Looks like Johnson is grasping at straws. I'm sure she claimed prosecutorial misconduct as well.

Not much to hang your hat on Murray.

Yay. I believe Tom's NOT GUILTY. I'm in his corner.

That was a crazy trial. THey have no real proof. Just guesses.

I'm not surprised how many ignorant people in here are ready to pick up torches and pitchforks because they have no concept of the law. A little part of me is sickened to think that there might have been negative influence in the jurors' heads simply because he's from K-State.

Murray certainly has grounds for appeal, and I certainly would like to see this case retried. I have always felt that his conviction was a joke; the result of jurors who did not understand their responsibilities, and a prosecutor that managed to convince jurors that you should just decide a man's fate based on how you feel, regardless of what facts and evidence are (or arent) staring you in the face.

I'm glad there are at least a couple people here who get it, but they re sadly the minority.

july and comp: Your insight on the trial is amazing. The prosecutor was able to fool 12 people into believing they should convict because he was a bad guy to his wife, but more importantly, he was a "Cat Backer". OOOOH! Give me a break.

It was a circumstantial case, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't support a conviction. In addition, he had not one, but two well respected defense attorneys to aid in his defense.

compmd ... you can't be serious. The jury might have showed bias because he's not a Jayhawk, or because he's from K-State? (I thought Mizzou were the enemy?)

Come on! What makes you think that 100% of the jury were KU fans, and what makes you think that everyone around here gives a crap about college sport?

What makes you think that jury members could be so shallow? And dumb too, apparently. You say they didn't know their responsibilities. How could you know, or even state such a thing?

And laughable is the idea that the prosecutor would try to convince a jury based on 'feelings' .. oh that's a good 'un!

Gimme a break!

I'm just upset they didn't find better evidence, because I am 100% convinced he did it. And here you are, some of you defending 'the system' while a creep like Murray tries to work the system and get out.

I'm sure you're not thinking about the little girl in the middle of all this either. He bludgeoned her mother, for gawds sake ...

Nice guy.

"I'm just upset they didn't find better evidence, because I am 100% convinced he did it."

Centrist: Being 'convinced' and having proof beyond a reasonable doubt with good, noncircumstantial evidence are not the same thing. And, press coverage is not "evidence."

Nope, I'm not on crack (grin) and yes I did follow the trial very closely.

I read every word written about the trial by the J-W, and I did attend the trial several times, just to "get the vibes."

I just don't think he did it. I don't know who did do it, but I don't think it was Thomas Murray.

Sure, due process, I know.

I am convinced by all of the facts of the case that this guy did the awful crime they've convicted him of.

Geewhiz Logrithmic, are you telling us that the evidence presented at the Miller trial was different than the evidence presented at the Murray trial.

Who would have thought that two totally seperate trials would have two totally different amounts of evidence.

Following your logic...a busload of nuns witnessed a man shoot his wife in broad daylight, police also witness the shooting, they arrest the man while the gun is still smoking. That evidence would be far more convincing that Murray or Miller.

Does that make them any less valid?

Log - I don't get your first statement about providing ANY circumstantial evidence to prove Murray did it. Did you attend ANY of the trial or are you just going by media blurbs??? The trial last for FOUR WEEKS - do you think the DA just sat there and chatted with the jury??? Of course they put on evidence (granted it was circumstantial), but that is how cases are proved sometimes.

I attended a lot of the proceedings and can tell you the man was/is guilty.

There are a couple of thoughts I have:

He really was convicted by a jury of his peers, as several of the jurors were as highly educated as Murray. I think that helped them follow a difficult path.

He also had TWO of the highest paid/profile attorneys as his defense team. Obviously, they didn't find any glaring problems with the case. (I don't think Pedro would miss grandstanding and making a huge deal of something, if he found it.)

By the Way - Isn't it interesting that his defense team IS NOT the ones appealling???? I guess money really talks, and when you are out - so is the "A Team". (I guess I thought hundreds of thousands of dollars paid up front just might be good for the appeal process too- silly me.)

Is reading comprehension affected by "hot topics" in the news or something? I NEVER said that his affiliation with K-State had ANYTHING to do with his conviction. Read my words again. I said I was sickened to think it MIGHT have been an influence. Heck, with the way people are talking here, that is less reasonable that "OMG he killed his wife I KNOW IT!!!"

"I'm sure you're not thinking about the little girl in the middle of all this either. "

Centrist, good "think of the children" ploy. This is exactly what the prosecution did. The prosecutor appealed to the emotions of the jury rather than present them with actual facts and proof that he committed the crime he was charged with. Yes, its terrible that this little girl lost her mother, but has NOTHING to do with what is necessary to convict a man of murder.

Dozer, what you fail to realize is that a prosecutor doesn't want to lose cases. The job of the prosecutor is to win them. And yes, if that involves bending (or breaking) rules to convince a jury to convict, they'll do it. How many ciminal proceedings have you been a part of? I'd be willing to bet I've in more...

What people don't seem to get is that in our justice system, you can be the worst scumbag to walk the earth and everyone can hate you, but you cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt using the facts of the case.

"I'm just upset they didn't find better evidence, because I am 100% convinced he did it. And here you are, some of you defending 'the system' while a creep like Murray tries to work the system and get out."

You're damn right I'm defending the system. One of the interesting things about our country is that you can be a total creep so long as you don't break the law. We have fundamental freedom to be whoever or whatever we want to be while staying within the law, which is more flexible and free than anywhere else. You can sit there and suggest that we do away with "the system" for the simple reason you don't like the guy? Working the system is how we ensure justice is carried out. If you think its wrong, write your congressman. If you want to circumvent the justice system, you become the criminal. And if you think he's guilty because you don't like him, then you have just convicted him because of your emotions.

"I attended a lot of the proceedings and can tell you the man was/is guilty."

Tell me dthroat, what evidence made you believe that?

Fair trial my foot.

compmd - go forth and claim to know the law.

But first, let me explain a few things. If a prosecutor appeals to the passions of the jury, that is a major issue on appeal. You are prohibited from appealing to the passions of the jury.

Second, I don't buy off on the argument that prosecutors constantly bend or break the rules to convict. Again, that creates issues on appeal.

Third, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Not "beyond all doubt". And FYI: Don't attempt to assign a % value to the definition, as that is also an issue on appeal.

So while you may not agree with the verdict, the fact of the matter is that the 12 persons seated to decide this case DID make that finding, and in the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think, but what those 12 jurors thought.

I know there was probably a search warrant issued...probably two, since they searched at least twice.

But I heard that in September 2006, the so-called "evidence" taken off his computer (including the bizarre internet searches he did) was gathered with an illegal search warrant. That would mean the evidence was invalid at trial (and in fact shouuld have been suppressed by his very well-paid attorneys) and the resulting conviction unconstitutional.

Maybe this will come out in the appeal?

The suppression issue was not raised on appeal.

Also, dozer said:

"So while you may not agree with the verdict, the fact of the matter is that the 12 persons seated to decide this case DID make that finding, and in the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think, but what those 12 jurors thought."

Actually that's not true. If an appellate court finds that no rational factfinder could have found Murray guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the conviciton will be reversed. It does not happen often, but it can. So, the jury is not the end-all-be-all. The Kansas Supreme Court can say that there was not sufficient evidence for the conviction, and this was one issue raised on appeal.

And dthroat,

"By the Way - Isn't it interesting that his defense team IS NOT the ones appealling???? I guess money really talks, and when you are out - so is the "A Team". (I guess I thought hundreds of thousands of dollars paid up front just might be good for the appeal process too- silly me.)"

Fyi- usually, a defendant has a different attorney on appeal than for trial. Appellate practice is totally different from trial law.

don't believe the prosecutor bent the rules and made an outright appeal to the jurors' emotion? I am well aware that a prosecutor can't do that. it is black and white in this article. One of the points in the appeal is the use of hearsay evidence. This "evidence" was used to paint a picture of Murray's relationship with his wife. The judge ruled it admissible, but read the prosecutor's statement:

"Prosecutor Wilson wrote that Murray "waived any hearsay objection by killing" Ross."

Excuse me? That fact was not determined, it was the fact for determination by the trial. This is a major point of appeal. A prosecutor cannot read minds or tell the future; if her written rationale regarding a hearsay exception is what she used at trial, she was wrong and the testimony should not have been permitted. A defendant cannot waive his right to object (in this case) to the hearsay evidence simply because the prosecutor THINKS he is guilty.

Nowhere did I cite or imply a percentage of anything. I'm not sure where that is coming from.

I'm sorry you don't believe me about the state bending the rules to convict. Its done all the time, every day, to countless people. For the most part it doesn't matter and actually helps the wheels turn faster. However, sometimes a line is crossed. When that happens, the only remedy a defendant has is to continue to use the system.

You're right that what we think doesn't matter. Its what the jurors think. But if those jurors were manipulated by the prosecution (which many people seem to believe) in order to obtain a conviction, were back to the beginning.

july241983 wrote: "wilbur has it right. nice to know that you stephenson hall boys know a little about the constitution."

Yeah, well, when you're one of Lyle's [unclaimed] sons, it's kinda important to have an understanding of due process. You're likely to experience its practice--either because of stupid things you do or because of stupid thing your hallmates do....

july241983 - you are correct, an appellate court can overturn the conviction for lack of evidence. And yes, those instances are extremely rare. Sorry for the generalization, but you get bogged down if you dive into every possible detail.

compmd - A defendant does waive their right to a hearsay objection when they are the one that secured the absence of the witness. In this case, that was done by killing her. And while that is the ultimate fact to be determined by the fact finder, the court can make a ruling prior to determine whether or not such hearsay evidence is admissible.

And you can introduce evidence of "discordant relationship". It is done all the time. It goes to motive.