by Zeigler for non-payment, this might give her motivation to lie. I still don’t understand why Zeigler would go through this elaborate scheme to buy untraceable guns six months before the murders and then use his own registered weapon to shoot his in-laws

I've always thought it was possible that they simply didn't make the connection between the "hot" guns and the homicides initially. Obviously, once they came back registered to Frank Smith, they would have known, which would account for the change in their stories. I just can't see a valid reason as to why Smith would lie in this instance, because he wasn't anywhere near the crime scene that day, had no connection to the victims, and had no real motive to murder anyone for financial gain. Plus, I believe I've read that he was a decorated military man. I too used to be puzzled about why Zeigler would want to shoot the Edwards's in the head with one of his own personal weapons, and on the surface it does seem like someone was setting him up. But if he's guilty, this guy just got done murdering 4 people, and an attempted murder where a witness got away. I don't think he was thinking rationally at that point.

-Mattie Mays: I don’t think she deliberately lied about anything. As far as I can tell, she never actually heard Zeigler tell Charlie to come pick up a TV set that night and only took her husband’s word for it. If Charlie was lying about what he was doing, I doubt she knew that.

She did testify that she heard Zeigler say something to Mays to the effect of, "I'll see you later tonight", and when Zeigler was pressed during his testimony, he said, "the only thing I told her was Merry Christmas".

-Brian Nedd: This is a strange one since he claimed he actually overheard a conversation between Zeigler and Mays. “Fatal Flaw” never talks about him at all after the first few pages, save for a brief mention of Nedd getting into a shoving match with one of the defence investigators. I see no reason for Nedd to lie, but I know nothing about Nedd’s character and would like to know more context about this shoving match. Since the town’s black community felt incredibly betrayed by Zeigler’s actions (since he always presented himself as one of their biggest supporters) and thought he was guilty from the outset, I guess it’s possible Nedd could have fabricated his story to help the prosecution

He could have added more damning testimony about Zeigler, if he indeed was feeling betrayed by Zeigler. He could have said that Zeigler tried to get him to return to the store with Mays later that night.

-Barbara Woodard: I don’t think she was lying and probably did see the white man at the store, but since it was dark, the question is whether the man was actually Zeigler. I know his defenders put forward the theory that there was another white man involved in the murders and that Woodard may have actually seen Perry Edwards Jr., who apparently resembled Zeigler from a distance.

This is the problem I have with the "white man" that defenders point to. Who is he? I have no doubt in my mind it wasn't Perry Edwards, or else they wouldn't have waited until his death to start accusing him.

-Thomas Hale: This is another strange one. I know he misidentified the car the Zeiglers were driving and the defense produced character witnesses to say he loved making up stories to make himself the center of attention, but I don’t know if he’d be willing to go so far as to commit perjury.

I also believe the route he says he saw Zeigler taking to the store was the same general one Felton Thomas and Edward Williams says he made when taking them to the store.

-James Lee Bryan: An ex-convict from the work crew claimed he overheard the cops suggest they were going to plant a slug at the scene. Of course, this may not be true and I’m willing to believe that Bryan is telling the truth about finding the slug. But since the slug couldn’t be matched to any of the specific murder weapons, it may not even be connected to the case.

I had forgot about the slug not matching any of the weapons. But had this been a planted slug, don't you think they would have used one fired from one of the actual weapons, and have the tests rule conclusively, if there was indeed some grand conspiracy to frame Zeigler?

Oh wow, I’d forgotten about that. I know “Fatal Flaw” tries to present this theory that the real perpetrators spent the night moving vehicles back and forth from the store to the Zeigler home to orchestrate this elaborate frame-up job, which sounds too convoluted to be true. But this sighting of a dark car in the Zeigler driveway, if accurate, would lend a bit of credence to this theory.

It's intriguing until you take Thomas's testimony into account. If the dark car was indeed in the driveway, and Edward Williams was elsewhere, that still doesn't explain why Thomas would say that Zeigler took him and Mays to an orange grove to fire weapons and stage a break in. The dark car doesn't refute this testimony.

This is what’s so problematic and fascinating about this story. I can’t recall another murder case in which so many different witnesses contradicted each other. There are numerous few independent, third-party witnesses with no reason to lie who blow holes in both the defense and prosecution’s cases. For example, we have Don Ficke contradicting both Tommy Zeigler and Edward Williams’ accounts of what happened that night, but we also have the neighbour, Ed Reeves, contradicting ALL OF THEM, including Ficke!

Exactly, and it's maddening!

Wow, quite an interesting revelation! But what’s weird is that this also blows a major hole into the defense’s main theory that Perry Edwards Jr. was the mastermind of the murders! My big question always was whether or not Perry Jr. could have known that Eunice and his parents would be at the furniture store that night. But if Perry Sr. and Virginia were planning to pick up the chair during business hours and made a last-minute decision to visit the store after closing, then it’s highly unlikely Perry Jr. could have known this and orchestrated the whole thing. If the cat story is true, then that it makes it sound more likely that the victims simply walked into the store at the wrong time during a robbery and were murdered.

I just don’t know anymore… :crazy:

This still would fit with the robbery gone wrong theory. I saw a semi-recent interview with Zeigler where he talks about Robert Foster, and how he should be looked at in the robbery gone wrong theory as a possible suspect. And then a year later he blames Perry Edwards. But, if he's innocent, he certainly would want to try to find anyone else to pin the crimes on, since Williams is now dead, and Mays obviously died. He's never explicitly implicated Felton Thomas...which I thought was kind of weird.

It's intriguing until you take Thomas's testimony into account. If the dark car was indeed in the driveway, and Edward Williams was elsewhere, that still doesn't explain why Thomas would say that Zeigler took him and Mays to an orange grove to fire weapons and stage a break in. The dark car doesn't refute this testimony.

This actually made me remember another odd inconsistency from Felton Thomas’ statement: he claimed that when he pulled into the driveway of the Zeigler home, he saw a car parked behind Zeigler’s pick-up truck. Of course, he should have actually seen Williams’ pick-up truck. The prosecution just seemed to write it off as Thomas mis-remembering some details, through it is pretty strange to get a car and a pick-up truck mixed up. But then we also have Ed Reeves mentioning an unidentified car parked behind the pick-up truck in the driveway, which would match Thomas’ testimony. But if Reeves and Thomas are telling the truth about the car, then that means Don Ficke is wrong about seeing Williams' pick-up truck parked there. Very strange!

This still would fit with the robbery gone wrong theory. I saw a semi-recent interview with Zeigler where he talks about Robert Foster, and how he should be looked at in the robbery gone wrong theory as a possible suspect. And then a year later he blames Perry Edwards. But, if he's innocent, he certainly would want to try to find anyone else to pin the crimes on, since Williams is now dead, and Mays obviously died. He's never explicitly implicated Felton Thomas...which I thought was kind of weird.

The pro-innocence Zeigler website is such a mess that I’m not sure if I’m following everything properly, but from what I gathered, they never considered Perry Edwards Jr. to be a suspect until a few years ago when Perry Jr.’s granddaughter, Nicole, came forward with her story about seeing her nanny put Eunice’s family ring in a safe deposit box. I believe the lead defense investigator, Lynn-Marie Carty, said she was about to go public with her allegations against Perry Jr. while he was still alive, but he coincidentally died of a heart attack right before this happened. I take that with a grain of salt, of course, but I’ve been thinking a lot about Nicole’s allegation with the ring and trying to dream up an innocent explanation for it.

It seems well-established that two of Eunice’s rings went missing without explanation after the murder, which seems to support the idea of a robbery. I have no idea what the proper procedure would be for handling valuables found on murder victims. Since Perry Jr. was next of kin, it would make sense that the police might give the rings to him, but how long would they be required to keep them as evidence? If Eunice was still wearing the family ring when she was found, it’s certainly possible the police could have given it to Perry Jr. and just didn’t make a record of it. In fact, since Perry Jr. was acting as Don Frye’s confidential informant, I guess Frye could have given him the ring covertly as a favour. I don’t think Nicole’s making up her story, but I’m curious about where this ring would be today.

I'll preface this by saying I know nothing about guns...at all...

Something interesting I saw while skimming "Fatal Flaw" the other day, after making it to the hospital, Zeigler told Chief Thompson that Charlie Mays shot him and that he thought he was there to rob him. No mention of the other "blur" that he claimed had attacked him. Zeigler's story has always been that when he entered the store, he was hit over the head, and then he tried to fire his gun from his shoulder holster (.22 loaned by Don Ficke) it misfired, and then he was bounced around the store. He made his way to a drawer and retrieved a .357 magnum before firing off rounds, and losing the gun, before being shot in the stomach and passing out. "Fatal Flaw" makes a big deal about Zeigler's wound being of substantial size, and that it was inflicted by either the .357 magnum (which could fire .38 special rounds), or the .38 securities revolver that Zeigler kept in his truck (he claimed this was stolen, or that others had access to it without his knowledge). The securities .38 was thought to be the primary murder weapon. Mays was said to have been shot by a gun that fired .38 rounds, but that the wounds were superficial. So my question with all of this is: if Zeigler got the .357 magnum from the desk drawer and fired at Mays (assuming he was an assailant), why were Mays's wounds considered superficial? A .357, to my knowledge, would cause some pretty significant damage. This is why they believed (due to the size of Zeigler's wound) this was the gun that was used to shoot him. But if Zeigler was firing the .357 and didn't hit anybody (or the gun jammed, or misfired), who would shoot Mays, and why? Zeigler never said that he was being shot at, and that he was only being bounced around before being shot once. So who shot Mays?

I suppose the argument could be made (due to the GSR tests) that Perry Edwards shot Mays. I believe this is hinted at in "Fatal Flaw". But if Mays was shot by Perry Edwards, and was walking around in the store waiting for Zeigler to arrive for roughly 15-20 minutes, why did the "assailants" then think it was prudent to beat Mays to death? And why use the crank? Why not walk up and execute him with the myriad of weapons available? Whoever killed Mays brutalized him. Zeigler's claim of hearing, "Mays has been hit, we have to dispose of him", seems like the "assailants" wanted to kill Mays because having him leave would almost assuredly exposed their crimes (since he would have went to the hospital, and would have had to explained how he got shot). But to go to such lengths of brutality? I just don't buy it.

ETA: This is an interesting exchange during Zeigler's "truth serum" interview:

Machler [man administering the test/interviewing]: "Did you throw the breaker switch at any time during that night, or before you closed up?"
Zeigler: "No."
Machler: "Okay. That day did you talk to uh, Charles Mays, that day, Christmas Eve?"
Zeigler: "He came into the store. Wanted to buy some linoleum. And a twin bed for his mother."
Machler: "What about a TV set?"
Zeigler: "He asked me if I had a TV set. I carried him back to the back, Curtis Dunaway was just snoozing, uh, as we went in. I told him that uh, the TV set would be $350 cash. Cause it didn't belong to me. Mattie Mays had the measurements of her house broken down in inches. I had to break it into square feet. I broke it into square feet for her."
Machler: "So his wife was with him, when he came to buy the TV set? When he was talking about buying the TV set?"
Zeigler: "Yeah."
Machler: "Ok. Did you sell him the TV set?"
Zeigler: "No, he said he'd be back for it."
Machler: "Did he say when he'd be back for it?"
Zeigler: "No sir."
Machler: "Did you believe he was coming back that day for it, or some other time?"
Zeigler: "I felt like he'd be back that night, or late that afternoon. I told him to give us until noon to cut the rug that they were going to pick up."
Machler: "And he came back and picked up the rug?"
Zeigler: "Yes sir."
Machler: "But didn't buy the TV then?"
Zeigler: "No sir."
Machler: "Did he mention it?"
Zeigler: "He said he'd be back."

If this is true, it could plausibly explain the exchange between Zeigler/Mays as being witnessed by Brian Nedd and Mattie Mays. Because Mattie Mays testified at the trial that Zeigler showed up at their house with the twin bed (shortly before the store closed) and Mays had asked him about the TV set and if he wanted him to come to the store later to buy it and Zeigler said yes*. If Mays did indeed tell Zeigler he was going to buy the TV, this isn't overly suspicious for Zeigler to have mentioned it to him later while delivering/collecting. Nedd and Mattie Mays could have heard the two discussing buying the TV, but not any specific price. That detail could have been fabricated by Mays as a way to give him a reason to return to the store for a nefarious reason later that night. But still, the largest hill to climb with the Zeigler is innocent theory, is the testimony of Felton Thomas.

*It should also be noted that here, at the trial, Zeigler was confronted about this. During his truth serum test, he says that he believed Mays would be by "later that night" to buy the TV, but on the stand he says that he never had that conversation with Mays at his house, and that the only thing he told them was to "have a Merry Christmas".

So I just listened to part 1 of RobinW's podcast on the Zeigler case yesterday while I was running, and I had something of an epiphany. One of the aspects of the case that's always bothered me was that if Zeigler is in fact guilty, and the orange grove trip did happen so that Mays and Thomas would have their fingerprints on the guns, why would he then wipe all of the guns completely clean of fingerprints? IMO, Zeigler panicked twice that night. If you remember, when Zeigler, Mays, and Thomas returned to the store the 2nd time (with the key), Thomas refused to go in unless Zeigler turned on the lights. According to Thomas, Zeigler told him to wait in the car (from my understanding, Thomas never actually got out of the vehicle with Mays or Zeigler), and when Mays and Zeigler entered the dark store, Thomas got out of the car and went across the street. Zeigler kills Mays while inside, and then goes to the front of the store to go get Thomas next. This is where Barbara Woodard sees Zeigler, IMO. Zeigler sees Thomas is gone, and realizes that he now has a witness who can testify against him. For one, he never planned on Thomas being there that night. He was just an added bonus. But once he was gone, Zeigler knew that if the fingerprints came back and matched Thomas, it would be his word versus Thomas's. So Zeigler panicked, but not to an extreme level. I believe that later that night when he and Williams went back to the store, he had every intention of killing Edward Williams, not to cast him as another robber (his story has never explicitly implicated Edward Williams in any way), but as his 4th victim. By the grace of God, the gun he used to attempt to shoot Williams was the one that wasn't reloaded from the orange grove trip, so Williams survived. Now Zeigler is in an even bigger panic. He wipes the guns clean, knowing that it would not only be Thomas's word against his, but now Williams as well, and then shoots himself.

IMO, Zeigler did not anticipate Don Ficke turning over the investigation to the OCSO that night. I fully believe that he thought he could manipulate or influence Ficke into believing his innocence. I don't know how he planned on refuting Thomas's testimony, or Williams story of his attempted murder. The only thing I can figure is that when Zeigler gave Williams the gun, as well as having his truck at the scene, that somehow this would make Williams the prime suspect. Granted, it wasn't the original plan, and it's almost comical to believe that Don Ficke would accept the fact that a man in his late 40's who has never been in trouble with the law, nor any history of violence, with no real motive to do so, would have just murdered 4 people in cold blood, but at that point Zeigler really had no other option since Williams got away.

ETA: Forgot one other thing. I've always wondered what would have happened had Williams been coaxed back inside with Zeigler that night. Why did he give Williams the gun, if he wanted him to come back inside? Was he going to use Williams as something of an alibi witness? Unlikely, because he needed to explain how Charlie Mays died, since he was cast as one of the robbers. I believe that at that point, had Zeigler managed to coax Williams back inside, he was going to kill him and make him robber #2. I do not believe that was the initial plan, but had to alter them somewhat once Felton Thomas got away. I believe that had Zeigler managed to shoot Williams when first entering the store, he would have claimed that when he and Williams entered, Mays shot at them, killed Williams, and then Zeigler killed Mays in self defense before being shot by another "blur" (Felton Thomas) who got away.

That's a very good theory. The more I think about it, if Zeigler is guilty, it's possible a lot of the irrational aspects of his plan which don't make sense can be chalked up to him having zero experience orchestrating a crime of this nature and panicking and attempting to improvise when things didn't go his way. It always did cross my mind that Zeigler wiped all the guns clean because the fingerprints of a man who got away would be on there, so he had to get rid of all the prints to cover his bases. Of course, when he was re-interviewed a few years ago, Thomas changed his story and claimed he never actually fired any of the guns at the orange grove, which I found kinda strange.

That's also a good theory about the Linda Woodard sighting. But of course, I've now come to the conclusion that no eyewitness sighting in this case can be considered 100 % reliable since so many of them contradict each other. By contrast, we have Ken and Linda Roach, who were passing by the store at around 7:20 and thought they heard gunfire, but saw four vehicles parked in front of the store and a black man standing outside who kinda matched description the Charlie Mays. I just don't know who to believe.

Anyway, after the podcast came out yesterday, I was contacted by Lynn-Marie Carty, Zeigler's pro bono private investigator. She sent me a few court documents and very open about discussing the case, so I'm going to be asking her some questions about the aspects of the defense's case I find most troubling. Stay tuned!

Anyway, after the podcast came out yesterday, I was contacted by Lynn-Marie Carty, Zeigler's pro bono private investigator. She sent me a few court documents and very open about discussing the case, so I'm going to be asking her some questions about the aspects of the defense's case I find most troubling. Stay tuned!

Wow!

I've always been tempted to contact her and share some of my doubts with her about Zeigler's innocence, to see if she would respond. Can't wait to hear what she says!

Anyway, after the podcast came out yesterday, I was contacted by Lynn-Marie Carty, Zeigler's pro bono private investigator. She sent me a few court documents and very open about discussing the case, so I'm going to be asking her some questions about the aspects of the defense's case I find most troubling. Stay tuned!

Wow. :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

I cannot believe how much steam your little podcast is picking up. Just make sure to remember your humble roots. :)

Link (http://www.wesh.com/wesh-2-investigates/full-interview-death-row-inmate-tommy-zeigler/36344198) to an interview a local reporter did with Zeigler last year. It's 30 minutes long. Roughly around the 15 minute mark, he details what happened to him that night. Roughly around the 20 or so minute mark is where he talks about Perry Edwards Jr. The reporter questions him pretty good throughout. The most interesting aspect is towards the end at around the 30 minute mark. Zeigler brings up the sick cat, and Eunice's trip to the vet which delayed her and the Edwards's trip to the store. He claims that he had no idea she was at the store.

Eunice was supposed to go to the store before it closed, and they were going to pick out a chair, a recliner chair for Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. We had a sick cat, and instead of going to the store, Eunice took the cat to the veterinarian. Dr. Gibbs Ashley. And this is what caused them to be in the store that night. They wouldn't have been in the store that night, it would just have been me. And Edward Williams. They weren't supposed to be there. I did not know until I got home that night, that she had not been down and picked out that chair. And that they had to go to the store.

This is transcribed from the video link above. According to Zeigler, his wife and in-laws left at approximately 7 o'clock that evening to go to the store to pick out the chair. Zeigler claims he met with Williams and headed to the store at roughly around 7:30. He claims that he and Williams went to the side of the building, to unlock the gate, and then relocked the gate while Williams was backing his truck to the bay door. This is when he entered the store, and tried some light switches which didn't work, but he wasn't alarmed because Curtis Dunaway usually accidentally flipped the breaker.

This is all well and good. But the biggest inconsistency I see with this story? He never mentions seeing the Edwards's sedan parked right out in front of the store. This was nearly a half an hour later, after his wife and in-laws were supposed to pick out a recliner (which should've taken less than a half an hour) and then attend church. So why wasn't Zeigler alarmed at the presence of their car? Assuming that he just figured they were running late, why was he not even more alarmed at the fact that the lights were off in the store? Why was he not concerned with where his wife and in-laws were? Remember, according to Fatal Flaw, when he was at the hospital he was questioned to the whereabouts of Eunice (who had yet to be found inside the store), and he said something to the effect (to Ficke), "isn't she with you?" He most definitely would have seen the sedan that night, because virtually all witnesses agree that it was parked directly in front of the store. But according to Zeigler, with the Edwards's sedan parked right in front of the store when he arrived with Williams, was not alarmed at all when entering a darkened store, and had assumed that Eunice was already with the Ficke's to attend the Van Deventer party later that evening.

I've listened to part 2 of RobinW's brilliant podcast of this case, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not swayed. The whole smoke and mirror attempt by Zeigler's current defense team is a ploy to pin these murders on deceased people, or living "boogeymen" (Robert Foster). I'll elaborate on my thoughts in a later post, but I just find it ridiculous to assume that after murdering 4 people and shooting Zeigler, that this gang of black men would then go across the street, rob a gas station, and then abandon an attempt to rob a TGY before leaving the area. I believe the gas station robbery happened. But it was just an odd coincidence, IMO. I believe some "suspicious" black men were observed hanging out around the TGY while Officer Cindy Blalock was accompanying the TGY manager with the cash from the store that night. They allegedly left the area after Blalock jumped in her cruiser to respond to the furniture store. There is no proof that these men were going to rob the TGY. There is inference, but no proof. We know nothing about these men. The license plate was registered to someone living in the same address once occupied by Frank Smith. So who was the current tenant? Couldn't it also just have been a weird coincidence in this case? Because now, not only do we have Charlie Mays, Edward Williams, and Felton Thomas. But we also have "Slim", Robert Foster, and another black man (TGY witnesses say they saw 3 black men). Felton Thomas was long gone by the time the TGY witnesses claim to have seen these men. "Slim" was a white man. Charlie Mays was dead. So that leaves Robert Foster, according to Zeigler's current defense, being with 2 other black men near the TGY. So we've gone from Zeigler's story about 2 blurs attacking him, and then hearing a third man (white guy) ordering the bigger blur to kill the smaller blur (Mays). So where was everybody else? And how did Felton Thomas fit into this whole scenario? It seems like such a huge stretch to coax an itinerant fruit picker, who wasn't even from the area, and hinge your bets on him that he would stick to this fabricated story and frame Zeigler. Same with Robert Foster. Same with "Slim". It's just too deep a rabbit hole to go into, but ultimately, I feel like this is the equivalent of Helena Stoeckley and her hippie gang in the MacDonald murders.

Just some random thoughts. You can work them into the scenario if you think it helps.
If you refer back to the map of the area I posted some pages back......
On hwy 50, next to the WG nursery( think I only drew it out that far) would be Dr Ashley's vet office. He was a wonderful vet and my family used him also.so it was located very close to this whole scene for what it's worth.

Also, if you refer to the map, looking at TG&Y, there is a small courtyard in front of it, and on the other side of the courtyard was a game room that faced TG&Y. Is it possible that there were three men in front of TG&Y but they were more in the courtyard and had been at the game room? As I mentioned, things were still very much segregated. Back then, but times were beginning to change, especially with the young people. And this game room was frequented by the teens in town.

]Also, if you refer to the map, looking at TG&Y, there is a small courtyard in front of it, and on the other side of the courtyard was a game room that faced TG&Y. Is it possible that there were three men in front of TG&Y but they were more in the courtyard and had been at the game room? As I mentioned, things were still very much segregated. Back then, but times were beginning to change, especially with the young people. And this game room was frequented by the teens in town.

Sounds plausible to me.

Felton Thomas says he ran into an acquaintance at the shopping center and hitched a ride with him. Edward Williams ran into an acquaintance at the shopping center and hitched a ride with her. It seems like this was a fairly populated area, even on Christmas Eve. So it's not that much of a stretch to say that the presence of 3 black men leaving in a dark car near the TGY that night were there for perfectly normal reasons.

I've listened to part 2 of RobinW's brilliant podcast of this case, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not swayed. The whole smoke and mirror attempt by Zeigler's current defense team is a ploy to pin these murders on deceased people, or living "boogeymen" (Robert Foster). I'll elaborate on my thoughts in a later post, but I just find it ridiculous to assume that after murdering 4 people and shooting Zeigler, that this gang of black men would then go across the street, rob a gas station, and then abandon an attempt to rob a TGY before leaving the area. I believe the gas station robbery happened. But it was just an odd coincidence, IMO. I believe some "suspicious" black men were observed hanging out around the TGY while Officer Cindy Blalock was accompanying the TGY manager with the cash from the store that night. They allegedly left the area after Blalock jumped in her cruiser to respond to the furniture store. There is no proof that these men were going to rob the TGY. There is inference, but no proof. We know nothing about these men. The license plate was registered to someone living in the same address once occupied by Frank Smith. So who was the current tenant? Couldn't it also just have been a weird coincidence in this case? Because now, not only do we have Charlie Mays, Edward Williams, and Felton Thomas. But we also have "Slim", Robert Foster, and another black man (TGY witnesses say they saw 3 black men). Felton Thomas was long gone by the time the TGY witnesses claim to have seen these men. "Slim" was a white man. Charlie Mays was dead. So that leaves Robert Foster, according to Zeigler's current defense, being with 2 other black men near the TGY. So we've gone from Zeigler's story about 2 blurs attacking him, and then hearing a third man (white guy) ordering the bigger blur to kill the smaller blur (Mays). So where was everybody else? And how did Felton Thomas fit into this whole scenario? It seems like such a huge stretch to coax an itinerant fruit picker, who wasn't even from the area, and hinge your bets on him that he would stick to this fabricated story and frame Zeigler. Same with Robert Foster. Same with "Slim". It's just too deep a rabbit hole to go into, but ultimately, I feel like this is the equivalent of Helena Stoeckley and her hippie gang in the MacDonald murders.

Hey, thanks for praising the podcast! I was really anxious to hear if your opinion was going to be swayed. I have to say, I was learning towards Zeigler's guilt after our recent discussions about the case here. I have to admit to admit I may be a bit biased now after spending the last two weeks speaking with Lynn-Marie Carty. She is VERY passionate about this case and has spent the last few years doing an astounding amount of work pro bono. She knows Tommy Zeigler a lot better than we do and believes that he is incapable of committing these murders. She is someone whose full-time job is reuniting families, but is willing to devote a large portion of her life to exonerating a convicted murderer because she truly believes he's innocent. She was also very forthright when I expressed concerns about certain things which pointed to Zeigler's guilt. I do admit that even after obtaining all this new information, I STILL cannot come up with an airtight theory about what happened that night and that this whole conspiracy does seem too large to be true.

That said, there are so, SO many problems I have with this conviction. The one piece of info which really stuck out to me (and Lynn-Marie when she started working this case) is the fact that Robert Foster's name was printed in several newspaper articles for three straight weeks. If Foster's name had only showed up in the initial arrest report and one article, I'd be willing to concede it was just a mistake, but I just cannot believe that the wrong witness' name could be published for THREE WEEKS without anyone on the police force noticing and getting the error corrected. And there's still no explanation for how they would have even GOTTEN Foster's name to begin with if he wasn't connected somehow. This is what convinced that Foster was originally going to be a witness instead of Felton Thomas. If police lied about this and were willing to pretend for decades that Foster didn't exist, then there was something very shady about this investigation. Even if the robbery at the gas station and the incident at the TG&Y were just coincidences and had nothing to do with the murders, why would the police go to such lengths to conceal these incidents from the defense? I don't think they set out to frame Zeigler, but I do think they developed tunnel vision and did a lot of covering up once they started realizing they might have gotten the wrong man.

Anyway, I'll hold off a little before sharing more thoughts because I've been neck deep in this case these past few weeks and need a little breather :crazy:.

That said, there are so, SO many problems I have with this conviction.

I agree. I'd go as far to say that if what was presented in Fatal Flaw, as well as the additional things uncovered over the years at the trial, I wouldn't be able to convict him.

The one piece of info which really stuck out to me (and Lynn-Marie when she started working this case) is the fact that Robert Foster's name was printed in several newspaper articles for three straight weeks. If Foster's name had only showed up in the initial arrest report and one article, I'd be willing to concede it was just a mistake, but I just cannot believe that the wrong witness' name could be published for THREE WEEKS without anyone on the police force noticing and getting the error corrected. And there's still no explanation for how they would have even GOTTEN Foster's name to begin with if he wasn't connected somehow. This is what convinced that Foster was originally going to be a witness instead of Felton Thomas. If police lied about this and were willing to pretend for decades that Foster didn't exist, then there was something very shady about this investigation. Even if the robbery at the gas station and the incident at the TG&Y were just coincidences and had nothing to do with the murders, why would the police go to such lengths to conceal these incidents from the defense? I don't think they set out to frame Zeigler, but I do think they developed tunnel vision and did a lot of covering up once they started realizing they might have gotten the wrong man.

I've often wondered if the reports about Mattie Mays being consoled by a large black man outside the furniture store that night are accurate, and if the large man was indeed Robert Foster. He was friends with Mays, and IIRC, played softball with him. So if the man was indeed Robert Foster, I could see an honest to God mistake made by the police that night by writing his name down, and noting that he was a friend of Mays (assuming they would have questioned or talked to him or got a statement from him outside the store that night). When they go to interview Felton Thomas, he gives his name as Thomas Felton, Buddy Felton, etc. and says he was Mays's friend who went to the store that night, and someone screws up and transplants Foster's name into Thomas's account. This was long before social media. I wouldn't be that surprised that the error was not corrected sooner. Just look at the Sandy Hook shooting. There were initial reports of 2 shooters, then they incorrectly identified Adam Lanza's brother as a shooter, and then mysterious reports of a man in camo being detained in the woods near the school. Thanks to social media, those reports were cleared up much quicker. Or maybe there's an even simpler explanation. Felton Thomas was put into protective custody after coming forward with his story. The cops very well could've known this was an error, but didn't want to correct it to give the identity of their star witness away.

ETA: Found this tidbit in "Fatal Flaw", which lends credence to my theory above.

One eyewitness, an elderly man named Ed Nolan, testified that a man fitting that general description was with Mattie Mays outside the furniture store in the early hours of Christmas morning when a plainclothes sheriff's officer informed her that her husband was dead. Nolan, whose testimony would become significant in another regard, remembered that Mrs. Mays cried, "Lord have mercy," and collapsed in the officers’ arms.

Nolan said that the plainclothes officer walked Mrs. Mays out from the police lines and spoke to a man whom Nolan described as "tall" and "stout-built." This man said that he was a friend of the family, and the officer advised him to take Mrs. Mays to the hospital. Nolan said that the man's name was "Robert" somebody.

I believe some "suspicious" black men were observed hanging out around the TGY while Officer Cindy Blalock was accompanying the TGY manager with the cash from the store that night. They allegedly left the area after Blalock jumped in her cruiser to respond to the furniture store. There is no proof that these men were going to rob the TGY. There is inference, but no proof. We know nothing about these men. The license plate was registered to someone living in the same address once occupied by Frank Smith. So who was the current tenant? Couldn't it also just have been a weird coincidence in this case?

Believe me, the "averted armed robbery" aspect of the case was so confusing that I had to go over it multiple times before I figured out what was going on. It just sounds like the whole thing was a misunderstanding perpetuated by paranoid witnesses. What happened is that Officer Blalock showed up to be an escort for for a routine money drop at the store until she received a radio call to cover the furniture store and sped away. It was at that moment the black men in the car also sped away and some witnesses at the plaza mistakenly assumed they were pursuing Blalock to rob her, so they called the police. I don't believe those black men had any intention of robbing anybody, but since these witnesses mistakenly thought they were (which given the racial climate of Winter Garden at the time, is probably not a surprise) and contacted the police, it ended up going on the record as an "averted armed robbery". Unfortunately, since police never mentioned this incident to the defense team at the time, they did not even uncover a record of the incident until a few years ago, so no one knows the exact details of how they determined who that car belonged to. All they know is that an address connected to the tag number was written in the original paperwork and then Lynn-Marie Carty happened to notice Frank Smith mention that same address in the trial transcript. If it wasn't for that, I'm not sure this incident would have much significance. It might be nothing more than a coincidence, sure, but there seem to be an awful lot of them.

I've often wondered if the reports about Mattie Mays being consoled by a large black man outside the furniture store that night are accurate, and if the large man was indeed Robert Foster. He was friends with Mays, and IIRC, played softball with him. So if the man was indeed Robert Foster, I could see an honest to God mistake made by the police that night by writing his name down, and noting that he was a friend of Mays (assuming they would have questioned or talked to him or got a statement from him outside the store that night). When they go to interview Felton Thomas, he gives his name as Thomas Felton, Buddy Felton, etc. and says he was Mays's friend who went to the store that night, and someone screws up and transplants Foster's name into Thomas's account. This was long before social media. I wouldn't be that surprised that the error was not corrected sooner. Just look at the Sandy Hook shooting. There were initial reports of 2 shooters, then they incorrectly identified Adam Lanza's brother as a shooter, and then mysterious reports of a man in camo being detained in the woods near the school. Thanks to social media, those reports were cleared up much quicker. Or maybe there's an even simpler explanation. Felton Thomas was put into protective custody after coming forward with his story. The cops very well could've known this was an error, but didn't want to correct it to give the identity of their star witness away.

I saw that part in "Fatal Flaw" as well and, yes, if Foster did accompany Mrs. Mays to the police station and gave them his name, then that would probably be the only logical explanation for how his name got on the record. But of course, if this was just an honest mistake, it seems ridiculous that police just couldn't admit who Foster was and explain how the mistake happened rather than say "there is no such person as Robert Foster". If they were just trying to protect Felton Thomas' identity, why not admit so after Thomas testified? When I saw Foster's parole was terminated only one day before the preliminary hearing, that entered "one coincidence too many" territory for me.

I saw the original article to feature Foster's name, published on New Year's Eve, and strangely, the story it provides is much different than Felton Thomas'. It says that Foster didn't turn himself until four days after the murders and that Charlie Mays had seen a woman's body when he entered the furniture store and told Foster to run away. Very, very weird!

So I just wanted to give a HUGE thanks to Robin for featuring this case on The Trail Went Cold. I think for the first time since I saw the story on UM many years ago, I FINALLY have all the details in this case straightened out after listening to that (excellent) two-part podcast.

That being said--and keeping my thoughts as succinct as possible--I would probably lean toward Zeigler being guilty but for the information uncovered about Perry Edwards Jr's violent history, his being cut from his father's will, and his cozy relationship with investigators in this case. That bothers me a great deal, and it bothers me enough to consider that Zeigler may be innocent.

So I just wanted to give a HUGE thanks to Robin for featuring this case on The Trail Went Cold. I think for the first time since I saw the story on UM many years ago, I FINALLY have all the details in this case straightened out after listening to that (excellent) two-part podcast.

That being said--and keeping my thoughts as succinct as possible--I would probably lean toward Zeigler being guilty but for the information uncovered about Perry Edwards Jr's violent history, his being cut from his father's will, and his cozy relationship with investigators in this case. That bothers me a great deal, and it bothers me enough to consider that Zeigler may be innocent.

Hey, thanks a lot, I really appreciate the kind words. Glad you enjoyed the podcast. At time, it was grueling putting together the whole thing, as it required a lot of rewriting, re-editing and adding new information, but I'm pretty proud of the end result and relieved that I was able to keep everything straight. Lynn-Marie Carty was very happy as well. A lot of the info on the podcast is from her website, tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com, but the site is pretty cluttered and overwhelming to navigate at times, so she was quite grateful to have all the key points organized into one piece of media. She's currently circulating the podcast to as many people as she can and she's got a lot of connections, so this could lead to some potentially interesting developments.

Looking back at the case as a whole now, one thing that strikes me is how all the alleged motives that Zeigler had for this crime have completely fallen apart. As far as I'm concerned, the $500,000 life insurance motive is negated by the fact that Zeigler kept turning down his father-in-law's request to become executor of his will and cost himself millions by murdering him. And all the rumours about Zeigler's homosexuality and his crumbling marriage were started by the guy who stood to profit if Zeigler took the fall and I've seen no evidence that there was any truth to them. This is literally the ultimate example of a guy having the perfect, happy life and throwing everything away and I just see zero motive for him to do so.

Looking back at the case as a whole now, one thing that strikes me is how all the alleged motives that Zeigler had for this crime have completely fallen apart. As far as I'm concerned, the $500,000 life insurance motive is negated by the fact that Zeigler kept turning down his father-in-law's request to become executor of his will and cost himself millions by murdering him.

I agree. Zeigler had no financial problems, no seamy debts, nothing. And I think you mentioned in the podcast that Eunice was completely aware of the life insurance policy.

And all the rumours about Zeigler's homosexuality and his crumbling marriage were started by the guy who stood to profit if Zeigler took the fall and I've seen no evidence that there was any truth to them.

I was aware of these allegations before but somehow missed that the origin appears to have been with Perry Edwards Jr. That puts them in better context, although I too don't think there's an ounce of merit to any of them.

This is literally the ultimate example of a guy having the perfect, happy life and throwing everything away and I just see zero motive for him to do so.

I think the state's case is a compelling one on the surface. It does seem sensical, plausible--right up until you really sit and consider motive. None of the offered motives are reasonable. At least one is based on what is more than likely a blatant fabrication, and the others are admittedly pretty weak tea.

The rumors about TZ were not new. They had been around for years.

The rumors about TZ were not new. They had been around for years.

Interesting. Did they start before he married Eunice, or had they been around prior to that?

The rumors about homosexuality as well as the animal cruelty rumors had been around for years. Prior to him marrying Eunice.

Looking back at the case as a whole now, one thing that strikes me is how all the alleged motives that Zeigler had for this crime have completely fallen apart. As far as I'm concerned, the $500,000 life insurance motive is negated by the fact that Zeigler kept turning down his father-in-law's request to become executor of his will and cost himself millions by murdering him. And all the rumours about Zeigler's homosexuality and his crumbling marriage were started by the guy who stood to profit if Zeigler took the fall and I've seen no evidence that there was any truth to them. This is literally the ultimate example of a guy having the perfect, happy life and throwing everything away and I just see zero motive for him to do so.

The only caveat to this is that this was Zeigler's word alone about being asked to be the benefactor of the will. Now there is some evidence that the Edwards's took out their will from the courthouse and whited out names (in August of 1975, IIRC), but other than that, there is no evidence that they planned on making Zeigler the sole benefactor. Plus, why did they wait nearly 3 months after taking their will out of the courthouse to ask Zeigler about the will? According to his story, it was in Thanksgiving in 1975.

But of course, if this was just an honest mistake, it seems ridiculous that police just couldn't admit who Foster was and explain how the mistake happened rather than say "there is no such person as Robert Foster". If they were just trying to protect Felton Thomas' identity, why not admit so after Thomas testified? When I saw Foster's parole was terminated only one day before the preliminary hearing, that entered "one coincidence too many" territory for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the State/investigators never denied the existence of Robert Foster, Frye simply said that the report had a typo on it, correct? He never denied the existence of Foster. Would the case have turned out differently had Frye said something to the effect of, "the names got crisscrossed, Robert Foster was a family friend who was present with Mattie Mays at the furniture store that night, and his name got transposed as a witness by mistake"? Is it possible that Frye really didn't know who Robert Foster was? In Fatal Flaw, Phillip Finch says the defense interviewed several black residents in Winter Garden and Oakland who denied knowing Foster. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Frye to have not known him either. Sloppy police work? Absolutely. Weird conspiracy to frame Zeigler? Hardly.

Let's assume that the defense knew this information during the trial, and tried to paint Foster as one of the robbers. Why on Earth would Foster return to the scene of a quadruple murder hours later, if he were involved? Who contacted Foster to set up Zeigler? What motive would he have had? If he was involved, he either brutally murdered Charlie Mays, or witnessed it happen, so why would he then accompany his wife to the store acting like a concerned friend? Wouldn't he want to get away from the area ASAP? All principal witnesses against Zeigler (who the defense tried to paint as robbers), Felton Thomas, Edward Williams, and Robert Foster, all either went to the police or returned to the scene at some point that night. That does not strike me as people who were just involved in 4 murders and 1 attempted murder.

I saw the original article to feature Foster's name, published on New Year's Eve, and strangely, the story it provides is much different than Felton Thomas'. It says that Foster didn't turn himself until four days after the murders and that Charlie Mays had seen a woman's body when he entered the furniture store and told Foster to run away. Very, very weird!

I chalk this up to shoddy journalism reporting on innuendos and rumors running rampant at the time.

The only caveat to this is that this was Zeigler's word alone about being asked to be the benefactor of the will. Now there is some evidence that the Edwards's took out their will from the courthouse and whited out names (in August of 1975, IIRC), but other than that, there is no evidence that they planned on making Zeigler the sole benefactor. Plus, why did they wait nearly 3 months after taking their will out of the courthouse to ask Zeigler about the will? According to his story, it was in Thanksgiving in 1975.

The Zeiglers had travelled to Moultrie to spend Thanksgiving with the Edwardses when Perry Sr. first proposed the idea of making Tommy the executor of the will. Since they lived in different states, it’s possible this was the first time they saw each other face-to-face since Perry Sr. checked out the will in August. Granted, I’m not sure if there are any independent witnesses to corroborate Perry Sr. making the proposal at Thanksgiving, but I know that when the Edwardses arrived in Winter Garden on December 23rd, they were at Tommy’s parents’ house when Perry Sr. pulled out the will again and Tommy’s mother witnessed this. Of course, I guess Mrs. Zeigler would say anything to help her son, but since the will wasn’t even a part of the original murder investigation, I don’t see why she’d lie about this. And I don’t see any reason why Perry Sr. would bring the will to Winter Garden in the first place if he wasn’t planning on changing it. I know it was established that Perry Jr. returned the will to the courthouse in Moultrie on January 7, 1976, the very same day Eunice was being buried in Winter Garden! That doesn’t prove Perry Jr. is a murderer, but it is a major red flag and says a lot about his character.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the State/investigators never denied the existence of Robert Foster, Frye simply said that the report had a typo on it, correct? He never denied the existence of Foster. Would the case have turned out differently had Frye said something to the effect of, "the names got crisscrossed, Robert Foster was a family friend who was present with Mattie Mays at the furniture store that night, and his name got transposed as a witness by mistake"? Is it possible that Frye really didn't know who Robert Foster was? In Fatal Flaw, Phillip Finch says the defense interviewed several black residents in Winter Garden and Oakland who denied knowing Foster. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Frye to have not known him either. Sloppy police work? Absolutely. Weird conspiracy to frame Zeigler? Hardly.

Let's assume that the defense knew this information during the trial, and tried to paint Foster as one of the robbers. Why on Earth would Foster return to the scene of a quadruple murder hours later, if he were involved? Who contacted Foster to set up Zeigler? What motive would he have had? If he was involved, he either brutally murdered Charlie Mays, or witnessed it happen, so why would he then accompany his wife to the store acting like a concerned friend? Wouldn't he want to get away from the area ASAP? All principal witnesses against Zeigler (who the defense tried to paint as robbers), Felton Thomas, Edward Williams, and Robert Foster, all either went to the police or returned to the scene at some point that night. That does not strike me as people who were just involved in 4 murders and 1 attempted murder.

It’s tough to establish exactly what Frye said, but it sounds like he tried to imply that Foster wasn’t a real person in connection to the investigation rather than saying he wasn’t a real person at all. I do admit that it’s weird Foster would return to the murder scene with Mattie Mays if he was involved in the crime. But since Foster was supposedly friends with her husband, maybe Mrs. Mays contacted him once she found out something had happened and asked him to accompany her to the store. Now I’ve become curious if Mrs. Mays was ever asked if she knew anyone named Robert Foster. I’d like to know if she ever saw any of the newspaper articles featuring Foster’s name and thought it was unusual that the man who was with her on the night of the murders was being listed as a witness.

I fully admit that even after wracking my brain, I find it difficult to form an airtight theory about how this murder plot was orchestrated and how all the suspected players (Williams, Foster, Thomas, Mays) got involved. But I do think they did not expect Charlie Mays to die that night and felt they had to alter their original plan to explain why Mays was killed inside the store. If the only victims were Eunice and her parents, I’m not sure Williams, Thomas and (possibly) Foster would have turned themselves into the police, but something had to be done to explain why Zeigler would kill Mays. I really don’t think there was any grand police conspiracy to frame Zeigler, but I think this follows a pattern you see in a lot of wrongful conviction cases. The police develop tunnel vision and a charge a suspect with the crime and I’m sure they genuinely believe they’ve got the right person. But when holes start to form in their case and potential evidence surfaces to suggest they might be wrong, they decide to cover things up rather than admit they made a mistake. This would explain why so many pieces of information (the attempted armed robbery at the gas station, the averted armed robbery at the TG&Y, the sighting of the police officer by the Jellison family, the eyewitness accounts of the Roaches, the whereabouts of Nathaniel Brown, the fingerprints found in Mays’ van) were ignored or withheld from the defense. Sure, a lot of those things might be meaningless and nothing more than red herrings, but if you’re so sure you got the right guy, why keep them hidden?

I cannot shake the feeling that a wealthy, prominent white man could easily point a finger at one or more black men and feel comfortably certain that such a defense could go off without a hitch. Regardless of Zeigler's reported support of the black community in Winter Garden, I feel that it's reasonable for him to have assumed racial biases would've been easy to exploit in such a situation.

If that is in fact what happened, it obviously didn't render a desired outcome, but the point still stands.

I cannot shake the feeling that a wealthy, prominent white man could easily point a finger at one or more black men and feel comfortably certain that such a defense could go off without a hitch. Regardless of Zeigler's reported support of the black community in Winter Garden, I feel that it's reasonable for him to have assumed racial biases would've been easy to exploit in such a situation.

If that is in fact what happened, it obviously didn't render a desired outcome, but the point still stands.

That is true. When you consider that this was the 1970s and Winter Garden was a segregated southern town, it's pretty remarkable that the police didn't use racial bias and took the word of two blue collar black men over the white wealthy businessman, particularly when you consider that one of them, Edward Williams, had one of the murder weapons in his possession. Even today, I think that alone would cause some police forces to zero in on Williams as the prime suspect. On the surface, the lack of racial bias from the Winter Garden police force seems pretty admirable, if it weren't for the other problematic stuff in their investigation.

That is true. When you consider that this was the 1970s and Winter Garden was a segregated southern town, it's pretty remarkable that the police didn't use racial bias and took the word of two blue collar black men over the white wealthy businessman, particularly when you consider that one of them, Edward Williams, had one of the murder weapons in his possession. Even today, I think that alone would cause some police forces to zero in on Williams as the prime suspect. On the surface, the lack of racial bias from the Winter Garden police force seems pretty admirable, if it weren't for the other problematic stuff in their investigation.

Possibly, but Edward Williams was a man in his 40's, with no criminal record. That alone would have raised some suspicions as to how this man could go from handyman to quadruple murderer overnight, IMO. Plus, Felton Thomas came forward prior to Williams, and his story implicated Zeigler. When Williams came forward and implicated Zeigler further, this definitely would've swayed the investigation towards Zeigler. IMO, Zeigler didn't anticipate on 2 things that night: Ficke to turn the investigation over to the OCSO, and Felton Thomas being with Mays. Without Felton Thomas, they might have looked at Williams as more of a suspect or person of interest.

I want to reiterate that the version of events that night that the state presented--and as corroborated by Felton Thomas and Edward Williams--is compelling, believable, and sensical . But I'm having trouble reconciling a motive.

Any thoughts on this? Killarney Rose, I'd especially like to hear your perspective.

You all know that I have always, from day one believed that Tommy is guilty. It was the general consensus from most everyone in town that TZ was the mastermind as well as the killer. My dad came home telling us about TZ taking the men to the grove to fire the guns as soon as that story came out because it was all over the black community of Oakland first and that is where all his employees lived. He was closely tied to that community through them and he got all the talk first hand.

The only reason that I ever heard for TZ doing this was that Eunice was going to leave him and his double life was going to be exposed. This would probably lead to him being disowned/disinherited by his parents. (That eventually happened. Once his parents got old and realized TZ would never get out of prison, they left their estate to their church.)

As an only child of well to do parents, he stood to lose everything if that happened. Was this reason enough for him to take so many lives? Apparently a lot of people believed it was.

One thing about this case is consistency. The state has not changed their case for what happened that night and neither has TZ.

i came to this forum becuase I loved to watch UM and I happened upon this case when I did. As a result I have done a lot of reading about it. The only part of my opinion that has been changed because of what I have read, is that I believe TZ got an unfair trial because the judge should not have been on the bench for it. He was biased,and it is so obvious. But the main thing that I have not changed is that I still believe that TZ is guilty.

None of the theories put forth by his supporters make as much sense to me as the original theory of why he did it. If we are to believe that TZ is a sociopath, going back to childhood, then he would have no problem killing whoever stood in the way of him getting/keeping what was most important to him. That would be his family's wealth and his standing in the community. If it meant killing his wife, his inlaws, and a couple of fall guys, then he could do it. And I really believe that is what he did. I think once they got to the store that things did not go as planned and TZ had to do some improvising, but he still tried to go through with his original plan.

You all know that I have always, from day one believed that Tommy is guilty. It was the general consensus from most everyone in town that TZ was the mastermind as well as the killer. My dad came home telling us about TZ taking the men to the grove to fire the guns as soon as that story came out because it was all over the black community of Oakland first and that is where all his employees lived. He was closely tied to that community through them and he got all the talk first hand.

The only reason that I ever heard for TZ doing this was that Eunice was going to leave him and his double life was going to be exposed. This would probably lead to him being disowned/disinherited by his parents. (That eventually happened. Once his parents got old and realized TZ would never get out of prison, they left their estate to their church.)

As an only child of well to do parents, he stood to lose everything if that happened. Was this reason enough for him to take so many lives? Apparently a lot of people believed it was.

One thing about this case is consistency. The state has not changed their case for what happened that night and neither has TZ.

i came to this forum becuase I loved to watch UM and I happened upon this case when I did. As a result I have done a lot of reading about it. The only part of my opinion that has been changed because of what I have read, is that I believe TZ got an unfair trial because the judge should not have been on the bench for it. He was biased,and it is so obvious. But the main thing that I have not changed is that I still believe that TZ is guilty.

None of the theories put forth by his supporters make as much sense to me as the original theory of why he did it. If we are to believe that TZ is a sociopath, going back to childhood, then he would have no problem killing whoever stood in the way of him getting/keeping what was most important to him. That would be his family's wealth and his standing in the community. If it meant killing his wife, his inlaws, and a couple of fall guys, then he could do it. And I really believe that is what he did. I think once they got to the store that things did not go as planned and TZ had to do some improvising, but he still tried to go through with his original plan.

As I said, I have not yet listened to Part Two of the podcast. I'm actually pulling it up on my iPhone as I type this. Everything you've just said is what is in the back of my mind.

Maybe I'm naive and my views will change after listening to Part Two, but for TZ to be innocent would require a rather large conspiracy. At this point, I'm just not buying it.

EDIT: Just started it. See y'all in 90 minutes. :)

None of the theories put forth by his supporters make as much sense to me as the original theory of why he did it.

Additionally, I think none of the theories put forth by TZ's supporters as to what actually happened that night make as much sense as the prosecution's version of events. I find the Perry Edwards Jr. theory interesting, but the story simply doesn't jibe in light of Mays, Thomas, and Williams. Why would Edwards hire a gang of locals from Winter Garden--including at least one local personally known to the Zeigler family, at that--when he lived in Georgia and presumably could have rounded up some less identifiable individuals for the task there?

And even if Thomas and Williams were not involved in the murders, what motive would they have had for attempting to frame Zeigler?

I think I'm with Cars: I can readily envision that TZ didn't anticipate Thomas being there, and that complicated his original plan. Had Felton Thomas not accompanied Charlie Mays that night, Zeigler may not have even been arrested nor indicted.

Also: the weapons. Three of the four belonged to Zeigler, one was linked to him through a transaction. My favorite UM BS alert!

I totally agree with you Meg The Egg. Why would Edwards hire perfect strangers from a strange town, some of whom had ties to TZ? Makes no sense.

Also, when you consider a sociopath. They can't lose. A divorce and splitting assets with Eunice would be losing. He could not let that happen.

So I’ve been thinking all day about the possibility that Tommy Zeigler orchestrated these murders because he was leading a double life and was about to get divorced. Perry Jr. told the police that Eunice was planning to end the marriage at Christmas and return to Moultrie with her parents. If true, then that would give Tommy the perfect motive. But the events leading up to the murders just don’t seem to support this…

-Lizzie Parker, Virginia Edwards’ teacher’s aide in Moultrie, said that the last time they spoke, Virginia was so excited to be spending Christmas with Tommy and Eunice and granddaughter; this doesn’t sound like she was travelling to Winter Garden to help her daughter escape a troubled marriage

-Perry Sr. and Virginia were planning to take their granddaughter to Winter Garden, but at the last minute, Perry Jr.’s wife told them she couldn’t go; if the purpose of their trip was to help Eunice escape her marriage, why would they bring their granddaughter along?

-Perry Sr. brought his will with him on the trip and indicated he was going to keep trying to convince Tommy to become the new executor over the holidays; there’s now way he would do this if Tommy and Eunice were going to get divorced

-the last independent witness to see all the victims alive was Curtis Dunaway, who saw Tommy, Eunice, Perry Sr. and Virginia at their home an hour before the murders and said they appeared to be in great spirits; Rita Ficke also spent some time with Eunice on Christmas Eve and claimed she saw no signs of distress from her

There just don’t seem to be any visible signs of friction between Tommy and the victims during the time period preceding the murders, so what could have possibly set him off to commit this crime? It just bothers me that no one was unable to uncover any hard evidence about Zeigler’s so-called double life. But even though Perry Jr. is the one with the perfect motive and the documented history of violence, I do agree with the point that it’s very difficult to link him to the main players (Mays, Thomas, Williams) in this case. There are pieces to a puzzle, but any connection those guys have to Perry Jr. is very tenuous. It makes more logical sense to link them to Zeigler, but all that’s missing is a logical reason for him to commit this crime. I can tell you that Zeigler’s biggest supporters are very loyal and devoted to him, so if he’s a sociopath, he must be a very convincing one.

BTW, here’s an interesting piece of info I didn’t even notice until now: Zeigler’s defence attorney, Vernon Davids, was contacted by a homosexual inmate named Alan Darrah, claiming he was approached by a state’s attorney investigator, who offered to make the murder charge he was facing go away if he agreed to testify that he was in a homosexual relationship with Zeigler. Darrah refused and wound up getting acquitted of the murder charge anyway. Davids checked the logs and discovered that Don Frye had signed into the jail on the same day Darrah claimed to have met him. This doesn’t prove Zeigler’s innocent, of course, but I think it demonstrates just how desperate the state was when they couldn’t find any evidence to support the homosexuality allegations:
http://tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Vernon-1.jpg
http://tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Vernon-2.jpg

Never bought the homosexual double life motive. Never have. Never will. IMO, it was pure greed that drove him to do this.

BTW, here’s an interesting piece of info I didn’t even notice until now: Zeigler’s defence attorney, Vernon Davids, was contacted by a homosexual inmate named Alan Darrah, claiming he was approached by a state’s attorney investigator, who offered to make the murder charge he was facing go away if he agreed to testify that he was in a homosexual relationship with Zeigler. Darrah refused and wound up getting acquitted of the murder charge anyway. Davids checked the logs and discovered that Don Frye had signed into the jail on the same day Darrah claimed to have met him. This doesn’t prove Zeigler’s innocent, of course, but I think it demonstrates just how desperate the state was when they couldn’t find any evidence to support the homosexuality allegations

Things like this drive me absolutely batty. I get the pressure to solve a homicide, no doubt. But if you don't have the evidence... you don't have the evidence. You don't go around trying to bend people's testimony to build a case. Good lord.

So I've listened to Part Two. I think I actually need to sit down and listen to Part One and Two together before I go public with an opinion. There's a lot from Part One I didn't remember... but in any case, well done as usual, Robin. :)

Things like this drive me absolutely batty. I get the pressure to solve a homicide, no doubt. But if you don't have the evidence... you don't have the evidence. You don't go around trying to bend people's testimony to build a case. Good lord.

So I've listened to Part Two. I think I actually need to sit down and listen to Part One and Two together before I go public with an opinion. There's a lot from Part One I didn't remember... but in any case, well done as usual, Robin. :)

Thank you. Since you’re an attorney, LooksLikeCRicci, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Zeigler’s original trial attorney, Vernon Davids, who filed a motion to stop Zeigler’s execution on the grounds that his own representation at Zeigler’s trial had been incompetent. How rare is it for an attorney to file a motion in which they willingly admit something like that? I thought it spoke volumes that Davids was willing to damage his own professional reputation in order save his client’s life and I doubt he would go to those lengths unless he truly believed Zeigler was innocent.

Thank you. Since you’re an attorney, LooksLikeCRicci, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Zeigler’s original trial attorney, Vernon Davids, who filed a motion to stop Zeigler’s execution on the grounds that his own representation at Zeigler’s trial had been incompetent. How rare is it for an attorney to file a motion in which they willingly admit something like that? I thought it spoke volumes that Davids was willing to damage his own professional reputation in order save his client’s life and I doubt he would go to those lengths unless he truly believed Zeigler was innocent.

It's an interesting question. In law, you see people asking for a new trial/dismissal of the case/stay of execution all the time. Generally, however, like in the case of Adnan Syad, it's a different attorney filing the motion. Probably because it DOES seem very odd for an attorney to step forward and say, "Hey, I screwed the pooch on that case, Judge."

That being said... I personally HAVE filed such a motion before the court, back in my public defender days. It was nowhere on the same level as Ziegler's case, but my office made a tremendous error in not getting my client his discovery or even proper notice of his trial dates. As a result, he was convicted of a misdemeanor in absentia, meaning he was not present at the time set for trial. Once I learned what had happened, I was obviously horrified and went on the record stating that I believed my office had violated his due process rights. Even though it was my staff that made the error, I felt it important enough to fall on my sword in front of the judge, as I was his court-appointed counsel and the responsibility ultimately was with me to make sure his rights were upheld. It's embarrassing and very very awkward, but I would do it again in a heartbeat. (Side note: Yes, I replaced this particular staff person after this incident. And yes, he was given a new trial...where he was convicted of the offense, but his rights were maintained in the course of doing so.)

So, in my five years as a defense attorney, I filed a motion like that once. Because I truly believed my client's rights had been violated. I DO find it compelling that his defense attorney filed a similar motion, as you're essentially putting your credibility on the line when you do so...

It's true he was putting his credibility on the line, but at this point, Davids was probably ready to retire. He was old enough to do so if he desired. So how much was he really putting on the line career wise?

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/heraldtribune/obituary.aspx?pid=174856853

http://www.kays-ponger.com/obits/obituaries.php/obitID/91889

It's an interesting question. In law, you see people asking for a new trial/dismissal of the case/stay of execution all the time. Generally, however, like in the case of Adnan Syad, it's a different attorney filing the motion. Probably because it DOES seem very odd for an attorney to step forward and say, "Hey, I screwed the pooch on that case, Judge."

That being said... I personally HAVE filed such a motion before the court, back in my public defender days. It was nowhere on the same level as Ziegler's case, but my office made a tremendous error in not getting my client his discovery or even proper notice of his trial dates. As a result, he was convicted of a misdemeanor in absentia, meaning he was not present at the time set for trial. Once I learned what had happened, I was obviously horrified and went on the record stating that I believed my office had violated his due process rights. Even though it was my staff that made the error, I felt it important enough to fall on my sword in front of the judge, as I was his court-appointed counsel and the responsibility ultimately was with me to make sure his rights were upheld. It's embarrassing and very very awkward, but I would do it again in a heartbeat. (Side note: Yes, I replaced this particular staff person after this incident. And yes, he was given a new trial...where he was convicted of the offense, but his rights were maintained in the course of doing so.)

So, in my five years as a defense attorney, I filed a motion like that once. Because I truly believed my client's rights had been violated. I DO find it compelling that his defense attorney filed a similar motion, as you're essentially putting your credibility on the line when you do so...

Ah, interesting, thanks for the clarification. In the Zeigler case, I don’t think his defense team really did anything wrong or violated his rights. They probably did the best they could under some disadvantageous circumstances at an unfair trial and this was a desperate, last-ditch attempt to save their client’s life, but it worked. Out of curiosity, I'm actually doing a search to see if there any more documented death row cases where an attorney filed a motion like this.

I didn’t realize Vernon Davids passed away. He was interviewed in the ID Discovery documentary about the case which aired a few years ago. If he was about to retire at the time of the execution, then damaging his own credibility was probably a small price to pay, but the guy remained an advocate for Zeigler to the very end.

Never bought the homosexual double life motive. Never have. Never will. IMO, it was pure greed that drove him to do this.

I dunno. I actually can envision a well-known and "respectable" man in a community like Winter Garden willing to commit such a crime in order to protect his reputation, provided those allegations are true.

I really wish John McLaughlin's A Matter of Life and Death was available somewhere online. Nearly every televised production on TZ features footage from it, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere.

As someone who is staunchly anti-death penalty, I agree with everything many of Zeigler's supporters say regarding the Timely Justice Act. I just don't think he's innocent.

I dunno. I actually can envision a well-known and "respectable" man in a community like Winter Garden willing to commit such a crime in order to protect his reputation, provided those allegations are true.


Back then, you (I am going by the way things were in my high school) didn't do anything outside of the norm. Things were very cliquish. If you colored outside of the lines so to speak you were not accepted and you were ostracized. Kids had to get it from somewhere, their parents? Of course, I was different. I finally got up the nerve and spent my senior year rebelling and having the time of my life. One of partners in crime was Vernon Davids' son.

I dunno. I actually can envision a well-known and "respectable" man in a community like Winter Garden willing to commit such a crime in order to protect his reputation, provided those allegations are true.

Seems to me like there would be more witnesses who testified at the trial to this fact, especially Perry Edwards Jr. The only witness who made statements as such was Eunice's hair dresser, who barely knew her. She made statements to the effect of Eunice's parents coming to "rescue" her after Christmas. None of which were verified by the people closest to them, Perry Edwards Jr., Zeigler's parents, Curtis Dunaway, etc. It's also important to note that the man's (who was allegedly having an affair with Zeigler, not identified in "Fatal Flaw", but speculated to be Don Ficke) wife was good friends with Eunice. She made statements that Eunice never told her about this, and that she had no knowledge or suspicions of such an affair.

The condition of Charlie Mays's pants that night led to the speculation about the homosexuality of Zeigler. This was admitted, under oath, by Don Ficke. Ficke says that on the night of the murders, "The night of the alleged motive of Mr. Thompson, we were discussing it and I guess it was Officer Yawn was in the store; and I asked Thompson to get him out of there because if this
was the motive, I didn't think it would be good to get it around. And I'm led to believe that Chief Thompson has told another officer in our department at our headquarters that night of alleged homosexuality.. ..Officer Barry Smith....He, in turn, told ten other people."

Not to mention that if any of the above is true, Eunice willingly left and entered a dark store with a man whom she was sure was going to kill her before she could expose his secret.

It looks like many people seem to now think he is guilty. What changed?

It looks like many people seem to now think he is guilty. What changed?

For me personally it was the passage of time, and just the sheer unlikelihood that there would be multiple people involved in a conspiracy to frame Zeigler, who all have remained silent about it for all of these years. And Felton Thomas's story has remained largely unchanged.

For me personally it was the passage of time, and just the sheer unlikelihood that there would be multiple people involved in a conspiracy to frame Zeigler, who all have remained silent about it for all of these years. And Felton Thomas's story has remained largely unchanged.



but is it that hard to believe people would keep their mouth shut when they know telling the truth would affect the negatively? Isn't people not talking the reason why many cases are unsolved?

but is it that hard to believe people would keep their mouth shut when they know telling the truth would affect the negatively? Isn't people not talking the reason why many cases are unsolved?

People cannot keep their mouths shut. Someone would've talked to a spouse, relative, friend, etc.

I think that he probably did it but it's absurd he doesn't get a retrial because it's obvious the judge in the case should have had no business being part of a trial for a man he had personal issues with.

I think that he probably did it but it's absurd he doesn't get a retrial because it's obvious the judge in the case should have had no business being part of a trial for a man he had personal issues with.


I completely agree. Total conflict of interest.

I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if the guy is trying to have DNA tested then just do it and end the speculation. Maury hands them out like they're candy, they can't be that cost prohibitive.

Either it will prove he's innocent, in which he definitely should be freed, or it will confirm his guilt and the narrative and cost of all the appeals ends.

Anyone currently on death row, that haven't had this done already, should have any DNA testing available completed prior to executing someone.

How did the pants lead to speculation.that he was gay?

How did the pants lead to speculation.that he was gay?

Charlie Mays had his pants pulled down when his body was found.

Something I just realized in the case, which is often brought up as a point arguing in favor of Zeigler's innocence, is that the prosecution contended that Zeigler wanted to kill Eunice for the life insurance money. The big hole in this theory is the fact that he also went out of his way to arrange to have his in-laws there that night as well. So why would he involve them if he wanted to kill Eunice? Then I remembered that the Edwards' signed their will book out of a courthouse in August of 1975 with the intention of amending it and adding Zeigler as an executor of the will. Zeigler was looking for "hot guns" in June of 1975. I think he lured the Edwards' to the store thinking that they had already made him an executor (although they did not) as an added bonus to collecting money on Eunice's life insurance.

So why wait until Christmas Eve for him to get the ball rolling on his plan? He had recently bought a $8,000 vehicle and had a $13,000 swimming pool put in his backyard in late November. That's why the plan, IMO, was set into motion on Christmas Eve in 1975. That's when he knew that he could kill Eunice and her in-laws, and had the perfect back drop to get them all to the store that night (under the pretense of picking out a Christmas gift).

Edit: According to an earlier post by RobinW in this thread, Zeigler's mother claims that Perry Edwards Sr. brought their will with them on their trip to Florida, and showed it to everyone on the day before the murder. Zeigler probably figured that after he got done manipulating Ficke, he could have also written his name on the will as sole executor, and used his parents as back up witnesses to the Edwards's wanting to make him a benefactor prior to the murders.

"Fatal Flaw" is probably in my top 5 true crime books that I've ever read. Although, after skimming through it again this weekend, I think the biggest problem with the book is how Philip Finch applies current (90's, I think is when it was written and released) logic to a case set back in the mid-70's, in a town which sounds more like a southern town in the 1940's. The racial undertones, segregation, KKK presence, etc. are all but forgotten or glossed over when Finch tries to make claims which casts doubt on some of the witnesses's testimony. And I think he's too hard on Edward Williams.

I have watched a lot of material about the case for a long time and read most of this thread, I've read most of the contradictory accounts, and there is one point that makes me lean toward innocence more than others.

Quite simply, if Tommy Zeigler entered the store knowing what he was about to do, as in killing his relative and Charlie Mays, he had the element of surprise every time. Why then were there so many signs of serious physical altercation, and a vicious struggle with both Perry Edwards Sr. AND Charlie Mays, the latter which had to come at a different time? Once maybe if he was very unlucky, but twice? They were both left seriously bloodied and damaged.

This is why to me the most likely explanation is that there was a surprise altercation with men who were in the store and caught off guard. Maybe they were expecting Tommy, but then his relatives arrived at a time they didn't expect while they were robbing the place. Remember that apparently Eunice only arrived after hours because she unexpectedly had to go to the veterinarian for their sick cat, which is seemingly verified. Yes there were some comings and goings to and from Tommy's house that some of these men might have seen, but they might have had no idea that they were coming to the store at all, or not around that time.

First of all, welcome to the board! :wave:

Quite simply, if Tommy Zeigler entered the store knowing what he was about to do, as in killing his relative and Charlie Mays, he had the element of surprise every time. Why then were there so many signs of serious physical altercation, and a vicious struggle with both Perry Edwards Sr. AND Charlie Mays, the latter which had to come at a different time? Once maybe if he was very unlucky, but twice? They were both left seriously bloodied and damaged.

He had the element of surprise with 1 victim, and that would have been Eunice. Her parents were right behind them when entering the store (which there were no lights). Zeigler would have had to have incapacitated 2 people at that point (both Perry and Virginia Edwards), and I think that Perry fought like hell for his and his wife's life, which is why there was evidence of a vicious struggle. Remember...the blood stain found under Zeigler's shirt did not match Perry Edwards, but it did match Charlie Mays.

This is why to me the most likely explanation is that there was a surprise altercation with men who were in the store and caught off guard. Maybe they were expecting Tommy, but then his relatives arrived at a time they didn't expect while they were robbing the place. Remember that apparently Eunice only arrived after hours because she unexpectedly had to go to the veterinarian for their sick cat, which is seemingly verified. Yes there were some comings and goings to and from Tommy's house that some of these men might have seen, but they might have had no idea that they were coming to the store at all, or not around that time.

My issue with this is that if whoever was there was there to do harm to Zeigler, why go through the trouble of murdering 3 other people, and then sticking around the crime scene for well over 30 minutes until their intended target arrives? And then why brutally murder Mays differently than the others? It makes no sense, unless you believe that Zeigler shot his wife and in-laws and then beat Charlie Mays to death to act like he killed him in self defense and to set him up as one of the robbers.

Nice post Cars, and welcome Monsieur! :wave:

Also, Zeigler's contention has always been that he did not kill anyone that night, even Charlie Mays. He says he may have shot Mays, but that he overheard voices saying that "Mays has been hit, we have to dispose of him." However, blood splatters were found on the cuffs of Zeigler's shirt near his wrists and on his collar. Both on the inside and outside of his shirt. These blood splatters matched Charlie Mays, and a defense expert testifying on Zeigler's behalf at one of his hearings said that the only way someone would get those types of stains would be if they were straddling someone beating them with a blunt force object. Which is what Zeigler has consistently denied, and the state has consistently insisted. And only one is backed up by the forensic evidence and it's not Zeigler's version.

First of all, welcome to the board! :wave:



He had the element of surprise with 1 victim, and that would have been Eunice. Her parents were right behind them when entering the store (which there were no lights). Zeigler would have had to have incapacitated 2 people at that point (both Perry and Virginia Edwards), and I think that Perry fought like hell for his and his wife's life, which is why there was evidence of a vicious struggle. Remember...the blood stain found under Zeigler's shirt did not match Perry Edwards, but it did match Charlie Mays

Do we really know that her parents were with her and right behind her? I also have a hard time imagining that Ziegler would have had all three enter the store if the lights didn't work and were turned off. For what it's worth, in the UM reconstitution taking the scenario where he shoots Eunice first, then later his parents, the lights are on. Also he had access to multiple arms, and the three family members were all found in different sections of the store. Eunice was found in the kitchen and she seemingly had been shot unaware that someone was pointing a gun at her. I just don't see how it would all have happened. He had an overwhelming advantage. And yet this would have led to a complete bloodbath, a complete mess with 28 shots fired? To me it looks like this scene would have involved more people.

Another point that bothers me if that if I was Zeigler in such a twisted scenario, I would've definitely wanted to take down the man first, who posed the biggest threat, rather than the two women. Clearly, this didn't happen, because it looks like Edwards Sr. only died after a violent struggle.

I have greater ease in imagining other men being there and looting the place and being surprised by Ziegler's relatives, and fumbling to make sure they left no survivors.


My issue with this is that if whoever was there was there to do harm to Zeigler, why go through the trouble of murdering 3 other people, and then sticking around the crime scene for well over 30 minutes until their intended target arrives? And then why brutally murder Mays differently than the others? It makes no sense, unless you believe that Zeigler shot his wife and in-laws and then beat Charlie Mays to death to act like he killed him in self defense and to set him up as one of the robbers.

They may have intended to kill him at his house (or him and his family) and had a change of plans later due to unexpected movement. They might have known he would eventually go to the store (or killing him at the store might have been a plan B), and while they were there, looted some of the goods so some of the accomplices could enrich themselves more, but were surprised by his relatives unexpectedly. By then since they would've known he was coming later, they might have lied in wait since they had the perfect man to pin this all on.

The blood splatters might have been acquired in a struggle with Mays. Hasn't blood splatter analysis been largely debunked as pseudo-science?

I retain an open mind with all this, and I greatly appreciate this exchange with you. My mind is not set. I'm going to keep looking up more information every now and then, and I also ordered a copy of the Fatal Flaw book on Alibris.

I just think that there are a lot of things that flat out don't make sense when it comes to the testimonies, actions and whereabouts of all the other men who were purportedly involved in this. For instance, Williams waiting forever at Tommy's house, and taking the murder weapon after Ziegler had tried to shoot him with it. Some people like Williams and Thomas sticking close to the crime scene much longer than they should have if they were so terrified of the maniacal Zeigler. Williams being spotted much later than he said at the KFC. Also the testimony of four cars being present at some point in the parking lot at the time of the crime.

I recognize it takes a lot to assume to there being a conspiracy or scheme, and if there was one, why would these people be involved, but I can see one logical reason why they would: Ziegler knew and trusted Mays and Williams, so they would have been in a good position to get close to him to know his whereabouts and to catch him in a vulnerable position. And there was the sighting of a blue van being seen through the day around Tommy's house.

At this point, like you, I almost wish to one day go to Orlando, and then visit the thrift store in Winter Garden, just to have a better picture in my mind of how it could have happened.

But due to the lack of evidence being taken and analysed from the crime scene, I don't think that you, or I, or anyone can definitely prove Ziegler's guilt or innocence, it's all clouded under serious doubt.

Do we really know that her parents were with her and right behind her?

They weren't with her. They were minutes behind Zeigler and Eunice. Eunice went with Zeigler to the store first and was murdered in the break room. Her parents arrived shortly after and were ambushed by Zeigler. Perry Edwards fought like hell (and may have fired one of the guns in the store because gunshot residue was on his hands) before being incapacitated for some time. Virginia Edwards was found nowhere near the front of the store and was found to the east near furniture. She was shot twice. It appeared as if she attempted to hide after the initial attack at the front of the store. Perry Edwards's blood was found at the front of the store and to the counter, but his body was found in a large pool of blood at the back of the show room. They were ambushed almost immediately, but fought back.

Another point that bothers me if that if I was Zeigler in such a twisted scenario, I would've definitely wanted to take down the man first, who posed the biggest threat, rather than the two women. Clearly, this didn't happen, because it looks like Edwards Sr. only died after a violent struggle.

He killed Eunice first, because she was alone with him. He ambushed both in-laws as they entered and shot them. Virginia appears to have ran and hid for some time before being executed. Perry Edwards was knocked out or incapacitated because his blood was found near the front of the store by the counter, but his body was found with a much larger pool of blood at the back of the store. Meaning Zeigler had the opportunity to do all of this by himself.

I have greater ease in imagining other men being there and looting the place and being surprised by Ziegler's relatives, and fumbling to make sure they left no survivors.

Why wait around for Zeigler and Edward Williams to arrive if that was the case? They didn't get to the store, by Zeigler's estimation, until close to 8 o'clock, meaning that the "killers" stuck around in the store for over 30 minutes.

They may have intended to kill him at his house (or him and his family) and had a change of plans later due to unexpected movement. They might have known he would eventually go to the store (or killing him at the store might have been a plan B), and while they were there, looted some of the goods so some of the accomplices could enrich themselves more, but were surprised by his relatives unexpectedly. By then since they would've known he was coming later, they might have lied in wait since they had the perfect man to pin this all on.

Does that make sense? Killers sticking around a crime scene with multiple gunshots being fired after murdering 3 people? Especially since these killers were black men in 1975 in the South?

The blood splatters might have been acquired in a struggle with Mays. Hasn't blood splatter analysis been largely debunked as pseudo-science?

His story was that he was swinging his gun and arms around at two blurs who kept pushing him back and throwing him around the store. He wouldn't have gotten that much blood soaked onto his shirt if this was true.

I retain an open mind with all this, and I greatly appreciate this exchange with you. My mind is not set. I'm going to keep looking up more information every now and then, and I also ordered a copy of the Fatal Flaw book on Alibris.

You can read Fatal Flaw here (http://www.freetommyz.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FatalFlaw.127180051.pdf).

This (https://www.tampabay.com/projects/2018/narratives/blood-and-truth/) is a very lengthy look at the case. Chapter 3 is interesting because Zeigler admitted to trying to get 2 other inmates to lie and say that they committed the crimes and not Zeigler, and that Zeigler had written them notes detailing the crime scene.

If they entered from the front and he had the element of surprise, why didn't he take cover and hide behind the counter and attack them as they entered, and dispose of Perry Edwards right there and then? Since the store was closed and they entered from the front, wouldn't they have had to presumably unlock the door as well? And how would Perry Edwards have had access to one of Tommy's guns at the front of the store? He would have been defenseless. If he unlocked the door for them and welcomed them in, he could have shot a totally unsuspecting Edwards Sr in the head like Eunice. Or rather, it would have been the most logical thing to do for him rather than ambush them.

About sticking around, I see it as equally dangerous if not more so for Tommy Zeigler to go in and out and back and forth from the store repeatedly, after there had been repeated gunfire, the bodies of his dead relatives were inside and he hadn't contacted the police immediately. I also wonder why Williams didn't see any blood on Tommy when he saw him later, if he had emerged from such a bloodbath. It also sounds like the way people testified about hearing the gunfire from afar, it couldn't have been shot by one man.

I think this night was special because it was possibly the least busy time of the year for that commercial area, Christmas Eve when most stores were closed. If miscreants were involved, they could have watched if someone would have been alerted from the surrounding buildings or if the police would have been dispatched. They might have split while some were observing, and others were looting, then eventually thought that nobody had heard and nobody was coming. I also find the reports of two armed robbery attempts occurring on the other side of the street during that time span eerie as well.

This (https://www.tampabay.com/projects/2018/narratives/blood-and-truth/) is a very lengthy look at the case. Chapter 3 is interesting because Zeigler admitted to trying to get 2 other inmates to lie and say that they committed the crimes and not Zeigler, and that Zeigler had written them notes detailing the crime scene.

Thank you, I had listened to the podcast version two days ago.

You have to keep in perspective that Winter Garden was still just a very small town in 1975. The WG of today bears little resemblance to the WG of 1975. Back then, the intersection of 50 and Dillard was the busiest intersection in town. Also, that shopping center across Dillard from the furniture store was the main shopping area at that time, and this would've been the only one open at night. Along with several fast food restaurants and three gas stations.

Welcome, Monsieur!

I think you'll enjoy Fatal Flaw. I have to admit, I had a difficult time keeping all the players, times, and places in this case sorted for some reason through the years. One of our other members, Robin W, hosts 'The Trail Went Cold' podcast, and once he covered the Ziegler case it all clicked into place for me for some reason. Shortly after, I got a copy of Fatal Flaw. The book was enough to convince me that TZ is where he belongs, and it's a decidedly sympathetic version of events.

Killarney Rose who posted above lived in Winter Garden around the time of the murders, so she's a great resource as well. And I think Cars actually has visited the furniture store itself (it's obviously something else now. I think he did it on his honeymoon, too :lol:).

Anyway, look forward to your posts!

You have to keep in perspective that Winter Garden was still just a very small town in 1975. The WG of today bears little resemblance to the WG of 1975. Back then, the intersection of 50 and Dillard was the busiest intersection in town. Also, that shopping center across Dillard from the furniture store was the main shopping area at that time, and this would've been the only one open at night. Along with several fast food restaurants and three gas stations.

I realized that this sector used to be the main commercial hub of the city 5 seconds after looking at a map of Winter Gardens on Google Maps. But I don't know if it means that if some people had to wait there a while during the incident, they couldn't have waited at a spot where they were relatively hidden from view. And I still think there was a huge risk of being seen no matter which party was the perpetrator.


Welcome, Monsieur!

I think you'll enjoy Fatal Flaw. I have to admit, I had a difficult time keeping all the players, times, and places in this case sorted for some reason through the years. One of our other members, Robin W, hosts 'The Trail Went Cold' podcast, and once he covered the Ziegler case it all clicked into place for me for some reason. Shortly after, I got a copy of Fatal Flaw. The book was enough to convince me that TZ is where he belongs, and it's a decidedly sympathetic version of events.

Killarney Rose who posted above lived in Winter Garden around the time of the murders, so she's a great resource as well. And I think Cars actually has visited the furniture store itself (it's obviously something else now. I think he did it on his honeymoon, too :lol:).

Anyway, look forward to your posts!

I listen to all of Robin's podcasts and the Zeigler one was by far the best, so many twists and turns and odd detail, and he did a good job of trying to present a coherent view of it.

It's true that most of the people who are militating about this case and who put up these resources are pro-Zeigler and the other side isn't well represented, barring some Internet posters and people who dealt with the case like Jeff Ashton. Sometimes you like seeing the other side of the story, and I appreciate people attempting to provide it.

Still I think it's because the evidence is nowhere near as damning as for instance Jeff Macdonald or other infamous criminals, who have organized supporters as well as organized detractors.

FWIW, the article I linked above has a 8 part podcast about the case where the reporter/narrator interviews several of the central players (including Zeigler). It's really good. On episode 3, she interviews Curtis Dunaway, the employee of the furniture store who identified the bodies that night. He's openly gay now (I don't think this was mentioned in Fatal Flaw) and says pretty adamantly that Zeigler was not gay and that he doesn't believe in Zeigler's guilt.

ETA: I should say that this doesn't mean that the rumors weren't true, just thought it was interesting to hear from Curtis Dunaway for the first time publicly. I also think that the homosexual rumors could be false, but that the Zeigler marriage wasn't all wine and roses like Zeigler made it out to be. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with any reason as to why Zeigler would want to also murder his in-laws, and the initial thought was because if Zeigler simply killed Eunice, his in-laws could impugn his "loving marriage" story and point the finger directly at him. And it wasn't just the homosexual rumors, there were rumors that Eunice was unhappy and was going to seek a divorce after the holidays.

And I think Cars actually has visited the furniture store itself (it's obviously something else now. I think he did it on his honeymoon, too :lol:).

Yes, this is true. Although I can't quite remember how I articulated to my wife as to why I would want to go to a 2nd hand thrift store just to snoop around.

Yes, this is true. Although I can't quite remember how I articulated to my wife as to why I would want to go to a 2nd hand thrift store just to snoop around.

Yes, this is true forum dedication!:lol:

I'm not so sure I believe the TZ is gay theory. Just the cold psychopath one. If he carried a lot of hate and resentment for his inlaws, that alone could have been enough reason in his mind to kill them as well.

I'm not so sure I believe the TZ is gay theory. Just the cold psychopath one. If he carried a lot of hate and resentment for his inlaws, that alone could have been enough reason in his mind to kill them as well.

I know they were having trouble getting pregnant, and I wonder if that too caused friction in the marriage. In November, Zeigler took a loan out to build a swimming pool in their backyard as well as buying Eunice a new vehicle. I wonder if this was his last ditch effort to "repair" the marriage, but Eunice was still adamant about separating/getting a divorce.

What I've also found interesting was that in the summer of 1975, Zeigler's father had a stroke and Eunice replaced him as an officer of the company furniture store. This was also the same time that Zeigler was seeking out "hot guns". I was always curious as to why Zeigler kick started this plan months in advance. His father having a stroke being replaced by Eunice could have been the reason why. Because if she did indeed discuss getting a divorce, that would mean Zeigler would have to not only split their marital assets, but also the business ones.

Very interesting. There could've been some deep resentment of Eunice going on over that.

The problem with that is that there was no even remotely credible testimony or evidence could be found to portray the Zeiglers' marriage as being in shambles. I also don't know if you can extrapolate all that much from someone buying a pool and a car, it could simply be just a upper middle-class family wanting to upgrade their lifestyle, but that's something pretty much all Westerners do.

Also, from what I know, the prosecution couldn't find anyone to testify tangibly about Zeigler being a violent psychopath or prone to fits of anger. I remember in Fatal Vision, they had witnesses and experts to vouch that Jeff MacDonald could be prone to violence or fits of anger. Why didn't the prosecution attempt to do the same thing, in the very same year as Jeff's high profile retrial and similar story of a man suspected of murdering his own family? There's no way this case wasn't on everyone's minds.

Think about it, why did they latch onto this farcical theory of Tommy Zeigler being an angry, repressed homosexual who "butchered up the men on the crime scene out of insecurity and frustration about his masculinity", supported by nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay? It sounds funny and ridiculous at first, but it hit me that it's because they didn't have anything else to impugn a motive on him. It was established that Zeigler got life insurance for his wife after the advice of a personal friend, also doesn't it coincide with her becoming officer at the company? If she would have started getting a more important role in the company it makes sense. And if he wanted to murder her out of greed, why would he have ruined his family's business forever by doing so? How many customers would he have retained after such a sinister event? Like you said, there is a thrift store there to this day. It completely killed this flourishing company.

If Perry Edwards Jr. could have fed these homosexuality rumors, it could be either because he had a hand in what happened and this was convenient for him, or that he was angry at Tommy for killing his relatives and wanted to help the prosecution.

I now believe that the reason many facts and testimonies don't match up with anything, is precisely because some people decided to embellish or invent damning facts to help their side. In a time where there weren't cameras everywhere and people weren't carrying cellphones, this was far easier to do, without anyone being able to debunk it.

The problem with that is that there was no even remotely credible testimony or evidence could be found to portray the Zeiglers' marriage as being in shambles. I also don't know if you can extrapolate all that much from someone buying a pool and a car, it could simply be just a upper middle-class family wanting to upgrade their lifestyle, but that's something pretty much all Westerners do.

Zeigler himself admitted this to another inmate while serving his life sentence. It's mentioned here (https://fall.fsulawrc.com/flsupct/74663/74663ans.pdf) that the main motive for killing his wife was that she was going to file for divorce and allege that he was a homosexual. Zeigler himself admitted back in 1989 that he did conspire with this inmate to concoct a story to get another inmate (a member of the Ski Mask Bandits) to confess.

Also, from what I know, the prosecution couldn't find anyone to testify tangibly about Zeigler being a violent psychopath or prone to fits of anger. I remember in Fatal Vision, they had witnesses and experts to vouch that Jeff MacDonald could be prone to violence or fits of anger. Why didn't the prosecution attempt to do the same thing, in the very same year as Jeff's high profile retrial and similar story of a man suspected of murdering his own family? There's no way this case wasn't on everyone's minds.

MacDonald didn't go to trial until after Zeigler was convicted, and his initial indictments were thrown out for allegedly violating his right to a speedy trial well before Zeigler went to trial.

Think about it, why did they latch onto this farcical theory of Tommy Zeigler being an angry, repressed homosexual who "butchered up the men on the crime scene out of insecurity and frustration about his masculinity", supported by nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay? It sounds funny and ridiculous at first, but it hit me that it's because they didn't have anything else to impugn a motive on him. It was established that Zeigler got life insurance for his wife after the advice of a personal friend, also doesn't it coincide with her becoming officer at the company? If she would have started getting a more important role in the company it makes sense. And if he wanted to murder her out of greed, why would he have ruined his family's business forever by doing so? How many customers would he have retained after such a sinister event? Like you said, there is a thrift store there to this day. It completely killed this flourishing company.

The "he was a closeted gay man, therefore he was a psychopath" was indeed stupid. Again, this was 1975 Florida. Only 3 years earlier did they finally introduce integration into their school systems. This area was not progressive at the time. And the motive? The prosecution doesn't have to prove that he had a motive, nor do they have to bring one up. All they have to do is prove that he did it. Her life insurance policies were issued in October and November of 1975. Eunice was made an officer of the furniture store back in June. And Zeigler himself testified at his trial that the insurance policies had nothing to do with Eunice's increased role at the business, he said it was because he says he was worried about having to sell off assets in order to pay the inheritance tax that would have come had something happened to either him or Eunice. And if Zeigler was so concerned about this inheritance tax, why did he only take $250,000 out on himself in one policy, but doubled the amount on Eunice with 2 separate policies?

As to why he would risk tarnishing his reputation and furniture store...the guy was a narcissist. Although I think he can easily dupe people more because of his meek and bookish appearance, as well as his certain "southern charm" like way of speaking. He comes off much more believable and sincere than someone like MacDonald.

If Perry Edwards Jr. could have fed these homosexuality rumors, it could be either because he had a hand in what happened and this was convenient for him, or that he was angry at Tommy for killing his relatives and wanted to help the prosecution.

I would go with the latter as being much more likely.

From the Blood and Truth podcast, Zeigler also said that he only entertained the plot because he was desperate and thought he was about to be executed even though he was innocent. And it is Odum who said he was told that by Zeigler, a man who Zeigler says in the document that he "forced him to sell drugs". And even then, it is not uncommon for non-hardened criminals to tell hardened criminals BS to make themselves look though and endear themselves. Ever heard of "Mr. Big" operations? Some Mr. Big confessions are genuine, but not always, because of the inherent conflict of interest and imbalance of power.

About MacDonald I guess I was referring to the Grand Jury phase. But still, I think the point is valid. Yes the state doesn't "have" to provide a motive... but in any criminal trials, motives are extremely important to sway a jury to render a guilty verdict and eliminate doubt. I scanned the whole document, and as I thought, there wasn't one single instance of evidence of anyone testifying to Ziegler exhibiting any such behavior. I've read about a ton of criminal cases, and in all of them, the prosecution produces such witnesses or evidence. When people have violent or machiavellian tendencies, they don't come out of nowhere, it is a trait that appears many times earlier in life.

And here we have nothing! We only have "there is no evidence that he couldn't". What does that mean? There is no evidence that I couldn't go out right now and start killing random people. It's pure rubbish.

It's pure rubbish.

What's really ludicrous is the thought that some criminal mastermind would entrust a Bahamian immigrant handyman who had no prior criminal record to set the ball rolling in this plot to murder Zeigler 6 months in advance, and then never tell a soul about it, and then manage to keep his story straight for the ensuing years about what happened that Christmas Eve.

You guys can take this in your discussion for what it's worth. I know nothing about either of your background. But being raised in the south during the segregation era...and WG was truly southern then, not like it is today...a white man of TZ's standing in the community and society, would feel I believe that he had a certain amount of control of a common black man. It's just the way things were back then. It wasn't right, but it was true IMO.

You guys can take this in your discussion for what it's worth. I know nothing about either of your background. But being raised in the south during the segregation era...and WG was truly southern then, not like it is today...a white man of TZ's standing in the community and society, would feel I believe that he had a certain amount of control of a common black man. It's just the way things were back then. It wasn't right, but it was true IMO.

This was something I had ignored for years while believing Zeigler was innocent...I was applying modern "logic" to a crime that had taken place when integration had only just been 3 years old up to that point. Totally different time back then. And I can't fathom how black fruit pickers and day laborers would be so brazen enough to not only plot to kill one of the town's most successful white men (who everyone says was kind and fair to the black people of Winter Garden and surrounding areas) but also go through with it and murder his wife and her parents. The only blood found inside that store was from the 4 victims and Zeigler. How convenient that no one else in this alleged gang of robbers was wounded.

Exactly.

A hypothetical situation where multiple armed people ambush or attack single, largely unharmed individual, and nobody gets bloodied except Charlie Mays. I don't see that as suspicious at all. Wasn't a lot of the blood not even analyzed anyway, or nothing more than blood types were determined?

And it's good that you bring this aspect with Ed Williams, because I always found the situation with the "hot guns" completely unbelievable. A man who wants to kill his family and his assistant asks said assistant to ask around how he can procure unmarked guns and get them for him. How does that even begin to make sense? Why wouldn't he just procure these guns out of state instead of telegraphing his plans to people he knew?

If someone wanted to frame Tommy Zeigler, how could he do it without involving people he knew and trusted and could have access to his store? It's also established that Ed Williams, Charlie Mays, and Robert Foster all knew each other, the latter two of which had criminal records, with Foster having a especially sordid one, which included breaking into furniture stores and hiding in them.

You say that no black man would have the gall to kill such a beloved figure who acted so kindly to them and to the black community, because of the complex situation that existed at that time between white and black people in Southern states, but if you looked at it the other way around, couldn't you also say that someone like instance Ed Williams, couldn't resent being in a lowly position and feeling lorded over? Couldn't some of the people feel under a lot of pressure due to monetary issues, or wouldn't have been told everything it entailed until they were already in the heat of the moment and there was no turning back?

Not telling a soul is not something that I see as suspicious. It is called omerta. While people do have a tendency to boast to other people about their deeds, people can also be very careful with information that can land them in jail for life or in the electric chair.

I also just read that Ed Williams' landlord testified that the clothes he handed the police weren't the same that he was wearing when she first saw him that night. Why would that be?

I was just in Winter Garden. The first time in 15 years. We just got home last night . This is not the town of TZ’s era. Nothing is remotely similar. In our driving around we drove by TZ’s street. Its now surrounded by high end homes. It used to sit alone. His parent’s home is now run down. A formerly high end home it now sits in what has become a lower middle class neighborhood. The furniture Store is still a thrift store. The entire town has exploded with growth and is a part of the urban sprawl of Orlando and Disney World. They are all connected. Anyone driving around town for the first time wouldnt be able to apply any perspective from what they saw to the case.

Recently saw the S09 segment on this infamous TZ case. Never heard of the case before - it's fascinating & tragic.

I do think TZ is guilty. Whether the others that were there were also involved in the crime - that's more nebulous. But, I think one of two things happened here:

1) TZ planned all of this himself & carried it out himself.
2) Or, he had the others that were there help him commit the crime.

However, in either case I do feel he was definitely involved.

I also believe he thought he could get away with this due to being a prominent white businessman in a small town in 1970's FL.

That all being said, I plan on listening to the "Blood and Truth" podcast at some point, hopefully soon. This is an especially compelling case.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida/2021/05/20/state-attorney-agrees-to-let-tommy-zeigler-perform-dna-testing/

State Attorney has agreed to DNA testing.

So if any of the new testing shows blood from Eunice or her parents, this shatters the "Zeigler is innocent" myth forever.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida/2021/05/20/state-attorney-agrees-to-let-tommy-zeigler-perform-dna-testing/

State Attorney has agreed to DNA testing.

I'll be damned.

I think this case is unique - well, in many ways - but one of those ways is: I am not sure what, if anything, a DNA test of Zeigler's clothing would prove. You can construct equally plausible "He did it" or "He's innocent!" narratives that would account for almost any blood evidence found - or not found - on clothes he was was wearing, given all the moving pieces in this case.

However, his sentencing was nonsense and I do believe as a legal matter he deserves at least a commutation of his death sentence; and frankly, an entirely new trial would not be unwarranted, as many here (including myself?) have said.

Of course granting that request at this point would be tantamount to releasing him with time served. I don't see how he could be convicted with what is left at this point. Just too much room for alternate theories, too much of a mess of evidence, too few remaining witnesses, and one wonders how much will there would even be from the prosecutor's office at this point to re-try an ailing old man with probably not much time left, especially knowing from the jump as they would that it would be a difficult case to re-try because of the confusing mess of evidence that does exist, and the total absence of all the witnesses who are now deceased.

It's a pity; I was always sort of hoping he would confess. Now it seems his claims of innocence may finally pay off.

Too bad we will never really know for real for real what went down there that night. I still sort of favor my notion that Tommy had recruited at least Ed Williams and possibly Charlie Mays to be involved (but mostly Ed Williams), and that he then attempted to double cross him, and there was a fight, Williams escaped, and then **** really had to get weird. If Charlie Mays were involved I would think it would explain why he was beaten where the others weren't. His pants being pulled down still boggles the mind.

Such a strange, strange case.

My best friend and I pretty much had the same discussion as what you put into your post,MozartPC. She’s is the one that told me about the DNA evidence.

I won’t repost it as you said it so well. I told her it’s a strange feeling that due to all these things stopping him from being retried after he didn’t receive a fair trial to begin with, that I almost feel pity for him at this point. Almost. He’s still a killer.

What a fantastic thread. Great reading.
Thank you to all who contributed so much knowledge and eloquence.

If I had to assign probability to Ziegler's guilt and innocence, it would be:

90% guilty
10% innocent

If I had to assign probability to Ziegler's guilt and innocence, it would be:

90% guilty
10% innocent

I came away from the UM segment as 70% innocent and 30% guilty. After reading "Fatal Flaw", I became 99% convinced that he was innocent. Ironically, it was years later after re-reading "Fatal Flaw" for about the 5th time that I started to move in the other direction. I am now 99% convinced that he did it, but IMO, that 1% possibility is a very big reason as to why he was never executed.

I came away from the UM segment as 70% innocent and 30% guilty. After reading "Fatal Flaw", I became 99% convinced that he was innocent. Ironically, it was years later after re-reading "Fatal Flaw" for about the 5th time that I started to move in the other direction. I am now 99% convinced that he did it, but IMO, that 1% possibility is a very big reason as to why he was never executed.

Yeah, I could never be sure enough that I think he should be executed. But I agree that he certainly appears to be the guilty party.

You guys can take this in your discussion for what it's worth. I know nothing about either of your background. But being raised in the south during the segregation era...and WG was truly southern then, not like it is today...a white man of TZ's standing in the community and society, would feel I believe that he had a certain amount of control of a common black man. It's just the way things were back then. It wasn't right, but it was true IMO.

I seem to remember a lot of testimony from or about Black folks who worked in some capacity for the Zeiglers at the time referring to him as "Mr. Tommy." That alone speaks volumes about the actual nature of the relationship at the time between the two parties.

I don't doubt that Zeigler went to bat for members of WG's Black community at one time or another, but these attempts to paint him as an anti-racist champion are probably more than a little inflated, IMO.

RE: tension in the Zeigler marriage.

I've been thinking about this off and on for several months after reading Fatal Flaw again for like the fourth time, and I'm pretty surprised the fact that Eunice was struggling to become pregnant isn't particularly discussed as a potential source of conflict. The couple had been married for almost a decade, and still didn't have children. (I'm married, in my mid-30s, and my husband and I do not want children, but it's certainly not lost on me that the majority of married couples do.) Instead, the fact that Eunice was apparently keeping an ovulation calendar at the time of her death and had marked when she and Tommy had had intercourse is often presented as some kind of evidence that the marriage was perfectly normal and healthy. I think it could rather demonstrate that at least Eunice was deeply intent on having children, but Tommy's level of devotion to the cause, so to speak, has never been particularly apparent.

I can envision a scenario in which Eunice, now in her 30s, senses that the window of time for her to optimally become pregnant is closing ever rapidly (especially in the 1970s, when women were having children at much younger ages on average than they do today), and perhaps Tommy simply does not share her enthusiasm or desire for building a family. Perhaps he is focused on maintaining and accumulating wealth. Perhaps he never envisioned himself as a father. Perhaps he's just not that into his wife. Whatever the case may be, Eunice brings up the possibility of divorce because her expectations of the marriage are not being met. Perhaps Tommy gets wind that Eunice's parents are supportive of their daughter's decision and are even willing to provide assistance. Seeing the threat to his reputation and/or the financial hit a divorce would potentially bring, he decides to murder all three of them.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but again I'm just kind of surprised that theory doesn't seem to get a lot of exploration.

That’s a very solid theory. And it never crossed my mind. Also to consider, if there were a child, Tommy would be paying out even more money because he would be paying child support.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but again I'm just kind of surprised that theory doesn't seem to get a lot of exploration.

Your theory of friction in the marriage over children is absolutely more believable to me than the homosexual one. Another aspect of this case that is not really brought up seemingly ever, is that despite the often repeated fact that the furniture business was booming at that time, Zeigler still planned on having a swimming pool put in his backyard (which I imagine would be pretty pricey back in 1975), as well as some other real estate endeavors he was involved in. We don't really know how much debt he was in at the time. Granted, I have always believed that the catalyst for the murders was a personal motive and that the money was just a secondary factor. But that damn swimming pool has always bothered me.

Your theory of friction in the marriage over children is absolutely more believable to me than the homosexual one. Another aspect of this case that is not really brought up seemingly ever, is that despite the often repeated fact that the furniture business was booming at that time, Zeigler still planned on having a swimming pool put in his backyard (which I imagine would be pretty pricey back in 1975), as well as some other real estate endeavors he was involved in. We don't really know how much debt he was in at the time. Granted, I have always believed that the catalyst for the murders was a personal motive and that the money was just a secondary factor. But that damn swimming pool has always bothered me.

Perhaps it could be a mixture of both?? Eunice put the screws to Tommy over whatever marital issues existed and mentioned divorce. Tommy, fearing she would potentially take him to the cleaners financially speaking, decides there's only one solution to the problem.

Perhaps it could be a mixture of both?? Eunice put the screws to Tommy over whatever marital issues existed and mentioned divorce. Tommy, fearing she would potentially take him to the cleaners financially speaking, decides there's only one solution to the problem.

The fact that he waited to execute his plan to involve his in-laws as well tells me this was more personal.

The fact that he waited to execute his plan to involve his in-laws as well tells me this was more personal.

Could it be something along the same lines as the Brad Bishop case then - Eunice (and her parents) kept on needling and needling and needling him then until he just snapped?

If it has nothing to do with money, insurance, a possible homosexual angle or any of the other theories bandied about in thread, that's about all that's left (killing the in-laws would give this away)

This wasn't posted here, but Robin has a spin-off podcast where he discusses some of his cases from the Trail Went Cold with two other co-hosts, and they released a five-parts episode about Tommy Zeigler.

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-path-went-chilly-1675147/episodes/tommy-zeigler-the-furniture-st-91714251

It doesn't contain much new information, but some might want to listen to it.

Robin is always a joy to listen to, although honestly, he might not be the most impartial party out there, because he spent a lot of time communicating with Zeigler's defense attorney. When you start establishing friendly rapport with someone, inevitably it will skew your ability to remain impartial, because part of you doesn't want to let them down. It's just human nature.

For myself, I've continued to follow the case. I re-read this entire thread. I've tried my best to look for every argument that could make Tommy guilty.

I just don't think that you can be categorically certain one way or another. This case has remained so popular for so long for the exact reason you can't be 100% sure one way or another: there is a lot of evidence that supports both sides, but there is no damning proof that allows to categorically lean one way or another, there is only evidence that allows to make a series of inferences from. There are many witnesses, many of whom contradict each other, and there is no way for most of them to tell who is lying, who might be mistaken and who is telling the truth with any degree of certainty.

Quite frankly, I think that whatever happened, it involves many people lying or exaggerating the truth or acting in a conspiratorial fashion in some form. Be it Perry Edwards Jr./someone else/Mays and accomplices who wanted to loot the store/kill Tommy/kill Tommy and his family/frame Tommy/what have you, or the police and the witnesses that they steered a certain way to try to increase their chances of a guilty verdict, or who fiddled with the truth themselves to get out of trouble or get Tommy condemned.

I did my best, and honestly, I must say that I still lean more towards innocence, because there are too many things in my opinion that just don't add up with the people who testified against him, that the guilty side doesn't have good explanations for, no matter how I slice it. This is a murder plot that, in my opinion, would be way too convoluted, requiring constant back and forth over the course of 1-2 hours, and depending on good fortune to look plausible, and when I look at the various theories trying to ascribe a motive to Tommy, I don't believe in any of them. Also, the Foster connection, although it's not proof, is troubling, along with Eunice's brother who, although it wasn't proof of a conspiracy, was an extremely shady character with a motive to retaliate against his family.

Do we even have proof that the hot guns were bought six months in advance? As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, we only have the word of Williams and two people who knew him that they were bought so long in advance and that it's Tommy who wanted them.

It's obvious that we will never know for sure. He will die in prison, because the state of Florida knows that if he gets a new trial, he will walk free and they will be exposed as incompetent.

One point where I disagree with the others: the original judge actually wasn't wrong in overriding the jury and giving Tommy the death penalty. It's not his fault, it simply is the way the law was written in Florida. Because the murders were especially heinous and multiple casualties were involved, that's what the law prescribed, and the judge merely applied it. Out of animus, perhaps, but his application was correct.

I have a hard time believing the more conspiratorial angle of this case involving Perry Edwards (or someone else who wanted Zeigler dead), who convinced Charlie Mays, a law abiding citizen and family man, Edward Williams, a law abiding citizen and handyman who was known to the Zeigler family, Felton Thomas, an itinerant fruit picker who only knew Charlie Mays from working with him, to commit the mass murder of 3 people for the simple fact of robbing a furniture store on Christmas Eve. And they didn't even bother to finish off the intended target of this plan: Tommy Zeigler. Not only that, but they beat Charlie Mays to death after he was allegedly shot by Zeigler. And then they got Charlie Mays's wife, Mattie, as well as family friend Brian Nedd to lie about Zeigler coaxing Charlie back to the store that evening for a television. And they also convinced Mary Stewart and her son-in-law to implicate Zeigler purchasing the murder weapons 6 months in advance of the murders.

Edward Williams, Felton Thomas, Mattie Mays, Brian Nedd, Frank Stewart, and Marty Stewart all have to be lying for Zeigler to be innocent. There is also forensic evidence that is damning for Zeigler, because he always insisted that he never killed anyone that night. He contends that the "attackers" beat Mays to death after he "may" have shot him. Cast off blood found on the inside of Zeigler's shirt cuffs matched Charlie Mays, and the only way this could have happened was if Zeigler was over top of Mays beating him to death. At an evidentiary hearing, a defense expert for Zeigler admitted this. In over 40 years, no new evidence has came out to implicate anyone other than Zeigler.

I have a hard time believing the more conspiratorial angle of this case involving Perry Edwards (or someone else who wanted Zeigler dead), who convinced Charlie Mays, a law abiding citizen and family man, Edward Williams, a law abiding citizen and handyman who was known to the Zeigler family, Felton Thomas, an itinerant fruit picker who only knew Charlie Mays from working with him, to commit the mass murder of 3 people for the simple fact of robbing a furniture store on Christmas Eve. And they didn't even bother to finish off the intended target of this plan: Tommy Zeigler. Not only that, but they beat Charlie Mays to death after he was allegedly shot by Zeigler. And then they got Charlie Mays's wife, Mattie, as well as family friend Brian Nedd to lie about Zeigler coaxing Charlie back to the store that evening for a television. And they also convinced Mary Stewart and her son-in-law to implicate Zeigler purchasing the murder weapons 6 months in advance of the murders.

Edward Williams, Felton Thomas, Mattie Mays, Brian Nedd, Frank Stewart, and Marty Stewart all have to be lying for Zeigler to be innocent. There is also forensic evidence that is damning for Zeigler, because he always insisted that he never killed anyone that night. He contends that the "attackers" beat Mays to death after he "may" have shot him. Cast off blood found on the inside of Zeigler's shirt cuffs matched Charlie Mays, and the only way this could have happened was if Zeigler was over top of Mays beating him to death. At an evidentiary hearing, a defense expert for Zeigler admitted this. In over 40 years, no new evidence has came out to implicate anyone other than Zeigler.

The way Charlie Mays died is one of the things that still make me lean towards Zeigler being innocent.

Tommy's in-laws liked and trusted him. Charlie Mays also liked and respected Tommy.

So why didn't he get them into a corner or have their backs turned so he could take them by surprise and shoot them to death? Why would he have to get into a messy struggle not only with his in-laws, but also with Charlie Mays?

"Come, your piece of furniture is over there in this corner. Come take a look."
"Charlie, your TV is over there, come and look."

He sure has the worst luck in the world.

So why didn't he get them into a corner or have their backs turned so he could take them by surprise and shoot them to death? Why would he have to get into a messy struggle not only with his in-laws, but also with Charlie Mays?

Because they fought back. Or, as what happened when he tried to murder Edward Williams, the gun misfired.

Because they fought back. Or, as what happened when he tried to murder Edward Williams, the gun misfired.

According to Williams' testimony, that is.

If it happened once that wouldn't bother me. But it happening twice (or even three times if Williams' testimony is true?) I find it hard to believe. Presumably, Tommy had quite a few guns and knew how to use them. A lot of shots were fired in the store. These are elements to me that suggest that more than one gunman was present, and that at some point someone was taken by surprise.

Back on page 21 of this thread it is brought up that the Zeiglar’s sick cat threw off the afternoon schedule of Eunice and her parents because they had to make an unplanned trip to the vet. At the time, Gibbs Ashley was the only vet in town. If that is where Eunice took the cat, his office was just around the corner from the furniture store. It couldn’t have taken too long for a trip there.

What if Eunice was concerned about their schedule being possibly off and Tommy suggested they wait and choose the recliner after the store closed when they had more time, seizing upon this opportunity on Mays also being there , in order to carry out his plan.

Back on page 21 of this thread it is brought up that the Zeiglar’s sick cat threw off the afternoon schedule of Eunice and her parents because they had to make an unplanned trip to the vet. At the time, Gibbs Ashley was the only vet in town. If that is where Eunice took the cat, his office was just around the corner from the furniture store. It couldn’t have taken too long for a trip there.

Thank you for that, I didn't know how close the vet was to the furniture store. Your theory makes sense. As for the sick cat, we don't know how long it was sick, and whether or not there was plans for her to take the cat to the vet that day.

According to Williams' testimony, that is.

If it happened once that wouldn't bother me. But it happening twice (or even three times if Williams' testimony is true?) I find it hard to believe.

I've fired a lot of weapons. A misfire occurring more than once (in the same firearm) is more believable, IMO, because malfunctions are often caused by actual problems with the weapon itself that require some kind of maintenance to correct. If the weapon was dirty or had a mechanical problem, the problem would continue to occur until it was terminally corrected--no matter how familiar or skilled Zeigler may have been with firearms.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2022/10/27/death-row-inmate-tommy-zeigler-edges-closer-long-sought-dna-testing/

Zeigler's team now very close to obtaining the DNA testing they have long demanded after a Florida judge is seemingly close to authorizing it. She is about to allow it, if safeguards are written to protect the evidence.

I agree it would not be a silver bullet to definitely prove Tommy's guilt or innocence. But having more factual information about such a confusing and complex case is always good.

In my opinion the trial was so bad and there was so much reasonable doubt that he should just get pardoned by the governor to avoid wasting everyone's time and more taxpayer dollars. If it was re-tried today, there's absolutely no way he would be found guilty again, and it's not like a frail old man like him would be a threat to anyone. Of course though, with a governor like DeSantis with strong Republican values and an insistence on being seen as though on crime, there's exactly zero chance of that happening.

I've fired a lot of weapons. A misfire occurring more than once (in the same firearm) is more believable, IMO, because malfunctions are often caused by actual problems with the weapon itself that require some kind of maintenance to correct. If the weapon was dirty or had a mechanical problem, the problem would continue to occur until it was terminally corrected--no matter how familiar or skilled Zeigler may have been with firearms.

Suppose that is what happened. Yet Tommy Zeigler seemingly had access to a lot of guns that night.

I really hope this DNA testing comes back with conclusive proof of his guilt. Because I don't think anything will conclusively prove his innocence. And I'm not just saying that because I think he's guilty. For example, if they test his clothes and find blood from Perry Edwards or Eunice, his supporters will shrug and say he was wandering around in the dark so of course their blood would be on him. Conversely, if the fingernail clippings from Perry Edwards contain Zeigler's DNA, then that's the final nail in his coffin. Fingers crossed that these tests end it once and for all.

I really hope this DNA testing comes back with conclusive proof of his guilt. Because I don't think anything will conclusively prove his innocence. And I'm not just saying that because I think he's guilty. For example, if they test his clothes and find blood from Perry Edwards or Eunice, his supporters will shrug and say he was wandering around in the dark so of course their blood would be on him. Conversely, if the fingernail clippings from Perry Edwards contain Zeigler's DNA, then that's the final nail in his coffin. Fingers crossed that these tests end it once and for all.

Tommy Zeigler has wanted DNA testing on specific elements since basically when he learned of the existence of the technology in the eighties, and his lawyers have pushed for it for a very long time by now. I have a hard time believing that they would do this if these items would reveal information that would incriminate him.

It's not unheard of for obviously guilty people to convincingly argue for years or decades that further testing will vindicate them, like for instance Jeffrey Macdonald, but I would believe that in this case, he would seek testing things that would show that there were other people there in order to cast doubt.

Tommy Zeigler has wanted DNA testing on specific elements since basically when he learned of the existence of the technology in the eighties, and his lawyers have pushed for it for a very long time by now. I have a hard time believing that they would do this if these items would reveal information that would incriminate him.

https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920518_400.jpg

Coleman was executed in 1992. He and his supporters repeatedly pushed for DNA testing, even after he was executed. His last words:

An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight. When my innocence is proven, I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as all other civilized countries have. My last words are to the woman I love. Love is eternal. My love for you will last forever. I love you, Sharon.

In 2006 they retested the DNA and it left zero doubt that he was the person responsible for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law. Point being, guilty people lie. A lot.

https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920518_400.jpg

Coleman was executed in 1992. He and his supporters repeatedly pushed for DNA testing, even after he was executed. His last words:



In 2006 they retested the DNA and it left zero doubt that he was the person responsible for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law. Point being, guilty people lie. A lot.

You can certainly quote that, but there are more stories of innocent people being falsely convicted and sitting in jail for decades, to finally be exonerated when being granted DNA testing.

I'm not saying this is absolutely would happen. I'm just saying that it's possible. There's no way to read Tommy Zeigler's mind and see which of the two he is.

You can certainly quote that, but there are more stories of innocent people being falsely convicted and sitting in jail for decades, to finally be exonerated when being granted DNA testing.

And there are others who have repeatedly called for DNA testing loudly proclaiming innocence who then get shut down when newer technology shows them as being the perpetrator. Stuart Heaton comes to mind.

https://news.yahoo.com/death-row-inmate-tommy-zeigler-223400409.html

Tommy Zeigler wins his battle for DNA testing. The testing will go ahead. Zeigler is guardedly optimistic because the state can still appeal it, but the testing will be done.

"The evidence includes never-before-tested fingernail clippings, guns and clothes of all of the victims — who were Zeigler’s wife, in-laws and another man at his family’s furniture store outside Orlando."

Quite a shocker that this (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/359842-criminal-justice-reformer-monique-worrell-wins-orlandos-state-attorney-primary/) attorney is the one pushing for new DNA. I've seen this story play out here in Maryland. Innocence Fraud is a very lucrative industry.

https://news.yahoo.com/death-row-inmate-tommy-zeigler-223400409.html

Tommy Zeigler wins his battle for DNA testing. The testing will go ahead. Zeigler is guardedly optimistic because the state can still appeal it, but the testing will be done.

"The evidence includes never-before-tested fingernail clippings, guns and clothes of all of the victims — who were Zeigler’s wife, in-laws and another man at his family’s furniture store outside Orlando."

I’m unclear on exactly how they expect this to prove TZ’s guilt or innocence. After all, it’s obvious they were all in the store together.

I’m unclear on exactly how they expect this to prove TZ’s guilt or innocence. After all, it’s obvious they were all in the store together.

They will run it and it will come back and either be inconclusive or only contain the DNA of the victims and his supporters will go "a-ha, this proves he didn't do it".

I’m unclear on exactly how they expect this to prove TZ’s guilt or innocence. After all, it’s obvious they were all in the store together.

How does it not matter to try to prove who held which gun, who assaulted who, etc? In a murky case such as this one it's very important information.

https://www.facebook.com/WilliamThomasZeiglerTommyZeiglerIsInnocent/

According to the Tommy Zeigler is Innocent Facebook page, the state tried to appeal the decision to prevent the evidence to leave Florida for California for DNA testing, but it is too late because the evidence is already in California. The 8 boxes have now arrived in the lab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W_yvwlzsVQ

According to this news bulletin, DNA testing should take between 3 and 6 months.

How does it not matter to try to prove who held which gun, who assaulted who, etc? In a murky case such as this one it's very important information.

His supporters will point to inconclusive results or GSR being found on the victim's hands as "proof" that there was someone other than Zeigler who killed the 4 people in the store. DNA does not change Edward Williams or Felton Thomas's testimony. Fortunately for the victims, Felton Thomas is still alive and is still telling the same story despite Zeigler's supporters best attempts at harassment and intimidation.

His supporters will point to inconclusive results or GSR being found on the victim's hands as "proof" that there was someone other than Zeigler who killed the 4 people in the store. DNA does not change Edward Williams or Felton Thomas's testimony. Fortunately for the victims, Felton Thomas is still alive and is still telling the same story despite Zeigler's supporters best attempts at harassment and intimidation.

You don't know what will be found, on which items and how it might affect the case. There is a lot of evidence, 8 boxes of them. Tommy and his lawyers are doing nothing wrong. They have every right to use the judicial system to its fullest extent to test more evidence in order to establish his innocence or at least enough reasonable doubt so that he could potentially be exonerated. Sure we can never be sure of which condemned criminal is doing these requests dishonestly, but that's the price to pay for having a justice system that can actually acknowledge its mistakes and be accountable.

Tommy has spent almost 45 years in jail, the world changed thoroughly since then. Frankly, I could never be completely sure he's innocent, but in light of all the evidence that casts doubt on his guilt, I don't exactly see how worse off society would be if he was allowed to finish the rest of his days in a long term care home rather than in prison. In any other western country than the US he would have ended his sentence and been freed long ago.

And actually Felton Thomas did change his story. He's been recorded telling Tommy's lawyer and two investigators that he didn't touch or fire any weapons that night, even though at the trial, he testified under oath that he did. It means that if Tommy would be retried and Felton Thomas had to testify, it would immediately be brought up by the defense to cast serious doubt on his credibility.

That said I agree that unless Felton Thomas would be charged with a crime, and even if he would actually have done something criminal that night, he deserves to live his life in peace.

You don't know what will be found, on which items and how it might affect the case. There is a lot of evidence, 8 boxes of them. Tommy and his lawyers are doing nothing wrong. They have every right to use the judicial system to its fullest extent to test more evidence in order to establish his innocence or at least enough reasonable doubt so that he could potentially be exonerated. Sure we can never be sure of which condemned criminal is doing these requests dishonestly, but that's the price to pay for having a justice system that can actually acknowledge its mistakes and be accountable.

He was convicted back in 1976 and has exhausted the legal process for 46 years. There is nothing that can be found that will drum up any reasonable doubt. He has been granted DNA testing in the past. Nothing came out of it other than his shirt was saturated with Charlie Mays's blood. Something that could not have happened if someone else beat Charlie Mays to death while Zeigler was lying on the floor from an alleged gunshot wound from an intruder.

Tommy has spent almost 45 years in jail, the world changed thoroughly since then. Frankly, I could never be completely sure he's innocent, but in light of all the evidence that casts doubt on his guilt, I don't exactly see how worse off society would be if he was allowed to finish the rest of his days in a long term care home rather than in prison. In any other western country than the US he would have ended his sentence and been freed long ago.

I have zero sympathy for a guy who murdered 4 people and then tried to kill a 5th. And when that didn't work he tried pinning the murders on the people who trusted him the most.

And actually Felton Thomas did change his story. He's been recorded telling Tommy's lawyer and two investigators that he didn't touch or fire any weapons that night, even though at the trial, he testified under oath that he did. It means that if Tommy would be retried and Felton Thomas had to testify, it would immediately be brought up by the defense to cast serious doubt on his credibility.

Why would Felton Thomas tell Zeigler's supporters anything? He has every right to deny any and everything because these people are fishing for him to say something "suspicious" as more evidence of Zeigler's innocence. Felton Thomas did not make those statements to Zeigler's supporters under oath. At trial, however, he did. And his testimony is very damning for Zeigler.

I used to think Zeigler was innocent for years but as more and more time goes on I’m starting to be convinced of his guilt. Every time I try to dive into this one now I just can’t seem to not end up with him being involved somehow. It just doesn’t add up.

I've felt he was innocent. It just screams "set up" to me.

This a is case that I can never stop thinking about there is just so much to it. Hours after the murders a man goes to the police, Edward Williams, and tells a story of Tommy trying to lure him into the store and shoot him but the gun jams. Williams has with him the gun that he said Tommy used to try to kill him. Turns out this gun was used to kill Virginia and Perry Edwards. So Edward Williams has possession of one of the murder weapons, his truck is stalled out in the rear parking lot, and days after the murders 2 of the other guns at the crime scene are traced to Frank Smith as the purchaser of the guns, a friend of Edward Williams. But it looks like Edward Williams was never treated like a suspect and was always considered a witness. It baffles me.

This a is case that I can never stop thinking about there is just so much to it. Hours after the murders a man goes to the police, Edward Williams, and tells a story of Tommy trying to lure him into the store and shoot him but the gun jams. Williams has with him the gun that he said Tommy used to try to kill him. Turns out this gun was used to kill Virginia and Perry Edwards. So Edward Williams has possession of one of the murder weapons, his truck is stalled out in the rear parking lot, and days after the murders 2 of the other guns at the crime scene are traced to Frank Smith as the purchaser of the guns, a friend of Edward Williams. But it looks like Edward Williams was never treated like a suspect and was always considered a witness. It baffles me.

That's largely in part to Felton Thomas coming forward and essentially telling the same story that Williams did: Zeigler was acting funny that night and trying to set them up as "robbers".

Sure Felton Thomas stated that Tommy was acting weird that night, but does that take away from Edward Williams having possession of the primary murder weapon, 2 other guns are registered to his friend, who might even be his son-in-law (Frank Smith), Edward Williams handed clothes into the police that didn't match the description of what he was wearing that night, and his truck was broken down at the crime scene. My point is how was he not a suspect? Another witness saying Tommy was acting oddly doesn't negate all of the ties that Edward Williams has to the crime.
I would like to say that although we may have different views on Tommy's guilt, I find the posts by TheCars1986 as very thought provoking.

My point is how was he not a suspect?

I think the cops believed Williams over Zeigler because of a few things:

-Zeigler's close contact gunshot wound compared to the brutality of the killings of the others.
-Felton Thomas came forward and told a similar story to Williams.
-Charlie Mays's wife and family friend said that Zeigler enticed Charlie back to the store that night for a discounted price for a TV.
-Zeigler went out of his way to make sure all of the local Winter Garden police officers were going to be in attendance at the Van Deventer Christmas party.
-Mary Ellen Stewart also backed up what Williams had told investigators that night, and that Williams had phoned several friends to tell them about Zeigler trying to kill him in the back of the furniture store.

As for the guns, the massive conspiracy to frame Zeigler would not only have to include Edward Williams, Charlie Mays, and Felton Thomas (who did not know Williams), but it would also have to include Frank Smith (decorated military man with no criminal history), and Mary Ellen Stewart (who may or may not have been in a relationship with Edward Williams at some point). Frank Smith's testimony at Zeigler's trial, IMO, seemed honest. From a clipping from a local newspaper covering Zeigler's trial at the time:

William Thomas Zeigler Jr. asked him to buy two "untraceable" guns, a former Orlando taxicab driver testified Monday in the murder trial of the young Winter Garden furniture store owner. Frank Smith, who said he has left cab driving to attend school on the GI Bill, said he was put in touch with Zeigler by Edward Williams, a carpenter who had worked for Zeigler. "I NEVER thought something like this (the shooting of four persons) would happen," Smith said.

He said Zeigler, on trial here for the Christmas Eve shooting deaths of his wife, Eunice, her parents asked him about the guns in June 1974. Williams, who knew Smith through a girl friend, telephoned Zeigler and put Smith on the line to discuss the gun purchase, Smith testified. ZEIGLER "wanted them (the guns) untraceable," Smith said, but he added he bought the weapons at a pawn shop and filled out the purchase form.

"If Mr. Zeigler said he wanted the guns untraceable why didn't you buy them hot?" "I wouldn't have made any money off of it," said Smith, who said he bought the guns at the Diamond and Gold Pawn Shop in Orlando for $100 and sold them to Zeigler for $159. "DID YOU tell him the gun was bought at the pawn shop?" Eagan asked. "Of course not," Smith answered. Smith said he delivered the pistols to Williams about two weeks after Zeigler's request.

It seems bizarre to me that if you are going to set up a man for murder that you would leave a paper trail behind that leads the murder weapons directly back to your doorstep. Or, the other answer, which IMO is more logical, is that Smith simply bought these guns for Zeigler and wanted to make a small profit.

I would like to say that although we may have different views on Tommy's guilt, I find the posts by TheCars1986 as very thought provoking.

Thanks!

Give me a minute to catch up to you, because I find what you say to be very interesting. But I notice right away that you have referred to Frank Smith as a decorated military man in several of your posts. Everywhere I have read about him states that he was an MP, these are not men that face combat and are honored for heroism. Yes, he did serve in the military honorably which is respectable, but I think he was not decorated to a degree higher than any other MP.

To the allegation that Frank Smith had no criminal background. Buying a gun for another person is a crime, it's called a "straw man" sale, now I am from PA, and this crime is punished by a mandatory 5 year prison sentence here. It's also a federal crime punished by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000. Frank Smith admitted to this crime under oath but he was never charged and I find no record of him being granted immunity. I'm not saying that Frank Smith was involved in the murders but he admits to participating in a "straw man" purchase of a gun, which required deceit on his part, he lied to obtain those guns. This isn't a little "white lie" he purchased the guns that were used in a quadruple murder, that's a big deal.

Also, I don't like that Frank Smith, Mary Smith, and Edward Williams only told police about Tommy wanting "untraceable" guns until after the guns were traced to Frank, this was after the preliminary hearing. I don't buy the idea that they had just forgot about getting these guns for Tommy. The murders were the biggest story to hit Winter Garden in decades, how could someone forget that 8-9 months before the murders they bought two guns for the alleged killer because he wanted "untraceable" guns?

I'm new to this forum but I just noticed that I called Mary Ellen Stewart, Mary Smith. I will have to find out how to edit posts. But for now apologies to all Mary Smith's out there I meant Mary Ellen Stewart.

I think that Frank Smith bought the guns for Edward Williams, not realizing that Williams planned to use the guns in a murder. Williams doesn't want to buy the guns himself so he asks Frank to get them thinking that Frank Smith will never be connected to him. Once things go sideways that night, I don't think the murders of Eunice and her parents were planned I think they walked into a set-up, a hit on Tommy and were murdered, Williams panics a bit and goes to Mary Ellen Stewart for advice. Once Williams brings Mary into the situation his connection to Frank will be exposed because Frank is her son-in-law.

Williams now has to come up with a reason that Frank Smith bought those guns. Williams had months to come up with his excuse that Frank bought the guns for Tommy. I wish that phone records had been checked to confirm a phone call between Tommy and Frank, but if it was a local call then I don't know if those were records were retained back then.

Even in Frank Smith's testimony he admits that he lied to Tommy about the guns being hot, he seems awfully comfortable with lying. He lied on the application to buy the guns and then lied to Tommy about the guns. Why should we believe him when he says Tommy wanted the guns?

Also, the guns were not used , even though they were bought at a pawnshop, Tommy would have noticed this.

And why couldn't Frank have just charged more for the guns and actually got "hot" guns Tommy had money and if he really wanted these guns like the 3 connected witnesses claim then Tommy would have been willing to pay a premium for the guns.

TheCars1986 you really have me thinking.

Give me a minute to catch up to you, because I find what you say to be very interesting. But I notice right away that you have referred to Frank Smith as a decorated military man in several of your posts. Everywhere I have read about him states that he was an MP, these are not men that face combat and are honored for heroism. Yes, he did serve in the military honorably which is respectable, but I think he was not decorated to a degree higher than any other MP.

"Decorated" was a poor word choice, but he did serve in the Air Force as an MP prior to this case. Point being: I don't think a military man who had zero criminal history who at the time of Zeigler's trial was attending college would be involved in this grand scheme to eliminate one man from Winter Garden.

To the allegation that Frank Smith had no criminal background. Buying a gun for another person is a crime, it's called a "straw man" sale, now I am from PA, and this crime is punished by a mandatory 5 year prison sentence here. It's also a federal crime punished by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000. Frank Smith admitted to this crime under oath but he was never charged and I find no record of him being granted immunity. I'm not saying that Frank Smith was involved in the murders but he admits to participating in a "straw man" purchase of a gun, which required deceit on his part, he lied to obtain those guns. This isn't a little "white lie" he purchased the guns that were used in a quadruple murder, that's a big deal.

Florida has no ban on private firearm sales. According to this (https://thefirearmfirm.com/private-gun-sales/) website, a private gun sale is legal in Florida as long as the person buying the gun is a resident of Florida, and "so long as the seller does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person purchasing the firearm is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal or state law." Seeing that Zeigler was a prominent member of Winter Garden at the time, I do not see any laws that Frank Smith would've broken.

Also, I don't like that Frank Smith, Mary Smith, and Edward Williams only told police about Tommy wanting "untraceable" guns until after the guns were traced to Frank, this was after the preliminary hearing. I don't buy the idea that they had just forgot about getting these guns for Tommy. The murders were the biggest story to hit Winter Garden in decades, how could someone forget that 8-9 months before the murders they bought two guns for the alleged killer because he wanted "untraceable" guns?

The crime scene contained a total of eight firearms. Zeigler told his defense attorneys that he could account for six of the eight weapons and they were found to have all been purchased by Zeigler. He had no explanation for the two .38 RG revolvers found near the body of Charlie Mays. Here is a brief timeline of what was happening in the days after the murders:

-On December 29th, 1975, law enforcement officials announce that they are sending forensic evidence to the FBI to be tested, including the guns. IIRC, they were actually picked up and transported to Washington DC on the 28th, but the announcement was not made publicly until the next day. That same afternoon is when Zeigler was charged with the murders.

-On December 30th, 1975, largely based off of the testimony of Williams and Thomas, Zeigler is formally read his charges in his hospital room. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for January 16th, 1976.

-On January 2nd, 1976, police find live and expended .38 Special rounds, 3 paper grocery bags (one of of which was bloody), two empty boxes for revolvers, and a blue towel located inside a cabinet in the rear storage area of the store. Felton Thomas identified one of the grocery bags as the one Zeigler had pulled the guns out of when they went to the orange grove. Edward Williams mentioned Zeigler had concealed a gun in what appeared to be a towel when he tried to shoot him that night on Christmas Eve.

-Zeigler's preliminary hearing is held on the 16th and Zeigler is eligible for bond. He isn't released on bond until January 19th, 1976.

-On January 20th, 1976, ownership of the two .38 RG revolvers are finally traced to Frank Smith. This is when he is interviewed for the first time.

In those first initial days of the shooting, it was being reported as a robbery and it wasn't reported that Zeigler was charged until the 30th. It is not unreasonable to me to not ever once think that the man who was just charged with murder used the weapons that were sold to him over a year and a half ago. Zeigler's defense got Frank Smith to admit on cross examination that he had never met Zeigler, did not know his phone number, and did not know what his voice sounded like. Does this sound like someone trying to set up Zeigler for murder?

ETA: If Frank Smith come forward after finding out Zeigler was charged with murder and said "hey, just so you know, I sold this guy some guns a year and a half ago", IMO, that looks more suspicious.

Just on the issue of the "straw man" gun purchase made by Frank Smith. Buying a gun for another person is both a federal crime and a crime in Florida. The law you cite is related to the seller. The issue here isn't about the seller illegally selling a gun in a private sale it is about a buyer lying and buying a gun for another person to avoid a background check or the true buyer being associated with the gun. That is a crime federally and in Florida.

Think of it this way the seller had no idea that Frankwasn't buying the gun for himself. Frank didn't tell the seller he was buying the gun for Tommy, so Tommy's good reputation doesn't matter the seller has no idea that Tommy is supposedly involved in the sale. The laws against "straw man" sales are to prevent exactly what Frank said he did, buying a gun for another person, without creating a paper trail, it avoids the true purchaser of the gun ever being recorded or undergoing a background check. Frank admitted to a crime under oath.

You think of all of these witnesses having to lie in order to "frame" Tommy for murder and I agree it is a lot of people, but I don't think of it as framing. I think they are trying to cover their own bums for their various levels of involvement. It's just a different view on the same facts. I see the parties as have an interest in self-preservation.

Finally, I wouldn't expect Frank to come forward, because I don't think he ever bought those guns for Tommy. Frank is on the edges of this crime, in that I think he bought the guns for Williams. I would expect Williams to come forward about Tommy wanting "untraceable guns," I think Frank was trying to cover for his friend Edward Williams.

Was that a crime in 1975 though?

Just on the issue of the "straw man" gun purchase made by Frank Smith. Buying a gun for another person is both a federal crime and a crime in Florida. The law you cite is related to the seller. The issue here isn't about the seller illegally selling a gun in a private sale it is about a buyer lying and buying a gun for another person to avoid a background check or the true buyer being associated with the gun. That is a crime federally and in Florida.

We have no way of knowing what the statutes were back in 1975, but the earliest I could find was from 1997 (https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/1997/790.065). I think it's logical to surmise that the laws would have been much more lax back in 1975.

You think of all of these witnesses having to lie in order to "frame" Tommy for murder and I agree it is a lot of people, but I don't think of it as framing. I think they are trying to cover their own bums for their various levels of involvement. It's just a different view on the same facts. I see the parties as have an interest in self-preservation.

Edward Williams said Zeigler tried to murder him in the back of the store. Edward Williams says that he went to Frank Smith to procure guns for Zeigler well over a year before the murders. There is no reason for them to be in "self-preservation" mode because Zeigler was charged with the murders on December 30th, 1975. Frank Smith was not interviewed until the 20th the next year.

Finally, I wouldn't expect Frank to come forward, because I don't think he ever bought those guns for Tommy. Frank is on the edges of this crime, in that I think he bought the guns for Williams. I would expect Williams to come forward about Tommy wanting "untraceable guns," I think Frank was trying to cover for his friend Edward Williams.

Edward Williams, the local immigrant handyman with no criminal history, wanted to murder Tommy Zeigler in the summer of 1974...why?

Was that a crime in 1975 though?

Probably not. Maybe Kilarney Rose would know.

Sorry, I was barely 19 then. I don’t know.

It’s good to see this case discussed again.

So Tommy was planning to murder Eunice as far back as the summer of ‘74. Interesting.

I can delve a little deeper into that about the timeline of the illegality of "straw man" gun purchases. I just always thought it was "weird" maybe the wrong term, that Frank Smith would pay out of pocket for 2 guns for a stranger who could very well could have say "F... off these guns are cheap, pieces of crap, and not worth it." Because they were, a trigger was damaged during the murders making one gun inoperable. Then this guy who was a college student would be out the money that he used to buy the guns. I always thought that the concept that he bought the guns with his own money was a way to avoid the application of the law.

But also can no one admit that a guy that you never met in your life, just heard of through a friend, calls you asking you to buy 2 "untraceable" guns for him shouldn't set off red flags. Really, who among us would buy guns for someone in this situation?

I think Frank Smith bought the guns for Edward Williams, Smith didn't know that they would be used in a murder. Once the guns are traced back to Frank, Williams helps him create a story that doesn't implicate Williams in the murder. Does this make any sensse to anyone but me?

What must be taken into consideration is the racial climate at the time in Winter Garden. If an influential white person such as TZ asked an African American to do something for them, they did it. Times have changed today, but it was very different back then.

I think Frank Smith bought the guns for Edward Williams, Smith didn't know that they would be used in a murder. Once the guns are traced back to Frank, Williams helps him create a story that doesn't implicate Williams in the murder. Does this make any sensse to anyone but me?

This doesn't make sense to me. Frank Smith procures the guns in the summer of 1974 presumably because Edward Williams wants to or is involved in this plot to kill Tommy Zeigler for reasons unknown. Williams, who would help Zeigler with projects like helping deliver presents, was presumably alone with Zeigler countless times from once the guns were purchased to when the murders were committed on Christmas Eve. There is absolutely no logical reason as to why, if Williams, Mays, Thomas, etc. were there that Christmas Eve night to rob the store and execute Zeigler, they would have seen Eunice and her parents enter the store, to then execute all of them with various weapons in and around the store as well as Zeigler's vehicles, of which...how would they know where they were located?! In a matter of seconds, the motive went from killing Tommy Zeigler to framing Tommy Zeigler. That's illogical. Because as soon as Eunice turned the key and her and her parents entered the store, these "robbers" panicked and were able to locate 6 guns that can be tied to Zeigler and thought up the quick plan to frame him by using his personal weapons to kill Eunice and her parents. But then they were dumb enough to use the two revolvers procured by Frank Smith to execute Perry Edwards and Charlie Mays.

None of that makes any sort of logical sense.

Absolutely. I highly doubt these men, IF they were planning to kill TZ could have thought on their feet quickly enough to kill Eunice and her parents when they showed up unexpectedly,while locating the guns. It just didn’t happen.

While I respect the context that you give to the era and the location, I cannot agree that that an African American would blindly agree to buy guns for a stranger just because they are white. I think that deference to the police and the criminal theory that they were pursuing makes more sense. I think that an African-American in the mid-1970's deep south would do just what the police told them to do, so say "Tommy told you to buy these guns."

I might be off base but I think he bought the guns for Edward Williams, not knowing they would be used in a murder, and was once the murders happened he was worried about his potential involvement and lied to cover himself and a friend. I might be wrong, but I really don't think Frank had anything to do with the murders and he just got thrown into the mix later.

[QUOTE=EighthStreet;6126311]Was that a crime in 1975 though?"
Like I said I'm new to this, so I'm not sure how to quote previous posts, but bear with me I'll get there.

I called the NRA, who in my opinion knows federal gun laws, and in 1968 it became a federal law that one could buy a gun for another person. Now I will spend the time to fully read that federal law and if I can figure out how to post the appropriate segments I will.

I just want people to acknowledge that all of these "participants" may be trying to cover themselves. Legally.

Oh, gosh I did it again. In 1968 a big gun reform was passed where it became illegal to buy a gun for another person. Argh.

[QUOTE=EighthStreet;6126311]

I just want people to acknowledge that all of these "participants" may be trying to cover themselves. Legally.

I respect your opinion, but unless you grew up in the segregated south and you lived/worked with/ went to school with African Americans, you just don’t get it.

I have no doubt they were trying to cover themselves, but they were covering themselves by revealing the real killer-Tommy Zeiglar.

"I highly doubt these men, IF they were planning to kill TZ could have thought on their feet quickly enough to kill Eunice and her parents when they showed up unexpectedly, while locating the guns. It just didn’t happen."

I don't know why it would require "quick thinking" to kill people that stumble upon their set-up, it should be automatic. I am here to kill someone other people interloped upon my plan, they saw me so kill them. I don't even think that thought is involved you do what needs to be done. Kill the witnesses.

Can anyone clarify this for me? I thought the 2 guns bought by Frank Smith were purchased 8-9 months before the murders, I got that from Fatal Flaw, by Philip Finch. I'm not arguing a point here jut want clarification was it 8-9 months before the murders(as in the book), or longer as a 1 1/2 years? The longer time makes me even more weirded out.

While I respect the context that you give to the era and the location, I cannot agree that that an African American would blindly agree to buy guns for a stranger just because they are white. I think that deference to the police and the criminal theory that they were pursuing makes more sense. I think that an African-American in the mid-1970's deep south would do just what the police told them to do, so say "Tommy told you to buy these guns."

You can fathom a scenario where a black guy would lie to go along with the police because he was afraid of them, but you can't fathom a scenario in which a black guy in the (still) segregated south would not go to a buddy of his and say that this prominent white business owner wants to buy some guns can you buy them for me? In one scenario the guy is making a profit. In the other, he's lying because the police told him to. I think the first scenario is much more logical.

I might be off base but I think he bought the guns for Edward Williams, not knowing they would be used in a murder, and was once the murders happened he was worried about his potential involvement and lied to cover himself and a friend. I might be wrong, but I really don't think Frank had anything to do with the murders and he just got thrown into the mix later.

Edward Williams would still have to be involved in either planning to murder Tommy Zeigler at some point in the summer of 1974, or he would have been approached by someone else in the summer of 1974 to get someone to buy guns "for Zeigler" and not know the context of this, and then when said guns were purchased deliver them to Eunice at Zeigler's home. If these guns were not to be given to Zeigler, why didn't he ever confront Edward Williams over these guns or mention them to his defense at all?

I don't know why it would require "quick thinking" to kill people that stumble upon their set-up, it should be automatic. I am here to kill someone other people interloped upon my plan, they saw me so kill them. I don't even think that thought is involved you do what needs to be done. Kill the witnesses.

You don't understand what I'm getting at. The Zeigler is innocent crowd insists that the guns procured by Frank Smith were supposed to be the murder weapons and that Zeigler was the intended target. So these guys, lying in wait for Zeigler to arrive hear Eunice and her parents enter the store. Within seconds they would have had to have located (or brought with them and known about the location of Zeigler's gun/s) Zeigler's guns and started shooting. Perry Edwards was shot with a gun that Zeigler kept in his truck. Virginia Edwards was shot with one of the guns used in the Frank Smith purchase, but the was executed with Zeigler's gun that he kept in his truck. They could never conclusively prove that Eunice was shot with one of the guns used in the Frank Smith purchase. Three other weapons were fired that night. One is claimed to have been fired by Zeigler. So after the Edwards' and Eunice were killed, they still went around the store and located 2 more of Zeigler's weapons to use? Why?! None of this makes any logical sense.

Can anyone clarify this for me? I thought the 2 guns bought by Frank Smith were purchased 8-9 months before the murders, I got that from Fatal Flaw, by Philip Finch. I'm not arguing a point here jut want clarification was it 8-9 months before the murders(as in the book), or longer as a 1 1/2 years? The longer time makes me even more weirded out.

This (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/115712413/the-orlando-sentinel/) article has the following quote:

William Thomas Zeigler Jr. asked him to buy two "untraceable" guns, a former Orlando taxicab driver testified Monday in the murder trial of the young Winter Garden furniture store owner. Frank Smith, who said he has left cab driving to attend school on the GI Bill, said he was put in touch with Zeigler by Edward Williams, a carpenter who had worked for Zeigler. "I NEVER thought something like this (the shooting of four persons) would happen," Smith said. He said Zeigler, on trial here for the Christmas Eve shooting deaths of his wife, Eunice, her parents. Perry and Virginia Edwards, and Charles Mays Jr., a fruit picker and long-time store customer, asked him about the guns in June 1974.

Yes, I think it is much easier to believe that someone would lie to cover their own butts, which Frank Smith did, Form 4473, came into existence with question 11a. in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" "Warning you are not a transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearms to you." I put in quotes because it's an actual quote from line 11a.

This question has always been on the form and the pawn shop that sold the guns would have been required to have Frank Smith to fill out this form. Pawn shops are specifically mentioned in the Gun Control Act. Frank Smith could not have answered this question and said that he was buying the guns for Tommy or the sale would have been canceled so Frank Smith had to have lied on this question or lied when he said in court that the guns were for Tommy. This assumes that the pawn shop was acting in accordance with the federal law and filling out Form 4473, if the shop ignored this form Frank wouldn't have had to answer that question, but then again the gun couldn't have been traced back to him if form 4473 was skipped.

I don't find Frank Smith believable when he claimed that he had no idea that the guns would be used for a crime, I agree maybe he didn't know it would be a multiple murder, but why does anyone want "hot" or "untraceable" guns, its for a crime, that's why that question exists on the gun purchase application?

I think Frank Smith is bright and would realize that people want "hot" guns for criminal activity. The legal department person at the NRA that I spoke to said that "straw man" purchases were one of the number one ways that known drug dealers obtain weapons. So, even if you are going to make money on the deal don't buy firearms for other people and lie on government forms, it's a crime.

Also, I think the term "segregated" is being used a little bit loosely. I agree that the deep south was not what it is like today. I know that the KKK was a major problem there. In fact where I live in the north we had KKK problems up until the early 1990's, seriously it is shocking but rural parts of PA act like they are Mississippi circa 1950. Where I live there are still Confederate flags hanging outside many houses, its an embarrassment that doesn't even make sense, we are the North! But legal segregation had ended a decade before these crimes, and if we don't acknowledge history I feel like we are ignoring progress. I am by no means saying that how the south was in 1975 was acceptable. I hate everything about a society where anyone is forced to live under someone else's thumb, I'm only pointing out that this was decades after Rosa Parks stood up and the Montgomery bus boycott triumphed and a decade after the Freedom Summer Murders and a decade after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But I will say that given the racial climate of the area I am surprised that Tommy was convicted. I think there were much clearer cases of white men killing black men in the south where the white guy went free unjustly.

PS. I am enjoying the dialogue and hope everyone else is as well. I feel that I may have caused confusion about woy I was replying to on some of my posts, but with time I will get better. I promise.

Yes, I think it is much easier to believe that someone would lie to cover their own butts, which Frank Smith did, Form 4473, came into existence with question 11a. in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

This is only pertaining to licensed manufacturers, importers, or dealers. Not a private sale. You can find this information directly from the ATF's website (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/atf-form-4473-required-when-unlicensed-person-sells-or-disposes-firearm). Frank Smith's information was recorded at the pawn shop, because they would fall under an the dealer category. Frank Smith selling his weapons to Tommy Zeigler IS legal (https://tampacarry.com/blog/b/florida-rules-on-private-firearm-sales) in Florida. Zeigler was a resident of Florida, over 21, and had no criminal record. And this website is from 2021. There is no way what Frank Smith did back in 1975 was illegal.

It violated federal law even in 1975 you cannot buy a gun since 1968 with the express purpose of selling it to someone else. It is a federal crime. It's an attempt to avoid knowing who actually purchased the gun. This has nothing to do with Florida law regarding private sales. The Gun Control Act of 1968 requirements stand outside of state law.

My point is Frank Smith lied at the pawn shop to obtain the gun, that's where federal law was violated not in a later private sale. Since 1968 it was been illegal federally to buy a gun for someone else, and Frank Smith testified that he bought the guns for Tommy. If he had gifted the gun to Tommy that would have been legal.

The issue about Frank Smith buying the guns illegally is really a minor issue. I was only pointing it out to show that he wasn't an uninterested party that had no motivation to lie on the witness stand and that he lied on a federal application to purchase a gun, which goes to trustworthiness.

If others chose their own interpretations of this law that's fine, but please don't ever buy a gun for someone else at a licensed dealer and lie to question 11a. and then concoct a faux "private sale," to a buyer to avoid the registration of the sale it is a federal crime punishable by a prison sentence and/or a fine.
18 U.S. Code Section 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S. Code Section 924(a)(1)(A) are the applicable laws.

I am not a person that blindly believes in Tommy's innocence. I would much rather that he be guilty, otherwise this man's life was completely destroyed twice, which is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

I will say that I am concerned that I sound rude. I am just frustrated that I can't seem to convey myself clearly on this issue. This all started because I was just trying to point out that Frank Smith may not be a completely reliable witness and that he may have lied on the Firearms Transaction Form at the pawn shop. If he lied on a federal form to buy a gun I question his truthfulness, but everyone seems to accept his testimony as fact which is odd to me. Perhaps I question too much.

It violated federal law even in 1975 you cannot buy a gun since 1968 with the express purpose of selling it to someone else. It is a federal crime. It's an attempt to avoid knowing who actually purchased the gun. This has nothing to do with Florida law regarding private sales. The Gun Control Act of 1968 requirements stand outside of state law.

You can keep beating this dead horse over and over again, but the ATF's website (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/atf-form-4473-required-when-unlicensed-person-sells-or-disposes-firearm) states:

Is an ATF Form 4473 required when an unlicensed person sells or disposes of a firearm?

No. The ATF Form 4473 is required only for sales or dispositions by a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer.

Frank Smith provided all of the pertinent information to the pawn shop. He did not have to disclose to them the reason he was buying the guns. He bought them legally. This is why the guns led back to Frank Smith. Because he gave the pawn shop his information. When he sold them to Zeigler, he did so legally because in Florida, Zeigler met the requirements for buying a gun. Even if he bought the guns with the sole purpose of selling them to Zeigler, all he had to do was lie to investigators that he bought them for him, didn't like them, and then sold them to Zeigler. He could have actually went and bought untraceable guns if he was planning on helping Edward Williams with something shady. But he did not. Because Frank Smith is an honest man.

You are kind of missing my point its the purchase at the pawn shop that's the issue not the alleged later transfer. The question asks are you buying this gun for someone else, according to Frank Smith's own testimony he was buying the guns for Tommy. So if he answers that he is buying the guns for himself that is a LIE, which is not what an honest man does. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. I cited the federal statutes that are applicable. How is he honest? He lied on the application to purchase the guns? I will let this go, its not pivotal on the issue of guilt.

You are kind of missing my point its the purchase at the pawn shop that's the issue not the alleged later transfer. The question asks are you buying this gun for someone else, according to Frank Smith's own testimony he was buying the guns for Tommy. So if he answers that he is buying the guns for himself that is a LIE, which is not what an honest man does. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. I cited the federal statutes that are applicable. How is he honest? He lied on the application to purchase the guns? I will let this go, its not pivotal on the issue of guilt.

He's honest because he admitted to investigators that he bought the guns for Zeigler at the suggestion of Edward Williams. Had he not been honest, he would have bought actual untraceable guns or lied to investigators. You are getting hung up over a check box on a form that may or may not have been there in 1975.

Different topic.

With the new advanced DNA testing underway what are the items that people are most interested in hearing the results about?

Now, me I just wish they still had that second tooth from the crime scene. That would have been interesting.

Should I keep participating in this forum or have I wore out my welcome? Please be honest I can take it.

Edward Williams...before the police had any idea who Frank Smith was, testified at Zeigler's preliminary hearing on January 16th, 1976, that Zeigler had approached him about acquiring "hot guns" and Williams suggested Frank Smith. This was five days before the police were able to trace the paper trail back to the owner of 2 of the murder weapons: Frank Smith. How did Edward Williams know which guns were used in the homicides? He was in possession of Zeigler's personal weapon that he kept in his truck when he turned himself in to the police that night.

If Edward Williams was involved in this plot to kill Zeigler that got out of hand, turning in one of the murder weapons while leaving all of the others (7 handguns were found at the scene, 5 of which were fired that night) behind seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do...no? Why didn't any of these "robbers" take the two RG revolvers with them? The execution shots to Perry and Virginia Edwards were shot with Zeigler's personal pistol. So if they're trying to frame him, why would they leave the 2 guns that can lead the investigators directly back to the man who turned himself in with one of the murder weapons?

Felton Thomas was not on Zeigler's radar that night. Felton Thomas was not even from Winter Garden. Seems a bit weird to involve a guy who isn't from the area to help orchestrate the murder of a prominent businessman.

Hey I found my own answer to when the guns were bought. It was in the appellate record 402 So. 2d 365 (1981). Everything in quotation means is a quote from the record.

"The state's theory of the case can be summarized as follows:"

"Edward Williams had known the defendant and his family for a number of years. Williams testified in June 1975 defendant inquired of him about obtaining a "hot gun." Williams then went to Frank Smith's home and arranged for Smith to purchase 2 RG revolvers."

According to the court record Williams went to Smith about the guns in June 1975, not 1974. Anyone can look it up using the case citation number l listed above. This makes more sense to me. I couldn't understand why the guns would be purchased 1 1/2 years before the murders if their sole purpose was to use them in the murders.

According to the court record Williams went to Smith about the guns in June 1975, not 1974. Anyone can look it up using the case citation number l listed above. This makes more sense to me. I couldn't understand why the guns would be purchased 1 1/2 years before the murders if their sole purpose was to use them in the murders.

The paper may have recorded the date incorrectly. However, it still doesn't make any sense to obtain these guns with the intent of murdering Zeigler and then not do anything until Christmas Eve. It does make sense, however, if you want to kill your wife and in-laws and know that there is going to be a Christmas party on Christmas Eve with every Winter Garden police officer in attendance.

No takers on DNA talk?

I think its absolutely amazing how science keeps advancing and we are getting answers to questions that have been asked for decades. While this case doesn't have the clear DNA implications that a murder accompanied by a sexual assault does I still think it can clear up a lot about the movements of people in the store that night. Basically who did what and in what order.

I do think that was just a misprint in the paper. Not to say that no one ever starts planning a murder a year and a half in advance, it's just not common. If you do read 402 So. 2d 365 (1981) it gives a rudimentary outline of some of the testimony, which is interesting.

Anyone read the article about State Attorney Monique Worrell seeking new examination of some of the fingerprints at the crime scene? Mainly prints from the Curtis Dunaway car and the cigar box that held cash and was found in a pool of Charlie Mays' blood will be re-examined. The part the interested me was the request for Felton Thomas to be fingerprinted, implying that the police never collected his prints for comparison.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/03/27/state-attorney-worrell-seeks-new-fingerprint-exams-in-tommy-zeigler-case/

New show coming out.

https://www.orangeobserver.com/news/2023/sep/07/tommy-zeigler-case-to-air-on-investigation-channel/?fbclid=IwAR1f6vPUStXQF1TelS9dbDeZ8Kug3es13-lToJawoonDVztXY8fgB6wggds


WEST ORANGE TIMES & OBSERVER

NEWS
Share
Crime scene investigator Alina Burroughs returned to her hometown of Winter Garden to re-investigate a furniture store murder that claimed four lives on Christmas Eve 1975. Her findings will be discussed at 9 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 13, on the show “Crime Scene Confidential.” The episode, titled “Four Murders and One Death Sentence,” will air on the Investigation Discovery channel.

I'm a bit torn on this one. For those that find polygraph results to be important, I believe Tommy passed his polygraph and it was done by a very well respected man.

Also, on a side note, I didn't realize Perry Edwards was a (former?) minister. I know Tommy was apparently a devoted church goer but I wonder how much did it play into the fact that he was accused of shooting what was I assume a very well respected man in the community?

My question is why? $500,000 is a lot of money today, let alone in 1975 for a life insurance plan. But they seemed well off with their business, he seemed to love his wife and why drag the in-laws into it? This is Christmas Eve, wouldn't there have been some other things they could have been doing that day at that time?

Re: the polygraph- a sociopath can easily pass a polygraph.

Just because one is a devoted churchgoer doesn’t mean they are a good person. BTK was active in his church. Sociopaths can put up a very good front.

It didn’t have to be about insurance. The Zeiglar family was well off. Upper middle class. They had a successful business and high standing in the community and church. This was still a time when some frowned upon divorce. Especially in the churches. Tommy would keep the family business, bank accounts , and his reputation intact as a bereaved widower. But not if he and Eunice divorced and he ended up paying her a settlement and alimony.

The request to do fingerprint testing has been withdrawn (https://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/2023/12/20/new-state-attorney-withdraws-request-to-test-evidence-in-tommy-zeigler-death-penalty-case/) after a new state attorney was appointed.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the independent testing. Am I correct in assuming the defense team/ supporters will be picking up the expense of the testing?

The request to do DNA testing has been withdrawn (https://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/2023/12/20/new-state-attorney-withdraws-request-to-test-evidence-in-tommy-zeigler-death-penalty-case/) after a new state attorney was appointed.

Why though? Is the state that worried that they'll be exposed they made a mistake?

Re: the polygraph- a sociopath can easily pass a polygraph.

Just because one is a devoted churchgoer doesn’t mean they are a good person. BTK was active in his church. Sociopaths can put up a very good front.

It didn’t have to be about insurance. The Zeiglar family was well off. Upper middle class. They had a successful business and high standing in the community and church. This was still a time when some frowned upon divorce. Especially in the churches. Tommy would keep the family business, bank accounts , and his reputation intact as a bereaved widower. But not if he and Eunice divorced and he ended up paying her a settlement and alimony.

Larry Gibson passed one, so yeah who knows with a polygraph. Apparently at the time it was a really good and respected guy who gave him the polygraph that felt he was telling the truth.

Here is the thing, I understand not wanting to divorce, but if it is only your wife you want dead, why drag her parents into it? This could have been done at other times. Surely other than Christmas Eve with his in-laws hanging around them he could have figured out a better time to show up at the store with only Eunice and have a "botched robbery" gone wrong and have her killed. That's the thing I don't get with this case. When else does a person deliberately involve other people to be killed that don't need to be? It is sloppy and can only cause more problems.

Also, if Tommy is against divorce, and I assume he claimed to be a Christian, what exactly is his policy on multiple murders? I assume he realizes he'd have to answer to God on that one, no? So I am not really seeing that angle either of not wanting to divorce. Was there known turmoil in their marriage? I hadn't heard there was. Honestly, to me I lean on the side of them all just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don’t have an opinion on why the parents were killed. Unless he just disliked them so intensely that he wanted to kill them too.

As for him being a Christian…well maybe he was just a sociopath putting on a front.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the independent testing. Am I correct in assuming the defense team/ supporters will be picking up the expense of the testing?

I was wrong. I've edited my original comment. A joint motion for DNA testing was filed by both the State and Zeigler's attorneys, and was granted last year. It was being paid for by Zeigler and his supporters. That is still going forward and they are waiting for the results. The State withdrew a request to test for fingerprint evidence. Seems reasonable since the DNA tests are currently being done.

I won't weigh in on guilt or innocence.. But i will say that I feel there's enough doubt here that he should have a life sentence vs a death sentence.

Best I can tell.. He's still on death row?

To me, for a death sentence, you have to get even further beyond reasonable doubt.

I won't weigh in on guilt or innocence.. But i will say that I feel there's enough doubt here that he should have a life sentence vs a death sentence.

Best I can tell.. He's still on death row?

To me, for a death sentence, you have to get even further beyond reasonable doubt.

Agree on that. You can't make a mistake with someone that gets the death penalty. You can make a tragic mistake of putting someone in jail for 30 years, but as bad as that is, at least you can reverse it and compensate the person. Darlie Routier comes to mind too. I think she did it, but man, there is still the 5-10% that says don't kill her just in case we are wrong and you execute an innocent mother.

Many of them I am fine to see get the death penalty and am comfortable that they did it. Some don't even deny it. Oba Chandler for example.

Agree on that. You can't make a mistake with someone that gets the death penalty. You can make a tragic mistake of putting someone in jail for 30 years, but as bad as that is, at least you can reverse it and compensate the person. Darlie Routier comes to mind too. I think she did it, but man, there is still the 5-10% that says don't kill her just in case we are wrong and you execute an innocent mother.

Many of them I am fine to see get the death penalty and am comfortable that they did it. Some don't even deny it. Oba Chandler for example.

I'd.. Take a little exception to saying you can "reverse" it.. But, I get what you were intending to get across there. You can't give someone back 30 years of their life, and.. Honestly, no amount of money can make up for that, either. but.. Money is all that you can do. Unfortunately, many of these cases, the money is rather poor compared to what they went through.

Death.. Is pretty final. While I am pro-death penalty.. There can be no mistakes there. What was that guy about.. 10 years or so ago.. He had celebrities out the wazoo claiming he was innocent and of course, he was as well. He was executed and they found some DNA evidence.. Which.. Proved his guilt.

Ah.. Think I was off on the dates.. this sounds like the case

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10823771

I don't know of a case where someone innocent was executed since the 70's. Many people will point to certain cases, but there is no proof they were innocent. Hell.. Even.. Let's say that Damien Nichols had been executed. There'd be no PROOF that he was innocent. That being said.. The 'proof' of his guilt is pretty lacking as well.

Prior to the 70's.. Especially here in the south.. Yeah. Here in SC they executed an innocent 13 year old kid as I recall. Again, i'm wrong on dates.. He was 14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney

I won't weigh in on guilt or innocence.. But i will say that I feel there's enough doubt here that he should have a life sentence vs a death sentence.

Best I can tell.. He's still on death row?

To me, for a death sentence, you have to get even further beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't disagree with this. I think Zeigler is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but cannot say that he is guilty beyond all doubt.

I don't disagree with this. I think Zeigler is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but cannot say that he is guilty beyond all doubt.

This is how I feel about Zeiglar’s guilt, along with also believing he did not get a fair trial, but it’s too late to do anything about it. For this reason he is where he needs to be, on death row essentially serving life without parole.

This is how I feel about Zeiglar’s guilt, along with also believing he did not get a fair trial, but it’s too late to do anything about it. For this reason he is where he needs to be, on death row essentially serving life without parole.

Agree with this. I am certain the whole story is unknown; pretty darn certain Zeigler was involved; and very certain that the trial was tainted by the judge.

I will go further and say that if the trial were thrown out based on the obvious bias of the judge - and, despite my belief in Zeigler's culpability, that would not, it must be said, be an unreasonable outcome - I am not at all certain at this point that the prosecution could secure a conviction with what they have left in terms of witnesses etc.

I think the death sentence he received that has been effectively turned into a life sentence without it officially being done is about right, the prosecution knows there is enough doubt there to probably take the death penalty off the table really, and that it shouldn't have been imposed in the first place, so there is sort of a silent agreement among all parties that even if Zeigler's sentence is never commuted, he will never be executed. It would arguably be cruel and unusual now anyway, we are talking about a 78 year old man here at this point, probably not in the best of health after 50 years in prison, he is no threat to anybody.

I stumbled on this (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1988/11/11/tommy-zeigler-accused-of-murder-plot-prisoner-wife-say-convicted-killer-paid-50000-in-attempt-to-have-3-slain/) article (that may have been posted somewhere earlier in this thread) and it is only briefly mentioned in "Fatal Flaw" but Zeigler tried getting another inmate named Eddie Odom to confess to the murders and that he would pay him to do it. The Eddie Odom story isn't new, and in "Fatal Flaw" it's written off as an inmate trying to cash in on the Zeigler's money, but what has never been mentioned is the fact that the letters to Odom were written in Zeigler's handwriting, and that Odom was also instructed to get someone to murder Zeigler's father. Besides the letters with Zeigler's handwriting, Odom also had a picture of Zeigler's father in his possession. This is extremely damning to Zeigler. Also:

Several months later, Zeigler and Odom began talking about the fake confession, Odom said in his statement. The man who agreed to do it, Thomas, was a member of the so-called “ski-mask bandits,” a group of felons who murdered, raped and robbed their way across rural Central Florida in the mid- 1970s.

According to Odom, Zeigler persuaded a former judge to send him copies of the court file. In one of the letters, Zeigler also claims to have discussed the plot with the judge.

According to a plan outlined in about 100 pages of letters, diagrams and notes, Thomas was supposed to confess that he and handyman Mays killed Zeigler’s wife and her parents while robbing the family furniture store. Zeigler was supposed to be in the store and kill Mays as he witnessed the robbery.

Among the documents in Zeigler’s handwriting are Thomas’ supposed confession, a list of 56 questions that Zeigler apparently thought investigators might ask and notes showing where bodies were found.

“Why are you coming forth and telling us this now?” read the first of the 56 questions.

“I have been thinking about this for a long time and a while back Zeigler got his eye cut open playing football and I found out that people really like him and this has just been bothering me ever since then,” Thomas was supposed to have answered.

There is no doubt in my mind that Zeigler is guilty and has a lot of people hoodwinked. There is no innocent explanation for any of this. "Fatal Flaw" and others try to write this off as Odom lying about it. But how did he get a picture of Zeigler's father? And some of Zeigler's supporters say that Zeigler did in fact write these letters because he was desperate after a decade on death row (the article above was written in 1988). The only problem? These letters were written in 1977, but were not made public until Zeigler's sentencing was overturned in April of 1988, and the prosecution used this as evidence against him at the new sentencing hearing.

https://www.wesh.com/article/zeigler-new-dna-evidence-proves-he-not-killer/63466904

Update on this case. Zeigler and his attorneys say new DNA evidence clears him of the murders.

Sorry. I read the new article this morning and I don’t believe it proves anything.

Sorry. I read the new article this morning and I don’t believe it proves anything.

It doesn't, but it will be effective, IMO. People will read the headline, and some of them will read the article, and think he's "innocent". Charlie Mays has always had Perry Edwards' blood on the bottom of his pants. This was known at Zeigler's trial. And the only blood found on Zeigler's shirt was from Charlie Mays. This has been known for years. This is nothing new.

What is new is that Zeigler had Perry Edwards' blood on his shoes. None of this evidence refutes Felton Thomas or Edward Williams' testimony at trial. And Felton Thomas has never changed his story from 1975.

It doesn't, but it will be effective, IMO. People will read the headline, and some of them will read the article, and think he's "innocent". Charlie Mays has always had Perry Edwards' blood on the bottom of his pants. This was known at Zeigler's trial. And the only blood found on Zeigler's shirt was from Charlie Mays. This has been known for years. This is nothing new.

What is new is that Zeigler had Perry Edwards' blood on his shoes. None of this evidence refutes Felton Thomas or Edward Williams' testimony at trial. And Felton Thomas has never changed his story from 1975.

That's not true, when he was approached by Zeigler's attorney decades later he said he never fired the gun in the end.

Thomas and Williams' testimonies were so ridiculous that they should never have been used to convict him.

Sorry. I read the new article this morning and I don’t believe it proves anything.

I'm not so sure about that. Here are the results from the motion:

https://fladeathpenalty.substack.com/p/orange-county-william-thomas-tommy?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true


1. Perry’s blood was found on Eunice’s body. “Perry’s blood appears in large quantities on the other victims but only as specks on Zeigler’s shoes,” indicating Zeigler “could not have shot Perry at close range . . . .”

2. Perry’s blood on Eunice’s body “proves that the killer must have been covered in Perry’s blood,” and it wasn’t Zeigler.

3. Touch DNA, “which identifies skin cells transferred to an object through physical contact,” reveals “DNA that appears to belong to Mays on the very locations on Eunice’s clothing that her killer would have needed to grab to rearrange her clothing after her death. Critically, every other individual at the Store has been excluded as a potential source of that DNA.”

4. “DNA testing confirms that Zeigler does not have the victims’ blood anywhere on his clothes (with the exception of two small drops of Perry’s blood on his shoe which is consistent with Zeigler’s testimony that he crossed the store, which was

covered in Perry’s blood).”

I’m just not convinced. At all.

Here is the complete motion where they explain the testing results and points in more detail:

https://www.docdroid.com/8718JZ4/zeigler-dna-motion-pdf

I agree it's not a total smoking gun, but I do think they are making good points.

Honestly, I find it messed up that Tommy has only specs of Perry's blood on his shoes, but that Eunice and Virgina were covered with significant amounts of Perry's blood. How can this be if the killer didn't beat each of them? And if Tommy killed them, why wasn't he covered with Perry's blood too? This makes absolutely no sense.

And touch DNA from Mays on Eunice's clothes? What is it doing there?

They’re just going to have to come up with something more than this to convince me he isn’t guilty. If it was as simple as saying, yes, here is the victims DNA on Tommy, and here is Tommy’s DNA on the victim,so he is definitely guilty,it might convince me. But it isn’t that cut and dried. There just isn’t enough there for me to believe that he’s innocent.

They’re just going to have to come up with something more than this to convince me he isn’t guilty. If it was as simple as saying, yes, here is the victims DNA on Tommy, and here is Tommy’s DNA on the victim,so he is definitely guilty,it might convince me. But it isn’t that cut and dried. There just isn’t enough there for me to believe that he’s innocent.

They don't want to convince anyone that he is 100% innocent. They want to show that there is reasonable doubt and the charges should be vacated in light of this.

The prosecution claimed since the start that Mays was baited in the store by Zeigler to be killed and used as a prop. And yet, his touch DNA is on Eunice's clothes, in the areas where they would need to be to lift her. How can this be if he was just a helpless victim?

I think elements like this are enough to cast serious doubt on the conviction.

Also this is interesting:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2025/01/18/long-awaited-dna-analysis-proves-zeigler-innocent-1975-murders-lawyers-say/


Lab analysts had tested Zeigler’s corduroy shirt in 18 spots, including the cuffs, the collar, the front and back, and turned up no blood from his murdered relatives. His glasses and his orange, navy and tan plaid pants also were clean.

But Mays, who had been shot twice and beaten in the head with a linoleum crank, had evidence all over his body indicating culpability, according to the lawyers. In addition to what appeared to be the store’s cash receipts in his pockets, blood from Zeigler’s father-in-law soaked Mays' Converse sneakers and the lower thigh and upper calf of Mays’ trousers, according to the results.

The bottoms of Mays’ shoes also suggested he’d moved around the store closer to Perry Edwards’ death. They bore Persian cat fur matted with blood and brown rug fibers from the front of Zeigler’s store, where evidence showed Edwards had been first shot in the ear and shoulder, and near where Virginia Edwards died. Zeigler and his wife kept five Persian show cats that they took to competitions around Florida, but the cats had never come to the store.

There was more. Eunice Zeigler, repositioned after her death, also was splattered with her father’s blood. It was found inside her lapel, on the back of her pant leg, on a sock inside her shoe and on the shoe. Someone with hands covered in Perry Edwards’ blood had rearranged her clothes after her death, the lawyers told Zeigler, replacing her shoe on her foot and buttoning up her jacket.

The absence of any of Perry Edwards’ blood on Zeigler’s clothes meant he couldn’t have been there when Eunice, Perry and Virginia Edwards were killed, the lawyers told Zeigler. The victims had each been shot in the head with large-caliber bullets and there were no exit wounds, which meant the killer would have been splattered with their blood.

Adding to the defense theory that Mays was a perpetrator — and not a victim — his blood and touch DNA were found in minute amounts on the cuffs of Eunice’s herringbone jacket and at the opening of one pocket. This suggested Mays had moved her and buttoned up her coat.

Zeigler allowed himself to feel satisfaction. He knew this was going to be the outcome. At the same time, he couldn’t force himself to get excited. He’d been disappointed too many times before, he said.

He had initially sought early DNA testing in 1994 after he heard about a prosecutor in Orange County being the first to use it to convict a rapist. A judge finally granted the analysis in 2001 after Florida passed a DNA testing law. Forensic tests on four tiny squares of Zeigler’s clothes failed to detect his family members’ blood.

But his appeals of innocence went nowhere, even after two expert witnesses testified that based on the limited tests, Zeigler could not have killed his family.

Florida prosecutors and judges all the way to the state Supreme Court denied further requests, saying that the information gleaned from the analysis would not automatically acquit Zeigler, as Florida’s DNA testing law required.

Michaeli and Tracey told Zeigler they thought they now had enough.

But one mystery remains unsolved for now. Spots of blood on Mays’ shirt do not match anyone who was in the store that night, and a search of the national criminal database of DNA yielded no results.

That's not true, when he was approached by Zeigler's attorney decades later he said he never fired the gun in the end.

Thomas and Williams' testimonies were so ridiculous that they should never have been used to convict him.

I watched that video where the "investigator" harasses Felton Thomas to the point where he just starts saying he doesn't remember anything. It was obvious to anyone who watched that video that he didn't want to talk to her and was giving very short answers, which they claim was a recantation. Get him to do it under oath, or it's a total nothingburger.

I watched that video where the "investigator" harasses Felton Thomas to the point where he just starts saying he doesn't remember anything. It was obvious to anyone who watched that video that he didn't want to talk to her and was giving very short answers, which they claim was a recantation. Get him to do it under oath, or it's a total nothingburger.

I agree she might have been a bit of a pest and he might have wanted to be left alone on that specific occasion, but Thomas issued a stronger recantation than you claim:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2016/03/08/tommy-zeigler-case-justice-journalists-probe-1976-murder-conviction/


Since then, key eyewitness Felton Thomas has also recanted his testimony.

Initially, Thomas testified that he, Zeigler and Mays fired guns out a car window in an orange grove the night of the killings. Prosecutors argued Zeigler did that to frame others and get their prints on weapons.

In 2013, Thomas told a private investigator he told the story because “police told him it had to have been Zeigler,” according to court records.


I think it's extremely bothersome that he's been sent to prison according to the laughable and highly dubious testimony of witnesses who are all shown to be pathological liars.

I think it's extremely bothersome that he's been sent to prison according to the laughable and highly dubious testimony of witnesses who are all shown to be pathological liars.

Frank Thomas, Edward Williams (now deceased), and several others have never recanted what they testified at trial. Felton Thomas's "recantation" was him wanting this woman he didn't know to stop asking him questions. IIRC, one of Felton's relatives shows up at one point in the video and tells him to deny everything because they were going to pin it on him if he didn't. And...just curious, did they ever find one single fiber of evidence that Felton Thomas was in the store that night? How about Edward Williams?

Frank Thomas, Edward Williams (now deceased), and several others have never recanted what they testified at trial. Felton Thomas's "recantation" was him wanting this woman he didn't know to stop asking him questions. IIRC, one of Felton's relatives shows up at one point in the video and tells him to deny everything because they were going to pin it on him if he didn't. And...just curious, did they ever find one single fiber of evidence that Felton Thomas was in the store that night? How about Edward Williams?

Felton Thomas, I don't think so. But then again, it was the seventies, and the scene was extremely complex and messy, so it's obvious that they could never test everything.

I'm not sure why Williams would be relevant, because he was an employee. He was in that store almost every weekday.

And as far as their testimonies, even the jurors at the trial found it unbelievable. Williams clearly changed his clothes and lied about it. He also lied about crossing from the furniture store to the KFC across the streets, because the timeline doesn't match and other witnesses have almost certainly seen him at the KFC at around 9:20pm, so he couldn't have taken 40 minutes to cross a street. He also said he was trapped inside the store because a gate was locked but that wasn't true, it was openable by a simple mechanism, and as a Zeigler employee, it's highly dubious that he wouldn't have known this.

And let's look in the latest filing from Zeigler's lawyers at what Thomas said to the investigator exactly. He did say some very troubling things:

This Court has repeatedly recognized Thomas’ testimony as key to Zeigler’s conviction.3 Critically, however, Thomas has since recanted crucial portions of that testimony. As discussed above, Thomas testified at trial that Zeigler picked Mays and him up on the night of the murders, transported them to a nearby orange grove, and had them fire guns out the window of the car. Ex. C at 1151-52, 1154-55. According to the State, Thomas’ account proved that Zeigler intended to kill Mays and frame him for the other murders by having Mays and Thomas handle the murder weapons so that their fingerprints would be found on them. Id. at 2542-45. The degree to which
the State emphasized Thomas’s testimony cannot be overstated. See e.g., id. at 2542-45, 2550, 2556, 2558, 2562.

Zeigler filed a timely Rule 3.851 motion to set aside his convictions based on these discoveries, which was denied on the ground that the suppression of Robert Foster’s existence was not sufficient to “undermine [the Court’s] confidence in the outcome” in light of other evidence of guilt such as “the testimony of Smith, Thomas, and Williams.” See Zeigler v. State, 130 So. 3d 694, at *1 (Fla. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2292 (2014). 3 See, e.g., Zeigler, 130 So. 3d, at *1 (“there is no reasonable probability that, had the [suppressed] evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. . . to have believed [Zeigler’s] story, the jury would necessarily have had to disbelieve the testimony of Smith, Thomas, and Williams. . . .”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Zeigler v. State, 116 So. 3d 255, 256-57 (Fla. 2013) cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 825 (2013) (“in order to accept Zeigler's theory of the case, the jury would have had to disbelieve at least three witnesses who testified at the trial [Smith, Thomas, and Williams]. . . even if the DNA results comported with the scenario most favorable to Zeigler, he still would not have been able to show that the evidence would have probably produced an acquittal”) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original); Zeigler v. State, 967 So. 2d 125, 131 (Fla. 2007) (same); Zeigler v. State, 654 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1995) (same); Zeigler, 402 So. 2d at 368 (“To have believed [Zeigler's] story, the jury would necessarily have had to disbelieve the testimony of Smith, Thomas, and Williams . . . .”).

Two critical aspects of Thomas’s testimony were that (1) Thomas could positively identify the driver he rode with the night of the murders to be Zeigler; and (2) the driver had Thomas and Mays handle and fire the guns as part of his plot to frame them—which the State contended was the whole purpose for the trip. Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365, 368 (Fla. 1981). But Thomas now states that neither of those two critical aspects of his trial testimony is true. Thomas, who reports still being afraid to speak about this case for fear of his safety and wellbeing despite knowing that Zeigler is in jail and on death row, insisted that the conversation take place in the front lobby of the Ft. Pierce, Florida police station, which is under video surveillance. Ex. O at 1. In an interview with investigator Lynn-Marie Carty, Thomas was asked whether the “white man” he saw in the car the night of the murders was Zeigler. Audio Recorded Interview of Felton Thomas, Jr. at 31.4 Thomas responded “I still don’t know who it was.” Id. Thomas explained that the police never showed him a photo lineup or even asked Thomas who he had seen that night. Id. at 3:8-12; 53. Instead, in a clear effort to manipulate Thomas’s testimony, the police told Thomas that the man he reported seeing was Zeigler, and improperly provided Thomas with additional information about their case against Zeigler to enable Thomas to falsely identify Zeigler. Id. at 49-50.

Thomas recounted how instead of asking him for the identity of the “white man” he had seen, “detectives” on the night of the murders “said Zeigler – that this man Zeigler said he called and say Charlie tried to rob him – Charlie tried to rob him. Said he had – he had done shot himself in the side right here. They could tell he had shot himself in the side because he had gun powder right here.” Id. at 50:1-6. Thomas explained that he stated that the “white man” from the car was 4 The “Audio Recorded Interview of Felton Thomas, Jr.” is attached as Exhibit A to the June 24, 2015 Affidavit of Lynn-Marie Carty (See Ex. O). 35 Zeigler because “Zeigler” was “the way they call him,” referring to the police, and that the police told him Zeigler had committed the murders. Id. at 31:20-25.

Not only was Thomas never shown any lineup, but he also concedes that if he had, he might have identified someone else. In response to the question “Do you think you could point out the wrong white guy?,” Thomas responded “If I don’t [know] a person . . . and you line a whole lot of people up I ain’t seen but one -- one time, . . . I don’t know who I might pick out . . . .” Id. at 42:17-20. When asked about whether Zeigler was the man from the car, Thomas referred to media reports that linked Zeigler to the murders, suggesting he had formed his view about whether Zeigler was the same person he had seen in the car from police and media accounts that Zeigler was guilty. Id. at 38:7-20. Thomas also told Carty repeatedly that he never fired or even touched any guns on the night of the murders. Carty asked, “So you didn’t fire guns?” to which Thomas responded, “No, no, no . . . I ain’t fire.” Id. at 23:20-23. Carty confronted Thomas with his trial testimony, in which Thomas testified clearly that he did fire a gun the night of the murders. Thomas now claims that his testimony was “wrong . . . I don’t give a **** what they say [referring to the transcript of his trial testimony]. I know I didn’t do that, I didn’t do that . . . I never had my hand on one of those guns. Never.” Id. at 61-62 (emphasis added).

Thomas has directly contradicted his prior trial testimony in at least two other critical respects. First, Thomas stated that the car the “white man” was driving had four doors, rather than two as he testified at trial. When asked in his recent interview, “How many doors? Do you remember how many doors [the “white man’s car] had?” Thomas responded “Yeah. It got four doors on it.” Id. at 73:4-6. By contrast, Thomas insisted at trial that the car that the “white man” was driving the night of the murders “didn’t have no back door to it.” TT. at 1184:24-25—1185:1- 36 2. This is an important change in Thomas’ story because the car that Zeigler drove that night had only two doors, not four. Motion for DNA Testing Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 925.11(1)(a) (“2015 DNA Motion”) (See Exhibit Q) at 11. Second, contrary to his trial testimony, Thomas stated that there were no cars other than Mays’ van and the car driven by the “white man” at the Store on the night of the murders. Thomas stated that when he, Mays, and the “white man” went to the Store, there were “[n]o cars. No nothing there. When we got back, there was nothing there but just [Mays’] van.” Ex. O at 20:11- 13. That account is simply inconsistent with the State’s claim that Perry and Virginia drove to the Store separately from Eunice and were subsequently murdered by Zeigler. It is also inconsistent
with Thomas’s trial testimony that he “saw a vehicle parked in front of the store when we first got there,” which he “took [] to be a Buick,” and that this extra vehicle “was still there” after Thomas returned with the “white man” from the orange grove. Ex. C at 1157:16-20.

So he never properly identified Zeigler, he claims that to this day he still doesn't know who it was, and contradicting his testimony under oath, he says he never had his hands on these guns, and he "doesn't give a s*** what the court filings say".

Quite simply, these testimonies are laughable, and they are the basis for Zeigler still being in jail to this day, and being probably doomed to die there. It's ludicrous.

I'm not sure why Williams would be relevant, because he was an employee. He was in that store almost every weekday.

Because if he was involved in the murders, his DNA or evidence of him being there when they were committed would be there. There isn't anything in this new round of testing that implicates anyone who wasn't found dead or wounded in the store that night.

And as far as their testimonies, even the jurors at the trial found it unbelievable.

He was convicted at his trial, largely due to the testimony of Williams and Thomas.

So he never properly identified Zeigler, he claims that to this day he still doesn't know who it was, and contradicting his testimony under oath, he says he never had his hands on these guns, and he "doesn't give a s*** what the court filings say".

He was not under oath during this bizarre round of questioning from a Zeigler advocate. He was under oath in 1976, however. His family member who was present during this questioning recognized what was going on: Carty was trying to get Thomas to say he shot the guns in the Orange Grove, and the relative told him to deny it because she surmised she was setting up Thomas as one of the "robbers"...which is what Zeigler advocates have alleged all along. He was smart not to play her games and deny everything.

Quite simply, these testimonies are laughable, and they are the basis for Zeigler still being in jail to this day, and being probably doomed to die there. It's ludicrous.

Well that's what should happen to you when you murder 4 people and try to pin it on 3 people.

Because if he was involved in the murders, his DNA or evidence of him being there when they were committed would be there. There isn't anything in this new round of testing that implicates anyone who wasn't found dead or wounded in the store that night.

That would be likely the case if he was involved in the fights. Otherwise, criminals frequently do not leave DNA evidence behind, at least not usable evidence. And back then forensic science was very limited.

The new testing doesn't reveal anyone new being present, but it does suggest that Charlie Mays is more likely to having being involved as a perpetrator, such as is shown by the touch DNA showing he moved Eunice's body.

And there was one piece of evidence that implicated someone who wasn't dead or wounded that night: the loose tooth shown in crime scene photos, and which didn't belong to any of these people. You know, before the police "lost" it. There is no good explanation for this specific piece of evidence being there that doesn't involve another perpetrator that got away and was never caught.

I actually watched the Crime Scene Confidential episode on Zeigler with Alina Burroughs and it was fairly interesting. She was CSI on the Casey Anthony case and she is from Winter Garden herself. She interviewed the original CSI who was there on the scene originally along with many other people on both sides. She says she does believe that the evidence points to someone else being involved.

Something else that I learned in that documentary: Don Frie lied under oath about Robert Foster being a typographical error.



He was convicted at his trial, largely due to the testimony of Williams and Thomas.

He was not under oath during this bizarre round of questioning from a Zeigler advocate. He was under oath in 1976, however. His family member who was present during this questioning recognized what was going on: Carty was trying to get Thomas to say he shot the guns in the Orange Grove, and the relative told him to deny it because she surmised she was setting up Thomas as one of the "robbers"...which is what Zeigler advocates have alleged all along. He was smart not to play her games and deny everything.

He said that he identified Zeigler as the perpetrator because the police told him it was him, not because he recognized him. That's significant.

Zeigler was convinced in 1976. If Zeigler gets granted a new trial and Foster has to testify again, Zeigler's lawyers will play that video and his credibility will be destroyed. With the mountain of supportive evidence that has come to light since then, there is no way that Zeigler doesn't have enough reasonable doubt to be acquitted. That's why the state of Florida is doing everything they can not to let this happen, because they know they would lose.

Because if he was involved in the murders, his DNA or evidence of him being there when they were committed would be there. There isn't anything in this new round of testing that implicates anyone who wasn't found dead or wounded in the store that night.

Except the missing tooth and the blood evidence not connected to anyone present in the store.



He was convicted at his trial, largely due to the testimony of Williams and Thomas.

...because nobody has ever lied under oath?

Williams and Thomas had every reason to lie.

Williams was the one directly connected to the purchase of the murder weapons, and had one on him which he gave to police the night of the murder. He could've easily stolen the gun out of Zeigler's car, and as an employee would've had access to the store after hours.

There was no gun residue on the pants he claims to have been wearing the night of the murders despite the fact that according to him he put a recently fired gun in his pocket. This means he deliberately changed clothes that night after the murders and lied about it.

Thomas claimed Zeigler took them to a orange grove to fire weapons and get residue on their clothes and their fingerprints on the weapons. If Zeigler is guilty, why on earth would he then wipe the guns and remove the fingerprints he went through all that trouble to get?

Thomas also claimed that on the night of the murder he told Cleo Anderson and Kate Mae Seabrook what had happened in the store. Anderson and Seabrook both denied this.

Edward Williams and Felton Thomas just happen to separately go to the police that same night shortly after the murders to essentially hand them their case against Zeigler "Just by co-when-ci-dence, just by co-in-ci-dence. Sure it was, sure it was co-in-ci-dence. Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan too. I used to play for The Chicago Bulls"
(I couldn't resist such a perfect opportunity for the iconic line haha)

All that aside, the entire trial was tainted just by the fact it was presided over by a Judge who had an axe to grind against Zeigler.

He was not under oath during this bizarre round of questioning from a Zeigler advocate. He was under oath in 1976, however. His family member who was present during this questioning recognized what was going on: Carty was trying to get Thomas to say he shot the guns in the Orange Grove, and the relative told him to deny it because she surmised she was setting up Thomas as one of the "robbers"...which is what Zeigler advocates have alleged all along. He was smart not to play her games and deny everything.

Again, you are blindly saying Thomas would never lie under oath but with the same breath assuming Zeigler did. Why is it so impossible to you for it to be the other way around?

And Felton Thomas has never changed his story from 1975.

In fact, it is Tommy Zeiger that has never changed his story from 1975.


Well that's what should happen to you when you murder 4 people and try to pin it on 3 people.

On this we agree. The problem is the Blood evidence is saying Zeigler is innocent and Charlie Mays is guilty:

-Charlie Mays had Perry Edward's blood on his clothes, while Zeigler did not.

-Charlie Mays' blood and touch DNA were found on Eunice's clothes, and in a way that suggested he interacted with her body after her death. Zeigler's clothes had no such evidence nor was evidence of Zeigler found on Eunice.

-Charlie Mays' shoes were covered in blood and fibers that proved he was walking around the store at the time of the murders, not brought in later.

-Spots of blood on Mays’ shirt do not match anyone who was in the store that night.

-The only blood found on Tommy Zeigler was his own, and that of Charlie Mays. Zeigler had absolutely NO BLOOD from his family members on his clothing even though whoever killed them had to have been drenched, based on the crime scene.

It is now a scientifically proven FACT that Charlie Mays was one of the killers. Therefore, this proves Felton Thomas and Ed Williams were lying about the events of the evening.

Also consider:
Tommy Zeigler being guilty means he came up with an absurdly complicated plan to kill his wife and her parents which hinged on them going to the store that night and Tommy being able to overpower all three alone, and with many moving parts involved including Williams buying weapons for him, Mays and Thomas agreeing to test fire the weapons, and going along with odd requests all evening, and then Zeigler simply hoping Williams and Thomas stay quiet after the fact.

Tommy Zeigler being innocent means it's a a simple inside job robbery planned by Williams, who recruited Thomas, Mays, and another unidentified person. They weren't expecting Eunice and her parents to be in the store that night, so when they walked in, the robbers panicked and killed everyone. They were still there when Tommy arrived so they had to kill him too but it went badly and Mays ended up dead.

Occum's Razor makes it clear which scenario is more likely.


What more do you want?

Except the missing tooth and the blood evidence not connected to anyone present in the store.

There was a tooth recovered from the north wall of the crime scene. It matched Charlie Mays. This "missing tooth" is an alleged tooth that was seen in one of the crime scene photos, but it was never recovered or recorded into evidence. It's "missing" in the sense that Zeigler advocates claim they see a tooth in a crime scene photograph and since it wasn't recorded into evidence it is therefore missing.

...because nobody has ever lied under oath?

Williams and Thomas had every reason to lie.

What about Frank Smith? Brian Nedd? Mattie Mays? Brian Nedd helped load the linoleum into Charlie Mays's van on the afternoon of Christmas Eve and he heard Zeigler remind Charlie to come pick up his console television between 7 and 7:30 that evening. Zeigler, under oath, says that he only wished them a Merry Christmas. What incentive would Brian Nedd have to lie under oath? Not to mention the countless other witnesses who testified to seeing Zeigler in or near the store that night...none of whom were connected to the store as "robbers".

Williams was the one directly connected to the purchase of the murder weapons, and had one on him which he gave to police the night of the murder. He could've easily stolen the gun out of Zeigler's car, and as an employee would've had access to the store after hours.

Sure, anything is possible. But, if Edward Williams was involved in a plot to murder Zeigler, why would his accomplices be okay with him going to the police and handing over one of the murder weapons? And why did he willingly go along with a plot to murder a man who had given him employment opportunities and was generally fair to him in an area that was still highly segregated at that time?

There was no gun residue on the pants he claims to have been wearing the night of the murders despite the fact that according to him he put a recently fired gun in his pocket. This means he deliberately changed clothes that night after the murders and lied about it.

This is not true. Williams pants were tested and came back with low levels of GSR metals; Zeigler's pants were tested as well and the results came back negative.

Thomas claimed Zeigler took them to a orange grove to fire weapons and get residue on their clothes and their fingerprints on the weapons. If Zeigler is guilty, why on earth would he then wipe the guns and remove the fingerprints he went through all that trouble to get?

Because one of the guys he planned on framing ran away from the store before he could kill him and the other guy he planned on killing, his gun misfired so he went into full blown panic mode. Most criminals are not calculated geniuses.

Thomas also claimed that on the night of the murder he told Cleo Anderson and Kate Mae Seabrook what had happened in the store. Anderson and Seabrook both denied this.

I believe Cleo Anderson's testimony largely because Felton Thomas did not know that anyone had been murdered in the store while he was at his house that evening. Thomas later went to a juke joint around midnight and that is when he heard about the four murders at the store he was at earlier with Zeigler and Mays. He really wouldn't have any reason to report anything weird to Cleo Anderson because he didn't know four people were murdered yet. And I think Thomas's testimony was misremembering who he had told about being present at the crime scene that night. He told friends that gave him a ride back to Oakland, his brother, and a black deputy in the early morning hours on Christmas.

Edward Williams and Felton Thomas just happen to separately go to the police that same night shortly after the murders to essentially hand them their case against Zeigler

So the inconsistencies in their accounts...why? If they had this excellent plan to frame Zeigler, why did Felton Thomas and Edward Williams have various inconsistencies in their accounts? Felton Thomas admits returning to the furniture store in the early hours on Christmas morning where he learned that Charlie Mays was among those who were murdered...why would he do this if he was just involved in a quadruple homicide there? Rogenia Thomas testified that Williams told her that "a white man" tried assassinating him in the back of Zeigler's store but that the gun misfired three times. If he was involved in a plot to frame Zeigler, why did he not identify him by name to her?

All that aside, the entire trial was tainted just by the fact it was presided over by a Judge who had an axe to grind against Zeigler.

The one thing that I think Zeigler has always had in terms of successfully appealing his sentence would be Judge Paul. The jury recommended life and he overrode that sentence.

Again, you are blindly saying Thomas would never lie under oath but with the same breath assuming Zeigler did. Why is it so impossible to you for it to be the other way around?

Because it's not just Felton Thomas's word vs. Zeigler's. It is a litany of people, all of whom if you believe Zeigler's story are lying, who had no real reason to lie to set up Zeigler, who it is impossible for me to believe all of them are lying.

In fact, it is Tommy Zeiger that has never changed his story from 1975.

Well he did try and get a convicted murderer Eddie Odom to confess to the murders and also murder his father for $50,000. When Odom told the police all of this, they naturally did not believe him until they found in letters found in Odom's possession, which were written in Zeigler's handwriting, detailing his confession and a list of questions that investigators might ask him and what Zeigler wanted him to respond back with. Also found in his possession was a picture of Zeigler's father. How would he have gotten this if innocent furniture store man never sent it to him?

It is now a scientifically proven FACT that Charlie Mays was one of the killers. Therefore, this proves Felton Thomas and Ed Williams were lying about the events of the evening.

No it isn't a proven fact. His blood is found throughout the store. Perry Edwards' blood is found on Eunice. Is he involved in the murder too? Where is the other evidence of outside intruders? Or was Mays working alone? They cannot put Felton Thomas inside that store and have been unable to do so for the last 50 years. Until they can, I will never believe he was involved somehow.

Tommy Zeigler being guilty means he came up with an absurdly complicated plan to kill his wife and her parents which hinged on them going to the store that night and Tommy being able to overpower all three alone, and with many moving parts involved including Williams buying weapons for him, Mays and Thomas agreeing to test fire the weapons, and going along with odd requests all evening, and then Zeigler simply hoping Williams and Thomas stay quiet after the fact.

Evidence suggests whoever shot Eunice did so from behind while she was not facing them. Perry and Virginia Edwards were shot and ambushed as they entered the store. It wouldn't have been that difficult for an armed person to ambush people who thought they were going there to pick out a Christmas present. And Zeigler's "absurdly complicated plan" came to fruition because Felton Thomas refused to go into the store that night, which sent Zeigler into a frenzy.

Tommy Zeigler being innocent means it's a a simple inside job robbery planned by Williams, who recruited Thomas, Mays, and another unidentified person. They weren't expecting Eunice and her parents to be in the store that night, so when they walked in, the robbers panicked and killed everyone. They were still there when Tommy arrived so they had to kill him too but it went badly and Mays ended up dead.

Occum's Razor makes it clear which scenario is more likely.

Reliable handyman with no criminal record decides to plan an inside job robbery in June of 1975 by getting a friend of his to buy "hot guns" and tells his friend that these are for Zeigler, then waits until December 1975 on Christmas Eve to carry out said robbery by recruiting someone completely unknown to him, and a customer of Zeigler's. And as they were robbing the store, Eunice entered and in a panic, someone shot her. Then like all good robbers do in a panic after murdering someone, they stay in the store until Perry and Virginia Edwards enter and they have to deal with them too. Maybe because the furniture inside the store looked so comfortable they decided to hang out even longer to have Zeigler arrive and attack him. Oh no! Zeigler shot Mays, so they have to beat him to death. Then they wipe all of the weapons clean and leave. Poor Edward Williams was stranded there because his truck wouldn't start. But he was lucky enough to have his accomplices, who had no problem killing Charlie Mays, spare him. Then Williams and Thomas go to separate locations to report to police what had happened in an effort to frame Zeigler...who neither one of them knew whether or not he was dead or alive at that point.

Occam's razor.

What more do you want?

Something believable?

A hearing to examine new DNA evidence is set for December 1, 2025 (https://www.wftv.com/news/local/man-granted-hearing-examine-new-dna-evidence-after-nearly-50-years-death-row/7ZWEGNMAJFEHPPQJIY72BENRQ4/)

At this point I would be shocked if he is executed before he dies of other causes. He was sentenced to death in 1976, so I do not think there is another case of anyone in the US awaiting execution for that long. Raymond Riles was on death row in TX 45 years until his sentence commuted to life.

If this crime was commited in NY State he would have been taken off death row and his sentence commuted in 1976. Yes I am being sacastic !

Does anyone know if TZ's gunshot wound in the abdomen was serious or was it just a flesh wound?

Does anyone know if TZ's gunshot wound in the abdomen was serious or was it just a flesh wound?

You can take this as you want it, my friend, a nurse working in the ER when TZ was brought in said his wound was not serious.

I’m sorry, the two links I saw yesterday for articles are behind a paywall.

A judge is set to review the DNA results today in TZ’s case.