# Was Budd Dwyer factually guilty, innocent, or what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 16, 2012, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629 "2012-08-16T00:29:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Minnie\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Minnie\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Minnie_Luna)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/21 "2012-08-17T15:05:21Z")
I lived in Harrisburg when the Dwyer affair occurred. I was only 10 yrs old, but I do remember the day he shot himself. I was at a friends house after school and when their father came home, he turned on the TV and told us all to get lost. When someone asked, he said that something happened that day that wasn’t appropriate for us to watch. At the time us kids didn’t really care, we ran down to the basement. It was only later we heard the adults talking about it and realized that a state politician had shot himself during a press conference. I never asked any questions about it, but I think the general consensus around it was that it was assumed he was guilty. I didn’t think about it at all until the internet age and someone here or on Fark referencing the shooting. I looked it up on wikipedia and read the details of the case for the first time. I can’t and won’t watch the video. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/22 "2012-08-17T15:08:37Z")
> [@Fir\_na\_tine](#): > > FWIW, in most state and Federal courts, in you die before you are sentenced the conviction is null and void. And if you are not convicted (because you’re dead) then you are not guilty. A more recent notorious example: [Kenneth Lay - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Lay#Death) ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/23 "2012-08-17T20:27:24Z")
> [@yabob](#): > > I don’t think you can make much of a case for him not being guilty. Actually, you can make a hell of a case that he was innocent, because based on the evidence, he was. The guy who was almost single-handedly responsible for his conviction admitted that he framed Dwyer up. That pretty much closes the book on his guilt. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/24 "2012-08-18T05:34:45Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Actually, you can make a hell of a case that he was innocent, because based on the evidence, he was. The guy who was almost single-handedly responsible for his conviction admitted that he framed Dwyer up. That pretty much closes the book on his guilt. I don’t know that I swallow the ‘confession’. I’m believing less, and less of these post conviction coming clean and finally telling the truth stories. They always seem too contrived/convenient/etc… for my taste. ---
**Author:** ![iamah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@iamah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamah)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/25 "2012-10-03T12:18:35Z")
Here’s some points made in favor of Budd: > [@](#): > > Q: Why would the Smiths lie? > A: The Smiths cut a plea bargain that would minimize their penalty. To get off lighter they had to deliver a bigger fish… Budd Dwyer. > > Q: What about Torquato? > A: Torquato testified that he conspired with Smith to bribe Dwyer but he was unable to link Budd to the crime because he never discussed the bribes with Budd. > > Q: What about physical evidence? > A: **There was never any physical evidence to to link Budd to the crime.** > > Q: What about the judge how could he let this happen? > A: Poor old Malcolm Muir made it clear from the start that he thought Dwyer was guilty and that he was only interested in a conviction that would not splash mud on important men such as Governor Richard Thornburg. Malcolm Muir was an elderly man and a Republican appointee. One of the Philadelphia papers ran an extensive article dealing with Muir’s fitness as a judge. The comparisons between Muir and the Captain in “The Caine Mutiny” speak for themselves, Captain Queeg had his steel balls and Judge Muir had his stopwatch. > > Q: But didn’t Budd deliver the contract to CTA? > A: Budd delivered the contract but that was not illegal. It is not unusual for State Politicians to do big favors for powerful men. Budd was facing reelection and it is reasonable that he would have done a big favor for the Chairman of the Dauphine County Republican Party. **Delivering the contract is not illegal unless you can prove that Budd was party to the bribe.** > > Q: But didn’t a jury of his peers find Dwyer guilty. > A: A jury found Dwyer guilty, but not a jury of his peers. **The Federal Prosecutor West removed anyone with any knowledge of the political process from the Jury pool.** A jury but carefully screened not to allow it to be a jury of his peers. > > Q: Why was Smith after the big payoff? > A: I cannot look into Bill Smith’s heart but there has been much speculation that Bill and his cronies planned to use the loot for a congressional race for the seat that George Gekas took. Source > **[Shop Rugs | Furniture.com](https://www.furniture.com/decor/rugs/rug)** > > Tie the room together with the perfect area rug. Whether you need a high-pile shag rug, a breezy jute rug, or a classic Persian-style rug, shop now to find the right one by size, shape, style, color, and material. Documentary https://www.youtube.com/embed/R92TClVxsb0?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/26 "2012-10-03T13:28:36Z")
No opinion on Dwyer’s guilt or innocence, but this: > [@iamah](#): > > Here’s some points made in favor of Budd: > Q: But didn’t a jury of his peers find Dwyer guilty. > A: A jury found Dwyer guilty, but not a jury of his peers. The Federal Prosecutor West removed anyone with any knowledge of the political process from the Jury pool. A jury but carefully screened not to allow it to be a jury of his peers. …reeks of special pleading to me. I don’t think “a jury of one’s peers” is supposed to mean “people knowledgeable about the nuances of one’s profession.” ---
**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/27 "2012-10-03T14:02:52Z")
Iamah, you are obviously committed to the idea of Dwyer’s innocence, but if that’s the best you’ve got, it’s pretty unpersuasive. The fact that it is possible to claim that a person had a motive to lie is hardly conclusive evidence that they _did_ lie. In practically every trial, the defence claims the witnesses have a motive to lie. Doesn’t mean they are. Doesn’t mean they aren’t, either. But people are convicted all the time on the evidence of insiders who roll over for a plea bargain. You have to take that fact into account when assessing their evidence, but it’s hardly definitive. Your argument about Torquato assumes he was telling the truth. If so, then the Smiths’ account of Ryan’s involvement is not a late invention made up to attract the prosecutors. Moreover, it is a pretty weak plan for the Smiths to peddle a scheme to take money that apparently needs Dwyer to be involved when he is not. It’s not impossible, but it makes the risks very high, and therefore that version of events unlikely. As to physical evidence, you typically don’t see much beyond formal exhibits in cases like this unless there is an undercover operation, which I gather there wasn’t. Your claims about the judge sound pretty conspiratorial. An acquittal would surely splash less mud on the governor (who i assume was a Republican, or else why would the judge be trying to protect him at the expense of the fellow Republican Dwyer?) I am unpersuaded by opinion pieces by some journalist. I am not sure what you mean by “delivering” the contract. if you mean signing off on it, then I agree that fact alone means nothing by itself in the absence of evidence that he manipulated the process to get it. But your concession that this was a favour for powerful men does not sound like a process based on merit to me. if you mean personally physically delivering the contract to the other party, when he was state Treasurer in charge of billions, then that _is_ pretty incriminating, and your explanation sounds like special pleading. Importantly, how could the Smiths, who were apparently peddling a scheme that needed Dwyer’s involvement but did not have it (on the innocence hypothesis) have been so fortunate as to have Dwyer appear to behave as though he was involved? The fact that it is not illegal per se to deliver the contract is not to the point at all. And your argument that the jury was not one made up of his peers because it had no political insiders is absurd. It doesn’t advance your argument to say why Smith was after a payoff. There is little doubt that he was, and greed is a sufficient explanation. The question is not whether Smith was greedy, it is whether Dwyer was greedy too. Juries always get a much more granular look at the evidence than just sweeping assertions and generalities, and would have heard practically all the arguments you make professionally advanced. They rejected them. And late recantings by witnesses aren’t accepted on face value-they require close examination. All in all, he _might_ be innocent. So might Manson. Or any other convict. But once a jury has convicted, you’ve got to do better than this to demonstrate factual innocence, for mine. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/28 "2012-10-03T14:13:30Z")
> [@iamah](#): > > Here’s some points made in favor of Budd: The problem with this sort of thing is that those sorts of arguments are all opinions, interpretations of the facts and not facts themselves. You could just as easily frame things in a way that suggests guilt. “Q: Why would an innocent man commit suicide? A: Clearly, it was evidence of his guilty mind. Q: Why would Smith plead guilty if no crime occurred” etc. I’m not making those arguments, I’m just saying that spin doesn’t help get to the answer. What you have in this case, as in many cases, is a handful of evidence, some of it contradictory and a bunch of witnesses who all have changed their stories over time. Truth is a matter of interpretation, not science. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/29 "2012-10-03T15:33:22Z")
> [@Noel\_Prosequi](#): > > The fact that it is possible to claim that a person had a motive to lie is hardly conclusive evidence that they _did_ lie. What about when that person admits to lying? Is that more or less conclusive? ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/30 "2012-10-03T16:17:09Z")
> [@Noel\_Prosequi](#): > > The fact that it is possible to claim that a person had a motive to lie is hardly conclusive evidence that they _did_ lie. In practically every trial, the defence claims the witnesses have a motive to lie. Doesn’t mean they are. Doesn’t mean they aren’t, either. But people are convicted all the time on the evidence of insiders who roll over for a plea bargain. You have to take that fact into account when assessing their evidence, but it’s hardly definitive. When a witness makes a plea bargain (or similar deal) to testify, is the jury allowed to know that fact? If I were on any jury in general, I think I wouldn’t take any such testimony very seriously. I would want to base my verdict entirely, as much as possibly, on any _other_ evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/31 "2012-10-03T16:32:26Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Filter’s song “Hey Man Nice Shot” is about his suicide. So he’s got that goin’ for him. ---
**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/32 "2012-10-03T23:58:45Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > When a witness makes a plea bargain (or similar deal) to testify, is the jury allowed to know that fact? If I were on any jury in general, I think I wouldn’t take any such testimony very seriously. I would want to base my verdict entirely, as much as possibly, on any _other_ evidence. Be very rare that they weren’t told. Police and prosecutors are well aware that there is a credibility cloud over such people, and are conscious of the risk of giving the prize to the wrong guy. They rarely do plea bargains in exchange for testimony unless there are good reasons to believe. And you tend to find in such cases that the evidence sort of all merges together into the one narrative. The other evidence that you speak of justifies you believing the rollover witness, not ignoring him. ---
**Author:** ![iamah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@iamah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamah)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/33 "2012-10-05T00:42:50Z")
I thought it was clear those are not my points, I quoted them from someone who claims that was at the trial. I saw the same points being made on the documentary in favor of Dwyer. Obviously I cannot tell if he was innocent or not, but it is my personal opinion there was little respect for [Presumption of innocence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)(the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/34 "2012-10-05T01:18:47Z")
Yes, and the state apparently met this burden of proof and convicted him. ---
**Author:** ![iamah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@iamah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamah)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/35 "2012-10-05T01:45:06Z")
@Boyo Jim But the justice system is capable of mistakes. That’s the sole reason why presumption of innocence is important. There are even cases of innocents executed by the justice. But I’m sorry to waste your time, I’m leaving for good. To end on a better note, I think this guy’s blog post does a better job making this whole discussion into something productive: > **[What we can learn from Budd Dwyer](http://strategicparadigms.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-we-can-learn-from-budd-dwyer.html)** > > Sunday January 22, 2012 saw the 25 anniversary of Budd Dwyer’s televised suicide. At the time Dwyer was serving as the treasurer of the co... ---
**Author:** ![dastardlybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f1d935/32.png) [@dastardlybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dastardlybill)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/36 "2015-02-02T23:10:38Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > "Q: Why would an innocent man commit suicide? A: Clearly, it was evidence of his guilty mind. I don’t see the logic in your statement. His suicide doesn’t suggest a guilty conscience, but is more suggestive of the opposite. If he were guilty he would probably know he was getting what he deserved. If, on the other hand, he were innocent, he would probably feel that an enormous injustice were being done to him, which seems to certainly be the suggestion in his final speech. It seems to have been more than he could stand, and I’m inclined to add that to the list of reasons that I personally tend to think he was not guilty, but I don’t know all the details of the case, so I can’t really say. Judge Muir, however, seems to have been a very dicey person to have presided over the case. From what I know of him, I would tend to hold any but the most routine cases he presided over to be very suspect. ---
**Author:** ![dastardlybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f1d935/32.png) [@dastardlybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dastardlybill)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/37 "2015-02-02T23:18:08Z")
The problem with the Dwyer case is the practice of plea bargaining. Prosecutors give witnesses tremendous incentive to lie in order to receive lesser sentences. Under those circumstances, witnesses will frequently tell prosecutors whatever they want to hear in order to earn favor. That was obviously at play in Dwyer’s case, and the truth is that the prosecutors (and, in this case, even the judge) were more suspect than the defendant. ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/38 "2015-02-03T00:46:33Z")
This literally is a zombie as the OP was about a dead guy. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/39 "2015-02-03T02:43:27Z")
Yeah, **dastardlybill** , please note that you’re responding to a post from more than two years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629/40 "2015-02-03T02:49:37Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > What about when that person admits to lying? Is that more or less conclusive? He’s lied before so maybe he’s lying about lying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-budd-dwyer-factually-guilty-innocent-or-what/631629.md?page=1)