• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Murder Conviction Based on Ghost Testimony?

"Psychic" Noreen Renier in 1986 testified in court and under oath that after talking with the ghost of an attorney who had not yet conconcluded a court case that things became solved. Thereafter according to Renier, and based on her discussions with the ghosts toilets and whirlpools also stopped overflowing at the former home of the ghost. While apparently no one was convicted unfairly --- the ghost was initially disturbed. And this is more than 100 years after your earlier case. Unfortunately psychic nonsense still haunts the courtroom. See www.amindformurder.com
 
amindformurder said:
Too little evidence to tell. The case (and the area) have taken on a history rich in ghostly tales.
Click to expand...
According to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbrier_Ghost --

"The autopsy lasted three hours, and found that Zona's neck had indeed been broken. According to the report, published on March 9, 1897, 'the discovery was made that the neck was broken and the windpipe mashed. On the throat were the marks of fingers indicating that she had been choked. The neck was dislocated between the first and second vertebrae. The ligaments were torn and ruptured. The windpipe had been crushed at a point in front of the neck.' On the strength of this evidence, and his behavior at the inquest, Shue was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife.

"Shue was held in the jail in Lewisburg while waiting for the trial to begin. During this time, more information about his past was coming to light. He had been married twice before; his first marriage had ended in divorce, with his wife accusing him of great cruelty, while his second wife had died under mysterious circumstances less than a year after they were married. Zona was his third wife, and Shue began to talk of wishing to wed seven women; he freely spoke of this ambition while in jail, and told reporters that he was sure he would be let free because there was so little evidence against him.

"The trial began on June 22, 1897, and Mary Jane Heaster was Preston's star witness. He confined his questioning to the known facts of the case, skirting the issue of her ghostly sightings. Perhaps hoping to prove her unreliable, Shue's lawyer questioned Mrs. Heaster extensively about her daughter's visits on cross-examination. The tactic backfired when Mrs. Heaster would not waver in her account despite intense badgering. As the defense had introduced the issue, the judge found it difficult to instruct the jury to disregard the story of the ghost, and many people in the community seemed to believe it. Consequently, Shue was found guilty of murder on July 11 and sentenced to life in prison."
 
Interesting. But not that interesting. Now, if it had been a recent case, it would have been an outrage, but in the late 19th century, still deep in the grips of religion, the belief in ghosts still abunded, and despite advances in science, I suppose ghosts could still reasonably be considered plausible.

Hans
 
The story that you can find told in great deal elsewhere can be summaryzed as follow :
* step mother don't like husband
* step mother wash clothing and notice a red color (which MAY or may not be explained as in wiki by the job of the husband)
* step mother start thinking it is a sign her daughter was murdered, and I would add from the text of it, start imaginating stuff
* the father on the other hand don't report seeing anything
* step mother require exhumation
* police comply, do authopsy, find a broken neck
* supernatural element from mother added despite exhortion from judge not to consider them
* man arrested and condemned

I am pretty sure I saw that somewhere here in another thread on this forum as an example of solid ghost story or something. But search don't give anything.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Interesting. But not that interesting. Now, if it had been a recent case, it would have been an outrage . . .
Click to expand...
It's an outrage that the mother proved entirely correctly and that a guilty man was convicted?
 
Rodney said:
It's an outrage that the mother proved entirely correctly and that a guilty man was convicted?
Click to expand...

No it is an outrage that the jury or any other entity taking part of the process, took into account the mother obvious rambling despite the judge ordering them not to do this.
 
Aepervius said:
No it is an outrage that the jury or any other entity taking part of the process, took into account the mother obvious rambling despite the judge ordering them not to do this.
Click to expand...
If you were the prosecutor, what would you have done when the mother came to you with her ghost story?
 
Rodney said:
If you were the prosecutor, what would you have done when the mother came to you with her ghost story?
Click to expand...
Today? Tell her for gawd's sake not to repeat it in court, since people might then reject anything she said.

Hans
 
Take away the ghost part, and this is simply a story about a wife dying unexpectedly and the husband becoming a suspect. A woman dies from a broken neck and the husband shows guilt by going to great lengths to cover it up? Surely it's not a stretch to think that a jury would convict based on that evidence?

Linda
 
This is not testimony from a ghost. This is testimony from a human being who claimed to speak for a ghost. Not the same thing.

I'd be more impressed if it had been testimony from a ghost. ;)

What about the issues surrounding hearsay, when a 'witness' does not appear in court to speak for themself?
 
Actually, the murder conviction was based on the physical evidence found during the autopsy. The prosecutor tried to ignore the whole ghost angle. The defense attorney tried to bring the ghost stuff into the trial to discredit the mother, but the jury apparently didn't care about that and stuck to the physical evidence.
 
chillzero said:
This is not testimony from a ghost. This is testimony from a human being who claimed to speak for a ghost. Not the same thing.

I'd be more impressed if it had been testimony from a ghost. ;)

What about the issues surrounding hearsay, when a 'witness' does not appear in court to speak for themself?
Click to expand...

This actually covers several areas and with little to go on, I'll tell you what I'm seeing from a LE view.

1) the broken neck/crushed windpipe- Having dealt with my share of corpses who died violently, I find it almost impossible that the naked eye and certainly the mortician didnt see this immediately. ( those things are very obvious and easy to spot- especially in the soft tissues of the neck area)

But, for whatever the reason- at the time of death/burial, no foul play was indicated-that leads into part 2

2) cant say about then but if this was "today"- no prosecutor anywhere, could get a judge to sign an exhumation order on such a story with no supporting evidence.

3) However, this would NOT stop the mother from pursuing it on her own ( at her expense) but should be easy to block by the husband ( as next of kin)

4) the part about other claims from an ex and another dead spouse under suspicious circumstances.

This is a yes/no and maybe answer. IF a pattern could be established and the claims were shown to be valid ( or a reasonable probability) then they MIGHT be able to get an exhumation order. The dead spouse case would have to be investigated and if suspicious grounds were discovered, that would probably do it. The "ex" saying he beat her is pretty weak because now ( unlike decades past- the pendelum is swinging the other way) the first question would be "If he did all this, why didnt you report it"? ( its common for wives to claim this and often its wholly untrue)

Now, back in that day ( not this day) such a claim from the ex would have much more horsepower and might also do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom