Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Black widow case

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Anybody have any ideas for the defense of this case? It is going to trial Monday (jury selection) trial should last a month. Thanks, Amy ... [Non-text portions
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Anybody have any ideas for the defense of this case?
      It is going to trial Monday (jury selection) trial should last a month.
      Thanks,
      Amy
      > 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
      > symptoms.''
      > 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
      > conditions.
      >
      > 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
      > Turner.
      >
      > 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
      > said.
      >
      > 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
      > toxicologist.
      >
      > 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
      > UPDATED.
      > THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
      > UPDATED.
      > (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
      > committed.
      >
      > (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
      > Susteren.
      >
      > 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.
      > Willbanks.
      >
      > 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
      > it?
      >
      > 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
      > people.
      >
      > 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
      > Penalty?"
      >
      > 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
      > ahead.
      >
      > 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
      > her?
      >
      > 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
      > people.
      >
      > to be continued (if you want)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.