Investigating murder: Dateline covers Abshire case
-
Hook cover
Eight months after sometime-dump-truck driver Eric Dee Abshire was convicted of first-degree murder in Orange County Circuit Court, national news show Dateline NBC will air a two-hour special on the complex case on Friday, June 22.
As extensively reported in the Hook, Abshire reported finding his wife Justine's body in the middle of a rural road in the wee hours of November 3, 2006. He initially told investigators that the couple had argued over the health of his mother, and that Justine had angrily left the house only to call him soon after to report her car had broken down and request a ride. When he arrived, he claimed, she was already dead.
Police quickly began poking holes in his story, but some of the most damning evidence came from an autopsy. Justine's injuries, the medical examiner would later testify, did not correspond to being struck by a car while standing. Furthermore, there was a notable absence of blood at the scene, and in her body, suggesting she'd died elsewhere.
A jury took less than two hours to convict Abshire, who never testified on his own behalf and who was sentenced to life in prison in January.
Abshire, who remains at the Central Virginia Regional Jail while awaiting placement into a state prison, has replaced his original attorney Charles "Buddy" Weber with Richmond-based David Hargett, who specializes in criminal appeals. Appeals must be filed within 40 days of the Court of Appeals receiving the full trial file. That "voluminous" record has not yet been transferred, says Orange County Commonwealth's Attorney Diana Wheeler, who expects the clerk of court to deliver it in coming days.
Hargett declines to describe the nature of Abshire's potential appeals.
"The best I can tell you," he says, "is that we are exploring several different issues to pursue."
The Abshire episode of Dateline NBC airs June 22 from 9-11pm.
26 comments
Interesting, after getting the taxpayers to fund his defense and all the specialists who tried (not very well) to prove he didn't do it,he now has money for a private appeal attorney? Wonder who is paying for that?
Oh No, Chris Hansen!!!
Disgusted
It wasn't you so don't worry about that.
I remember Mrs.Abshire from my days at Emerald Hill.
she had a sparkle in her eye,she was quiet and you could tell she was very loving.
I know kids that have had her and they loved her.
When I heard she was murded, I balled. I may not have personally known her but it breaks my heart.
I will be watching the dateline show about her tomorrow.
She didnt deserve to die young.
R.I.P Justine Swartz Abshire
How can I watch this in Australia?
Wanna bet the same type of person that would pay for this scumbag's appeal might be willing to lie for him? Maybe they have already done so?
Disgusted
Those who sit in judgement will one day be judged themselves. No reason for lying the truth will prevail one day.
it already has. October 25, 2011
We will see.
Thanks for the heads up, Hook. I am glad I watched it. What a ne'er-do-well. "Those who sit in judgement will one day be judged themselves." So what? They certainly won't be judged for murder. Juries sit in judgment all of the time. That's what juries do.
He didn't do it. The family was so determined to hate him that they were blinded into their belief. Why does everyone always assume it was the husband?
Well, the jury decided he did it. Last time I checked, they were not seated on the jury, nor was anyone who knew either of them. Unless you saw the entire trial, you missed all the evidence against him. He had an attorney. Of course, he and his band of thugs will continue to claim he did not do it. Justine's family did as any other family in this situation would do-they never gave up. If your loved one was brutally murdered, would you do any differently? If you saw the show, you might understand that his actions were the reasons they were unhappy that she married him.
And if he did not do it, who else had the means, motive and opportunity to kill her?
Doesn't matter. I saw the show, every single piece of evidence against him was circumstantial. He had alibis. There was not a single piece of solid physical evidence to be found. Oh, and last time I checked, it was "innocent until proven guilty". These investigators and the family went in with the presumption that it was him. The family disliked him from the start because even after 6 years of being together they "figured it was a phase and it'd carry its course and end". The 'best friend' admittedly jumped to the conclusion the second she saw the words "tragic death". She was simply mad because she verbally objected to the relationship from day 1 and was ousted for it. The teacher friend jumped to the conclusion based on some tears during the day. Victim clearly stated it was allergies, also the mother in law was on her death bed. That could cause emotion. What I'm getting at is the fact that everyone on the victims side (most of whom hadn't seen her much since the relationship) simply jumped to conclusions and looked for flimsy evidence to support their crackpot theories.
omgpwnsauce,
Did you finish 8th grade civics? Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and is no less valid than physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, etc. It's up to the jury, that is why in this society we have trials. His alibis were disproven, in the eyes of the jury. He was considered innocent by the courts until the JURY found him guilty. He could also have requested a bench trial, and I am sure the verdict would have been the same. He exercised his rights, had a competent attorney, plenty of funds authorized by the judge for expert witnesses, and he was still found guilty. How Justine's friends and family felt personally about him was never mentioned in court. Juries are presented facts, not feelings. Before you criticize legal due process, you might get your facts straight about how the court system works and understand that just because he seems to be a friend of yours does not make him any less a murderer.
I saw the Dateline show and have a few questions:
1. it was said that she was not hit by a vehicle becuase there were no tire tracks on the body and no grave, that she was strangled and therefore no blood pooling. in another statement they said that she was partialy strangled and laid in the road and ran over, if this were true wouldn't there be blood and wouldn't there be dirt or gravel on the body.
2. What was this man who help move the car doing out in the middle of the night looking for a school bus for sale, most people who have things for sale are in bed at this time of night. If he was lost, had never been there before and it was the middle of the night, how did he find his way back exactly. Where was the body? I know if I had gotten lost in the daytime, I probably wouldn't be able to find my way back taking the exact same route. This just doesn't ring true to me.
3. What kind of home life did this girl have that her self esteem was so low that she would buy her own engagement ring (if that is true) and marry a man she thought was so unsuited for her.
4. What about the college roommate, sounds more like jealously than anything else.
5. Did she not know where he lived before she married him?
Circumstantial evidence is exactly that. Circumstantial. It requires inferrence. Presumptions. The fact that you assume I am "friends with the guy" is based on circumstantial evidence. I agree with his case so we must be friends? Give me a break. Thank you, Questions, for asking about the flawed circumstantial evidence. I take it you must be a friend of the guy too?
Disgusted,
Circumstances may put a person in the wrong place at the wrong time and that person could be completely innocent. stop and think, if you or someone you knew was arrested for something and there was no evidence of anykind only circumstances that put you there, that means you did it right. the justice system is not perfect, there are over zealous folks out there who just want to show their power. Do you really want to live in a world where you can be locked away just becuase you made a bad decision and that's all. I'm not defending anyone just looking at what can happen and it has been shown time after time there have
been people put in prison and some who have been put to death and were latter proven innocent. Would you like to be facing that on judgment day? Judge not least yea be judged.
How do you know someone is paying for the appeal, there might be an attorney who is taking the case for free, especaily if they think there is cause, there you go....circumstancial evidence and you judging. Again, judge not least yea be judged.
"1. it was said that she was not hit by a vehicle becuase there were no tire tracks on the body and no grave, that she was strangled and therefore no blood pooling. in another statement they said that she was partialy strangled and laid in the road and ran over, if this were true wouldn't there be blood and wouldn't there be dirt or gravel on the body."
If someone/something is simply run over, it would cause more internal damage and bleeding than the blunt force of being hit which upon landing would cause the body to more than likely slide a ways on the gravel. Try running something over in your driveway. It's not going to cause any of what you asked.
"2. What was this man who help move the car doing out in the middle of the night looking for a school bus for sale, most people who have things for sale are in bed at this time of night. If he was lost, had never been there before and it was the middle of the night, how did he find his way back exactly. Where was the body? I know if I had gotten lost in the daytime, I probably wouldn't be able to find my way back taking the exact same route. This just doesn't ring true to me."
They specifically said he couldn't put the investigator back at the "exact" scene. But he got them close. And that made him more believable in their eyes. It also doesn't say what time of night he was allegedly approached by Abshire. For all we know, Justine was locked up/tied up/unconscious in the house already while Abshire went out and dumped her car with that guy.
I've got no answers for 3-5 because I didn't know her at all. But if Dad was in Telecom and moving around a lot, it's probably pretty safe to assume he wasn't home a lot due to work. Daughters of those types of Dad's traditionally tend to have some low self esteem issues when it comes to their relationships. I have no idea if that's the case here or not. But as someone who studied counseling, like I said, that's often the case.
To me the most damning piece in the entire show was the insurance policy with the 1 million dollar payout for a fatal uninsured hit and run accident. I admittedly do not know much about insurance but looking at my own policy, that's not anything that's included. Circumstantial? Maybe. But also pretty damning for a guy swimming in debt.
Great answers from answers, I especially believe the last statement in regards to the insurance policy.
Also what about the car that was coincidently taken for a test drive before being stolen around the time of her murder.
All the evidence for the case, circumstantial or not, points to Eric. I am glad to see a jury convict the person who seems to be responsible.
I for one do not want to have "innocent" people free simply because they are crafty enough to leave no physical evidence behind!
If he truly did it, now is the time to step up and own responsibility for his actions.
Hopefully the truth will come to the surface for all the questions left unanswered and for some kind of peace and justice for Justine and her loved ones.
If it wasn't him, I would be sorry but he has to understand how much it does appear it was, there is evidence against him relating to her death in particular.
My question was if she was ran over wouldn't there be evidence of that. They said there was no ashphalt or gravel on the body and no tire tracks. I would think there would be if her body was ran over
If he had a $1000,000.00 how did he qualify for a public defender?
As for the man who helped stage the scene, I got the impression, especailly when they were driving the route that is was at night. and I do belive they did indicate that, but I will watch it again online.
Dateline didn't talk much about his mother who was in the hospital, just seems like there should have been more information on this aspect, especially if he was there late into the night and could have been called back. Seems like he would have picked anothe night to do this. They also didn't spend much time with his lawyer to get answers to some of these questions. He indicated that a jacked up truck was seen on the road that night but was never invstigated and then disappeared and then he was cut off. It jsut seems like the interviews were a little one sided
There are so many unanswered questions.
To: Hope for Justice
Are you saying that innocent people should be put in prison? As for evidence there wasn't any, this was verified by the prosecutor, only circumstantial and speculation.
I am still not totally convinced as we don't really know the entire story, only what we hear but it does make for stimulating conversation.
I don't understand why so many of you cannot read or understand the law. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. It is just another type, as is eyewitness, DNA or other "physical"evidence, or even a confession. Circumstantial evidence is in use every day in this country's courts, and is NO LESS valid than any other type. If you don't get it, you might contact Eric's attorney, who can explain this to you. If evidence was not valid, you can bet he would have argued, in most cases successfully for that evidence to be withheld from the jury.
In fact, the judge ruled against the prosecution in almost every case where evidence was in question, which means he ruled in Eric's favor. Clearly you were not in the courtroom, or you would not be asking these questions.
The jury's job is to sift through all admissible evidence and reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that unanimously. I believe it was not just one piece of evidence that convinced the jury, because any one piece can be taken out of context and explained away, but when everything was put together, it pointed in only one direction, that was Eric. He got what he deserved.
Disgusted
you said the jury's job is to sift through all admissible evidence and reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt...but there was no admissible evidence. How many people have been conviced on "EYEWITNESS" accounts only to find out later they were WRONG and they have been resonsible for putting an innocent person in jail. I wouldn't want to be that person. DNA is not always foolproof, what about idential twins who have the same DNA?
Circumstantial evidence is argued that the series of facts, by reason and experience is closely associated with the fact to be proven that the fact may be INFERRED simply from the existence of the circumstanial evidence.
You are now mixing this case (Virginia vs. Abshire) with other cases (unnamed) that may have used evidence from DNA or eyewitnesses during trial. If you want to argue ALL cases of evidence, I suggest you find an appropriate forum. This article and it's comments deal specifically with Abshire.
It was the judge's job to determine what evidence was admissible in accordance with laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I suggest that if you disagree with the laws, you consider running for office or attending law school so that you can attempt to change them.
Just because you disagree with a jury does not mean the rules of evidence and the judicial system is wrong, it simply means you disagree. I won't write more, since you clearly have no understanding of the law or how things work. I would be a fool myself to continue to converse with one.
Disgusted,
you are the one who brougth up eyewitnesses and DNA here is what you said:
"I don't understand why so many of you cannot read or understand the law.
Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. It is just another type, as is eyewitness, DNA or
other "physical"evidence, or even a confession"
Just because someone points out the flaws or doesn't agree with you is no reason to resort to name calling - shame on you.
To: questions
Where did I say I want innocent people in jail? I used "innocent" as part of my point.
Have you ever personally seen someone escape justice in the judicial system due to lacking physical evidence.. A clean scene.
The posts here are now going beyond opinion and verging on personal insult and none of you are any better than the others.
My Hope is for answers for Justine.
Love and Light.
P.S Questions: he would not gain any insurance from Justine's death as long as there were any suspicions or an ongoing murder investigations.