Everytime I Watch Eileen Mangold's Case...

[SageSlowdive]

I get insanely angry. REALLY, jury of Tampa, Florida? Semen found on the body and Franklin Smith is not guilty at all?

In this article, he argues that he doesn't look the composite sketch. So, who cares?

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

Also his fingerprint partially matched a fingerprint found on Eileen's car.

[Steve_uk]

Originally Posted by SageSlowdive

I get insanely angry. REALLY, jury of Tampa, Florida? Semen found on the body and Franklin Smith is not guilty at all?

In this article, he argues that he doesn't look the composite sketch. So, who cares?

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

Also his fingerprint partially matched a fingerprint found on Eileen's car.

Do you have the double jeopardy rule still? We've abolished it in England meaning in theory someone could be tried again for the same crime.http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Eileen_Mangold

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by Steve_uk

Do you have the double jeopardy rule still?

Yes. There are, however, conditions that must be met.

Trials by different entities (i.e., you may be tried in state court after being tried for the same crime in federal court) and mistrials are the main "exceptions" I can think of--although we have attorneys on the board who can probably far better explain. Also, a U.S. serviceman or -woman may be tried in a military court-martial after being acquitted in civilian court.

[Steve_uk]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

Yes. There are, however, conditions that must be met.

Trials by different entities (i.e., you may be tried in state court after being tried for the same crime in federal court) and mistrials are the main "exceptions" I can think of--although we have attorneys on the board who can probably far better explain. Also, a U.S. serviceman or -woman may be tried in a military court-martial after being acquitted in civilian court.

Thinking about the O.J Simpson case didn't the relatives bring about a wrongful death conviction,though if I remember rightly the father of the victim said he would relinquish any monetary gain for a confession from him.

[SageSlowdive]

Originally Posted by Steve_uk

Thinking about the O.J Simpson case didn't the relatives bring about a wrongful death conviction,though if I remember rightly the father of the victim said he would relinquish any monetary gain for a confession from him.

Thank god, THAT scum finally got what was coming to him.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by Steve_uk

Thinking about the O.J Simpson case didn't the relatives bring about a wrongful death conviction,though if I remember rightly the father of the victim said he would relinquish any monetary gain for a confession from him.

He was acquitted in criminal court, but was made to pay something like $30 million for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman when he was tried in civil court and lost, some three years after the criminal trial.

He hasn't paid much of the sum:

http://web.archive.org/web/200703052....ap/index.html

Nor has he ever confessed to the murders.

The same year that article was published, he was arrested for armed robbery (I think it was sports memorabilia hocked from a hotel room) and a number of other felonies in Las Vegas. In that criminal trial, he WAS found guilty of those charges and that's why he's in prison today.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by Steve_uk

Thinking about the O.J Simpson case didn't the relatives bring about a wrongful death conviction,though if I remember rightly the father of the victim said he would relinquish any monetary gain for a confession from him.

A wrongful death suit was filed against OJ Simpson and he was found liable in the civil trial ("conviction" applies only in criminal trials). And yes, you remember correctly: Ron Goldman's father, Fred Goldman, offered to give up the monetary judgment if Simpson confessed to the murders. Of course, Simpson refused to do that. (But hey, maybe someone could waterboard him until he confesses.)

As long as we're on the subject, I suggest reading Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder. The book was written by former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (who prosecuted Charles Manson) and explains why the criminal trial ended the way it did.

[WishfulDreamer]

I feel the same way about this case. I usually skip over the case when it comes up on the discs I have because I get so upset thinking about it.

[egswanso]

Originally Posted by SageSlowdive

I get insanely angry. REALLY, jury of Tampa, Florida? Semen found on the body and Franklin Smith is not guilty at all?

In this article, he argues that he doesn't look the composite sketch. So, who cares?

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

Also his fingerprint partially matched a fingerprint found on Eileen's car.

Unfortunately, mishandling and error regarding DNA collection and analysis are common, which means it's not always the slam-dunk lay people think it is. and matching a partial print is often more art than science. Combine these with a viable other suspect and it's not difficult to see reasonable doubt. Which isn't to say it's the right verdict, but I can see how it came about.

[SageSlowdive]

Originally Posted by egswanso

Unfortunately, mishandling and error regarding DNA collection and analysis are common, which means it's not always the slam-dunk lay people think it is. and matching a partial print is often more art than science. Combine these with a viable other suspect and it's not difficult to see reasonable doubt. Which isn't to say it's the right verdict, but I can see how it came about.

I just don't understand how an expert can sit in court and say 'hey, it's his semen without a doubt on her dead body' and a jury can still be convinced.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by SageSlowdive

I just don't understand how an expert can sit in court and say 'hey, it's his semen without a doubt on her dead body' and a jury can still be convinced.

I agree. I didn't even know this case was updated until I clicked the link to the UM wiki. I have no idea how the jury could confuse DNA evidence in this case. Eileen was working at a gas station, two people witnessed her abduction, and she is later found dead with semen on her. Whoever's semen is on the dead woman's body is clearly the guilty party.

[1990 UM fan]

Florida judical systems really have a bad reputation for letting criminals slip through their fingers. Casey Anthony clearly murdered her daughter and gets off scot free. Eileen Mangold is witnessed getting abducted and is later found murdered, having been raped and beaten severely, and the courts let her killer go even though his semen was present on her body. Gotta love those Florida court systems...not!!!

[egswanso]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I agree. I didn't even know this case was updated until I clicked the link to the UM wiki. I have no idea how the jury could confuse DNA evidence in this case. Eileen was working at a gas station, two people witnessed her abduction, and she is later found dead with semen on her. Whoever's semen is on the dead woman's body is clearly the guilty party.

PRESUMING the sample was handled appropriately. If not, it is useless and any "match" is questionable, at best.

The sad reality is, thanks to budget cuts, massive case loads, and inadequate training, real-life forensic analysis is never as neat and quick as TV fiction would lead the layperson to believe.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by egswanso

PRESUMING the sample was handled appropriately. If not, it is useless and any "match" is questionable, at best.

The sad reality is, thanks to budget cuts, massive case loads, and inadequate training, real-life forensic analysis is never as neat and quick as TV fiction would lead the layperson to believe.

I was aware of that. However, if the man matched the general description provided by the witnesses AND his semen was found on her, I don't see how the jury would become "confused". Unless the defense attorney brought up the possibility of mishandling of the DNA, which is possible. I've never seen a picture of the suspect, does he resemble the sketch?

[egswanso]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I was aware of that. However, if the man matched the general description provided by the witnesses AND his semen was found on her, I don't see how the jury would become "confused". Unless the defense attorney brought up the possibility of mishandling of the DNA, which is possible. I've never seen a picture of the suspect, does he resemble the sketch?

I don't know. But eyewitness accounts are often so flawed (or vague) as to be almost useless.

But like I said before, I'm not saying that the jury was right, just that how a poorly presented state case combined with a good defense attorney can create reasonable doubt. That's all you need.