Thomas Drake: Final Appeal - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

fabgourmet · 01-08-2009, 08:24 AM

Hey,

Attempting to modify my status from constant lurker to active poster.

I just viewed Thomas Drake’s final appeal. It has been broadcast as part of the new UM on Spike TV but is also available for viewing “elsewhere” online. It is a quite lengthy expose of an attempted murder, clocking in at about 17 minutes long.

This is a rather convoluted story about a Florida truck driver, Thomas Drake, accused of attempting to kill his wife, Nancy Drake, a church secretary, with a hammer in her church office. No physical evidence exists linking him to the crime. A suspicious fingerprint, matching a local mental patient who lived in the area who had no business in the church, and a suspicious muddy footprint were both found at the scene of the crime. The attack was so gruesome that Ms. Drake’s skull was split open but she survived the attack.

It was soon discovered that Mr. Drake had been having an affair for over a year and, with his wife still in the ICU, moved his mistress and her son into the family house two weeks after the attack. He also allowed himself to be questioned without a lawyer (never a good idea, even for the most innocent) and it was soon discovered that he had lied to his mistress, claiming that he was divorced.

Complicating the case, Ms. Drake has no memory of the attack but an older gentleman was seen prowling around the church the day of the attack by both Mr. Drake and another parishioner. An unspecified amount of money was stolen from the church safe. Police twice offered a plea bargain to Drake, saying they’d drop the attempted murder charge if he were to plea guilty to grand theft. Both times, he was unwilling to accept a plea and was, in the end, found guilty of second-degree attempted murder. His mistress ended up turning witness for the prosecution, supposedly under threat that she would be charged as an accomplice despite the fact that she had no knowledge of Thomas Drake’s involvement in the murder, testifying to the fact that she moved in 2 weeks after the attack and also that Drake had lied to her, saying that he was divorced.

Despite sentencing guidelines proposing 5 years for such a crime, the judge sentenced Thomas Drake to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He has spent 25 years in jail steadfastly maintaining his innocence.

Believe me, this is the short version of a very, very convoluted case. There are many details I omitted for the sake of brevity; this case is worth watching.

I think that this case kind of stinks for a couple of reasons, but mainly because not one shred of hard evidence exists linking him to this crime. He was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Is it possible that Thomas Drake attacked his wife? Yes. He had motive and opportunity. Is it possible that someone else attacked his wife, a robbery gone-bad type scenario? Totally. So I cannot really understand how he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, much less sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole given what the police had.

Finally, in front of their home in the reenactment, they have a pair of pink flamingos, both endearing them to my heart as well as making me question their taste. Maybe they are fans of Babs Johnson. It certainly is a filthy crime. Who knows?

Anyway, I think this qualifies as of those “lost episodes” and it is an interesting, if convoluted, case. I’m interested in hearing other members’ opinions about this case and I’d LOVE to see the original production as opposed to the Spike redux. I know, I know, beggars can’t be choosers and I’m happy to have seen a "new" case at all…

Has anybody else seen this? What did you make of this case? I'm split, I think he could have done it but just as easily somebody else could have done it. Aside from that, I think his jail sentence, based on the evidence, is indeed a travesty of justice.

Anybody?

VikingsGal · 01-08-2009, 11:14 AM

I saw this episode as well, and first off I would not take Mrs. Drake's statement after having her head split open as reliable. Eyewitness accounts are not very credible, anyway...people's minds can play tricks on them.

If there was no direct evidence connecting the husband to the crime he should not be in jail. Was he kinda tacky moving the mistress into the house while his wife was in ICU? Hell yeah.

But with no fingerprints or DNA to speak of, the guy should NOT be in jail.

justins5256 · 01-08-2009, 01:09 PM

Interesting to note that this was the last episode of the short lived "Final Appeal" series from 1992 and was not slated to air as a part of Unsolved Mysteries back then.

Even though I can't stand all the butchery and simple mindedness of the Spike incarnation it is interesting that they are showing these old stories that we would probably never see otherwise.

egswanso · 01-08-2009, 01:59 PM

When I saw the case, what struck me most was that it seemed Drake received terrible lawyering, as it's hard, based on what was presented, to see how a competent crim def lawyer couldn't create reasonable doubt - the whole situation with the wife's "recovered" memory which she suddenly forgot on the eve of testimony strikes me as fishy, nevertheless.

crystaldawn · 01-08-2009, 02:48 PM

I feel bad for this guy for being in prison, I think he's innocent. Of course it was very stupid and uncaring to move in his mistress and her son into her house while his wife is still recovering. His wife was taking money all that day they said selling tickets so a lot of people know she was apparently working alone and had a box full of money with her. That would make her an easy target. Here is Thomas' inmate profile:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInma...onID=784584835

Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison.

Edit:. Well that link was valid at first but it must have timed out. Just click on Offender Search and type in his name and you should get it.

justins5256 · 01-08-2009, 04:38 PM

Just watched this on my lunch break. What a delightfully filthy sleazy case.

The evidence is circumstantial as others have pointed out but my gut wants to say he did it. Sometimes circumstantial evidence is all you have. I think a lot of folks who watch these CSI type programs assume there is always physical evidence and that isn't always the case in real life. I also got the vibe that this happened a long time ago. I thought Farina said 25 years. Not sure if that would be 25 years from today or 25 years from 1992 (if he was just re-reading Stack's narration). In any event, forensics have improved since then so I don't necessarily find it odd that no physical evidence was found connecting him with it at that time. Not to mention he worked in the church as well, so finding Drake's fingerprints, hairs or what not wouldn't necessarily be out of place.

I agree with CD in that I thought the wife's comments at the end were kind of tacky. She out and out says she doesn't know if he's guilty but then basically says she doesn't care if he rots in prison because he did other bad stuff. Weird. I also thought her going back and fourth on the issue of whether he attacked her or not was strange. Initially I thought that maybe she was protecting him for some reason, but it doesn't seem like she is now, or maybe she's just under so much heavy medication she just doesn't know the truth anymore.

EDIT: If anyone out there has the original NBC story from Final Appeal, please contact me.

pealo0819 · 01-09-2009, 04:32 AM

I tend to agree with the above poster. I think he is guilty. I say this for a couple of reasons. One, he said that he didn't like that his wife was putting so much time into church, yet he brings her lunch there. This is after he decides that the marriage was over. Then he moves in the girlfriend and never tells her that his wife was attacked. That seems like an Amber Fry/Scott Peterson type of thing. Then he says in the interview that he moved the girlfriend in because he needed things done around the house. But he goes on to say that all he was concerned with was that his wife get better and come home. What was she going to come home to? Was he then going to kick the girlfriend out after his wife got better? Doubtful. Besides he probably got rid of all his wife's stuff anyway since he moved the girlfriend in. Odd story, but I think he was guilty. However, I would not think that his sentence would have been so harsh.

UMFan972 · 01-11-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

I feel bad for this guy for being in prison, I think he's innocent. Of course it was very stupid and uncaring to move in his mistress and her son into her house while his wife is still recovering. His wife was taking money all that day they said selling tickets so a lot of people know she was apparently working alone and had a box full of money with her. That would make her an easy target. Here is Thomas' inmate profile:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInma...onID=784584835

Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison.

Edit:. Well that link was valid at first but it must have timed out. Just click on Offender Search and type in his name and you should get it.

I was also very disturbed by the wife's comments. She must think that he did it to have that kind of anger. She said that he didnt know if he did it or not, but she probably thinks that he was responsible. My gut feeling is that he didnt do it, although I do have to acknowledge that it was very sketchy of him to move his mistress in so quickly after the attack. It doesnt appear that the prosecutor even came close to proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but sadly sometimes that doesnt matter. I dont think you should cheat on your spouse either, but we shouldnt be sending people away for life just because they are unfaithful.

Fletch · 01-12-2009, 04:02 AM

I too was pretty "WTF?" about the Wife's "even if he didn't do it, he deserves to be in there for what he did to me leading up to the attack." That's definitely not very Christian of her

atomicfizz · 02-27-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch

I too was pretty "WTF?" about the Wife's "even if he didn't do it, he deserves to be in there for what he did to me leading up to the attack." That's definitely not very Christian of her

haha, no kidding. What a ridiculous woman.

I don't know if he did it or not, but that sentence is absolutely ridiculous. WTF!? How are there people who KILL someone who end up getting only 5 years. People who molest children and ruin their entire lives, and they are out after 2 years. It doesn't make sense.

synthisislab · 03-26-2009, 05:03 PM

I think the guy did it. Who but a total sociopath would move his girlfriend and her son into him and his wive's home while she's still in the hospital with her skull crushed in like that?

kadrmas15 · 03-26-2009, 05:45 PM

Hmm, well I think the word 'sociopath' should not be thrown around so lightly. Thomas Drake, this is a tough one. I personally do not believe he himself is the one that tried to physically murder his wife. Now does that mean for sure he was not involved in some way? No. I will be honest though, while it was classless to move his mistress in while his wife was still recovering and bad as that is, it does not make him a sociopath and it does not make him a man that attempted to kill his wife. What that does make him is a bad husband and a rather sleazy person but as I say, just because he is a sleaze and a person that might be rather easy to dislike does not make him a killer or a sociopath. Thomas Drake's case does represent a major flaw with Florida law. How he can get a life sentence for armed robbery but yet get 30 years for attempted 2nd degree murder? There are people that actually murder other human beings that routinely get substantially less sentences in Florida and elsewhere than what Thomas Drake got and that is assuming for the sake of argument Drake is guilty (which I do not believe he is). If Drake is innocent than that means that he has spent over 24 years in prison for something he did not do or have anything to do with except being the husband of a woman that was attacked.

As for Thomas Drake smiling in the mugshot, who knows why he is? Some have brought it up how he is guilty because he is smiling. Please. He has been in prison for over 24 years, maybe he is at peace, maybe he is just smiling because most do not smile in their mugshots, who knows? Drake is nearly 71 years old. Maybe he has come to terms with the fact that he most likely will never get out of prison and will probably die in prison? Again it is impossible to determine. I have been thinking of writing to Thomas Drake to get his opinions on all of this.

As for the ex-wife, I did find it disturbing how she was that bitter about the guy cheating on her that she said he deserved to be in prison for life even if Thomas Drake had nothing to do with the attack on her. Incredible, that is one scorned woman!

I have also seen comparisons from some on here, who compare this case to Scott Peterson. The two cases are not even close to similar except that you had two guys cheating on their wives. However Scott never moved Amber Frey into his house, in fact he was commuting a rather long distance to see Amber Frey and he never had anyone moved into his house after his wife disappeared. Also Scott Peterson's wife was pregnant and both she and the baby were murdered. So the two cases just are not that similar. Again it is one of those cases where people are angry someone got attacked and want someone, anyone to pay for it to set their own minds at ease.

justins5256 · 03-27-2009, 08:59 AM

I don't know kadrmas, I usually agree with your analysis but I think you're off on this one.

Did you see his eyes in the mugshot? They are small and beady. That indicates he can't be trusted. Couple that with the smile, and man, I just don't know. It really looks like he's got something to hide. Perhaps he smiled because the thought occurred to him that he was hoodwinking everyone with that compelling Final Appeal story on the Spike network.

Well of course he's guilty because he cheated on his wife. I mean, really, how is that not obvious? If he was capable of that, he was capable of far worse and more dastardly deeds. Geez, if there was some way the cops could have nailed him for just the cheating alone, maybe this whole crime could have been prevented.

Nope, he's where he belongs. His wife's comments totally sum up my feelings on the case. He's a bad man. He did lots of other bad stuff prior to the attack, so that makes him guilty of this too. End of story.

cool_c1000 · 12-18-2009, 06:42 AM

I know he is guilty. He is right were he needs to be. I know this how would anyone feel if there mother or grandmother had this happen to them? He had wrote her a letter saying he DID do it and he was sorry. Asking her to tell the judge and jury that he didn't. She even visited him in jail and he told her what to say. She got scared fearing he would finnish what he started if he got out. Even his brother said he was guilty. I know of things that he has done beside tring to kill someone. She know's he did it He know' he did it God knows he did it and even her family know he did it and other bad thing that were not spoken of. As for the family of the victium I know that some has fallin into a depression cuz of all this man has done. I just hope that they will tell there story and let it out so they can finally move on.
God bless that Family

kadrmas15 · 12-18-2009, 07:46 AM

Cool that is blatantly false. Thomas Drake never admitted doing this, never confessed, no reason to. I know this because I am in contact with Thomas Drake, I have copies of his documents. MANY of them. No where, you can look over them too if you like, no where does it mention he confessed or anything. Even if your warped theory was true, why did his wife not throw him under the bus? Lets remember, he got a 2nd trial because his wife who allegedly hates his guts so much said he DID NOT do it. Thomas Drake is innocent, the sooner he is out the better. Shame on you.

01-08-2009, 08:24 AM	#1
fabgourmet Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Jul 28, 2006 Posts: 61	Thomas Drake: Final Appeal Hey, Attempting to modify my status from constant lurker to active poster. I just viewed Thomas Drake’s final appeal. It has been broadcast as part of the new UM on Spike TV but is also available for viewing “elsewhere” online. It is a quite lengthy expose of an attempted murder, clocking in at about 17 minutes long. This is a rather convoluted story about a Florida truck driver, Thomas Drake, accused of attempting to kill his wife, Nancy Drake, a church secretary, with a hammer in her church office. No physical evidence exists linking him to the crime. A suspicious fingerprint, matching a local mental patient who lived in the area who had no business in the church, and a suspicious muddy footprint were both found at the scene of the crime. The attack was so gruesome that Ms. Drake’s skull was split open but she survived the attack. It was soon discovered that Mr. Drake had been having an affair for over a year and, with his wife still in the ICU, moved his mistress and her son into the family house two weeks after the attack. He also allowed himself to be questioned without a lawyer (never a good idea, even for the most innocent) and it was soon discovered that he had lied to his mistress, claiming that he was divorced. Complicating the case, Ms. Drake has no memory of the attack but an older gentleman was seen prowling around the church the day of the attack by both Mr. Drake and another parishioner. An unspecified amount of money was stolen from the church safe. Police twice offered a plea bargain to Drake, saying they’d drop the attempted murder charge if he were to plea guilty to grand theft. Both times, he was unwilling to accept a plea and was, in the end, found guilty of second-degree attempted murder. His mistress ended up turning witness for the prosecution, supposedly under threat that she would be charged as an accomplice despite the fact that she had no knowledge of Thomas Drake’s involvement in the murder, testifying to the fact that she moved in 2 weeks after the attack and also that Drake had lied to her, saying that he was divorced. Despite sentencing guidelines proposing 5 years for such a crime, the judge sentenced Thomas Drake to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He has spent 25 years in jail steadfastly maintaining his innocence. Believe me, this is the short version of a very, very convoluted case. There are many details I omitted for the sake of brevity; this case is worth watching. I think that this case kind of stinks for a couple of reasons, but mainly because not one shred of hard evidence exists linking him to this crime. He was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Is it possible that Thomas Drake attacked his wife? Yes. He had motive and opportunity. Is it possible that someone else attacked his wife, a robbery gone-bad type scenario? Totally. So I cannot really understand how he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, much less sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole given what the police had. Finally, in front of their home in the reenactment, they have a pair of pink flamingos, both endearing them to my heart as well as making me question their taste. Maybe they are fans of Babs Johnson. It certainly is a filthy crime. Who knows? Anyway, I think this qualifies as of those “lost episodes” and it is an interesting, if convoluted, case. I’m interested in hearing other members’ opinions about this case and I’d LOVE to see the original production as opposed to the Spike redux. I know, I know, beggars can’t be choosers and I’m happy to have seen a "new" case at all… Has anybody else seen this? What did you make of this case? I'm split, I think he could have done it but just as easily somebody else could have done it. Aside from that, I think his jail sentence, based on the evidence, is indeed a travesty of justice. Anybody?

01-08-2009, 02:48 PM	#5
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	I feel bad for this guy for being in prison, I think he's innocent. Of course it was very stupid and uncaring to move in his mistress and her son into her house while his wife is still recovering. His wife was taking money all that day they said selling tickets so a lot of people know she was apparently working alone and had a box full of money with her. That would make her an easy target. Here is Thomas' inmate profile: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInma...onID=784584835 Did anyone find it a bit ridiculous that his ex thinks he deserve to be there even if he didn't assault her? Cheating on your spouse is despicable but last I knew it didn't require life in prison. Edit:. Well that link was valid at first but it must have timed out. Just click on Offender Search and type in his name and you should get it.
	Last edited by crystaldawn; 01-08-2009 at 05:16 PM.

12-18-2009, 06:42 AM	#14
cool_c1000 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Dec 18, 2009 Posts: 5	He is guilty I know he is guilty. He is right were he needs to be. I know this how would anyone feel if there mother or grandmother had this happen to them? He had wrote her a letter saying he DID do it and he was sorry. Asking her to tell the judge and jury that he didn't. She even visited him in jail and he told her what to say. She got scared fearing he would finnish what he started if he got out. Even his brother said he was guilty. I know of things that he has done beside tring to kill someone. She know's he did it He know' he did it God knows he did it and even her family know he did it and other bad thing that were not spoken of. As for the family of the victium I know that some has fallin into a depression cuz of all this man has done. I just hope that they will tell there story and let it out so they can finally move on. God bless that Family
	Last edited by cool_c1000; 12-18-2009 at 07:01 AM.

01-08-2009, 11:14 AM	#2
VikingsGal Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 05, 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 202	I saw this episode as well, and first off I would not take Mrs. Drake's statement after having her head split open as reliable. Eyewitness accounts are not very credible, anyway...people's minds can play tricks on them. If there was no direct evidence connecting the husband to the crime he should not be in jail. Was he kinda tacky moving the mistress into the house while his wife was in ICU? Hell yeah. But with no fingerprints or DNA to speak of, the guy should NOT be in jail.

01-08-2009, 01:09 PM	#3
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	Interesting to note that this was the last episode of the short lived "Final Appeal" series from 1992 and was not slated to air as a part of Unsolved Mysteries back then. Even though I can't stand all the butchery and simple mindedness of the Spike incarnation it is interesting that they are showing these old stories that we would probably never see otherwise.

01-08-2009, 01:59 PM	#4
egswanso Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 06, 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 463	When I saw the case, what struck me most was that it seemed Drake received terrible lawyering, as it's hard, based on what was presented, to see how a competent crim def lawyer couldn't create reasonable doubt - the whole situation with the wife's "recovered" memory which she suddenly forgot on the eve of testimony strikes me as fishy, nevertheless.

01-08-2009, 04:38 PM	#6
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	Just watched this on my lunch break. What a delightfully filthy sleazy case. The evidence is circumstantial as others have pointed out but my gut wants to say he did it. Sometimes circumstantial evidence is all you have. I think a lot of folks who watch these CSI type programs assume there is always physical evidence and that isn't always the case in real life. I also got the vibe that this happened a long time ago. I thought Farina said 25 years. Not sure if that would be 25 years from today or 25 years from 1992 (if he was just re-reading Stack's narration). In any event, forensics have improved since then so I don't necessarily find it odd that no physical evidence was found connecting him with it at that time. Not to mention he worked in the church as well, so finding Drake's fingerprints, hairs or what not wouldn't necessarily be out of place. I agree with CD in that I thought the wife's comments at the end were kind of tacky. She out and out says she doesn't know if he's guilty but then basically says she doesn't care if he rots in prison because he did other bad stuff. Weird. I also thought her going back and fourth on the issue of whether he attacked her or not was strange. Initially I thought that maybe she was protecting him for some reason, but it doesn't seem like she is now, or maybe she's just under so much heavy medication she just doesn't know the truth anymore. EDIT: If anyone out there has the original NBC story from Final Appeal, please contact me.

01-09-2009, 04:32 AM	#7
pealo0819 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 30, 2005 Posts: 5	I tend to agree with the above poster. I think he is guilty. I say this for a couple of reasons. One, he said that he didn't like that his wife was putting so much time into church, yet he brings her lunch there. This is after he decides that the marriage was over. Then he moves in the girlfriend and never tells her that his wife was attacked. That seems like an Amber Fry/Scott Peterson type of thing. Then he says in the interview that he moved the girlfriend in because he needed things done around the house. But he goes on to say that all he was concerned with was that his wife get better and come home. What was she going to come home to? Was he then going to kick the girlfriend out after his wife got better? Doubtful. Besides he probably got rid of all his wife's stuff anyway since he moved the girlfriend in. Odd story, but I think he was guilty. However, I would not think that his sentence would have been so harsh.

01-12-2009, 04:02 AM	#9
Fletch Cabin fever Frequent Poster Join Date: May 10, 2002 Posts: 485	I too was pretty "WTF?" about the Wife's "even if he didn't do it, he deserves to be in there for what he did to me leading up to the attack." That's definitely not very Christian of her

03-26-2009, 05:03 PM	#11
synthisislab Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 552	I think the guy did it. Who but a total sociopath would move his girlfriend and her son into him and his wive's home while she's still in the hospital with her skull crushed in like that?

03-26-2009, 05:45 PM	#12
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Hmm, well I think the word 'sociopath' should not be thrown around so lightly. Thomas Drake, this is a tough one. I personally do not believe he himself is the one that tried to physically murder his wife. Now does that mean for sure he was not involved in some way? No. I will be honest though, while it was classless to move his mistress in while his wife was still recovering and bad as that is, it does not make him a sociopath and it does not make him a man that attempted to kill his wife. What that does make him is a bad husband and a rather sleazy person but as I say, just because he is a sleaze and a person that might be rather easy to dislike does not make him a killer or a sociopath. Thomas Drake's case does represent a major flaw with Florida law. How he can get a life sentence for armed robbery but yet get 30 years for attempted 2nd degree murder? There are people that actually murder other human beings that routinely get substantially less sentences in Florida and elsewhere than what Thomas Drake got and that is assuming for the sake of argument Drake is guilty (which I do not believe he is). If Drake is innocent than that means that he has spent over 24 years in prison for something he did not do or have anything to do with except being the husband of a woman that was attacked. As for Thomas Drake smiling in the mugshot, who knows why he is? Some have brought it up how he is guilty because he is smiling. Please. He has been in prison for over 24 years, maybe he is at peace, maybe he is just smiling because most do not smile in their mugshots, who knows? Drake is nearly 71 years old. Maybe he has come to terms with the fact that he most likely will never get out of prison and will probably die in prison? Again it is impossible to determine. I have been thinking of writing to Thomas Drake to get his opinions on all of this. As for the ex-wife, I did find it disturbing how she was that bitter about the guy cheating on her that she said he deserved to be in prison for life even if Thomas Drake had nothing to do with the attack on her. Incredible, that is one scorned woman! I have also seen comparisons from some on here, who compare this case to Scott Peterson. The two cases are not even close to similar except that you had two guys cheating on their wives. However Scott never moved Amber Frey into his house, in fact he was commuting a rather long distance to see Amber Frey and he never had anyone moved into his house after his wife disappeared. Also Scott Peterson's wife was pregnant and both she and the baby were murdered. So the two cases just are not that similar. Again it is one of those cases where people are angry someone got attacked and want someone, anyone to pay for it to set their own minds at ease.

03-27-2009, 08:59 AM	#13
justins5256 Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Aug 08, 2002 Posts: 3,866	I don't know kadrmas, I usually agree with your analysis but I think you're off on this one. Did you see his eyes in the mugshot? They are small and beady. That indicates he can't be trusted. Couple that with the smile, and man, I just don't know. It really looks like he's got something to hide. Perhaps he smiled because the thought occurred to him that he was hoodwinking everyone with that compelling Final Appeal story on the Spike network. Well of course he's guilty because he cheated on his wife. I mean, really, how is that not obvious? If he was capable of that, he was capable of far worse and more dastardly deeds. Geez, if there was some way the cops could have nailed him for just the cheating alone, maybe this whole crime could have been prevented. Nope, he's where he belongs. His wife's comments totally sum up my feelings on the case. He's a bad man. He did lots of other bad stuff prior to the attack, so that makes him guilty of this too. End of story.

12-18-2009, 07:46 AM	#15
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Cool that is blatantly false. Thomas Drake never admitted doing this, never confessed, no reason to. I know this because I am in contact with Thomas Drake, I have copies of his documents. MANY of them. No where, you can look over them too if you like, no where does it mention he confessed or anything. Even if your warped theory was true, why did his wife not throw him under the bus? Lets remember, he got a 2nd trial because his wife who allegedly hates his guts so much said he DID NOT do it. Thomas Drake is innocent, the sooner he is out the better. Shame on you.