Over the years, UM has featured a number of stories that fit this theme - a wife or husband disappears or is murdered, and the prime suspect is the surviving spouse who naturally denies involvement. Some of the most suspicious and oft maligned characters on UM fit this mold - Paul Pollis, Mark Nichols, Judy Groezinger, etc.

Out of all these cases, were there any spouses that you thought were probably innocent? If so, who and why?

I'll nominate Stephen Geri. No real motive to murder his wife except for a life insurance policy and some financial problems. I really felt like the in-laws were grasping at straws with their accusations.

Jeff Oberholtzer.

Jeff Oberholtzer.

That's exactly the first name that came to my mind when I read the thread title. Shows how that one bit of circumstantial evidence (the business card in the other victim's wallet) can throw doubts on someone in a case...

Thomas Drake.

I never really thought Steve Bechtel was responsible for the disappearance of his wife, Amy. He generated some suspicion by not taking a lie detector test, but his attorney even appeared on camera saying he advised his client not to do it, so even he has nothing to hide, I can't really fault him for taking his lawyer's advice. It seemed like they were grasping at straws when trying to accuse him and given the timeline of events, I don't think he had anything to do with her disappearance.

Alfredo Newball generated a lot of suspicion over the disappearance of his wife and son, but he seemed awfully genuinely concerned and sincere to me during his interview. Just because a few people thought he didn't sound concerned enough when he found out they were missing is pretty weak evidence of guilt.

I've spoken in another thread about my doubts over Bob Hall's guilt, simply because of the limited window of time he had to murder his wife, but there is a lot of suspicious evidence against him, so I can't really fault anyone for thinking he did it.

For Judy Groezinger's case, I don't understand why the police didn't ask her to hand over the gun she purchased so they could run ballistics test to determine if it was used to kill Mark. If it is the gun, I would say she's guilty. If not, she's not guilty. So for now, I am on the fence. Even if she isn't guilty, she is probably just smug about the fact that he is gone since she started another relationship.

I know Tara Breckenridge wasn't married, but there was deep suspicion on her boyfriend Wayne. I don't have reason to believe he is guilty, but I am not 100% on this. I'd say it's more likely he wasn't involved in her disappearance. He just didn't really strike me as the type who was really capable of hurting her or doing something unspeakable to her (unlike idiots such as Mark Nichols or Mel Green) even though they both had a share of problems in their relationship, but who doesn't?

Steve Page

I know Tara Breckenridge wasn't married, but there was deep suspicion on her boyfriend Wayne. I don't have reason to believe he is guilty, but I am not 100% on this. I'd say it's more likely he wasn't involved in her disappearance. He just didn't really strike me as the type who was really capable of hurting her or doing something unspeakable to her

A posting (on these forums) from someone who claims to be an ex-girlfriend of Wayne. Take it or leave it:

I know this may be hard to believe but I lived with Wayne for a little over a year several years ago. I only recently found out about the Tara story on Unsolved. He always told me that she "came up missing" but he never gave me any details. Living with him was a nightmare. He was controlling, abusive, and a liar. I still have nightmares about him. He was vegan, refused to eat any kind of animal product because he didn't want to be responsible for "killing a baby" yet he would beat the crap out of his girlfriend (me) when he found out I ate a hamburger. I have no doubt in my mind that he had something to do with her disappearance. I know that at the time of her disappearance he wasn't working because he was a cocaine dealer in pool halls. Plus she brought home enough money so he didn't have to work. I could tell you horror stories about the things he would do to me when he thought I was just looking at another guy. I've never seen the episode that everyone is talking about. If anyone has information on it please let me know.

Steve Page

Kathy Page's husband? Usually I groove with your opinions DD, but I disagree on this one.

A posting (on these forums) from someone who claims to be an ex-girlfriend of Wayne. Take it or leave it:

I'm kind of skeptical about that, since there isn't much as far as sources go to corroborate these claims. But if this person is right, I can change my opinion and say Wayne definitely had something to do with it.

I believe Thomas Drake was innocent simply because there were other eyewitnesses to the crime that placed a silver haired man at the church where his wife was attacked. And when questioned, Nancy said a man with silver hair attacked her. Also, there was a fingerprint found at the scene matching a local mental patient, and he had no business being at the church that day. I think Drake was convicted largely on the basis of his extramarital affairs.

I believe Thomas Drake was innocent simply because there were other eyewitnesses to the crime that placed a silver haired man at the church where his wife was attacked. And when questioned, Nancy said a man with silver hair attacked her. Also, there was a fingerprint found at the scene matching a local mental patient, and he had no business being at the church that day. I think Drake was convicted largely on the basis of his extramarital affairs.

One of Drake's appeals:

http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1985%5C19850726_0044107.FL.htm/qx

One of Drake's appeals:

http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1985%5C19850726_0044107.FL.htm/qx

I've read that before and it's an interesting read. I still contend he was convicted largely based on the fact that he was having an extramarital affair. Drake knew there was going to be people in and out of the church that day buying tickets, and it just seems way too foolish for him to set up a "robbery" in an attempt to kill his wife at the church. And Nancy herself told doctors that she was attacked by an unknown man. What's your opinion on the case?

Steve Page

WOW! Seriously?

I've read that before and it's an interesting read. I still contend he was convicted largely based on the fact that he was having an extramarital affair. Drake knew there was going to be people in and out of the church that day buying tickets, and it just seems way too foolish for him to set up a "robbery" in an attempt to kill his wife at the church. And Nancy herself told doctors that she was attacked by an unknown man. What's your opinion on the case?

I think Drake is guilty. Without rehashing everything from that appeal, there are many troubling inconsistencies in his statements.

- Drake claimed at the trial that the affair ended in February 1983.
- Drake denied having sex with his mistress after that time.

Both statements were contradicted by Drake’s mistress, Carol Lopata. She claimed she planned to move in with Drake in July of ’83. In addition, she claimed that Drake met her four days after the attack, paid for her motel room for several days and they had sex.

I think these two points say a lot about Drake’s character and possibly his mindset at the time of the attack. He acts concerned about Nancy at the hospital when the cops are there but then he’s off screwing around and he felt a need to lie about it in court. I suppose one could argue that the Drake’s marriage was on the rocks, so his behavior might make some sense in that context, but why would he lie about it then?

- Conflicting statements over what time he arrived at and left the church. Drake told Carol Lopata he left the church at 11:30am on the morning of the attack. He told an investigator he arrived at 12:15pm – that’s a big inconsistency. My thoughts? He probably initially claimed he left at 11:30 since the attack occurred almost an hour later. However, when eyewitness testimony contradicted his statement, he changed his story. He likely did arrive at 12:15, but I can see him not wanting to admit that if he was guilty, as that places him on the scene 20 minutes before the attack.

- He volunteered an explanation (when none was needed, I might add) as to why his fingerprints might be on the hammer. He claimed Nancy had asked him to hang some pictures in her office. This was contradicted by a pastor who testified that Nancy would have had to seek permission to hang pictures in her office, yet she had not done so.

- Drake denied knowing about a 10,000 life insurance policy Nancy had purchased two months before the attack. He then changed his story and acknowledged being present when Nancy purchased the policy. He blamed this slip up on the fact that he was upset after being harassed by a specific officer during an interrogation. The officer, whose name Drake gave, did not take part in the interrogation.

- Drake nearly admitted to committing the crime during an interrogation. He said in response to a direct question of could he have hit her and not remembered “I don’t know, it could be, I don’t know”. Really? Who would say that?!

So, if Drake didn’t do it, who did? His supporters are quick to point out that a fingerprint belonging to a mental patient was found on a door window. Also, Drake and a witness reported seeing an unidentified white haired man in a cream colored station wagon outside the church. Nancy would later identify her attacker as an older white haired man.

Fair enough, but which is it? Notice most Drake supporters usually lump these two theories together yet seemingly can’t pigeonhole which one is correct. It’s a perfect scenario for creating reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, neither theory is very impressive.

The fingerprint was identified as belonging to Raymond Starr. According to the appeal, Starr was a parishioner and known to be in the building at times, so the discovery of his fingerprint is easily explainable. Also, Starr was voluntarily interviewed and provided an alibi for the time of the attack. Additionally, what motive would Starr have for beating Mrs. Drake almost to death? Because he was a former mental patient, I guess. Moreover, if Starr did attack Mrs. Drake why didn’t she identify him? Why tell the story about the white haired man at all?

The robbery scenario also makes little sense. The “robber” showed up at the church presumably intent on committing a robbery but brought no weapon of his own. Instead, he had to make do with the hammer he found in the office that may have had Thomas Drake’s prints on it. How convenient! Why beat Nancy Drake to the point of almost killing her if his goal was merely to steal some cash? Why target a church at all? Churches can be busy places. Even if he knew of the upcoming concert, as some testimony suggests, why risk robbing and beating someone within earshot of witnesses? If the robber was a parishioner, he probably would have been recognized. To go off on a bit of a tangent here – isn’t it interesting that the attack occurred at a time when there were no witnesses? Drake was a parishioner and occasionally did work for the church. Drake would have been more privy to the comings and goings of the various church staff then some random outsider.

Nancy Drake told Thomas’ attorney that she remembered being attacked by a white haired man. Keep in mind, this identification came after Drake’s first trial in which he was convicted. Her testimony is what got Drake his second trial. She then recanted her story and refused to testify. She claimed on Final Appeal that she had no memory of the attack and didn’t know if Thomas was guilty. In addition, a doctor testified at trial that it would have been very unlikely Nancy would remember the attack. I just don’t think she is reliable. Also, she was communicating with Thomas during that time. I believe it is possible that Thomas persuaded her to make up the story about the silver haired man. That being said, I don’t think that Thomas Drake invented this person. The man was seen by at least one witness, Althea Toth, and possibly by Drake himself, though I doubt a lot of what he has to say, he may be telling the truth here. I think the police believed this man existed also as a composite was even created and early newspaper reports on the incident encouraged anyone with info on this man to come forward. So far as I know, the man was never identified. Who was this guy? Who knows. However, there is no evidence he had anything to do with the attack aside from Nancy Drake’s statements, which were recanted, so we know how reliable they are.

To summarize, we have a man, Thomas Drake, who, at best, is likely a pathological liar. He is leading a double life by having an affair with a woman for years. After his wife is attacked, he has this woman and her son move in to his home. Drake lies in court about the longevity and depth of the affair. Drake lies about the time he arrived at the church. He lies about a life insurance policy on his wife in which he is the beneficiary. He volunteers a bogus explanation as to why his fingerprints might be on the weapon used to commit the crime. He tells an investigator he might have attacked his wife but he doesn’t remember. He quit working after the incident and lived off funds supposedly “donated” to him by the church. His explanations as to who else may have committed the crime don’t hold water. He was tried twice for these offenses and convicted both times. On his 1985 appeal, he questioned the validity of his convictions based on the circumstantial evidence not being enough to support those convictions, but the justices affirmed the evidence was legally sufficient.

- Drake claimed at the trial that the affair ended in February 1983.
- Drake denied having sex with his mistress after that time.

Both statements were contradicted by Drake’s mistress, Carol Lopata. She claimed she planned to move in with Drake in July of ’83. In addition, she claimed that Drake met her four days after the attack, paid for her motel room for several days and they had sex.

I think these two points say a lot about Drake’s character and possibly his mindset at the time of the attack. He acts concerned about Nancy at the hospital when the cops are there but then he’s off screwing around and he felt a need to lie about it in court. I suppose one could argue that the Drake’s marriage was on the rocks, so his behavior might make some sense in that context, but why would he lie about it then?

First I'd just like to say that I enjoy reading your posts, they're always thorough and well thought out. But on the Drake case we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fact that Drake lied about the affair could honestly work both ways. He obviously would have reason to lie if he were the one that attacked Nancy, since that would seem to indicate a motive behind the attack. However, if he is innocent of the crime, the fact that he was carrying on an affair would speak about his character, and in most cases, convict him in the court of public opinion. Drake very well could have been lying to keep his mistress out of the entire ordeal, or he may have not wanted it known that he was carrying on an affair.

- Conflicting statements over what time he arrived at and left the church. Drake told Carol Lopata he left the church at 11:30am on the morning of the attack. He told an investigator he arrived at 12:15pm – that’s a big inconsistency. My thoughts? He probably initially claimed he left at 11:30 since the attack occurred almost an hour later. However, when eyewitness testimony contradicted his statement, he changed his story. He likely did arrive at 12:15, but I can see him not wanting to admit that if he was guilty, as that places him on the scene 20 minutes before the attack.

Drake gave no indication (when he was questioned by investigators) that he knew there was an eyewitness that placed him at the church after 11:30. I have no idea why he would feel the need to tell investigators that he arrived at 12:15, further implicating his involvement, instead of insisiting he left at 11:30 and that the lady was mistaken. Other than the mistress, we have no one else who came forward and said Drake told them he left the church at that time. I think it's possible that the mistress got the times wrong, how would she be able to rememebr the exact time he said he left the church? In addition Drake did say he left the church at one point and then came back to bring Nancy lunch at 12:15, so maybe he did leave the church at 11:30 but then came back.

- He volunteered an explanation (when none was needed, I might add) as to why his fingerprints might be on the hammer. He claimed Nancy had asked him to hang some pictures in her office. This was contradicted by a pastor who testified that Nancy would have had to seek permission to hang pictures in her office, yet she had not done so.

Well if your wife was viciously beaten with a hammer and you just got done handling the attempted murder weapon, you definitely would feel the need for an explanation. And there were no prints found on the hammer, which would seem to suggest it was wiped clean. If that is the case you'd have to ask yourself why would Drake (if guilty) volunteer this information instead of simply saying he brought Nancy her lunch and then left? Since he's maintained the "picture hanging" aspect of his story since the beginning, IMO he's telling the truth about it. Just because Nancy did not ask the pastor for permission to hang the pictures does not mean she didn't ask Drake to do so for her. Would it have really been that much of a stretch for her to hang a picture without asking first? I can't see the pastor reprimanding her for hanging a picture without permission. A simple, "Hope you don't mind but I had my husband hang a picture up" would have sufficed.

- Drake denied knowing about a 10,000 life insurance policy Nancy had purchased two months before the attack. He then changed his story and acknowledged being present when Nancy purchased the policy. He blamed this slip up on the fact that he was upset after being harassed by a specific officer during an interrogation. The officer, whose name Drake gave, did not take part in the interrogation.

I do not find it odd that Drake got the name of the interrogating officer wrong, but I do find it odd that he changed his story on this point. The testifying officer said on "one occassion" Drake told him that he did not know about his wife's policy, which was probably during the interrogation. Drake also made several suspect statements in the subsequent interrogation (talking about hearing Nancy scream "NO TOM NO" among others), and it's obvious from Drake's responses that he was very upset. I could see a scenario where Drake is being pressed more and more and he just kept saying "I don't know" over and over (which he did several times mind you), and that's probably how he answered the question about his wife's insurance at the time.

- Drake nearly admitted to committing the crime during an interrogation. He said in response to a direct question of could he have hit her and not remembered “I don’t know, it could be, I don’t know”. Really? Who would say that?!

Drake was asked if it was possible that he attacked her and did not remember, which is why he responded that way. Like I've said before, it appeared that Drake was very upset during the questioning (be it over his wife's brutal attack, or him being accused of attacking her, or he being on the verge of confessing is up for debate), and I think Drake's explanation on his answer on his UM appearance was logical enough.

So, if Drake didn’t do it, who did? His supporters are quick to point out that a fingerprint belonging to a mental patient was found on a door window. Also, Drake and a witness reported seeing an unidentified white haired man in a cream colored station wagon outside the church. Nancy would later identify her attacker as an older white haired man.

Fair enough, but which is it? Notice most Drake supporters usually lump these two theories together yet seemingly can’t pigeonhole which one is correct. It’s a perfect scenario for creating reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, neither theory is very impressive.

I believe it was presented in the UM statement that this mental patient had no business being at the church, and before reading that case link you posted I had no idea he was a member of the church. So it's safe to say that you could rule him out. I just think it's too much of a coincidence that Drake described a cream colored vehicle with a white haired man in it, just as the eyewitness did. So it's obvious this person existed, and if he were a member of the church it seems like someone would have recognized either the vehicle or the composite drawing of him. But he never surfaced, and that tells me that he did not have any business there at the church that day.

The robbery scenario also makes little sense. The “robber” showed up at the church presumably intent on committing a robbery but brought no weapon of his own. Instead, he had to make do with the hammer he found in the office that may have had Thomas Drake’s prints on it. How convenient! Why beat Nancy Drake to the point of almost killing her if his goal was merely to steal some cash? Why target a church at all? Churches can be busy places. Even if he knew of the upcoming concert, as some testimony suggests, why risk robbing and beating someone within earshot of witnesses? If the robber was a parishioner, he probably would have been recognized. To go off on a bit of a tangent here – isn’t it interesting that the attack occurred at a time when there were no witnesses? Drake was a parishioner and occasionally did work for the church. Drake would have been more privy to the comings and goings of the various church staff then some random outsider.

There was another case on UM about a church in the south where a pastor and his wife were shot to death by an unknown transient, who was there to rob the poor box (I can't recall the names of the victims). Churches, while they can be busy at times, are also very convenient for robberies since their doors are virtually almost always open. Drake would also run the risk of being seen or heard by a witness, just as much an as unknown attacker. But would a random outsider really consider that the church would be that busy on a weekday in the afternoon? He had to have known Nancy would have been one of the few people (if not the only person) in the building since it wasn't a usual time or day that people would be attending mass. Which is probably why he was seen sitting in his car waiting for the lady Nancy was talking to (and then Drake when he arrived) to leave. And people have been murdered (just like the case I've mentioned above) for petty cash, and less than the $700 take in this case.

Nancy Drake told Thomas’ attorney that she remembered being attacked by a white haired man. Keep in mind, this identification came after Drake’s first trial in which he was convicted. Her testimony is what got Drake his second trial. She then recanted her story and refused to testify. She claimed on Final Appeal that she had no memory of the attack and didn’t know if Thomas was guilty.

Nancy Drake also said she wasn't sure if Drake was guilty or not, but that he deserved to be behind bars because of the affairs he had on her. What does this tell me? She recanted her story, after she did say she was attacked by a white haired man, only to say later that she has no memory of the attack. Well either she's lying outright, or she did in fact remember (at one point) that she was attacked by a white haired man. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." I think that's precisely why she didn't testify at his appeal. You bring up some very solid points regarding inconsistencies in Drake's account, but it just seems to me that there is more than reasonable doubt in this case. The motive is flimsy, the evidence just isn't there, and if Drake did in fact attack his wife, he certainly could have came up with a better story than the one he gave. There appears to be no forensic evidence tying him to the crime, and if he was responsible it's likely that there would have been some blood evidence on his car or his person. In the time frame given, did Drake honestly have the time to attack his wife, clean up the scene, flee the church, go home and clean himself and possibly his car, to be back in time to answer the phone from the pastor? He'd have to pull of some Herculean feats to accomplish this crime, IMO, which is another reason why I feel he was wrongfully convicted.

Jeff Oberholtzer.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have believed this ever since I saw this case first aired with my grandmother years ago.

I'm not certain that Don Sherman is guilty of killing his wife Linda. I know a lot of people think that he did, but some of the evidence just doesn't flow in that direction for me.

First I'd just like to say that I enjoy reading your posts, they're always thorough and well thought out. But on the Drake case we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fact that Drake lied about the affair could honestly work both ways. He obviously would have reason to lie if he were the one that attacked Nancy, since that would seem to indicate a motive behind the attack. However, if he is innocent of the crime, the fact that he was carrying on an affair would speak about his character, and in most cases, convict him in the court of public opinion. Drake very well could have been lying to keep his mistress out of the entire ordeal, or he may have not wanted it known that he was carrying on an affair.

I could believe that Drake initially lied about the affair to keep it from going public as well as to protect Carol. Unfortunately, I think it was inevitable that Carol was going to be brought in regardless. Yet, Drake continued to maintain, even when he testified at trial, that he broke off the relationship in February and that he didn't have sex with Carol again after that. I suppose Carol could be lying about those details but I doubt it. Carol didn’t have reason to lie in court. Drake had an opportunity to come clean, but he clung to the lie. It defies logic in my mind since he had to know his statements were going to be contradicted left and right when Carol took the stand.

For what it's worth, I don't feel that this has any bearing on his guilt or innocence per say, but I find it odd that he clung to what was an obvious lie.

Drake gave no indication (when he was questioned by investigators) that he knew there was an eyewitness that placed him at the church after 11:30. I have no idea why he would feel the need to tell investigators that he arrived at 12:15, further implicating his involvement, instead of insisiting he left at 11:30 and that the lady was mistaken. Other than the mistress, we have no one else who came forward and said Drake told them he left the church at that time. I think it's possible that the mistress got the times wrong, how would she be able to rememebr the exact time he said he left the church? In addition Drake did say he left the church at one point and then came back to bring Nancy lunch at 12:15, so maybe he did leave the church at 11:30 but then came back...

I do not find it odd that Drake got the name of the interrogating officer wrong, but I do find it odd that he changed his story on this point. The testifying officer said on "one occassion" Drake told him that he did not know about his wife's policy, which was probably during the interrogation. Drake also made several suspect statements in the subsequent interrogation (talking about hearing Nancy scream "NO TOM NO" among others), and it's obvious from Drake's responses that he was very upset. I could see a scenario where Drake is being pressed more and more and he just kept saying "I don't know" over and over (which he did several times mind you), and that's probably how he answered the question about his wife's insurance at the time...

Drake was asked if it was possible that he attacked her and did not remember, which is why he responded that way. Like I've said before, it appeared that Drake was very upset during the questioning (be it over his wife's brutal attack, or him being accused of attacking her, or he being on the verge of confessing is up for debate), and I think Drake's explanation on his answer on his UM appearance was logical enough.

I could believe that Carol was mistaken about the time Drake told her he left the church.

I could believe that Drake forgot about being in the room with Nancy when she purchased the life insurance policy.

I could believe that Drake became confused during questioning and said "I don't know" in response to a direct question of if he did attack her but couldn't remember.

But all three? I'm being asked by Thomas Drake to believe a lot at this point. When you have a slew of inconsistent statements, outright lies and evidence suggesting a motive things begin to add up. As I'm sure everyone will admit, this was always a circumstantial case. None of these inconsistencies alone prove Drake did it, but the summation of all of these and other facts suggests he did. This is further supported by two jury verdicts and affirmation on appeal in which the justices stated that, based on the known facts, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude Drake was guilty and the alternate theories of the crime did not constitute a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Well if your wife was viciously beaten with a hammer and you just got done handling the attempted murder weapon, you definitely would feel the need for an explanation. And there were no prints found on the hammer, which would seem to suggest it was wiped clean. If that is the case you'd have to ask yourself why would Drake (if guilty) volunteer this information instead of simply saying he brought Nancy her lunch and then left? Since he's maintained the "picture hanging" aspect of his story since the beginning, IMO he's telling the truth about it. Just because Nancy did not ask the pastor for permission to hang the pictures does not mean she didn't ask Drake to do so for her. Would it have really been that much of a stretch for her to hang a picture without asking first? I can't see the pastor reprimanding her for hanging a picture without permission. A simple, "Hope you don't mind but I had my husband hang a picture up" would have sufficed.

Fingerprints aren't always automatic. I don't think we can assume the hammer was wiped clean after the attack. Drake could have forgotten to do so. I certainly think the crime was bungled and slipshod in other aspects. He didn't even stick around long enough to make sure Nancy was dead, for example.

For what it's worth, Nancy doesn't strike me as the type to do something against church policy, but that's more of a personal observation on my part, so feel free to agree or disagree. I’m just calling that one as I see it.

The issue with the hammer is irrelevant anyway because the picture was not hung as Drake claims he couldn't find nails. So this is yet another story Drake is asking me to accept at face value when the issue is something he may have had reason to lie about.

I believe it was presented in the UM statement that this mental patient had no business being at the church, and before reading that case link you posted I had no idea he was a member of the church. So it's safe to say that you could rule him out. I just think it's too much of a coincidence that Drake described a cream colored vehicle with a white haired man in it, just as the eyewitness did. So it's obvious this person existed, and if he were a member of the church it seems like someone would have recognized either the vehicle or the composite drawing of him. But he never surfaced, and that tells me that he did not have any business there at the church that day.

I think the white haired man definitely existed. Althea Toth saw him. The police created a composite of the man and he was wanted for questioning at the start of the investigation. Drake saw this man too - I'll give Drake the benefit of the doubt here as his account is corroborated by a witness (Toth) and the time frame suggests Drake would have been there at the correct time to see the guy. I think Drake could have fed Nancy details about this man after the fact (I'll get in to that later). However, no one that I'm aware actually saw this man enter the church. He could have been an innocent bystander who was driving through the area, gotten lost and stopped momentarily to get his bearings. Didn’t Toth say he was looking at a map or something on the seat as if he was reading? He also could have been waiting for someone to come out of an adjacent building. We really don’t have enough information to conclude he was there to rob the church.

There was another case on UM about a church in the south where a pastor and his wife were shot to death by an unknown transient, who was there to rob the poor box (I can't recall the names of the victims). Churches, while they can be busy at times, are also very convenient for robberies since their doors are virtually almost always open. Drake would also run the risk of being seen or heard by a witness, just as much an as unknown attacker. But would a random outsider really consider that the church would be that busy on a weekday in the afternoon? He had to have known Nancy would have been one of the few people (if not the only person) in the building since it wasn't a usual time or day that people would be attending mass. Which is probably why he was seen sitting in his car waiting for the lady Nancy was talking to (and then Drake when he arrived) to leave. And people have been murdered (just like the case I've mentioned above) for petty cash, and less than the $700 take in this case.

The case you are referencing is that of Harold and Thelma Swain. It has been a while since I watched that particular segment. I don't believe anything was stolen and the motive for the murder was unknown (please let me know if I'm wrong). A man was eventually convicted of this crime, but he has always maintained his innocence so the motive is still somewhat of a mystery. I always thought the motive was likely personal. The killer first went inside the church and asked a witness if she could fetch Harold Swain as the killer needed to speak with him. When Swain walked into the vestibule to speak with this man, the man pulled out a revolver and shot Swain several times. Hearing the shots, Swain’s wife ran into the vestibule and was also gunned down.

That aside, let’s examine your robbery theory. If this man was casing the church then the robbery was premeditated. Why then did he not bring a weapon of his own? By all accounts, this was a considerably older individual. Was he really going to strong arm anyone? Was he banking on the fact that he would be able to find a weapon once he entered the church? If he didn't have a weapon, why would he attack Nancy Drake? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think it is highly unlikely that an outsider would have known the comings and goings of folks in the church. Therefore, committing a crime such as this would have been high risk. That risk is elevated even more when we consider that the perp didn't bring a weapon. The payoff itself is also uncertain. He may have had some basic knowledge about the concert, but I don't think we can assume this to be true with any certainty. Based on those facts, I think it would have been a huge gamble for an outsider to attempt something like what is being alleged.

Let's look at Drake's opportunity. Considering the location, this crime is high risk for an outsider, but less so for Drake. He would have been privy to the movements of people in the church. Further, if, as the prosecution contended, Drake’s motive was to murder Nancy AND to steal the money from the church, his only real option is to commit the crime in the church. It is difficult to comprehend a viable scenario otherwise where he could accomplish both tasks without having suspicion immediately fall back on himself or on Nancy.

Nancy Drake also said she wasn't sure if Drake was guilty or not, but that he deserved to be behind bars because of the affairs he had on her. What does this tell me? She recanted her story, after she did say she was attacked by a white haired man, only to say later that she has no memory of the attack. Well either she's lying outright, or she did in fact remember (at one point) that she was attacked by a white haired man. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." I think that's precisely why she didn't testify at his appeal.

The question of what Nancy Drake remembered about the attack is probably the most complex question in the whole case so I would like to discuss it point by point. Let’s start with the facts and see if we can come up with some possible explanations…

- While in the hospital, Nancy Drake makes the comment to Thomas “how would you feel if I hit you on your habit?” This was construed as an accusation against Thomas by the police officer who overheard the exchange.

I don’t feel comfortable commenting on this, and you may have noticed that I didn’t use it as a point to support my earlier arguments regarding my belief in Drake’s guilt. Due to Nancy Drake’s condition at the time, I feel that this comment is far too subjective and is perhaps the weakest argument in the case against Drake. I suppose I could touch on Thomas Drake’s reaction to the comment, and how the appeal insinuates his non-response as a sign of guilt, but I’ll even let that go.

Moving on. We are led to believe by the Unsolved Mysteries segment that Nancy did not remember the attack at the time of her husband's first trial. If she did remember anything, she didn’t disclose that knowledge to anyone.

- After Thomas is convicted at the conclusion of his first trial, Nancy’s memory suddenly returns and she recalls being attacked by a white haired man who came in to the church office seeking to buy concert tickets.

This is problematic for a few reasons.

First and foremost, a doctor testified at the trial (not sure at which) that it was highly unlikely Nancy would have any memory of the attack. This reminds me of the Susan Laferte and Doreen Picard case from Unsolved Mysteries. Similar story there in that Laferte survived the attack but had no memory of it or of the events that transpired in the weeks and months that preceded the crime. I have to think that memory loss in cases like these involving severe head injuries and brain damage is pretty common and possibly even expected.

Second, she recanted the entire story and refused to testify at Drake’s trial. At a minimum, I think we can conclude that she wasn’t comfortable enough with the story to take it to court. The “why” is up for grabs.

Let’s start with the assumption that she knows Drake is innocent and she is pissed because of the affair. Hell hath no fury, right? First off, we’re making huge assumptions about Nancy’s character with very little cause. To believe that she would keep quiet about her knowledge that she was attacked by someone other than her husband just so she could exact some sort of revenge by letting her innocent husband rot in prison for life requires an extremely vindictive mindset. Was she a vindictive person in other areas of her life? Possibly, but we don’t have any other examples.

Second, if revenge was her goal, why did she come forward with the story about the white haired man at all? Drake had already been convicted and was on his way to prison when she had this epiphany. Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply keep her mouth shut? Again, if revenge against her husband was the goal, telling a story about how she suddenly remembered being attacked – by someone other than her husband – makes absolutely no sense.

This brings me to my third problem with the whole recovered memory scenario – the time frame. I find her coming forward at this juncture extremely troubling.

Let's think this through together. It’s not difficult to imagine some of the things that were probably racing through her mind following her husband’s conviction for attempted murder.

She has just survived a brutal attack in which she almost died and has been left with what are likely life changing and permanent disabilities.

Everyone probably expected her to be able to remember and know who committed the crime, yet no matter how hard she tries, she can't.

She has just found out about the secret life her husband was leading which included an ongoing affair and an attempt to move his mistress and her young son into their home, all the while Thomas has filled the mistresses’ head with lies including the fact that he is divorced from Nancy.

Thomas probably swears up and down to Nancy every chance he gets that he didn't commit the crime.

Now, he's been convicted of that crime, without ANY testimony or say from Nancy, and he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

In addition, I'm sure she's zonked out on whatever pain medication they prescribed for her following the attack and the surgeries she no doubt had to endure. The point of all this being that I'm sure she was in a very fragile state to say the least. While I won't say that I understand or am even capable of understanding all that she endured, I shudder when I do the math and think of the pathetic and horrible situation she awoke to find herself in. All that said, I have a lot of respect for Nancy Drake. I think she is an extremely strong and brave woman for all that she endured.

So what happened then? In my view, her "recovered memory" reeks of interference played by Thomas Drake.

We know Nancy was visiting Thomas in jail.

Assuming the white haired man did not attack Nancy, who else could she have gleaned this detailed level of information from? As I've said before, the man existed and was considered a suspect at one time. I think it is reasonable to assume Thomas Drake knew of this, as he was one of the witnesses who saw the man in the first place. I think it is possible that Nancy was fed details about this man by Drake. He may not have out and out told her what to say, but I think he planted the seed.

In the end, I think she got cold feet. Being religious, she may have asked herself "what's the Christian thing to do?" and realized that she couldn't swear to God in court that this unknown man attacked her and that it wasn't her husband when she really couldn’t remember.

This is the only scenario that does not make Nancy Drake out to be a liar and is consistent with everything she said on Final Appeal. Much has been made of her final powerful yet cryptic remarks on the program along the lines of "I don't know if he did it, but I don't care and he should be in prison". I see this as a very raw, emotional, honest and real moment, perhaps the only one in that entire segment. She is genuinely conflicted because she can't remember the attack, so she doesn't know if he did it or not. This is reinforced by another one of her earlier comments in which she said that the man she fell in love with and married would not have done this, but she didn't know this other man - the side of Drake that engaged in the affair.

You bring up some very solid points regarding inconsistencies in Drake's account, but it just seems to me that there is more than reasonable doubt in this case. The motive is flimsy, the evidence just isn't there, and if Drake did in fact attack his wife, he certainly could have came up with a better story than the one he gave. There appears to be no forensic evidence tying him to the crime, and if he was responsible it's likely that there would have been some blood evidence on his car or his person.

I've already explained how I think this is a strong circumstantial case when the totality of the circumstances is considered. Obviously, there is no smoking gun or physical evidence that implicates Drake. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I can turn that around and say that there is no physical evidence tying anyone else to the crime either. The motive for a robbery is pretty flimsy too. Are there some lingering doubts? I suppose so, but when I weigh the arguments, I see the robbery theory as the weaker of the two by a mile. Isn't it interesting how the robbery theory was always lumped in with the discovery of the Starr fingerprint? However, we know both of those arguments can't be correct, yet that seemingly gave some strength to the pro Drake camp. I think these two theories and more importantly the meshing of them was the work of a good defense attorney trying to drum up reasonable doubt in court. Unfortunately, they are both weak when considered on their individual merits, hence why they are typically spoken of together.

We have two guilty verdicts handed down by two different juries. Drake had plenty of opportunities to prove his innocence. He even got a second trial, which is more than most “Final Appealants” get. Those convictions were affirmed on appeal – including a 1985 appeal which addressed the specific question of if the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. Not only was it deemed sufficient by the justices who reviewed the case, they affirmed that the alternate theories of the crime did not support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

In the time frame given, did Drake honestly have the time to attack his wife, clean up the scene, flee the church, go home and clean himself and possibly his car, to be back in time to answer the phone from the pastor? He'd have to pull of some Herculean feats to accomplish this crime, IMO, which is another reason why I feel he was wrongfully convicted.

It is difficult to ascertain how much time he would have had without knowing more information such as the location of the Drake home in proximity to the church. We do have some information regarding times so let’s see if we can construct a time frame. Granted these times are from the appeal and since the times were provided by witnesses, they may not be exactly precise, but let’s see what we can come up with…

“Shortly before noon” – associate pastor Joseph Poston Jr. hears Nancy on the phone with Thomas. She asks Thomas to bring her lunch.

12:10pm – Poston leaves the church. He won’t return until after the attack has occurred and Nancy’s body had been found.

12:15pm - Thomas Drake arrives at the church.

12:15 – 12:30pm – Pat Morgan calls the church. He speaks with Nancy and Thomas Drake. Morgan records the calls and it lasts 9 minutes.

12:25pm – Althea Toth arrives at the church. She sees the unidentified man in the station wagon. She speaks with Nancy Drake.

12:30pm – Althea Toth leaves the church.

12:40pm – Shirley Whitehead arrives at the church and finds Nancy’s body. She departs to a nearby car dealer to call for help.

12:47pm – Poston returns to the church and is told of the attack on Nancy Drake.

12:58pm – paramedics respond to the call.

1:09pm – ambulance leaves the church with Nancy.

“after the ambulance leaves” – Poston calls the Drake residence and speaks with Thomas.

A few things become obvious. If Nancy Drake called Thomas shortly before noon, and he arrived (by his own account) at 12:15. It took about 15-20 minutes for him to prepare lunch and bring it to Nancy at the church.

Nancy was last seen by Althea Toth at 12:30pm. Her body was found by Shirley Whitehead at 12:40pm so the crime likely occurred between 12:30 and 12:40pm. The total time for the commission of the crime and the clean up could have been as long as 15 minutes (give or take) or substantially shorter.

Poston called Drake around 1:10pm. If Drake left the scene at 12:40pm – the absolute latest he could have left, then he would have had about 30 minutes to get home in time for Poston’s phone call.

Drake could have even left the scene earlier than 12:40, Or, Poston could have called a minute or two later than 1:09 giving Drake even more time to get home and cleaned up.

Again, it’s hard to reach any firm conclusions without knowing the location of the Drake home. We don’t know enough to say if Herculean efforts were required or not. However, since this time table evidence isn’t mentioned by his supporters anywhere else, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it was probably deemed irrelevant or insufficient or was not in question in the first place.

An addendum with regard to the Drake time frame: I was fascinated by this aspect of the case so I did some digging.

I found the addresses of the Drake home and the Church of the Nazarene (in 1983) respectively. I mapquested it.

There are two ways to get from the Drake's to the church. Both require a drive around a lake. The difference in distance is merely traveling on one side of the lake versus the other.

The shorter route takes 6 minutes and covers a distance of 2.43 miles.

The longer route takes 7 minutes and covers a distance of 2.88 miles.

Not that this makes or breaks the case, but I think he could have had time to get it done.

Steve Page

I think he is innocent as well. For starters he would be incredibly stupid to kill Kathy just right by his house.

I know the sister of Kathy claims there is "no way" she'd have had sex with Steve that night insisted he r*ped her instead. But think about it for a second, they had two kids, they are seperated, he is looking after the kids for the night, she comes out of the shower in preparation for her date. Can anyone here say beyond a shadow of a doubt that their sibling wouldn't bow into the temptation of sex with a person she/he has a rich history with? It happens all the time at weak moments, why was Kathy's sister so adamant that Kathy wouldn't have consensually had sex with Steve?

I've never understood why the idea that she just got run off the road isn't brought up a lot more

I'm not certain that Don Sherman is guilty of killing his wife Linda. I know a lot of people think that he did, but some of the evidence just doesn't flow in that direction for me.

Initially I thought Sherman belonged in a pile with the Don Dixon and Chad Noe interviews. But the more I watch the segment the more I wonder about it.

I've never understood why the idea that she just got run off the road isn't brought up a lot more

I agree with some of your points-about how a moment of passion can unexpectedly happen- but not this one. Kathy was strangled and the car being off the road was so minor drinks hadn't even spilled. That's why the crash scenario can't be considered as even real. Somebody strangled her and put her in the car, staging the scene. If the injuries had been consistent with a crash, then I would probably agree with you that he may be innocent. Yet, as arrogant and suspect as Steven Page is, I can't just leap in and say he is definitely guilty, though I've been putting him in the guilty category for a good, long time. There was certainly something suspicious about the police investigation as well- no FILM in the camera?! Not searching the residence for years?!

Steve Page

I think he is innocent as well. For starters he would be incredibly stupid to kill Kathy just right by his house.

I know the sister of Kathy claims there is "no way" she'd have had sex with Steve that night insisted he r*ped her instead. But think about it for a second, they had two kids, they are seperated, he is looking after the kids for the night, she comes out of the shower in preparation for her date. Can anyone here say beyond a shadow of a doubt that their sibling wouldn't bow into the temptation of sex with a person she/he has a rich history with? It happens all the time at weak moments, why was Kathy's sister so adamant that Kathy wouldn't have consensually had sex with Steve?

I've never understood why the idea that she just got run off the road isn't brought up a lot more

I agree, I think he is innocent. I've often wondered if the man she met at the motel didn't kill her. They said the last person she had sex with had a vasectomy, which fit with her husband. What if she met this man, and they went to the motel, she changed her mind and he got violent? He admits to seeing her, and we could assume he is the last known person to have seen her alive. If I were them, I would look long and hard at him, and I would also search for her missing jewelry.

For Jeff Olberholtzer, didn't the authorities recently (or, rather recently) say they suspected a serial killer? I can't find the article back now, have any of you read anything like this? I thought sure they admitted that Jeff hadn't committed the murders.


eta: Here we go: http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2008/06/01/two-young-hitchhikers-shot-and-dumped-near-breckenridge/34/

Can anyone here say beyond a shadow of a doubt that their sibling wouldn't bow into the temptation of sex with a person she/he has a rich history with? It happens all the time at weak moments, why was Kathy's sister so adamant that Kathy wouldn't have consensually had sex with Steve?

She was going on a date with her new boyfriend, meeting him at a hotel room. Obviously she planned on sleeping with her new boyfriend, so why would she feel the need to sleep with her husband (who was sleeping on the couch at that point) when she planned on sleeping with her boyfriend later?

I've never understood why the idea that she just got run off the road isn't brought up a lot more

What motive would someone have in doing that? Plus she was strangled to death.

She was going on a date with her new boyfriend, meeting him at a hotel room. Obviously she planned on sleeping with her new boyfriend, so why would she feel the need to sleep with her husband (who was sleeping on the couch at that point) when she planned on sleeping with her boyfriend later?

I'm sure you know as well as I do how confusing a time can be after a break up. Things pop into your head, then all of the sudden prior to having a shower there is a person who knows you better than anyone else looking at you as if you are a schoolgirl. It could be a moment of passion, a comfort thing, or who knows maybe they were a couple very similar to the divorcees in the movie played by Alec Baldwin and Meryl Streep. No one knew they were sleeping together.

Kathy possibly didn't have it planned to sleep with Steve but things happen and the guy isn't exactly a stranger

I'm sure you know as well as I do how confusing a time can be after a break up. Things pop into your head, then all of the sudden prior to having a shower there is a person who knows you better than anyone else looking at you as if you are a schoolgirl. It could be a moment of passion, a comfort thing, or who knows maybe they were a couple very similar to the divorcees in the movie played by Alec Baldwin and Meryl Streep. No one knew they were sleeping together.

Kathy possibly didn't have it planned to sleep with Steve but things happen and the guy isn't exactly a stranger

I'm sorry, I just find that theory too far fetched. I get where you're coming from but there was a ton of hatred involved in that relationship that was headed for divorce. Nothing to make anyone even remotely beleive that they would hook up mere hours before she was to have a romantic evening with her new boyfriend.

Initially I thought Sherman belonged in a pile with the Don Dixon and Chad Noe interviews. But the more I watch the segment the more I wonder about it.

The thing that always struck me about this case was the timeline. The theory presented in the segment about Don being guilty is that he placed the skull where he did because he wanted to get married again and needed proof of Linda's death to make that happen. But, the authorities failed to recognize it as Linda's skull and then one year later authorities in a different jurisdiction get a letter stating her skull had been found. I just don't buy that he places the skull then waits an entire year before writing the letter. That just doesn't work for me.

She was going on a date with her new boyfriend, meeting him at a hotel room. Obviously she planned on sleeping with her new boyfriend, so why would she feel the need to sleep with her husband (who was sleeping on the couch at that point) when she planned on sleeping with her boyfriend later?



What motive would someone have in doing that? Plus she was strangled to death.

I understand that the "run off the road" theory doesn't work because she was strangled. But I'm completely able to believe that the sex between Steve and Kathy was consensual. For the opponents of this theory, you're putting far too much logic and reason into a situation that would be more emotional and rational. I have no problem believing that a married couple, no matter how tenuous and broken their relationship had become, being able to "reconcile" physically, no matter how briefly. As was stated above, Steve was someone who knew Kathy better than anyone, for better or worse, and that's a powerful influence.

Years ago, I was with an ex-girlfriend for just over a year. We broke up and not long after she began a new relationship. Our break up had been less than amicable because she specifically ended the relationship to pursue the new one. About a month into her new relationship, her cat passed away. That night, she showed up at my house, cried her eyes out and spent the night. It's very easy to fall back into a comfortable situation with someone you know well when life gets difficult. I've seen it happen many times and would not be surprised if it happened in this situation.

I just saw this one again today. I have seen it before and I also think he is innocent. The wife changed her story right before his sentencing.

No matter how many times I see it...

Mark Nicholls


...especially that heartfelt plea right at the end asking her to come home!

No matter how many times I see it...

Mark Nicholls


...especially that heartfelt plea right at the end asking her to come home!

Hahahahahahaaaaaaa LMAO!!!!! :lol:

No matter how many times I see it...

Mark Nicholls


...especially that heartfelt plea right at the end asking her to come home!

:lol: :lol:

I'm sorry, I just find that theory too far fetched. I get where you're coming from but there was a ton of hatred involved in that relationship that was headed for divorce. Nothing to make anyone even remotely beleive that they would hook up mere hours before she was to have a romantic evening with her new boyfriend.

I'm not saying Kathy didn't regret it two seconds after it happened, maybe she did. But I also know there was an ex-girlfriend of mine who slandered me to almost everyone I knew purposely making phone calls to their houses. I stated I would never ever have anything to do with her again. Then a couple months passed and she called and we had a decent conversation. She came over and was wearing a very nice white dress that I hadn't seen before. You get the picture. Part of me was disgusted with her, the other part, well you know how it goes.

And we were never married, never had any kids as a common bond, nothing. Imagine Steve and Kathy. By the way, if you asked my parents, my sister, my best friend they would all have said the same thing: "Oh he'll never talk to her again." Just saying

Jeff Oberholtzer.

Agreed...

I am starting to really think that Al Henderson was innocent. I truly think the time problems alone make it near impossible for him to have done anything. I just can't reconcile the camera thing...there is something wrong there.

I'd also like to add Niqui McCown's fiancee, Bobby Webster, to this list. He did a lot of suspicious things, like canceling the wedding and trying to return his wedding band almost immediately after her disappearance, but it seems that the most likely suspect is former police officer Tommy Swint, who committed suicide last year after being indicted in the murder of a prostitute.

Years ago, I was with an ex-girlfriend for just over a year. We broke up and not long after she began a new relationship. Our break up had been less than amicable because she specifically ended the relationship to pursue the new one. About a month into her new relationship, her cat passed away. That night, she showed up at my house, cried her eyes out and spent the night. It's very easy to fall back into a comfortable situation with someone you know well when life gets difficult. I've seen it happen many times and would not be surprised if it happened in this situation.

I don't find it illogical that when something emotional happens, and there's no one to turn to, someone would seek out their ex-lovers, but nothing traumatic happened to Kathy that night. She planned on meeting her boyfriend, was obviously anxious to see him since she put on makeup and jewelery, and I think the assumption that she would sleep with Steve immediately after getting out of the shower, literally minutes before she would leave to see her boyfriend, is just plain wrong.

Jeff Obeholzer is clearly innocent and Rob Page can't be charged with a criime at all, but that's for good reason, but for me it's Jeff. DNA has ruled him out and there are still some who say he did it and i know they werent married, but in my book Rob didnt kill Angela Hammond.

For what it's worth, I don't feel that this has any bearing on his guilt or innocence per say, but I find it odd that he clung to what was an obvious lie.

Yes I agree with you here. Drake's affair and whether or not he lied about it holds no water in terms of his guilt or innocence.

I could believe that Carol was mistaken about the time Drake told her he left the church.

I could believe that Drake forgot about being in the room with Nancy when she purchased the life insurance policy.

I could believe that Drake became confused during questioning and said "I don't know" in response to a direct question of if he did attack her but couldn't remember.

But all three? I'm being asked by Thomas Drake to believe a lot at this point. When you have a slew of inconsistent statements, outright lies and evidence suggesting a motive things begin to add up. As I'm sure everyone will admit, this was always a circumstantial case. None of these inconsistencies alone prove Drake did it, but the summation of all of these and other facts suggests he did. This is further supported by two jury verdicts and affirmation on appeal in which the justices stated that, based on the known facts, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude Drake was guilty and the alternate theories of the crime did not constitute a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Well we have to remember that Drake was being interrogated when asked the questions about life insurance and whether or not he attacked Nancy. How many countless interrogations did UM cover in which an innocent man was forced into a confession? I believe that's what was happening with Drake here. On that link that you provided, it shows a portion of a transcript of the interview/interrogation conducted with Drake. Some of his responses do not use proper english or grammar, and I don't want to make any sort of assumptions because I've never met the man so I don't know, but based solely off of that alone one could surmise that he was not an educated man per se. If Drake were in fact guilty of this crime, and he planned everything out, and was even smart enough to pull it off, why would he volunteer the fact that he heard Nancy screaming in his dreams? And then to top it off he then goes on to say that he "doesn't remember" if he hit Nancy or not! Now I agree that on the surface, this looks like an open and shut case. However we have a man who's not willing to admit that he slept with another woman on a certain date (in other words lie about it), yet he's not even smart enough to lie and maintain that lie when asked if he attacked Nancy or knew about the life insurance policy? And why would he even bring up the fact that he hears his wife screaming, "NO TOM NO"? Could it be that he was actually telling the truth, and being honest on those questions? Perhaps Drake, during the inital questions, decided to maintain the lies about the affair, but when pressed further he finally cracked and told the truth, realizing that he was being looked at as a suspect at that point? I think it's likely.

Fingerprints aren't always automatic. I don't think we can assume the hammer was wiped clean after the attack. Drake could have forgotten to do so. I certainly think the crime was bungled and slipshod in other aspects. He didn't even stick around long enough to make sure Nancy was dead, for example.

This is the kicker for me. His motive was allegedly to kill Nancy so he could collect this life insurance policy and live happily ever after with his mistress. Yet he doesn't even stick around to finish the job? And why use a hammer anyway? Isn't that a bit brutal for someone involved in a marriage were there was no apparent physical abuse? And don't most homicides committed by spouses involve some sort of guilt/signs of remorse (cleaning the body, covering the body, etc.)?

The issue with the hammer is irrelevant anyway because the picture was not hung as Drake claims he couldn't find nails. So this is yet another story Drake is asking me to accept at face value when the issue is something he may have had reason to lie about.

Ok, I agree with this as well. This is a non-issue since Drake did not actually hang the picture.

I think the white haired man definitely existed. Althea Toth saw him. The police created a composite of the man and he was wanted for questioning at the start of the investigation. Drake saw this man too - I'll give Drake the benefit of the doubt here as his account is corroborated by a witness (Toth) and the time frame suggests Drake would have been there at the correct time to see the guy. I think Drake could have fed Nancy details about this man after the fact (I'll get in to that later). However, no one that I'm aware actually saw this man enter the church. He could have been an innocent bystander who was driving through the area, gotten lost and stopped momentarily to get his bearings. Didn’t Toth say he was looking at a map or something on the seat as if he was reading? He also could have been waiting for someone to come out of an adjacent building. We really don’t have enough information to conclude he was there to rob the church.

It's possible that he was waiting for someone, or checking a map. Here's what we know about this man. He was seen by at least two people (Drake and Althea Toth) in the church parking lot shortly before Nancy was attacked. And Nancy herself said she was attacked by a white haired man, fitting the basic description of the man seen in the church parking lot. Now Drake may have "fed" this information to Nancy, but I find it interesting that on the FINDACASE website, Drake does not go into detail to describe the driver he saw. He only says that he saw a "cream colored station wagon", Althea Toth was the one that described the driver. And if the man was a lost motorist, why not ask one of the several church members seen going in and out for directions? And if he was waiting for someone (most likely a member of the church), why was he never identified? IMO, he did not belong there that day.

The case you are referencing is that of Harold and Thelma Swain. It has been a while since I watched that particular segment. I don't believe anything was stolen and the motive for the murder was unknown (please let me know if I'm wrong). A man was eventually convicted of this crime, but he has always maintained his innocence so the motive is still somewhat of a mystery. I always thought the motive was likely personal. The killer first went inside the church and asked a witness if she could fetch Harold Swain as the killer needed to speak with him. When Swain walked into the vestibule to speak with this man, the man pulled out a revolver and shot Swain several times. Hearing the shots, Swain’s wife ran into the vestibule and was also gunned down.

They updated this one with Farina and I'm almost 100% positive the motive was over money. I think the killer demanded Harold to give him money for food and he balked at him and then he was gunned down along with his wife.

That aside, let’s examine your robbery theory. If this man was casing the church then the robbery was premeditated. Why then did he not bring a weapon of his own? By all accounts, this was a considerably older individual. Was he really going to strong arm anyone? Was he banking on the fact that he would be able to find a weapon once he entered the church? If he didn't have a weapon, why would he attack Nancy Drake? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think it is highly unlikely that an outsider would have known the comings and goings of folks in the church. Therefore, committing a crime such as this would have been high risk. That risk is elevated even more when we consider that the perp didn't bring a weapon. The payoff itself is also uncertain. He may have had some basic knowledge about the concert, but I don't think we can assume this to be true with any certainty. Based on those facts, I think it would have been a huge gamble for an outsider to attempt something like what is being alleged.

Anytime someone commits a robbery, they're obviously taking a huge gamble. We do not know if he brought a weapon of his own. He may have had a gun, or a knife, but for whatever reason (probably to disconnect himself from the crime scene) he decided to use a weapon in the church. Do we know the extent of injuries on Nancy (i.e. how many times she was hit with the hammer)? The outsider obviously did not know the comings and goings of the church because there was a forced entry through one of the church windows. And the payoff is certainly uncertain, but if this man knew about the church function, perhaps he figured he could rob the funds from that and from whatever cash he could find? Nancy's desk drawer was also ransacked, and some of her checks were missing. All in all, in addition to the $700 missing from the church function, there was also $2,800 in checks that were stolen. Now if Drake were guilty, and all he wanted to do was kill Nancy, why leave before he knew she was dead, and why stick around and rummage through her desk to steal checks? Who is more likely to rummage through her desk and her office? Someone there to rob the place, or her husband who wants her dead?

Let's look at Drake's opportunity. Considering the location, this crime is high risk for an outsider, but less so for Drake. He would have been privy to the movements of people in the church. Further, if, as the prosecution contended, Drake’s motive was to murder Nancy AND to steal the money from the church, his only real option is to commit the crime in the church. It is difficult to comprehend a viable scenario otherwise where he could accomplish both tasks without having suspicion immediately fall back on himself or on Nancy.

The prosecution theory that Drake wanted the church money as well is very flimsy, IMO. I believe the risk is higher for Drake, than an outsider. If Drake came running through the church doors (after brutally attacking Nancy), he could have been seen by any number of people who knew him and could identify him. And Drake knew the church layout, (I'm assuming very well) since Nancy worked there. He could have made a clean getaway without being noticed. But that doesn't explain the church window that showed signs of "forced entry". Could it be that after this man attacked Nancy, he was looking for an exit and jimmied the window open? An unknown attacker wouldn't have known the layout of the church, and he also would have wanted to make a clean, unsuspecting exit.

To be continued...

To be continued...

Cool. I look forward to reading it, and I'll save my own comments until you have posted.

In the mean time, I found some articles about the case in newspapers of the day. If you Google "Thomas Drake" and click on the "News" link in the sidebar, then scroll down past "any time" and select 1980-1989 you will find many articles from the Lakeland Ledger.

I'm telling you this because often times posting direct links to the articles themselves does not work.

The question of what Nancy Drake remembered about the attack is probably the most complex question in the whole case so I would like to discuss it point by point. Let’s start with the facts and see if we can come up with some possible explanations…

- While in the hospital, Nancy Drake makes the comment to Thomas “how would you feel if I hit you on your habit?” This was construed as an accusation against Thomas by the police officer who overheard the exchange.

I don’t feel comfortable commenting on this, and you may have noticed that I didn’t use it as a point to support my earlier arguments regarding my belief in Drake’s guilt. Due to Nancy Drake’s condition at the time, I feel that this comment is far too subjective and is perhaps the weakest argument in the case against Drake. I suppose I could touch on Thomas Drake’s reaction to the comment, and how the appeal insinuates his non-response as a sign of guilt, but I’ll even let that go.

I agree. She could have easily meant, "How would you like it if you were in my position" when making that comment. I never understood why that was entered as "evidence" against Drake.

Let’s start with the assumption that she knows Drake is innocent and she is pissed because of the affair. Hell hath no fury, right? First off, we’re making huge assumptions about Nancy’s character with very little cause. To believe that she would keep quiet about her knowledge that she was attacked by someone other than her husband just so she could exact some sort of revenge by letting her innocent husband rot in prison for life requires an extremely vindictive mindset. Was she a vindictive person in other areas of her life? Possibly, but we don’t have any other examples.

The associate pastor of the church where she worked had this to say about Nancy, "He observed that the relationship between appellant [Thomas Drake]and Nancy appeared to be good although Nancy seemed overpossessive." And that's coming from a guy who works with her at a church. Could I see a vindicitive mindset out of an overpossessive woman who found out her husband was cheating on her? Absolutely.

Second, if revenge was her goal, why did she come forward with the story about the white haired man at all? Drake had already been convicted and was on his way to prison when she had this epiphany. Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply keep her mouth shut? Again, if revenge against her husband was the goal, telling a story about how she suddenly remembered being attacked – by someone other than her husband – makes absolutely no sense.

Because she may very well have remembered more details about the story after Drake was convicted. Perhaps she thought better of it and figured he's where he belongs regardless (which is essentially what she stated in UM) and that's the reason she recanted.

So what happened then? In my view, her "recovered memory" reeks of interference played by Thomas Drake.

We know Nancy was visiting Thomas in jail.

Assuming the white haired man did not attack Nancy, who else could she have gleaned this detailed level of information from? As I've said before, the man existed and was considered a suspect at one time. I think it is reasonable to assume Thomas Drake knew of this, as he was one of the witnesses who saw the man in the first place. I think it is possible that Nancy was fed details about this man by Drake. He may not have out and out told her what to say, but I think he planted the seed.

Just what seed would Drake have planted? He had the most vague description of this white haired man in a cream colored station wagon. Why not feed her more details, like a visible birthmark or a tattoo or something more distinguishable? The fact that Nancy could only recall the "white hair" IMO can be attributed to her brutal attack.

In the end, I think she got cold feet. Being religious, she may have asked herself "what's the Christian thing to do?" and realized that she couldn't swear to God in court that this unknown man attacked her and that it wasn't her husband when she really couldn’t remember.

This is the only scenario that does not make Nancy Drake out to be a liar and is consistent with everything she said on Final Appeal. Much has been made of her final powerful yet cryptic remarks on the program along the lines of "I don't know if he did it, but I don't care and he should be in prison". I see this as a very raw, emotional, honest and real moment, perhaps the only one in that entire segment. She is genuinely conflicted because she can't remember the attack, so she doesn't know if he did it or not. This is reinforced by another one of her earlier comments in which she said that the man she fell in love with and married would not have done this, but she didn't know this other man - the side of Drake that engaged in the affair.

And I've always had a problem with that quote about "the other man". By all accounts their marriage had no signs of physical abuse, and Drake was not known as a violent person. Why is she so quick to say that she doesn't know what this "other man" would do? It wasn't like he was an alcoholic and he beat her when he got drunk. I just don't understand how Nancy could use the logic that if he was a liar and a cheater than he could be capable of brutally beating her with a hammer. I don't condone the affair he carried on, but he claims he was unhappy, and we have one witness calling Nancy "possessive", a lot of guys do stupid things in similiar situations.

We have two guilty verdicts handed down by two different juries. Drake had plenty of opportunities to prove his innocence. He even got a second trial, which is more than most “Final Appealants” get. Those convictions were affirmed on appeal – including a 1985 appeal which addressed the specific question of if the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. Not only was it deemed sufficient by the justices who reviewed the case, they affirmed that the alternate theories of the crime did not support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The whole court system is flawed (Casey Anthony comes to mind). You cannot say that just because Drake lost two cases then he's instantly guilty. Look at what the jury had to go on. Like you stated in a previous post, this entire case is circumstantial be it against Drake, the white haired man, or the mental patient. The first thought in everyone's mind usually is "the husband did it", then if you tack on the affairs and the alleged plot for life insurance then they have a prosecutable case. The alternate theories of the crime do not support a "reasonable hypothesis of innocence because" no one knows who the white haried man is for one. I think that's one reason why his appeal failed. I still believe he was convicted (and the conviction upheld) largely based off of the affair he had, and how he lied about it.

A few things become obvious. If Nancy Drake called Thomas shortly before noon, and he arrived (by his own account) at 12:15. It took about 15-20 minutes for him to prepare lunch and bring it to Nancy at the church.

Ok this is a crucial point in this case IMO. It was Nancy, NOT Drake, who wanted Drake to drop by the church. Poston heard Nancy request Drake come to the church so he could bring her the lunch. Was it in the middle of making the bologna and cheese that all of a sudden something snapped and he decided to off her? Based off of the prosecution's theory, Drake had this murder premeditated. Now do you honestly think that in a span of no more than 15 minutes Drake would have had everything planned out to commit this crime? Now if Drake were the one insisting on visiting her, then yes that would look premeditated. But I find it hard to believe that after a phone call from his wife asking him to bring her lunch he decides "AHA! Now it's the perfect time to go kill her!" Let alone actually carry it out and not leave any trace evidence behind.

In conclusion, there is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case IMHO. There really is no case against Drake. We both agree that everything is largely circumstantial, regardless of who the suspect is. But these are the only points we know that are the facts pertaining to this case:

-Drake was having an affair with another woman, and lied about it to his wife and others.
-There was no apparent financial strain other than living "paycheck to paycheck" just like every other blue collar American.
-There was no history of violence in the marriage between Nancy and Thomas.
-Zero physical evidence in this case.
-Nancy says she was attacked by a "white haired" man.

Other than that, everything else is purely speculative. We can speculate as to Drake coaching her to tell her about the "white haired man", just as much as we can speculate the white haired man was in fact the one whom attacked Nancy. I just do not see how the jury convicted Drake in the first place, based off of the known undisputed facts, let alone the sentence they gave him.

ADDENDUM:
Althea Toth also testified at Drake's trial that he volunteered to her that his fingerprints would be on the hammer, since Nancy asked him to hang a picture. Again I have to ask why would any guilty person looking to get away with a crime volunteer this information? Why not keep quiet and if they did find his fingerprints on the hammer come up and stick to the lie? IMHO, the only reason Drake would have made that statement to Toth was because he was genuinely concerned that he was going to become a suspect for something he didn't do.

Yes I agree with you here. Drake's affair and whether or not he lied about it holds no water in terms of his guilt or innocence.

Can we agree that it suggests motive?

Well we have to remember that Drake was being interrogated when asked the questions about life insurance and whether or not he attacked Nancy. How many countless interrogations did UM cover in which an innocent man was forced into a confession? I believe that's what was happening with Drake here. On that link that you provided, it shows a portion of a transcript of the interview/interrogation conducted with Drake. Some of his responses do not use proper english or grammar, and I don't want to make any sort of assumptions because I've never met the man so I don't know, but based solely off of that alone one could surmise that he was not an educated man per se. If Drake were in fact guilty of this crime, and he planned everything out, and was even smart enough to pull it off, why would he volunteer the fact that he heard Nancy screaming in his dreams? And then to top it off he then goes on to say that he "doesn't remember" if he hit Nancy or not! Now I agree that on the surface, this looks like an open and shut case. However we have a man who's not willing to admit that he slept with another woman on a certain date (in other words lie about it), yet he's not even smart enough to lie and maintain that lie when asked if he attacked Nancy or knew about the life insurance policy? And why would he even bring up the fact that he hears his wife screaming, "NO TOM NO"? Could it be that he was actually telling the truth, and being honest on those questions? Perhaps Drake, during the inital questions, decided to maintain the lies about the affair, but when pressed further he finally cracked and told the truth, realizing that he was being looked at as a suspect at that point? I think it's likely.

Perhaps. On the flip side, I would wager that most criminals believe they can outsmart the police and underestimate the tenacity of investigators - especially during interrogation. How many otherwise well thought out criminal schemes crack once the suspects are subjected to interrogation? I think that is what happened with Drake here. When I read those excerpts, I see a man at the end of his rope, buckling under the pressure of the moment and all that has transpired and nearly slipping up and admitting to his complicity in the whole thing. However, he pulls himself together at the last minute and maintains his innocence before he goes any deeper into that rabbit hole. Seriously, if you were being accused of something as heinous as Drake was - attempting to brutally murder your significant other with a claw hammer - would you even concede that it was possible you did it, but you couldn't remember? Come on...

This is the kicker for me. His motive was allegedly to kill Nancy so he could collect this life insurance policy and live happily ever after with his mistress. Yet he doesn't even stick around to finish the job? And why use a hammer anyway? Isn't that a bit brutal for someone involved in a marriage were there was no apparent physical abuse? And don't most homicides committed by spouses involve some sort of guilt/signs of remorse (cleaning the body, covering the body, etc.)?

He could have thought she was dead. Drake is not a doctor and even you admitted he didn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. Everything I have read or seen about this case suggests that she was left for dead and that the injuries she sustained were significant enough to end her life. In fact, one article said that Nancy Drake's recovery was an "unexplained medical miracle". Her skull was fractured in numerous places and was split open. This suggests to me that she was hit repeatedly with that hammer, not just once. If anything, that strikes me as a bit of an "overkill" type situation which typically stems from a personal motive. Why would some random intruder hit her repeatedly if the goal was simply to neutralize her? What threat would she have posed anyway?

As far as other weapons are concerned, that is irrelevant as I have never read anything suggesting Drake owned a gun, for example. Even if he did, perhaps he was fearful of using it since it could be traced back to him. A hammer is generic enough.

Ok, I agree with this as well. This is a non-issue since Drake did not actually hang the picture.

If Drake's comment to Toth was a spontaneous or excited utterance, he would have ample reason to lie about it after the fact.

The fact that Poston contradicted Drake's statements about hanging pictures strongly suggests that Drake MAY have lied about the issue.

Of course, it could be yet another "misunderstanding", but how many of those have we had already in this case over contradictory statements Drake made about church departure times, life insurance, nearly admitting his guilt during interrogation, and the affair? It doesn't add up.

It's possible that he was waiting for someone, or checking a map. Here's what we know about this man. He was seen by at least two people (Drake and Althea Toth) in the church parking lot shortly before Nancy was attacked. And Nancy herself said she was attacked by a white haired man, fitting the basic description of the man seen in the church parking lot. Now Drake may have "fed" this information to Nancy, but I find it interesting that on the FINDACASE website, Drake does not go into detail to describe the driver he saw. He only says that he saw a "cream colored station wagon", Althea Toth was the one that described the driver. And if the man was a lost motorist, why not ask one of the several church members seen going in and out for directions? And if he was waiting for someone (most likely a member of the church), why was he never identified? IMO, he did not belong there that day.

LOL, ever hear the saying "real men don't ask for directions"? :)

What we also know is there is no evidence this man did anything except park in the church parking lot momentarily. There is nothing tying him to the crime aside from Nancy Drake's recovered memories, which there are numerous reasons to find suspect.

Drake spoke with Althea Toth about this man. Drake also claims he saw the man and describes him during his Final Appeal interview. Since the composite was created, I don't think it's a huge leap to think Drake knew of this man and his appearance. Drake admitted he saw the man and he possibly saw the composite and knew that the police considered this man a person of interest.

Anytime someone commits a robbery, they're obviously taking a huge gamble. We do not know if he brought a weapon of his own. He may have had a gun, or a knife, but for whatever reason (probably to disconnect himself from the crime scene) he decided to use a weapon in the church. Do we know the extent of injuries on Nancy (i.e. how many times she was hit with the hammer)? The outsider obviously did not know the comings and goings of the church because there was a forced entry through one of the church windows. And the payoff is certainly uncertain, but if this man knew about the church function, perhaps he figured he could rob the funds from that and from whatever cash he could find? Nancy's desk drawer was also ransacked, and some of her checks were missing. All in all, in addition to the $700 missing from the church function, there was also $2,800 in checks that were stolen. Now if Drake were guilty, and all he wanted to do was kill Nancy, why leave before he knew she was dead, and why stick around and rummage through her desk to steal checks? Who is more likely to rummage through her desk and her office? Someone there to rob the place, or her husband who wants her dead?

Crime scene technician Nancy Hutzell discovered evidence of forced entry through a window. It’s stated in the appeal that Pastor Charles Kirby testified that the church had been burglarized "some weeks" before Nancy was attacked so the damaged window was unrelated to the attack.

With regard to the ransacking - we both agreed on another thread it was likely that Dr. Branion was guilty partly because his hired help didn't have the common sense to stage the scene so the murder would appear secondary to another crime - burglary, rape, etc. Perhaps Drake had more sense than that.

The prosecution theory that Drake wanted the church money as well is very flimsy, IMO. I believe the risk is higher for Drake, than an outsider. If Drake came running through the church doors (after brutally attacking Nancy), he could have been seen by any number of people who knew him and could identify him. And Drake knew the church layout, (I'm assuming very well) since Nancy worked there. He could have made a clean getaway without being noticed. But that doesn't explain the church window that showed signs of "forced entry". Could it be that after this man attacked Nancy, he was looking for an exit and jimmied the window open? An unknown attacker wouldn't have known the layout of the church, and he also would have wanted to make a clean, unsuspecting exit.

The highlighted portions illustrate exactly why I believe the crime is high risk for an outsider and not for Drake.

- Drake knows the layout.
- Drake could make a clean, undetected escape if he needed to.
- Drake also knows the comings and goings of the various people who work for the church. To extrapolate from that - isn't it interesting that the crime occurred when it did - during the 10 or so odd minutes that no one was present to witness it or intervene?

This robber, assuming he existed, sure had luck on his side.

- He wasn't observed entering the building.
- He either went in unarmed or brought a weapon he had no intent to use.
- Once inside, he found a weapon he could use to threaten and attack Mrs. Drake.
- He struck at a time when no one was present to witness the attack or stop him.
- He struck during a time that Thomas Drake, by his own account, cannot account for his whereabouts.
- He wasn't observed exiting the building.
- He left behind no evidence of his presence.

That's quite an accomplishment for an outsider with no knowledge of the church. Really, what are the odds?

I agree. She could have easily meant, "How would you like it if you were in my position" when making that comment. I never understood why that was entered as "evidence" against Drake. .

Well, the justices ruled it was admissible because Drake’s non-response could be a sign of guilt.


The associate pastor of the church where she worked had this to say about Nancy, "He observed that the relationship between appellant [Thomas Drake]and Nancy appeared to be good although Nancy seemed overpossessive." And that's coming from a guy who works with her at a church. Could I see a vindicitive mindset out of an overpossessive woman who found out her husband was cheating on her? Absolutely.

Because she may very well have remembered more details about the story after Drake was convicted. Perhaps she thought better of it and figured he's where he belongs regardless (which is essentially what she stated in UM) and that's the reason she recanted.

Newspapers of the day indicated that Nancy wrote a letter to the judge asking him to be lenient on her husband during sentencing. It was also stated in the paper that Nancy smiled at Thomas when she took the stand, and they openly embraced and kissed in court. We also know that she visited him regularly in jail before and during proceedings. On UM, during a re-enactment, she made the comment “I’m here because I want to be” when Thomas expressed doubt about her visiting him. None of those actions strike me as something a vindictive person would do. I also can’t get over the fact that she would come forward at all if she knew he was innocent, yet still wanted to see him hang because of the affair. It would have been far easier to say nothing about the white haired man than to speak about it and generate so much doubt her husband would get a new trial. It’s a total contradiction to her earlier behavior.

I listened closely to her comments on FA. I think it’s possible that she does hold some grudge against Drake – I could say she believes he’s guilty, but if that’s the case then why doesn’t she come out and say so? It’s problematic. One thing we have to remember too is that the interview with Nancy Drake Marshall was recorded in 1992 – almost ten years after the attack. She divorced Thomas in 1985 and re-married some time after that. Surely all the hoopla had died by 1992. I think she moved on with her life, put the ugly details of her past behind her and genuinely didn’t care what became of Thomas – innocent or not.

The comments about him deserving to be in prison, but not because he attacked her, are particularly troubling. I don’t want to knock Nancy Drake, I really don’t, but she strikes me as a simple person. Many people who are unfamiliar with the legal system will make comments like “they deserve to be in jail” about someone who probably committed a crime yet was acquitted, got off for some reason or was never charged. For example, I’m sure many Americans felt this way after O.J. was acquitted. O.J. most certainly deserved to go to prison because he most likely did murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. However, we know he shouldn’t be in prison if he wasn’t convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. I would wager a lot of folks don’t make this distinction and because O.J. probably committed the murders, that’s good enough. Of course, we know it isn’t.


Just what seed would Drake have planted? He had the most vague description of this white haired man in a cream colored station wagon. Why not feed her more details, like a visible birthmark or a tattoo or something more distinguishable? The fact that Nancy could only recall the "white hair" IMO can be attributed to her brutal attack.

Given Nancy Drake’s state at the time, impressionable and probably desperate to remember something, anything, about the crime, I don’t think it would have taken much. He could have suggested that the police were still trying to find the culprit and then given a basic description, perhaps under the guise of trying to jog her memory. I think there are any number of ways he could have suggested to her it was this man who attacked her and not him.

The timing of her recovered memory doesn’t strike you as the least bit suspicious? It is circumstantial, yes, but I think the fact that she was visiting Thomas in jail, wrote a letter to the judge requesting he be lenient on Thomas, embracing and kissing Thomas in court, all seem to suggest that she was very much a part of his life and possibly being influenced by him. This revelation of the recovered memory at a time when they needed it most strikes me as suspicious, as does the fact that doctors testified it would be nearly impossible for her to remember anything about the attack itself.

And I've always had a problem with that quote about "the other man". By all accounts their marriage had no signs of physical abuse, and Drake was not known as a violent person. Why is she so quick to say that she doesn't know what this "other man" would do? It wasn't like he was an alcoholic and he beat her when he got drunk. I just don't understand how Nancy could use the logic that if he was a liar and a cheater than he could be capable of brutally beating her with a hammer. I don't condone the affair he carried on, but he claims he was unhappy, and we have one witness calling Nancy "possessive", a lot of guys do stupid things in similiar situations.

Well, there was testimony regarding Drake’s other marriages including allegations that he was abusive. I’ve never heard these allegations with regard to Nancy specifically. Typically with spousal abuse it often boils down to a “he said she said” type argument, so take your pick on who you want to believe with regard to Drake’s past relationships.

I’m sure that Nancy was shocked about the affair and the fact that Thomas moved the mistress in so soon after the attack. Consider there is no evidence to suggest that she had any prior knowledge of the affair or the existence of Carol and her son. I also don’t think she anticipated ending up in the hospital nearly killed by a hammer attack. A lot of information was revealed to her in a short amount of time. Also, the side of Thomas she thought she knew was being questioned, as she likely never thought he would engage in an affair. The whole situation was probably completely foreign to her, so I could understand her being conflicted and her comments here make sense.

The whole court system is flawed (Casey Anthony comes to mind). You cannot say that just because Drake lost two cases then he's instantly guilty. Look at what the jury had to go on. Like you stated in a previous post, this entire case is circumstantial be it against Drake, the white haired man, or the mental patient. The first thought in everyone's mind usually is "the husband did it", then if you tack on the affairs and the alleged plot for life insurance then they have a prosecutable case. The alternate theories of the crime do not support a "reasonable hypothesis of innocence because" no one knows who the white haried man is for one. I think that's one reason why his appeal failed. I still believe he was convicted (and the conviction upheld) largely based off of the affair he had, and how he lied about it.

Just because the system is flawed and the Casey Anthony case was possibly flawed doesn’t mean the Drake case was flawed too. The whole “he was convicted because of his affairs” argument, frankly, is getting old. We weren’t in deliberation and really have no clue what the jury was thinking when they agreed on the verdict. It is equally possible that they looked at the evidence, exactly as I’m looking at it, and concluded that Thomas Drake was the person who committed these crimes.

The appellate justices could care less that Drake had affairs. Their job is to review the case for legal flaws that could result in a remedy to the benefit of the appellant, such as a new trial. Since Drake was challenging his conviction partly on the basis that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard wasn’t met, they had to re-review the facts and evidence. After doing so, the justices concluded the conviction was sound. In other words, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was established. I really don’t know what more can be done then.

Ok this is a crucial point in this case IMO. It was Nancy, NOT Drake, who wanted Drake to drop by the church. Poston heard Nancy request Drake come to the church so he could bring her the lunch. Was it in the middle of making the bologna and cheese that all of a sudden something snapped and he decided to off her? Based off of the prosecution's theory, Drake had this murder premeditated. Now do you honestly think that in a span of no more than 15 minutes Drake would have had everything planned out to commit this crime? Now if Drake were the one insisting on visiting her, then yes that would look premeditated. But I find it hard to believe that after a phone call from his wife asking him to bring her lunch he decides "AHA! Now it's the perfect time to go kill her!" Let alone actually carry it out and not leave any trace evidence behind.

The problem here is we don’t know how often Thomas brought Nancy lunch at the church. It could have been a regular or semi-regular thing and he could have anticipated it would have been a good time to commit the crime since he knew people wouldn’t be around, and he could claim he was simply bringing her lunch. If anything, I see it working to his advantage because he can use the fact that he brought her lunch as an alibi. Then, when questioned, all he has to say is that he did bring her lunch but left before anything happened. That is what he claimed from day one, correct?

In conclusion, there is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case IMHO. There really is no case against Drake. We both agree that everything is largely circumstantial, regardless of who the suspect is. But these are the only points we know that are the facts pertaining to this case:

A circumstantial case requires inferences to be made based on the facts. For that reason, I think your attempt to lay out the facts here, while well intentioned, is a bit misguided.

-Drake was having an affair with another woman, and lied about it to his wife and others.

Which strongly suggests motive. He moved Carol and her son in to the house while Nancy was in the hospital. What would Drake have done with Carol when/if Nancy survived and sought to return? Would he have told Carol to hit the road? I don’t think so.

-There was no apparent financial strain other than living "paycheck to paycheck" just like every other blue collar American.

Drake told Carol she could live with him and wouldn’t have to work. If the Drakes were living paycheck to paycheck how is he suddenly going to support a woman who doesn’t work and her young son? Keep in mind he was living on a truck driver’s salary. I think it’s reasonable to think he needed the money, both from the church and from the life insurance policy he was planning on collecting if supporting Carol and her son was truly his plan.

-There was no history of violence in the marriage between Nancy and Thomas.

History of violence with other relationships he was in plus a previous arrest for armed robbery suggests he was capable in my opinion.

-Zero physical evidence in this case.

This isn’t CSI. There isn’t always physical evidence to be had. In addition, I think we have to remember that the crime occurred nearly 30 years ago. They weren’t working with the same technology and knowledge base we have now.

-Nancy says she was attacked by a "white haired" man.

A statement she recanted. She claims now she can’t remember the attack. A contention supported by the doctors who examined her.

Other than that, everything else is purely speculative. We can speculate as to Drake coaching her to tell her about the "white haired man", just as much as we can speculate the white haired man was in fact the one whom attacked Nancy. I just do not see how the jury convicted Drake in the first place, based off of the known undisputed facts, let alone the sentence they gave him.

Again, it’s a circumstantial case. The definition of circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact – so some speculation is required. There is no direct evidence in this case. If there was, this whole discussion would be moot. Simply because the case itself is circumstantial doesn’t mean that the case is inherently flawed. I see this as a very strong circumstantial case.

He was engaged in this affair and asked his mistress and her son to move in with him after the attack and while his wife was in the hospital. I think this suggests that he was done with the relationship with Nancy. Drake conceded on FA that he was unhappy in the marriage and had been contemplating divorce. On a paycheck to paycheck basis, I think it’s unlikely he could have afforded an attorney to get divorced because he couldn’t even afford a defense attorney and had to rely on the public defender.

He told his mistress she could move in with her son and she wouldn’t have to work again. Paycheck to paycheck living with one party not working and a kid added to the mix seems unlikely. Since a life insurance policy was in place, and money was stolen from the church, I don’t think it’s a huge leap in logic to think that Nancy Drake’s death would have benefited him financially as well.

When questioned about the incident, he told detectives he had dreams about Nancy screaming “No Tom!” and “Stop Tom!” He also made comments in which he voluntarily suggested it was possible for him to have committed the crime but not remember. These don’t strike me as comments an innocent person would make. Now, I suppose those comments could be a misunderstanding, out of context or what have you, but I find the comments fishy, so I’ll call it “Fishy point #1”.

Carol Lopeta testified Drake told her he left the church at 11:30am on the day of the attack. This contradicts his own statement to investigators and in court that he arrived at 12:15 and left at 12:30pm. It’s possible that she could have misremembered the time, but it’s also possible that she was correct and he lied. Fishy point #2.

He denied knowledge of the life insurance policy but later claimed it was a misunderstanding he had with investigators during interrogation. Fishy point #3.

He told Althea Toth, without being asked, that his fingerprints might be on the hammer. He then offered an explanation that was contradicted by another witness. He’s either covering for a screwup or this could be a truthful explanation for using the hammer and he’s worried about the implications of his fingerprints being on it. It could be a lie so - fishy point #4.

Then, consider the unlikelihood of anyone else committing the crime.

Raymond Starr was a parishioner who was known to be in the building at times, so his fingerprints being found are explainable.

The white haired man seen in the parking lot.

- No one saw this man enter the church.
- An intruder would have been unfamiliar with the layout of the church and the comings and goings of parishioners, patrons and employees making this crime high risk.
- There is no evidence suggesting the intruder had a weapon of his own. He had to use a weapon he found inside the church. This compounds the already high risk.
- The intruder beat Nancy almost to death in an overkill fashion when doing so wasn’t necessary if his goal was simply to steal money.
- The intruder left without being seen and left no evidence of his presence behind.
- The intruder was presumably never seen or identified after this incident at the church.

Is there doubt in this case? I’m actually going to say yes. However, doubt can still exist so long as it isn’t “reasonable”.

Is it reasonable doubt? I don’t think so. Why? Consider the motives both personal and financial, the fishy points, and the unlikelihood of someone else committing this crime and I think Drake was correctly adjudicated and convicted and should be in prison for these crimes.

The conviction beyond a reasonable doubt was affirmed on appeal and is therefore sound from a legal standpoint.


ADDENDUM:
Althea Toth also testified at Drake's trial that he volunteered to her that his fingerprints would be on the hammer, since Nancy asked him to hang a picture. Again I have to ask why would any guilty person looking to get away with a crime volunteer this information? Why not keep quiet and if they did find his fingerprints on the hammer come up and stick to the lie? IMHO, the only reason Drake would have made that statement to Toth was because he was genuinely concerned that he was going to become a suspect for something he didn't do.

Or it was a spontaneous utterance.

We can go back and forth on this all day, we'll have to agree to disagree. I will however agree with you on a few points:

-Drake's affair does suggest a motive for committing the crime.
-I do concede that it is more risky for an unknown assailant to have committed this crime, other thank Drake. Still extremely risky and brazen regardless of who did it, though.
-I did not realize that the FA episode was filmed in 1992, almost ten years after Nancy's attack. I agree that she did want to put her life, and all the ugly details behind her. Still don't agree with her comment however, and I do find it a bit "troubling" that the pastor testified that she was controlling.

I would like to comment on one portion of your post:


Just because the system is flawed and the Casey Anthony case was possibly flawed doesn’t mean the Drake case was flawed too. The whole “he was convicted because of his affairs” argument, frankly, is getting old. We weren’t in deliberation and really have no clue what the jury was thinking when they agreed on the verdict. It is equally possible that they looked at the evidence, exactly as I’m looking at it, and concluded that Thomas Drake was the person who committed these crimes.

You honestly think there was no reasonable doubt in this case? I do get what you're saying about not one but two juries found him guilty of this crime, but my whole point about the legal system being flawed was that how many people were convicted of crimes yet exonerated years later? The "convicted of his affairs" argument is not old because that's what the prosecution used as Drake's motive. The prosecution showed that Drake was in a position to commit the crime (unhappy marriage, extramarital affairs, overbearing wife, etc.) but I do not see how they proved that he actually did commit the crime. That's why I think there's more than enough reasonable doubt in this case. Dont' get me wrong, you've brought up a hell of a lot of good points. For one, I had forgotten about Drake's previous conviction of an armed robbery.

I wonder if he still maintains innocence to this day...

We can go back and forth on this all day, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion. :wave:


I would like to comment on one portion of your post:

You honestly think there was no reasonable doubt in this case? I do get what you're saying about not one but two juries found him guilty of this crime, but my whole point about the legal system being flawed was that how many people were convicted of crimes yet exonerated years later? The "convicted of his affairs" argument is not old because that's what the prosecution used as Drake's motive. The prosecution showed that Drake was in a position to commit the crime (unhappy marriage, extramarital affairs, overbearing wife, etc.) but I do not see how they proved that he actually did commit the crime. That's why I think there's more than enough reasonable doubt in this case. Dont' get me wrong, you've brought up a hell of a lot of good points. For one, I had forgotten about Drake's previous conviction of an armed robbery.

I see the "convicted because of his affairs" argument as an over simplified scapegoat-ish way of explaining things.

Following the law, a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence CANNOT have the element of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence - something I believe this case lacks, making the conviction sound.

I think there was doubt, just not reasonable doubt. The fact that there is no evidence tying this white haired man to the crime aside from Nancy Drake's statements (which I don't find credible) isn't enough to constitute reasonable doubt. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances coupled with a lack of reasonable doubt (or a reasonable hypothesis of innocence - however you want to phrase it) is what proves Drake committed the crime.

Now, as you alluded to in another post - they never found this man. Had they done so, and he turned out to be an ex-con with a history of armed church robberies and no alibi for the time frame in question, then we might have some reasonable doubt.

I wonder if he still maintains innocence to this day...

To the best of my knowledge, he does. There was a poster here, kadrmas, who used to post regularly but has since left the forum who was in contact with Drake. They wrote letters back and forth. Drake sent him police reports and other documents pertaining to the case. I can't recall if kadrmas said if Drake was still fighting for a new trial or had just given up. In any event, he is still incarcerated. If you go to the Florida Department of Corrections website and type in his name you can find his info, including a current photo of him smiling for the camera.

I see the "convicted because of his affairs" argument as an over simplified scapegoat-ish way of explaining things.

Sorry to drudge up an old post, but this got me thinking recently. There's no doubt in my mind the jury that found Drake guilty did so because of his extramarital affair, and the fact that he lied about it repeatedly. Why do I think this was the clincher in the case? Because what other evidence is there to go on to obtain a conviction? There's even a huge lack of circumstantial evidence.

-There is no physical evidence tying anyone to the crime.
-Nancy Drake does not remember her attack, therefore cannot state who attacked her.
-The statement Nancy made in the hospital, and Drake's non-response being used as evidence is ludicrous. I've always taken that statement from Nancy to literally mean, "How would you like it if you were in my shoes?" Nothing more.
-Drake had an extramarital affair, lied about it repeatedly, and moved his mistress in shortly after Nancy's brutal attack.
-Nancy had a life insurance policy of $10,000 taken out on her.
-Drake told investigators during an interrogation that it was possible that he attacked Nancy, and couldn't remember.

That's about it in a nutshell. Whether or not he actually did it, and I still think he's innocent, there simply was never enough evidence to convict him, IMHO. It seems like the prosecution figured if Drake was having an affair and since Nancy had a life insurance policy, then "BINGO!", Drake is their guy. I think the fact that Drake said it was "possible" that he attacked Nancy was misconstrued. He does say at one point that it was possible, but then repeatedly states he never could have done that to Nancy because she never hurt anyone. He also says he would have killed himself over the guilt he would have felt if he committed it.

Yes we can say that Drake was having an affair and lying about it constantly. Yes we can say that Drake was at the church on the day that Nancy was attacked (he brought her lunch after she called him and requested he bring it to her). Yes we can say that some of Drake's statements came off as odd and/or suspect. Yes we can say that it's possible Drake wanted to get his hands on the $10,000 on Nancy's life. But can we honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that Drake was actually the guy who attacked Nancy? No. Why? Because Nancy recalls no details of the attack, nor was there any evidence tying Drake to the crime scene and/or crime. And that is what cases like these (I wouldn't call it largely circumstantial but rather marginally circumstantial) needs...a smoking gun. There aren't any. I wonder how this case would have turned out if Drake would have admitted to the affairs during his trial, and gave some sort of explanation as to why he was having them. The outcome may have turned out differently.

According to the appellate court, the conviction is legally sound. The circumstantial case coupled with his lack of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence is what proves he committed the crime.

Unfortunately, there isn't a smoking gun, but there never was in this case, hence all the controversy.

I still think the person who would have benefited most from these crimes was Drake, and I still think he's the culprit for all the reasons I have already outlined in depth.

I don't know, people have gotten off for more evidence than what was presented at the Drake trial. The fact that Drake denied attacking Nancy, the lack of anything that could pinpoint Drake as the one swinging the hammer, and the fact that Nancy did not remember who struck her is more than enough of a hypothesis of innocence, IMO.

I would've thought Larry Race and/or Tommy Zeigler, but it's hard telling :confused:

Sorry to drudge up an old post, but this got me thinking recently. There's no doubt in my mind the jury that found Drake guilty did so because of his extramarital affair, and the fact that he lied about it repeatedly. Why do I think this was the clincher in the case? Because what other evidence is there to go on to obtain a conviction? There's even a huge lack of circumstantial evidence.

-There is no physical evidence tying anyone to the crime.
-Nancy Drake does not remember her attack, therefore cannot state who attacked her.
-The statement Nancy made in the hospital, and Drake's non-response being used as evidence is ludicrous. I've always taken that statement from Nancy to literally mean, "How would you like it if you were in my shoes?" Nothing more.
-Drake had an extramarital affair, lied about it repeatedly, and moved his mistress in shortly after Nancy's brutal attack.
-Nancy had a life insurance policy of $10,000 taken out on her.
-Drake told investigators during an interrogation that it was possible that he attacked Nancy, and couldn't remember.

That's about it in a nutshell. Whether or not he actually did it, and I still think he's innocent, there simply was never enough evidence to convict him, IMHO. It seems like the prosecution figured if Drake was having an affair and since Nancy had a life insurance policy, then "BINGO!", Drake is their guy. I think the fact that Drake said it was "possible" that he attacked Nancy was misconstrued. He does say at one point that it was possible, but then repeatedly states he never could have done that to Nancy because she never hurt anyone. He also says he would have killed himself over the guilt he would have felt if he committed it.

Yes we can say that Drake was having an affair and lying about it constantly. Yes we can say that Drake was at the church on the day that Nancy was attacked (he brought her lunch after she called him and requested he bring it to her). Yes we can say that some of Drake's statements came off as odd and/or suspect. Yes we can say that it's possible Drake wanted to get his hands on the $10,000 on Nancy's life. But can we honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that Drake was actually the guy who attacked Nancy? No. Why? Because Nancy recalls no details of the attack, nor was there any evidence tying Drake to the crime scene and/or crime. And that is what cases like these (I wouldn't call it largely circumstantial but rather marginally circumstantial) needs...a smoking gun. There aren't any. I wonder how this case would have turned out if Drake would have admitted to the affairs during his trial, and gave some sort of explanation as to why he was having them. The outcome may have turned out differently.

Really good post - just watched this and...

He (Drake) doesn't come across as a particularly likeable or sympathetic character, it must be said. This, along with the detail of his extra-marital affairs, means he may well have been perceived negatively by the jury.

The lack of solid evidence in this case is frightening, especially when one considers the sentence that was handed out.

I'm leaning strongly towards believing in his innocence - not being a sensitive or warm character does not make one a murderer, after all. The timelines seem at best to be awfully tight and in need of military precision to get the job done. The use of a hammer as the weapon is not that of an individual looking to 'off' someone either, but suggests deliberate and pre-meditated brutality.

If it were 'robbery gone bad' then why keep pummelling someone to the point where those kinds of injuries are inflicted? How can an assailant know that his work will impair the memory of his victim? Surely robbing a stranger would be a quick in-take the money-out type scenario?

I'd be inclined to dismiss this vision, that she remembered and then forgot again, as a red herring. Funny how she's never subsequently 're-remembered' it and it might simply have been a hallucination.

When did Tom first mention the white-haired man parked near his house? Was it from the start, or prompted by Nancy's 'vision'? I don't blame him for clutching at anything, and as I stated earlier, believe him to be innocent.

Which leaves - the mistress...

This looks like one of those small communties where people gossip about and pass judgement on their neighbours (apologies to anyone who lives there). Nancy was clearly well thought of and liked in the area where she lived for her activities with the local church.

Now imagine being the woman who split them up - in a place like that you'll be the black sheep/wicked witch and something of a pariah.

However, the death of a spouse does represent something of a licence to re-marry, and the other person involved would be seen as the one who 'brought them some happiness again'. She clearly had more to gain from Nancy dying than anyone. Wouldn't mind knowing who suggested she move into the house - whose idea was it?

Then, when it all goes bad, she turns rat and becomes the prosecution's star witness - funny that...

Dunno if anyone else has thought along these lines or not?

If it were 'robbery gone bad' then why keep pummelling someone to the point where those kinds of injuries are inflicted. How can an assailant know that his work will impair the memory of his victim. Surely robbing a stranger would be a quick in-take the money-out type scenario?

Well if this was a robbery gone bad, the guy who did it was sick enough to use a hammer in the first place, so I don't think it's unlikely for him to have kept hitting her over and over again.

I'd be inclined to dismiss this vision, that she remembered and then forgot again, as a red herring. Funny how she's never subsequently 're-remembered' it and it might simply have been a hallucination.

It's also interesting that she added a little tidbit that I forgot about in her sudden rememberance of her attack. She said a silver haired man came in and asked to change a $100 bill so he could buy some tickets to the upcoming church event, and when she leaned over to open the safe is when she was hit. For one, if Drake did in fact attack his wife, would he really be that cunning to come up with that tidbit to coach his wife into saying that? Why not just have her say, "A silver haired man came in and began attacking me over and over again." The bit about the change for $100 doesn't sound made up, IMO.

When did Tom first mention the white-haired man parked near his house? Was it from the start, or prompted by Nancy's 'vision'? I don't blame him for clutching at anything, and as I stated earlier, believe him to be innocent.

If you do a Google News search on "Thomas Drake Florida" and go to the archives from 1980-1989, you'll see several articles about the case. Both Drake and another church goer both witnessed this man sitting outside in a cream colored car near the church parking lot shortly before Nancy was attacked. In one of the articles, they also mention that police were still looking for the silver haired man even after Drake was arrested.

However, the death of a spouse does represent something of a licence to re-marry, and the other person involved would be seen as the one who 'brought them some happiness again'. She clearly had more to gain from Nancy dying than anyone. Wouldn't mind knowing who suggested she move into the house - whose idea was it?

Then, when it all goes bad, she turns rat and becomes the prosecution's star witness - funny that...

Dunno if anyone else has thought along these lines or not?

That's an interesting theory, but I think it was Drake himself who suggested she move in with him. I don't think his mistress had any involvement whatsoever because she claimed that Drake told her he was divorced.

Well if this was a robbery gone bad, the guy who did it was sick enough to use a hammer in the first place, so I don't think it's unlikely for him to have kept hitting her over and over again.



It's also interesting that she added a little tidbit that I forgot about in her sudden rememberance of her attack. She said a silver haired man came in and asked to change a $100 bill so he could buy some tickets to the upcoming church event, and when she leaned over to open the safe is when she was hit. For one, if Drake did in fact attack his wife, would he really be that cunning to come up with that tidbit to coach his wife into saying that? Why not just have her say, "A silver haired man came in and began attacking me over and over again." The bit about the change for $100 doesn't sound made up, IMO.



If you do a Google News search on "Thomas Drake Florida" and go to the archives from 1980-1989, you'll see several articles about the case. Both Drake and another church goer both witnessed this man sitting outside in a cream colored car near the church parking lot shortly before Nancy was attacked. In one of the articles, they also mention that police were still looking for the silver haired man even after Drake was arrested.



That's an interesting theory, but I think it was Drake himself who suggested she move in with him. I don't think his mistress had any involvement whatsoever because she claimed that Drake told her he was divorced.

Hi Cars - appreciate the considered response...

Certainly don't think Drake did this himself. Just think in two decades Nancy would have 're-remembered' this vision she had.

I appreciate she's glad he's in jail and sees an element of poetic justice to that, so there might be a motive for her to keep quiet if she had. Surely the emptying of a safe would have been recorded at the time, though?

The impression I had was that she'd discovered he was married at some point? Looks like he told her he was divorced at first, no argument there. But if she suddenly found out about Nancy and had to park her dreams for a while, then that's a game-changer.

And IMO she had the most to gain from Nancy's death by an absolute mile...

Hi Cars - appreciate the considered response...

Certainly don't think Drake did this himself. Just think in two decades Nancy would have 're-remembered' this vision she had.

I appreciate she's glad he's in jail and sees an element of poetic justice to that, so there might be a motive for her to keep quiet if she had. Surely the emptying of a safe would have been recorded at the time, though?

The impression I had was that she'd discovered he was married at some point? Looks like he told her he was divorced at first, no argument there. But if she suddenly found out about Nancy and had to park her dreams for a while, then that's a game-changer.

And IMO she had the most to gain from Nancy's death by an absolute mile...

No offense, but your theory sounds like something out of a movie plot or a "whodunnit" mystery novel. There is no evidence that Drake's mistress had a hand in the crime. In fact, everything I have read on the case, both in the appellate court decisions and news articles suggests that Carol's knowledge of Nancy Drake was extremely limited as Thomas had told her that he was divorced.

No offense, but your theory sounds like something out of a movie plot or a "whodunnit" mystery novel. There is no evidence that Drake's mistress had a hand in the crime. In fact, everything I have read on the case, both in the appellate court decisions and news articles suggests that Carol's knowledge of Nancy Drake was extremely limited as Thomas had told her that he was divorced.

None taken - I appreciate it is, shall we say, leftfield.

I would've thought Larry Race I am a native Minnesota gal and I have always thought was not proven guilty. The whole underwater scuba deal was so "out threre." Lake Superior is cold all year long. If he really wanted his wife dead he cold have thrown her overboard and trust me, she would have succumbed to hypothermia and drowned. I believe it all happened in May (feel free to correct me) and the water would have been very cold.

Was he innocent? Hard to say, but by the standards of the system that we live under I don't think he was proven guilty.

If it were 'robbery gone bad' then why keep pummelling someone to the point where those kinds of injuries are inflicted? How can an assailant know that his work will impair the memory of his victim? Surely robbing a stranger would be a quick in-take the money-out type scenario?

I'd be inclined to dismiss this vision, that she remembered and then forgot again, as a red herring. Funny how she's never subsequently 're-remembered' it and it might simply have been a hallucination.


Some very good points, lol. ;)

Some very good points, lol. ;)

This board is so interesting and it makes a show like Unsolved Mysteries so great but also it can be frustrating. We really don't know all the facts that were either represented in court or verifiable in real life.

Example: The Jeannie Touvrea (sp?) case: UM completely overlooked the fact her stepkids had been cut out of the will and, if I remember correctly, her husband basically called his own kids money hungry no good kids.

That is a HUGE motive right there.