Writing to someone who was featured on UM...

[justins5256]

Hi,

I was just wondering if anyone here has ever written a letter to, or ever considered attempting to contact someone who was featured on UM. For some time now, I have been considering writing to Glen Consagra. Consagra is in prison for allegedly murdering two friends in 1979. His story was profiled on special 3 and he claims he is innocent. The case intrigues me, and a part of me is wondering what he has been up to since the UM broadcast in '88. Assuming he really is innocent, it must really suck to be in jail for a crime you didn't commit. Since I now have the resources to find out exactly where Consagra is incarcerated, I'm wondering if I should attempt that next step.

Any thoughts?

[DarkDante]

I have often thought about writing to Nyleen's mother just telling her that I feel badly about what happened to Nyleen and send my sympathies etc. The only problem with this though is after you say that, what else can you say? - I mean sometimes a few kind words go a long way but writing to someone who you don't know personally who has experienced a great tragedy which you really CANNOT understand how it feels to be them is a bit of an awkward situation to be in. I know someone here sent a letter to the parents of the Baskins, but I don't think they ever got a response. In a lot of the cases profiled especially ones involving missing children the information is so "hush hush" that you really aren't going to get any new information by writing the parents or the investigators but if you want to express concern or sympathy I guess thats okay. I still want to write Nancy Marshall because the segment did effect me and I guess I could write in care of the Jefferson Police Department but in the end I probably won't.

Okay enough rambling in the case you are talking about are you even sure Glen Consagra is still in prison. I saw the segment last night and am pretty sure he is innocent although not as positive about his innocence as I am about Michael Lloyd Self and Michael Scott Martin among others although I do think Glen Consagra did not kill his friends. I know he was given at least one life term but it may be a case of he was eventually released. I would check into that first. Writing a inmate shouldn't be very hard once you locate him and most prisons have "letter writing" programs set up for inmates to communicate with people. Either way best of luck to you Justin.

[crystaldawn]

Justin, I think it would be interesting to write to Glen Consagra. He has a lot of time on his hands and I'm sure he would appreciate your interest in the case. Let us know if you do and if you receive a reply.

Btw, do you still think he's guilty? I'm leaning more towards thinking he is innocent. Maybe he would tell you his side and change your mind.

[justins5256]

Btw, do you still think he's guilty? I'm leaning more towards thinking he is innocent. Maybe he would tell you his side and change your mind.

I go back and fourth with regard to the issue of Consagra's guilt. When I first saw the special, I thought he was probably innocent. After repeated viewings, the most recent being last week, I'm not sure.

I don't understand why he plead guilty. He said he thought he would get some kind of deal in which he could be paroled. His attorney should have made it very clear to him what was coming if he entered such a plea. So, I find it hard to swallow that he would have known anything but two consecutive life sentences were in his future if he plead out the way he did.

Also, as the prosecutor pointed out, Consagra has never been able to come up with the name of the true killer, even though (according to that schizophrenic woman's testimony) it was someone Consagra knew personally.

[DarkDante]

I go back and fourth with regard to the issue of Consagra's guilt. When I first saw the special, I thought he was probably innocent. After repeated viewings, the most recent being last week, I'm not sure.

I don't understand why he plead guilty. He said he thought he would get some kind of deal in which he could be paroled. His attorney should have made it very clear to him what was coming if he entered such a plea. So, I find it hard to swallow that he would have known anything but two consecutive life sentences were in his future if he plead out the way he did.

Also, as the prosecutor pointed out, Consagra has never been able to come up with the name of the true killer, even though (according to that schizophrenic woman's testimony) it was someone Consagra knew personally.

Justin,

I watched the Consagra case too last week and it's a bit of a puzzle. I mean I would really like to believe he is innocent but the location of the murders shoots a lot of holes in his story at least in my view. The thing is though if you watch the segment closely you'll hear Karl Malden explain why Consagra took the guilty plea. "He" committed these murders in a state where a death penalty would be almost a lock if he was found guilty in fact, I think the prosecutor told him that he would ask for it if he was found guilty. Now I'm not saying I would do the same thing in his position but Consagra was in a virtual "no win" situation here - He didn't have a strong case if he was innocent, the state was holding the death penalty over his head and besides his defense not being strong the prosecution had a fairly strong case against Mr. Consagra based on the circumstancial evidence and as previously stated the LOCATION of the murders didn't help Consagra out any either. I think in his case Consagra made the only decision he could have made, he was obviously not the HARDENED criminal who could stare death in the eye and laugh but was **** scared of going to the electric chair so he did what he had to do to save his life.

Now some might say if the defendant doesn't believe enough in his own innocence his case must be **** and why should we believe him? - The thing is though that isn't exactly what was at stake here, Consagra made a decision based on his fear of "what was behind door B" if he lost his case - Was it a good use of foresight or just a stupid impulsive decision based on his part? - I dunno but I don't think we should write Consagra off just because he didn't come in waving his saber in the air yelling "I'm innocent" - I think it came down to Consagra's fears of the death penalty if he lost and thats why he took the plea - Bottom line.

How are the dvds coming, hope your surgery goes well :)

Later.

DD

[girl_without_fear]

Justin, I think it would be interesting to write to Glen Consagra. He has a lot of time on his hands and I'm sure he would appreciate your interest in the case. Let us know if you do and if you receive a reply.

Btw, do you still think he's guilty? I'm leaning more towards thinking he is innocent. Maybe he would tell you his side and change your mind.If you really feel that this person is innocent then I say by all means let them know. It helps for people to know they have people on their side. I wrote someone in prison whom I feel is innocent of a crime. He wrote me back and we still continue to write each other.
Also, I am in contact with some of this persons family members through e-mail and just hearing from them and they way they feel also leads me to believe even more this person is innocent.
If you do decide to writhe this person my best advice is not to bring up the crime he is in there for except the start of his letter and a few things why you feel he is innocent. Tell him a bit about yourself, but not a whole great deal. Ask him what he likes doing, what kind of movies he likes, etc. Let this person know you have been wanting to write for sometime now, but was not sure if it was the right thing to do. Innocent or guilty prisoners do not like to think theyare being used for a story and after writing you several times he will learn that you are not a reporter or anything like that and be able to put his trust into you. Let us know.

[george ramos]

Does anyone know if he is even still prison? The courts probably affirmed the convictions since he plead guilty. The courts usually don't overturned convictions in which a suspect plead guilty since they feel the suspect knew the risks but there is still a chance he was released. Anyway, I can't believe I missed the episode. :( If anyone knows what happen to him, please tell us. This case is interesting.

[crystaldawn]

Actually the Glen Consagra case was on one of the pre-Stack Specials so it was never aired on Lifetime. As far as I know he is still in prison.

[pjpiazza]

Last week I wrote one of the dj's who did the hoax on-air. He replied pretty quickly. He's still in radio believe it or not.

[george ramos]

I couldn't believe he was still on the air but that's what the show said. That guy is a jackass. Sorry for the language but he is. He gave the families of missing people false hope. Kind of like John Edwards. If you saw the south park episode you'll know what I mean. Also thank you for the reply CrystalDawn. As I said, People who plead guilty almost never have their convictions overturned. The judges feel they knew the risk of pleading guilty.

[KyooMac]

I could not believe they are still working at the SAME radio station. As to Glen Consagra, didn't he get TWO life sentences? He's still in jail....

What state was he convicted in?

[george ramos]

Florida, but the prison website doesn't have him listed for some reason.

[Mr. Fuji]

Last week I wrote one of the dj's who did the hoax on-air. He replied pretty quickly. He's still in radio believe it or not.
Wow! What did you write to him? And what was his response?

[pjpiazza]

Wow! What did you write to him? And what was his response?

I said the segment still airs on from time to time and "bean" responded that it was odd because it's neither unsolved nor a mystery.

[justins5256]

I said the segment still airs on from time to time and "bean" responded that it was odd because it's neither unsolved nor a mystery.

I suppose he doesn't watch the show much.

[dynoguy88]

I have often thought about writing to Nyleen's mother just telling her that I feel badly about what happened to Nyleen and send my sympathies etc. The only problem with this though is after you say that, what else can you say? - I mean sometimes a few kind words go a long way but writing to someone who you don't know personally who has experienced a great tragedy which you really CANNOT understand how it feels to be them is a bit of an awkward situation to be in. I know someone here sent a letter to the parents of the Baskins, but I don't think they ever got a response. In a lot of the cases profiled especially ones involving missing children the information is so "hush hush" that you really aren't going to get any new information by writing the parents or the investigators but if you want to express concern or sympathy I guess thats okay.

I was the one who wrote the letter to the Baskins. That case has always touched me much like the Nyleen Kay Marshall case has effected you. I can't tell you how many times I have had dreams about it. I've never met these people but they have always been in my prayers and I feel so much anger towards those rotten grandparents, the Maples. After seeing the segment yet again a few years ago, and seeing Debbie Baskin cry at the end about her son not wanting Grandma and Grandpa come to steal him too, I finally got fed up and decided to write the Baskins. Yeah, it was hard to find the right words but I basically told them about how I had seen their case on Unsolved Mysteries and how they will always be in my prayers. And naturally I told them I hope they are reunited with Kristi and Bobby soon. I e-mailed Sgt. Anita Flagg of the Murfreesboro Police Department (she was interviewed in the segment) and told her about the letter and she promised me she would forward it to the Baskins. She also told me that she wished more people would show concern and get involved in cases like this.

I never expected to get a reply from the Baskins. After all, why should they reply to some college kid they have never met before that lives 400 miles away? Naturally a reply would be nice but the fact that I sent the letter is more important to me.

If you want to mail Nancy Marshall, I say go ahead. You don't have to COMPLETELY understand the tragedy she has experienced (I hope you never do) but the main point will be made - you are thinking about her. I would be touched just to know that someone cares and that's something that's pretty nice to know when you think about how many horrible people live in this world.

[mistagee]

My opinion is that is isnt appropriate to contact people from the show because I think it invades their privacy and only reminds them of the pain they are going through. I think its best to let them to try to get over their pain and move on and letters that come so far after the case airing is in many ways pouring salt on a wound that has perhaps begun to heal. Rememnber that its a REPEAT show, so it happened so long ago and the fact that its on television now makes it seem like it wasnt so long ago, but in fact, Nyleen Marshall disappeared AGES ago.....

As members of the Doe Network, we are prohibited from contacting parents of missing people. You wouldnt believe how many cuirosity seekers contact them trying to get information or even sell private investigator services. And did you know that contacting the parents of a missing person many times may even subject you to surveillance? The same holds true for contacting felons as well.

I say once again you should only contact them if they have a website soliciting feedback or comments, otherwise, respect their privacy.

[george ramos]

I agree with you there. It never crossed my mind to contact them. Especially the Baskins, They will never see their two kids again. They are probably in Canada or England. It's been more than 15 years. The two kids have probably forgotten about their parents.

[dynoguy88]

I guess you guys have a point. I never really thought of that.

In all honesty, I'm not even 100% sure Anita Flagg ever gave my letter to the Baskins. She might have thought about their privacy like you just stated and decided to just keep it herself (I told her she was more than welcome to read the letter so she knew I wasn't trying to stalk them or something.) I never got a chance to find out if she gave them the letter because I accidently errased her e-mail address.

I guess it depends on the case. I hope I didn't make things worse for them if they did read the letter.

[GoBucs]

Glenn Consagra did receive two life sentences for these murders in FL. He pleaded guilty facing the death penalty. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and convincing. Regarding his fate, he is no longer in prison as someone previously noted. He was paroled around 1991 or so (exact year escapes me). He died around 1995.

[nightbird]

You can always write to someone incarcerated and get their address from the state that they are incarcerateds DOC website. Alot welcome mail but some will not. I would be leary of contacting family members where there is still an open investigation in a missing person or murder case.

[shek]

I hope you don't mind but I would like to add my thoughts on 2 of the major questions presented here from a personal point of view. Our daughter's case was profiled on UM - Lisa Marie Kimmell. As far as writing to person that has been involved in a tragic event, I would encourage you to do so even if they don't respond. I have recieved many letters, calls and email messeages from many people over the years. Some merely want to express their sympathy - others sometimes had questions. I didn't veiw it as morbid curiousity but an effort to understand circumstances that are hard to understand. In my case, I responded to everyone I could, however, not everyone is like me. Some people need shield themselves to avoid the difficult emotions they go through. My personal posistion was that when I went public with our story begging for help to help us find our daughter's murderer, I owed it to all those who tried to help and answer their question or thank them for a thoughtful note. Then I would like to add, that some of the questions that were asked, I wasn't at liberty to answer at various times and had to keep them "hush-hush" in many cases. For example, we knew about the DNA match very early on but couldn't disclose that and it would be months before that info was released to the public. Also we knew the day they found the car that it was Lisa's but it would be over a month before the authorities would publically confirm it. On another note, I would like to thank my UM friends for the private messages they have sent me and the kind thoughts they have posted on the board.

Next, writing to inmates. I have some experience in this area, too. First, if you wish to write an inmate you must have their inmate number as part of their address in 99% of the cases or the prison will reject the letter. You can get that by calling the prison. Second, be very, VERY careful to not get overly involved. Yes, we would like to think that most would just appreciate a letter but it can quickly turn into manipulation evoking sympathy to send money and gifts. Even if you believe a prisoner is innocent, they learn quickly to become opportunists and it can become emotionally and financially costly.

Sorry to have rambled on but couldn't help but share some thoughts.
Sheila Kimmell

[justins5256]

Glenn Consagra did receive two life sentences for these murders in FL. He pleaded guilty facing the death penalty. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and convincing. Regarding his fate, he is no longer in prison as someone previously noted. He was paroled around 1991 or so (exact year escapes me). He died around 1995.

Hi,

I was the person who was contemplating writing to Consagra. Where did you get this info? Just curious. Any idea what he died of?

Thanks.

[connieallbright]

I considered writing to Paul Beal. I make short films and am totally fascinated with his case. Someone who may or may not have had amnesia with that moment of life - the slice of time when he was without an identity being caught on film - is so deeply strange. Also, I'm interested in what he now thinks of his projected version of his past.

I wonder if he'd write back.

[Opal]

I considered writing to Paul Beal. I make short films and am totally fascinated with his case. Someone who may or may not have had amnesia with that moment of life - the slice of time when he was without an identity being caught on film - is so deeply strange. Also, I'm interested in what he now thinks of his projected version of his past.

I wonder if he'd write back.


Was this the guy that they showed talking on the phone with his mother? Then they showed them meeting each other and he says, "Sorry, but I have no idea who you are."

If it isn't, can anyone tell me what that guy's name was?

Thank You :)

[crystaldawn]

Yes that was him. Although I think they referred to him as Arthur Paul Beal (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) so that may help anyone who tries to contact him.

[connieallbright]

I wonder about writing several of the other amnesia victims (the man who had run a fish farm with his recent wife). Does this seem in really poor taste?

I think Paul was from Idaho - does that sound right?

[Awsi Dooger]

I missed this thread when it was created last summer or I would have replied immediately. I have seriously considered writing to Jeffrey MacDonald. Several times I've expressed certainty he is innocent.

When I was introduced to his old prison cellmate a couple of years ago the guy wouldn't shut up in expressing his opinion that MacDonald was completely innocent. I kept trying to tell him he was preaching to the choir.

Just in the past couple of weeks I've seen more true crime programs in which creative prosecutors manipulated and misrepresented the supposed evidence and slanted the case toward one suspect, only to have the verdict eventially overturned. One was the Sheila Bryan case in Georgia. There were two separate shows on that case. She was convicted of murdering her octagenarian mother via intentionally setting a fire after the care went down an embankment.

The first trial completely overlooked the faulty ignition switch that was notorious for causing fires. They even had a hired corporate gun who was paid $150,000 per year by Ford. In the first trial he made no mention of the ignition switch despite being fully aware of that switch and its problems. In the second trial he claimed there was no way the ignition switch caused the fire, despite the identical switch and serial number being recalled due to that specific problem in other models. The prosecutors claimed there had to be liquid accelerant used to start the fire even though they found no trace of it. Most pathetically of all, they claimed they knew exactly what the undercarriage of Sheila Bryan's car should look like if it went down the embankment at high speed. What a disgrace! It reminded me exactly of the MacDonald case and the prosecutors insistence they could tell exactly what happened in the house. Man, would I love to have an actual video of what happened and bet MacDonald's version against theirs. How about death to the loser? And I'll gladly throw in my own demise if the tape proves they are correct. Like they can piece together what happened step by step, move by move when you had many perpetrators involved. The mere thought makes my blood boil.

In the second trial Sheila Bryian's friends chipped in and she found competent counsel and an expert who was able to confront the hired gun. He displayed how the ignition switch could burn and also how the molding in that car melted under extreme heat to produce the exact type and pattern of burning that the prosecutors claimed had to come from their mysterious liquid accelerant. One of the prosecution "experts" who testified about the burn patterns in the first trial conceded he didn't even know what an ignition switch looked like, in fact he couldn't even estimate if it was 3 inches or 9 inches or in what shape. Not only that, the prosecutors claimed a burn mark under the door had to have been made with the door open. Yet the defense expert correctly pointed out an identical burn mark under the back door, which was never opened. So every claim the prosecution made was total bunk. Once again conspiracy was trumped by sheer common sense and probability, truth stranger than fiction. Sheila Bryan was acquitted quickly in the second trial.

The other case was a police officer who was wrongly convicted of murdering a woman he was having an affair with. The officer made the mistake of guessing a time frame of that night that was contradicted by other people who knew him. The prosecution used that discrepancy to make up a case against him. The officer served 6 or 7 years until a man came forward and confessed to the murder. He was also having a relationship with her and killed her during an argument. The guy said he was shocked he was never questioned by authorities since he thought it was common knowledge he was involved with the woman. So whenever you hear about police thoroughness, keep in mind in many cases that is complete garbage. They are thorough in too many cases only when they zero in on the wrong suspect and are determined to put a check mark beside the case.

Sorry for that long detour but those cases pissed me off. I had just posted here about my disdain for creative prosecutors a day or so before watching those two cases. Anyway, I think I will do it, write to Jeffrey MacDonald. I want to express my confidence in his innocence and relay the story about the old cellmate who also believes in him. That cellmate, BTW, told me "half the guys in jail claim they are innocent. The only one I ever believed was Jeffrey MacDonald." Perhaps I'll ask MacDonald a few questions about the specifics of that night.

Thanks to many of the posters here especially Sheila Kimmell for the advice including providing the inmate's identification number. In Mrs. Kimmell's case involving her daughter's murder the investigators were admirably thorough and patient and precise, eventually isolating the actual perpetrator. I don't want to come across as anti-prosecution. I am anti incompetence. Especially incompetence that convicts innocent people.

[shek]

AwsiDooger
Yes, the man that murdered my daughter was as guilty as hell but I must agree with you that many innocent people are sitting in prison for crimes they didn't commit. I can't say it's a large percent but there are many. Then also look at how many men have been sent to prison for an alleged rape and the victim later recants their story or DNA disproves it. Then their are those people that are obviously quilty of a crime and walk because of a legal technicality. If the person is quilty - they should pay for the crime to the max but if the person is innocent and convicted of a crime they didn't commit - it is not just sad but outrageous! So I agree with you on that point.

But, then I have to say that by in large, I hold the defense attorneys more responsible for the lack of finding and presenting evidence or other theories to clear their client in the cases you mentioned. The prosecutors have their job but the defense have theirs too. Some of things you mentioned seemed to be errors in the defense team not being throrough in investigating all the issues. It is especial annoying to know that some of proof to prove their clients innocence was so easily attainable and overlooked. That's called "ineffective defense" in legal terms. So, I my view there are two sides to the issue but both valid. Then please kind in mind that many things are not made public that remain behind the scenes and are not even disclosed to a jury. This makes it very difficult for a jury to arrive at a proper descisson. So you tally it up - you have zealous proscectors, inept defense attorneys, and uninformed jurors. That's our legal system for ya! I agree our investigators and proscutors did a very good job in our case but you would be appalled about the information that is not shared because of the design of our legal system.

FYI, I tried to write Eaton asking him to meet with me and he did not respond. Then, regretable, I have a close family member in prison that I correspond with so that's why I know most of the rules about writing, sending packages or money to an inmate. :( So, if you write to Jeffrey McDonald and need any tips - let me know. I'll be more than happy to help.

[Thinman]

I have seriously considered writing to Jeffrey MacDonald. Several times I've expressed certainty he is innocent.

When I was introduced to his old prison cellmate a couple of years ago the guy wouldn't shut up in expressing his opinion that MacDonald was completely innocent. I kept trying to tell him he was preaching to the choir.

Man, would I love to have an actual video of what happened and bet MacDonald's version against theirs. How about death to the loser? And I'll gladly throw in my own demise if the tape proves they are correct. Like they can piece together what happened step by step, move by move when you had many perpetrators involved. The mere thought makes my blood boil.

Sorry for that long detour but those cases pissed me off. I had just posted here about my disdain for creative prosecutors a day or so before watching those two cases. Anyway, I think I will do it, write to Jeffrey MacDonald. I want to express my confidence in his innocence and relay the story about the old cellmate who also believes in him. That cellmate, BTW, told me "half the guys in jail claim they are innocent. The only one I ever believed was Jeffrey MacDonald." Perhaps I'll ask MacDonald a few questions about the specifics of that night.


Go ahead and write to MacDonald. Just don't be surprised if you get a form letter back from him that asks you for a $5 donation to his defense fund.

For your sake, I'm glad you cannot actually bet your life on the actual events of that evening when ONE perpetrator was involved.

Specifics? He'll claim that he received 2,816 icepick wounds that night. The number seems to grow exponentially as the years go on.

Yes, there are many innocent people sitting in prison today. MacDonald is not one of them.

[bk4ever522]

HI,

If you have the means of findinout I would do it!... I didn't see that episode but it does seem interesting. Did u see todays episode about a hdden treasure in some park and a soldier Alexander that helped a child named ziggy during the civil war??? this message is for justin

[Awsi Dooger]

Go ahead and write to MacDonald. Just don't be surprised if you get a form letter back from him that asks you for a $5 donation to his defense fund.

For your sake, I'm glad you cannot actually bet your life on the actual events of that evening when ONE perpetrator was involved.

Specifics? He'll claim that he received 2,816 icepick wounds that night. The number seems to grow exponentially as the years go on.

Yes, there are many innocent people sitting in prison today. MacDonald is not one of them.

Well, I'm a handicapper and a successful one and you're obviously not. Congratulations on embracing the most obvious scenario, the truth being anything the grieving family and the withholding prosecutors want to make it. Pass the blindfold when you're finished, which shouldn't be any time soon.

[Awsi Dooger]

AwsiDooger
Yes, the man that murdered my daughter was as guilty as hell but I must agree with you that many innocent people are sitting in prison for crimes they didn't commit. I can't say it's a large percent but there are many. Then also look at how many men have been sent to prison for an alleged rape and the victim later recants their story or DNA disproves it. Then their are those people that are obviously quilty of a crime and walk because of a legal technicality. If the person is quilty - they should pay for the crime to the max but if the person is innocent and convicted of a crime they didn't commit - it is not just sad but outrageous! So I agree with you on that point.

But, then I have to say that by in large, I hold the defense attorneys more responsible for the lack of finding and presenting evidence or other theories to clear their client in the cases you mentioned. The prosecutors have their job but the defense have theirs too. Some of things you mentioned seemed to be errors in the defense team not being throrough in investigating all the issues. It is especial annoying to know that some of proof to prove their clients innocence was so easily attainable and overlooked. That's called "ineffective defense" in legal terms. So, I my view there are two sides to the issue but both valid. Then please kind in mind that many things are not made public that remain behind the scenes and are not even disclosed to a jury. This makes it very difficult for a jury to arrive at a proper descisson. So you tally it up - you have zealous proscectors, inept defense attorneys, and uninformed jurors. That's our legal system for ya! I agree our investigators and proscutors did a very good job in our case but you would be appalled about the information that is not shared because of the design of our legal system.

FYI, I tried to write Eaton asking him to meet with me and he did not respond. Then, regretable, I have a close family member in prison that I correspond with so that's why I know most of the rules about writing, sending packages or money to an inmate. :( So, if you write to Jeffrey McDonald and need any tips - let me know. I'll be more than happy to help.

Wow, I'm surprised you tried to contact Dale Eaton. I think that's the first time you mentioned it here. Did you want to ask him specifics about the entire crime, or just certain aspects? Or did you just want to give him a piece of your mind all those years later? I honestly don't know how I would feel in that regard, whether I'd want a meeting at all.

I agree with virtually everything in your post. The defense counsel in the Sheila Bryan case, for example, was definitely lacking in the first trial. The TV program talked to jurors from that trial who were convinced there had to be liquid accelerant even though there was no trace of it. Obviously that's the fault of the defense. It should have been simple to find a creditable expert to state categorically there was no hint of liquid accelerant. Plus the ignition switch as a potential cause of the fire was never brought up in the first trial, even thouh the identical switch had been known to cause fires in similar model of car. And the burn mark under the back door was identical to under the front door but the defense apparently never pointed that out, and it was vital info since no one claimed the back door was ever open.

But my concern is this: too many people are charged without sufficient proof, or without other leads and theories being followed and exhausted. I can't really blame defense lawyers because they are up against it. Conviction rates are huge, especially in felony cases. When you sit in that defendant's chair, you can dress up all you want and do all the right things, but I'm convinced there is an underlying presumption of guilt by a seated jury. Every time I've gone to jury duty that has been apparent. I go again on March 13. Normally I'm excluded by the prosecution these days because I mention during voir dire that proof beyond a reasonable doubt means just that to me, not just a belief they probably did it.

I understand probability. If charges were trumped up against me for any type of crime I would likely be convicted. Regardless of the charge or the defense lawyer(s). The more I watch these true crime shows I see one example after another where the prosecutors get married to a theory and then desperately try to fit any flimsy discrepancy in the case as pointing to guilt. For example, in the Sheila Bryan case the gas tank lid was open when the car was found. They tried to insinuate that was somehow connected to the murder by fire. Now, there was no indication any gas was siphoned or taken out of the tank by rag or anything else. The gas lid popping open while the car violently tumbled down the hill made perfect sense. But of course the prosecution couldn't argue that because they already were trying to insist the car actually went down the hill at low speed because Sheila was conspiring to kill her mother down there.

In the case of the police officer who served 6-7 years for a murder he didn't commit, how is a defense attorney supposed to argue it could have been the other man (actual murderer) when the police never investigated him in the first place? Now, perhaps a high priced defense team could uncover info like that, but if there had been basic competence in the original investigation either the wrong man would never have been charged, or the defense team would have at least known of the other man as a possibility. The trial might unfold completely differently at that point. I'd love to go back to the early days of that investigation and bet the police never looked at anyone else once the policeman they suspected as the murderer gave the bad guesswork as to his timetable regarding the night of the murder. It shouldn't be that simple to wrap up a case, but IMO too often it is.

I am going to write to Jeffrey MacDonald. First I want to find his '80s prison cellmate again and ask him a few background questions.