Shane Ragland the murderer
Reality Check

Shepherdsville, KY

#24 Dec 2, 2011
Seen him around wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, the writer is very articulate, obviously has some education and knows how to punctuate a sentence. I would venture to guess the person is a family member or a friend. It is still a fact though, he killed someone, admitted it, and is now walking around a free man. How many average Joes are walking around free after admitting to something like this? None.
He comes from a family with money and therefore could afford the kind of defense most common folks can't. And, even though he's physically free, he will never be mentally free of the crime he has committed.
I'm not a family member, never met him. I've seen him in Kroger a couple times and once cutting his grass.

Someone said above, "anyone with half a brain" knows Ragland's dad got him off by paying off somebody. Well, that's probably true about people who have half a brain, but people who use ALL their brains like to base their opinions on evidence. Far be it for someone to bring a little factual information into the discussion, but here goes.

First of all, critical thinking has to separate the idea of "justice" from the idea of a fair trial. With justice, everyone guilty always gets punished, and everyone innocent always gets set free. But that will never happen in the real world, so instead we have the principle of a fair trial. Under this principle, there are guidelines and procedures designed to make it as likely as possible that actual justice will be administered. That is a crucial difference.

Ragland did get convicted, but look at what happened after the first trial.

1. The FBI ballistics expert admitted lying on the stand about the procedures used to determine the chemical makeup of the bullet that killed Diguiro. That expert was later convicted of perjury. That alone is enough to warrant a second trial. Vinnie V, that's a fact and it had nothing to do with some Oliver Stone-ish conspiracy of judges getting paid off.

2. The FBI also had to admit that they had stopped using the method they employed to match the bullet to Ragland's rifle because it was unreliable. Again, grounds for a retrial.

So now we're looking at a retrial. The star prosecution witness, Ragland's former girlfriend, was not going to testify the second time around. To get her testimony, the prosecution promised her they wouldn't ask her to cooperate any further after the first trial. "Justice" would have made her testify, but our "legal system" couldn't require her to.

So what the prosecution was then faced with was the prospect of a second trail they just might lose. So they cut a deal. Ragland had already spent over four years in jail and that's what the deal ended up being.

Sorry "Seen him around", there are also plenty of "average Joes" who are also walking around free because of a botched prosecution. Ragland's money got him an excellent defense and set up a second trial that would have been fair. But the prosecution lost its case and had to cut a deal. That's the logical, non-emotional Reality Check this discussion needs. It sucks for the Diguiro family, absolutely. But nothing is ever going to bring their son back, and they did win the civil suit.

I also think it sucks to bring this discussion up at all on Topix. Ragland did what he did, the legal system had a fair turn at him, and this is the result. We may not like it, but as someone said the ultimate judge is God, not us.
Ppoor

Frankfort, KY

#25 Dec 2, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
As a rule, I don't believe anything for which there is no evidence.
There was evidence. Plenty! Out of the whole trial the FBI erred in the statistical data of MATCHING bullets & out of all the other evidence, he was granted an appeal & eventual new trial over that one error! It really doesnt matter much if there was a 1 in 10 million or 1 in 5 million chances that bullet came from the same batch as the one that ripped through that mans head.

As far as the new trial, he was given such a sweet deal & ammitted guilt. Money does drive the legal system. Just look at all the high profile cases across the country & you will see that the richer the accused (GUILTY) is, the less chance they actually go to trial or be convicted! Just a fact. This monster will eventually get his!
Ppoor

Frankfort, KY

#26 Dec 2, 2011
ooops, "ADMITTED" guilt!
Reality Check

Shepherdsville, KY

#27 Dec 2, 2011
Ppoor wrote:
<quoted text>There was evidence. Plenty!
Besides the ballistics? What was there?
prove it

Frankfort, KY

#28 Dec 2, 2011
Below is the only post that is worth a damn in this whole thread. And he had to admit to the killing as part of the plea deal. All that aside the guy is still a Piece of Shi t.

Ragland did get convicted, but look at what happened after the first trial.

1. The FBI ballistics expert admitted lying on the stand about the procedures used to determine the chemical makeup of the bullet that killed Diguiro. That expert was later convicted of perjury. That alone is enough to warrant a second trial. Vinnie V, that's a fact and it had nothing to do with some Oliver Stone-ish conspiracy of judges getting paid off.

2. The FBI also had to admit that they had stopped using the method they employed to match the bullet to Ragland's rifle because it was unreliable. Again, grounds for a retrial.

So now we're looking at a retrial. The star prosecution witness, Ragland's former girlfriend, was not going to testify the second time around. To get her testimony, the prosecution promised her they wouldn't ask her to cooperate any further after the first trial. "Justice" would have made her testify, but our "legal system" couldn't require her to.

So what the prosecution was then faced with was the prospect of a second trail they just might lose. So they cut a deal. Ragland had already spent over four years in jail and that's what the deal ended up being.

Sorry "Seen him around", there are also plenty of "average Joes" who are also walking around free because of a botched prosecution. Ragland's money got him an excellent defense and set up a second trial that would have been fair. But the prosecution lost its case and had to cut a deal. That's the logical, non-emotional Reality Check this discussion needs. It sucks for the Diguiro family, absolutely. But nothing is ever going to bring their son back, and they did win the civil suit.

I also think it sucks to bring this discussion up at all on Topix. Ragland did what he did, the legal system had a fair turn at him, and this is the result. We may not like it, but as someone said the ultimate judge is God, not us.
lol

East Berlin, CT

#29 Dec 2, 2011
If THAT evidence was thrown out, why on earth did Ragland cut a deal. That's just stupidity as he could have had his name cleaned. Nope, instead he said he did it.

Could it be that other methods still could have provided the same kind of conclusion as the thrown out method?

The prosecution might have wanted to cut a deal, but he didn't have to take it. Could have said no.

Since he said he did it in a court of law, he can be publicly called a murderer. There is no more prove needed than the confession. That's proof enough. Cutting a deal with the prosecution was his choice. Nothing more, nothing less.

He knows what he did.
Check MATE Reality Check

Louisville, KY

#30 Dec 2, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a similar word in English, naiveté. And I've never heard of it being administered with a wand.
Oh, really? Just where are you from, Gollum? Or do you prefer Smeagol(reference your use of the plural pronoun, we)? I chose to use the more familiar spelling of the word naivety.

I'm sorry you didn't grasp the "touched by the wand" hyperbole. Google that word when you are not busy disagreeing with others on this post. By the way, I heard Little Charlie Manson was found guilty too.

naivety [na&#618;&#712;i&# 720;vt&#618;], naiveté, naïveté[&#716;n&#593; &#720;i&#720;v&#71 2;te&#618;]
n pl -ties,-tés
1. the state or quality of being naive; ingenuousness; simplicity
2. a naive act or statement
Tom

Frankfort, KY

#31 Dec 3, 2011
Check MATE Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really? Just where are you from, Gollum? Or do you prefer Smeagol(reference your use of the plural pronoun, we)? I chose to use the more familiar spelling of the word naivety.
I'm sorry you didn't grasp the "touched by the wand" hyperbole. Google that word when you are not busy disagreeing with others on this post. By the way, I heard Little Charlie Manson was found guilty too.
naivety [na&#618;&#712;i&# 720;vt&#618;], naiveté, naïveté[&#716;n&#593; &#720;i&#720;v&#71 2;te&#618;]
n pl -ties,-tés
1. the state or quality of being naive; ingenuousness; simplicity
2. a naive act or statement
What a dork.
more

AOL

#32 Dec 3, 2011
Maybe a stray bullit will get him in the end. He needs some family justice.
Jim

Frankfort, KY

#33 Dec 3, 2011
I wondered what was going on... I kept seeing dead bodies laying all over Frankfort..... I should have known that Shane Ragland was back in town!
A Real Reality Check

Frankfort, KY

#34 Dec 3, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Read closely, and I think you'll never see me defending Ragland's innocence. And I don't think "condescending" is the word you're after here.
Nope, "condesending" is exactly the word I was after. You're still being "condesending".

con·de·scend·ing/&#716;kän d&#601;&#712;sendiNG/
Adjective:

Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
(of an action) Demonstrating such an attitude.
Ummmmm

Frankfort, KY

#35 Dec 3, 2011
Yeah, if you're trying to call someone out, please try to spell the word in question correctly. And don't claim "typo" because you did it twice in a row.

It's c-o-n-d-e-s-c-e-n-d-i-n-g not "condesending".
A Real Reality Check

Frankfort, KY

#36 Dec 4, 2011
Oh wow, the spelling police. I didn't call anyone out over spelling (petty), but rather attitude. That one letter changed the context of the conversation how?. Maybe changing the focus of the conversation to a misspelled word was your intent. So now you're being "c-o-n-d-e-s-C-e-n-d-i-n- g". Better?
Blumpkin

Philadelphia, MS

#37 Dec 5, 2011
Y don't you two blow each other and sit and do crossword puzzles. Nothing better to do than give law and order advice. I know some words are probably not perfect for you guys so send your complaints to 187 eatshit ave. Bullshit KY
LbJ

Garland, TX

#38 Dec 5, 2011
Let it go
HaHa

Lexington, KY

#39 Dec 6, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's probably true about people who have half a brain, but people who use ALL their brains like to base their opinions on evidence.
No one can use ALL of their brains. Unless...Wait....Are you taking those little clear pills that Bradley Cooper takes in "Limitless"? You are, aren't you? LMAO. Burn.
Sick_of_justice

Magee, MS

#40 Dec 6, 2011
I remember vividly the first time I saw this murderer in our community. I was sitting on a bench on St. Clair St. outside a popular local watering hole when I saw him walk down the sidewalk with a smug grin on his face and go into the establishment. I honestly thought I was going to vomit. This psychopath Has no business being anywhere alcahol is served. It should have been part of his plea deal, since part of his story was he was too drunk to k ow what he was doing. Sorry, I don't buy that story. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing...murdering a man because he couldn't be in a fraternity. What is he going to do if something REALLY bad happens to him. Is he going to call the police or pick up his hunting rifle? The man was shot in the head from across the street with a high power large caliber hunting rifle with a high power scope. Murdere Ragland could see this mans face and watch his head explode while he hid in the bushes. Spoiled coward is all I can think of when I picture that situation and why he did it. Too bad he didn't get "justice" in prison in the weightroom incident. I've seen him one other time in traffic. He was stopped at a red light next to me. He seemed to be driving a pretty nice car for someone who is supposedly paying restitution to a family who's son he MURDERED. Does this set a precedent that if you admit to the murder you should get off with a lighter sentance? In my opinion this is a classic death penalty case. There was no fight, no argument, no "heat of the moment emotions". It was a psychopath getting a rifle, lining this mans head up in the crosshairs and pulling the trigger because he couldn't be in their club. Pure psychopath. If not the death penalty he should be locked in a prison never to see the light of day again. I know it sounds bad on my part but I hope someone from Trents family or cicle of friends find a way to administer real justice without getting caught. It sickens me knowing he walks around our town freely, the same town my children walk and drive around in. It obvious he capable of horrendous acts and I'm sure it's only aatter of time before he does something again. Let's not forget this monster ADMITTED IN DETAIL what he did. He should be in prison or under ground.
Now Be Honest

Frankfort, KY

#41 Dec 21, 2011
lol wrote:
If THAT evidence was thrown out, why on earth did Ragland cut a deal. That's just stupidity as he could have had his name cleaned. Nope, instead he said he did it.
Could it be that other methods still could have provided the same kind of conclusion as the thrown out method?
The prosecution might have wanted to cut a deal, but he didn't have to take it. Could have said no.
Since he said he did it in a court of law, he can be publicly called a murderer. There is no more prove needed than the confession. That's proof enough. Cutting a deal with the prosecution was his choice. Nothing more, nothing less.
He knows what he did.
Seriously?
If you were the one staring at the possibility of life in prison, and your attorney comes to you with a deal that lets you walk out of jail forever after only three more days served if you are willing to stand in front of the judge and say "yes, I did it" while you shake your head "no, I didn't", maybe you would be inclined to react a little differently than your first gut feeling, especially after serving serious time in the system and getting your head bashed in by a 20 lb. plate weight. What's more, there's no way that he's clearing his name regardless of the outcome of the trial. He's got nationwide TV shows that still get play on television that will continue to forever haunt him, no matter the outcome of the case. He has the plethora of internet search data that forever links him to murder of a UK football player. If I was him, my freedom was on the table, and everyone's going to hate me and think I did it anyway, maybe I would do the same thing.
That's not a defense of Ragland's actions, it's simply an attempt to paint a picture from his perspective.
That said, I agree with the poster that said the finger pointing should be directed at the prosecution in this case. I think the closing argument mistake was one made out of passion, but it was a mistake.
With regard to the FBI agent being found guilty of perjury, I believe it was collaboration between two different defenses in two different cases, one of which was Ragland's, that led to the agent's conviction. That would never have happened without serious money being spent on adequate defense. Make of that what you wish, however I continue to believe that a fair trial can be made more fair with more money.
Seen him around

Frankfort, KY

#42 Dec 22, 2011
I've been following your posts for a while on this topic "Now Be Honest". I can't help but think you are in some way aquainted with this trial. Your comments and analysis are well thought out and indicative of someone that has followed the case closely.

You make an interesting point below. His name was already toast, so what the heck. The more notorious the criminal is in jail, the more of a target he is for other inmates. I can only imagine everybody wanted to get a piece of the smug young Mr. Ragland's hide, in more ways than one.
Now Be Honest wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously?
If you were the one staring at the possibility of life in prison, and your attorney comes to you with a deal that lets you walk out of jail forever after only three more days served if you are willing to stand in front of the judge and say "yes, I did it" while you shake your head "no, I didn't", maybe you would be inclined to react a little differently than your first gut feeling, especially after serving serious time in the system and getting your head bashed in by a 20 lb. plate weight. What's more, there's no way that he's clearing his name regardless of the outcome of the trial. He's got nationwide TV shows that still get play on television that will continue to forever haunt him, no matter the outcome of the case. He has the plethora of internet search data that forever links him to murder of a UK football player. If I was him, my freedom was on the table, and everyone's going to hate me and think I did it anyway, maybe I would do the same thing.
That's not a defense of Ragland's actions, it's simply an attempt to paint a picture from his perspective.
That said, I agree with the poster that said the finger pointing should be directed at the prosecution in this case. I think the closing argument mistake was one made out of passion, but it was a mistake.
With regard to the FBI agent being found guilty of perjury, I believe it was collaboration between two different defenses in two different cases, one of which was Ragland's, that led to the agent's conviction. That would never have happened without serious money being spent on adequate defense. Make of that what you wish, however I continue to believe that a fair trial can be made more fair with more money.
NYer

Hicksville, NY

#43 Jan 12, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Um...no?
Sigh.... you say that you believe nothing without evidence but then exactly what are you purporting to support here if not denying the facts in evidence. Read about this case. There are a ton of articles. Read the court transcripts. This lousy rich kid hid in ambush and used a rifle to kill-shot a young man. He confessed. Then daddy used his money to twist the system resulting in a plea that allowed him to admit guilt to manslaughter and be sentenced to time served. The Prosecutors also had evidently wished to spare the key witness another round of personal attacks of the vilest nature. Ragland then lost a multimillion dollar civil suit and moved to PA to evade garnishment laws. Not to mention his multiple DUIs in multiple states. His lack of consequence is appalling. The only thing scarier is what that socialpath will do next.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Frankfort Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TFCA - What's Going On? 9 min MMCH 1
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 11 min Min 177,955
Why u keep watching me 37 min John 9
David fields 38 min Nough said 8
Wrongful Lawsuit 45 min Get all of it 5
Kendal vandergriff 54 min yep 4
How did Pat Melton lose? 1 hr Woof woof 25
Election results for sheriffs race Thu Groot 45

Frankfort Jobs

Personal Finance

Frankfort Mortgages