Did anybody watch the shoe Sins and Secrets on the Discovery ID channel. It was about Trent DiGiuro the UK football player who was murdered back in 1994.

I watched a while back. I didnt know anything of it before hand. Of course this happened when I was 13 and the Internet wasn't what it is now. Very crazy story

I was on campus at that time. I'd has loved to have seen this show.

Here is the show.

 

 

Sins And Secrets ~ Lexington - YouTube

 

Ever been a report about KY that didn't include a banjo playing?

Summary: Found guilty of murder. Overturned due to inaccurate testimony by an expert. Ended up admitting to manslaughter.

 

So he admitted he shot him, correct? My logical brain struggles with "Yes, I shot him" but it being manslaughter with no evidence to support manslaughter. I get that the prosecution's case was shot to heck due to the expert's false issue but it doesn't feel right.

Summary: Found guilty of murder. Overturned due to inaccurate testimony by an expert. Ended up admitting to manslaughter.

 

So he admitted he shot him, correct? My logical brain struggles with "Yes, I shot him" but it being manslaughter with no evidence to support manslaughter. I get that the prosecution's case was shot to heck due to the expert's false issue but it doesn't feel right.

 

It never did. It always seemed like Shane Ragland got away with murder. Especially since there was believed to have been a motive behind the shooting. It was always believed that Ragland's family bought him the manslaughter charge. It's been a while since I have recollected this case but I seem to remember it in this manner.

It never did. It always seemed like Shane Ragland got away with murder. Especially since there was believed to have been a motive behind the shooting. It was always believed that Ragland's family bought him the manslaughter charge. It's been a while since I have recollected this case but I seem to remember it in this manner.

 

I think you are right about buying the verdict, but I forgot what the motive was.

I think you are right about buying the verdict, but I forgot what the motive was.

 

Seems like it was either a girl or an incident involving a fraternity/frat party. I want to say Ragland was disrespecting a girl at a frat party and either Digiuro or his friends intervened and kicked Ragland out of the party and then Ragland came back later in the night and shot Digiuro while he was sitting on the porch. Seems like Ragland had some kind of long range gun to do the shooting. I think it's something like that but I am not 100% certain of that.

I'm also seeing things saying Ragland was blackballed from the fraternity also. Having a hard time finding a good informative source that explained the motive in better detail. All I have is outdated hearsay and rumors.

I do remember that it shook the campus up for a little while.

It never did. It always seemed like Shane Ragland got away with murder. Especially since there was believed to have been a motive behind the shooting. It was always believed that Ragland's family bought him the manslaughter charge. It's been a while since I have recollected this case but I seem to remember it in this manner.

 

 

The supposed motive was due to Trent telling the SAE president that Ragland told him he slept with the GF of the Pres.

I don't put anything into "buying a verdict."

 

The dad had the means to hire really good attorneys. They did their job. They showed to the court that the expert witness was incorrect on a key piece of evidence.

 

The fact that the prosecutor immediately went to a plea of one year shows you that they no longer felt they had a case.

I don't put anything into "buying a verdict."

 

The dad had the means to hire really good attorneys. They did their job. They showed to the court that the expert witness was incorrect on a key piece of evidence.

 

The fact that the prosecutor immediately went to a plea of one year shows you that they no longer felt they had a case.

 

I don't know if I'd call it "buying verdicts" but I believe that prosecutors are less likely to "throw the book" at people who are well connected and wealthy. Look no further than back in 2005 at Murray State and the Harrison Yonts case.

I don't put anything into "buying a verdict."

 

The dad had the means to hire really good attorneys. They did their job. They showed to the court that the expert witness was incorrect on a key piece of evidence.

 

The fact that the prosecutor immediately went to a plea of one year shows you that they no longer felt they had a case.

 

Maybe 'buying the verdict' are the incorrect words to use. They didn't 'buy the verdict' but they were able to pay for lawyers immensely better than the prosecutor. Semantics.

Anyone know where Ragland is now?