The appeal starts with an explanation why the court misunderstood critical facts and misapplied the Florida estoppel laws.
Let’s skip that for a moment and concentrate on this: when a wife is found murdered her husband is immediately on everyone’s radar.
It has been uncontested (e.g. everyone agrees) and it has been a fact that the blood found on the outside of Eunice’s coat does NOT belong to Eunice herself. It does NOT belong to her husband, William Thomas Zeigler who was sentenced to death for her murder. Who dripped blood on Eunice?
Is it likely that someone innocently dripped their blood on her coat? No, it has been established that both the blood dripping and smearing on Eunice’s body were done by someone (other than Zeigler himself) after she was killed. So I ask you again: who dripped that blood?
Look at Eunice’s body. Despite a head shot her body lies completely straight on the floor. Legs straight and together, arms straight down, and the left hand inside her left coat pocket.
Of course, whoever was responsible had to hide that her diamond rings were missing.
Could that have been the moment they dripped blood on her? You can find the story about Eunice’s rings here (check under point D).
Just to add to the confusion, those bloody foot prints leading to her body? Not Zeigler’s either.
To quote from the appeal: “[e]vidence is exculpatory if it is favorable to the defendant and tends to negate the guilt of the accused or tends to negate the punishment.”
In plain English: the state’s evidence or lack thereof cannot leave questions unanswered. Yet in this case the state demands from their citizen the ultimate price for a crime in which these questions remain unanswered. It demands Zeigler’s execution despite not knowing who else was near the murdered victim. To demand such a sacrifice goes against all reason. By maintaining that stance and by ignoring forensic evidence the state undermines the people’s trust in its integrity and objective reasoning.