UM broadcast led to another (failed) appeal for Larry Race - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

justins5256 · 06-20-2007, 10:35 PM

Some UM viewers remembered seeing the "second raft". I find this interesting, but apparently the appeals court did not...

COURT DENIES RETRIAL IN LAKE DEATH
St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
August 13, 1993
Author: BYLINE: Jim George, Staff Writer
Estimated printed pages: 2

The Minnesota Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that is probably the end of the judicial run for Larry Race.

In a unanimous decision, filed today, the justices rejected Race's quest for a retrial of charges accusing him of abandoning his wife to die in Lake Superior's frigid waters near Duluth.
Race, 43, who had exhausted procedural appeals before the high court, took the case before it a third time with the claim that new evidence about a crucial ``second raft'' was basis for a new trial.

Two Minneapolis sisters had come forward following a telecast of NBC's ``Unsolved Mysteries'' that sought information about discovery of a second raft in the Duluth area.

Race, of Hoyt Lakes, Minn., was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1982 death of his 33-year-old wife, Deborah. She died of hypothermia, the state claims, after being set adrift by Race in a raft he had disabled by slashing the bottom.

After her body washed ashore near Duluth May 12, the day after their 14th wedding anniversary cruise, police found on Race's boat a raft that had punctures on the underside.

Race claimed in his 1983 St. Louis County Court trial that his wife had climbed in an inflated raft after their cabin cruiser developed a leak that night. The wife insisted on leaving the boat, even after Race said he stopped the leak.

Race said he put on a dry suit and tried to tow her to shore, but the raft rope slipped from his numb hands and his wife drifted away. He claimed he managed to swim back to the cruiser and restart the engine, but failed to find his wife that night. Her body was found May 12 with no sign of a raft around.

Race claimed his wife floated away on an inflated raft and that the one found later on his boat was a second one that he couldn't get inflated that night.

The sisters testified last year at a district court petition for retrial that they had found a raft in either 1982 or 1983 that generally matched a raft Race described. At the hearing, one testified the location was Duluth, but at an earlier deposition had named the St. Croix River as the site.

The district court denied Race's petition, and the justices upheld the lower court. Writing the high court's opinion, Justice Esther Tomljanovich noted that the women testified about not being able to distinguish between a river and a lake and ``not knowing where Minnesota ends and Wisconsin begins.''

The justice said that ``given the many discrepancies in the story, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Thus, in our view, compelling evidence has never been put forth to substantiate that a second raft existed.''
Edition: Metro Final
Section: Metro
Page: 8C
Index Terms: MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT RULING DEATH
Copyright (c) 1993 St. Paul Pioneer Press
Record Number: 9308130381

OpenURL Article Bookmark (right click, and copy the link location):
COURT DENIES RETRIAL IN LAKE DEATH
http://docs.newsbank.com.ezproxy.fau...nfo:sid/iw.new
sbank.com:AWNB:PIPB&rft_val_format=info

fi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB5DD1
417BB3EB2&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=0D0CB4F5C0EA43AA

wiseguy182 · 06-21-2007, 02:14 AM

Well that stunk that he couldn't get another trial, maybe he could have gotten out earlier. Even though this is one of those cases where there is compelling evidence on both sides of the story, like Stuart Heaton and Glen Consagra, I think new trials would have been crucial.

The Judge's dismissal for a new trial based on the reasons she gave were pretty weak. Put her up there on the list of worst judges next to Corlew. And it was a unanimous decision. Sheesh.

I noticed two things in that article that differ from what the segment described: First, it says that Debbie wanted to leave the raft after Larry had stopped the leak. The segment depicts Larry stopping the leak at first, but it comes back. Second, it says that Larry loses his grip of Debbie's raft. The segment depicts Larry intentionally letting the raft go because he was going to get help from the boat that turned out to be his own.

Another reason I think Larry is innocent is that it happened on their wedding anniversary, and Larry would have to be pretty cruel to do that, and he just seems like to nice a guy.

SP4CE INV4DERZ · 06-21-2007, 10:57 AM

Maybe I am dumb here but can someone explain the importance of the second raft. I just can't see how it proves or dis-proves anything other than inidicating Larry did or did not lie about it.

kamy · 06-21-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Space Invaderz

Maybe I am dumb here but can someone explain the importance of the second raft. I just can't see how it proves or dis-proves anything other than inidicating Larry did or did not lie about it.

Yeah, I'm confused too

justins5256 · 06-21-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Space Invaderz

Maybe I am dumb here but can someone explain the importance of the second raft. I just can't see how it proves or dis-proves anything other than inidicating Larry did or did not lie about it.

I'll give it a shot.

Race claims that he had two life rafts on board. However, the police only recovered ONE raft that had some rather large cuts in the bottom. The prosecution maintains that this is the raft Debbie was in, and that Larry had made the cuts while the raft was inflated so that it would fail and Debbie would drown.

However, Race maintains that the raft with the holes was a another, different, faulty raft he had on board. He said the raft Debbie was in was intact. Unfortunately for Race, an intact raft was never found, but the prosecution maintains it never existed in the first place.

Race filed another appeal in the mid-eighties after some witnesses came forward and reported they had seen an abandoned raft floating in the lake around the time of the search for Debbie. So, this was not his first appeal based on eyewitness testimony regarding an abandoned raft.

There was also some testimony at trial from a man (who may have actually been a police officer too, I can't recall) who claimed he had a conversation with Race about his boat in the months prior to Debbie's death, and this witness stated that Race had told him he had two rafts.

SP4CE INV4DERZ · 06-21-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justins5256

I'll give it a shot.

Race claims that he had two life rafts on board. However, the police only recovered ONE raft that had some rather large cuts in the bottom. The prosecution maintains that this is the raft Debbie was in, and that Larry had made the cuts while the raft was inflated so that it would fail and Debbie would drown.

However, Race maintains that the raft with the holes was a another, different, faulty raft he had on board. He said the raft Debbie was in was intact. Unfortunately for Race, an intact raft was never found, but the prosecution maintains it never existed in the first place.

Ok I wonder what Larry's explaination of how Debbie came to be washed up on shore, dead and without her raft would be.

wiseguy182 · 06-22-2007, 06:36 AM

In addition, the rafts are supposed to be two-person rafts, but you can really only fit one on there. So in the event of a emergency, Larry and Debby would each have a raft. Unfortunately, one raft was no good, so Larry tossed it overboard. Realizing that he is the better swimmer, he graciously allows Debbie the raft and in addition, starts pulling her to shore. Then that's where Larry saw the boat (which turned out to be his own) and he decided that the odds were good that either Debby would make it to shore on her own, or he would get help from the boat. If one fell through, then the other cicrumstance should have happened. But, he just encountered an unreal amount of bad luck that night. Unreal.

I'm not surpised that when Debby was found dead, she had no raft with her. Otherwise, she probably would have lived.

I don't wanna repeat myself too much as we've talked this case to death (pun not intended), but rafts and other emergency devices are something we never think about until we need it. At first, one might wonder why Larry didn't have the rafts checked before heading out, but he's probably not in the minority there. I have a first aid kit and emergency kit in my car, and sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one on that planet that does.

06-20-2007, 10:35 PM	#1
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	UM broadcast led to another (failed) appeal for Larry Race Some UM viewers remembered seeing the "second raft". I find this interesting, but apparently the appeals court did not... COURT DENIES RETRIAL IN LAKE DEATH St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) August 13, 1993 Author: BYLINE: Jim George, Staff Writer Estimated printed pages: 2 The Minnesota Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that is probably the end of the judicial run for Larry Race. In a unanimous decision, filed today, the justices rejected Race's quest for a retrial of charges accusing him of abandoning his wife to die in Lake Superior's frigid waters near Duluth. Race, 43, who had exhausted procedural appeals before the high court, took the case before it a third time with the claim that new evidence about a crucial ``second raft'' was basis for a new trial. Two Minneapolis sisters had come forward following a telecast of NBC's ``Unsolved Mysteries'' that sought information about discovery of a second raft in the Duluth area. Race, of Hoyt Lakes, Minn., was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1982 death of his 33-year-old wife, Deborah. She died of hypothermia, the state claims, after being set adrift by Race in a raft he had disabled by slashing the bottom. After her body washed ashore near Duluth May 12, the day after their 14th wedding anniversary cruise, police found on Race's boat a raft that had punctures on the underside. Race claimed in his 1983 St. Louis County Court trial that his wife had climbed in an inflated raft after their cabin cruiser developed a leak that night. The wife insisted on leaving the boat, even after Race said he stopped the leak. Race said he put on a dry suit and tried to tow her to shore, but the raft rope slipped from his numb hands and his wife drifted away. He claimed he managed to swim back to the cruiser and restart the engine, but failed to find his wife that night. Her body was found May 12 with no sign of a raft around. Race claimed his wife floated away on an inflated raft and that the one found later on his boat was a second one that he couldn't get inflated that night. The sisters testified last year at a district court petition for retrial that they had found a raft in either 1982 or 1983 that generally matched a raft Race described. At the hearing, one testified the location was Duluth, but at an earlier deposition had named the St. Croix River as the site. The district court denied Race's petition, and the justices upheld the lower court. Writing the high court's opinion, Justice Esther Tomljanovich noted that the women testified about not being able to distinguish between a river and a lake and ``not knowing where Minnesota ends and Wisconsin begins.'' The justice said that ``given the many discrepancies in the story, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Thus, in our view, compelling evidence has never been put forth to substantiate that a second raft existed.'' Edition: Metro Final Section: Metro Page: 8C Index Terms: MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT RULING DEATH Copyright (c) 1993 St. Paul Pioneer Press Record Number: 9308130381 OpenURL Article Bookmark (right click, and copy the link location): COURT DENIES RETRIAL IN LAKE DEATH http://docs.newsbank.com.ezproxy.fau...nfo:sid/iw.new sbank.com:AWNB:PIPB&rft_val_format=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB5DD1 417BB3EB2&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=0D0CB4F5C0EA43AA

06-21-2007, 02:14 AM	#2
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	Well that stunk that he couldn't get another trial, maybe he could have gotten out earlier. Even though this is one of those cases where there is compelling evidence on both sides of the story, like Stuart Heaton and Glen Consagra, I think new trials would have been crucial. The Judge's dismissal for a new trial based on the reasons she gave were pretty weak. Put her up there on the list of worst judges next to Corlew. And it was a unanimous decision. Sheesh. I noticed two things in that article that differ from what the segment described: First, it says that Debbie wanted to leave the raft after Larry had stopped the leak. The segment depicts Larry stopping the leak at first, but it comes back. Second, it says that Larry loses his grip of Debbie's raft. The segment depicts Larry intentionally letting the raft go because he was going to get help from the boat that turned out to be his own. Another reason I think Larry is innocent is that it happened on their wedding anniversary, and Larry would have to be pretty cruel to do that, and he just seems like to nice a guy.

06-21-2007, 10:57 AM	#3
SP4CE INV4DERZ 40-0 0WN3D Forum Regular Join Date: Dec 06, 2004 Posts: 634	Maybe I am dumb here but can someone explain the importance of the second raft. I just can't see how it proves or dis-proves anything other than inidicating Larry did or did not lie about it.

06-22-2007, 06:36 AM	#7
wiseguy182 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 11, 2006 Location: Wendy's salad bar Posts: 7,030	In addition, the rafts are supposed to be two-person rafts, but you can really only fit one on there. So in the event of a emergency, Larry and Debby would each have a raft. Unfortunately, one raft was no good, so Larry tossed it overboard. Realizing that he is the better swimmer, he graciously allows Debbie the raft and in addition, starts pulling her to shore. Then that's where Larry saw the boat (which turned out to be his own) and he decided that the odds were good that either Debby would make it to shore on her own, or he would get help from the boat. If one fell through, then the other cicrumstance should have happened. But, he just encountered an unreal amount of bad luck that night. Unreal. I'm not surpised that when Debby was found dead, she had no raft with her. Otherwise, she probably would have lived. I don't wanna repeat myself too much as we've talked this case to death (pun not intended), but rafts and other emergency devices are something we never think about until we need it. At first, one might wonder why Larry didn't have the rafts checked before heading out, but he's probably not in the minority there. I have a first aid kit and emergency kit in my car, and sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one on that planet that does.