Anybody have any ideas for the defense of this case?
It is going to trial Monday (jury selection) trial should last a month.
> Prosecutors seek to show similarities in deaths
> By Harry R. Weber
> Associated Press
> Lynn Turner, right, who's accused of murdering her police officer husband
> with antifreeze, confers with her lawyers, Vic Reynolds, left, and Jimmy
> Berry, center, Monday in Cobb County Superior Court in Marietta. Evidence that
> Turner's firefighter boyfriend was poisoned with antifreeze should be used
> against her in the trial on charges that she killed her police officer husband the
> same way, prosecutors argued.
> Bita Honarvar/AP
> MARIETTA - Evidence that a woman's firefighter boyfriend was poisoned
> with antifreeze should be used against her in a trial on charges that she killed
> her police officer husband the same way, prosecutors argued Monday.
> Prosecutors want permission to tell jurors about similarities in the
> deaths of Cobb County police officer Glenn Turner and Forsyth County firefighter
> Randy Thompson, both of whom had long relationships with Lynn Turner, 34.
> Turner, 31, was married to Ms. Turner when he died in 1995. Thompson, 32,
> and Ms. Turner never married, but the couple had two children before he
> moved out in 1999, less than two years before he died.
> Ms. Turner is charged with killing her husband and is a suspect in
> Thompson's death, although she has not been charged. Prosecutors want to use
> details of Thompson's death in the murder trial.
> ''These are both cases of relatively young men, both of whom had sudden
> and unexpected deaths and were in good health,'' Dr. Kris Sperry, the state's
> chief medical examiner, testified at the hearing. ''They both were seen in
> emergency rooms within 24 hours of their deaths. They both had similar
> He added, ''Ultimately, we found in Glenn Turner's kidneys the presence
> of oxalate crystals as we did in Randy Thompsons' kidneys.''
> Both men were found covered in blankets and wearing only shorts. The
> deaths were initially ruled to be caused by an irregular heartbeat but later
> determined to be homicide caused by ingestion of ethylene glycol - the sweet,
> odorless chemical found in antifreeze.
> Prosecutors have not detailed a motive, but plan to raise at trial the
> fact that Glenn Turner changed his $100,000 life-insurance policy to list his
> wife as his beneficiary after earlier listing a sibling. Ms. Turner also
> received about $50,000 in death benefits from the county upon her husband's death.
> Lynn Turner was with both men within 24 hours of their deaths, according
> to testimony. In her husband's case, she gave him a glass of water. In
> Thompson's case, she brought him burgers and tea from a fast-food restaurant the
> morning after they dined at a steakhouse, according to testimony.
> Sperry testified that both men could have been given a single large dose
> of antifreeze or given smaller doses in stages. Prosecutors, however, do not
> know the specifics of how the poison was ingested.
> Pressed on cross-examination about whether pre-existing illnesses could
> have caused the two men's deaths, Sperry stood firm to his evaluation. Sperry
> also said the similar symptoms the two men showed in the hours before their
> deaths - vomiting, headaches, dizziness and hallucinations - were a compelling
> factor in determining they were poisoned.
> ''The finding of these crystals is basically a guarantee that we're going
> to find antifreeze,'' he said.
> Turner's lawyer, Jimmy Berry, in an interview after the daylong hearing,
> disputed the prosecution's theory.
> ''They are trying to tie these two cases and we're trying to show that
> they aren't similar,'' Berry said.
> Turner, who is free on bail, has pleaded innocent. The former 911
> dispatcher watched intently and occasionally wrote on a notepad as a close friend of
> her husband's testified about the couple's relationship and a forensic
> investigator recounted what he saw in the couple's home.
> The friend, Donald Cawthon, testified that Glenn and Lynn Turner's
> relationship was rocky from the start.
> ''He was going to try to work things out. He wanted to save his marriage
> and that's the last I heard from him,'' Cawthon said.
> He also testified about Ms. Turner's demeanor at her husband's wake the
> day before his funeral, complaining about a flag being displayed and
> suggesting that she didn't want a full police funeral.
> ''What was shocking that day was ... Lynn was just raising hell. Then she
> said, 'I didn't want that goddamned flag in the first place,'' Cawthon said.
> ''She said, 'I'm in charge of this funeral and if they don't listen to me
> I'm going to shut the whole thing down.' ''
> Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Tuesday, July 8, 2003.
> Medical evidence allowed vs. Turner
> By Steven H. Pollak
> Staff Writer
> Wednesday, December 24, 2003
> MARIETTA - A Cobb County judge on Saturday ruled in favor of allowing
> medical evidence from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation crime lab to be used at
> Lynn Turner's February murder trial.
> In a rare weekend court session, Turner's attorneys had asked the judge to
> toss out the GBI's test results for ethylene glycol, calling it "unreliable
> pseudo-scientific evidence of questionable reliability."
> Removing the GBI's toxicology tests from the case would essentially remove
> any proof either alleged victim ever ingested the poisonous substance, a move
> that would further hinder a prosecution which already hinges on
> circumstantial evidence linking the same woman to two men who died under similar
> Ethylene glycol is a sweet, odorless chemical found in antifreeze as well as
> other automotive and cleaning products.
> Turner, 35, has pleaded not guilty to a single count of murder in Cobb
> County, a charge stemming from the 1995 death of her police officer husband, Glenn
> She also has been called a suspect in the 2001 death of Randy Thompson, a
> Forsyth firefighter and the father of her two children.
> Following the death of Thompson, the GBI reportedly found evidence of
> ethylene glycol in the bodies of both men.
> On Saturday, Dr. Mark Koponen, deputy chief medical examiner at the GBI,
> said the law enforcement agency considers the presence of ethylene glycol during
> an autopsy to be an indication of poisoning.
> "It's an ethylene glycol poisoning case unless proven otherwise," Koponen
> said Saturday from the witness stand.
> A vast majority of people will not have any ethylene glycol in their body
> when they die, the doctor said, adding that only in "extraordinary cases" will
> a deceased body produce the chemical naturally.
> Otherwise, there should not be any amount of the poisonous chemical in the
> body unless the deceased had some exposure to ethylene glycol in their job,
> Koponen said.
> Turner's attorney, Jimmy Berry, took the GBI medical examiner to task for
> calling the mere presence of ethylene glycol an indication of a poisoning
> death. Berry pointed out that there's been no research into how much ethylene
> glycol is necessary to kill someone.
> Koponen told the attorney that, for several reasons, determining what amount
> of ethylene glycol is fatal would be difficult.
> First, many instances of ethylene glycol poisoning are the result of a
> suicide and, since those people tend to "over-ingest" the lethal substance,
> analyzing their cases would yield little information on the minimal levels
> necessary to kill, he said.
> On the other hand, researchers cannot ask humans to take varying amounts of
> ethylene glycol to find out how much they can ingest before they die, Koponen
> Besides questioning the definition of poisoning, Berry attacked the GBI by
> critiquing their testing methods. He noted that the GBI calibrates its
> chemical testing machines by using samples of varying concentrations of ethylene
> glycol to form a line graph of results.
> The graph becomes the standard against which the results of an unknown
> sample will be measured. The problem with this method, Berry said, is that no one
> is testing the samples originally used to create the line graph.
> Those samples come straight from a manufacturer who issues certain
> guarantees and follows industry guidelines, said Christopher Tillson, a GBI
> Ultimately, Judge James Bodiford remained unconvinced of Berry's arguments.
> He ruled against the defense attorney's request but said he would outline his
> reasons in a written order to be issued on Tuesday.
> Turner's trial is scheduled to begin in Cobb County on Feb. 2.
> CNN BURDEN OF PROOF
> Two Deceased Atlanta Men Linked to Same Woman May Have More in Common Than
> First BelievedAired August 1, 2001 - 12:30 ET
> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> CAPT. FRANK GOSS, CUMMING POLICE DEPT.: At this point, our investigation is
> focused primarily on whether or not there was in fact a crime being
> (END VIDEO CLIP)
> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> JEFF MARTIN, TURNER'S FRIEND: I hope it will expose the truth to what really
> happened in Glenn's, you know, death.
> (END VIDEO CLIP)
> VAN SUSTEREN: Two deceased Atlanta men linked to the same woman may have
> more in common than first believed. New evidence linking the mysterious deaths
> of Maurice Glenn Turner and Randy Thompson is resurfacing.
> Today on BURDEN OF PROOF, will poison found in the system of one man lead to
> answers in the cause of death in the other? And did Lynn Turner have any
> role in these two deaths?
> ANNOUNCER: This is BURDEN OF PROOF, with Roger Cossack and Greta Van
> VAN SUSTEREN: Hello, and welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF.
> Authorities in Atlanta, Georgia have reopened investigations into the deaths
> of two men, one who died six years ago, one died six months ago. Both had
> been involved with the same woman. In January of this year, Randy Thompson died
> from what investigators thought were natural causes. Yet an autopsy from
> April 27th showed there was calcium oxalate crystals, a chemical found in
> antifreeze, in Thompson's kidneys.
> COSSACK: Now, authorities are reopening the investigation into the 1995
> death of Maurice Glenn Turner. Turner was married to Lynn Turner, who moved in
> with Thompson after Turner died. At the time of his death, officials attributed
> Turner's passing to natural causes as well. But doctors did find traces of
> calcium oxalate crystals on tissue slides from his autopsy. Now, police want
> further tests to confirm this. On Monday, investigators exhumed his body in
> order to conduct a second autopsy.
> VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us today in Atlanta is criminal defense attorney Jerry
> Froelich, and former chief of police for Cartersville, Georgia, J.R.
> COSSACK: Also in Atlanta, former Jackson county, Georgia prosecutor, Dan
> Conaway. And joining us in Detroit, is medical examiner Dr. Werner Spitz.
> Dr. Spitz, they are talking about exhuming the bodies, doing autopsies over
> again. First of all, how will they go about exhuming these bodies. And one
> has been in the ground for six years. Does that mean that a different autopsy
> will prove anything, or is just too long?
> DR. WERNER SPITZ, MEDICAL EXAMINER: No, I don't think it is too long. You
> can exhume a body after six years, especially if a previous autopsy has already
> been done, because when they put the organs back after the first autopsy,
> they put it in plastic bag with formaldehyde, and that is no different than
> keeping the specimen in a laboratory, and they'll be in good condition.
> VAN SUSTEREN: What makes you so sure? Is that like mandatory that they would
> have done this, that they would have done this, that they would have put the
> organs back in a formaldehyde, or is that optional, or is it because there
> was suspicion? I mean, how can we be so sure?
> SPITZ: No, because this is the custom, this is the routine. If an autopsy is
> done, the organs get put back. Very rarely organs do not get put back. But
> by an large, most of the time, they do get put back, and they're available for
> a second autopsy, if necessary.
> VAN SUSTEREN: What is it -- six years later, is it a complicated matter to
> go back and try to recreate the cause of death in an instance like this, where
> they're looking for a poison, number one. And number two, how did they miss
> is the first time?
> SPITZ: Well, I think they missed it, because either something went wrong in
> the laboratory, or they did not even test for ethylene glucose.
> The thing of this, you asked me about exhuming the body, I don't really know
> that that is necessary. You've got tissue specimens from the first autopsy.
> All you need to do at the present time is examine them and see that there's
> calcium oxalate crystals in the kidneys, there are calcium oxalate crystals in
> the brain. You've got calcium oxalate crystals in two individuals that, at
> face value, are not connected, and this would be the item that would connect
> the two.
> COSSACK: Dr. Spitz, calcium oxalate -- we think of it as antifreeze. There's
> no way someone could ingest something like that accidentally, is there? I
> mean, I suppose accidents can always happen. But the notion that you're going
> to get this in something else, or by accident take it in, how much would you
> need to take before it would act as a poison, and wouldn't you taste it?
> SPITZ: Well, you have to remember that ethylene glucose has a sweet, not an
> unpleasant taste. It's a little bit bitter, but mostly sweet. It has no odor,
> and it has no color. It looks like water. So -- and it mixes with alcohol,
> and it mixes with water, so that if you want to put that into somebody's drink
> who drinks the whole evening with you, you can easily hide 100 ml, which is
> like three ounces, or more, in the nice alcoholic drinks that that person
> enjoys, and that person would never be any wiser.
> VAN SUSTEREN: Dr. Spitz, the calcium oxalate crystals, if you ingest that,
> does it appear that you would have an irregular heartbeat, which is what they
> initially thought was the cause of death for Mr. Turner was?
> SPITZ: Well, let me tell you, the pathologist who does an autopsy, who
> determines that the person died of an irregular heartbeat, to put it bluntly, did
> not find anything. At time of autopsy, the heart stands still, so if he finds
> nothing, then he concludes that he died of an irregular heartbeat. That mean
> really nothing.
> VAN SUSTEREN: I've got to tell you listening to you who conducted this
> autopsy six years ago didn't do much after service to family or anybody, if you
> are saying write down irregular heartbeat if you don't know what the cause is.
> SPITZ: That's probably correct. You would -- you know, on the other hand
> that happens to all of pathologists sometimes, that we do not find anything at
> an autopsy, and then we sit back and think, well, something must have happened
> to this individual, because obviously he's dead and...
> VAN SUSTEREN: A question mark would be better than misleading by saying that
> an irregular heartbeat, just put a big question mark, don't know.
> SPITZ: Well, are you probably correct. Probably that pathologist could have
> said, I didn't find anything. Many pathologists don't do that.
> COSSACK: Let's go to J.R. Willbanks.
> J.R., in terms of the investigation, why is this investigation starting
> again? What is the cause of this suspicion?
> J.R. WILLBANKS, FMR. CHIEF, CARTERSVILLE P.D.: Well, obviously, some
> questions have been raised concerning the connection between the two individuals
> that have died when they got the positive results for antifreeze in the most
> recent death, and then made the connection between the latest victim and the
> other victim, and then they began having questions.
> VAN SUSTEREN: J.R., take me through the steps, if you were assigned to this
> case, what you would do in investigating it?
> WILLBANKS: At this point, or initially?
> VAN SUSTEREN: Right now.
> WILLBANKS: Well, at this point you have to assume that there could have been
> oversights or errors made initially, and you have to get past that. You
> don't want to lay blame who might be responsible. You just simply pick up the
> investigation at this point. If it is necessary to exhume the body to examine
> it, then you certainly do so. If you do prove through the second autopsy of the
> second victim that it is the same similar poisoning, then you have to work
> it just like you would any other investigation. I would look for possible
> other victims, any other connections with this individual that may have died
> under mysterious circumstances, and just proceed from that standpoint.
> COSSACK: Dan, as a prosecutor in this case, I suppose that you are now, your
> interest is starting to get piqued a little bit. You have two men. Both die
> apparently from this calcium oxalate. More investigation has to be done. What
> do you start doing as a prosecutor?
> DAN CONAWAY, FMR. GEORGIA PROSECUTOR: Well, at this point in the
> investigation, as the prosecutor in the case, you're going to want to work closely with
> the police, and the detectives and the crime lab people. You want to begin to
> look at this case from the point of view that you are going to be taking it
> perhaps to a grand jury. From that point of view you want to make sure both
> the police, the detectives and the crime lab people. You want to begin to look
> at this case from the point of view that you're going to be taking it
> perhaps to a grand jury. From that point of view, you want to make sure that both
> the police, the detective and crime lab people are doing things properly so
> that you can ultimately introduce this evidence, first presenting to it a grand
> jury so that it makes sense. Then secondly, if you ever need to, actually
> presenting it in court, where you have to worry about things like chain of
> custody, and you worry about laying foundations.
> COSSACK: Let's get to it. Would Lynn Turner be your number-one suspect in
> this case?
> CONAWAY: I think it's too early to say. I mean, to jump from two bodies,
> both apparently dying from the same method of poisoning, and actually indicting
> someone is a really, really big leap. I think you might -- this might be the
> kind of case you want to call a special grand jury, for instance, to take a
> further look at the evidence, to make sure you really got a good case
> together. You don't want to rush to judgment, and then have the case fall apart later
> in court.
> VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's get defense view, quick. Jerry, if you
> represented her, what do you do right now for her?
> JERRY FROELICH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I tell her to keep her
> mouth shut, don't talk to anybody, and I start saying what has already gone on.
> There was a GBI lab test, which found it was all right in the Thompson death,
> and there was an autopsy that said it was all right. In the Turner death,
> there was an autopsy in which they found an enlarged heart, and the person who
> did the autopsy, Friske, has stuck by the autopsy and said because there's
> crystals in the liver, doesn't mean that there was poison. Crystals in the liver
> can be symptoms of other diseases. And that's the type of thing I would be
> saying out publicly, and hitting it hard publicly. I wouldn't be talking about
> the facts or about my client; I would be talking about the autopsies that
> have already been done, that have found that the deaths were natural, and the
> GBI's own lab, which found that it was a natural death.
> COSSACK: All right, let's take a break.
> Up next, why has a profiler been brought into this case? And will he be able
> unravel the mystery? Stay with us.
> (BEGIN LEGAL BRIEF)
> The Minuteman Council, one of the largest Boy Scout councils in
> Massachusetts approved a new bylaw allowing gay scoutmasters, despite the national
> organization's ban. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that despite the Boy Scouts
> of America could exclude gays from serving as troop leaders.
> (END LEGAL BRIEF)
> (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
> COSSACK: Investigators have reopened the cases of the deaths of a
> firefighter and a police officer who were both romantically involved with the same
> woman. The men died six years apart and originally were thought to have died
> because of irregular heartbeats. Now according to the Georgia Bureau of
> Investigations, firefighter Randy Thompson, who died in January, is now believed to
> have died because of a poisoning. This discovery sparked interest in the cause
> of Maurice Glenn Turner's death.
> J.R., one issues now that investigators are talking about is bringing in a
> profiler to try and figure out what kind of a person, if there is a murderer
> in case, try to figure out what kind after person that person would be. Is
> that something that you've ever had success with in your days as investigators.
> Do you think it's a good tool, and do you think anything is going to come of
> WILLBANKS: I think it's a good tool. We have used it on occasions. Sometimes
> it was successful; sometimes it was not. Often it's used in the early parts
> of the investigation, the early phase, and at that point, the investigation
> is usually in an evidence gathering stage, and you're waiting on a lot of
> results, back from the crime lab and so forth. It can be very helpful to have a
> profile of the kind of person you're dealing with, and anything you can use
> from that, you should use.
> VAN SUSTEREN: Jerry, boy, I can't think of any -- it seems to me it's a big
> waste of time in this case. A profiler is when you've got a huge mystery. I
> mean, all you need in this particular case find the cause of death of both,
> and then you investigate to see whether or not the wife, the common woman, has
> any involvement. What would a profiler do in this case? FROELICH: I have no
> idea. I'm a former federal and state prosecutor, and, one, I don't think their
> the greatest thing in the world. But even in this case, I see no use for it.
> Let's face it, she's the target. Lynn Turner is the woman they are looking
> at. There's nobody else. She's the only common thread. You don't need a
> profiler to tell you that Lynn Turner is the top suspect in this case. And I don't
> know what they can do, unless they are trying the bring in someone really
> guide the investigation more than to give a them profile.
> From what I understand profile they brought in is trained by the FBI, and it
> may be more of guiding the investigation and giving them an overall view of
> the investigation, and trying to determine who did it.
> VAN SUSTEREN: Jerry, it's not like a huge whodunit here. I'm not saying that
> she did it, but we first have to find whether or not there was a homicide,
> what the cause of death was. You then begin investigating to see who might
> have a motive, who might have a link, and you go around and you talk to the
> neighbors, you talk to the employer. The last thing I think you need here is a
> profiler. It almost sounds like they've got a little taste of the Chandra Levy
> investigation. Let's all go out and get profilers.
> FROELICH: Well, I think it sounds good in the papers, and it looks good to
> the public, but I agree with you, and even if -- they don't even have the
> proof yet that both people were poisoned. And it is a sweet-swelling liquid. It
> is a liquid that could be drunk by accident. Now whether that happens twice in
> a row is another story, and it would be a tough sell. But even if both
> people were poison, they have to prove someone did it.
> COSSACK: Jerry, look...
> VAN SUSTEREN: Maybe not, though. If she says she hated these guys and she
> wanted to give them or something hypothetical...
> COSSACK: Jerry, you've got two dead guys, six years apart, you've, got
> evidence that they both drank a poison, and you've got one woman that is common to
> both of them. Now, I'm not saying that that makes her a murderer but if I
> was representing her, perhaps I'd be happy to see a profiler coming down the
> pike, thinking, gee, maybe they're going to expand this investigation, rather
> than look at...
> VAN SUSTEREN: They can pretend they're like the LAPD and just trample over
> the evidence.
> FROELICH: They are not expanding the investigation. I mean, she's the target
> of it. Anybody with any common sense will say that. But even you prove both,
> it's still a big leap, and they have problems, and they may be trying to get
> somebody to solve their initial problems. That profiler may be there not to
> pick a person, but to give them explanations as too how they made mistakes,
> and then tell them maybe who do we look for as witnesses. I mean, even if they
> find that both were dead, you've got to prove -- a motive is not evidence. A
> motive is not part of the proof. You put it in, but it is not an essential
> element of the crime. So even if you prove motive, you've got...
> VAN SUSTEREN: It sure helps the prosecution.
> Let me go back to Dr. Spitz.
> This calcium oxalate that is found in antifreeze, is there any other
> innocent explanation or any other way you can get this into your system, that is not
> drinking antifreeze, that could have some sort of, you know, explanation?
> SPITZ: Well, the ethylene glucose that is also present in some solvents, but
> anyone you twist it, it's a poison, and it is not just happens to be there.
> You have to go and buy it for a purpose, either for cooling your car or for
> using it as a solvent.
> VAN SUSTEREN: So there's nothing else, no -- it couldn't be something else.
> If you find calcium oxalate in your system, it got there for a bad reason,
> unless you're nuts and you want to drink this stuff.
> SPITZ: Absolutely.
> COSSACK: All right, Dan, let's talk about the profiler, the investigation
> and the facts. I mean, look, you know, Jerry knows the facts, you know the
> facts. Aren't you this time beginning to focus in on Linda Turner as the
> possible, if not prime suspect?
> CONAWAY: Well, she can be the prime suspect, but, again -- and I think the
> profiler goes to this -- you are going to have to be able to put together a
> case against this person, and unless you've got real evidence to connect her to
> these deaths, beyond a simple profile; I'm talking real facts, going way
> beyond anything in the lab reports or anything that they've got simply in
> profile, then they're not going to be able to make a case in court.
> I think the profile is good from the point of view that it's showing that
> the prosecution here is trying to act cautiously, and it's simply trying to
> simply throw an indictment up against this person.
> VAN SUSTEREN: You know what, I've got to tell, Dan, it looks like they're
> spending a lot of taxpayer money down in the state of Georgia. It's a big, fat
> waste of time in this particular case, that they ought to do some
> old-fashioned gumshoe work, hit the pavement, and just do some investigation talk to
> We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
> (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
> (BEGIN Q&A)
> Who has been named as executive director of "New Yorkers Against the Death
> David Kaczynski. KAGAN:, brother of convicted Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, has
> been an anti-death penalty activist for years.
> (END Q&A)
> VAN SUSTEREN: Randy Thompson's autopsy found poisonous chemicals in his
> kidneys. Two months later, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation confirmed that
> there was evidence of antifreeze in Thompson's blood and urine, enough that
> could have killed him.
> Let me go back Jerry. If she is charged -- and that's a huge if right now --
> the investigation is ongoing. I assume in Georgia both cases would be
> charged together, which of course is terrible for defendant in this instance, do
> you agree?
> FROELICH: Well, they may be or there may not be. What they will try to do is
> bring one in as other crimes, try to establish a pattern, so whether you're
> successful in severing them, and I would also have to see where the
> jurisdiction is. Were they both in Cobb County, which I believe they were? The
> officers were Forsythe County, but I believe Turner was living in Cobb County at
> both times, but then you would say that they're two different crimes, but the
> judge might not let them be tried together, and the prosecution may want two
> bites at the apple. They may try her on one and bring the other in as pattern
> or similar crime.
> In federal court, it's called 404-b evidence, and they do the same here in
> the state of Georgia, in the state system.
> COSSACK: Jerry, did they search your client's house yet? And I have to ask
> obvious, did they find any antifreeze in her house?
> FROELICH: Well, she's not my client.
> COSSACK: I'm sorry.
> FROELICH: And I don't believe they searched the house, and I don't think you
> could get a search warrant. It is so far beyond now. One death I believe was
> in January, the other six years old, so a search warrant would be stale, and
> I don't know if you would be able to get a search warrant.
> COSSACK: Dan, do you think the government can get a search warrant based on
> these facts, or do think they'd be stale?
> CONAWAY: No, I think at this point there's simply no way you could provide
> enough probable cause to get a warrant.
> What they may want to do in this case instead is simply begin investigation
> from the point of view of gathering evidence, and then perhaps presenting it
> to a special grand jury. I think that the DAs office has a real problem here,
> in the fact that the victim's families involve GBI and other government
> officials, and so there could be political taint to the investigation process.
> VAN SUSTEREN: You know what I think the problem is, Dan, I've got to tell
> you, they look awfully sloppy. Here you have a medical examiner six years ago,
> who apparently, according to Dr. Spitz, didn't know what the cause of death
> was, rather than putting uncertain, misled everybody say irregular heartbeat.
> Then the situation where the state instead of hitting the pavement, knocking
> on doors, talking to neighbors, seeing whether or not the woman, who is
> obviously under the umbrella suspicion, had animosity of these two men, which is
> at least the bit, bizarre, they've gone out and hired a profiler to figure out
> who could have didn't this. I've got to tell you, this....
> COSSACK: This Profiler one has got you.
> VAN SUSTEREN: Look, there's nothing wrong with old-fashioned investigation,
> where you get facts, where you...
> COSSACK: We don't know if they are doing that, too.
> VAN SUSTEREN: I can't understand the profiler at this point. But anyway, go
> CONAWAY: If I go back to crime lab for a minute, crime lab comment. The
> Georgia crime lab is definitely overburdened with all different types of work.
> And I think one of the biggest problems off the bat, besides trying to links
> the deaths to anyone, is the problem of the first test. Ultimately, the defense
> will have the opportunity under Georgia discovery rules if this case goes
> anywhere to test that evidence, and fact you've got two different conflicting
> reports already goes to reasonable doubt, so they've got a really, really long
> road to...
> VAN SUSTEREN: And I've got tell you, the overburden defense is hardly very
> compelling, and usually it means, that's another way to say incompetent, too,
> because they have an obligation to do it right.
> COSSACK: J.R., let me ask, if you are leading up this investigation, what
> would you be doing now in terms of Lynn Turner, how would you be investigating
> WILLBANKS: Well, I would ask her for consent to search. I'm assuming at this
> point she would not give that. If there is probable cause that would warrant
> a search warrant, I would attempt to do that. There again without knowing
> more about the case I wouldn't know.
> VAN SUSTEREN: What do you think you will find this her house? Antifreeze?
> COSSACK: Might.
> VAN SUSTEREN: I still go back -- might find it in your garage. I still go
> back to you canvass the neighborhood, you canvass everybody who knew these
> to be continued (if you want)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]