• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About the author and her website
  • References
  • Archives
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact Page

Defrosting Cold Cases

Research website by Alice de Sturler

  • My Research Method
  • How to search for cases
  • Cold Case Database
  • Case of the Month: What we lost
  • Book Reviews
You are here: Home / Zeigler / Zeigler: touch DNA denied

Zeigler: touch DNA denied

April 22, 2017 By Alice

The Florida Supreme Court has denied William Thomas Zeigler’s request for touch DNA testing. I have converted the PDF to images below.

On March 31, 2016, an evidentiary hearing was held for William Thomas Zeigler to request touch DNA testing in his case. Judge Whitehead denied that request for touch DNA on July 18, 2016. On November 23, 2016, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of Florida. Check here for details.

 

Zeigler denied touch DNA April 21 2017_Page_1 500

 

Zeigler denied touch DNA April 21 2017_Page_2 500

 

Zeigler denied touch DNA April 21 2017_Page_3 500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During their last spring semester in 2011, twenty-five undergraduate and five graduate students from Penn State University (PSU) reviewed trial documents from William Thomas Zeigler’s case. The PSU students conducted this case review as an assignment for their capstone course; a course designed to complete each student’s education in criminalistics and forensic science through self-study and exercises such as the reconstruction/review of a major case such as the Zeigler investigation.

The students had to prepare a report and a presentation that included an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution and the defense with respect to the available forensic evidence. They had to consider elements such as: investigation/processing of the crime scene, evidence documentation, collection, and packaging; field tests/examinations; reports/testimony of all experts; autopsy findings as well as analysis of all other physical evidence.

The students noted the lack of scene security; insufficient documentation of people entering and exiting the scene, inadequate identification of location of evidence (bullet casings, guns, bloodstain patterns, shoe impressions) on the limited crime scene sketches; insufficient and non-informative photographs of the evidence (many were out of focus, taken from a distance, not adequately labeled); and collection of evidence by officers who didn’t wear gloves or chose to smoke within the crime scene.

In reviewing the trial transcripts the students believed that the defense had raised some valid points about the chain of custody of some evidence pieces. They felt that under current circumstances items such as the bloodstained clothing of Zeigler would not have been admitted in court because of the handling and packaging of the evidence.

The students also found that some witness testimonies exceeded their area of expertise and that the testimony lacked scientific foundation. Most concerning was the testimony of Dr. Herbert MacDonell. Called to testify as a bloodstain pattern expert, the students believed his testimony strayed well beyond what can be derived from bloodstain pattern analysis. The students did not find him a credible witness.

The vast majority of the students asserted that Mr. Zeigler’s case should be reviewed and that the on-going appeals are warranted. They felt that DNA testing on relevant items of evidence, such as the victims’ and suspect’s clothing, could shed informative light on the investigation.

Some speculated that upon closer inspection of the evidence, Zeigler may be exonerated from the crime he was convicted of committing. 

The defense team has tirelessly pointed out prosecutorial misconduct in this case. Police lied on the stand, evidence was withheld, and forensic evidence pointed to other explanations than what the state offered when it charged William Thomas Zeigler with quadruple murder that sent him to death row.

Each time the consequences of the misconduct were dismissed as either procedurally barred or that the complaint was filed too late or that on its own this one single complaint would not have changed the opinion of the jury.

I feel sure that IF the 1976 jury had known about ALL the evidence and ALL the misconduct it would have been convinced that there was reasonable doubt.

Thank you for sharing!

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Zeigler Tagged With: Florida, Prosecutorial Misconduct, touch DNA, William Thomas Zeigler, withheld evidence

Primary Sidebar

Dina Fort

Author Notes

On this website, I write about old, unsolved cases. Most are from the pre-DNA era and are in need of renewed media attention. I only do research and leave the active investigation of these cases to the professionals.

My posts are about homicides, missing and unidentified people, wrongful convictions, and forensics as related to these cases.

On book reviews: I only review select works of true crime, crime fiction, and historical fiction/mysteries. The stories have to fit my website's theme and research. It remains my prerogative to not review a book.

My database has over 300 cases listed by the victim’s last name. You will find a brief description there as well. The database will always be free to the public to use. You cannot buy ad space on my website, ever.

All writing suggestions that come in by email are added to my to-do list in the order in which they were received. Please be patient. My to-do list is very long but no case gets dropped and I will get back in touch.

Defrosting Cold Cases is NOT an organization. It is my brainchild.

If you have any questions about my website please check the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, the about page, and the tabs in both menu bars. If you still cannot find the answer there, please contact me.

Thank you,

Alice de Sturler

Copyright

If you use my work, please add a link back. Let your readers know where you found your information. I do the same for you. Thank you!

Protected by Copyscape

Categories

Top Posts & Pages

  • Cold Case Database
  • Gina Renee Hall partial remains found
  • How to search for cases
  • What we lost
  • Case of the Month: Hinterkaifeck

Subscribe to DCC by email

Enter your email address to get new posts notifications in your inbox

RSS Defrosting Cold Cases

  • What we lost
  • The Ethics of Forensic Genealogy part 2
  • Once Two Sister by Sarah Warburton
  • Toronto John Doe 1989
  • Paul Bernard Quinters (1967 – 1993)

William Thomas Zeigler

Category: ALL POSTS

On March 31, 2016, an evidentiary hearing was held to request touch DNA testing. On July 18, 2016, Judge Whitehead denied that request.

On November 23, 2016, an appeal was filed with the Florida Supreme Court. On April 21, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court denied the request for touch DNA analysis.

On May 8, 2017 a motion for a rehearing with the US Supreme Court was filed. It was denied November 13, 2017.

In the summer of 2019, the appeal for DNA testing to the Florida Conviction Integrity Unit was denied.

Richard Lapointe

Category: ALL POSTS

In March 2015, the Connecticut State Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Richard lapointe. On Oct 2, 2015, International Wrongful Conviction Day, Richard was set free. The judge ruled that he cannot be retried for the 1987 rape-murder of Mrs. Bernice Martin. Richard Lapointe died on Aug 4, 2020 of Covid19 complications.

In 1987, someone killed Bernice Martin. I hope that she will not become a forgotten file.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright: Please add a link back if you use my work. Let your readers know where you found your information. I do the same for you. If you need help with this, just contact me. Thank you, Alice de Sturler

[footer_backtotop]

Copyright © 2009–2021 - Defrosting Cold Cases - All rights reserved · Hosting & WordPress: 3J WordPress Write Data

wordpress counter

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.