Any updates and/or your opinions on the Tommy Zeigler case? [Archive] - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

kadrmas15

05-06-2009, 10:47 PM

Hmm Corky, I am not sure I like your approach in assuming basically that Zeigler is guilty and then shifting the burden to him or (his supporters) to prove that he didnt do it. There are some things you seem to be misinformed on. According to Zeigler, he was not in the store at the time his wife and in laws were murdered. Remember, he had arrangements to meet his wife and in laws at the store that night, if I remember right they were all going out for dinner or to a Christmas Eve gathering or something. Remember, according to Zeigler's account, when he showed up the power was out and unknown to him at the time, his wife and in laws were lying dead in the store.

The reason Zeigler did not identify FT as his attacker is because he did not know FT, so how could he identify someone he did not know? Mays and Williams vehicles were still there because they did not think they would be caught. Williams was spooked and in the ensuing situation left his truck parked at the back of the store because he would have been seen leaving. I mean seriously, the theory of Zeigler being involved in this, at least the way it was presented by the prosecution at trial, simply does not make sense. Okay, you would have to believe that he killed his wife, in laws and a customer, on top of that you would have to believe that he tried to frame Charlie Mays and Felton Thomas by allegedly taking them to a nearby orange grove to shoot guns so he could allegedly taint the guns with Mays and Thomas's fingerprints and their hands with gun powder residue and on top of this you would have to believe that Zeigler would shoot himself in the stomach to make it look like he had been shot by someone else.

If you have just this theory, that could potentially make sense if more supporting evidence were established. In this case it was not. The prosecution alleged the above but then they were forced to admit that in fact all the guns had been wiped clean of fingerprints, so why would Zeigler try to set up others for this and then wipe the guns clean of fingerprints? I mean, Zeigler would be identifying himself as the killer then. Remember, when the police showed up Zeigler's wounds had dried, hence why there was not a blood trail. I imagine it would be a traumatic thing to get shot so I can see how Zeigler could get his times messed up, again it is not his burden to prove that he did not do it.

Basically, even if you thought Zeigler did it, there are too many holes in this case for him to have been convicted. It should have never happened based on the evidence or lack thereof in this case. Not only that, but the state's attorney in Orlando is trying to get a death warrant issued for Zeigler as Zeigler is out of appeals.

Also again, the prosecution's big theory was that Zeigler had first beat his father in law severely while holding him in a head lock and then shooting him. Yet, NONE of Perry Edwards blood was ANYWHERE on Tommy Zeigler. The prosecutions big theory at trial and for decades after the fact was that Perry Edwards blood was on Zeigler because there was type A blood which was the same type as Edwards, on Zeiglers clothes. However DNA testing proved that while there was type A blood on Zeigler's clothes that it was that of an unidentified party and not that of Perry Edwards. There were large quantities of Perry Edwards blood on Charlie Mays which would implicate Charlie Mays in the beating and shooting of Perry Edwards. I mean how could Zeigler, if he beat Perry Edwards and shot him at point blank range, somehow not get ANY blood on him yet Charlie Mays had large quantities of blood on him? It is because Zeigler did not beat, shoot and kill Perry Edwards. For sure Zeigler should have been acquitted of Perry Edwards, if modern forensics had been available in 1976 he would have since it proves that even if you thought Tommy Zeigler was guilty, how could he murder Perry Edwards by beating and shooting him yet have none of his blood on him while another dead man, Charlie Mays, had Perry Edwards blood all over him? Again it just doesnt make sense. It proves that at a minimum there was at least one other yet unidentified person in the furniture store that night which would support Zeigler's account. The state could never explain this and they knew they couldnt just like the police knew they couldnt either.

From the crime scene diagram, Virginia Edwards body was found in the front left part of the store, in the show room area near and end table, chair and sofa, Eunice Zeigler's body was found roughly in the doorway of the kitchen area that was a part of the office/customer service area. Perry Edwards body was found in the back, center part of the showroom near the doorway to the storeroom. Charlie Mays body was found in the back, right area of the showroom near the door to a hallway that led out to the outside, this hallways was separated from the storeroom, it appeared to be a narrow hallway that led from the showroom to the outside of the store, sort of like a back way entrance/exit. My guess it was an emergency exit. Zeigler I believe entered the store through this side hallway and not through the storeroom.

That would further show his story as true as he believed that he got into a fight and shot Charlie Mays in self defense and Charlie Mays was the body that was found closest to the hallway. The fact that Virginia Edwards body was found in the front to me does really not mean much. She was probably going around the store looking at furniture, perhaps Perry was with her at first and when he realized that there were intruders in the store, he got into a physical struggle with Charlie Mays who was in the back of the store too and was shot, either that or Perry Edwards perhaps ran to the back of the store to flee and was caught by Mays? Eunice Zeigler probably went into the kitchen to get something to eat or drink? Maybe she went in there to go into the office? Again, who knows?

kadrmas15

05-06-2009, 11:01 PM

To reply further to this, Charlie Mays was supposedly at the furniture store to pick up a television set. Well, that was the states story anyway. Yet Mays parked his van not in the direct back of the store by the bay door of the storeroom where a customer would come to pick up an item he had placed on order. Rather Mays parked his van in the Winter Garden inn parking lot on the other side of the six foot wire fence that separated the inn's parking lot from the furniture store's back parking/pick up area. Why would Mays do this if he was going to pick up a TV? Now Felton Thomas was the one, the only one that claimed Mays was the furniture store that night to pick up a TV and the state's attorney seemingly accepted this without question.

Now to add to the outrageousness, Ed Williams, by his own admission was at the furniture store that night, hence why his truck was parked behind the store, right behind the bay door. Yet Williams claimed Zeigler first tried to shoot him, but because the gun was empty and then gave the weapon to Williams telling him to get rid of it. Then allegedly Williams claimed that he ran to the fence, climbed the fence and ran to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant across the street rather than just getting in his truck and drive away. On top of that, Williams, who was supposedly aware that Zeigler had just murdered 4 people and had allegedly tried to murder him too, went to a restaurant, carrying a gun that Zeigler had just tried to kill him with, yet told no one, acted perfectly normal and did not report this alleged encounter until hours after the fact?

Also, on top of this, Edward Williams it would appear did not run to the KFC right away but rather waited for some period of time. By the time police arrived, Zeigler's wounds had dried, remember, Williams did not arrive at the KFC until after Zeigler had called the police. So Williams was caught in a lie when he said he ran right to the KFC because by the time Williams was at the KFC, the area was crawling with cops yet Williams, if his story was true, should have arrived at the KFC before any police arrived on the scene since it was right across the street from the furniture store. I say it is because Williams was afraid his truck would be seen fleeing the scene, therefore he knew he could not drive away from the store because he would have been seen as it was evening, so he walked around on foot in the area and hid somewhere until after police arrived and after Zeigler was taken to the hospital at which point, Williams walked into the KFC.

Also, it is ironic that the bullet wounds in fact killed neither Perry Edwards nor Charlie Mays. Perry Edwards was shot more than one, as I believe was Mays, yet both men were beaten to death. What you overlook Corky is that if the two women were left at witnesses they could identify their attacker(s). To be honest, it is obvious that the encounter between Williams and Zeigler did not occur. It is because Williams story has no where, where Zeigler was shot. Williams could have claimed that Zeigler had shot himself and then given the gun but it would make him look guilty. So he made up his lie and it was bought. Now, Williams would have of course been talked to eventually because his truck was there. I say Williams thought up the story about how he could portray himself as some sort of victim, claiming that Zeigler tried to shoot him, when the gun was empty, he gave the gun to Williams, blah, blah, blah, therefor he could justify his truck being there as he worked there and he could also say he was afraid that it would be viewed that he was the killer if he sped away from the scene so that is why he stayed.

Jediknight1823

05-07-2009, 07:44 AM

WHY??!? What possible reason would they have to do frame TZ for such an event and why would they choose to do this? (give me more than he testified at some trial and was a moral crusader)

The moral crusader thing would be the motive. Getting the Edgewater Hotel shut down was a huge thing, there was prostitution and drug dealing going on there. Plus Zeigler was also going after loan sharking and gun running. That's a lot of money, and a lot of pissed off people. Zeigler gets taken out, he can't fight against corruption. What they didn't plan on was Zeigler being able to survive. The plan from the looks of it was to kill Zeigler, and pin it all on him. He would be dead, and his credibility would be completely shot, because he can't refute it. But since he survived, his credibility isn't shot because even though he's in jail, he can refute it. And bring evidence to the table showing that he's innocent.

Corky Kneivel

05-09-2009, 05:50 PM

Jediknight1823, thanks for answering but I just can't buy that theory. Its too complicated, relies on too many unknown factors, involves too many people for it not to be talked about in the decades since, and ultimately just doesn't make sense.

The moral crusader thing would be the motive. Getting the Edgewater Hotel shut down was a huge thing, there was prostitution and drug dealing going on there. Plus Zeigler was also going after loan sharking and gun running. That's a lot of money, and a lot of pissed off people. Zeigler gets taken out, he can't fight against corruption. What they didn't plan on was Zeigler being able to survive. The plan from the looks of it was to kill Zeigler, and pin it all on him. He would be dead, and his credibility would be completely shot, because he can't refute it. But since he survived, his credibility isn't shot because even though he's in jail, he can refute it. And bring evidence to the table showing that he's innocent.

Why not just kill Tommy Z?
When in history has an organized criminal organization ever plotted to get rid of a moral crusader by not just killing the interloper, but murdering the wife and the wife's parents?
The freetommyz.com site contends that the local police dept. was rife with KKK members and were the ones behind the set-up. Why would KKK members employ 3 black guys, 2 of which were on a very familiar basis with Tommy Z? First off, I mean...its not really in the KKK by-laws to be all chummy with black men. Secondly, why use a guy who works for Tommy Z and a guy who buys things off credit from him? How would they be sure these guys would even be willing to go in on it?
I ask again, how could they even know that the people were going to be there that night?
Why murder the two women casually and expertly then get in brawls with the men? Maybe you could say Perry Edwards fought for his life, but from Tommy Z's account, they just jumped him as he walked in the store. If the deal was to frame him for the murders of the others, why beat him up first?
How would murdering Tommy Z at the end of it point to Tommy Z anyways? The police would be looking for a 5th party.

I ask so much of Tommy Z defenders because I feel like the burden of proof is on them. He received a trial and was found guilty.

And lastly, there is ZERO evidence that points to him being innocent. All the DNA evidence proves is that Charlie Mays has Perry Edwards blood on him and that the prosecution's theory of what happened that night has a flaw in that area. It does not absolve Tommy Z at all.

TracyLynnS

05-09-2009, 08:25 PM

What was the original motive that the officials used against Tommy? I gotta go look that up again.

Anyway, like one of the tommyz pages says, if Tommy did it, that is one heck of a convoluted one man crime spree. 5 guns, 28 bullets, all shot by Tommy. Two men beaten to death, and shot, plus the women shot, too. Blood trails everywhere. Pools of blood. Foot prints in blood. Dead bodies all over the place.

And then Tommy shoots himself in the gut, less then a centimeter from hitting his liver, and lays around the store bleeding so long that the blood is dried onto him by the time the cops get there. (Every "innocent" gunshot victim knows that you kill the other people first, then shoot yourself in a nice fleshy part like the forearm. You know, someplace without major arteries or any of the organs required for life.)

And all this done on Christmas eve by the man who sings in the choir of his baptist church while his wife plays the piano, when they were supposed to be at a party where the chief of police and his wife were waiting to meet up with them.

The story about that one dude telling his family that he was going out and would be back later with money for christmas (after he robbed the furniture store) sounds more believable.

kadrmas15

05-09-2009, 11:12 PM

Corky, why do you keep trying to minimize things? Tommy Z is an innocent man, the evidence proves it. Heck, the prosecutions own evidence proves it! This is not like it is just us Tommy Z supporters getting hoodwinked, that believe Tommy Z is innocent, the prosecutions own evidence backs this belief up! That was classic though, I mean, you basically glossed over the fact that according to the prosecution, Tommy Z murdered everyone in the store right?

Well, Perry Edwards was shot and beaten to death, so explain to me, how if Tommy Z murdered Perry Edwards, how he had ZERO of Perry Edwards blood, puke, hair, body fluids, whatever on him, yet Charlie Mays had a bunch of it on him? You cant explain that because Tommy Z did not murder Perry Edwards. Perry Edwards was beaten and shot, everyone agrees there, whoever did that would have got some blood on him or his clothing, yet Zeigler had none. There is just no other way around that except that Zeigler did not do it. I mean, if Zeigler did not murder Perry Edwards, who did? Clearly it was not Zeigler.

I mean, I have heard some pretty far fetched opinions of folks trying to hang someone over the years but this one is up there. I mean okay, I will explain this yet again, for whatever reason you seem determined to believe in Zeigler's guilt despite zero evidence implicating him, but rather a lot of evidence implicating one or members of an unknown party.

Okay, in order to believe Zeigler did this, you would have to believe that not only did he use 5, count em, 5 different guns and fired at least 28 bullets but you would also have to believe that for some reason he wiped the guns clean of fingerprints even though allegedly he was trying to frame someone else for it, hence why he allegedly had them (Felton Thomas and Charlie Mays) handle the guns so he could allgedly taint the guns with their fingerprints and their hands with gunpowder residue, yet all of the guns wiped clean. That does not make sense! Not to mention Edward Williams claimed Zeigler allegedly handed him one of the murder weapons, after Zeigler allegedly tried to kill him with it, yet Williams fingerprints were not on the guns either. Why would Williams wipe the gun clean of fingerprints unless he had something to hide?

Yeah, technically Zeigler got a trial, it was not fair. However yes, sadly that is a major flaw in the American judicial system is once convicted it is a person's burden to prove they were wrongfully convicted, Zeigler has met that burden many times over. I mean, his convictions should be vacated, a new trial ordered, a judgement of acquittal should be entered for the murder of Perry Edwards of which I believe Zeigler was convicted of 2nd degree murder for that charge. Heck Corky, even by your own admission you admitted Zeigler deserves another trial.

Like I said, I just find it odd how you are so steadfast in believing in Zeigler's guilt when there is really not any evidence to back up such a belief? I mean, like I said, the prosecutions own evidence and 'witnesses' prove Zeigler's innocence, not his guilt. Hell, Charlie Mays's own son said his dad said before going out on 12/24/1975 that he was going to have plenty of money for Christmas. Where was he going to get money from? I say because he was going to rob the store. Mays and Felton Thomas were both associates of Edward Williams. Personally, I feel all three were involved in this to one degree or another. I also do not think they knew that there would be people at the store. I stated all my reasoning for all of this and it is on page 2 of this thread. Yet you glossed over all of it. Basically you seem to have considered none of this, it reminds me of Jeff Ashton saying everything is meaningless and that the defense had proven nothing which is a bunch of crap.

Corky Kneivel

05-10-2009, 05:53 PM

Zeigler is guilty.

I don't think he killed Perry Edwards. Charlie Mays very well might have. Like I said, again, I think he had CM & maybe EW in on it with him, then tried to cover his ass by killing them.

To me, one man coming up with a wild plan to get rid of his family and enlisting a couple of co-horts he plans on setting up for it is A WHOLE LOT more plausible than a criminal conspiracy of KKKops, a couple of random black guys - one of whom has never had any trouble with the law, the DAs office, a now-federal judge, two Bahamian baton twirlers, the skunk ape, George Hamilton's tan, an any other crazy idea thrown in.

And so what if the guy was a church going man and it was on Christmas Eve? Dennis Rader/BTK was president of his church choir or some such.

He uses multiple guns to make it look like multiple offenders.

And why doesn it make no sense that the guns were wiped clean? Things obviously didn't go like WHOEVER had it planned to, and he gets mixed up as to which guns have his prints on them, which have CMs, so he wipes them all down before the cops get there. In your wild assed scenario, CM murders Perry Edwards and then wipes his own gun clean...after he's dead himself or before?

I don't think the orange grove trip ever happened, or if it did it happened previous to the day of the murders. If it happened prior to the day of the murders then it was Tommy Z trying to get their finger prints on the guns.

Tell me how the murderers knew the family would get to the store first so they could be killed and staged to look as if it was Tommy. Tell me how the murderers knew Tommy would be coming to the store later than his family, as TZ contends he had no plans to meet the people you contend were conspirators??

Your story makes no sense, Tommy Z was found guilty, DNA evidence proves the defense's blood theory couldn't happen, the judge at the trial should have recused himself, those cops may have had ties to the KKK, TZ went to church a lot, he may have been a moral crusader...see I can live wiuth all those things existing together. And also, the theory concocted by freetommyz.com is horsepuckey.

kadrmas15

05-10-2009, 08:19 PM

How is he guilty? You still have yet to explain that. You keep saying guilty, guilty, guilty, but yet you have nothing to back it up. Actually, it is the prosecutions blood theory that does not make sense. Zeigler's makes perfect sense since he said he got into a fight with someone that he could not see, because it was dark in the store, he also said he did not kill anyone, his father in law included, that was already proven. I mean I get you are for whatever reason desperate to believe in Zeigler's guilt but this is pretty ridiculous. You pretty much are like Jeff Ashton, ignoring all the evidence which proves Zeigler's innocence not his guilt. It is quite frustrating. Yeah, Zeigler had never been in trouble with the law either, how does that make him more likely to have done the killings? It doesnt. Zeigler had nothing to gain by this, he was already rich. This whole thing sort of reminds me of the movie the Fugitive.

kadrmas15

05-10-2009, 09:28 PM

The theories are 'horsepukey' huh? Nope. The prosecutions theory is what does not make sense. I do wish you would make up your mind about which side you are on though. First you say the prosecutions theory does not make sense, than you say the defense theory does not make sense. Which one is it? It is not a situation where you can have it both ways, because you say he is guilty yet offer really no evidence towards proving this other than to say he was convicted at trial so you are satisfied with that. There is loads of reversable error in this case and I am saddened the courts have not done so. Not only that, but because all of this is really being dug back up again, the Orange County State's Attorney is taking revenge by asking the Governor of Florida to issue a death warrant for Zeigler.

Well actually Corky, it is really not that far fetched at all that Ed Williams would know what Zeigler was doing. Williams and Zeigler had known each other for years as Williams had worked for Zeigler and his family for several years. It could be Zeigler inadvertently told Williams that he and his wife and his in laws were going to a Christmas party. Who knows? It has been known to happen that people listen to other people's conversations or find out little tid bits of information.

Corky again, you contradict yourself. First you say that you do not think Williams and Felton Thomas and Charlie Mays were involved because they would have to kill too many people and have too many guns. But then you argue that you think Zeigler did it on his own, then when you realize after I and others told you that even if you thought Zeigler did it, it is pretty obvious that he did not act alone, then you change your theory yet again to now say (because there is tangible evidence proving Zeigler's innocence in the death of Perry Edwards) that you think Zeigler and Charlie Mays and probably Felton Thomas and Edward Williams were all involved in this.

Again, I mean I get that for whatever reason you are desperate to believe in Zeigler's guilt. However you are grasping at some major straws and contradicting your own theory on major points to the point where it simply does not make sense. I mean I do not know if it just makes you feel better psychologically or something to believe in his guilt or what the deal with that is? You just remind me of Jeff Ashton when you say everything the defense brings up is 'nothing and meaningless' and doesnt make sense even though the prosecutions own theory does not make sense and at least to a degree has been proven to be bunk and crap.

I mean, I would think even if someone felt that Zeigler was guilty that they would be hard pressed to argue against a new trial for Zeigler. I mean after all, if the case is so solid as you claim than you should have zero problem getting a conviction again.

mozartpc27

06-17-2010, 01:49 AM

So, for the last couple of days, I have become totally fascinated by this case. I doubt I will be able to post all my thoughts on it tonight, but I think I now have read enough to begin piecing some things together.

First off, I must say I have posted on this case extensively once before, here (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=164232&highlight=ziegler). At that time, I really had only viewed the UM segment, and, based on it, I decided that Tommy Zeigler was definitely not guilty of the crime he was convicted of committing. However, in that same post, I also noted that the segment in question did an unusually poor job, by UM's standards, of organizing and presenting the evidence on either side of the question. As a result, there were a lot of things left by the segment open entirely to question that clearly must have answers.

Now, I have read most of this (http://phillipfinch.com/FatalFlaw/FatalFlaw.pdf) book, Fatal Flaw, by Phillip Finch, as well as some of the information on www.freetommyz.com, and all of the posts in this thread. Having done this, I can certainly forgive UM for some of the confusion in their account; they only had sixteen minutes (the approximate length of their segment) to present this enormously complex case, with lots of different physical evidence and eyewitness testimony to consider. And, having read now all that I have read, I am less certain about what really happened that night than I was before; I don't think, were I on a jury, that I could vote to convict Tommy Zeigler, because I don't know if my suspiscions pass the threshold of "reasonable doubt," but I don't necessarily think he is just an innocent guy anymore, rotting unfairly away on death row. In fact, having read everything, I do believe Corky might have really been on to something there with the "Tommy Ziegler conspired with Ed Williams and possibly others" to kill his wife angle; it was an idea that had certainly occurred to me, based on everything I was looking at, before I went ahead and read this thread. I conclude my little preamble here by stating that it must be noted that much of what I will present here and in any posts that follow will come not from the UM segment, but from this outside material I have read on the case.

For part I of my little review of this case, which I can complete tonight, let's review the UM segment, and also what the UM segment fails to tells us.

The UM segment begins with a sort of "standard" overview of Ziegler's life: they tell us he was wealthy, connected, and well-established. They then move on to relating their version of the prosecution's version of what happened (and I stress that this really isn't the complete narrative from the prosecution's side, but rather UM's "reader's digest" version of the prosecution's case):

1. On Christmas Eve, 1975, Tommy Ziegler murders his wife in the kitchen area of his furniture store. This is to cash in on life insurance policies on her.

2. We then get an interjection into this narrative from Tommy Zeigler himself, who, in an interview with UM, tells us he loved his wife, their marriage was the envy of all the world, he could never dream of harming his beautiful flower, etc.

3. Next, the UM segment tells us that Tommy Ziegler shot and killed his wife's parents. The way the segment shows the crime being committed at this point, it is strongly implied that he shoots one, then the other, as they are standing next to each other.

4. Next, the UM segment tells us that Charlie Mays, a customer, arrives as part of a pre-arranged meeting to pick up a television set. Zeigler murders him too, part of his plan to make this all look like a robbery gone bad. To that end, we're told that Mays is found with cash and store receipts stuffed in his pockets; at this point, the implication is that Zeigler stuffed them into the pockets to support his "robbery" scenario.

5. Next, the UM segment tells us that Zeigler then finished the bloodbath by shooting himself, to lend credence to the idea that he was a victim.

UM has now summarized the prosecution's theory of the crime in about one minute; the first minute of the segment is dedicated to the little bit of background information we are given on Zeigler. At this point, we have not actually been given all the details of Zeigler's plot that the UM segment will offer; some of the rest of it comes later.

6. Next, we are told that Zeigler was quickly arrested and charged, despite the elaborate attempt at a cover up by Zeigler alleged by the authorities.

7. Next, UM gives us a summary of Zeigler's version of events: he planned to meet his wife and her parents at the store. When he got there, he was surprised to find the lights not working. He walked further into the store, and before he had gotten too far, he was accosted from behind, and then struggled with these thugs. The UM segment tells us that he kept a lot of cash on hand at the store, and carried a gun for protection; it is implied that he used to shoot at his assailants, before he was shot himself.

8. UM then tells us that they had Zeigler take a lie detector test, and he passed. To this point, the UM segment has lasted four and a half minutes. There are 11 and a half or so to go.

9. After some garbage time getting us back in from commercial, UM continues the story: the cops arrived at 9:25 to find Tommy stumbling out of the store. The segment mentions at this point that Zeigler himself had called the police chief at a private party he was attending to tell him he'd been shot.

10. The UM segment tells us that Eunice Zeigler, from the prosecution's perspective, was found in a pose that suggested she was surprised to get shot. In other words, that she must have known her assailant.

11. The UM segment tells us that Tommy Zeigler had type A and type O blood on him; he was type O, but his father-in-law was type A. His story didn't account for how it could have gotten there.

12. The UM segment lets the defense attorney respond: he says that Tommy was in a fight as he got into the main showroom of the store, in which he was likely beaten with the handle of a gun. Perhaps the blood on Tommy' shirt came from this encounter (though the attorney doesn't exactly explain how that would be).

13. The UM segment tells us that 5 handguns were found, four of which had been wiped clean of fingerprints. Two of them were inexpensive models by a company called RG. The other three were registered to Tommy Zeigler. Tommy insists he only buys the best guns, none of these cheap pieces of crap for him!

14. The prosecution contends that those two cheap guns found at the scene that were not registered to Tommy were connected to him by a witness.

15. The UM segment then finally introduces us to a witness, Felton Thomas. They warn us that Tommy Zeigler denies Felton Thomas's testimony in its entirety, but then show it to us.

16. UM re-creates Thomas's testimony. They show Zeigler meeting Charlie Mays and Felton Thomas outside the store, but saying he didn't have the keys to open the store just yet. He suggests that they go "take a ride," during which he produces some guns he wants them to shoot. They tell us that the prosecution contends that this was all part of a plot to get Mays' and Thomas' fingerprints on the guns, and gun powder residue on their hands.

17. Another defense attorney asks: then why were all the guns wiped clean of fingerprints, after he went to this length to get their fingerprints?

18. Then, they went back to the store, all three of them, where Zeigler asked Thomas to pull the main switch to turn off the power, which he does, and then Zeigler proposed that they break in to the store, which he begins to attempt to do.

19. The UM segment shows Mays and Thomas faintly objecting to this plan, and so Zeigler suggests they go back to his house and get an extra key.

20. The UM segment then says that the prosecution says that the three did this, and then came back to the store. At this point, apparently, Felton Thomas got spooked and left, so only Zeigler and Mays entered the store.

21. The UM segment then relates the prosecution's idea that this is when Mays was killed.

22. The UM segment then lets the defense respond: the defense says that Thomas's whole story would have had to happen in less than 21 minutes. In the segment, no proof is offered for this assertion, and worse, it significance is not even explained.

23. The UM segment then moves on to Ed Williams, another witness for the prosecution. They state the prosecution's assertion that Zeigler gave Williams a handgun. However, they provide no context for this whatsoever. They show, curiously, an officer handling the gun while in his patrol car, apparently having been given it by Williams. Williams did indeed turn it over to authorities, but, of all the events that occurred that involved Williams and that gun, as alleged by the prosecution, this seems like a very curious one to elect to film; wouldn't it be better to show Zeigler giving it to Williams, to help elucidate, for example, how and when that exchange took place? The UM segment really offers nothing on this point, a major failing of the segment, as we shall see.

24. That gun, given to Williams by Zeigler in the prosecution's version of events, proves to be the murder weapon used on his wife's parents.

25. The prosecution says there is no reason not to believe Williams at this point.

26. Zeigler, in this segment, says he claimed that gun was stolen from his truck two weeks before the murders. The UM segment does not properly emphasize this in my opinion, because what this means is that Tommy's mother-in-law and father-in-law were NOT killed by one of the two cheap guns, but instead by one of the guns actually registered to Tommy.

27. We are told that Ed Williams had ready access to the vehicle where that gun had been kept, the implication being that he could have stolen it.

28. We are now told that one of the cheap guns did kill Tommy's wife, and that another witness connected Ed Williams to that gun.

29. The witness, unnamed in the segment, admits to buying the guns, he says for Tommy Zeigler. But, he admits he never actually met Tommy Zeigler. He bought the guns, and was given money by Edward Williams. So the only person he knows to have handled those guns, then, is Edward Williams.

30. The defense says that some things weren't reported at trial. Their first example is that a couple driving by the store saw more cars in the parking lot than the prosecution's narrative accounts for, and that the same couple also saw a guy who looked like Charlie Mays milling around outside the store. Editorial comment: Not sure what that is supposed to prove exactly; no one contests that he was there that night...

31. UM segment then tells us Tommy was convicted, and that, in what is implied to be (and I am sure is) a highly unusual move, though the jury voted to sentence him to life in prison, the judge set that aside and sentenced him to death instead. Tommy Zeigler then appears to tell us that he was railroaded. We are told about a "bitter legal dispute" in which the two men were on opposing sides but are given no further details.

32. The prosecutor says all defense claims are baseless when analyzed.

33. Finally, we get to hear a tape from a witness who talked with prosecutors but who was not presented at trial and whose testimony was never disclosed to the defense. It fouls up the prosecution's time line and broadly suggests the police might have been involved in executing the crime that happened.

And that's it, the segment in order. From this, you can see that they way UM chooses to present things makes it hard to parse the timeline of the "official" version of events, because UM chops them up so badly. Here is what UM presents in its segment as the prosectuon's case, presented not in the order of the segment, but in the order in which the prosecution contends events transpired. This list limits itself to information provided in the UM segment, except where noted:

1. Ed Williams buys guns from another man for Tommy Zeigler, apparently gives them to Tommy. The segment doesn't mention this, but this occurred in June of 1975.
2. Tommy Zeigler buys additional life insurance on his wife. The segment doesn't mention this, but this happens in the fall of 1975.
3. At some point, Tommy makes a plan to meet Charlie Mays on Christmas Eve at his store to deliver to him a television set he had purchased.
4. On Christmas Eve in the evening, Tommy accompanies his wife and her parents to the store.
5. Tommy shoots his wife.
6. Tommy shoots his wife's parents.
7. Charlie Mays arrives with Felton Thomas (the segment does not say this directly, but it is implied in the segment that Felton being there was not part of "the plan," since Charlie Mays introduces Felton to Tommy, implying they had never met before)
8. Tommy meets them outside the store, where he claims to be waiting for the person with the keys, but while they wait he suggests they go with him for a "ride." At this point, the segment gives only the faintest hint at a key part in the prosecution theory: the prosecution theorizes that Ziegler, after murdering his wife and her parents, left the store for a little while. The UM segment doesn't show this, but what they do show is Zeigler coming up to Mays and Thomas in the car and saying "sorry i'm late," like he has just arrived. The prosecution contends that this is exactly what happened, but they have no theory for where Zeigler supposedly went when he left the store after the first three killings but before coming back to meet Mays and Thomas.
9. Zeigler, Mays, and Thomas go shoot Zeigler's guns.
10. They return to the store, where Zeigler asks Thomas to kill the power to the store by throwing the master switch, which he does. Zeigler then attempts to break into the store. Mays and Thomas object, so he suggests they go get a key from his house.
11. They go get the key and come back. Zeigler asks both Mays and Thomas to go inside, but Thomas refuses, "leaving" instead.
12. Zeigler kills Mays.
13. Zeigler, at some point, in a way totally unexplained, gives a gun to Ed Williams. How Williams and Zeigler met up is not explained.
14. Zeigler then goes back inside the store, and shoots himself, to make himself look like a victim. He then calls the police. (Actually, the segment does not specify which of these two events occurred first in the prosecution theory).
15. Zeigler exits the building as the police arrive.

*Phew*. That was long. But this will set up nicely tomorrow's post: what the UM segment leaves out. The two biggest items:

1. The segment implies Mays was shot like the others. He was, but that is not what killed him. He was savagely beaten on his head.

2. Ed Williams was also, in their theory, supposed to meet Zeigler that night, at his house, rather than at the store. They were to deliver Christmas presents together. After Williams kills Mays, according to the prosecution, he returns home a second time, where Williams has been patiently waiting for him (he was also there the first time Zeigler got back home with Mays and Thomas in tow), and rides with Williams back to the store. There, Zeigler attempts to shoot Williams inside the store, but the gun he is using is empty. Williams runs out of the store, and Zeigler follows, trying to pretend, at this point, that he was not trying to kill Williams. According to Williams, in an attempt to appease him, Tommy gave him the gun he had been attempting to fire. This is the same gun that Williams later gave to authorities, the one that was registered to Tommy and that killed his in-laws, the same one Tommy claims was stolen.

More on this marathon examination of the case tomorrow!!!!!

Corky Kneivel

06-17-2010, 01:03 PM

I'm officially getting old. I came in to reply to this post that i thought TZ was guilty. At the very last moment before sending the reply I thought "maybe I should check and see if I've already replied..."

Whoops.

EDITED TO SAY: mozartpc27, I commend you on the clarity of this effort and I anxiously hope you stay with it. You've helped clear up things for me (in one post alone), and I've also had some further thoughts that would explain TZ's actions. Lastly, I think its fantastic the way you reviewed UM's handling of the segment as well.

Kudos.

brianh333

06-17-2010, 01:11 PM

.
.
.

More on this marathon examination of the case tomorrow!!!!!

Great stuff! This case never really "did it" for me, but the way you lined out all your points, makes for a fascinating read.

Did you ever get "into" the Jeffrey Macdonald case? Did you ever read Fatal Vision? If so, I'd pay good money to read a point-by-point breakdown of why you think he was/wasn't guilty. (For the record, I think he did it, but like most people who think that, I'm basing it solely on the perspective of the way the book and movie were done).

Alvin Karpis

06-17-2010, 02:22 PM

Very nice post Mozart! I look forward to your next one

I have studied the Zeigler case for well over 10 years

No doubt in my mind that he is innocent

mozartpc27

06-17-2010, 05:14 PM

So, I have a few minutes right now, so I am going to continue expounding on what UM "forgot" to tell us in the segment. Besides the two points I mention above (that Charlie Mays was beaten to death, not shot to death, and that Edward Williams had an appointment to meet Zeigler that night, just like Charlie Mays, and that Zeigler and Williams actually rode together to the store at one point), the UM segment leaves out or distorts the following items:

1. Zeigler's wife and her parents were last seen alive at Zeigler's home, with Zeigler there, by a man who worked for him. The man was having car trouble, and earlier in the day Zeigler suggested that they switch cars, so that the man who worked for him would have a reliable vehicle to get him to Orlando (not too far away) where he wanted to visit family for Christmas. When the man arrived at the Zeigler home to make the switch, Zeigler invited him in. Mrs. Zeigler had made a cake, and he had a piece. Everyone was alive, healthy, and happy. He left "shortly before" 7:00 PM, which I take to mean no earlier than 6:45. When he left, he took the Zeiglers' new white car and left his old beige-over-brown Oldsmobile.

2. Zeigler had made the arrangement to meet Williams at his home on Christmas Eve as early as December 22nd. This appointment was re-confirmed earlier in the day on Christmas Eve. Zeigler contends the meeting was set for 7:00, but Williams was late; Williams says it was for 7:30, and Zeigler was late, but had left a note.

3. The bodies inside the store were found all over the place, a detail the UM segment does not deal with. Eunice was found in the kitchen, which hugged the north side of the building, midway between the "front" and "back" of the store. Her mother was found in the front of the store where it faced the street (he southeast corner). Her father was found in the back of the showroom area of the store, midway between the north and south walls. He had been beaten badly before being shot, twice, in the head. He had also been shot in a few other places. Charlie Mays was also found in the back of the showroom area of the store, but much closer to the northwest corner (basically the opposite corner from where Mrs. Zeigler's mother was found). He was found with his pants pulled down to about mid-thigh, so his underwear was exposed. There is a good diagram of where the bodies were found early in that book Fatal Flaw, available here (http://phillipfinch.com/FatalFlaw/FatalFlaw.pdf).

4. There were several eye and ear witnesses who brought forward information and helped to establish a time line of events. One was a woman who had been in her home, waiting for someone to meet her there who was running late. Consequently, she kept checking her clock and was intensely aware of the time. She heard multiple gunshots between 7:20-7:25, and then another set 15 or 20 minutes later, so between 7:35-7:45. The writer of Fatal Flaw treats these windows as being pretty solid, but, considering she figured the second set of shots came "about" 15 or 20 minutes later, I am not sure how he can be so sure. That, to me, means the second round of shots could have come anywhere between 7:30 and 8:00.

5. Another witness provided especially crushing testimony against Tommy Zeigler: he testified he saw Tommy in a car with his wife Eunice the night of the murders at just after 7:00 at an intersection not far from the store. Tommy Zeigler's account, of course, does not have any way of explaining this. If it's true, he's cooked. At trial, the defense brought two witnesses to impugn on this witness's character: his ex-wife, and another woman. They both testified that he had a reputation for being a chronic liar.

6. Edward Williams came to the store with Tommy Zeigler, according to both men's accounts. According to Williams, when they got to the store, Zeigler hopped out of Williams' truck, and opened the gate of the fence that surrounded the back lot of the furniture store. He then had Williams drive his truck into the fenced-in area, and shut the gate behind him. Zeigler then encouraged Williams to follow him in the store, but, in a curious detail, Williams told police he stopped to take a leak outside the store first. Zeigler kept calling for Williams to come in, and he finally did. Zeigler led Williams through a hallway that led from the loading dock in back to the back of the showroom of the store. Once Zeigler was just inside the showroom, he turned around, with a gun in his hand, and tried to fire three shots at Williams. But the gun was either empty, or the bullets were no good misfires. Either way, Williams took off running back down the hall and back outside, into the fenced-in lot. Zeigler pursued, but pretended that he thought Williams was someone else, and pleaded with Williams to come back into the store. According to Williams, Zeigler actually said at this point "if you don't go [with me back into the store], you're going to frame me." Williams refused at first, but then said he would if Zeigler would open the gate first. Zeigler agreed, but instead got into Williams' truck, according to Williams (an odd move). Williams at that point took off, running to the far corner of the fenced-in back lot, climbed the fence, and then ran first into the parking lot of the motel behind the store, then across the street to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. There, he asked to use the telephone, and was shown to one in the back office. He says he attempted to call police, got a wrong number, then ran into two women he knew, and asked them for a ride to Orlando. This was all, according to Williams, around 9:00 PM. After calming down for a few hours, Williams himself went to police in Orlando, and they directed him to the Winter Garden police (the town where it happened), so he was driven there by a companion to give his statement. This statement was ultimately given at about midnight the night of the murders.

7. Among the critical witnesses were three people - a man, his wife, and the man's brother - who claimed to have seen Edward Williams at the Kentucky Fried Chicken the night of the murders, asking to make his phone call. The problem is, they are sure that he came AFTER the police had already arrived at the murder scene and taken the injured Tommy Zeigler away, and AFTER the KFC had closed for the night. The door had to be unlocked and he had to be let in. No one else who remembered Ed Williams asking to use the phone that night was, according to Phillip Finch, the author of Fatal Flaw, as specific about the time, and these three people were disinterested third parties. Other people remember Williams asking about the telephone, but since none of them said whether or not it was before or after the restaurant had closed, Finch (the author) concludes that these three people had the most reliable account.

8. Felton Thomas also turned himself in as a witness to authorities, at about 2:30AM on Christmas morning, still the night of the murders. He tells essentially the same story UM gives, with a little more detail about what happened after they returned from shooting the guns in the orange grove. Zeigler tries to break in to his own store, at which Mays protests vehemently that he doesn't need the television that badly. So, Zeigler suggests they go to his house and get a key, and they do. While they are there, Thomas states that he sees a "car" parked behind Zeigler's pickup truck in his driveway, though he does not say if he saw anyone in the car (the detectives in this case nonetheless took this testimony to generally corroborate what Williams said: he was parked in Zeigler's driveway, behind Zeigler's pickup truck, waiting for Zeigler, when Zeigler arrived with two men he did not claim to know). They then return to the store, but Thomas gets spooked and decides to leave rather than going into the store with Zeigler and Mays. This is where the UM segment ends Thomas's account, but Thomas's story continues: he went to a local shopping mall, where he ran into Samuel Harrison, his two children, and two of their friends. This was between 7:00 and 8:30 (apparently the witnesses differ on when this happened, but they all agree that it did happen). Thomas asks for a ride back to Oakland, where he was staying, and Harrison agrees to give him one. On the way back to Oakland, Thomas mentions that he had just left Charlie Mays, and he felt something was wrong at Zeigler furniture, that something strange was happening.

9. This is the last piece of "missing" evidence from the UM segment I will cover for this review: the Zeiglers and another couple, Don and Rita Ficke, were scheduled to attend a party on Christmas Eve that was to begin at 7:00. Don Ficke was the chief of the Winter Garden police, and considered Tommy Zeigler a close personal friend, from the accounts I have read. Indeed, the only reason Don Ficke was apparently willing to go to the party was because Tommy Zeigler would be there. He didn't particularly care for the person throwing the party, apparently. Anyway, the Zeiglers were supposed to meet the Fickes at their house at 7:00, and then they were all supposed to go to the party together. The Zeiglers didn't show at 7:00, but apparently them being late was hardly unusual. When it got to be around 8:00, the Fickes got in their car and decided to go look for the Zeiglers (this was a small town, where everything was close together). The Fickes drove past the Zeiglers home, looking for them, on three occasions: the first time, at 8:05, they saw the pickup truck Zeigler owned in the driveway; a few minutes later, they drove by again, and this time they saw Ed Williams' truck parked behind Tommy Zeigler's. The third time, Williams' truck was gone, but the Oldsmobile Zeigler had received back when he loaned his car to the man who worked for him was now in Zeigler's "closed" garage (one wonders how he could have seen the Oldsmobile in a closed garage, but I am sure this must have been plausible, otherwise investigating officers or the many people who have written about this case would have picked up on this detail by now). The Fickes then proceeded to the party. When Tommy Zeigler called for help, it was this party that he called; he spoke first to the host, and asked to be put on with Don Ficke. He then told Ficke he'd been shot, and that's how the police were notified.

So, in the statements from Don Ficke, Felton Thomas, and Edward Williams, we have the crux of the problem in this case. There is no evidence any of these men knew each other particularly well before the night in question; in particular, there is nothing to suggest Ed Williams knew Felton Thomas. Each of these men gave independent statements to the police (the Orange County Sheriff's office took over the case from the Winter Garden police, at Ficke's request, the night of the murders). Here is what they all said with regard to Tommy Zeigler's home, which was a 5-10 minute ride from the furniture store:

Edward Williams: He says he got to Tommy's house at about 7:30, at Tommy's request. No one was there, but Tommy had left a note. He said he would be back soon, and asked Williams to wait. He did. Around ten to fifteen minutes later, Tommy showed up, accompanied by two men Williams said he did not know. Tommy went into the house while his passengers waited, and when he came back out and spoke to Williams, asking him to wait another ten minutes or so. Williams agreed. Zeigler then left. While Williams waited, a white couple drove up to the house; this would have been around 8:00 to 8:10. They left. Then Zeigler returned about 10 minutes later. He parked his car in the garage, and got out holding a bag. He moistened a towel or some other cloth, and wiped around the car, put the towel in the sink, came back out, closed the garage door with a remote control clicker, and got into Williams' pick up truck. They left together for the store.

Felton Thomas: He says Zeigler, Mays, and himself all drove to Zeigler's house together. When they got there, he noticed Tommy Zeigler's pickup truck parked in the driveway, and another vehicle parked behind it. He called this vehicle a "car," not a pickup truck, but the story, on its face, seems to support the notion that Williams was where he said he was: he claimed to have parked right behind Zeigler's pickup while waiting for Zeigler, and that is where Felton Thomas saw a second vehicle. Zeigler went inside for a minute, according to Thomas, and when he came back, he had a box of ammunition with him, which he gave to Mays, asking him to reload one of the guns the men had been shooting. They then went back to the store. Thomas didn't have any times associated with anything that happened.

Don Ficke: Ficke testified that he and his wife arrived at Zeigler's house for the first time at 8:10. At this point, they saw Tommy's pickup in the driveway, but no other vehicles; the garage door was open. They then returned a few minutes later, according to Ficke, and now besides Tommy's pickup, there was another pickup in the driveway. The third time they came back, around 8:40 or so, they found the garage door closed, the Oldsmobile of Ficke's employee inside the garage, and the pickup truck gone.

Tommy Zeigler: Zeigler says that his wife and her parents went to the store so her parents could pick out a recliner Tommy and Eunice were going to give them as a Christmas present. This couldn't have happened much earlier than 7, apparently, because Zeigler's employee had been in the house with the Zeigler's and Mrs. Zeigler's parents as late as perhaps 6:50. Zeigler remained behind, waiting for Ed Williams, who was supposed to be there at 7:00, according to Zeigler. He was late. Zeigler then decided to go out and get some bourbon to bring to the party. At trial, Zeigler suggested he made the decision to go after Williams was about 10 minutes late, so around 7:10. He got in his car and headed toward the liquor store, but then changed his mind - at trial, he said it was because he was already frustrated about being behind schedule and and decided to bag the trip rather than making himself more late - and turned around, and came back. From what he said at trial, he hadn't gotten all that far; from what I can tell, maybe a mile or two. When he returned, Williams was waiting for him. From what Zeigler said to police and at trial, I would estimate that he got back to his house about 7:30, according to his own story. When he did, he got into the truck with Williams, and they drove to the store together.

So, there are your four statements, and in them lies the problem: it's hard to make almost any scenario line up correctly. Consider:

1. Ed Williams said he arrived at Tommy's house and waited for him, starting from about 7:30. He does not say he left at any point after arriving. However, Don Ficke says they came to Tommy's house at 8:05, and saw only Tommy's empty pickup truck and nothing else. When they returned a few minutes later, they then saw another pickup truck (presumably Williams's) waiting in the driveway behind Tommy's pickup truck. One of these two stories must be inaccurate, to say the least.

2. However, Don Ficke's account doesn't match up with Zeigler's any more than it does Williams'. if anything, there is even more variance with Zeigler's account. In Zeigler's time line, it seems he and Williams left his house for good at no later than 7:45, but probably before that, together in Williams' pickup truck. Yet Ficke, who considered himself a good friend of Zeigler's, says when he got there at 8:10, and then again at 8:15-8:20, Zeigler's Oldsmobile was not there, but, the second time anyway, Williams's truck was. Only the third time he arrived, closer to 8:40, was the Oldsmobile locked and in the garage.

3. Felton Thomas said he saw another "car" parked behind Tommy's pickup truck in the driveway. Thomas was an itinerant orange-picker who we can safely assume didn't have much of an education, but nonetheless you would expect him to know the difference between a car and a pickup truck. Then again, maybe not.

4. Tommy Zeigler says that while he was waiting for Williams to arrive so they could go pick up and deliver some Christmas presents, he decided to go out to buy some bourbon for the party. He went so far as to get into his car and start driving, but then changed his mind and came back. This strikes me as an awfully convenient, awfully weak story: he was waiting for someone he expected any minute, with whom he was going to run some errands. Why not just pick up the liquor while he is out with Ed Williams delivering presents? Why does he need to go right then, when he is expecting someone? And, once he does go out, how is it that he doesn't complete the errand? That seems even more bizarre. Bizarre, that is, unless what Zeigler was really after was an unverifiable explanation for why his car wasn't there from 7:00 until whenever he got back to go to the store with Williams, leaving his car there. Where was his car during that time? He needs to be able to answer that, in case anyone drives by his house and sees it isn't there (and that of course is exactly what happened). So that is another explanation for this odd story.

The problem here should now be pretty clear:

Ficke is, at least at face value, a third party to this crime. Either Williams or Zeigler may be the main perpetrator, but Ficke is just a spectator to all of this. If that is true, and either Zeigler or Williams is the killer, one would fairly expect Ficke's account to agree with one of EITHER Williams or Zeigler. But it doesn't agree with either, nor do Zeigler's and Williams' accounts agree with each other.

If Ficke is lying, one presumes he is doing it for one of two reasons: he is in league with Zeigler, his avowed friend, or he is in league with Williams, a corrupt official trying to frame up Zeigler. But if Ficke is in cahoots with Zeigler, he is doing a terrible job of it; his story totally contradicts Zeigler's on time. If he is trying to frame Zeigler, then his story helps, but, as it does not agree with Williams's story either, it doesn't help that much. Also, if Ficke is trying to manipulate the case, either for or against Zeigler, why does he almost immediately turn it over to an outside authority (which he does)? Wouldn't he be in a much better position to manipulate the case as lead investigator, rather than as vague witness?

Complicating matters is that Ficke's story and Williams's seem to contradict each other in more ways than one. Ficke's story is a lot closer to Williams's than it is to Zeigler's, but still. If Williams was there from 7:30 until close to 8:30, as he claims, he should have seen the Fickes drive up twice. The fact that Williams only mentions one visit from the Fickes seems to confirm that he wasn't there the whole time, like he said he was. However, while Ficke says he saw Williams's truck the second time he came, Williams's account of the visit from the Fickes that he did see coincides very well with what the Ficke said he did the first time he came. On the second visit, Ficke says he got out of the car and knocked on Zeigler's door; this is when Ficke said he saw the pickup truck, telling police he walked past it twice. Williams doesn't mention Ficke walking past, only that some people pulled up into the driveway, then backed out and left. This is what Ficke said he did the first time he came to the Zeigler house. Moreover, there was some disagreement about whether or not Ficke might have said that he had actually seen Williams's truck both times he and his wife came to the Zeiglers' home. Ficke's wife, Rita, apparently only ever claimed to have seen the truck the second time, and was sure it was not there the first time; Ficke might have contradicted this, or he might not have. Stories differ. This whole mess was such a cluster-**** that, ultimately, neither the prosecution nor the defense chose to present this testimony at trial, even though, from the prosecution's point of view, it could have contradicted Zeigler's claim to have left his home for good no later than 7:45, and, from the defense's point of view, it could have contradicted Williams's claim to have been waiting at the home from 7:30 to about 8:30. The evidence seems to make every theory impossible!

Next: I will look at Tommy Zeigler's story, and ask some troubling questions.

mozartpc27

06-17-2010, 08:29 PM

**** This post extensively edited on 6/18/10 at 5:20 PM ****

So, on we go to Tommy Zeigler's story. I think in looking at it, we need to work through two tasks.

The first is to examine Tommy's story in and of itself, and see if it presents problems that pertain only to what he says he did that day. It's important to look at Tommy's story in a vacuum first, because we must keep in ming that those wishing to get Zeigler out of jail don't have to prove who did murder his wife, her parents, and Charlie Mays; they need only prove that Zeigler didn't do it. His story is their main vehicle for doing it; if his story can be shown to be accurate, then he should be in the clear. So, are there problems with Zeigler's story, outside of other considerations? That is the first thing we need to examine.

As a practical matter, however, because those defending Zeigler usually suggest, intimate, or sometimes even contend that powerful forces within Orange County were involved in this murder, and that several people in power had the motive, means, and opportunity either to try to kill Tommy or at the least frame him for the murders of his wife and her parents, I think we also need to think about this: if Tommy Zeigler didn't do these murders, who did?

This post, then, will dedicate itself to the first of these two tasks with respect to Tommy's story. My next post will think about the second question, by examining his story, and the prosecution's story.

So, on to the first task: examinig Tommy's story to see if it can be taken for truth. On that front, there are two critical questions that arise from Tommy Zeigler's account of that day which challenge the credibility of HIS version of events. I'll get to those below. First off, we need to go through Zeigler's story, step-by-step.

The first thing to note, before we even discuss his version of what happened the evening of the murder, is that Zeigler denies there ever was an appointment for Charlie Mays to pick up a television set from him that night after the store had closed. Everyone agrees that Mays and his wife stopped into the store earlier that morning and bought some linoleum. A 16 year old migrant worker by the name of Brian Nedd was with them. The Mayses were regular customers of Zeigler's store, and had a credit account there. Unfortunately, it was in arreras. This is why Zeigler denies he sold Mays the television set (which was used and in the store on consignment). Because the Mayses' account was in arrears, Zeigler says that he charged the Mayses an unusually high downpayment on the linoleum - $50. Mays's story is different: he told his wife that the $50 was a downpayment for the linoleum AND the television set, and that the TV set was being sold to him by Zeigler for the special bargain price of $128. Mays' wife testified that this was what Charlie told her in court, and her version was verified by Brian Nedd, the kid with Mays and his wife, who claimed he overheard the conversation in which Zeigler offered the television to Mays for $128, and told him to come back at 7:30 and pick it up. Zeigler denies all of this, and says he was selling the television for $350, cash only, since it wasn't his, but rather something he was selling on consignment. It would be interesting, just for starters, to know on whose behalf of the now-infamous televsion was being sold.

As for the rest of the day's events, here is Zeigler's version, near as I can figure:

1. He, his mother, and his employee (Curtis Dunaway) close up the store shortly after 6:00 PM for the Christmas holiday.

2. He returns to his home with Curtis Dunaway, Dunaway arriving just before Zeigler, so they can switch cars. He invites Dunaway in, Dunaway sees everyone, has a piece of cake, then leaves "shortly before" 7:00PM.

3. Zeigler claims that what happened next is that his wife and her parents left for the store to pick out the chair, while he waited for Ed Williams.

4. After Williams was about five to ten minutes late, so around 7:10, Zeigler apparently tired of waiting, and decided to go out and buy some bourbon for this party, using Dunaway's car. He testified at his trial that he then left a note for Williams - the same note Williams claimed he found - saying he would be "back in ten minutes." Before getting to the store, however, he changes his mind, turns around, and comes home. Zeigler claimed, at his trial, that he was irritated because he was running late, and felt that going to get the bourbon would only make him more late. He figured he could ask Ed Williams to get it for him later, so that's why he went back home.

5. When he gets home, Zeigler finds Williams waiting for him (this would have been at approximately 7:30, judging from Zeigler's story). He and Williams then drive to the furniture store, where he got out of the truck, unlocked the gate, then had Williams pull into the back fenced-in lot, and then locked the gate behind him. This part of the story matches Williams's account.

6. When they go inside the store, Zeigler is hit hard from behind, causing him to lose his glasses. He then sees "two blurs" coming at him as he tries to get up. He says he grabbed the .22 he kept in his trouser holster, and tried to fire some shots with it. At least two times the gun jammed, so he gave up and threw it at his assailants.

7. He is then thrown around the store a bit, until he is thrown into his own desk, near the back of the store. He remembers there is a .357 magnum in the drawer of that desk, so he gets out (in the dark, despite the fact that he can't see and must be disoriented by all the beating he's been taking), and then he thinks he tried firing it. He can't remember how many, if any, shots he got off. Presumably the gun was emptied; at this point, he started swinging it like a club. He is sure he connected on somebody while doing this, and hard.

8. He is then knocked back to the floor, at which point he loses the gun. Before he can get back up, he is shot, once, through the abdomen. His sense of what went on after that is "disoriented and fuzzy," but he is sure that he heard a white man say, "Mays has been hit. Kill him." He reports these words slightly differently in each account, but the gist is always the same: Mays has been shot, and he's of no use to whoever the speaker of these words is.

9. He lay for awhile, drifting in and out of consciousness I suppose. He then regains consciousness, and looks, futilely, for his glasses. He then gets an extra pair out of a desk, then gets to the telephone to call the party where Don Ficke is. He sits and waits for police to arrive. When they do, he moves toward the front door, where he discovers keys he had given to Eunice earlier in the inside of the front lock. He has no idea why they are there.

10. According to the book Fatal Flaw, written in 1992, at trial, when he is asked about the gun he is supposed to have given to Ed Williams, the one that killed his wife's parents, Zeigler states that he had "no knowledge" of whether the gun was in his car or not on the day of the murder, and that he hadn't remembered seeing it in at least three weeks. Note that, in the UM segment, Zeigler says that gun had been "stolen" two weeks before the murders from his truck. Perhaps a minor point, but it is the one element of his story that has appeared to change.

So, that's the basic outline of what he says happened.

Points 4 and 10 lead to two critical questions to the internal logic of Zeigler's story:

1 (raised by point 4). If Zeigler left his house at about 7:10-7:15 for the liquor store, and returned within a few minutes of leaving, finding Edward Williams waiting for him at his house upon his return, how can it be that the Fickes did not see the Oldsmobile Zeigler himself admits he was driving at 8:10, the first time they stopped by, or at 8:15-8:20, the second time they stopped by? The Fickes may not have agreed on whether Ed Williams' truck was present both of these times (though they are both sure it was there the second time, at least), but they both agreed that the car Zeigler was driving was surely not there either of the first two times. What might be interesting here, at least at first glance, is that the Fickes' story would match Zeigler's much better if either they got there an hour earlier than they said, or if Zeigler left an hour later than he said.

On the first point, the Fickes were sure of the time they left, because they had been watching television, waiting for the Zeiglers to arrive at their home so they could go to the party together. When the Osmonds came on, FDon Ficke told his wife that they should go look for the Zeiglers; he didn't like the show and didn't want to wait any long. The Osmonds came on at 8:00.

On the second point, one might think, at first, that perhaps it was Zeigler who was mistaken. Maybe he was meeting Williams at 7:30, not 7:00. If that's true, the rest of his story can work: Zeigler waited for Williams a little longer than he remembered, maybe for as much as 35 minutes past when Williams was supposed to arrive at Zeigler's house. Then, around 8:05, he drives off to go to the liquor store; at 8:10 give or take, the Fickes arrive, finding him not at home. When they come back the second time, he still isn't there, but Ed Williams is. Right after the Fickes leave the second time, Zeigler arrives back. He leaves with Williams. When the Fickes arrive for the third time, the car Zeigler was driving is in the garage, and he and Williams and Williams' truck are all gone.

That works very nicely, and goes a long way to perhaps making Zeigler's account of the evening make more sense. But there are problems. First, Mrs. Zeigler's parents were supposed to go to a church service at 7:30, which Zeigler's mother did, in fact, attend. Zeigler testified that his wife and her parents were going to go pick out the chair before church, and that he was going to go pick up whatever they picked out with Williams, and "deliver it" back home, along with some other Christmas gifts that were at the store. But, if Zeigler hadn't planned on meeting Ed Williams until 7:30, rather than 7, his wife and her parents would already have been at church by the time he got to the store. So how would he have been able to tell which chair to grab? Also, the Mrs. Zeigler and her folks never made it to Church that night, which suggests they were both killed before 7:30. So, Mrs. Zeigler and her parents really did go to the store at around 7:00 or so, as apparently was the plan; if Ed Williams is right about the time Tommy and he were suppsoed to meet and Tommy is wrong, why would Tommy plan to meet Ed Willams only at 7:30? Wouldn't he want to be there while Mrs. Zeigler's parents picked out a chair? Zeigler's story that he was supposed to meet Williams at 7:00, not 7:30 or 8, answers this question; he did intend to be there while they picked out their chair. But it leaves open the question of why the Fickes didn't see the Oldsmobile Tommy was driving at his house at 8:10 or 8:20. If Williams is right, and the appointment was for 7:30, and he was pretty late, then the appearance and non-appearance of Zeigler's car at his residence from 8:00-8:45 can be explained, but it leaves the questions about why Zeigler would make such a strange plan.

2 (raised by point 10). One of the things that has worked to Zeigler's credit has been that his story has remained basically consistent since the first time he gave it. Even under hypnosis and under the influence of a drug related to truth syrum, Zeigler gave the same answers and told the same story. At trial, Zeigler did not suggest that the gun he kept in his truck had been stolen, saying only that he had no knowledge of whether it was or was not in his truck from a point in time at least three weeks prior to the killings, because he hadn't seen it in that time. In Fatal Flaw, Phillip Finch tries to make a lot of hey out of the gun from the truck being used in the murders; he thinks it suggests Tommy's innocence. Here is the relevant passage from Finch:

The ballistics results do show that one of the RG revolvers killed Eunice, and
that one or both inflicted the original gunshot wounds in the Edwardses. But then in spite of the fact that one of the "unknown" guns was still perfectly functional, Zeigler must have decided to use a third weapon to inflict the shots that killed each of the Edwardses. He decided to use a gun of his own: not even one of the store guns, but one that at some point he must have brought in from the truck—the Securities .38. That gun couldn't have been in the store by accident. Someone
had to have brought it there.

Thus, according to the state's theory, Zeigler deliberately introduced to the murder scene a weapon that could be traced directly to him, the presence of which could not be explained. Then he must have deliberately chosen it to commit two murders. And he must have done so after days of forethought and planning. Furthermore, since at least eight empty cartridges from that gun were found, it must have been fired until empty, and reloaded, then fired at least twice more, and
then emptied again. (There were no spent cartridges in the gun when Edward Williams turned it over to the police.)

Why should Zeigler use one of his own guns to kill? And of all the guns he owned, why that one, the one he would least be able to explain? If he insisted on killing his in-laws with one of his own weapons, why not one of the five that were already in the store? Why bring in one more? How many weapons did he expect to need? (Finch 278-279)

On the one hand, Finch is right: Zeigler must have brought the gun into the store some time before the night of the murders, because ordinarily it was kept in his pickup truck, which was found parked at his home, and which was never taken to the store that night, even in the prosecution's theory. On the other hand, Finch got a chance to interview Zeigler for this book (Finch 3). He quotes from other interviews with Zeigler from the time, as well as Zeigler's trial testimony. Yet nowhere in his book is the sugestion made by Zeigler that his gun was stolen two weeks prior to the murders. Yet, in the UM segment, from several years after the book was published, Zeigler makes exactly that claim. So, for the first time, we see an alteration in his story. Why did he change it? It certainly does nothing to make him look "not guilty."

Next: examining alternate theories of the crime, using Zeigler's testimony and the prosectuion's theory of the crime. There will be tough questions for them too!

mozartpc27

06-18-2010, 05:55 PM

FYI, for those following along on this, I extensively edited my previous post, so you might want to take another look at it.

So, on to our next task with regard to assessing the veracity Tommy's story, which is to think about the simple question, "If Tommy didn't do this, who did?" Above, I tried only to look at Tommy's story, to see if his claim of inocence - which, if true, is all that is important in getting him a new trial - could stand up on its own. I suggested there were some serious questions in his story that pointed to some serious flaws: I don't think Tommy's story can be taken for truth on its own, because there is one point at which it should be corroborated, but isn't, by another witnesses testimony, and there is another point at which he changed his story, apparently relatively recently.

But, in the quest to see if Tommy should get a new trial, we should also look at alternate theories of the crime: is there an eminently plausible alternative theory that presents itself? If there is one, then perhaps we shouldn't be bothered by some of the discrepancies in Tommy's story, because it would still be entirely possible that someone else did it.

Zeigler defenders usually suggest that Tommy was either the inteded victim of an assault, or was the intended target of a frame-up, or perhaps he began as the target of an assault, and then the perpetrartors changed their minds and decided to try to frame him instead (this is what the author of the book Fatal Flaw seems to believe).

Let's begin with point 8 of Tommy's story, which is the most troubling of all when trying to believe someone other than Tommy did this. First, the gruesome facts: Eunice, his wife, was shot once, through the head. Her father was shot a few times, beaten pretty badly during the process, including some beating to the head, and then was finally shot twice in the head. Her mother was shot once through the heart, and once through the head. Charlie Mays was shot twice in the abdomen - once from the front and once from the back - but ultimately was killed by a particularly savage beating to his head, which collapsed his skull and face, piercing through toward his brain. Tommy Zeigler, by contrast, had some minor cuts and things, and had a little lump on the back of his head (but hardly bad), and was shot once in the abdomen, in a place away from any vital organs.

This is the hardest thing for Tommy's story to deal with. Five people in a store: four of them are killed in such a way that it is clear that whoever did it wanted to make sure they were dead. And one much less badly injured. Moreover, according to Tommy's own story, his wife and her parents were probably dead before he entered the store, but Charlie Mays wasn't. So, whoever did this shot Zeigler once, but then made absolutely sure Mays was dead. So why didn't this person (or persons) also make sure Tommy Zeigler was dead? Of the five people found inside the store, the only one who would have been the actual target of all this violence, presumably, was Tommy Zeigler, this even by theories for the defense, which usually presume that Tommy had too many enemies in high places. And yet, he is the only one who survives, and he exhibits no wounds that betrayed a clear intent to kill him, as the other four people found that day did.

With this in mind, we must conclude that, if the perpetrators ever did intend to kill Tommy, they must have abandoned that idea at some point. They made sure to kill everyone else; they even made sure to kill Charlie Mays once Zeigler was already down, so it's not like someone could claim that the perpetrators just lost their nerve after struggling with Tommy and left in a panic. Zeigler's own testimony precludes that possibility.

No, these killers must have decided to try to frame Tommy, not kill him; but if that is the case, why did they shoot him at all? Didn't shooting him dramatically increase the chances that he would be seen as a victim, rather than as a perpetrator? Someone might answer that, I suppose, by suggesting that the real mastermind here was someone so far up the food chain that he knew he could manipulate Tommy's trial - the judge, or some police officers from Orange County, or a combination of both - but that starts to make this a pretty unwiedly conspiracy. First of all, this case fell to the jurisdiction of Tommy's good friend Don Ficke; how could anyone be sure they could railroad Ficke into making Zeigler look guilty enough to be charged and even put on trial? Ficke, of course, actully turned the case over to the Orange County sherrif's office that night. But how could those perpetarting this frame-up know that he would do that? I suppose the answer might be, "He was in on it," and that might also be the explanation for why Ficke's story about the timing of his visits to Zeigler's house that night doesn't match Zeigler's own account - it was all part of the frame-up. But if that's the case, then Ficke's wife must be in on it, because she agreed on the times. Not only that, but Ed Williams has to be in on it too, and Ficke has to know that. In that case, why doesn't Ficke make sure his version of events matched Ed Williams's? There is some indication that perhaps Don Ficke did see Williams twice that night, which would then square his story with the timing Williams gave for his story - but Williams only claims to have seen the Fickes' car drive up once, so even if Ficke altered his story at some point to match Williams', Williams didn't alter his story to match Ficke's. Also, Don Ficke's wife never suggested she saw Williams more than once the night of the murders - so, for this conspiracy to work, she has to be in on it enough to lie about when or if she and her husband even went to the Zeigler's home that night, and if they did go, what they saw there, but not lie well enough to agree with her husband's co-conspirator, who would have to be Ed Williams.

This is a very serious set of problems for Tommy Zeigler's version of the story.

But there are others, which I will address later.

kadrmas15

06-18-2010, 08:23 PM

I wouldn't describe it 'very serious' personally. I wouldn't convict him if I was a juror at his trial. The thing is, you are acting or thinking like it is his responsibility to prove he is innocent. Basically to me, Zeigler should have got a new trial, just for the judicial misconduct and jury misconduct that went on during his trial. There is enough doubt there that even if you have 'serious doubts' about his story, I don't see how your doubts as to the truth of his story could be that strong that you would feel a new trial is not warranted.

Again, the judicial misconduct from Judge Maurice Paul who had no business being the trial judge in this case is a big issue and the juror misconduct in his case is also a huge issue and he should have got a new trial just for that. The question here, is the evidence strong enough to legally sustain a conviction as in is the evidence legally sufficient? In my opinion the answer to this question is no. I do think though if Zeigler were granted a new trial, it would be just that, a new trial. Every couple of years a death row inmate down in Florida on appeal gets a judgement of acquittal ordered by the courts because the court, in the case of Florida's death row, the Florida Supreme Court, felt the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. There is a difference between drawing suspicion on somebody and actually providing enough evidence to show they did something. In Zeigler's case, I just don't think the state proved it.

Mystery Man

06-18-2010, 09:18 PM

Why didn't authorities look at Ed Williams and Felton Thomas as suspects? It is quite possible they could have commited the crime and lied in court to frame Tom Ziegs.

I do believe he is sitting on death row for a crime he didn't commit.

Corky Kneivel

06-21-2010, 02:32 PM

Man I was hoping to find a few more updates this morning. Darnit!

As you're further detailing the events, mozartpc27, it becomes more and more obvious to me that the right guy is in prison for this.

As troubling as the judge not being taken off the trial and that the prosecution’s story cannotbe reconciled with their own witnesses (which provides doubt in juror’s minds)…as troubling as those surrounding factors are…it’s obvious to me that Tommy Z planned and executed the murder of his wife and family. The conspiracy theories** stretch the limits of credibility to put it mildly. The known evidence has never been explained how it eliminates Tommy Z. Most importantly, Tommy’s stories don’t make sense nor do his account of his actions. I think his murderous plans went awry and I can see a possibility that EW was in on…something. However I doubt we’ll ever get the true full story.

** = Quick question: Does the author of the book contend there was a conspiracy to frame Tommy Z? Does he say that the conspiracy was cooked before or after the events of Christmas Eve?

kadrmas15

06-21-2010, 03:48 PM

I don't think it was a conspiracy theory per se. However the fact you can be so confident 'the right man is in prison for this' in fact you sound like you are 100 percent sure when the evidence is simply no where near that solid, regardless of how you try to spin it, disturbs me. I kind of laughed when you said 'as disturbing as it is that Judge Paul did not recuse himself from the case, it doesn't really matter' which is basically what you said.

Actually it matters a great deal that Judge Paul did not recuse himself. First off, Tommy Ziegler would not have got a death sentence at all had Judge Paul not been on the case. I can bet pretty much any other judge would have followed the jury's recommendation of a life sentence. Or in this case, multiple life sentences. Judge Paul was well known for his personal dislike of the defendant Ziegler and that right there should have caused Judge Paul to recuse himself or if he would not do so voluntarily that he be forcefully removed from the case.

Judge Paul was heavily biased towards the defense. Yes he granted the change of venue from Orlando to Jacksonville. However he granted it to the least favorable location to the defense. Judge Paul other than that ruled against pretty much all of the defense's motions. He had no business being on the case and thus a new trial is warranted. Let a new judge that is impartial preside over the case and get a new jury. If the case is so solid, than I would fully expect Zeigler to be convicted again? Oh wait, we have said this many times about guys who we for sure thought were guilty and as it turns out, they were innocent!

Getting back to the whole conspiracy theory thing though. I do think it was just a coincidence that Judge Paul happened to be assigned Zeigler's case. That said though, I do think that Judge Paul did plan on sentencing Zeigler to death and looked forward to 'frying him' regardless if what the jury recommended. It was well known in conversations Judge Paul had that he basically told the prosecutor in essence 'if you can get me a first degree murder conviction on any of the four counts, I will fry the SOB'.

Zeigler was ultimately convicted of first degree murder on two counts but acquitted of first degree murder and convicted of the lesser included charges of second degree murder on the other two counts. He was convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of his wife and of Charlie Mays but was convicted of second degree murder in the deaths of his in laws, Perry and Virginia Edwards.

There was jury misconduct, such as a hold out juror, who did not buy the state's case. So Judge Paul thought the woman was being uncooperative so he called the woman's doctor and told the doctor to put the woman on large doses of valium. Thus she was unable to resist and gave in to the majority and voted to convict.

mozartpc27

06-21-2010, 03:51 PM

I will respond more fully to posts made by people in response to my extensive breakdown of this case later, but let me briefly repond to kadrmas by saying that, while I understand that 35 years ago those accusing him needed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zeigler committed the murders, now that he has actually been convicted, things are different. The burden of proof lies with him. At this point, those defending Zeigler need to prove one of three things:

1. (Best) That someone else indeed committed these murders.
2. That, at least, Tommy Zeigler could NOT have committed them.
3. That "reversible error" was made at his trial, or that the trial as a whole was compromised in some way.

If, kadrmas, your point is that proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" was not there to begin with, 35 years ago, your point is taken; however, and unfortunately for Zeigler, those who believe that the evidence presented against Zeigler at trial failed to establish "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" can't cite that as a reason to give him a new trial. They don't give new trials for someone's hindsight opinion that disagrees with the jury; they only give new trials when new evidence comes to light, or proof of prosecutorial misconduct is evident. Now, some might argue that there is indeed more proof of prosecutorial misconduct than there is of Zeigler's innocene; I think I would tend to agree.

Anyway, for the purposes of this exercise at the moment, I am not using courtroom standards: I am examining each side's story, pointing out the problems and holes, and ultimately trying to assess what I think is more probable: that Zeigler killed these people, or that he did not. I may well conclude that I think he did it, but that he shouldn't have been convicted, because it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it. I am not sure myself yet. I need to work through everything.

And, to that point, I continue my examination of Zeigler's story, looking at factors outside just its own internal logic and turning our eye toward the alternate theories about who did these murders that are often part of what Zeigler defenders discuss.

Last time, I talked at length about Zeigler's story about what happened to him, versus the severity of his wounds, versus the severity of everyone else's wounds. Now, I look at some other items that I think present problems for Zeigler's story:

Felton Thomas: If Zeigler is in fact innocent, how do we account for this guy? Thomas voluntarily turned himself in to authorities to give his statement, only hours after the murders (around 2:30AM Christmas "Day"; the murders were discovered at 9:20 PM Christmas Eve). If you believe Zeigler is innocent, then there are only a few conclusions that can be reached regarding Thomas:

1. He is a liar, top to bottom. He was never there, and told this story for reasons known only to him.

2. He was going to help the perpetrators in what was supposed to be a robbery.

3. He was going to help the perpetrators in what was never intended as anything but either a hit on Tommy Zeigler, or an attempt to frame him.

If he is a liar, top-to-bottom, he was consistent on at least one point: when he was given a ride by a friend of his back to Oakland, Florida, towards the end of the ride he mentioned he had left Charlie Mays recently, and he sensed something was wrong. How could he know this unless he had some involvement in whatever was going on that night? The rest of Thomas' story is, alas, impossible to verify; the police did find a spent .38 caliber bullet where he said Zeigler had taken them to shoot his guns, but it was only one, and was too damaged to be identified by ballistics. It suggests that what he said might be true, but it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, it is possible he fabricated the whole thing, but let's remember this is an itinerant farm worker with no known previous connection to Zeigler. Hard to imagine he would, for no reason at all, make up a strange and complex story like the one he told in court. If it was invented, one suspects it must have been at the prompting of someone else, and probably in exchange for something (like money). But if this is the case, no one has ever turned up anything to prove that is what happened, and again, it happened awfully wuick; everyone found dead inside the store was dead by about 9:00PM that night, at the very latest; Thomas found a cop on his own and told this story at 2:30AM.

More likely, Felton Thomas was involved in some capacity, either in the way he said, or perhaps in another, more sinister way. Leaving aside his account, let's talk about the possibility that he was recruited to participate. Despite all the blood at the scene, there is nothing to suggest that Thomas was seen with blood on him when he asked his friend, Samuel Harrison, for a ride between 7:00-8:30 that evening. Thomas's home - and, apparently, he didn't really have a "home" as you or I would understand it - was not near the furniture store, and he had no car; yet he turned up at the mall during a period of time which requires that he had to have been at or near the furniture store shortly before. If Thomas was involved, then, why was there no blood on his clothes? If Harrison had seen blood, would he have given Thomas a ride, on Christmas Eve, with his two kids and their two friends in tow? I doubt it; so, Thomas either had no blood on him, or else he changed clothes before appearing at the mall. If he had no blood on him, how did he manage it? There was a tremendous amount of blood at the scene, and if he assisted in shooting five people, and beating three of them, how could he have possibly avoided getting blood on him? If he did have blood on him but changed clothes, it is unclear where these new clothes would have come from.

Moe than that, though, is this: if Thomas isn't just a total liar, then he must be involved too. Now we are up to as many as five people, for sure: Edward Williams, Charlie Mays, Felton Thomas, Don Ficke, and Rita Ficke. This is getting unwieldy. Also, who would recruit Felton Thomas to help in a murder, and why would he agree? He was poor, itinerant-worker level poor; this means he's not very educated, and didn't even know Zeigler, so one wouldn't think he would make a great co-conspirator for anything terribly complex targeted to kill or frame Tommy Zeigler. Certainly, I could easily see Thomas being persuaded to participate in something he thought was a robbery for a promise of a cut of the cash. But there is no indication he got any money; money, remember, was left stuffed in Charlie Mays' pants, but it doesn't appear that any other cash was shown to be missing from the store. Supposedly, there were some diamond rings of Mrs. Zeigler's that were missing from her hands; Thomas was not found with these, and of course, he would have had to fence them if he ever had them. Could be, but if he took the rings, why not also make sure to get the cash out of Mays' pocket?

And, most importantly, if this was a simple robbery gone bad that perhaps he plotted only with Charlie Mays and maybe Ed Williams as well, then why did he go to police with this whole story about Zeigler only hours later? I guess the answer would be, "To frame Tommy Zeigler," which perhaps he and Ed Williams decided to do once things went all haywire (if we assume this was a simple burglary plot that went bad). This would have to mean, however, that he and Ed Williams concoted a story, probably on the fly, that is complex and that required Thomas, an uneducated farm worker, to remember some key details to make the story work, and to tell it the same way more or less every time without getting confused. Seems like a weird guy to rely on for a conspiracy, even if it is a conspiracy among a bunch of half-wite burglars. If this is, as so many suggest, a conspiracy that comes from higher up the food chain than that, then why on earth were these clever, influential people relying on Felton Thomas, of all people, as a witness?

If we assume Felton Thomas is lying, and there really isn't any evidence that he is, things get a whole lot more complex. He had to be invovled, but his involvement suggests a job that wasn't done by pros - why would a pro use an itinerant farm worker as the key cog of a conspiracy? If it was an amateur plot among Ed Willaims, Charlie Mays, an Felton Thomas simply to rob the store, there are other difficult questions. For one thing, there are the questions I raised before: if this is just an amateur plot and Don Ficke isn't involved at all (and there is no reason to think that he is), then why doesn't his story match Zeigler's, but instead comes much closer to matching Ed Williams' story? For another, my bext point:

How did they get in?: If Zeigler is telling the truth, it would appear that he came with Williams to the store after his wife and her parents had already been killed. So, how did the killers get into the store? The store was locked up tight for closing at around 6:15PM. Then, Mrs. Zeigler and her parents returned to the store, some time shortly after 7:00PM. I suppose the killers could have met Mrs. Zeigler and her parents as they arrived at the store, following them in, but the spread of the bodies, in that case, seems a little strange. They had them hearded together outside the store, letting the killers in, but then, once inside, allowed the three people to be that far separated before killing them? It seems strange.

If they broke in, it's not clear how. The book Fatal Flaw admits this in a backhanded sort of way. Here is what Phillip Finch theorizes about how the perpetrators entered the store, in his conclusion where he posits Zeigler's innocence:

I believe that two or more assailants waited for Tommy Zeigler to arrive at the store on Christmas Eve. Possibly one of them hid in the storeroom during business hours, having climbed the back fence, and come in through the bay door, which was open most of that day. They may also have entered using a key. They turned off the lights at the breaker box. (Finch 288)

Why assume that one of the perpetrators had hidden himself somewhere inside the store during business hours, and that one of them might have had a key? Finch assumes these rather exotic scenarios, quite simply, because he has to: there isn't enough evidence that someone actually broke a lock to get into the store that night. So if the perpetrators didn't meetMrs. Zeigler and her parents as they came in, then they must have gotten into the store beforehand - without breaking a lock. Finch needs to have an explanation for this, and this is it.

The problem, then, when looking at Zeigler's story as a whole, is that Zeigler's own story about the timing of his actions that night is not backed up by his own friend's testimony; Zeigler therefore certainly appears to have had the means and opporunity to commit the crime. To believe it was someone else, we appear forced to believe that, at the very minimum, three people conspired to rob the store that night, but decided instead to kill a number of people, and ultimately to try to frame Zeigler for the whole episode. One of these three people - Charlie Mays - was shot during this process, likely by Zeigler, and so, figuring that having Mays turn up at a hospital with two gunshot wounds would give the whole thing away, Thomas and Williams decided to kill him - in a particularly brutal manner - to cover their tracks. Then, they concocted separate stories that implicated Zeigler, and each went and reported to the police. In doing all of this, they got an assist from Mays' widow and that friend of the family who had been to the furniture store with them that morning, as each testified that Mays had made it up to pick up a television set at 7:30 at the Zeiglers' store that night; this explained Mays' presence at the store, and did not come from either of his co-perpetrators.

That is the least complicated conspiracy narrative one can build from the available evidence, and the whole thing is contradicted by Don and Rita Ficke's testimony, insofar that if it is true, and all this really did happen in this way, then Zeigler's story about leaving his car behind at his house for good when he left with Ed Williams at about 7:30-7:45 should be corroborated by Don and Rita Ficke's accounts of what they saw and when they saw it that night, because Zeigler would have no reason to lie in this case. But his story isn't backed up by their account. So, either Zeigler is lying, or they are; if they are, we have a much more sinister event here than merely a robbery gone wrong, and the conspiracies get ever more complex after that, involving ever more people at various levels of law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

So, that's the bad news for Zeigler. The good news begins with his motive: though the evidence clearly shows he had means and opportunity, the motive is much less clear. Certainly $500,000 on a life insurance policy is a lot of money, especially in 1975 dollars. However, even with that acknowledged, this is clearly the weakest part of the state's case, for a few reasons.

And that I will get into my next post: the state's case, and what is wrong with it.

Corky Kneivel

06-21-2010, 04:45 PM

BANG! BANG! BANG! Shooting holes all through Tommy's weak story.

You said it much clearer, much neater, more concise, and without leaving things out, than I ever could. Tommy Ziegler’s story just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Looking logically at the series of events that are given as evidence, the multitude of coincidences and conspiracies that must have gone on to make him an innocent man just couldn’t have happened. Judge who hated him or not, the jury is not made up of 12 judges with biases. The police who arrested Tommy while he was still in the hospital weren’t judges with a grudge.

There’s so much outside of what may have been previous bad blood between Tommy Z and the judge to look at and realize it just could not have happened the way he says it does.

kadrmas15

06-21-2010, 07:17 PM

Actually Mozart that is not entirely true. New trials are given for a variety of reasons, many more than the two or three you cited. The trial judge that should have recused himself, how can you honestly say that Judge Paul being the trial judge did not contribute to a guilty verdict and certainly a death sentence? You can't say that the error of Paul not having either recused himself or being removed from the case was not harmless error beyond reasonable doubt, thus new trial.

Felton Thomas should have not been able to testify about anything. There was no evidence that Thomas had ever even met Zeigler other than Thomas claiming that he had. Since he is a prosecution witness alleging things and not a defendant defending himself, how can Thomas be allowed to allege things and claim things when there is no evidence one way or the other that the things that he is claiming either happened or did not happen? Thomas's account was at best hearsay claiming he heard things and saw things when there is no evidence to either prove or disprove anything he saw or heard actually happened. Thus his testimony should have been excluded.

Also, have you ever considered that possibly, just possibly now, I know I am going out on a huge whim here... that witnesses get things wrong? That even if they truly think that they are telling the truth (thus not a lie as they are not consciously trying to deceive) that maybe they get their times or what they saw mixed up and when they saw them? Look at all the innocent people cleared, look at how many eyewitnesses and lying cops contributed to the conviction? It happens a lot more than you seem to believe.

kadrmas15

06-21-2010, 07:28 PM

Also Mozart, while you say the burden of proof on Zeigler to prove his innocence is on him now that he is convicted, while that part is true, you look past the harmless error analysis. In my opinion if Zeigler's conviction was reversed, a judgement of acquittal (which I am sure his attorney's put in at the close of the state's case in the 1976 trial) would not be granted although it has been granted for other death row defendants in Florida, not often but every couple years it happens where a court rules that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. Thus, the court did not say that a defendant was truly innocent in that case, but rather that the evidence was simply too weak to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, getting back to the point, if the Florida Supreme Court or any other court was going to look at Zeigler's case and if they did decide to reverse his convictions, they would also in turn conduct a test to see if the evidence, presented at trial and presumably would be presented again would be strong enough to legally sustain a conviction. In this case, I think Zeigler probably would not get a judgement of acquittal but would probably get remanded for a new trial if his conviction were to be reversed.

Now in Zeigler's case certainly there was cause to consider him a suspect and to view him with suspicion. The cases that ended in a JOA for other death row inmates were the same way. However unlike convictions that got reversed and a new trial ordered but did not get the JOA, in the JOA the court ruled that while the evidence was perhaps strong enough to generate suspicion towards a suspect, it was just that suspicion and no real clear indicator of guilt as in no physical evidence and no eyewitness testimony except a shady character or two who very well might have pulled the murder themselves and then framed their co-defendant to make it look like they did it.

Heck, look at the case of Herman Lindsey out of Broward County, Florida. Sentenced to death in 2006. Last year the FSC reversed his conviction and death sentence and ruled that a JOA be entered. The court ruled unanimously, even the conservative justices went along on that one. They ruled the evidence was simply so weak that yes while it was enough to perhaps generate suspicion towards Lindsey, there was nothing else there. No physical evidence, eyewitness and hearsay testimony that was at best shaky. Basically they said the JOA should have been ordered at trial, because the state simply had not proven Lindsey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Interestingly, Lindsey's co-defendant, pled no contest to the murder and was sentenced to 20 years in prison for 2nd degree murder. He testified against Lindsey at trial but the court said they did not find him credible as a witness and basically said that while he pled out, that there was more evidence against him than there was against Lindsey by far.

mozartpc27

06-25-2010, 11:39 PM

It's been a while since my last post, but my breakdown of the Zeigler case continues. I had previously attempted to post, and lost, much of what you see here now; my frustration led me to take a few days off.

First off, kadrmas, I am about to make you happy camper, as I am now going to go through the prosecution's case, and start shooting holes in it.

Before I do, I just want to make it clear, kadrmas, that I am not a fanatically pro-prosecution, throw-the-book-at-him type. You make a lot of excellent points regarding what Zeigler and doesn't need to do to get a new trial; clearly you know a lot about this case, and you know your way around the criminal justice system. Furthermore, I agree with you that, at minimum, his death sentence should have been set aside long ago because of the judge in the case. What a weird and creepy move to overrule the jury and give him a death sentence; if that is still allowed, it shouldn't be. Indeed, the fact that this guy presided over the case may indeed be enough to throw out the entire trial - if I were presiding over any hearings on the case, I think that would be my inclination. I don't like even the appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety.

However, my purpose here, as I said before, is not to establish, for a court of law, Zeigler's guilt or innocence, but rather to try to establish what is most probably the truth behind this ugly case. I assure you, when I am finished, I won't have a "beyond reasonable doubt" case for any side; just a strong suspiscion, if I am lucky. And, at the moment, I have no horse in this race: I still haven't definitely reached any conclusions.

And now... the prosecution's case.

To begin with, as I said in my previous post, the prosecution's case has a big structural problem when it comes to the question of motive. The prosecution's theory was that Zeigler did this for $500,000 in insurance he would collect from policies purchased since September of 1975. However, as Phillip Finch, author of Fatal Flaw, points out, the police found no evidence that the Zeiglers had any financial problems (Finch 68); indeed, they were doing well. Moreover, as Finch, puts it,

In all of their investigation, including the extraordinary opportunity to examine Zeigler's financial records, police investigators were unable to show that his finances were anything but solid. His material well-being was assured. The furniture store was a thriving enterprise, Tommy's pet project and solid foundation of the family's wealth: yet, if the state is to be believed, this was the place that Zeigler chose to stigmatize forever with a quadruple murder—the ultimate example of fouling one's own nest. (Finch 274 - emphasis mine)

If the motive was money, how could Zeigler not understand that murdering his wife, her parents, and another man in his store would ruin his business - a business worth more than the $500,000 he stood to gain from the life insurance policies against his wife? Perhaps, we might theorize, he wanted to be done with the furniture business, wanted to cash out, and wanted out of an unhappy marriage (there is no direct evidence this marriage was unhappy, by the way); that might mean he was willing to trade his wife's life and the $500,000 he would get from her death for the thriving store. But if this was just to get the money he would be owed from her death, why wait to kill her until a moment when he would also need to kill her parents as well? This is a point Finch raises, and rightly so (Finch 275); Zeigler gained nothing financially from their deaths, and it only complicated his plot, and put him at greater risk of being caught, insofar as every time one commits a crime, one has a chance of being caught: commit one, and your chances are x; commit three, and your chances of being caught become 3x.

So, right off the bat, there are some serious questions about why this murder was committed, and why it needed to be committed when it was - at a moment when he needed to commit three murders, not one, on Christmas Eve no less. We might answer that, "This proves Zeigler's main motive was not insurance money, but rather hatred for his wife and her family"; the problem is, there is no evidence to support this notion.

With the problem of motive firmly in our minds, let's look at the prosecution's version of the order of events, step by step:

1. In the summer of 1975, Zeigler uses Ed Williams as an intermediary to buy two guns that he hopes will not be traceable back to him.

2. In September and October of 1975, Zeigler buys additional insurance on his wife.

3. On December 22, 1975, Zeigler makes a plan to deliver Christmas presents on Christmas Eve with Ed Williams. He confirms this plan during the day on Christmas Eve, setting the time (according to the prosecution) at 7:30 for this meeting, at his house.

4. On December 24, 1975, Zeigler offers to sell Charlie Mays a television set for the bargain price of $128; Mays agrees, and he further agrees to meet Zeigler at 7:30 at the store to pick it up.

5. In the days leading up to the murder, Zeigler evidently made it a point to invite the police chief from the next town over, Robert Thompson, to the party he and the police chief from his own town, Winter Garden, were slated to attend on Christmas Eve. Zeigler did not have direct authority to do this. Moreover, he encouraged Thompson to invite all the other officers from his town; the prosecution would later suggest that Zeigler was attempting to guarantee that as fe wpolice officers as possible would be on patrol at about 7:00PM the night of the murders, so that he would have a better chance of moving back and forth undetected.

6. During lunch on Christmas Eve, Zeigler also arranges to swap his wife's new white 1975 Oldsmobile Tornado for Curtis Dunaway's 1972 beige-over-brown Oldsmobile, the ostensible reason being that Dunaway was worried his car couldn't make the trip to his family's party, but the real reason being that Zeigler wanted a less conspicuous car that wouldn't be identified as his to move back and forth with on the night of the murders, so no one would easily be able to spot him.

7. Around 6:15, Zeigler, his mother, and his employee leave the store for the Christmas holiday. As they are closing up, Zeigler makes an unusual request of his employee, Curtis Dunaway: he asks him to turn out all the lights in the front of the store. Ordinarily, the showroom lights were always lit.

8. Zeigler follows Dunaway to the Zeigler home. They perform the car switch, and then Zeigler invites Dunaway into his home. He sees Mrs. Zeigler and her parents, and has a piece of cake. He leaves shortly before 7:00PM.

9. Some time shortly after 7:00, Zeigler and his wife get into the Oldsmobile, and drives with her to the store. Her parents are to follow them.

10. Once inside the store, Zeigler shoots his wife in the back of the head. She never even had a chance to turn around.

11. Perry Edwards and Virginia Edwards arrive at the store. Zeigler somehow traps them inside, then assaults Edwards. They struggle quite a bit, but eventually he subdues Perry, shooting him a few times in the process. Eventually, Edwards is shot through the head. Virginia Edwards is the next to die; she had apparently moved toward the front of the store during the struggle between Zeigler and Perry, either in an attempt to escape or hide. She is shot twice, the second time in the head. Interestingly, Perry and Virginia are each shot with two different guns; the headshots were delivered from the same gun eventually turned over to authorities by Ed Williams.

12. For reasons the prosecution never does explain in their theory, Zeigler leaves the store.

13. Charlie Mays and Felton Thomas arrive at the store. Zeigler isn’t there.

14. Zeigler arrives at the store, telling the men the person with the keys is late in meeting them. He suggests that, while they wait, they go off and shoot some guns he has. They go and do this.

15. When they return, Zeigler suggests that they attempt to break into the store. He asks Felton Thomas to cut the power to the store, which he does. Zeigler climbs the fence to gain access to the enclosed area behind the store, and bids Mays and Thomas to do the same. Mays agrees, albeit reluctantly. Zeigler then attempts to break into the store by breaking a window. Mays objects, and so Zeigler suggests that they go back to his house, where they might find a key.

16. They go to Zeigler's house. Now, at this point, the timing gets all screwed up. Williams says he arrived at Zeigler's house at 7:28, and, after about 10-15 minutes - so, some time between 7:38 and 7:43 - Zeigler showed up with Thomas and Mays in the Oldsmobile he was driving. Thomas didn't not associate any times with his account of what happened that night, but if we assume that Thomas was correct, and the appointment to pick up the television was for about 7:30, and Zeigler wasn't there when they showed up, we might assume that Zeigler arrived somewhere between 7:30 (if we assume Mays and Thomas were early for their appointment) and 7:35 or so. They then went and shot guns, returned, tried to break in, decided not to, then got back in Zeigler's car and went to his house. It's hard to see how they could therefore have arrived at Zeigler's house the first time much before 7:50, and probably closer to 8:00. But the prosecution sort of glazed over these problems. Now, since both Williams and Thomas were quite inexact about times, this might even be forgivable, but it is worth noting. At any rate, at some time between 7:38 and 8:00, by the prosecution's story, Zeigler got back to his house with Mays and Thomas. He stayed for a few minutes, retrieving some bullets from his house. According to the prosecution's version, Zeigler then asked Williams to wait for another 10 minutes before getting back into the Oldsmobile he had been driving with Mays and Thomas. Once back in the car, he asked Mays to re-load one of the guns they had been shooting on their way back to the store.

17. They arrive back at the store, and Zeigler invites Mays and Thomas to go inside the store and help him with the television set. Mays follows, but Thomas, spooked, leaves. He eventually runs into his friend at the mall, sometime before 8:30.

18. Zeigler kills Mays.

19. Zeigler returns to his house in Oldsmobile. Again, the timeline becomes problematic. Considering Zeigler arrived at his house the first time anywhere between 7:38 and 8:00, by the prosecution's own theory, and then took 2-3 minutes inside his house before leaving again, we have a pretty wide range of times we are dealing with. Williams testified that, by his estimate, about 10-12 minutes after Zeigler left the first time, a white couple drove up, then drove away again. Putting all the testimony together, this could have been, then, anywhere from 7:50 to 8:13, the latter part of that period broadly corresponding to when the Fickes testified they first visited that night. After they drove away, about 20 minutes later, Zeigler arrived again. So, this could have been any time between 8:10 and 8:33. This time, Zeigler parked the Olds he was driving in the garage, got out of the car, got a wet rag out, wiped some of the car down, then locked up the garage, and then joined Williams in his truck, and told him to head off toward the store. So, he left his house for the last time no later than approximately 8:35, but perhaps as early as 8:12. The latter part of this time period again roughly corresponds with the Fickes' account of their third visit. Note that the second visit is unaccounted for in the prosecution's story.

20. Zeigler and Williams arrive back at the store; it might be anywhere from 8:17 to 8:45. He has Williams drop him off in front of the store, where he enters. Williams pulls up to the gate of the fence that surrounds the back of the store, and waits. Zeigler then appears in the fenced in area at the back of the store, opens the gate, and motions for Williams to pull in. He does, and Zeigler closes the gate behind him.

21. Zeigler then beckons Williams to follow him into the store. Williams stops to urinate. When he is finished, he follows Zeigler inside. Just as he is about to step into the showroom area, Zeigler turns on Williams, and attempts to shoot him three times with a gun, but all three shots fail.

22. Williams runs back out the way he came in, out to the back of the store, but with the gate locked, there is no way out. Zeigler pursues, claiming he thought Williams was somebody else. To comfort Williams, he offers him the gun. Williams takes it, and Zeigler tries to talk him back into the store. Williams says he will go back in only if Zeigler opens the gate. Zeigler agrees, but doesn't open the gate, and instead gets into Williams' truck. When he does, Williams takes off for the far corner of the fenced in aread, scales the fence, and runs, first into the parking lot of the hotel in back of the store, then across the street to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, where he asks to use the telephone to call the police. He tries, but gets a wrong number; he then runs into two women he knows, and asks them for a ride to Orlando, which they provide. All of that is completed by about 9:00, perhaps a few minutes past, in the prosecution's theory.

23. Zeigler, stunned by his failure to kill Williams, realizes he has a problem on his hands: no one is going to believe a burglary theory based on what he has. So, he re-enters the store, and makes an on-the-fly adjustment to his game plan. He shoots himself in the side, then calls the Van Deventer home, where the party is taking place, at 9:20. Notice that by the prosecution's own theory, approximately 25-30 minutes pass between Zeigler's attempt to kill Williams and his phone call to the Van Deventer home. They don't really offer any explanation for what he did during that time.

24. The police arrive a minute after the phone call, at 9:21. They find Zeigler stumbling out of the store. For what it is worth, the blood surrounding his wound appears to be dry to Robert Thompson, the police chief from the other town on the scene; he sees no active bleeding. Zeiglre is taken to the hospital, and the investigation begins.

So, that is the prosecution's story. There are lots of holes here, which I will examine in my next post.

mozartpc27

06-26-2010, 01:03 AM

I think that the biggest problem the prosecution has is, again, a structural one: according to their narrative, Zeigler is this methodical, meticulous, ice-water-in-his-veins type who planned these murders literally months in advance: he starts the process of acquiring "untraceable" guns nearly six months before he ultimately commits the murders.

And yet, at the same time, everything he does is rife with mistakes, and so much is left to chance. The author of Fatal Flaw, Phillip Finch, makes this point, broadly speaking; specifically, he calls into question the way Charlie Mays, in particular, was brought into this otherwise complex and carefully planned murder plot:

Zeigler must have settled on his course of action no later than Monday, December 22. According to Edward Williams, that was when Zeigler first made the Christmas Eve appointment. Then, for the next two days, Zeigler apparently did nothing to further his complicated plans. He must have known that if his plot was to succeed, he would need at least one more credible "robber," yet there is no evidence that he approached anyone else until he saw Charlie Mays at the store, less than ten hours before the murders.

Apparently Zeigler decided on the spur of the moment that Mays would be a
victim that night. In spite of extensive publicity, no other people ever came
forward and claimed that Zeigler tried to involve them at the store on Christmas Eve; nor is there any indication that Zeigler spoke to Charlie Mays about it until the 24th.

Why did Zeigler let these preparations go until the last few hours? What
would he have done if Mays hadn't walked into the store on Christmas Eve? This is decidedly slipshod behavior for someone who is otherwise cunning and
thorough.

These are fair points, and I would add questions about points 1, 3 and 4 taken in concert, 6, 12, 15, and 24 that follow this line of thinking (these numbers refer to points of the prosecution's story as numbered in my previous post - see above).

Let me pose these in order:

On point 1 (Zeigler's acquisition of the "untraceable" weapons): Phillip Finch correctly points out in Fatal Flaw that this appears to be the sloppiest part of Zeigler's plot, if he is indeed responsible. On the one hand, he is trying to acquire "untraceable" guns. On the other hand, in so doing, he tells at least three people - Williams, Frank Smith (the guy who bought them), and Mary Ellen Stewart (the mother-in-law of Frank Smith - she was a regular customer of Zeigler's store, and claimed Zeigler had asked her about getting the guns and she had directed him to her son-in-law). The point of buying untraceable guns, of course, is that they be untraceable. However, since Zeigler failed to kill Williams, and Williams had gotten the pistols from Smith, and both Smith and Mary Ellen Stewart had claimed Zeigler talked to them about buying illegal guns, it took the police less than a month to trace the two supposedly "untraceable" guns back to Zeigler. If you are going to buy untraceable guns, and you are smart enough to plan this big clever murder, wouldn't it also be reasonable to suppose that you are also smart enough to get the illegal guns through people you don't know personally, rather than through people you do know personally? Apparently, Zeigler wasn't, at least by the prosectution's theory.

On points 3 and 4 (the timing of Zeigler's plans): By the prosecution's theory, Zeigler apparently told Charlie Mays he would meet him at the store at 7:30, and told Ed Williams he would meet him at his home at 7:30. Obviously, he couldn't be in both places at once, so he had to choose which one he would at least try to be on time for. Apparently, in the event, he was actually late for the one he DID pick - the 7:30 meeting with Mays - albeit by only 5 minutes or so. Isn't this a dumb thing to do, if only because it runs the risk of at least one of the two people he is supposedly trying to fram for this crime just deciding to forget the whole thing? It was Christmas Eve after all; how long did Zeigler think he could expect Williams to wait for him? It seems unlikely that, by the prosection's theory, he met Williams for the first time much before 7:50, a full 20 minutes later than he said he would be. And, when he did meet him, he asked him to wait 10 more minutes - which ended up becoming half an hour! So, the prosecution's witness in this case essentially testified that he had no problem waiting around for Tommy Zeigler - on Christmas Eve - for a full hour later than Zeigler said he would be. I don't know; if you ask me, that's some favor. I don't think I would be willing to wait around for a guy who was more my boss than a friend or family, on Christmas Eve, after he said he would be ready at 7:30, but wasn't ready when 8:20 rolled around. I would have left. Why didn't Williams? And even if we don't question Williams, we have to question the prosecution's version of Zeigler here - here is a guy who sets up a murder months in advance, but then just hopes Ed Williams will be willing to wait around for him to get his **** together on Christmas Eve? Is Zeigler a meticulous mastermind, or one of the Marx brothers?

On point 6 (Zeigler swaps his car with Curtis Dunaway): The prosecution suggested at trial that part of Zeigler's brilliant plan was to get himself a car that no one would recognize as his. Zeigler himself drove a pickup, which everyone around town knew as being associated with the store, and his wife had a big, new, flashy white Oldsmobile. The theory goes that if anyone in a town as small as Winter Garden saw either of those two cars out on the road on Christmas Eve, they would have known it was Tommy or his wife driving it. So Zeigler cleverly arranges to have a car that belongs, not to him, but to his employee.

The problem is that the evidence suggests that the swap was initiated by car problems Dunaway thought he was having. Yes, Zeigler suggested they swap the cars; but, for one thing, this was after Dunaway was having problems and asked Zeigler to take a look, and for another, this was AFTER Zeigler had supposedly made his appointment with Mays. Minimally, this means that Zeigler left it to utter chance that he would be able to get Dunaway's car for the evening, after he had already made the critical plan with Mays. More likely, it suggests that Zeigler never necessarily intended to have access to this car that night, that instead it was just a fortuitious "bounce of the ball" in his direction that night. But what a fortuitous bounce! A better explanation yet might be that there was no plot at all, that Zeigler offered to switch cars with Dunaway (something they had evidently done before) because he was just a good guy, and that it is only in hindsight that this looks like it is part of some devious plot.

On point 12 (Zeigler leaves the store for reasons that are unexplained after committing the first three murders): Every time Zeigler leaves the store that night, no matter whose car he is driving, he increases the chances that someone will see him. So why does he leave, in the prosecution's theory? The reason the prosecution says Zeigler leaves at this point has much to do with the reason why Finch proposes a couple of elaborate theories concerning how the perpetrators gained access to the store that night: there is evidence - their own evidence - that suggests that he pulled off the road and into the parking lot of the store in his car and met Mays and Thomas outside that night. Thus, their story has to include this weird little interlude; otherwise, they have to discount Felton Thomas's story. Leaving and returning in that short period of time between when Zeigler finished the first three murders and when he met Mays and Thomas seems to gain Zeigler nothing, but it adds a whole lot of risk. So why did this meticulous, methodical guy do this? The only possible answer is that it leant plausibility to the claim he made to them both that the "guy with the keys" wasn't there yet, and that story, of course, was the cover he used to get them to go with him and shoot the guns. But then, as the defense right asks, having taken the risk of going out an extra time to help lend verisimilitude to the story he told Mays and Thomas, and then having taken the further risk of asking them to shoot guns on Christmas Eve and hoping they wouldn't find that fatally strange, why did he then WIPE THE FINGERPRINTS off of all but one of the guns? These aren't the actions of a methodical planner; this is the sloppy work of a guy who isn't really in control the way he thinks he is.

On point 15 (the attempted break-in, and then the trip back to the house to get the "key"): Here is another item that, by the prosecution's theory, Zeigler appears to have left entirely to chance, or at the very least not had any firm plan for: when they return from shooting the guns, Zeigler sugests they try breaking into the store. The way the prosecution tells it, after starting that process, Mays objects; this leads to Zeigler, Mays, and Thomas all heading back to Zeigler's house. At this point, Zeigler sees Ed Williams outside his house - who has now been waiting there for anywhere from 10 minutes to (much more likely) half an hour for Zeigler to show up. Zeigler then asks him to wait some more. On Christmas Eve.

My question is this: what if Mays and Thomas hadn't objected? Certainly, that seems to be what Zeigler was hoping, by the prosecution's own theory. Presumably, if they hadn't objected, Zeigler would have coaxed the two men inside after breaking in, and then shot them both. Considering how much trouble he had with his father-in-law, and how much trouble he ultimately had with Mays (apparently), how long would this have taken? Maybe an extra 20 minutes? Remember, Zeigler didn't know, according to the prosecution, that Felton Thomas was coming. He was going to try to frame up a scenario, according to them, in which two people - Mays and Williams - tried to burglarize his store that night. In other words, Zeigler had always been planning, according to the prosecution, to implicate Williams as well as Mays in this murder. And yet, apparently, Zeigler's plan, after returning with these men from the orange grove where they had been shooting, was then to break into his store, and kill Mays, and now Thomas too. In that case, Zeigler would have been banking that Williams - on Christmas Eve - would be willing to wait outside his home, on the strength of a promise to meet at 7:30 and a note saying "I will be back in 10 minutes," for something like 50 minutes that night. If that was his "plan," it wasn't much of a plan. How could he possibly have counted on that?

On point 24 (the dried blood at Zeigler's wound): The lead investigator on the case actually believed that Zeigler shot himself while on the telephone, calling for help. Zeigler had called the Van Deventer party, spoken to Judge Van Deventer, and, said to him that he needed to talk to Don Ficke, it was an emergency, etc. He did not mentione being shot, and sounded "calm," according to the judge. When Ficke got on the phone, Zeigler sounded panicked, and said he'd been shot. The police theorized that he shot himself during the brief period when no one was listening on the other end of the line. This was at 9:20. By 9:25, he was being taken off to the hospital, and Robert Thompson, one of the arriving officers, had noted Zeigler's wound, but found that there was no active bleeding. Quite simply, how could this be true if he had shot himself only moments earlier? The answer, of course, is that they cannot both be true; so, for the prosecution's story to work, Zeigler presumably would have had to have shot himself earlier than what the police originally thought. But if THAT is true, didn't Zeigler take a crazy chance? He might have bled to death waiting for police to arrive - could he really have shot himself, then waited for the wound to start to scab over before he called for help? This is a serious question for the prosecution's case.

Finally, as a post-script, according to the prosecution's own theory, if Zeigler had been able to kill Williams, as he had planned, his plan was then to clean up and proceed to the Van Deventer party that night - the party that he ultimately called after shooting himself, according to the prosecution. According to the prosecution, Zeigler was going to arrive and pretend as if he had no idea where his wife was. It was only because he failed to kill Williams that Zeigler decided to shoot himself, to lend credence to the break-in theory.

This is truly absurd. How could a smart man like Zeigler even begin to hope that the police would happen upon a scene where five people (his wife, her parents, Mays, and Williams) lay dead, on a night where he would have two whole hours that he would not be able to account for (from 7-9), and think that no one would be suspiscious that this was not a burglary gone wrong?

I am not necessarily saying that these questions I am raising provide any evidence that tends to exonerate Zeigler, but they do present serious problems for the prosecution's theory of the crime, and, more importantly, their narrative about who Zeigler is and was, and how he "planned" these murders. Their silly idea about what Zeigler's final move was supposed to be only underscores the inconsistencies in their own narrative. Combine these serious questions with the questions about Zeigler's motive, and their case has serious flaws.

Next: looking at two key witnesses, and how they tend to move the case in opposite directions.

mozartpc27

06-27-2010, 07:00 PM

I am nearing the end of my exhaustive (and exhausting) review of this case: this post, and one more, and that's it.

For this one, I'd like to turn to some of the conclusions of Phillip Finch's Fatal Flaw, particularly the information he presents regarding Ed Williams' story from that night. Finch is particularly interested in some eyewitness testimony that appears to make a liar out of Ed Williams, specifically regarding about exactly when he arrived at that KFC restaurant that night. If Williams is lying, of course, it raises the question, "Why?", and certainly suggests that he might, at least, know more than he is telling.

As I've extensively discussed, the timeline here is open to some degree of question, but all versions of the prosecution's story end at 9:21, when the police arrived at the Zeigler store, following his 9:20 phone call to the police. According to the prosecution's theory, at shortly before 9:00, Ed Williams had entered the Kentucky Fried Chicken to make his first attempt to call the police, following Zeigler's unsuccessful attempt to kill him. This had to be before 9 if Williams had entered the store without anyone having to let him in, because the store closed at 9:00PM that night. There is little doubt Williams was there that night, and tried to make a phone call: not only is this what he claimed, but his story was verified by two different employees who had been working that night, as well as some customers.

The question is on the time. Williams said he ran from Zeigler furniture, to the hotel parking lot behind it, and ultimately across the street to the Kentucky Fried Chicken. If he did all of this in a reasonably direct manner, this should have taken him no more than 5 minutes (indeed, Finch claims this should take less than one minute). Recall from my previous posts that both Ed Williams and Tommy Zeigler agree that they left from Zeigler's house together, in Williams' truck. The times are where they disagree. It could have been anywhere from as early as 7:30 or thereabouts (if you believe Zeigler's story), to 8:12 or so (if we believe Williams' estimates about how long everything took that night, begining from 7:28, when he said he first arrived at the Zeigler home), to 8:35 or so (if we believe the prosecution timeline, which has Williams waiting close to an hour before finally beginning what he thought were the evening's errands with Tommy Zeigler, and keeping in mind that, by no later than 8:45, if we believe the testimony of the Fickes', the Oldsmobile Zeigler had been driving was locked up where it remained for the remainder of the night).

The available stories, then, put Zeigler and Williams at the furniture store together no earlier than about 7:35, but no later than 8:50. Let's take it from there, looking at the two sides of this story.

If Zeigler is innocent: If we believe Zeigler, then we probably need to believe his story too, which means he and Williams arrive at his store at approximately 7:35-7:45. Apparently, there ensues a struggle, in which Zeigler is shot, and then the killers hang around for some time, presumably working on their frame-up job. As part of this process, they kill Mays. Williams is a key participant here. Zeigler isn't sure how long it is after he is shot that the killers leave, but he is sure they had been gone for some amount of time before he finally called authorities, a call that came at the undisputed time of 9:20. So, let's say, generously, that the killers took 10 minutes to incapacitate Zeigler, and then hung around for an additional 30 minutes while they prepped the scene and murdered Charlie Mays. 40 minutes is an awfully long time to hang around a crime scene, but, giving the Zeigler story the benefit of the doubt, that gets us up to 8:15-8:25, but let's call it 8:30. Williams is next seen at the KFC, at a disputed time, which I will get to in a few minutes.

If Zeigler is Guilty, and we disbelieve his story: If Zeigler is lying, then we can use the prosecution time line. The question becomes, "Which one?" As I've discussed in a previous post, Williams estimates that, after he arrived at Zeigler's house at 7:28, he was there for another 45 minutes or so before he left for the store with Zeigler (Williams thinks it was about 10-15 minutes before Zeigler arrived the first time, that Zeigler stayed at the house about 3 minutes, and left again; then after 10-12 minutes, the Fickes drove by, and then about 20 minutes after that, Zeigler arrived again, alone, and that after about 2 minutes or so, Zeigler was ready to leave). That would mean that Williams and Zeigler left for the store at about 8:15, which would put them at the store at 8:20-8:25. However, recall that Zeigler was, according to Charlie Mays' wife, supposed to meet Mays at the store at 7:30, and, according to Felton Thomas, Zeigler wasn't at the store when he and Mays drove up. This would suggest that Zeigler arrived somewhere between 7:30 (if Mays was early for their appointment) and perhaps 7:35 (if Zeigler was late), which pushes back the time when Zeigler could have met Williams at his house for the second and last time to as late as 8:35 or perhaps even a few minutes later, but no later, probably, than 8:40 (based on the account of the Fickes). If they left for the store together at 8:35, Zeigler and Williams would have arrived at the store between 8:40 and 8:45. Zeigler then makes his murder attempt, it fails, the two men talk out back of the store for a few minutes, and then Williams takes off. This whole encounter shouldn't have taken more than about 10 miutes, since there was no physical struggle according to Williams. Finally, we might guess that it took Williams about 5 minutes to wind up at the KFC. This means he should have gotten there any time between 8:35 (if we believe Williams' estimates about how long things took that night) and just about at 9:00PM (if we believe the timeline suggested by Felton Thomas' account, which is what the prosecution used as the basis for their presentation).

Recall that if we believe Zeigler's story, we might guess that the murderers left the store at 8:30. If we believe Williams then proceeded directly to the KFC, because it was his job to contact authorities and frame Zeigler, we would see Williams arriving at the KFC at about 8:35, or just within the early part of the window set up by the prosecution's witnesses. So, no matter who we believe, Williams could have arrived at the KFC any time between 8:35-9:00.

So what time did Ed Williams arrive at that KFC? Well, this, apparently, has been a matter of some dispute. One employee, whose shift ended at 9:00, says she never saw him. This would suggest Williams must have come in at the back end of our time range, actually even a few minutes past our estimate. The employee who showed him the phone did not specify what time he thought that occurred, but, importantly, he also did not say that he had to let Ed Williams into a locked store to make the call; if this had happened, you might think it a detail he would remember and relate. He simply said Williams asked to use the phone, and he allowed Williams to do so. Another witness, a customer, said she believed Williams had actually arrived to use the phone between 9:15 and 9:20, but again made no mention that he had to be let in specially to use it. Importantly, this account also establishes that the restaurant was perhaps supposed to close at 9:00, but allowed people to place orders that would keep them cooking past that time. Indeed, this woman said that she came and placed her order at about 8:55; less than ten minutes later, another group of men were allowed into the store (it apparently had to be unlocked) and allowed to place an order as well. Next came Ed Williams to use the telephone (she did not indicate he needed to be let in), and then, a few minutes after he had left, she heard someone say that there were police across the way (Finch 141-142).

Finally, there was another customer, named Ed Nolan, a "regular" of this KFC, who ate there that night, as he did every night, and was met by his brother and his brother's wife. The three of them agreed that they saw the police at the Zeigler store -across the street from the KFC. Nolan's brother and Nolan's brother's wife said they saw Zeigler being helped into a police car by Robert Thompson (in other words, right before Zeigler was taken to the hospital). Then, according to J.D. Nolan (brother of Ed), he saw Ed Williams at the KFC, asking to use the telephone. Obviously, if all of this is true, is quite problematic for the prosecution's case, and casts a lot of doubt on Ed Williams: he apparently appeared at the restaurant AFTER the police arrived at the Zeigler store. This, indeed, is the "big reveal" of Finch's book; he wants this testimony to mean an awful lot. Here is Finch on the importance of this story, if it is accurate:

In another sense, though, it is actually quite simple. The case is a choice between Tommy Zeigler and Edward Williams. Their accounts of Christmas Eve begin at a common point—Williams and Zeigler driving to the store in Williams's truck—and then diverge so drastically that they cannot both be telling the truth. If Williams's story is true, then he is an innocent near-victim, and Zeigler is certainly a murderer. If Zeigler's story is true, then he himself is the innocent victim.

With that in mind, I looked for evidence that clearly, unambiguously reflects on the truth or falsity of their stories. In that respect... [t]he primary evidence against Williams is the testimony of the eyewitnesses who placed him at the Kentucky Fried Chicken after 9:00 P.M. Williams himself didn't specify what time he went to the restaurant, only that he went there immediately after Zeigler tried to kill him. But according to the observations of Don and Rita Ficke, Williams had left the driveway before 8:45; Don Frye told the grand jury that Zeigler picked up Williams between 8:20 and 8:30; if so, the attempt on Williams life would have taken place between 8:35 and 8:50. Williams testimony was that he jumped the fence of the rear compound, ran into the Winter Garden, and then walked across the street to the restaurant. This would have required less than a minute.

If Williams's account is essentially accurate, he should have walked into the restaurant before closing time at 9:00. Yet nearly everyone in the restaurant who testified or gave a statement said that he showed up after the door was locked, and had to be let in. Only the clerk, John Grimes, failed to specify whether Williams showed up before or after closing.

The trial testimony of J.D. Nolan and Madelyn Nolan is especially compelling. Both of them swore that they watched Robert Thompson drive off with Zeigler to the hospital. The Nolans continued to watch the store, then crossed the street to speak with J.D.'s brother, whom they saw in the door of the restaurant. At this time, according to J.D. Nolan, the black man who resembled Edward Williams walked up and said that he wanted to use the telephone. By now Zeigler must have been on the gurney at the hospital, probably lying in the emergency room.

This is devastating testimony. There is no innocent explanation for Williams's arrival at the restaurant at this late moment.... To put it another way; the Nolans’ testimony implies that Tommy Zeigler must already have been shot when Williams left the furniture store. Not only was Zeigler already shot, but Robert Thompson and the emergency room nurse both found that the blood had dried around his wound. If the Nolans saw what they claimed to see, Williams's story is fatally flawed, and so is the state's hypothesis of guilt. If the Nolans saw what they claimed to see—what they swore they saw—then really nothing else matters. Tommy Zeigler could have had $10 million in insurance on his wife; it doesn't matter anymore, as far as Zeigler's guilt or innocence is concerned. Zeigler could have made fifty footprints in blood; it doesn't matter.... If Edward Williams was at the restaurant when the Nolans said he was there, then Tommy Zeigler is not a guilty man....

I cannot find another piece of important evidence in this case which is as clear, as unequivocal, as indisputable as the Nolans' testimony. It is not colored by personal interest, nor is it subject to debate. Its implications are so great, and its' significance is so obvious, that is goes straight to the heart of the argument about what happened on Christmas Eve.

It cannot be dismissed. It cannot be ignored. It may have been unrecognized at trial, but that does not diminish its ultimate value. This is what it means: If the Nolans saw what they swore to have seen, then Tommy Zeigler was wrongfully convicted. Anyone who believes that Tommy Zeigler deserves to spend another day in prison—much less be killed—has the ethical obligation to demonstrate that J.D. and Madelyn Nolan lied. Because if they did not lie, then Tommy Zeigler is an innocent man. (Finch 284-285; 286; 288)

In the interest of space, I have cut some out of what Finch had to say here: to summarize the excised parts, Finch claims that if Williams did as he said, and went right from the store to the KFC, it could have only taken one minute at most. Meanwhile, if that minute was at 9:19, instead of earlier in the evening, Zeigler would have had to do an awful lot, including shoot himself, before calling the police. In other words: if Williams isn't lying about having gone directly to the KFC, then the prosecution's case doesn't make any sense, because Williams was seen so late at the KFC that Zeigler would have had to shoot himself, etc., all in the minute it would have taken Williams to get to the KFC. Since that isn't possible, Williams must be lying, ergo, the prosectuion's theory is false. This is why "the Nolans’ testimony implies that Tommy Zeigler must already have been shot when Williams left the furniture store."

The other piece I cut was Finch's discussion of the Nolans. The only other way to accept the prosecution's case, of course, is to suggest one of three things:

(1) That the Nolans were mistaken about what they saw
(2) That the Nolans were lying about what they saw

OR

(3) That the Nolans saw what they saw, but were mistaken about identifications.

At trial, the prosecution opted for the third possibility, saying the Nolans indeed had seen a black man ask to use the telephone at the restaurant the night of the murders, but that it was a different black man, that Ed Williams had been there earlier. Finch retorts that no witness reported two black men asking to use the telephone, including Edward Nolan, who was in the restaurant all night. He also tries to show that they couldn't have been wrong about the timing of what they saw, because of J.D. Nolan and his wife pulled off the road to watch everything transpire after they had almost been hit by a car - the car that almost hit them was a police vehicle, responding to the call for help at the Zeigler store. So that only leaves that they were lying about what they saw, only no one has ever offered any proof of that, and why would they, independent, disinterested third parties, lie?

Let's try to answer that last question. First of all, Finch gleefully ignores at this point that one of the other witnesses present, who was equally sure of her times, told the story in inverse order from the Nolans: FIRST the black man came in to use the telephone, and then left, and THEN AND ONLY THEN did police arrive at the store. So there is disagreement among the eyewitnesses about the order of these events.

More than that, Finch himself admits, elsewhere in his text, that Edward Nolan, the first person to tell the story that ultimately his brother J.D. and his wife Madelyne would testify to, seemed "confused" about the timeline; that is the polite word, by the way, for "he changes his story mid-stream." This account of Nolan's story comes from earlier in the book. I have bolded relevant portions for emphasis:

Ed Nolan said that a clerk locked the front door of the restaurant at 8:55, and shortly afterward the cook started a last batch of chicken. Nolan knew that a tray of chicken needed twenty-two minutes to cook. His testimony about time was somewhat unclear. He said that around eight or ten minutes after the store closed he [the clerk? - unclear] unlocked the front door to let out two customers. He opened the door and found a black man outside, asking to use the telephone to call the police. Nolan [sic?] let him in. By Nolan's estimate, this would be about 9:05. But what he next said placed the time nearly twenty minutes later:

"[The black man] asked me what the police number was. I said, are you local, sir. He said, I am. I said, dial 3636. It wasn't no use telling him a half-dozen numbers. Then he turned his back to me. I got the profile of how he was dressed there. Just slipped my mind. Wasn't interested in the call. When I turned back around, my brother [J.D. Nolan] was knocking on the door. He wanted me outside because he had done seen this commotion going on across the street. He had just liked to have run into—the statement I made here, somebody driving pretty fast around the corner, a police car." (Finch 142-143 - emphasis mine)

Edward Nolan, the first of he, his brother, and his brother's wife to come forward with this story, appears to change the timeline mid-stream: at first, he seems to indicate Williams comes in around 9:05 or so, much before the police come and close enough to Edward Williams' account. Then, in the middle of telling this story for the first time, he changes it up to suggest that Williams came later, at about the time his brother arrived, which no one seems to dispute was closer to 9:25 (this is because his brother and his brother's wife were both almost hit by a cop car that was responding to the call for officers to come to the store). However, note that even in this account, Nolan seems to suggest that first he saw Williams come into the store, then he noticed his brother at the window of the restaurant. By the time this went to trial, Ed Nolan had died (he was terminal with cancer at the time of the murders). However, his brother and his brother's wife testified, and they gave Edward Nolan's account - with revisions. Here is how Finch relates all of this:

[Ed] Nolan told... a startling story, which he repeated at a deposition in May. He said that after 9:00 P.M. on Christmas Eve, a black man came to the restaurant asking to use the telephone. Nolan got the impression that there had been an accident. The man was wearing a light brown sweater. He asked the telephone number of the police, and Nolan told him. Then Nolan turned around and saw his brother, J.D., outside....

J.D. Nolan and his [wife] confirmed Ed Nolan's story. They told defense investigators... that J.D. crossed Dillard Street, and the two brothers spoke. Then a middle-aged black man came up and asked to use the telephone inside the restaurant. Madelyn Nolan corroborated the two brothers' account. She remembered seeing Thompson help Zeigler out of the store and into his patrol car. Minutes after that, she saw Williams at the restaurant. (Finch 106-107; emphasis mine)

The problem, as you can see, is that Ed Nolan's account clearly and definitively contradicts the account given by his brother and his brother's wife. Ed says, in every version of his story, that FIRST he saw the black man, and THEN he saw his brother. His brother says that FIRST they spoke, and THEN saw the black man ask to use the telephone.

So, not only is Ed Nolan's statement not consistent with the statement given by another customer, it is not even consistent with the one given by his own brother.

So were Ed and J.D. Nolan lying, or was one of them just confused? To offer an answer to that question, let me repeat a quote of Ed Nolan's I bolded above, but have yet to touch on:

It wasn't no use telling him a half-dozen numbers.

This is what Nolan said about why he only gave the last four digits of the police telephone number to Ed Williams. In those days, if the town was small enough, and everyone had the same exchange, you apparently only needed to dial four numbers to call from one exchange to another (so 555-1212 calling 555-1414 could just dial "1414"). But what I am interested in here is the attitude: "it wasn't no use telling him a half-dozen numbers." Why? Maybe it was because Williams was black, and Nolan was a racist, and figured a black man would be too dumb to remember more than 4 numbers? If that sounds far-fetched, here is an important detail I have withheld: Ed Nolan's testimony was never read into evidence at trial. This was not because he contradicted his brother, but because, in it, he used referred to Ed Williams as a n*****, and the defense was afraid of alienating the jury, which had six black people and six white people. This is hardly surprising, coming, as it did, from a 70-some-year old white man in the 1970s South. But if anyone is looking for a reason as to why three old white people might have made up a story about a black man to make him look like a liar, I don't think we need to have much of an imagination.

So, hopefully, I have cast major doubt on Finch's major assertion, that the Nolans' statements were accurate, and by implication, his major conclusion: that since their statements are accurate, then Ed Williams must be lying, and since Ed Williams is lying, Tommy Zeigler must be innocent.

But what if the Nolans aren't lying? I submit that it still isn't half as significant as the piece of testimony that Finch wants to totally disregard, namely that Zeigler was seen in a car with his wife at 7:10 or so night. If Williams didn't go directly from the store to the KFC, as he said he did, it is suggestive, but certainly falls short of proving anything; however, if Zeigler really was in his car that night with his wife, his whole story comes undone.

That will be the subject of my next post.

mozartpc27

06-27-2010, 09:12 PM

So, the other bit of important eyewitness testimony is Thomas Hale's, the man who said he saw Zeigler and his wife together in Curtis Dunaway's Oldsmobile on the night of December 24th, 1975, at about "shortly after 7:00PM" (this time is also referred to as "about 7:15"), very close to the store, and headed in that direction.

Obviously, if this story is true, Zeigler is totally sunk; he has maintained, since 1975, that his wife left with her parents that night to go to the store, in their car, and that he did not arrive at the store until much later, well after 7:00 (probably more like 7:40 or so) with Ed Williams, at which time, one must guess, his wife and her parents were already dead. There is no way for him to square this story with the one he tells.

So, here is how the defense handled it, according to Finch. First, they sent their investigator to speak with the witness. Here is Finch's account of their encounter:

Gene Annan interviewed Thomas Hale, the young man who claimed to have seen Tommy and Eunice driving together near the furniture store around 7:10 on Christmas Eve.

As Annan described it later, he stood beside Hale at a counter where Hale
worked, at the McCoy Jetport on the south side of Orlando. Annan carried a
notebook with the photograph of an automobile clipped inside the front cover.
They chatted for a few minutes, and Annan opened the notebook. This gave Hale a glimpse of the photograph. Hale remarked at the photo: that was it, he said, that was the car Eunice and Tommy had been driving on Christmas Eve.

Annan asked him if he was sure. Hale said yes, he recognized the car from
the style of the rear-wheel fender skirts. Annan suggested that Hale sign and date the back of the photograph, and Hale complied. Hale was an acquaintance of the Zeiglers. The photo he signed was of the 1968 Oldsmobile that the Zeiglers had sold three months before the murders. (Finch 107)

So, first, the defense appears to have established that Hale misidentified the car, pointing to one that no longer existed at the time of the murders. This, of course, would not hold up in court: as a "photo lineup," it is prejudicial and inadequate. The car Curtis Dunaway loaned the Zeigler was a 1972 Oldsmobile, with a beige top over a darker brown body. The Zeigler's old car was also an Oldsmobile, also featured brown (with gold as the second color), and of course Hale did not have a chance to see the two pictures side by side and pick which one he thought the Zeigler's were driving that night. He saw a picture that looked generally like the car he had seen them in that night - in the dark - and figured that was the car they were driving, and identified it as such. To me, this makes Hale overly enthusiastic - but not necessarily a bad witness. He saw a car with a similar body, with similar colors, and saw no other pictures of any cars, and just associated the picture he saw with the thing he was being asked about at the moment he was asked.

The defense also brought on witnesses to impeach Hale's credibility, as Finch tells us:

Rhonda Hull, the ex-wife of defense witness Thomas Hale, testified that Hale was a frequent liar who often exaggerated to make himself important. Hadley got the same from Sonja Barker, who said that she had known Hale for eight years. (Finch 196)

I'm not sure how much credence i am willing to lend someone's ex-spouse in these sorts of proceedings; ex-spouses have a way of assuming the very worst about their former spouses. We are not told who Sonja Barker is in relation to Hale, but Finch does quote from her testimony, in which she agrees that Hale has "a reputation for lying" (Finch 197).

So, is that enough to discount Thomas Hale?

Well, perhaps, though his story does not openly contradict the stories of any impartial, third-party eyewitnesses, the way that Ed Nolan's does. Nor, of course, is Hale's story confirmed by any third-party, impartial eyewitnesses. On balance, this makes it better than Nolan's story, in my book; but does that fact make it convincing?

I'm not sure I have an answer to that, but, at the least, what I want to point out here is that Finch is content to let the defense's not-terribly-convincing attempts to debunk Hale speak for themselves, giving Hale's account no further weight. However, at the same time, Finch does:

1. Erroneously contend that Ed Nolan's, J.D. Nolan's, and Madelyne Nolan's stories all coroborate one another (as I explain above, they do not).

2. Give the "unified" version of the Nolans' story ALL the weight, and none to the story told by at least one other third-party eyewitness. This person -Amy Crawford - has as little reason to lie as Finch claims the Nolans have, as she was not shown to have any acquaintance with any of the parties, and her story contradicts even the erroneously "unified" version of the Nolans' story. Yet Finch, after relating it, basically ignores it, since it interferes with his own theory.

3. Assign an undue amount of importance to the "unified" version of the Nolans' story.

Let's take this last point and look at it. Even if we take the "unified" version of the Nolans story - that first the cops arrived at the Zeigler store, then the brothers noticed each other, then they saw Ed Williams asking to use the phone - as gospel, what does it mean? It means that Ed Williams showed up at 9:30 or so, not 9:00. That's all it proves for certain. This, in turn, means one of two things:

1. Ed Williams lied about going directly from the store to the KFC, that he did something else first.

OR

2. Ed Williams told the truth about going directly from the store to the KFC, but that he left the store much later than the prosecution says, which suggests, in turn... well, what exactly?

If Williams left the store but took his sweet time getting to the KFC, there are some legitimate questions for him, starting with: where did he go? And why didn't he mention that he went wherever he went before going to the KFC to try to call the cops? It suggests, surely, that Ed Williams is hiding something, but it doesn't really tell us what. Maybe Ed Williams wasn't as scared as he said he was, got away, then ran into a hooker at the hotel behind the store, and decided to get laid before going to find a cop. Maybe he WAS as scared as he said he was, so scared that he decided to do something illegal - like drugs, maybe - first to calm down, and didn't want to share that detail with police. Or maybe he was inside the store very late, trying to set everything up to make it look like Tommy did it. Any of these could be true, but the fact that he might have lied about going right from the store to the KFC doesn't tell us exactly what he did or didn't do. If Williams was lying about that point, in other words, it certainly does not mean, as Finch claims it does, that "Tommy Zeigler was wrongfully convicted" (Finch 288). It might mean that, but, then again... it might not.

If Williams was telling the truth about leaving the store immediately, but did so later than the prosecution says, what exactly does that prove? For Finch, it simply couldn't have happened that way: if Williams was as innocent as the prosecution says, then Zeigler would have had to:

1. Move Williams' truck & wipe it clean of prints
2. Bent the gate to make it appear there had been a break-in attempt
3. Shoot himself in the side
4. Called the cops

All in under a minute or two at the most. This is a better point than the first one, and involves some items I haven't discussed yet. First, the idea that Williams' truck was moved, which comes from the Williams' story: he said he left it one place in the fenced-in area behind the store, but it was found in another (in the same fenced-in area), and yet no finger prints indicating anyone else had driven it were found. This implies, then, that Zeigler moved the truck. To me, this is a little bit specious: Williams simply could have been mistaken about where he left the truck, in all the confusion. The second point, that the gate was found bent, is certainly true; the question is, when was it bent? It apparently was not bent before that night; no one seems to remember it being bent. So, the theory goes, Zeigler must have done it some time that night, only when? The prosecution figured he did that after Williams fled the scene, because Williams said he could not escape by the gate; Finch, following that theory, supposes now that Zeigler must have bent the gate in the same minute that he was also moving Williams' truck, calling the police, and shooting himself, IF we believe that Williams really did head right from the store to the KFC, and that he did this starting at about 9:18 or so. The problem for me is that no one can say for sure the gate wasn't bent at some earlier point, they only suppose this is true because Williams said he tried to get out by that gate, but couldn't do it. But I don't find that especially conclusive. In his panic, he might not have tried it that hard or that well, deciding to try to climb out once the gate didn't respond immediately to his attempts to open it.

So, to me, we really only need to account for the last two points. Could Zeigler have shot himself and called the police in under a minute? Undoubtedly. So there's no problem, right? Willaims could have gotten to the KFC as late as 9:30, and Ziegler could still be guilty. But there is a problem: why was the wound dry, if Zeigler shot himself at 9:19, and the cops arrived at 9:21? Couldn't have been.

So Finch has a point here. EITHER the Nolans were wrong or lying - and I've already shown that there is a good probability that they were - OR Ed Williams was at the store later than the prosectuion let on, which implies, minimally, that he must know more than he is telling, because Zeigler couldn't have been shot much after 9:00PM.

Meanwhile, the testimony Finch discounts is equally damning. Either Thomas Hale is lying - and there were people ready to testify he was a liar - or he's telling the truth, and if he is, then Zeigler is somehow involved.

Importantly, however, if Hale is lying, it doesn't necessarily mean Zeigler wasn't involved, just that it would be harder to prove; if the Nolans are wrong or lying, on the other hand, Williams' story then reverts back to fitting the timeline reasonably well. In other words, for theories of Zeigler's guilt, the fact that Hale is lying - if he is - isn't fatal; for theories of Zeigler's innocence, the fact that the Nolans are lying - if they are - isn't fatal necessarily either, but it's much closer to being so.

Where does this leave us?

My next post will be my last in this series: Conclusions.

kadrmas15

06-27-2010, 10:44 PM

Hey Mozart, good points, I will get more into them a bit later. Also for the record in Florida, as well as Alabama and Delaware, judges are allowed to overrule life recommendations for death. These same three states are also the only ones where a jury recommendation does not have to be unanimous. In Florida if a vote is split 6 to 6 than it is officially a life recommendation. If 7 or more are for life or for death than it would be a recommendation for either life or death. In Florida, judges rarely overturn a life recommendation in favor of a death sentence.

Out of the 394 people currently on Florida's death row, Zeigler is one of 9 or 10 whose judge overrode a life recommendation for death. Judges overturn death recommendations much more often in Florida, usually if it is a 7 to 5 recommendation but sometimes even 8 to 4 recommendation as the death sentences tend not to hold up under court scrutiny anyway when it is that close.

In Alabama, judges override life recommendations way more. However the difference is, in Alabama judges are not appointed, they are elected. Thus they need to stand out as being tough on crime and the like so they override jury recommendations in favor of life for death much more than judges in Florida do. Out of all the people on Alabama's death row, around 40 percent of them had their jury recommend a life sentence but the trial judge overrode it for death.

mozartpc27

06-28-2010, 01:03 AM

Corky Kneivel

06-28-2010, 04:18 PM

Not quite done with the whole thing yet but I just wanted to thank you for doing this as well as commend you on such a thorough job.

Ill add my comments shortly. I'm still convinced Tommy Z is where he should be and a reason I'm so glad you did this is it allows us the chance to grab specific portions and either dispute or expand upon.

Again, well done.

Alvin Karpis

07-02-2010, 10:35 AM

However, Zeigler does appear to have been shot long before he makes the phone call for help - that's an awful risk to take. Did he really take it?

This is a huge point in the direction of Zeigler being innocent

Why would he take this huge risk of lying there bleeding to death?

Killarney Rose

07-24-2010, 07:43 PM

I'm new here, but I wanted to post my opinion. I grew up in Winter Garden. I went to school at Dillard St Elementary where Tommy's wife taught school. My family knew Tommy and his family all his life. My mother and her sister attended his trial. They went to their graves believing he was guilty. I remember very well when the murders happened. I was not long out of high school. I read Fatal Flaw on line last weekend and I still believe that Tommy is guilty. Well, that is my opinion. I don't have a lot of facts to post or arguments to make. But I do believe the right man is in prison for these crimes.

TracyLynnS

11-11-2010, 02:28 PM

mozartpc27

11-11-2010, 03:17 PM

I think lifetime is going to be showing the Tommy Ziegler case today. Not sure, though, my directv guide calls it "a family is murdered at its furniture store". I could only think of Tommy Z for fitting that description.

That's got to be the one. What time? I'd be interested to see the new UM handling of that case.

TheCars1986

11-11-2010, 04:21 PM

So, finally, let's try to wrap up by looking back over everything, and drawing a few conclusions.

To begin, I think we need to note that Phillip Finch pushes hard for Zeigler's innocence, and relies heavily on the testimony of the Nolans to do so, which puts Ed Williams at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant at a pretty late time - 9:30 to be exact.

These two things don't really go together.

If we, and presumably Finch, believe Zeigler is innocent of all wrongdoing, then we must take him at his word about his story. As I've discussed before, this means he made an appointment to meet Ed Williams at 7, not 7:30, and that he waited for Williams for 10-15 minutes before going out to buy some liquor, then changing his mind, turning back, and finding Williams at his house on his return. This means, by Zeigler's own story, that Zeigler and Williams could not have left his house any later than about 7:45, at the absolute outside, but much closer to 7:30, in all probability. Forgetting all the other problems with his account, now consider that Williams doesn't show up at the Kentucky Fried Chicken, in Finch's account, until 9:30 or so. It only takes 5-10 minutes to drive from the Zeiglers' home to their store; this means he and Williams arrived absolutely no later than 8:00, but probably somewhat earlier than that (maybe as early as 7:35). That leaves an one-and-a-half to two hours between when Zeigler and Williams arrive at his store, to when Williams goes to the KFC. But even if Williams was part of a vast plot, and the killers took their sweet time, we must remember that 3 of the 4 people killed that night were already dead when Zeigler arrived with Williams, if we believe Zeigler's account. Murderers don't generally want to hang around the scene longer than they have to - so why does it take these killers an hour and a half to two hours, from the time they arrive at the store with Zeigler, to get everything squared away?

The answer might simply be that they finished at 9:00, or 8:45, or even earlier, and it's just that Williams didn't bother going to the KFC directly after leaving the Zeiglers' store. Certainly this is possible, but regardless, there is a gap of time here that goes unexplained in "Zeigler is innocent" theories.

Of course, another possibility is that Finch is wrong, and the Nolans are lying or were mistaken, Williams was there at that KFC earlier than 9:30, but that Zeigler was still not involved. Certainly, this is possible; you don't need the Nolans to prove Zeigler is innocent. However, any of these scenarios still leave the open questions I have asked earlier concerning the account of the Fickes: if Don and Rita Ficke are right, and the Oldsmobile Zeigler was driving wasn't at the house that night between 8:10-8:30, where was it, and why can't Zeigler account for it? If we think the Fickes just got their times wrong, and they left an hour earlier than they said, then how is it that Williams said he saw them drive up? The only way he could have known they had come by that night is if he had seen them. So, maybe it is Zeigler who is wrong; maybe his appointment with Williams was for 7:30, and he waited until a little after 8 before he went out and came back. Now, the Fickes testimony makes sense, but of course we're left to wonder why Zeigler would have gotten this crucial detail wrong, and why he would make an appointment to meet Ed Williams to pick up a chair that his in-laws were going to pick out at a time when his in-laws were supposed to be at Church: how was he going to know which chair to grab?

All of this suggests, strongly, that Zeigler is being deceptive about something. His story just doesn't add up, no matter which way you look at it.

But of course, the prosecution has a problem with its timing too, having everything to do with Zeigler's wound. There was some suggestion that Zeigler, as part of his army training, would have the medical knowledge required to shoot himself in a non-vital spot, though this was never really verified. Even so, he apparently risked shooting himself, by their theory; if that is so, even though the prosecution suggested otherwise, he really would have had to wait no less than 15 minutes before calling for help in order for his wound to be basically dry. Zeigler also, according to the prosecution, shot himself with a .38 caliber gun, when a .22 was available, and at very close range. Neither of those decisions would be particularly good, as both would have tended to exacerbate the size and severity of the wound. Shooting himself with a .38 created a much bigger wound, one that it's hard to imagine he could have been sure would not cause him to bleed out before help arrived. Why take this chance, when he had a .22 he could have used? Also, the bullet did graze his liver: it's not as if there were no risk to his health in the action he took, if we believe the prosecution's case.

It is telling that, at the end of Finch's book Fatal Flaw (http://phillipfinch.com/FatalFlaw/FatalFlaw.pdf), Finch suggests a narrative for what happened that night that is confused and at times seemingly impossible. Here, I paraphrase what Finch suggests happened, with my comments interjected as necessary:

1. One or two men gain access to the store, without resorting to any obvious break-in attempt. At least one of these men is Charlie Mays. There he or they wait for Zeigler, who he/they believe is coming around 7:30 with Ed Williams, as had been pre-arranged. So far, this means there are 2-3 people involved in this plot: Williams, Mays, and perhaps a third party.

Here already we see Finch hedging; if he believes Zeigler, Zeigler says he was set to meet Williams at 7, not 7:30, which would probably put he and Williams at the store at 7:10-7:15, not 7:30. Of course, Williams said the meeting was for 7:30, which should have put them at the store, if they left directly, at 7:35-7:40. Finch appears to have split the difference between the two accounts.

2. Much to their surprise, around 7:10-7:15, Mrs. Zeigler and her parents arrive. This was unexpected, but had to be dealt with. So they struggle with all of these people, killing Mrs. Zeigler, and wounding (but not killing, not yet) Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. At this time, they are using the guns they presumably brought, which are the crappy .38s found at the scene not registered to Zeigler.

Again, Finch is very unclear in his narrative. He suggests that Mr. Edwards is shot after a struggle, but before Zeigler ever arrives (289). But he also acknowledges that Edwards and his wife were shot with the .38 ordinarily kept in Zeigler's truck. If that is true, how did these killers get it? Ed Williams supposedly had access to Zeigler's truck, but he wasn't there at the store at this point, even in Finch's account. It's possible Ed Williams stole the gun from Zeigler's truck at some earlier point in time, and then gave it to his co-conspirators to use on this day, but all of that suggests a plot to frame Zeigler from the get-go: Finch's whole concluding narrative is just the opposite, that this began as a plot to kill Zeigler that only turned into a frame-up when the killers were surprised by Mrs. Zeigler and her parents. So which is it?

3. The original plot, according to Finch, is all fouled up. They had come there intending to kill Zeigler, according to Finch, but his wife and her parents showed up instead. So they killed the wife, and have darn near killed her parents. They realize things are not going well, but they also realize that Zeigler is still coming. Quickly, our conspirators decide to change course, and rather than do harm to Tommy, take this marvellous opportunity to frame him for the murders instead.

4. Williams arrives with Zeigler; immediately, they beset Zeigler. First, they try simply to beat him into submission. However, when this doesn't work fast enough, and he is getting off gun shots (as he testified) they are forced to shoot him. Zeigler is also shot with one of the guns brought to the scene by the burglars.

What Finch doesn't say here is that, at this time, for the rest of the story to make any sense, Mays has to be shot by Zeigler. If he is not shot now, then he is not shot ever. And yet, as you will see in the next step, Mays must somehow also have been able to leave the scene at this point, because...

5. The conspirators now decide that they want to make it look like Zeigler arrived here on his own, and shot the various people he found. To make that claim credible, they will need a car he was driving at the scene, and a gun of his to finish off the not-dead parents, so it will look like Zeigler did it. So, apparently, they get Zeigler's keys from him, which must include the keys to Dunaway's Oldsmobile, and then Williams, Mays, and anyone else who is participating, evidently leave the store, go back to Zeigler's house, and retrieve that Oldsmobile. Finch doesn't say this, but this also marks the only point in time during which the killers can grab the gun from Zeigler's truck if this plot is truly an ad hoc response to a situation gone bad.

Finch seems to forget that Zeigler had a number of weapons on-site, including one he fired himself according to his own story. Why did they think they needed to go back to his house and find one he had in his car? Of course, Finch seems to think they already had this gun and were using it before Zeigler ever arrived, an assumption which is problematic for all the reasons I gave before. At any rate, it is apparently necessary to Finch's account that Mays also went for this ride, because he had cat hairs on his shoes, and the Zeiglers had cats. Finch asks, through one of Zeigler's lawyers, how come Mays had cat hairs on his shoes, unless he had been somewhere, like the Zeigler's garage, where cats were? The is is the only time in the whole book these cat hairs are mentioned, by the way, and one wonders, in an age before DNA testing, how anyone could know for sure that the cat hairs on Mays' shoes were definitely from the same cat the Zeiglers' had, but I digress...

6. The killers now return to the store with Dunaway's Oldsmobile and the .38 from Zeigler's truck. They use this .38 to shoot Mr. and Mrs. Edwards once each in the head. This gun is then given to Ed Williams, and is the one he turns in.

7. Somewhere along in here, though, as I've pointed out, it's not at all clear when, Mays somehow gets shot, twice, and it is decided he needs to be killed too. He is visciously beaten, despite all the guns around, by people who, in theory, should have been working with him, not against him.

Of course, here is the problem with this idea: if Mays did go to the Zeigler home, he clearly hadn't been shot yet. But, by that point, everyone else who had gotten shot had been shot. So who shot Mays NOW, and why? It doesn't make sense.

8. The killers wipe down all guns but one, then go to leave. Unfortunately, their plan is to leave in Ed Williams' truck, which Zeigler has locked in the back. This presents two problems: first, they have no key, and second, his truck had been having trouble starting, because of a bad carburetor. One way or another, they couldn't get it out. So now, they have to use Zeigler's Oldsmobile to complete their getaway, only how are they going to explain why Williams' truck is there, but not the car Zeigler was driving? It is left to implication that someone drives the Oldsmobile back to Zeigler's house (one of Zeigler's attorneys seems to think this was done by Williams), and at the same time Williams starts concocting the whole story about how he came to have the gun, etc. He then first goes to the nearby KFC, to try to call the police about it, before ultimately contacting authorities in Orlando later that night.

This whole narrative has problems of impossibility, as I have shown, but here we have one more: so, in Finch's vague scenario, Williams is supposed to have driven Zeigler's automobile back to Zeigler's house, locked it up in the garage, and then walked all the way back to the KFC, where he first attempted to contact authorities? He had to get Zeigler's car back into that garage by no later than 8:45PM, according to the Fickes, but then been back at the KFC by no later than 9:30, but probably earlier.

Possible, but unlikely.

So now, finally, where are we left (I know I asked this question before)? On the one hand, theories of Zeigler's innocence lack, on close examination, consistency and, often, plausibility. However, Zeigler does appear to have been shot long before he makes the phone call for help - that's an awful risk to take. Did he really take it?

After all this, I was thinking I would suggest that the problem is that there are so many half-truths, but no whole truths, and that the reason for that might just be that Zeigler and Williams are each telling half-truths, because the whole truth implicates both of them.

But even that doesn't really work.

If Williams was in on it, what was he doing at Zeigler's house at 8:15 or so that night, when the Fickes saw his truck there, but not the car Zeigler was driving? There is no good explanation for that, except that he wasn't involved.

It's a bit anti-climactic, but my conclusion at the moment is this: Zeigler did it, but there isn't enough evidence to actually convict him.

I welcome your comments!

Wow, fascinating read...you really broke down your opinion thoughtfully and well. However, I disagree. First the Nolans could not have been wrong/mistaken with their testimony. The Nolans were almost hit by Officer Yawn's cruiser which was responding to a call at 9:21 over his CB that something was wrong at the furniture store. Edward Williams did not go to the KFC until AFTER 9:21. Here's where I can interject some personal recollections because my wife and I just got back from our Honeymoon in Orlando. I've always been fascinated with the Zeigler case and I've read Finch's book three times now, and when we got a map of Orlando I saw that Winter Garden was only about a ten minute drive. So on the first day of our trip we arrived in Orlando at about three o'clock and since most of the theme parks close around 6, we didn't have much to do. We both decided a trip to the store would be interesting and fun so we went. Going into the store was VERY creepy and eerie, especially knowning that four people were murdered there. The KFC is no longer directly across the street, it's now a tire place (but based off its structure, you could tell a KFC used to be there). The furniture store is identical to as it was back in 1975 but now it's a used thrift store. So that was pretty cool to go visit a site from a UM Segment, the first time I've ever done it. The KFC was literally 15 yards across the street from the furniture store. By Williams own account he had an appointment to meet Zeigler at Zeigler's house at 7:30. Williams was vague about what time Zeigler did return to the house, but his house was only ten minutes away from the store. Williams own account of what transpired at the store (Tommy attempting to kill him in the dark hallway and then running away with Tommy begging for him to come back inside) would have taken mere minutes to happen. Therefore Williams is lying about something. Something an innocent man who was Zeigler's potential fifth victim would not need to do. Even if Williams and Zeigler didn't arrive at the store until 9:00 why did it take him 20-some minutes to attempt to go get help? The Winter Garden Inn was DIRECTLY across from him and it was Christmas Eve. Surely people would have been staying there during the holidays. He should have been SCREAMING for help if someone was trying to kill him. Williams did none of this. But Williams cast even further doubt with his own testimony. He says he and Zeigler arrived at the store no later than 8:30, which means he didn't go ask to use the phone at the KFC for police for almost an hour! And the reason why the Nolan's testimony is so important is because there is no way they could have been mistaken about the time...they were almost hit by Officer Yawn, and they witnessed Zeigler being pulled out of the store. It wasn't until AFTER that that Williams showed up asking to use the phone. I know things were different in 1975 but if someone just attempted to murder you, why would you ask to use the phone? I'll get back to Williams a little later. Here I'm going to go through each of your points that you brought up and lay out my theory as to what happened.

1. Every single witness in this case has different times for everything that happened. In only one instance (when Don & Rita Ficke say they saw Williams in Zeigler's garage) do the times given by witnesses agree. There was one witness who was waiting for her brother (can't recall her name) and she knew the exact time because her brother was late and she checked the time and it was around 7:15 (I can't remember the exact time she gave, but it was exact in her testimony) and that's when she heard the first volley of shots. The shots were so simultaneous she said it sounded like a lot of firecrackers going off at once. Something that would be IMPOSSIBLE for one person to accomplish.

2-4 & 6. I think Felton Thomas was in on a robbery attempt at the store with Charlie Mays and two or three others. I went to where Mays' van was found in the Winter Garden Inn parking lot (behind a chain link fence which stood about eight feet high), which is where he said he was there to pick up a TV from Zeigler that night. No innocent person parks on the other side of a fence which blocked Zeigler's property and his loading bay door where Mays was supposed to receive the tv. His van was on the other side! If innocent, he should have parked around front, like any other customer. By Thomas' own account this is where he and Mays parked so the theory that Zeigler may have moved his van is tossed out the window. I also think there was a brain behind this operation who orchestrated everything that went down. They were waiting in the store for Zeigler to arrive (most likely to kill him and then take some money to make it look like a robbery) when Eunice and her parents surprised them. Someone got trigger happy and shot Eunice, then a fight ensued with Perry Edwards, and then he and his wife were shot down. At this point things have got to be frantic. Their original plan now has three additional victims, so they have to think quick. They still have Zeigler coming to the store so they're original plan hasn't come unhinged just yet. If they kill Zeigler, they can still make it look like a robbery/homicide. I don't think they anticipated Zeigler being armed when he walked in the store. Zeigler shoots Mays, then his assailants shoot him. At this point I think the frame job was thought up. Mays would have went to the hospital and for fear of spilling the beans had to be killed. It was after they killed Mays, I think, that they took Zeigler's personal weapon and shot both Edwards' in the head (they were already dead). Then when they think all is well they disperse, and Williams goes to start his truck and OOPS it won't start. Williams allegedly had a faulty carbureator which caused his truck to stall. Which is what I think happened. And it was then that he himself had to think of something quick. His truck was at the murder scene and he had one of the murder weapons in his pocket! This would totally account for his strange behavior and the fact that he didn't seek help until about 9:30. Again, I'll get back to Williams later. As for Felton Thomas, I do think he was there to make some quick cash and had no idea that a homicide plot was underway. He probably saw something that scared him (maybe one of the intruders had a gun, or maybe he heard the initial shots that killed Eunice and her parents) and fled. Thomas didn't report to the Winter Garden police, he reported to a police station 20 miles away at 2:30 in the morning. What does this say? I think he was coerced into coming up with a story about what happened and may very well have been paid off for this. Now Mays most certainly was present when Eunice and her parents were killed and he CANNOT in any way shape or form be innocent. He may not have actually killed anyone, but he had Perry Edwards' blood caked on the bottom of his pants...meaning he stood in a pool of Perry's blood and waited around long enough for the blood to dry. Something an innocent man trying to pick up a TV for Christmas would not do. Mays' van alone should be enough evidence to show this man was guilty of something shady that night based off of where it was parked. Take into account the blood found on his pants and you've got yourself one of the perps IMO. And Mays was found with cash stuffed in his pockets which goes along with the theory that he was there to do something illicit just as well as it goes along with Zeigler stuffing them in his pants to frame Mays.

5. I thought Zeigler and Williams drove to the store together in Williams pick-up truck (my memory sucks at this point on this tidbit, so forgive me if I'm wrong) which would explain why Dunaway's car was at Zeigler's house and was never moved by anyone. The perpetrators wouldn't have had to move his car at all.

6. Mays was shot once, which coincides with Zeigler's account that he shot someone when he entered the store. Like I stated above, after Mays was hit the others didn't want to risk exposure so they dealt with him. The brutality of his death compared to the others shows that it was more likely committed by someone other than Zeigler. Consider this, if Zeigler was unhappy in his marriage or wanted to shut Eunice up permanently because she knew he was a violent closet homosexual, wouldn't her murder have been more brutal? Or even Zeigler's in-laws who (according to the prosecution's theory) hated Zeigler and were there in Winter Garden to whisk Eunice away from him? If Zeigler is guilty, why wouldn't he say he got in a fight with Mays after he shot him? Zeigler's own account says that he shot Mays and then proceeded to fight with two other assailants, but Mays was found beat to death. If guilty, wouldn't it be more plausible for Zeigler to try and pin everything on Mays alone instead of several people? All he had to do was say he and Mays struggled, they both shot each other and then in self-defense Zeigler beat Mays to death, since both would have been fighting for their lives? Why even concoct a odd and hazy story about a fight with three people (Mays and two unknown attackers) if it never happened? He would have a better chance framing Mays alone especially knowing how badly he beat him to death.

8. As I said earlier, I can't remember right now if Zeigler said he drove to the store in two seperate vehicles or if he said he drove with Williams to the store BUT I do think it wouldn't have been all that hard for someone to drive the Oldsmobile back to the garage and leave. I don't think it was Edward Williams, I think he was back by the store trying to work out his story/get his truck started. The assailants would have easily left in one of there cars. Several witnesses that night claim to have seen FOUR CARS parked in the front of the furniture store. Where did these other two cars come from? The assailants. I don't think Williams was in on any sort of plot involving murder initially and I think he went along with it out of fear for who is responsible. He probably was told Zeigler was going to be hurt but not killed and was promised money by whoever set the whole plan up. It wasn't until after he heard the shots that he became involved in the whole mess. He was probably ordered to get rid of the .38 (which explains why it was in his pocket), but that plan backfired when his truck wouldn't start. Just imagine what went through his mind at that point if he was involved. You know four, maybe five people were just murdered and you have to get the hell out of dodge...you have the weapon that was used to shoot three of these people so you have to get rid of that BUT your truck won't start. Williams panicked and maybe initially he was going to blow the whistle when he went over to the KFC, but then he got a ride and figured it would buy him some more time.

The bottom line is, if Edward Williams was innocent he should have been 1. screaming for help in the back lot of the furniture store and at the KFC and 2. reported what he knew to the police immediately. It took Williams HOURS to report anything to any police agency which again is something an innocent person would not do. Sorry about the long post, the visit to the furniture store kind of regenerated my interest in this case. I do think based off of everything I've mentioned there's no doubt in my mind that Zeigler is innocent.

TracyLynnS

11-11-2010, 04:43 PM

That's got to be the one. What time? I'd be interested to see the new UM handling of that case.

Lifetime is showing it at 5:00pm eastern time. :)

Killarney Rose

11-11-2010, 07:10 PM

I just saw the episode again. I still believe it was Tommy. But I have a couple of comments.

I believe Judge Paul should not have been allowed to try the case. He definitely had a conflict of interest where Tommy was concerned and had hard feelings towards him. If for no other reason than this, Tommy should have gotten a new trial.

As far as why it took Edward Williams so long to contact the police. You have to remember, this was the south. There were rumors of sheriff Dave Starr and members of the Winter Garden police dept. being Klan members. There were still very segregated neighborhoods there in 1975. I lived right outside of the little town of Oakland, where Charlie Mays lived. Orange county was not much different in 1975 as far as the lines of color than it was in previous years. Blacks and whites still didn't mix and I have no doubt that Williams was probably terrified and in fear of his life when he left the furniture store. He probably didn't know what to do for fear of all the murders being blamed on him.

mozartpc27

11-12-2010, 09:17 AM

First the Nolans could not have been wrong/mistaken with their testimony. The Nolans were almost hit by Officer Yawn's cruiser which was responding to a call at 9:21 over his CB that something was wrong at the furniture store. Edward Williams did not go to the KFC until AFTER 9:21.

See post 55 in this thread (by me) on page 4 for a long discussion of the Nolans' testimony, and an explanation of why the Nolans' story isn't nearly as airtight as it seems. Ed Nolan and J.D. Nolan didn't even agree with one another on the sequence of events that night. See post 56 in this thread (also by me, also on page 4) for a discussion of the testimony of Thomas Hale, which Finch wants to ignore completely but which has as much credibility as the Nolans' story, if not more, since no one could directly contradict him, instead only suggesting, in the broadest possible way, that he was known to lie to get to attention.

Here's where I can interject some personal recollections because my wife and I just got back from our Honeymoon in Orlando. I've always been fascinated with the Zeigler case and I've read Finch's book three times now, and when we got a map of Orlando I saw that Winter Garden was only about a ten minute drive. So on the first day of our trip we arrived in Orlando at about three o'clock and since most of the theme parks close around 6, we didn't have much to do. We both decided a trip to the store would be interesting and fun so we went. Going into the store was VERY creepy and eerie, especially knowning that four people were murdered there. The KFC is no longer directly across the street, it's now a tire place (but based off its structure, you could tell a KFC used to be there). The furniture store is identical to as it was back in 1975 but now it's a used thrift store. So that was pretty cool to go visit a site from a UM Segment, the first time I've ever done it. The KFC was literally 15 yards across the street from the furniture store.

It's cool that you went there - I can't believe how much is the same! Some day I'd love a little a "field trip" like this.

By Williams own account he had an appointment to meet Zeigler at Zeigler's house at 7:30. Williams was vague about what time Zeigler did return to the house, but his house was only ten minutes away from the store. Williams own account of what transpired at the store (Tommy attempting to kill him in the dark hallway and then running away with Tommy begging for him to come back inside) would have taken mere minutes to happen. Therefore Williams is lying about something. Something an innocent man who was Zeigler's potential fifth victim would not need to do. Even if Williams and Zeigler didn't arrive at the store until 9:00 why did it take him 20-some minutes to attempt to go get help? The Winter Garden Inn was DIRECTLY across from him and it was Christmas Eve. Surely people would have been staying there during the holidays. He should have been SCREAMING for help if someone was trying to kill him. Williams did none of this. But Williams cast even further doubt with his own testimony. He says he and Zeigler arrived at the store no later than 8:30, which means he didn't go ask to use the phone at the KFC for police for almost an hour! And the reason why the Nolan's testimony is so important is because there is no way they could have been mistaken about the time...they were almost hit by Officer Yawn, and they witnessed Zeigler being pulled out of the store. It wasn't until AFTER that that Williams showed up asking to use the phone. I know things were different in 1975 but if someone just attempted to murder you, why would you ask to use the phone? I'll get back to Williams a little later. Here I'm going to go through each of your points that you brought up and lay out my theory as to what happened.

1. Every single witness in this case has different times for everything that happened. In only one instance (when Don & Rita Ficke say they saw Williams in Zeigler's garage) do the times given by witnesses agree. There was one witness who was waiting for her brother (can't recall her name) and she knew the exact time because her brother was late and she checked the time and it was around 7:15 (I can't remember the exact time she gave, but it was exact in her testimony) and that's when she heard the first volley of shots. The shots were so simultaneous she said it sounded like a lot of firecrackers going off at once. Something that would be IMPOSSIBLE for one person to accomplish.

2-4 & 6. I think Felton Thomas was in on a robbery attempt at the store with Charlie Mays and two or three others. I went to where Mays' van was found in the Winter Garden Inn parking lot (behind a chain link fence which stood about eight feet high), which is where he said he was there to pick up a TV from Zeigler that night. No innocent person parks on the other side of a fence which blocked Zeigler's property and his loading bay door where Mays was supposed to receive the tv. His van was on the other side! If innocent, he should have parked around front, like any other customer. By Thomas' own account this is where he and Mays parked so the theory that Zeigler may have moved his van is tossed out the window. I also think there was a brain behind this operation who orchestrated everything that went down. They were waiting in the store for Zeigler to arrive (most likely to kill him and then take some money to make it look like a robbery) when Eunice and her parents surprised them. Someone got trigger happy and shot Eunice, then a fight ensued with Perry Edwards, and then he and his wife were shot down. At this point things have got to be frantic. Their original plan now has three additional victims, so they have to think quick. They still have Zeigler coming to the store so they're original plan hasn't come unhinged just yet. If they kill Zeigler, they can still make it look like a robbery/homicide. I don't think they anticipated Zeigler being armed when he walked in the store. Zeigler shoots Mays, then his assailants shoot him. At this point I think the frame job was thought up. Mays would have went to the hospital and for fear of spilling the beans had to be killed. It was after they killed Mays, I think, that they took Zeigler's personal weapon and shot both Edwards' in the head (they were already dead). Then when they think all is well they disperse, and Williams goes to start his truck and OOPS it won't start. Williams allegedly had a faulty carbureator which caused his truck to stall. Which is what I think happened. And it was then that he himself had to think of something quick. His truck was at the murder scene and he had one of the murder weapons in his pocket! This would totally account for his strange behavior and the fact that he didn't seek help until about 9:30. Again, I'll get back to Williams later. As for Felton Thomas, I do think he was there to make some quick cash and had no idea that a homicide plot was underway. He probably saw something that scared him (maybe one of the intruders had a gun, or maybe he heard the initial shots that killed Eunice and her parents) and fled. Thomas didn't report to the Winter Garden police, he reported to a police station 20 miles away at 2:30 in the morning. What does this say? I think he was coerced into coming up with a story about what happened and may very well have been paid off for this. Now Mays most certainly was present when Eunice and her parents were killed and he CANNOT in any way shape or form be innocent. He may not have actually killed anyone, but he had Perry Edwards' blood caked on the bottom of his pants...meaning he stood in a pool of Perry's blood and waited around long enough for the blood to dry. Something an innocent man trying to pick up a TV for Christmas would not do. Mays' van alone should be enough evidence to show this man was guilty of something shady that night based off of where it was parked. Take into account the blood found on his pants and you've got yourself one of the perps IMO. And Mays was found with cash stuffed in his pockets which goes along with the theory that he was there to do something illicit just as well as it goes along with Zeigler stuffing them in his pants to frame Mays.

5. I thought Zeigler and Williams drove to the store together in Williams pick-up truck (my memory sucks at this point on this tidbit, so forgive me if I'm wrong) which would explain why Dunaway's car was at Zeigler's house and was never moved by anyone. The perpetrators wouldn't have had to move his car at all.

6. Mays was shot once, which coincides with Zeigler's account that he shot someone when he entered the store. Like I stated above, after Mays was hit the others didn't want to risk exposure so they dealt with him. The brutality of his death compared to the others shows that it was more likely committed by someone other than Zeigler. Consider this, if Zeigler was unhappy in his marriage or wanted to shut Eunice up permanently because she knew he was a violent closet homosexual, wouldn't her murder have been more brutal? Or even Zeigler's in-laws who (according to the prosecution's theory) hated Zeigler and were there in Winter Garden to whisk Eunice away from him? If Zeigler is guilty, why wouldn't he say he got in a fight with Mays after he shot him? Zeigler's own account says that he shot Mays and then proceeded to fight with two other assailants, but Mays was found beat to death. If guilty, wouldn't it be more plausible for Zeigler to try and pin everything on Mays alone instead of several people? All he had to do was say he and Mays struggled, they both shot each other and then in self-defense Zeigler beat Mays to death, since both would have been fighting for their lives? Why even concoct a odd and hazy story about a fight with three people (Mays and two unknown attackers) if it never happened? He would have a better chance framing Mays alone especially knowing how badly he beat him to death.

8. As I said earlier, I can't remember right now if Zeigler said he drove to the store in two seperate vehicles or if he said he drove with Williams to the store BUT I do think it wouldn't have been all that hard for someone to drive the Oldsmobile back to the garage and leave. I don't think it was Edward Williams, I think he was back by the store trying to work out his story/get his truck started. The assailants would have easily left in one of there cars. Several witnesses that night claim to have seen FOUR CARS parked in the front of the furniture store. Where did these other two cars come from? The assailants. I don't think Williams was in on any sort of plot involving murder initially and I think he went along with it out of fear for who is responsible. He probably was told Zeigler was going to be hurt but not killed and was promised money by whoever set the whole plan up. It wasn't until after he heard the shots that he became involved in the whole mess. He was probably ordered to get rid of the .38 (which explains why it was in his pocket), but that plan backfired when his truck wouldn't start. Just imagine what went through his mind at that point if he was involved. You know four, maybe five people were just murdered and you have to get the hell out of dodge...you have the weapon that was used to shoot three of these people so you have to get rid of that BUT your truck won't start. Williams panicked and maybe initially he was going to blow the whistle when he went over to the KFC, but then he got a ride and figured it would buy him some more time.

The bottom line is, if Edward Williams was innocent he should have been 1. screaming for help in the back lot of the furniture store and at the KFC and 2. reported what he knew to the police immediately. It took Williams HOURS to report anything to any police agency which again is something an innocent person would not do. Sorry about the long post, the visit to the furniture store kind of regenerated my interest in this case. I do think based off of everything I've mentioned there's no doubt in my mind that Zeigler is innocent.

You raise some interesting points. And, by the way, both Ziegler and Williams claim that he and Ziegler went to the store together, yet the Fickes claimed to have been at the Ziegler home on three separate occasions that night, during two of which they did not see the Oldsmobile Ziegler had been driving. This implies that the car wasn't there between 8:05-8:30 or so, which means there needs to be an explanation for where it was. This is why Phillip Finch theorizes the killers went to the Ziegler home and got his car, only to bring it back later - which is why the Fickes saw it in the garage at 8:40.

As far as the location of Mays' van, it certainly is a suggestive piece of evidence, but not necessarily conclusive. Sometimes, it is easier to walk from one place to another than it is to drive, because you can walk "as the crow flies," (i.e., in a straight line), whereas to drive you need to follow paved pathways, which might take an indirect route. I find this is particulary true when it comes to parking lots that are next to each other, but are not connected by a driveable pathway. Why is this relevant? I know that I have, on occasion, in the dark, in a hurry, trying to get to a particular store, have occasionally entered the wrong parking lot, etc., and, rather than exiting the wrong parking lot and looping all the way around to get into the right one, have just parked the car in the wrong lot, and gotten out of my car and made the short walk to my destination.

Obviously, Mays was supposedly there to pick up a heavy television set, so that would suggest he would want to park as close to the store as possible, making my scenario a little less likely, but I don't think the location of his truck, in and of itself, proves anything.

The blood evidence is certainly more suggestive, but I would suggest that, if the prosecution's story is correct, we must remember that Perry Edwards was dead before Charlie Mays ever entered the store. More, Perry Edwards was badly beaten, then shot through the head, probably leading to the loss of quite a lot of blood, which would have spilled out on to the floor. Zeigler led Mays, then, into a darkened store, where Mays probably couldn't see very well; it's entirely possible that Ziegler led Mays through the store in a route that caused him to walk right through a pool of Edwards' blood, which would account for what was found on Mays' pants and shoes. Indeed, perhaps Mays felt that he was walking through liquid, looked down, then realized he was walking into some kind of weird trap. Zeigler shoots him, but fails to kill him, and they struggle further, until Ziegler ultimately beats him to death.

I am not sure which scenario is more likely, but I am pointing out that it is still very possible that Mays could have been there, found as he was, and NOT have been part of the plot.

TheCars1986

11-12-2010, 10:28 AM

As far as the location of Mays' van, it certainly is a suggestive piece of evidence, but not necessarily conclusive. Sometimes, it is easier to walk from one place to another thn it is to drive, because you can walk "as the crow flies," (i.e., in a straight line), whereas to drive you need to follow paved pathways, which might take an indirect route. I know that I have, on occasion, in the dark, in a hurry, trying to get to a particular store, have occasionally entered the wrong parking lot, etc., and, rather than exiting the wrong parking lot and looping all the way around to get into the right one, have just parked the car in the wrong lot, and gotten out of my car and made the short walk to my destination.

Obviously, Mays was supposedly there to pick up a heavy television set, so that would suggest he would want to park as close to the store as possible, making my scenario a little less likely, but I don't think the location of his truck, in and of itself, proves anything.

You literally would have to be at the location to see how ridiculous this is. The rear of the compound was fenced in completely. On the east side of the building there was a side gate that vehicles would drive through to go to the back bay door to pick up heavier furniture. If Mays was there to pick up a TV his van would have been either out front or in the rear compound. Period. It was found parked in a hotel parking lot BEHIND the rear of the store. And there was a seven foot fence in front of the van. And this was the west side of the furniture store so it means Mays would have had to lugged the TV from the back lot of the furniture store, go through the gate on the east side of the building, go around the front of the store, go around the west side of the building and carry it across the parking lot of his hotel to get to his van. I wish I would have taken pictures from the spot of where it was located but I digress.

The blood evidence is certainly more suggestive, but I would suggest that, if the prosecution's story is correct, we must remember that Perry Edwards was dead before Charlie Mays ever entered the store. More, Perry Edwards was badly beaten, then shot through the head, probably leading to the loss of quite a lot of blood, which would have spilled out on to the floor. Zeigler led Mays, then, into a darkened store, where Mays probably couldn't see very well; it's entirely possible that Ziegler led Mays through the store in a route that caused him to walk right through a pool of Edwards' blood, which would account for what was found on Mays' pants and shoes. Indeed, perhaps Mays felt that he was walking through liquid, looked down, then realized he was walking into some kind of weird trap. Zeigler shoots him, but fails to kill him, and they struggle further, until Ziegler ultimately beats him to death.

I am not sure which scenario is more likely, but I am pointing out that it is still very possible that Mays could have been there, found as he was, and NOT have been part of the plot.

The theory that Mays could have innocently picked up Perry's blood is erroneous. In the several pictures taken of Mays body there are no bloody footprints around his body, which surely would have been there if he innocently picked up a blood trail walking through a dark store. And the distance from Perry's body to where Mays was found was literally 5 yards or less. And they were both found in the REAR of the store. Felton Thomas said Mays and Zeigler entered the front of the store in complete darkness. Why would Mays wander around in a darkened store on Christmas Eve knowing that Zeigler had been acting VERY suspicious mere minutes before? I suppose one could theorize that shortly after they entered the store Zeigler and Mays got in a struggle which lead them to the back of the store, but this doesn't explain the caked blood from Perry Edwards on Mays' pants. There was NO trail of blood found on or around Mays' body which means that 1. his gunshot wound would have had to have dried considerably before he was beat to death and 2. he was in the store long enough for blood (found on his pants) to dry AFTER Perry Edwards was killed. If he was shot after he discovered he was standing in Perry's blood, then there would be a trail AND bloody footprints from Mays found all over the area. There were none. The rear of the store was not carpeted but the front was so it's very possible that Mays moved around the store freely after Eunice and her folks were killed and he wouldn't have to leave footprints or trails if he stayed in the front of the store.

Killarney Rose

11-12-2010, 01:04 PM

You literally would have to be at the location to see how ridiculous this is. The rear of the compound was fenced in completely. On the east side of the building there was a side gate that vehicles would drive through to go to the back bay door to pick up heavier furniture. If Mays was there to pick up a TV his van would have been either out front or in the rear compound. Period. It was found parked in a hotel parking lot BEHIND the rear of the store. And there was a seven foot fence in front of the van. And this was the west side of the furniture store so it means Mays would have had to lugged the TV from the back lot of the furniture store, go through the gate on the east side of the building, go around the front of the store, go around the west side of the building and carry it across the parking lot of his hotel to get to his van. I wish I would have taken pictures from the spot of where it was located but I digress.

I am very familiar with that area. You are correct. It makes no sense at all for the van to be parked where it was found in order to pick up a TV.

Having lived in Winter Garden at the time this happened, and through the trial, being acquainted with the Zeiglars, and growing up around them, I saw this case as cut and dried. But now, I am having a more open mind that Tommy did not act alone. I still believe he is guilty, and masterminded the plot to kill Eunice, but I m now beginning to think he had accomplices that he planned to eliminate. But all did not go as planned.

TheCars1986

11-12-2010, 04:50 PM

Never really considered the possibility of Zeigler having Mays and perhaps others help him in the plot of killing his wife and making it look like a robbery. But I just don't see any motive Zeigler would have in doing so. First, why even kill Eunice at all? If her parents were there to allegedly help her leave Zeigler why not just let her leave with them? And why not kill her when there was a better opportunity? The first motive that comes to mind to most people for killing a spouse would be money and the prosecution believed he orchestrated everything for the $500,000 life insurance policy. But why on Earth would he kill the other three people? Surely it would have been easier to just arrange Eunice to meet him at the store alone at an earlier date (after hours) and have her killed then, why wait for a day when he knew her parents were going to be there as well? And Zeigler had no arrears and his businesses were thriving in the area...there's no reason why he needed any money. So the money motive theory IMO is just dead wrong. And I doubt if her parents truly despised Zeigler they wouldn't be inclined to meet him at his furniture store for a Christmas present. I just don't see how Zeigler could have been involved in this at all.

Killarney Rose

11-12-2010, 05:55 PM

It's possible to come up with all sorts of reasons and theories. Back when this happened, there wasn't much to read except the newspaper. Of course, I heard my mother and aunt discuss the trial, as they were spectators. And of course they talked about Tommy and the family. It has been so many years, and they have passed away but they believed the theory that Tommy acted alone and framed Charlie Mays.

But the more I read about this now, more I am inclined to believe that Tommy had them as accomplices. Mays had an overdue account at the store. But Tommy let him add floor covering to the overdue account that day. Back then, many local business had charge accounts and the black community stayed indebted to them. Storekeepers like Shorty Reddick operated this way, as did many others.Perhaps Tommy coerced Mays into helping him in exchange for forgiving the debt, maybe he agreed to throw in the TV also? We know Williams always did odd jobs for Tommy.Maybe Mays went ahead with the crime- but Felton Thomas came along with him, not knowing what they would be doing. When Tommy started bringing out the guns and trying to get them to fire them, and trying to stage the break in he got scared and ran. Pretty much the same scenario with Williams a bit later.

Tommy might have only planned to kill Eunice, but she unwittingly brought her parents along with her that fateful evening....

As far as why kill them when he could divorce her...people like I believe Tommy to be can't do that. I do believe he is a sociopath. To give her a divorce, he would see that as "she won". Not only would he be the "loser " in the situation, he would have to pay her money in a divorce settlement. And for a man like Tommy, this would not sit well at all. Better to kill her, set up someone else to take the blame, and collect the insurance money to boot.

Or maybe he did plan to kill the Edwards...maybe he hated them enough to. Only one person knows the truth of what happened that Christmas Eve, and he isn't telling.

TheCars1986

11-12-2010, 07:11 PM

Tommy might have only planned to kill Eunice, but she unwittingly brought her parents along with her that fateful evening...

Zeigler knew her parents were going to be there that night as there were supposed to pick out a recliner that they were getting as a gift from Tommy & Eunice. And Zeigler surely must be a moron if guilty because who would shoot themselves in the abdomen with a .38 revolver when there were .22's readily available? And why wait 15+ minutes to call for help after he shoot himself? His wound was dry when police arrived which means he waited around potentially causing harm and/or death by letting his wound continue to bleed. Very moronic IMO.

Killarney Rose

11-12-2010, 08:56 PM

You are correct. I remember reading that.

I still believe that Tommy planning to kill them also is a feasible scenario.

TracyLynnS

11-12-2010, 11:12 PM

I had always been thinking that a guy as well off as Tommy Z, and with a future full of promise and nothing but more money to be made, wouldn't bother setting up such an elaborate plan, with so many ways it could go wrong, just to kill his wife for the insurance money. (And there are other reasons I tend to think he's innocent, such as that whole thing with the dirty judge, and the dangerously located bullet wound.)

But I am wondering, was Eunice an only child? Would murdering her and her parents have made Tommy the beneficiary of the life insurance on his wife plus put him in a position to inherit from his inlaws, since Eunice was now dead and couldn't inherit anything from her parents' passing?

BTW, Killarney Rose, your comments on the subject are very interesting and enlightening. It's great to have the insight and opinions of someone close to the situation sharing all that info with us. Thanks so much! :)

kadrmas15

11-13-2010, 12:54 AM

Not really sure how you figure Tommy is guilty except your own personal opinions? I have my own personal opinions but it does not seem to matter. Ed Williams was in fear for his life? That would be why he was in possession of several of the firearms used that night at various different points because he was so afraid? Give me a break.

Truth be told, the facts argue against Ziegler's guilt. Ziegler had an insurance policy on his wife. So what? Many people have insurance policies on their spouses, doesn't make them killers. Ziegler was already rich or at least well off before these murders, why take such a huge risk to not only kill your wife, but on top of that, your in laws and another guy and try to frame him for it?

If the local police were allegedly so 'into the klan' as you claim, why not just point the finger at the dead man Charlie Mays or at Ed Williams? Why go after Ziegler? The people in favor of his guilt, love to point guilty, guilty, guilty, but yet really have nothing to back that opinion up except either their dislike of Ziegler or their dislike of what happened. It certainly shouldn't stand up in a court of law.

If Ziegler is such a 'sociopath' (way to much of a word that is thrown around way too much) why would he shoot himself in the side? A wound that put him in the hospital for several days? Why take the risk of shooting himself in a way that he could possibly end up killing himself even if he did not mean or intend to?

No, this is just another example of Florida's highly corrupt criminal justice system, which was highly corrupt then and is highly corrupt now. Non unanimous death penalty juries, trial judges allowed to override life recommendations (as occurred here) it just reeks. No wonder Florida has released more innocent men from death row than from any other state, even the atrocious Illinois.

TheCars1986

11-13-2010, 10:34 AM

But I am wondering, was Eunice an only child? Would murdering her and her parents have made Tommy the beneficiary of the life insurance on his wife plus put him in a position to inherit from his inlaws, since Eunice was now dead and couldn't inherit anything from her parents' passing?

Eunice had a brother who confirmed that his parents went to Florida from Georgia to visit Eunice and Tommy for the holidays, not to rescue her from a violent closet homosexual. So I'm assuming the brother would have receieved the inheritence from Perry & Virginia Edwards.

Guardian

11-13-2010, 01:29 PM

I can't quite decide on this case. I lean more towards innocent.

The prosecution's story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. However, that story was only using the known "facts" of the case to come up with a scenario for TZ being the killer.

TZ's story makes more sense over all. The thing I can't quite figure out is they imply that the police set him up, and possibly even commited the murders themselves. I know there have been suggestions posted on this board, but going completely off of the UM segment, there is no clear motive for the police to set him up. I know that UM only has a short time to present a case, but it seems if you are going to make allegations accusing the police, you should at least present something to back up what you say. The closest they came was when they mentioned that there was bad blood between TZ and the judge before the trial.

I will have to take some time to look into other information on this case before I form a final opinion. If I had to choose right now though, I have to say innocent, or at least give the man a new trial.

Killarney Rose

11-13-2010, 02:06 PM

Could he get a fair trial today? How many of the witnesses and people involved in the case are still living? What about Vernon Davids? Is he still in practice? I don't think he is still in Winter Garden. Is the evidence still available?

Even though I think he is guilty, I think he was denied a fair trial because of Judge Paul. But I wonder would he be able to get a fair trial after all these years?

TheCars1986

11-13-2010, 03:42 PM

The thing I can't quite figure out is they imply that the police set him up, and possibly even commited the murders themselves. I know there have been suggestions posted on this board, but going completely off of the UM segment, there is no clear motive for the police to set him up. I know that UM only has a short time to present a case, but it seems if you are going to make allegations accusing the police, you should at least present something to back up what you say. The closest they came was when they mentioned that there was bad blood between TZ and the judge before the trial..

This is the gist of the story as to why people may have been looking to harm/kill Tommy Zeigler on the night of December 24, 1975:

There were alleged loan sharks taking advantage of the poor black migrant workers (fruit pickers) in Winter Garden. These loan sharks would loan money out to the fruit pickers (since most of the workers had little to no money until the day they got paid) and then would charge them a ridiculous high amount of interest. In other words, the loan sharks would loan these people somewhere between 20-60 bucks a week and then collect their whole paycheck (hundrend and some approximately) at the end of that week. And it was alleged that some police officers knew of this illegal activity but would not investigate further due to either being in on the scheme or just being paid off by one of the loan sharks. Zeigler was an outspoken opponent of the loan sharks and also of the way the poor blacks were being taken advantage of by the whites who had some wealth and power in the community. Zeigler first brought the attention of the loan sharks up at the trial of Andrew James, a black bar owner in Winter Garden. James was trying to be pushed away by rival whites who wanted to gain access to his bar and liquor license. James was the only black man to own a bar in the area and almost all of his customers were poor blacks from the area (including the fruit pickers). Rivals of James knew they could further push their loan sharking scheme if they took over James' bar. So an undercover beverage agent allegedly went into James' bar one night and bought some marajuana from him, which resulted in him being arrested and tried. Andrew James swore his innocence, and Zeigler spoke out on his behalf. It was at the James trial that Zeigler publically brought out the loan shark operations and how he felt Andrew was being framed to further the scheme. (This most likely resulted in the reason why people were looking to do harm to him that night on Christmas Eve, IMO)

Judge Paul was a witness to the prosecution at the Andrew James trial. I'm not quite sure as to what Paul testified on but I think since he was considered a "character witness" he pretty much trashed the character of Andrew James and said he could conceivably believe he would sell drugs at his bar. Tommy Zeigler was the defense's character witness who rebuffed everything Paul said and also brought up the loan sharking. So its quite possible that as a result of Zeigler's testimony he rifled a lot of feathers (maybe even Judge Paul's) and that's why he was targeted that fateful night.

(On a side note, I came upon a website for an Orlando based newspaper which said that a judge granted Zeigler and evidentary hearing set for next year in February based off of new DNA evidence. The article was dated this year so I don't think this already happened but as for the DNA evidence I wonder what that is???)

TracyLynnS

11-13-2010, 06:00 PM

I came upon a website for an Orlando based newspaper which said that a judge granted Zeigler and evidentary hearing set for next year in February based off of new DNA evidence. The article was dated this year so I don't think this already happened but as for the DNA evidence I wonder what that is???

I'm not positive, but I thought the new DNA evidence was that the blood originally found on Tommy Z and argued to belong to his father in law (thus proving he killed his father in law) was later tested for DNA. It showed that the blood did not belong to the father in law.

I think also that blood on another actor in the crime was tested, showing that it also didn't belong to who they said it did during the first trial. I'm definitely not positive about this at all. It's been a while since I read the info.

The free tommy z site will probably have the DNA information you're interested in. Those pages of the site are kind of intesive reading, tho. http://www.freetommyz.com/

Guardian

11-13-2010, 06:43 PM

Thanks for posting that Cars. That makes the police connection make more sense. Also gives them reason to put TZ away on death row at the time. If police were at best looking the other way and at worst directly involved in the loan shark operations, they could be in deep $#%* if that info came out. Kind of makes me lean even more towards TZ being innocent.

I would love to see him get a new hearing. Maybe, just maybe that could help get the ball rolling on other similar cases of innocents wrongly convicted.

I am all for capital punishment, but in cases where there is contoversey of some kind, I dont think it should apply. Too many chances of getting the wrong person put to death.

Killarney Rose

11-15-2010, 02:20 PM

TheCars1986

11-15-2010, 02:37 PM

I can see where there is enough evidence to cast doubt on Tommy's guilt. I've already stated I have believed in his guilt all these years. Guilty or not, I don't think he got a fair trial, and like I said also, after all this time has passed, I still doubt it for various reasons that he could.

But, I have to ask- if the cops and a few dirty locals wanted Tommy dead, why the bloodbath at the furniture store, and so many people killed for no reason? They could have easily taken Tommy out when he was alone. And if the cops were dirty as many believe, they could have covered up the evidence and his death would have remained unsolved.Like Shorty Reddick

It's been implicated that Charlie Mays was in on the murder of Shorty Reddick too, but that's only a rumor. And as for the bloodbath at the store, no one was expecting Eunice and her parents to be there. Zeigler was going to be there by appointment, which is why I think the assailants were there waiting when Eunice and her folks arrived before Zeigler. Perry Edwards put up one hell of a fight with whoever killed him (no blood from Edwards was found on Zeigler) which is why I think the Edwards's and Eunice surprised the assailants that night.

Killarney Rose

11-15-2010, 06:57 PM

It's been implicated that Charlie Mays was in on the murder of Shorty Reddick too, but that's only a rumor. And as for the bloodbath at the store, no one was expecting Eunice and her parents to be there. Zeigler was going to be there by appointment, which is why I think the assailants were there waiting when Eunice and her folks arrived before Zeigler. Perry Edwards put up one hell of a fight with whoever killed him (no blood from Edwards was found on Zeigler) which is why I think the Edwards's and Eunice surprised the assailants that night.

Good point. I am finding this discussion very interesting after believing the case was so cut and dried for all these years. I'm still not convinced of his innocence though.

TheCars1986

11-15-2010, 08:06 PM

Good point. I am finding this discussion very interesting after believing the case was so cut and dried for all these years. I'm still not convinced of his innocence though.

Yes Zeigler's account of what happened has several holes, but when you dissect the state's case, Zeigler's stands up a hell of a lot better. And from what I've read a lot of people in the area of Winter Garden just kind of accepted Zeigler was guilty based off of what was being said around town sometimes blurring rumor for fact.

Guardian

11-15-2010, 11:39 PM

Personally I think that if you could go back in time and be a fly on the wall watching what actually happened, it would likely be very different than either the state or TZ version in many areas.

Obviously, if he is guilty then he would be the one firing the gun. If innocent, he would be attacked by someone else. But all the little details would likely turn out like in a TV show when they do an event told from several different points of view.

Obviously, the state was not there as a witness. So to some extent TZ is the only real witness to the crime in whatever scenario you go with. But what bothers me is that it seems the prosecution simply shrugged off potential evidence if it didn't fit their theory of what happened. What was the deal with the guy in the hotel that saw a cop outside the store with a gun drawn and moments later gunshots more than 20 minutes before the police were officially there?

Whatever you choose to believe in that instance, the prosecutor on UM gave the absolute wrong answer when that bit of info was tossed his way. He said something to the effect of "Well, since he says it happened before the police report says that the police arrived there, its completely irrelavant." WTF? Are you serious? If there had been subtitles at the bottom of the screen translating that guy's BS for that statement it would have said: "Well, that person's statement does not fit what we have decided actually happened, so we are just going to ignore it."

If information like that is brought up in a case like this, it is the prosecutor's job to make his theory fit the known evidence and witness statements. Not design his theory and pick and choose only the evidence that supports that theory.

I am still not convinced one way or another on this case, but either way, they have to at least acknowledge the evidence and witness statements. I still call unfair trial at the least on this case.

Killarney Rose

11-16-2010, 11:55 AM

Yes Zeigler's account of what happened has several holes, but when you dissect the state's case, Zeigler's stands up a hell of a lot better. And from what I've read a lot of people in the area of Winter Garden just kind of accepted Zeigler was guilty based off of what was being said around town sometimes blurring rumor for fact.

And there were lots of rumors flying at the time about Tommy.In 1975 this was the biggest thing to happen in Winter Garden since we got a MacDonald's a few years earlier. Although it is in the shadow of Disney World( I could hear the fireworks every night from my living room, and they can be seen from Dillard street if you are in front of what used to be the Zeiglar furniture store facing south). WG at the time was still very much small town America. Nowadays, drivinf around down there, you can't tell when you leave one small town and enter another, and it all seems to be a part of Orlando, but back then they were very much apart with rural areas that no longer exist separating them.Not meaning to ramble, but the mindset was still very rural and a great deal of the population settled there during the depression when it was an agricultural community. They came from places such as south AL and Georgia, and brought that way of thinking with them. So it is no surprise that it was still a very segregated community with a Klan presence and possibly corrupt law enforcement. Tommy was arrested and charged with murder, therefore he must be guilty.

About the guy at the Winter Garden Inn- I am not saying he didn't see the officer with his gun drawn, I just believe he might be mistaken about the time he saw the cop .

Thiussat

01-24-2011, 04:12 PM

TheCars1986

01-24-2011, 05:36 PM

I just watched this segment and I don't recall ever seeing it before. All my comments below are based on nothing but the segment.

1) "The Police did it" theory makes no sense. What would their motive be? The segment said Tommy kept money at the store, but it couldn't have been that much (I would estimate a few grand, maybe $10k at most). Are you going to tell me that the entire Police department, the judge, and the district attorney's office all plotted to kill 4 people for just a few grand? I find that highly unlikely. And I find it even more unlikely that not one of them has talked. I realize there are corrupt cops out there, but it's very difficult to keep a conspiracy this large quiet. (After reading some posts in this thread I see Tommy had been involved in some cases and may have ruffled some feathers in town, but I still don't see anything severe enough to warrant murder and a cover-up).

2) The wife had her hand in her pocket. The police are right on this: she was surprised and did not attempt to defend herself or flee. This means she was killed by someone whom she either didn't see or whom she trusted.

3) There were several witnesses whom Tommy claims fabricated their entire testimony. To hear Tommy tell it, these guys are criminal masterminds who must have been plotting this for ages (stealing his gun in advance, etc.). His story doesn't float because at least one of the guys has zero criminal history. Further, what reason would they have to even get involved in the trial at all if they were guilty? It would be better just to shut up and keep quiet.

4) Two different blood types were on Tommy's shirt. In the mid 70's there was no DNA testing that amounted to anything, so I would like to know what the DNA testing has revealed since.

5) This is the thing that is most suspicious to me: what was everyone even doing at the store in the first place? The whole scene just reeks of "set-up" from the get-go. It was 9 P.M. at night and the store was closed. I can understand Tommy being there (and maybe even his wife), but what in the heck were the in-laws doing there? It sounds an awful lot to me like Tommy wanted to off the in-laws as sort of an ancillary benefit of his crime (people hate their in-laws, right?).

6) As others said in this thread, if the Police wanted Tommy dead, why not just off him when he's alone? It would be simpler and lead to a lot fewer complications down the road.

7) Tommy had the biggest motive -- 500,000 of them.

Ultimately, I agree that this is largely a he said she said type of case and "beyond reasonable doubt" is hard to obtain. Tommy does have going for him the fact that he passed the poly and that there was no reason for him to kill the in-laws if his wife's insurance was his goal.

Good post. Here's my take on your points:

1) I don't necessarily agree with the whole everybody was in on it cover up. However, if at least one police officer was involved in the crime somehow that would make it easier to conceive a cover up. I think there was one person sinister enough to want Zeigler out of the way due to the whole loan shark monopoly going on in the area. And I think if there was a mastermind pulling strings in this scheme, he attracted his accomplices with the promise of monetary gain from the store. A few grand kept around in the store may not seem like a lot today, but back in 1975 to a poor fruit picker who made no more than $80 a week it certainly would appeal to them.

2) This point really could go either way, IMO. She could have easily been surprised by an unknown assailant who shot her from behind, or snuck up on her just as likely as her being shot by someone she knew.

3) What this case boils down to is Zeigler's testimony or Edward Williams's testimony. The remaining "witnesses" could all be traced back to Williams. And Zeigler never had a prior criminal record either. Edward Williams was found with the principal murder weapon in his possession, and his vehicle was broke down at the scene of the crime. Not to mention that his account of arriving at the store and having Zeigler attempt to murder him to which he fled to a store directly across the street allegedly took over 45 minutes (when it should have been no longer than 5), tells me he has something to hide. Why he wasn't looked at as a possible suspect more thoroughly is beyond me.

4) I think the newer DNA data has shown that Perry Edwards's (Zeigler's father-in-law) blood did not show up on Zeigler's shirt, but it was that of Charlie Mays. Which supports Zeigler's account of a fight with Mays (and another man) in the back of the store.

5) The fact that Perry and Virginia Edwards were at the store that night was to pick out a recliner for a Christmas gift. I think Zeigler was going to give it to them for free, all they had to do was show up and pick it out. Edward Williams was there to help Zeigler deliver the recliner and other last minute gifts. Since Zeigler was busy at the time doing some last minute chores, he had Eunice drive her parents over to save time. (Zeigler and Eunice were to attend a Christmas party later that evening and he figured instead of having Eunice and her parents wait around for him to arrive at the house and the go to the store, it would be quicker for everyone to just meet there.)

6) I believe this was the original plan. I think Zeigler was set up by people who knew he was going to be in the store that night, and he was the sole target. When Eunice and her parents arrived I think there may have been an attempt to subdue them and in the ensuing panic from everyone, someone got trigger happy and after murdering them the cover up was thought up. It would explain why when Zeigler entered the store he was assaulted first and not shot right away until after he put up a decent fight. It's also an interesting note that Perry Edwards had gun shot residue on his hand implicating that he fired a weapon as well.

7) People have killed for a lot less. But if Zeigler truely wanted the money, why involve his in-laws, and Charlie Mays? Why not just hire someone to off Eunice and give a cut of her insurance to the hitman? And why do it on his property? If he was so cold and calculated like the prosecution painted him, he sure did make enough blunders in his plotting that pretty much put the magnifying glass over him.

The fact that Zeigler was in no debt in any way is another tell tale sign to me that the motive was not about money. His business was thriving, and he also owned several properties in the area that were making money as well. If Zeigler's motive was to collect the insurance money on Eunice, he could have easily accomplished this a lot more cleanly. He could have hired a poor migrant worker to do the job, and it certainly could have been done in a better location than his furniture store. Even if he planned on it occurring at the store, he could have easily had Eunice go with him to the store while the hired killer was waiting and when they arrived and Eunice was killed, he could have pulled one of his many guns from the store on the killer and shot him. There would be no witnesses, and Zeigler's story would hold up a lot better than having four people murdered in the store with 50+ bullet holes and five different guns used. The fact that he allegedly attempted to "set up" Charlie Mays and Felton Thomas is another red flag to me. He also allegedly let Felton Thomas get away. If Zeigler had already murdered his wife and in-laws and was dead set on framing Thomas and Charlie Mays, all he had to do was pull a gun on both of them and take them into the store. It was that simple. But he let Felton Thomas run away while he and Mays entered the store. If Zeigler is guilty, he is the biggest moron on the planet. UM wouldn't even film a segment about the case until Zeigler passed a polygraph that they set up. While both theories seem to have enough holes to ride a horse through, IMO there's more evidence in favor of Zeigler's innocence than his guilt.

Clockworkhigh

01-25-2011, 02:15 AM

The whole thing about the "wife's hand was in her pocket" is a little bit of a stretch. First of all, I know this implicates that she knew her attacker and was not surprised at all but she could have been blindsided and secondly she could have easily had her hand put back in her pocket after she was shot, no one seems to think about that.

I always tend to believe Ziegler. His story made more sense and let's face it, while there is a lot of doubt about Darlie Routier and Jeffrey MacDonald, I think there is a bigger movement in this case towards him being innocent. Robberies DO happen at a business location, that is not unusual.

And would Tommy not find a better night than Christmas Eve to commit these murders had he done them? It just doesn't make sense.

Lastly, to all the people who think people like Steven Page are being protected by the police let me remind you of Tommy Ziegler. In the segment it is mentioned that he knew the mayor and the police of chief on a first name basis. He was a regular church attender which means he'd have known his minister well. Yet he was still charged and convicted despite knowing a powerful politician, a powerful law enforcement person and seemingly a man of the "cloth", all three men who would have had good reputations in the community.

Killarney Rose

01-25-2011, 11:43 AM

TheCars1986

01-25-2011, 07:08 PM

I came to this MB with the firm belief that TZ is guilty. However, after doing much reading, I now see lots of room for doubts about that. However, bottom line, I still am pretty convinced he is guilty, I just have a little doubt now that there is a chance he might not be. I do believe he did not get a fair trial, as I have already stated. However,-

"And would Tommy not find a better night than Christmas Eve to commit these murders had he done them? It just doesn't make sense."

I don't think so. I think if he is guilty that he saw this as the perfect time to get Charlie mays into the store and frame him for the murders.

Zeigler could have easily lured Edward Williams to the store on the pretense of helping him with deliveries on any given date and time. Williams was a handyman who seemed like a reliable person to help out at Zeigler's furniture store. Had his sole intention been on murdering Eunice, he could have just taken Eunice to the store and murdered her and then had Williams meet him at the store ten minutes later and kill him too, and make it look like Williams was the perp. Charlie Mays (also by all accounts a decent, upstanding citizen) seems like such an unlikely (not to mention unbelievable) candidate for setting up as a fall guy in the murder of three innocent people. But there have been murmurs/rumors about how Mays was involved in petty crimes and also in the murder of another shop keeper in the Winter Garden area. There's an article online somewhere, all you have to do is google "Charlie Mays Shorty Reddick".

Killarney Rose

01-25-2011, 10:36 PM

I have read those. They was helped plant that little seed of doubt I have. =)

TheCars1986

01-26-2011, 10:30 AM

I have read those. They was helped plant that little seed of doubt I have. =)

The murder of Shorty Reddick is eerily similar to the Tommy Zeigler case. Reddick was a shop keeper and was one of the ones involved in the loan sharking scheme. His wife was having an affair with a man who figured if they got Shorty out of the way they could then gain control of the money coming in from the loan sharks. They allegedly paid Charlie Mays to carry out the killing which was in turn then covered up to look like a robbery.

Killarney Rose

01-26-2011, 11:59 AM

Reading about Mays possible involvment in that incidient is what planted the seeds of doubt.

I was about was in 7th grade when Reddick was murdered. We occaisionally shopped in his store- it was on the road we lived on, between our house and town(Winter Garden). But most of his customers were migrant workers. Reddick lived across the road from the store in what was in those days considered to be a mansion. He had raised a family-his grandchildren were my age and i went to school with them- then married a much younger woman and had a daughter with her that was younger than his grandchildren. There was much talk and innuendo around town(Winter Garden, Oakland & Tildenville{where his store was}) that his much younger wife had something to do with the murder and that the robbery was faked to cover it so that she could get his money as he was considered wealthy in those days. I do remember her being brought up on some charges for something when I was in high school, but I don't remember what for. I do think there was a trial though.But local gossip as I remember blamed her for the murder. I think her name was Carol. The store he was killed in stayed closed many years after his death, but she went on to open and run several stores in the area in the 70s that did the same type of business and catered to the migrant workers.If I'm not mistaken, there was one in Wintergarden called Carol's Country Store. And I think the original store where the murder took place was also reopened during that time.

TheCars1986

01-26-2011, 01:08 PM

Killarney Rose

01-26-2011, 01:19 PM

yes, there are many things like that that open the whole thing to question for the whole case. I think there is much speculation and I don't think we'll ever know what really happened to Reddick or the TZ case. too many years have passed, too many witnesses have died and probably too much was covered up in both cases.

If anyone is interested in an internet search I think the daughter's name was Starla, and wife Carol. Who knows what might turn up. I'm not too good at stuff like that myself.

Killarney Rose

08-10-2011, 05:19 PM

I was on Facebook just now reading in one of those groups that is" If you grew Up in Winter garden Do You Remember....Thought I'd share this......

Tommy zeigler killed worker in zieglers furniture store.
21 hours ago via Facebook Mobile

*
*
Daphne Martin likes this.
*
o
Mary Lea Bradford And his wife and her parents. It was on the national news.
21 hours ago
o
Debbie Israelson I rem it to well..my uncle was the first cop on the scene that night and my mom worked for Tommy,s attorney! Its a family memory i would love to forget if they can ever finish it! I also went to school with the mans son he killed that night7
21 hours ago
o
Mary Lea Bradford The whole thing was so tragic.
21 hours ago
o
Debbie Israelson Yes it was but the real bad thing is hes still on death row! Cant wait till hes gone! Me and my family want a end to that horrible night!
21 hours ago
o
Karen Brown Ayles Very sad. We were related to his wife and the Edwards that were killed that night.
20 hours ago
o
Candace Boles I remember hearing of this and used to stay in Tommy's house with a friend and it was seriously haunted.
19 hours ago
o
Melissa Johnson Tressler I had his wife as a 4th grade teacher at Dillard Street Elem.
19 hours ago
o
Bethany Theobald I think I heard he was appealing again with "new evidence". I remember going in that place when it was Goodwill and it always felt dark and creepy.
19 hours ago
o
Shelley Selph Lomastro I remember that. I can't believe he's still on death row after all these years. Our criminal justice system stinks.
19 hours ago · 1 personCandace Boles likes this.
o
Joyce Trombly Brown Stopped by the store on the way home from Midnight Mass Christmas eve. My first experience around death. eeeeerrrriiiii
19 hours ago · 1 personLoading...
o
Midge McGarvey Barrett Wow , I thought he would have been executed years ago.....
18 hours ago
o
Terri Bekemeyer Fredericksen Tommy confessed everything at the hospital, but they disallowed using it because he had some pain medication. I remember that night very well. It was tragic. And his wife was pregnant.
18 hours ago
o
Charlene Carroll Mills He is still on death row, and has been turned down on 8 appeals...Want to hear something funny....Casey Anthony State Prosecutor Jeff Ashton, was also Assistant State Prosecutor Jeffrey Ashton...back then. Thinking 1975....Mr Ashton has had quite a career.
16 hours ago · 1 personLoading...
o
John Peters sad it put our wonderful little town on the map in a horrible way...
15 hours ago
o
Kelley Mccoy-Keoppen It still runs on history channel...I remember that too although I was very young
9 hours ago
o
Kelley Mccoy-Keoppen Oops..he spins it as our police were small town boys looking to pin this on him...ha he is no different than KC Anthony he just got caught...now he looks for time on tv...just my thought ;) terrible tragic event.
9 hours ago
o
Charlotte Russ does anyone remember the year of the killings? My girlfriend's boyfrin
9 hours ago
o
Charlotte Russ oops ....boyfriend is the one that Tommy Zeigler ran out the store with a gun and had blood all over him.Her boyfriend ran to the nearest payphone and called Winter Garden's FINEST!!!!
9 hours ago
o
Tammy Mercer Keefer I will never forget that. Still shocked about tht whole situation. :(
8 hours ago · 1 personLoading...
o
Tim Lemp Eunice was my 4th grade teacher at Dillard St Elementary. Was a real shock when this all went down...
7 hours ago
o
Charlotte Russ Hi Timmy ..Did you see the note I sent you last night.♥'
7 hours ago
o
Kathryn Hall Knight As a young child, on the way home from a Christmas party. WG police had just arrived. Parent pulled the car over in KFC parking lot across Dillard st. We had to sit and watch what was going on. My parents had gone to Lakeview HS with him. I remember still, they told me as a young child he would torture animals! Very tragic!
6 hours ago via Facebook Mobile
o
Joyce J. McWilliams Christmas Eve 1975, remember it like it was yesterday, and he's STILL guilty!!!!!!!!! He hurt so many people in so many ways.
5 hours ago
o
Velvet Torres my grandmother's house was kitty-corner to the furniture store. was there that christmas eve -- thought it was fireworks until the police showed up everywhere.
2 hours ago
o
Cherrie French and his wife
about an hour ago
o
Pat Little Colosimo And his wife's parents.
about an hour ago
o
Joyce Trombly Brown and now I hear his unborn baby too
about an hour ago
o
Joyce Trombly Brown I heard he tried to kill his wife at home first with a small bomb in his shed and sent his wife out there to get something. She got half way there turned around and it blew up.
about an hour ago
o
Janice Helms i don't think he'll ever get his punishment
about an hour ago

TheCars1986

08-11-2011, 01:43 PM

The whole BS involving torturing animals and attempting to kill his wife and parents was all rumors brought about conveniently AFTER he was pegged as the triggerman. There was not a peep about any of this stuff until after Zeigler was the prime suspect in the four slayings.

Killarney Rose

08-11-2011, 06:11 PM

I found the take from the locals kind of interesting even after all these years. I know some of these people. Most I don't.

I never mentioned the animal torture/ killing thing here because I knew It could be called gossip. But I will tell you that my aunt was friends with Tommy's parents and remained so until their deaths.She was around Tommy when he was growing up and had first hand knowledge of it. She told the story from the very beginning about Tommy and the family dog. And this had been told to her many years before, when Tommy was a boy, by his mother, Beluah who was worried about him.

justins5256

08-11-2011, 08:50 PM

Killarney Rose

08-11-2011, 09:12 PM

tortured and killed it. I was a kid, so I don't remember more except they wouldn't get him another one. Tommy is older than me, so I personally wasn't around him. I was about 9 when he and Eunice married so that would heve put him in his mid to late 20s I am guessing.we all went to the same church but there was that big age difference. I think I remember my aunt saying that his parents left their estate to the curch because of Tommy being in prison.

TheCars1986

08-12-2011, 08:32 AM

I never mentioned the animal torture/ killing thing here because I knew It could be called gossip. But I will tell you that my aunt was friends with Tommy's parents and remained so until their deaths.She was around Tommy when he was growing up and had first hand knowledge of it. She told the story from the very beginning about Tommy and the family dog. And this had been told to her many years before, when Tommy was a boy, by his mother, Beluah who was worried about him.

I'm sorry but I still don't buy the whole "tortured the family dog" story. No one ever testified in court to any of this alleged "gossip". When Zeigler's defense team pressed people about the alleged homosexual affairs Zeigler was having, they suddenly clamed up and said something to the effect of "well it's something I've heard from a friend of a friend". The same with Zeigler attempting to kill his father in a river and the torturing of the family dog. Had this been known as a fact around the town that Zeigler was this sick demented person, do you think sweet, innocent church-going Eunice would have married him, not to mention even go out on a date with him?

Killarney Rose

08-12-2011, 09:14 AM

Had this been known as a fact around the town that Zeigler was this sick demented person, do you think sweet, innocent church-going Eunice would have married him, not to mention even go out on a date with him?

How many women marry men they think they can trust and are one way, but after they marry them, then they get to know the "real" person and find out they are quite different? Just from watching UM it's obvious a lot of them do.

Also, Eunice was from Georgia, not WG. She didn't grow up around Tommy. this was the early to mid 60s when they dated/married. WG was not the large urban area attatched to the edge of Orlando that many people see today. It was a tiny, small town in the south, populated by many people who migrated there from other small town, rural areas in the deep south during the depression. That's how my parents got there. It was a different world then. People didn't talk out loud about those things. The Zeiglars did have status and influence in the community and (common) people just wouldn't try to interfere in the relationship.

I'm sure that the pet story has been retold and exaggerated through the years, but as with many rumors, most of the time there is a grain of truth that plants the seed......

I never brought this up before because I certainly can't prove it. I can't go back to ask my aunt as she has been dead several years..but I do know if she hadn't believed it, she wouldn't have told it.And she wasn't out spreading it. She was talking about it in her home with just us there. she never had a reputation as a gossip and I believe her..however I have other family members who if they had told something like that I would never have taken them seriously...

When you live someplace that a crime like this takes place, and you know some of the parties involved, or are at least acquainted with them, it does influence what you think. Which is why I have always believed Tommy is guilty. But reading that online book, I do believe he probably didn't get a fair trial.Which I have stated here...I still think he is sitting right where he belongs however.

TheCars1986

08-12-2011, 09:42 AM

How many women marry men they think they can trust and are one way, but after they marry them, then they get to know the "real" person and find out they are quite different? Just from watching UM it's obvious a lot of them do.

Yes this happens several times, but the theory was that Eunice was deathly afraid of Tommy and planned on leaving him with her parents help. Why her parents would let her travel to the store, let alone even interact with Zeigler (if all the rumors were true or somewhat true), if she planned on leaving him, is beyond me.

I'm sure that the pet story has been retold and exaggerated through the years, but as with many rumors, most of the time there is a grain of truth that plants the seed......

Look at all of the rumors that came about after Jon Benet Ramsey was murdered. Her father was molesting her, her mother was vicariously living through her daughter which turned into an obsession, her brother killed her in a jealous rage, etc. All of which have never proven to be true. Same with Zeigler. Not one person has ever came forward and publically claimed first hand knowledge of any of these rumors surrounding him.

I never brought this up before because I certainly can't prove it. I can't go back to ask my aunt as she has been dead several years..but I do know if she hadn't believed it, she wouldn't have told it.And she wasn't out spreading it. She was talking about it in her home with just us there. she never had a reputation as a gossip and I believe her..however I have other family members who if they had told something like that I would never have taken them seriously...

I don't think your aunt is lying, or spreading gossip around town. Like you said, she probably did believe it just like most everyone in the community. It's so much easier to believe these horrible things, especially after someone was convicted of four brutal murders.

When you live someplace that a crime like this takes place, and you know some of the parties involved, or are at least acquainted with them, it does influence what you think. Which is why I have always believed Tommy is guilty. But reading that online book, I do believe he probably didn't get a fair trial.Which I have stated here...I still think he is sitting right where he belongs however.

There's so much evidence in this case that suggests Zeigler was either innocent, or did not act alone in the murders. There was more than enough reasonable doubt in this case, IMHO. Edward Williams had the murder weapon, there was a tooth found in the store that did not match any of the murder victims or Zeigler that mysteriously disappeared, and there was evidence that Charlie Mays was involved in a struggle with Perry Edwards. I think he deserves another trial.

TheCars1986

08-12-2011, 11:29 AM

I just wanted to touch on these points because I had overlooked them in the past when reading mozartpc27's well thought and very good break down of this case.

So what time did Ed Williams arrive at that KFC? Well, this, apparently, has been a matter of some dispute. One employee, whose shift ended at 9:00, says she never saw him. This would suggest Williams must have come in at the back end of our time range, actually even a few minutes past our estimate. The employee who showed him the phone did not specify what time he thought that occurred, but, importantly, he also did not say that he had to let Ed Williams into a locked store to make the call; if this had happened, you might think it a detail he would remember and relate. He simply said Williams asked to use the phone, and he allowed Williams to do so. Another witness, a customer, said she believed Williams had actually arrived to use the phone between 9:15 and 9:20, but again made no mention that he had to be let in specially to use it. Importantly, this account also establishes that the restaurant was perhaps supposed to close at 9:00, but allowed people to place orders that would keep them cooking past that time. Indeed, this woman said that she came and placed her order at about 8:55; less than ten minutes later, another group of men were allowed into the store (it apparently had to be unlocked) and allowed to place an order as well. Next came Ed Williams to use the telephone (she did not indicate he needed to be let in), and then, a few minutes after he had left, she heard someone say that there were police across the way (Finch 141-142).

I don't know who would want to rush into a KFC at 9:00 on a Christmas Eve to buy chicken, but I do know it's a common business practice to lock the doors before the "official" closing time (most likely 9) to prevent a burst of business that they couldn't accommodate (since they had put their last batch of chicken in around 8:55). This third witnesss, the lady customer, states that a group of men came in about ten minutes after her and the door had to be unlocked to let them in. She then states that Williams arrived after the group of men. She does not state that he had to be let in, but honestly that's a moot point IMO. This lady is almost as important as the Nolans, in terms of establishing the time in which Edward Williams arrived at the KFC. I don't want to re-hash things that have already been stated, so the jist of Edward Williams story is this:

Williams was to help Zeigler deliver Christmas gifts that night on Christmas Eve. He was told by Zeigler to meet him at his house at 7:30, and when Williams arrived he found a note from Zeigler saying he'd be back. Williams continued to wait around, and actually claims to have seen Zeigler return with two other passengers and told Williams to wait a little longer. Eventually, Zeigler returned and he and Williams left to go back to the store. By Williams own account, they should not have arrived at the store no later than 8:45 p.m. Williams says he stopped in the back lot to take a leak while Zeigler went into the store (Williams says he backed his truck up to the bay door so they could load their deliveries from there). Willaims enters the store, hears three or four clicks in the darkness but can't see anything and runs outside because he's scared (he apparently yelled out to Zeigler who didn't respond). Zeigler rushes out, with blood on his face (Williams did not see this blood at all during the whole drive to the store with Zeigler, nor at Zeigler's house when he got in his truck) saying he thought Williams was someone else and that's why he pulled a gun on him. The gun however, misfired which were the "clicks" Williams heard. Zeigler continues to insist that Williams go in the store with him, and even gives him the gun and gets down on his knees practically begging him to go back in. Williams freaks out, jumps the fence that surrounds the rear compound, passes by the Winter Garden Inn, and runs across the street to the KFC where he asks to use the phone.

That's Williams account, condensed the best way I know how. So let's say at the very latest Williams and Zeigler arrive at the store at 8:45 p.m. Williams had enough time to take a leak, enter the store, run back outside after being "scared", and have this whole odd encounter with Tommy in the back lot of the furniture store. Williams also stated in his testimony that he saw two men entering a room at the Winter Garden Inn (which is located directly next to the west side of the Zeigler furniture store) during this whole scene with Tommy in the back lot, yet he did not yell to either of them for help. After the encounter with Zeigler, he went directly to the KFC for help. But the lady customer says she arrived at the KFC around 8:55 p.m., and that a group of men came in about ten minutes later and that they had to be let in. In other words, the group of men arrived after 9:00 p.m. She then states that around 9:15-9:20ish (she obviously was not expecting anything out of the ordinary to happen that night so she wouldn't feel the need to note the exact time) Williams enters the store to use the phone. At the earliest, Edward Williams arrived at the KFC at 9:15. This means that IF (and this is a big IF) Williams and Zeigler did arrive at the store at 8:45 (by Williams own admission this is the latest possible time they could have), the whole encounter with Zeigler, the attempted murder attempt in the store, and Williams running away scared took 30 full minutes, since he went right over to the KFC for help. Williams taking a leak, then entering the store, hearing the noises and running back out would have taken less than five minutes. And then Williams says Zeigler comes out in the back lot, practically begs him to come back in, but then Williams noticed the blood on Zeigler and ran should have also taken less than five minutes. So what was Edward Williams doing for twenty minutes before he went to the KFC (which would take a mere minute to reach if one were crawling across the street)? Williams claimed that he thought Zeigler wanted to kill him, and the blood on his face and the gun in his possession helped solidify that fear. Yet he still waited an extended period of time (at the very least 20 minutes) before going to the KFC. And there were other witnesses that placed him at the KFC well after 9:15, and I'll touch on those now.

Finally, there was another customer, named Ed Nolan, a "regular" of this KFC, who ate there that night, as he did every night, and was met by his brother and his brother's wife. The three of them agreed that they saw the police at the Zeigler store -across the street from the KFC. Nolan's brother and Nolan's brother's wife said they saw Zeigler being helped into a police car by Robert Thompson (in other words, right before Zeigler was taken to the hospital). Then, according to J.D. Nolan (brother of Ed), he saw Ed Williams at the KFC, asking to use the telephone. Obviously, if all of this is true, is quite problematic for the prosecution's case, and casts a lot of doubt on Ed Williams: he apparently appeared at the restaurant AFTER the police arrived at the Zeigler store. This, indeed, is the "big reveal" of Finch's book; he wants this testimony to mean an awful lot.

The only other way to accept the prosecution's case, of course, is to suggest one of three things:

(1) That the Nolans were mistaken about what they saw
(2) That the Nolans were lying about what they saw

OR

(3) That the Nolans saw what they saw, but were mistaken about identifications.

At trial, the prosecution opted for the third possibility, saying the Nolans indeed had seen a black man ask to use the telephone at the restaurant the night of the murders, but that it was a different black man, that Ed Williams had been there earlier. Finch retorts that no witness reported two black men asking to use the telephone, including Edward Nolan, who was in the restaurant all night. He also tries to show that they couldn't have been wrong about the timing of what they saw, because of J.D. Nolan and his wife pulled off the road to watch everything transpire after they had almost been hit by a car - the car that almost hit them was a police vehicle, responding to the call for help at the Zeigler store. So that only leaves that they were lying about what they saw, only no one has ever offered any proof of that, and why would they, independent, disinterested third parties, lie?

I tend to believe Ed Nolan was mistaken about the time Williams entered the store. Both his brother, his sister-in-law, and the lady customer all refute the 9:05 p.m. time given by Ed. But Nolan's brother and sister-in-law could NOT have been mistaken about the time they arrived at the KFC that night. They were almost hit by Officer Jimmy Yawn's patrol vehicle which shot across the street to the furniture store, responding to Zeigler's call. Yawn's reponse time was recorded by the dispatch at 9:21 p.m. The Nolan's then parked their car, presumably to gain their composure and to see what the commotion was all about at the furniture store, saw their brother at the KFC and got out to talk to him. Then both Ed's brother and sister-in-law say this is when a black man came up asking to use the phone. What other black man would be out on Christmas Eve, approaching a KFC that was by all accounts already closed, asking to use the phone that night? It's just to far a coincidence, this man had to be Edward Williams, which places him arriving at the KFC later than 9:21. Meaning he waited close to an hour after his alleged attempted murder to seek out help at a place directly across the street from where he was.

First of all, Finch gleefully ignores at this point that one of the other witnesses present, who was equally sure of her times, told the story in inverse order from the Nolans: FIRST the black man came in to use the telephone, and then left, and THEN AND ONLY THEN did police arrive at the store. So there is disagreement among the eyewitnesses about the order of these events.

Edward Nolan, the first of he, his brother, and his brother's wife to come forward with this story, appears to change the timeline mid-stream: at first, he seems to indicate Williams comes in around 9:05 or so, much before the police come and close enough to Edward Williams' account. Then, in the middle of telling this story for the first time, he changes it up to suggest that Williams came later, at about the time his brother arrived, which no one seems to dispute was closer to 9:25 (this is because his brother and his brother's wife were both almost hit by a cop car that was responding to the call for officers to come to the store). However, note that even in this account, Nolan seems to suggest that first he saw Williams come into the store, then he noticed his brother at the window of the restaurant. By the time this went to trial, Ed Nolan had died (he was terminal with cancer at the time of the murders). However, his brother and his brother's wife testified, and they gave Edward Nolan's account - with revisions.

The problem, as you can see, is that Ed Nolan's account clearly and definitively contradicts the account given by his brother and his brother's wife. Ed says, in every version of his story, that FIRST he saw the black man, and THEN he saw his brother. His brother says that FIRST they spoke, and THEN saw the black man ask to use the telephone.

So, not only is Ed Nolan's statement not consistent with the statement given by another customer, it is not even consistent with the one given by his own brother.

So Ed Nolan was confused, or got the times wrong. The man did have terminal cancer at the time. The bottom line remains this: three witnesses, all of which had no connection to Zeigler, Williams, or any other party in this whole case all agree that Williams arrived at the KFC later than 9:15 p.m.

This is what Nolan said about why he only gave the last four digits of the police telephone number to Ed Williams. In those days, if the town was small enough, and everyone had the same exchange, you apparently only needed to dial four numbers to call from one exchange to another (so 555-1212 calling 555-1414 could just dial "1414"). But what I am interested in here is the attitude: "it wasn't no use telling him a half-dozen numbers." Why? Maybe it was because Williams was black, and Nolan was a racist, and figured a black man would be too dumb to remember more than 4 numbers? If that sounds far-fetched, here is an important detail I have withheld: Ed Nolan's testimony was never read into evidence at trial. This was not because he contradicted his brother, but because, in it, he used referred to Ed Williams as a n*****, and the defense was afraid of alienating the jury, which had six black people and six white people. This is hardly surprising, coming, as it did, from a 70-some-year old white man in the 1970s South. But if anyone is looking for a reason as to why three old white people might have made up a story about a black man to make him look like a liar, I don't think we need to have much of an imagination.

You're right, Ed Nolan was predjudiced against blacks, being a white southerner 70 years of age back in 1975. But the reasoning of being "no use of telling him a half-dozen numbers" could simply be because it was MUCH EASIER TO JUST DIAL 4! Nolan doesn't have to be racist by stating this, he's correct in saying it would be much easier to tell him four numbers instead of the seven, especially if that's all you needed to dial the police was four numbers! Just because Nolan dropped the n-bomb, and only gave Williams four digits of a phone number does not make him a black hating racist who wanted to make Williams look like a liar. That is almost as much of a huge stretch as the prosecution's theory on this case.

EDIT: Just noticed something else, the lady customer who placed her order at the KFC at 8:55 says after Williams left she heard someone say police were across the street. This does not mean that Williams arrived before police did, it just simply means that those in the store did not notice the police until after Williams left.

Killarney Rose

08-12-2011, 12:21 PM

Maybe I can elaborate on the 4 numbers-

Back then, there was only 1 prefix for Winter Garden telephone numbers(still small town!) 656. If you lived in WG or right outside of it, your phone # began with 656. It was common practice to only repeat the last 4 digits of a phone # because every one knew the prefix.(you still had to dial all 7 numbers)

I think (@The Cars) that we both agree TZ didn't get a fair trial and that whether it was inexperienced/sloppy forensics, or someone trying to cover up, things certainly appeared differently at the store than in court.

Unfortunately, after all these years if he were granted a new trial, so many people involved are dead, etc, I still don't think he could get a fair trial.

Do I think that what really went down at the store that night, and what the police say happened is probably different? Yes.

Do I think other people might have been there when the murders were commited, but they were never found? yes, I do.

But the bottom line for me is, that regardless of that, I still believe TZ was the mastermind behind the entire incident and is guilty.

TheCars1986

08-17-2011, 01:01 PM

But the bottom line for me is, that regardless of that, I still believe TZ was the mastermind behind the entire incident and is guilty.

I think if Zeigler were the mastermind behind everything he certainly has had ample time to implicate others in the murders. Don't you think if he in fact was responsible in some way, (perhaps he murdered Eunice or Charlie Mays while his accomplices killed everyone else) he'd want to implicate his accomplices to save his own skin? He's on death row, and if he could implicate that he had accomplices who actually did the murders he was convicted for, I'm sure his sentence would be commuted. If we are to believe that Zeigler had help, then we have to assume that either Edward Williams or Felton Thomas (or possibly both) were accomplices to the crime. Why did Zeigler (if he were the true mastermind) sit there at his trial and let both men implicate him without refuting or exposing them? Especially after all of this time has passed.

I tend to think that if he did get a new trial, and some new theories were presented to a jury (in addition to the DNA evidence that none of Perry Edwards blood was found on Zeigler), at the very least his sentence would be reduced to life. The problem with that unfortunately is that the majorty of the people in Winter Garden consider the case closed.

Killarney Rose

08-17-2011, 11:10 PM

"The Black man that was killed there was my YMCA basketball coach I believe his name was Mays , had two sons , Earnest and Piere..... "

"i was working the hospital the niight he came in. also was on the abmbulance the night we took him to florida hospital one scarry dude"

Just a couple more of the posts from that FB page I had posted from a few days ago.The second one is a guy I have known almost my entire life. We were in kindergarten together. He worked in the ER at the time it happened. He is a good guy and not "gossipy", There's been a lot of discussion about the case on there. And the 2 things most often said are how Tommy was not a nice person, and how sweet & kind Eunice was and she did not deserve for that to happen to her. I have not seen even the slightest hint of a negative comment about her, but Tommy....well, it is the complete opposite

You see, a crime can be discussed and dissected to bits and pieces on a public forum, but when you live in the town where it happened and know / or are acquainted the the people inolved, well, that puts a totally different perspective on it.

I KNOW it is hearsay, and you can't use hearsay in court, however, like I've already said, when things like those being said to this day are being said about someone like they are about TZ, well, there is a grain of truth in there to get them started to begin with.

If I had been a stranger to this case, and had never heard of it until I saw it on UM, After seeing the segment, and hearing what Vernon Davids had to say about it, I would have come away believeing TZ was innocent. But having lived around this case from the start, well, I believe I know better.

The Cars, I know neither of us is going to change th opinion of the other, we're just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Why did TZ not roll over on his alleged co conspirators? Because as a narccisist(SP) to do that he would have to admit his guilt in the crime and I don't believe he will ever do that. No matter what what happens.

TheCars1986

08-18-2011, 09:22 AM

The Cars, I know neither of us is going to change th opinion of the other, we're just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to sway your opinion in any way, just offering mine that's all. As to the people from the Winter Garden area discussing Zeigler, no matter who he was before the crime, he instantly became this evil despicable person as soon as he was accused of killing 4 innocent people. Just look at the public outcry against Casey Anthony, the majority of America thinks she's a vicious child killer.

Killarney Rose

08-18-2011, 01:44 PM

She is.....

As for TZ, I think with him being a hometown local boy and all, and the story he told about the 2 black guys trying to rob him and he killed in self defense...with the racial climate being what it was back then..well, they could just as easily believed TZ was telling the truth.

Things might have been desgregated by law then, but they weren't really... and if there had been a bit of believability of TZs story, authorities would have been quick to blame the black guys. I know..I lived in the middle of all that..my dad was a business man and employed lots of guys like Mays and Thomas and I grew up in it.

In fact for them to believe the black witness over TZ, a guy who came from a prominant upper class family says a lot...

Killarney Rose

08-19-2011, 10:10 AM

I was thinking about this yesterday after posting.... I know in previous posts on this thread I have mentioned that Winter Garden was at the time of the killings still very much old south and still segregated when it came to daily life.

So to me, for the authorities to go after and prosecute TZ rather than to just close the case and say Mays did it, says an awful lot to me given the Zeiglar family's place of prominence in WG at the time.

I'm surprised someone hasn't brought this out already.

TheCars1986

08-19-2011, 10:41 AM

Killarney Rose

08-19-2011, 11:14 AM

I think it was probably Zeiglar's minor injury that did, from the start cause the focus to shift.

Killarney Rose

10-20-2011, 10:34 AM

This episode was on yesterday. My husband saw it for the first time. He's heard me talk about it so he was familiar with it.

He thinks TZ is guilty. For him, it was the fact that all the victims except TZ were shot multiple times while TZ was not.

I also noticed for the first time that a much younger Jeff Ashton was on this case. It might have been discussed earlier on this thread..sorry if it has and I'm repeating. He was the prosecutor in the Casey Anthony trial.

Also, it might have already been brought up - I'm too lazy to look and see..but that was not the actual Zeiglar furniture store in the UM episode. The real store has a plate glass window front. However the photos of the motel were the actual Winter Garden Inn- both the side and rear views, and that is the store that can be seen in the distance.

TheCars1986

10-20-2011, 02:41 PM

Zeigler's wound was dry by the time the authorities arrived. Would someone really be that reckless and stupid to shoot themselves in the abdomen, and then wait around until the wound dried up to coincide with the story he made up? I don't think so. Especially given the nature (if you believe Zeigler is guilty) of all of the steps Zeigler went through (the trip to the orange grove, using several different guns, attempting to set three different men up, etc.), it just seems really uneccessary.

TracyLynnS

10-20-2011, 02:57 PM

I'm bothered by the fact that the judge had a very negative history with TZ and could not have been impartial. IMO, he should have recused himself.

Then, he goes on to over rule the jury's recommendation of life in prison and gives him the death penalty!

Has that ever even been done before? I've heard of a judge giving a lighter sentence than the one recommended by the jury, but I don't recall any case where the jury said to give him Life and the judge said Fry Him.

Killarney Rose

10-20-2011, 03:22 PM

I read and watch a lot of true crime. I have heard of that. But off the top of my head, I can't remember which cases. I do agree, I don't think Judge paul had any business on TZ's trial. Too many conflicts of interest there and it was blatantly obvious.

This investigation was botched and biased from the beginning. You had a very small town police dept that rarely dealt with murder cases. Thinking back, this is the first one I had ever heard of in Winter Garden. The only other murder I remember up until this time was Camilla Jo Hand the little girl who was murdered in 68 or 69 on her way to school. That was a biggie.

You had a PD that was inexperienced and combine that with the Old Boy mentality in LE in that area back then...and then there are those conspiracy rumors about the judge, the sherriff, etc..... it still doesn't change my mind on his guilt, but the man did not get a fair trial.

TheCars1986

10-20-2011, 06:24 PM

Just curious, but what are your theories on the "missing tooth" that was found at the scene? It couldn't have belonged to Zeigler nor any of his alleged victims, since none of them were missing any teeth. And what about the blood on Charlie Mays's pant legs? Do you think he innocently picked them up while walking through the dark store, or do you think he had a hand in the crime? The crime scene photos clearly show Mays dead on the floor with blood caked all over his shoes and his pants, yet show no sign of a blood trail or bloody foot prints. Meaning that the blood was dry when he was killed. Is it really probable that he was in the store walking when he innocently picked up the blood, then had it on him long enough for it to dry and not notice it the entire time? And what do you make of the DNA test results? They show no blood from Perry Edwards on Zeigler, but Charlie Mays has both the blood from himself and Perry Edwards on his clothing. And Zeigler has the blood from Charlie Mays and himself on his clothing.

I've said it before, if Zeigler is guilty, he did not act alone. Think about it, what did Zeigler have to lose after being convicted? He was already sent to death row, why would he sit back and let his accomplices enjoy their freedom all of these years while he was rotting away in prison? The difference between the Zeigler case and the Jeffrey MacDonald case is that MacDonald walked free for nearly ten years after his family was murdered. That whole time he lived the lavis single life of a "playboy", and his demeanor didn't seem to be that of a man who's wife and children were brutally murdered by drug induced hippies. MacDonald also had numerous affairs on his wife and the theory at the time was that he killed his wife and children because they were interfering with the lifestyle he wanted to live. Zeigler is different. There has never been a clear cut motive given as to why he would want to kill his wife, her in-laws, and a customer of his furniture store.

Over at the "freetommyz.com" website, they have a link to a DNA testing brief that brought out something I've never known before. In the brief it claims to have uncovered a mortgage deal in which Edward Williams and Mary Ellen Williams (listed on the deed as his wife) bought some property, and then two years later Williams (listed as single) transferred the property to Mary Ellen Stewart. But then in another mortgage deed 7 years later Mary Ellen Stewart lists her name as Mary Ellen Stewart aka Mary Ellen Williams. So Williams and Stewart seem to have at one point been married to one another. For those who don't know who Mary Ellen Stewart is, she is the lady who testified at Zeigler's trial stating that he approached her and asked if she knew anyone who could get him some "hot" guns (untraceable guns). Seems to me that if Williams was involved in this murder plot somehow, Mary Ellen Stewart certainly would have had a motive to lie for him on the stand.

Killarney Rose

10-20-2011, 06:41 PM

XCalibur

10-20-2011, 08:05 PM

I don't remember reading about the tooth. Would you have a link by chance that would direct me to that?As far as mays, the blood, and TZ, Well, We can come up with all kinds of scenarios of what happened in that store. But the only person that is still alive is TZ. I still believe TZ is guilty.

I had not read that about Mary Ellen, but its been some time since I went to the free TZ site. I don't think the deed has anything to do with her testimony. I know it could, her relitionship with Williams, I mean, I'm 50/50 on that . Maybe she lied for him because of their relationship, maybe not.

Even if there was a tooth, what exactly would that prove? This was a public place, couldn't it have been dropped by a customer before the murders and unrelated to the crime?

That being said, I have always kind of leaned towards Ziegler being innocent myself, to many things don't add up with the prosecution's scenario.

But the evidence is so complicated its hard to know for sure. And there was no doubt that the judge should not have presided over this trial with an obvious reason to have a grudge against Ziegler, that was not professionally done.

Killarney Rose

10-20-2011, 11:43 PM

TheCars1986

10-21-2011, 01:35 PM

I was thinking the same thing about the tooth. For all we know it could have come from the pocket of a vicrtim, or TZ could have had it to use to back up the theory there was another attacker there. We will never know.

Oopsie, after reading further into the DNA "brief" and it explained that the DNA results revealed that the tooth matched Charlie Mays. There is no plausible explanation as to why Mays would innocently have that much of Perry Edwards blood on him (and this is supported by the prosecutions "blood spatter" expert) without being the murderer himself. I get that this doesn't clear Zeigler completely, but at least there's proof that someone else was involved in the murders.

Killarney Rose

10-21-2011, 03:05 PM

There is no plausible explanation as to why Mays would innocently have that much of Perry Edwards blood on him (and this is supported by the prosecutions "blood spatter" expert) without being the murderer himself. I get that this doesn't clear Zeigler completely, but at least there's proof that someone else was involved in the murders.

Ok, I didn't know Mays or Thomas, or Williams,,, so I can believe that they could have been in on the murders. But that doesn't mean TZ was not the one that planned them. Therefore, he is still where he belongs.

TheCars1986

05-21-2012, 02:13 PM

Sorry to bump an older thread, but I've been skimming through the pages of "Fatal Flaw", and it got me thinking about this case again. IMHO, there still is, and always has been more than enough reasonable doubt in this case. And I personally believe Zeigler to be innocent, but the prosecution's theory of the crime is too convulted to believe. Zeigler allegedly used five guns in this crime (to make it seem like there was a gang of intruders), yet only wiped 2 of them clean...why would he not wipe every gun clean? Felton Thomas and Edward Williams's testimony has always bothered me. If you accept Zeigler's guilt, you must also accept the fact that he was armed the entire night. Felton Thomas claims to have gotten scared and suspicious because of the way Zeigler was acting that night (the orange grove trip, the attempted break in, etc.) as any rational thinking person would have become suspicious in the same situation. Yet, Zeigler was armed with a gun, and he could have easily pulled it on Thomas and Mays and brought them into the store and executed each of them. And he could have easily done the same thing with Edward Williams when they arrived at the store later. He simply could have pulled the gun on Williams and demanded he come back inside with him and killed him as well. Letting Williams and Thomas flee the area makes absolutely NO SENSE at all for Zeigler to do. Not to mention that it was predetermined that Zeigler and Williams were going to meet later to deliver last minute Christmas presents. Now Zeigler could have lied about the deliveries all along, but if he's telling the truth (IIRC, his mother and Curtis Dunaway both stated he did in fact have to deliver the presents), couldn't he have picked a better date to off his wife and set the others up? If the deliveries were real, isn't Zeigler leaving an awful lot up to chance that one of his customers could have called the store and/or shown up at the store wondering where their merchandise was? This crime (according to the prosecution) almost seems too complex for one person to have concocted, IMO.

Zeigler also allegedly went out of his way to traverse back and forth from the store, to his home, back to the store, to the orange grove, back to his house, back to the store, back to his house, and then back to the store for the final time. Couldn't there have been an easier way to have done all of these things without potentially exposing himself to other witnesses around Winter Garden? Why not just have Edward Williams meet him at the store? And again, Zeigler left a lot up to chance when he met Edward Williams at his house because all it would have taken would Williams to have noticed blood on Zeigler which would have ruined his whole plan. I just can't fathom as to why he would simply let Williams run away from him, if he's guilty. It's not like Zeigler could have stuck to his original plan at that point. If Zeigler knew he was going to shoot himself all along, why would he let an eyewitness get away mere minutes before he shot himself? Williams could directly contradict his story (and if Williams is telling the truth about the time they arrived at the store, then Zeigler's wound would still have been damp when police arrived further bungling Zeigler's original plan) and it borders on insanity to let him get away like Zeigler did. At the very least, Zeigler could have said he heard a noise, got startled and pulled the gun on Williams and fired and then confirmed the whole awkward encounter with Williams in the back lot, and then continued on with his story about being attacked by intruders when he reentered the store, and then shot by one of them. Obviously either Zeigler or Williams is lying. Williams had the murder weapon and his vehicle was found at the crime scene. It was Williams, NOT Zeigler, who could be directly tied to two of the weapons used in the murders. Why he hasn't been placed under greater scrunity is beyond me.

Another thing that has kind of bothered me about this case is the testimony of the Ficke's. I've found it odd that they claimed to have pulled up to Zeigler's house and saw Williams in his pickup truck (I think it was the 2nd time they drove by Zeigler's house), and did not talk to Williams at all or question him as to the whereabouts of Tommy and/or Eunice. At the risk of stretching it a bit, I wonder if Williams indeed was supposed to innocently help Zeigler deliver furniture, and after waiting for awhile he got impatient and went over to the furniture store himself where he encountered the actual murderers. He could have been threatened, or paid off into lying about what happened that night. But that would not account for the two RG guns Williams allegedly ordered for Zeigler. It just seems like Williams explanations for everything that would cast suspicion on him (ordering the guns, turning over the murder weapon, his truck being found at the scene of the crime) scream like a CYA type scenario. It amazes me that LE quickly came to the conclusion that Zeigler was lying about everything, yet whenever they questioned Williams, they accepted his "Tommy had me do this or do that" at face value. Too many questions, not enough answers in this case. I wonder if Felton Thomas has ever resurfaced over the years and if his story has changed at all.

Killarney Rose

05-21-2012, 09:12 PM

Cars- I know we both have differing opinions on TZs guilt. But I just wanted to throw this out there to you.

I think you said in a much earlier post that you visited Winter Garden some years after the murders?

the WG of 1975 was much, much smaller than the WG you visited, and even more so today. It was a very small town. The only businesses open past 9 pm in those days would have been the shopping center behind the Kentucky Fried chicken restaurant that was across Dillard St from the furniture store. There was a TG&Y, Food World, and Eckerds, along with a Burger Chef and an Ice cream shop. The rest of town was closed up by dark except a few conveinence stores, and a Pizza Hut scattered along Dillard St. There was a Winn Dixie and Mcrorys too, But I'm not sure how late they stayed open by this time.

Hwy 50 was not the busy colonial dr of today. There were few businesses on it. It was easily possible to leave the store, head west on 50, then back up Park Ave to bay St and on to Temple Grove Dr where TZ lived. All these roads were through very quiet, older neighborhoods with no businesses and little traffic on them. You could even so through areas on them where there were no houses only orange groves on both Park Ave and Bay ST. So I believe it would have been quite possible for him to go this back way to his house and not be seen.....and I was the queen of riding the roads back then...not many I didn't travel.:lol:

TheCars1986

05-22-2012, 12:30 PM

Apparently a private investigator working for Zeigler uncovered a new third man who allegedly was with Mays and Felton Thomas on the night of the murders. His name was Robert Foster, and interestingly enough he held up a gas station 70 yards across the street from the Zeigler furniture store just one hour before the murders occurred. He was also named by Detective Frye in his original police report as a possible witness to the crime. However, when the case came to trial, Frye said that when he typed the name "Robert Foster" on the report it was an accident, and he meant to simply type "Felton Thomas aka Buddy Felton". Despite the fact that Robert Foster does indeed exist and can be placed around the area of Winter Garden at the time of the murders, Frye claims it was simply a "typographical error". Does that honestly sound like a clerical error, or a setup?

There was a robbery reported (one of the victims ID'ed Robert Foster as the attacker because of his resemblence to Michael Clarke Duncan) just an hour before the murders a mere 70 yards away from the furniture store...and the police did absolutely nothing to follow up. No police report was taken, Foster (officially) was never looked into as a potential suspect. Wouldn't it be protocol to look into this robbery further? With Zeigler's story only to go on, wouldn't it have been extremely prudent to find and interview a potential suspect that could have helped verify his story?

You can read more about it here:
http://www.defrostingcoldcases.com/miscarriages-of-justice/zeigler-part-xx-the-false-arrest-report

Killarney Rose

05-22-2012, 02:23 PM

TheCars1986

05-22-2012, 03:25 PM

Thats very interesting. What I would like to know now, is does this Foster really exist? Can someone find a record of him and a criminal record? DNA too.

It's a shame that so much time has passed because this was not a fair investigation/trial. These cops believed TZ was guilty and made much of the evidence prove that. I still think he's guilty, but the man deserved a fair, impartial trial for more than one reason.

So I am guessing this station he was supposed to have robbed would've been the former Gulf station on the corner of Dillard and 50? and the Ranch House was across the road on the south side of 50. all these places were only a few hundred feet apart at the intersection of Dillard and 50.

Yes Foster was located, ID'ed and there is a mugshot of him over at the "tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com" website. And yes it was the Gulf Station that was robbed that night.

And if Zeigler is in fact innocent, it's got to be one of the most ballsy coverups ever attempted to shoot one's self in the abdomen with a .357 magnum less than six inches away (according to the state's theory). He could have just as easily used one of the cheap .22's that were used in the other motives, which would not have been nowhere near as potentially lethal as the magnum.

Killarney Rose

05-22-2012, 08:14 PM

TheCars1986

05-23-2012, 12:52 PM

Ok, so enlighten me here. Really- I am trying to have an open mind about his innocence.

With the information about Foster, and the Gulf robbery, what are Zeigler's supporters trying to say here? That Felton, Foster and Mays planned to rob the Zeigler store and the plan was messed up when Eunice and her parents were there, then teh whole murder mess occured, then Foster ran off and robbed the Gulf station leaving Felton to go his way and Mays dead?

Here's my personal take on what may have happened:

Someone in law enforcement wanted Zeigler dead for exposing the loan shark scheme going on in the area at the time. This person got Edward Williams to order the two cheap RG guns and and to say that they were "for Zeigler". I think this person then got Charlie Mays, Felton Thomas, and Robert Foster to help under the pretense that they were going to "rough up" Zeigler and as an added bonus would steal the money and valuables in the store (a ring on Eunice's finger was missing). No one expected Eunice and her parents to arrive that night, and after they discovered the intruders a violent gunfight broke out and they were all killed. Now this is where it gets interesting...Perry Edwards had GSR found on his hands, enough to indicate that he had fired a gun. And Charlie Mays was shot twice, once in the front and once in the back. I think it's very possible that Perry Edwards was shot multiple times and left for dead but survived (for a short time). I think it's also possible that Edwards did reach a gun and fire it at the assailants (possibly hitting Mays) before he was beat severely and left for dead a second time. Eunice and her mother, Virginia Edwards, were already dead at this point.

Meanwhile, Williams and Zeigler were driving to the store and when they arrive, Williams stays outside while Zeigler goes inside and is attacked. I think he was attacked and not shot because they were going to frame him as the actual murderer. Mays was already shot, and I don't think whoever the mastermind behind the planning planned on letting him leave the store alive at that point. They didn't anticipate Zeigler being armed with his personal weapon, so another gunfight errupted, resulted in Mays being shot again. Eventually they wrestled Zeigler's gun away from him, shot him and left him for dead. Then Mays was beat to death, and one of the assailants took Zeigler's gun and fired rounds into Virigina's head, and two rounds into Perry's head killing him finally. At this point they left the store, and told Williams to get rid of the gun (Zeigler's personal gun) and planned on "letting the cards fall" where they may. It wasn't until they learned that Zeigler was naming Charlie Mays and other accomplices inside the store who attacked him and his wife and in-laws that they began to concoct their frame up stories. I think Edward Williams was told what to say, and was either paid off and/or feared for his life (since Charlie Mays was murdered so brutally, they probably told him the same thing would happen to him). The same goes with Felton Thomas. I think Thomas legitimately may have left the store before the others (after seeing the initial murders of Eunice and her parents), and was probably fearful for his life which is why he cooperated with the framing. Foster was not necessary because he never came forward to police because he had no legitimate reason to be there at the furniture store that night (not to mention that he also was responsible for robbing a gas station right across the street from the furniture store on the same night of the murders!). But Williams could say he was there to help Zeigler with the deliveries, and Felton Thomas could say he was there with Mays to pick up the TV. Williams could clear himself (since his truck was found at the scene and he had the murder weapon), and Felton Thomas could also clear himself AND give a reason as to why Mays's body was among the slain found in the store.

Now if by chance Zeigler did in fact die from his wounds, I think Charlie Mays would have been the fall guy (since the cash and receipts were found stuffed in his pockets) as would Edward Williams, Felton Thomas, and Robert Foster. I think the reason they were picked by this "mastermind" was simply because they could easily be manipulated into helping and lying to cover everything up. I think if Eunice and her parents didn't show up at the furniture store that night and the original plan went off without a hitch this would have been perceived as nothing more than a simple armed robbery that resulted in murder. Edward Williams could have said he waited around for Tommy at his house, grew impatient after waiting an extended period of time, and then simply left.

That in a nutshell is what I think happened that night (in addition to what the original plan was going to be).

Corky Kneivel

05-23-2012, 02:17 PM

TheCars1986

05-23-2012, 04:23 PM

TheCars1986: You are more informed on the aspects of what is known to have happened that night than I am, you've obviously done research into the background of the people involved and the area at the time, however I am a bit confused by your theory. I say this with all due respect but as it stands it makes no sense to me.

You begin by saying "someone wanted him dead" then go into an elaborate description of a frame job. The end result of which was....what? There are several aspects that contradict each other and are simply illogical.

For example, you said the "someone" wanted TZ dead. That "someone" also had Williams buy guns and say they're for TZ. To what end? To buy guns to link them to a man you are planning on killing? I don't see how one has anything to do with the other.

It strains logic and credulity for this whole thing to be a frame job, the intent of which was to keep Zeigler alive (?) and sent to prison. However that’s the explanation that has to be accepted to believe Zeigler’s version of events. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t TZ change his story, or at least add new details to it, after he was arrested and law enforcement’s theory of events was made known to him?

EDITED TO ADD: Please understand I'm willing to have my mind changed on this as plenty of intelligent people have vociferously made arguments in TZ's favor, so I freely admit I may be missing something or just misunderstanding something crucial.

Sorry for the confusion. Originally I think this person wanted Zeigler dead. So the guns were purchased to simply kill him. It was only that after the unexpected arrival of Eunice and her parents entering the store (whoever planned this out only expected Zeigler to arrive that night with Williams), and after they were slaughtered, that the frame up was conceived. Since Charlie Mays was shot (presumeably by Zeigler), they had to kill him as well since he could have blew the whistle on the whole thing. Killing Zeigler would have only focued the investigation on finding the intruders who robbed the store and killed everyone inside. By keeping Zeigler alive, he would have been looked at as a suspect (especially due to the lack of injuries compared to everyone else in the store). IMHO, it didn't take much to frame Zeigler, since police were looking at him as a suspect fairly early. By "framing" Zeigler, all they had to do was have Edward Williams and Felton Thomas alter their stories to basically say, "Tommy did this" or "Tommy did that".

Clockworkhigh

05-23-2012, 10:20 PM

I have always found Ziegler to be more likely to be innocent than Jeffrey MacDonald who I bounce around with. Ziegler's story does not sound far fetched or even planned at all. It seems to me that a very strong possibility could be made that intruders show up at your store. Why oh why would Ziegler have his in-laws show up at the scene of the crime, further implicating him? Because I think he is innocent.

Ziegler is a lot like Larry Race to me. In other words, I believe their versions

Killarney Rose

05-23-2012, 11:13 PM

TheCars1986

05-24-2012, 11:22 AM

My mind is trying to wrap around all this... it's plausable, but I'm still not convinced.

So how does TZ taking Mays and Felton down Daniels road and into the orange grove and trying to get them to fire the guns, and making the trip between the store and his house fit into your theory?

It didn't happen. There was no orange grove trip to fire the guns. It was made up so there was an explanation as to why GSR was found on Mays and Felton Thomas. I know there are other "Zeigler supporters" who believe that the orange grove trip did happen, and that Felton Thomas was under the impression that the man he was with was Zeigler but it was in fact the "mastermind" behind the whole thing. But I think the trip was just made up, IMO. If this trip did in fact happen, neither Mays or Thomas felt the need to question Zeigler as to why he would want to take them out to an orange grove to fire off guns? Wasn't Mays there for a TV? Why wasn't he pressing Tommy to simply let him pick up his TV and leave? It was Christmas Eve after all!

Another thing I just thought of, Mays's van was found parked behind the furniture store being visibly hidden by a large tractor. Again, I don't see how a man who's there to innocently pick up a TV for Christmas would feel the need to hide his van and park it nowhere near the furniture store entrance? AND there was even further evidence of a coverup in the store that night. The two cheap RG revolvers were found in one of the store's desk drawers, AND Zeigler's personal weapon was fired into both Perry and Virginia Edwards. Why on Earth would Zeigler dump the RG's in his desk drawers and then go around and shoot more rounds (from his own gun) into the Edwardses? Wouldn't this just implicate him that much more?

Killarney Rose

05-24-2012, 01:37 PM

I understand that you have studied the evidence both old and new and made your decision based upon that. And that your opinion, unlike mine is unbiased and based on the evidence.

I lived there, grew up around the Zeiglers, etc. And that kind of knowledge will skew your opinion. Based on the new information, I would certainly not want to have to make a decision on his guilt or innocence. It is one thing to sit back and discuss a case on a forum, and another all together to have to make a decision that affects a person's life.

I do believe that TZ took those guys down Daniels Rd to fire the guns. I believe this was a botched attempt by TZ to set them up. Why you ask did they not just refuse to go with him? As I've said earlier- this was a different time. TZ was a white, authority figure to them. And you did not stand up to that. It was 10 years after the Civil Rights movement but WG was still Old South back then. Also, Mays was in debt to TZ, TZ was letting him have the TV on credit anyway for his family's Christmas. I'm sure he didn't want to risk making TZ mad and having him change his mind.

I believe that TZ's motive for the murders was greed- pure and simple. If he and Eunice were to divorce, then he would have to split everything with her and he did not want to. I also believe there is a strong chance that she knew things on him that he did not want made public and that he was worried if they divorced that these things might come out.

I knew too many people that were involved in this case or were on the periphery of it. And that is why my feelings are what they are even though the trial was unfair and evidence might have been manipulated that he is guilty.

Here is a little sketch I drew up of how that 1 block area looked back then. It's very different today, but i remember the detail so well because this is the WG I grew up in and this is how it still looked when I moved away just over a year after the murders. maybe this will help you as you look over the evidence and hone your theory.:)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z250/beckyg56/Scan0003.jpg

TheCars1986

05-24-2012, 03:48 PM

Thanks for the drawing! Hopefully it helps others in their visualization of the case. I'd like to touch upon a couple of things in your response, and I want you to know that I am not trying to change your opinion on the matter, just how I've interpreted the evidence presented in the case.

I do believe that TZ took those guys down Daniels Rd to fire the guns. I believe this was a botched attempt by TZ to set them up. Why you ask did they not just refuse to go with him? As I've said earlier- this was a different time. TZ was a white, authority figure to them. And you did not stand up to that. It was 10 years after the Civil Rights movement but WG was still Old South back then. Also, Mays was in debt to TZ, TZ was letting him have the TV on credit anyway for his family's Christmas. I'm sure he didn't want to risk making TZ mad and having him change his mind.

I get that the times were different, and even in the book "Fatal Flaw" it's mentioned how Winter Garden was still very much segregated well into the seventies. However, Charlie Mays was there to pick up a television for his family for a Christmas present. Why on Earth would he have parked his van in the parking lot of the Winter Garden Inn, which just so happened to have a full chain link fence blocking any access to Zeigler's store? And he even went out of his way to hide his vehicle by parking behind a large tractor. This was never discussed by Felton Thomas, and he never said, "That's where Zeigler told Charlie to park." He could have easily parked at the front of the store, which is where any customer there to pick up a TV would have parked.

I believe that TZ's motive for the murders was greed- pure and simple. If he and Eunice were to divorce, then he would have to split everything with her and he did not want to. I also believe there is a strong chance that she knew things on him that he did not want made public and that he was worried if they divorced that these things might come out.

I don't think Zeigler and Eunice were having any problems in their marriage at that point. If there were problems, don't you think it would have been an awkward moment to convince Eunice and her in-laws to come down to the furniture store on Christmas Eve? Especially if Eunice really was planning on divorcing Tommy? Not to mention the both of them were going to attend a Christmas party together that night. And according to Curtis Dunaway (who was the last person to see everyone alive), everything was normal at the Zeigler residence when he went there to switch cars. Eunice baked a cake, Zeigler was in a normal temperament, and there was no sign of any tension between anyone in the house. I don't believe the "homosexual" angle to this story at all...it's never been verified and no one named any names in open court. Everyone clammed up when pressed by Zeigler's attorney's to name some of Tommy's "boyfriends", but everyone would simply say, "oh well I heard this from so and so so I can't verify it."

Killarney Rose

05-24-2012, 08:17 PM

The placement of the van is one of the things that has opened my mind to the possibilty of his innocence....opened it, not convinced me!:)

But I do believe that Eunice and her parents could've been carrying on with Christmas as usual....for several reasons.

Perhaps she was planning to divorce TZ and wanted to get through the holidays without any drama. Perhaps she was afraid of his reaction and planning to have have everything in place- all plans made before she told him and left.

Then there is the matter that Eunice's brother is certain TZ is the killer. There had to be things he knows about TZ that make him so sure of it. If my sister or brother were to be murdered and their spouse blamed, I would have to be privy to personal matters in order to believe they were the killer- as Edwards must be. Otherwise I wouldn't believe they were the killer.

Many people of that generation( of which my DH is a member!) tend to not want to make waves or create scenes....so perhaps they were hiding what was going on so as to keep family problems private and out of the public eye. That circle of people were very concerned with keeping marital problems and scandal private. They were very concerned with, "what would people think". I grew up in that First Baptist crowd- I know from association with them.

TZ as an only child was set to come into a sizeable estate, and I'm sure had access already to enough money to live quite comfortably. I'm sure he could have not wanted to share any of this in any divorce settlement. People have been killed for much less.

I know you're not trying to convince me.:) I'm enjoying our discussions on the case even if I am not as well read on it as you are.

TheCars1986

05-25-2012, 02:42 PM

Maybe I'm just being dumb, but what does "DH" stand for?

Killarney Rose

05-25-2012, 05:47 PM

Message board abbreviation for Dear Husband.

Clockworkhigh

05-25-2012, 09:03 PM

Maybe I'm just being dumb, but what does "DH" stand for?

no, you are not dumb at all. I blame texting and the internet for "dumbing" down our society by making it fashionable to not know how to spell.

LMFAO
LOL
OMG
ROFL (honestly just found out what that meant last week, had no clue)
sic (okay maybe I am dumb, but what in the world does that even mean?)

then the "winks" and such. I don't mind the emoticons we have on here because it actually expresses an emotion but it took me a long time to figure out what ;) meant among others.

Killarney Rose

05-25-2012, 10:47 PM

I've been trying since way before the internet to figure out what sic means and I still don't know!

Killarney Rose

05-25-2012, 10:51 PM

LOL- I should've googled it years ago! But I never think of it unless I happen upon it when I'm reading. Here ya go-I knew it had something to do with an error...

The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") added immediately after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text), indicates that the quoted words have been transcribed exactly as spelled or presented in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other presentation. The usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in the transcribed material do not arise from transcription errors, and the errors have been repeated intentionally, i.e., that they are reproduced exactly as set down by the original writer or printer. It may also be used as a form of ridicule or as a humorous comment, drawing attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or emphasizing his or her erroneous logic. Sic is generally placed inside square brackets, or in parentheses (round brackets), and traditionally in italic, as is customary when printing a foreign word

TheCars1986

05-31-2012, 09:38 AM

Message board abbreviation for Dear Husband.

Oh ok, duh!

Just curious, did you or your husband know or ever hear about the alleged loan sharking scheme going on in Winter Garden around the mid-70's?

Killarney Rose

05-31-2012, 07:25 PM

My husband isn't from FL, didn't meet him till I moved away. I was only 19 when this happened and was much more concerned with teenage activities. Everything I heard about the case I heard mostly from my aunt who was friends with the senior Zeiglars. I think I mentioned she attended the trial. One of my earliest memories as a very young child is going to the Zeiglars store with them when it was still downtown. They had the most gorgeous dolls there!

I think there is some irony in the fact that even though she thought so highly of his parents, that she was still solidly convinced of TZ's guilt. I believe that has to do with the fact that she had known TZ all his life.
I so wish I could talk to her about the case but she's been gone almost 20 years now. I used to listen to them talk about the case and I never once heard her mention the loan sharking. Or any of the other activities or cover ups. She was a local and grew up in Winter Garden. She knew everybody.

Spark Of Spirit

11-21-2012, 08:42 PM

This is one of the strangest cases I've ever seen, even on UM. Putting aside whether he killed anyone or not- the prosecution's case is flimsy at best.

The motive they came up with was weak, the way they claimed the murder went down was insane and unlikely, their witnesses were either in on it or biased making their testimonies worthless, and the missing evidence is almost creepy in how it points away from Zeigler.

Whether he did it or not, being put to death for such hearsay and conjecture is abominable. I have no idea whether he committed the crime, but that's the prosecution's job to convince me that he did and they completely failed in their job at doing so. But throw in the death penalty and you have one awful, terrible, case that screams for a retrial.

TheCars1986

11-23-2012, 08:38 AM

I have no idea whether he committed the crime, but that's the prosecution's job to convince me that he did and they completely failed in their job at doing so. But throw in the death penalty and you have one awful, terrible, case that screams for a retrial.

I agree 100%. This man deserves a new trial.

TracyLynnS

11-23-2012, 01:09 PM

Whether he did it or not, being put to death for such hearsay and conjecture is abominable. I have no idea whether he committed the crime, but that's the prosecution's job to convince me that he did and they completely failed in their job at doing so. But throw in the death penalty and you have one awful, terrible, case that screams for a retrial.

And this was a jury trial where the jury were responsible for deciding the proper punishment after determining his guilt. They voted for life in prison (can't remember if it was with or without possibility of parole) and the judge, who HATED Ziegler, had negative personal business/legal problems with him, and forced a doctor to prescribe valium for one female juror who didn't seem to want to convict Ziegler, overruled the jury and handed down the death sentence.

That judge should have never been involved in this case due to his history with Ziegler and he definitely should not have overruled the jury's decision and put Ziegler on death row.

Spark Of Spirit

11-23-2012, 08:08 PM

All that business with the judge is even more suspect.

I mean, usually when I look up both sides of a case I can come to a decent conclusion based on what both sides present to the case. While Zeigler's personal account might not be true at all it is still believable on a base level.

When hearing what the prosecution considers what really happened that night I don't get the same impression. It is completely half-thought out and it precludes things happening that are based on hearsay from unreliable sources. I even recall someone in the segment saying they knew he did it when they went in the store and saw him bleeding to death and didn't buy his act for a second. Now, who jumps to that conclusion from someone who was shot point blank with a magnum and is near death? But putting aside the segment (and in most Final Appeal cases I tend to think 'guilty') which when I watched it their description looked eerily similar to clearly fake stories like whatever Chad Noe or Paul Pollis made up which is bad enough on its own, but the real case doesn't look much better outside the TV light. In fact, it looks worse.

If Tommy Zeigler can come up with a more believable story than the prosecution, then I almost feel like my hands are tied in this case.

What this leads me to believe is that either he did it and the prosecution has no idea how it was done, or he didn't do it and the prosecution needed someone to convict.

Either way, it isn't good enough for a conviction and certainly not death.

Killarney Rose

11-23-2012, 11:41 PM

And this was a jury trial where the jury were responsible for deciding the proper punishment after determining his guilt. They voted for life in prison (can't remember if it was with or without possibility of parole) and the judge, who HATED Ziegler, had negative personal business/legal problems with him, and forced a doctor to prescribe valium for one female juror who didn't seem to want to convict Ziegler, overruled the jury and handed down the death sentence.

That judge should have never been involved in this case due to his history with Ziegler and he definitely should not have overruled the jury's decision and put Ziegler on death row.

This alone IMHO should have gotten him a new trial. And I think the man is guilty. But he sure didn't get a fair trial.

alfiechat

11-26-2012, 10:18 AM

1990 UM fan

11-26-2012, 10:55 AM

I am wondering if maybe we shouldn't ask Investigation Discovery to look into this in some way on one of their programs. anyone have any clues? Also, did anyone notice the Nancy Manni case was on Motives and Murders the other day?

Is that a new crime series, because I have not heard of it. Wonder what happened to her blonde-haired sneed boyfriend after her killer was caught?

1990 UM fan

11-26-2012, 10:57 AM

What's the latest on this case? Last I heard, they wanted to use new DNA technology to test the blood found inside the furniture store.

TracyLynnS

11-26-2012, 11:33 AM

OT -

I am wondering if maybe we shouldn't ask Investigation Discovery to look into this in some way on one of their programs. anyone have any clues? Also, did anyone notice the Nancy Manni case was on Motives and Murders the other day?

Yep, I watched that program about Nancy Manni. It covered some things I had forgotten. I'm not even sure I ever knew that her murder was so violent. I remembered the case more as a situation where people found a body washed up on the beach and indications were that she may have been strangled. What actually happened was the killer knocked her off his boat and purposefully ran over her multiple times! So horrible. :(

1990 UM fan

11-26-2012, 11:34 AM

OT -

Yep, I watched that program about Nancy Manni. It covered some things I had forgotten. I'm not even sure I ever knew that her murder was so violent. I remembered the case more as a situation where people found a body washed up on the beach and indications were that she may have been strangled. What actually happened was the killer knocked her off his boat and purposefully ran over her multiple times! So horrible. :(

No way? For the love of God... :eek: :(

TheCars1986

11-26-2012, 12:32 PM

What's the latest on this case? Last I heard, they wanted to use new DNA technology to test the blood found inside the furniture store.

Last I heard they did DNA testing on Zeigler's shirt to see whether or not the blood of his father-in-law was on it. The prosecution maintained that whoever killed Perry Edwards would have held him in a head lock as they beat his head with the butt of a gun, and that there would be massive amounts of his blood on his killer. The DNA results concluded that there was no blood from Perry Edwards on the shirt of Zeigler. It was that of Charlie Mays, which backs up what Zeigler has said all along.

1990 UM fan

11-26-2012, 04:32 PM

Last I heard they did DNA testing on Zeigler's shirt to see whether or not the blood of his father-in-law was on it. The prosecution maintained that whoever killed Perry Edwards would have held him in a head lock as they beat his head with the butt of a gun, and that there would be massive amounts of his blood on his killer. The DNA results concluded that there was no blood from Perry Edwards on the shirt of Zeigler. It was that of Charlie Mays, which backs up what Zeigler has said all along.

So does that mean Zeigler is close to innocence or is there more testing to be done?

TheCars1986

11-26-2012, 05:29 PM

So does that mean Zeigler is close to innocence or is there more testing to be done?

I don't think he's close to being exonerated, but it certainly does help bolster his claims of innocence. However, it is still possible that Zeigler did have help on the night of the murders and that Charlie Mays was one of his accomplices, so the test results alone would not prove his innocence. I also think I read somewhere that there was more testing to be done on the blood found in the store, but that may have been old news.

Spark Of Spirit

05-08-2013, 08:18 PM

TheCars1986

05-09-2013, 09:21 AM

I'm watching this on Lifetime right now.

So the theory is that Ziegler lured the pair out to trick them into putting their prints on the guns?

Then why were the guns wiped clean?

The prosecution's theories are full of stupid dead ends like this. Why was this considered enough for a guilty verdict let alone the death penalty?

There were several things about the prosecution's theory that made no sense. For example, they claim Ziegler was trying to buy "untraceable" guns to use in these homicides, but for reasons that no one can explain Ziegler decided to use 4 of his personal weapons in the homicides.

DarkDante

05-09-2013, 09:50 PM

I'm watching this on Lifetime right now.

So the theory is that Ziegler lured the pair out to trick them into putting their prints on the guns?

Then why were the guns wiped clean?

Yeah I watched the rebroadcast last night and this was something that stuck out to me once again. Could it have just been by coincidence that the prints on the guns were obliterated? It's something that struck me as very strange.

We've passed this one through the container several times around here as evidenced by the length of this thread and if my recollection is correct the general consensus among most of the forum members is there would have needed to be an abnormal amount of collusion involved from individuals at all different levels in this case for Thomas Ziegler to be innocent.

Indeed, it does strike me in listening to Thomas that he seems to take the stance quite often that the "world was out to get him" and he was railroaded by the judicial system. To me, while I've tried several times to figure out how Ziegler could be innocent of these crimes, it just seems very far fetched that he is completely innocent in these matters. Now whether or not he was railroaded by the judicial system is another matter entirely. I find myself wondering if Ziegler might just be entitled to a retrial in these matters which could obviously result in his acquittal?

So that being said does anyone else feel like reexamining this one at this time?

Spark Of Spirit

05-09-2013, 10:03 PM

Either way, he should not have had a judge presiding over the case that had a personal (and legal!) history dealing with his fate. That it was allowed is mind-blowing to me. Everyone involved really messed this investigation up and while I'm not usually the type to believe people who think the world is "out to get them" it doesn't really change the fact that his story doesn't rely on unlikely coincidences backed up by shady characters with possible motive to lie in order to prove his theory.

If the prosecution knew he did it, it really shouldn't have been hard to think of a likely theory. Because if that's what happened then Ziegler must not be very intelligent. Yet apparently he was smart enough to hide various firearms in strategic locations (yet used his own for some reason), trick two people into taking the fall, and meticulously plan every arrival and departure like clockwork all within a limited window like so much Agatha Christie.

But he's going to risk it all by shooting himself with a magnum at point blank?

I hardly doubt that happened.

Killarney Rose

05-09-2013, 11:51 PM

Yeah I watched the rebroadcast last night and this was something that stuck out to me once again. Could it have just been by coincidence that the prints on the guns were obliterated? It's something that struck me as very strange.

We've passed this one through the container several times around here as evidenced by the length of this thread and if my recollection is correct the general consensus among most of the forum members is there would have needed to be an abnormal amount of collusion involved from individuals at all different levels in this case for Thomas Ziegler to be innocent.

Indeed, it does strike me in listening to Thomas that he seems to take the stance quite often that the "world was out to get him" and he was railroaded by the judicial system. To me, while I've tried several times to figure out how Ziegler could be innocent of these crimes, it just seems very far fetched that he is completely innocent in these matters. Now whether or not he was railroaded by the judicial system is another matter entirely. I find myself wondering if Ziegler might just be entitled to a retrial in these matters which could obviously result in his acquittal?

So that being said does anyone else feel like reexamining this one at this time?

I'm completely with you on this. I think he's guilty as sin as I've stated before. Bu that being said he did not get a fair trial, and after all this time I think it would be impossible.

TheCars1986

05-10-2013, 08:42 AM

Indeed, it does strike me in listening to Thomas that he seems to take the stance quite often that the "world was out to get him" and he was railroaded by the judicial system. To me, while I've tried several times to figure out how Ziegler could be innocent of these crimes, it just seems very far fetched that he is completely innocent in these matters. Now whether or not he was railroaded by the judicial system is another matter entirely. I find myself wondering if Ziegler might just be entitled to a retrial in these matters which could obviously result in his acquittal?

So that being said does anyone else feel like reexamining this one at this time?

I'd love to reexamine the case, since it's one of my favorites. In the book "Fatal Flaw", Ziegler actually says that he didn't think the judicial system was out to get him at the time of his trial. He said something to the effect of thinking the law and authorities were always seeking for absolute truth, and that since he was innocent he was sure the authorities would help bring that to light at his trial. The book also gives a pretty good account as to how Ziegler could have been innocent, and also how he was the target of the attack and that Eunice and her parents were not expected to be there at the store that night. It actually makes more sense to think that Eunice and her parents were murdered by someone who didn't know they were going to be there due to the brutal nature that they were all killed. Think about it, if Ziegler was going to murder Eunice and her parents, he could have easily lured them into the store, pulled a gun and shoot all three of them simultaneously without any struggle. Add on to the fact that DNA proved that the blood on Ziegler's shirt did not come from his father-in-law and I think that makes him look all the more innocent.

DarkDante

05-10-2013, 09:15 AM

I'd love to reexamine the case, since it's one of my favorites. In the book "Fatal Flaw", Ziegler actually says that he didn't think the judicial system was out to get him at the time of his trial. He said something to the effect of thinking the law and authorities were always seeking for absolute truth, and that since he was innocent he was sure the authorities would help bring that to light at his trial. The book also gives a pretty good account as to how Ziegler could have been innocent, and also how he was the target of the attack and that Eunice and her parents were not expected to be there at the store that night. It actually makes more sense to think that Eunice and her parents were murdered by someone who didn't know they were going to be there due to the brutal nature that they were all killed. Think about it, if Ziegler was going to murder Eunice and her parents, he could have easily lured them into the store, pulled a gun and shoot all three of them simultaneously without any struggle. Add on to the fact that DNA proved that the blood on Ziegler's shirt did not come from his father-in-law and I think that makes him look all the more innocent.

One thing that struck me as interesting was that the motive that was advanced by the prosecution in this case was that Ziegler wanted to cash in on half a million dollars worth of life insurance on Eunice.

First off, Thomas Ziegler was to my knowledge already a wealthy man. While this fact does not exonerate him of this crime it does make financial gain less of a plausible motive than say if there were problems in the Ziegler marriage.

In addition if financial gain was Ziegler's only motive for murdering his wife, it always struck me as strange that he decided to stage a massacre and involve more bodies, more witnesses and more weapons then necessary if he would've just murdered Eunice at their residence for example. The whole pre-meditation in this crime to me seems a bit unnecessary although I admit it is possible that Ziegler did plan out such an elaborate scenario in hopes of diverting the attention away from himself as the assailant and onto someone else.

There are also issues I have with points raised by the prosecution such as the positioning of Eunice Ziegler's body when she was shot. The prosecutor makes note that it would be extremely unlikely for Eunice to be found in that position if she was murdered by a stranger but never elaborates why this is so. Indeed there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence to prove one way or another that the position of Eunice Ziegler's body conclusively identifies her killer as someone she knew or a stranger.

Also I would like to know if there is any information regarding the struggle that Thomas Ziegler alleges he was in at the furniture store during which he was eventually shot. Ziegler mentions that he was being bounced around the store, so the natural question becomes was there any evidence at the scene that night lending credence to an intense struggle between three parties as Ziegler contends?

Finally in addition to some of the conflicting eyewitness statements about what was happening outside the furniture store at the time of the murders, one issue that to me always spoke of Thomas' innocence is the fact that Felton Thomas alleged that Ziegler took both he and Charlie Mays out to an orange grove to shoot off guns in an effort to taint the guns with their prints. If this is true, why then when the guns were recovered were they wiped clean of prints? If this crime was as pre-meditated as the authorities have always contended, why would Ziegler allow the guns he was hoping to taint Thomas and Mays with to be wiped clean?

TracyLynnS

05-10-2013, 09:20 AM

Do we have a Poll thread here on how many of us think Guilty/Not Guilty?

Hopefully I'll have some time later today to re-read through this thread. I'd also be interested to see what everyone has to say about the case now. The only sources I've used for info on this case are UM and the Tommy Z innocence website, (and I hate the fact that the judge had such a negative personal background with Tommy) so of course my opinion has always been leaning very much toward innocent.

TheCars1986

05-10-2013, 10:36 AM

One thing that struck me as interesting was that the motive that was advanced by the prosecution in this case was that Ziegler wanted to cash in on half a million dollars worth of life insurance on Eunice.

First off, Thomas Ziegler was to my knowledge already a wealthy man. While this fact does not exonerate him of this crime it does make financial gain less of a plausible motive than say if there were problems in the Ziegler marriage.

They also said Ziegler was involved in homosexual affairs with various members of the community. This was proven to be false since no one other than Eunice's hair stylist (someone who Eunice only saw once every few months, who alleged that Eunice confided in her) came forward and said it was true. And yes, Ziegler's furniture business was booming as well as several apartment buildings he owned in the area.

In addition if financial gain was Ziegler's only motive for murdering his wife, it always struck me as strange that he decided to stage a massacre and involve more bodies, more witnesses and more weapons then necessary if he would've just murdered Eunice at their residence for example. The whole per-meditation in this crime to me seems a bit unnecessary although I admit it is possible that Ziegler did plan out such an elaborate scenario in hopes of diverting the attention away from himself as the assailant and onto someone else.

Ziegler was well liked by the blacks in the community of Winter Garden. He could have easily lured Edward Williams (under the pretense of delivering gifts on Christmas or helping him with some other errand) to the store after he murdered Eunice, then shot Edward Williams and them himself. He could have framed Williams and say that he shot him in self defense. I think that's more beliveable than murdering 4 people, using 3 as potential "robbers", and using 6 guns during the whole scheme. It just makes no sense at all.

There are also issues I have with points raised by the prosecution such as the positioning of Eunice Ziegler's body when she was shot. The prosecutor makes note that it would be extremely unlikely for Eunice to be found in that position if she was murdered by a stranger but never elaborates why this is so. Indeed there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence to prove one way or another that the position of Eunice Ziegler's body conclusively identifies her killer as someone she knew or a stranger.

This was always a silly point, IMO. Anyone could have snuck up on Eunice and shot her from behind, dying as she fell with her hand in her coat pocket. I don't see how it had to be someone who knew her.

Also I would like to know if there is any information regarding the struggle that Thomas Ziegler alleges he was in at the furniture store during which he was eventually shot. Ziegler mentions that he was being bounced around the store, so the natural question becomes was there any evidence at the scene that night lending credence to an intense struggle between three parties as Ziegler contends?

There were packing bows found everywhere, furniture moved or overturned, etc. The whole store was a mess. And Ziegler claimed (on the night of the murders) that he was fighting with Charlie Mays in the back of the store. The blood found on Ziegler's shirt matched Charlie's DNA, which supports what he's said all along.

Finally in addition to some of the conflicting eyewitness statements about what was happening outside the furniture store at the time of the murders, one issue that to me always spoke of Thomas' innocence is the fact that Felton Thomas alleged that Ziegler took both he and Charlie Mays out to an orange grove to shoot off guns in an effort to taint the guns with their prints. If this is true, why then when the guns were recovered were they wiped clean of prints? If this crime was as per-meditated as the authorities have always contended, why would Ziegler allow the guns he was hoping to taint Thomas and Mays with to be wiped clean?

Felton Thomas also drew a map of the route Ziegler allegedly took he and Charlie Mays on to fire the weapons. The route he drew actually went through buildings, walls, and other barriers that were impossible to take the way he says they did. IMO, I think since Ziegler was the target of the attack, whoever was setting him up was going to use Mays and Thomas as the fall guys and murderers of Ziegler, which is why their prints were going to be used on the guns. Only when Eunice and her parents showed up unexpectedly did the plans changed. Once Eunice and her parents were murdered, the plan was changed to set up Ziegler, which is why the guns were then wiped clean.

Spark Of Spirit

05-11-2013, 09:03 PM

Felton Thomas also drew a map of the route Ziegler allegedly took he and Charlie Mays on to fire the weapons. The route he drew actually went through buildings, walls, and other barriers that were impossible to take the way he says they did. IMO, I think since Ziegler was the target of the attack, whoever was setting him up was going to use Mays and Thomas as the fall guys and murderers of Ziegler, which is why their prints were going to be used on the guns. Only when Eunice and her parents showed up unexpectedly did the plans changed. Once Eunice and her parents were murdered, the plan was changed to set up Ziegler, which is why the guns were then wiped clean.And the question is why did the prosecution put so much stock into something like that map? There is zero proof this trip ever occurred (and their one explanation falls apart with the wiped weapons) yet it was treated as fact by the court.

Because if he did it, then he must have had accomplices. Yet for some reason they never even entertained the idea and stuck to the lone shooter theory that makes him out to be some sort of super genius murderer with foresight abilities. The question is why have the other people involved in this never been pursued? Because there had to be someone else for this case to make sense.

TheCars1986

05-13-2013, 09:27 AM

And the question is why did the prosecution put so much stock into something like that map? There is zero proof this trip ever occurred (and their one explanation falls apart with the wiped weapons) yet it was treated as fact by the court.

Because if he did it, then he must have had accomplices. Yet for some reason they never even entertained the idea and stuck to the lone shooter theory that makes him out to be some sort of super genius murderer with foresight abilities. The question is why have the other people involved in this never been pursued? Because there had to be someone else for this case to make sense.

I agree. I think the prosecution were deadset on pinning everything on Ziegler, so they used Felton Thomas as their star witness. There is no proof the trip to the orange grove took place other than Thomas' word that it happened. IIRC, "Fatal Flaw" mentions finding a slug at the orange grove that matched the same caliber weapon that were alleged to have been fired, but it was later stated by a police officer that the slug was planted there. I think Ziegler was set up to be the fall guy from the moment Eunice and her parents walked into the store.

mozartpc27

06-04-2013, 02:21 PM

Glad to see this case continues to generate interest. TheCars1986, you make some fine points in favor of Ziegler's innocence. I myself am not as convinced as I once was of his guilt; the placement of Mays' van, his possible involvement in another murder, and the nearby armed robbery committed the same night have all altered my thinking.

The problem is, almost every narrative one can dream up is very complicated, and not entirely supported by the evidence. I am more than happy to consider police involvement where it seems warranted, but vast conspiracy theories involving unknown masterminds (the existence of whom no direct evidence is known to support) seem unconvincing. I think we all agree that the trial was tainted by the presence of the judge who presided, and there are grounds to set aside the sentence if not the verdict on that basis alone (and personally, I would set aside the verdict).

There are elements that don't make sense no matter which way you slice it, particularly the cheap guns, who purchased them, and what they were doing there that night. If the idea all along was to either murder or frame Zeigler, this plot evolves over quite a long period of time - the guns were sold in June of 1985, but not used until December. Of course, if it was Zeigler's intention to use the guns in his own plot, the same observation applies. Perhaps the guns were originally acquired by whomever for some other purpose, and only later was it decided to use them in the robbery/murder plot.

The thing that struck me on re-reading this thread was that Felton Thomas knew something was up that night, which I originally felt was a credit to his intuition but am now more inclined to believe was part of whatever went down - either recruited through by Tommy through Mays, or recruited for a robbery attempt through Mays.

I was also struck by the two questions that I think are equally damning for opposing cases:

1. If you believe Tommy was behind this, would he really have shot himself and then waited long enough for his blood to clot before contacting authorities?

2. If you don't believe Tommyy was behind this, how come he is the only one in the whole place with injuries that did not seem intended to be definitively fatal? The only way to answer that is to say, "the decision was made to leave him alive so he could be framed," but honestly, that is more of a TV/movie plot than something that would actually happen. If the decision was made to frame him from the get-go, why involve so many other people (Charlie Mays, Ed Williams, Felton Thomas, maybe more?)? Too much could go wrong. And if it was a decision made at the last minute, when the original plan to simply kill him went all bananas, why even bother? If you are somebody or bodies who enter that store with the intention to kill Tommy Zeigler, why does it matter if you kill some other people first? Why not just go ahead and complete your original task? Because you think maybe you can make him suffer more if you can get him wrongfully convicted? How can you possibly know - on the fly, as you are making decision in a confused situation - that you will be able to come close to accomplishing that?

I honestly think the answer is something like this: Tommy wanted to kill his wife, and he felt like staging something bigger than just his wife being murdered would keep suspicion off of him (because husbands murder their wives all the time), so he waits until a time he can kill not just her but her folks as well. He enlists some help - certainly Ed Williams, maybe Charlie Mays too (though Charlie Mays may have been Tommy's fall guy), and he may or may not intend from the beginning to double cross Ed Williams/Charlie Mays after his wife and her folks are killed. Perhaps Tommy doesn't intend to double cross them, but they demand more money for what they've done, or see an opportunity to double cross Tommy and vastly increase their take and eliminate another witness. Whatever happens, a fight ensues. Mays is killed, and Tommy, although shot, has Ed Williams on the run, because he has a still-working gun and Williams doesn't. Each now realizes that he has to get to the authorities before the other one does, because whichever one gets there first will blame the other. Tommy calls his friend, Ed Williams tries calling the number of the station.

Even this situation is hard to make jive with available testimony/evidence; I tried working one out and quickly realized I was making several errors.

Such a confusing case.

TheCars1986

06-04-2013, 03:40 PM

2. If you don't believe Tommyy was behind this, how come he is the only one in the whole place with injuries that did not seem intended to be definitively fatal? The only way to answer that is to say, "the decision was made to leave him alive so he could be framed," but honestly, that is more of a TV/movie plot than something that would actually happen. If the decision was made to frame him from the get-go, why involve so many other people (Charlie Mays, Ed Williams, Felton Thomas, maybe more?)? Too much could go wrong. And if it was a decision made at the last minute, when the original plan to simply kill him went all bananas, why even bother? If you are somebody or bodies who enter that store with the intention to kill Tommy Zeigler, why does it matter if you kill some other people first? Why not just go ahead and complete your original task? Because you think maybe you can make him suffer more if you can get him wrongfully convicted? How can you possibly know - on the fly, as you are making decision in a confused situation - that you will be able to come close to accomplishing that?

I think Mays and Thomas were used with a ruse to help themselves to cash at the Ziegler store that night. Someone wanted Ziegler dead. Whoever this person was was going to kill Ziegler and then make it look like a robbery gone wrong. I don't know if Mays or Thomas knew that there would be harm to Ziegler that night, but I doubt they would have went along knowing that Ziegler was going to die. Edward Williams may not have known what was going to happen either, perhaps he was offered cash to drive Ziegler to the store or keep him away from the store for a certain amount of time.

The reason why Eunice and her parents were killed, IMO was because they walked in on the intruders. Someone got trigger happy and killed all three. There goes your original plan about killing Ziegler. If Ziegler is telling the truth, he was still waiting for Edward Williams while his wife and in-laws went to the store. So it's not like they could still carry out the plan and kill Ziegler too, because this would draw more heat on the killers rather than simply leaving Ziegler alive. I've said it before, I think in a panic they thought of the "frame job" and figured they'd let the cards fall where they may. Remember, Mays was found dead in the store with receipts and cash stuffed in his pants. So it was either going to be Ziegler who would be to blame for the murders or Mays. And this is where Edward Williams, IMO, was either paid off or out of fear for being implicated in the murders altered his story to implicate Ziegler. Without Williams' testimony, Mays, Thomas, and Edward Williams all look guilty as hell.

Even this situation is hard to make jive with available testimony/evidence; I tried working one out and quickly realized I was making several errors.

Such a confusing case.

I agree. Every theory I've tried to think of has holes and errors. I don't think we'll ever know what exactly happened. The biggest thing that convinced me of his innocence was the way Edward Williams acted that night. There was an alleged attempt on his life yet he made no effort to go to the police or report what happened for hours. Williams had one of the murder weapons, and his vehicle was found at the scene of the crime. Can you imagine (if she was involved and if Ziegler was innocent) what was going through his mind when he was told to ditch the gun and his truck wouldn't start?! IMO, he was acting more like someone who knew something had happened and wanted to come clean rather than a guy who was almost murdered minutes before.

Spark Of Spirit

06-04-2013, 05:54 PM

Yes, this case is extraordinarily convoluted which was most definitely not helped by the way the trial was staged. I've said before that this was one of the cases I wanted solved the most because it's the one that has too many angles to consider to prove a straight theory. The only thing I have to go on is the shadiness of Ziegler's set-up and that whatever plan they could possibly think of (if he was involved) in this case would need other involved parties.

Let me put this out there. I don't think there is any way for Tommy Ziegler to have done this on his own if he did it at all. There is no way for him to do this alone for this case to make any sense. Yet, the police are absolutely convinced he did it on his own which makes their whole case look ridiculous and weaker than Ziegler's own account.

You can believe conspiracy or not (I tend not to in most cases), but something's missing in this case.

MissFit29

06-04-2013, 08:04 PM

I always had an issue with Thomas' statement that Ziegler suggested they "break in" to the store. I would assume he would have had a key, or always carried his keys.

Did Ziegler testify or have some involvement in another court proceeding before all this happened? I haven't seen the episode in a while, so not sure how good my memory is here...

TracyLynnS

06-05-2013, 12:10 PM

Did Ziegler testify or have some involvement in another court proceeding before all this happened? I haven't seen the episode in a while, so not sure how good my memory is here...

Best I can remember from what I read at the TommyZ site a while back was that he was on the side of black business in the community and the judge who presided over his murder trial was against this. Seems like Tommy testified on behalf of black business owners in a court case where the judge was on the opposing side (can't remember if he was a plaintiff or what, but he wasn't the judge in that particular case) and lost?

Anyone got the real details on that or am I completely misremembering?

TracyLynnS

06-05-2013, 12:51 PM

Real quick, here's what I found on the subject from TheCars1986 in post #79. (Some editing and bold by me, etc.)

There were alleged loan sharks taking advantage of the poor black migrant workers (fruit pickers) in Winter Garden. These loan sharks would loan money out to the fruit pickers (since most of the workers had little to no money until the day they got paid) and then would charge them a ridiculous high amount of interest. In other words, the loan sharks would loan these people somewhere between 20-60 bucks a week and then collect their whole paycheck (hundrend and some approximately) at the end of that week. And it was alleged that some police officers knew of this illegal activity but would not investigate further due to either being in on the scheme or just being paid off by one of the loan sharks.

Zeigler was an outspoken opponent of the loan sharks and also of the way the poor blacks were being taken advantage of by the whites who had some wealth and power in the community. Zeigler first brought the attention of the loan sharks up at the trial of Andrew James, a black bar owner in Winter Garden. James was trying to be pushed away by rival whites who wanted to gain access to his bar and liquor license. James was the only black man to own a bar in the area and almost all of his customers were poor blacks from the area (including the fruit pickers). Rivals of James knew they could further push their loan sharking scheme if they took over James' bar. So an undercover beverage agent allegedly went into James' bar one night and bought some marajuana from him, which resulted in him being arrested and tried.

Andrew James swore his innocence, and Zeigler spoke out on his behalf. It was at the James trial that Zeigler publicly brought out the loan shark operations and how he felt Andrew was being framed to further the scheme. (This most likely resulted in the reason why people were looking to do harm to him that night on Christmas Eve, IMO)

Judge Paul was a witness to the prosecution at the Andrew James trial. I'm not quite sure as to what Paul testified on but I think since he was considered a "character witness" he pretty much trashed the character of Andrew James and said he could conceivably believe he would sell drugs at his bar. Tommy Zeigler was the defense's character witness who rebuffed everything Paul said and also brought up the loan sharking. So its quite possible that as a result of Zeigler's testimony he rifled a lot of feathers (maybe even Judge Paul's) and that's why he was targeted that fateful night.

TheCars1986

06-05-2013, 01:32 PM

Also at the Andrew James trial, Zeigler's testimony helped get a beverage agent (who was close friends with Judge Paul) fired.

TracyLynnS

06-05-2013, 02:37 PM

Also at the Andrew James trial, Zeigler's testimony helped get a beverage agent (who was close friends with Judge Paul) fired.

Wow! Why in the world was this guy allowed to be the judge in this case, order prescription drugs be administered to a juror, and then over rule the jury's recommendation of Life in prison and give the guy the Death Penalty!? :mad:

I still can't get over that. Sounds like kangaroo court type stuff, not something you'd expect to happen in the US.

TheCars1986

06-06-2013, 08:55 AM

You can read a portion of the trial transcript over at one of the "Tommy Zeigler is innocent" websites. It only has the defense's closing argument, but there are some interesting tidbits left out of the "Fatal Flaw" book.

-Felton Thomas actually returned to the store after he alleged to have ran away in fear. He was standing outside and approached someone he knew who told him there was a shooting that went on inside the store. There were several police officers there and Thomas made no attempt to go up to one of them and tell them that he was there earlier with Charlie Mays and that he may have some information. Thomas also didn't think it was prudent to go seek out an officer to tell them he may have witnessed his friend, Charlie Mays, last moments alive.
-When Thomas finally went to police, he used the word "shoot-out" to describe what had happened in the store. Why would he use this terminology if he was alleged to have fled the scene well before shots were fired?
-The clothes Edward Williams was alleged to have wore on the night of the murders were turned over to police and brought to the court for the trial. Williams' shoes were so pristine that they still had the department store tag on them.
-Williams did not go over to the KFC until after witnesses saw police help Zeigler out of the store and drive him to the hospital.
-Of all of the four victims, Charlie Mays was the only one to have money on his person. Neither the Edwards's or Eunice had any cash on them.
-Eunice and her mother had trace cat hairs found on their laps, but it was only a very small amount. Charlie Mays had cat hairs (hairs that matched the same cats that the Zeigler's owned) on the bottom of his shoes, on his pants, and on his hoodie/jacket. The amount of hairs that were found on Mays compared to Eunice and her mother was substantially larger. How would Mays have gotten cat hairs on his person if he never was in the Zeigler home that night?
-Mays is alleged to have been in debt. However, he had no rent or mortgage payment (I believe someone was letting the Mays family stay at their house free of charge, but I could be wrong), had no truck payment (his boss/friend had loanded him his vehicle to use), and they could find no real reason as to why Mays would have been in debt. But Mays was also a gambler, he bet on jai alai and also at a dog race track. This was presented as evidence as to why Mays, a family man with children, would have become desperate enough to do harm to Zeigler and rob the store. This makes the most sense to me, Mays had some sort of gambling debt and owed someone money, and this was the perfect opportunity to pay off that debt.

TheCars1986

06-08-2013, 10:16 AM

There is a link over at "EuniceZeigler.com" that details the story of an informant (Nathaniel Brown, who was a member of the local NAACP at the time) who came forward with information (shortly before Tommy's trial) about how the crime was set up by a white man and how he got 4 blacks involved by paying them $1,000 each. What's interesting though is that he said the murders were planned because of a rift with Tommy's father, not Tommy. Apparently whoever set it up allegedly got into a land dispute with Tommy's father where Tommy's father ultimately purchased the property this guy wanted. I'm not sure if the intention was to kill Tommy initially, but after Eunice and her parents were murdered, they were going to rough up Zeigler and keep him alive, "so that Tom [Zeigler's father] and Beulah would have to suffer the embarassment and loss of reputation in the community."

Take it for what it's worth, I'm not really sold on the angle that someone was trying to get back at Zeigler's father, but it's still another plausible motive as to why someone would have wanted to set Zeigler up.

Here's the link: http://eunicezeigler.com/uploads/Original_Tip_From_NAACP_To_Zeigler_Defense_Team_001.jpg

Killarney Rose

06-08-2013, 01:37 PM

Wow! I never heard of this! Going over to check it out! I miss my aunt so much, the one I mentioned earlier in this thread. We were very close. What i wouldn't give to be able to sit down and have a long talk with her about the Zeiglars !

Killarney Rose

06-08-2013, 01:43 PM

Thats quite interesting. I'm very familiar with Powell's store. My dad did a lot of business with them. I went to school with the Powell kids.

TheCars1986

06-10-2013, 12:29 PM

There was also evidence that indicated Eunice, her father Perry, and Charlie Mays had fired a gun. All 3 had GSR on their hands. Zeigler himself, only had GSR on his pants, IIRC.

One thing I just thought of that makes no sense with the prosecution's theory, if Zeigler was deadset on buying "hot" guns to murder Eunice and her parents, why would he wipe the weapons clean after the murders? And why fire shots into the heads of Perry and Virginia Edwards with his personal weapon?

Spark Of Spirit

06-10-2013, 03:54 PM

That's an interesting theory and would definitely explain both the holes in the prosecution's theories and back up Ziegler's account at the same time. I'd definitely like to know more about it before I make a judgement, but it was definitely not an angle I had seriously considered before.

Killarney Rose

12-23-2013, 07:52 PM

This thread has been quiet of late. There's been some discussion on a Winter Garden forum . Thought I would copy and paste some quotes. I went to school with the doctors son who is quoted.

"Ask **** ****, or his mom, **** **** ******* about the little kittens. They told me, and they lived across the street."

"All the stories were TRUE his parents did seek help for him but he resisted therapy and meds. They turned a many blind eye and covered for him. I do remember Mrs Zeigler talking to my grandma alot and she would pray with my Grandmama **** for him and Eunice. They knew all his evil deeds and I pray that he never gets out of jail. What he put his parents thru and what he did to his wife , her parents, the employee, their families and the people of Winter Garden and Ocoee is unforgivieable and he should stay there. He was so creeeepy and a master at manipulating people."

" My father treated Tommy in the ER that night. He told the police chief that night that Tommy's gunshot wound was superficial, non-life threatening and self inflicted. BTW the gun belonged to the police .
His wife's psychiatrist was prepared to testify for the prosecution that she had been trying to deal with trauma from finding Tommy in bed with the police chief. They never called him to the stand because they felt the evidence already submitted against him was enough to convict."

TheCars1986

12-24-2013, 09:35 AM

I'm sorry, but I just have an extremely hard time buying all of the rumors and innuendos surrounding Ziegler. The homosexual rumor was all but debunked by his defense team. The prosecution knew they couldn't get anyone to testify about firsthand knowledge of it, that's why they didn't present the theory in court. As for the rumors about him being some violent psychopath as a youth, again I don't see how that could be true. Would Eunice really stay with him if that were true, let alone even get involved with him in the first place? Where were these people at when she started dating Ziegler? Why didn't they warn her? Curtis Dunaway testified that when he went to the Ziegler home that evening, everyone in the house (Eunice, Tommy, Perry, and Virginia) were in a jovial, normal mood. I just don't see how if any of these rumors were remotely true, Ziegler's in-laws would even want to be around him, let alone spend the holidays with them.

Killarney Rose

12-24-2013, 11:30 AM

Cars, I knew you would respond. :)

I really don't expect to change anyone's mind. But I did think I would just throw this out there.

First, Eunice did not grow up in Winter Garden. She was from GA. When I was in fourth grade, she taught fourth grade in the classroom next to mine. She was engaged to Tommy at the time. I can only assume that what brought her to WG was that she had gotten the teaching job there. This was the mid sixties, the year before Walt Disney officially announced that WDW was being built. Not that it had anything to do with her moving there, but just adding it in. So the entire area was still "small town".

We hear of cases all the time where a killer will marry someone that did not grow up with him .where the new spouse did not not know about their background or what their true personality is like.

I just find it hard to believe being from WG, that all I have ever heard about TZ are things of this nature being told by neighbors, school mates, friends of his parents, etc. not once have I ever heard anyone other than his defense team say, oh, this is not true, its just rumors.

I grew up in that small town. So I know about gossip and rumors. ;). But I also know that when there is this much gossip and rumor, from so very many people, that there had to be some grain of truth there at the start.

As far as people trying to warn Eunice...well, we don't know that someone didnt
Try to warn her and that she wouldn't believe them? Society was different then. People didnt talk much about not nice things. They hid their problems. So factor that in and there s a good chance no one tried to tell her.

Eunice's brother believed in TZ's guilt. Something had to have gone on for him to not believe in TZ.

No one really knows too, if it was true that the Edwards had come to WG to bring Eunice back home with them. It has been said they were. Perhaps they were going along with this being a normal visit, timing things for TZ to be out of the house to make leaving as easy as possible, less of a scene.

Also, look at it this way. It was a different world back then as far as communication went. Those were the days Of Sunday afternoon long distance calls because they were cheaper. Eunice was living in a new town away from her friends and family. She probably felt very cut off from them if she were married to a man with the demons/vices it is said that TZ had. Could this be why they had no children? She didnt want to bring a child into that life.

We don't know.......but like I said, just trying to get some discussion going.

MegtheEgg86

12-24-2013, 11:54 AM

Killarney, I appreciate so much the information and unique impressions you are able to provide throughout this thread. I've never known what I feel about TZ's innocence or guilt (personally I had a lot more questions than answers after seeing this segment for the first time and have admittedly found it a little confusing at times), but re-reading this thread and your posts especially has really piqued my interest anew.

Cars, I also appreciate the advocation for TZ's innocence. It's good to be able to easily compare and contrast the theories and positions, and you've stated your case so clearly and succinctly that even someone as dumb as me can "get it" pretty quickly.

Still don't know at all which way I lean, and like I said, I have never held a solid stance on TZ. I may re-watch the segment today and get back with y'all.

Killarney Rose

12-24-2013, 12:04 PM

Thx, Meg. Ironically, it is this thread that has me thinking there is a very small chance maybe he is innocent, but I lean much more to him being guilty. Ironically, it was reading all the links and posts here provided by those who are convinced of his innocence that helped cement my feelings of his guilt, while still making me think, well, maybe......but not likely.

Spark Of Spirit

12-24-2013, 02:26 PM

I'll believe the prosecution's theory when they pick one that has a chance of actually happening. As for his character, I can't comment either way since I don't know the man and put little stock in rumors of those convicted for crimes. Until he gets a new trial, I honestly don't think I can be convinced of his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt.

TheCars1986

12-26-2013, 03:51 PM

No one really knows too, if it was true that the Edwards had come to WG to bring Eunice back home with them. It has been said they were. Perhaps they were going along with this being a normal visit, timing things for TZ to be out of the house to make leaving as easy as possible, less of a scene.

Also, look at it this way. It was a different world back then as far as communication went. Those were the days Of Sunday afternoon long distance calls because they were cheaper. Eunice was living in a new town away from her friends and family. She probably felt very cut off from them if she were married to a man with the demons/vices it is said that TZ had. Could this be why they had no children? She didnt want to bring a child into that life.

We don't know.......but like I said, just trying to get some discussion going.

Eunice's brother confirmed that they were there to spend the holiday's with them, not to whisk Eunice away from Zeigler. And IIRC, Eunice documented her sexual relationship with Zeigler because she was trying to get pregnant, but just couldn't.

I do enjoy reading the insight into what the townsfolk of Winter Garden said/are saying about the case, I just don't believe most of it, lol.

And Meg thank you. And you're not dumb at all. I'm just glad someone understood what I was typing because going back and rereading some of my older posts even makes me confused sometimes. I recommend reading "Fatal Flaw" to make up your mind on the case. The segment only touches the surface on making a case for Zeigler's innocence. The book is what convinced me of his innocence, the segment just made me question it.

ETA: I'm the real dummy here because I've continually changed the spelling of Zeigler's last name several times! :lol:

Killarney Rose

12-27-2013, 11:10 PM

You know, we've been posting on this thread for so long that there is a lot that I read that I have forgotten about. I read a fatal Flaw in one sitting several years ago, and did some reading around on the net about Shorty Reddick and Dave Starr. And racked my brain about what I remember about them. It was so long ago and I was just a kid....

TheCars1986

12-28-2013, 10:30 AM

Zeigler was denied another motion back in November of this year by the Florida Supreme Court. His attorney's presented the new evidence of Robert Foster, and the fact that he robbed a gas station directly across the street from the Zeigler furniture store one hour before the murders, and how he was mentioned in the original police report, etc. The court basically said the evidence was useless and wouldn't have changed the jury's decision.

Killarney Rose

12-28-2013, 12:18 PM

TheCars1986

12-31-2013, 11:24 AM

Was it ever determined by anyone except Zeiglar supporters where Foster was at the time of the murders? What about ballistics and other evidence that could link him to the murders? What about his criminal record.

It seems an awful big step from robbing a service station to killing all those people.

The lady working at the Gulf Station and her daughter ID'ed Foster as the robber, IIRC. I agree that it's an awful big leap, but don't you think the police should have at least pursued Foster after learning that a robbery occurred less than an hour from the murders directly across the street?

Killarney Rose

12-31-2013, 11:45 AM

The lady working at the Gulf Station and her daughter ID'ed Foster as the robber, IIRC. I agree that it's an awful big leap, but don't you think the police should have at least pursued Foster after learning that a robbery occurred less than an hour from the murders directly across the street?

Absolutely, I agree that they should have.

But, do we know that they didnt?(as I said, we've been posting so long here that I have forgotten quite a few things).

Also, we know that LE keeps many things pertinent to an investigation close, so perhaps they did, and were still convinced TZ did it.

TheCars1986

01-02-2014, 05:24 PM

Absolutely, I agree that they should have.

But, do we know that they didnt?(as I said, we've been posting so long here that I have forgotten quite a few things).

Also, we know that LE keeps many things pertinent to an investigation close, so perhaps they did, and were still convinced TZ did it.

No they didn't. The detective working the case (in his initial report, and for the life of me I can't remember his name right now) typed up "Robert Foster" as the man who was with Charlie Mays when he went into the store with Zeigler, but then fled because Zeigler was acting weird. Then all of a sudden at the trial he claims it was a clerical error and that he had meant to type "Felton Thomas". WTH!? At the time, they basically denied the existence of Robert Foster, but now it's been proven that he was real and was in fact in the area during the time of the murders.

Killarney Rose

01-02-2014, 08:00 PM

So Foster robs the Gulf station on the corner of 50 and Dillard, a hundred feet or so from the furniture store, then shows up a short time later at a murder? WTHeck?!

I have always heard it was Thomas and how he fled in fear after TZ took them down Daniels road to fire the gun in the grove. Since day one I have heard that.my dad knew all those guys in Oakland, many worked for him through the years. He had the scoop so to speak on Mays, Thomas, etc. because his employees had ties to them....they were all neighbors, friends, cousins, etc.yeah I know second hand and all that.

MegtheEgg86

01-02-2014, 10:47 PM

So I have to admit: this case--above ANY featured on UM--is, to me, one of the most complex, confusing, and convoluted as far as testimonies go (once you go beyond the actual segment--and yes, I echo those sentiments about how amazing it was that UM was able to condense this story into an approximately fifteen-minute segment). I almost felt like I needed to get out a pad and pen and draw a chart or something. I'm beginning to "get it" a little better now, though.

Cars, I just ordered Fatal Flaw a few minutes ago. I'm extremely interested to read what Finch has to say on the case, especially with a pro-innocence angle. I have to admit, at this point, I tend to lean toward Zeigler being guilty. But as I continue to delve through this thread and the book, that could very well change.

TheCars1986

01-03-2014, 10:17 AM

So Foster robs the Gulf station on the corner of 50 and Dillard, a hundred feet or so from the furniture store, then shows up a short time later at a murder? WTHeck?!

Honestly, I have no idea how Foster fits into all of this. I just find it extremely odd that he was id'ed as the guy who robbed the gulf station, and his name also appeared in the initial police report as the one who accompanied Mays to the store with Zeigler. It's possible that he was told to meet them at the store (for the "robbery"), got antsy and decided to hold up the gas station across the street.

Killarney Rose

01-03-2014, 05:04 PM

Honestly, I have no idea how Foster fits into all of this. I just find it extremely odd that he was id'ed as the guy who robbed the gulf station, and his name also appeared in the initial police report as the one who accompanied Mays to the store with Zeigler. It's possible that he was told to meet them at the store (for the "robbery"), got antsy and decided to hold up the gas station across the street.

Cars, I promise I'm not laughing at you or your theory, but does this not remind you of one of those movies where the killer tries to hire a hit man (or two) and they end up being screw ups that can't do anything right? ;)

Is it possible that with it being Christmas, a smaller than normal number of cops on duty, the robbery, then the murders, that the person writing the police reports just got confused and transposed Foster's name onto the Zeigler report?

Meg, I was able to go to a link way back on this thread and read Fatal Flaw online at no charge. Don't know if its still avaiable or not now. That was a few years ago. Even after reading it, I am obviously not a believer in his innocence. However, I will say that between Fatal Flaw , following links to other info etc, it did completely convince me that TZ did not get a fair trial due to Judge Paul being involved in the other case TZ was involved in. It really, really made me wish I could go back and talk to my daddy about the things he knew and heard from talking to his employees that lived in Oakland. He owned several gas stations in the area and a small garbage company so nearly all of them were young black guys who lived in Oakland . There were a few who worked for him from the time they were old enough to get a job until he retired and sold his businesses. They were neighbors and friends of Mays and Probably Thomas. I wish I had paid more attention to conversation at the dinner table, but most of the time I wasnt even there.....my social life was the most important thing back then. All I remember is him coming home and talking about Thomas running and hiding in the orange grove.

TheCars1986

01-06-2014, 05:24 PM

I would definitely believe Foster was a "mix up" had Frye said it was when questioned about it before Zeigler's trial. He claimed it was a typo, and then when confronted about the difference between "Robert Foster" and "Felton Thomas", he did not answer. I don't think Frye was involved in a cover up per se, I just think it was sloppy police work and that he didn't want to admit that.

I also came across a document (from a pro-Zeigler website) that says on the evening of the murders, a large black man identifying himself as "Robert Foster" went to the Orange County Sheriff's office seeking protection because he knew about the four homicides in the store and was fearful for his life. He was admitted to the county jail, but due to a strict policy about not wanting to release the name of a potential material witness, it was logged as "John Doe".

Here is a copy of the affidavit:
http://www.freetommyz.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/mceachernaffidavit.183133649.PDF

Killarney Rose

01-06-2014, 07:56 PM

TheCars1986

01-06-2014, 08:04 PM

Cars, I remember that as well. I read it too. One thing I had a hard time reconciling...I wasnt able to.....was what I had always heard. As I have said...that was almost 40 years so....I remember...and time does distort memories, especially when you never think you will want to recall it some day...Daddy talking about Thomas taking off down Daniels Rd and hiding in the orange grove a couple of days because he was so afraid of TZ after he took him and Mays out to fire the guns. This came from his employees who ran in the same circles with Thomas. Back then there was nothing down Daniels Rd except orange groves. I suppose it is possible that during this time he was missing, he was actually being held,in the OCSO as a John Doe for his protection?

I believe it was Foster who was being held in the jail for protection, not Thomas. Robert Foster was a large man, Felton Thomas was small. And Thomas never claimed to go to a police station for protection, he simply said he went to the police after he found out that Mays had been murdered in the store. For all we know Foster could be a red herring who has no connection to the crimes. However, knowing:

-Foster was a convicted felon out on parole at the time of the murders.
-2 witnesses (years after a PI found Foster was a real person and had located him) both say he was the man who robbed the Gulf gas station on the night of the murders.
-Foster was a fruit picker, who was good friends with Mays and may have known Thomas as well.
-Foster was alleged to have sought police protection on the night of the murders.

I believe this should have been enough (if it was brought up at Zeigler's trial) to drum up enough reasonable doubt in this case. It turns the prosecution theory upside down, IMO. Because if Mays and Foster were good friends and Foster just so happens to rob a gas station directly across the street on the same night that Mays (and 3 others) winds up dead does not seem like a coincidence to me. Tack on the fact that Mays being found with cash stuffed in his pants would tend to imply his and possibly Foster's involvement in the robbery of the store, instead of the prosecution's theory that Zeigler stuffed the cash in Mays's pants to frame him.

Apparently, there is a Zeigler documentary in the works. I'll have to dig up the link to the website, but I saw a 10 minute "preview" of it and at the very end they talk about an alternate suspect who gained over $3 million in property after the Edwards's were murdered. I found that to be pretty interesting.

Killarney Rose

01-06-2014, 09:33 PM

I'd love to have that link if you find it.

I remember when I read Fatal Flaw, or some of the other links to the case. It all runs together as I just sat and read all of that in one long sitting at my computer. But it seems I remember that Thomas ended up in Orlando at a woman friend's apartment and she convinced him to go to the police, he did. Or am I mixing him up with Foster? This is what I get for reading too much too quickly. LOL.

Killarney Rose

01-06-2014, 09:33 PM

TheCars1986

01-08-2014, 11:57 AM

I think one of two things happened with the handling of Foster as a witness:

-There was a massive frame job in the works to frame Zeigler, and Foster was concealed as a witness to the crimes because of his role in the murders.
-Foster's background and possible involvement in the Gulf station robbery would have cast doubt on the Zeigler did it theory, and knew getting a conviction would have been harder if they introduced him as a witness.

I tend to believe the 2nd one more. Felton Thomas claimed to have went to the police after learning that Mays had been murdered. I think Edward Williams was the one who was goaded into going to the police by a friend. Foster, if this 2012 affidavit is true, went to the police on the night of the murders and sought protection because of what he knew. His ID couldn't be verified, therefore he would have been logged as a "John Doe". I wonder if a record of a "John Doe" coming to the police station seeking protection on the 24th can be found and verified. If it is found, this supports Zeigler's case more, IMO.

ETA: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1485850094/dead-man-waiting-0/comments?cursor=4779363&direction=asc

Link to the short "preview" of the documentary.

WARNING: The movie shows photos of Eunice, her mother, and Charlie Mays in death.

TracyLynnS

01-08-2014, 01:52 PM

Wow, what a shame they weren't able to raise nearly enough money to get the documentary made. I wonder if they will try again.

I've always leaned toward innocence in this case, and in that clip, Ziegler comes across, to me, as a genuine person. He doesn't seem manipulative, strange, or guilty, imo.

I wonder if where the documentary maker went wrong was including Jose Baez in the trailer (I didn't realize that he's actually working on Ziegler's case now).

I simply cannot stand that guy. I think he's creepy and slimy, had an inappropriate relationship with Casey A., came up with the ridiculous alternate murder scenario where Casey's dad was a child sexual predator, and basically got a baby killer (Casey A.) set free.

Is Baez as off putting to others as he is to me? Would his involvement in the case make people steer clear of donating because they are suspicious that he only works to get guilty people set free, not realizing that Tommy may actually be a victim and not the perpetrator of these murders?

TheCars1986

01-08-2014, 05:20 PM

I wonder if where the documentary maker went wrong was including Jose Baez in the trailer (I didn't realize that he's actually working on Ziegler's case now).

I simply cannot stand that guy. I think he's creepy and slimy, had an inappropriate relationship with Casey A., came up with the ridiculous alternate murder scenario where Casey's dad was a child sexual predator, and basically got a baby killer (Casey A.) set free.

Is Baez as off putting to others as he is to me? Would his involvement in the case make people steer clear of donating because they are suspicious that he only works to get guilty people set free, not realizing that Tommy may actually be a victim and not the perpetrator of these murders?

It's funny, when I first watched the clip and saw him I thought "Oh God, not this guy...no one will believe Zeigler's innocence if this guy's involved!"

TracyLynnS

01-08-2014, 08:01 PM

It's funny, when I first watched the clip and saw him I thought "Oh God, not this guy...no one will believe Zeigler's innocence if this guy's involved!"

Oh no. It's not just me then.

Maybe they can edit Baez's scenes down in the trailer and try again. I think a documentary on this case is an excellent idea, and like Tommy says, he just wants a jury of his peers to hear the true facts of the case and find him not guilty.

Killarney Rose

01-09-2014, 12:53 AM

No you are not the only one! Baez is such a sleaze ball! I don't see how his presence on the case could do anything,but hurt TZ. But that's just MO and I watched in shock as CA was pronounced not guilty.......

I agree that TZ comes across as very sincere in interviews.

TheCars1986

01-09-2014, 10:47 AM

Zeigler really did have everything going for him at the time of the murders. It just defies all logic, IMO, that he would plan these murders (well in advance) on Christmas Eve and use several people in the plot. To believe Zeigler is guilty, you have to believe he planned to murder at least 5 people. Seems illogical to me.

Killarney Rose

01-10-2014, 12:27 AM

Yes, but if you are in the guilty camp, then you most likely believe that he is a sociopath. What is logical to him is completely different than our logic. He would have had his own selfish desires for murdering five people .

The Winter Garden Times posted this picture today for their Throwback Thursday. Wish it was bigger but thought I would post it anyway.
I,noticed the mention of the Fina station hold up. Wonder if this was the Gulf station? I did change names several times.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z250/beckyg56/image_zps3f51f33a.jpg

TheCars1986

01-11-2014, 10:59 AM

The light switches are an interesting part to the story. According to the prosecution's theory, Zeigler had Felton Thomas flip the breakers off to kill the lights. But Thomas said that the store was completely dark before he flipped the breaker. Yet when the police showed up and flipped the breakers the lights came on because a lot of the switches were left in the on position. Which supports Zeigler's story that they left some lights on in the store when they locked up that day. Just thought this was interesting.

ETA: Just thought of another little tidbit. Zeigler, if guilty, had planned the murder of Eunice well in advance. So why did he offer to swap cars with Dunaway on the night he planned to carry out the murders? Dunaway was complaining about his car that day at work because it would constantly die in the middle of driving and that's when Zeigler said he would let him use his car that night because his was working fine (Dunaway had planned to drive to a Christmas get together that night). Why on Earth would Zeigler do this?! Imagine what would have happened if on the way to the store if the car would have died. There goes his whole plan. I just think it's illogical to believe that he's that cunning and smart to plan these murders and then make several blunders on the night of the murders.

Killarney Rose

01-11-2014, 01:42 PM

Ultimately, whose car did TZ end up driving to the store that final time? Its been a while since I read that.

Victoria81

01-12-2014, 12:48 PM

This played on Liftetime a few weeks ago. Still think he is innocent.

TheCars1986

01-13-2014, 03:26 PM

Ultimately, whose car did TZ end up driving to the store that final time? Its been a while since I read that.

According to the prosecution's theory, Zeigler was driving to and from the store using Dunaway's car. According to Zeigler, he waited around for Edward Williams while Eunice and her parents went to the store. Zeigler got impatient and went to go to a liquor store, but then turned around because he thought he might miss Williams and went back home where he met Williams. They drove to the store in Williams' pick-up truck.

TracyLynnS

01-13-2014, 07:40 PM

TheCars,

Did you find that info on the FreeTommyZ site or from reading back through here or from memory?

I looked all over the TommyZ site yesterday trying to find that info, because I know I had read it there back when I first started getting interested in this case.

Since then, they changed the site around and I couldn't find it.

Instead of telling the story in more of a "here's what happened" kind of way, they link to very dull court documents, which I understand are necessary to him trying to prove his innocence, but I just get bogged down in that stuff.

I skimmed them, looking for info on the cars, but didn't see an answer to what KillarneyRose was asking about.

Killarney Rose

01-13-2014, 09:19 PM

I remember reading about the back and forth business with the cars, between the store and house, etc. I remember that I posted about how the route was almost circular, the description of it.... I am thinking that I read this on Fatal Flaw.

TheCars1986

01-14-2014, 09:45 AM

TheCars,

Did you find that info on the FreeTommyZ site or from reading back through here or from memory?

From memory and from reading "Fatal Flaw". That website is too cluttered for any decent information, IMO. Although I think they have a PDF file on there for an investigative report someone did that summarizes the inconsistencies in the prosecution's theory and has several pieces of evidence that points to Zeigler's innocence.

The prosecution's theory was that Zeigler and Eunice drove over to the store (in Dunaway's vehicle) at 7-7:15. He killed her shortly after entering. Then the Perry and Virginia Edwards arrived and he killed both of them. He then met Mays and Thomas and drove them back to his house, then to the orange grove, and then back to the store. He kills Mays, then goes back to his house and drives to the store with Edward Williams (in Williams's vehicle). He used Dunaway's car for the majority of the night according to the prosecution, but I believe both the prosecution and Zeigler maintain that he arrived at the store the final time in Williams's pickup truck.

Killarney Rose

01-14-2014, 10:42 AM

I would be interested in knowing if any forensic testing was done on the car.

TheCars1986

01-14-2014, 09:56 PM

I would be interested in knowing if any forensic testing was done on the car.

I'll have to dig "Fatal Flaw" out again, because I seem to remember something being found that the prosecution thought was "suspicious". Actually, IIRC the only thing they found in the vehicle were the rubber gloves that Dunaway and Zeigler used to clean furniture with.

TheCars1986

05-31-2014, 10:50 AM

Hate to bump a dormant thread, but the recent discussion of Jeffrey MacDonald has got me thinking about the Ziegler case. I think his claims of innocence have held up very well over the years. With MacDonald, initially he had some support, and then even gained more ground when Helena Stoeckely and her drugged up buddies came out of the woodwork to claim they were present during the murders. Unfortunately for MacDonald, the recent advancements in technology has pretty much put to bed any and all of his alternate theories with DNA testing and so forth. But with Ziegler, recent DNA testing on his shirt has confirmed it to be the blood of Charlie Mays...not Perry Edwards like the prosecution contended at the time of his trial. And come to think of it, there really has been no "smoking gun" that's came out since his conviction that puts to bed the controversy once and for all. Which is kind of sad...why not give the guy another trial with the new DNA evidence? Not to mention all of the extra information that's leaked out over the years (Charlie Mays being involved in a very similar crime months before the Ziegler homicides, a robbery occurring on the same night of the murders directly across the street from the furniture store, inconsistencies with both the "star" prosecution witnesses, etc.), what would it hurt?

Killarney Rose

05-31-2014, 04:59 PM

TheCars1986

06-03-2014, 11:50 AM

Well, it wouldn't hurt anything. However, it has been 39 years since the murders...39 this Dec. most of the witnesses are probably dead. Memories can fade with that much time for the ones still with us. And it would cost the state of FL a lot of money they don't want to spend.

I would love for TZ to have a new, fair trial. With today's forensics. But I just don't see it happening for those reasons.

You're probably right. The money is the biggest issue. Which is unfortunate. Because of the fact that the presiding judge had a previous "grudge" with Zeigler should be enough to have resulted in a mistrial or a retrial.

RobinW

06-03-2014, 06:08 PM

Man, I feel real sorry for Zeigler since he is in the ultimate state of limbo: the state won't release him because then they'd have to admit they were wrong, but they won't execute him either, due to the likely backlash they'd receive over the reasonable doubt about Zeigler's guilt.

It's disturbing to think that Zeigler has now lived on death row for more years than he lived as a free man before the murders. I've heard stories about innocent people reaching the point where they are so psychologically broken by the ordeal of spending years on death row that they start wishing they'd never even filed an appeal and just gotten the execution over with. Wonder if Zeigler ever has those thoughts...

TheCars1986

06-04-2014, 09:16 AM

It's disturbing to think that Zeigler has now lived on death row for more years than he lived as a free man before the murders. I've heard stories about innocent people reaching the point where they are so psychologically broken by the ordeal of spending years on death row that they start wishing they'd never even filed an appeal and just gotten the execution over with. Wonder if Zeigler ever has those thoughts...

Yes, in Fatal Flaw they quote a letter Zeigler wrote to one of his friends where he says he wishes they would just get the execution over with so he could be with Eunice in heaven.

Killarney Rose

07-25-2014, 08:27 PM

I wanted to share this here because I think it should put the speculation that Eunice's parents were taking her home with them because she was leaving TZ to rest. This came from a WG Facebook page where TZ was being discussed. The person who wrote this was a classmate of mine. I've known her since we went to kindergarten together.

" Eunice (his wife) was a very good friend of mine. She was an excellent pianist. She used to let me sit on the piano bench with her during choir practice. I had seen and spoken to her in Food World about a month before the incident. She told me that they were trying to have a baby and that if they weren't pregnant in another month that they were going to try and adopt. She was a sweetheart. I remember waking up on Christmas morning to the news on the radio by my bed and I broke out sobbing and ran into my parent's bedroom to tell them. I'll never forget that. She was a wonderful and sweet person as well as an accomplished pianist and a great school teacher. I will always think of her because of her encouragement to a young and eager pianist- me. "

Jediknight1823

07-26-2014, 04:33 AM

TheCars1986

07-26-2014, 08:29 AM

The Zeigler case should just be retried, IMO. Bring out all of the evidence, lay it on the line, and see whether or not the jury finds him guilty. His original trial should have been declared a mistrial anyway, due to one of the jurors, Irma Brickle, saying that she was physically and verbally coaxed into voting guilty during deliberations. She said that the foreman, a black man, had announced immediately after going into deliberations that he knew Zeigler was guilty and refused to change his mind at all. Brickle also alleges that he stood behind her with one of the guns (the jury had some of the evidence with them in the deliberation room) and began to fire the gun at her head. She also claimed that other members of the jury would shout at her and call her stupid in an attempt to break her. Originally, the jury was split 50/50. Brickle says she thought that the case would result in a hung jury, until the other members began to harass the ones who voted "not guilty" up until the point where they all changed their vote.

Killarney Rose

07-26-2014, 10:15 AM

It's just a big mess. I would like to hope that this couldn't happen today. But who knows. I still haven't changed my mind about his guilt but each time I read something like my friends comment and what you posted Cars, it makes it much more apparent that he didnt get a fair trial.

TheCars1986

03-02-2015, 04:56 PM

Just watched the ID special about Zeigler, and wow...the end revelation was kind of shocking. The new prime suspect in planning the killings, according to a PI investigating Zeigler's case, is Perry Edwards Jr., the brother of Eunice. Apparently, Eunice's father had changed his will to name Tommy as the executor and not Perry Jr., and this incensed Perry Jr. The total amount in the will was over 3 million dollars. The Edwards' took their will from the courthouse where it was stored since 1967, in an effort to change it to name Tommy the sole executor. This was done in August of 1975. While still in the process of getting it changed, they were murdered. Perry Jr. took the original will back to the same courthouse to become executor on January 7th, 1976...the date Eunice was buried. He didn't attend her funeral or her wedding. There is also a possible connection between Perry Jr., Edward Williams, Charlie Mays, and Robert Foster. A former landlady of Edward Williams has recently said that Williams was involved in softball games, and played with Charlie Mays, and that Robert Foster was an umpire. The three were friends, and were seen together. Perry Jr. was also very fond of softball. Just found that bit interesting.

It gets even more interesting. Apparently there was a "hidden" police report that details an averted armed robbery of a TG&Y store on the night of the murders roughly around 9:00 p.m., and shortly before the police responded to Zeigler's furniture store. The TG&Y store was directly across the street from the furniture store, and in the same shopping center where the gas station was robbed earlier in the evening (where witnesses have id'ed Robert Foster as the robber). This is an excerpt from the tommyzeiglerisinnocent.com website:

Although officer Cindy Blalock and TG& Y store manager George Daniels both testified at Mr. Zeigler’s murder trial, they failed to mention one word about the averted armed robbery. Both Winter Garden, FL. Police Officer Cindy Blalock and TG& Y store manager Daniels were involved as witnesses in the averted armed robbery that took place within the hour of the Zeigler store murders. The time it took for Officer Blalock to abandon the TG&Y money drop, jump in her vehicle, at the orders of her boss officer Yawn and then for her to get across the street immediately, puts Officer Blalock in back of the Winter Garden Inn at the exact same moments that the Jellison Family swore to the prosecution and also in a taped interview with Florida prosecutors office state investigator Jack Bachman, that they saw the officer out side their motel room with a shot gun trained across the hood of the police car covering the back of the Zeigler store. The Jellison family whose tape recorded witness testimony was hidden by the prosecution from the defense until 1987, saw the officer with a shot gun aimed at the back of the Zeigler store and then heard the shots. Officer Yawn testified that he immediately armed officer Blalock with a shotgun. Yawn told her to get to the back of the Winter Garden Inn to cover the back of the Zeigler store. The police call sheets show the timing of these events. The averted armed robbery was so important to the police department of Winter Garden FL. that they issued an emergency of danger on the teletype, warning all other police officers and law enforcement agencies to be on the look out for the suspicious men traveling in the large dark blue, older model, 4 door faded vehicle. Detective for the prosecution Don Frye has just recently admitted that the Gulf Station robbery did in fact occur on the same night and within the hours of the Zeigler murders, but Don added he decided that robbery had nothing to do with the murders. The Gulf Station was located in the same Tri-City Plaza as the TGY store on the opposite end of the shopping plaza. How many armed robberies is it logical to assume could possibly occurred within feet of a quadruple murder scene at the same moments and not be related to the murders? What are the odds of the suspicious vehicle’s license plate tag number owners address being the exact same address as prosecution witness Frank Smith’s address 2929 Orange Center Blvd? The same Frank Smith who testified against Tommy Zeigler swearing that he spoke to Tommy aka ” the white man” on the telephone months before the murders, at the request of Ed Williams to help Tommy buy some ” hot guns”. The same address in Orlando, FL. of 2919 Orange Center Blvd is where Frank Smith testified he lived at all alone in a 2 bedroom apartment.That is the same street address that Ed Williams testified he went to and picked up two of the murder weapons from Frank Smith. Why did Ed Williams wait 3 months to tell police that he was involved in buying the murder weapons from Frank Smith? Ed Williams spoke to the police on the very night of the murders and could have told them this information on that night or any day over the next 3 months. Ed Williams never mentioned a word about any of it to the police until 3 months after the murders. How on earth can the courts continue to claim that Ed Williams was just innocent old honest Ed Williams?