Larry Race Case [Archive] - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

mozartpc27

05-07-2007, 03:23 PM

I haven't watched this segment in a long time. Maybe I'm forgetting something. But it always amazes me how creative prosecutors can invent a story like this, applying superhuman feats to the defendant yet also basic stupidity.

If Larry Race did this, why was it necessary to slice holes in the raft in the first place? All he had to do was tip over the raft, then drag the intact raft far away so she couldn't access it before drowning. Once the raft is found it will be pristine.

Seems to me such a complicated scheme would include a basic thought process like that. I can just imagine Larry Race plotting for weeks/months and saying, "yeah, I'll cut the raft with a knife and it will look perfectly natural once the authorities find it. That's the perfect murder!"

Awsi Dooger, you raise a good question, but I can think of at least one reason why it was necessary to deface the raft, assuming it was ever really used: she didn't drown, she died of exposure. If he had tipped the raft and then waited for her to die, he would have died too, presumably of the same cause! Of course, he could have tipped the raft and drug it back with him, inflated, to the boat, taken it somewhere else and left it off, but I think that would cause an even more suspiscious circumstance. How likely is it that a woman who was not a good swimmer but who was securely in a raft would somehow end up separated from the raft, even though nothing was wrong with it? It's hard to imagine she would voluntarily leave the raft, so what else could happen that would separate her from a raft with no problems? If the authorities had found the inflated, intact raft, I'm sure they would have asked that question.

I think Race probably did murder his wife, but what I don't understand is why the prosecution seemed to base their version of events on what Larry Race said happened. The prosecution should begin with the assumption that everything he says is a lie; why, then, create a version of the story based largely on what he says happened?

It's much, much simpler to see this as murder if Race was able, one way or another, to convince his wife to get into a life raft, then followed her into the water as if he was going to go with her, swum with her away from the boat a little ways, and then, by hook or by crook, capsized the life raft (which I don't think would be that hard for an experienced swimmer working against a panicked woman who was not a good swimmer). He takes the raft back to the boat, cuts it so he can plausibly concoct his "two life raft" story, and goes off. No underwater super-human swimming effort necessary.

Alternatively, perhaps Race "pre-sliced" the raft, knowing that it would hold air long enough to get his wife to abandon ship in favor of the raft, but not very much longer after that. He induced her to get into the water, let the raft deflate, took it back to the boat and left her to die.

Or, if the raft was incapable of holding air after it had been sliced, perhaps he simply took the knife with him, concealing it at the last moment before exiting the boat, pushed the raft with his wife aboard a hundred feet or so from the boat, then reached underneath the raft and cut it. Once it deflated, he dropped the knife, and pretended like it was some kind of accident, told his wife to hold on, that he would go back to the boat and retrieve another raft, and took the one he cut with him (perhaps he suggested he might be able to repair it). Perhaps he never explained anything to his wife, just deflated the raft, took it back to the boat, and left here there to die.

Or maybe he duped her into standing in the boat for a minute, and then simply pushed her into the water. He could have made up the whole business about engine trouble and the life raft later, cutting the raft only after he had already dumped his wife into the lake.

The point is, there are several less complicated ways than what the prosecution presented to explain how he might have murdered his wife, and all of which still conform to the basic facts of the case. The prosecution just made a strategic error in choosing to base their version on his version, which doesn't seem particularly warranted.

Of course, I guess it wasn't much of an error, since they won the case.

To answer Awsi Dooger's main point --- why would it be necessary to cut the raft and play out this two life raft scenario at all --- I think the issue is that people other than Race and his wife knew he had at least one life raft on the boat, so if NO life raft were found, he would have some explaining to do. If the raft were found inflated, intact, and away from her body, as I said above, he'd still have some explaining to do, because that raises some very valid questions, which I described above. If the raft were found damaged but in the water, that would again raise some uncomfortable questions for Race: how is it that he and his wife didn't notice the raft was damaged when they tried inflating it? Or, if it was damaged after it was inflated, how did it sustain two cuts made with knife-blade precision while floating on a lake? Finally, if Race had an intact life raft still aboard his boat, why was his wife dead somewhere out on the water without a life raft? The best answer for Race was to hold on to the only raft he had, but damage it, so that he could plausibly claim there were two --- the one they tried first, and the one his wife eventually got into but that was never found. It's hard to prove the negative, that it never in fact existed.

In reality, of course, there was only ever one raft, and he either induced his wife to get into it and then cut it and removed it from her, or it was never involved except insofar as he deliberately damaged it after pushing his wife from the boat and concocted the story about a failed attempt to abandon ship.

Awsi Dooger

05-07-2007, 05:09 PM

Awsi Dooger, you raise a good question, but I can think of at least one reason why it was necessary to deface the raft, assuming it was ever really used: she didn't drown, she died of exposure. If he had tipped the raft and then waited for her to die, he would have died too, presumably of the same cause!

That would have been an equally moronic plan as cutting the raft, waiting for her to die of exposure. And just because she died of exposure doesn't mean that was the inevitable cause.

Wouldn't a husband who pulls off a scheme like that on a large body of water make damn sure his wife died quickly of a simple drowning, and not depend on elongated exposure and all the other strange variables involved in this case, like multiple rafts?

I just took a cruise and we had a life vest drill before sailing. Those things are bulky and clumsy as hell. Many people were having major trouble getting them on properly, especially the older women. Even some people who were sure they had them on correctly were wrong and the life boat drill operators had to come over and help them. If this was a death scheme it would have been much simpler and more logical for Larry Race to avoid something like a life vest completely. Or have it slip off her due to being put on improperly. Or even a faulty life vest, maybe one with a snap that wouldn't work. There would have been questions but hardly to the degree of a sliced raft. I can just imagine scheming to kill my wife but providing her with both a raft and a vest, and needing to cut up the raft.

Sorry, but I'm not buying any of the creative prosecution. Larry Race was innocent.

mozartpc27

05-07-2007, 06:20 PM

That would have been an equally moronic plan as cutting the raft, waiting for her to die of exposure. And just because she died of exposure doesn't mean that was the inevitable cause.

Wouldn't a husband who pulls off a scheme like that on a large body of water make damn sure his wife died quickly of a simple drowning, and not depend on elongated exposure and all the other strange variables involved in this case, like multiple rafts?

I just took a cruise and we had a life vest drill before sailing. Those things are bulky and clumsy as hell. Many people were having major trouble getting them on properly, especially the older women. Even some people who were sure they had them on correctly were wrong and the life boat drill operators had to come over and help them. If this was a death scheme it would have been much simpler and more logical for Larry Race to avoid something like a life vest completely. Or have it slip off her due to being put on improperly. Or even a faulty life vest, maybe one with a snap that wouldn't work. There would have been questions but hardly to the degree of a sliced raft. I can just imagine scheming to kill my wife but providing her with both a raft and a vest, and needing to cut up the raft.

Sorry, but I'm not buying any of the creative prosecution. Larry Race was innocent.

I agree the single biggest thing here arguing against homicide is that it's such an uncertain method; Larry took an awful chance that she would live, if he indeed did attempt to murder her. However, the very fact that Larry's plan did not guarantee her death might explain some of the methodology used. Suppose Larry wants to kill his wife but doesn't want to be caught (duh). The best way to prevent being accused of murder, of course, is to make it seem as if there was no murder at all (it's also the best way to ensure he cashes in on the life insurance policy, which the prosecution argued was his motive).

Well, Larry is in a pretty good position to attempt something like that: he has access to a boat, and can muder his wife but stage it as an accident. The problem is that she really needs to die of a water-born death, if his story is to hold water: she can't get shot or stabbed, etc. Moreover, it's going to be hard to explain how a woman who evidently had a love-hate relationship with the water ended up in the water without a life preserver, drowned, while he was fine. If she just fell off the boat, why didn't she have a life preserver on? So, he pretty much has to use a method that won't involve drowning; anything else will be suspiscious (again, the goal here is to kill her to collect life insurance, which means it can't appear to have been a murder, because he will automatically become the likeliest suspect). His best bet is in fact what he most likely did: he tricked her into a life raft, got her a few feet away from the boat, cut the raft underneath, told her something went wrong but that if she just stayed where he was he might be able to get back to the boat in time to retrieve another life raft or some equipment to repair the one he ripped or flares or something, and instead simply rode away.

The inherent risk here, of course, is that she might live, but with as experienced a swimmer as he evidently was, he must have known what 50 degree water does to a body at night in terms of hypothermia. It doesn't take too long in that water temperature to die (http://www.ussartf.org/cold_water_survival.htm), as the chart at the bottom of that page shows: it can take as little as an hour, as many as six. She was cast adrift, at night, with more than six hours till dawn. The chances she would be found before she froze to death were not good. However, and this is the beauty of it, even if she was, under the scenario I just suggested, he could still plausibly defend himself by saying they got separated when the life raft experienced problems and he made a dash for the boat. His wife wouldn't necessarily even be aware that he was attempting to kill her, so that, if she were recovered and lived, he would still be "covered." When she did turn up dead, he altered the story of what happened just ever so slightly to explain the presence of one damaged raft aboard his boat.

His story, by the way, seems as implausible as the prosecution's. Would an experienced swimmer like Larry Race really believe he could survive pushing the raft along as far out as they were from shore? Surely he must have known about water temperature and its effects, particularly on someone moving quite a lot. And, after he got back to the boat, which couldn't have been all that far from where he last left his wife, he was totally incapable of spotting her? On the lake, they should have been able to hear each other if he shut the engine off and just screamed her name and she responded. She was in the life raft when he left, according to him; even if she fell out of it shortly after he left her, she couldn't have been so frozen she was unable to speak by the time he got back to the boat, nor could she have drifted all that far from where he last left her by the time he returned to the boat; I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have found her with a concerted effort.

SP4CE INV4DERZ

05-07-2007, 11:53 PM

Awsi Dooger

05-08-2007, 12:25 AM

This is what I keep wondering myself and the fact that Larry on camera seemed more to want to talk about his affairs than any of the known facts.

I thought he came across well. I thought that from the first time I saw the segment. He describes the scene on the boat matter-of-factly with specifics, straight through without verbal stumbles or scrambling for words. It always seemed to me he was describing the events from memory and in sequence, not pasting together a convenient tale.

In an edited situation like that we're never sure how long he talked or what he emphasized that wasn't shown. It could have been a 30 minute interview where he mentioned the affairs two or three times and UM chose to use all of them.

Plus, I was impressed that he didn't try to describe his wife as the greatest thing ever. I'm surprised that's seldom mentioned in this case. In fact, I thought one of his lines was among the greatest in UM history, "there's nothing wrong with her." That cracks me up every time I see it. It's kind of like one of my lag putts from about 40 feet that ends up 3 feet short. Nothing great. Nothing terrible.

Awsi Dooger

05-08-2007, 01:08 AM

His story, by the way, seems as implausible as the prosecution's. Would an experienced swimmer like Larry Race really believe he could survive pushing the raft along as far out as they were from shore? Surely he must have known about water temperature and its effects, particularly on someone moving quite a lot. And, after he got back to the boat, which couldn't have been all that far from where he last left his wife, he was totally incapable of spotting her? On the lake, they should have been able to hear each other if he shut the engine off and just screamed her name and she responded. She was in the life raft when he left, according to him; even if she fell out of it shortly after he left her, she couldn't have been so frozen she was unable to speak by the time he got back to the boat, nor could she have drifted all that far from where he last left her by the time he returned to the boat; I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have found her with a concerted effort.

The segment says he pushed his daughters back to shore when the boat had similar problems. So it's not the biggest stretch for him to think he could do it again. This is mid-May, which is still cold but not the worst part of the year. He was wearing the scuba gear.

I concede his story is strange also. I think you left out perhaps the strangest aspect of his story, leaving his wife in the raft and swimming toward nearby lights without realizing they were his own boat. When I watched it for the first time that's what struck me as odd, especially if it involved swimming away from shore. Supposedly he pushed the raft toward shore so the boat should have been further away from land. A guy with potential hypothermia might be stunned and desperate but I think that would equate to swimming toward shore, not away. And how many drifting lights do you find a mile off shore in the Great Lakes?

That prosecutor makes me sick. He can't identify where the boat was, within many miles, but at the same time he's sure that if a second raft existed it would have been found. Right. No chance someone came across it and took it, without knowing the significance. We've seen many cases on UM and subsequently where something is overlooked even when a specific area is known and it should have been found immediately, i.e. Chandra Levy's body.

And why is it we don't have a test of the starter on the boat from shortly after the death, and not two years later? They just throw out the fact the boat was sold. Why did they allow it to be sold? Isn't that evidence in a murder case? The entire thing strikes me as blatantly inept.

BTW, when I watched that segment tonight I was struck that I remember that date exactly. May 11, 1982, if anyone cares, was a Tuesday. Never mind. Not a pleasant memory. :(

mozartpc27

05-08-2007, 12:42 PM

That prosecutor makes me sick. He can't identify where the boat was, within many miles, but at the same time he's sure that if a second raft existed it would have been found. Right. No chance someone came across it and took it, without knowing the significance. We've seen many cases on UM and subsequently where something is overlooked even when a specific area is known and it should have been found immediately, i.e. Chandra Levy's body.

I agree that the fact that they didn't find the life raft proves nothing in and of itself, which is problematic, since the lack of a life raft is the lynchpin for the entire murder case.

However, what's most suggestive to me, and what Larry never had an answer for, is this: if there was an inflated, intact life raft as Larry claims, why wasn't she in it when she was found? How did this thing mysteriously deflate and disappear? Even if it had deflated, wouldn't it have drifted with or near her, if only because she probably would have tried hanging on to it for as long as possible? Or how, alternatively, did she manage to fall out of what she should have been clinging to for dear life? The only plausible explanation is that there was a slow leak that went undetected, but... I'm being asked to believe an awful lot by Larry Race at this point, and he did have ample reason (life insurance) to murder her...

I don't know that if I were on the jury this would pass the "reasonable doubt" test, but, if I were laying odds, I'd put it at about 55-45 he set the whole thing up somehow, intending for her to die. Not overwhelming odds, perhaps (and why I'd probably have voted "not guilty," unless there was some other evidence of murder I wasn't made aware of), but still, I think he did it.

WonderWoman41

05-08-2007, 01:05 PM

I totally agree with Mozart. (<-- a phrase that would sound odd out of context....) Sure, there's reasonable doubt about Race's guilt. But there's even more doubt about his innocence. Maybe he shouldn't have been convicted, but I'm not somehow that cut up about it.

At best, what happened was: Larry made his wife miserable, cheated on her, and held her in mild contempt ("there's nothing wrong with her"). He was careless in going out in a crappy boat, careless in going far from shore, careless in not checking the life rafts. This is the big Hey-babe-I-still-love-you evening, and he's demonstrating major I-don't-give-a-damn carelessness. He, of course, was the big hero the previous summer and knows that he is safe, so why make provision for his poor-swimmer wife? That's the best case scenario, what I would call close to reckless endangerment.

Further, Mozart is right - what did happen to that raft? It should have been close to her, she should have been clinging to it - what, someone found her and took it? But nothing else? I'll bet she was wearing a wedding ring ... someone stole the raft but not the ring?

At some point, it seems like Occam's razor kicks in. The prosecution's theory was complicated, but mozart's various theories are not. It's easy to explain how Race could be guilty. It's hard, even though possible, to explain how he could be innocent.

LooksLikeCRicci

05-08-2007, 09:30 PM

Wow. This post is harder for me to read than Copyright Law.... and that's saying a lot.

You all present really good arguments, hence my discomfort. I feel myself swaying....

LooksLikeCRicci

05-08-2007, 09:32 PM

...and Wiseguy... is that Bob Bean I'm seeing on your avatar? If so, NICE. :D

Awsi Dooger

05-08-2007, 10:54 PM

I think Race probably did murder his wife, but what I don't understand is why the prosecution seemed to base their version of events on what Larry Race said happened. The prosecution should begin with the assumption that everything he says is a lie; why, then, create a version of the story based largely on what he says happened?

It's much, much simpler to see this as murder if Race was able, one way or another, to convince his wife to get into a life raft, then followed her into the water as if he was going to go with her, swum with her away from the boat a little ways, and then, by hook or by crook, capsized the life raft (which I don't think would be that hard for an experienced swimmer working against a panicked woman who was not a good swimmer). He takes the raft back to the boat, cuts it so he can plausibly concoct his "two life raft" story, and goes off. No underwater super-human swimming effort necessary.

Alternatively, perhaps Race "pre-sliced" the raft, knowing that it would hold air long enough to get his wife to abandon ship in favor of the raft, but not very much longer after that. He induced her to get into the water, let the raft deflate, took it back to the boat and left her to die.

Or, if the raft was incapable of holding air after it had been sliced, perhaps he simply took the knife with him, concealing it at the last moment before exiting the boat, pushed the raft with his wife aboard a hundred feet or so from the boat, then reached underneath the raft and cut it. Once it deflated, he dropped the knife, and pretended like it was some kind of accident, told his wife to hold on, that he would go back to the boat and retrieve another raft, and took the one he cut with him (perhaps he suggested he might be able to repair it). Perhaps he never explained anything to his wife, just deflated the raft, took it back to the boat, and left here there to die.

Or maybe he duped her into standing in the boat for a minute, and then simply pushed her into the water. He could have made up the whole business about engine trouble and the life raft later, cutting the raft only after he had already dumped his wife into the lake.

The point is, there are several less complicated ways than what the prosecution presented to explain how he might have murdered his wife, and all of which still conform to the basic facts of the case. The prosecution just made a strategic error in choosing to base their version on his version, which doesn't seem particularly warranted.

Of course, I guess it wasn't much of an error, since they won the case.

Frankly, it's difficult to read that post, particularly the last part, without getting nauseated and annoyed. You make exactly Larry Race's point, that the prosecutor was able to concoct a tale and have the jury fall for it. Just pick a story and make it sound as sinister as possible. You even used the phrase, "create a version of the story."

If I were on that jury I'd start with the assumption that everything the prosecution was inventing was a lie. The life insurance was hardly high value or overly suspicious. It flops as a motive especially when they detailed the source of the two amounts. You contradict yourself by asking how an experienced swimmer wouldn't realize he was putting himself in jeopardy in cold water like that, but have no trouble saying no superhuman feats were necessary after you've got him in that frigid water going back and forth pushing the raft and cutting it before returning to the boat. In one of your versions you've got him going a hundred feet away from the boat in that frigid water, going underneath to cut the raft, and then returning to the boat. I grew up in Miami and swam in a nearby lake, plus the Atlantic. Swimming 100 feet is hardly a cinch in any conditions. It's not like a few laps in your backyard pool.

The two-raft story doesn't help him at all. The only way that makes a bit of sense is if there were indeed two rafts and only the one with the cuts was found. Otherwise, it's automatically suspicious no matter how you look at it. It's preposterous to claim he planned a scheme like this and decided a slashed raft was his best option.

There are no witnesses. He's got her out there by himself. It's dark as hell. Frigid water. Yet we're supposed to believe he gleefully forfeited all those advantages and summoned a scheme with multiple obstacles and variables that he could have easily avoided, plus potentially put his own physical well being at risk. And then depends on hypothermia as the cause of death. That's Ockham's Razor? On what planet?

And notice that the other problems with the boat that Larry Race described are not challenged. He details opening up the case and tinkering with the motor, with his wife's help. Making minor spur-of-the-moment repairs. He describes a loud noise that indicated trouble and caused his wife to want to leave the boat immediately. You know damn well the prosecution would have been suspicious of those engine woes and we would have heard about it from the lovely prosecutor if they had flopped the inspection. Or if the subsequent owner reported no such problems, or signs of amateur handiwork within that area. Instead, all we get is a vague uncertainty about the starter problems since they weren't tested immediately.

wiseguy182

05-08-2007, 11:10 PM

...and Wiseguy... is that Bob Bean I'm seeing on your avatar? If so, NICE. :D

Yes it is, thanks:wave:

Given that so many people involved in UM segments have found their way on the boards, perhaps we might get graced with the presence of Bob Bean one day.

mozartpc27

05-09-2007, 12:57 AM

Frankly, it's difficult to read that post, particularly the last part, without getting nauseated and annoyed. You make exactly Larry Race's point, that the prosecutor was able to concoct a tale and have the jury fall for it. Just pick a story and make it sound as sinister as possible. You even used the phrase, "create a version of the story."

Perhaps a poor choice of phrase, but what I meant, obviously, is that if you don't believe Larry Race's version (and I don't), you have to envision another scenario; since he isn't volunteering, and there is no way to prove exactly what went on, there is going to be a certain amount of "creating" scenarios, alternative to the one he presents, that still fit the facts as we know them. But I don't think I stepped wildly outside the realm of possibility or the facts.

If I were on that jury I'd start with the assumption that everything the prosecution was inventing was a lie. The life insurance was hardly high value or overly suspicious. It flops as a motive especially when they detailed the source of the two amounts.

The life insurance may not have been for all that much, but it was purchased at a time shortly before she died, conveniently enough. Even if he didn't purcahse the insurance with the exact intent of killing his wife, or even if it wasn't initially his idea, surely he knew they had it. Moreover, as you pointed out, Awsi Dooger, the man was very obviously not all that fond of his wife. $100,000 may not seem like that much to get for the murder of someone you love, or like, but someone you sort of tolerate? And who interferes with your favorite hobby (womanizing)? For a guy with some expensive hobbies and tastes (scuba diving, boating, women), I think it's more than adequate.

You contradict yourself by asking how an experienced swimmer wouldn't realize he was putting himself in jeopardy in cold water like that, but have no trouble saying no superhuman feats were necessary after you've got him in that frigid water going back and forth pushing the raft and cutting it before returning to the boat.

I was refering to what I presumed you were referring to when using the adjective "superhuman" --- the prosecution's asinine contention that he pushed her away, returned to his own boat, donned scuba gear, went underwater swimming to the point where her raft was (without a light?), cut the raft from underneath, and then returned to his boat. That's superhuman and stupid. If he got into the water with his wife, quietly reached underneath the boat with a knife in hand and slashed it while she sat in it (the raft wasn't large enough to require him to fully submerge himself to cut it from underneath), dropped the knife, and then pushed the life raft away from the boat while it was slowly deflating (or perhaps he cut it while he pushed it, doesn't matter), and then, once it was sufficiently deflated, took it with himself back to the boat, that sequence doesn't seem particularly superhuman effort to me, unless you take literally my notion that he swam 100 feet from the boat with his wife in the raft before cutting it...

In one of your versions you've got him going a hundred feet away from the boat in that frigid water, going underneath to cut the raft, and then returning to the boat. I grew up in Miami and swam in a nearby lake, plus the Atlantic. Swimming 100 feet is hardly a cinch in any conditions. It's not like a few laps in your backyard pool.

... which you obviosuly do. It's not important that he swam 100 feet or 50 feet or even 25 feet, only that he swam far enough away so that his wife wouldn't be able to get back to the boat. For the sake of argument, let's say it was 50 feet, far enough that she couldn't make it back on her own. He tells her he'll swim back to the boat where he can perhaps repair the life raft, only he never returns.

The two-raft story doesn't help him at all. The only way that makes a bit of sense is if there were indeed two rafts and only the one with the cuts was found. Otherwise, it's automatically suspicious no matter how you look at it. It's preposterous to claim he planned a scheme like this and decided a slashed raft was his best option.

Well, I did that mostly to offer different explanations as to why he might have thought it was best to hang on to the slashed raft. But, ultimately, the two-raft makes perfect sense if you begin with the assumption that he was trying to kill her. This is a flawed approach, I know, but, if we assume that he was trying to kill her, he probably figured, correctly, that if the raft he cut was found out of his possession with five mysterious gashes in its bottom, he was going to have a hard time explaining how they got there. So, he did the only thing he could: he took the raft with him, perhaps partially to lend credence to his story that he was going to attempt to "repair" the raft if that is indeed what he told his wife, but also to guarantee that no obviously "slashed" raft would be found with his wife's body. Keeping the raft he slashed, of course, made the two-raft story necessary. So it's not that he necessarily thought the two raft story would be easy or the most believable, it's that it's a lot easier to make a statement like "There was a second raft, it just must have gotten lost" which the prosecution then has to disprove than it is to explain how a raft she clearly used got cut in the manner it did. If he had left it out at sea with her, he would have been taking a chance that he would need to have a story to explain exactly that.

There are no witnesses. He's got her out there by himself. It's dark as hell. Frigid water. Yet we're supposed to believe he gleefully forfeited all those advantages and summoned a scheme with multiple obstacles and variables that he could have easily avoided, plus potentially put his own physical well being at risk. And then depends on hypothermia as the cause of death. That's Ockham's Razor? On what planet?

Just because he has her out in the dark by herself doesn't mean it's easy to kill her in any variety of ways, especially if he aims not to get caught. No matter what, if she doesn't come back after the two of them go out together, he has to have an explanation for it. There are only so many ways he can exaplain that --- if she drowns, her body should turn up, because drowned bodies tend to rise. And if she drowns, there are going to be all kinds of questions about how she fell in without a life preserver, as I argued earlier. So attempting to drown her is not the best method. Similarly, shooting her, stabbing her, or any other obvious method is out, because her body will turn up under those circumstances, and the signs of murder will be obvious. Granted, I suppose he could have tried a Scott Peterson, but the boat was obviously small and not entirely stable. Not the greatest place to try to murder and then dismember somebody. And I doubt he could have risked bringing concrete blocks aboard with which to weigh her down --- they might have sunk the boat all by themselves. In short, the method used was the one that was the best for avoiding detection! It enabled him to have a reasonable explanation, and one that would not be any way contradicted by the discovery of her body.

Moreover, you act as if setting her adrift in a life jacket on cold Lake Michigan was a real crapshoot. Perhaps you didn't look at the chart I linked the first time, but I direct your attention to it again (http://www.ussartf.org/cold_water_survival.htm). As long as she isn't picked up, setting her adrift at around 11:00PM in 50 degree water all but assures she will be dead before dawn. And what were the chances that a lone person drifting out on the lake at night is going to be picked up by a passing vessel? Her chances, after he left her, were very, very poor for survival. I'd say 1 in 10,000 or worse.

And notice that the other problems with the boat that Larry Race described are not challenged. He details opening up the case and tinkering with the motor, with his wife's help. Making minor spur-of-the-moment repairs. He describes a loud noise that indicated trouble and caused his wife to want to leave the boat immediately. You know damn well the prosecution would have been suspicious of those engine woes and we would have heard about it from the lovely prosecutor if they had flopped the inspection. Or if the subsequent owner reported no such problems, or signs of amateur handiwork within that area. Instead, all we get is a vague uncertainty about the starter problems since they weren't tested immediately.

This is a good point, and I have no immediate answeres. But I think it is equally suspiscious that Race claims that a boat that was basically sinking and wouldn't start one minute was able to be started and brought safely to shore several minutes later. I know that the guy came forward saying he found the boat had a problem that would cause an "intermittent starting" failure, but that was two years after the incident as well. Race's story certainly seems convenient, and I still have my suspiscions about why he couldn't find her. They simply could not have been all that far apart, and he was in a working boat, according to his own testimony, when he began his search.

As you already conceded, Race's story has other problems. The idea that you would swim wildly towards unidentified lights away from shore seems dubious, as does his apparent inability to recognize them for what they were: his own boat.

After watching the case once more, I'll say this: the biggest thing in Larry's favor is that he evidently "notified the coast guard" after returning to shore, although the segment doesn't exactly make clear how long of a time that was. If he didn't want her to be found until she was sure to have frozen to death, he would have "searched" for her long enough to ensure that she would be dead well before she could be found. Of course, I'm not familiar with Coast Guard search-and-rescue Procedure. Perhaps they don't start grid searches until dawn arrives, making it light enough to see, and perhaps Larry Race knew that. If true, he probably had it in his mind that she would be dead before the search would begin --- and, from the evidence I've been able to find about what happens to bodies in 50 degree water, he would have been right. That is speculation, of course, but Larry was evidently a somewhat experienced scuba diver, who had likely received training. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to guess he knew about the effects of cold water on bodies.

Like I said, if I were on the jury, I could not vote to convict, especially not on the prosecution's convoluted version of events. Even in the scenario I think most likely, there is simply no corroborating evidence. But there really isn't much corroborating evidence for his story either, and, given the extenuating circumstances of their marriage, the money available if she did wind up dead, and the presence of an obviously slashed life raft, I think he probably did do it. It's just that gap between "reasonable doubt" and "guilt" that gets exposed every so often.

As a side note, the "scuba theory" the prosecution presented is so preposterous that it almost makes me wonder if there is something they knew that was withheld from the segment; for example, was scuba gear on board the Jenny Lee the day after she disappeared that showed signs of very recent use and that was observed by some kind of witness (a Coast Guard member, perhaps)? The story is just so out of whack that I'm stunned they could present it without some sort of corroboration. If I were the judge I'm not sure I would have even let them.

linda189380

08-09-2007, 05:55 PM

I just wanted to say that I've been reading this chat board with unbelievable interest in the Larry Race case because I met Larry last year and talk to him on a regular basis. The interesting thing is that I never knew of him or his past until he told me in one of the first conversations I had with him....I thought that was very strange! It almost seemed like he was bragging that he went to prison for murder but in some sort of an appologetic way...it gave me the creeps! I now run into him quite regularly, yes he's married and she seems like a really nice lady but Larry is still quite the 'lady's man'. I'm a little hesitant to write too much incase he ever sees these posts he'll know who I am and from the feeling that I think he is guilty just from they way he talks about the case and his past...he really scares me!

LooksLikeCRicci

08-10-2007, 06:53 AM

Interesting.... thanks for posting. If you feel like you've said too much, don't hesitate to use the "Edit" feature to trim your post down. While we appreciate your honesty, I would hate to see you put in an uncomfortable situation because of your post. :)

We'd appreciate anything you have to say about this most controversial case, though. :)

bpatters

10-29-2008, 09:00 PM

I knew Larry Race. We started our mining career at Erie Mining Co I believe in November 1973. If I remember right he lived in Hoyt Lakes MN. If I am wrong, it was he lived in Aroura MN a mile from Hoyt Lakes. I can tell you this without getting in any detail, Larry was a very interesting person as I perceived him. I would not put nothing past him. This is not to say that I disliked or liked him.

Larry turned me on to Lake Superior. I am a sailor by hobbie. Larry at the time was a scubber diver by hobbie. In particular, through talks he introduced me to the Apostle Islands which I visited several times, thanks to Larry. There is one important point that I want to make here. That I consider Larry and myself to be very knowledgeable in boating. Especailly with regards to Lake Superior. If you don't know Lake Superior, I fear you would not understand where I am coming from. If you know Lake Superior as a mariner, you know what I am talking about. That is knowledge, respect, safety, and good old common sense.

First, I did not see the episode on UM. My knowledge is what I remember during the accident/muder and trail.

Without getting into details, I will tell you two things that I believe. One I strongly lean to the belief that Larry murdered his wife. Two, Larry sure as hell did not get a fair trail in my opinion.

What? Oh yeah. Larry was an imbarrasment to Duluth MN. Guilty or not guilty, Larry was going down. The only fair trail for Larry should have been held in Minneapolis MN.

There are, from my prospective, more pieces to this story which influenced the end result. I think most of the miners at Erie Mining Company opions may be influenced by their famaliarity of Larry. Really nothing to do with the murder, but maybe the line of thinking is he was capable of anything based on as past shannagins. I am sure other miners knew more than me because I lived in a defferent town than him, but I knew enough to be suspicous of his character. The other great influence is Duluth it self. In a nut shell, Duluth was more concerned about there image to the outside world. My opinion is based on the Duluth news and newspaper at the time. It would be interesting if someone could read a decade of the Duluth newspaper in the 1970s and leading right through Larry's trail. See if there is a trend in attitude associated with there image. I wonder if anyone would form the same opinion that I have of Duluth.

I can talk about this more in detail if you want.

VikingsGal

01-27-2009, 01:23 PM

I just watched this one on YouTube and I must also say that I am a Minnesota gal. I grew up in teh Twin Cities and went to college up in the Duluth Superior area.

WHat do we think of Larry Race? I am leanign towards that he is guilty but I don't know if the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not sure what to make of those slits/cuts in the bottom of the raft. And frankly, Larry does not seem smart or strong enough to carry that plan out, plus he was really banking on his wife dying in the water. Probable but not definate.

And the incident happened in May. correct? Let me tell you folks: Lake Superior is stil crazy cold in May. Heck it is crazy cold in JULY! Out of the five great lakes Lake Superior is the larget and the deepest, hence it takes a very long time to warm up, if ever.

I felt bad for the daughter: "They have no facts, only circumstance" but sometime that is all it takes - a lot of circumstances put together.

I talked to a lot of local people who feel he did it but it was not proven, and they were like, yeah he cheated but so what....that does not make him a murderer, True, but it does present motive.

justins5256

01-27-2009, 03:56 PM

I go back and fourth on this one a lot, and I think it is one of the more haunting cases shown on UM.

You may find it interesting to know that UM did not present the story exactly as it happened. There was a period of time of about 5 hours that Race could not account for. He claims that when he got back to his own boat he collapsed from exhaustion and was unconscious for that period of time. Not that it makes or breaks the case, just an interesting little detail that UM left out.

I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for the cuts made to the raft.

I also find it odd that the second raft didn't turn up - assuming it existed.

Race was definitely a sleazebag for screwing around on his wife, but as others have pointed out, that does not make him a murderer.

With regard to the Final Appeals I have said on here before some that I really think were guilty like Stuart Heaton, Darlie Routier, Dr. Branion, Dan Montecalvo, Paul Ferrell and Glen Consagra. But when it comes to Larry Race, I just don't know. There is too much circumstantial evidence for it to be proven one way or another. If new evidence came out tomorrow that showed Race was 100% guilty, I wouldn't be shocked. If new evidence was uncovered that proved he was innocent I wouldn't be shocked either.

alfiechat

01-27-2009, 05:39 PM

I never thought Dr. Brannion was guilty. His case really bothered me. Larry, though, I was on the fence about.

MegtheEgg86

01-27-2009, 07:14 PM

VikingsGal

01-28-2009, 03:50 PM

The two MN natives---Race's former acquaintance and VikingsGal---definitely aren't joking when it comes to Superior. I'm from Tennessee and can tell you that it's not a body of water to be trifled with. Entire barges, tankers, and iron boats have gone down there (anyone remember the Edmund Fitzgerald?).

Which is why it utterly baffles the hell out of me that Race would decide to take a questionable boat out there, especially in May. I think RS even mentioned something in the segment about his wife being apprehensive about being on the boat because it had quit on them the summer before. I'm not sure about his guilt, honestly---but his judgement seems to leave a lot to be desired.

I tend to agree with VikingsGal that he doesn't quite seem clever enough to have pulled off the entire scheme. His penchant for infidelity certainly isn't enough of a motive for murder.

There is a saying out there: "The sea is an unforgiving mistress" and let me tell you, Lake Superior is EXACTLY as described. One does not trifle with it. That was the first thing that popped out to me - why would he take a questionable boat out, at night, on Lake Superior? That was just....odd. We are boat owners and we used to go boating a lot on a lake in Wisconsin. My hubby spent A LOT of time on that lake, and it so very easy to get disoriented on a lake at night. That is why people build a huge bonfire on the shore before leaving. Without a huge dock light or campfire you WILL get lost and disoriented. And to have a person panicking does not help, ever.

Larry, for being a boat owner, seemed to be VERY flagrant about safety. Again, not proof of a murder, but couls she have planting the seeds? Who knows. But again Larry was not that bright of a bulb.

Many people in the Duluth area feel he was indirectly responsible for the death of his wife as his actions were less than......normal but murderer? No. Maybe he should have been tried for reckless homicide or something. But John Santos, the prosecutor was excellent when he said, "THis is not a proper case for Unsolved Mysteries as this is not an unsolved mystery!" Loved that!

Mr. Santos also tried another famous case, the Marjorie Congdon Caldwell (now Hagen) case.

MegtheEgg86

01-28-2009, 04:08 PM

Many people in the Duluth area feel he was indirectly responsible for the death of his wife as his actions were less than......normal but murderer? No. Maybe he should have been tried for reckless homicide or something. But John Santos, the prosecutor was excellent when he said, "THis is not a proper case for Unsolved Mysteries as this is not an unsolved mystery!" Loved that!

That's what I strongly lean towards as well: Larry was negligent, and that's what caused her death---not a concentrated effort to kill her on his part. He panicked.

I always remember that Santos quote. :)

justins5256

01-29-2009, 11:24 AM

I never thought Dr. Brannion was guilty. His case really bothered me. Larry, though, I was on the fence about.

I used to think he was innocent but then this occurred to me - you basically have to accept that an intruder or intruders came into the house, and shot his wife yet didn't take anything, or commit a sexual assault. Also, if you follow the logic as presented by the pathologist interviewed in the segment the intruders were in the house for a long time, strangling Mrs. Branion for about 20 minutes before using the gun. I am at a loss to explain why someone would do all this without any sort of a payoff. I think it's very possible he could have hired someone to kill his wife.

Todd Mueller

01-29-2009, 12:07 PM

I used to think he was innocent but then this occurred to me - you basically have to accept that an intruder or intruders came into the house, and shot his wife yet didn't take anything, or commit a sexual assault. Also, if you follow the logic as presented by the pathologist interviewed in the segment the intruders were in the house for a long time, strangling Mrs. Branion for about 20 minutes before using the gun. I am at a loss to explain why someone would do all this without any sort of a payoff. I think it's very possible he could have hired someone to kill his wife.

I agree. I always thought Branion was innocent too. BUT... why does an innocent person run to Africa? Granted he could be fearing prison, but come on... He was the one having an affair so his wife would have reason to be mad and he would have a reason to off her.

I don't think for a minute that he did the deed, however I think it is very possible he hired someone to do it.

justins5256

01-29-2009, 12:40 PM

I agree. I always thought Branion was innocent too. BUT... why does an innocent person run to Africa? Granted he could be fearing prison, but come on...

I don't think his going to Africa is necessarily suspect in and of itself. For the sake of this discussion, imagine that he actually was innocent. He knew he was facing a long prison term and that his appeals had failed. He had the financial means by which to escape, so why not go for it? You know you can't prove your innocence, and that no one believes you, so why sit in prison for years for something you didn't do? Obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but it's difficult to say what one would do under those circumstances.

Todd Mueller

01-29-2009, 10:40 PM

I don't think his going to Africa is necessarily suspect in and of itself. For the sake of this discussion, imagine that he actually was innocent. He knew he was facing a long prison term and that his appeals had failed. He had the financial means by which to escape, so why not go for it? You know you can't prove your innocence, and that no one believes you, so why sit in prison for years for something you didn't do? Obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but it's difficult to say what one would do under those circumstances.

I hear you. I guess I figure there is no reason for an innocent person to run because if they catch you later, you are going to have an even harder time getting people to believe you are innocent. But I could see how someone would want to run.

Still doesn't change my opinion, though. Too much wrong with the rest of this case for me to believe Dr. B didn't have a role in it.

kadrmas15

01-30-2009, 12:55 AM

Hmm, I do not know TM. Again, it is a rush to judgement. I too do not think Dr Branion himself personally killed his wife. I do think that it is certainly possible Brainion had a role in his wife's shooting. However like in the Race case, I do not think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case is so good, where is the smoking gun (sorry for the bad pun) ? Heck, even the prosecutor in the Branion case admitted to having his doubts. If the prosecutor is admitting this in public, you know the case is not good. But at least he was willing to admit there was a possibility he made a mistake. Whereas the prosecutor in the Race case was a first class jerk that refused to believe anything other than Race must have in a pre-meditated manner, killed his wife. Personally, I think if Race was going to intentionally murder his wife, he would have done it in a different way. I mean, to put himself out in Lake Superior and risk death himself? I mean, if you have ever been to LAke Superior you certainly know it is a very real possibility that you could die in the water. I just do not think Race would put himself at that much risk if he had planned and intended on killing his wife that night. At best Race was guilty of negligent homicide, you could maybe make a case for involuntary manslaughter but I do not think first degree murder came even close to be proven in this case. The case was so weak, Race was paroled while still denying he killed his wife. It is hard enough for any lifer to get parole but a lifer that denies doing the crime, it is basically certain that prisoner will die in prison. Race nearly was paroled in 2000 when he first became eligible. In fact, the parole board commissioner later revealed that if Race would have admitted doing the crime he would have been paroled in 2000. In 2004, while still denying he killed his wife, he was paroled. Heck, the guy's in-laws even stuck by him which is practically unheard of in a case where a spouse, especially a husband, is accused of killing his wife.

Todd Mueller

01-30-2009, 11:24 AM

Good points, kadrmas.

I should have added what you said. Although I think it is highly likely that Dr. B had a hand in the killing in some way, there did not seem to be enough evidence to convict. That I agree with you on 100%. It was a shaky prosecution and there wasn't that one big piece of evidence to link Dr. B directly to the crime.

I also should say I cannot ever imagine pleading guilty to a crime I didn't commit. There would be no way.

But at the same time, I can't imagine ever been charged with a felony, either. I guess pressure and the possibility of the chair or life vs. a shorter prison term may make someone do something they might not normally do.

justins5256

01-30-2009, 01:00 PM

I think what kadrmas said makes a lot of sense. If Race was Hellbent on killing his wife - this is such an uncertain and unusual way to do it. He not only puts his own life in danger, but there is also the possibility that she might not die.

Just a crazy thought - could this have been a bizarre murder-suicide scenario that went awry?

Xytras

02-16-2009, 11:08 PM

The only thing that casts doubt on Race's innocence to me is the knife marks in the intertube...unless that tube was scraped against rocks and coincidently left regular marks (fat chance) I just don't see how they got there. I really see no other way this happened unless it was intentional, as no one would do this to a legitimate life saving device.

crystaldawn

02-17-2009, 08:28 AM

I haven't done any outside research on his case and my opinion is only based on the UM segment but I always leaned toward innocent. I know that Larry ran around on his wife and my question is where they ever able to find someone that Larry was dating at the time of his wife's death? If so that may prove a motive for murder, if he wanted his wife gone so he could be with someone else.

TracyLynnS

03-13-2009, 06:31 PM

I just watched the Larry Race case again. In the original, with RS hosting, and in such a manner as for CM to string me up by my toes.

I think the man is guilty. Nobody wants to convict him just because he was a serial philanderer, but sleeping around on your overweight, slightly unattractive wife, with her knowledge, which makes life at home miserable, IS a motive.

If the Jenny Lee looked anything like the boat in the reenactment, it wasn't going down anytime soon. I've been in 3 sinkings. The worst was 13 miles off the FL keys in a 40 year old fishing boat that I had hired for $1,000 for the day. I didn't even think to check to see if the dumbass crew had life jackets. Dur duh dur.

The boat was 35 feet long, and the entire hull filled with water, up to the 2nd deck. The bilge wasn't working, and I (they paying customer) had to hold a tricky button in the ON position while the two man crew got out their tools and worked on the engine and bilge. Luckily, DH is an auto mechanic and we didn't turn into fish food. Plus there was a working radio on board, it was daytime, and the whole reef out there is covered in boats searching for all the big ocean fishies. We would have eventually been rescued.

The other sinkings I experienced were minor, and I towed the 19 foot pleasure boats into shore (a mile in one case) under my own power, once in the dark, with a paddle. It's very slow work, but it doesn't kill you.

So Larry Race is either guilty of first degree murder or he killed his wife through the worst case of massive stupidity and not learning from his own previous mistakes ever seen in humankind.

In the reenactment, the boat was floating well, even with the water in the hull, and could have been bailed out, while paddling it to shore and firing off distress flares. Instead, Larry waits until his wife is in trouble floating in a dinky intertube thingy in Lake Superior before it occurs to him that he's got distress flares on the boat and he should go fire them into the air and signal for help. DUH.

Why abandon ship when it's not in immediate danger? Even on the Titanic, it's ass was in the air, and people still preferred to stay on the large floating ship rather than take their chances on the little wooden lifeboats that seated 60 people.

Why would Larry's wife leave the safety of the boat and get into a cold, wet, plastic, floaty thingy that could be easily tipped? Plus it was loaded with her valuables and a scuba tank, for refilling it, should it lose air.

Then we have Larry, who outfits himself in a DRY suit and scuba tank. A dry suit is different from a wet suit. In wet suit diving, your body gets wet and you quickly feel the temperature of the water. It's used mostly in medium to warm water diving.

In dry suit diving, your body is completely sealed from the water and in some cases, you can even fill up the suit with a supply of warm air to extend the dive for longer periods in cold water.

I suspect that all Larry needed in 50 degree water was his dry suit and a scuba tank for a short enough period that hypothermia wasn't a big risk.

And when it was all over, the Jenny Lee started up just fine and reached shore under her own power. If his wife had not abandoned the safety of the boat when they were clearly not in a life or death situation, she would have arrived at the shore alive and well, too. I think he convinced her that the situation was dangerous and knowing that she was a poor swimmer, he caused her panic. That kept her from clinging to the safety of the Jenny Lee and she trusted the word of her "expert" husband on how to survive such an emergency.

TracyLynnS

03-13-2009, 06:42 PM

Another thought, I'd like to know about the construction of the Jenny Lee.

One of the sinkings I was in, the boat was old and had a history of sinking. It's construction was such that all the way around, up under the top parts of the sides, bow, etc, were large pieces of stryrofoam.

It was just a cheap little boat that belonged to my cousin. But every time it sank, it only sank up to the layer of stryrofoam at the top. It still floated like a cork bobbing around. It wasn't able to ever sink to the bottom.

On that sinking, my DH, my cousin, and her husband were aboard. As soon as I saw that it was sinking, I dove into the lake and swam back to the cousin's house. (They live on a small lake.)

They all laughed at me for "abandoning ship" but I did it because my cousin was 8 months pregnant and she didn't need that stress. I grabbed another boat from the dock and came back to get her.

I took her home while the men fiddled around with fixing the boat up well enough to limp it home.

If the Jenny Lee was constructed that way, with styrofoam packed up under the top all the way around, it wouldn't have fully sunk either. I wonder if Larry knew about that.

TheCars1986

01-26-2012, 11:21 AM

Just rewatched this case yesterday and decided to share some of my thoughts on it. At first I was on the fence. On the one hand, if Race was guilty, he committed one of the most well planned out murder plots (near perfect except for the fact that he got convicted) ever. On the other hand, if Race was innocent, he's got to be the unluckiest and most unfortunate person in the world for his boat to malfunction AND his wife to drift away and die all in the same night. That's what started to make me suspicious of his story. His wife was allegedly leery about getting on the Jenny Lee because of its history of problems, isn't just coincidental that the night she was on the boat also happened to be the night of their anniversary? It's almost like Race had to pick that date because he knew there would probably be no other time he could convince his wife to go out on the water with him. And Race had done the same thing with his daughters before with no problem, why couldn't he push his wife to safety? If you believe Race's story, he figured his wife would hit shore in time to where there would be no serious harm to her, so why didn't he just "go the distance" and push her to safety?

The prosecution's theory is quite laughable, and I'm actually surprised Race got convicted. It makes no sense, and it's extremely illogical, for Race to have done all of that swimming to simply slash the life raft out from under his wife. The prosecution theory is wrong, as testified by the underwater expert. He says there's no way Race could have committed the crime the way the prosecution says he did. And Race's affairs are irrelevant, IMO. Several married people have been having affairs forever, and not all of those marriages result in spouses killing each other. In the UM segment, Race's defense attorney's raised several good points to show evidence that he was innocent (the deputy testifying that Race did in fact have 2 rafts on board, the position of his wife's body/blood lividity, the distance where Debby's body was found compared to where the Jenny Lee was alleged to have been stuck, etc.), but I thought the prosecutor (despite his huge glasses) brought up some damn good counter points. Point-counter point. In essence, all we really have to go on is Race's story. On the surface it seems plausible, but when you sit back think about it there are several holes and inconsistencies.

Race's story has several "conveniences", if you will. For one, as I mentioned before, it's very convenient that he gets his wife to go out on the boat that night being that it was their anniversary. It's also covenient that Race is a skilled swimmer and somewhat of an underwater/hypothermia expert. Isn't it also convenient that Race's hands got "cold" so he decided to leave his wife and head back to the boat to get his gloves? It's almost as if he needed to come up with something to "innocently" have him separate from his wife and not sound overtly suspicious. Race also claimed that after he swam back to his boat, he passed out for five hours, which is why he was initially unable to locate his wife. How convenient! This wasn't mentioned in the UM segment, and I think if it was there would have been no doubt about Race's guilt. It's also convenient that this second raft (which if you believe Race's story was fully intact when his wife got into it) was never located.

So here's my theory on what happened. Race knew the only time he'd be able to get his wife out onto the boat was to coax her into taking a late night "love cruise" on the Jenny Lee. Race knew the possibility of the boat having "flood problems" was high (since it happened several times), so when the boat appeared to have been taking on water he began to feign fear by scaring his wife into thinking the boat was going to sink and that they should abandon the ship. I don't believe there was ever more than one life raft, which was inflated and Race got into his wet suit and told his wife he would push. She didn't have any concerns with this, since Race did the same thing with their daughters. I think it was only a matter of time before Race paddled out into the lake when he slashed the raft with one of his diving knives and then dumped the knife. At this point Debby was probably hysterical, and Race attempted to quell her fears by either saying he was going to go back to try and restart the boat or go back and see if he could repair the life raft and that he would be back to get her in a matter of minutes. This is why Race took the slashed raft back to the boat, so he could say that he had two, tried the one but it wouldn't inflate (because of the slashes). When he reached the boat, he simply started it and pulled away leaving his wife to die in the lake. Race had ample time (over five hours) to carefully craft the story as he saw fit, and waited that long to seek "help" because he wanted to make sure his wife was dead. Despite the fact that he did come off as sincere in his interview, I still think he was guilty as hell. He probably regretted what he did, but he should have manned up and simply admitted guilt instead of playing the role of unfortunate widower.

EDIT: Another piece of evidence that points to Race's guilt (that wasn't mentioned in the UM segment) was that the raft that was slashed, had water in the interior of the raft (inside the slash marks). Which could only have happened if the raft was fully inflated and in the water when the cuts occurred. This wouldn't have happened if Race was simply trying to blow it up and when it wouldn't inflate he tossed it into the water.

wiseguy182

01-27-2012, 02:59 AM

TheCars1986

01-27-2012, 09:41 AM

I wouldn't say it was coincidental. They wanted to go out on their boat on their anniversary, and it was the start of a new chapter in their marriage. Not hard to believe. Also, Debbie got in the boat on willingly -- on her own accord, so I'm not sure why you would think she wouldn't get in the boat at any other time. I'm sure she wouldn't have gotten in the boat if she thought she was going to die.

I didn't mean Race forced his wife into getting on the boat with him. What I had meant was that according to Race, Debbie was leery about being on the water and did not have faith in the Jenny Lee (since it had sunk the year before). In other words, I doubt Debbie would have been willing to get on the boat on any other night/day of the year. It just so happens that Race says they decide to take a cruise on their anniversary, a date when Debbie's fears/inhibitions about the boat would have most likely been lower.

I don't know what the distance the boat was from the shore when it started having problems in comparison to when it had the same problem with his daughters. I think Larry figured since he had done it before with his daughters, he could do the same thing again. Perhaps it wouldn't be a walk in the park, but it was manageable. What seemed like a manageable feat was made more difficult because, according to Larry, Debbie started getting hysterical the moment the boat began taking on water, then Larry swam the additional distance to the boat, only to realize it was his own. And this happened at night, so presumably they had been up all day, working. A tired Larry had to go into the frigid waters and try to drag his wife (who wasn't exactly light), well I think that would take a physical toll on most people. Thus explaining why he passed out. I think it's easy for the prosecution and such to say it's implausible he passed out for hours, but unless it's something they've experienced themselves, they aren't really knowledgeable enough about it to comment on it.

I think the average person would say it's implausible for an experienced swimmer and scuba diver to have passed out for five hours after swimming around a frigid lake with a dry suit. Dry suits are considerably better in cold waters than a wet suit, and at Race's trial an expert testified that someone wearing a dry suit could stay in 37 degree waters for a considerable amount of time without getting hypothermia. So what would have caused him to pass out? If he had the dry suit on (which he says he did) the only thing that should have caused him any duress was the swim itself...which doesn't make sense if Race was an accomplished scuba diver. And Race's own account was that he had to stop to "rub his hands together" because they were cold and this is when Debbie "drifted away" and he told her to go to shore. Just how far could Debbie have gotten away from Race if all he did was simply rub his hands? Why not go grab the raft and tow it back to the boat so they wouldn't become separated?

Larry didn't even want to go in the water in the first place, he wanted to attempt to repair the boat. It was Debbie who was insistent about getting off the boat. Larry changed his mind after Debbie became hysterical. I can totally believe that because it would be very difficult to repair the boat with someone getting hysterical right next to you. I think Larry knew getting off the boat wasn't the better of the two options, but did it because that's what Debbie wanted.

This of course is all according to Race, the only survivor from that night who (if guilty) would certainly have reasons to lie and pad his story to fit the "accident" account? Everything Race says cannot be counted on because there's no one to corraborate anything he's said has happened.

The fact that this happened at night didn't help matters. I think Larry and Debbie suffered an extraordinary amount of bad luck that night, and Larry probably wishes he would have done a few things differently. The fact that Debbie's parents believe Larry is innocent is another factor in my belief that Larry is not guilty.

I think Race planned this to happen at night because he figured the chances of another boat finding Debbie in the water would be slim to none. Debbie's parents may believe his innocence, but that is meaningless IMHO. If Debbie and Larry kept up the facade of a happy marriage around them, why wouldn't they like the guy?

If this was some grandiose scheme concocted by Larry, he certainly didn't paint himself in an extremely flattering light. If he was going to make up some story, it would probably be one where he does everything right, makes no mistakes, has no regrets about anything. But I'm willing to bet that Larry would even admit to anyone that he made mistakes that night. The first one was getting off the boat in the first place, at least as early as they did. Since the boat did in fact restart later on, all of this probably could have been easily avoided. Secondly, if Larry were going to lie, he would probably come up with a story that didn't involve him risking looking like a buffoon for not recognizing his own boat, and going against his original plan by swimming back to it, when there was a good chance that he could have dragged Debbie back to safety as he did his daughters. I'm guessing that the tiredness, cold and hysteria of Debbie caused him to make some errors in judgement.

Again this is Race and Race alone saying what happened. What else was he supposed to say when he swam away from his wife, that he swimming back to his boat to start it and leave his wife to die? He had to have some sort of reasoning to go back to the boat for one, and two he had to come up with something as to why he didn't immediately start searching for Debbie...which is why he comes up with the ridiculous "passing out for five hours" story. I'm sorry, I'm still convinced he was guilty.

TracyLynnS

01-27-2012, 12:44 PM

Just read this case file, linked in another thread:

http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19860321_0003.MN.htm/qx

When inspected, the Jenny Lee had between 40 and 50 gallons of water in the bilge area.

When the engine was running, it was pouring 48 gallons of water per hour into the boat. With the engine turned off, the boat would take on considerably less water, since it was a faulty hose or something on the engine that was pumping the water in.

The bilge pump was working (Larry stated that he used it and it was working) and was capable of removing 300 gallons per hour. He claims that the sucking noise it made when activated terrified Debbie into thinking that the bilge was pulling the bottom of the boat loose so she insisted on getting into a raft.

REALLY??? The noise of the bilge made her think the boat was being torn apart?

She'd been on that boat before. IMO, it's very likely that she'd seen and heard the bilge pump in use even if she didn't know what it was. I've never heard one that sounded like it was causing damage to the boat. Anyone else ever hear such a thing when a bilge pump was being used? Some are so quiet, you're not even immediately aware that they've been turned on.

Another thing I'm having a hard time believing is the scenario Larry gives about towing Debbie in a the raft for a while, then getting cold and losing her while rubbing his hands together to warm them. She's floating away, and he decides to swim back to the boat. He can swim all the way back to the boat but can't swim far enough to get Debbie, who floated away in the few seconds that he was rubbing his hands?

As she drifts away, he helpfully hollers to Debbie to "head towards shore". What was her means of heading towards shore? Did she have an oar? Was she paddling in the icy water with her hands to reach land 8/10 of a mile away?

He lets her float away, alone in the dark and cold, far from the boat and far from the shore, terrified, isolated, helpless, and with no way to get to safety. As he's swimming back to the warmth and security of the Jenny Lee, he yells to her to head toward shore. That statement just gives me the creeps.

TheCars1986

01-27-2012, 01:00 PM

Just He lets her float away, alone in the dark and cold, far from the boat and far from the shore, terrified, isolated, helpless, and with no way to get to safety. As he's swimming back to the warmth and security of the Jenny Lee, he yells to her to head toward shore. That statement just gives me the creeps.

Yet another "coincidence": when Race reaches the boat he allegedly passed out from exhaustion, but he had just enough energy to reach his boat. He even says in his interview on UM that he figured Debbie would reach shore and be safe, so why waste the time (and energy) to swim all the way back to "lights" instead of "cowboying up" and towing Debbie the entire way to shore? First he says he was swimming to his boat to get gloves, but in the UM interview he says he decided to swim towards "lights" (that he assumed was another boat). And that's not the first thing he's changed his story on. He initially said he tossed the first life boat to the side after it wouldn't inflate, but when the tests revealed that there was water in the cuts he changed his story to say he threw it overboard.

EDIT: Can't believe I typed "testes" instead of "tests", lol.

TracyLynnS

01-27-2012, 02:09 PM

And that's not the first thing he's changed his story on.

I've been skimming through the case files that were linked and I'm starting to realize that Larry changing his story and contradicting previous statements are some of the things that secured his conviction.

IMO, he made several very dangerous decisions for a man who's well acquainted with boating and cold water diving. This whole thing might be more believable with an inexperienced weekender whose wife has a fear of water, but Larry was diving as often as 40 times each year, nearly one dive per week.

I just really have a hard time believing that he didn't know the right way to handle the situation they were in or that he let his hysterical wife rattle him into making mistakes. A cold water diver whose passion is exploring shipwrecks in Lake Superior could lose his life if he is easily panicked or allows other's panic to influence his actions.

Due to his experience, I think he would have been able to handle his wife's hysteria and still get them safely to shore.

I was a boat owner in the 80s and 90s. It was a 19 ft ski boat. My son has been a boat owner since the late 90s. First, he had a 20 year old 17 ft hunk of junk that constantly needed repair. And just last year, he bought a new 21 or 22 ft boat.

This morning, I asked him about bilge pump usage to refresh my memory. Best I can recall about our 1988 ski boat, we used the pump regularly because skiers and swimmers getting into the boat brought in a lot of water plus the engine also had a slight water leak. It was a quiet pump and never made any suspicious or scary noises.

My son uses his boat only for sport fishing. His new boat's pump is so quiet, he sometimes forgets it's still running after pumping out the water and has to remember to turn it off. He goes fishing 8 times a week during the season. Yep! 8 times per week! And he's been doing it for years, so he's familiar with this stuff. He said he usually only needs to use the pump if it's raining or he's hit by a wave. Obviously the Race's boat was leaking so the pump needed to be used more often.

On DS's 20 year old junky boat, he said the pump was louder, but never made noises that could be mistaken for causing damage. So just from my family's experience, that's 3 boats, old and new, and the bilge pumps never sounded like they were destroying the boat.

XCalibur

01-27-2012, 09:20 PM

The Larry Race story was one of the most intriguing, but also one of the saddest I saw as well. Here are my thoughts on it:

1. First of all, I'd like to say that to those who feel the adultrous affairs were irrelevant, I don't agree. Like it or not, infidelity of spouses whose mates are murdered resonates in the minds of jurors, whether or not you think it should. It goes to character. Serial adultery is indicative of a selfish and non loving nature. Whether anyone believes it or not, love is about sacrifice and part of a sacrifice when you promise to love someone for life is to keep it in your pants when it comes to others. I am a believer that one sin leads to another, and an adulterer is more likely to murder their spouse than a non adulterer, thats just how it is. Does that automatically make an adulterer a murderer? Of course not, but it resonates strongly. And I am not talking about a man who has a couple of slip ups and sleeps with another woman, feels guilty about it and stops. I'm talking about people who carry on affairs for years, thats just not something someone with a truly good and loving heart could do. Or at least they have little love for their spouse. Now if Larry was ready to stop screwing around on Debbie, then thats commendable, but I do wonder about it.

2. Debbie's parents believing in Larry Race doesn't mean anything. Larry Race could well have them fooled. From his interview, I can see why people might be taken in by him. He came off as a very soft spoken and gentle person, and its easy to think he might just be this gentle philanderer and womanizer. But the truth is, a front like that can easily hide a selfish and malicous nature. I've seen it.
Now, these are merely my rebuttals to some of the arguments people have made for Larry Race. As to whether or not he did it, I have no idea. The physical evidence and circumstances surrounding the death are somewhat complicated and difficult to sort out. If it was a murder it was a carefully planned and elaborate one, and took some luck to pull of, but if it was an accident there were a lot of odd coincidences and bad luck to. When there are holes in both scenarios, its damn hard to make a guess.

Just from bits and pieces I have read, I lean towards Larry being guilty. I am inclined to believe that he is a natural actor and charmer but I definitely see the potential for a veiled monster and a wolf in sheep's clothing there. I could be wrong, cause after all I'm not God that I have the ability to see into someone's heart. Just my humble opinion that he's guilty.

lindamichelle1

01-27-2012, 10:45 PM

i havnt read too much into this case, just came across this thread, but was HE the one let the flares off?
if so why not do that BEFORE putting his wife in the raft?

TracyLynnS

01-28-2012, 01:03 AM

1.

1. I agree with quite a bit of this. For those who don't think an affair is motive for getting rid of the unwanted spouse via murder, or just because he cheats doesn't mean he will kill.... That could be right. But cheating is a motive. If Larry and Debbie divorced, his lifestyle might have greatly changed for the worse. In the early 80s, many women were awarded the house, custody of the kids, child support, alimony, and lots of other valuable things when divorcing from a cheater.

By the wife dying, the widower keeps custody of the kids and he doesn't even have to put up with the mom showing up for visitation days. He keeps the house, the cars, his toys, possibly inherits a decent amount of life insurance and doesn't have to cash out and split any savings, investments, or real estate assets.

And as an added bonus, :eek: there's no wife to hide the girlfriend from, no wife nagging him get out of the bar and come home for dinner with the family, no wife complaining that he spends too much money on his hobbies. Basically, if he hates that wife and she ends up dead, he just hit the jackpot. There have been many people who've resorted to murder once they realized just how much they were going have to give up to get out of an unhappy marriage.

wiseguy182

01-28-2012, 06:33 AM

2. Debbie's parents believing in Larry Race doesn't mean anything. Larry Race could well have them fooled. From his interview, I can see why people might be taken in by him. He came off as a very soft spoken and gentle person, and its easy to think he might just be this gentle philanderer and womanizer. But the truth is, a front like that can easily hide a selfish and malicous nature. I've seen it. Not only that, but the parents may not have liked their daughter that much and were glad to see her gone. Now I admit, thats highly unlikely but just something I'm throwing out there. If Debbie's parents or any of her family are reading and are offended I apologize, obviously as UM viewers we can only speculate about people we don't know and have to throw out every theory even if its rather ugly.

You should apologize, that's a particularly disgusting, totally baseless accusation to make. That Debbie's parents hated their own daughter so much that they rejoiced in her death (and what you believe to be) homicide and wanted to see her (what you believe to be) killer to get out of jail. I've never heard of anything like this happening in real life. There are a number of people that are saddened to hear about someone dying, even if it was somebody they didn't like. I certainly hope Debbie's parents don't come across what you wrote. We are all responsible for what we write here so try not to make an ugly, baseless accusation and then hide behind the defense of "we can only speculate and have to throw out every theory"

XCalibur

01-28-2012, 09:32 AM

You should apologize, that's a particularly disgusting, totally baseless accusation to make. That Debbie's parents hated their own daughter so much that they rejoiced in her death (and what you believe to be) homicide and wanted to see her (what you believe to be) killer to get out of jail. I've never heard of anything like this happening in real life. There are a number of people that are saddened to hear about someone dying, even if it was somebody they didn't like. I certainly hope Debbie's parents don't come across what you wrote. We are all responsible for what we write here so try not to make an ugly, baseless accusation and then hide behind the defense of "we can only speculate and have to throw out every theory"

First of all, it was not an accusation. It was a theory and a possibility I threw out there. You are being naive if you think that parents not caring for their own children doesn't happen. Look at Casey Anthony. Not to mention all the people that murder their own families, look at Brad Bishop. Now granted, it was far more unlikely with a grown woman like Debbie.

The police when investigating a case do the same thing, they investigate the family first and foremost. People get offended often, but its part of the procedure.

So if its possible for people to murder their own family, I believe you have to consider the possibility that not every parent in the world cares about their own children. Yeah, its disgusting, and yeah its very sad, but sometimes its reality.

And in a case like this, its very unusual for a murdered woman's parents to back the man accused of it. So it does make you wonder. But I myself admitted it, its far more likely that if Larry Race is guilty he simply has them fooled.

Obviously I stirred some emotion by saying that, and that wasn't my intention, but life has its ugly side and thats why you sometimes have to consider ugly possibilities. But it was not an accusation at all.

TheCars1986

01-28-2012, 10:34 AM

1. First of all, I'd like to say that to those who feel the adultrous affairs were irrelevant, I don't agree. Like it or not, infidelity of spouses whose mates are murdered resonates in the minds of jurors, whether or not you think it should. It goes to character. Serial adultery is indicative of a selfish and non loving nature. Whether anyone believes it or not, love is about sacrifice and part of a sacrifice when you promise to love someone for life is to keep it in your pants when it comes to others. I am a believer that one sin leads to another, and an adulterer is more likely to murder their spouse than a non adulterer, thats just how it is. Does that automatically make an adulterer a murderer? Of course not, but it resonates strongly. And I am not talking about a man who has a couple of slip ups and sleeps with another woman, feels guilty about it and stops. I'm talking about people who carry on affairs for years, thats just not something someone with a truly good and loving heart could do. Or at least they have little love for their spouse. Now if Larry was ready to stop screwing around on Debbie, then thats commendable, but I do wonder about it.

It's easy for anyone to sit there and say, "Hey he screwed around on his wife, so he doesn't really love her and that's a motive to want her dead." I do think that adultery is a motive to murder a spouse, BUT that does not mean that every time an adulterer killed their spouse that their main motive was to be with one of their mistresses. Love is supposed to be about sacrifice, but that's not always the case with people. We don't know the circumstances surrounding their relationship, have no idea what went on behind closed doors. There are a number of things that could have led Race to "justify" his affairs. Do I agree with that? No. I don't condone cheating either. But it happens all the time. My whole point was that people have had mistresses and carried on affairs for years, but deep down inside still loved their wives. And you really don't need to focus on his affairs to see that he's guilty. His story about what happened that night is enough.

Not only that, but the parents may not have liked their daughter that much and were glad to see her gone.

This is probably one of the most assinine things I've ever read on here. For you to even theorize that based off of a 15 second interview of her parents is down right ludicrous. No one is going to be glad that their child is gone, EVER. No matter how heartless you are, or how mean you were, etc. no parent ever wants to bury their child.

XCalibur

01-28-2012, 11:00 AM

This is probably one of the most assinine things I've ever read on here. For you to even theorize that based off of a 15 second interview of her parents is down right ludicrous. No one is going to be glad that their child is gone, EVER. No matter how heartless you are, or how mean you were, etc. no parent ever wants to bury their child.

Are you really that naive? ever hear of Susan Smith? Casey Anthony? Brad Bishop? Andrea Yates? Not to mention that nut job who killed his own family because he claimed he didn't want them to go to Hell. Can't recall his name.

Like I said, it may sound ludicrous to you, I've known people who did not care one iota what happened to their children. Some of you all who are saying this is impossible, then consider yourself fortunate and blessed not to have not been around some of the nasty people I have.

And you are right, you can't deduce any of this from a short interview, and Debbie's parents certainly did not come off as being that type of person, in fact I think its highly unlikely this is true. But given that its very unusual for the parents of a murdered victim to back the man accused of killing her, it does make you wonder.

But don't be to naive to think that people can't hide an innately nasty nature behind a nice facade. It can most certainly happen.

XCalibur

01-28-2012, 11:12 AM

It's easy for anyone to sit there and say, "Hey he screwed around on his wife, so he doesn't really love her and that's a motive to want her dead." I do think that adultery is a motive to murder a spouse, BUT that does not mean that every time an adulterer killed their spouse that their main motive was to be with one of their mistresses. Love is supposed to be about sacrifice, but that's not always the case with people. We don't know the circumstances surrounding their relationship, have no idea what went on behind closed doors. There are a number of things that could have led Race to "justify" his affairs. Do I agree with that? No. I don't condone cheating either. But it happens all the time. My whole point was that people have had mistresses and carried on affairs for years, but deep down inside still loved their wives. And you really don't need to focus on his affairs to see that he's guilty. His story about what happened that night is enough.

Well thats just it, you have no way of knowing what is deep in their heart. Just because they say they loved their spouse doesn't mean they really did. Anyone can say anything.

Have you ever heard the old adage that actions speak louder than words?

I personally find it difficult to believe that someone who would carry on adultery for years truly loves the person they are with. Like I said, a couple of slip ups here and there I could see it, but not ongoing for years. That speaks a lot louder than anything they could ever say.

I'm sure you've known men who cheat on their wives regularly, and probably they might have had you thinking they really loved their wives. But just cause someone says they did doesn't mean they really did. I have to think that if they did, they would stop at some point.

I've made this point many times, we can't judge whats in someone's heart.

But I think we do agree on one thing, that Larry's infidelity could in fact have been a motive for murder

TheCars1986

01-28-2012, 12:08 PM

Are you really that naive? ever hear of Susan Smith? Casey Anthony? Brad Bishop? Andrea Yates? Not to mention that nut job who killed his own family because he claimed he didn't want them to go to Hell. Can't recall his name.

Those people you mentioned were all responsible for the child's deaths. Not to mention they're crazy. Your theory is that Larry Race killed his wife and her parents simply do not care. That's absurd.

But given that its very unusual for the parents of a murdered victim to back the man accused of killing her, it does make you wonder.

It doesn't make me wonder at all. I see it as two elderly people who were duped and deceived by Larry Race from day one. Not that they could care less what happened to their daughter.

XCalibur

01-28-2012, 12:16 PM

Those people you mentioned were all responsible for the child's deaths. Not to mention they're crazy. Your theory is that Larry Race killed his wife and her parents simply do not care. That's absurd.

How do you know they are crazy? Maybe they were just straight up evil and were prentending to be crazy. We have no way of knowing.

Particularly in the case of Susan Smith, all accounts I've read is she basically murdered Brian and Alex because she wanted some man and a more wild lifestyle. Thats not crazy, thats evil. As for the others, they might possibly have been crazy, but that still doesn't justify what they did.

And my point was, if parents have murdered their own children, then why is it so inconceivable that some don't care about them?

Look, I applaud you for having a big enough heart and enough compassion to be totally disgusted by that possibility, I am to. But unfortunately, we can't turn a blind eye to the ugly side of life. There are a lot of evil, nasty people out there.

XCalibur

01-28-2012, 12:24 PM

It doesn't make me wonder at all. I see it as two elderly people who were duped and deceived by Larry Race from day one. Not that they could care less what happened to their daughter.

You know, you are probably right. I myself admitted that was a more likely possibility.

And although I stand by my contention that parents not caring about their children can most certainly happen, I probably will edit the post anyway, because I don't wish to hurt anyone in this family in case they come on and read it.

wiseguy182

01-29-2012, 06:26 AM

Larry would have to be pretty moronic to cut the raft with a knife and leave obvious marks. Why wouldn't he, if he was going to kill her, just not tip the raft over? That would leave no marks.

I can't imagine anyone killing their wife this way. It leaves too much to chance. If this was a homicide, there was a period of hours where anyone could have come by and Larry's plan would have been foiled. He jeopardized his own health. The plan would have been far from guaranteeing to work, after all Debbie was in a life raft in a life jacket!

There's even the possibility that Debbie was still alive at 2 a.m. when Larry started summoning for help (shooting off the flares, going to the motel). If Larry is guilty, would he start summoning for help if he didn't know for sure Debbie was dead or not? Unlikely.

It was said that weather conditions hampered the search efforts. Again, I think the Races suffered a lot of bad luck that night.

TheCars1986

01-30-2012, 12:03 PM

Larry would have to be pretty moronic to cut the raft with a knife and leave obvious marks. Why wouldn't he, if he was going to kill her, just not tip the raft over? That would leave no marks.

I think Race cut the raft out from under Debbie as a rouse to make it seem like the raft had holes in it, or wasn't inflated fully. Just picture Race pushing Debbie along, then he slashes the raft, it starts to sink and she starts to freak out and then Race assures her that he'll take the raft and go inflate it again and/or start the boat and be right back and since they probably weren't very far from the boat at that point she isn't that worried. All Race has to do is go back to his boat and wait for her to die. Now had Race tipped the raft over with Debbie in it, I think that would cause more problems. Now picture this: Race is pushing his wife when he suddenly tips the raft over and she falls out and starts screaming for him. Then to top it all off she's screaming for him to help while he's simply swimming away from her with the raft! I'd imagine she'd be screaming for help the entire time (as opposed to being more calm if she thought Race would be returning). Now what would happen if another boat just so happened to come by and pick up Debbie, still alive, if Race had tipped the raft over? Race would be implicated for attempted murder, with a witness to back it up.

I can't imagine anyone killing their wife this way. It leaves too much to chance. If this was a homicide, there was a period of hours where anyone could have come by and Larry's plan would have been foiled. He jeopardized his own health. The plan would have been far from guaranteeing to work, after all Debbie was in a life raft in a life jacket!

This was a very well thought out plan, IMO. I even think he planned ahead just in case someone in another boat did just so happen to come upon Debbie in the water and rescue her. This is why I think he cut the raft, so he could say something like, "Her raft was deflating so I swam back to try and get the boat started but I passed out." His story certainly wouldn't have been as scrutinized as it was because Debbie died. The fact that Race was an underwater expert (it's been discussed that a dry suit is expensive, and used by someone who's somewhat of an expert in cold water diving/swimming), who also knew the dangers of hypothermia, tells me that he knew it would only be a matter of time before Debbie died in that water. That's why he made up the "I passed out for five hours" story. He wanted to be sure she was dead. Also the fact that Race had on his dry suit did not in any way, shape, or form jeopardize his health. Quite the contrary considering an expert testified at his trial saying that someone wearing a dry suit could stay submerged in that water for a considerable amount of time and not suffer any injuries.

There's even the possibility that Debbie was still alive at 2 a.m. when Larry started summoning for help (shooting off the flares, going to the motel). If Larry is guilty, would he start summoning for help if he didn't know for sure Debbie was dead or not? Unlikely.

Why would Race summon for help? To play up his story! He just "woke up" after "passing out" for "hours" after "desperately" trying to get back to his boat to save his wife, so of course he's got to play the part of the grieving husband searching for his wife. You don't find it the least bit odd that as soon as Race makes it back to his boat, it magically starts? By Race's own admission, his boat had intermittent starter problems. Even if his wife was constantly screaming to get off the boat because it was going to sink, don't you think he, as someone who knew about the dangers of hypothermia, should have spoke up and said, "No, it's much safer on here to try and get it started."? He says that the fact that the boat was taking on water was not unusual, since his pump was still working. Everything, according to Race, was going fine until the loud "noise" startled he and his wife. And then after his wife's insistence on leaving the boat, he simply inflates a raft, gets into his dry suit, and then he and his wife get into near freezing waters without so much as another attempt to start the boat again? Race should have been the one taking charge (since he was a regular diver and boater) and reassured his wife that the boat was in no danger of sinking, and that they had a better chance of survival by staying on board the boat. Hell, he could have even inflated the raft and tied it to the side of the Jenny Lee and had his wife wait in the raft (because according to Race she was near hysterical that the boat would sink), while he attempted to start up the Jenny Lee again.

wiseguy182

01-31-2012, 06:29 PM

I think Race cut the raft out from under Debbie as a rouse to make it seem like the raft had holes in it, or wasn't inflated fully. Just picture Race pushing Debbie along, then he slashes the raft, it starts to sink and she starts to freak out and then Race assures her that he'll take the raft and go inflate it again and/or start the boat and be right back and since they probably weren't very far from the boat at that point she isn't that worried. All Race has to do is go back to his boat and wait for her to die. Now had Race tipped the raft over with Debbie in it, I think that would cause more problems. Now picture this: Race is pushing his wife when he suddenly tips the raft over and she falls out and starts screaming for him. Then to top it all off she's screaming for him to help while he's simply swimming away from her with the raft! I'd imagine she'd be screaming for help the entire time (as opposed to being more calm if she thought Race would be returning). Now what would happen if another boat just so happened to come by and pick up Debbie, still alive, if Race had tipped the raft over? Race would be implicated for attempted murder, with a witness to back it up.

This was a very well thought out plan, IMO. I even think he planned ahead just in case someone in another boat did just so happen to come upon Debbie in the water and rescue her. This is why I think he cut the raft, so he could say something like, "Her raft was deflating so I swam back to try and get the boat started but I passed out." His story certainly wouldn't have been as scrutinized as it was because Debbie died. The fact that Race was an underwater expert (it's been discussed that a dry suit is expensive, and used by someone who's somewhat of an expert in cold water diving/swimming), who also knew the dangers of hypothermia, tells me that he knew it would only be a matter of time before Debbie died in that water. That's why he made up the "I passed out for five hours" story. He wanted to be sure she was dead. Also the fact that Race had on his dry suit did not in any way, shape, or form jeopardize his health. Quite the contrary considering an expert testified at his trial saying that someone wearing a dry suit could stay submerged in that water for a considerable amount of time and not suffer any injuries.

Why would Race summon for help? To play up his story! He just "woke up" after "passing out" for "hours" after "desperately" trying to get back to his boat to save his wife, so of course he's got to play the part of the grieving husband searching for his wife. You don't find it the least bit odd that as soon as Race makes it back to his boat, it magically starts? By Race's own admission, his boat had intermittent starter problems. Even if his wife was constantly screaming to get off the boat because it was going to sink, don't you think he, as someone who knew about the dangers of hypothermia, should have spoke up and said, "No, it's much safer on here to try and get it started."? He says that the fact that the boat was taking on water was not unusual, since his pump was still working. Everything, according to Race, was going fine until the loud "noise" startled he and his wife. And then after his wife's insistence on leaving the boat, he simply inflates a raft, gets into his dry suit, and then he and his wife get into near freezing waters without so much as another attempt to start the boat again? Race should have been the one taking charge (since he was a regular diver and boater) and reassured his wife that the boat was in no danger of sinking, and that they had a better chance of survival by staying on board the boat. Hell, he could have even inflated the raft and tied it to the side of the Jenny Lee and had his wife wait in the raft (because according to Race she was near hysterical that the boat would sink), while he attempted to start up the Jenny Lee again.

well, we don't know

1. when Debbie died.
2. when Debbie hit the water and the hypothermia process started.
3. if and when Larry knew of her death before she was found the next day.

So that is sort of a huge problem in proving Larry's guilt. You can speculate, but that's a lot of unknowns. This is yet another reason why this would be such an unlikely murder plot. Larry could speculate, but not be guaranteed of her death, with absolute certainty. If they're heading in opposite directions and it's night, how does he not know another boat didn't pick her up and take her to shore?

The boat did have intermittent starting problems, so it's not hard to believe Larry's version of events in that regard, at least it isn't for me.

TracyLynnS

01-31-2012, 10:21 PM

well, we don't know

1. when Debbie died.
2. when Debbie hit the water and the hypothermia process started.

I had forgotten about this. Do you know if this is information the authorities have and it just wasn't shared with viewers or if these two facts are undetermined?

This info would definitely help us narrow down our speculations. I had imagined an even worse possible scenario of the night's events where Debbie may not have had her life jacket on until after she was already dead. I decided against bringing that possibility up, since I figured it would have already been ruled out due to the ME having a good enough idea of the time of death to determine that it was more likely that she had her life jacket on and went into the raft as Larry had described.

Now my imagination is running wild. :( Sorry about that, I know you're on Larry's side.

I did read that he served his time and was released some time ago, and Debbie's parents were still very convinced of his innocence.

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=97580

TheCars1986

02-01-2012, 09:45 AM

So that is sort of a huge problem in proving Larry's guilt. You can speculate, but that's a lot of unknowns.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but by Race's own admission he said he had passed out for five hours after swimming back to his boat. IIRC, there was testimony at his trial that this was plenty of time for hypothermia to kick in and be sure that Debbie had died. Granted he did take somewhat of a chance because there was always the possibility that someone would come by and pick her up...BUT, I think Race told Debbie he would be "right back" with the raft and/or the Jenny Lee, which maybe why she wasn't sitting in the water screaming for help (since she was under the impression that Race was on his way back).

RedBasket

02-01-2012, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by XCalibur
Not only that, but the parents may not have liked their daughter that much and were glad to see her gone.

This is one of the rudest things I have ever read on a message board, ever. To suggest that this couple is GLAD their daughter is dead is wrong, rude and cruel.

I can't imagine anyone killing their wife this way. It leaves too much to chance. If this was a homicide, there was a period of hours where anyone could have come by and Larry's plan would have been foiled. He jeopardized his own health. The plan would have been far from guaranteeing to work, after all Debbie was in a life raft in a life jacket!

Also, Larry did not seem that bright of a bulb to pull this whole scenario off...

XCalibur

02-04-2012, 09:51 AM

This is one of the rudest things I have ever read on a message board, ever. To suggest that this couple is GLAD their daughter is dead is wrong, rude and cruel.

I am having a hard time getting the point across here.

Just because I suggest something despicable that could be true, doesn't mean I condone it, nor does it mean I am pronouncing it as the truth.

There are sick, mean people out there. I'm not saying that the Races feel this way, in fact I admitted that its highly unlikely. But as I said its also highly unusual for a murder victims parents to back a spouse accused of killing her, especially one who was a known philanderer. It does make you wonder how close they were.

Granted, Laci Peterson's family backed Scott Peterson for awhile, but that was before they found out what all he had done.

I already said I would edit the post in case one of Debbie's family members came on and was hurt. But I am not going to take back suggesting a very real possibility, because people can bury their head in the sand all they want to but there are sick people out there who could care less even about their own children. It does happen.

wiseguy182

02-05-2012, 12:50 AM

I am having a hard time getting the point across here.

If 3 people post and say that your comment was out of line, that's a pretty good indicator that it was. What are you going to say if one of Debbie's relatives comes on here? "I'm sorry for suggesting you guys rejoiced in her death"? Like a lead balloon, that wouldn't fly very well.

TheCars1986

02-05-2012, 02:28 PM

RedBasket

02-05-2012, 05:46 PM

Besides the fact that the comment was out of line, it also holds no weight of importance in determining Race's guilt or innocence.

Agreed!

I know someone (a good friend) who is from Duluth and was a social gathering with Larry Race. (It was YEARS ago!)It was large - a friend's BBQ and there were a lot of people there. Knowing my interest in Unsolved Mysteries, she said it was hard not to approach him and say...."Dude!! Did you do it??" I would have been tempted to ask him, too.

Necco

02-05-2012, 10:02 PM

If 3 people post and say that your comment was out of line, that's a pretty good indicator that it was. What are you going to say if one of Debbie's relatives comes on here? "I'm sorry for suggesting you guys rejoiced in her death"? Like a lead balloon, that wouldn't fly very well.

Larry was their son-in-law for many years. They probably (almost certainly) loved him like a son. He was the father of their grandchildren. They had already lost their daughter. I can see how they'd stand by Larry, they loved him, they didn't want their grandchildren to be essentially orphaned and it's much easier to mourn someone who died in an accident than someone who was murdered AND have to believe that someone you loved was capable of doing that murder.

Just my opinion.

TheCars1986

02-06-2012, 10:14 AM

Larry was their son-in-law for many years. They probably (almost certainly) loved him like a son. He was the father of their grandchildren. They had already lost their daughter. I can see how they'd stand by Larry, they loved him, they didn't want their grandchildren to be essentially orphaned and it's much easier to mourn someone who died in an accident than someone who was murdered AND have to believe that someone you loved was capable of doing that murder.

You hit the nail right on the head.

XCalibur

02-06-2012, 12:23 PM

Besides the fact that the comment was out of line, it also holds no weight of importance in determining Race's guilt or innocence.

Some would disagree, because it was being used to point towards Race's innocence that the parents were backing him. Thats why I said anything in the first place.

RedBasket

02-06-2012, 01:13 PM

Some would disagree, because it was being used to point towards Race's innocence that the parents were backing him. Thats why I said anything in the first place.

This is why (among other obvious reasons) I hope I am never on trial for anything. "She looked guilty" "She didn't seem upset."

Just stick to the facts, stick to the evidence. If people support you or not....I would think Larry's family would support him through this whole process. But I also think that if they thought for one second that Larry had harmed their daughter they would say so.

Who really knows?

TheCars1986

02-06-2012, 02:20 PM

Some would disagree, because it was being used to point towards Race's innocence that the parents were backing him. Thats why I said anything in the first place.

I think it was more or less Debbie's parents just not wanting to even consider the possibility that their son-in-law had a hand in their daughters death.

WishfulDreamer

01-07-2013, 06:05 PM

I have wondered what other people thought about this case. I was always on the fence. In my opinion, adultery really is not an indicator of guilt. I tend to believe Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, for example, with absolutely no reference to his adultery.

One thing that I wished the segment had delved into more was Larry's search for Debbie after getting back into the Jenny Lee and how long he was out there searching before summoning help. IIRC, it was simply mentioned that from his version of events he couldn't find her and the next day her body was found by a teenager.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Larry's daughters and in-laws just truly believed in him. I would much rather believe a loved one had an accident than was murdered by another loved one, of course, but perhaps they believe in him for other reasons, for what they know of his character, etc.

As on the fence as I am, I have to say that they really didn't have the best evidence for conviction. Did they ever really PROVE that the raft Debbie was in was cut by a knife? Because from what I remember, all they had was circumstantial evidence. Regardless of the prosecutor's arrogant demeanor, I always thought they really didn't have enough to convict him based off of what I saw in the UM segment. Maybe someone can refresh my memory about more concrete evidence against him though.

1990 UM fan

01-07-2013, 06:27 PM

Weren't they planning to search under the lake for Debbie's belongings and the knife supposedly used to cut the raft? What ever became of that?

WishfulDreamer

01-07-2013, 06:37 PM

Weren't they planning to search under the lake for Debbie's belongings and the knife supposedly used to cut the raft? What ever became of that?
Last time I checked, they had never found the bag of belongings. I've forgotten about the knife.

Great avatar, by the way :lol: :lol: :lol: I LOVE that reenactment.

1990 UM fan

01-07-2013, 06:41 PM

Last time I checked, they had never found the bag of belongings. I've forgotten about the knife.

Great avatar, by the way :lol: :lol: :lol: I LOVE that reenactment.

Thanks. I had it as my page's cover once to add a little spook factor.

Spark Of Spirit

01-07-2013, 10:56 PM

I don't know how to classify this one, I tend to think he went in with no intention of killing her but everything managed to 'work out' for him somehow. It's hard to explain what I mean by that, though.

I think it was more or less Debbie's parents just not wanting to even consider the possibility that their son-in-law had a hand in their daughters death.If I recall correctly, Doreen Marfeo's mother believed in Stephen Marfeo's innocence as well. Though I'm not sure if her opinion changed after he killed his ex-girlfriend, wounded her boyfriend, then killed himself.

Sometimes the parents' instincts about innocence can be wrong.

Clockworkhigh

01-08-2013, 01:11 AM

Thanks. I had it as my page's cover once to add a little spook factor.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your avatar and which segment it comes from. Little help?

Anyway, I have always fallen on the side of innocence for Larry Race. The guy was a poor husband as we know, and it isn't something he denies at all but there are enough adulterers in this world and they aren't all murderers, not even the ones accused. He risked his own life on that boat I've always thought. Give him an Oscar if he's guilty because he has me fooled.

1990 UM fan

01-08-2013, 01:21 AM

I'm trying to wrap my head around your avatar and which segment it comes from. Little help?

Lake Wales haunting. It's where an older couple, their son and his girlfriend lived in a house in Florida that was haunted. I'll send you the video if I can find it.

wiseguy182

01-08-2013, 01:54 AM

I'm trying to wrap my head around your avatar and which segment it comes from. Little help?

Anyway, I have always fallen on the side of innocence for Larry Race. The guy was a poor husband as we know, and it isn't something he denies at all but there are enough adulterers in this world and they aren't all murderers, not even the ones accused. He risked his own life on that boat I've always thought. Give him an Oscar if he's guilty because he has me fooled.

Yeah. I got the vibe that the jury convicted largely based on his affairs, which was a shame. I've heard that, unforunately, at least 50% of all married people cheat on their spouses, so for the jury to punish him for that....well... I don't think this was a smart jury.

Sadly, this is isn't the only time this happened. I am making a DVD set of City Confidential, and there was an episode on last week where a well-respected Carlsbad, New Mexico pharmacist was convicted of murdering his wife while they were at his store after hours. He was well known for opening the store at all hours of the night in case anyone needed emergency prescriptions, and also frequently paid the tab for people who couldn't afford drugs. He was just a really nice guy, but the jury got hung up on his affairs (he was a swinger -- well, it was the '70's) and convicted him. Later, 3 witnesses came forward to back up his claim that robbers killed his wife, and the defense attorney was successful in getting a new trial AND it getting moved elsewhere (Albuquerque?) where he was acquitted.

MegtheEgg86

01-09-2013, 02:41 AM

Sadly, this is isn't the only time this happened. I am making a DVD set of City Confidential, and there was an episode on last week where a well-respected Carlsbad, New Mexico pharmacist was convicted of murdering his wife while they were at his store after hours. He was well known for opening the store at all hours of the night in case anyone needed emergency prescriptions, and also frequently paid the tab for people who couldn't afford drugs. He was just a really nice guy, but the jury got hung up on his affairs (he was a swinger -- well, it was the '70's) and convicted him. Later, 3 witnesses came forward to back up his claim that robbers killed his wife, and the defense attorney was successful in getting a new trial AND it getting moved elsewhere (Albuquerque?) where he was acquitted.

I remember that episode! It actually re-aired some months ago on Bio. I love City Confidential. It's one of my top five favorite true crime shows.

As far as Larry Race goes, I don't think his philandering is related to his wife's murder, and I don't believe a penchant for cheating necessarily makes you more likely to commit murder. What I think is more suspect is the fact that he took his excitable wife out on a shaky boat at night on Lake Superior.

That's not to say the prosecution had a good argument; they did not. The whole thing with slashing the raft underwater is beyond ridiculous. I don't really know how I feel about Race's guilt or innocence, but I know that trial was kind of a joke.

wiseguy182

01-09-2013, 06:05 AM

What I think is more suspect is the fact that he took his excitable wife out on a shaky boat at night on Lake Superior.

Fair enough. Though I should point out that Larry did extensive repairs to the boat after the incident with his daughters the year before. I do wish he would have tested it more, but I feel he made a concerted effort to fix the boat. Also, from what I understand, the boat was fairly new, or at least, not spectacularly old.

MegtheEgg86

01-09-2013, 03:35 PM

Fair enough. Though I should point out that Larry did extensive repairs to the boat after the incident with his daughters the year before. I do wish he would have tested it more, but I feel he made a concerted effort to fix the boat. Also, from what I understand, the boat was fairly new, or at least, not spectacularly old.

I believe I read yesterday the boat was about a year old at the time of Debbie's death. He apparently made repairs immediately after the first time it took on water, as the boat had completely sunk on that occasion. It does seem everything does point to a concerted effort to fix the boat.

Like I said, I don't know at all how I feel about Race's guilt or innocence. I feel like many aspects of the case are balanced evenly. In Larry's defense, there's the utterly ridiculous prosecution theory that because he's a dog, he decides to off his wife (by allowing her to rather slowly die of exposure--and risking the possibility that she would survive) because she's *suddenly* getting in the way of his philandering, not to mention that raft cutting thing--it's kind of unbelievable.

On the other hand, didn't Race say he passed out for like five hours when he returned to the boat? I've always had a hard time believing that, even if he is innocent. What caused him to pass out?

TheCars1986

01-09-2013, 04:45 PM

On the other hand, didn't Race say he passed out for like five hours when he returned to the boat? I've always had a hard time believing that, even if he is innocent. What caused him to pass out?

He claims to have passed out for five hours due to exhaustion. This was the first thing that made me doubt his innocence, because like you, I thought the prosecution's theory made no sense at all. I do believe that they had the right pieces to the puzzle, but they assembled the pieces all wrong. The swimming back and forth from the boat was laughable, IMO. Here's how he could have pulled off the crime without all of these Herculean efforts that the prosecution claimed:

Larry knew of his wife's fear about getting on the waer. Sothe only time he'd be able to get her out onto the boat was to have this ruse of a late night boat ride that would rekindle their love and save their marriage. IMO, he knew the boat was faulty and could malfunction (like it did prior to Debbie's death when the boat completely sank). When the boat did begin to take in water, he convinced his wife that the best course of action was to get into the raft and push her to shore like he did with his daughters before. Since Debbie was afraid of the water and knew the boat sank prior, it didn't take much convincing. I think there was only one life raft, not two as Larry has claimed. I think shortly after paddling in the water, Larry slashed the raft. When the raft began to deflate, Debbie naturally began to panic. So Larry says he'll either go back to the boat and try to fix the raft, try to fix the boat, and that he would be back to her ASAP. IMHO, I think Larry took the slashed raft back to the boat because this could be his way of substaniating his claim of having two. He could say the one Debbie was in sank into the lake, while the "other one" (the one he slashed) wouldn't inflate. I think Larry got back to the boat and started it and pulled away and just waited for his wife to die in the water. It's not like he didn't have the time to come up with a story about what happened, since he claimed he passed out for five whole hours. I also think he made this claim up because he knew it would take an extended period of time before his wife died in the water.

I tend to think the only reason Larry committed the crime in such a complex way was because he knew there was a slim chance that another boat would be on the water that night, that could have rescued Debbie. Think about it; if Debbie was rescued by another boat that night, would Larry's story be even suspect or scrutinized at all? If anything, he'd look like the hero.

RobinW

01-10-2013, 04:27 PM

On the other hand, didn't Race say he passed out for like five hours when he returned to the boat? I've always had a hard time believing that, even if he is innocent. What caused him to pass out?

Yeah, this was probably the Final Appeal case I used to be most undecided on about the appellant's guilt or innocence until I learned this particular information, which UM conveniently left out. This story just seems way too unbelievable that it sways me towards Race's guilt.

Even with the piece of info, however, the prosecution's theory is so flawed that if I were on the jury on this case, I don't think I could have voted guilty. This is kind of like the John Branion case, where I'd have to acquit based on the prosecution's impossible claim that he murdered his wife himself, even though I think he's probably guilty of masterminding her death.

I tend to think the only reason Larry committed the crime in such a complex way was because he knew there was a slim chance that another boat would be on the water that night, that could have rescued Debbie. Think about it; if Debbie was rescued by another boat that night, would Larry's story be even suspect or scrutinized at all? If anything, he'd look like the hero.

Yeah, I do think he made the decision to commit murder in the most elaborate, complex way possible just to create confusion and cause the prosecution and jury's heads to spin if he was ever charged. Even if there was stronger evidence implicating him, the whole plot is so convoluted that it would still be difficult to come up with a plausible scenario to conclusively prove that he killed his wife. Of course, the whole strategy backfired on him, but if the jury never found out about Larry's affairs, I doubt they would have convicted him.

saywhat

01-14-2013, 02:12 PM

If Larry Race had been a green, inexperienced, novice boater who had never gone diving before, then I think his version of events would be more believable. But, if you take his word for it, for such an experienced boater and diver, he made a spectacular hash of this situation - even taking into account that his wife was apparently "excitable" and was on the verge of hysteria that night (and really, we only have his word on this, as well, right?)

Like other posters, I can't understand why the prosecution presented the theory of the crime that they did. It is possible that he did it that way, but it is a lot more likely that he did it in a way similar to how The Cars1986 explained it. It seems fairly obvious to me that Race could have committed the crime without the Herculean efforts suggested by the prosecution. While I believe that he most likely did it, I'm a bit surprised that he was convicted.

As another poster said, Race's story is full of "conveniences". This experienced boater and diver swims directly back to his own boat, thinking it was another boat? Just how many boats are plying the waters near the shore of Lake Superior in a late evening in early- to mid-May? In terms of pleasure craft, I believe that the answer would be approximately zero - except Race's boat. For this reason, also, I do not believe that his unorthodox murder plot was as risky as some people believe; I simply do not believe that the waters in that area would be very busy at all at that time of year and that time of night (of course, there was some risk, but as TheCars1986 explains, even in the unlikely event that she was rescued by another boat, his story probaby would have stood up - making his plan quite cunning, actually).

Additionally, being an experienced diver, he would have a good idea of how long it would take a person to succumb to hypothermia in those waters. Which, of course, brings us to his "five-hour black-out". What exactly caused this? The segment seems to show him swimming a fairly short distance from the raft back to his boat. We know that the water was cold and that this would have been a stressful situation, but this experienced diver blacks out for five hours after swimming for a few minutes in cold water?

Then, the boat starts up with no problem (as an aside, it appears that the boat wasn't taking on much water after all, if it didn't sink during the five hour period in which Race was blacked out? Additionally, I cannot believe that the police/prosecution would allow this boat to be sold). And of course, the "second raft" was never found.

Was there reasonable doubt in this case? Probably, yes. But does Larry Race's story add up? In my opinion, not even close.

wiseguy182

01-15-2013, 02:26 AM

saywhat

01-15-2013, 03:03 AM

Your post is kind of all over the place. But this is another one of those cases where UM seems to leave quite a bit of information out.

What I've been curious to know is...how exactly did Debbie die? She was wearing a life jacket in a life boat. It seems like, even though Larry went to get help from what he thought was another boat, that Debbie should have survived. I don't know if she tipped over or what, but that has been a nagging question for me.

To answer your question, I think this is precisely why Larry went for what he thought was another boat. He figured Debbie should have been fine, and for all intents and purposes, she should have been. Notice what he says, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Either she was gonig to make it to shore, or I was going to get help. One of us was going to get help." Basically, he figured that Debbie would be fine, but went for the other boat as an added 'safety measure' if you will, in the event that an unforseen problem had occured. Unfotunately, some bad luck happened. While the boat was their own and it did start, there was no other person around to help them and Debbie died.

My point was that this was a shockingly poor decision for such an experienced boater and diver to have made. As I said, how realistic was it for there to be another boat nearby at that time of night in early May on Lake Superior? Add to this the fact that he had previously pulled his daughters back to shore safely under relatively similar circumstances (the boat sinking on Lake Superior). Why wouldn't he have stuck to what works?

How did Debbie die? This is an excellent question for Larry, and I do not mean that in a snide way. What happened to the "other" raft? Was it also punctured? Did it have a slow leak? Was it capsized by a big wave? Did Debbie abandon it and try to swim for shore? And above all, where did the raft end up? Of course, if there was only one raft to begin with ... well ...

wiseguy182

01-15-2013, 04:15 AM

TheCars1986

01-15-2013, 09:57 AM

I posted a thread not too awfully long ago where someone claimed to have found the second raft. I don't think the lady's story was ever verified, but it's a possibility. If someone grabbed the raft, that explains why it was never found.

The lady that testified also said there was a "do not feed the birds" type of sign there at some information center near the lake. They then had testimony that that sign was not there until almost ten years after Debbie Race died. What are the odds that the raft surfaces after almost ten years?

Debbie Race died from hypothermia. She was found without a life raft. I think Larry cut the raft, lied to her and said it was deflating, and then just left her out in the lake to die.

saywhat

01-15-2013, 01:05 PM

Well, I think you need to keep in mind that Larry actually admitted he would have done things differently. Such as, not leaving the Jenny Lee in the first place becuase the damage was not that bad, but he gave into Debbie's demands.

I posted a thread not too awfully long ago where someone claimed to have found the second raft. I don't think the lady's story was ever verified, but it's a possibility. If someone grabbed the raft, that explains why it was never found.

The fact that Larry says he would have done things differently doesn't comfort me. I just don't think his story adds up.

On another issue, I think that Larry's first lawyers actually made an excellent decision in not having him testify. A lot of posters think that he presents well. I can't really see that. If you think the evidence about his affairs hurt him, then imagine what the jury would have thought of him if he made a statement like his infamous "there was nothing wrong with her" comment, or worse. It was a good strategy to let the prosecution sink itself (no pun intended ...) with their far-from-airtight case. In my opinion, his defence was not incompetent - in that regard, anyway.

I was also unimpressed by Larry's statement to the officer (can't recall what kind of officer he was) about the two rafts. The way it was presented in the segment (which obviously may not have been accurate) was kind of laughable. Out of nowhere, Larry blurts out, "No, we don't have a noisemaker, but we do have TWO RAFTS! Yup, bought a new one a few weeks ago!" It reminded me of people who go out of their way to be seen and heard when laying the groundwork for an alibi. I admit, however, that this is a bit of a nit-pick on my part. I don't think it helps Larry, though.

Finally, yes, the apparent discovery of a second raft could have been a "game changer". But, as TheCars1986 mentioned, wasn't this fresh evidence presented in court and found to be unreliable?

wiseguy182

01-16-2013, 05:33 AM

you think it was a good idea for Larry not to testify? Yeah, that worked out really well for him.

I didn't really care so much for the witness who claimed Larry asked him to do an inspection of the boat. If that's his job, and Larry asked him to do it, then why didn't he? He's not very good at his job if he refused, yet he's perfectly willing to go on stand and on national t.v. to say that Larry was adamant about having two rafts. What a douche.

I think I've made a lot of good points in previous posts on this case. I'll try not to repeat anything, but feel free to go back and read them.

Now, the point was brought up that Larry was foolish for not finishing the task of taking Debbie to shore (like he did with his daughters the year before) and instead, went for the boat. Fair enough, I'll grant you that Larry probably regretted that. But, you have to realize that there are a lot of variables here. Perhaps when the boat sank the year before, 1) he and his daughters were closer to the shore, 2) it was light outside, 3) it was warmer outside, or any combination. Dragging Debbie to shore is the same task as before, but it could very well have increased difficulty for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, we're talking about a good sized woman vs. 2 young and presumably very small kids.

If Larry killed his wife, than this was a particularly cruel way to kill her. I'm not usually a fan of when people say "Oh, he was too nice, he couldn't be a murderer..." etc, but since people have said the same thing about people like Tim McClure, Al Henderson and Bill Wacker, 3 people who look a lot more guilty to me IMO (well, at least the first 2 anyway), I don't have any problem in saying that I don't think the mild-mannered, soft-spoken Larry was cruel enough to let his wife spend 5 hours in frigid waters and give her the knowledge that her husband is trying to kill her.

Now here's a terrific point I want to make. A lot of discussion has been made about the claim that Larry had two rafts. I'm comfortable enough in believing that Larry did possess two rafts. But even if he didn't, consider this: We know one raft was found. But...everyone is assuming that the raft found was the second raft Larry described, the one that was used to push Debbie to shore. But we don't know that for fact. People raked Larry over the coals, because the raft that was found had cuts in it, and assumed he cut them. It very well may have been the first raft, the one that wasn't working, which would explain the cuts on it, and prove Larry's claim that it wasn't working. A raft with cuts is not going to work.

Quoting Blanche Deveraeux: "Damn, I'm good."

1990 UM fan

01-16-2013, 08:26 AM

Quoting Blanche Deveraeux: "Damn, I'm good."

:lol:

1990 UM fan

01-16-2013, 08:27 AM

1990 UM fan

01-16-2013, 08:47 AM

The temperatures in 1982 around Lake Superior were dipping in the negatives on certain months. It would've been nearly impossible to spend that much time in the lake without succumbing to hypothermia, which Debbie did. Here is some interesting facts I found about hypothermia:

Hypothermia continues to be a major limitation to diving in cold water. The limitation of finger dexterity due to pain or numbness decreases general safety and work capacity, which consequently increases the risk of other injuries. Due to the use of gas mixtures containing helium at extreme depths, the use of argon inflation for dry suits, or hot water suits become a necessity for diving deep in colder waters.

Other predisposing factors leading to immersion hypothermia include dehydration, inadequate rewarming with repetitive diving, starting a dive while wearing cold, wet dry suit undergarments, sweating with work, inadequate thermal insulation (for example, thin dry suit undergarment), and poor physical conditioning.

Heat is lost more quickly in water than on land. Water temperatures that would be quite reasonable as outdoor air temperatures can lead to hypothermia. A water temperature of 10 °C (50 °F) often leads to death in one hour, and water temperatures hovering at freezing can lead to death in as little as 15 minutes. A notable example of this occurred during the sinking of the Titanic, in which most people who entered the −2 °C (28 °F) water died within 15–30 minutes. Water at a temperature of 26 °C (79 °F) will, after prolonged exposure, lead to hypothermia.

Did they ever say how much time they think it took for Debbie to succumb to the cold water? I also wonder how cold temperatures like that affect the female body as oppose to the male body, whereas if we're sticking to Larry's story, he got exhausted and collapsed in the boat for hours while Debbie drifted away until her body was found on the shore. I would think he would've gotten hypothermia too being out there as long as he did.

TheCars1986

01-16-2013, 09:59 AM

Now here's a terrific point I want to make. A lot of discussion has been made about the claim that Larry had two rafts. I'm comfortable enough in believing that Larry did possess two rafts. But even if he didn't, consider this: We know one raft was found. But...everyone is assuming that the raft found was the second raft Larry described, the one that was used to push Debbie to shore. But we don't know that for fact. People raked Larry over the coals, because the raft that was found had cuts in it, and assumed he cut them. It very well may have been the first raft, the one that wasn't working, which would explain the cuts on it, and prove Larry's claim that it wasn't working. A raft with cuts is not going to work.

Quoting Blanche Deveraeux: "Damn, I'm good."

I'm not sure I'm following this. A raft with cuts is not going to work, especially if Larry cut them. We only have Larry's word (the prime suspect in his wife's death) that he had two rafts, and the one he tossed overboard had cuts and wouldn't inflate. I don't see how this gives more credence to his story just because he said there were two rafts. The raft with cuts did have water on the interior of the rafts. In other words, the raft was inflated and in the water when the raft got cut, causing water to seep into the raft. How can Larry explain that one away?

TheCars1986

01-16-2013, 10:01 AM

Did they ever say how much time they think it took for Debbie to succumb to the cold water? I also wonder how cold temperatures like that affect the female body as oppose to the male body, whereas if we're sticking to Larry's story, he got exhausted and collapsed in the boat for hours while Debbie drifted away until her body was found on the shore. I would think he would've gotten hypothermia too being out there as long as he did.

They never said how long Debbie was in the water, but according to Larry, once he reached his boat he passed out for five hours before he went looking for help. Plenty of time for Debbie to drift away and die, IMO.

saywhat

01-16-2013, 12:55 PM

you think it was a good idea for Larry not to testify? Yeah, that worked out really well for him.

Yes, I do think it was a good decision to not have Larry testify, for the reasons I stated above. You think he comes across as mild-mannered, soft-spoken, etc. I got a chill when he said that "there was nothing wrong" with his wife. What a charmer! Sure, this could have been an innocent comment, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it would have put some people off like it did me. Who knows what else he could have said on the stand, not to mention how many inconsistenices in his story could have emerged. His lawyers presumably spent a lot of time with him, and perhaps knew that he could come across as less than sympathetic.

Even more importantly from a legal perspective, a decent lawyer would likely realize that the prosecution's case was not airtight and that there was a high possibility of a jury finding that there was reasonable doubt. Why take the - significant, in my opinion - risk to have Larry testify? Plus, his failure to testify was not the only reason he was convicted, obviously. As a final note, "incompetent counsel failed to let me testify" is a very common ground of appeal, which is why nowadays, good counsel get their client's decision regarding testimony in writing.

Now, the point was brought up that Larry was foolish for not finishing the task of taking Debbie to shore (like he did with his daughters the year before) and instead, went for the boat. Fair enough, I'll grant you that Larry probably regretted that. But, you have to realize that there are a lot of variables here. Perhaps when the boat sank the year before, 1) he and his daughters were closer to the shore, 2) it was light outside, 3) it was warmer outside, or any combination. Dragging Debbie to shore is the same task as before, but it could very well have increased difficulty for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, we're talking about a good sized woman vs. 2 young and presumably very small kids.

These are solid points. I still can't understand, however, why such an experienced diver and boater would have made such inexplicably poor decisions. Again, realistically, how many people would have been out on a moonlight cruise on this frigid, rough lake in early May on a Tuesday night? Or was he trying to swim to an oil freighter? You see my point.

Now here's a terrific point I want to make. A lot of discussion has been made about the claim that Larry had two rafts. I'm comfortable enough in believing that Larry did possess two rafts. But even if he didn't, consider this: We know one raft was found. But...everyone is assuming that the raft found was the second raft Larry described, the one that was used to push Debbie to shore. But we don't know that for fact. People raked Larry over the coals, because the raft that was found had cuts in it, and assumed he cut them. It very well may have been the first raft, the one that wasn't working, which would explain the cuts on it, and prove Larry's claim that it wasn't working. A raft with cuts is not going to work.

As TheCars1986 said, tests determined that the raft with the slashes had been cut while it was inflated and in the water, which is a very inconvenient finding for Larry, particularly since the "second raft" was never found.

lilmissd

01-16-2013, 10:51 PM

saywhat

01-16-2013, 11:04 PM

Weather Larry Race its guilty or not doesn't really matter, he's paid his debt to society and is now out on parole after nearly 20 years in prison can't we just leave it at that? I am not an expert on this by any means and since he was the only witness as to what happened that night (because obviously his wife drowned) he had no proof of the things he claimed happened. We can't really know for sure since there were no witnesses, all we have is speculation & conjecture. Just because the man cheated on his wife they figured he was a practiced liar, and wren't going to believe him just for that reason alone, no matter what. I am letting this sleeping dog lie!

It's not like anyone is calling for him to be tarred and feathered. It's interesting to discuss and debate cases. World War II ended almost seventy years ago and people are still writing books about it. You can see what I'm saying.

If he was wrongfully convicted (I think he most likely committed the crime, but I'm not sure that he should have been found guilty on the evidence presented), then it's actually good to learn from such cases. Of course, if you don't want to debate the case, then more power to you!

wiseguy182

01-17-2013, 04:41 AM

MegtheEgg86

01-17-2013, 02:30 PM

wiseguy182

01-18-2013, 04:07 AM

saywhat

01-18-2013, 02:19 PM

thanks.

Yeah, not only do I think that Larry didn't do this because it was very risky, unsafe and uncertain, but also because it would make him look like a complete idiot. I think if he were going to do this, he would pick something that doesn't make him look foolish for leaving the boat in the first place, then abandoning Debbie to go back for the other boat which turned out to be his own. It's almost like the story is too weird to be made up.

The boat had completely sank the year before, and Larry had problems with it literally days before Debbie's death. Therefore, Larry's version of events with the boat having significant problems are not hard to believe. And since Larry had initially tried to drag Debbie to shore the same way he did his daugters, that part is believable as well. There aren't any holes in his story that I could find.

I really fault the inspection guy for not examing the boat. Perhaps this whole tragedy could have been avoided. I do think that Larry was as prepared as possible: he had 2 life rafts, life vest, flares, dry suit and scuba gear on board, as well as making extensive repairs to the boat and asking it to be examined. I don't know how much more prepared for an emergency a person could get. It would be easier to believe he was trying to kill his wife if he didn't take all those safety precautions. And I need to restate this because it's important: He ASKED for the boat to be examined.

I'd really like to know what happened here.

The fact that he was well-prepared for boating doesn't really sway me one way or the other. If anything, it further reinforces my doubts as to how someone who is so accomplished and experienced at boating and diving makes fatal error after fatal error on the night in question.

Who did he ask to inspect the boat? That fact could definitely be in his favour. Did the inspector testify? All I remember along those lines is Larry allegedly telling the Sheriff's deputy about the two rafts.

As for the bizarre method that Larry may have used to kill his wife, as other posters have said, it could have simply been cunning. If another boater had come along and found them, his story might very well have been believable; after all, a lot of people believe his story as it is! If he had pushed her off the boat without a life jacket and she had been rescued, it is safe to say that he would be found out. Same goes for killing her by shooting, strangling, stabbing, etc.

But if they were rescued after this "boat flood-abandon ship-leaky raft" situation, he would have told the same story he eventually did, and his wife would have likely backed it up - "the boat was flooding, I was freaking out, he put me in the raft but for some reason it deflated and I was stuck in the water, then Larry swam toward the lights to get help" (and he ended up on his own boat where he passed out for five hours). This story is difficult to believe, in my opinion, but obviously a lot of people do believe it. Larry would have known roughly how long it would take for his wife to succumb to hypothermia (i.e., not long). The chances of there being another boat nearby are slim, given that it was Lake Superior, at night, in early- to mid-May. My point here is, while he could have killed her in several "easier" ways, this convoluted way could have offered a "win-win" if they were in fact rescued.

saywhat

01-18-2013, 02:41 PM

A brief addition to my last post: I would agree that "It's almost like the story is too weird to be made up", except that things in the story fell into place so conveniently for Larry. Swimming back to his own boat in error and passing out there for five hours (which is especially strange since he had been wearing a dry suit) would, of course, have been exactly what he needed to give sufficient time for his wife to die, and to give him a reason for not having summoned help earlier.

Larry is either unlucky in the extreme, or he killed his wife. While I lean toward the latter, as I've said before, from a legal perspective there appears to be enough reasonable doubt to have acquitted him.

saywhat

01-18-2013, 02:53 PM

Okay, I apologize for spamming this thread today!

I am wondering, if we assume that the raft which was found was the raft that Debbie had been in, how would it have even been inflated (and remained inflated for a certain amount of time with her in it) if the five punctures were there in the first place? If it had had a slow leak, then that would make sense. But five punctures? Could you really inflate a raft with five punctures, and then have it remain inflated for some length of time with an adult woman sitting in it?

XCalibur

01-18-2013, 07:52 PM

Weather Larry Race its guilty or not doesn't really matter, he's paid his debt to society and is now out on parole after nearly 20 years in prison can't we just leave it at that? I am not an expert on this by any means and since he was the only witness as to what happened that night (because obviously his wife drowned) he had no proof of the things he claimed happened. We can't really know for sure since there were no witnesses, all we have is speculation & conjecture. Just because the man cheated on his wife they figured he was a practiced liar, and wren't going to believe him just for that reason alone, no matter what. I am letting this sleeping dog lie!

Well this is the imperfections of our legal system. If Larry Race was guilty of what they said, he should never have seen the light of day again.

Then again there is always the chance that he wasn't, but either way it still makes for interesting discussion.

Necco

01-18-2013, 10:56 PM

The fact that he was well-prepared for boating doesn't really sway me one way or the other. If anything, it further reinforces my doubts as to how someone who is so accomplished and experienced at boating and diving makes fatal error after fatal error on the night in question.

Whoa! "Well-prepared"? Not by a long shot. He should have had a VHF. He should have had an air horn or a regular horn. The "life rafts" were literally toys. This was on Lake Superior, bigger than some seas and not the friendliest body of water. Why didn't he set off the flares before he got in the water in the first place?

saywhat

01-18-2013, 11:33 PM

Whoa! "Well-prepared"? Not by a long shot. He should have had a VHF. He should have had an air horn or a regular horn. The "life rafts" were literally toys. This was on Lake Superior, bigger than some seas and not the friendliest body of water. Why didn't he set off the flares before he got in the water in the first place?

I was replying to wiseguy182's post, in which he was arguing that Larry had done a great deal to be prepared for the boat trip.

I've been arguing for days that for such an experienced boater and diver, Larry made a complete mess of the entire outing (which, to me, suggests that the whole thing was staged).

Necco

01-19-2013, 02:03 AM

Whoops. Those PSAs were right, reading IS fundamental.

Yeah, if nothing else, he is way to stupid to be driving a boat.

TheCars1986

01-19-2013, 10:11 AM

I know several people have been bothered by the "there's nothing wrong with her" comment, but I don't see any problems with it. He said it in regards to his affairs, and was basically stating that he had no reason to cheat anymore because he had a perfectly good wife back home and he was going to do, as he put it, an about face.

The affairs have never bothered me one way or the other. In previous posts, I've stated that affairs have no bearing on this case and that just because he was an adulterer does not make him a murderer.

Personally, I think it's easy to sit back and criticize Larry for his actions that night. It's cold, it's dark, he's fatigued, got a panicky wife, and is possibly suffering from hypothermia. Those aren't enviable conditions for anyone. But that ties in with the unlikelihood that he killed his wife -- because if he did this, it was one of the riskiest, dumbest ways of committing murder.

Well if he's guilty there really is no need to criticize his actions since everything was planned on his part.

I think if Larry were going to commit murder, he would choose something that

1). Doesn't involve him putting his own life in jeopardy. Basically, the prosecution had him going back and forth in that water, which would take a toll on anyone.

The prosecution's theory was just that...a theory. Going back and forth in the water makes no sense. Does this mean it happened that way? No. Larry could have paddled out, sliced the raft, told his wife he would go back to inflate it, and then let her drift away. This could have taken mere minutes to accomplish. And he did not put his own life in jeopardy that night. At his trial, an expert testified how effective a dry suit (Larry said he was wearing a dry suit, not a wet suit on the night his wife died) would insulate one's body from experiencing hypothermia.

2). Doesn't involve as many variables and the possibility of unplanned contingencies. Most people that commit murder do it as quick as possible and get the heck out of dodge. Yet, we have people thinking Larry spent in excess of 5 hours in this long, drawn-out process to kill his wife. I don't care if the possibility of another boat is remote or not, what if one did come along? What is Larry going to say?

Larry doesn't have to change an iota of his story, and he'd still look like a hero. He could say he passed out, he could say he couldn't find her, he could say he tried to start the boat back up after he couldn't inflate the raft, etc. He also says in the UM segment he figured his wife would reach safety at some point. This is another thing he could have said. "When I couldn't inflate the raft or start the boat, I just figured she was going to make it to shore and get help." This is all he had to say if Debbie was rescued and his story would not be suspicious at all.

In regards to the two rafts, you're missing the point. We know the first raft must have had some problem with it because it didn't work. If the second raft (the one that was found) also had cuts, then that isn't the greatest all time luck in the world for Larry. But he admitted the first one had some problem with it, so it isn't inconceivable that the first raft would have cuts in it. And if there are cuts in the raft, that doesn't mean he put them there. He presumably never had to use the life raft before, so he wouldn't have examined it and known that it was faulty.

You're basing the two rafts on Larry's word alone. There is no evidence that exists to supports his claim that there were two rafts. He had one raft, cut it, towed it back to the boat (after he left his wife to die) and then claimed this was his "second raft" that wouldn't inflate. The "other raft", he claims, sank on his wife. It's really not that clever of a story to concoct if you think about it. There was no second raft found. Some ladies called the UM telecenter with information that she found a raft that looked like the one featured on the Larry Race segment. However, this was ten years after Debbie died.

TheCars1986

01-19-2013, 10:19 AM

I hate to be the person to ask for a reminder (I haven't seen the segment in a while; might go re-watch it today), but how exactly did the prosecution try to explain that there was proof Larry had cut the raft underwater? How can that be proven?

Larry claimed he tried to inflate a second raft, and when it wouldn't hold air, he tossed it overboard. This, IMO, is one of the biggest pieces of evidence against Larry: the raft that was found had slashes, and there was water found in the interior of the slash marks. In other words, the raft had to have been inflated and in the water when it was cut, because water would not have been able to seep into a deflated raft. That is essentially what the prosecution contended.

MegtheEgg86

01-19-2013, 11:04 PM

Larry claimed he tried to inflate a second raft, and when it wouldn't hold air, he tossed it overboard. This, IMO, is one of the biggest pieces of evidence against Larry: the raft that was found had slashes, and there was water found in the interior of the slash marks. In other words, the raft had to have been inflated and in the water when it was cut, because water would not have been able to seep into a deflated raft. That is essentially what the prosecution contended.

I guess I would then ask why the raft Larry's wife was on, or the one Larry attempted to inflate, couldn't have already had holes or slashes in them--for whatever reason. If both were put into the lake, surely water would have seeped into the interior portion of those rafts, as they would have been exposed to the water as well as the exterior.

wiseguy182

01-20-2013, 01:18 AM

saywhat

01-20-2013, 02:12 AM

@saywhat: But the thing is, I've been trying to tell you that Larry admitted he made mistakes. Most people that are guilty, or people that made mistakes will usually cling on to the belief that they are innocent/right for dear life and won't let go. But that wasn't the case with Larry. He admitted he should have done things differently. Heck, he even went on camera and said he was guilty of adultery. To me, this was a man who owned up to mistakes in front of a national audience. Not everyone can do that.

But the thing of it is, if Larry wanted to kill Debbie, there would be several other ways of doing it that 1) weren't as risky, 2) were more foolproof, 3) doesn't involve him risking his own life, 4) don't make him look like an idiot. He could just simply say they each got into their own life raft, Debbie eventually drifted away and that's that. No need for a long, complex story.

Well, good liars admit to little things in order to lull people into thinking they are honest, with the goal of concealing the bigger lie. And I wouldn't pin a rose on him for fessing up to his adultery. For one thing, I'm sure it would have come out at trial anyway, so he was likely being smart in admitting it beforehand. Or maybe you are referring specifically to his UM interview? At that point his adultery was common knowledge because it had been aired at his trial. Let's just say, I'm not enamoured with his story!

saywhat

01-20-2013, 02:16 AM

I guess I would then ask why the raft Larry's wife was on, or the one Larry attempted to inflate, couldn't have already had holes or slashes in them--for whatever reason. If both were put into the lake, surely water would have seeped into the interior portion of those rafts, as they would have been exposed to the water as well as the exterior.

We are all, of course, at the disadvantage when discussing these cases of not having been in the courtroom to have heard how the evidence was actually presented.

I would like to know specifically what the "expert testimony" was regarding the punctures in the raft. The prosecutor's spin was that they were "strategically placed" in order to do maximum damage by cutting some vital parts of the raft. I got the impression that the expert evidence suggested that the only way the water could have gotten where it did was if the raft was inflated and in the water when it was cut. Whether or not this is true, obviously I don't know.

Necco

01-20-2013, 02:31 AM

The strategically placed part was that rafts have several different air chambers and apparently all were compromised. I also seem to recall that they believed the raft was damaged while it was inflated because the slits were in one side of the chamber without damaging the top part opposite the damage.

TheCars1986

01-21-2013, 10:24 AM

I guess I would then ask why the raft Larry's wife was on, or the one Larry attempted to inflate, couldn't have already had holes or slashes in them--for whatever reason. If both were put into the lake, surely water would have seeped into the interior portion of those rafts, as they would have been exposed to the water as well as the exterior.

There was testimony at Race's trial that said the air chambers were "strategically cut" on the raft. These were no random slash marks or wear and tear, the air chambers on the raft were cut on both sides. I'm also assuming that the amount of water found on the interior of the raft would have indicated that the raft was fully inflated at the time they were cut, and not simply a raft that was deflated that was tossed overboard.

MegtheEgg86

01-21-2013, 08:38 PM

MegtheEgg86

01-21-2013, 08:49 PM

There was testimony at Race's trial that said the air chambers were "strategically cut" on the raft. These were no random slash marks or wear and tear, the air chambers on the raft were cut on both sides. I'm also assuming that the amount of water found on the interior of the raft would have indicated that the raft was fully inflated at the time they were cut, and not simply a raft that was deflated that was tossed overboard.

Between this and what Necco posted, I see it's quite a bit more than a "reach" argument by the prosecution--and I suppose it had to be, or at least be rather convincing to the average individual, since Larry ended up in jail.

What other explanation is there for those slashes? I can't think of any that immediately come to mind.

I'm still not comfortable with the idea that Larry set this up, however. It just seems like such a tedious way to murder someone, and there's no "guarantee" it will work (compared to something like say, a shooting). There's also the possibility another will happen by and offer assistance, or at the very least become a witness to the entire matter. I suppose I would ask why--for those of you who believe Larry killed his wife--he would elect such a method in lieu of something more tried (again, like a shooting, or poisoning, or other kind of "accident" like a fall), and, as wiseguy mentioned, something that involved a very elevated risk to his own life.

saywhat

01-21-2013, 09:25 PM

I'm still not comfortable with the idea that Larry set this up, however. It just seems like such a tedious way to murder someone, and there's no "guarantee" it will work (compared to something like say, a shooting). There's also the possibility another will happen by and offer assistance, or at the very least become a witness to the entire matter. I suppose I would ask why--for those of you who believe Larry killed his wife--he would elect such a method in lieu of something more tried (again, like a shooting, or poisoning, or other kind of "accident" like a fall), and, as wiseguy mentioned, something that involved a very elevated risk to his own life.

I don't see it as involving much risk to his life. He had a dry suit on (a significant reason why I doubt his story about passing out for five hours). I believe that he also had his scuba gear on the boat. Who says that he had to spend a lot of time in the water? All he had to do was get in the water with his wife in the raft, push it along for some distance, slash it, then swim back to the boat.

As for why he would have chosen this admittedly rather bizarre method of murder, TheCars1986 has posted several times with what I consider to be a very reasonable explanation. I have made similar posts in this vein, so I don't want to belabour the point.

So, suffice it say that with more traditional methods of murder (shooting, stabbing, strangulation, etc.) it would be obvious that a homicide had taken place. The method that Larry may have used is much more believable as a possible accident. What's more - and here it is potentially cunning - even if he had been found out midway through the plot (i.e., another boat had happened by the scene - highly unlikely, as I have said, on Lake Superior given the time of night and time of year) - then it still could have plausibly looked like an accident. He would have told the rescuer the very same story that he told at trial. Many people believe his story now, so why wouldn't a rescuer (and the authorities) believe it if Larry and Debbie were discovered before Debbie died? [This scenario assumes, of course, that Debbie did not see Larry slash the raft, and simply believed that the raft had sprung a leak on its own and that Larry had gone back to the boat, or "swam toward the lights", to seek help].

MegtheEgg86

01-21-2013, 11:39 PM

I don't see it as involving much risk to his life. He had a dry suit on (a significant reason why I doubt his story about passing out for five hours). I believe that he also had his scuba gear on the boat. Who says that he had to spend a lot of time in the water? All he had to do was get in the water with his wife in the raft, push it along for some distance, slash it, then swim back to the boat.

We don't know if he ever actually put the dry suit on--I think there was only mention in the segment that he had one on board the boat, and the prosecution just claimed he did as part of the cutting-the-raft-from-the-bottom theory. However, if Larry donned the suit, I think that fact bolsters the credibility of the "passing out" story. If he were swimming back and forth as he said he was, he would've generated body heat and perspired. It may have been possible he dehydrated himself.

In all fairness, there isn't really anything to say he didn't spend a lot of time in the water, either. There were only two people out there, and one of them is gone.

As for why he would have chosen this admittedly rather bizarre method of murder, TheCars1986 has posted several times with what I consider to be a very reasonable explanation. I have made similar posts in this vein, so I don't want to belabour the point.

So, suffice it say that with more traditional methods of murder (shooting, stabbing, strangulation, etc.) it would be obvious that a homicide had taken place. The method that Larry may have used is much more believable as a possible accident. What's more - and here it is potentially cunning - even if he had been found out midway through the plot (i.e., another boat had happened by the scene - highly unlikely, as I have said, on Lake Superior given the time of night and time of year) - then it still could have plausibly looked like an accident. He would have told the rescuer the very same story that he told at trial. Many people believe his story now, so why wouldn't a rescuer (and the authorities) believe it if Larry and Debbie were discovered before Debbie died? [This scenario assumes, of course, that Debbie did not see Larry slash the raft, and simply believed that the raft had sprung a leak on its own and that Larry had gone back to the boat, or "swam toward the lights", to seek help].

Suppose that is precisely what he does. Suppose the two are discovered and "saved" by a passerby. How then does Larry go on to attempt to murder his wife the next time--or at least reassure all those who will find an earlier accident with a boat more than a little suspicious?

It's certainly not an implausibility that someone would "try out" a number of methods intended to look like accidents to commit murder, I admit. I recall a case I once saw on Forensic Files about a man who eventually killed his wife by lacing one of her drinks with a very large amount of a benzodiazepine and putting her face down in a bathtub with the faucet running (she soon drowned as she was rendered unconscious by the drug). I researched the case a bit more on my own and found that prior to that the man had actually attempted to make his wife trip down the basement stairs as well as drop a table lamp into the tub as she was bathing, intending both events to look like accidents (and intending on both occasions to kill her, but the respective plans backfired). However, the earlier events did far more to bolster the prosecution's argument, and the man was sentenced to life in prison in South Dakota. It's just my opinion, but I would assume if Larry Race is clever enough to design a plan to murder his wife that wouldn't quite look like that's what he was doing if someone happened by, he would be clever enough to realize that very event might someday cast suspicion on him once his wife finally did turn up dead.

Another thing that bothers me is that the prosecution couldn't even produce the instrument that damaged the raft, yet relies so heavily on testimony from the Coast Guard S&R personnel that claimed something to the effect of "if that raft was there, we would have found it." Ok, so, if there was a knife onboard the Jenny Lee or Larry Race's person that night (that definitely was the instrument that slashed the raft), why was it never found? The logic seems to be "if no one saw it, it didn't exist." I always thought that was kind of lame.

saywhat

01-22-2013, 12:42 AM

We don't know if he ever actually put the dry suit on--I think there was only mention in the segment that he had one on board the boat, and the prosecution just claimed he did as part of the cutting-the-raft-from-the-bottom theory. However, if Larry donned the suit, I think that fact bolsters the credibility of the "passing out" story. If he were swimming back and forth as he said he was, he would've generated body heat and perspired. It may have been possible he dehydrated himself.

In all fairness, there isn't really anything to say he didn't spend a lot of time in the water, either. There were only two people out there, and one of them is gone.

I stand corrected about the dry suit. And you're right - we don't know for sure what transpired out there. Apart from the evidence, obviously, it mostly comes down to whether or not one believes Larry's story. I have problems believing it, as you know. [Although, as I've said before, I think there is likely enough reasonable doubt here to acquit him; I'm surprised that he was convicted, especially on the prosecution's theory of the crime.]

Suppose that is precisely what he does. Suppose the two are discovered and "saved" by a passerby. How then does Larry go on to attempt to murder his wife the next time--or at least reassure all those who will find an earlier accident with a boat more than a little suspicious?

It's certainly not an implausibility that someone would "try out" a number of methods intended to look like accidents to commit murder, I admit. I recall a case I once saw on Forensic Files about a man who eventually killed his wife by lacing one of her drinks with a very large amount of a benzodiazepine and putting her face down in a bathtub with the faucet running (she soon drowned as she was rendered unconscious by the drug). I researched the case a bit more on my own and found that prior to that the man had actually attempted to make his wife trip down the basement stairs as well as drop a table lamp into the tub as she was bathing, intending both events to look like accidents (and intending on both occasions to kill her, but the respective plans backfired). However, the earlier events did far more to bolster the prosecution's argument, and the man was sentenced to life in prison in South Dakota. It's just my opinion, but I would assume if Larry Race is clever enough to design a plan to murder his wife that wouldn't quite look like that's what he was doing if someone happened by, he would be clever enough to realize that very event might someday cast suspicion on him once his wife finally did turn up dead.

I think this experienced boater and diver calculated his chances of being spotted at that time of night, at that time of year, on that type of lake and figured (correctly) that there was very little likelihood that another boat would be passing by. Very few people go for moonlight cruises on this lake in early- to mid-May, and for good reason.

To your other point, I am not sure that Larry would have tried to kill his wife again if this first attempt had failed. Maybe he would cut his losses, so to speak, and just get a divorce. Or stick it out. After all, "there was nothing wrong with her"! Or he could have been crazy enough to try again. It's difficult to say.

Another thing that bothers me is that the prosecution couldn't even produce the instrument that damaged the raft, yet relies so heavily on testimony from the Coast Guard S&R personnel that claimed something to the effect of "if that raft was there, we would have found it." Ok, so, if there was a knife onboard the Jenny Lee or Larry Race's person that night (that definitely was the instrument that slashed the raft), why was it never found? The logic seems to be "if no one saw it, it didn't exist." I always thought that was kind of lame.

Fair enough - this is something of an inconsistent approach. You might even call it a bit hypocritical of the prosecution. That said, a raft should be a lot easier to find than a knife, particularly if the knife was dropped and sank to the bottom of Lake Superior.

wiseguy182

01-22-2013, 03:53 AM

TheCars1986

01-22-2013, 10:54 AM

We don't know if he ever actually put the dry suit on--I think there was only mention in the segment that he had one on board the boat, and the prosecution just claimed he did as part of the cutting-the-raft-from-the-bottom theory. However, if Larry donned the suit, I think that fact bolsters the credibility of the "passing out" story. If he were swimming back and forth as he said he was, he would've generated body heat and perspired. It may have been possible he dehydrated himself.

Larry Race himself told authorities that he donned his dry suit when he attempted to push his wife to shore. The UM segment implies he wore it, but doesn't come right out and say it. They say something like, "Debbie took the scuba tank in the raft. Larry had his dry suit and his scuba tank on board." Taken from one of Larry's appellant hearings: "According to Race's statement given to authorities, once on the lake, when the boat allegedly began taking on water and the engine would not start, Deborah Race entered a life raft. Larry Race put on a diving dry suit and told Deborah he would push her to shore." And in regards to the boat having "intermittent starting problems", the hearing also goes on to add that "The authorities were able to start the boat without difficulty."

Suppose that is precisely what he does. Suppose the two are discovered and "saved" by a passerby. How then does Larry go on to attempt to murder his wife the next time--or at least reassure all those who will find an earlier accident with a boat more than a little suspicious?

He could have next tried the traditional methods of murder, or simply given up. I think the whole previous incident with the boat almost sinking would help bolster his story of a faulty boat, and make his story that much more plausible.

It's just my opinion, but I would assume if Larry Race is clever enough to design a plan to murder his wife that wouldn't quite look like that's what he was doing if someone happened by, he would be clever enough to realize that very event might someday cast suspicion on him once his wife finally did turn up dead.

This is why I think he went out of his way to ask for a boat inspection AND make sure to tell the deputy that he had two rafts on board.

Another thing that bothers me is that the prosecution couldn't even produce the instrument that damaged the raft, yet relies so heavily on testimony from the Coast Guard S&R personnel that claimed something to the effect of "if that raft was there, we would have found it." Ok, so, if there was a knife onboard the Jenny Lee or Larry Race's person that night (that definitely was the instrument that slashed the raft), why was it never found? The logic seems to be "if no one saw it, it didn't exist." I always thought that was kind of lame.

They also never found the bag that Debbie took on board with personal belongings. I believe the coast guard's reference to finding the raft meant that the raft would not have fully sank in the timeframe that Larry gave them. Or it would have washed up on shore with Debbie's body at some point. I think it's possible that the bag was weighed down with the scuba tank (with the knife used to slash the raft inside the bag) and was sank down into the lake, which is why it's never been found.

TheCars1986

01-22-2013, 10:56 AM

I suppose Larry could have gotten rid of Debbie so that he would be free to date whomever he pleased, but being that Debbie had known about the affairs for awhile and he had done it several times and neither was willing to divorce at that point, it seems unlikely that Larry would go to those lengths for that reason.

We don't know what Larry and Debbie agreed upon, and we only have Larry's word to go on. It's possible that Debbie gave Larry an ultimatum ("cheat on me one more time and me and the kids are gone") that he didn't like. The life insurance policy on her life was an added bonus to him, IMO.

saywhat

01-22-2013, 12:35 PM

Another thing is, I don't think anyone has established a convincing motive. That alone wasn't what convinced me that Larry was innocent, but throw it onto everything else, and it further reinforces my belief.

I suppose Larry could have gotten rid of Debbie so that he would be free to date whomever he pleased, but being that Debbie had known about the affairs for awhile and he had done it several times and neither was willing to divorce at that point, it seems unlikely that Larry would go to those lengths for that reason.

In general, I am not all that concerned with motive. If the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it doesn't really matter to me why the person did it. As you know, motive is not an element of the offence. It's a bit like the question in other threads about, "Why on Earth would this person commit suicide?!?" They either did or they didn't. But, of course, it helps a case significantly to be able to tell a judge or jury why someone did what they are alleged to have done.

There is no concrete proof either way regarding motive. All we have is Larry's history of serial philandering. You say that his wife had never been in his way of having these affairs, but I can imagine she was (understandably) giving him some serious earache about the affairs. As TheCars1986 says, perhaps she gave him an ultimatum. Or maybe he just wanted to be free and clear to "see" whoever he wanted without the aggravation of sneaking around and then hearing about it endlessly from his wife. Also, I imagine that he stood to lose a lot in a divorce, up to and including his children.

wiseguy182

01-23-2013, 02:36 AM

saywhat

01-23-2013, 03:06 AM

say what? you're not at all concerned about motive? The courts would disagree.

Plus, you didn't listen to what I was saying, as usual. I said, the lack of an apparent motive in and of itself doesn't make me believe Larry is innocent, but when you throw it on to everything else I've mentioned, in totality, I believe that he is innocent. You have to look at the case on the whole, not isolate certain theories and points and blow them out of proportion.

It's kind of like good 'ole Tim McClure. Things like failing the lie detector test don't seem so bad in an of itself, but when you throw it on with him canceling the credit card before his mom was found dead, looking for her purse he didn't know was missing, cruising the casino lots and avoiding the one where she was found at, and everything else associated with it, then Tim McClure looks pretty damn guilty.

wiseguy182, I did listen to what you said. Then I gave my opinion regarding motive. I think that's the norm on most message boards. I never ignored or misrepresented what you said. As a matter of fact, I think you have reasonable arguments on this subject. I just happen to disagree with you.

Regarding motive, the courts actually agree with me, at least in the strict sense that motive is not an element of a criminal offence that the prosecution is required to prove. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person charged with the offence committed the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence. They are not required to prove that the accused person had motive. Period. The whole "means, motive, and opportunity" business is a framework used by investigators, but is not an actual part of most criminal law statutes. Of course, prosecutors would love to be able to offer evidence of motive, because it makes the jury more likely to believe that the person did, in fact, commit the offence. Defence lawyers use absence of motive to highlight reasonable doubt as to whether the accused committed the crime.

Something tells me that you won't believe me, so please, just ask any criminal law lawyer.

Also, I think that this will be my last post in this thread, as I am tired of waging what seems to have become a personal battle.

MegtheEgg86

01-23-2013, 03:28 AM

In general, I am not all that concerned with motive. If the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it doesn't really matter to me why the person did it.

I respect your opinion--I can understand motive can be difficult to cleanly discern sometimes. But I definitely do not at all think the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the least:

1. There's hearsay testimony about there being only one raft aboard Race's boat, and this becomes one of the cornerstone pieces of the prosecution's argument. Not impressed.

2. The boat sank--completely--the year before, with his own children on board (whom he returned safely to shore in precisely the same way he supposedly attempted to do with his wife). Homeboy spends time and money repairing the thing only to ensure it sinks again to create an elaborate cover for a murder?

3. The knife used to damage the raft is never produced, yet there's this very central theory that Larry dons his scuba equipment, swims up under the raft, and strategically cuts it with this knife from the bottom in the dark like Debbie wouldn't sense something going on from almost the moment the first cut is made. This isn't like a gunshot wound one can extract a round from and determine there's a missing .38 handgun somewhere. It's a bunch of cuts in a raft. They're suspicious, sure. But they're not absolutely conclusive at all.

4. The best for last: the very crux of the prosecution's argument is the fact that Larry's a philanderer. How original. And then oh yeah, there's this life insurance thing too as a tack-on bonus. There's no "other woman" that Debbie's standing in front of. There's no financial problems or past history of fraud with Race. He cheated on his wife. It's morally wrong. It doesn't mean he wants to murder his wife.

saywhat

01-23-2013, 12:11 PM

MegtheEgg86:

I have agreed repeatedly that there was reasonable doubt in this case. In another post, I wrote: "Although, as I've said before, I think there is likely enough reasonable doubt here to acquit him; I'm surprised that he was convicted, especially on the prosecution's theory of the crime." I still find it very difficult to believe his story, though.

TheCars1986

01-23-2013, 12:21 PM

1. There's hearsay testimony about there being only one raft aboard Race's boat, and this becomes one of the cornerstone pieces of the prosecution's argument. Not impressed.

Several of Larry's friends testified that they knew him to only own one raft, and never saw a second raft on board his boat (these were friends who were underwater "afficianados" like Larry). The only person who testified about a second raft was the deputy who said Larry mentioned owning two rafts. The issue of the rafts will never be resolved, IMO, because the only person who claims there were two was the prime suspect in Debbie's death.

2. The boat sank--completely--the year before, with his own children on board (whom he returned safely to shore in precisely the same way he supposedly attempted to do with his wife). Homeboy spends time and money repairing the thing only to ensure it sinks again to create an elaborate cover for a murder?

I don't think Larry went out of his way to sink the boat. I think he knew there was still a problem with it, which would cause the boat to take on water, and (knowing his wife's fear of water) knew he had a good opportunity to kill her. He also knew he could have goaded his wife into the liferaft since he did the same thing with their daughters the year before.

3. The knife used to damage the raft is never produced, yet there's this very central theory that Larry dons his scuba equipment, swims up under the raft, and strategically cuts it with this knife from the bottom in the dark like Debbie wouldn't sense something going on from almost the moment the first cut is made. This isn't like a gunshot wound one can extract a round from and determine there's a missing .38 handgun somewhere. It's a bunch of cuts in a raft. They're suspicious, sure. But they're not absolutely conclusive at all.

Where did the cuts come from, if Larry didn't cut the raft? How would all of the air chambers be slashed, yet no other wear or tear marks anywhere else on the raft? And Larry could have easily slashed the raft as he was "pushing Debbie to safety".

4. The best for last: the very crux of the prosecution's argument is the fact that Larry's a philanderer. How original. And then oh yeah, there's this life insurance thing too as a tack-on bonus. There's no "other woman" that Debbie's standing in front of. There's no financial problems or past history of fraud with Race. He cheated on his wife. It's morally wrong. It doesn't mean he wants to murder his wife.

The prosecution's theory was fraught with errors and inconsistencies. But does Race's story hold up better? Passing out for five hours? Swimming to lights that turned out to be his own boat, not being able to find his wife, etc.

MegtheEgg86

01-23-2013, 01:47 PM

Several of Larry's friends testified that they knew him to only own one raft, and never saw a second raft on board his boat (these were friends who were underwater "afficianados" like Larry). The only person who testified about a second raft was the deputy who said Larry mentioned owning two rafts. The issue of the rafts will never be resolved, IMO, because the only person who claims there were two was the prime suspect in Debbie's death.

I think you're right on the last point. Regardless of the number of people testifying to one raft, just because they saw one and not two doesn't mean a second couldn't have existed or been on the boat, deflated or otherwise stowed away somewhere.

I don't think Larry went out of his way to sink the boat. I think he knew there was still a problem with it, which would cause the boat to take on water, and (knowing his wife's fear of water) knew he had a good opportunity to kill her. He also knew he could have goaded his wife into the liferaft since he did the same thing with their daughters the year before.

I don't know that many people are capable of making split-second decisions to take advantage of an accident (that effects BOTH people) to cover up a murder. I don't know if many people are particularly that calm and clever. Murderers make so many tiny mistakes when they commit a planned murder; I feel a choice like that would be for the extremely experienced and criminally competent, neither of which Larry was.

Where did the cuts come from, if Larry didn't cut the raft? How would all of the air chambers be slashed, yet no other wear or tear marks anywhere else on the raft? And Larry could have easily slashed the raft as he was "pushing Debbie to safety".

Who knows? I don't. But I can say if there can't even be an instrument produced, the claim becomes considerably weak.

The prosecution's theory was fraught with errors and inconsistencies. But does Race's story hold up better? Passing out for five hours? Swimming to lights that turned out to be his own boat, not being able to find his wife, etc.

I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I think those actions reflect someone who's frightened and not thinking clearly, and someone who's greatly stressed and exerted himself (while wearing a hot dry suit no less).

TheCars1986

01-23-2013, 03:35 PM

In RE to the malfunctions of the boat, this is taken from one of Race's appeals:

"After the Jenny Lee had been raised from the lake, appellant Race proceeded to effectuate repairs. Much of the repair work was done by himself, but he did hire a mechanic to overhaul the boat's engine. In the course of the engine overhaul, new gaskets and new steel bolts were installed, but the exhaust manifold was not rebuilt. In installing the rebuilt engine in the boat on May 7, 1982, difficulty was experienced with an exhaust manifold bolt. One of the bolt holes was stripped and had to be rethreaded. On-land testing of the remounted engine revealed no difficulty other than a very slow drip-type leak that appeared to pose no danger to occupants of the boat. Upon water testing, the boat seemed to run well, and the leak did not worsen.

One of the deputies who questioned appellant in the patrol car testified that appellant told him that as his wife and he were cruising approximately one mile out from the Lakeview Castle, a leak developed in the water jacket of the engine. The cause of the leak was a bolt which had come loose from the water jacket. The bolt was taped back into the water jacket to restrict the flow of water. After the repair, which appellant said was completed between 8 and 9 p.m., he attempted to restart the boat's motor. He was unsuccessful and thought the engine was flooded. Appellant claimed he activated the bilge pump to pump out water which had entered the boat from the leak. When he did so, the pump made a sucking noise on the floor of the boat. He said this caused Deborah, an excitable and strong-willed person with a great fear of water, to become hysterical. She allegedly thought the pump was pulling the bottom of the boat loose. Appellant claims she then insisted on getting into a life raft and leaving the boat. Before doing so, however, she assisted him into his dry suit.

Examination of the Jenny Lee on the morning of May 12 revealed from 2 to 4 inches of water in the bottom. Officers estimated approximately 40 to 50 gallons of water lay below the floorboards in the bilge area. They encountered no problem in starting the engine, but water was observed coming from the engine during operation. It measured 1 gallon every 1.25 minutes, or 48 gallons per hour. Undisputed testimony confirmed that even with a leak of this magnitude, the boat was in no danger of sinking. Upon testing, the bilge pump worked properly, and had the capacity to remove 300 gallons of water per hour from the boat."

This, IMO, shows that Race knew beforehand that there was a problem with this engine bolt, and knew that if the bolt was removed, the boat would take on water. It also shows that the activation of the pump (which was working properly) is what scared Debbie into wanting to abandon the boat. This is where I think he used the previous sinking to his advantage, knowing that his wife would want to get off the boat because she knew it sank the year prior. I also think the "five hours passed out from exhaustion" was to not only allow enough time for Debbie to die, but to also let enough water seep into the boat to help pad his story of what happened. But here's another interesting tidbit left out of the UM broadcast:

"During the boat inspection on May 12, officers noted several gallons of water still in the cut rubber life raft. In his original statement to the deputy sheriffs, appellant had specifically stated that following his unsuccessful attempt to inflate it, the raft had not been in the water. In a later statement, appellant altered his story and said that he had thrown that raft overboard. On the morning of May 12, both caps to the air chambers of the raft were securely closed, notwithstanding appellant's indication that following the unsuccessful attempt to inflate the raft, he had thrown it aside.

Trial evidence established that a raft similar to that found on the boat, with pockets of air in it, would be virtually unsinkable. Because of the intensity of the search for the raft, one of the search officers went so far as to testify at trial that had any "other" raft existed, it would have been found."

There would be no need to change his story if he was innocent. This was done, IMO, to explain why water would be on the interior of the raft. But that still does not explain how Debbie's raft was never found. According to Race, the raft Debbie used was fully inflated. So where did it go? Even with "pockets of air", the raft still was deemed unsinkable, so what happened to it? Here's some more about a possible motive:

"While Race was likeable, generous and compassionate, and had never been observed by any testifying witness to have treated Deborah in a mean or cruel manner, he also engaged in extra-marital affairs with at least four women since 1976. The longest affair lasted from 1976 until the weekend before Deborah's death. Two of these women testified that appellant complained to them about his wife -- that she was overweight, that she spent too much money, and that she was a poor housekeeper. The state likewise produced testimony indicating that after Deborah's death, appellant contacted each of these two women and suggested, explicitly or implicitly, that if questioned by officers, they should state their relationship with him had been no more than friendship.

While at trial the state conceded lack of evidence to give rise to an inference that appellant purchased the life insurance with his wife's murder in mind, it nevertheless contended that once the insurance on Deborah's life was purchased, it provided a powerful incentive for uxoricide."

If Debbie's death were a tragic accident, and if she did in fact know of his affairs, why would he care if police found out about his extramarital affairs? And the prosection seemed to admit that the life insurance alone was not his motive, but it probably helped him convince himself he should kill her.

wiseguy182

01-24-2013, 09:18 AM

who's to say that Larry couldn't have purchased a second raft shortly before the incident that his friends knew nothing about. The fact of the matter is, had the inspector inspected the boat like he was asked and it was his paid job, then we would know at this very moment if there were two rafts or not. But he didn't, and it's been a major, nagging question to this day and a major part of the case. I still insist that the inspector was kind of a lazy bum.

To me, it makes sense that Larry would have thrown the first raft overboard. The thing was probably huge, clunky and in the way. If it wasn't working, why keep it on deck? And to answer the question why it wasn't found, it wasn't totally implausible that somebody picked it up and junked it shortly thereafter, not knowing its significance.

I'm not a mechanic or a boat enthusiast, so I won't pretend that I am.

The raft was not deemed unsinkable. It was deemed 'virtually unsinkable', which is a big difference. For the record, the Titanic was also deemed unsinkable and I think we all know what happened there.

I don't think anyone ever claimed Larry Race was a perfect guy. The affairs don't leave a good impression. I can't claim to know why Larry asked them to say their relationship was just a friendship, but perhaps he feared the worst and said that in the event that it might prejudice a jury if he ever had to face one -- and he did and it did.

Now...one sentence in the case summary that Cars posted that I had seen a while back but never realized the significance of until now "The longest affair lasted from 1976 until the weekend before Deborah's death." I don't know, that kind of dispels the theory that he wanted Deborah out of the way to pursue other women. The affair lasted 6 years and ended literally days before Deborah's death. If he wanted to hook up with this other woman, he wouldn't have called the thing off like he did.

I really scratch my head, wondering how the jury convicted him. The prosecution has no witnesses, no evidence, but lots of speculation and conjecture. And discussion about a knife that they could not produce. And there was a test done on the boat by an independent third party that determined the boat would have intermittent starting problems.

TheCars1986

01-24-2013, 10:18 AM

-Larry changed his story about what he did with this alleged first raft. First he says he threw it in the boat, then he said he threw it overboard. There is a significant difference between the two. If innocent, he would have no reason to change his story.
-Larry's mistresses's show that before Debbie's murder, he complained about her constantly. And the affair ending the weekend before Debbie's murder probably ended as a result of her death. Who's to say the affair didn't last longer like a day or two before her death, but Larry and/or his mistress altered the date to not cast suspicion on themselves?
-The raft that Larry claimed he threw overboard was the raft that was found. The raft that allegedly supported Debbie was the one that was never found. The raft that Larry claims to have inflated fully with his scuba tank. The tank and the raft have never been found. The coast guard says if the raft had any air in it, they would have found it. That's good enough for me, since this is probably commonplace with the type of searches they're accustomed to. According to one of Larry's appeals hearings, the lake was searched extensively from the time he sought out help up until Debbie's body being found.
-Larry didn't have much of a case for his defense either. His entire defense was built up around a second raft, which no one has found to this day. No witnesses support any aspect of his story from the time he got on the lake with Debbie to the time he sought out help.

1990 UM fan

01-24-2013, 11:58 AM

TheCars1986

01-24-2013, 02:16 PM

They mentioned in the episode that her body could not have made it 7 miles down to where she was found without a raft. They also said that in her autopsy, her blood had settled in her back and not to her feet, as you would find if she was kept upright by a life vest in the water. How long though was she in the water before being washed up on shore?

There was testimony at his trial that the blood levidity in Debbie's body would have been to her back with the type of life jacket she was wearing. The jacket would have kept her up in angled position towards her back, not completely vertical. They also said there's no way of knowing where exactly Debbie and Larry were at in the water, since we only have Larry's word to go on about that.

MegtheEgg86

01-24-2013, 05:47 PM

In RE to the malfunctions of the boat, this is taken from one of Race's appeals:

"After the Jenny Lee had been raised from the lake, appellant Race proceeded to effectuate repairs. Much of the repair work was done by himself, but he did hire a mechanic to overhaul the boat's engine. In the course of the engine overhaul, new gaskets and new steel bolts were installed, but the exhaust manifold was not rebuilt. In installing the rebuilt engine in the boat on May 7, 1982, difficulty was experienced with an exhaust manifold bolt. One of the bolt holes was stripped and had to be rethreaded. On-land testing of the remounted engine revealed no difficulty other than a very slow drip-type leak that appeared to pose no danger to occupants of the boat. Upon water testing, the boat seemed to run well, and the leak did not worsen.

One of the deputies who questioned appellant in the patrol car testified that appellant told him that as his wife and he were cruising approximately one mile out from the Lakeview Castle, a leak developed in the water jacket of the engine. The cause of the leak was a bolt which had come loose from the water jacket. The bolt was taped back into the water jacket to restrict the flow of water. After the repair, which appellant said was completed between 8 and 9 p.m., he attempted to restart the boat's motor. He was unsuccessful and thought the engine was flooded. Appellant claimed he activated the bilge pump to pump out water which had entered the boat from the leak. When he did so, the pump made a sucking noise on the floor of the boat. He said this caused Deborah, an excitable and strong-willed person with a great fear of water, to become hysterical. She allegedly thought the pump was pulling the bottom of the boat loose. Appellant claims she then insisted on getting into a life raft and leaving the boat. Before doing so, however, she assisted him into his dry suit.

Examination of the Jenny Lee on the morning of May 12 revealed from 2 to 4 inches of water in the bottom. Officers estimated approximately 40 to 50 gallons of water lay below the floorboards in the bilge area. They encountered no problem in starting the engine, but water was observed coming from the engine during operation. It measured 1 gallon every 1.25 minutes, or 48 gallons per hour. Undisputed testimony confirmed that even with a leak of this magnitude, the boat was in no danger of sinking. Upon testing, the bilge pump worked properly, and had the capacity to remove 300 gallons of water per hour from the boat."

This, IMO, shows that Race knew beforehand that there was a problem with this engine bolt, and knew that if the bolt was removed, the boat would take on water. It also shows that the activation of the pump (which was working properly) is what scared Debbie into wanting to abandon the boat. This is where I think he used the previous sinking to his advantage, knowing that his wife would want to get off the boat because she knew it sank the year prior. I also think the "five hours passed out from exhaustion" was to not only allow enough time for Debbie to die, but to also let enough water seep into the boat to help pad his story of what happened.

I'm not a mechanic, but I know the bolt in the exhaust manifold is not the one securing the engine's water jacket. Are you thinking that Larry saw an opportunity that night knowing the water jacket bolt was loose, or that his idea came from the earlier event with the exhaust manifold bolt? If it's the former, bear in mind that Larry hired someone else to deal with the boat engine. He very well might have been mechanically inclined and could have known exactly what was going on, but there's some evidence that he might not have been as comfortable and/or knowledgeable with engines, even if the problem was only with a non-mechanical piece of the engine. Perhaps he simply panicked. It happens a lot with people.

But here's another interesting tidbit left out of the UM broadcast:

"During the boat inspection on May 12, officers noted several gallons of water still in the cut rubber life raft. In his original statement to the deputy sheriffs, appellant had specifically stated that following his unsuccessful attempt to inflate it, the raft had not been in the water. In a later statement, appellant altered his story and said that he had thrown that raft overboard. On the morning of May 12, both caps to the air chambers of the raft were securely closed, notwithstanding appellant's indication that following the unsuccessful attempt to inflate the raft, he had thrown it aside.

Maybe he's lying. Or it's entirely possible--if was written--that the statement was poorly transcribed, or that the officers failed to recall that piece of information--if it was verbal, or that the man was on a dark, frigid, vast lake with a hysterical wife and a sinking boat and he couldn't cleanly and perfectly recall precisely what he did. That happens a lot with people too.

Trial evidence established that a raft similar to that found on the boat, with pockets of air in it, would be virtually unsinkable. Because of the intensity of the search for the raft, one of the search officers went so far as to testify at trial that had any "other" raft existed, it would have been found."

Both of these items don't mean jack to me, personally. Virtually unsinkable--until it's damaged, or one of the caps is loose, or whatever. I always thought that particular remark by the search officer was a flippantly stupid statement as well. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't there at any point in time.

"While Race was likeable, generous and compassionate, and had never been observed by any testifying witness to have treated Deborah in a mean or cruel manner, he also engaged in extra-marital affairs with at least four women since 1976. The longest affair lasted from 1976 until the weekend before Deborah's death. Two of these women testified that appellant complained to them about his wife -- that she was overweight, that she spent too much money, and that she was a poor housekeeper. The state likewise produced testimony indicating that after Deborah's death, appellant contacted each of these two women and suggested, explicitly or implicitly, that if questioned by officers, they should state their relationship with him had been no more than friendship.

Happens all the time, men cheating on their wives. Happens all the time, men complaining about their wives to their girlfriends. What doesn't happen all the time: men killing their wives to be with girlfriends they've already broken up with.

I reckon Larry might have told them to say their relationship was a friendship because he knew it would give the prosecution ammunition. I wonder if he ever imagined it would get him convicted.

While at trial the state conceded lack of evidence to give rise to an inference that appellant purchased the life insurance with his wife's murder in mind, it nevertheless contended that once the insurance on Deborah's life was purchased, it provided a powerful incentive for uxoricide."

Or, in other words, the prosecution grasped at straws.

Necco

01-24-2013, 06:16 PM

There was testimony at his trial that the blood levidity in Debbie's body would have been to her back with the type of life jacket she was wearing. The jacket would have kept her up in angled position towards her back, not completely vertical. They also said there's no way of knowing where exactly Debbie and Larry were at in the water, since we only have Larry's word to go on about that.

The kind of PFD (personal floatation device) depicted in the segment would indeed cause a person to float at an angle, probably about 45o.

Also, the type of raft he threw overboard wouldn't have sank. Yes, in theory, if chewed on by a T-rex and a great white while filled with lead, it might possibly have sunk. But it wouldn't have sunk. Even the smallest amount of air trapped in any of the chambers would have more than kept it buoyant.

TheCars1986

01-25-2013, 09:06 AM

I'm not a mechanic, but I know the bolt in the exhaust manifold is not the one securing the engine's water jacket. Are you thinking that Larry saw an opportunity that night knowing the water jacket bolt was loose, or that his idea came from the earlier event with the exhaust manifold bolt? If it's the former, bear in mind that Larry hired someone else to deal with the boat engine. He very well might have been mechanically inclined and could have known exactly what was going on, but there's some evidence that he might not have been as comfortable and/or knowledgeable with engines, even if the problem was only with a non-mechanical piece of the engine. Perhaps he simply panicked. It happens a lot with people.

I think he knew beforehand (perhaps he was told by the person who repaired the engine) that if the water jacket bolt was loose the boat would take on water. He also knew his bilge pump was in perfect working condition that night, so there was no reason as to why they should have abandoned the boat.

Maybe he's lying. Or it's entirely possible--if was written--that the statement was poorly transcribed, or that the officers failed to recall that piece of information--if it was verbal, or that the man was on a dark, frigid, vast lake with a hysterical wife and a sinking boat and he couldn't cleanly and perfectly recall precisely what he did. That happens a lot with people too.

Big difference between throwing overboard and throwing aside. So Larry was fuzzy about that certain detail that night because he was hysterical, yet he was able to remember the exact location where he and Debbie set off, and then goes on in detail about the extenet of the damage to the boat and the attempted repairs?

Both of these items don't mean jack to me, personally. Virtually unsinkable--until it's damaged, or one of the caps is loose, or whatever. I always thought that particular remark by the search officer was a flippantly stupid statement as well. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean it wasn't there at any point in time.

This is not something the prosecution contended, this was the Coast Guard who said if the raft exsisted, they would have found it. That's pretty damning, since they had to have extensive knowledge about liferafts.

Or, in other words, the prosecution grasped at straws.

It's not like Larry has a solid defense. IMO, he has no defense at all. He claims he owned a second raft, and it was never found. So here's a question for those that believe he's innocent: where is the raft that was fully inflated, which was working fine according to Larry, that was the one Debbie took off in towards the shore? Before you say it sank into the lake, bear in mind that Larry's "other" raft (the one he claims he threw overboard) was the one with the slashes in it, and that even with slashes that one didn't sink. All of Larry's claims that night (second raft, bag with posessions, scuba tank) can not be corroborated, since they've never been found. If truely innocent, don't you think there would be more for Larry's defense? There were other boats on the lake that night (as evidenced by his appeal hearing) who saw flares being shot off on the lake. So right there is a witness who can substaniate Larry's account of that night. Only problem here: it took Larry 4-5 hours before he made any attempt to signal for help.

XCalibur

01-25-2013, 11:07 PM

Happens all the time, men cheating on their wives. Happens all the time, men complaining about their wives to their girlfriends. What doesn't happen all the time: men killing their wives to be with girlfriends they've already broken up with.

I reckon Larry might have told them to say their relationship was a friendship because he knew it would give the prosecution ammunition. I wonder if he ever imagined it would get him convicted.

Or, in other words, the prosecution grasped at straws.

You have two mistress witnesses that testified Larry complained about his wife spending to much money and being overweight, and being a bad housekeeper. That he wanted out of the marriage.

Then, after years of cheating, he suddenly has an attack of guilt and decides to stop and mend his marriage, and on that same weekend his wife winds up dead. Life insurance policy and all.

Thats a pretty huge coincidence. Larry was either guilty as hell, or the most unlucky dude in the world.

I've always thought it was the former.

MegtheEgg86

01-26-2013, 04:53 AM

You have two mistress witnesses that testified Larry complained about his wife spending to much money and being overweight, and being a bad housekeeper. That he wanted out of the marriage.

Then, after years of cheating, he suddenly has an attack of guilt and decides to stop and mend his marriage, and on that same weekend his wife winds up dead. Life insurance policy and all.

Thats a pretty huge coincidence. Larry was either guilty as hell, or the most unlucky dude in the world.

I've always thought it was the former.

I'm not Larry Race's personal cheerleader or advocating his moral choices. I am not convinced the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all.

If I remember correctly, you posted earlier in this thread you felt cheating spouses are more likely to commit murder than faithful ones. I'm not surprised you can easily surmise he's guilty. I don't agree, however.

MegtheEgg86

01-26-2013, 06:46 AM

I think he knew beforehand (perhaps he was told by the person who repaired the engine) that if the water jacket bolt was loose the boat would take on water. He also knew his bilge pump was in perfect working condition that night, so there was no reason as to why they should have abandoned the boat.

There's not a lot of evidence to suggest he certainly knew to either loosen up that bolt or take advantage of the incredible opportunity that said bolt came loose; that's a little speculative, IMO.

Big difference between throwing overboard and throwing aside. So Larry was fuzzy about that certain detail that night because he was hysterical, yet he was able to remember the exact location where he and Debbie set off, and then goes on in detail about the extenet of the damage to the boat and the attempted repairs?

Not particularly implausible. The damage to the boat and the attempted repairs are something that require more recall and attention than noticing a raft (one of two, according to Larry) doesn't work and throwing it aside because there are other pertinent things to attend to.

This not something the prosecution contended, this was the Coast Guard who said if the raft exsisted, they would have found it. That's pretty damning, since they had to have extensive knowledge about liferafts.

Extensive knowledge or none about life rafts isn't really the issue. It's making a claim that cannot, in any fashion, be an absolute reality.

It's not like Larry has a solid defense. IMO, he has no defense at all. He claims he owned a second raft, and it was never found. So here's a question for those that believe he's innocent: where is the raft that was fully inflated, which was working fine according to Larry, that was the one Debbie took off in towards the shore? Before you say it sank into the lake, bear in mind that Larry's "other" raft (the one he claims he threw overboard) was the one with the slashes in it, and that even with slashes that one didn't sink. All of Larry's claims that night (second raft, bag with posessions, scuba tank) can not be corroborated, since they've never been found. If truely innocent, don't you think there would be more for Larry's defense? There were other boats on the lake that night (as evidenced by his appeal hearing) who saw flares being shot off on the lake. So right there is a witness who can substaniate Larry's account of that night. Only problem here: it took Larry 4-5 hours before he made any attempt to signal for help.

I don't know what happened to the second raft. I am reasonably certain it would not sink, but I don't know what happened to it--sort of like how no one knows what happened to a knife allegedly used by Larry to cut the raft. The truth of the matter is, I feel I DON'T have enough conclusive information to make a determination beyond doubt about his guilt or innocence. You're innocent until proven guilty in the United States. So, the way I see it, Larry Race should not have been convicted of murdering his wife given the presented evidence. JMO.