New info on Eileen Mangold - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

crystaldawn · 05-01-2006, 04:27 PM

I'm not sure how many of you remember this segment. Its not shown on Lifetime very frequently nor has it been mentioned on the board much. Eileen Mangold was abducted, raped and murdered while working at a gas station in Tampa in 1989. Here are some newspaper articles about the case:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/120399/T...ted_in_1.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/News/051900/H..._year_ol.shtml

This story is so sad on so many levels and now the killer (whose dna was found on the victim) has been acquitted and will never be incarcerated for the crime. I have had conversations recently with someone VERY close to the case. They ask to remain anonymous at this time but have given me a lot of additional info on the case, some info even the media doesn't know, and said I could post it.

Eileen (according to UM) had only taken the job in order to buy her young son school clothes. She was murdered just 5 days after her grandson was born.

She didn't appear to know her killer nor did she "wait in the car" while he robbed the gas station like the reenactment shows. She was drug into her car by the killer and forced to drive off immediately. By all accounts she did not know her killer. In fact Eileen's young son had called her shortly before her abduction and she told him that there was a strange man hanging around outside even though she was no longer selling gas that night. Eileen appeared nervous and told her son not to worry and abruptly hung up the phone. Eileen mouthed her pleas for help and didn't yell them like the reenactment shows, undoubtedly as to not aggravate her captor. The savage beating she suffered was unspeakable and I'll spare you the details. As in the articles I've posted above Franklin Smith was arrested 10 years after the murder. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. The second trial resulted in an unbelievable acquittal. There is a Florida statute that says the person on trial must be tried using the laws that were in effect at the time of the murder. DNA found on Eileen matched Smith but in 1989 when the crime was committed was just before dna was being used routinely. Most of the jurors regretted acquitting Smith and said they only did so because they didn't understand all the dna info being thrown at them. So much concerning Smith was thrown out and when the jurors ended the trial and read the info in the newspaper that wasn't permitted to be admitted in court they said they would have given him the chair in minutes. Smith's 17 prior convictions for various forms of assault couldn't be mentioned for fear it would taint the jurors minds when they found out he was a career criminal! Well if anyone has any other questions my anonymous source said they would be happy to answer them. Such a sad and appalling case!

mistagee · 05-01-2006, 09:12 PM

So that piece of crap is free is what you are saying? If so, I say we all chip in 200 bucks a piece and get a contract on his head

SP4CE INV4DERZ · 05-01-2006, 09:36 PM

oh dear! What the F's going on here? Surely this is a joke?

This is very sad like you said, I really think that the laws are there to protect the criminals. What I also don't understand is why this guy's 17 prior convictions aren't allowed into court. Surely the jury should be aware of this sorta stuff to see if this guy is capable of committing this type of crime and clearly he is and then make a judgement, and by the sounds of it the appropreate sentence should have been death.

Kane · 05-01-2006, 09:46 PM

This was mentioned in a previous post a few months back. And yes, it's appalling that the Eileen Mangold's accused killer got off scot-free.

But considering the fact that Franklin Smith is a career criminal, my suspicion is he will eventually be in trouble again (that is, if he has stayed out of trouble since his murder acquittal nearly six years ago). Besides, they say a leopard doesn't change its spots.

RightOnDude · 05-02-2006, 12:44 PM

yes, he will be in trouble again, but someone will be robbed, assaulted or killed again too.

LooksLikeCRicci · 05-02-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missingtiny

I really think that the laws are there to protect the criminals. What I also don't understand is why this guy's 17 prior convictions aren't allowed into court. Surely the jury should be aware of this sorta stuff to see if this guy is capable of committing this type of crime and clearly he is and then make a judgement, and by the sounds of it the appropreate sentence should have been death.

Federal Rule of Evidence 404b prohibits any evidence of "Previous Bad Acts" from being admitted into court. Basically, that means that even if you had assaulted a woman prior to the offense that you're on trial for, it wouldn't be allowed into evidence due to the prejudicial nature of it all (basically, it could taint the jury.)

HOWEVER... I'm surprised that there wasn't an attempt to bring the information out in court, as the exception to Federal Rule 404b is that if you're trying to prove a PATTERN, it should be allowed into evidence. I could see it being denied into evidence if there was only one other conviction. However, SEVENTEEN makes me raise my eyebrows a bit.... I'm gonna go study my evidence book for a while and hammer this out. Frankly, I'm SHOCKED if the prosecutor didn't try to get the evidence in.

Kane · 05-02-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightOnDude

yes, he will be in trouble again, but someone will be robbed, assaulted or killed again too.

True. But the reason I suspect that Franklin Smith will one day be in trouble again is because he's a career criminal, and there is no cure for that (except death). The plain truth is that some people are incapable of being reformed. If anything, a career criminal (or serial offender) might stay out of trouble for any length of time, but they eventually resume their criminal behavior. It's only a question of time. And there's no guarantee that the next person they strike against will be lucky enough to survive.

skunk ape · 05-02-2006, 09:40 PM

Wow, I hadn't heard about this case and I used to live a few miles from Gibsonton Drive. I also lived near where Oba Chandler abducted those 3 women and brought them on the boat. Very creepy.

Kane · 05-10-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

Federal Rule of Evidence 404b prohibits any evidence of "Previous Bad Acts" from being admitted into court. Basically, that means that even if you had assaulted a woman prior to the offense that you're on trial for, it wouldn't be allowed into evidence due to the prejudicial nature of it all (basically, it could taint the jury.)

HOWEVER... I'm surprised that there wasn't an attempt to bring the information out in court, as the exception to Federal Rule 404b is that if you're trying to prove a PATTERN, it should be allowed into evidence. I could see it being denied into evidence if there was only one other conviction. However, SEVENTEEN makes me raise my eyebrows a bit.... I'm gonna go study my evidence book for a while and hammer this out. Frankly, I'm SHOCKED if the prosecutor didn't try to get the evidence in.

This reminds me of the trial of John Sweeney. In 1982, he strangled his girlfriend, actress Dominique Dunne (she was the star of Poltergeist, and the daughter of Dominick Dunne). During the 1983 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce Sweeney's history of violence (including physical abuse towards a previous girlfriend), but it was deemed irrelevant and prejudicial. The jurors didn't know about Sweeney's violent past until after the trial was over. Sweeney was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to six years in prison, and was paroled after serving nearly half that sentence.

crystaldawn · 05-10-2006, 09:15 AM

I've gotten some more info from my source and this story just keeps getting worse for her family! First off they erected a memorial at the site where she was murdered and have had to replace the cross numerous times because people were vandalizing it with a baseball bat and/or pipe. The heresay around town was that Franklin Smith's relatives were responsible but nothing could ever be proven.

Also at the second trial the same day some relatives of Eileen's were set to testify they got a call at their home saying if they testified their children would be killed! The call was traced as having come from the same jail where Franklin Smith was being housed. The jail was put on lockdown and great effort was taken to try and figure out who placed the call because of course they were trying to intimidate a state witness but as far as I know they were never able to prove for sure who made the call.

compulsive dvd · 05-10-2006, 03:35 PM

Is there any chance of a civil suit? It's amazing that the jury didn't understand all the dna evidence thrown at them. Isn't DNA matching either like being pregnant or not? There's really no in between.

DarkDante · 05-10-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane

This reminds me of the trial of John Sweeney. In 1982, he strangled his girlfriend, actress Dominique Dunne (she was the star of Poltergeist, and the daughter of Dominick Dunne). During the 1983 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce Sweeney's history of violence (including physical abuse towards a previous girlfriend), but it was deemed irrelevant and prejudicial. The jurors didn't know about Sweeney's violent past until after the trial was over. Sweeney was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to six years in prison, and was paroled after serving nearly half that sentence.

Yeah Domi was pretty cool and its a true tragedy that JS got off with such a light sentence. However it should be noted that despite his parole Dominique Dunne fans (and given just the small number of films she was in there is a very loyal fanbase there, myself included) have made JS life pretty miserable over the past twenty four years.

JS has been fired from at least three jobs that I know of (he was/is a chef) because of Dunne fans protesting his employment. He has also been repeatedly harassed by fans or people who knew Dominique Dunne to the point of him having to change his name and basically live a hermit's existence. Recently JS emailed the webmaster of a Dominique Dunne memorial site requesting that the fans let him move on with his life (which in turn of course resulted in more harassment) - At first I along with others were skeptical that this was the actual JS who wrote this email to the webmaster of this site but is it now generally believed to be JS himself who wrote the letter.

Although I don't necessarily condone some of the things that Dunne fans have done to JS - I will say it couldn't have happened to a "nicer person".

You may notice that I only refer to Domi's killer by his initals - I believe Domi's brother (or someone who was close to her) requested that much like in the case of John Lennon's killer we only refer to the murderer by his initals therefore denying him the fame/recognition he sought by committing this deplorable act.

kadrmas15 · 10-25-2006, 03:13 PM

Wow, did they ever look at the guy that did this to Eileen Mangold and try to connect him to Deborah Poe and other Florida gas station abductions? That is pretty incredible to me he got acquitted but if the guy is a career criminal he will be back in prison at some point. It is sad though that someone else will probably have to get assaulted or murdered before this scumbag finally gets put behind bars. You cant really fault the jury. Yeah it stinks they acquitted him, but if they dont have the evidence to convict him they dont have much choice but to acquitt even if they personally dont want to.

kadrmas15 · 10-25-2006, 03:16 PM

Also as I have said recently, I think it is probably unlikely but not impossible that the Florida abductions that took place in 1989 and 1990 and the Missouri abductions that took place in 1990 and 1991 could be connected. Any thoughts?

Kane · 10-25-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

Also as I have said recently, I think it is probably unlikely but not impossible that the Florida abductions that took place in 1989 and 1990 and the Missouri abductions that took place in 1990 and 1991 could be connected. Any thoughts?

That never occurred to me. But at present, there's not enough information to convince me of any connection between the cases.

05-01-2006, 04:27 PM	#1
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	New info on Eileen Mangold I'm not sure how many of you remember this segment. Its not shown on Lifetime very frequently nor has it been mentioned on the board much. Eileen Mangold was abducted, raped and murdered while working at a gas station in Tampa in 1989. Here are some newspaper articles about the case: http://www.sptimes.com/News/120399/T...ted_in_1.shtml http://www.sptimes.com/News/051900/H..._year_ol.shtml This story is so sad on so many levels and now the killer (whose dna was found on the victim) has been acquitted and will never be incarcerated for the crime. I have had conversations recently with someone VERY close to the case. They ask to remain anonymous at this time but have given me a lot of additional info on the case, some info even the media doesn't know, and said I could post it. Eileen (according to UM) had only taken the job in order to buy her young son school clothes. She was murdered just 5 days after her grandson was born. She didn't appear to know her killer nor did she "wait in the car" while he robbed the gas station like the reenactment shows. She was drug into her car by the killer and forced to drive off immediately. By all accounts she did not know her killer. In fact Eileen's young son had called her shortly before her abduction and she told him that there was a strange man hanging around outside even though she was no longer selling gas that night. Eileen appeared nervous and told her son not to worry and abruptly hung up the phone. Eileen mouthed her pleas for help and didn't yell them like the reenactment shows, undoubtedly as to not aggravate her captor. The savage beating she suffered was unspeakable and I'll spare you the details. As in the articles I've posted above Franklin Smith was arrested 10 years after the murder. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. The second trial resulted in an unbelievable acquittal. There is a Florida statute that says the person on trial must be tried using the laws that were in effect at the time of the murder. DNA found on Eileen matched Smith but in 1989 when the crime was committed was just before dna was being used routinely. Most of the jurors regretted acquitting Smith and said they only did so because they didn't understand all the dna info being thrown at them. So much concerning Smith was thrown out and when the jurors ended the trial and read the info in the newspaper that wasn't permitted to be admitted in court they said they would have given him the chair in minutes. Smith's 17 prior convictions for various forms of assault couldn't be mentioned for fear it would taint the jurors minds when they found out he was a career criminal! Well if anyone has any other questions my anonymous source said they would be happy to answer them. Such a sad and appalling case!

05-02-2006, 09:40 PM	#8
skunk ape Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 25, 2006 Location: FL Posts: 167	Wow, I hadn't heard about this case and I used to live a few miles from Gibsonton Drive. I also lived near where Oba Chandler abducted those 3 women and brought them on the boat. Very creepy.
	__________________ FLORIDA GATORS 2006 NCAA Football 2006-2007 Basketball Champions

05-01-2006, 09:12 PM	#2
mistagee Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 02, 2005 Posts: 114	So that piece of crap is free is what you are saying? If so, I say we all chip in 200 bucks a piece and get a contract on his head

05-01-2006, 09:36 PM	#3
SP4CE INV4DERZ 40-0 0WN3D Forum Regular Join Date: Dec 06, 2004 Posts: 630	oh dear! What the F's going on here? Surely this is a joke? This is very sad like you said, I really think that the laws are there to protect the criminals. What I also don't understand is why this guy's 17 prior convictions aren't allowed into court. Surely the jury should be aware of this sorta stuff to see if this guy is capable of committing this type of crime and clearly he is and then make a judgement, and by the sounds of it the appropreate sentence should have been death.

05-01-2006, 09:46 PM	#4
Kane Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 07, 2001 Location: MA, United States Posts: 3,367	This was mentioned in a previous post a few months back. And yes, it's appalling that the Eileen Mangold's accused killer got off scot-free. But considering the fact that Franklin Smith is a career criminal, my suspicion is he will eventually be in trouble again (that is, if he has stayed out of trouble since his murder acquittal nearly six years ago). Besides, they say a leopard doesn't change its spots.

05-02-2006, 12:44 PM	#5
RightOnDude Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Dec 12, 2005 Posts: 266	yes, he will be in trouble again, but someone will be robbed, assaulted or killed again too.

05-10-2006, 09:15 AM	#10
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	I've gotten some more info from my source and this story just keeps getting worse for her family! First off they erected a memorial at the site where she was murdered and have had to replace the cross numerous times because people were vandalizing it with a baseball bat and/or pipe. The heresay around town was that Franklin Smith's relatives were responsible but nothing could ever be proven. Also at the second trial the same day some relatives of Eileen's were set to testify they got a call at their home saying if they testified their children would be killed! The call was traced as having come from the same jail where Franklin Smith was being housed. The jail was put on lockdown and great effort was taken to try and figure out who placed the call because of course they were trying to intimidate a state witness but as far as I know they were never able to prove for sure who made the call.

05-10-2006, 03:35 PM	#11
compulsive dvd Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 27, 2005 Posts: 184	Is there any chance of a civil suit? It's amazing that the jury didn't understand all the dna evidence thrown at them. Isn't DNA matching either like being pregnant or not? There's really no in between.

10-25-2006, 03:13 PM	#13
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Wow, did they ever look at the guy that did this to Eileen Mangold and try to connect him to Deborah Poe and other Florida gas station abductions? That is pretty incredible to me he got acquitted but if the guy is a career criminal he will be back in prison at some point. It is sad though that someone else will probably have to get assaulted or murdered before this scumbag finally gets put behind bars. You cant really fault the jury. Yeah it stinks they acquitted him, but if they dont have the evidence to convict him they dont have much choice but to acquitt even if they personally dont want to.

10-25-2006, 03:16 PM	#14
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Also as I have said recently, I think it is probably unlikely but not impossible that the Florida abductions that took place in 1989 and 1990 and the Missouri abductions that took place in 1990 and 1991 could be connected. Any thoughts?