If Tommy Zeigler is innocent, who do you think did it?

[yourhomiebrian]

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

[MegtheEgg86]

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

[mercy1825]

Originally Posted by yourhomiebrian

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

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

[TheCars1986]

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

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

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

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

[yourhomiebrian]

Originally Posted by mercy1825

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

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

[XCalibur]

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

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

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

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

Originally Posted by Labonte18

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

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

[mercy1825]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

.

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by mercy1825

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

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

[mercy1825]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by mercy1825

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mercy1825]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by mercy1825

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

-Gregory Taylor in NC for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas

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

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

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

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