Hey,

Attempting to modify my status from constant lurker to active poster.

I just viewed Thomas Drake’s final appeal. It has been broadcast as part of the new UM on Spike TV but is also available for viewing “elsewhere” online. It is a quite lengthy expose of an attempted murder, clocking in at about 17 minutes long.

This is a rather convoluted story about a Florida truck driver, Thomas Drake, accused of attempting to kill his wife, Nancy Drake, a church secretary, with a hammer in her church office. No physical evidence exists linking him to the crime. A suspicious fingerprint, matching a local mental patient who lived in the area who had no business in the church, and a suspicious muddy footprint were both found at the scene of the crime. The attack was so gruesome that Ms. Drake’s skull was split open but she survived the attack.

It was soon discovered that Mr. Drake had been having an affair for over a year and, with his wife still in the ICU, moved his mistress and her son into the family house two weeks after the attack. He also allowed himself to be questioned without a lawyer (never a good idea, even for the most innocent) and it was soon discovered that he had lied to his mistress, claiming that he was divorced.

Complicating the case, Ms. Drake has no memory of the attack but an older gentleman was seen prowling around the church the day of the attack by both Mr. Drake and another parishioner. An unspecified amount of money was stolen from the church safe. Police twice offered a plea bargain to Drake, saying they’d drop the attempted murder charge if he were to plea guilty to grand theft. Both times, he was unwilling to accept a plea and was, in the end, found guilty of second-degree attempted murder. His mistress ended up turning witness for the prosecution, supposedly under threat that she would be charged as an accomplice despite the fact that she had no knowledge of Thomas Drake’s involvement in the murder, testifying to the fact that she moved in 2 weeks after the attack and also that Drake had lied to her, saying that he was divorced.

Despite sentencing guidelines proposing 5 years for such a crime, the judge sentenced Thomas Drake to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He has spent 25 years in jail steadfastly maintaining his innocence.

Believe me, this is the short version of a very, very convoluted case. There are many details I omitted for the sake of brevity; this case is worth watching.

I think that this case kind of stinks for a couple of reasons, but mainly because not one shred of hard evidence exists linking him to this crime. He was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Is it possible that Thomas Drake attacked his wife? Yes. He had motive and opportunity. Is it possible that someone else attacked his wife, a robbery gone-bad type scenario? Totally. So I cannot really understand how he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, much less sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole given what the police had.

Finally, in front of their home in the reenactment, they have a pair of pink flamingos, both endearing them to my heart as well as making me question their taste. Maybe they are fans of Babs Johnson. It certainly is a filthy crime. Who knows?

Anyway, I think this qualifies as of those “lost episodes” and it is an interesting, if convoluted, case. I’m interested in hearing other members’ opinions about this case and I’d LOVE to see the original production as opposed to the Spike redux. I know, I know, beggars can’t be choosers and I’m happy to have seen a "new" case at all…

Has anybody else seen this? What did you make of this case? I'm split, I think he could have done it but just as easily somebody else could have done it. Aside from that, I think his jail sentence, based on the evidence, is indeed a travesty of justice.

Anybody?

I saw this episode as well, and first off I would not take Mrs. Drake's statement after having her head split open as reliable. Eyewitness accounts are not very credible, anyway...people's minds can play tricks on them.

If there was no direct evidence connecting the husband to the crime he should not be in jail. Was he kinda tacky moving the mistress into the house while his wife was in ICU? Hell yeah.

But with no fingerprints or DNA to speak of, the guy should NOT be in jail.

Interesting to note that this was the last episode of the short lived "Final Appeal" series from 1992 and was not slated to air as a part of Unsolved Mysteries back then.

Even though I can't stand all the butchery and simple mindedness of the Spike incarnation it is interesting that they are showing these old stories that we would probably never see otherwise.

When I saw the case, what struck me most was that it seemed Drake received terrible lawyering, as it's hard, based on what was presented, to see how a competent crim def lawyer couldn't create reasonable doubt - the whole situation with the wife's "recovered" memory which she suddenly forgot on the eve of testimony strikes me as fishy, nevertheless.

I feel bad for this guy for being in prison, I think he's innocent. Of course it was very stupid and uncaring to move in his mistress and her son into her house while his wife is still recovering. His wife was taking money all that day they said selling tickets so a lot of people know she was apparently working alone and had a box full of money with her. That would make her an easy target. Here is Thomas' inmate profile:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=784584835

Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison.

Edit:. Well that link was valid at first but it must have timed out. Just click on Offender Search and type in his name and you should get it.

Just watched this on my lunch break. What a delightfully filthy sleazy case. :D

The evidence is circumstantial as others have pointed out but my gut wants to say he did it. Sometimes circumstantial evidence is all you have. I think a lot of folks who watch these CSI type programs assume there is always physical evidence and that isn't always the case in real life. I also got the vibe that this happened a long time ago. I thought Farina said 25 years. Not sure if that would be 25 years from today or 25 years from 1992 (if he was just re-reading Stack's narration). In any event, forensics have improved since then so I don't necessarily find it odd that no physical evidence was found connecting him with it at that time. Not to mention he worked in the church as well, so finding Drake's fingerprints, hairs or what not wouldn't necessarily be out of place.

I agree with CD in that I thought the wife's comments at the end were kind of tacky. She out and out says she doesn't know if he's guilty but then basically says she doesn't care if he rots in prison because he did other bad stuff. Weird. I also thought her going back and fourth on the issue of whether he attacked her or not was strange. Initially I thought that maybe she was protecting him for some reason, but it doesn't seem like she is now, or maybe she's just under so much heavy medication she just doesn't know the truth anymore.

EDIT: If anyone out there has the original NBC story from Final Appeal, please contact me.

I tend to agree with the above poster. I think he is guilty. I say this for a couple of reasons. One, he said that he didn't like that his wife was putting so much time into church, yet he brings her lunch there. This is after he decides that the marriage was over. Then he moves in the girlfriend and never tells her that his wife was attacked. That seems like an Amber Fry/Scott Peterson type of thing. Then he says in the interview that he moved the girlfriend in because he needed things done around the house. But he goes on to say that all he was concerned with was that his wife get better and come home. What was she going to come home to? Was he then going to kick the girlfriend out after his wife got better? Doubtful. Besides he probably got rid of all his wife's stuff anyway since he moved the girlfriend in. Odd story, but I think he was guilty. However, I would not think that his sentence would have been so harsh.

I feel bad for this guy for being in prison, I think he's innocent. Of course it was very stupid and uncaring to move in his mistress and her son into her house while his wife is still recovering. His wife was taking money all that day they said selling tickets so a lot of people know she was apparently working alone and had a box full of money with her. That would make her an easy target. Here is Thomas' inmate profile:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=784584835

Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison.

Edit:. Well that link was valid at first but it must have timed out. Just click on Offender Search and type in his name and you should get it.

I was also very disturbed by the wife's comments. She must think that he did it to have that kind of anger. She said that he didnt know if he did it or not, but she probably thinks that he was responsible. My gut feeling is that he didnt do it, although I do have to acknowledge that it was very sketchy of him to move his mistress in so quickly after the attack. It doesnt appear that the prosecutor even came close to proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but sadly sometimes that doesnt matter. I dont think you should cheat on your spouse either, but we shouldnt be sending people away for life just because they are unfaithful.

I too was pretty "WTF?" about the Wife's "even if he didn't do it, he deserves to be in there for what he did to me leading up to the attack." That's definitely not very Christian of her ;)

I too was pretty "WTF?" about the Wife's "even if he didn't do it, he deserves to be in there for what he did to me leading up to the attack." That's definitely not very Christian of her ;)


haha, no kidding. What a ridiculous woman.

I don't know if he did it or not, but that sentence is absolutely ridiculous. WTF!? How are there people who KILL someone who end up getting only 5 years. People who molest children and ruin their entire lives, and they are out after 2 years. It doesn't make sense.

I think the guy did it. Who but a total sociopath would move his girlfriend and her son into him and his wive's home while she's still in the hospital with her skull crushed in like that?

Hmm, well I think the word 'sociopath' should not be thrown around so lightly. Thomas Drake, this is a tough one. I personally do not believe he himself is the one that tried to physically murder his wife. Now does that mean for sure he was not involved in some way? No. I will be honest though, while it was classless to move his mistress in while his wife was still recovering and bad as that is, it does not make him a sociopath and it does not make him a man that attempted to kill his wife. What that does make him is a bad husband and a rather sleazy person but as I say, just because he is a sleaze and a person that might be rather easy to dislike does not make him a killer or a sociopath. Thomas Drake's case does represent a major flaw with Florida law. How he can get a life sentence for armed robbery but yet get 30 years for attempted 2nd degree murder? There are people that actually murder other human beings that routinely get substantially less sentences in Florida and elsewhere than what Thomas Drake got and that is assuming for the sake of argument Drake is guilty (which I do not believe he is). If Drake is innocent than that means that he has spent over 24 years in prison for something he did not do or have anything to do with except being the husband of a woman that was attacked.

As for Thomas Drake smiling in the mugshot, who knows why he is? Some have brought it up how he is guilty because he is smiling. Please. He has been in prison for over 24 years, maybe he is at peace, maybe he is just smiling because most do not smile in their mugshots, who knows? Drake is nearly 71 years old. Maybe he has come to terms with the fact that he most likely will never get out of prison and will probably die in prison? Again it is impossible to determine. I have been thinking of writing to Thomas Drake to get his opinions on all of this.

As for the ex-wife, I did find it disturbing how she was that bitter about the guy cheating on her that she said he deserved to be in prison for life even if Thomas Drake had nothing to do with the attack on her. Incredible, that is one scorned woman!

I have also seen comparisons from some on here, who compare this case to Scott Peterson. The two cases are not even close to similar except that you had two guys cheating on their wives. However Scott never moved Amber Frey into his house, in fact he was commuting a rather long distance to see Amber Frey and he never had anyone moved into his house after his wife disappeared. Also Scott Peterson's wife was pregnant and both she and the baby were murdered. So the two cases just are not that similar. Again it is one of those cases where people are angry someone got attacked and want someone, anyone to pay for it to set their own minds at ease.

I don't know kadrmas, I usually agree with your analysis but I think you're off on this one.

Did you see his eyes in the mugshot? They are small and beady. That indicates he can't be trusted. Couple that with the smile, and man, I just don't know. It really looks like he's got something to hide. Perhaps he smiled because the thought occurred to him that he was hoodwinking everyone with that compelling Final Appeal story on the Spike network.

Well of course he's guilty because he cheated on his wife. I mean, really, how is that not obvious? If he was capable of that, he was capable of far worse and more dastardly deeds. Geez, if there was some way the cops could have nailed him for just the cheating alone, maybe this whole crime could have been prevented.

Nope, he's where he belongs. His wife's comments totally sum up my feelings on the case. He's a bad man. He did lots of other bad stuff prior to the attack, so that makes him guilty of this too. End of story. :)

I know he is guilty. He is right were he needs to be. I know this how would anyone feel if there mother or grandmother had this happen to them? He had wrote her a letter saying he DID do it and he was sorry. Asking her to tell the judge and jury that he didn't. She even visited him in jail and he told her what to say. She got scared fearing he would finnish what he started if he got out. Even his brother said he was guilty. I know of things that he has done beside tring to kill someone. She know's he did it He know' he did it God knows he did it and even her family know he did it and other bad thing that were not spoken of. As for the family of the victium I know that some has fallin into a depression cuz of all this man has done. I just hope that they will tell there story and let it out so they can finally move on.
God bless that Family

Cool that is blatantly false. Thomas Drake never admitted doing this, never confessed, no reason to. I know this because I am in contact with Thomas Drake, I have copies of his documents. MANY of them. No where, you can look over them too if you like, no where does it mention he confessed or anything. Even if your warped theory was true, why did his wife not throw him under the bus? Lets remember, he got a 2nd trial because his wife who allegedly hates his guts so much said he DID NOT do it. Thomas Drake is innocent, the sooner he is out the better. Shame on you.

shame on me ? shame on him for tring to murder his wife HE IS GUILTY he'll never get out. and it's not false look into the mans eyes he's a lier i'm the victums grand son u can beleave a lien,cheatin,attempted murder all u want doesn't change a thing. so i think my family know's him a little better then u do and plus the man hit her in the head with a hamer I mean come on he told her to say he didn't do it so he would get the second trial when when it was time she got scaird wouldn't you ? it all makes sense

Look, I'm willing to give Cool the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he knows more info about Thomas Drake then we all do. He is family. So I dont think we should get mad at him for expressing his opinion.

hey thanks and he isn't my family the woman he tried to kill is my grandmother and i do know alot and i beleave it should be told

Wow, this is getting really interesting! Thanks for posting, cool_c1000! Did you ever watch the episode about Thomas Drake?

yes i only recently saw it on tv but new of this long ago got all the attricles that was writen about this event i could tell u how they met and i tell u what it would blow your mind and the things he's done you probly wouldn't beleave me and i would't expect u to but i know the truth you want inside that guys head i can take u there you want to know the story i can tell it to you if your willing to listen/ read then it will be up to you in what u beleave

Wow Cool, I know this is not English class but you at least need to learn how to spell there tiger! Okay, lets accept everything you say as true, even so, your grandmother on TV, NEVER said that Tom Drake did this to her. She did say she thought he did but in listening to her talk, she was just mad that he cheated on her. I am not trying to portray Tom Drake as man of the year. However the guy can be a total sleaze and it does not matter. If he did not do this to his wife he should not be in prison for it. Your grandma, I am sorry what she went through but for her to say that even if Tom is innocent that he still deserves to be in prison because he cheated on her would be a joke if the subject were not so serious. I have copies of reports in my possession that well, lets just say show that back in 1983, 1984 your grandma hardly thought Tom was a guilty man. Plus the fingerprints implicating a man named Raymond Starr who lied about his whereabouts on that day. I have copies of those police reports courtesy of Tom. Tom is innocent, no doubt about it.

so what i got some missed spelled words who cares
the guy is guilty and he is right where he needs to be
if your spouse hit u in the head with a hammer i'm sure u would of done the same thing. and she asked him in the hospital why he did it the cop heard it. so think of me what u will critize me on my spelling all u want i don't care doesn't bother me. But the man IS GUILTY

You're right Kadrmas, this isn't English class so not necessary to comment on the spelling.

Thanks for posting cool_c! What I'm curious about is at the end of the UM interview Thomas' ex-wife does state she doesn't know if he did it or not but thats where he deserves to be for how he treated her. Has she waivered back and forth about his guilt over the years due to her memory problems caused from the attack? I had never really made up my mind one way or the other on his guilt or innocence but honestly thought the white haired man in the church seemed like a plausible story. Plausible meaning since she was in there that day with a cash box selling tickets she could have been vulnerable to a robbery.

Hey Crystaldawn, sorry but when a guy comes here lecturing about guilty, guilty and then really says nothing to back it up, I have an issue with it. Hey if Cool wants to believe Tom Drake is guilty he can. However he seems to not really believe this for any other reason other than someone else told him Tom Drake was.

Also Cool, you know, Nancy never said any of this to the cops, or at either of Tom's two trials that he admitted to saying what you accuse him of saying. It is because he never said it. The conversation you are implying happened never even did happen from the trial transcripts I have seen. I have a hard time believing the state would not introduce that as evidence if it had? Even then, it is hearsay. Cops have never lied before? Lots of us have been asked things, does it mean we did them? No.

Also Crystaldawn, sorry for being a little bit nasty. However I feel just as strongly as Cool does on this issue albeit in a completely different direction. I feel bad for what happened to cool's grandmother. If the same thing happened to my own grandmother, which God forbid it does not, but if it did I would want to find the right person too. I think Cool genuinely believes Tom Drake did this but I also genuinely believe that Tom Drake did not do this and that Cool is looking for accountability in the wrong place.

If you knew the man and everything else he said at the time and all of the facts then you would know that he is exactly where he should be. I know other facts that some dont that happened at that time also and what was said so he could get out. All I know is that he will be the one that has to face his maker on judgement day.

Hey Cool I think we have some things in common that the others dont. I agree with you 100 percent. He is where he deserves to be. I wish I could know you and tell you what I know but this may be all we have. You and your family are in my prayers and I really hope that things go well for you.

I have the documents. The documents prove Tom Drake's innocence. If you want to continue to believe in his guilt because he had an affair then go ahead but that is all you have. I have an envelope full of the copies of the Winter Haven Police Department's own files where Raymond Starr was interviewed, lied his tail off about being in the Church that afternoon, he denied EVER being in that church. Yet his fingerprint was found on the window in there that had just been cleaned an hour before the attack.

Interesting discussion! I'm really glad that "Cool-c" and "tearbear" wrote in, I just wish that some of the stuff they speak about knowing could be discussed a bit. Sounds like you all can give us some more insight into Tom Drake!

Kadrmas: U are certainly a passionate advocate; just remember that the Tom you are corresponding with 25 years after the trial is probably very different than the Tom of back then. And also, no one can be 100% sure of guilt or innocence, even with documents.

It sounds like the documents you have lend weight to reasonable doubt, especially if there is another suspect, fingerprint, etc. So why do you think that wasn't introduced at trial? Or if it was, why did it not sway the jury?

I will say this: I think moving his mistress into his home while his wife was in intensive care is more than sleazy; I think it is extremely strong character evidence and circumstantial evidence that HE is guilty. It isn't just a sign of a horribly selfish, arrogant cheating husband, it's also an indication that he had no expectation that his wife would survive and/or come back home.

Remember, didn't he make it appear to his mistress that he had no wife, and that he lived alone in that house? If that is true, that is damning evidence (not to mention stupid thing to do).

I don't know Kadrmas... so what makes you so sure he's innocent? Seems the only thing out there is the conflicting statements of a mentally challenged man re: Did he go to the church or not.

I'm looking forward to hearing more details. Thanks!

Well, Raymond Starr to put it bluntly, was not mentally challenged as in '********'. He had mental issues but he had been in the Church. His fingerprints were on the window of a recently cleaned window and yet Starr not only denied being in the Church that day.

Now looking at my copy of Raymond Starr's interview with the Winter Haven, Florida Police Department, at 10:00 AM on July 14th, 1983. Starr was questioned and was given his miranda rights which he waived and I have the waiver statement he filled out. At 10:25 AM the same day, Starr signed a waiver agreeing to have his photograph taken as well as to provide his fingerprints, hair, blood, etc.

The interview went on between the waiving of the Miranda rights and when Starr signed the waiver agreeing to provide the fingerprints and stuff. The interview started at 10:02 AM on July 14th, 1983. From my transcript of the interview, Raymond Starr at the time was 40 years old, unemployed and drawing unemployment checks at the time. Now for the day of the attack which was Friday, July 8th, 1983, Starr was asked his whereabouts. He said that at 11:30 AM he returned to his home and watched television, specifically that he watched Perry Mason. He said he left home at 12:10 PM with his sister and elderly mother whom he lived with and ran errands. They returned home at 12:50 PM.

Now, the detective noticed that there were scratches on Raymond Starr's face, including one on the middle of his nose. He also had scratches on his hands and on the back of his neck. He claimed that these were caused by 'razor blades' and 'scratching'. Starr did have some mental issues but they did not appear to be serious as in delusional although he did suffer a nervous breakdown at the age of 19 and had been committed to the state mental hospital for 60 days. The interview concluded at 10:21 AM.

Now, on July 29th, 1983, Starr's sister, Ruth Robinson was interviewed by the Winter Haven Police. At 10:00 AM she signed the waiver consenting to be photographed and to give her fingerprints. The interview started at 10:09 AM. She admitted to being in the Church a little after 11:00 AM on the morning of July 9th. She was the one that said the old man that worked there was mowing the lawn of the Church and that another woman, not Nancy Drake but another woman was washing windows in the office and other windows in the church while Nancy Drake worked as the Church secretary. Ruth Robinson also had a history of emotional problems and had been also committed to a state mental hospital for a nervous breakdown she had suffered in 1962.

Now, Ruth Robinson contradicted her brother on several points. Ray Starr was not at home at 11:30. In fact he did not return home until noon and that she saw him for only about 10 minutes. She only saw Ray Starr from noon to 12:10 at which point she did not see him again until after 1:00 PM. Ray Starr basically did not have an alibi for the time the attacked occurred and unlike Tom Drake, Starr denied being in the Church or anywhere near it that day when his fingerprint was found on a window that had been washed within an hour of the attack. Starr was known to have serious temper problems and jealousy problems and had complained about Nancy Drake saying she was 'snooty'. The interview with Ruth Robinson concluded at 10:32 AM.

Now in a Florida Department of Law Enforcement Report, dated August 31st, 1983. The FDLE had found 14 latent fingerprint impressions, 2 latent palm impressions and 1 latent impression either finger or palm in the office. Among the items that had fingerprints on them were a blue 'AVON' plastic box, a hammer, plastic fame eyeglasses, the window, the door handle and various other things. Out of the 14 prints that were found, none were matched to Thomas Drake or to any of the other people whose prints were taken except Raymond Starr's. There was one latent fingerprint on the window that belonged to Raymond Starr.

Drake was arrested on August 3rd, 1983. On August 23rd, 1983 he was charged by three count information of count one attempted first degree murder, count two aggravated battery and count three armed robbery. On December 1st, 1983, Drake was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery and armed robbery.

Drake won a new trial when his wife, Nancy Drake who had testified she could not remember anything about the attack in the first trial, came forward after Drake's conviction and claimed she could remember the attack and that it was not Thomas Drake that had attacked her. For the 2nd trial, the trial was moved to neighboring Hardee County because of pre-trial publicity in Polk County. On April 16th, 1984, Thomas Drake was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder as well as armed robbery although he was acquitted of aggravated battery. On May 1st, 1984 Drake was sentenced to 30 years in prison on the attempted murder charge and to life in prison on the armed robbery charge with the sentences to run consecutively.

Also, I think there tends to be some confusion here. I never said literally 100 percent for sure Thomas Drake was/is innocent. I said in my opinion he is. I am not a psychic though, I was not in the Church that day, heck I had not even been born yet when this crime occurred. I also am not saying Thomas Drake is man of the year or the greatest guy in the world.

That being said, that does not make it okay to convict someone all because he did things that are as vile as they may be are not illegal. Having an affair is not illegal. Even moving your mistress into your home is not illegal. Yes it is vile and yes it hurt Tom Drake a lot in terms of his case. Basically Tom Drake was convicted not because of the evidence but because he was a bad husband and a selfish guy. I mean I am sorry, to me that is just wrong.

But Matt I would like to share more of my opinions with you and details of my correspondence with Tom Drake in private. So send me a PM and I will discuss much more in detail if you like.

I really think that he is guilty. First he said something about how he didn't like his wife always being at the church, yet he brought her lunch there and this was after he decided that his marriage with her was over. He has his mistress moved in and doesn't tell her about his wife, in fact, he tells her that he is divorced. Then he says the only reason he moved the mistress in was because the house needed to be cleaned. It sounded like he never expected his wife to recover because if so, that would mean she would be coming home to her husband and his mistress. Plus, her comments were very anger motivated. She must really think he did this to her.

The police may have screwed this one up, although Tom Drake appears to be an idiot as well.

1) By taking his girlfriend and her CHILD down to the station, when they weren't involved in the assault they may have muddied the waters. If they threatened to take her kid, then the officers should have been fired.

2) The officer that "overheard" him talking w/ his wife should have been excluded from testifying as it was hearsay.

3) Drake was moron and on the program appears to be a morn for moving the other woman into his home when his wife wasn't dead. This end most of the sympathy that people would have had for him.Especially in his church.

4) Unless police had SOLID evidence against Drake (other than his girlfriend) they should have continued looking for suspects and investigating the crime.

5) Drake was an idiot to allow himself to be questioned by the police w/o a lawyer.

All in all, even if Drake did do it, this case was screwed up from go and it never should have even made it to trial. We'll never know what really happened here.

I don't know enough about this case to have an opinion on the man's guilt or innocence. Moving his lover and her kid into his house while his wife was recovering from a vicious attack on her life puts him at that Chad Noe level of "I boffed a teenager in the hospital hallway while my wife lay dying" skankiness.

I've read about several cases that involved head injuries such as the one suffered by Drake's wife. The one that stands out the most to me was the 1970s case of the young married couple who had a fight. The wife was 8 or 9 months pregnant. The husband left the house around midnight to go get a burger, leaving the wife home in bed.

While he was gone, the wife was beaten in the head with a wooden board (?), nearly killing her. I think she was raped. Her unborn daughter died in the attack. The woman's last memory was her husband and her fighting. He was convicted on primarily her eye witness account. He went to prison for years and years.. maybe about 2 decades IIRC.

In head trauma cases like these, apparently it's not uncommon for the events immediately preceding the injury to be "erased" from the memory, with the patient only recalling things that were farther back in the memory. Such as the case I mentioned. The wife remembered the argument from an hour before, but not the intruder, the attack, and the few minutes leading up to it.

In that case, the real perp was eventually caught. He was a serial rapist/murder, I think. He had a history of using this MO in his crimes. The husband was determined to be completely innocent, but IIRC, the wife and her family still blamed him. Apparently the victim remembered facts differently than how they happened and she couldn't accept that what she recalled was compromised by her severe injury.

Found the case I brought up in the previous post.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/08/local/me-41671

The husband is Kevin Green. The serial killer was Gerald Parker, known as the Bedroom Basher because of his distinctive MO.

Cool that is blatantly false. Thomas Drake never admitted doing this, never confessed, no reason to. I know this because I am in contact with Thomas Drake, I have copies of his documents. MANY of them. No where, you can look over them too if you like, no where does it mention he confessed or anything. Even if your warped theory was true, why did his wife not throw him under the bus? Lets remember, he got a 2nd trial because his wife who allegedly hates his guts so much said he DID NOT do it. Thomas Drake is innocent, the sooner he is out the better. Shame on you.

It infuriates me with some of these comments calling him a sociopath and that he confessed and he's guilty, etc.. this guy not only got screwed going to prison as an innocent man, but he got one of the harshest sentences i have ever heard of for an assault. he got life, plus 30 years for assualt?? That is INSANE! Confessed and convicted murderers get less time! It drives me nuts reading some of these comments but is why sooo many innocent people are in prison. can't they see that this guy didn't do it?? Yea its a bit shameful, actually its disturbing he moved his mistress in while his wife is in the hospital but if I read correctly, they were separated and going thru a divorce. And his wife at the end saying "I don't know if he did it but he sure the helll deserves being in prison for all the 'other' bad stuff he did"... WHAT??!! Clearly her injuries or medications has confused her and her ability to think and speak logically which is understandable. But it is still messed up. Thomas Drake is clearly innocent, with the exception of him moving his mistress in, there is NO evidencte and partially, really watered down circumstantial evidence.. Um that menal patient who couldn't explain why he was there? with a fingerprint and muddy shoeprint near the window? that's more evidence against him than Thomas Drake.. Oh man, I am sooo upset thinking of thomas drake sitting in prison for 3 decades. Even if he is guilty, for crying out loud let him out for time served! i did a an internet search and found very few, if any cases where someone recieved a life sentence without parole plus additional time for an Assualt!

In resonse to the one person who pointed out saying it was really odd that he said him and his wife were having marriage problems and that his wife spent too much time with the church but why would he then bring her lunch or help out at the church?? I don't get it - what are you trying to say? That you think its such a big deal and that he must be lying b/c he said they were having problems and by him bringing her lunch is suspicious? How you come to that conclusion is beyond me and again another example of how people are so naive and irrational and is the single most reason why innocent people are in prison - its people like you who are on the jury by coming up with perposterous conclusions such as that..

One thing that is so odd is that he received such a long sentence while that Jerry Gervasoni character was out in 6 years after murdering his girlfriend (Pauline Pasciak) with his bare hands, concealing her body in her mother's home, and then fleeing the country. That crime happened in 1986.

But Drake may or may not have attacked his wife, and it looks like he ain't never getting out. His crime occurred in 1983, just 3 years before the Pasciak murder. Were the sentencing guidelines for those years so broad that a murderer gets out and an attempted murderer gets life?

In resonse to the one person who pointed out saying it was really odd that he said him and his wife were having marriage problems and that his wife spent too much time with the church but why would he then bring her lunch or help out at the church?? I don't get it - what are you trying to say? That you think its such a big deal and that he must be lying b/c he said they were having problems and by him bringing her lunch is suspicious? How you come to that conclusion is beyond me and again another example of how people are so naive and irrational and is the single most reason why innocent people are in prison - its people like you who are on the jury by coming up with perposterous conclusions such as that..

That person (pealo0819 ?) came here and posted only 4 times in 4 years. S/He is probably long gone by now....

I wonder how many people in this country have been convicted of murdering their spouse based largely on the fact that they were cheating on their spouse? Hell on Unsolved Mysteries alone there was John Branion, Larry Race, and probably a few others that I can't think of off hand.

And God help you if you took out a life insurance policy on them not long before they died. :lol:

Well, at that time, in Florida, just like now, Attempted Second Degree Murder is a first degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in state prison. Now the first time he was tried, Drake was convicted of Attempted First Degree Murder which is actually punishable by up to life in prison under Florida law and Armed Robbery. The second trial, he was acquitted of attempted first degree murder but convicted of the lesser included charge of second degree murder and sentenced to the maximum of 30 years in prison.

What he got life in prison for was the armed robbery charge as under Florida, robbery with a deadly weapon in Florida, both then and now is punishable by up to life in prison. The thing is, I bet most of the jurors never intended this guy to actually remain in prison for the rest of his life. Most people don't realize you can get life for armed robbery yet get less for attempted murder. Now Armed Robbery without a deadly weapon is a 2nd degree or 15 year felony under Florida law.

The case above also reminds me of the Billy Crowder case. Down in Georgia, Billy Crowder murdered his abusive grandfather. After the murder, he took 600 dollars off of his grandfather and used it to pay bills and buy groceries. Well anyway, he was initially charged with first degree murder and armed robbery. Well, he was acquitted of first degree murder at trial and convicted of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. Crowder was given 5 years in prison for that charge.

However the jury also convicted him of armed robbery and the trial court sentenced him to the maximum of life in prison with parole eligibility after 7 years for that charge to run consecutive to the 5 years for the manslaughter conviction, so 12 years to life is what he is serving. The jurors later said if they had known he could get life for the armed robbery charge, they would have acquitted him of it because they felt like a few years was appropriate in the case, not a life sentence.

kadrmas thanks for the post on the last page with all the evidence. I can't stop thinking about this case for some reason. I was never sure what to think but I have decided that I am pretty sure he is innocent of this crime.

I have some important questions:

1. Do we know for a fact that Robert Stack hosted/narrated cases featured on the show "Final Appeal: From the Files of Unsolved Mysteries"? imdb.com does not list him as having had anything to do with the show.

2. How many other cases that are exceptionally rare to find in their Stack/older UM versions have been covered by the SpikeTV version of the show?

3. Has anyone ever seen the Stack version of this case?

As for Drake's case itself, I have to say, kadrmas's spirited defense aside, things don't look good for Thomas Drake. This is not to say that he should necessarily have been convicted - the reasonable doubt threshold seems unlikely to have been passed here, in my opinion - but if I had to BET on who did it, my money would still be on Drake.

The lunch story does seem a little too convenient, for starters, and, despite the vitriolic objection from herbiii, above, it does seem to me to be oddly out of place that Drake, who was having an affair and who himself now claims his marriage was on the rocks by the time of the crime, would be bringing lunch to his wife. Moreover, since, by her own telling, she was very well accustomed to working 60 hours a week at the Church, 7 days a week, I find it hard to believe that Drake's wife wouldn't have been able to plan enough ahead to pack her own damn lunch. It would have been nice if Drake's wife had been asked in the segment, on direct, whether she recalled Drake bringing her the lunch or not, but I'm not sure we could trust what she said anyway, in light of her flip-flopping on whether Drake did it or not. Suffice it to say, the whole episode seems a little too convenient, more like it was invented as a way of explaining Drake's presence at the Church that day; he needed to have a credible reason for why he would have been seen at the Church on the day of the crime.

Everyone here has asserted that Drake not only failed to tell his mistress that he was still married, but that his ex-wife was in the hospital, having been assaulted. The former is certainly cause for suspiscion, the latter even more so, if it is true. I have to say that I didn't get the latter assertion from the information presented in the segment, but perhaps I wasn't playing close enough attention.

It's interesting that kadrmas pointed out that the mysterious fingerprint was found on a window - the segment very clearly states the fingerprint was found on a doorframe inside the office. If it was found on a window, I now have a question about whether it was found on the outside or inside of the window: if on the outside, I'm not sure it proves a whole hell of a lot. If on the inside, it proves that the crazy fellow was there, but not when. I know kadrmas's police reports contend that the windows had been washed an hour before the attack, but it would hardly be the first time a cleaning job was done only half-assedly.

Drake's behavior after the attack appears to have been outrageous, and he clearly had the BEST motive for attacking his wife. Not enough to convict, but certainly enough to keep him as the prime suspect, unless other information can be developed that casts more serious suspiscion on someone else.

The one thing that troubles me, frankly, is the behavior of his ex-wife in the segment. In one part of her interview, she is explaining how she believed someone else did it and how, though she hated Drake for cheating, she still loved him for who he was, and was convinced he didn't belong in prison; the next minute, he should rot in hell forever for the affair, and she has no idea if he is responsible for the attack or not. More than a little shady, IMHO, but then she is going up against a two-time champion of shady behavior in her ex-husband, so God only knows.

mozart, to answer some of your questions

1. yes, Stack hosted the original Final Appeal episodes. Some of us here have a few of them. imdb.com is notorious for things like that

3. I don't think anyone out there has the Stack version of this episode.

mozart, to answer some of your questions

1. yes, Stack hosted the original Final Appeal episodes. Some of us here have a few of them. imdb.com is notorious for things like that


Really? I know quite a few segments originally produced for that show eventually made their way to UM. Does anyone have a list somewhere of the ones that didn't?

Really? I know quite a few segments originally produced for that show eventually made their way to UM. Does anyone have a list somewhere of the ones that didn't?

well I think the only that made it to Lifetime was the Dr. Jeffrey McDonald/mutiny episode, everything else didn't make it, AFAIK. There was some speculation about Johnathan Purvis, as the actual segment itself never made it to Lifetime (not known if it was a regular UM segment or Final Appeal) but the update did make it.

So, to what degree do we have a list of the Final Appeal segments? How many episodes of the show were produced? How many stories did they cover? How many segments, total, exist? What are their subjects?

I'd love to see just the opening credits of that show some day, to be honest. I remember them promoting it, but we never watched it. I guess that was the problem: most people didn't.

EDIT: Well, it looks like there is a pretty decent list here - http://www.unsolvedmysteriestelevision.com/

Whoo boy, I would love to see some of those.

Basically Tom Drake was convicted not because of the evidence but because he was a bad husband and a selfish guy. I mean I am sorry, to me that is just wrong.

It seems you've done a good deal of research into this case - do you have the trial transcripts? Like I said before, it sure seems that Drake had sufficient evidence to create reasonable doubt and his biggest problem was bad lawyering; the main evidence as presented against him in the segment appears to be the negative character evidence: while this evidence is bad for him, it also never should have come in.

I'd be curious to see what actually was presented at trial.

So, to what degree do we have a list of the Final Appeal segments? How many episodes of the show were produced? How many stories did they cover? How many segments, total, exist? What are their subjects?

I'd love to see just the opening credits of that show some day, to be honest. I remember them promoting it, but we never watched it. I guess that was the problem: most people didn't.

EDIT: Well, it looks like there is a pretty decent list here - http://www.unsolvedmysteriestelevision.com/

Whoo boy, I would love to see some of those.

Mozart - I felt compelled to respond because I am the author of the website you found.

For the last couple of years or so I have been desperately trying to learn as much as I can about the Final Appeal television series. The available information is scarce, but I was told by Cosgrove Meurer Productions that those six episodes of Final Appeal were all that were made/aired.

That being said, there were other Final Appeal episodes that were re-tooled and worked in to Unsolved Mysteries episodes during the fifth season, after Final Appeal's cancellation. I believe that the Unsolved Mysteries stories about Rick McCue, Luis Diaz, Rolando Cruz and Michael Lloyd Self were all supposed to be episodes of Final Appeal.

For reasons unknown, the Jeffrey MacDonald/Port Chicago mutiny episode of Final Appeal was shown on Lifetime some time in 2003 or so, but in an edited version to obliterate any reference to the Final Appeal television series.

As Wiseguy pointed out, there was an update about the exoneration of John Purvis shown on Lifetime and I suspect this was supposed to be another Final Appeal case.

Spike has shown all the Final Appeals with the exception of Jeffrey MacDonald (probably due to length, the segment is nearly 40 minutes).

With regard to Thomas Drake specifically, his episode was supposed to air on October 23, 1992. However, I have found news articles indicating that a Ross Perot infomercial aired that night instead, and FA was canceled that same week. I'm not sure if the Drake story aired in other markets or not, but if it didn't, then the Spike airing would be the first time it was shown on television.

I hope this helps.

I could swear up and down I have seen the John Purvis segment in its entirety, not just the update, and that could only have happened on Lifetime.

Never mind, I guess I just saw the update, as it is quite extensive as updates go, showing quite a bit of the original case.

Actually, looking at it, I feel like I did see some edited-down version of the whole segment, not just the update.

Actually, looking at it, I feel like I did see some edited-down version of the whole segment, not just the update.

My theory on Purvis is that CM was planning on doing a segment on his case for the Final Appeal TV series. However, FA was canceled before this could happen. Around that time, there were new developments including the arrests of the real killers - Paul Hamwi and Paul Serio. Rather than scrap the Purvis segment entirely, CM curtailed it to a mini-segment and an update to air on Unsolved Mysteries. I have a feeling that what we have seen is all that exists of the Purvis segment. Even when Spike syndicated it, the content was the same as the Lifetime version.

Well, you would know better than myself, but it's funny, because if you'd asked me, I would have sworn I'd seen a Purvis segment without an update.

That being said, that does not make it okay to convict someone all because he did things that are as vile as they may be are not illegal. Having an affair is not illegal. Even moving your mistress into your home is not illegal. Yes it is vile and yes it hurt Tom Drake a lot in terms of his case. Basically Tom Drake was convicted not because of the evidence but because he was a bad husband and a selfish guy. I mean I am sorry, to me that is just wrong.

You basically summed up my feelings on the case. I viewed this case for the first time today, and usually I am the first one to point the finger at the husband. But I can't this time. I just don't think Drake did it. Yes he did some questionable things but that doesn't make him a criminal. The difference here is that Thomas Drake seems more sincere than defensive.

I was more disgusted with his ex-wife than anything. Her comments at the end of the segment were disgusting and sad. She is too caught up in her own past anger. I think her decision to refrain from taking the stand that day was pure revenge for what Thomas Drake put her through. And yes, as others have said, that's very "Christian" isn't it...

How convenient was it that she backed out of testifying on Drake's behalf at his second trial? And then her comments about him being where he's supposed to be at the end of the UM segment tells me that she was bitter about the affairs Drake had on her. Deliberately keeping Drake in prison is not only selfish but sick too. As for Drake moving his mistress in while his wife was hospitalized, I got the impression from the segment that their marriage was pretty much in shambles and over at that point and that's why Drake moved his girlfriend in. The guy is a grade A pig for cheating, don't get me wrong, but all of those witnesses that placed this silver haired guy at the Church tell me that was the man responsible. A petty robbery that turned into a brutal assault is all I really think this was. Why would Drake even murder her if he was openly having affairs? Wouldn't a divorce make more sense?

After having watched this case several times and done some research on it, I must say, Thomas Drake is one of the guiltiest sons of bitches I have ever seen on UM.

I know it seems like he was largely charged due to circumstancial evidence, that circumstancial evidence was really substancial evidence in his case. Drake moving his mistress (who was not told that he was still married) IMMEDIATELY AFTER his wife had been bludgeoned to near-death is a clear indicator that he was probably responsible for it. As other users have already stated, it showed that he had no expectation that she would return, and he was simply destroying the old to start a new.

Then there's the bedside incident, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet. If you can't remember, an on-duty officer at the hospital heard his wife telling him "How would you feel if I hit you on the head?" She was barely conscious at the time, and to me, she was trying to say all that she could and express all that she could with the few words she could utter. Often times, a lot of truth is spilled when people aren't completely lucid.

I think that testimony she wanted to give about how the guy with white hair did it was just something forced upon her by Drake when she visited him in jail. Maybe she was scared he was going to finish the job, or Drake manipulated her very well to make her think as if that's actually happened, but I'm positive she didn't do it (or decide to do it) on her own free will. Fortunately, she backed off at the last minute.

The end of the segment when she expresses his anger towards him and says that he's in where he's supposed to be just closed the book on this case for me. The rage she spoke in and the vindictiveness with which you carried herself didn't seem like it could come only from the anger of her husband's extra-marital affairs. Even as a staunch liberal who's heavily against organized religion, I wouldn't think a fundamentalist Christian like her would ever let a person she was once closed to get life in prison just because he cheated on her. Even if she didn't say it on air, I know in the back of her mind he knows he did this.

I know it seems like he was largely charged due to circumstancial evidence, that circumstancial evidence was really substancial evidence in his case. Drake moving his mistress (who was not told that he was still married) IMMEDIATELY AFTER his wife had been bludgeoned to near-death is a clear indicator that he was probably responsible for it. As other users have already stated, it showed that he had no expectation that she would return, and he was simply destroying the old to start a new.

But both Drake and his wife were in agreement that their marriage was pretty much over before she was attacked. Drake's mistress was moved in shortly after his wife was attacked, and I admit that would cast tons of suspicion his way. However, if both Drake and his wife were going through an amicable breakup/divorce/marriage problems, would it be all that unlikely that he would start a new life with his mistress? It's possible that Drake figured since his wife was attacked his affairs would be brought to light (most cases involving murder or attempted murder almost always make the victim's personal life public domain), he might as well act on it and make it public anyway.

Then there's the bedside incident, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet. If you can't remember, an on-duty officer at the hospital heard his wife telling him "How would you feel if I hit you on the head?" She was barely conscious at the time, and to me, she was trying to say all that she could and express all that she could with the few words she could utter. Often times, a lot of truth is spilled when people aren't completely lucid.

This quote seems to be taken EXTREMELY out of context. This quote means absolutely nothing, IMHO. People do speak the truth in a lucid state, but they also say a lot of nonsense. Isn't it just as likely that Drake asked his wife, "How are you feeling?" and she simply responded that way because she was annoyed at such a stupid question?

I think that testimony she wanted to give about how the guy with white hair did it was just something forced upon her by Drake when she visited him in jail. Maybe she was scared he was going to finish the job, or Drake manipulated her very well to make her think as if that's actually happened, but I'm positive she didn't do it (or decide to do it) on her own free will. Fortunately, she backed off at the last minute.

She flat out said at the end of UM that whether or not Drake did it, he deserved to be in jail for the affairs he had on her. Why didn't she A. say Drake definitely did it (if she knew very well he was guilty) and B. ever say anything about Drake coercing her into making the statement about the white haired man? Not to mention other witnesses placed the silver haired man there at the church that day.

The end of the segment when she expresses his anger towards him and says that he's in where he's supposed to be just closed the book on this case for me. The rage she spoke in and the vindictiveness with which you carried herself didn't seem like it could come only from the anger of her husband's extra-marital affairs. Even as a staunch liberal who's heavily against organized religion, I wouldn't think a fundamentalist Christian like her would ever let a person she was once closed to get life in prison just because he cheated on her. Even if she didn't say it on air, I know in the back of her mind he knows he did this.

The rage and vindictiveness could be simply because she was mad at him for having affairs on her. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." If she knew in the back of her mind he did this, why did she not come out and ever publically declare it?

"It's possible that Drake figured since his wife was attacked his affairs would be brought to light (most cases involving murder or attempted murder almost always make the victim's personal life public domain), he might as well act on it and make it public anyway."


This guy's post makes absolutely no sense at all. Who the hell would want everyone in the world to know that the husband of a person's wife who was nearly killed to death was involved in an affair, and in one which he moved his new mistress into his house the day after she was attacked?


I'm sad I even spent the time to read the rest of your post. You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that Drake is rightfully where he belongs, and he will stay there till the day he dies.

I agree that he was guilty, but I do not agree with his sentence.

He has to be mad that he's serving the same sentence as serial killers.

The sad part is that he probably would have been out if he took the plea deal.

This guy's post makes absolutely no sense at all. Who the hell would want everyone in the world to know that the husband of a person's wife who was nearly killed to death was involved in an affair, and in one which he moved his new mistress into his house the day after she was attacked?

I'm sad I even spent the time to read the rest of your post. You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that Drake is rightfully where he belongs, and he will stay there till the day he dies.

Drake's affairs were going to be made public, regardless. Law enforcement would have looked at Drake first as a suspect, since the majority of murders/attempted murders are carried out by the spouses, and they would have uncovered his affairs. While I do think that two weeks after your wife was brutally attacked is WAY too soon to move on, if their marriage was in disrepair and practically over, why is it that much of a stretch that he moved in with his mistress? Your original post about Drake wanting to "destroy the old to start the new" doesn't really make any sense. Nancy SURVIVED the attack. How was he destroying the old, if she was still alive? If he truely wanted her dead he could have easily done it another, less brutal way. "[H]e moved his newmistress into his house the day after", is totally incorrect. It was two weeks after the attack.

You have offered no evidence or proof that Drake is guilty and that he deserves where he belongs. There was a fingerprint found in the office that DID NOT MATCH DRAKE. It belonged to a mental patient who would have absolutely no reason to be in the church on the day that Nancy was attacked. There was money missing from the church as well. Where did this money go? And why would Drake risk being seen by church paritioners brutally assaulting his wife with a claw hammer (that was in the church), when he could have easily done the same thing at his house? There was ZERO physical evidence that placed Drake at the scene and it amazes me that you are so convinced of his guilt.

Drake's affairs were going to be made public, regardless. Law enforcement would have looked at Drake first as a suspect, since the majority of murders/attempted murders are carried out by the spouses, and they would have uncovered his affairs. While I do think that two weeks after your wife was brutally attacked is WAY too soon to move on, if their marriage was in disrepair and practically over, why is it that much of a stretch that he moved in with his mistress? Your original post about Drake wanting to "destroy the old to start the new" doesn't really make any sense. Nancy SURVIVED the attack. How was he destroying the old, if she was still alive? If he truely wanted her dead he could have easily done it another, less brutal way. "[H]e moved his newmistress into his house the day after", is totally incorrect. It was two weeks after the attack.

You have offered no evidence or proof that Drake is guilty and that he deserves where he belongs. There was a fingerprint found in the office that DID NOT MATCH DRAKE. It belonged to a mental patient who would have absolutely no reason to be in the church on the day that Nancy was attacked. There was money missing from the church as well. Where did this money go? And why would Drake risk being seen by church paritioners brutally assaulting his wife with a claw hammer (that was in the church), when he could have easily done the same thing at his house? There was ZERO physical evidence that placed Drake at the scene and it amazes me that you are so convinced of his guilt.

I'm not even going to bother reading this guy's post anymore, though I will admit I read the last sentence. I think he should be more amazed that TWO JURIES found him guilty of first degree murder and that all of his appeals have been turned down than me thinking he's guilty.

I'm not even going to bother reading this guy's post anymore, though I will admit I read the last sentence. I think he should be more amazed that TWO JURIES found him guilty of first degree murder and that all of his appeals have been turned down than me thinking he's guilty.

Are you familiar with the Bird Road Rapist? Luis Diaz was convicted and served 25 years until DNA evidence exonerated him. The two juries that convicted him IMHO convicted Drake based off of the fact that he moved in his mistress shortly after his wife attacked. The court of public opinion already had him pegged as guilty as soon as they learned about his affairs. Plus it's easier and more soothing to think that the husband did it rather than an unknown pyscho who's still lurking out there in the dark.

I'm conflicted on this one: One the one hand, I think he MAY have attempted to kill his wife, but on the other hand I cannot believe he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (twice), and I cannot believe his sentence.

Kyte: You obviously are convinced Drake is guilty. But I think thecars1986 is making reasonable points, and I'm not sure why you are saying you can't read his posts anymore. Am I missing something?

The Mistress: Clearly this is the major force that led to his arrest and conviction. Cheating on your wife and even doing something as awful as moving your mistress into your home while your wife is in intensive care does not make one guilty. However, since he did not tell his mistress that he was married, it follows that before she moved into the home, he cleared out any evidence of having a wife. That is very damning. At the same time, if Drake did it, he has to be the stupidest criminal on the planet for moving her in, b/c what looks more suspicious than that? Finally, some are arguing that their marriage was already in shambles so it doesn't really matter. If that were true, why did Drake say on the segment that all he wanted was to get his wife back home and recovered? That whole statement was horribly insincere, and made me feel he is capable of lying.

Bedside statement: I too think this is irrelevant. Not only was she out of it, but more importantly, her statement does not necessarily mean she was accusing him of hitting her. During the segment, I took it to mean that she was annoyed he wouldn't let her come home yet, and was basically saying something to the effect, "how would you like it if you were in my position." Plus, I don't understand how this testimony was entered into evidence. B/C the wife did not testify, she could not be cross-examined and therefore the evidence was hearsay. The only way of getting around that is if a clever attorney argued that it was "excited utterance," but that is a stretch. Up until a few months ago, death bed statements were not even allowed to be used against a suspect.

Sentence: The sentence, regardless of guilt or innocence, is out of control. Obviously the judge thought that Drake was 100% guilty and had no doubt, b/c otherwise the maximum sentence would not have been imposed. It does seem very strange that "robbery with a deadly weapon" can end with life without parole, while actual murder (even first degree murder) can end in "25 years to life." Plus, I think it's important to remember that Drake had no criminal record whatsoever.

Other suspects: I wish we knew more about the "mental patient" and the "white haired man" in front of the church. With the little bit of info we have, they cannot be ruled out as suspects. I wonder if the cops have evidence that led them away from pursuing them as suspects? My guess is that the minute they found out that Drake had the mistress in his home, it was all over for Drake.

Bottom line: I don't see how anyone can say for sure that he did or did not do this. All I know is that it scares me to think that someone can be jailed for life without parole over such flimsy evidence.

I always assumed that when Drake said he wanted his wife back home and healthy he really meant it, because despite the fact that the marriage was over due to his infidelities, he still cared for her. The fact that the mental patient's fingerprint was found at the church would indicate he had something to do with this. There was no business for him to be there, he did not attend the church so he obviously wasn't there for the tickets that Nancy was selling. Nancy herself said a silver-haired man was the one who attacked her, and I really think the sole reason why she didn't testify at Drake's second trial was because she was bitter about his affairs.

I just watched a show about him on UNsolved mysteries! I want to know what to do for this guy. I hate hearing things like this. It galls me that I know of people that have committed murder(not attempted murder allegedly) that are free now with not a decade served. The worst case I personally know of is 30 years.I have never heard of this ridiculous sentence for an unproven assault or any assault period!!!last I knew adultery wasn't a life sentence and thats all thats proven in this case.
Even if he did it this is a harsh cruel " criminal" sentence.
For those in agreement with me ,let's petition and get organized.
Enough signatures and phone calls might get somewhere.
They say justice is blind but we should not turn our backs .
WHAT IF IT WAS YOU!!!!!
Don't say it couldn't happen .
We can contact the governors office.
This guy has paid his debt and possibly someone else's
Anybody with me?????

Please contact me if your interested in my idea.

I just watched a show about him on UNsolved mysteries! I want to know what to do for this guy. I hate hearing things like this. It galls me that I know of people that have committed murder(not attempted murder allegedly) that are free now with not a decade served. The worst case I personally know of is 30 years.I have never heard of this ridiculous sentence for an unproven assault or any assault period!!!last I knew adultery wasn't a life sentence and thats all thats proven in this case.
Even if he did it this is a harsh cruel " criminal" sentence.
For those in agreement with me ,let's petition and get organized.
Enough signatures and phone calls might get somewhere.
They say justice is blind but we should not turn our backs .
WHAT IF IT WAS YOU!!!!!
Don't say it couldn't happen .
We can contact the governors office.
This guy has paid his debt and possibly someone else's
Anybody with me?????

Please contact me if your interested in my idea.

:lol: I think there are other causes far more worthy of your time.

Yes your right there are probably better things to do with my time.BUT
What can a letter or phone call hurt. It might even help.
People just don't what to be put out I guess. I'm glad its not me there.

After reading through some older threads I'm going to have to amend my original conclusion and say that Drake is most likely guilty. I still don't see how he was convicted however considering:

-No physical evidence could tie Drake to the crime scene.
-Nancy says she does not remember the attack, therefore she could not positively say Drake was the one who attacked her.
-Drake denied attacking Nancy, and there were other witnesses who placed him at the church that day who overheard Nancy call him and request that he bring her lunch.

Huge circumstantial case, but when it's all said and done, I can't think of anyone who would have more to gain in his wife's death than Thomas Drake.

Huge circumstantial case, but when it's all said and done, I can't think of anyone who would have more to gain in his wife's death than Thomas Drake.

Except of course the real culprit who got away with all the cash in the Church safe. ;)

Except of course the real culprit who got away with all the cash in the Church safe. ;)

I think I've read that some of Nancy's checks were stolen from the safe as well as the cash. I wonder if the checks were found in the Drake residence which implicated him that much more.

I feel bad for this guy for being in prison, I think he's innocent. Of course it was very stupid and uncaring to move in his mistress and her son into her house while his wife is still recovering. His wife was taking money all that day they said selling tickets so a lot of people know she was apparently working alone and had a box full of money with her. That would make her an easy target. Here is Thomas' inmate profile:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=784584835

Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison.

Edit:. Well that link was valid at first but it must have timed out. Just click on Offender Search and type in his name and you should get it.

Sorry to bump up such an old post. I saw this on a recent UM episode. That link doesn't pull anything up for Drake, even doing an offender search using his information.

Does anyone know if Drake got moved to another prison, if he died, or if he was set free? I'm not convinced either way of his innocence or guilt, but I'm interested in an update. A quick google search didn't really give one.

Sorry to bump up such an old post. I saw this on a recent UM episode. That link doesn't pull anything up for Drake, even doing an offender search using his information.

Does anyone know if Drake got moved to another prison, if he died, or if he was set free? I'm not convinced either way of his innocence or guilt, but I'm interested in an update. A quick google search didn't really give one.

As far as I know, he's still alive and still in prison. A former poster used to have a correspondence with him, but I'm not sure if he was moved to another prison or not.

I saw the UM episode recently too. Don't know whether I think Drake is responsible or not. Tried doing a search to see if there was anything new about him and didn't find anything either.

What I did find is that apparently there must have been a falling out between Nancy Drake and her church:
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19880524_0042554.FL.htm/qx

I have no idea of anything else related to that though since it costs money to buy the case file and I'm broke as a joke! But I do wonder what happened between her and the church. There are some old news articles from the first couple years after her attack and one of them on the Drakes' divorce (which Tommy Drake actually contested, according to the article) it said that the church paid off the Drakes' car after the attack and it went from being in Tommy's name to being in hers since he was arrested for the attack.

Edit - News article that says this is here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850227&id=fbkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5PsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1570,4395943

Interesting article, La Llorona! Thanks for sharing.

I'm too poor to purchase the file too, but I wonder what happened with Nancy and the church.

Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison.

That was hateful of her. She said she didn't know if he tried to kill her and she didn't care, but he deserved to be there for all of the other things he did. While I agree he's a jerk for having had an affair and letting his mistress move into their home while she was in the hospital, that doesn't mean he should be locked away for life. He was born in 1938, so he probably doesn't have too many more years left.

It's a shame the police stopped looking for the person who did this just because he seemed suspicious. :( There was no evidence of Thomas Drake doing anything! I don't think he tried to kill Nancy.

The man in this thread that everyone is talking about is my father. If anyone has this episode please let me know. Myself and another family member are desperately searching for it. Thank you.

The man in this thread that everyone is talking about is my father. If anyone has this episode please let me know. Myself and another family member are desperately searching for it. Thank you.

I'm sure someone on here has the episode in their personal collection, I do not. But do you have an opinion on what happened to your father? Do you believe he was guilty or wrongfully convicted?

I am trying to obtain all newspaper articles and court documents in this case. Please understand that this man did not raise me. My dad raised me, thus I refer to this guy as my father. He created me making him my father but he did not raise me, someone else took that on and he is my dad.

With that being said, at the age of approximately 19 I did finally meet my father. He and my mother divorced when I was a baby so I really did not know him. I got to meet him for the first time in a prison in Raiford, FL. I spent several years visiting him and getting to know him as much as I one can in that environment. There is SO MUCH MORE to this and HIM than any of you could ever imagine.

I do have an opinion on this after the time I spent with him, but I would like to keep that to myself until I have time to go through all doucments as I receive them. If anyone has this episode you would have no no clue what it would mean to us to see it.

I am trying to obtain all newspaper articles and court documents in this case. Please understand that this man did not raise me. My dad raised me, thus I refer to this guy as my father. He created me making him my father but he did not raise me, someone else took that on and he is my dad.

With that being said, at the age of approximately 19 I did finally meet my father. He and my mother divorced when I was a baby so I really did not know him. I got to meet him for the first time in a prison in Raiford, FL. I spent several years visiting him and getting to know him as much as I one can in that environment. There is SO MUCH MORE to this and HIM than any of you could ever imagine.

I do have an opinion on this after the time I spent with him, but I would like to keep that to myself until I have time to go through all doucments as I receive them. If anyone has this episode you would have no no clue what it would mean to us to see it.
Welcome! I love when relatives come share their experiences on the board. I recently saw the segment on Farina's unsolved mysteries, so the segment is out there but I believe the original stack version is extremely rare and was originally on the UM spinoff Final Appeal.

We would love the original but we truly do not care what version it is. Also I would truly love to connect with cool_c1000. I believe he holds information for me that I can't get elsewhere.

I just thought I would update everyone and after contacting Unsolved Mysteries they sent me a low-grade version of the original story. I have been able to see now.

I just thought I would update everyone and after contacting Unsolved Mysteries they sent me a low-grade version of the original story. I have been able to see now.
I am glad to hear you have been able to watch your fathers case. Did you enjoy the way UM portrayed your father and his case?

I felt the portrayal was very close to what I already knew with only a few discrepancies. Someone asked me earlier if I thought he did it or not, and I will answer that. If he had taken the plea bargain I would have never found him. He would have between free and I would have had no clue where to look. For me personally it doesn't matter anymore if I think he did it or not. He is now a 76 year old man who will never met his grandchildren or great grandchildren. What he did or didn't do 31 years ago really isn't important. I prefer to concentrate on what is going on now instead of 31 years ago.

I felt the portrayal was very close to what I already knew with only a few discrepancies. Someone asked me earlier if I thought he did it or not, and I will answer that. If he had taken the plea bargain I would have never found him. He would have between free and I would have had no clue where to look. For me personally it doesn't matter anymore if I think he did it or not. He is now a 76 year old man who will never met his grandchildren or great grandchildren. What he did or didn't do 31 years ago really isn't important. I prefer to concentrate on what is going on now instead of 31 years ago.
Thank you for posting your thoughts! Please don't be a stranger on the board! I'm sure it must have been odd, but interesting looking at your father 20 years in the past. Hope all works out

I felt the portrayal was very close to what I already knew with only a few discrepancies. Someone asked me earlier if I thought he did it or not, and I will answer that. If he had taken the plea bargain I would have never found him. He would have between free and I would have had no clue where to look. For me personally it doesn't matter anymore if I think he did it or not. He is now a 76 year old man who will never met his grandchildren or great grandchildren. What he did or didn't do 31 years ago really isn't important. I prefer to concentrate on what is going on now instead of 31 years ago.

Does he still maintain his innocence today?

So I finally watched this one.

I'm going against the grain big-time on this one, but I think Thomas Drake is innocent. Not only do I think he's innocent, I think he got screwed from start to finish. All the man did was bring his wife his lunch and he gets accused of murder, found guilty by two juries with NO physical evidence, sees the prosecution threaten the mistress to turn against him, gets an incredibly harsh sentence (life + 30 years, wtf?) and his wife says he belongs in there whether he did it or not. Ouch. And this, of course, happened in Florida where the juries always seem to get it wrong (Eileen Mangold, George Zimmeran, Casey Anthony, John Purvis, etc, etc)

For me, the huge reason I believe Drake is innocent is his wife's own statements that she was attacked by someone who was NOT her husband. (which she conveniently forgot just before his second trial). I don't believe her statements should be easily dismissed as some hallucination because she suffered a brain injury (especially since some think her statement of "how would you like it if I hit you on the head? was credible. Why would that be credible but her recollections of her attack not be?). And if she thought he was really responsible for a horrific attack that broke open her skull (!!) would she really let him in the same hospital room with her where he could finish the job? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

But I would like to break down the statements from Nancy's remembrances of the attack. She claimed she was attacked by an older man with white hair (which both Thomas and another, unbiased person both saw sitting out in the church parking lot just prior to the attack). She also claimed that he purchased two tickets totaling $10 and handed her $100. She did not have that change readily available and turned around to go to the safe to get the proper change and it was at this point she was attacked. This TOTALLY makes sense as the perp knew that she probably wouldn't have sufficient change after handing her such a large bill and would need to go to the safe to get the remainder (and it's important to point out that the safe was apparently robbed of its contents).

I also get the impression that the perp was definitely familiar with the church, and was probably even a parishioner at some point (especially given his age). He was seen outside in the parking lot, so I think he was casing the place, waiting for a moment when there would be no one else around (he apparently waited for Thomas to leave). I think crystaldawn made a valid point earlier that the concert was probably pretty well-publicized and if there were lots of tickets sold, that could have enticed someone to steal the profits from it.

It's notable that Thomas turned down two attempts at getting him to plea bargain. This signifies to me that he knew he was innocent and he wouldn't take a lesser sentence because he wouldn't admit to something he didn't do.

It seems that the juries and most of the people on here are ready to hang the guy over the whole mistress thing. My take on it is this: It sounds like, for all intents and purposes, his marriage to Nancy was over (I think they were separated?). She wasn't devoting enough time into the marriage and he needed someone who was willing to put time in (the mistress). Not knowing more about it, but the mistress was a single mom with a young son and perhaps having a rough time making ends meet. He asks her to move in, tells her she doesn't have to work, and supports her and her son financially. I guess I don't see what's so horrible about that. No offense to anyone, but I can understand how he thought Nancy wouldn't survive (the injuries to her were quite horrific).

And wasn't there an unidentified fingerprint and hair found?

Innocent.

EDIT: To clear up some confusion about when this attack happened, it was in July of 1983.

Firstly, Tom and Nancy were still married and living in the same house. They had discussed divorce and separation, but he did in fact move his mistress into the house that he and Nancy shared. He explained her stuff away that was in the house by lying to his mistress and telling her that Nancy had not been able to make arrangements to get it. As far as his role here, I think having a mistress and moving her into Nancy's house makes him a dog and a liar, but I do not believe it makes him a killer. Did he show poor judgement here and show that he was thinking with the wrong head.....ABSOLUTELY. We have all made poor judgement decisions in our lifes but that does not mean we are killers.

I did speak with Nancy shortly after I meet my father for the first time. She told me and I quote..."I don't know if your father tried to kill me or not. The man I married could have never done that to me, but the man that was cheating on me who knows. I don't know that man." This is pretty much what she said on the tape and after speaking with her I believe she has no clue. I believe based on all she said that what is in her memory is bits and pieces of what everyone around has been saying, her family, my father, the prosecution, and the defense. I believe 100% that she has absolutely no recollection of what happened. I believe she made her own memory by putting pieces from everyone together.

As for the plea bargins, I personally think my father was stupid not to take them. He could be a free man and living his life and knowing his family, but all the sudden after committing adultrey and lying he wanted to stand on his morals. I find that part a little ironic. Sorry but that is just how I feel. In hindsight had he taken the plea bargin I would have probably never been able to find him and get to know him.

To my knowledge there was a fingerprint found and the prosecution, I believe, did address that in court stating that although they state the church had just been cleaned it would have been possible to have missed an area on the door and there was no real way to know how old the fingerprint was. There was no hair to my recollection found at the scene. I do find it odd that they stated my father had used the hammer the day before and yet they did not find any of his fingerprints on the hammer. Makes you wonder if the person that did use it on her wiped it down afterwards because otherwise by his own admission of using the day before his prints would have been on it.

Also yes the safe contents were taken and that is why he got part of the heavy sentence. However, a search of his home, car, and himself never found any of the checks that were stolen from the church. There was never anything of the safe contents found, ever to my knowledge.

Again, based on this portrayal he would appear innocent and as his attorney stated it would appear he was convicted on his moral issues and not actual evidence. However, knowing bits and pieces of what happened between him and my mother (mind you these are stories I have heard as I was only a baby and do not remember any of it) and what has happened between him and myself, I do believe the my father had problems with explosive anger so it is honestly anyone's guess what really happened that day.

For me personally it goes back to does it even matter anymore. This all happened 31 years ago. He is 76 years old. He has had a heart disease that should have killed him and cancer all while in prison and survived them all. Maybe the reason he is where he is was so I could find him. Who knows. I have chose to continue to be a factor in his life regardless of whether he did it or not. I chose to part of his life so he had something in his life outside of those prison wall to think about and have in his life.

To this day he still maintains his innocence and that is one thing he has vehemently never waivered on. I would still love to get ahold of the person on here who said he had all the court transcripts but that has met me with no success.

So I just re-read this entire thread and everyone's opinion and I want to clarify a few things.

First of all in regards to Nancy's statement about "how would you like it if I hit you in the head." I think it is important to note and leads to her lack of mental capacity she did not say these words. What she said was "how would you like it if I hit you in the hobbit." At that point in the hospital when she talked she was not capable of putting the correct words with the correct meaning together. That is one reason she did not testify. She was not a credible witness as she could not put the right words in her thoughts to speech. She did not testify at the second trial because her medication had been changed a few days prior to the day she was to witness and made her even more unstable mentally. She would have done more harm than good had his attorney put her on the stand. The jury would have thought much less of the defense for doing it.

Secondly someone earlier said he was convicted twice of first degree murder. That is not true. The first jury convicted him of first degree murder but the second jury convicted him of second degree murder.

Next they bring up how odd it was that he brougth her lunch. WHY???? They were still married and regardless of the state of their marriage that did not mean they hated each other. I am under the impression based on what I know that they were going to go to lunch together that day but she decided she could not leave based on the concert tickets so he brought it to her. Everyone is trying to to find motive in simple acts.

Next, la Llorona said something about Nancy having a falling out with the church because of a court case. I believe that had nothing to do with the church and her. It was more related to money/payment over her accident which happened at the church. Nancy has since left Florida. She is remarried and living back in Indiana, where I believe her and my father met.

As for the person who said my father's eyes were small and beady and that made him guilty......REALLY??????????? I have small eyes and when I smile they are even smaller. Does that make me a killer. I don't think so. As for his smile.......even when nobody is looking at him he tends to have a smile on his face. My father has made peace that he will die in prison. Does he like it NO not all. Does he feel wrongfuly convicted, absolutely. While even 31 years later he is still working on trying to appeal his case, he has no money to do this and it is next to impossible to get it done without money.....he has made peace with where he is at and has decided to live his life out there as best he can and not be consumed with the anger most would have in his situation.

I am not saying he did or didn't do it. I was not there and do not know what happened. I did not know him then, I only know him now, but I have a question for all those who want to convinct him based on his affair, while I agree it was a despicable act on his part...................how many of us have made a decision to do something in our life that others do not agree with. So many people want to think they are better than everyone else and above reproach, but I am willing to bet that most of us have made decisions to do things that were wrong and others have thought how could they do that? I know I have. I am not perfect. I also know that those decisions do not mean that I am killer or even capable of killing. It just means I am capable of making a bad decision.

Did my father commit attempted murder? Only God and the people at the church that day know. Those involved will have to answer for their actions on that day. For those of us on the outside left wondering did he or didn't he, we will never know who did this. The state of Florida has the guilty party in their eyes and they are done with it all. The rest of us are just to left to speculate. Regardless he is now a 76 year old man who will die in prison and I have chosen to give him life something outside of the prison walls in the form of a daughter, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to be a part of so that when he does leave this world he does not leave only knowing prison for the last half of his adult life.

The evidence against Drake has always been very thin, IMO. However, there are things to consider:

-Drake denied at his trial that he was carrying on an affair. This was definitely a lie, since he admitted later to moving his mistress in shortly after Nancy's attack. This could have been from the advice of his counsel, but we'll never know.

-Drake came pretty close to admitting that he attacked Nancy during an interrogation. He kept saying, "if I did it, I don't remember". Kind of like Darlie Routier.

From what I understand from his attorney at the time, he only said that after they had him there for hours. The hours prior to this he repeatedly said over and over "I didn't hurt Nancy. I didn't do this." His attorney said it was through manipulative and twisting questions that they got him to make that statement. Again, I was not there and that is why I would love to get in contact with the guy that has all the police reports and court documents but am having no luck there.

When I read everyone's reason why they think he is guilty, i.e. a smile, beady eyes, small eyes, he took her lunch, or the fact that he had an affair it astounds me. YES HE HAD AN AFFAIR. YES HE MOVED IN THE GIRLFRIEND. Did he lie about it? Yes he did. On this I go back to I bet everyone has told a lie at some point in their life. I know I have. I have had guys cheat on me and lie to me about it, but that does not make them a killer or capable of even attempting it.

I don't disagree with the facts about the girlfriend. Was is a really bad crappy thing to do. HELL YES. Does it make you question his morals. HELL YES. Does it make him a killer or attempted killer......NO. I am in no means making light of what he did with the affair, girlfriend, or moving her in and I have as much told him what I think about that.

From what I understand from his attorney at the time, he only said that after they had him there for hours. The hours prior to this he repeatedly said over and over "I didn't hurt Nancy. I didn't do this." His attorney said it was through manipulative and twisting questions that they got him to make that statement. Again, I was not there and that is why I would love to get in contact with the guy that has all the police reports and court documents but am having no luck there.

Reading the transcript from the interview does seem to indicate that Drake was distressed at the time, probably from being there for hours.

Reading the transcript from the interview does seem to indicate that Drake was distressed at the time, probably from being there for hours.

In the end he had good reason to be distressed as it went so poorly for him.

I saw the episode again today and I still don't get why people didn't make a big deal of the safe. If it was cleaned, how can a robbery not be the main focus of the investigation?

In the end he had good reason to be distressed as it went so poorly for him.

I saw the episode again today and I still don't get why people didn't make a big deal of the safe. If it was cleaned, how can a robbery not be the main focus of the investigation?

Exactly.

Money was missing, safe was cleaned, etc. all point to robbery as a motive. IIRC, Drake even made his wife lunch earlier in the day and brought it to her at the church. And his wife was the one who phoned him with the request. Unless there were other people in the church at that time, Drake had an earlier opportunity to attack his wife, yet he didn't.

Exactly.

Money was missing, safe was cleaned, etc. all point to robbery as a motive. IIRC, Drake even made his wife lunch earlier in the day and brought it to her at the church. And his wife was the one who phoned him with the request. Unless there were other people in the church at that time, Drake had an earlier opportunity to attack his wife, yet he didn't.

Howdy!

You know, one thing always bothered me and I think it is a generally overlooked aspect of the case...

if we assume that Thomas Drake was innocent, what really happened?

Scenario 1: Nancy was attacked by Raymond Starr.

We know there was a suspect, Raymond Starr, whose fingerprints were supposedly discovered in Nancy's office.

Interestingly, Starr was questioned by the police (according to documents provided by kadrmas allegedly from Thomas Drake himself) and Starr provided an alibi for the time in question.

My own theorizing: if Starr attacked Nancy Drake, what was the motive? Robbery of the church safe?

Obviously, there is a great deal of debate about what exactly Nancy remembered, but she did, at one point, claim to have flashbacks of an older man with white hair being the assailant.

Was the white haired man Raymond Starr, or someone else entirely? I tend to think this white haired man wasn't Starr for two reasons:

1. Since Starr was a parishioner, I think it is reasonable to assume that Nancy would have recognized him, and possibly the other witnesses who saw this man (was it Althea Toth?) would have recognized him too.

2. The appellate court rendering (available online, let me know if you need a cite) mentions the two theories in a way that seems mutually exclusive, i.e., the assailant was either Starr or this white haired man, not that these two individuals were one in the same.

Scenario 2: The white haired man.

The possibility that an as yet unidentified white haired man who came in to the church, ostensibly under the guise of buying tickets to an upcoming church concert, attacked Nancy Drake.

This is bolstered by witnesses, including Thomas Drake (if he can be believed), who saw this man in the parking lot of the church prior to the attack. I actually tend to believe Thomas Drake here since another witness recalls seeing this man too.

This is also bolstered by Nancy Drake's flashbacks of the attack. However suspect they may be. I don't care to debate the medical POVs about whether or not this is possible, as it is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but there was at least one doctor who testified at trial that the portions of Nancy's brain that were damaged during the attack which would have made it impossible for her to have this kind of recall. If you need a similar example, look at the Susan Laferte and Doreen Picard case, in which Laferte was unable to recall the attack due to extensive head injuries.

My own theorizing: what really bothers me about the white haired man scenario is trying to wrap my mind around the mechanics of the offense.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities: intentional pre-planned robbery, or spur of the moment decision.

Let's look at intent...

If this man was intent on committing a robbery, he brought no weapon.

Doing something like this would probably be pretty high risk, as he wouldn't have known the comings and goings of various people in the church unless he had some prior knowledge of the interior (perhaps as a parishioner himself) or had been casing the place.

Additionally, his risk is elevated by the fact that he was loitering in the parking lot for some time before the offense and was spotted by witnesses, possibly while he was in a vehicle that could be traced to him.

Yet, despite not bringing a weapon, and despite the apparent risks, he has a clearly planned scenario in mind to get her to open the safe - the one hundred dollar bill that he needed change for?

That all seems odd to me.

I suppose another way to look at this would be a "crime of opportunity."

The man legitimately goes in to buy a concert ticket, realizes he only has a hundred, and when he sees her go to the safe, realizes that he can beat her and take the money.

Not to mention, he finds a hammer he can do this with.

And he decides to beat this woman he doesn't know almost to the point of death when his original goal and intent was simply to buy concert tickets, and on a whim he decides to commit a felonious assault and possibly murder?

In doing so, he apparently throws caution to the wind, and forgets, or doesn't care, that he was spotted by others earlier who could possibly identify him (if he knows he was spotted) and he's in a presumably unfamiliar environment, thereby elevating his risk if he tries to pull something.

I just find all of this highly unlikely.

And one more point I would like to address....the burglary...

Evidence of a burglary was discovered as mentioned on UM. The church had been burglarized before, according to the appellate court. However, I was never clear on if the damage the police found that day was "old" (i.e., from a prior break-in), or "new" as in related to the attack on Nancy. I also wasn't clear on if what was discovered was a point of entry, or a point of exit.

This all should be relatively easy to figure out, but I think that, due to lousy reporting, possibly by UM (which makes the damage seem "new" and may have even mentioned the discovery of a footprint) or the appellate court, which makes nary a mention of it and seems to imply the church had been burgled before.

Either way, it is important to know, because it could imply either a third scenario with yet a different assailant entirely, could have been an "exit" for either Drake, Starr, and or the white haired man, or possibly evidence that some "staging" had taken place.

^The segment did state there was an unidentified fingerprint found.

Actually, the white-haired man and the $100 bill makes total sense to me. He was probably a parishoner at some point, and churchgoers tend to be older in age. He gives her the $100 bill, banking that she won't have sufficent change in her little cashbox (sure enough, she didn't), she goes to the safe, he makes his move. The concert was probably well-publicized and, without me getting into more details, let's just say religion is a profitable business. He figures there's a good deal of cash in there. He probably takes into account that he might be seen, but I'm betting this happened at a time when there were few people at the church (as in: not Sunday morning). He remains unidentified to this day. He figures that security measures and things of that nature are probably pretty low (who robs a church?)

The brain is a complex matter. If the doctor stated it was impossible for Nancy to remember what happened to her, I would find that suspect. After all, it's difficult to prove a negative. The brain works in mysterious ways. There have also been a lot of advancements in studying the brain/head/skull in the 2000's.

Drake didn't do himself any favors at his trial. He lied about the affair, and also came pretty close to confessing to police. But when looking at the totality of evidence (and ignoring the fact that he moved his mistress in shortly after the attack), I don't think that there was enough evidence for a conviction. That doesn't mean I think Drake is innocent, although I'm not 100% sold on what Drake's motives would be. If he wanted her dead, he should have made sure the job was done. The fact that she was left alive, IMO, paints more towards robbery as the motive as opposed to murder.

if we assume that Thomas Drake was innocent, what really happened?

I'd say the odds are pretty good that Drake was responsible for his wife's attack. But I don't believe the evidence against him was good enough for a conviction in a court of law.

Scenario 1: Nancy was attacked by Raymond Starr.

We know there was a suspect, Raymond Starr, whose fingerprints were supposedly discovered in Nancy's office.

Interestingly, Starr was questioned by the police (according to documents provided by kadrmas allegedly from Thomas Drake himself) and Starr provided an alibi for the time in question.

My own theorizing: if Starr attacked Nancy Drake, what was the motive? Robbery of the church safe?

Supposing that Drake is innocent, Starr was referred to as a mental patient in the area, who had a sketchy alibi for the time of the attack. IIRC, he claimed he was no where near the church at the time, but his own sister refuted his alibi. Starr could have used the opportunity to rob the church, or perhaps he held some sort of grudge against a fellow parishioner (reading over Drake's appeals make it seem like even the pastor of the church did not hold Nancy in that high of regard, deeming her "over possessive") in Nancy. But that seems very unlikely, which goes back to the robbery motive. Nancy's desk was rifled through as well as the money being stolen from the safe. Checks were stolen as well as cash. This is odd in itself. Why would Drake steal the checks, knowing that they would trace him back to the attack? On the other side of the coin, why would Starr steal them? It wasn't like he could cash them. Unless of course Starr really was mentally unbalanced and in a frenzy just grabbed whatever he could find.

Was the white haired man Raymond Starr, or someone else entirely? I tend to think this white haired man wasn't Starr for two reasons:

I never thought Starr was the white haired man. Both Drake and Althea Toth saw this man, and would have been able to ID him as Starr if it truly were him.

This is also bolstered by Nancy Drake's flashbacks of the attack. However suspect they may be. I don't care to debate the medical POVs about whether or not this is possible, as it is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but there was at least one doctor who testified at trial that the portions of Nancy's brain that were damaged during the attack which would have made it impossible for her to have this kind of recall. If you need a similar example, look at the Susan Laferte and Doreen Picard case, in which Laferte was unable to recall the attack due to extensive head injuries.

The same doctor testified at Drake's second trial. He says that he repeatedly asked Nancy if this new vision of hers was from influence by Drake "helping" her remember, and she adamantly refused. The doctor also quizzed her about how he thought she might be lying to help get Drake out of jail to which she made some remark about whether or not he's out of jail, she still loves him and he loves her.

If this man was intent on committing a robbery, he brought no weapon.

We don't know this for sure. The guy could have had a concealed weapon (gun, knife) but decided for reasons unknown to use the claw hammer. It is possible that this guy figured if he used the gun it would cause a commotion, thereby increasing his chances of getting caught. Or maybe the guy decided to use something that couldn't be traced back to him.

Doing something like this would probably be pretty high risk, as he wouldn't have known the comings and goings of various people in the church unless he had some prior knowledge of the interior (perhaps as a parishioner himself) or had been casing the place.

This is true. This point does make it seem unlikely that the "white haired man" would be responsible for this attack, and makes Drake (and to a lesser extent Starr) more probable suspects.

Yet, despite not bringing a weapon, and despite the apparent risks, he has a clearly planned scenario in mind to get her to open the safe - the one hundred dollar bill that he needed change for?

The $100 bill for change seems likely to me. That little tidbit from Nancy makes me think there is a good chance she did remember some of the attack, and was not being coerced into lying for Drake. She could have simply said she remembers being hit and it wasn't Drake hitting her. But she elaborated on that point and said that this guy asked for change, and when she knelt over is when he began to attack her.

And he decides to beat this woman he doesn't know almost to the point of death when his original goal and intent was simply to buy concert tickets, and on a whim he decides to commit a felonious assault and possibly murder?

In doing so, he apparently throws caution to the wind, and forgets, or doesn't care, that he was spotted by others earlier who could possibly identify him (if he knows he was spotted) and he's in a presumably unfamiliar environment, thereby elevating his risk if he tries to pull something.

I just find all of this highly unlikely.

This is all based on the supposition that this guy was someone seeking profit by opportunity. For all we know this guy could have been some psychotic bent on robbing a church a la the Harold and Thelma Swain murders.

Evidence of a burglary was discovered as mentioned on UM. The church had been burglarized before, according to the appellate court. However, I was never clear on if the damage the police found that day was "old" (i.e., from a prior break-in), or "new" as in related to the attack on Nancy. I also wasn't clear on if what was discovered was a point of entry, or a point of exit.

I'm pretty sure that detectives determined that the church break in had occurred a week before Nancy's attack.

iowa angel said that they didn't find Thomas Drake's fingerprints on the hammer. That is significant. Why would Thomas Drake feel compelled to wipe down the hammer if he had just used it the day before for a legitimate purpose? (doing work in the building). He could say he used it because it was his job and the investigators wouldn't be able to disprove that. In that sense, it wouldn't be necessary for him to wipe fingerprints off the hammer. So that points to somebody else.

Not to mention that Drake himself brought up the possibility of his prints being on the hammer to Althea Toth. This is a ridiculously stupid thing to do, if in fact he was guilty. If there were no prints found on the hammer, that's indicative of someone wiping it down. So why would Drake admit that his prints may have been on it? The only logical answers I can think of is that either he's a very deceptive person and decided to play up the fact that his prints would "innocently" be on the hammer, or he was genuinely scared that he would be fingered as the assailant if his prints came up on the hammer (which he used earlier).

I believe the mental patient, Raymond Starr, had a fingerprint found on a church window. No fingerprints were found on the hammer. But Drake did use the hammer prior to the attack, so I wonder why he would feel the need to wipe them clean if he had an innocent explanation for them being on the hammer. His concerns were voiced to Althea Toth, and I could see it going both ways. Legitimate fear that he would be suspected of attacking his wife if his prints were found on the weapon that he had just used to hang a picture, or a way to remind an impartial witness that he did use the hammer earlier and had an "innocent" explanation for it.

I believe the mental patient, Raymond Starr, had a fingerprint found on a church window. No fingerprints were found on the hammer. But Drake did use the hammer prior to the attack, so I wonder why he would feel the need to wipe them clean if he had an innocent explanation for them being on the hammer. His concerns were voiced to Althea Toth, and I could see it going both ways. Legitimate fear that he would be suspected of attacking his wife if his prints were found on the weapon that he had just used to hang a picture, or a way to remind an impartial witness that he did use the hammer earlier and had an "innocent" explanation for it.

I thought there was testimony that his excuse for using the hammer was bogus though? He said he was going to hang some pictures (in his wife's office?), yet one of the pastors said that Nancy would have had to get permission to do this, and she had not done so.

Regardless of if Drake used the hammer prior to the attack or not, I think ANYONE in that position (having nearly beaten a woman to death) would wipe the hammer clean.

I'd say the odds are pretty good that Drake was responsible for his wife's attack. But I don't believe the evidence against him was good enough for a conviction in a court of law.

What do you think of the appellate court ruling? They stated that the circumstantial evidence coupled with a lack of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence was enough.

Supposing that Drake is innocent, Starr was referred to as a mental patient in the area, who had a sketchy alibi for the time of the attack. IIRC, he claimed he was no where near the church at the time, but his own sister refuted his alibi. Starr could have used the opportunity to rob the church, or perhaps he held some sort of grudge against a fellow parishioner (reading over Drake's appeals make it seem like even the pastor of the church did not hold Nancy in that high of regard, deeming her "over possessive") in Nancy. But that seems very unlikely, which goes back to the robbery motive. Nancy's desk was rifled through as well as the money being stolen from the safe. Checks were stolen as well as cash. This is odd in itself. Why would Drake steal the checks, knowing that they would trace him back to the attack? On the other side of the coin, why would Starr steal them? It wasn't like he could cash them. Unless of course Starr really was mentally unbalanced and in a frenzy just grabbed whatever he could find.

The problems inherent in stealing and ultimately cashing the checks hold true for anybody really. It would be difficult for any offender to cash them.

Personally, I think the offender just grabbed what they could from the safe. It doesn't mean anything really.

If Drake is guilty, it would have been a smart move to steal the checks to make it seem as though the whole scenario was a robbery. If Drake was innocent, it could have just been a spur of the moment type grab by a disorganized offender.

I never thought Starr was the white haired man. Both Drake and Althea Toth saw this man, and would have been able to ID him as Starr if it truly were him.

Agreed. This is what I find annoying about the defense's and UM's presentation of the case. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why they mesh these two theories - to help create doubt.

However, working our way through the case using logic to deduce who the most likely offender is and we have to disentangle them and look at them separately. After all, it is not possible that both theories (i.e., Starr and white haired man) are correct.

The same doctor testified at Drake's second trial. He says that he repeatedly asked Nancy if this new vision of hers was from influence by Drake "helping" her remember, and she adamantly refused. The doctor also quizzed her about how he thought she might be lying to help get Drake out of jail to which she made some remark about whether or not he's out of jail, she still loves him and he loves her.

Do you have a cite for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember.

We don't know this for sure. The guy could have had a concealed weapon (gun, knife) but decided for reasons unknown to use the claw hammer. It is possible that this guy figured if he used the gun it would cause a commotion, thereby increasing his chances of getting caught. Or maybe the guy decided to use something that couldn't be traced back to him.

True. I guess my question is though "why?" If the guy didn't want to draw attention to himself and just wanted to commit a robbery - either planned or spur of the moment - its not necessary to attack Mrs. Drake. She wasn't a threat that needed to be neutralized.

The $100 bill for change seems likely to me. That little tidbit from Nancy makes me think there is a good chance she did remember some of the attack, and was not being coerced into lying for Drake. She could have simply said she remembers being hit and it wasn't Drake hitting her. But she elaborated on that point and said that this guy asked for change, and when she knelt over is when he began to attack her.

An article I read said that the majority of the damage was to the left said of her head/face. Not that it proves anything. Just interesting. Like maybe the offender came at her from the side.

This is all based on the supposition that this guy was someone seeking profit by opportunity. For all we know this guy could have been some psychotic bent on robbing a church a la the Harold and Thelma Swain murders.

Or a thrill killing? Just throwing out possibilities. It seems unlikely given all the supporting evidence against Drake, but I suppose nothing can be ruled out.

I've tried to articulate why I think it is likely that Thomas Drake is guilty. The best I can say is this...while it is possible that Raymond Starr or the white haired man or someone else could have done it, a viable suspect has yet to surface that has the means, motives and opportunities that Thomas Drake did. Couple that with the bizarre circumstances of the affair and moving the girlfriend in, Drake's comments about supporting the new girlfriend and her kid given his income, his bizarre statements to the police, his repeated lies, and I think that's it.

While it would be awesome if there was some smoking gun type evidence that conclusively proved Drake did it, there just isn't, but the existing evidence is strong enough, IMO.

Just watched this again after many years.


I hate to nitpick, but do you mind if I ask when you saw it?

I'd like to discuss the fingerprint evidence and the timeframe. Unfortunately, the only information I have from this is this post by former member kadrmas...

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=4412509&postcount=30

Some interesting things are going on with the dates if you pay attention...

7/8/83 - attack oocurs.

7/14/83 - the Winter Haven Police question Raymond Starr and he offers an alibi.

7/29/83 - the Winter Haven Police question Starr's sister and it seems she contradicts parts of her brother's alibi.

8/3/83 - Drake is arrested.

8/23/83 - Drake is formally charged.

8/31/83 - Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) NOT Winter Haven PD issues a report that 14 finger and palm impressions were recovered. One was on a window and the print belonged to Starr.

What gets me is the timing here. At first glance, it would appear the police questioned Starr, dismissed him, questioned the sister, dismissed her, then arrested Drake. THEN the evidence comes (from another agency) indicating that Starr's prints were at the scene.

Did Winter Haven PD and/or FDLE ever followup with Starr about why his prints were there?

Also, maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me talking, but if the timeline can be believed, I wonder if they had already decided to "go the distance" with Thomas Drake, so the Starr evidence was ignored. I don't know, would they really do that though? Seems extremely unethical.

What do you think of the appellate court ruling? They stated that the circumstantial evidence coupled with a lack of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence was enough.

I just don't understand that reasoning. There was no prints found on the weapon, an impartial witness who saw this white haired man, Starr's fingerprint being found at the church, Starr's shaky alibi, the timeline of events and Drake's actions that day, etc. I wouldn't have been able to convict him.

The problems inherent in stealing and ultimately cashing the checks hold true for anybody really. It would be difficult for any offender to cash them.

Personally, I think the offender just grabbed what they could from the safe. It doesn't mean anything really.

If Drake is guilty, it would have been a smart move to steal the checks to make it seem as though the whole scenario was a robbery. If Drake was innocent, it could have just been a spur of the moment type grab by a disorganized offender.

This is true. It goes either way.

Agreed. This is what I find annoying about the defense's and UM's presentation of the case. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why they mesh these two theories - to help create doubt.

However, working our way through the case using logic to deduce who the most likely offender is and we have to disentangle them and look at them separately. After all, it is not possible that both theories (i.e., Starr and white haired man) are correct.

There are 3 "suspects" in the case. Starr, white haired guy, and Drake himself. White haired guy seems the least likely.

Do you have a cite for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember.

I'm currently searching and searching for this, but have come up empty handed. I know I didn't make it up out of thin air and remember reading it somewhere. I did find this however:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850227&id=fbkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5PsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1559,4386948

Maybe I was mistaken. It was Drake's public defender. But Nancy's doctor did testify at his original trial and said that Nancy told him she was attacked by an unidentified man who had asked for change.

True. I guess my question is though "why?" If the guy didn't want to draw attention to himself and just wanted to commit a robbery - either planned or spur of the moment - its not necessary to attack Mrs. Drake. She wasn't a threat that needed to be neutralized.

I totally see this point. But on the other side of the coin, Nancy called Drake at home and requested he bring her lunch. It just borders on insanity that he would decide in the span of less than 15 minutes to decide that that moment was the perfect time to try and murder her.

An article I read said that the majority of the damage was to the left said of her head/face. Not that it proves anything. Just interesting. Like maybe the offender came at her from the side.

Found this interesting article:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840418&id=JZEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6614,5687203

Drake gives a somewhat more believable answer as to why he moved his mistress in shortly after the attack. Also has a picture of the doctor showing the injuries to Nancy's head.

Or a thrill killing? Just throwing out possibilities. It seems unlikely given all the supporting evidence against Drake, but I suppose nothing can be ruled out.

Leaning towards Starr, I wouldn't rule it out.

I've tried to articulate why I think it is likely that Thomas Drake is guilty. The best I can say is this...while it is possible that Raymond Starr or the white haired man or someone else could have done it, a viable suspect has yet to surface that has the means, motives and opportunities that Thomas Drake did. Couple that with the bizarre circumstances of the affair and moving the girlfriend in, Drake's comments about supporting the new girlfriend and her kid given his income, his bizarre statements to the police, his repeated lies, and I think that's it.

The link above says Drake was interrogated until 1 in the morning during that interview. And, if Drake is telling the truth, they threatened him by saying they were going to arrest his mistress and take away her son. The article also says that Drake was simply agreeing with them that someone could do something and not remember it, not necessarily that he was admitting that that was the case with him. So I don't necessarily think the comments to the police should be used against him. The mistress thing is a huge hurdle to get over, however. Plus, he was at the church shortly before his wife was found, and he also admitted to handling the weapon used in the attack. My only issue with him bringing up the fingerprints is: why? There weren't any found on the weapon, so I find it weird that he would even volunteer that in the first place. Drake is the most likely suspect, IMO. But I don't think I would have been able to convict him based off of the evidence.

I'd like to discuss the fingerprint evidence and the timeframe. Unfortunately, the only information I have from this is this post by former member kadrmas...

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=4412509&postcount=30

Some interesting things are going on with the dates if you pay attention...

7/8/83 - attack oocurs.

7/14/83 - the Winter Haven Police question Raymond Starr and he offers an alibi.

7/29/83 - the Winter Haven Police question Starr's sister and it seems she contradicts parts of her brother's alibi.

8/3/83 - Drake is arrested.

8/23/83 - Drake is formally charged.

8/31/83 - Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) NOT Winter Haven PD issues a report that 14 finger and palm impressions were recovered. One was on a window and the print belonged to Starr.

What gets me is the timing here. At first glance, it would appear the police questioned Starr, dismissed him, questioned the sister, dismissed her, then arrested Drake. THEN the evidence comes (from another agency) indicating that Starr's prints were at the scene.

Did Winter Haven PD and/or FDLE ever followup with Starr about why his prints were there?

Also, maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me talking, but if the timeline can be believed, I wonder if they had already decided to "go the distance" with Thomas Drake, so the Starr evidence was ignored. I don't know, would they really do that though? Seems extremely unethical.

Not a conspiracy theorist at all, but that is very alarming. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they lined all their ducks up on Drake and decided to not back down from it.

I've always been bothered by the way Starr's fingerprint was dismissed. They write it off because he was a parishioner and that he was at the church "from time to time". But what if that time was during the attack!? The appellant ruling makes it seem like this fingerprint was found during the investigation by the crime scene technician...which IMO, suggests that the print was found near or in the office that Nancy was attacked in. Coupled with his alibi that was refuted by his sister, I wonder why Starr wasn't looked at more seriously.

I just don't understand that reasoning. There was no prints found on the weapon, an impartial witness who saw this white haired man, Starr's fingerprint being found at the church, Starr's shaky alibi, the timeline of events and Drake's actions that day, etc. I wouldn't have been able to convict him.

I'm not familiar with the appellate process but I would surmise the justices at a minimum read the trial transcripts. This would have been crucial and probably essential for that specific appeal because one of the points Drake raised was that the evidence wasn't strong enough to support his convictions.

The point is that they are looking at it from a legal sense of if the evidence meets certain standards and so forth. They are not triers of fact as the original jury was and the supposition on appeal is that the lower court ruling was correct. Ergo, Drake was guilty/convicted. It is up to him to prove otherwise. Obviously he failed here, but appellate court rejections of criminal appeals are not uncommon. It's probably the norm.

I think this legal focus is why the justices didn't consider points you raised such as the witness testimony regarding the other suspects, the Starr fingerprint, etc. I would think doing so is beyond the scope of their job. IDK, I could be wrong.

Another point though, two juries convicted Drake. Why? Do you think both juries were prejudicial against Drake due to the affairs and some of the tacky things he did? Just asking.

Whether one believes Drake is guilty or innocent, he doesn't come across well given the circumstance, and I can't imagine juries taking a liking to the guy.

Random thought...you ever wonder what would have became of Drake if he took that plea deal? He would have been out a long time ago. That is something else kind of interesting though. He was offered a relatively sweet deal (comparatively speaking) but didn't want to take it because he said he didn't commit the crimes. So, he rolls the big dice and gets convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. That really has to suck, even more so if he is factually innocent. I think I would be kicking myself every single day.

There are 3 "suspects" in the case. Starr, white haired guy, and Drake himself. White haired guy seems the least likely.

Out of the two "alternate" theories, I think the white haired man as the offender is the more credible. Althea Toth (I think?) saw this man, as did Thomas Drake (allegedly). The police must have thought it credible, at least for a time, because a composite was created of this suspect. Additionally, Nancy Drake's recall was that this guy attacked her. The fact that her recollections matched a suspect seen by other witnesses is somewhat telling. Also, if the narrative is to be believed, the guy had a motive - robbery. Lastly, the FDLE report mentions unidentified fingerprints and palm impressions including some on a hammer (was it THE hammer?)

The only major things going for Starr are the fingerprint and a shaky alibi. Additionally, the report mentions scratches on his skin which he attributed to "scratching" and "razors." Whatever that means. It seems I read somewhere along the line that he didn't like Mrs. Drake, but I can't recall where I saw that. Perhaps in the kadrmas posts.

BUT if Starr did it, how do you explain Nancy's recollections about the white haired man?

I'm currently searching and searching for this, but have come up empty handed. I know I didn't make it up out of thin air and remember reading it somewhere. I did find this however:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850227&id=fbkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5PsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1559,4386948

Maybe I was mistaken. It was Drake's public defender. But Nancy's doctor did testify at his original trial and said that Nancy told him she was attacked by an unidentified man who had asked for change.

I may have missed this in skimming the article, but are you saying this testimony from the doctor about Nancy's recollections of being attacked by the white haired man came prior to the first conviction and reversal? I was always under the impression she didn't "remember" this story until after Drake had been convicted.

Along those lines, I am certain I read another article in which Nancy told a pastor (Poston?) immediately after the attack that her husband did it.

I totally see this point. But on the other side of the coin, Nancy called Drake at home and requested he bring her lunch. It just borders on insanity that he would decide in the span of less than 15 minutes to decide that that moment was the perfect time to try and murder her.

True, but maybe this was a regular occurrence (him bringing her lunch) and Drake surmised (well before the date of the actual attack) that it might be a good time to do it. We just don't know how often they had lunch together. I wonder what the comings and goings of the church parishioners and staff would have been at that time 11:30am-1:00pm or so? Assuming Drake was a regular, he could have gauged it well. That being said, isn't it interesting that the attack occurred when it did, when no one was around for an extended period?

I've always thought the mechanics of the attack made it fairly high risk for an outsider or someone without some prior knowledge of the church. That being said (I want to look at this from all angles), that doesn't preclude Starr or anyone who had been a parishioner at some point or otherwise been inside the church. By their nature, churches are open to the public after all.

Found this interesting article:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840418&id=JZEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6614,5687203

Drake gives a somewhat more believable answer as to why he moved his mistress in shortly after the attack.

I can't recall what he said in the UM segment, I'll have to watch again. I'm pretty sure he didn't explicitly say in the segment exactly what he testified to as reported in that article. Maybe he gave a more condensed version of his original explanation for the TV cameras?

Interestingly, it sounds like Drake didn't take the stand at all in his first trial.


Plus, he was at the church shortly before his wife was found, and he also admitted to handling the weapon used in the attack. My only issue with him bringing up the fingerprints is: why? There weren't any found on the weapon, so I find it weird that he would even volunteer that in the first place. Drake is the most likely suspect, IMO. But I don't think I would have been able to convict him based off of the evidence.

Don't forget he was also contradicted on what time he arrived at the church. Didn't he allegedly tell Lapota that he arrived at 11:30am and was gone by 12pm, before the attack which occurred roughly between 12:30pm and 12:40pm?

I guess Lapota could be wrong, but I always thought that was suspicious and I feel like I'm being asked to give Drake the benefit of the doubt A LOT at this point.

Assuming he was guilty and assuming he wiped the hammer post-attack, he could have still had concerns over whether he did a thorough enough job to avoid detection and therefore wanted to proffer an "innocent" explanation for his prints being there to an otherwise uninvolved party.

Not a conspiracy theorist at all, but that is very alarming. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they lined all their ducks up on Drake and decided to not back down from it.

Same. It wouldn't be the first time it has happened. Relando Cruz and Luis Diaz. Also, this is somewhat more controversial and not a UM case, but the Central Park Five.

In each of those cases there were police and prosecuting officials who believed they were making a mistake in moving forward, but they were in the minority. In the Cruz case, a few officials even quit and/or resigned because of it. It has to be a horrible situation to be in.

ETA: I remember getting the vibe from the UM segment that the police were looking at other suspects until surveillance of Thomas Drake revealed that the mistress and her son were living in the house. At that point, the investigation focused exclusively on Drake.

However, that was UM. They always slanted things to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt and make the cops and prosecutors look like incompetents. The larger point being there could be an angle we weren't presented with here. Maybe the other leads in this case were checked out and led nowhere. See below.

I've always been bothered by the way Starr's fingerprint was dismissed. They write it off because he was a parishioner and that he was at the church "from time to time". But what if that time was during the attack!? The appellant ruling makes it seem like this fingerprint was found during the investigation by the crime scene technician...which IMO, suggests that the print was found near or in the office that Nancy was attacked in. Coupled with his alibi that was refuted by his sister, I wonder why Starr wasn't looked at more seriously.

Also, according to that report, the window had been washed less than an hour before the attack.

I'd be interested to know just WHERE the fingerprint was in relation to the location of attack.

Did they follow up with Starr? Also, did he have an "innocent" reason to be back there? Did he work for the church in some capacity, or help them with clerical or maintenance stuff or something? I get the vibe that the attack occurred in an office - not exactly a location where a garden variety parishioner would have a reason to go.

Damn, I wish we knew more about this. Did they follow up with Starr? If not, why?

Also why were they questioning Starr 6 days after the attack? Did they know about the fingerprint then? I mean, if he was just a parishioner and nothing more there would be no reason to question him.

There is a huge part of me that wants to believe we are just spinning our wheels and that all of this has been checked out and discounted, as doing so would just be good and proper investigative procedure, but with so many questions about this case, I just don't know.

I think this legal focus is why the justices didn't consider points you raised such as the witness testimony regarding the other suspects, the Starr fingerprint, etc. I would think doing so is beyond the scope of their job. IDK, I could be wrong.

I think you're right. Once Drake was convicted, the burden of proof falls squarely on his shoulders. I get the appellate courts' stance on it. I just don't see how the juries convicted him.

Another point though, two juries convicted Drake. Why? Do you think both juries were prejudicial against Drake due to the affairs and some of the tacky things he did? Just asking.

I believe it was largely in part to the mistress thing.

Random thought...you ever wonder what would have became of Drake if he took that plea deal? He would have been out a long time ago. That is something else kind of interesting though. He was offered a relatively sweet deal (comparatively speaking) but didn't want to take it because he said he didn't commit the crimes. So, he rolls the big dice and gets convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. That really has to suck, even more so if he is factually innocent. I think I would be kicking myself every single day.

I don't even remember what the plea deal was, honestly. But it's pretty telling that he didn't take it.

Out of the two "alternate" theories, I think the white haired man as the offender is the more credible. Althea Toth (I think?) saw this man, as did Thomas Drake (allegedly). The police must have thought it credible, at least for a time, because a composite was created of this suspect. Additionally, Nancy Drake's recall was that this guy attacked her. The fact that her recollections matched a suspect seen by other witnesses is somewhat telling. Also, if the narrative is to be believed, the guy had a motive - robbery. Lastly, the FDLE report mentions unidentified fingerprints and palm impressions including some on a hammer (was it THE hammer?)

I believe, during Drake's first trial, that Nancy's doctor had related a story that she told him about being attacked by an "unidentified" man who had asked for change for a $100 bill. I don't think there was a mention that it was the white haired guy until the second trial.

The only major things going for Starr are the fingerprint and a shaky alibi. Additionally, the report mentions scratches on his skin which he attributed to "scratching" and "razors." Whatever that means. It seems I read somewhere along the line that he didn't like Mrs. Drake, but I can't recall where I saw that. Perhaps in the kadrmas posts.

BUT if Starr did it, how do you explain Nancy's recollections about the white haired man?

Did Starr have white hair, or any gray hair for that matter? Did Nancy know Starr? I don't know if Nancy was trying to help Drake get off by saying she remembered the white haired man hitting her during his second trial, but she did say (during the first trial) to her doctor that it was an unidentified man hitting her. The doctor did also testify that he found it highly improbable that she would have remembered who attacked her, though. It's kind of a wash for me on this point. Doesn't help or hurt Drake either way, IMO.

I may have missed this in skimming the article, but are you saying this testimony from the doctor about Nancy's recollections of being attacked by the white haired man came prior to the first conviction and reversal? I was always under the impression she didn't "remember" this story until after Drake had been convicted.

Ok, I think I have it figured out now. During the first trial is where Nancy's doctor testified that she told him that she was attacked by the unknown guy when asking for change. At Drake's second trial, his attorney had stated that when interviewing Nancy, she told him the same story but added that it was a white haired man.

True, but maybe this was a regular occurrence (him bringing her lunch) and Drake surmised (well before the date of the actual attack) that it might be a good time to do it. We just don't know how often they had lunch together. I wonder what the comings and goings of the church parishioners and staff would have been at that time 11:30am-1:00pm or so? Assuming Drake was a regular, he could have gauged it well. That being said, isn't it interesting that the attack occurred when it did, when no one was around for an extended period?

Yes. But this works both for Drake and Starr. Both would know down times on a church. Hell, an unknown guy could have assumed that since it was the middle of the day on a week day that the church wouldn't have been busy.

I can't recall what he said in the UM segment, I'll have to watch again. I'm pretty sure he didn't explicitly say in the segment exactly what he testified to as reported in that article. Maybe he gave a more condensed version of his original explanation for the TV cameras?

That wasn't touched on in the UM segment. I believe his answer was that their marriage was already over at the time anyway.

Don't forget he was also contradicted on what time he arrived at the church. Didn't he allegedly tell Lapota that he arrived at 11:30am and was gone by 12pm, before the attack which occurred roughly between 12:30pm and 12:40pm?

I guess Lapota could be wrong, but I always thought that was suspicious and I feel like I'm being asked to give Drake the benefit of the doubt A LOT at this point.

Yes, I agree. But then again he very well could have lied to her to either cover up the fact that he did it, or to not make her think he did it (if in fact he was innocent).

Assuming he was guilty and assuming he wiped the hammer post-attack, he could have still had concerns over whether he did a thorough enough job to avoid detection and therefore wanted to proffer an "innocent" explanation for his prints being there to an otherwise uninvolved party.

Yes, I've always thought his comments about handling the hammer could have gone either way.

However, that was UM. They always slanted things to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt and make the cops and prosecutors look like incompetents. The larger point being there could be an angle we weren't presented with here. Maybe the other leads in this case were checked out and led nowhere. See below.

This is true. Which is why I usually, nowadays, take UM's presentations of "Final Appeal" segments with a grain of salt. However, when there is a record of an appeal online (like FindACase) they usually elaborate on the suspect's "alternate theories or suspects". You get none of that with Starr.

Also, according to that report, the window had been washed less than an hour before the attack.

I'd be interested to know just WHERE the fingerprint was in relation to the location of attack.

Assuming here, but I'd have to say it was found inside the office. Since the CSI investigator was investigating the actual crime scene, it would have to have been the office.

Did they follow up with Starr? Also, did he have an "innocent" reason to be back there? Did he work for the church in some capacity, or help them with clerical or maintenance stuff or something? I get the vibe that the attack occurred in an office - not exactly a location where a garden variety parishioner would have a reason to go.

Exactly. There should be more information on Starr, and if there were innocent reasons why his fingerprints would be on a window. Was he a window washer? A volunteer? You would think this would have showed up in Drake's appeal brief, had there been an innocent reason why his prints would have been found. The only explanation was that he was a parishioner. Which is extremely weird. Again, I'm just assuming here, but if a concrete fact was brought up at Drake's trial as to why Starr's prints were found in the office, this should have been mentioned in his appeal.

Also why were they questioning Starr 6 days after the attack? Did they know about the fingerprint then? I mean, if he was just a parishioner and nothing more there would be no reason to question him.

I wonder if Starr was targeted because of his former mental issues? Knowing that during a child abduction without an obvious suspect police go looking for sex offenders in the area first and foremost, I have to wonder if that's why they picked Starr: because of the mental issues and the fact that he was a parishioner at the church. I don't think UM elaborated on it.

There is a huge part of me that wants to believe we are just spinning our wheels and that all of this has been checked out and discounted, as doing so would just be good and proper investigative procedure, but with so many questions about this case, I just don't know.

Honestly, I think we might be spinning our wheels. My gut tells me Drake is guilty. But everything could be put to rest if we were privy to the information on Starr.

I have only briefly scanned what has been said recently but I am going to print this off and highlight the questions I want my dad to answer. If any of you have any specific questions please let me know so I can send them on as well.

I have only briefly scanned what has been said recently but I am going to print this off and highlight the questions I want my dad to answer. If any of you have any specific questions please let me know so I can send them on as well.

I'd like to know who he thinks was the one who attacked Nancy. Was it Raymond Starr, or the mysterious white haired man seen outside the church? And, is he still trying to work on getting a new trial?

ETA: after a quick scan of this thread, it has been pointed out that no trace of the checks missing from the safe were ever found anywhere in the Drake residence. Sure, he could have easily gotten rid of them, but usually unprofessional criminals make bone headed mistakes all the time. There was no physical evidence tying Drake to the crime. The circumstantial evidence was very weak, IMO.

And with regards to robbery as being the motive...who besides Drake would know about the church concert and the money that Nancy was collecting? Raymond Starr.

He believes it was the man in the car. He has never really spoke of Starr to me. He has never stopped working on appealing for a new trial. As for who knew about the money, anyone who lived in that town knew. I am under the understanding it was a highly published event in the town.

I believe it was largely in part to the mistress thing.

Check out this article. It was published prior to the start of Drake's second trial. It clears a few things up...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840107&id=dNwvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6360,2092692

Nancy Drake testified at the first trial, but not to any details pertaining to the attack itself as she was unable to remember anything about it.

It wasn't until AFTER Thomas was convicted that she had these dreams about being attacked by the white haired man with glasses. The article also indicates that the defense questioned her repeatedly about coercion from Thomas which she denied.

I am saying this now because I want to point out something about the juries in both trials.

Jury one hears testimony from Nancy, but nothing about the man with white hair.

Jury two is told in opening that Nancy Drake will testify and that her testimony will exonerate her husband. BUT she recanted and never took the stand. The defense had to backpedal.

The larger point is it sounds like neither jury really heard this scenario about the white haired man with glasses or Nancy Drake's recovered memories. I think if you remove that entire angle from the case, it severely compromises Drake's defense. Then consider possible bias over the affairs and his bizarre behavior after the attack and it is easy to see how he may have been convicted.

I'm not saying this is morally or legally right, I'm just offering it as a point of view explaining how Drake could have been convicted given the flimsy evidence. Interestingly, the appellate justices apparently had all of this information at their disposal, yet they still ruled that the conviction was sound from a legal standpoint.

I don't even remember what the plea deal was, honestly. But it's pretty telling that he didn't take it.

I thought it was 5 years if he pleaded guilty to grand theft, and assault charges would be dropped. I could be (and probably am) wrong.

In any event, I don't see how this makes a difference and speaks to Drake's factual guilt or innocence.

Either way you look at this, it's a long time in jail/prison. Also, even though he's only pleading guilty to grand theft, the larger assumption by family and the public at large is that he's subtly admitting to the whole crime. Not to mention there is always a chance that he could take it to trial and get an acquittal and be cleared of the entire thing. Why not take that chance?

To expand further on that last point, if innocent, he probably thinks it's obvious, that "justice will be served" and that he'll get off. If guilty, there is still a chance of acquittal and he's obviously arrogant/stubborn and/or delusional enough to have never admitted guilt in the years since, so why would his mindset be any different in the plea bargaining stage?

I believe, during Drake's first trial, that Nancy's doctor had related a story that she told him about being attacked by an "unidentified" man who had asked for change for a $100 bill. I don't think there was a mention that it was the white haired guy until the second trial.

See above.

Did Starr have white hair, or any gray hair for that matter? Did Nancy know Starr?

I have never found so much as a physical description of Raymond Starr. For what it's worth, the report by kadrmas indicates that Starr was 40 years old at the time of the offense. If alive, he would be 72 years old today (give or take). I'm not sure that the Unsolved Mysteries report even mentioned him by name, rather he was just a " former mental patient whose fingerprint was found in the building." I don't think we learned of his name until the appeal history went online and the report from kadrmas. Both are pretty vague in terms of biographical information.

I don't know if Nancy was trying to help Drake get off by saying she remembered the white haired man hitting her during his second trial, but she did say (during the first trial) to her doctor that it was an unidentified man hitting her. The doctor did also testify that he found it highly improbable that she would have remembered who attacked her, though. It's kind of a wash for me on this point. Doesn't help or hurt Drake either way, IMO.

I disagree. That being said, I know you were coming at this from the angle that Nancy remembered some of the attack at the time of the first trial.

However, does the timing not strike you as odd? I was always bothered by the fact that she had this recollection at a time when it was needed most to help Thomas - immediately after his first conviction.

This could mean multiple things...

1. She could have been coerced by Thomas Drake to tell this story to get him off. Obviously, this is the most nefarious scenario. If this is truly what happened, he could have fed her details about the white haired man with glasses because he saw this guy, Toth saw the guy, and Drake probably would have known that the police were looking at the guy as a suspect. So, he fills in the gaps in Nancy's memory by suggesting this same guy attacked her. Moreover, Nancy may have recanted because she eventually feared Thomas and didn't want him free.

The biggest problem is that if Nancy was being coerced, why did she never say anything about it after the fact? For years, she insisted she didn't know what happened, even on UM in 1992.

2. Nancy feels guilty about whats happening to Thomas and makes up the story on her own. Possibly she hears the details about the man with white hair and uses them to construct a narrative of the attack. She then gets cold feet and backs off at the last minute.

3. Nancy legitimately has this recollection and wants to help Thomas. However, she eventually, for whatever reason, gets cold feet.

4. Nancy legitimately has this recollection, initially wants to help Thomas, but decides to "punish" him for his wrongdoing in other aspects of their marriage (as stated on UM) so she backs down.

I have to say that her view on the issue of whether she remembered or not is really difficult to disentangle. It is a huge issue, IMO, because if she legit remembers being attacked by someone other than her husband, then Drake is completely innocent.

Maybe the pressure of knowing that her testimony could make or break the case was too much and she caved. IDK.

Yes. But this works both for Drake and Starr. Both would know down times on a church. Hell, an unknown guy could have assumed that since it was the middle of the day on a week day that the church wouldn't have been busy.

Sounds like a lot of people knew about that concert.


Yes, I agree. But then again he very well could have lied to her to either cover up the fact that he did it, or to not make her think he did it (if in fact he was innocent).

True. Like so many things in this case, there are multiple ways to look at it.

Yes, I've always thought his comments about handling the hammer could have gone either way.

It is kind of damning though that no one recalls a request to hang pictures by Nancy. She seems like one to follow the rules. That last observation is entirely subjective, but I feel okay saying it.

Give me a minute and I will reply to this last thread. I am going to rewatch the video real quick and get the actual plea offer.

Okay in the video I have the defense attorney states that had he taken the plea bargin of grand theft he would have been out in a few months. NO exact time is mentioned.

Also it should be known according to my Dad, that when he was with Nancy after the attack, he was never alone with her. Even when she visited him in jail, she had someone with her at all times yet they never called this person to say he told Nancy who attacked her or about the white haired man.

This what my Dad himself says about the plea bargin "my attorney said the only reason they offered this is they don't have any evidence against you, they are hunting a way out. So I said I am not going to plead guilty to something I didn't do. He said that is all I need to hear."

This is true. Which is why I usually, nowadays, take UM's presentations of "Final Appeal" segments with a grain of salt. However, when there is a record of an appeal online (like FindACase) they usually elaborate on the suspect's "alternate theories or suspects". You get none of that with Starr.

Detailed discussion about Starr was probably beyond the scope of the appeal. The fact that he was a "parishioner who was known to be in the building" (or however they phased it) was probably good enough. Again, not saying it's right, but the justices have a different role than the jury. Moreover, the audience that decision was written for does not require a more lengthy explanation of who Starr was or his role in the case.

Assuming here, but I'd have to say it was found inside the office. Since the CSI investigator was investigating the actual crime scene, it would have to have been the office.

Agreed.

Exactly. There should be more information on Starr, and if there were innocent reasons why his fingerprints would be on a window. Was he a window washer? A volunteer? You would think this would have showed up in Drake's appeal brief, had there been an innocent reason why his prints would have been found. The only explanation was that he was a parishioner. Which is extremely weird. Again, I'm just assuming here, but if a concrete fact was brought up at Drake's trial as to why Starr's prints were found in the office, this should have been mentioned in his appeal.

Disagree on the last sentence for reasons stated above but agree with the sentiment here. Yes, the fingerprint should have been checked out and clarified. Starr should have been questioned about it.

I have to believe that this angle was explored more thoroughly though primarily because the appeal mentions it at all. Starr may have testified at one, or both trials, for all we know.

Not checking out this lead is just bad investigating. I know bad investigating happens, but consider this - that detail had to make it to the trial stage because it is mentioned in the appeal. There is NO WAY that anyone at the trial would just say "CSI discovered latent prints at the crime scene and one just happened to trace back to Raymond Starr, a former mental patient and parishioner" and leave it at that. Starr would have to answer for it at some point.

That being said, Drake's defenders don't necessarily have to agree with what Starr testified too, and perhaps that is why he is still considered a suspect all these years later.

I wonder if Starr was targeted because of his former mental issues? Knowing that during a child abduction without an obvious suspect police go looking for sex offenders in the area first and foremost, I have to wonder if that's why they picked Starr: because of the mental issues and the fact that he was a parishioner at the church. I don't think UM elaborated on it.

That could be a good reason for questioning Starr. No, I don't think UM elaborated on it. I believe it was Drake's former defense attorney who mentioned it (albeit briefly) that a former mental patient's prints were found at the scene. The majority of the segment I saw focused on the more sensational elements such as the Nancy/Thomas relationship, the affair, and the recollections about the man with white hair.

Honestly, I think we might be spinning our wheels. My gut tells me Drake is guilty. But everything could be put to rest if we were privy to the information on Starr.

More than likely, we are.

I have to ask though, what made you change your mind about Drake's guilt? I recall a discussion we had a few years ago where you believed in his innocence (on that note, I thought it was in this same thread, but a quick perusal reveals nothing).

I'm not picking on you, just genuinely curious. Was it a specific point that made you reconsider?

For me, Drake's has always been a "totality of the circumstances" type of case. There isn't one specific thing that makes me think he is guilty, rather it's the collective, so to speak.

Nancy Drake testified at the first trial, but not to any details pertaining to the attack itself as she was unable to remember anything about it.

It wasn't until AFTER Thomas was convicted that she had these dreams about being attacked by the white haired man with glasses. The article also indicates that the defense questioned her repeatedly about coercion from Thomas which she denied.

I was under the assumption that the FindACase website was Drake's appeal after his first conviction, but it was after the 2nd trial. That means there were two different people whom Nancy talked to this incident about, the neurosurgeon and Drake's attorney. The neurosurgeon makes no mention of a white haired man in his testimony, that's where the confusion came from.

The larger point is it sounds like neither jury really heard this scenario about the white haired man with glasses or Nancy Drake's recovered memories. I think if you remove that entire angle from the case, it severely compromises Drake's defense. Then consider possible bias over the affairs and his bizarre behavior after the attack and it is easy to see how he may have been convicted.

Yes. But the 2nd jury did hear from the neurosurgeon who testified to Nancy's story, but also said that in his opinion she wouldn't have been able to remember details after the attack.

Interestingly, the appellate justices apparently had all of this information at their disposal, yet they still ruled that the conviction was sound from a legal standpoint.

I honestly believe this is because of a lack of physical evidence found at the crime scene. The circumstantial evidence that exists for Drake (the mistress, the timing of moving her in, Drake's lies about the affair, etc.) does not exist for the other "suspects".

To expand further on that last point, if innocent, he probably thinks it's obvious, that "justice will be served" and that he'll get off. If guilty, there is still a chance of acquittal and he's obviously arrogant/stubborn and/or delusional enough to have never admitted guilt in the years since, so why would his mindset be any different in the plea bargaining stage?

I think he figured Nancy's testimony would have helped him, which is probably why he didn't take the plea deal.

I have never found so much as a physical description of Raymond Starr. For what it's worth, the report by kadrmas indicates that Starr was 40 years old at the time of the offense. If alive, he would be 72 years old today (give or take). I'm not sure that the Unsolved Mysteries report even mentioned him by name, rather he was just a " former mental patient whose fingerprint was found in the building." I don't think we learned of his name until the appeal history went online and the report from kadrmas. Both are pretty vague in terms of biographical information.

According to that article you linked, the police were looking for the white haired man who was acting and driving "suspiciously" in the area of the church at the time of Nancy's attack. Doesn't appear that it would be Starr, but then again without so much as a name, we'll never know.

However, does the timing not strike you as odd? I was always bothered by the fact that she had this recollection at a time when it was needed most to help Thomas - immediately after his first conviction.

This could mean multiple things...

1. She could have been coerced by Thomas Drake to tell this story to get him off. Obviously, this is the most nefarious scenario. If this is truly what happened, he could have fed her details about the white haired man with glasses because he saw this guy, Toth saw the guy, and Drake probably would have known that the police were looking at the guy as a suspect. So, he fills in the gaps in Nancy's memory by suggesting this same guy attacked her. Moreover, Nancy may have recanted because she eventually feared Thomas and didn't want him free.

I think this is unlikely. There is an article online (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850227&id=fbkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5PsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1559,4386948) where Nancy still says she doesn't know whether or not Drake was the one who attacked her, and that he essentially deserved to be in jail for the affairs. It seems like her big hang up was that he cheated on her, not that she was in fear of him. Not to mention no prior history of domestic violence or abuse.

The biggest problem is that if Nancy was being coerced, why did she never say anything about it after the fact? For years, she insisted she didn't know what happened, even on UM in 1992.

This is exactly why I don't get the coercion vibe.

2. Nancy feels guilty about whats happening to Thomas and makes up the story on her own. Possibly she hears the details about the man with white hair and uses them to construct a narrative of the attack. She then gets cold feet and backs off at the last minute.

Possible. But she not only told Drake's attorney, but also her neurosurgeon. Why would she tell the doctor this? It's not like he had any pull with the legal system to get Drake off. She wrote the letter to the judge, but that was only to ask for mercy when sentencing him.

3. Nancy legitimately has this recollection and wants to help Thomas. However, she eventually, for whatever reason, gets cold feet.

This seems unlikely. I don't see why she would issue a sworn statement, and then for reasons unknown not go through with her testimony.

4. Nancy legitimately has this recollection, initially wants to help Thomas, but decides to "punish" him for his wrongdoing in other aspects of their marriage (as stated on UM) so she backs down.

This is also possible. According to Nancy, she says that she remembered the white haired man shortly after Drake's first trial:

"The first time I ever remembered it, I was laying on the bed and I kept thinking about it and I thought that there was something wrong with him because I was dreaming things like that I shouldn't have even thought about."

This quote makes it seem like she genuinely remembered the attack after Drake's conviction. She also swore that it wasn't her way of trying to lie to get Drake off, and that was the initial reason why she didn't come forward at first, she thought people wouldn't believe her story about the white haired man.

I have to say that her view on the issue of whether she remembered or not is really difficult to disentangle. It is a huge issue, IMO, because if she legit remembers being attacked by someone other than her husband, then Drake is completely innocent.

Yep. She also gave details about the attack, not just a vague description. I can't see her either making it up on her own, or willingly going with a story that Drake fed her and not recanting after the fact when she appeared on UM.

Maybe the pressure of knowing that her testimony could make or break the case was too much and she caved. IDK.

I think it was the affair that left her scorned, personally.

It is kind of damning though that no one recalls a request to hang pictures by Nancy. She seems like one to follow the rules. That last observation is entirely subjective, but I feel okay saying it.

What I find equally intriguing is the story of the church burglary "weeks" before the attack. What was stolen? Was anything stolen? Could this have been the original attempt to steal the cash from the safe that proved unsuccessful?

Again, I don't see why Drake would have volunteered any information (about using the hammer to hang pictures) before being asked by police about the hammer. Since there were no fingerprints found on the hammer, Drake, if guilty, could have simply denied using it. And I never got the impression that it would have even been that big of a deal if Nancy didn't ask permission to hang the picture.

Detailed discussion about Starr was probably beyond the scope of the appeal. The fact that he was a "parishioner who was known to be in the building" (or however they phased it) was probably good enough. Again, not saying it's right, but the justices have a different role than the jury. Moreover, the audience that decision was written for does not require a more lengthy explanation of who Starr was or his role in the case.

Maybe not "detailed" in the sense that they go on and on, but at least they could have elaborated a bit beyond the parishioner explanation.

Disagree on the last sentence for reasons stated above but agree with the sentiment here. Yes, the fingerprint should have been checked out and clarified. Starr should have been questioned about it.

I have to believe that this angle was explored more thoroughly though primarily because the appeal mentions it at all. Starr may have testified at one, or both trials, for all we know.

I don't think Starr testified at Drake's trial. For one, the defense would have been able to pick him apart on the stand with regards to his shaky alibi, and could have discredited him had they called his sister.

Not checking out this lead is just bad investigating. I know bad investigating happens, but consider this - that detail had to make it to the trial stage because it is mentioned in the appeal. There is NO WAY that anyone at the trial would just say "CSI discovered latent prints at the crime scene and one just happened to trace back to Raymond Starr, a former mental patient and parishioner" and leave it at that. Starr would have to answer for it at some point.

Not necessarily. The prosecution could have tried to write it off as simple as the fact that Starr was a parishioner who was known to be in the office from time to time. To a jury who didn't know his mental history, the shaky alibi, and the scratches on him (this is all assuming this wasn't brought up at Drake's trials), that would appear to be a good enough explanation to them.

That could be a good reason for questioning Starr. No, I don't think UM elaborated on it. I believe it was Drake's former defense attorney who mentioned it (albeit briefly) that a former mental patient's prints were found at the scene. The majority of the segment I saw focused on the more sensational elements such as the Nancy/Thomas relationship, the affair, and the recollections about the man with white hair.

According to an old post, Starr denied ever being in the church that day. His print was found on a recently washed windowsill, yet he could offer no explanation as to why his print was found at the scene of the crime. Guess it kind of bugs me that of all the people tested (including Drake) for prints being found at the crime scene the only one that had a match was Starr.

I have to ask though, what made you change your mind about Drake's guilt? I recall a discussion we had a few years ago where you believed in his innocence (on that note, I thought it was in this same thread, but a quick perusal reveals nothing).

I'm not picking on you, just genuinely curious. Was it a specific point that made you reconsider?

For me, Drake's has always been a "totality of the circumstances" type of case. There isn't one specific thing that makes me think he is guilty, rather it's the collective, so to speak.

That's pretty much it, the lack of ever finding the white haired man, and the absence of motive for Starr (besides robbery). The big kicker was it just so happened that someone decided to attack Nancy on the day Drake was there giving her lunch at the precise time when no one was around besides Nancy, it just stretches the realm of probability to me. It's possible I guess, but there was only roughly a ten minute window for when Drake says he left to when Nancy was found beaten. Someone could have been waiting around for Drake to leave, but that just seems unlikely to me. While I don't put much stock in his police interview, just the whole timing of everything rubs me the wrong way. Moving the mistress in on the heels of Nancy's attack, and lying about it doesn't sit well with me.

Here is everything I could find on the Drake case. If anyone finds any bad links, or additional articles I missed, please let me know.

Husband Charged in Wife's Beating (8/5/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19830805&id=JFlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6927,1436948

Judge Denies Bond for Drake (8/13/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19830813&id=LFlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6805,4265874

Suspect in Beating Gets OK To Visit Wife (9/28/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19830928&id=xZIsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6768,3896169

Judge Suppresses Part of Drake House-Hunt Evidence (10/27/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831027&id=XbROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4672,4965372

Drake Prosecutions Agrees to Hold Back Some Evidence (11/15/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831115&id=dEdNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3515,5348193

Mrs. Drake to Testify on Tape (11/22/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831122&id=65MsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6435,2509424

Drake Case Time Frame in Dispute (11/29/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831129&id=7pMsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6457,5176226

Drake's Lover Thought He was Divorced (11/30/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831130&id=55MsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6586,5376520

Drake: "I Couldn't Do That to Her" (12/1/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831201&id=yLNOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6580,367401

Nancy Drake Takes Stand (12/1/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831201&id=yLNOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2155,93097

Jury Finds Drake Guilty (12/2/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831202&id=ybNOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5418,721835

Public Defender Seeks New Trial for Drake (12/10/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831210&id=0bNOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3985,3996456

Nancy Drake asks Mercy for Husband (12/15/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831215&id=1bNOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6920,5860548

Drake Trial (12/29/83)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831229&id=FqlOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=afsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4429,4787265

Drake: Husband was Not Assailant (1/7/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840107&id=dNwvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6360,2092692

Judge Orders Nancy Drake Re-evaluated (1/10/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840110&id=d9wvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6483,3424568

Drake: "Jury Convicted me on Morals, Not Evidence" (1/20/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840120&id=f9wvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ufsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7039,1398533

Judge Gives Drake New Trial (1/24/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840124&id=g9wvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ufsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4045,2779708

Motion Filed to Examine Nancy Drake (2/4/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840204&id=N4UwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6524,1327616

Judge Wants Doctor to Check Mrs. Drake (2/7/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840207&id=OoUwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4891,2906240

Judge: "Drake will Not Have to be Examined" (2/11/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840211&id=PYUwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3753,4200647

Prosecution Offers Reasons for Another Evaluation of Drake (2/17/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840217&id=gZpOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4975,736345

Judge Reluctantly Orders Drake Tests (2/22/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840222&id=hppOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6590,2737196

Lawyers Agree on Psychologists to Examine Nancy Drake (2/28/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840228&id=jJpOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5084,5250378

Drake Trial Scheduled to Begin March 26 in Wauchula (3/14/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840314&id=7dsvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mPsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3510,4736498

Drake's Second Trial Postponed (3/23/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840323&id=XdIvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fPsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6392,2476224

Drake Retrial Should Draw More Interest (4/16/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840416&id=MJEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6524,39547

Five Minutes the Focus in Drake retrial (4/17/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840417&id=KpEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2975,344727

Drake Says He Could Never Hit Wife (4/18/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840418&id=JZEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6472,560129

Drake Jury Breaks Without Verdict (4/19/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840419&id=DZBOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6535,1018951

Drake Again Guilty of Murder Attempt (4/20/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840420&id=DpBOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ffsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6297,1214643

Drake Gets Life: Parole Ruled Out (5/1/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19840501&id=mKdOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5887,218520

Beating Violated Loving Trust (5/3/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19840503&id=Wm4fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=02gEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6150,3308645

Man Gets Life for Trying to Kill Wife (5/3/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19840503&id=XgIzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=awYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6904,1686284

Man Sentenced in Beating (5/3/84)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19840503&id=9PEuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UM8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1232,1525583

Nancy Drake Divorcing Man Who Tried to Kill Her (2/27/85)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850227&id=fbkwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5PsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1559,4386948

Drake's Convictions Upheld (7/28/85)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850728&id=95QsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1779,4035678

Hammer Attack Victim will get Compensation, care for Life (12/12/85)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19851212&id=sO4vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=i_sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4606,6051924

Officials Reject Appeal (7/19/89)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19890719&id=RTkxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EfwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5226,2243296

Man Who Beat Wife Awaits Re-sentence (7/19/89)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19890719&id=RTkxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EfwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4780,2363744

TV Show on Local Convict Delayed (11/6/92)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19921106&id=Ua9NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T_wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5188,4168294

I was under the assumption that the FindACase website was Drake's appeal after his first conviction, but it was after the 2nd trial. That means there were two different people whom Nancy talked to this incident about, the neurosurgeon and Drake's attorney. The neurosurgeon makes no mention of a white haired man in his testimony, that's where the confusion came from.

Drake's first trial was held in November 1983. His second trial was held in April 1984. Nancy testified at the first trial, but only about her duties at the church and the Drakes' financial matters. She claimed at the time of the first trial that she could not remember the attack. At the second trial, Nancy was supposed to testify, and Drake's attorney even mentioned this fact in his opening. However, she did not take the stand.

The FindaCase appeal was from 1985 after both trials and convictions had been entered.

From what I read in the newspaper articles, it sounds as if Nancy's recollections of the white haired man attacking her came about AFTER the first trial. The fact that the white haired man was a suspect at all was mentioned in the first trial. However, this was based on Toth's (and possibly to a lesser extent Thomas Drake's) testimony that this unknown man had been loitering in the parking lot prior to the attack and never been positively identified. A composite sketch was even made from Toth's description. Shearer even suggested that the police gave up pursuing such leads when they found out about Thomas Drake's affairs.

Yes. But the 2nd jury did hear from the neurosurgeon who testified to Nancy's story, but also said that in his opinion she wouldn't have been able to remember details after the attack.

Yes, Dr. David Taxdal, Nancy's neurosurgeon, did testify at the second trial that he thought her recollections were suspect, as the part of her brain that would have stored memory required for her to remember the attack had been damaged.

One of the jurors even mentioned that Taxdale's testimony was partially why they voted to convict - because it convinced them that Nancy was lying to protect her husband.

The articles briefly mention some of the reasons both juries voted to convict.

- A juror from the first trial said there was no one piece of evidence, rather it was the whole case.

Jurors at the second trial cited different reasons including

- Taxdale's testimony,

- the extremely narrow time frame in which the crime occurred that precluded the possibility of someone else being there,

-Drake's own testimony and demeanor (Drake didn't testify at the first trial).

At least one juror (female) stated that she felt bad for Lopata and that Drake has ruined two womens' lives.

I honestly believe this is because of a lack of physical evidence found at the crime scene. The circumstantial evidence that exists for Drake (the mistress, the timing of moving her in, Drake's lies about the affair, etc.) does not exist for the other "suspects".

After re-reading those articles, I'm convinced there wasn't much of anything going for the two alternate theories/suspects (in the eyes of the jury and justices) - thus a lack of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as stated by the justices.

Starr did testify at the first trial (not so sure on the second, but I doubt it). Not much detail is given about what he said, but apparently it wasn't exculpatory since the jury still voted to convict Drake. Jury #1 also heard about the white haired man in the parking lot (though not Nancy's memories, as they hadn't returned yet). On that note, the two alternate theories about Starr and the unknown white haired man ARE mutually exclusive.

The second jury heard about Nancy's memories, but didn't find them convincing and suspected she was making these statements to get Thomas off.

My larger point is that both juries didn't seem impressed by the alternate theories, and I'm guessing the justices weren't either. Thus, he had no reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Lacking a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, prior case law dictates that circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction. I don't see any other explanation, and I agree with the justices' ruling.

I think he figured Nancy's testimony would have helped him, which is probably why he didn't take the plea deal.

Drake was offered plea deals twice, prior to both trials.

I think it is reasonable to assume that he would have expected her to testify at both. However, at the time of the first trial, I don't think he would have been banking on her testimony to help him because:

1. She told Kirby that her husband attacked her. At that point, Drake and counsel may not have known if this would be heard by the jury.

2. Her testimony in the first trial was eventually limited to details about their financial status and her church duties due to the fact that her memory was so impaired.

My point is that I don't think her testifying or not testifying would have had much bearing on his decision to plead out. If anything, it could have worked against him which would be another good reason to err on the side of caution and take a plea.

Interestingly, Drake was offered a plea deal prior to the start of the second trial. He rejected that too. In that case, I agree with you, he probably thought Nancy's testimony would clear him because that is what everyone thought, including the prosecution.

According to that article you linked, the police were looking for the white haired man who was acting and driving "suspiciously" in the area of the church at the time of Nancy's attack. Doesn't appear that it would be Starr, but then again without so much as a name, we'll never know.

I doubt the white haired man was Starr. Earlier articles suggested that both the white haired man and Starr were proffered as alternate suspects by Drake's defense at the first trial. Since Starr testified at the first trial and possibly the second, I can't see how the defense would try to say the white haired man was Starr. It makes no sense.

Possible. But she not only told Drake's attorney, but also her neurosurgeon. Why would she tell the doctor this? It's not like he had any pull with the legal system to get Drake off. She wrote the letter to the judge, but that was only to ask for mercy when sentencing him.

Yes, but Taxdale testified. Why wouldn't she tell him? It would be more support for the story. In the end it wasn't, but she had no way of knowing that Taxdale wouldn't believe her.

This seems unlikely. I don't see why she would issue a sworn statement, and then for reasons unknown not go through with her testimony.

That is essentially what happened though, right?

This is also possible. According to Nancy, she says that she remembered the white haired man shortly after Drake's first trial:

"The first time I ever remembered it, I was laying on the bed and I kept thinking about it and I thought that there was something wrong with him because I was dreaming things like that I shouldn't have even thought about."

This quote makes it seem like she genuinely remembered the attack after Drake's conviction. She also swore that it wasn't her way of trying to lie to get Drake off, and that was the initial reason why she didn't come forward at first, she thought people wouldn't believe her story about the white haired man.

and...

Yep. She also gave details about the attack, not just a vague description. I can't see her either making it up on her own, or willingly going with a story that Drake fed her and not recanting after the fact when she appeared on UM.

You know, I will say this....I always thought the story had the ring of truth. It is not implausible to think that because she was selling these concert tickets, conducting what probably amounted to mostly cash transactions, and being a female alone in that office that some opportunistic offender would take advantage of the opportunity. I don't find that unreasonable at all. Moreover, the specific detail of asking for change for the hundred dollar bill - just sounds "right" to me.

I think it was the affair that left her scorned, personally.

I disagree. If she really wanted to screw Drake over, she wouldn't have said anything about the white haired man at all. Drake was convicted after that first trial. She could have kept her mouth shut and the outcome would have been the same. Why then tell a story such as she told that generated enough doubt that he was able to get a new trial and leave open the possibility that he could walk?

What I find equally intriguing is the story of the church burglary "weeks" before the attack. What was stolen? Was anything stolen? Could this have been the original attempt to steal the cash from the safe that proved unsuccessful?

I struggle with this too. The FindaCase site mentions the burglary as discovered by the CSI technician. It is (albeit briefly) explained in that appeal that the burglary had occurred some weeks before. However, on Unsolved Mysteries, they make it sound like the burglary was connected to the attack on Nancy. There is mention of a fresh footprint, etc.

Here is something I just thought of...what if the burglary was an exit point following the attack? Not to be graphic, but the offender probably would have been covered in blood. They would have needed a discreet way to exit the building.

Or....it could be evidence of staging.

Or...it could suggest another intruder scenario. Maybe Nancy encountered a burglar.

Again, I don't see why Drake would have volunteered any information (about using the hammer to hang pictures) before being asked by police about the hammer. Since there were no fingerprints found on the hammer, Drake, if guilty, could have simply denied using it. And I never got the impression that it would have even been that big of a deal if Nancy didn't ask permission to hang the picture.

Again, it could go either way.

If innocent...Drake used the hammer recently (to hang pictures or whatever, he is shown fixing a shelf in the UM segment re-enactment), finds out it was used in the attack AND worries that his prints were on it and wants it to be known that there is an innocent reason why his prints were on it.

If guilty...Drake used the hammer to beat Nancy. He may or may not have used it recently to do other things in the building. He worries that forensics might still be able to detect his fingerprints. Thus, he offers an innocent explanation to Toth, possibly in the hope that she will corroborate his statement and possibly add credence to it if she is questioned about it later.

Either way, I think Drake did the right thing by disclosing that he used it. He would have had no way of knowing if they would find his prints.

Let's look at this another way...suppose they did find Drake's prints on the hammer. If he denied using it (as you suggested above) the cops will suspect he is lying and he's screwed. However, if he can offer an "innocent" explanation it becomes a wash.

This all brings me to a couple points that we have yet to discuss.

What do you think of the scene? Disorganized, organized?

If Drake did do it, could it have been a spur of the moment type deal? Such as an argument with Nancy that led to this?

I don't think Starr testified at Drake's trial. For one, the defense would have been able to pick him apart on the stand with regards to his shaky alibi, and could have discredited him had they called his sister.

He testified at the first trial according to the newspapers. I couldn't find anything either way about his testifying at the second. Personally, I doubt he was called to testify at the second trial because the focus then was that the white haired man attacked Nancy, and that clearly wasn't Starr.

Not necessarily. The prosecution could have tried to write it off as simple as the fact that Starr was a parishioner who was known to be in the office from time to time. To a jury who didn't know his mental history, the shaky alibi, and the scratches on him (this is all assuming this wasn't brought up at Drake's trials), that would appear to be a good enough explanation to them.

I wish we knew what Starr testified to. Personally, I don't think he is guilty and I'm starting to feel that his inclusion in the case is a bit of a red herring, but it would be nice to know for sure.

According to an old post, Starr denied ever being in the church that day. His print was found on a recently washed windowsill, yet he could offer no explanation as to why his print was found at the scene of the crime. Guess it kind of bugs me that of all the people tested (including Drake) for prints being found at the crime scene the only one that had a match was Starr.

Agreed. On UM, Shearer does imply that Starr was questioned about it but denied being at the church yet also was unable to offer an explanation for why his fingerprints were there.

That's pretty much it, the lack of ever finding the white haired man, and the absence of motive for Starr (besides robbery). The big kicker was it just so happened that someone decided to attack Nancy on the day Drake was there giving her lunch at the precise time when no one was around besides Nancy, it just stretches the realm of probability to me. It's possible I guess, but there was only roughly a ten minute window for when Drake says he left to when Nancy was found beaten. Someone could have been waiting around for Drake to leave, but that just seems unlikely to me. While I don't put much stock in his police interview, just the whole timing of everything rubs me the wrong way. Moving the mistress in on the heels of Nancy's attack, and lying about it doesn't sit well with me.

For what it's worth, Shearer did comment that the location where this occurred was very conservative. That may ahave tainted the jury pool who wouldn't have been down with some of Drake's antics.

Just a random observation...I don't understand Drake's take on Lapota. At the first trial, Drake didn't testify, though presumably Lapota did and told the truth about their relationship. In an interview given prior to the start of the second trial, Drake denies having sex with Lapota and says that they were just good friends. At the second trial, Drake acknowledges they were having an affair. Just weird.

From what I read in the newspaper articles, it sounds as if Nancy's recollections of the white haired man attacking her came about AFTER the first trial. The fact that the white haired man was a suspect at all was mentioned in the first trial. However, this was based on Toth's (and possibly to a lesser extent Thomas Drake's) testimony that this unknown man had been loitering in the parking lot prior to the attack and never been positively identified. A composite sketch was even made from Toth's description. Shearer even suggested that the police gave up pursuing such leads when they found out about Thomas Drake's affairs.

Yes, she said she remembered it after Drake had been convicted and sent to prison. Shearer has some credence to his story considering the odd timing of the found fingerprint on Starr and the seemingly lack of a followup.

Yes, Dr. David Taxdal, Nancy's neurosurgeon, did testify at the second trial that he thought her recollections were suspect, as the part of her brain that would have stored memory required for her to remember the attack had been damaged.

One of the jurors even mentioned that Taxdale's testimony was partially why they voted to convict - because it convinced them that Nancy was lying to protect her husband.

This would work both ways though. She told Kirby that she remembered Drake attacking her, but if Taxdal's testimony was believed by the jury any "recollection" testimony shouldn't have mattered.

- the extremely narrow time frame in which the crime occurred that precluded the possibility of someone else being there,

This has bugged me too.

-Drake's own testimony and demeanor (Drake didn't testify at the first trial).

At least one juror (female) stated that she felt bad for Lopata and that Drake has ruined two womens' lives.

I would take that to be that the juror in question held Drake responsible largely in part for the affair.

My larger point is that both juries didn't seem impressed by the alternate theories, and I'm guessing the justices weren't either. Thus, he had no reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Lacking a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, prior case law dictates that circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction. I don't see any other explanation, and I agree with the justices' ruling.

Without knowing if the fingerprint, the uncorroborated alibi, and the scratches on Starr being presented at either of Drake's trials, I don't see how this would not be enough for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

My point is that I don't think her testifying or not testifying would have had much bearing on his decision to plead out. If anything, it could have worked against him which would be another good reason to err on the side of caution and take a plea.

I figured that Nancy would have testified to Drake's good character and the lack of abuse, and how much he loved her, etc.

Interestingly, Drake was offered a plea deal prior to the start of the second trial. He rejected that too. In that case, I agree with you, he probably thought Nancy's testimony would clear him because that is what everyone thought, including the prosecution.

Yes, I do think if she testified he wouldn't have been convicted.

I doubt the white haired man was Starr. Earlier articles suggested that both the white haired man and Starr were proffered as alternate suspects by Drake's defense at the first trial. Since Starr testified at the first trial and possibly the second, I can't see how the defense would try to say the white haired man was Starr. It makes no sense.

Nope, they had to have been two separate people. Knowing that Starr testified at Drake's first trial would have proved this.

Yes, but Taxdale testified. Why wouldn't she tell him? It would be more support for the story. In the end it wasn't, but she had no way of knowing that Taxdale wouldn't believe her.

Just strikes me as odd that she would tell Taxdal that information, as opposed to other people like family, friends, etc. I just don't get why she would share this story with him, unless he quizzed her during one of their visits.

You know, I will say this....I always thought the story had the ring of truth. It is not implausible to think that because she was selling these concert tickets, conducting what probably amounted to mostly cash transactions, and being a female alone in that office that some opportunistic offender would take advantage of the opportunity. I don't find that unreasonable at all. Moreover, the specific detail of asking for change for the hundred dollar bill - just sounds "right" to me.

Exactly. This is the one part of the story, the little tidbit about change, that just seems like it happened. Now, without sounding completely ridiculous, I suppose it's possible that the white haired man did come in and ask for change for $100 to legitimately buy tickets, and then left, and then Nancy was attacked (By Drake or Starr), and she confused the story and her mind rearranged it wrong.

I disagree. If she really wanted to screw Drake over, she wouldn't have said anything about the white haired man at all. Drake was convicted after that first trial. She could have kept her mouth shut and the outcome would have been the same. Why then tell a story such as she told that generated enough doubt that he was able to get a new trial and leave open the possibility that he could walk?

According to the articles, Drake denied the affairs at the first trial but admitted to them at the second. It's reasonable to assume that Nancy believed Drake, but then when he admitted to them at the second trial, she turned on him.

I struggle with this too. The FindaCase site mentions the burglary as discovered by the CSI technician. It is (albeit briefly) explained in that appeal that the burglary had occurred some weeks before. However, on Unsolved Mysteries, they make it sound like the burglary was connected to the attack on Nancy. There is mention of a fresh footprint, etc.

Yes UM makes it seem like the burglary was committed within a small time period compared to Nancy's attack.

Here is something I just thought of...what if the burglary was an exit point following the attack? Not to be graphic, but the offender probably would have been covered in blood. They would have needed a discreet way to exit the building.

If this is true, and this wasn't a spur of the moment type attack, I would then have to assume that the assailant was someone other than Drake. Because if Drake planned on beating Nancy that day, he would have scoped out the church to make sure no one else was around, thereby meaning he wouldn't need to make a discreet attempt at escaping the scene undetected.

Or....it could be evidence of staging.

Or...it could suggest another intruder scenario. Maybe Nancy encountered a burglar.

Either of these are entirely possible.

If innocent...Drake used the hammer recently (to hang pictures or whatever, he is shown fixing a shelf in the UM segment re-enactment), finds out it was used in the attack AND worries that his prints were on it and wants it to be known that there is an innocent reason why his prints were on it.

If guilty...Drake used the hammer to beat Nancy. He may or may not have used it recently to do other things in the building. He worries that forensics might still be able to detect his fingerprints. Thus, he offers an innocent explanation to Toth, possibly in the hope that she will corroborate his statement and possibly add credence to it if she is questioned about it later.

I agree.

What do you think of the scene? Disorganized, organized?

If Drake did do it, could it have been a spur of the moment type deal? Such as an argument with Nancy that led to this?

I'd suggest disorganized scene, because Nancy's desk was ruffled through and the checks were stolen. Which makes it appear like it was a robbery gone wrong. And something else that I just thought of: if Drake is guilty, and this was a spur of the moment attack, how did Drake get Nancy to open the safe? Was the safe key locked, or with one of the dial locks? If it wasn't spur of the moment and was planned, how would Drake be able to coax Nancy into opening the safe before attacking her? This is where the $100 change story seems more likely, IMO.

He testified at the first trial according to the newspapers. I couldn't find anything either way about his testifying at the second. Personally, I doubt he was called to testify at the second trial because the focus then was that the white haired man attacked Nancy, and that clearly wasn't Starr.

I think this was a mistake on the part of Drake's defense. Starr was the more "likely" suspect of the two, and there was some, albeit minor, circumstantial evidence against Starr.

I wish we knew what Starr testified to. Personally, I don't think he is guilty and I'm starting to feel that his inclusion in the case is a bit of a red herring, but it would be nice to know for sure.

The fingerprint still bothers me.

Agreed. On UM, Shearer does imply that Starr was questioned about it but denied being at the church yet also was unable to offer an explanation for why his fingerprints were there.

This should have raised a ton of red flags to the investigators. If you have a suspect who cannot offer ANY explanation as to why his prints were found at the scene of any crime, he should instantly become a huge suspect.

Just a random observation...I don't understand Drake's take on Lapota. At the first trial, Drake didn't testify, though presumably Lapota did and told the truth about their relationship. In an interview given prior to the start of the second trial, Drake denies having sex with Lapota and says that they were just good friends. At the second trial, Drake acknowledges they were having an affair. Just weird.

The only thing I could think of, if he's innocent, is not wanting to get her involved in the case, so he lies to downplay her importance.

ETA: The FindACase appeal brief has to be leaving out certain information. For example, they mention that the associate Pastor, Poston, testified that when he called Drake to tell him that Nancy was attacked and headed to the hospital, he testified that Drake seemed "out of breath" like he rushed to get to the phone. But they leave out the fact that Poston also testified that Drake seemed genuinely concerned about Nancy and that he was "anxious" to get to the hospital.

After going back and reading an old post regarding Starr, I think it's possible that LE theorized that Starr may have been responsible for the burglary attempt, but not necessarily the attack on Nancy Drake. That could explain the fingerprint. What's odd to me is the length of time they spent interviewing Starr, it was roughly 20 minutes.

Yes, she said she remembered it after Drake had been convicted and sent to prison. Shearer has some credence to his story considering the odd timing of the found fingerprint on Starr and the seemingly lack of a followup.

The problem is that we can't say for sure the Starr lead wasn't followed up.

We know that Starr testified at least at the first trial. I am assuming that he was probably subpoenaed by the defense because the prosecution would likely have no interest in presenting information about other suspects aside from Drake unless their goal was to tear it down. Assuming the defense called Starr, Shearer should have nailed him on the very questions that we are asking today. I mean, no offense, but if Thomas Drake (the documents posted here regarding Starr's interrogation came from Drake) and members of this forum can find holes in Starr's testimony, then surely Drake's own defense and the investigators should have too.

That being said, I can only assume that whatever explanations Starr offered were acceptable to the jury, or at least not enough to constitute reasonable doubt to the point that they felt comfortable acquitting Drake.

This would work both ways though. She told Kirby that she remembered Drake attacking her, but if Taxdal's testimony was believed by the jury any "recollection" testimony shouldn't have mattered.

Here is something interesting...those very early articles mention that the reason Drake was arrested at all was because Nancy told Kirby that Drake attacked her. However, Nancy would never again say that Drake was the assailant. Assuming she recanted, I wonder if Drake could have challenged the probable cause for his arrest. As we have discussed, there is a paucity of evidence that Drake committed the crime. So where is the probable cause for his arrest?

I guess the flip side though is that Drake was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is about a fraction of that in terms of seriousness in the eyes of the criminal court.

Also, I really think the police and the DA's office wanted to go the distance with Drake regardless of what Nancy said. Even if she backed off on saying Thomas attacked her, the DA probably figured they had him dead to rights because of the affair, the "hit on your habit" comment, the insurance policy, and some of his inconsistent statements to investigators.

This has bugged me too.

Does the fact that Shearer tried to show the actual timeframe may have been more like 20-30 minutes do anything for you? I could be wrong but I believe the only time that is definitely accounted for with absolute certainly is the time the call to the authorities came in. I want to say it was at 12:58pm. All other estimates of time are based on eyewitness accounts. As an aside, all the clocks in my house have different times off by a minute or two.

I would take that to be that the juror in question held Drake responsible largely in part for the affair.

Agreed. But she is 1 of 12.

Without knowing if the fingerprint, the uncorroborated alibi, and the scratches on Starr being presented at either of Drake's trials, I don't see how this would not be enough for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Since the justices briefly described the reason for Starr's prints being there, I'm guessing some of this evidence was discussed at one or both trials. It must not have been all that earth shattering because the juries seemingly ignored it too.

I figured that Nancy would have testified to Drake's good character and the lack of abuse, and how much he loved her, etc.

Good point. Along those lines, did you notice in one of the later articles (post second conviction) that in considering sentencing the judge took in to consideration the fact that Drake had numerous past relationships/marriages including one in which the woman he was in a relationship with stated he was abusive, had fathered numerous children but didn't have relationships with any of them, and other character based factors, including prior arrest for robbery, in to account? I thought that was interesting.

Yes, I do think if she testified he wouldn't have been convicted.

Really tough to say, IMO, given her extremely fragile state and the fact that the state was coming at this from a "false memory syndrome" type stance, coupled with Taxdale's testimony, Drake's horrible presentation on the stand, and the other evidence, I still think it could have gone either way. I mean, at a minimum, you have to concede that, even without her testimony, the second jury did not believe her assertion that it wasn't Drake.

Just strikes me as odd that she would tell Taxdal that information, as opposed to other people like family, friends, etc. I just don't get why she would share this story with him, unless he quizzed her during one of their visits.

Being her doctor, her neurosurgeon no less, it wouldn't surprise me if Taxdale asked her various questions to assess memory functioning and impairment. It could have come out then. Also, at least one of the articles mentions something about her saying she was worried about her mental state when she had these recollections. Maybe she felt a need to tell Taxdale.

I also got the vibe from the articles that Nancy's parents thought Drake was guilty. She may not have felt comfortable disclosing the memories to them, especially if they thought Drake was having an undue influence on her.

Also, she did allegedly try to tell Thomas Drake in jail about the recovered memories but he told her to talk to his attorney. I think that is probably why she sought Shearer out.

Exactly. This is the one part of the story, the little tidbit about change, that just seems like it happened. Now, without sounding completely ridiculous, I suppose it's possible that the white haired man did come in and ask for change for $100 to legitimately buy tickets, and then left, and then Nancy was attacked (By Drake or Starr), and she confused the story and her mind rearranged it wrong.

I don't know, she was pretty adamant that this series of events led up to the attack (the guy asking for change, etc).

Not to mention, if the above is true, Thomas would have had to have been there (assuming he was the assailant, and the white haired man wasn't).

According to the articles, Drake denied the affairs at the first trial but admitted to them at the second. It's reasonable to assume that Nancy believed Drake, but then when he admitted to them at the second trial, she turned on him.

You honestly think Nancy never considered the possibility that the details Lapota testified to at the first trial were true? In other words, she didn't believe that Thomas was being unfaithful until he admitted it himself at the second trial? I don't know, I find that hard to believe.

Yes UM makes it seem like the burglary was committed within a small time period compared to Nancy's attack.

UM makes it seem that way. However, the FindaCase brief cites testimony from Kirby (or was it Poston?) that the burglary happened some weeks before. I guess this is another vague detail that is hard to pin down, like the Starr testimony.

However, I think it is critical to know.

If the burglary happened some weeks earlier, it was probably unrelated to the attack on Nancy - unless as you suggested earlier, someone "came back" to have a go at the safe.

If it happened on the day of the attack, it could suggest anything from staging to a point of exit, to a third scenario with Nancy encountering an intruder. Unfortunately, the reporting on this incident is too contradictory and sketchy.

If this is true, and this wasn't a spur of the moment type attack, I would then have to assume that the assailant was someone other than Drake. Because if Drake planned on beating Nancy that day, he would have scoped out the church to make sure no one else was around, thereby meaning he wouldn't need to make a discreet attempt at escaping the scene undetected.

I don't think it means anything one way or another. If Drake did commit the crime, I can't exactly see him walking out the front of the church covered in blood, no matter how confident he is that no one is around.

I'd suggest disorganized scene, because Nancy's desk was ruffled through and the checks were stolen. Which makes it appear like it was a robbery gone wrong. And something else that I just thought of: if Drake is guilty, and this was a spur of the moment attack, how did Drake get Nancy to open the safe? Was the safe key locked, or with one of the dial locks? If it wasn't spur of the moment and was planned, how would Drake be able to coax Nancy into opening the safe before attacking her? This is where the $100 change story seems more likely, IMO.

Regarding the safe, I have worked in offices where the safe is "dummy locked" throughout the day (i.e., closed and latched but the dial not spun). Of course, the safe is locked over night, but unlocked in the morning. Without knowing more details about the safe in the church office, and the standard operating procedures pertaining to use of the safe it's hard to guess.

I struggle with the organization issue. I think there is kind of a mixed presentation myself - but it depends on what the offender hoped to achieve.

Although it is difficult to do, I have tried my best to look at the attack in a vacuum, excluding all the details about Thomas and the affairs, etc. Hell, just forget the fact that Nancy is married for a moment....

Basically, what we have is a woman who was attacked with a hammer that was in the building already, the desk was rifled, and cash and checks were stolen from the safe.

Honestly, the crime of opportunity fits very neatly into that scenario. Some unknown offender hears or sees promotions for the church concert. Perhaps he was a parishioner at some point, or was otherwise familiar with the church. He walks in. Finds this woman alone. Maybe he intended to legitimately buy tickets, but all he has is the hundred. She goes to the safe to get change, he sees an opportunity to attack her and clean out the safe. The hammer is on the safe, he goes for it. Hits her etc.

Its is all very possible.

What I can't wrap my mind around though is the overkill. Why beat Nancy Drake to a pulp and clean out the safe? Hell, he could have punched her, or knocked her down, threatened her, or any one of a number of things here, cleaned out the safe and make good his escape. I just don't see why it was necessary to go to such extreme lengths to beat her as he did. Some of the doctors attributed Nancy's recovery to an unexplained medical miracle. I think it is reasonable to assume whoever did this wanted her dead.

The problem then becomes who could have wanted to kill Nancy Drake? Additionally, overkills are typically symptomatic of rage. The only viable suspect then is Drake. Then, when you factor in the double life, the low income yet promises of taking care of his mistress and her children, the insurance policy payouts, the callous moving of the girlfriend in, and I think a strong case can be made that Drake would have had the most to benefit from Nancy's death.

All of the above being said, however, I still have some problems with the scenario in which Drake is the assailant. There are little tidbits that don't sit right with me, but above all, I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around the mechanics of it. You've mentioned this before.

Consider...Drake presumably gets a call from his wife asking him to bring her lunch. He prepares that lunch, heads over to the church, clearly sees Toth leave, goes inside, hangs out with his wife for a bit, the couple even make a phone call to a third party that is audio recorded and everything sounds fine. So, what happened then? After all of the above transpires Drake decides it's time to get the hammer? He beats his wife to death (in his mind), then heads over to the safe, cleans that out, and makes good his escape. The whole thing is weird.

I think this was a mistake on the part of Drake's defense. Starr was the more "likely" suspect of the two, and there was some, albeit minor, circumstantial evidence against Starr.

I still don't see how this can be said without knowing more detail. All we know about Starr is that he had some mental problems, his fingerprint was on a window inside the office that had recently been washed, that he had a shaky alibi, and that he had some cuts and lacerations that he had odd explanations for. Also, I might add that one of the articles mentioned he had previously lived with a man who was a convicted murderer.

I don't mean to imply that the facts about Starr are not suspicious. They are. In fact, knowing what we do, I think he's a good suspect for the attack. Yet, I just can not believe that none of this was brought up at the trial when he testified. Afterall, it was the crux of the defense that Starr or the unknown white haired man attacked Nancy Drake.

ETA: The FindACase appeal brief has to be leaving out certain information. For example, they mention that the associate Pastor, Poston, testified that when he called Drake to tell him that Nancy was attacked and headed to the hospital, he testified that Drake seemed "out of breath" like he rushed to get to the phone. But they leave out the fact that Poston also testified that Drake seemed genuinely concerned about Nancy and that he was "anxious" to get to the hospital.

I'm not a legal scholar, but keep in mind that the appeal brief is just that, a brief. I've read a lot of these over the years, and frankly, the Drake appeal brief goes more in depth about the circumstances of the case than many others I've seen. I suspect the reason is that they had to assess whether the evidence was strong enough to support the convictions because Drake's argument was that the evidence was insufficient being that it was all primarily circumstantial. Moreover, those briefs are being written from the POV that the appellant is guilty, and the lower court correct in it's rulings. In written form, the decisions are brief, pointed, direct, and without unnecessary or excess language so that they are not leaving room for yet another appeal. Thus, those details you mentioned were probably irrelevant to the justices who authored the brief and also likely irrelevant to the intended audience (Drake and his attorney) because the latter already would have known those details anyway.

After going back and reading an old post regarding Starr, I think it's possible that LE theorized that Starr may have been responsible for the burglary attempt, but not necessarily the attack on Nancy Drake. That could explain the fingerprint. What's odd to me is the length of time they spent interviewing Starr, it was roughly 20 minutes.

I'm not sure I follow why you think the cops thought Starr was the burglar.

If they were asking him about his activities at the time of the attack, and the cuts on his face, I think it is logical to assume he was being questioned as a suspect in the attack itself.

Also, keep in mind, if the timeline is correct, the cops didn't know about the fingerprint at the time of that interrogation. The report from FDLE hadn't been issued yet.

The problem is that we can't say for sure the Starr lead wasn't followed up.

We know that Starr testified at least at the first trial. I am assuming that he was probably subpoenaed by the defense because the prosecution would likely have no interest in presenting information about other suspects aside from Drake unless their goal was to tear it down. Assuming the defense called Starr, Shearer should have nailed him on the very questions that we are asking today. I mean, no offense, but if Thomas Drake (the documents posted here regarding Starr's interrogation came from Drake) and members of this forum can find holes in Starr's testimony, then surely Drake's own defense and the investigators should have too.

It's possible that Shearer didn't do that good of a job in getting to Starr. It's also possible that on cross, if Starr was a defense witness, the prosecution highlighted the fact that he was a member of the church and was known to be in the office from time to time. The jury could have believed that.

That being said, I can only assume that whatever explanations Starr offered were acceptable to the jury, or at least not enough to constitute reasonable doubt to the point that they felt comfortable acquitting Drake.

But according to the LE report, he couldn't offer an explanation as to why his print was found at the crime scene. That's a huge red flag.

Also, I really think the police and the DA's office wanted to go the distance with Drake regardless of what Nancy said. Even if she backed off on saying Thomas attacked her, the DA probably figured they had him dead to rights because of the affair, the "hit on your habit" comment, the insurance policy, and some of his inconsistent statements to investigators.

That would be pretty ballsy of the DA considering:

-Taxdal would testify that Nancy would not remember anything about her attack or who attacked her.
-The affair could be rebutted by the old, "an adulterer does not make you a murderer" argument. And not only that, but Nancy was spending the majority of her time at the church 7 days a week. That's enough to put a strain on a relationship. I'm not justifying the affair, but this could have been brought up as a defense ploy to play down the affair angle in the case.
-Nancy's testimony that the insurance policy was her idea.
-Drake also repeatedly told investigators he could never do that to Nancy.

Does the fact that Shearer tried to show the actual timeframe may have been more like 20-30 minutes do anything for you? I could be wrong but I believe the only time that is definitely accounted for with absolute certainly is the time the call to the authorities came in. I want to say it was at 12:58pm. All other estimates of time are based on eyewitness accounts. As an aside, all the clocks in my house have different times off by a minute or two.

Absolutely. The witness who discovered Nancy was simply guessing every time she accounted for time. It easily could have been a longer period of time. And the paramedics arrived shortly before 1:00 p.m., IIRC. The last time someone was seen at the church other than Drake or Nancy, was Althea Toth who estimated that she left at 12:20 p.m. But she too could have been mistaken on the time. The time frame could easily jump from 10 to 35 minutes with witnesses misremembering times. Also of note, Starr did not have a corroborated alibi during the noon that day until after 1 p.m. And I'm not sure, maybe you remember, but the DJ phone call that was placed that day...was it confirmed via call logs, or simply the DJ's memory? His testimony was that the call ended at 12:30, but I don't know if there was concrete evidence that this was true. Because if there is a call log, that lessens the window considerably. Even if the lady who discovered Nancy was off by 5 minutes or so, that would still leave roughly 15 minutes between the time Drake says he left until when Nancy was discovered. And that would not look good for Drake.

Agreed. But she is 1 of 12.

All it takes is one for a mistrial.

Since the justices briefly described the reason for Starr's prints being there, I'm guessing some of this evidence was discussed at one or both trials. It must not have been all that earth shattering because the juries seemingly ignored it too.

That doesn't bother you at all that it appears like the justices simply wrote off Starr's fingerprint at a crime scene simply because he was a parishioner? It just seems like the one of the worst explanations you could have as to why something was found of yours at a crime scene.

Good point. Along those lines, did you notice in one of the later articles (post second conviction) that in considering sentencing the judge took in to consideration the fact that Drake had numerous past relationships/marriages including one in which the woman he was in a relationship with stated he was abusive, had fathered numerous children but didn't have relationships with any of them, and other character based factors, including prior arrest for robbery, in to account? I thought that was interesting.

IIRC, that prior arrest was brought up in the UM segment. I believe that Drake was saying that the affair and prior arrest helped taint his image to the jury. Aside from the one woman who said he was abusive, all that shows is the guy was a serial philanderer.

Really tough to say, IMO, given her extremely fragile state and the fact that the state was coming at this from a "false memory syndrome" type stance, coupled with Taxdale's testimony, Drake's horrible presentation on the stand, and the other evidence, I still think it could have gone either way. I mean, at a minimum, you have to concede that, even without her testimony, the second jury did not believe her assertion that it wasn't Drake.

This is where I would love to have a transcript to see how Drake did on cross examination. Did he come across as arrogant a la Jeffrey MacDonald on the stand? How did he respond to the prosecution's questioning, etc.

Being her doctor, her neurosurgeon no less, it wouldn't surprise me if Taxdale asked her various questions to assess memory functioning and impairment. It could have come out then. Also, at least one of the articles mentions something about her saying she was worried about her mental state when she had these recollections. Maybe she felt a need to tell Taxdale.

You're probably right. Taxdal could have simply asked her how her memory was functioning, and she then related the story to him about the white haired man.

I also got the vibe from the articles that Nancy's parents thought Drake was guilty. She may not have felt comfortable disclosing the memories to them, especially if they thought Drake was having an undue influence on her.

Yes, they appeared to believe in Drake's guilt.

Also, she did allegedly try to tell Thomas Drake in jail about the recovered memories but he told her to talk to his attorney. I think that is probably why she sought Shearer out.

This seems to indicate that Drake wasn't feeding her the story.

You honestly think Nancy never considered the possibility that the details Lapota testified to at the first trial were true? In other words, she didn't believe that Thomas was being unfaithful until he admitted it himself at the second trial? I don't know, I find that hard to believe.

Yes. She mouthed, "I love you" to him after testifying, and repeatedly asked to see him after he was taken out of court. I think she was still blindly in love with him at that point, and believed what Drake was telling her, that he and Lapota were "just friends". It was only until after she found out that he did admit to it that her stance changed. It's obvious in her actions between the first and second trials.

If the burglary happened some weeks earlier, it was probably unrelated to the attack on Nancy - unless as you suggested earlier, someone "came back" to have a go at the safe.

If it happened on the day of the attack, it could suggest anything from staging to a point of exit, to a third scenario with Nancy encountering an intruder. Unfortunately, the reporting on this incident is too contradictory and sketchy.

Yes, I agree. Although the staging aspect seems odd, if Drake was guilty. He was concerned about his prints being on the hammer, and I would think that if he attempted to "stage" the scene, he would voice concern or offer an "innocent" explanation as to why he handled the window that day.

I don't think it means anything one way or another. If Drake did commit the crime, I can't exactly see him walking out the front of the church covered in blood, no matter how confident he is that no one is around.

No, but I don't think he'd want to stick around trying to stage the scene either.

Regarding the safe, I have worked in offices where the safe is "dummy locked" throughout the day (i.e., closed and latched but the dial not spun). Of course, the safe is locked over night, but unlocked in the morning. Without knowing more details about the safe in the church office, and the standard operating procedures pertaining to use of the safe it's hard to guess.

According to one of those articles, in closing, the prosecution contended that Drake forced Nancy to open the safe before attacking her. I would think there was some evidence of it being locked or they wouldn't have mentioned that in closing.

Basically, what we have is a woman who was attacked with a hammer that was in the building already, the desk was rifled, and cash and checks were stolen from the safe.

Honestly, the crime of opportunity fits very neatly into that scenario. Some unknown offender hears or sees promotions for the church concert. Perhaps he was a parishioner at some point, or was otherwise familiar with the church. He walks in. Finds this woman alone. Maybe he intended to legitimately buy tickets, but all he has is the hundred. She goes to the safe to get change, he sees an opportunity to attack her and clean out the safe. The hammer is on the safe, he goes for it. Hits her etc.

Its is all very possible.

I agree. Although this could have, as you've suggested earlier, been Nancy interrupting a burglary attempt as well.

What I can't wrap my mind around though is the overkill. Why beat Nancy Drake to a pulp and clean out the safe? Hell, he could have punched her, or knocked her down, threatened her, or any one of a number of things here, cleaned out the safe and make good his escape. I just don't see why it was necessary to go to such extreme lengths to beat her as he did. Some of the doctors attributed Nancy's recovery to an unexplained medical miracle. I think it is reasonable to assume whoever did this wanted her dead.

I say the same thing every time someone robs a liquor or convenience store and feels the need to murder the clerk. The only plausible explanation, in their sick minds, is to not leave a witness. And for all we know, Nancy could have started screaming, and (sorry to sound graphic) the repeated blows were an attempt to silence her.

The problem then becomes who could have wanted to kill Nancy Drake? Additionally, overkills are typically symptomatic of rage. The only viable suspect then is Drake. Then, when you factor in the double life, the low income yet promises of taking care of his mistress and her children, the insurance policy payouts, the callous moving of the girlfriend in, and I think a strong case can be made that Drake would have had the most to benefit from Nancy's death.

I do agree that Drake would have benefited the most from Nancy's death. My question to that is, why not make sure she was dead, if that was Drake's intention? Why not shoot her after forcing her to open up the safe and then make a quick exit? Why not strangle her, etc. Why even do it in the church at all? It just seems like a spurt of the moment frenzied attack to me, not something planned out in advance.

Consider...Drake presumably gets a call from his wife asking him to bring her lunch. He prepares that lunch, heads over to the church, clearly sees Toth leave, goes inside, hangs out with his wife for a bit, the couple even make a phone call to a third party that is audio recorded and everything sounds fine. So, what happened then? After all of the above transpires Drake decides it's time to get the hammer? He beats his wife to death (in his mind), then heads over to the safe, cleans that out, and makes good his escape. The whole thing is weird.

Exactly. I'm glad you brought up the phone call to the DJ, because according to him, their conversation was normal and everything appeared fine. And he talked to both Drake and Nancy. But in one of those articles, the prosecution contends that the DJ phone call is a "strong piece of circumstantial evidence" that shows Drake had planned on killing his wife that day. Without any elaboration. And that doesn't make any sense to me.

And that's the toughest part about being able to say that Drake is 100% guilty. His actions that day do not strike me as someone who was deadset on killing his wife after he brought her lunch. Why on Earth would he go through with it after being seen and conversing with various parishioners who would place him there? And if this was an argument that escalated to violence, what the hell could have happened in the time between that phone call from the DJ until the time that Drake left?

I still don't see how this can be said without knowing more detail. All we know about Starr is that he had some mental problems, his fingerprint was on a window inside the office that had recently been washed, that he had a shaky alibi, and that he had some cuts and lacerations that he had odd explanations for. Also, I might add that one of the articles mentioned he had previously lived with a man who was a convicted murderer.

I don't mean to imply that the facts about Starr are not suspicious. They are. In fact, knowing what we do, I think he's a good suspect for the attack. Yet, I just can not believe that none of this was brought up at the trial when he testified. Afterall, it was the crux of the defense that Starr or the unknown white haired man attacked Nancy Drake.

This is all true, and granted I'm basing everything on the small amount of evidence we have to go on, but I just personally wouldn't have been able to convict with the information we have regarding Starr.

I'm not a legal scholar, but keep in mind that the appeal brief is just that, a brief. I've read a lot of these over the years, and frankly, the Drake appeal brief goes more in depth about the circumstances of the case than many others I've seen. I suspect the reason is that they had to assess whether the evidence was strong enough to support the convictions because Drake's argument was that the evidence was insufficient being that it was all primarily circumstantial. Moreover, those briefs are being written from the POV that the appellant is guilty, and the lower court correct in it's rulings. In written form, the decisions are brief, pointed, direct, and without unnecessary or excess language so that they are not leaving room for yet another appeal. Thus, those details you mentioned were probably irrelevant to the justices who authored the brief and also likely irrelevant to the intended audience (Drake and his attorney) because the latter already would have known those details anyway.

Yes, I think I just realized how much of an idiot I am. I thought that the FindaCase stuff broke down the cases, good and bad for the defendant. But that was only after reading a "dissenting" opinion on one of the previous UM cases. Naturally, the justices affirming a conviction would leave certain things out.

I'm not sure I follow why you think the cops thought Starr was the burglar.

If they were asking him about his activities at the time of the attack, and the cuts on his face, I think it is logical to assume he was being questioned as a suspect in the attack itself.

Also, keep in mind, if the timeline is correct, the cops didn't know about the fingerprint at the time of that interrogation. The report from FDLE hadn't been issued yet.

Initially, they were questioning him as a suspect for the attack. And that's another thing I'd like to know: how was Starr even a suspect at that point, without even knowing about the print being found? After finding out about the print, I was just theorizing that it was possible that LE believed Starr could have been involved in the burglary, thereby giving a reason as to why he wouldn't want to divulge the fact that his print was found there. Which in turn, would then shift the focus back on Drake. But you have to wonder why he, when being re-questioned (if he even was), was not looked at more seriously as a suspect after being confronted with the fact that his print was found at the scene of the crime, on a window that was "recently cleaned". It appears like they went on after Drake full steam ahead, and despite evidence of Starr being at the scene, stayed the course and built a case against Drake.

It's possible that Shearer didn't do that good of a job in getting to Starr. It's also possible that on cross, if Starr was a defense witness, the prosecution highlighted the fact that he was a member of the church and was known to be in the office from time to time. The jury could have believed that.

This got me thinking about Lawrence Shearer, Drake's attorney. Apparently, he is still practicing law. Here is his website:

http://www.mcdonaldshearer.com/

The bio on Shearer indicates that he started practicing law in 1977. Like many new criminal defense attorneys, he worked for the public defender's office. He would have been practicing for roughly 6 years at the time of the Drake trials.

Granted, I know nothing about the man aside from seeing his interview on Unsolved Mysteries, reading about his defense of Drake in the papers, and the biographical info on his website, but a part of me wonders if he was just not experienced enough at the time of the Drake trial to really put on a good defense.

But according to the LE report, he couldn't offer an explanation as to why his print was found at the crime scene. That's a huge red flag.

Just to be clear, that information that Starr could not offer an explanation came from Shearer. He says on Unsolved Mysteries that Starr could not explain his print being there. I may be wrong, but I don't know that Starr was questioned by the cops about his prints being there. This is just another thing that we don't know. Was there a second interview with Starr after FDLE published that report? Of course, they were nearly a month in to building a case against Thomas Drake when that report was issued, but any investigator worth their salt should have still followed up with Starr regardless.

That would be pretty ballsy of the DA considering:

-Taxdal would testify that Nancy would not remember anything about her attack or who attacked her.
-The affair could be rebutted by the old, "an adulterer does not make you a murderer" argument. And not only that, but Nancy was spending the majority of her time at the church 7 days a week. That's enough to put a strain on a relationship. I'm not justifying the affair, but this could have been brought up as a defense ploy to play down the affair angle in the case.
-Nancy's testimony that the insurance policy was her idea.
-Drake also repeatedly told investigators he could never do that to Nancy.

I don't mean this pejoratively, but do you think the state was warranted to charge Drake given the existing evidence? In other words, should Drake have even entered the system at all, in your view?

Absolutely. The witness who discovered Nancy was simply guessing every time she accounted for time. It easily could have been a longer period of time. And the paramedics arrived shortly before 1:00 p.m., IIRC. The last time someone was seen at the church other than Drake or Nancy, was Althea Toth who estimated that she left at 12:20 p.m. But she too could have been mistaken on the time. The time frame could easily jump from 10 to 35 minutes with witnesses misremembering times. Also of note, Starr did not have a corroborated alibi during the noon that day until after 1 p.m. And I'm not sure, maybe you remember, but the DJ phone call that was placed that day...was it confirmed via call logs, or simply the DJ's memory? His testimony was that the call ended at 12:30, but I don't know if there was concrete evidence that this was true. Because if there is a call log, that lessens the window considerably. Even if the lady who discovered Nancy was off by 5 minutes or so, that would still leave roughly 15 minutes between the time Drake says he left until when Nancy was discovered. And that would not look good for Drake.

I'll have to go back and check, but I don't think a definitive time was ever established for this call. It is possible (I would actually say probable) that the call was local and therefore did not generate a charge, so the phone company may not have had a record of it (does the phone company keep records of non-toll calls?)

According to FindaCase, the call was placed some time between 12:15 and 12:30pm. It was tape recorded and lasted about 9 minutes.

Let's look at the time frame...

According to FindaCase, Toth claims she arrived at 12:25pm and left at 12:30pm.

Drake himself says he arrived as Toth was leaving, so if Toth's time estimate is to be believed, that puts Drake's arrival as 12:30pm.

However, Drake told investigators that he arrived at 12:15pm and was gone by 12:30pm. He also told investigators that he pulled in as Toth was pulling out.

So, somebody is off on their times here. Is it Drake or Toth?

If the timing of the phone call was between 12:15 and 12:30, it could really fit either account. Obviously, we know Drake had to be on the scene at the time the call was made since he talked on the tape.

Giving Drake the benefit of the doubt, and assuming Toth was off on her time by several minutes, it is possible that Drake could have arrived at 12:15, been there long enough to make that 9 minute phone call, and still left at 12:30pm just as he told the police.

What is troubling though is if we assume that Toth is correct...

If Toth arrived at 12:25 and departed by 12:30 as Drake was pulling in, then he and Nancy would have had to make that 9 minute phone call that would put the time at the end of the call at 12:40ish.

Shirley Whitehead says that she found Nancy at 12:40.

Assuming Toth's timeline is correct, that's not good for Drake because we're looking at a less than 10 minute window for the attack to occur.

I think the biggest trouble is everyone could be innocently off by a few minutes here and there. Hell, even if we do assume the worst case scenario (Drake being guilty) I still don't think he would have had enough time to do everything (the phone call, the attack, clean up, and depart) between 12:30pm and 12:40pm.

I will say though that it appears pretty tight regardless and that isn't good for Drake. Even Drake himself says that he left the church at 12:30, so if he's right, that still leaves only about a 10 minute window (give or take) during which the intruder scenario (Starr, white haired man, burglar) could have come in to play and before Shirley Whitehead found Nancy.

More to come...

This got me thinking about Lawrence Shearer, Drake's attorney. Apparently, he is still practicing law. Here is his website:

http://www.mcdonaldshearer.com/

The bio on Shearer indicates that he started practicing law in 1977. Like many new criminal defense attorneys, he worked for the public defender's office. He would have been practicing for roughly 6 years at the time of the Drake trials.

Granted, I know nothing about the man aside from seeing his interview on Unsolved Mysteries, reading about his defense of Drake in the papers, and the biographical info on his website, but a part of me wonders if he was just not experienced enough at the time of the Drake trial to really put on a good defense.

I don't know. Drake's appeals seemed to be with regards to the "hit you on your habit" remark being admitted into evidence, his dreams being admitted, and that he believed he had enough for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. There really wasn't anything in terms of bad lawyering per se, so without the trial transcripts we'll never know.

Just to be clear, that information that Starr could not offer an explanation came from Shearer. He says on Unsolved Mysteries that Starr could not explain his print being there. I may be wrong, but I don't know that Starr was questioned by the cops about his prints being there. This is just another thing that we don't know. Was there a second interview with Starr after FDLE published that report? Of course, they were nearly a month in to building a case against Thomas Drake when that report was issued, but any investigator worth their salt should have still followed up with Starr regardless.

Yes, I would sure hope they followed up on Starr after the fingerprint was found. My only issue here is, if Shearer is correct, and Starr couldn't offer an explanation as to why his print was found at the crime scene, is why the police were still dead set on charging Drake?

I don't mean this pejoratively, but do you think the state was warranted to charge Drake given the existing evidence? In other words, should Drake have even entered the system at all, in your view?

Wow, that's a tough call. On the one hand, the circumstantial evidence against Drake should have been enough to warrant him as the prime suspect in the case. On the other hand, nothing of substance could be used against Drake that was found at the crime scene. He admitted to being there prior to the attack, yet no prints were found. But Starr, who claims to not have been in the church that day, had his print found at the crime scene with no explanation. That would have given me pause with going ahead and charging Drake. But then again, if the police believed in the timeline being no longer than ten minutes between the last time anyone saw Drake and Nancy up until she was found beaten, they would have no choice but to charge Drake. The time frame would be too small for a 3rd party to have attacked Nancy, IMO.

Let's look at the time frame...

According to FindaCase, Toth claims she arrived at 12:25pm and left at 12:30pm.

Drake himself says he arrived as Toth was leaving, so if Toth's time estimate is to be believed, that puts Drake's arrival as 12:30pm.

This was according to Toth, her estimates could be off by 5-10 minutes. Drake's arrival time could have been as early as 12:15, as he said.

So, somebody is off on their times here. Is it Drake or Toth?

I think there's enough room for error in both accounts for both to be accurate. It could have been 12:18, 12:17, etc. Either one could have been off by minutes and still roughly had the same time frame.

Giving Drake the benefit of the doubt, and assuming Toth was off on her time by several minutes, it is possible that Drake could have arrived at 12:15, been there long enough to make that 9 minute phone call, and still left at 12:30pm just as he told the police.

Right. And if Morgan, the DJ, was closer to the 12:15 time of the phone call being placed, that makes the window of opportunity even bigger.

If Toth arrived at 12:25 and departed by 12:30 as Drake was pulling in, then he and Nancy would have had to make that 9 minute phone call that would put the time at the end of the call at 12:40ish.

Shirley Whitehead says that she found Nancy at 12:40.

Assuming Toth's timeline is correct, that's not good for Drake because we're looking at a less than 10 minute window for the attack to occur.

Right. Whitehead she arrived at the parking lot at 12:40. There is no time given to when she actually got out and found Nancy in the office. The pastor says that he got back to the church at 12:47, and was told a "minute or two" later by employees at a nearby car dealership that someone was hurt in the church. He went in and found Nancy in the office as well. The ambulance left with Nancy at 1:09, and this is when the pastor says he called Drake to tell him about Nancy. IIRC, someone or maybe even UM, had previously stated that the Drake's lived about 5 miles away from the church. This could be meaningless, but if Drake was guilty, he had plenty of time to leave the scene, clean up, and wait for the phone call. I don't see how he would need to "rush" to the phone, as the pastor testified.

I think the biggest trouble is everyone could be innocently off by a few minutes here and there. Hell, even if we do assume the worst case scenario (Drake being guilty) I still don't think he would have had enough time to do everything (the phone call, the attack, clean up, and depart) between 12:30pm and 12:40pm.

I agree. Assuming Drake is innocent for a second, if the white haired man in the lot (or even Starr for argument's sake) were loitering in the parking lot waiting for Drake to leave (since he and Nancy were the only two present at the church after Toth left), the ten minute window would still be enough time to go in, attack Nancy, steal the cash, and leave.

This is where I go back to the tidbit about asking for change for $100. It would appear to be more accurate of a detail considering, again assuming Drake is innocent, this guy didn't use a weapon that he brought himself, he used one from the church office. So he had nothing to threaten Nancy or demand that she open the safe. It's the only way she could have opened it without feeling threatened that makes sense.

I will say though that it appears pretty tight regardless and that isn't good for Drake. Even Drake himself says that he left the church at 12:30, so if he's right, that still leaves only about a 10 minute window (give or take) during which the intruder scenario (Starr, white haired man, burglar) could have come in to play and before Shirley Whitehead found Nancy.

But it's possible that Whitehead was off with her timing as well. She could have found Nancy as late as 12:45, and according to FindACase, Toyota workers were already assembled in the parking lot by the time Poston, the pastor, arrived back at the church. So the dealership had to be a hop, skip, and a jump away from the church. For argument's sake, let's say Drake arrived between 12:15 and 12:20. This would mean that he left the church between 12:24 and 12:29. Nancy is discovered between 12:40 and 12:45. That lengthens the window of opportunity from 10 minutes to 20.

More to come...

Looking forward to it!

Just to quickly add, the FindACase site lists the fact that Starr's print was found on a "door window", presumably to the office that Nancy was found in. What I'd like to know is whether or not the print was found on the exterior of the door or on the interior. Because if it were on the exterior, I could write it off as Starr simply entering the church office at one point for something mundane. But if it was on the interior, and if the statement about the window recently being washed is accurate, that would mean Starr was inside the office at some point after the windows were washed (the day of Nancy's attack) up until the crime scene investigators got there.

That doesn't bother you at all that it appears like the justices simply wrote off Starr's fingerprint at a crime scene simply because he was a parishioner? It just seems like the one of the worst explanations you could have as to why something was found of yours at a crime scene.

Considering the fact that the justices were reading the trial transcripts and based their decision off of them, I'm assuming that there must have been some testimony at either the first, second, or both trials about Starr's fingerprints being on the scene. Unfortunately, short of reading the transcripts ourselves, we have no way of knowing what this testimony was. However, I think it is safe to assume that whatever this testimony was, it wasn't good enough to constitute a reasonable hypothesis of innocence because ultimately Drake's appeal was denied.

Remember, the FindaCase brief is just a summary. In their write up of the matter, the justices handled it by saying that Starr was a parishioner and known to be in the building at times. Of course, they are basing this off of transcripts of testimony, direct, and cross examination that was probably much lengthier. There may have been more in depth explanations (that we aren't privy to without the transcripts) as to why his fingerprints were there.

I never meant to imply Starr's fingerprints being there without a reasonable explanation was not important. It is a huge red flag. All I'm saying is that it must have been addressed at some point because Starr did testify at the first trial. Again, we don't know what all was said, but it must not have been anything that would turn the tide because Drake was convicted by the jury, and it didn't become an issue on appeal.

IIRC, that prior arrest was brought up in the UM segment. I believe that Drake was saying that the affair and prior arrest helped taint his image to the jury. Aside from the one woman who said he was abusive, all that shows is the guy was a serial philanderer.

All of those facts were used by the judge to determine Drake's sentence, not his culpability. Of course, if any of this was mentioned during the trial stage, I agree it would have tainted Drake's image before the jury. I can't imagine much of it was let in, as it is prejudicial as Hell.

This is where I would love to have a transcript to see how Drake did on cross examination. Did he come across as arrogant a la Jeffrey MacDonald on the stand? How did he respond to the prosecution's questioning, etc.

I've actually been thinking of trying to get the transcripts. I don't know if they would release them to me since I'm not a party to the case. Also, I don't know how much something like that would cost, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be cheap since there are likely hundreds of pages that would have to be duplicated. If anyone has any pointers as to whom I might contact about getting the transcripts and an estimate for copying, I would appreciate it.

You're probably right. Taxdal could have simply asked her how her memory was functioning, and she then related the story to him about the white haired man.

Or, to look at this another way, if she decided to invent the story (either due to pressure from Drake or because she genuinely wanted to get Drake off the hook for her own reasons) perhaps she figured that telling Taxdale would add credibility to the story. I think I said this earlier, but she really had no way of knowing if Taxdale would believe her recollections were accurate, or what he would testify to if called.

This seems to indicate that Drake wasn't feeding her the story.

Could go either way. If Drake invented the story and fed it to Nancy he probably would have advised her to repeat the story to Shearer. Afterall, Shearer was the only person who could do anything for Drake in a legal sense at that point (post first trial conviction, pre-sentening).

Yes. She mouthed, "I love you" to him after testifying, and repeatedly asked to see him after he was taken out of court. I think she was still blindly in love with him at that point, and believed what Drake was telling her, that he and Lapota were "just friends". It was only until after she found out that he did admit to it that her stance changed. It's obvious in her actions between the first and second trials.

There could be different reasons for her actions between the first and second trials.

Honestly, I don't think it hit me until re-reading those articles how much in love she still was with Drake after the first trial. From the articles, I get the impression she loved him very much and was desperate for Drake to come home.

I think it is possible that she could have either invented the story about the white haired man all on her own or been influenced by Drake to invent the story so he could get off, or a combination of both scenarios.

Then, when Drake testified at the second trial, she realized the gravity of the situation and began having doubts as to his innocence (realizing that he lied about Lapota and other aspects in the case) and true intentions, and she decided not to go through with her false testimony. It is certainly possible, and there wouldn't be any malice on her part required in that scenario.

Yes, I agree. Although the staging aspect seems odd, if Drake was guilty. He was concerned about his prints being on the hammer, and I would think that if he attempted to "stage" the scene, he would voice concern or offer an "innocent" explanation as to why he handled the window that day.

If Drake was guilty, I don't think he would have had much choice in staging the scene to look like a robbery or something along those lines. Afterall, no one would just walk in to the church office, beat her to death, and leave without a reason.

In terms of why he was worried about his prints being on the hammer versus the window, who knows? It is possible that he was more concerned about his prints being on the hammer simply because it was the weapon.

Also, your insinuation about staging is coming from the perspective that the window being forced open was related to the attack. As discussed previously, and I still say, we have no way of knowing if it indeed was related to the attack because we have conflicting reports about whether the burglary was committed weeks prior (FindaCase) or on the day of (Unsolved Mysteries).

No, but I don't think he'd want to stick around trying to stage the scene either.

If guilty, he would have had no choice but to stage something regardless of how much time it took. And really, if you think about it, not much was done aside from rifling through the desk and emptying the safe. Such actions could have taken less than a minute or two.

Again, the window being forced open is too ambiguous given the contradictory information. However, if you want to believe he opened the window, that would have added more time.

According to one of those articles, in closing, the prosecution contended that Drake forced Nancy to open the safe before attacking her. I would think there was some evidence of it being locked or they wouldn't have mentioned that in closing.

I have to admit that I missed that detail.

All I can say is...damn.

I don't know what to say. I mean, it is a horrible crime as is. Just the thought of him forcing her to open the safe beforehand makes it seem worse for some reason. Then factor in the dreams he had of her crying out..."No Tom," "Stop Tom," etc.

I guess in my mind I always figured that Drake beat her first, then went to the safe (which was either open or dummy locked). It is a more psychologically pleasing alternative (if that can truly be said). If he did what the prosecution is insinuating, that is really cold to turn on her like that.

Am I alone in such thinking?

I say the same thing every time someone robs a liquor or convenience store and feels the need to murder the clerk. The only plausible explanation, in their sick minds, is to not leave a witness. And for all we know, Nancy could have started screaming, and (sorry to sound graphic) the repeated blows were an attempt to silence her.

All true. And if this was a spur of the moment type deal, it would explain the use of the hammer (which was laying on the safe).

I do agree that Drake would have benefited the most from Nancy's death. My question to that is, why not make sure she was dead, if that was Drake's intention? Why not shoot her after forcing her to open up the safe and then make a quick exit? Why not strangle her, etc. Why even do it in the church at all? It just seems like a spurt of the moment frenzied attack to me, not something planned out in advance.

I think we have discussed this before. If guilty, Drake could have thought she was dead. She was beaten pretty severely and her condition was described as "hanging by a thread," and her recovery an "unexplained medical miracle."

I can only assume that if the motivation was primarily financial on Drake's part, cleaning out the church safe would have provided him with additional money. That being the case, the only way to get at those funds is to commit the crime inside the church. Additonally, it is probably woth mentioning that the FindaCase brief did mention that Drake was in possession of unexplained sums of money following the attack. Also, I always found it suspect that Drake told Lopata that she wouldn't have to work and he would support her and her children being that he was an unemployed truck driver at the time. Really, where would the money have come from? That never sat right with me.

Regarding the weapon, we have no idea if he owned a gun. I think a shooting would have been more noisy, and the weapon might have been more easily traceable to him. The hammer is only traceable to the church.

Along the lines of weapon, out of all the things you could use, why use a hammer? I mean, that is pretty cruel. Admittedly, I can see how it may have been a weapon of opportunity, if it was laying on the safe.

Exactly. I'm glad you brought up the phone call to the DJ, because according to him, their conversation was normal and everything appeared fine. And he talked to both Drake and Nancy. But in one of those articles, the prosecution contends that the DJ phone call is a "strong piece of circumstantial evidence" that shows Drake had planned on killing his wife that day. Without any elaboration. And that doesn't make any sense to me.

Yeah, I don't get it either. I'd have to read the comment again to assess the context. The only thing I can figure is that possibly the tape was mentioned in relation to time frame scenarios that would have narrowed the window of opportunity for an intruder and put Drake on the scene close to the time of the attack. As I said previously, assuming the worst case scenario with Toth arriving at 12:25ish and leaving by 12:30ish and Drake showing up at 12:30ish, with that 9 minute phone call factored in, Drake would have almost certainly have to be guilty.

And that's the toughest part about being able to say that Drake is 100% guilty. His actions that day do not strike me as someone who was deadset on killing his wife after he brought her lunch. Why on Earth would he go through with it after being seen and conversing with various parishioners who would place him there? And if this was an argument that escalated to violence, what the hell could have happened in the time between that phone call from the DJ until the time that Drake left?

Yeah, I agree that Drake's actions don't exactly seem like he had something planned. On the other hand, if he were guilty it would have been to his advantage to make things appear "normal." We have seen this before. Think of the Dr. John Branion case, for example. He had all sorts of errands and comings and goings planned that day, so much so that his proponents argued that he wouldn't have enough time to commit the crime.

It would have also been to Drake's advantage to stage the scene to suggest a robbery gone wrong scenario. Such staging could have involved things we are pointing to as evidence that Drake DIDN'T do it, such as using the hammer that was already inside the church, rifling through the desk, stealing otherwise uncashable checks, possibly opening the window, if you want to include that.

The problem is there is so much in this case that just sort of "falls in to place" and points to Drake being guilty...the failing relationship with Nancy, the double life, the need for money, the moving the mistress in, the "hit on the habit" line, statements to the police about dreams, contradictory statements regarding the insurance policy, odd remark about the hammer, etc. I some times wonder what the probability of all of things occurring simultaneously is IF Drake is innocent.

On the other hand, assuming the attack on Nancy was a random act of violence, in considering Thomas Drake's role, we have a man who had all this other stuff going on (the failing relationship, the affair) and he happened to make some odd comments that were taken out of context by investigators who were convinced he was guilty, a jury who despised him because of his affairs, and so forth. I don't necessarily think any of that is unreasonable either.

Yes, I think I just realized how much of an idiot I am. I thought that the FindaCase stuff broke down the cases, good and bad for the defendant. But that was only after reading a "dissenting" opinion on one of the previous UM cases. Naturally, the justices affirming a conviction would leave certain things out.

LOL, no, you're not an idiot. You just didn't know. But yeah, interpreting case law can be confusing. Those FindaCase things are generally pretty brief and are only supposed to cover the specific errors of law raised in the appeal, not the merits of the entire case.

However, since one of Drake's arguments was that the circumstantial evidence wasn't good enough to support the conviction the justices DID have to assess everything in the case. That is why we got a little more info than most other appeals.

I never meant to imply Starr's fingerprints being there without a reasonable explanation was not important. It is a huge red flag. All I'm saying is that it must have been addressed at some point because Starr did testify at the first trial. Again, we don't know what all was said, but it must not have been anything that would turn the tide because Drake was convicted by the jury, and it didn't become an issue on appeal.

This is all true.

However, I'm still a bit bothered about why Starr was ever even a "POI" in the case to begin with. He was questioned BEFORE the print was found, and I'd love to know why. Did his sister call in with a tip, or someone else? Was it because he was a former mental patient who was a church parishioner? Did he have a violent past? The fact that he was questioned initially, did not have an alibi for the time period during the attack, and then his print winds up at the scene should have made him at the very least a suspect at that point. But the print was found well after Drake was already charged. Did they essentially ignore the print, solely because they already charged Drake and were deadset on pinning the crime on him? Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened.

All of those facts were used by the judge to determine Drake's sentence, not his culpability. Of course, if any of this was mentioned during the trial stage, I agree it would have tainted Drake's image before the jury. I can't imagine much of it was let in, as it is prejudicial as Hell.

I haven't seen the segment in ages, but IIRC, Drake implied that came out during the trial.

I've actually been thinking of trying to get the transcripts. I don't know if they would release them to me since I'm not a party to the case. Also, I don't know how much something like that would cost, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be cheap since there are likely hundreds of pages that would have to be duplicated. If anyone has any pointers as to whom I might contact about getting the transcripts and an estimate for copying, I would appreciate it.

Same here. Although I would have no idea about how to get them.

Then, when Drake testified at the second trial, she realized the gravity of the situation and began having doubts as to his innocence (realizing that he lied about Lapota and other aspects in the case) and true intentions, and she decided not to go through with her false testimony. It is certainly possible, and there wouldn't be any malice on her part required in that scenario.

True. Although her comment on UM seems to indicate some sort of malice. She herself says she doesn't remember anything, then says it was Drake, then a white haired man, then back to not remembering anything.

Also, your insinuation about staging is coming from the perspective that the window being forced open was related to the attack. As discussed previously, and I still say, we have no way of knowing if it indeed was related to the attack because we have conflicting reports about whether the burglary was committed weeks prior (FindaCase) or on the day of (Unsolved Mysteries).

Assuming the window was damaged prior to the attack, what did Drake do with the stolen money and checks? Did he trash them? To my knowledge they were never found in the Drake residence. And not only that, but an often overlooked part about the case is the amount of blood that would have transferred to whoever attacked Nancy. Nothing of substance was found in Drake's home or his vehicle.

I have to admit that I missed that detail.

All I can say is...damn.

I don't know what to say. I mean, it is a horrible crime as is. Just the thought of him forcing her to open the safe beforehand makes it seem worse for some reason. Then factor in the dreams he had of her crying out..."No Tom," "Stop Tom," etc.

I guess in my mind I always figured that Drake beat her first, then went to the safe (which was either open or dummy locked). It is a more psychologically pleasing alternative (if that can truly be said). If he did what the prosecution is insinuating, that is really cold to turn on her like that.

Am I alone in such thinking?

No, that's pretty sick, if Drake is guilty. I still contend how unlikely this switch would have happened, if Drake was talking to a DJ normally nearly a minute before snapping and then demanding Nancy open the safe before he beat her senseless. And if that's true, that means Drake didn't stage the robbery, since he forced her to open the safe before attacking her.

I think we have discussed this before. If guilty, Drake could have thought she was dead. She was beaten pretty severely and her condition was described as "hanging by a thread," and her recovery an "unexplained medical miracle."

I can only assume that if the motivation was primarily financial on Drake's part, cleaning out the church safe would have provided him with additional money. That being the case, the only way to get at those funds is to commit the crime inside the church. Additonally, it is probably woth mentioning that the FindaCase brief did mention that Drake was in possession of unexplained sums of money following the attack. Also, I always found it suspect that Drake told Lopata that she wouldn't have to work and he would support her and her children being that he was an unemployed truck driver at the time. Really, where would the money have come from? That never sat right with me.

Nancy was found by the church member at 12:40ish. Her testimony had said that Nancy was moaning and lying in a pool of her own blood. I find it hard to believe that Drake would have left her alive and moaning, if his intention really was to kill her. The fact that she was left alive, moaning, tells me that whoever attacked her had their mind more on the money and leaving rather than sticking around and killing Nancy.

Some of those articles simply mention $128 dollars found at the Drake residence. According to FindACase, Drake stopped working after Nancy's attack. They also had said that Drake was financially supported by donations from various church members. Perhaps this is where the money was coming from, and Drake was lying his ass off trying to impress Lopata? Probable? No. Possible? I think so.

Along the lines of weapon, out of all the things you could use, why use a hammer? I mean, that is pretty cruel. Admittedly, I can see how it may have been a weapon of opportunity, if it was laying on the safe.

I tend to think it was a weapon of opportunity, regardless of if Drake attacked her or not.

Yeah, I don't get it either. I'd have to read the comment again to assess the context. The only thing I can figure is that possibly the tape was mentioned in relation to time frame scenarios that would have narrowed the window of opportunity for an intruder and put Drake on the scene close to the time of the attack. As I said previously, assuming the worst case scenario with Toth arriving at 12:25ish and leaving by 12:30ish and Drake showing up at 12:30ish, with that 9 minute phone call factored in, Drake would have almost certainly have to be guilty.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I agree that Drake's actions don't exactly seem like he had something planned. On the other hand, if he were guilty it would have been to his advantage to make things appear "normal." We have seen this before. Think of the Dr. John Branion case, for example. He had all sorts of errands and comings and goings planned that day, so much so that his proponents argued that he wouldn't have enough time to commit the crime.

My only problem with this is the fact that Nancy was the one who had phoned Drake and requested he bring her lunch to the church.

It would have also been to Drake's advantage to stage the scene to suggest a robbery gone wrong scenario. Such staging could have involved things we are pointing to as evidence that Drake DIDN'T do it, such as using the hammer that was already inside the church, rifling through the desk, stealing otherwise uncashable checks, possibly opening the window, if you want to include that.

True.

The problem is there is so much in this case that just sort of "falls in to place" and points to Drake being guilty...the failing relationship with Nancy, the double life, the need for money, the moving the mistress in, the "hit on the habit" line, statements to the police about dreams, contradictory statements regarding the insurance policy, odd remark about the hammer, etc. I some times wonder what the probability of all of things occurring simultaneously is IF Drake is innocent.

I agree with everything except the need for money. I haven't seen any testimony or read any excerpts from articles that indicate Drake wasn't simply living paycheck to paycheck, like most people in America.

On the other hand, assuming the attack on Nancy was a random act of violence, in considering Thomas Drake's role, we have a man who had all this other stuff going on (the failing relationship, the affair) and he happened to make some odd comments that were taken out of context by investigators who were convinced he was guilty, a jury who despised him because of his affairs, and so forth. I don't necessarily think any of that is unreasonable either.

This is entirely possible as well. Take the affair away...would Drake be considered a suspect at all? Probably, because he was the husband, but I don't know if he would have been looked at as intensely.

Initially, they were questioning him as a suspect for the attack. And that's another thing I'd like to know: how was Starr even a suspect at that point, without even knowing about the print being found? After finding out about the print, I was just theorizing that it was possible that LE believed Starr could have been involved in the burglary, thereby giving a reason as to why he wouldn't want to divulge the fact that his print was found there. Which in turn, would then shift the focus back on Drake. But you have to wonder why he, when being re-questioned (if he even was), was not looked at more seriously as a suspect after being confronted with the fact that his print was found at the scene of the crime, on a window that was "recently cleaned". It appears like they went on after Drake full steam ahead, and despite evidence of Starr being at the scene, stayed the course and built a case against Drake.

Yeah, the timing of the discovery of the print has always bothered me. As does the the fact that the print was found by another agency. LE doesn't always cooperate and function collectively as they, in theory, should.

Assuming the worst case scenario (i.e., Nancy attacked by an intruder, possibly Starr and Drake is completely innocent) I could see the police arresting Drake because Nancy said he attacked her, the narrow timeframe, the affair, and other circumstantial evidence. Then, another agency finds the fingerprint. However, because Drake has already been arrested, charged, and the investigators likely assume he's guilty, the fingerprint is ignored or discounted. It is possible.

Yeah, the timing of the discovery of the print has always bothered me. As does the the fact that the print was found by another agency. LE doesn't always cooperate and function collectively as they, in theory, should.

Assuming the worst case scenario (i.e., Nancy attacked by an intruder, possibly Starr and Drake is completely innocent) I could see the police arresting Drake because Nancy said he attacked her, the narrow timeframe, the affair, and other circumstantial evidence. Then, another agency finds the fingerprint. However, because Drake has already been arrested, charged, and the investigators likely assume he's guilty, the fingerprint is ignored or discounted. It is possible.

The timing of everything bothers me.

-Nancy was attacked on July 8th, 1983.
-Starr was brought in for questioning on July 14th, 1983. Denied being in the church that day, had claimed to have been with his mother and older sister until well after 1:00p.m. that day. The detectives noticed scratches on his face and hands. Starr's questioning lasted roughly 20 minutes.
-Starr's sister was questioned on July 29th, 1983. At the very least, Starr was still a POI at this point. Starr's sister contradicted her brother's alibi, and said she did not see him on the date of the attack between the hours of noon until after 1:00. She had said she was at the church at 11 that morning and saw a woman washing the windows in the church office.
-Thomas Drake was arrested on August 3rd, 1983.
-The FDLE report is released on August 31st, which shows of the 14 prints lifted from the crime scene, the only match of people tested, was Raymond Starr.

I have no idea if this was brought up at trial or not, but the timing of everything seems suspicious to me. It appears that once they arrested Drake, there was no turning back.

I don't know who's more of a red herring at this point, Starr or the white haired man. On the one hand, Starr's fingerprint COULD be explained as he was a parishioner known to be in the office from time to time. But the totality of the circumstantial evidence (no alibi for time in question, mental illness history, etc.) against him makes him a strong suspect, IMO. White haired guy existed, but was never found. Then again there were 13 out of 14 prints that didn't match anyone tested found at the scene. This would fit perfectly if Nancy was in fact attacked by the white haired man.

I don't know. Drake's appeals seemed to be with regards to the "hit you on your habit" remark being admitted into evidence, his dreams being admitted, and that he believed he had enough for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. There really wasn't anything in terms of bad lawyering per se, so without the trial transcripts we'll never know.

It does sound as though Drake got a good defense. My point was more in response to the specific comment you made regarding Shearer not getting more from Starr. I was suggesting that it is certainly possible that given Shearer's limited experience he didn't do the best cross or direct examination and perhaps didn't hammer Starr as much as he should have.

Yes, I would sure hope they followed up on Starr after the fingerprint was found. My only issue here is, if Shearer is correct, and Starr couldn't offer an explanation as to why his print was found at the crime scene, is why the police were still dead set on charging Drake?

I would surmise Drake was arrested because Nancy told Kirby that Drake attacked her. One of the newspaper articles said as much. If this is true, the police probably figured they had an open and shut case and focused exclusively on Drake. However, as it would turn out, the case was anything but open and shut. Unfortunately, it was too late at that point, and possibly leads that should have been checked out further (like the Starr fingerprint, or more aggressive attempts to ID the man in the station wagon) were not.

Wow, that's a tough call. On the one hand, the circumstantial evidence against Drake should have been enough to warrant him as the prime suspect in the case. On the other hand, nothing of substance could be used against Drake that was found at the crime scene. He admitted to being there prior to the attack, yet no prints were found. But Starr, who claims to not have been in the church that day, had his print found at the crime scene with no explanation. That would have given me pause with going ahead and charging Drake. But then again, if the police believed in the timeline being no longer than ten minutes between the last time anyone saw Drake and Nancy up until she was found beaten, they would have no choice but to charge Drake. The time frame would be too small for a 3rd party to have attacked Nancy, IMO.

Yeah, plus since Nancy initially said her husband did it, they probably had no choice in the matter.

Right. Whitehead she arrived at the parking lot at 12:40. There is no time given to when she actually got out and found Nancy in the office. The pastor says that he got back to the church at 12:47, and was told a "minute or two" later by employees at a nearby car dealership that someone was hurt in the church. He went in and found Nancy in the office as well. The ambulance left with Nancy at 1:09, and this is when the pastor says he called Drake to tell him about Nancy. IIRC, someone or maybe even UM, had previously stated that the Drake's lived about 5 miles away from the church. This could be meaningless, but if Drake was guilty, he had plenty of time to leave the scene, clean up, and wait for the phone call. I don't see how he would need to "rush" to the phone, as the pastor testified.

Actually, I remember Mapquesting this for an earlier discussion. On that note, the discussion is here and was 3 years ago, wow...

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=4575626&postcount=19

The Drakes lived 2-3 miles from the church and it would have taken Drake 6-7 minutes to get home, according to MapQuest.

Personally, I never put a lot of the stock in the "rushing to the phone" comment. Regardless of if Drake was guilty or innocent, he could have been outside (the UM segment shows him working on the lawnmower) or in another part of their house in which he couldn't immediately get to the phone. This was the pre-cordless phone era.

I agree. Assuming Drake is innocent for a second, if the white haired man in the lot (or even Starr for argument's sake) were loitering in the parking lot waiting for Drake to leave (since he and Nancy were the only two present at the church after Toth left), the ten minute window would still be enough time to go in, attack Nancy, steal the cash, and leave.

Yeah, ten minutes probably would have been sufficient time for an intruder. I think one of the articles mentioned though that the prosecution argued it was unlikely a third party would come along in that narrow amount of time, or that their presence would not have been detected by Drake or someone else.

This is where I go back to the tidbit about asking for change for $100. It would appear to be more accurate of a detail considering, again assuming Drake is innocent, this guy didn't use a weapon that he brought himself, he used one from the church office. So he had nothing to threaten Nancy or demand that she open the safe. It's the only way she could have opened it without feeling threatened that makes sense.

Yeah, I feel you on this, especially after that comment you brought up regarding the prosecutor's closing. She was either tricked into opening the safe, or forced and then attacked.

Along those lines, do you think it is possible the offender (assuming Drake is innocent) went there with the intent of actually purchasing concert tickets, saw the hammer on top of the safe, realized she had it open, and decided, at that moment, to act?

Or, do you think he went in intent on robbing the place and the one hundred dollars was a ruse from the start?

But it's possible that Whitehead was off with her timing as well. She could have found Nancy as late as 12:45, and according to FindACase, Toyota workers were already assembled in the parking lot by the time Poston, the pastor, arrived back at the church. So the dealership had to be a hop, skip, and a jump away from the church. For argument's sake, let's say Drake arrived between 12:15 and 12:20. This would mean that he left the church between 12:24 and 12:29. Nancy is discovered between 12:40 and 12:45. That lengthens the window of opportunity from 10 minutes to 20.

Yeah, there could be time added or subtracted to either side. I guess one thing that does sort of bother me is Drake's comment that he was pulling in as Toth was pulling out. If Toth's estimate of a 12:30 departure is accurate, and Drake had to make that 9 minute recorded phone call, that puts him on the scene very close to the time of the attack.

However, I was just reading the appeal again and I found this...according to Drake, a woman came in to buy concert tickets, and a man left an estimate for some roofing repairs. That would mean that Drake would have to have been on the scene for an even longer time to witness these things, and could have arrived closer to 12:15 as he stated. Also, he says he left at 12:30, so these events couldn't have transpired afterward. Drake said they occurred before the phone call.

This is from FinaCase, kinda interesting. I wonder what this is based on...

"While the witnesses' estimates of time did not precisely coincide, the evidence supports the conclusion that no more than ten minutes elapsed between the time that appellant was known to be at the church alone with Nancy and when Nancy was attacked."

also they tie it to this...

"Appellant's subsequent conduct tended to confirm police suspicions. He told Carol Lopata that he had left the church at 11:30 a.m. When asked by Joel Schwartzberg, he first denied knowing anything about Nancy's life insurance policy. He volunteered that his fingerprints would be on the hammer, but his explanation for having recently used the hammer was contradicted. While he said he lived on funds donated in Nancy's behalf, the fact remains that he had substantial sums of money in his possession following the crimes."

It does sound as though Drake got a good defense. My point was more in response to the specific comment you made regarding Shearer not getting more from Starr. I was suggesting that it is certainly possible that given Shearer's limited experience he didn't do the best cross or direct examination and perhaps didn't hammer Starr as much as he should have.

I wasn't trying to knock Shearer, or imply he did a bad job defending Drake. But it wouldn't be the first time a defense attorney "overlooked" for lack of a better word a possible suspect, and instead of going after said suspect, spent more time trying to prove their client didn't do it, instead of drumming up reasonable doubt that someone else could have. If that makes any sense.

I would surmise Drake was arrested because Nancy told Kirby that Drake attacked her. One of the newspaper articles said as much. If this is true, the police probably figured they had an open and shut case and focused exclusively on Drake. However, as it would turn out, the case was anything but open and shut. Unfortunately, it was too late at that point, and possibly leads that should have been checked out further (like the Starr fingerprint, or more aggressive attempts to ID the man in the station wagon) were not.

You see, I don't have an issue with Drake being the #1 suspect in the case. He was the last one seen with Nancy, was carrying on an extramarital affair, told conflicting statements to police and other witnesses, and had the motive, means, and opportunity. And I know that most cases are largely circumstantial, but I still think the police rushed this one by charging him before the report came out about the fingerprints. If they charged Drake solely because of Nancy's statements, they had to be ready to take a huge gamble, considering Taxdal's testimony.

Yeah, plus since Nancy initially said her husband did it, they probably had no choice in the matter.

You would think the police would have talked to Taxdal prior to charging Drake, right? Just to make sure Nancy was making an accurate statement?

Personally, I never put a lot of the stock in the "rushing to the phone" comment. Regardless of if Drake was guilty or innocent, he could have been outside (the UM segment shows him working on the lawnmower) or in another part of their house in which he couldn't immediately get to the phone. This was the pre-cordless phone era.

If the UM re-enactment is accurate, and they usually were on even the tiniest details, I wonder if there was a witness who saw Drake working on his lawnmower during that day?

Yeah, ten minutes probably would have been sufficient time for an intruder. I think one of the articles mentioned though that the prosecution argued it was unlikely a third party would come along in that narrow amount of time, or that their presence would not have been detected by Drake or someone else.

But if the white haired guy attacked Nancy, his presence was detected that day.

Yeah, I feel you on this, especially after that comment you brought up regarding the prosecutor's closing. She was either tricked into opening the safe, or forced and then attacked.

Along those lines, do you think it is possible the offender (assuming Drake is innocent) went there with the intent of actually purchasing concert tickets, saw the hammer on top of the safe, realized she had it open, and decided, at that moment, to act?

I find it extremely unlikely, unless this guy had serious anger problems, that he went there to legitimately purchase tickets, and then decided to steal the cash once he saw all of the money in the safe. Although, I don't think it's impossible that this happened. It just seems like this church concert was pretty well advertised, because there were other various members there buying tickets that day, and as I've previously stated, a church during a weekday would not be busy traffic wise. A robbery does not seem out of the question to me.

Yeah, there could be time added or subtracted to either side. I guess one thing that does sort of bother me is Drake's comment that he was pulling in as Toth was pulling out. If Toth's estimate of a 12:30 departure is accurate, and Drake had to make that 9 minute recorded phone call, that puts him on the scene very close to the time of the attack.

If Toth's time is more accurate, Drake is definitely guilty. There's no question.

However, I was just reading the appeal again and I found this...according to Drake, a woman came in to buy concert tickets, and a man left an estimate for some roofing repairs. That would mean that Drake would have to have been on the scene for an even longer time to witness these things, and could have arrived closer to 12:15 as he stated. Also, he says he left at 12:30, so these events couldn't have transpired afterward. Drake said they occurred before the phone call.

This seems to indicate that Drake's timing is more accurate than. Because if the lady who discovered Nancy found her at 12:40 or maybe a minute or two later, and if Toth's time is correct, Drake would have had to have had been present for a 9 minute phone call, a woman buying concert tickets, and a guy giving an estimate all in the span of approximately 10 minutes. And that seems impossible.

"While the witnesses' estimates of time did not precisely coincide, the evidence supports the conclusion that no more than ten minutes elapsed between the time that appellant was known to be at the church alone with Nancy and when Nancy was attacked."

also they tie it to this...

"Appellant's subsequent conduct tended to confirm police suspicions. He told Carol Lopata that he had left the church at 11:30 a.m. When asked by Joel Schwartzberg, he first denied knowing anything about Nancy's life insurance policy. He volunteered that his fingerprints would be on the hammer, but his explanation for having recently used the hammer was contradicted. While he said he lived on funds donated in Nancy's behalf, the fact remains that he had substantial sums of money in his possession following the crimes."

I've never put much stock in Lopata's comment about Drake telling her what time he left the church. The main reason is why would she note the time, and to a lesser extent, perhaps she was mistaken? Another thing, if Drake did in fact tell her 11:30, it's possible he lied to her to allay her fears that he was responsible for attacking Nancy. Bear with me for a second, this seems far fetched, but I've thought that Drake possibly was in the middle of courting Lopata ("never have to work again", "live with me", etc.), it wouldn't seem like a good idea to tell this woman you plan on leaving your wife for that you left your wife mere seconds before she was brutally attacked. This could have been his way of lying to her to not let her think he was guilty.

And some of those articles simply state that it was roughly $100 found in cash at the Drake residence during a search warrant. I wouldn't consider that substantial sums of money.

Nancy's testimony was that the insurance policy was her idea.

I still think Drake was the most likely guilty party. However, there's a small part of me that thinks it's entirely possible that Drake, if innocent, knew damn well his affair wasn't going to look good, also knew that Nancy's recently taken out life insurance policy wasn't going to look good, and knowing that he had recently used the weapon used to beat his wife nearly to death was not going to look good, so he decided to lie and embellish on a few details, trying to save face. Now, assuming Drake is innocent, one has to wonder if he was more forthcoming with the detectives if they would have pursued him and charged him as quickly as they did.

Someone posted earlier about the judge using my father's past relationship with my mother as a reasoning for the sentencing. I want to comment on this. This is what I know to be the facts in regards to it. I was only a baby when they divorced so I can't comment on some of it and as with every relationship break up there is 3 sides: His side, her side, and the truth.

1. My mother separated from my father in October 1966. She was involved in an affair with another man at this time and eventually did marry this other man. Once she married him, she moved us to another state.

2. My mother had 4 children with my father. NOT a single one of my older siblings that I have asked can remember any abuse other than the stories my mother has told us happened. They were old enough to remember details on their own and up to this time in my life they have never gave me specifics. My older sister does really play up the stories my mother told us as if they are her memories but I do not believe them based on her own inability to tell the truth about other things in her life and the way she conducts herself but that is for another store all together. LOL.

3. I remember as a child if my mother thought my father was in our town, she would make us kids hide in an attic over our garage and make statements such as "he is not seeing my children." I was also told by my father that he was threatened if he tried to see us. Again, I was a child and have no first hand knowledge of it.

4. I do remember prior to leaving Indiana that we had visits with my dad. I remember he use to have a make shift candy store on his porch that all the neighbors bought candy from. I find it hard to believe that if he was such an abuser and threat to us that any judge would have given him unsupervised visitation but that is just my belief.

5. I personally spoke to Nancy when I did locate my father and wanted to find out as many details as I could about what happened, and she told me that he had NEVER ever attempted or tried to physically hurt her ever. I have been a victim of domestic abuse and let me tell you, if my father was as abusive as my mother said, he would have hurt Nancy prior to the end of their marriage.

I have asked my father about transcripts to his case and am waiting to hear back from him on this. I may just contact his lawyer since he is apparently still in practice and see if he can help direct me in how to get them.

Also I wanted to know where can I find this information you guys are referring to in the FindaCase and appeal information. I have yet to see any legal documents involving this. I have only seen newspaper articles and talked to various other people involved in the case first hand or some of those that have worked with my father off and on with his appeal process.

The timing of everything bothers me.

-Nancy was attacked on July 8th, 1983.
-Starr was brought in for questioning on July 14th, 1983. Denied being in the church that day, had claimed to have been with his mother and older sister until well after 1:00p.m. that day. The detectives noticed scratches on his face and hands. Starr's questioning lasted roughly 20 minutes.
-Starr's sister was questioned on July 29th, 1983. At the very least, Starr was still a POI at this point. Starr's sister contradicted her brother's alibi, and said she did not see him on the date of the attack between the hours of noon until after 1:00. She had said she was at the church at 11 that morning and saw a woman washing the windows in the church office.
-Thomas Drake was arrested on August 3rd, 1983.
-The FDLE report is released on August 31st, which shows of the 14 prints lifted from the crime scene, the only match of people tested, was Raymond Starr.

I have no idea if this was brought up at trial or not, but the timing of everything seems suspicious to me. It appears that once they arrested Drake, there was no turning back.

Yes, I agree with all of this. It is very troubling, and one could argue that the cops may have been suffering from tunnel vision once they found out about the affair, and some of the other inconsistencies, so much so that the discovery of the Starr fingerprint was neglected, ignored, discounted, what have you. Or, they could have feared dealing with the fallout of "wrongful arrest" allegations if they cut Drake loose, so they figured to press on and put the matter to a jury. Or, a combination of both scenarios.

On the other hand, as I think I've said before, we and Thomas Drake have pieced all this together, so why didn't the cops? Any investigator worth their salt should have interrogated Starr AFTER his print was found regardless of if they already had a suspect in custody or not. I mean, these are people's lives we are talking about here. And to take it a step further, why should we assume the police were incompetent in their handling of the case? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard/read any allegations about poor police work in the Drake case. I'm not saying it's impossible, or definitely did not occur, but there are plenty of other Final Appeal cases where investigators have been accused of not doing due diligence, or even bending/breaking the law themselves, and I've never heard of such allegations here.

I don't know who's more of a red herring at this point, Starr or the white haired man. On the one hand, Starr's fingerprint COULD be explained as he was a parishioner known to be in the office from time to time. But the totality of the circumstantial evidence (no alibi for time in question, mental illness history, etc.) against him makes him a strong suspect, IMO. White haired guy existed, but was never found. Then again there were 13 out of 14 prints that didn't match anyone tested found at the scene. This would fit perfectly if Nancy was in fact attacked by the white haired man.

Agreed on Starr. And it is frustrating not knowing if his print being there was followed up by investigators or at the trial(s).

One thing I will say though regarding unidentified fingerprints is it happens and unidentified prints could theoretically come from anywhere, not necessarily the culprit.


You see, I don't have an issue with Drake being the #1 suspect in the case. He was the last one seen with Nancy, was carrying on an extramarital affair, told conflicting statements to police and other witnesses, and had the motive, means, and opportunity. And I know that most cases are largely circumstantial, but I still think the police rushed this one by charging him before the report came out about the fingerprints. If they charged Drake solely because of Nancy's statements, they had to be ready to take a huge gamble, considering Taxdal's testimony.

and...

You would think the police would have talked to Taxdal prior to charging Drake, right? Just to make sure Nancy was making an accurate statement?

I have to wonder how much of a role Nancy's initial recollections and allegations that her husband did it played in Drake's arrest. I find it very peculiar that these statements seemingly never came up again beyond mention in some of the earliest news reports. Granted, we don't have the trial transcripts, but the reporting on both trials (which only lasted a few days) seemed pretty tight and nothing was said about Nancy every identifying her husband as the assailant. On the contrary, it was either she had no memory of the attack, or the white haired man with glasses (post first conviction) was the assailant. Nor does FindaCase say anything, and we know that decision was based off the trial transcripts.

I guess my larger point is, what the Hell happened? If Nancy did say that her husband attacked her that is significant and damning.

My best guess is that the defense may have been successful in having such comments withheld due to Nancy's state at the time she allegedly made them.

The only other thing I can figure is that the papers were a little "off" in their reporting, and the statement made by Nancy Drake (that led to her husband's arrest) was the whole "hit on the habit" remark - which was overheard by a police officer and deemed incriminating according to the state's case. Since these statements were heard by a police officer, maybe that coupled with the affair, and Drake's own bizarre statements are what led to his arrest.

The only problem is the papers allege Nancy told Kirby that her husband attacked her. However, Kirby didn't testify to this according to the papers and FindaCase. Refer to my initial theory of defense interference.

If the UM re-enactment is accurate, and they usually were on even the tiniest details, I wonder if there was a witness who saw Drake working on his lawnmower during that day?

Hard to say. I've never read anything about what Drake alleged he was doing during the exact time of the attack or just before the phone call. Knowing UM, they could just be going by what Drake said and that is what they re-enacted. Not that it's a big deal if they did this, it's just possible that there were no other witnesses to Drake's activities that afternoon, so his story, whether truth or a lie, is all we have.

But if the white haired guy attacked Nancy, his presence was detected that day.

Good point.

I find it extremely unlikely, unless this guy had serious anger problems, that he went there to legitimately purchase tickets, and then decided to steal the cash once he saw all of the money in the safe. Although, I don't think it's impossible that this happened. It just seems like this church concert was pretty well advertised, because there were other various members there buying tickets that day, and as I've previously stated, a church during a weekday would not be busy traffic wise. A robbery does not seem out of the question to me.

Yeah, but then we get back to the issue of mechanics. If someone came in intending to rob, it's high risk, he either didn't bring a weapon of his own or for some reason didn't use it (which elevates that risk IMO), he beat Nancy Drake almost to death when there was no reason to do so, he was allegedly of an advanced age, and he also had a hundred dollar bill already in his possession which negates the purpose of committing such a high risk offense without a weapon (i.e., he couldn't have been THAT hard up for cash, right?).

Now, none of this precludes the possibility of a robbery. It still could have occurred, but considering all those points together, plus the narrow time frame, and it seems to stretch the odds a bit, IMO.


If Toth's time is more accurate, Drake is definitely guilty. There's no question.

and

This seems to indicate that Drake's timing is more accurate than. Because if the lady who discovered Nancy found her at 12:40 or maybe a minute or two later, and if Toth's time is correct, Drake would have had to have had been present for a 9 minute phone call, a woman buying concert tickets, and a guy giving an estimate all in the span of approximately 10 minutes. And that seems impossible.

Agreed.

I've never put much stock in Lopata's comment about Drake telling her what time he left the church. The main reason is why would she note the time, and to a lesser extent, perhaps she was mistaken? Another thing, if Drake did in fact tell her 11:30, it's possible he lied to her to allay her fears that he was responsible for attacking Nancy. Bear with me for a second, this seems far fetched, but I've thought that Drake possibly was in the middle of courting Lopata ("never have to work again", "live with me", etc.), it wouldn't seem like a good idea to tell this woman you plan on leaving your wife for that you left your wife mere seconds before she was brutally attacked. This could have been his way of lying to her to not let her think he was guilty.

And some of those articles simply state that it was roughly $100 found in cash at the Drake residence during a search warrant. I wouldn't consider that substantial sums of money.

Nancy's testimony was that the insurance policy was her idea.

I still think Drake was the most likely guilty party. However, there's a small part of me that thinks it's entirely possible that Drake, if innocent, knew damn well his affair wasn't going to look good, also knew that Nancy's recently taken out life insurance policy wasn't going to look good, and knowing that he had recently used the weapon used to beat his wife nearly to death was not going to look good, so he decided to lie and embellish on a few details, trying to save face. Now, assuming Drake is innocent, one has to wonder if he was more forthcoming with the detectives if they would have pursued him and charged him as quickly as they did.

I believe this was in response to the FindaCase summary of the circumstantial evidence that convicted Drake.

I posted that specific excerpt because it is a good summary of why the circumstantial evidence so strongly suggests Drake is guilty. Each individual point means nothing by itself. However, the totality of the circumstances in that paragraph suggests a scenario in which Drake was guilty because he wanted to do away with Nancy so he could be with Carol, and he needed the money from the insurance policy and the church to start a new life, as it were. Thus, Drake lied about his relationship with Carol to make it seem as though they were just friends; he lied about the insurance policy because it was a motive; he lied to Lopata about the time he left the church to cover his tracks; he proffered a bogus explanation to Toth about why his fingerprints might have been on the hammer in the event they were detected; he had unexplainable sums of money in his possession because it was the cash stolen from the church robbery; Nancy really did mean to say “hit on your head” and Drake’s response was indicative of guilt; and finally he nearly slipped up and admitted his guilt to investigators.

On the other hand, one can pick apart each individual point and derive innocent explanations for each and every one.

To me, however, to believe Drake is innocent, you pretty much have to give him the benefit of the doubt on each of those points, and you have to assume that all of these things coincided, for whatever reason, to make him appear guilty. He would have to be one of the unluckiest guys in the history of the criminal justice system.

Sorry I missed this. It had been a couple weeks since I had time to read the thread and address your points so I was trying to pick up where I left off and ensure I replied to everything (see my post above which is actually a couple of your posts cobbled together with my replies). On that note, if there is anything I missed that you want me to address, let me know.

This is all true.

However, I'm still a bit bothered about why Starr was ever even a "POI" in the case to begin with. He was questioned BEFORE the print was found, and I'd love to know why. Did his sister call in with a tip, or someone else? Was it because he was a former mental patient who was a church parishioner? Did he have a violent past? The fact that he was questioned initially, did not have an alibi for the time period during the attack, and then his print winds up at the scene should have made him at the very least a suspect at that point. But the print was found well after Drake was already charged. Did they essentially ignore the print, solely because they already charged Drake and were deadset on pinning the crime on him? Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened.

Right. I too would love to know how Starr became a suspect/POI in the case before the discovery of the fingerprint. The only possibility I can think of is essentially what you postulated earlier - his documented history of mental illness and the fact that he was a parishioner. On that note, does LE get this information? Would they have known Starr was a former psych patient?

I doubt the sister called in a tip. If this was the case, I think they would have interviewed her first and I would think they may have pressed Starr harder if they had specific information that suggested he may be the guilty party.

Just a thought - could it be that the police were talking to every parishioner, or at least as many as they could locate? Or perhaps anybody who was in the church that day, the days before, that week, etc.?

Knowing that the police walked in to this situation which was fairly serious - a woman almost being beaten to death with a hammer - I would think they would want to speak with anyone who had any business at the church during that time, which could include parishioners.

Granted, the level of interrogation likely wouldn't be too deep..."okay...so you're a parishioner?...Yes...you were here for the last Sunday service?...Yes...okay...have you been to the church since?...No...were you at the church on the day of the attack?...No...okay, do you know anyone who might have wanted to harm Mrs. Drake?..."

Starr could have been asked similar questions simply because he was a parishioner.

Something else odd though - the sister contradicted Starr's alibi even before the discovery of the fingerprint. Wouldn't that have been cause enough to re-interview Starr and clarify his whereabouts?

On the other hand, assuming Starr and the sister weren't serious suspects, it could be that the cops didn't see her statements as a contradiction, more just confusion about times which can innocently occur any time you get multiple parties together to discuss something they did weeks earlier and likely didn't attach much significance to at the time.

I haven't seen the segment in ages, but IIRC, Drake implied that came out during the trial.

I saw the segment recently. Nothing is mentioned about Drake's prior arrest or his past relationships in the UM segment. The only place this is mentioned is in the newspapers in regard to sentencing after Drake had been convicted the second time around.

If such information was made known during the trial, it is prejudicial as Hell, and should never have been allowed in, IMO.

Same here. Although I would have no idea about how to get them.

I tend to think Drake came off poorly when he took the stand. According to the papers, the prosecutor kept referring to Drake as "Mr. Slick." Drake insinuated that Kirby and others were liars. Drake denied having intercourse with Lopata on the night of the attack or being involved with her for several months while she had previously testified otherwise.

That all sounds bad.

True. Although her comment on UM seems to indicate some sort of malice. She herself says she doesn't remember anything, then says it was Drake, then a white haired man, then back to not remembering anything.

I think it is too difficult to say anything truly definitive regarding Nancy Drake's take on the matter because...

- according to the papers, she told Kirby Drake attacked her, a fact never really mentioned again anywhere else.

- according to the papers, she mouthed "I love you" and gave positive testimony overall at the first trial.

- according to the papers, she spoke frequently about her belief in Drake's innocence and how much she loved him and missed him after the first conviction. This included writing a letter to the judge requesting leniency in sentencing.

- according to UM and the papers, she had the recollections about the man with white hair attacking her.

- according to Shearer on UM, she was "a mess" on the day she was supposed to testify and said she couldn't go through with it.

- on UM she says she can't remember the attack but does say that the Thomas she knew couldn't have done it. She didn't "know" the guy having the affair and didn't know what he was capable of. She made similar remarks to Drake's daughter, iowa_angel, as mentioned in an earlier post.

- on UM she says that she doesn't know if he did it or not but that he deserves to be in prison because of his attitude and "everything else" that he did.

I think it's too subjective, but my best guess is she legit doesn't know if Drake is guilty of beating her, but she doesn't like the fact that he was cheating. Obviously, her infamous last remarks are offbase because a person should not be serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole because they had an extramarital affair.

My take is that she realized Drake was guilty during the second trial, or at a minimum, began to have doubts about his intentions and decided not to go through with her testimony about the attack - this is especially true if she was coached by Drake to remember the story about the man with white hair attacking her. It also seems she would have been especially vulnerable after his first conviction, and that is when the story came about.

Assuming the window was damaged prior to the attack, what did Drake do with the stolen money and checks? Did he trash them? To my knowledge they were never found in the Drake residence. And not only that, but an often overlooked part about the case is the amount of blood that would have transferred to whoever attacked Nancy. Nothing of substance was found in Drake's home or his vehicle.

Hard to say. I think one of the articles did mention that the defense requested the suppression of several items seized from the Drake home. Without knowing what these items were, it is difficult to conclude anything one way or another.

Those are good points though. If guilty, at a minimum, he would have had to dispose of the checks and presumably his clothes.

No, that's pretty sick, if Drake is guilty. I still contend how unlikely this switch would have happened, if Drake was talking to a DJ normally nearly a minute before snapping and then demanding Nancy open the safe before he beat her senseless. And if that's true, that means Drake didn't stage the robbery, since he forced her to open the safe before attacking her.

If I'm being honest, THIS is the biggest stumbling block to me in terms of the theory of Drake's guilt. What happened that day just does not "seem" planned - the biggest reason, for me, is that Nancy called Thomas and asked that he bring her lunch. What would have happened if she hadn't called? Would he have still attacked her? I guess if you believe the prosecution's theory, the answer would have to be yes, since he planned to do this.

It just seems so odd to me that Drake would bring her lunch, go through the motions of all these, by all accounts, "normal" interactions with different people who ended up being witnesses, and then decide to go through with this brutal, supposedly pre-planned, attack on his wife, and use a hammer, no less.

The only thing I can figure is either...

1. Thomas Drake is just that sick that he suddenly began demanding that Nancy open the safe, possibly while wielding the hammer, or using it to threaten her, and he carried out his plans.

2. Nancy and Thomas had some kind of an argument, Thomas lost it, and the attack was out of anger and not something he pre-planned.

Interestingly, the jury seemed to struggle with it too and I think wanted to downgrade the charges to second degree attempted murder as opposed to first degree because they couldn't fathom that Thomas Drake planned this all out (according to one of the articles).

Two problems arise though...

1. What did they argue about in that short amount of time?

2. How would he have accessed the safe?

The only think I can figure is that maybe the argument was about money. Drake wasn't working so maybe he tried conning Nancy into opening the safe with the idea that he was going to "borrow" some money (for living expenses, or maybe even for something for Carol), Nancy obliges at first, but then hesitates and questions him on it, they argue, he flips, the hammer is there and the rest is history...

Admittedly, that is all HIGHLY speculative and I'm merely theorizing about other ways the attack could have gone down.

Nancy was found by the church member at 12:40ish. Her testimony had said that Nancy was moaning and lying in a pool of her own blood. I find it hard to believe that Drake would have left her alive and moaning, if his intention really was to kill her. The fact that she was left alive, moaning, tells me that whoever attacked her had their mind more on the money and leaving rather than sticking around and killing Nancy.

Hard to say because she could have slipped in and out of consciousness, or been feigning she was dead to get the assailant to stop.

Some of those articles simply mention $128 dollars found at the Drake residence. According to FindACase, Drake stopped working after Nancy's attack. They also had said that Drake was financially supported by donations from various church members. Perhaps this is where the money was coming from, and Drake was lying his ass off trying to impress Lopata? Probable? No. Possible? I think so.

Yes, I would agree. It is another point (like so many others in this case) that can be looked at in different ways. If guilty, obviously it was the money stolen during the robbery. If innocent, it was proceeds donated by the church following the attack. The latter isn't far-fetched as it seemed as though the parish supported the Drakes in the aftermath of the attack.

I tend to think it was a weapon of opportunity, regardless of if Drake attacked her or not.

More than likely, yes. But why? If Drake planned this out as the prosecution alleges, why wouldn't he have brought/used his own weapon? Why rely on something being at the church that he could use?

Also, the same question applies to a robber.

The only way the hammer really makes sense, IMO, is if the whole attack was unplanned.

Again, that could work either way though...Nancy and Thomas could have had an argument that escalated to violence. A robber could have just been sick enough that he didn't want to leave a witness or Nancy put up some resistance.

I agree with everything except the need for money. I haven't seen any testimony or read any excerpts from articles that indicate Drake wasn't simply living paycheck to paycheck, like most people in America.

Yeah, but factor in the kid and Drake's promises to Lopata that he could have taken care of her (early courtship BS'ing or not) and that could have been a motive.

This is entirely possible as well. Take the affair away...would Drake be considered a suspect at all? Probably, because he was the husband, but I don't know if he would have been looked at as intensely.

Possibly. It is hard to say. So many things about the earliest reports, from when the police first began their investigation, make it seem as though this was being investigated as a robbery. After the affair was discovered, it was attempted murder by Thomas Drake, and all bets were off. That is troubling, especially when considered within the context of evidence that may have been overlooked/ignored, such as the Starr fingerprint.

I posted that specific excerpt because it is a good summary of why the circumstantial evidence so strongly suggests Drake is guilty. Each individual point means nothing by itself. However, the totality of the circumstances in that paragraph suggests a scenario in which Drake was guilty because he wanted to do away with Nancy so he could be with Carol, and he needed the money from the insurance policy and the church to start a new life, as it were. Thus, Drake lied about his relationship with Carol to make it seem as though they were just friends; he lied about the insurance policy because it was a motive; he lied to Lopata about the time he left the church to cover his tracks; he proffered a bogus explanation to Toth about why his fingerprints might have been on the hammer in the event they were detected; he had unexplainable sums of money in his possession because it was the cash stolen from the church robbery; Nancy really did mean to say “hit on your head” and Drake’s response was indicative of guilt; and finally he nearly slipped up and admitted his guilt to investigators.

All of these look bad for Drake.

However...

On the other hand, one can pick apart each individual point and derive innocent explanations for each and every one.

This is the part where I would have a hard time convicting him. Because there are legitimate, plausible, "innocent" explanations for everything that was used against Drake.

Perhaps I'm looking at it differently, but if an innocent guy was having an affair and his wife just so happens to be viciously attacked, the investigators could literally make a case against the guy. Anything he says could be tainted, considering the police already assume he's a liar due to the affair. I really think that's what happened with Drake. Once the affair was found out, the cops went back and nitpicked certain things he and Nancy had said, and realized that he was a stronger suspect that initially thought. I just think Drake's lies could be attributed to trying to cover up the affair and not necessarily the attack itself.

To me, however, to believe Drake is innocent, you pretty much have to give him the benefit of the doubt on each of those points, and you have to assume that all of these things coincided, for whatever reason, to make him appear guilty. He would have to be one of the unluckiest guys in the history of the criminal justice system.

But it's not just those things you mentioned that would give me pause to believe in his guilt. There was no prior history of abuse, both Drake and Nancy still seemed to be in love, and it just seems like such a sick, violent, act of rage that Drake was incapable of committing, all things considered.

All of these look bad for Drake.

However...



This is the part where I would have a hard time convicting him. Because there are legitimate, plausible, "innocent" explanations for everything that was used against Drake.

Perhaps I'm looking at it differently, but if an innocent guy was having an affair and his wife just so happens to be viciously attacked, the investigators could literally make a case against the guy. Anything he says could be tainted, considering the police already assume he's a liar due to the affair. I really think that's what happened with Drake. Once the affair was found out, the cops went back and nitpicked certain things he and Nancy had said, and realized that he was a stronger suspect that initially thought. I just think Drake's lies could be attributed to trying to cover up the affair and not necessarily the attack itself.



But it's not just those things you mentioned that would give me pause to believe in his guilt. There was no prior history of abuse, both Drake and Nancy still seemed to be in love, and it just seems like such a sick, violent, act of rage that Drake was incapable of committing, all things considered.

I feel you on all of this. I guess, as you said, it depends on how you look at it. I still say that the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt is sound because considering the totality of the circumstances, and the unlikelihood of someone else doing it (the lack of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence) you can secure a justifiable legally sound conviction.

On the flip side, I appreciate the innocent argument. I could clearly see how Drake, if innocent, may have made some statements to downplay certain aspects of the affair, protect Carol, etc. I mean, maybe he was just having an affair, some sicko attacks Nancy in an unrelated robbery, and Drake becomes the prime suspect due to the fact that he's her husband, admitted being on the scene, and all the other points we mentioned. On that note, we certainly have seen Final Appeals in the past where the appellant made ridiculous statements to investigators, lied about certain aspects of the case, etc. while under the gun, and such statements came back to bite them. If such a thing happened with Tom Drake, it wouldn't be the first time.

I hate to quote the guy, but I think cocytus said it best in regard to this case "we'll never know."

I think Drake deserves a retrial. His ex-wife seems to be more concerned that her cheating ex is in prison than the possibility her attacker may be at large.

I don't know what Drake's prospects for a third trial are after all this time. It appears as though Nancy has moved on, and likely the other key folks in the case have too. Assuming the assailant was the white haired man, he's likely deceased at this point given his advanced age at the time of the attack. Starr would be in his seventies, if he's still alive.

I think this might be a good one for the Innocence Project. I wouldn't mind a re-investigation personally.

I have a 10:30 am phone conference with Larry Shearer.

I have a 10:30 am phone conference with Larry Shearer.

Awesome! Please let us know how it goes!

Any questions you have I should ask?

Any questions you have I should ask?

Not sure if the phone call has happened yet. Assuming not...

1. Drake was arrested on August 3rd, 1983. On August 31st, Florida Department of Law Enforcement issued a report that contained the results of the crime scene investigation detailing a latent fingerprint on a window of a door that belonged to Raymond Starr. Starr had been questioned and released by Winter Haven police department in mid-July before the discovery of the fingerprint.

Question: Was the information about the Starr fingerprint relayed to Winter Haven PD, and did they re-interview Starr? If not, why? If so, what was his response for his fingerprint being there given the fact that the door had been washed that morning?

Starr's alibi was not corroborated by his sister. Was this followed up by either agency (Winter Haven or FDLE?)

Was any of this brought up at either trial?

2. You'll probably ask this but...what are Drake's chances for a re-trial or what would Shearer recommend at this juncture?

3. Any chances of the Innocence Project getting involved?

Might be too late but....

4. Did the prosecution assert that Drake forced Nancy to open the safe and then he attacked her with the hammer?

More generally, what was the theory, especially as it pertained to the actual mechanics of the crime? Along those lines, was there a reason Drake did it on that particular day and in this manner?

5. Was the evidence of burglary discovered (the footprint and broken window) related to the attack on Nancy or an earlier, unrelated incident?

6. I'm not sure how you would feel, or if he would even tell you but maybe ask Shearer if he thinks Thomas is factually innocent.

On that note, I'm not sure how much Shearer is going to be able to disclose since there is the whole attorney client privilege issue. Looking forward to Thursday...

I haven't read the most recent posts (most of which are very long), but the dude is innocent. Hell, the wife remembered someone else attacking her, was about to testify as much, then she conveniently forgot the day before the trial and later changed her tune and said she wanted to see him rot in prison, guilty or not, because he cheated on her.

Tells me everything I need to know.

If we were ever able to determine whether or not this was a crime of opportunity, or a crime of passion, I think that would settle the question of Drake's guilt or innocence once and for all. But, unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know. If a crime of passion, he's most certainly guilty. Crime of opportunity, it would have to have been either Starr or the white haired man instead of Drake.

ETA: I wonder if it's even possible that the white haired guy or Starr went to the church to legitimately buy tickets for this concert, and then when seeing the large sums of cash in the safe, decided to attack Nancy and steal the money.

If we were ever able to determine whether or not this was a crime of opportunity, or a crime of passion, I think that would settle the question of Drake's guilt or innocence once and for all. But, unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know. If a crime of passion, he's most certainly guilty. Crime of opportunity, it would have to have been either Starr or the white haired man instead of Drake.

ETA: I wonder if it's even possible that the white haired guy or Starr went to the church to legitimately buy tickets for this concert, and then when seeing the large sums of cash in the safe, decided to attack Nancy and steal the money.

It could have been premeditated.

I tend to think that because of the $100 bill. People generally don't have change for a $100 lying about. He would had to figure she would have to go to the safe to get the appropriate change, the safe would be open, and then he strikes. It's also another reason why I think Drake is not involved.

It's not too late. My interview has been rescheduled to Thursday morning.

I haven't read the most recent posts (most of which are very long), but the dude is innocent. Hell, the wife remembered someone else attacking her, was about to testify as much, then she conveniently forgot the day before the trial and later changed her tune and said she wanted to see him rot in prison, guilty or not, because he cheated on her.

Tells me everything I need to know.

You really should read the other posts in this thread. There is a lot more to this case.

It's not too late. My interview has been rescheduled to Thursday morning.

Cool. Added another question. If I think of anything else I'll let you know.

It's not too late. My interview has been rescheduled to Thursday morning.

Please ask about the alternate suspects in this case, white haired man, and Starr, and if the police did anything else to follow up on potential leads with both, or if there are more "alternate" suspects that we are unaware of.

It could have been premeditated.

I tend to think that because of the $100 bill. People generally don't have change for a $100 lying about. He would had to figure she would have to go to the safe to get the appropriate change, the safe would be open, and then he strikes. It's also another reason why I think Drake is not involved.

I agree that this detail does not seem like a made up statement by Nancy, and it appears to be a genuine remembrance of hers. But, it cannot be ruled out that Drake did not coach her to say this. The other thing that looks bad for Drake, but IMO should have never been used at trial, was the reaction he had to the "hit you on your habit" remark. Drake said nothing, and simply walked out after his wife had said this. He kept looking back at the officer who was standing guard there. It's an odd reaction for someone who is innocent.

I agree that this detail does not seem like a made up statement by Nancy, and it appears to be a genuine remembrance of hers. But, it cannot be ruled out that Drake did not coach her to say this. The other thing that looks bad for Drake, but IMO should have never been used at trial, was the reaction he had to the "hit you on your habit" remark. Drake said nothing, and simply walked out after his wife had said this. He kept looking back at the officer who was standing guard there. It's an odd reaction for someone who is innocent.

That is really subjective though. Along those lines, Drake doesn't offer much of an explanation for this statement by Nancy. He said that Nancy was getting her words mixed up, but really, if it was an accusation, substitute the word "habit" for "head" and the statement does make sense. Although that too is subjective, like so much of the evidence in this case.

Anyone else bothered by the fact Drake had sex with his mistress on the night of the attack and lied about it in court? Again, it could be subjective too, and Lopata could be lying herself but I tend to think that if it happened it shows that he really didn't a damn about what was going on with Nancy in the hospital.

That is really subjective though. Along those lines, Drake doesn't offer much of an explanation for this statement by Nancy. He said that Nancy was getting her words mixed up, but really, if it was an accusation, substitute the word "habit" for "head" and the statement does make sense. Although that too is subjective, like so much of the evidence in this case.

But even if Nancy was trying to say, "how would you feel if I hit you on your head", that doesn't sound accusatory, that sounds like frustration and Drake's stupid questions and her responses. She's basically saying, 'well how would you feel in my situation'. I've never got the vibe that this was accusatory towards Drake.

Anyone else bothered by the fact Drake had sex with his mistress on the night of the attack and lied about it in court? Again, it could be subjective too, and Lopata could be lying herself but I tend to think that if it happened it shows that he really didn't a damn about what was going on with Nancy in the hospital.

Yes.

But then again, if the Drake's did talk about separation, and their marriage was on the rocks at that point, this wouldn't strike me as particularly odd. If Drake didn't move his mistress in to his house, would this have even been a point brought up in court?

According to Lopata's testimony, it was four days after the attack. Drake spent the day at the hospital with Nancy, and then spent the night with her. Being that she was his mistress, as deplorable as this sounds, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that he would have had sex with her.

But even if Nancy was trying to say, "how would you feel if I hit you on your head", that doesn't sound accusatory, that sounds like frustration and Drake's stupid questions and her responses. She's basically saying, 'well how would you feel in my situation'. I've never got the vibe that this was accusatory towards Drake.

Yes, but considered within the context of the other dialog from that same exchange it cold be damning. From FindaCase...

In addition, Hutzell testified to the following events which occurred while she was sitting with Nancy at the hospital on July 29, 1983:

Q. On that date, July 29, 1983, do you recall what, if anything, was said when the Defendant was there in Nancy Drake's hospital room? ... .

A. On that evening, Nancy appeared rather agitated and from time to time made the statement that, "You don't care for me."

Q. Who was she saying that to?

A. To Mr. Drake. She said this, as I said, repeatedly from time to time. And Mr. Drake appeared in my opinion flustered and at one point asked her why she was saying these things? He had mentioned to me when she was saying these things also that she didn't usually talk like that. He responded at one point to her, saying, "I do care for you."

When he asked why she was saying things like that, that's when I would like to refer to my report to get her statement exact. At the last point where she said, "You don't care for me at all," he replied with the statement that he did care, asking her why she was saying things like that. She said, "Well, you certainly don't act like it." When he said, "Why are you saying things like that?" she replied, "How would you like me to hit you on your habit?"

Appellant made no response and left the hospital room shortly thereafter. When Hutzell followed him into the hall, he looked back at her twice as he departed but said nothing.

I could see how this can be construed negatively.

On the flipside, if she really knew that Thomas had attacked her (as she must have for this dialog to be believed) then why didn't she tell her doctors, nurses, the family, the cops, scream it to the world that Thomas attacked her?


Yes.

But then again, if the Drake's did talk about separation, and their marriage was on the rocks at that point, this wouldn't strike me as particularly odd. If Drake didn't move his mistress in to his house, would this have even been a point brought up in court?

According to Lopata's testimony, it was four days after the attack. Drake spent the day at the hospital with Nancy, and then spent the night with her. Being that she was his mistress, as deplorable as this sounds, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that he would have had sex with her.

You're right, it was four days after the attack that they got together, not the day of as I originally thought. Still, I find it ironic because as Drake says on Unsolved Mysteries...

The only thing I could care about was Nancy getting well and getting out…you know…of the hospital. I didn’t even think about it. I really didn’t.

So, according to him, he only cares about Nancy's well being, and he made this statement within the context of moving Lapota into his house. That makes me wonder what Drake's endgame was in all this. Assuming Nancy did recover (which he appeared concerned about) what would she have come home to?

I could see how this can be construed negatively.

On the flipside, if she really knew that Thomas had attacked her (as she must have for this dialog to be believed) then why didn't she tell her doctors, nurses, the family, the cops, scream it to the world that Thomas attacked her?

I agree that his response was odd. Especially with him leaving and not even saying anything to Nancy. But then again, how many countless times are people told that people react and grieve differently in different situations? There are a myriad of reasons why Drake would react that way, if he in fact was innocent. Guilt over knowing that he just moved his mistress in to his house that he and Nancy shared, while his wife is still lying in a hospital bed is one of them.

So, according to him, he only cares about Nancy's well being, and he made this statement within the context of moving Lapota into his house. That makes me wonder what Drake's endgame was in all this. Assuming Nancy did recover (which he appeared concerned about) what would she have come home to?

I could never understand this either. Did Drake plan on helping Lopata get her own place in the town and he only planned on letting her stay there for a few days or weeks? I guess he could have told Nancy that she was a "friend" who needed help getting back on her feet, so he let her stay in the house. I would have to assume that Drake knew Nancy was going to be getting out of the hospital at some point, so he had to have figured that Lopata would have to get her own place eventually.

I agree that his response was odd. Especially with him leaving and not even saying anything to Nancy. But then again, how many countless times are people told that people react and grieve differently in different situations? There are a myriad of reasons why Drake would react that way, if he in fact was innocent. Guilt over knowing that he just moved his mistress in to his house that he and Nancy shared, while his wife is still lying in a hospital bed is one of them.

Even though I think it is likely that Drake is guilty, I was always bothered by the testimony regarding his body language and the habit comment. It all just seemed too subjective. I think even the appeals court allowed it though. I'd have to double check.

I could never understand this either. Did Drake plan on helping Lopata get her own place in the town and he only planned on letting her stay there for a few days or weeks? I guess he could have told Nancy that she was a "friend" who needed help getting back on her feet, so he let her stay in the house. I would have to assume that Drake knew Nancy was going to be getting out of the hospital at some point, so he had to have figured that Lopata would have to get her own place eventually.

I could turn this whole discussion upside down and posit that Drake planned on killing Nancy so that he could start this new life with Lopata.

Even though I think it is likely that Drake is guilty, I was always bothered by the testimony regarding his body language and the habit comment. It all just seemed too subjective. I think even the appeals court allowed it though. I'd have to double check.

Yes, it's always reminded me of the "body language expert" who testified against Paul Ferrell. IMO, I don't see how this type of testimony would be allowed in 2015.

I could turn this whole discussion upside down and posit that Drake planned on killing Nancy so that he could start this new life with Lopata.

Yes, more than likely. The "never have to work" again comment to Lopata is the biggest red flag against Drake. Obviously, he wasn't referring to the money from the church safe because that would have ran out eventually. What other way would he be able to financially support her for an extended period of time? Nancy's insurance money.

I wonder if Lopata thought he was guilty.

I wonder if Lopata thought he was guilty.

I'd have to say that if she truly was under the assumption that Drake was divorced, than yes she thought he was guilty. He lied to her about that, so why wouldn't he lie about attacking Nancy as well? I'm sure the various things he said to her ("you'll never have to work again") became clear after he was charged by law enforcement. I think the cops may have used some questionable tactics to get her to talk (if it's true that they threatened to take her child away, or hint at it), but in the eyes of the cops, they probably thought Lopata may have been involved with or had known about the planning of the attack. It's clear that after she started telling them the details she wasn't, but they didn't know that at the time.

I'd have to say that if she truly was under the assumption that Drake was divorced, than yes she thought he was guilty. He lied to her about that, so why wouldn't he lie about attacking Nancy as well? I'm sure the various things he said to her ("you'll never have to work again") became clear after he was charged by law enforcement. I think the cops may have used some questionable tactics to get her to talk (if it's true that they threatened to take her child away, or hint at it), but in the eyes of the cops, they probably thought Lopata may have been involved with or had known about the planning of the attack. It's clear that after she started telling them the details she wasn't, but they didn't know that at the time.

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was legal that the police threatened to take her son. Honestly, she is another party in this case that probably should have lawyered up. However, if the cops did pressure her in this manner, I think it's understandable because they would have had no way of knowing from the start if Lopata was involved in the attack on Nancy. Thus, I suspect that they used the possibility of taking her son and threats of being charged as an accomplice as "leverage" to gain her cooperation with the investigation and ultimately the prosecution of Thomas Drake

Just saw this one for the first time that I can recall yesterday on the Farina version so I assume it was heavily chopped up and edited.

I think if he did not move in his mistress in right after his wife was attacked that he may be a free man today.

His ex wifes comments at the end were harsh about saying she did not know if he did it but he deserves to be there. C'mon were talking a life sentence for something he may not have done.

I don't think he did it.

I don't think he did it.

I've written at length about this case. I'll just say there is a lot more to this case than what UM presented.

If you are at all interested in this case I highly recommend reading this thread.

You'll see it's hardly the cut and dry whitewash UM gave it.

The Drake case has always frustrated me.

I was recently watching a show on ID Discovery where a lawyer said that largely circumstantial cases are presented to a jury through two lenses of each side (prosecution and defense). Each have the same evidence but are trying to "sell" completely different stories to the jury.

Which is why the Drake case frustrates me. Because both stories presented by the prosecution and defense make sense. I've wrestled back and forth with this case through the years, and the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that Drake was the most likely guilty party.

The Drake case has always frustrated me.

I was recently watching a show on ID Discovery where a lawyer said that largely circumstantial cases are presented to a jury through two lenses of each side (prosecution and defense). Each have the same evidence but are trying to "sell" completely different stories to the jury.

Which is why the Drake case frustrates me. Because both stories presented by the prosecution and defense make sense. I've wrestled back and forth with this case through the years, and the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that Drake was the most likely guilty party.

I went back and re-read some of the conversation again. The timeframe bothers me. I just think it is pretty unlikely some other person could have come along during that narrow window and attacked Nancy.

I went back and re-read some of the conversation again. The timeframe bothers me. I just think it is pretty unlikely some other person could have come along during that narrow window and attacked Nancy.

I did the same thing, lol.

Drake appears to have been in the church for an extended period of time that day prior to the attack. That lessens the chances of an outsider coming in within a 10-15 minute time frame and attacking Nancy and then get away undetected.

I did the same thing, lol.

Drake appears to have been in the church for an extended period of time that day prior to the attack. That lessens the chances of an outsider coming in within a 10-15 minute time frame and attacking Nancy and then get away undetected.

Random thought but this just came to me and it wasn't discussed previously - why do you think the prosecution declined to participate with UM?

The realist in me thinks that they probably just didn't want to be bothered and/or potentially risk more litigation from Drake should they say the wrong thing.

The cynic in me thinks maybe they realized the evidence was thin.

I wonder if Drake knew and was annoyed that the segment never aired until 2009.

Random thought but this just came to me and it wasn't discussed previously - why do you think the prosecution declined to participate with UM?

The realist in me thinks that they probably just didn't want to be bothered and/or potentially risk more litigation from Drake should they say the wrong thing.

The cynic in me thinks maybe they realized the evidence was thin.

I wonder if Drake knew and was annoyed that the segment never aired until 2009.

Good question.

I honestly don't know. I tend to think that with this case the prosecution believed it to be Drake, he was already convicted, so they figured (like the prosecutor in the Larry Race segment) that it was not an actual unsolved crime, since Drake was guilty and that he was incarcerated.

I had no idea the segment never aired until the Farina episodes. I wonder if this case had been shown on Lifetime at one point in the 90's if there would have been some sort grass roots movement to try and get Drake another trial.

Good question.

I honestly don't know. I tend to think that with this case the prosecution believed it to be Drake, he was already convicted, so they figured (like the prosecutor in the Larry Race segment) that it was not an actual unsolved crime, since Drake was guilty and that he was incarcerated.

The only other Final Appeal I can think of where the prosecution declined to participate was the Johnny Lee Wilson case. However, there was so much wrong with that case it is understandable. That being said though, it does make one wonder if something was amiss with Drake's case too. Even when there is seemingly "no mystery" ala Larry Race, the DA still took time to go on television and dismiss the claims.

I had no idea the segment never aired until the Farina episodes. I wonder if this case had been shown on Lifetime at one point in the 90's if there would have been some sort grass roots movement to try and get Drake another trial.

I had wondered the same thing. It seems that people who just watch the segment without doing research and/or thinking critically overwhelmingly seem to believe in his innocence.

Which is why the Drake case frustrates me. Because both stories presented by the prosecution and defense make sense. I've wrestled back and forth with this case through the years, and the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that Drake was the most likely guilty party.

This got me thinking...

Wouldn't logic dictate that Drake was guilty?

I mean, what are the odds that all the affair drama and hinky circumstances in this case that made Drake look bad would coalesce to send an innocent man to prison?

To look at this another way...if some random perp struck, what are the odds that all the (seemingly unrelated) BS would be happening simultaneously and thus implicate Drake in the crime?

This got me thinking...

Wouldn't logic dictate that Drake was guilty?

I mean, what are the odds that all the affair drama and hinky circumstances in this case that made Drake look bad would coalesce to send an innocent man to prison?

To look at this another way...if some random perp struck, what are the odds that all the (seemingly unrelated) BS would be happening simultaneously and thus implicate Drake in the crime?

If you pick a random person on the street, odds are that they have some problem in their life. Either their spouse is cheating on them, or they're cheating on their spouse, or they have some family drama going on, or debts, or any one of an endless number of problems. Few people are perfectly content with their life. A prosecutor could find a "motive" for 99% of the population at any given point.

This got me thinking...

Wouldn't logic dictate that Drake was guilty?

I mean, what are the odds that all the affair drama and hinky circumstances in this case that made Drake look bad would coalesce to send an innocent man to prison?

To look at this another way...if some random perp struck, what are the odds that all the (seemingly unrelated) BS would be happening simultaneously and thus implicate Drake in the crime?

Yes.

While not impossible, it would be highly improbable that Drake just so happened to be there on the same day that Nancy was attacked. Now if that wasn't enough, he also was having an affair, made odd remarks to his mistress about taking care of her financially, and just so happened to be at the scene minutes before the attack occurred.

Random thought on Starr:

If the cops did not follow up on the fingerprint being found on the window after Drake's arrest, one would have to assume that, at the very least, the prosecution did. Because they had to have known that Drake was going to use this as a defense ploy at the trial, and without some sort of explanation for Starr's alibi, scratches found on him, and the fingerprint, they knew that alone could be enough to cast reasonable doubt on the case. They probably did a background check on Starr, confirmed his usual presence in the church office, and wrote it off as a coincidence. They may have even had someone substantiate an alibi for him, placing him elsewhere from the church. The reason I think this happened is because if there was nothing found with regards to Starr, Drake's defense would have been screaming from the roof tops at every chance they got to implicate him further. But they didn't. They tried to blame both Starr and this mysterious white haired man. Which tells me they didn't have enough to pin on Starr as an alternate suspect. Or in other words, Starr didn't do it.

Random thought on Starr:

If the cops did not follow up on the fingerprint being found on the window after Drake's arrest, one would have to assume that, at the very least, the prosecution did. Because they had to have known that Drake was going to use this as a defense ploy at the trial, and without some sort of explanation for Starr's alibi, scratches found on him, and the fingerprint, they knew that alone could be enough to cast reasonable doubt on the case. They probably did a background check on Starr, confirmed his usual presence in the church office, and wrote it off as a coincidence. They may have even had someone substantiate an alibi for him, placing him elsewhere from the church. The reason I think this happened is because if there was nothing found with regards to Starr, Drake's defense would have been screaming from the roof tops at every chance they got to implicate him further. But they didn't. They tried to blame both Starr and this mysterious white haired man. Which tells me they didn't have enough to pin on Starr as an alternate suspect. Or in other words, Starr didn't do it.

I always thought Starr was the alternate suspect at the first trial (he did testify, FWIW), and the white haired man was the alternate suspect at the second trial because that was what Nancy "remembered" when she talked to Sheerer after Drake's first conviction. I could be wrong, but I don't think the white haired man came up until the second trial.

Further, I thought the "meshing" of these two theories came about in Drake's various appeals (after both trials) to create doubt - when you have weak evidence, bring it together to make it look stronger as a whole.

A true fact-based assessment of this case requires disentangling and examining both suspects individually because the theories are mutually exclusive. Assessment of each suspect (e.g., Starr, white haired man) reveals both are weak and that is why I think Drake was convicted and his convictions ultimately upheld by the superior court.

I always thought Starr was the alternate suspect at the first trial (he did testify, FWIW), and the white haired man was the alternate suspect at the second trial because that was what Nancy "remembered" when she talked to Sheerer after Drake's first conviction. I could be wrong, but I don't think the white haired man came up until the second trial.

So do you think Nancy had a false memory of this man?

I always thought Starr was the alternate suspect at the first trial (he did testify, FWIW), and the white haired man was the alternate suspect at the second trial because that was what Nancy "remembered" when she talked to Sheerer after Drake's first conviction. I could be wrong, but I don't think the white haired man came up until the second trial.

Further, I thought the "meshing" of these two theories came about in Drake's various appeals (after both trials) to create doubt - when you have weak evidence, bring it together to make it look stronger as a whole.

A true fact-based assessment of this case requires disentangling and examining both suspects individually because the theories are mutually exclusive. Assessment of each suspect (e.g., Starr, white haired man) reveals both are weak and that is why I think Drake was convicted and his convictions ultimately upheld by the superior court.

The evidence against "white haired guy" is totally null, IMO. Two people (including Drake) saw him sitting outside the church in his car on the day Nancy was attacked. That's it. No one saw him leaving the car, entering the church, etc. This man has also never been identified.

Starr would be the more likely "suspect" that Drake's defense would want to pin the crimes on, due to him being a church member, and his print being found in the office where Nancy was attacked. Due to the length of his police interview (roughly 20 minutes), I don't think the police ever seriously looked at him as a person of interest in the case. How would Starr have benefited from attacking Nancy at all? Would if she did remember the attack? Since he was a church parishioner, she could have identified him. The only person who would have had a motive to commit such a vicious crime is Thomas Drake. If you believe otherwise, say Starr or white haired guy, then the motive was initially just for the money in the safe. So why brutally beat Nancy with a hammer of all things? Just doesn't pass the smell test for me anymore.

Looking at an older article on the net, I see where at Drake's second trial, the prosecution confronted him with various witnesses for the state, and he pretty much called them all liars under oath. That definitely did not help Drake's cause. Not to mention that, at the most, there was a 20 minute window for an robbery turned attempted murder after Drake claims to have left until Nancy was discovered. It's possible, but highly unlikely, IMO.

The evidence against "white haired guy" is totally null, IMO.

While your point is well taken, I personally wouldn't go his far. Remember, Nancy Drake claimed that this man attacked her. Also, I thought the report issued by FDLE indicated that there were unidentified latent palm and fingerprint impressions on various items on the desk and in the office. Unidentified prints and impressions could come from anywhere, but they could have also come from an unidentified intruder, assuming he existed. It may be worth noting that the white haired assailant didn't wear gloves according to Nancy's testimony.

Two people (including Drake) saw him sitting outside the church in his car on the day Nancy was attacked.

Do you believe that Thomas Drake was being honest here? Just curious.

Starr would be the more likely "suspect" that Drake's defense would want to pin the crimes on, due to him being a church member, and his print being found in the office where Nancy was attacked. Due to the length of his police interview (roughly 20 minutes), I don't think the police ever seriously looked at him as a person of interest in the case. How would Starr have benefited from attacking Nancy at all? Would if she did remember the attack? Since he was a church parishioner, she could have identified him.

We may have discussed this previously, but I think blaming the attack on Starr was too risky. The white haired man "got away" and remains unidentified to this day, so he's the perfect boogeyman scapegoat to blame these crimes on.

The only person who would have had a motive to commit such a vicious crime is Thomas Drake.

This literally just occurred to me. Thomas Drake said that the marriage was on the rocks. Couldn't he have just gotten a divorce? Wasn't it headed that way, at least according to him?

If you believe otherwise, say Starr or white haired guy, then the motive was initially just for the money in the safe. So why brutally beat Nancy with a hammer of all things? Just doesn't pass the smell test for me anymore.

To play devil's advocate, look at any robbery where the victim complies fully but the assailant commits an (unnecessary) act of violence against them. Some criminals are just that callous, unfortunately.

Also, why would Drake use the hammer? That's a pretty horrible thing to do to your wife, and there isn't much to suggest that Drake had been abusive or violent toward Nancy in the past.

Regardless, I still say the hammer was a weapon of opportunity. For either Drake or an intruder.

Looking at an older article on the net, I see where at Drake's second trial, the prosecution confronted him with various witnesses for the state, and he pretty much called them all liars under oath. That definitely did not help Drake's cause.

Guilty or not, Drake didn't do himself a lot of favors in the aftermath of the attack.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think Drake testified at the first trial. He testified at the second, but he lied his ass off on the stand about the affair with Lopata, and his testimony was contradicted by several witnesses, especially Lopata herself. Thus, I think it's reasonable to assume the jury wouldn't have bought his story about his whereabouts during the attack.

Not to mention that, at the most, there was a 20 minute window for an robbery turned attempted murder after Drake claims to have left until Nancy was discovered. It's possible, but highly unlikely, IMO.

I thought the time frame was even tighter than that. On FA, Drake said he arrived at 12:15 and left at 12:30. Whitehead found Nancy at about 12:40. So we're looking at 10 minutes give or take. Factoring in the 9 minute recorded telephone call and the fact that various people came and went during Drake's admitted presence on the scene, including a repairman and Althea Toth, it is reasonable to assume Drake was lying about the amount of time he was in the office. The only reason to lie about such a thing would be to cover up a crime, IMO.

While your point is well taken, I personally wouldn't go his far. Remember, Nancy Drake claimed that this man attacked her. Also, I thought the report issued by FDLE indicated that there were unidentified latent palm and fingerprint impressions on various items on the desk and in the office. Unidentified prints and impressions could come from anywhere, but they could have also come from an unidentified intruder, assuming he existed. It may be worth noting that the white haired assailant didn't wear gloves according to Nancy's testimony.

Yet Nancy didn't testify at Drake's second trial, and if she did, Taxdal could have refuted her assertion that she suddenly remembered who attacked her. Unidentified fingerprints and impressions are not uncommon at crime scenes.

Do you believe that Thomas Drake was being honest here? Just curious.

Yes. Althea Toth saw this man and described the same vehicle that Drake did, IIRC.

We may have discussed this previously, but I think blaming the attack on Starr was too risky. The white haired man "got away" and remains unidentified to this day, so he's the perfect boogeyman scapegoat to blame these crimes on.

Right. Assuming Drake is guilty, who is easier to pin the crimes on at his first trial? Starr or the "white haired guy"? IMHO, I don't even think Drake thought up "white haired guy" as an alternate "suspect" until after his first conviction. I think his attempt to blame the crime on Starr was done because of the fact that he was a known church member, and the fingerprint found that matched Starr. It wasn't until after he was convicted that he realized that Starr wasn't a viable enough alternate suspect, so he went after the only other logical choice who was at the church that day: the unknown guy he saw sitting in his car in the church lot. He coaches Nancy to "remember" this little detail, and bingo...he gets a new shot at freedom.

This literally just occurred to me. Thomas Drake said that the marriage was on the rocks. Couldn't he have just gotten a divorce? Wasn't it headed that way, at least according to him?

Separation is what was discussed, IIRC. But anyway, Drake couldn't have played up the role of financial "suitor" to Carol Lopata without Nancy's money.

To play devil's advocate, look at any robbery where the victim complies fully but the assailant commits an (unnecessary) act of violence against them. Some criminals are just that callous, unfortunately.

If "white haired guy" was the attacker, why not just scare Nancy with the hammer, or threaten her? And why not bring a weapon to the scene if the plan was to rob the church?

Also, why would Drake use the hammer? That's a pretty horrible thing to do to your wife, and there isn't much to suggest that Drake had been abusive or violent toward Nancy in the past.

Something set him off, and he grabbed the nearest thing he could find.

I thought the time frame was even tighter than that. On FA, Drake said he arrived at 12:15 and left at 12:30. Whitehead found Nancy at about 12:40. So we're looking at 10 minutes give or take. Factoring in the 9 minute recorded telephone call and the fact that various people came and went during Drake's admitted presence on the scene, including a repairman and Althea Toth, it is reasonable to assume Drake was lying about the amount of time he was in the office. The only reason to lie about such a thing would be to cover up a crime, IMO.

I think this was brought up at the 2nd trial during closing arguments. The defense estimates placed a maximum of 20 minutes between the time Drake left the church to when Nancy was found. I was going by their max time limit.

Separation is what was discussed, IIRC. But anyway, Drake couldn't have played up the role of financial "suitor" to Carol Lopata without Nancy's money.

and...


Something set him off, and he grabbed the nearest thing he could find.

That is something that I've never been able to comfortably tidy up in my own mind.

Was the attack planned or unplanned?

Certain elements suggest he planned it - the need for money. The life insurance policy, for instance. The staging at the scene.

Certain elements suggest spur of the moment attack - the fact that Nancy called Thomas to bring her lunch on the day of the attack, the use of the hammer, the fact that Drake let himself be seen by so many people who could place him at the church, and the fact that Nancy wasn't really killed (assuming that her death was Drake's ultimate goal so he could profit financially).

Still say guilty though.

and...



That is something that I've never been able to comfortably tidy up in my own mind.

Was the attack planned or unplanned?

Certain elements suggest he planned it - the need for money. The life insurance policy, for instance. The staging at the scene.

Certain elements suggest spur of the moment attack - the fact that Nancy called Thomas to bring her lunch on the day of the attack, the use of the hammer, the fact that Drake let himself be seen by so many people who could place him at the church, and the fact that Nancy wasn't really killed (assuming that her death was Drake's ultimate goal so he could profit financially).

Still say guilty though.

I lean towards spur of the moment attack. Don't think it was planned. I do think that Drake had built up a festering resentment towards Nancy (hinted at in the UM broadcast because of how much she was working at the church), and that they got into an argument shortly after the phone call with the DJ. Because even the DJ said that both of them sounded completely normal on the phone.

I feel that too much of the attention on here is being focused on Drake himself. Yes, he had an affair. So have over half the people ever involved in a relationship. Yes, they were still legally married, but in their minds, both of them had moved on. Nancy was spending most of her time at the church, Thomas had found someone else. Both of them had mentally checked out of the marriage and it was a matter of time before the split was legal. But it seems as if the biggest "evidence" against Drake was that he cheated on his wife, because there's squat in terms of physical evidence against him linking him to this. It's weak.

In order to fully assess how likely it is Thomas is guilty, you need to examine the likelihood that someone else is responsible. Let's start with the grey-haired man. It's important to note that not one, not two, but THREE people have stated they have seen this suspicious man lurking about the property, which makes the odds of Thomas being innocent shoot up dramatically. Let's examine each of the people who have seen this man.

1) Thomas Drake. Hardly an unbiased source, but I'd be curious to know if he was the first to mention it. If so, that means it's unlikely he could have gleaned that info from one of the other sources.

2) Nancy Drake. Yes, her statement will be called into question because of her brain injuries. But it's important to note that she not only recalled seeing this man, but also gave a detailed story about him asking for change for a hundred dollar bill, her going to get said change, and the attack on her happening then. This is too long, detailed and complex a story for her to have pulled it out of thin air. I also find it suspicious that she suddenly forgot about this the day before Thomas's trial. Memory loss that was too convenient for my taste.

3) Althea Toth, I think her name was. This is perhaps the most important because it's coming from an unbiased person who has no horse in this race.

So perhaps you can eliminate one or even two of these, but how do you get to the point where you can dismiss the testimony of 3 people stating they have seen this man? Isn't that stretching a bit?

It's also important to note how potentially easy it is for some random person off the street to get away with robbing a church.

1) For starters, it's not a place where people are typically "on guard." It's classified as a sacred institution where people feel safe and not somewhere people feel the need to be alert.

2) Unlike many other public buildings, the security here is either low or nonexistent. There almost certainly isn't cameras in every corner.

3) It is generally assumed that everyone is welcome at church. Therefore, a a criminal who looks like a criminal could be spotted at a church and not come off as someone who seems "out of place". He could be gone before anyone realizes what happened.

4) I feel required to mention Harold & Thomas Swain. Eerily similar crime. I haven't seen the segment in a while, but it was the same timeframe and same motive in a neighboring state. For that matter, I'd be curious to know where Dennis Perry was the day of Nancy's attack. And it should be noted that Perry obviously wasn't concerned about leaving witnesses as he left a good amount of them.

And on top of all of that, you have to keep in mind the concert Nancy was selling tickets for was a well publicized event with strong ticket sales. So perhaps someone felt that the proceeds for it would, as Gorilla Monsoon would say, be "ripe for the pickings."

And what about the mental patient whose fingerprint was found in that office? Let's just say, he wouldn't have been the first mental patient to have committed a brutal attack on someone.

So after you take all of these things into consideration, I think there is way too much reasonable doubt here. I simply do not understand how this man got life + 30 years. Hell, he could have had a light sentence had he admitted it but he couldn't do that because he was innocent.

You also have to take into consideration that Thomas was not only known to Nancy, but to other church members.

1) If Thomas were to attack Nancy, wouldn't he have "finished the job"? If he is guilty, he would have no way of knowing that Nancy would develop amnesia and it's not something he could have counted on. She could obviously identify him if she lived and could remember things, so it seems like Thomas, if he is guilty, would have made sure the job was done.

2) Since Thomas was known to other parishioners, wouldn't it have been incredibly stupid for him to attack Nancy in broad daylight at her office, where anyone that comes in could potentially identify him? And again, this is where the other suspects come in, because you have to figure they wouldn't be as easily identifiable to the churchgoers since they weren't regular attendees, and the perp would know this. And if a random perp did this, he has gotten away with it for 32 years because he remains to be identified.

We also need to examine motives. Money and checks were stolen, which point towards robbery as the motive. The checks are a bit of a wash in one sense, since it wouldn't make sense for anyone to steal them due to the ease of being traced back to them. But what happened to them? Thomas could have stolen them and kept them on his property, but this was in the day when paper shredders weren't common, if they existed at all back then. What if any of the bills had been marked in some way? What if a customer said there was some goofy drawing on a bill they gave Nancy? If police find said bill at Thomas's house, his goose is cooked. Would he be that stupid? Did he make any significant deposits at his bank shortly after Nancy's attack?

Thomas has no known motives for the attack. Life insurance is the usual failsafe for prosecutors, but he didn't kill her, so that goes right out the window. Yeah, their marriage wasn't great, but as I said above, they had both moved on, he had already found somebody else. It wasn't like she was refusing divorce or something.

It's also worth noting that this wasn't a pre-planned attack since Nancy was the one that called Thomas to her office to bring her lunch. In other cases, people are quick to point out "Don't you bring the murder weapon with you"? (see Routier, Darlie). If Thomas planned on killing his wife, wouldn't he have brought something? He couldn't even be sure that hammer would be handy! The only other option is a spontaneous attack, but that seems even more outrageous. He just, out of the blue, up and decides to assault his wife for no apparent reason?

Apologies for the long post, but I feel there is way too much unknown about this case to be certain Thomas is guilty because he cheated on his wife.

Wow. I just watched this episode for the I don't how many time. Your points are the best. The thing about the bringing the lunch was spot on. I didn't even think about that until now. Why not ask the people at the church if he as a history of stopping by the church to bring her lunch. If not dude that a serious indiscretion.

It seem to be a running scenario on UM with these types of cases that the convenience of the weapon being already in place for the perpetrator to use(Cause you know when I'm going to commit an attack, I hope there will be something I'm going to use handy.). Didn't they say Thomas Drake was using that same hammer just the days before the attack humm did he just leave it laying out, most people put their tools away when they aren't using them. Or did the attacker come into the church and take the time to find the hammer so he could use to attack her. Seem like a lot of work if your planning to rob the church on a whim. Wouldn't you already maybe have a weapon to commit the crime. How convenient also that he mentions see a white haired man sitting in a car when he was bringing her the lunch. He's saying this on UM and I'm staring at his SNOW white hair another convenient that another man with white hair just happened to be in the area as him. And of course the elephant in the room, the GIRLFRIEND again he professing his love for his wife and how he could never do a thing like that. Instead of moving your girlfriend and her son into your house shouldn't you be spending every waking moment with your wife in the hospital. If the portrayal is true and the police staked out his house and seen him play catch outside with the girlfriends son. Man that's some messed up S**t.

My opinion is maybe he went to the church argued with the wife, got into a rage grab the hammer started hitting her with it. Thinking he killed her panicked, so he took the money as a cover to throw suspicion off him to make it look like a robbery gone wrong.

Thinking that she was dead he leaves, not thinking that some would find her so soon and that she was still alive. He's at home and he gets the call probably thinking they would say your wife is dead, instead he is surprised to hear his wife has alive at the hospital. Now he's sweating bullets. When he goes to see her he said she looked so bad. Now he's think well she's probably not going to make. His ONE BIG MISTAKE he's feeling so confident he moves his girlfriend in(Why wait right, she not going to make it. Why not start the new family). If he had just waited he would not be in jail right now. YES he said it himself they convicted him on his adultery. You don't have to like it, you can say it's not fair but your actions speaks volumes.

The thing about the bringing the lunch was spot on. I didn't even think about that until now. Why not ask the people at the church if he as a history of stopping by the church to bring her lunch. If not dude that a serious indiscretion.

I don't think it would be really relevant. Nancy forgot her lunch that day, Thomas brought it by. He wasn't even planning on being at the church that day. I'm not sure they could ask witnesses now, 33 years or so after the fact.

It seem to be a running scenario on UM with these types of cases that the convenience of the weapon being already in place for the perpetrator to use(Cause you know when I'm going to commit an attack, I hope there will be something I'm going to use handy.). Didn't they say Thomas Drake was using that same hammer just the days before the attack humm did he just leave it laying out, most people put their tools away when they aren't using them. Or did the attacker come into the church and take the time to find the hammer so he could use to attack her. Seem like a lot of work if your planning to rob the church on a whim. Wouldn't you already maybe have a weapon to commit the crime.

The thing with that is, Thomas didn't even plan on being at the church that day, he was called there by Nancy.

How convenient also that he mentions see a white haired man sitting in a car when he was bringing her the lunch. He's saying this on UM and I'm staring at his SNOW white hair another convenient that another man with white hair just happened to be in the area as him.

Nearly 10 years elapsed before the crime and the filming of the segment. Totally plausible Thomas's hair could have went grey by then.

And of course the elephant in the room, the GIRLFRIEND again he professing his love for his wife and how he could never do a thing like that. Instead of moving your girlfriend and her son into your house shouldn't you be spending every waking moment with your wife in the hospital. If the portrayal is true and the police staked out his house and seen him play catch outside with the girlfriends son. Man that's some messed up S**t.

My opinion is maybe he went to the church argued with the wife, got into a rage grab the hammer started hitting her with it. Thinking he killed her panicked, so he took the money as a cover to throw suspicion off him to make it look like a robbery gone wrong.

Thinking that she was dead he leaves, not thinking that some would find her so soon and that she was still alive. He's at home and he gets the call probably thinking they would say your wife is dead, instead he is surprised to hear his wife has alive at the hospital. Now he's sweating bullets. When he goes to see her he said she looked so bad. Now he's think well she's probably not going to make. His ONE BIG MISTAKE he's feeling so confident he moves his girlfriend in(Why wait right, she not going to make it. Why not start the new family). If he had just waited he would not be in jail right now. YES he said it himself they convicted him on his adultery. You don't have to like it, you can say it's not fair but your actions speaks volumes.

I understand how that can look bad, but their marriage was essentially over. They were only married in the legal sense, for all other intents and purposes, their relationship was done.

His ONE BIG MISTAKE he's feeling so confident he moves his girlfriend in(Why wait right, she not going to make it. Why not start the new family). If he had just waited he would not be in jail right now. YES he said it himself they convicted him on his adultery. You don't have to like it, you can say it's not fair but your actions speaks volumes.

This is a decent point, and one that I had thought of before. Drake very well may have believed Nancy was going to die in the hospital, so he moved his girlfriend in. A very bold, and arrogant move on his part that ultimately backfired.

I totally agree with every point Wiseguy made. I still don't think Drake is guilty.

Re: The girlfriend. I wouldn't say it was necessarily arrogant to move her in, but maybe ignorant. Who knows what the hospital told him. Could have been that they said she would have brain damage and would not be able to live independently even if she did recover. If their marriage was already pretty much over, he probably just jumped the gun having the GF move in.

I think his wife's convenient amnesia and her completely outrageous statement that even if he didn't do it he should be in jail for cheating on her (or whatever exactly she said) is horrible and vindictive and she's the one who is bold and arrogant, if anyone. Even worse coming from someone who is supposedly a good church going woman.

Re: The girlfriend. I wouldn't say it was necessarily arrogant to move her in, but maybe ignorant. Who knows what the hospital told him. Could have been that they said she would have brain damage and would not be able to live independently even if she did recover. If their marriage was already pretty much over, he probably just jumped the gun having the GF move in.

But he was visiting Nancy in jail, and she was alert and talking to him, prior to his moving the girlfriend in. What exactly did Drake plan on doing once Nancy was released from the hospital?

I think his wife's convenient amnesia and her completely outrageous statement that even if he didn't do it he should be in jail for cheating on her (or whatever exactly she said) is horrible and vindictive and she's the one who is bold and arrogant, if anyone. Even worse coming from someone who is supposedly a good church going woman.

I'll never understand why UM even left this quote in the broadcast. It was clearly a ploy to play up the "maybe he didn't do it" aspect of the story. Nancy could not, based off of her neurosurgeon's testimony, remember any details of the attack, or prior moments leading up to it. I think it's possible that she got cold feet at the trial, because had she testified, Drake could have gotten off. And she had no idea whether or not he was guilty. I think she did the right thing, IMO.

I don't think it would be really relevant. Nancy forgot her lunch that day, Thomas brought it by. He wasn't even planning on being at the church that day. I'm not sure they could ask witnesses now, 33 years or so after the fact.



The thing with that is, Thomas didn't even plan on being at the church that day, he was called there by Nancy.



Nearly 10 years elapsed before the crime and the filming of the segment. Totally plausible Thomas's hair could have went grey by then.



I understand how that can look bad, but their marriage was essentially over. They were only married in the legal sense, for all other intents and purposes, their relationship was done.


Wow again, I didn't think anyone would even pay attention to my comments since the last post was sometime last year.

Wiseguy182 by you trying to explain away all my points you basically just proved why it's so easy to believe he did do it.

You said she forgot her lunch and that's why he was there. So the guy who in the episode was said to resent his wife for being so involved in the church and neglecting him and in your words basically had called it quits with his wife, just decided to be a nice guy, and skip on down to the church the day shes attacked.

So you can't have it both ways. The guy who is cheating, and just phoning it in on his marriage, but goes out of his way to do something nice when the wife that he does care about calls him and he goes running. I don't know about you, but if someone I don't really care about call me and ask me do something for them chances are it's not going to get done.

So how about this to make us both right. He begrudgingly bring her the lunch and gets into an argument with her, picks up the hammer starts beating with it. and rest happened like I said before.

Honestly I don't know if the guy is guilty or not, but there are so many cases on UM with so much evidence pointing to a lot of them being guilty. Simple probability would stand to reason that most are guilty. Life can't always be circumstantial....

Good points Uconn with regards to Drake's marriage being on the rocks, and by his own admission all but over...yet he still is devoted enough to drop everything and bring her her lunch, hang pictures for her in her office, etc.

You said she forgot her lunch and that's why he was there. So the guy who in the episode was said to resent his wife for being so involved in the church and neglecting him and in your words basically had called it quits with his wife, just decided to be a nice guy, and skip on down to the church the day shes attacked.

So you can't have it both ways. The guy who is cheating, and just phoning it in on his marriage, but goes out of his way to do something nice when the wife that he does care about calls him and he goes running. I don't know about you, but if someone I don't really care about call me and ask me do something for them chances are it's not going to get done.

I don't think he hated her. Just because their marriage was ending doesn't necessarily mean they were on bad terms. There are a lot of instances where people remain friends after the marriage, whatever has ended.

I just watched this case last night. I think he is innocent. He doesn't seem violent. There is really so solid motive if you ask me. If he wanted to leave her all he gotta do is say goodbye. The $100 dollar bill guy is a possibility. Or someone mentally ill.

Even though I think Drake is guilty, am I the only one who thinks his prison sentence was a tad harsh? Drake has served 33 years for 2nd degree attempted murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. The 2nd degree attempted murder charge held a 30 year sentence, and the robbery was the consecutive life sentence. I just find it odd that if Drake didn't steal the money to make it look like a robbery, he would have been released by now. And when you compare his sentence to scumbags like Jerry Gervasoni (who served 10 years for murder), David Freeman (who was only sentenced to 10 years, but served 6 for manslaughter), and various others, I just think Drake's is too steep.

Another one where just watching the UM segment will convince you he is innocent. Read the appellate history and you'll see he's guilty as sin.

I just saw the segment. I don't know if he's guilty or not. I do know how UM can manipulate things to slant opinions in the way they want you to believe(I.e. Tommy Zeiglar) . I think his wife remembers, she just wanted revenge because he cheated on her. If that's true, then Drake is indeed innocent.

Another one where just watching the UM segment will convince you he is innocent. Read the appellate history and you'll see he's guilty as sin.

Maybe that's why this case has never gotten another look by another true crime show.