Is there any way to watch the Final Appeal episodes? It doesn't seem like any of the segments are on Amazon. The Tony Miller update is as well as the Jeffrey MacDonald case. I am looking for full episodes/segments. I have never seen the Thomas Drake, Dan Montecalvo, Steve Shores, or Paul Ferrell cases to my knowledge.

Is there any way to watch the Final Appeal episodes? It doesn't seem like any of the segments are on Amazon. The Tony Miller update is as well as the Jeffrey MacDonald case. I am looking for full episodes/segments. I have never seen the Thomas Drake, Dan Montecalvo, Steve Shores, or Paul Ferrell cases to my knowledge.

Drake, Montecalvo, Shores, Ferrell, and the entire Tony Miller segment are available on Amazon and Youtube...but they are the Farina-hosted episodes. However, after seeing the full Ferrell "Final Appeal" episode, I can assure you that the Farina version is very close to the original. There may be some interviews trimmed here and there, but it's largely the same.

Drake, Montecalvo, Shores, Ferrell, and the entire Tony Miller segment are available on Amazon and Youtube...but they are the Farina-hosted episodes. However, after seeing the full Ferrell "Final Appeal" episode, I can assure you that the Farina version is very close to the original. There may be some interviews trimmed here and there, but it's largely the same.

Thank you. Is there an episode guide for the Farina episodes? I guess I have to resort to watching those..it's better than not seeing the segments at all.

Thank you. Is there an episode guide for the Farina episodes? I guess I have to resort to watching those..it's better than not seeing the segments at all.

-Tony Miller is on Season 7 Episode 4

-Thomas Drake is on Season 4 Episode 15

-Paul Ferrell is on Season 5 Episode 6

-Dan Montecalvo is on Season 3 Episode 5

-Jeffrey MacDonald is on Season 8 Episode 1

-Port Chicago Mutiny is on Season 4 Episode 19

-Steve Shores is on Season 5 Episode 17

That is every known segment which was either featured, or supposed to be featured, on the "Final Appeal" spinoff. To my knowledge, outside of MacDonald, none of them made it to the Lifetime reruns. And I have only ever seen a complete episode from the "Final Appeal" spinoff which featured the Ferrell case.

-Tony Miller is on Season 7 Episode 4

-Thomas Drake is on Season 4 Episode 15

-Paul Ferrell is on Season 5 Episode 6

-Dan Montecalvo is on Season 3 Episode 5

-Jeffrey MacDonald is on Season 8 Episode 1

-Port Chicago Mutiny is on Season 4 Episode 19

-Steve Shores is on Season 5 Episode 17

That is every known segment which was either featured, or supposed to be featured, on the "Final Appeal" spinoff. To my knowledge, outside of MacDonald, none of them made it to the Lifetime reruns. And I have only ever seen a complete episode from the "Final Appeal" spinoff which featured the Ferrell case.


Thank you very much! Watching the Farina shows instead of the Stack episodes is similar to playing with a range ball when you have a bag full of Pro V1's. But since that is the only source for those segments, I have no choice.

I greatly appreciate what you did.

Watching the Farina shows instead of the Stack episodes is similar to playing with a range ball when you have a bag full of Pro V1's.

:lol::lol::lol:

I never thought of it in those terms, but it's a perfect analogy. Well done!

Is there any way to watch the Final Appeal episodes? It doesn't seem like any of the segments are on Amazon. The Tony Miller update is as well as the Jeffrey MacDonald case. I am looking for full episodes/segments. I have never seen the Thomas Drake, Dan Montecalvo, Steve Shores, or Paul Ferrell cases to my knowledge.
There are recordings out there for MacDonald, Ferrell and Montelcalvo. PM me.

-Steve Shores is on Season 5 Episode 17


I had never seen this episode before (although is this the right name? I watched 5.17 and it was the final appeal of Rolando Cruz, but whatever)...

Anyway I had never seen "Rolando Cruz" and all I can say is Curseword Curseword Curseword.

WTF is wrong with prosecutors sometimes?

I had never seen this episode before (although is this the right name? I watched 5.17 and it was the final appeal of Rolando Cruz, but whatever)...

Anyway I had never seen "Rolando Cruz" and all I can say is Curseword Curseword Curseword.

WTF is wrong with prosecutors sometimes?

It's not the one with Stack, it's the version with Farina.

-Tony Miller is on Season 7 Episode 4: Not Guilty (obv)

-Thomas Drake is on Season 4 Episode 15: Guilty

-Paul Ferrell is on Season 5 Episode 6: Guilty

-Dan Montecalvo is on Season 3 Episode 5: Guilty

-Jeffrey MacDonald is on Season 8 Episode 1: Guilty

-Port Chicago Mutiny is on Season 4 Episode 19 Not Guilty; Solidarity Forever!

-Steve Shores is on Season 5 Episode 17: Not Guilty

That is every known segment which was either featured, or supposed to be featured, on the "Final Appeal" spinoff. To my knowledge, outside of MacDonald, none of them made it to the Lifetime reruns. And I have only ever seen a complete episode from the "Final Appeal" spinoff which featured the Ferrell case.

Now I've watched them all, opinions rendered.

While we are on the subject, the Thomas Drake one struck me as particularly hilarious. First off, it never should have seen the light of day - especially when you read about all the stuff that the segment "forgot" to mention.

The only reason it did, of course, is because of the compelling vignette about his wife's sudden "memory" that Drake hadn't done it - followed by her equally sudden re-forgetting the moment before she was to take the stand.

I'm 99.9% sure she was trolling him and getting a small measure of revenge, which is kinda bad but also kinda an LOL tbh.

Now I've watched them all, opinions rendered.

I agree with these opinions. After reading one of the appeals of Steve Shores, I am convinced that this was the most balanced "Final Appeal" segments that they ever did.

I know they had the short lived show Final Appeal but were segments like Michael Self and Michael Scott Martin just segments titled Final Appeal? Both of those should have been not guilty by the way

I know they had the short lived show Final Appeal but were segments like Michael Self and Michael Scott Martin just segments titled Final Appeal? Both of those should have been not guilty by the way

To my knowledge both were just segments intended for the main UM show.

I agree with these opinions. After reading one of the appeals of Steve Shores, I am convinced that this was the most balanced "Final Appeal" segments that they ever did.

You know what I noticed? All of the ones who obviously did it were white, and all of the ones who were actually wrongfully accused were black.

I am sure this is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

You know what I noticed? All of the ones who obviously did it were white, and all of the ones who were actually wrongfully accused were black.

I am sure this is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

I mean the show did feature people like Rick McCue, Patty Stallings, and Michael Scott Martin too.

With regards to Steve Shores, the UM Wiki says that the 2 El Ruk'n gang members were arrested, tried, and convicted of Garrison Hester's murder after Shores was released. I can't find anything to back this up online. Shores entered an Alford Plea, which means he's still on the books as the one responsible for Hester's murder.

You know what I noticed? All of the ones who obviously did it were white, and all of the ones who were actually wrongfully accused were black.

I am sure this is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

Was thinking this very thing over the past week.

I've noticed in several of these cases, the presentations go heavy on the witness/juror-that-changed-their-mind or a surprise confession (as in MacDonald and Montecalvo). They're almost always light on actual investigative and prosecutorial issues--except in the case of the Port Chicago sailors (which is one of the strongest cases because it was brought up on completely unsustainable legal grounds), Steve Shores, and Tony Miller. Additionally, Shores and Miller specifically involved mistaken or outright lying eyewitnesses placing those men at the scene, which further erodes certainty of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Montecalvo was an ex-con with substantial gambling debts and stood to collect over half a million in life insurance on his wife, Ferrell had a telephone company record demonstrating a penchant for making over 200 bizarre calls to women before the victim in his case left her workplace in response to a mysterious phone call never to be seen again (as well as admitting to attempting to thwart the investigation into her disappearance multiple times), Thomas Drake maintained a mistress that he then moved into his house while his wife was in the ICU, and Jeff MacDonald's story has never matched the scene discovered at his family's housing unit that night (unless one would have us believe the "assailants" used sterile gloves of the exact size and brand worn by MacDonald--to which a band of drug-addled hippies probably wouldn't have access, but a trauma surgeon certainly would, or that said trauma surgeon would yank the exposed end of a penetrating object out of a stab wound without being able to immediately control the potential hemorrhage, which even a first-year med student knows not to do, etc etc etc). Yet somehow, these stories made it--and at least one still continues to make it. I wonder how many others didn't, and don't.

It really doesn't surprise me, however, that Final Appeal itself didn't survive. It did a supremely terrible job of addressing the real problem issues in most of these cases. In order to do that, it would've been forced to abandon the question of whether the defendant actually did what he was convicted of doing and instead focus on whether the investigation and trial were fair. In the eyes of the general public I understand that line is often seen as a stark division, but legally, it isn't. It would make for much less watchable television, however, because viewers would ultimately have to momentarily suspend their disgust for a man who probably shot his wife in a church, or made a teenage girl disappear, and consider whether he was afforded the protections to which all the accused are supposed to be entitled in the U.S. From what I've observed, people generally prefer to carry their pitchforks overhead, legal "nuance" be damned.

Also, FA also generally had a bad habit of leaving out some pretty damning information about the defendants, such as:

-Thomas Drake having a window of time to commit the shooting and talking to his girlfriend about plans for her to move into the house the very day before said shooting

-Paul Ferrell trying to call off a civilian search of two roads he knew "there is evidence on" before any other law enforcement officer became aware of said evidence

-MacDonald having liquor smuggled in for him during his stay at Womack after the murder of his family and generally yukking it up with staff


On a semi-related note, I am starting to think really think Tommy Zeigler is innocent. Maybe more on that after I've chewed on it for a bit.

Thomas Drake having a window of time to commit the shooting and talking to his girlfriend about plans for her to move into the house the very day before said shooting

This is new to me. I had never heard this before.

On a semi-related note, I am starting to think really think Tommy Zeigler is innocent. Maybe more on that after I've chewed on it for a bit.

Interesting.

The biggest stumbling block for me to believing Zeigler's innocence (which I did believe for several years) is a coherent explanation as to who and why someone other than Zeigler would have committed those murders...and then be so unlucky to have the amount of witnesses (most of them unconnected to each other) who testified against him. Just the murder weapons found at the crime scene being traced back to Zeigler is one of the key issues I can't reconcile with his innocence. He gets 3 people to help him buy "hot" guns months in advance and these same weapons are then found at the crime scene...which he says he never purchased.

It really doesn't surprise me, however, that Final Appeal itself didn't survive. It did a supremely terrible job of addressing the real problem issues in most of these cases. In order to do that, it would've been forced to abandon the question of whether the defendant actually did what he was convicted of doing and instead focus on whether the investigation and trial were fair. In the eyes of the general public I understand that line is often seen as a stark division, but legally, it isn't. It would make for much less watchable television, however, because viewers would ultimately have to momentarily suspend their disgust for a man who probably shot his wife in a church, or made a teenage girl disappear, and consider whether he was afforded the protections to which all the accused are supposed to be entitled in the U.S. From what I've observed, people generally prefer to carry their pitchforks overhead, legal "nuance" be damned.

I teach English literature at a University and with certain things I teach, particularly a philosophy of literary theory known as Deconstruction, popularized among others by Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, I actually like to use the example of a courtroom and how legal cases work to illustrate some points about literary theory. The point of Deconstruction is that text and meaning are "unstable" - that is, that efforts to drill down to a final, settled meaning of a literary text are fruitless because when you get down to the smallest level of analysis, things start breaking down. In this regard, it is vaguely like the quantum mechanics of the liberal arts: as known physical laws start to get disrupted at the quantum mechanical level, and as it is impossible to know the precise speed of something while also knowing its precise position (you can know one or the other but not both - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), so texts start to unravel themselves at the closest level of analysis.

Of course this is more useful in literary contexts, where part of the appeal is the "interpretability" of the text, than with DVD player instructions or legal writing, where clarity and precision are supposed to be the goal. Nonetheless, to return to my original point, I like to use the courtroom example. In that context, most people think of "truth" - the real, the final meaning, whatever you want to call it - as the goal. Most people further take the prosecution to be putting forward what it genuinely believes to be the truth, and it is for this reason that the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, while in a sense logically true of a courtroom proceeding, fails to tell the whole story. In fact, the underpinning of the legal system - that there is no benefit to the state in trying and convicting the wrong person, so why would they? - is inherently flawed, as there is a demonstrable benefit to the state to locking up somebody as opposed to nobody, particularly for high profile crimes. I think this distinction played even more in times gone by than today, when forensic evidence has so much more value and weight.

But the point I make to my students is that neither the prosecution nor the defense are bound by, or make any particular attempt to shed any light on, the truth. The courtroom is a forum of competing narratives, and all courtroom proceedings are as much a meditation on the philosophy of knowledge, on epistemology itself and how we can really "know" what we know, as they are on "what really happened."

My wife long ago had the idea of a Law & Order spinoff that would be inverted: first you'd see the trial, then start again from discovery of the crime until the conclusion of the arrest of the suspect, and finally a third act where you saw what you could never see in real life - what actually happened. I have long thought this was a top-5 brilliant ideas ever.

Meg, I am really looking forward to your Tommy Zeigler thoughts. I still think he was involved, but last night I saw a Forensic Files I'd never seen before about a murder in Paterson, NJ (where I have spent a lot of time for work in a past job) from 1980, in which three people were convicted and sentenced to life in prison - but none actually finally accused of being the "trigger man." To this day they can't say who did it - but three people are in jail.

Reminds me of Tommy Zeigler, and the slippery nature of "knowledge."

Bump. Meg, I am still looking forward to your Tommy Zeigler thoughts!

I mean the show did feature people like Rick McCue, Patty Stallings, and Michael Scott Martin too.

With regards to Steve Shores, the UM Wiki says that the 2 El Ruk'n gang members were arrested, tried, and convicted of Garrison Hester's murder after Shores was released. I can't find anything to back this up online. Shores entered an Alford Plea, which means he's still on the books as the one responsible for Hester's murder.

I think the Michael Scott Martin case is a good one to revisit. The state of Texas ignored testimony from citizens in favor of a police officer. Our state and many others have a history of giving police testimony too much power. I think we should be evolving our justice system to rid itself from police corruption and flawed eye witness testimony. This is one aspect that I hope the new UM revisits with its cases.

Another case in the final appeal category that was released as its own segment, darlie. I know her case has been discussed beyond many others so she does not need the publicity, but I don't think she got a fair trial with the amount of media coverage and attention that she had before the trial. It sort of falls in line with what Meg/Mozart said in their posts, where people are salivating for justice and they are willing to depart from what should be happening in the proceedings of justice.

Bump. Meg, I am still looking forward to your Tommy Zeigler thoughts!

Hey!

The first "crack in the dam" for me here, so to speak, was this article here:

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

As you may recall, Herb MacDonell testified extensively at Zeigler's trial.

But the main thing I've been considering lately is the firearms used in the shootings and how they are connected (allegedly or otherwise) to Tommy Zeigler and Ed Williams, respectively.

To be thoroughly honest, I've blown it off until now--but why would Zeigler take the pains of not only implicating Ed Williams with a handgun--one that could be (and was) clearly linked to Zeigler--in addition to arranging some kind of purchase through that same Ed Williams of some weapons that were, in Williams' and his friend Mary Stuart's accounts, sought after by Zeigler specifically because they would be difficult to trace?

It would seem to me that Zeigler literally placing a traceable firearm in Williams' hand on the evening in question while planning to merely claim it was stolen a couple of weeks before from a truck to which Williams had access would've been sufficient enough to cast suspicion on the man. Why then go through the trouble with the RGs, and setting up two additional men (one of whom--Felton Thomas--showed up at the furniture store that night without prior arrangement by his own account) to be framed for the murders, with a couple of "hot" handguns? These are two relatively distinct strategies. For one mastermind alone, it seems like it would be a bigger pain in the ass to run them both simultaneously--not to mention the increased risk of failure and/or exposure it would pose. Why not implicate Charlie Mays alone? Why craft a plot involving multiple fall guys as the state contended when it would've been a hell of a lot easier to have singled out one for such a plan?

I have more upon which to elaborate, but it's been a long day and I want to save my thoughts for when I'm a bit fresher. I'll probably bump the Tommy Zeigler thread when I share them.

I think the Michael Scott Martin case is a good one to revisit. The state of Texas ignored testimony from citizens in favor of a police officer.

Do you mean the 5 or so people from the segment that swore he was miles away when the robbery happened? I read somewhere that all 5 of those witnesses failed polygraphs?

Why not implicate Charlie Mays alone? Why craft a plot involving multiple fall guys as the state contended when it would've been a hell of a lot easier to have singled out one for such a plan?

I contend that Zeigler's original plan was to set up Mays and Williams as the "robbers", and planned on using the 2 hot guns to frame them. He didn't anticipate 2 things that night: Felton Thomas's arrival (an added bonus as another "robber"), nor did he anticipate Perry Edwards fighting back (and probably shooting a gun, GSR tests indicated he had fired one). Perry Edwards firing one of Zeigler's handguns complicated things. So did Felton Thomas fleeing the scene. Which is why I think Zeigler intended to kill Williams when he dry fired at him, and then shoot himself and call the police to say that when he and Williams entered the store, Charlie Mays and another "blur" shot Williams and then Zeigler.

I contend that Zeigler's original plan was to set up Mays and Williams as the "robbers", and planned on using the 2 hot guns to frame them.

I guess my original question still stands: why not frame just one or the other for the sake of ease? Implicating Ed Williams would have been sufficient, and he would have been a choicer candidate as he was familiar with the Zeigler family, the furniture store and its inventory and operations, the business's vehicles, and probably any weapons concealed in trucks and desks associated with said business.

He didn't anticipate 2 things that night: Felton Thomas's arrival (an added bonus as another "robber")

Is it, though? The very, very late introduction of such a variable as Thomas would seem to pose a critical risk to Zeigler's plan. Thomas himself claims never to have met Zeigler until that evening. Without adequate time to know Thomas well enough to be able to sufficiently predict how he might act, I would be more apt to think the likelihood of Zeigler abandoning the plot would be greater than him carrying it out under such circumstances.

What if, for instance, Thomas bolted because he got nervous?

As we all well know by now, that is precisely what Thomas claims he did, and yet Zeigler made no apparent attempt to stop him, or even try to track him down after the fact to put pressure on him to keep quiet.

And that's not even accounting for the whole Robert Foster thing, which is a whole other basket of eggs altogether.

As far as GSR tests are concerned, gas and carbon from the muzzle of the weapon can be discharged onto the hands of a victim holding them up as a shield if it's fired at very close range. I don't know if that's what happened with Perry Edwards here, but it doesn't necessarily mean he fired a handgun.

I guess my original question still stands: why not frame just one or the other for the sake of ease? Implicating Ed Williams would have been sufficient, and he would have been a choicer candidate as he was familiar with the Zeigler family, the furniture store and its inventory and operations, the business's vehicles, and probably any weapons concealed in trucks and desks associated with said business.

It's possible that he intended to use only Edward Williams. What would have happened if Charlie Mays said he wasn't interested in the television set that night? Mays could have been an "added bonus" in the eyes of Zeigler.

Is it, though? The very, very late introduction of such a variable as Thomas would seem to pose a critical risk to Zeigler's plan. Thomas himself claims never to have met Zeigler until that evening. Without adequate time to know Thomas well enough to be able to sufficiently predict how he might act, I would be more apt to think the likelihood of Zeigler abandoning the plot would be greater than him carrying it out under such circumstances.

Knowing the racial dynamics of Winter Garden at that time, and knowing that Mays probably introduced Thomas to Zeigler as someone he knew from the fields of picking fruit, Zeigler thought he could successfully use Thomas as another "robber". By the time Charlie Mays arrived at the scene with Felton Thomas, Zeigler had already murdered his wife and in-laws. There was no going back at that point.

What if, for instance, Thomas bolted because he got nervous?

This is exactly what happened. If Zeigler was successful in his attempt to kill Edward Williams, then it becomes Zeigler's word vs. Thomas's.

As we all well know by now, that is precisely what Thomas claims he did, and yet Zeigler made no apparent attempt to stop him, or even try to track him down after the fact to put pressure on him to keep quiet.

I think he was still planning on killing Edward Williams, so letting Thomas escape still put further evidence of a "robbery gone wrong" scenario. Thomas's fingerprints were on one of the hot guns. It was only after the misfire on Williams that Zeigler panicked, wiped the guns clean, and then shot himself.

And that's not even accounting for the whole Robert Foster thing, which is a whole other basket of eggs altogether.

I am 99% sure he was the man with Mattie Mays at the scene that night.

Zeigler's innocence claims have never sufficiently been able to explain a few minor things, which has always troubled me. There was a blood stain found on Curtis Dunaway's headrest in his car...the one Zeigler was using that night. Tissue paper, with blood, was also found in Dunaway's car. Zeigler's fingerprints were found on this tissue paper. Also found in Dunaway's car was a .38 revolver, resting behind the driver's seat. 2 bloody .38 shells were found on a desk drawer behind the counter in the store, and were determined to be misfires. The .38 found in Dunaway's car was Zeigler's weapon which he claims to have kept in a file cabinet at the store. Zeigler's palm print was found on a grocery bag found in the back of the showroom, hidden in a cabinet. In the bag were the spent shells, the 2 empty gun boxes from the "hot" guns, and also live rounds of ammunition. Zeigler has always contended that he had nothing to do with the purchase of the "hot guns". His supporters will say that this evidence was planted. But, with the totality of everything else in this case, I say it's very damning.

As for Perry Edwards, it's never been conclusively proven that he fired a gun. But GSR was only found on his right hand, which was his dominant hand.

Do you mean the 5 or so people from the segment that swore he was miles away when the robbery happened? I read somewhere that all 5 of those witnesses failed polygraphs?

I’ve never heard of that before. Still makes a cloudy picture in the end for me.