Out of all the spouses under suspicion who was actually innocent?

[justins5256]

Over the years, UM has featured a number of stories that fit this theme - a wife or husband disappears or is murdered, and the prime suspect is the surviving spouse who naturally denies involvement. Some of the most suspicious and oft maligned characters on UM fit this mold - Paul Pollis, Mark Nichols, Judy Groezinger, etc.

Out of all these cases, were there any spouses that you thought were probably innocent? If so, who and why?

I'll nominate Stephen Geri. No real motive to murder his wife except for a life insurance policy and some financial problems. I really felt like the in-laws were grasping at straws with their accusations.

[MissFit29]

Jeff Oberholtzer.

[yellowVWchase]

Originally Posted by MissFit29

Jeff Oberholtzer.

That's exactly the first name that came to my mind when I read the thread title. Shows how that one bit of circumstantial evidence (the business card in the other victim's wallet) can throw doubts on someone in a case...

[TheCars1986]

Thomas Drake.

[RobinW]

I never really thought Steve Bechtel was responsible for the disappearance of his wife, Amy. He generated some suspicion by not taking a lie detector test, but his attorney even appeared on camera saying he advised his client not to do it, so even he has nothing to hide, I can't really fault him for taking his lawyer's advice. It seemed like they were grasping at straws when trying to accuse him and given the timeline of events, I don't think he had anything to do with her disappearance.

Alfredo Newball generated a lot of suspicion over the disappearance of his wife and son, but he seemed awfully genuinely concerned and sincere to me during his interview. Just because a few people thought he didn't sound concerned enough when he found out they were missing is pretty weak evidence of guilt.

I've spoken in another thread about my doubts over Bob Hall's guilt, simply because of the limited window of time he had to murder his wife, but there is a lot of suspicious evidence against him, so I can't really fault anyone for thinking he did it.

[zack007attack]

For Judy Groezinger's case, I don't understand why the police didn't ask her to hand over the gun she purchased so they could run ballistics test to determine if it was used to kill Mark. If it is the gun, I would say she's guilty. If not, she's not guilty. So for now, I am on the fence. Even if she isn't guilty, she is probably just smug about the fact that he is gone since she started another relationship.

I know Tara Breckenridge wasn't married, but there was deep suspicion on her boyfriend Wayne. I don't have reason to believe he is guilty, but I am not 100% on this. I'd say it's more likely he wasn't involved in her disappearance. He just didn't really strike me as the type who was really capable of hurting her or doing something unspeakable to her (unlike idiots such as Mark Nichols or Mel Green) even though they both had a share of problems in their relationship, but who doesn't?

[DarkDante]

Steve Page

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by zack007attack

I know Tara Breckenridge wasn't married, but there was deep suspicion on her boyfriend Wayne. I don't have reason to believe he is guilty, but I am not 100% on this. I'd say it's more likely he wasn't involved in her disappearance. He just didn't really strike me as the type who was really capable of hurting her or doing something unspeakable to her

A posting (on these forums) from someone who claims to be an ex-girlfriend of Wayne. Take it or leave it:

I know this may be hard to believe but I lived with Wayne for a little over a year several years ago. I only recently found out about the Tara story on Unsolved. He always told me that she "came up missing" but he never gave me any details. Living with him was a nightmare. He was controlling, abusive, and a liar. I still have nightmares about him. He was vegan, refused to eat any kind of animal product because he didn't want to be responsible for "killing a baby" yet he would beat the crap out of his girlfriend (me) when he found out I ate a hamburger. I have no doubt in my mind that he had something to do with her disappearance. I know that at the time of her disappearance he wasn't working because he was a cocaine dealer in pool halls. Plus she brought home enough money so he didn't have to work. I could tell you horror stories about the things he would do to me when he thought I was just looking at another guy. I've never seen the episode that everyone is talking about. If anyone has information on it please let me know.

[MissFit29]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

Steve Page

Kathy Page's husband? Usually I groove with your opinions DD, but I disagree on this one.

[zack007attack]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

A posting (on these forums) from someone who claims to be an ex-girlfriend of Wayne. Take it or leave it:

I'm kind of skeptical about that, since there isn't much as far as sources go to corroborate these claims. But if this person is right, I can change my opinion and say Wayne definitely had something to do with it.

[TheCars1986]

I believe Thomas Drake was innocent simply because there were other eyewitnesses to the crime that placed a silver haired man at the church where his wife was attacked. And when questioned, Nancy said a man with silver hair attacked her. Also, there was a fingerprint found at the scene matching a local mental patient, and he had no business being at the church that day. I think Drake was convicted largely on the basis of his extramarital affairs.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I believe Thomas Drake was innocent simply because there were other eyewitnesses to the crime that placed a silver haired man at the church where his wife was attacked. And when questioned, Nancy said a man with silver hair attacked her. Also, there was a fingerprint found at the scene matching a local mental patient, and he had no business being at the church that day. I think Drake was convicted largely on the basis of his extramarital affairs.

One of Drake's appeals:

http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfr...4107.FL.htm/qx

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by justins5256

One of Drake's appeals:

http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfr...4107.FL.htm/qx

I've read that before and it's an interesting read. I still contend he was convicted largely based on the fact that he was having an extramarital affair. Drake knew there was going to be people in and out of the church that day buying tickets, and it just seems way too foolish for him to set up a "robbery" in an attempt to kill his wife at the church. And Nancy herself told doctors that she was attacked by an unknown man. What's your opinion on the case?

[Hambone2421]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

Steve Page

WOW! Seriously?

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I've read that before and it's an interesting read. I still contend he was convicted largely based on the fact that he was having an extramarital affair. Drake knew there was going to be people in and out of the church that day buying tickets, and it just seems way too foolish for him to set up a "robbery" in an attempt to kill his wife at the church. And Nancy herself told doctors that she was attacked by an unknown man. What's your opinion on the case?

I think Drake is guilty. Without rehashing everything from that appeal, there are many troubling inconsistencies in his statements.

- Drake claimed at the trial that the affair ended in February 1983.
- Drake denied having sex with his mistress after that time.

Both statements were contradicted by Drake’s mistress, Carol Lopata. She claimed she planned to move in with Drake in July of ’83. In addition, she claimed that Drake met her four days after the attack, paid for her motel room for several days and they had sex.

I think these two points say a lot about Drake’s character and possibly his mindset at the time of the attack. He acts concerned about Nancy at the hospital when the cops are there but then he’s off screwing around and he felt a need to lie about it in court. I suppose one could argue that the Drake’s marriage was on the rocks, so his behavior might make some sense in that context, but why would he lie about it then?

- Conflicting statements over what time he arrived at and left the church. Drake told Carol Lopata he left the church at 11:30am on the morning of the attack. He told an investigator he arrived at 12:15pm – that’s a big inconsistency. My thoughts? He probably initially claimed he left at 11:30 since the attack occurred almost an hour later. However, when eyewitness testimony contradicted his statement, he changed his story. He likely did arrive at 12:15, but I can see him not wanting to admit that if he was guilty, as that places him on the scene 20 minutes before the attack.

- He volunteered an explanation (when none was needed, I might add) as to why his fingerprints might be on the hammer. He claimed Nancy had asked him to hang some pictures in her office. This was contradicted by a pastor who testified that Nancy would have had to seek permission to hang pictures in her office, yet she had not done so.

- Drake denied knowing about a 10,000 life insurance policy Nancy had purchased two months before the attack. He then changed his story and acknowledged being present when Nancy purchased the policy. He blamed this slip up on the fact that he was upset after being harassed by a specific officer during an interrogation. The officer, whose name Drake gave, did not take part in the interrogation.

- Drake nearly admitted to committing the crime during an interrogation. He said in response to a direct question of could he have hit her and not remembered “I don’t know, it could be, I don’t know”. Really? Who would say that?!

So, if Drake didn’t do it, who did? His supporters are quick to point out that a fingerprint belonging to a mental patient was found on a door window. Also, Drake and a witness reported seeing an unidentified white haired man in a cream colored station wagon outside the church. Nancy would later identify her attacker as an older white haired man.

Fair enough, but which is it? Notice most Drake supporters usually lump these two theories together yet seemingly can’t pigeonhole which one is correct. It’s a perfect scenario for creating reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, neither theory is very impressive.

The fingerprint was identified as belonging to Raymond Starr. According to the appeal, Starr was a parishioner and known to be in the building at times, so the discovery of his fingerprint is easily explainable. Also, Starr was voluntarily interviewed and provided an alibi for the time of the attack. Additionally, what motive would Starr have for beating Mrs. Drake almost to death? Because he was a former mental patient, I guess. Moreover, if Starr did attack Mrs. Drake why didn’t she identify him? Why tell the story about the white haired man at all?

The robbery scenario also makes little sense. The “robber” showed up at the church presumably intent on committing a robbery but brought no weapon of his own. Instead, he had to make do with the hammer he found in the office that may have had Thomas Drake’s prints on it. How convenient! Why beat Nancy Drake to the point of almost killing her if his goal was merely to steal some cash? Why target a church at all? Churches can be busy places. Even if he knew of the upcoming concert, as some testimony suggests, why risk robbing and beating someone within earshot of witnesses? If the robber was a parishioner, he probably would have been recognized. To go off on a bit of a tangent here – isn’t it interesting that the attack occurred at a time when there were no witnesses? Drake was a parishioner and occasionally did work for the church. Drake would have been more privy to the comings and goings of the various church staff then some random outsider.

Nancy Drake told Thomas’ attorney that she remembered being attacked by a white haired man. Keep in mind, this identification came after Drake’s first trial in which he was convicted. Her testimony is what got Drake his second trial. She then recanted her story and refused to testify. She claimed on Final Appeal that she had no memory of the attack and didn’t know if Thomas was guilty. In addition, a doctor testified at trial that it would have been very unlikely Nancy would remember the attack. I just don’t think she is reliable. Also, she was communicating with Thomas during that time. I believe it is possible that Thomas persuaded her to make up the story about the silver haired man. That being said, I don’t think that Thomas Drake invented this person. The man was seen by at least one witness, Althea Toth, and possibly by Drake himself, though I doubt a lot of what he has to say, he may be telling the truth here. I think the police believed this man existed also as a composite was even created and early newspaper reports on the incident encouraged anyone with info on this man to come forward. So far as I know, the man was never identified. Who was this guy? Who knows. However, there is no evidence he had anything to do with the attack aside from Nancy Drake’s statements, which were recanted, so we know how reliable they are.

To summarize, we have a man, Thomas Drake, who, at best, is likely a pathological liar. He is leading a double life by having an affair with a woman for years. After his wife is attacked, he has this woman and her son move in to his home. Drake lies in court about the longevity and depth of the affair. Drake lies about the time he arrived at the church. He lies about a life insurance policy on his wife in which he is the beneficiary. He volunteers a bogus explanation as to why his fingerprints might be on the weapon used to commit the crime. He tells an investigator he might have attacked his wife but he doesn’t remember. He quit working after the incident and lived off funds supposedly “donated” to him by the church. His explanations as to who else may have committed the crime don’t hold water. He was tried twice for these offenses and convicted both times. On his 1985 appeal, he questioned the validity of his convictions based on the circumstantial evidence not being enough to support those convictions, but the justices affirmed the evidence was legally sufficient.