I know that most people think that Tommy Ziegler is innocent. My question is who do you think did it? Do you think that it was one of the people that testified against him? Do you think it was a combination of people that testified against him? Or do you think the killer is someone that UM didn't mention? And what do you think the motive for the killings was?

I don't think Tommy Zeigler is innocent at all, but IIRC I the 'innocent' crowd largely pushes the theory that Charlie Mays and/or Ed Williams did it, in a botched armed robbery attempt.

I know that most people think that Tommy Ziegler is innocent.

I have absolutely no idea where that came from. I think Tommy Ziegler is guilty and other than Paul Pollis and Mark Nichols, the most guilty suspect/convict ever featured on Unsolved Mysteries. I cannot imagine that "most" think he is innocent.

It sure as hell wasn't Perry Edwards Jr., who Zeigler's defense team conveniently scapegoated one he passed away. The correct man is behind bars. Whether or not he got a fair trial is another story.

The correct man is behind bars. Whether or not he got a fair trial is another story.

Well.. That's kinda mutually exclusive. If he didn't get a fair trial, he doesn't deserve to be behind bars.

If there were enough question here.. I think the Innocence Project or someone would have ponied up for full DNA testing.

If Zeigler actually did shoot an unidentified man.. Traces of his blood should have been on scene.

I'd like to see a little more DNA testing to definitively say that it was Zeigler.. But.. That's certainly where I lean right now.

I have absolutely no idea where that came from. I think Tommy Ziegler is guilty and other than Paul Pollis and Mark Nichols, the most guilty suspect/convict ever featured on Unsolved Mysteries. I cannot imagine that "most" think he is innocent.

I did a survey on the Trail Went Cold group on Facebook and I'd say probably 15 out of 16 said innocent. If I'm not mistaken most people on here said innocent on the Tommy Ziegler thread. I'm going to have to revisit the thread. It's good to hear different opinions though. The best threads in my opinion are the ones where people are split.

Seems likely it was people connected with Charlie Mays. Felton Thomas and the other guy. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they would lie to put Ziegler away.

Well.. That's kinda mutually exclusive. If he didn't get a fair trial, he doesn't deserve to be behind bars.

I didn't say he deserved to be behind bars; I said that the correct person is in jail because I believe he did it. And a quadruple murderer isn't going to garner a lot of sympathy from me...considering his case (and the merits of his trial) have been brought up and denied on repeated appeals.

If there were enough question here.. I think the Innocence Project or someone would have ponied up for full DNA testing.

After seeing what David Protess and the Innocence Project did to Alstory Simon, I think that they are blinded by a ideology and will do everything they can to prove that right.

I'd like to see a little more DNA testing to definitively say that it was Zeigler.. But.. That's certainly where I lean right now.

Zeigler had cast off blood spatter on the back of his shirt that matched Charlie Mays. The only way that could have ended up on the back of his shirt would be if he was straddling him and beating him with a blunt force object. Which is exactly how Charlie Mays died. And Zeigler never once said he beat him to death in any version of his events.

After seeing what David Protess and the Innocence Project did to Alstory Simon, I think that they are blinded by a ideology and will do everything they can to prove that right.

.

I am just wondering where you garnered this opinion? From the Netflix documentary? It is so paradoxical to devote one's life to freeing the wrongfully convicted and then to play such a role in a wrongful conviction? I havent seen the documentary and know little of this case but part of me wants to believe that David Protess honestly believed Smith to be guilty. Why free an innocent man from prison (Anthony Porter) with the plan all along to replace him with another innocent man?

I am just wondering where you garnered this opinion? From the Netflix documentary? It is so paradoxical to devote one's life to freeing the wrongfully convicted and then to play such a role in a wrongful conviction? I havent seen the documentary and know little of this case but part of me wants to believe that David Protess honestly believed Smith to be guilty. Why free an innocent man from prison (Anthony Porter) with the plan all along to replace him with another innocent man?

Watch the documentary. Your eyes will be open to the lengths that activists will go to fabricate or outright ignore existing evidence in the name of "innocence". There was a forensic scientist who came out years ago and did what he deemed an "innocence audit", and it looked into several cases involving "wrongful" convictions and exonerations, and while the majority of their work was sound (especially with cases involving DNA), there were still some high profile cases (including the Porter/Simon case) which involved "innocent" people being released from prison.

Watch the documentary. Your eyes will be open to the lengths that activists will go to fabricate or outright ignore existing evidence in the name of "innocence". There was a forensic scientist who came out years ago and did what he deemed an "innocence audit", and it looked into several cases involving "wrongful" convictions and exonerations, and while the majority of their work was sound (especially with cases involving DNA), there were still some high profile cases (including the Porter/Simon case) which involved "innocent" people being released from prison.

Now I am really curious. Do you have any further information regarding the innocence audit?

Now I am really curious. Do you have any further information regarding the innocence audit?

There are scant articles online which reference it. It started and pretty much ended after one year. Mainly due to a lack of funding necessary to continue to research cases, but there was also heavy pushback from activists who did not want these cases to get looked into.

For example, the Innocence Project likes to tout that "50%" of all overturned wrongful convictions had faulty forensic science as the leading cause. But if you go here:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.pdf

And scroll down to Table 7, you'll see that even in overturned conviction cases, the majority of the forensic evidence presented, was presented correctly without errors. The #1 leading cause (percentage wise) for wrongful conviction was eyewitness identification. 82% of wrongful convictions had eyewitness testimony involved. But that doesn't fit the narrative of the big bad criminal justice system being on the lookout for poor people to imprison. As a matter of fact, the majority of "forensic errors" was faulty testimony from so-called experts...not necessarily the science itself. Less than 1/3 of the cases in this study (31%) had what was deemed "forensic evidence errors". That number jumps to 44% in cases where the only evidence used to secure a conviction was in forensics. However, what is factored in to these numbers it not necessarily the science itself (hair evidence for example is seen as junk science, whereas ballistic evidence isn't), but rather the testimony from so called experts. So the correct evidence could have been presented at trial, but the witness testified about it incorrectly. Kind of like the DNA expert who testified for the defense at Stuart Heaton's trial. He was wrong with his interpretation of the evidence.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. Just thought it was interesting.

Zeigler had cast off blood spatter on the back of his shirt that matched Charlie Mays. The only way that could have ended up on the back of his shirt would be if he was straddling him and beating him with a blunt force object. Which is exactly how Charlie Mays died. And Zeigler never once said he beat him to death in any version of his events.


I don't like defending people that I think actually are guilty.. However.. I do find it necessary to keep an open mind.

As I recall, Zeigler claimed that he was attacked from behind. Hit in the head, if I recall.. If that knocked him face down.. And unconscious for a bit.. While Mays was being beaten.. Spatter could be on the back of his shirt.

Of course.. "Spatter" can mean a number of things. And many things can be gleaned from the pattern.

But, I disagree with your opinion that the 'only way' it gets there is your theory.

Once you close your mind to other possibilities.. Your mind is closed to justice.

There are scant articles online which reference it. It started and pretty much ended after one year. Mainly due to a lack of funding necessary to continue to research cases, but there was also heavy pushback from activists who did not want these cases to get looked into.

For example, the Innocence Project likes to tout that "50%" of all overturned wrongful convictions had faulty forensic science as the leading cause. But if you go here:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.pdf

And scroll down to Table 7, you'll see that even in overturned conviction cases, the majority of the forensic evidence presented, was presented correctly without errors. The #1 leading cause (percentage wise) for wrongful conviction was eyewitness identification. 82% of wrongful convictions had eyewitness testimony involved. But that doesn't fit the narrative of the big bad criminal justice system being on the lookout for poor people to imprison. As a matter of fact, the majority of "forensic errors" was faulty testimony from so-called experts...not necessarily the science itself. Less than 1/3 of the cases in this study (31%) had what was deemed "forensic evidence errors". That number jumps to 44% in cases where the only evidence used to secure a conviction was in forensics. However, what is factored in to these numbers it not necessarily the science itself (hair evidence for example is seen as junk science, whereas ballistic evidence isn't), but rather the testimony from so called experts. So the correct evidence could have been presented at trial, but the witness testified about it incorrectly. Kind of like the DNA expert who testified for the defense at Stuart Heaton's trial. He was wrong with his interpretation of the evidence.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. Just thought it was interesting.

Do not apologize. It is all very intriguing. I, personally, have always recognized the distinction between an overturned conviction resulting in an inmate being freed and an actual exoneration where a convicted person is deemed factually innocent.

So of those who have been freed from prison or death row after being convicted of murder, I am curious to know a few that you think actually were guilty.

This could be another thread but since you brought up the apparent cognitive bias employed by David Protess and others like him I would value your opinion.

Anthony Porter, I gather from your previous post would be on your list.

Debra Milke and Kerry Max Cook were two cases that troubled me although I need to conduct more thorough research before I would say I think they were guilty. I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty (because its irreversible and we have seen so many death row "exonerations" as well as innocents executed. And one mistake is too many for me) so I am glad that Milke is off of Arizona's death row. Although capital punishment is way beyond the scope of what I am asking you here.

Basically, I would like to know example cases of convicted killers freed by innocence movements that you think may actually be guilty. Other than Anthony Porter.

Basically, I would like to know example cases of convicted killers freed by innocence movements that you think may actually be guilty. Other than Anthony Porter.

-Gregory Taylor in NC for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas

-The West Memphis 3 (Alford Plea but still released from prison due to pushback from celebrities and innocence groups)

-Ryan Ferguson is another one that I have questions about. The story has never sat right with me.

-Central Park 5 - DNA was used at their trial and the prosecution admitted in their closing arguments that the DNA recovered matched none of the 5...yet all 5 confessed to taking part in the attacks in the park that night as well as attacking a female jogger and pinning her down.

These are the highest profiles I could think of that have been released (and some awarded millions of dollars) who I think are guilty. But there are several more who are still in prison (most recently Rodney Reed for example) who I believe to be guilty and activists are twisting the truth to attempt to free them. Roger Keith Coleman was another example that was used as the poster child for wrongful convictions and he even made it to a Time Magazine cover. He was executed and his supporters still pressed for the evidence to be retested...and then it was, and the DNA found on the murder victim matched Coleman. Granted, this is very rare, for something like this to happen...especially in light of the advances in DNA testing, but I always like to question everything when going into cases.

Once you close your mind to other possibilities.. Your mind is closed to justice.

I was convinced that he was innocent for years...until I started to consider the possibility that he wasn't. And what has been often reported by Zeigler supporters as "proof" that he didn't kill his father-in-law was the DNA testing conducted on the blood found on his shirt matched Charlie Mays only is wrong. Perry Edwards could not be excluded as a contributor to a mixed stain found on the underarm of Zeigler's shirt. And the testimony at virtually every appeal by multiple witnesses has been that of the blood spatter found on the back of Zeigler's shirt (droplets, not stains) could not have happened if he crawled over Charlie Mays's body, or been in the area when he was beaten to death...but he had to be the one straddling him while Mays was being beaten. Zeigler's defense has never successfully (or even attempted to) rebut this evidence. And that was the first thing that made me question his innocence.

(hair evidence for example is seen as junk science, whereas ballistic evidence isn't)

To be fair, blood-spatter analysis isn't universally recognized as scientifically grounded. Even the National Academy of Sciences has held it at arms' length:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf

I don't know if you've read much about Herb MacDonell, the soft-spoken bespectacled gentlemen who sometimes shows up on many of the crime shows we all watch. He passed away last year and is considered one of the grandfathers of the field. Despite his background as a chemist at Corning Glass (not Dale Kerstetter's plant of course, but the headquarters in Corning, NY), his qualifications to develop a system of scientifically analyzing bloodstain patterns are pretty dubious. Unfortunately, his models have been widely taught to law enforcement personnel and other forensic "experts" for over 40 years:

https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter-analysis/herbert-macdonell-forensic-evidence-judges-and-courts/

To be fair, blood-spatter analysis isn't universally recognized as scientifically grounded. Even the National Academy of Sciences has held it at arms' length:

By itself, it would be dubious. Taken with everything else known about the Zeigler case, and IMO, it’s damning. And it wasn’t even necessarily the testimony of the blood spatter that started to sway me. It was Zeigler’s defense, on multiple appeals, who never challenged the testimony or the evidence.

ETA: Virtually everything about this case has always been presented with a pro-Zeigler slant. You really need to dig to find anything remotely questioning his innocence. I found one of his appeals (from 2012) to the Florida Supreme Court online, and it goes into detail about the blood evidence. I found the following interesting (emphasis in bold is mine):

Testimony given at both the trial and evidentiary hearing indicated that the stains on the back of Defendant's red shirt were not transferred from the floor, as Defendant claims, but instead were consistent with a beating wherein the instrument used in the beating caused the blood to initially spray upward, then fall back onto the shirt. Even though all the stains on the shirt were not tested, testimony was adduced that if the spatters on the Defendant's shirt came from Mays, Defendant was the one who beat Mays to death. No findings were introduced which contradicted this testimony. Unsurprisingly, the blood on the back of Zeigler’s shirt is regarded by the defense as irrelevant to anything. That position is incredible.

Another tidbit that is often misreported by Zeigler supporters, is that prior to the granting of the DNA testing on Zeigler's shirt, Zeigler's defense had argued:

that DNA testing may rebut the State's hypothesis that the type ‘A’ bloodstains found on Zeigler's clothing originated from a struggle with Mays or [Perry] Edwards.

Weird how they never mention that they said that the DNA on Zeigler's shirt wouldn't have matched Perry Edwards OR Charlie Mays, and now have restructured their claims to say that Zeigler fought with Mays in the store (something he has never said in any of his versions that night; he says he was bounced around and swinging his fists, not beating someone to death).

Zeigler hired an expert (in 2011, when yet another round of DNA testing was granted for him) named Paul Kish to go over evidence and select items that were previously untested, to be tested with the new round of DNA testing. Kish picked out stains on Zeigler's shirt and said:

Spatter stains, and other type of stain patterns which could be produced during a violent event, which, if Mr. Zeigler was lying in indicating that he was not near these people during the events, then the bloodstain patterns that I am locating would conflict with what he has stated happened.

Kish recommended 4 areas of Zeigler's shirt and 2 areas on Zeigler's pants to be tested:

-left sleeve
-stains on the front of the shirt
-right front shoulder
-right cuff
-lower left pant leg
-upper left thigh area

Kish said that by testing these areas and determining whose blood it was would place Zeigler in "close proximity" to that person when they were murdered. The problem is that all of these areas were already tested in 2003 (Kish was unaware of what had been tested prior to his joining the case). And after those tests in 2003, the DNA evidence taken from the underarm of Zeigler and on the front of his shirt:

Blood taken from the underarm area of Zeigler’s undershirt generated only one (1) marker. That marker was consistent with Mr. Mays’ blood and not consistent with Mr. Edwards’ blood. However, Weiss testified that this particular marker is what is called a “14/17” -- Mr. Mays and Mr. Edwards share “14” but not “17.” This may be a mixed stain from two sources, and Mr. Edwards cannot be excluded as a source.

The stains found on Charlie Mays's pants that matched Perry Edward's were large, saturated stains. One would think there would have been several small droplets on his pants if he was present at or participated in the murder of Perry Edwards.

Source 1 (https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/372609/3223187/05-1333_Ans.pdf)
Source 2 (https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/381900/3279187/12-696_AnswerBrief.pdf)

I do think Zeigler was involved, somehow, with Ed Williams or Charlie Mays or both (I think Williams is more likely), and the Zeigler was the ringleader, and that he attempted a double cross of Williams and/or Mays, succeeded in the latter case, failed in the former, and wound up paying the price as Williams was able to testify against him at the trial.

Just my personal theory, and I hate to accuse someone who has never been accused by the competent authorities. Is it known if Ed Williams is even still alive at this point?

It wouldn't surprise me if Zeigler told Williams and/or Mays that he wanted them to help him stage a robbery as part of an insurance scheme and he would split the proceeds with them, without mentioning his real intention was to kill them both and frame them for the murders.

The only thing that doesn't quite make sense, and why I think Mays might have been innocent in the entire affair, is why involve more than one co-conspirator? Only adds to the number of murders he had to (attempt) to commit, and to the complications of the plot.

And it wasn’t even necessarily the testimony of the blood spatter that started to sway me. It was Zeigler’s defense, on multiple appeals, who never challenged the testimony or the evidence.

I thought so, since you know this case inside and out, but blood spatter "expertise" on its face gives me great pause anymore. It didn't just a few years ago and perhaps I'm just hypersensitive about it.

ETA: Virtually everything about this case has always been presented with a pro-Zeigler slant. You really need to dig to find anything remotely questioning his innocence.

I've noticed. It's frustrating.

Weird how they never mention that they said that the DNA on Zeigler's shirt wouldn't have matched Perry Edwards OR Charlie Mays, and now have restructured their claims to say that Zeigler fought with Mays in the store (something he has never said in any of his versions that night; he says he was bounced around and swinging his fists, not beating someone to death).

Now I think I'm picking up what you're putting down. And it's like no one wants to acknowledge that Zeigler himself has never addressed these theorized variations of that night's events. Even if he inwardly thought keeping quiet and letting the lawyers work their magic might increase his chances of being released, it sort of flies in the face of that 'gentle Tommy, mild and meek' image--the one of a man honest and law-abiding to a fault.

-Gregory Taylor in NC for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas

-The West Memphis 3 (Alford Plea but still released from prison due to pushback from celebrities and innocence groups)

-Ryan Ferguson is another one that I have questions about. The story has never sat right with me.

-Central Park 5 - DNA was used at their trial and the prosecution admitted in their closing arguments that the DNA recovered matched none of the 5...yet all 5 confessed to taking part in the attacks in the park that night as well as attacking a female jogger and pinning her down.

These are the highest profiles I could think of that have been released (and some awarded millions of dollars) who I think are guilty. But there are several more who are still in prison (most recently Rodney Reed for example) who I believe to be guilty and activists are twisting the truth to attempt to free them. Roger Keith Coleman was another example that was used as the poster child for wrongful convictions and he even made it to a Time Magazine cover. He was executed and his supporters still pressed for the evidence to be retested...and then it was, and the DNA found on the murder victim matched Coleman. Granted, this is very rare, for something like this to happen...especially in light of the advances in DNA testing, but I always like to question everything when going into cases.


Wow! Gregory Taylor? I am wondering where that is coming from. I haven't looked into that case enough to form an opinion but it seems Brady violations were committed by the prosecution in not disclosing that the stain on his wheel well was NOT blood. Not only was he freed, but he was declared Innocent by the state of North Carolina. What is the basis of your opinion if you do not mind me asking?

What is the basis of your opinion if you do not mind me asking?

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Crime_Lab_Report/ZEOwDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=jacquetta

^Start on page 285 and read that.