THE CASE OF FLORIDA DEATHROW INMATE
WILLIAM THOMAS ZEIGLER, JR.

AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT



By Gail Anderson, Journalist
Prepared April 1991
(Additions made July 1999 and November 2002)














The information in this report was taken from: trial transcript; appeals documents; legal briefs; Grand Jury testimony; depositions/affidavits of witnesses; interviews by author; videos of sodium brevital interview, Ken Kaltoff Channel 9 interview, national television broadcast from 1989,  “Unsolved Mysteries” broadcast, and Investigative Reports broadcast.


PRE-TRIAL
1. Statement of case
2. Investigation
3. Evidence
4. Information withheld from defense
5. Bullet in orange grove
6. Known witnesses who never testified
7. Inadequately prepared defense
8. Sodium brevital interview

GRAND JURY
1. Jury not given important information
2. Testimony of Frye

TRIAL JUDGE
1. Prior involvement with defendant
2. Alleged pre-trial meeting
3. Zeigler feels judge hostile
4. Jurors feeling about judge

TRIAL
NEW EVIDENCE
1. Witnesses
2. Testimony of Ed Rowe
3. Williams and Stewart
4. Jurors feeling about judge

ZEIGLER SUPPORTERS
RESENTENCING HEARING

PUBLICITY
LINGERING QUESTIONS







PRE-TRIAL

1. Statement of the case:  On December 24, 1975, in Winter Garden, Florida, Mr. and Mrs. Perry Edwards and their daughter, Mrs. Eunice Zeigler, were found murdered at the W. Thomas Zeigler Furniture Store.  Also found shot and beaten to death was a black man named Charles Mays—a long time customer of the store.  W. Thomas Zeigler, Jr. (Zeigler) was shot and was taken to the hospital.  Finding a bullet wound within one centimeter of Mr. Zeigler’s liver, the doctor performed emergency surgery.
The state prosecuted Tommy Zeigler for the murders claiming that Mr.  Zeigler killed his wife for pecuniary gain and murdered the other three in an attempt to make it look as though a robbery had occurred.  The defense claimed that unknown perpetrators along with Charles Mays were robbing Mr. Zeigler’s store and that the Edwardses and their daughter were killed when they unexpectedly came on the scene.  They further claimed that Mr. Zeigler came to the store later with a helper, Edward Williams, to pick up Christmas gifts and was at that time hit over the head and subsequently shot, losing consciousness.  Having regained consciousness sometime later, Mr. Zeigler made his way to a phone in the darkened store and called for help.  Edward Williams claimed that Mr. Zeigler tried to shoot him inside the back of the store but that the gun was out of bullets.  He further claimed that Mr.  Zeigler then handed him the gun, which he pocketed and ran away.  Mr. Zeigler denies that this happened and says that Mr. Williams did not go into the store with him but lingered in the parking lot knowing that there were men waiting for Mr. Zeigler inside.  The defense believes that Edward Williams was a part of the group which robbed the furniture store and planned to kill Mr. Zeigler, knowing that he would be coming to the store that evening and believing that the store would be empty until 7:30 p.m.  But they were not expecting Zeigler’s family who stopped by earlier so that Mr. Edwards could select a recliner as a Christmas gift from Tommy and Eunice.
A jury found Tommy Zeigler guilty of the murders and recommended a life sentence for him.  Judge Maurice Paul overrode that recommendation and sentenced Mr. Zeigler to death.  At a resentencing hearing in August of 1989 Judge Gary Formet again sentenced Mr. Zeigler to death.

2. Investigation: The lead investigator for the case was Donald Frye of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.  Detective Frye made a determination early on December 25th that Mr. Zeigler was guilty of the murders. According to a statement made on the television broadcast in 1989 called “A Matter of Life and Death” by the man who had been the Chief Deputy for Orange County in 1976—Leigh McEachern (Frye’s boss), much evidence was not processed because they (the Orange County Sheriff’s Department) felt they knew Zeigler was guilty.  McEachern states, “Unfortunately, we proceeded to gather evidence that supported our pre-determined conclusions.  We did not do a lot of things we could have done and should have done; we selected which items of evidence within the crime scene proper that we would preserve and retrieve and excluded others.”  Based on the new evidence that has surfaced over the last fourteen years, McEachern now feels that Zeigler is “not guilty” and states, “there are things that we did as a prosecution team that shouldn’t have been necessary to do if the case was as tight as I was told it was.”
It was several months before the FBI reports came back.  When they did, the state learned that a pool of blood found at the front of the store and a trail of blood leading away from it were not the same blood type as that of Tommy Zeigler.  Their theory was that Mr. Zeigler shot himself at this spot since the trail of blood led from there to the front door area where Zeigler was sitting when help arrived.  In fact, the blood type matched that of Perry Edwards and the pool of blood had broken glass in it that might have matched the broken glasses in Mr. Edwards’ pocket.  Despite this new information (and their knowledge of a report made by the first officer on the scene stating that the blood on Zeigler was dry) the state continued with its theory that Zeigler shot himself at the front of the store.  Mr. Edwards’ clothes were among the evidence that the state did not send to the FBI, and the FBI was unable to match the pieces of glass found in the carpet.  A match was finally made between the glass in the carpet and Mr. Edwards’ glasses in May 1976 when the defense was able to test that evidence.
The crime scene was held without warrant for fifteen days by the investigators.  The defense was not allowed to investigate the scene during that time even though, for all practical purposes, the state had completed gathering its evidence by Dec. 26, 1975.  By the time the defense was allowed to investigate, some of the evidence was too old to be processed (e.g. the blood was too old for sub-typing by that time).  Numerous officers had been allowed into the scene without logging in or out and were allowed to smoke on the scene.  As none of the Zeigler family smoked, the numerous cigarette butts in the store may have been helpful to the defense.  Defense forensic expert Pete Ragsdale has stated that because the night of the crime there were five police officers wandering around the store with flashlights (before the main switch was turned on outside the store) that the “integrity of the crime scene was forever compromised.”  Ragsdale also feels that footprints must have been wiped up in the store because Charles Mays’ feet were covered in blood, yet there were no footprints found except those which the state claimed matched Tommy Zeigler’s shoes.  (The original defense team claims there were “swipes” where they believe bloody footprints may have been wiped up.)
Two state witnesses, Felton Thomas and Edward Williams, were secluded as material witnesses by the state from the date of the crime until the Preliminary Hearing on January 16, 1976.  This prohibited the defense from interviewing them to verify their stories and Thomas’ identification of Mr. Zeigler.  (It is interesting to note that though Thomas claims to have sat next to Zeigler in a car and spent some time with him, defense investigator Gene Annan states that he witnessed Detective Frye pointing out Zeigler to Thomas on the way into the Preliminary Hearing—Zeigler says that is because he never met him.)

3. Evidence: The evidence that was gathered for the prosecution was not only incomplete, but some experts say it was not handled properly or thoroughly processed.  Some of the evidence was withheld from the defense (as discovered under the Freedom of Information Act in 1987 in the Orange County files), and other items were turned over to the defense too late to be processed in time for trial despite repeated requests by the defense.  As a result, the jury was never made aware of that evidence.
The clothes that were taken from Mr. Zeigler at the hospital had been first thrown in a corner by a nurse, later stuffed in a plastic bag and turned over to a Zeigler relative and then retrieved the next day by the police.  According to forensic expert Casimer Smerecki (who retired after 25 years as a Detective Sgt. for the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office in New Brunswick, NJ) this caused the clothes to be contaminated.
Bullets were not labeled, so it was impossible to determine which bullets came from which place in the store.
A lift made from a bloody footprint was lost.
Partial prints taken from the store and the weapons were shredded by the FBI, which claims it only destroys prints when requested to do so—that its procedure is to return them to the submitting agency.  While these prints did not contain the proper number of points of identification to positively identify them as belonging to a particular person, they did contain enough points to possibly eliminate Mr. Zeigler.
Charles Mays’ van, which was found parked behind the furniture store and on the other side of a 6’ fence, was never processed for evidence but was turned over to Mays’ widow by Detective Frye.  Despite the curious location of the van, a prosecution witness, Felton Thomas, claimed that he had gone with Mays to the store that night to pick up a large console television set.  He stated that he and Mays were alone in the van.  But after reading an article about the Zeigler case in 1986, a woman named Barbara Skipper came forward with the information that she sold a large gas cylinder to Charles Mays that evening and that he had two other black males with him in his van.  This information is supportive to the defense case and had the van been processed, Ms.  Skipper’s story might have been substantiated.
A tooth that had been lying on the parka of Charles Mays was lost.  At trial a forensic dentist testified from a photo that this tooth was not from Mr. Zeigler or any of the victims.  Being able to prove that someone else was at the crime scene and involved in the fracas was vital to the defense and would have added more meaning to the expended cartridge case found on the scene which did not match with any of the guns on the scene.
The most devastating loss was the fact that the blood was not sub-typed.  Had the blood been sub-typed, it would have proven who did what to whom.  (e.g., Charles Mays’ feet were covered in blood—it may have been of value to the defense to know whose blood was on his shoes.)

Edward Williams’ trousers were not tested for gunpowder residue even though he claimed to have put a gun in his pocket that the state claimed Mr. Zeigler had used to kill two people.  The trousers were turned over to the defense just two weeks before trial.  Testing showed no residue in the pockets, but the results were too late for the trial.  This evidence, coupled with the fact that Mr. Williams’ clothes smelled of fresh laundering and his shoes had barely any scuffs and a price tag on the bottom, would have severely damaged the credibility of Edward Williams’ testimony.
Though there were over sixty pieces of evidence stored regarding the crime besides the evidence sent to the FBI, the defense was consistently delayed from looking at it in a meaningful time period.  In addition, the state failed to have these items tested, e.g., the clothes and shoes of Charles Mays, which were covered in blood, and the clothes of Perry Edwards.
An interview of FBI agents by the defense revealed that the state had withheld evidence favorable to Mr. Zeigler.  A gunshot residue test conducted on Mr. Zeigler’s trousers produced a negative finding, though the state said Zeigler had fired 28 shots from different guns.  The state failed to disclose this negative report in their discovery.
According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, an evidence technician who had handled the evidence for the Zeigler case, Harry Park, was suspended from the force when it was discovered in 1988 that he was keeping evidence in his garage.


4. Information withheld from the defense by the state (and therefore never presented to the jury): The defense was provided a one-page report written by Chief Bobby Thompson, the Oakland police chief, who was the first officer on the crime scene.  In 1987 the defense found in the Orange County files a 15-page report by Thompson.  This longer report states that the blood on Zeigler was dry.  The state claimed that Zeigler shot himself and then called for help with a time lapse of about three minutes before Thompson arrived at the store.  If the defense had been given this report, it would have gone a long way in refuting this state claim and would have supported Zeigler’s claim that he was shot and then lay unconscious for some time.
Although the defense says it was told that the FBI had Edward Williams’ trousers and that this was the reason the trousers weren’t available to the defense, a list found in the O.C. files in 1987 revealed that the trousers were a part of their inventory all along.
The defense also discovered witnesses in the O.C. file whom they were never told even existed (and whom the jurors never heard): A taped interview was found between the state’s investigator Jack Bachman and a young man whose family had been staying in the Winter Garden Inn behind the furniture store that night.  On the tape the young man, Jon Jellison, explains to the investigator that he and the other three members of his family saw a police car pulled up behind the furniture store and a policeman with gun drawn leaning across the hood of his car and aiming at the back of the furniture store.  Shortly afterward, they heard gun shots.  Bachman tells the young man that his information isn’t helpful to them and that if he and his family decide that they heard the shots before they saw the police car that they can have a “free trip back to Florida.”  An interview with the Jellison family after the tape was discovered revealed the additional fact that the state’s attorney, Robert Eagan, had spoken with Mrs. Jellison the day before Bachman’s call and that she had given him the same information.  Yet the defense was told none of this.  As Tommy Zeigler had been actively involved in trying to “clean up” Winter Garden, and as he claims to have had his life threatened by corrupt policemen for interfering, this information about a policeman would have been extremely helpful to the defense case, especially in light of the defense belief that Tommy Zeigler was a target that night.
The O.C. file refers to a taped conversation with Frank Smith, one of the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have procured two of the murder weapons for Zeigler via Edward Williams, but the defense never heard the tape.  Perhaps this tape could have been used to impeach Smith’s testimony.
The defense never knew of a witness named Rosa Alda who states that she saw three suspicious black males across the street from the furniture store that night around 10 p.m. This information along with Barbara Skipper’s statement of having seen Mays with two other black males would have been valuable defense information.
The defense was never told about a man named Ken Roach who called the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to tell them what he and his wife heard and saw as they drove past the furniture store that night.  According to Roach, he was told, “We don’t need that information.”  It was not until long after the trial, in 1979, that the Roaches finally contacted the Zeigler defense.  They say that as they drove past the store they heard a loud sound like a tire blowing out.  Then they heard what sounded like a large pack of firecrackers going off in rapid succession and at different levels of sound intensity. As they looked toward the store they observed a dark-skinned male walking across the outside front of the store heading toward an old pick-up truck parked on the side.  They also observed four cars parked out front (the state said there were only two).  Knowing now that the sounds were gunfire, the Roaches believe it is impossible for one man to have been able to cause the sounds that they heard.  But what they heard corroborates Mr.  Zeigler’s version of the night’s activity.  The Roaches have taken and passed a polygraph examination regarding their testimony.
The defense was never furnished the fifteen-page report by Chief Thompson in which he listed the names of the people staying at the Winter Garden Inn the night of the crime.  When the defense requested these names from the state, they were told they were not available (the Winter Garden Inn would not release the names because it was privileged information, and as it took three months for the indictment, they had no legal recourse at that time).
Also discovered by the defense in 1987 was a report by Detective Donald Frye that contained a list of people whom he had interviewed.  This report was not given to the defense in 1976 nor was the list of witnesses.  Although Frye’s notes say that many of these witnesses did not have useful information, it’s possible their information would have been helpful to the defense. There is an entry, for example, of a woman who says she heard shots around 9:30 p.m.  As the state’s theory has the shooting happening much earlier, this woman’s account would corroborate the Jellison’s story.
5. Bullet in orange grove: The Orange County investigators made a search of the orange grove where prosecution witness Felton Thomas says Tommy Zeigler took him along with Charlie Mays to fire some guns—this was done according to the state in order that Zeigler could get the men’s prints on the guns though, as the prosecution theory goes, Zeigler got confused later as to which guns he had fired and wiped them all clean.  In depositions Thomas had made a number of mistakes: he had drawn on paper the path leading to where he says he and Mays parked Mays’ van behind the store, but that path would have taken them through a three foot high block wall and over an eight inch curb; he had described the route he says he/Mays drove from the Zeigler store to the Zeigler house, but it turned out to be the route from Oakland (where he and Mays lived) to the Zeigler house; his story and Edward Williams’ have several contradictions, especially in their initial interviews as discovered in the Orange County files in 1987.  It was obvious that the state needed something concrete to make Thomas’ story credible.  So they relied on a bullet that they said was found in the orange grove.  The bullet could have come from one of the murder weapons though it was not an exact match.  In 1989 as a result of the television broadcast about the Zeigler case, a man name John Bulled called the original trial attorney for Mr. Zeigler to tell him that he was a part of the orange grove search and that after two days of searching, no bullets were found.  He further stated that he overheard the officers saying that they would have to produce one from somewhere.  The defense had deposed an officer involved in the search in an attempt to learn the names of the trusties involved.  It was not until just before trial that they were given the addresses of the men.  The address for John Bulled was given as Apopka, FL, but in fact, Bulled had been deported to England in February 1976.
Had they known of Bulled earlier, they would have been able to dispute the finding of the bullet during the trial.

Addition:  In a subsequent hearing in which two trusties testified as to the events in the orange grove search, Judge Gary Format ruled that their testimony was not credible.

6. Known witnesses who never testified: After the crime, a man named Nathaniel Brown went to the Zeigler family requesting money for information he had.  Brown claimed that he knew a man involved in the Zeigler murders and that the man was “holed” up in Oakland with a bullet wound in his shoulder.  The defense immediately turned the information over to the State Attorney’s Office.  There was no record found in the Orange County file of the state ever investigating this story.  Later, the man recanted his story—the defense claims that he did so because he had been threatened.  At the time the story didn’t mean much to the defense, but when they later realized that neither they nor the state had been able to find a missing .22 caliber slug fired from Mr. Zeigler’s gun, they realized that the missing slug might have indeed have left the store in someone’s body.
Mr. Zeigler claims that while he was out on bond a black male named Johnny Lee Thornton approached him at the back of his furniture store to tell him that he had information that could be helpful to him. A car pulled up and Thornton told Zeigler that he couldn’t talk then and would get back to him later.  Thornton never got back with Zeigler and within two weeks time, Thornton was run over and killed while riding his motorcycle.
The defense subpoenaed a young black woman for trial who was to testify that one of the state’s key witnesses was involved in the use of illicit drugs.  As the state was presenting this witness as a man of exemplary character, her testimony was very important.  But the day before she was to testify she tearfully told the defense team that she could not testify.  According to the defense, they then played her taped statement back to her and she admitted that it was true, but insisted that she could not testify.  At that time (1976) there was no legal recourse for the defense to impeach its own witness so they had to let her go.
7. An inadequately prepared defense: The defense consistently requested any information that the state had, including lists of witnesses and evidence.  But just as consistently, the state denied the requests until after the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Zeigler.  Even then, the state waited until the last possible day to comply with the discovery requests.  Although no evidence was presented to the Grand Jury that was not available to the state as of February 10, no indictment was sought until March 26, some three months after Zeigler’s arrest.  With a trial date of June 1, this gave the defense little time to prepare.
Compliance with the defense discovery requests was accomplished on April 16.  On the following Monday, after reviewing the documents over the weekend, the defense attorneys indicated to the trial judge that, because of the 86 witnesses listed and the indication of hundreds of pieces of evidence, a June 1st trial date would give inadequate time to prepare an adequate defense.  It turned out that well over 100 names were eventually supplied to the defense by the state—some on the day immediately preceding the commencement of the trial.  The state designated some witnesses only as “witness.”  It was impossible for the defense to ascertain the full import of those witnesses’ testimony until they were properly identified and addresses obtained so they could be interviewed or deposed.  There were only about 42 days for the defense to find, interview, subpoena and take depositions of over 100 witnesses.  In addition, on May 7, the defense was apprised of over 60 pieces of evidence that, because they had not been tested by the state, needed to be tested by the defense.
The defense was required to file two separate Motions for Change of Venue which were denied by the Court.  These motions took up valuable time.  Eventually the Court moved the trial to Duval County anyway.
Several Motions for Continuance were presented to the Court by the defense, but they were denied.  On June 1, when asked if the defense was ready to go to trial, defense attorneys told the Court that they were not ready because they had not had adequate time to prepare a defense.  A Motion for Continuance was requested again.  There still remained at that time some 21 days within the speedy trial time in which the trial could have taken place.  The defense was forced to trial on June 1 even though defense counsel had still not talked to all of their witnesses.  Originally the Court had set up both June 1 and June 15 as dates for the two separate indictments.  At an April 19th hearing the Court consolidated the two indictments.  Even though at this early time the court had been apprised of the difficult nature of the case and knew it was unlikely that the defense would be ready for a June 1 trial date, the Court moved the consolidated trial to June 1 when at that time the June 15 trial date was also available.
8. Sodium Brevital Interview:  Before the trial, and without his prior knowledge, Mr.
Zeigler’s trial attorneys took him to the Medfield Center—a psychiatric clinic near Tampa, FL—to have him undergo an interview conducted using a memory-restoring drug.  Dr. Theodore Machler conducted a lengthy interview with Mr. Zeigler while he was under the influence of the drug. While not having the capability of forcing anyone to tell the truth, the drug does put its recipient into a deep state of consciousness and helps in restoring memory.  In this condition Mr. Zeigler recounted the activities of the night of December 24, 1975. The interview supported Mr. Zeigler’s story with an addition.  In this state of subconscious, Mr. Zeigler remembered hearing the voice of a white man saying, “Mays has been hit; we’ll have to get rid of him.”  Dr. Machler believes that Tommy Zeigler was telling the truth during the interview.  He states that some of the things Zeigler said, like recounting running into Christmas bows while he crawled around on the floor, showed that Zeigler was in a deep state of consciousness.  He also states that the sodium brevital test is a very hard thing to trick, and that Zeigler did not contradict himself even though he went through the entire story twice—taking over an hour to do so.  Although this interview gave Mr.  Zeigler’s trial attorneys added faith in their client, it was not to be seen or heard of by the trial jury as Judge Paul wouldn’t allow the video of the interview to be shown nor would he allow the testimony of Dr. Machler during the trial.

GRAND JURY

1. When questioning Chief Thompson regarding the amount of bleeding Zeigler was doing, Mr. Eagan told the Jury that Zeigler’s wound wouldn’t have bled very much because it would have cauterized at close range.  They were not told that there was an exit wound that could not have cauterized and would have bled even more heavily than the entrance wound.
2. Grand Jury testimony of Det. Don Frye:  On March 25, 1976, the Zeigler case was brought before a Grand Jury.  Det. Frye testified and gave the Jury his theory of what had happened the night of Dec. 24, 1975.  In doing so, Frye took great liberties with the “truth.”  
Det. Frye told the Jury that there were rumors that Tommy Zeigler is a homosexual, that he was vicious as a boy and had cut the leg off of a dog to play a joke, that Zeigler tried to drown his father, that he destroyed a house, and that he had set fire to a cabin for insurance purposes.  All of these points Frye elaborated on, yet all of them were unsubstantiated rumors.  He also presented his theory of how the crime was carried out in great detail including his belief that Zeigler had shot himself at the front of the store and that the pool of blood and blood trail were from him (these were from someone with Type A blood, probably Mr. Edwards—Zeigler’s blood is Type O).
On May 14, after receiving a transcript of the proceedings, defense counsel took a deposition of Det. Frye. During this deposition Frye admitted that he had no first-hand information that Zeigler is a homosexual.
In Frye’s deposition he admitted that he had not checked out the rumor that Zeigler had cut the leg off of a dog and said that he also had heard that a car had hit the dog and that the leg was amputated.  That, in fact, was the case.
When Det. Frye described Mrs. Edwards’ wounds to the Jury he said she had been shot twice in the same location.  In his deposition, he says he did realize at that time that she had been shot with two different weapons and possibly at two different locations in the store.
Frye testified that through lab analysis they had found on both hands of Charles Mays some fibers from the shirt worn by Zeigler.  In his deposition he says he now knows the FBI could not conclusively say that was so.
Frye testified about footprints leading away from Mr. Edwards’ body as being those of Tommy Zeigler, but the FBI did not agree.  He testified that prints near Eunice Zeigler’s body were from Zeigler’s shoes, but no lab tests were conducted—this was Frye’s own opinion with no lifts having been made.
One of the Jury members questioned Det. Frye as to why Tommy Zeigler would shoot Charles Mays in the store while Felton Thomas was waiting outside in the car.  The juror could not understand why Mr. Zeigler wouldn’t worry about being heard.  Det. Frye told the juror that with the doors closed the shots wouldn’t have been heard.  In fact, the state produced a witness who heard the shots who lived two blocks away from the store.  Also, the Roaches heard a large volley of shots while driving past the store.
Frye stated, “We can scientifically prove that door was closed after the attempt on Edward Williams’ life.”  In his deposition Frye admitted that such a fact could not be scientifically proven.
Frye stated, “If Tommy Zeigler had been injured before this man (Mays) died, there would be his blood somewhere on the body or somewhere around it.  The test results showed no blood dropping or anything that indicated anything.”  Charles Mays’ clothes had not been tested by the state to determine if Zeigler’s blood was on them.
Frye stated that other than three or four people all the people he had talked to felt Zeigler was “highly capable of committing these killings.” Yet in the court records there are over 30 character witness testimonies from people who believe Zeigler is incapable of committing any crime.  Almost each testimony reveals an incident where Zeigler showed them special courtesy or consideration. At the 1989 resentencing hearing, several of these witnesses testified on Zeigler’s behalf—still believing in his innocence.
Frye presented as fact a story that Zeigler was trying to drown his father, but in his deposition he states it was a rumor and cannot remember the source.
The state attorney stated as he questioned Det. Frye that, “What we really tried to do in this case, and the reason it took so long, is we wanted to get all of the ballistics done and so forth to see if there was something that would absolutely eliminate Tommy Zeigler and to see if there was some evidence that some intruders came in and killed these people and left.”  This is quite a statement given the fact that so much of the evidence was not processed that might have eliminated Tommy Zeigler as the perpetrator and some of the evidence favorable to Mr.  Zeigler was withheld from the defense.
A juror asked Det. Frye, “You couldn’t find any fingerprints on the truck (presumably Mays’ van as it was called a truck by Frye)?”  Frye’s response was, “We couldn’t find anybody’s fingerprints anywhere.”  In truth, Mays’ van had not even been processed and had been returned to Mrs. Mays.
In his deposition Frye referred to his “main written report” a number of times as his source of information. When asked if this was an official record in the sheriff’s department, Frye stated that it was.  But when the defense counsel asked for a copy of the report, Frye stated that he would not give them a copy.  When the defense finally recovered the report in 1987, they found information (e.g., names of potential witnesses) that would have been extremely useful to Mr. Zeigler’s defense.



TRIAL JUDGE-MAURICE PAUL

1. Prior involvement with the defendant:  Just four months before the murders, Tommy Zeigler and Maurice Paul appeared as character witnesses on opposite sides of a hotly contested case.  That case involved allegations that Andrew James, a black bar owner, had offered to sell drugs to Herb Baker, an undercover agent who worked for the Beverage Commission.  Mr. Zeigler believed that this was part of an attempt to obtain the valuable liquor license held by Mr. James and testified as a character witness for him.  James’ lawyer, who later represented Zeigler at the murder trial, severely challenged the veracity and credibility of Agent Baker.  In rebuttal, the prosecution called Maurice Paul as a character witness for the agent.
The involvement of Mr. Zeigler and Judge Paul did not end with the James trial.  After the jury convicted Mr. James, the judge for that trial withheld adjudication of guilt against Mr. James.  The Beverage Commission then held a hearing to determine whether Mr. James’ liquor license should be revoked.  The judge and Mr. Zeigler again testified as character witnesses on opposing sides of that hearing.  The Beverage Commission determined that there was not enough evidence to support a conclusion that James had offered to sell drugs to Baker and James kept his license.
2. Alleged pre-trial meeting: In 1977 Chief Deputy Leigh McEachern says he told the Orange County sheriff about an ex parte conference (before the trial) that involved State Attorney Robert Eagan, Detective Don Frye, himself, and another officer.  According to McEachern, Judge Maurice Paul came in during the meeting and discussed evidence with Mr. Eagan for approximately 30 minutes.  Toward the end, says McEachern, Paul said to Eagan words to the effect of, “Bob, you get me one first degree murder conviction, and I’ll fry the son of a bitch.”  The judge and the other participants in this alleged meeting denied that it ever took place.  McEachern took a polygraph test regarding the meeting that indicated he was telling the truth.
3. Zeigler feels Judge Paul is hostile:  During the pretrial hearings Mr. Zeigler and his attorneys felt Judge Paul demonstrated a hostile manner toward Mr. Zeigler. They asked the judge to recuse himself, but he refused.  The defense failed to mention the judge’s prior involvement with the defendant in that motion.  The Florida Supreme Court upheld his refusal.
4. Jurors feeling about judge:   I have spoken with three of the jurors from the case and two at great length.  One juror told me, “I always wanted to know what he (the judge) thought.  We all wanted to know what the judge felt we should do.”  She told me she felt that the judge implied that they were “headed the right way but that Irma (Brickel) was the only one holding the verdict up.”
According to an affidavit by psychologist Dr. Stephen Robertson, the Zeigler defense counsel employed him as a jury consultant.  He was present at many of the pre-trial proceedings and most of the trial.  He states, “It was clear to me that Judge Paul was prejudiced against Mr. Zeigler in favor of the state.  He was hostile toward Mr. Zeigler and defense counsel and appeared to be disgusted by the case.”
After the trial was over and he was no longer associated with or employed by defense counsel Dr. Robertson contacted two of the jurors.  About one of them, Peggy Dollinger, he states, “She was bothered by Judge Paul’s attitude from the beginning of the trial.  She got the impression that he thought it was an ‘open and shut’ case.  She felt that Judge Paul was implying that Mr. Zeigler was guilty, and that defense counsel was wasting everyone’s time.”
Since the trial, juror Irma Brickel has gone on record, including on a national television broadcast, to state that she has always felt that Mr. Zeigler was innocent and that she was pressured into a guilty vote.  Under extreme pressure from some of the jurors that caused her to pass out twice during deliberations, Mrs. Brickel sent a note to the judge asking to speak with him concerning matters going on in the jury room.  She said she was concerned because the foreman announced as soon as deliberations began that he had made up his mind that Zeigler was guilty two weeks prior—which was before the defenses presented their case.  The judge refused and eventually allowed a doctor to prescribe Valium for Mrs. Brickel. According to another of the jurors with whom I spoke (Mary Kelley), “Irma was hoping we wouldn’t find him guilty.  She became ill from worrying.  It was a vicious circle—she was taking Valium for her nerves, but she was reacting against the Valium.”
The Court’s own bailiff submitted an affidavit that jurors, during deliberations, used intoxicants.
After the sentencing hearing, Judge Paul placed an injunction against the defense that prevents them from ever interviewing any of the jurors.



TRIAL

1. The trial for the four murders lasted from June 7 until July 3, 1976.  It was held in Duval County with Judge Maurice Paul presiding.
2. There were a number of conflicts and discrepancies in the state’s evidence:
State:  Zeigler shot himself in abdomen to cover up role in crime.  (TT 27)  But: State’s doctor says there was no way for Zeigler to be sure he wouldn’t die from a self-inflicted wound in that location.  (TT 451-452).  In addition, Zeigler would have had to have used his left hand (he is right-handed) and have shot from 1-6 inches away from his body.
State:  There were not more than two cars in front of the store prior to 9 p.m.  But:  Since the Roaches have come forward, we now have their eye-witness account that there were four cars and a dark skinned man walking toward a truck as the shots were being fired.
State:  Mays took his van to the store believing he was to pick up TV.  (TT 1148)  But:  Mays parked his van in a location hidden from the street (behind a large truck and on the other side of a six foot fence from the store) and from which it was impossible to pick up the TV.  Rowe affidavit states Mays’ son told Rowe that his father left home carrying gun and told his family there would be lots of money that Christmas.  Cash and receipts from the store were found in Mays’ pocket.  (TT 799-800)  There was a high quantity of gunshot residue on Mays’ hands.  (TT 2177)
State: Thomas said he and Mays were alone that night and drove to store and described route taken.  (TT 1754-1759)  But:  Barbara Skipper says there were two other black males with Mays.  Route described by Thomas would have required car to go over a three-foot concrete wall.  (TT 613-614, 1177-1179)  Also, route Thomas says they took from store to Zeigler house is actually route from Oakland to Zeigler house.
State: Thomas said a white man drove up in a car that looked like a Cadillac.  (TT 1151)  But:  Zeigler was driving a dark Oldsmobile that belonged to Curtis Dunaway; Dunaway was driving Zeigler’s Toronado, which did resemble a Cadillac.
State:   Thomas said the white man who met him and Mays at the store told Mays that the owner of the store was coming from Apopka with the keys.  (TT 1182)  But:  Mays knew Zeigler for years and knew Zeigler was the owner of the store.  Also, Zeigler always wore a large key ring on his person that was visible for anyone to see.  The indication is that the man was not Zeigler.  If the man was Zeigler and Thomas had talked to him and spent some time riding with him, why did Det. Frye, according to investigator Gene Annan, have to point out Zeigler to Thomas before the Preliminary Hearing?
State: Two of the state’s witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent with one another.  a) Thomas said that when he, Mays and Zeigler drove to Zeigler’s house, there was one truck in the driveway with no one in it.  He said he and Mays sat in the car and waited for Zeigler who went into the garage and returned with a box in his hand.  (TT 1197-1198)   b) Williams said that he was sitting in a truck behind another truck in Zeigler’s driveway when he drove up with two people in the car.  (TT 1285)  He also said Zeigler went into the house and came back with nothing in his hand.  (TT 1234)  But:  The driveway is just wide enough for two cars.  With the brilliant lighting coming from the garage, it is impossible for Thomas not to have seen Williams in the adjacent truck if they both were there.  Also, the neighbor across the street from the Zeigler’s has said that around 8 p.m. she saw only Zeigler’s truck in the driveway.  Williams says he was there sitting in his own truck between 7:30-8:15 p.m.  It is also noteworthy here that neither Williams nor Thomas testified to having seen blood on Zeigler as he walked around in the brilliantly lit garage even though the state claims he had just murdered three people and had an expert testify that some of the blood on the very bloody clothes recovered from Zeigler had come from his beating Mr. Edwards who was already murdered by that time.
State: Williams said he put the gun Zeigler handed to him and which killed Perry and Virginia Edwards in his pocket.  (TT 1252)  But:  There was no evidence of gun residue on the trousers Williams claims to have been wearing the night of the murders. When he turned himself in several hours after the murders, his shoes appeared to be brand new and had a price tag on the sole.  (TT 2584)  The shoes are inconsistent with having been worn during activities Williams testified he engaged in that night.
State: Zeigler fired all 28 shots with 7 guns.  But:  There was no gunshot residue on Zeigler’s trousers.  (TT 1636)  It seems highly unlikely that Zeigler could have fired 28 shots from 7 guns in different parts of the store in two firecracker-like bursts.  Roaches state they heard rapid firing at different sound loudness levels that suggest more than one person firing shots.
State: State claims the shooting was done between 7-8:00 p.m.  But: Four eyewitnesses whose testimony was withheld from the defense by the state say the firing was done after 9 p.m. and after the police arrived.
State: No one was inside store except Zeigler and victims.  But:  A tooth was found lying in the store that did not belong to Zeigler or victims.  Bloody footprints near body of Eunice did not belong to any of the victims or Zeigler.  (TT 925-928)  There were fingerprints of unknown people in the store.  (TT 2060-65)  There was an expended cartridge case found in the store not associated with any gun found in the store.  (TT 1616)
State: Zeigler took Mays and Thomas to an orange grove to fire guns to get their prints on guns.  Police retrieved bullet from orange grove that might have come from one of murder weapons.  But:  There were no usable prints on the guns.  (TT 1136)  Trusty involved in search of orange grove says no bullets were recovered and that he overheard police say they would have to get one from somewhere.
State: On night of murders Thomas claims to have told Cleo Anderson and Kate Mae Seabrook what had happened at the store.  (TT 1166)  But:  Anderson and Seabrook deny Thomas told them about what happened at store.
Perhaps some of these conflicts are the reason why one of the jurors has stated that when the jury first retired there was a vote of six to convict and six to acquit.
3. Bloody footprint:  Near the body of Eunice Zeigler, was a bloody footprint.  The state believed it belonged to Tommy Zeigler and sent his shoes along with photos of footprints found at the scene to the FBI.  But the FBI reported that the crucial footprint was not made by either of Zeigler’s shoes.
The prosecution performed additional tests on the shoeprints; indicated to the defense at a deposition of its expert that no additional tests had been performed; attempted to persuade the FBI expert to alter his testimony; and having failed in that attempt, manipulated the order of witnesses enabling it to present the results of its tests without cross-examination or rebuttal.
By failing to disclose the surprise tests, and by manipulating the order of witnesses, the prosecution succeeded in having Mr. Delaney, the FBI expert witness testifying for the defense, testify and leave the courthouse before the defense was made aware that the state’s expert, Dr. MacDonell, would contradict his testimony.  As a result, MacDonell was able to comment on Delaney’s work but, since Delaney was not available to comment on MacDonell’s, the prosecution’s evidence remained unrebutted.  The impression was given to the jury that Delaney had not seen the tests made by MacDonell, and it was not until too late that the defense learned from Delaney that he had been shown the tests the night before when the prosecutor attempted to get him to alter his opinion to coincide with the state’s.  MacDonell’s evidence was devastating to the defense, which intended to rely heavily on Delaney’s testimony to show that the shoeprint indicated the presence of unknown assailants within the building.  The surprise evidence, together with the manipulated order of proof and the state’s failure to comply with discovery, completely disarmed the defense on a critical point.


NEW EVIDENCE—NEVER YET SEEN BY A JURY

1. Witnesses:  Ken and Linda Roach, the Jellison Family, Barbara Skipper, John Bulled.  (See PRETRIAL section.)
2. Testimony of Ed Rowe:  In 1982 a man named Ed Rowe signed an affidavit saying that in 1979 he was running a country store in Oakland and had in his employ, Ernie Mays, the fifteen year old son of Charles and Mattie Mays.  Rowe was at that time also a police officer with the Oakland police. The following is taken from the affidavit: Ernie told him that the night of the Christmas Eve murders, his father, Charlie, had put a pistol in his coat. He stated to Rowe that his father was supposed to have killed Mr. Tommy, and Mr. Tommy was not supposed to have killed his father.   Ernie told Rowe that on two occasions after his father was killed a white man had pulled up outside their residence in a car and his mother had gone outside to talk with him, not letting the children see who it was. After the second visit, she came inside and told them everything would be all right—that their Daddy was going to be a hero, that he was not going to rob anybody.  Ernie also told Rowe that his father had been involved in stealing tires prior to the shooting, and that his father had told them they were going to have a lot of money that Christmas. According to the affidavit, Rowe and Ernie Mays discussed this a number of times and each time Ernie confirmed it.  Ernie has denied that these conversations took place.
3. Williams and Mary Stewart:  After the trial, one of the defense investigators discovered that Edward Williams and Mary Stewart (a prosecution witness) had claimed to be married when they purchased a home together in 1972 using the names of Edward Williams and Mary Ellen Williams.  Just before the murders, in Oct. 1975, Williams and Stewart executed a quit claim deed together.  (In 1982 Williams’ interest in the home was transferred to Stewart’s true husband.)  Stewart already had a possible reason to be prejudiced against Tommy Zeigler because he had twice tried to repossess furniture from her because of non-payment before the murders, but this new information showed a close relationship between her and Williams that was not brought out at trial and that might have given her an additional reason to support Williams’ testimony.  Despite their having bought a home together, Stewart claimed that she knew nothing of Williams’ personal life.
4. Blood evidence: Because the defense team did not have Chief Thompson’s long report until 1987, they did not realize the improbability of the blood evidence’s fitting into the state theory. But upon viewing the television broadcast in 1989, trial attorney Vernon Davids observed the brilliant lighting in the Zeigler garage.  This caused him to rethink the prosecution’s theory and he realized that it would have been highly improbable for Zeigler to have had the amount of blood on him that he had at the times the state claims he did without that blood having been observed by both Edward Williams and Felton Thomas.  A careful reading of Mr. Davids’ report, “Blood Memo” will clearly show the reader the fallacy of the state theory on this crucial point.
5.  Edward Williams’ trousers:   Edward Williams’ trousers did not have gun residue in pockets, which discredits his story.



ZEIGLER SUPPORTERS

1. Recorded in the court files are the affidavits of 31 character witnesses who, had their testimony been allowed, would have testified on Tommy Zeigler’s behalf.  They are the testimonies of a wide range of people—black and white, and from varied socio-economic backgrounds.  All state their belief in Zeigler’s innocence and most cite an example of something special that Zeigler did for them.  They speak of the good relationship that they observed between Tommy and Eunice.
2. Zeigler’s pastor, Rev. Faye DeSha, has supported Tommy from the onset of the tragedy.  I spoke with him in August 1989, and he is a firm believer in Tommy’s innocence.
3. Dr. Melvin Biggs visited Florida State Prison in a ministerial capacity for more than ten years and was well acquainted with Mr. Zeigler.  He testified on Zeigler’s behalf as a character witness at the resentencing hearing and told me he does not believe Zeigler committed the murders.  
4. Also testifying regarding Zeigler’s character at the resentencing hearing was Robert Jones, an inmate Litigation Coordinator at Florida State Prison.  I spoke with Mr. Jones at FSP the first time I went there in 1987.  I overheard him asking the front guard which inmate I was there to interview.  When the guard told him Tommy Zeigler, I heard Mr. Jones say, “He’s my favorite inmate.”  Because of that remark, I questioned Mr. Jones as to his feelings about Zeigler.  He indicated to me that he felt Zeigler was innocent—that he was different from the other inmates.  Mr. Jones commented that he wasn’t the only one at Florida State Prison who felt that way.  
Mr. Zeigler maintains a written correspondence with Mr. S.R. Johns, a former counselor with FSP.  Mr. Johns recently completed an affidavit on Zeigler’s behalf.
5. On my visits to FSP to interview Mr. Zeigler, I have noted the attitude of the guards toward him.  I have also noted the attitude of the guards toward other inmates.  For Mr. Zeigler, there seems to be a more casual, friendly attitude. When Mr. Zeigler was scheduled for execution in May, 1986, a number of the guards took leave.
6. As a result of the national television broadcast, Mr. Zeigler was contacted by one of the nurses who attended him in the hospital after he was shot.  Her letter expresses her support of him and her amazement that he was arrested for the crime considering the seriousness of his condition after being shot.
7. After the execution of Willie Darden in 1988, I contacted Prof. Michael Radelet, Sociology professor of the University of Florida, because of his work on death row cases.  I asked his opinion of the Zeigler case, and he replied that he had followed the Zeigler case for years and felt that Zeigler was probably innocent.

8. At the resentencing hearing, one psychiatrist and two psychologists testified on Zeigler’s behalf stating that they did not feel Zeigler was capable of violence.  Two of the doctors normally testify for the state.  I spoke with psychologist Steve Robertson who helped with the jury selection.  He participated on a radio talk show in Winter Garden, FL, in 1986 to speak out on Zeigler’s behalf.  He stated that he was impressed with Zeigler’s openness and honesty.  Zeigler felt, according to Robertson, that good would overcome evil and that right would eventually win over wrong.  Robertson stated that he was, “appalled how the judge could dominate the jury and the courtroom.  It was evident how opinionated he was.”  He also stated, “I’m familiar with all the evidence; I know there is reasonable doubt.  I personally feel Tommy is innocent . . . he did not get a fair trial, of that I am 100% sure.  It was a travesty.”
At the original sentencing hearing in 1976, Dr. Allan Zimmer testified, after having spent three days interviewing Zeigler, that he felt Tommy Zeigler was incapable of having committed the murders.
9. Zeigler has continued to collect a long line of attorneys who have become his supporters.  His original trial attorneys have continued working on the case at their own expense because of their firm belief in Zeigler’s innocence. One attorney is William F. Duane of Holland and Knight.  Formerly a US assistant attorney, Duane had become an enthusiast of capital punishment because of his knowledge of three cases—one of them being the Zeigler case.  But in 1982, Duane was asked to work on the Zeigler case.  After reading and studying the records for the case, Duane abruptly changed his opinion of the case.  At first he was concerned because he realized that Zeigler had not had a fair trial.  Now firmly convinced of Zeigler’s innocence, Duane has put in hundreds of hours working on the case at his own expense.
10. The publicity generated at the time of the crime was all negative regarding Tommy Zeigler.  At that time, information was obtained mainly from the police and the State Attorney’s Office.  But in more recent years, journalists have begun to take a closer look at the case and have learned of new evidence.  During the national television production, Zeigler gained the support of the two producers who researched the case—Marion Golden and Gail Freedman—both with impressive credentials having worked with such programs as “60 Minutes” and “20\20.” Gail Freedman has written a letter to Florida’s Governor on Zeigler’s behalf.
11. According to the national television broadcast which aired in 1989, former Chief Deputy for Orange County Leigh McEachern, in charge of the investigation of the crime, now feels that Zeigler is innocent.  (See PRETRIAL section.)
Addition:
12. In 1997 the television program “Unsolved Mysteries” devoted a segment to the Zeigler case.  Before they would do so, however, Mr.  Zeigler had to agree to undergo a polygraph examination by world-renowned polygraph expert John Palmatier, Ph.D. of the Michigan State Police Department.  The results of the test were that Tommy Zeigler was telling the truth about what happened the night of the murders.  Dr. Palmatier became a supporter—going on the TV program in order to give the favorable results.  He has written a letter expressing his firm belief that Zeigler is telling the truth about that night’s events.





























RESENTENCING HEARING

In August 1989, a resentencing hearing was held for Tommy Zeigler in Orange County, FL.  In preparation for this hearing, information was released to the press stating that Tommy Zeigler, while at Florida State Prison, had contracted to have three people killed:  his father, a witness in his case, and the chief investigator.  The source of this information was Nira Odom, wife of inmate Eddie Odom.  Nira claimed that Zeigler paid $50,000 to her by way of his mother to have this contract fulfilled.  Nira claimed that she took the money but did not attempt to fulfill the contract.  It was also stated that Zeigler had paid the money to have another inmate confess to the murders for which Zeigler was convicted.
At the hearing the defense was prepared to rebut the above information.  Thirteen inmates were prepared to testify as to the characters of Eddie Odom and Tommy Zeigler.  Those inmates would have testified that Odom was selling drugs within the prison system, that Odom was a leader among the prisoners, and that Zeigler was forced into helping Odom.  It is noteworthy that prisoners have a “code” in which they will not “squeal” on one another.  But these inmates were willing to break their code because, according to one of the inmates I interviewed, Odom had broken the code and had lied about Zeigler.
The defense would have also shown that Zeigler would have no reason to have put out a contract on his father.  The prosecution was claiming that Zeigler wanted his father “out of the way” because he was interfering with the appeals funds on the case.  But Mr. Zeigler, Sr. had suffered a stroke in early 1975 and was not handling any of the Zeigler finances.  In addition, the appeals expenses had already been paid by the time Tommy Zeigler went to prison. However, $50,000 was indeed paid to Nira Odom by way of Mrs. Zeigler, Sr.  The defense would have shown, with the use of a photo of a murdered inmate that had been given to the Zeiglers and the testimony of Mrs. Zeigler, Sr., that the Odoms had extorted the money by threatening the death of Tommy.
But the prosecution surprised everyone by not pursuing the “contract” idea at the hearing.  Instead, they relied on the testimony of Eddie Odom to show that Zeigler had participated in a scheme to have another inmate confess to the murders for which Zeigler had been convicted. As a result, the defense decided not to call the inmates due to the problems created by moving the hearing to Florida State Prison. This was a grave mistake on the part of the defense counsel.  Later in appeal the prosecution was able to introduce this testimony with no rebuttal as the defense had failed to put into the record any of the inmate testimony.
Tommy Zeigler testified and recounted prison life.  He explained how he had been asked by Odom to deliver drugs for him.  Zeigler says he refused on two separate occasions, but after Zeigler was stabbed over his eye during a yard period (a wound which required surgery), Zeigler (testifying that he was fearful for his life) agreed to handle the drugs.  He did this from 1976 to late 1978. Zeigler also testified that initially he had participated in the scheme to have another inmate confess to the murders because he was innocent and the system had let him down.  However, Zeigler did not go through with the scheme.
The prosecution had also released information to the press that they had a witness who would say that Zeigler had tortured cats and birds as a teen.  But they were unable to produce the witness.  The defense, however, produced numerous witnesses at the hearing who testified as to Zeigler’s excellent character both before he went to prison and since.
*The state indicated through Det. Frye’s grand jury testimony and the resentencing hearing that Tommy Zeigler’s relationship with his father was not a good one, but no character witnesses have testified to that fact. Shortly before her death in Sept. 2002, I obtained permission from Mrs. Beulah Zeigler to take her copy of the court records. Among those boxes of files, I found a handwritten letter from Tommy to his parents dated 1/16/85. He begins the letter “Dearest Mom & Dad” and talks about an article in the U of FL Law Review. He ends it with “Y’ll take care and be carefull [sic]. Let’s all three of us keep looking to God and praying for his help. See you Sunday! God Bless you! I love you both more than life itself!! Love, Tommy.”  




PUBLICITY

The publicity generated at the time of the crime was all negative regarding Tommy Zeigler.  At that time, information was obtained mainly from the police and the State Attorney’s Office.  But in more recent years, journalists have begun to take a closer look at the case and have learned of new evidence.  

During a 1989 independent national television production on the case, Zeigler gained the support of the two producers who researched the case—Marion Golden and Gail Freedman—both with impressive credentials having worked with such programs as “60 Minutes” and “20\20.” Gail Freedman has written a letter to Florida’s Governor on Zeigler’s behalf.

In 1992 the book FATAL FLAW, by Phillip Finch (online at http://phillipfinch.com/fatalflaw/ ), was published detailing the case.  Finch concluded that Zeigler is innocent.

In 1997 the television program “Unsolved Mysteries” devoted a segment to the Zeigler case.  Before they would do so, however, Mr.  Zeigler had to agree to undergo a polygraph examination by world-renowned polygraph expert John Palmatier, Ph.D. of the Michigan State Police Department.  The results of the test were that Tommy Zeigler was telling the truth about what happened the night of the murders.  Dr. Palmatier became a supporter—going on the TV program in order to give the favorable results.  He has written a letter expressing his firm belief that Zeigler is telling the truth about that night’s events.

In 2000, several Florida news media became aware of the Zeigler case.  There have been stories by WESH, WFLA, and WFTV questioning the guilt of Zeigler and stating the need for DNA testing to find the true facts of the case.  The Florida Catholic magazine has run award winning articles on the case by Jean Gonzalez. New articles on the case will soon be published by her.
In 2001, A&E’s Investigative Reports filmed a story on the case that aired in October called “Death Penalty: On Trial.”  The producers of that story have expressed their belief in Zeigler’s innocence and continue to follow its progress.
 In New Zealand, articles were published in the New Zealand Baptist by Julie Belding. Ms Belding also spoke at a meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention on Zeigler’s behalf when she was in the USA during 2001.
Bianca Jagger wrote an article about the case for the Miami Herald in August 2001. An online magazine, Justice Denied, ran a story on the case. Articles have appeared in support of Zeigler in England, Germany, Ireland and Sweden.
Prime Time Thursday is currently looking at the case [2004]. 48 Hours has expressed an interest in the story as has Pilgrim Films for a program called Reasonable Doubt for the Discovery Channel.
LINGERING QUESTIONS

What would have been the natural conclusion if Tommy Zeigler had died of his wounds that night?
If Zeigler had wanted his wife murdered, why shoot her himself when he had knowledge of people in Winter Garden involved in illegal activity?  Why shoot her in the middle of the business district?  Why shoot four people if he only wanted to kill one?  Why do it at the furniture store and put his family’s business and his parent’s livelihood in jeopardy?
If Zeigler killed his wife for insurance money, why did he buy the policies in town?  Why wait until shortly before the “planned” murder?  Why did Zeigler previously drop a $50,000 policy on Eunice?  (Insurance was bought on Eunice and an additional amount was added on Tommy after Mr. Zeigler, Sr. had a stroke earlier in 1975 and Tommy and Eunice became the principal officers in the business.  They were advised to do this by an attorney who has testified to this fact.  They also made wills then for the first time.)
If Zeigler was planning murder that night, why did he offer to swap cars with Curtis Dunaway knowing that Dunaway’s car was having mechanical trouble, was unreliable, and was making a noise which would draw attention to it?
If Eunice was planning to leave Tommy that holiday as the state contends: Why had she not packed any of her clothing?  Why did her activities follow the normal routine—taking one of their cats to the vet  (Zeigler stopped home that afternoon to see how the cat fared), visiting with Mr. Zeigler, Sr., shopping with her parents, baking a cake and making other preparations for Christmas dinner?  Why did she talk to the neighbors the weekend before about additions she and Tommy were planning to make to the house?  Why did she just a week or so before select a kitten from the litter of a friend’s cat to raise after it was weaned?
Why, if the Edwardses were planning to take Eunice back home with them, did Mrs. Edwards tell Mrs. Zeigler, Sr. that they intended during their visit to ask Tommy to be the executor of their will?  Why were they out Christmas shopping that day?  If they thought Tommy was a danger to Eunice, why would they allow her to go to the furniture with him and go there themselves?
Why, if Zeigler was in need of money, was he able to raise over $350,000 cash for trial expenses?  Why did he stay around when out on bond for two months?
Why were Edward Williams’ prints not on the gun he turned in?  Why did his pants not have gun residue, and why did they smell of fresh laundering?
Why did both Williams and Thomas wait several hours before going to the police, and then why did they go to the police in Orlando instead of the police in Winter Garden?
Why did Williams wait three months before telling police that he had obtained guns for Zeigler?
Why, if Williams truck was in the Zeigler driveway between 7:30 and 8:15 p.m., did neighbors of the Zeiglers see only Tommy’s truck in the driveway during that time?
How could there have been a jaw tooth on Mays’ parka that did not belong to Tommy Zeigler, Mays or any of the victims?  (Could this belong to the man “holed up” in Oakland with a bullet in his shoulder that Nathaniel Brown had talked about?)
Why were there Negroid hairs on the north wall of the store where Zeigler says he fought for his life?
Why were there cat hairs and glitter consistent with cat hairs and Christmas glitter from the Zeigler home found on Mays’ feet?  (Eunice’s purse was found on the couch at home lying open with money missing—did someone carry it from the store to the Zeigler home, perhaps to use the keys into the house?)
Why was there a large amount of gunshot residue on both the palms and backs of Mays’ hands?
Why was there no gunshot residue on Zeigler’s trousers if he had fired 28 shots?
Why was there an expended cartridge found in the store that did not match with any of the guns used in the crime?
Why, if Mays’ feet were covered in blood, weren’t any of his shoeprints found in the store?
If the Roaches and a state witness heard shots around 7:30 p.m., why didn’t Felton Thomas say he heard them if he and Mays were sitting in a van within 20’ of the back of the furniture store?  And why didn’t Thomas hear the shots that killed Charlie Mays?
How could Edward Williams have seen Tommy Zeigler holding a gun in the back of the store when there were no lights on?  Tests conducted revealed that it was impossible to recognize a person in the back of the darkened store let alone see what was in his hand.
If Tommy Zeigler hugged Williams as Williams said, then why was there no blood on Williams’ clothes?
Why didn’t either Williams or Thomas say they saw blood on Zeigler’s clothes if he has already murdered three people by the time he was with them?  Why would they go with a man who had blood on his clothes?
Why would Williams linger in the parking lot to urinate, as he told police, when there was a bathroom just inside at the end of the hallway?  Williams was comfortable at the store as he had helped to build it and had keys to it.
With all of the running around that Williams claims he did that night, why were the soles of his shoes not scuffed and why was the price tag still on the bottom of them?
Why does the man who worked at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant where Williams went to use the phone describe the clothes of the man who used the phone as different than those turned into police by Williams?  Why does that employee claim that he later saw the man who used the phone standing outside of the furniture store and that the man denied having used the phone to call the police?
Why did Williams tell the two women who gave him a ride to the service station to pick up his car that “a white man” tried to shoot him if it was Tommy Zeigler who had tried to shoot him whom he had known for years and whose name was well known in the community?
Why if the store was already completely dark, as Thomas says, did the man he believed to be Tommy Zeigler tell him to throw the breaker?  (If the breaker had been on there would have been light coming from a clock that lit up the whole office area.)  When detectives went into the dark store that night, they found several light switches in the “on” position…this corroborates Zeigler’s story as to how the lights were left at the end of the workday.  It also indicates that the lights were on when the breaker switch was turned off, which contradicts Thomas’ testimony.
Why did Thomas say Zeigler said he was going to crack a window to get in the store when the store windows had bars on them?  And if Zeigler was ramming something into the back of the store, as Thomas said, why were there no marks to that effect?
What became of two $20 bills that Mr. Zeigler, Sr. had given to Eunice earlier, and what became of Eunice’s two diamond rings and watch that she was wearing?  Why was there no money on Mr. and Mrs. Edwards or Eunice?
Why was there Negroid head hair, consistent with the hair of both Thomas and Williams, on the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. Edwards and Mays?  Why was there Caucasian hair on Mays that matched none of the victims or Zeigler?
Why did the clothes Tommy Zeigler was wearing that night not fit the description of the white man’s clothes that Felton Thomas described?
Why, if Edward Williams had run across the street from the store to the Kentucky Fried Chicken to use the phone to call the police immediately after he says Zeigler tried to shoot him, did the Nolans testify that AFTER they watched Tommy Zeigler being taken to the hospital they saw a black man come to the restaurant to use the phone?  (There is no record of that call…Williams says he did not get through.)  According to the state’s theory, during that time period Zeigler would have had to attempt to shoot Williams, move Williams truck (it was not found where Williams claimed he left it), wipe it clean of his fingerprints, bend a prong on the gate, go back into the store, call Ted VanDeventer, shoot himself in the abdomen, wait for the police to arrive, be examined by Chief Thompson and carried to his car, and be driven away.  Indeed, if the Nolans were telling the truth (and no one has suggested they were anything other than independent witnesses), then the logical conclusion is that Zeigler was shot before Williams left the store.  In his final chapter of FATAL FLAW, author Phillip Finch shows how this testimony alone considered with the police log which shows the timing of the events proves Zeigler’s innocence.
If the jurors were sure of Zeigler’s guilt, why does one say the six who first felt he was innocent were “persuaded?”  Why does Irma Brickel say she was “pressured”?  Why did it take only 20 minutes deliberation for the jury to unanimously recommend a life sentence?  (A juror told me they gave a life sentence so that if something came up later that he could still prove his innocence.  Is that a belief in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?  Did they all feel Zeigler had to prove his innocence?) [Addition: In 2004 Juror Peggy Dollinger signed an affidavit stating that based on the evidence she has seen since the trial she now believes Zeigler is innocent.]