The latest DNA testing of all the evidence in the case of William Thomas Zeigler confirms what he said all along, he did not kill his wife, his parents-in-law, and he did not kill Charles Mays on Christmas Eve, 1975.
The article in the Tampa Bay does an excellent job summarizing what happened. Plus, it answers a few questions.
Points to remember in this case:
- police and prosecutorial misconduct
- failure to subtype blood (some of the victims had the same blood type)
- destroying or losing key evidence that includes a loose tooth that can be seen in the crime scene photographs but does NOT belong to any of the victims including Zeigler
- inappropriate behavior from the original judge who told a doctor to prescribe Valium to holdout juror Irma Brickle who only then voted to convict
- the report of the first officer on the scene that shows Zeigler said he was shot by Mays
The DNA testing ties Mays to the Edwards Family. It is a fascinating part to read. The crown jewel: “Lab analysts had tested Zeigler’s corduroy shirt in 18 spots, including the cuffs, the collar, the front and back, and turned up no blood from his murdered relatives. His glasses and his orange, navy and tan plaid pants also were clean.”
In August 2010, I wrote my crime scene interpretation. Now combine it with the DNA results. There were at least three assailants, Mays and two others. Read here in detail why I said that. In short: the four dead bodies had all been treated differently.
Three people were shot by a killer who did not care if they left traces whereas around one dead body someone cleaned up. If one person was responsible for all four killings, why would that person bother to clean up around one dead body but not around the others? Here’s why.
After the struggle with Zeigler, Mays was killed. That is what Zeigler heard: “Mays has been hit, kill him.” This implies at least two others were there that night. The one ordering and one killing Mays.
Mays was butchered to death by his accomplices who knew to wipe away their blood smears, foot prints, etc. That is the only explanation that makes sense; Mays was murdered by people who knew what to do on a crime scene.
I said from the beginning that Eunice’s body was moved and that the blood underneath her coat’s lapels would lead to her murderer. I was right.
DNA testing showed the spots inside her lapel were her dad’s blood. Her husband, William Thomas Zeigler, did not have Perry Edwards’ blood on him. Charles Mays did. This ties in with my crime scene interpretation: Mays’ “blood and touch DNA were found in minute amounts on the cuffs of Eunice’s herringbone jacket and at the opening of one pocket. This suggested Mays had moved her and buttoned up her coat.”
One mystery might remain. There were some blood spots on Mays’ shirt that do not match any of the people who were in the Zeigler furniture store on Christmas Eve, 1975. So far, there are no matches in the national criminal DNA databases. More information will follow. The defense team has filed a motion to set aside Zeigler’s conviction.
Note:
After you read the Tampa Bay article, remember that Zeigler’s defense team is much larger than the people mentioned in that article. My gratitude goes to:
John Houston Pope who kept me up to speed about the appeals and strategy to move the case forward
Terry Hadley who has been an anker throughout the years, thank you for staying in touch
Vernon Davids who was the first lawyer who reached out to me when I still lived in Switzerland. He wanted Amnesty International to pick up the case and spread the word about an innocent man on death row. He provided me with trial transcripts, reports, and kept me posted. Rest in peace, dear friend.
and last but not least, the author Phillip Finch who passed away in 2012. I got in touch with him after an Amnesty colleague gave me Phil’s book. She said that the timelines in the book would help me understand the complex case.
Tip:
If you wish to read up on this old case, start with Finch’s book to get the original narrative and timeline. Then check my posts about Zeigler in order. I know there are many but they cover the appeals trial and court hearings in chronological order.
And now?
Now again we wait. But this time, we do not just have Zeigler’s word for it. We have DNA to support him.