- The Defense - Page 116

Twenty-three

The deadline for the first major release of state’s evidence was April 12.  That afternoon, the last few hours of the last day when the state attorney's office could remain in compliance with the law, the prosecution turned over copies of police reports, witness statements, Professor MacDonell's report, partial results from the FBI Laboratory, and copies of crime scene photographs.

The defense team spent much of the next weekend reviewing the photocopied material.  Terry Hadley was wary of a "bombshell": any indisputable fact or test result or statement that would conclusively show that Tommy Zeigler had murdered anyone in the furniture store on Christmas Eve.

The state's files contained no such evidence.

The blood-typing results were so sketchy as to be almost useless for either side.  A transmittal letter from the sheriff's office to the FBI had asked that the FBI Lab "type and group ((the blood specimens) as far a possible."  But for some reason, none of the specimens had been subgrouped.

It was a curious lapse—almost an amateurish one.  Not for the last time, some members of the defense speculated that the FBI and the prosecution had a verbal agreement that the FBI would not report any test results that tended to exculpate Zeigler.

On May 7, defense investigators also inspected physical evidence in the sheriff's lockers.

In all, the state's own evidence contained much to contradict the prosecution's theory of the crime.  There was a bombshell, from the FBI Lab.  But the only case it threatened was the state's prosecution of Tommy Zeigler.

What Hadley and the others found in the prosecution's files included:

The second tooth.  One of the close-up photographs of Charlie Mays on the terrazzo showed what appeared to be a human tooth lying on the sleeve of Mays's dark sweatshirt.  Mays had lost a single tooth when he was beaten, and one tooth was recovered against the north wall of the showroom.  None of the other victims had lost a tooth.  According to police property receipts, the tooth in the photograph was never recovered.  Yet it clearly did exist, and the inference was that it had come from a sixth person in the store: a person who could not exist, according to the prosecution's theory.

Eunice's coat.  Some light "transfer stains" of blood were found along the underside of the lapel at the front of Eunice's coat, as if it had been grasped by