Tim Hennis and the Eastburn Murders

[BuffaloBill]

I was watching a movie called "Innocent Victims", based on the story of Army sargent Tim Hennis. He was wrongly convicted and later sentenced to death in North Carolina for the gruesome murders of the Eastburn family- a mother and her 2 daughters in May ,1985. Gary Eastburn the husband was stationed away in Alabama on military duty, while another daughter was left untouched in her crib, the only surviver. Hennis was found guilty sentenced to death, later won a retrial due to badly being railroaded by the prosecution. In 1989 was set free after he was granted a new trail and was found not guilty in just 2 hours. In all the years of watching UM I don't recall this case ever being featured. Does anyone know if this case was ever featured on UM.

Ironically about a month ago the case was reopened by the SAME prosecutor, cause the are now claiming DNA evidence links Hennis to the murders. The problem is of course initial DNA tests and fingor prints never linked Hennis to the murder period. So this should be interesting.

[Kane]

In all the years of watching UM I don't recall this case ever being featured. Does anyone know if this case was ever featured on UM.

I don't recall such a case ever being on UM, so the answer is a probable no. But I remember hearing about the TV-movie. It aired on primetime in 1996, but I saw a few minutes of it when it was shown on Court TV in the not-too-distant past. What I recall about the TV-movie was that it starred Rick Schroder. Tim Hennis was played by John Corbett (of My Big Fat Greek Wedding fame).

[yours4life215]

Well, lets just say that I am a "friend" of Tim's daughter Kristina. After her family moved to Washington state, the family history was kept really secret. Needless to say that I am shocked to here about all that is going on and am curious to find out the results of this case. I plan to keep on top of the case.

[Briony Coote]

At the time of the fist trial DNA testing was not available. By the time it was in the second trial they could not conduct it because the semen sample had not been preserved. So it will be interesting to see how accurate this latest testing really is, on a sample that is 17 years old and not preserved properly. No physical evidence linked Hennis to the crime. The only thing that did was the identification made by Patrick Cone which identified him as a walker seen in the vicinity of the crime. At the second trial it was established that Patrick Cone actually saw John Raupach. I have a nasty suspicion that if the police had got to Raupach first they would have charged him with the crime, based on Cone's identification and Raupach's knife collection. In which case the defence would have brought in Tim Hennis to show the jury that Cone could have got Raupach confused with Hennis.

Anyway what about these loose threads, like Kathy Eastburn receiving threatening phone calls and the defence witness (second trial) receiving the same calls? The Mr X letters?



I was watching a movie called "Innocent Victims", based on the story of Army sargent Tim Hennis. He was wrongly convicted and later sentenced to death in North Carolina for the gruesome murders of the Eastburn family- a mother and her 2 daughters in May ,1985. Gary Eastburn the husband was stationed away in Alabama on military duty, while another daughter was left untouched in her crib, the only surviver. Hennis was found guilty sentenced to death, later won a retrial due to badly being railroaded by the prosecution. In 1989 was set free after he was granted a new trail and was found not guilty in just 2 hours. In all the years of watching UM I don't recall this case ever being featured. Does anyone know if this case was ever featured on UM.

Ironically about a month ago the case was reopened by the SAME prosecutor, cause the are now claiming DNA evidence links Hennis to the murders. The problem is of course initial DNA tests and fingor prints never linked Hennis to the murder period. So this should be interesting.

[kadrmas15]

Hennis is not guilty. The man was wrongfully convicted once and then acquitted in a re-trial. He was at least acquitted of first degree murder so I do not know what this prosecutor who is the over zealous Nancy Grace I think anyone I charge with murder is guilty type is planning to charge Hennis with now.

However Hennis is not guilty and this prosecutor cannot charge anyway unless they are planning on re-writing our laws which would be illegal anyway. Of course, the pro prosecutor types are not willing to break our laws as long as they dont agree with them, isnt that ironic and hypocritical?

[BuffaloBill]

Hennis is not guilty. The man was wrongfully convicted once and then acquitted in a re-trial. He was at least acquitted of first degree murder so I do not know what this prosecutor who is the over zealous Nancy Grace I think anyone I charge with murder is guilty type is planning to charge Hennis with now.

However Hennis is not guilty and this prosecutor cannot charge anyway unless they are planning on re-writing our laws which would be illegal anyway. Of course, the pro prosecutor types are not willing to break our laws as long as they dont agree with them, isnt that ironic and hypocritical?

Remember this is North Carolina we are taking about here were people are sentenced to death or get a life imprisonment sentence before a trial takes place. Then by the grace of God new evidence come to light and they are set free, cause the whole world found out what a shame some of these trials
and acuzations were. Which leads us to my next point Jesse Jerkson, and the Rev Al Notso Sharpston...If any seen the 60 Minutes interviews with the Duke lacross players the constantly received death threats from "being as guilty as sin" thanks to the mob sentiments caused by these two jerks. When the case finally blew up in their faces, they ran and hid in the closet like the cowards they really are.

[sharonsutt]

Remember this is North Carolina we are taking about here were people are sentenced to death or get a life imprisonment sentence before a trial takes place. Then by the grace of God new evidence come to light and they are set free, cause the whole world found out what a shame some of these trials
and acuzations were. Which leads us to my next point Jesse Jerkson, and the Rev Al Notso Sharpston...If any seen the 60 Minutes interviews with the Duke lacross players the constantly received death threats from "being as guilty as sin" thanks to the mob sentiments caused by these two jerks. When the case finally blew up in their faces, they ran and hid in the closet like the cowards they really are.
Yes that is North Carolina you are talking about and that is where I am from, but some people seen tim hennis in the early morning. If the DNA matches well duh he did it. He is guilty and he hurt 2 little girls and there mother for no reason

[BuffaloBill]

Nothing personal, but only one guy saw what looked like to be tim hennis, oviously later turned out to be someone else....now as far as the dna, there was no dna linking to him years ago, that evidence was too poorly prevserved
to be conclusive match to any today. I just think the prosecution cant accept the fact that looked like idiots in the sec trial, now are looking for a mulligan.

[kadrmas15]

Well Tim Hennis didnt do it, the DNA proves he didnt do it and besides that one person saw a guy that "looked like" Tim Hennis. I believe in Tim Hennis's innocence, he didnt do it, and the prosecutors are just mad because they basically cannot retry him for this case and cant force someone to take the blame for something they didnt do. I dont mean to be a ***** about it but that is the truth, the guy didnt do it, I mean I know people feel better when someone takes the fall for it, I totally get that. However Hennis did not do it, it has been proven.

[kadrmas15]

Well, Hennis is being re-tried, I found an article on it. The DNA did match him although I am not sure which particular DNA it was in terms of whether it was the semen that matched or what. Hennis is not being re-tried on state charges because he cant be because he was acquitted. However people, including myself did not realize that even if you are acquitted on state charges you can be re-tried for the same crime on federal charges.


There is something about this case that bothers me. I am not saying he didnt do it but I find it fishy how he is being re-tried for a crime he was acquitted of even if it is technically legal since he is being re-tried in federal court not state court. Also the same county sheriff's department that is doing this and the same prosecutor that is doing this are from the same county that botched Debbie Wolfe's murder investigation so I dont hold them too credible. I also question how the feds could have the authority to charge him again since the murders did not occur on a base and therefore did not happen on federal property.

Hennis after he was acquitted returned to the Army and fought in the Gulf war and he retired from the Army with full benefits in 2004 and was living in Washington state. The Army recalled Hennis to active duty last year so they could charge him with the three murders. Hennis was put back on active duty at Fort Bragg in North Carolina so he could be charged. Hennis could spend the rest of his life in Federal prison if convicted. I dont know if he can face the death penalty or not.

Here is an article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/573385.html

and another:
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=262579

[Thinman]

Guys, with the advances in DNA technology over the past few years, it does not take a perfectly preserved DNA sample to get a match. Crimes that are much older with less preserved evidence have been solved recently. I don't understand why it seems so unlikely for some of you that a match has been made.

Hennis is guilty as hell and will get what is coming to him.

[kadrmas15]

Well I dont know that Hennis is "guilty as hell" he hasnt even been tried yet let alone convicted, innocent until proven guilty is how it works in this country whether you like it or not. Also Hennis in my opinion shouldnt be re-tried, the Army doesnt even have the authority to re-try him yet apperantly thinks it does.

Hennis was acquitted in a re-trial in 1989 and was acquitted very quickly. I find it curious how the state never turned over this matching DNA evidence before all this. If Hennis is so guilty why on Earth would they wait years and let him stay out on the streets, waiting until after Hennis was retired before deciding that since they couldnt re-try him they would get the army to do it.

It really doesnt speak well for the case when you have the same detectives and prosecutors that are so ticked because they lost a case and being sore losers about it are going after Hennis now. Again, Hennis is innocent until proven guilty, that is how it works. I think we have forgotten that in this country and I think now it has become guilty until proven innocent which is sad, sick and not the way things are supposed to be.

If Hennis in fact did these crimes than he deserves to be in prison but it is possible for a state to fake DNA evidence to convict someone and they have the perfect motive in North Carolina to do just that.

[Awsi Dooger]

and another:
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=262579

Well, I better stay out of discussion of this one due to potential bias. I'm familiar with this case. My sister gave me a book about it years ago. The investigator quoted extensively in that article, Robert Bittle, is my brother-in-law's father. He was a homicide detective in '85 and conducted the investigation that led to Hennis' arrest. I never talked to him specifically about it. But my brother-in-law mentioned this case to me one of the first days I met him, while describing his dad's career. The theme was heavily toward guilt. That I remember distinctly.

[Thinman]

it is possible for a state to fake DNA evidence to convict someone and they have the perfect motive in North Carolina to do just that.

You's right thar, boy. Down hare in Keroliner we need us sum dadgum justice!

Pull you head out of your arse for a minute. Are you trying to tell me that the Army, the police, the crime lab analysts, DNA experts, and countless others are going to conspire to "fake DNA evidence"? You are talking about a conspiracy that dwarfs the Kennedy assassination. And I'm certain everyone would stay mum on that one. The things that some on this board come up with.

[kadrmas15]

Thinman, I wasnt portraying people in North Carolina as being stupid backwoods hicks so I do not know what that first line of yours was all about. I was actually if anything complimenting them by suggesting they might have faked DNA evidence.

It was merely a theory of mine that the DNA evidence was faked, it is possible to fake DNA evidence to implicate someone you want to be guilty of a crime. I have seen no evidence that it is not possible. They had vials of Hennis blood I am sure in storage from the late 1980's and it would be possible to use his own DNA to frame him. Everyone would eat it up because when you say someones DNA matches everyone would believe the person was guilty.

Now of course it is possible too that Hennis did it, that his DNA really did match and that this whole thing is a genuine effort to get a rapist and murderer off the streets. I have never said that was not possible I was just saying that it might be possible that prosecutors and the cops because they were angry and embarassed about the acquittal and looking like fools decided they were going to nail Tim Hennis anyway they had to. I am just saying that is a possible theory I want to make sure you know I am only saying it is a possibility not a for sure thing. You may very well be right, I am just saying I havent taken Hennis and put him in prison yet and thrown away the key, that is all.

[kadrmas15]

Well, Army Master Sergeant Tim Hennis will be re-tried for the three deaths in military court, he faces court-martial, although the rape charges against him were dismissed because in 1985, the military had a three year statue of limitations on rape. Hennis faces three counts of pre meditated murder and could receive the death penalty if convicted.

In my opinion, there is just something about this that doesnt seem right, Hennis is acquitted in 1989 in the re-trial, he goes back to the Army, the state suddenly in 2004 finds this new DNA evidence? There is just something about this that isnt right and of course the same prosecutor that went after him in the 80's was the one who was ticked because he lost so he decided to go after Hennis, the sample was degraded of the DNA yet magically they could find samples supposedly matching both Hennis and Mrs. Eastburn?

Here is the link to the story:

http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S86724.shtml?cat=10151

[frostedflygirl]

I do not understand with the other people that were seen in that particular area, why they were not considered suspects in this murder case. what about the man that looked like hennis, hennis was adopted any chance that this other guy was a twin? maybe the two should have their DNA compared. after watching the movie innocent victims for the first times, all i could think is that the husband is guilty of something. these phone calls started after he left for training, who is to say that maybe he didn't have the family killed off. there are too many contradiction's in this case, and i would love to have the chance to go over all the evidence, and maybe have access to the house that the murders were committed in.
something about this whole case is bothering me. i will keep an eye out for anyone who may have some sort of interest

[Kathumpa]

I just watched the movie on TV today. Believe it or not, I don't believe he did it. What about the babysitter? If Jeffrey McDonald involved in anyway? If so, why aren't they taking a look at them? As far as the Miltary is concerned, they can do anything they want. They are the Federal Government. Let's see how this whole DNA thing will play out. When you convicted of a crime, you are subject to give your DNA upon entering prison, so they have plenty of his DNA. I wish the Eastburn's find justice, but not at the price of sending an innocent man to death. I think they should still see if they can't file charges against VanStory for what he did with the 1st trail.

www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/The-Case-of-The-Eastburn-Murders-135516.html

Good article to read.

[kadrmas15]

Yes, this case bothers me and sounds like an overzealous prosecutor's sour grapes. I mean they supposedly have this DNA evidence for over 15 years and sit on it and then magically gets discovered in 2004? Something sounds fishy. It sounds like a prosecutor not willing to admit defeat since he lost to Hennis in 1989 and was embarassed and furious at this. Heck, I wouldnt be surprised if it was Mr. Eastburn himself that did this and then sat back as Tim Hennis took the rap for what he did. Now it looks like Eastburn may yet again get away with it, as I view it as very possible that Eastburn did this or was involved somehow, I just find that very strange how he would happen to be just by coincidence be gone, afterall, if Tim Hennis did this, how would he have anyway of knowing Mr. Eastburn wasnt there since on the day he had gone to adopt the dog, was Mr. Eastburn home with his family? After reading that article, I find it very interesting about those mysterious postcards, it seems likely whoever is the writer of the post cards is the murderer.

[Kathumpa]

There are too many holes in the DA's case. Maybe he is mad that someone got the BEST of him? But there are too many suspects to choose from. Mr. X, was there any fingerprints lifted from either post card or did too many people look at it with out gloves to ruin that evidence? What about the babysitter? How about her friends and family? What about Jeffrey McDonald? How about Cone himself? How about John Raupach, the look a like? Now they have this evidence! Where has it been? Who or what has had access to it for the past several years? I don't know, it does sound little fishy.

[SylvreWolfe]

Yes, this case bothers me and sounds like an overzealous prosecutor's sour grapes. I mean they supposedly have this DNA evidence for over 15 years and sit on it and then magically gets discovered in 2004? Something sounds fishy. It sounds like a prosecutor not willing to admit defeat since he lost to Hennis in 1989 and was embarassed and furious at this. Heck, I wouldnt be surprised if it was Mr. Eastburn himself that did this and then sat back as Tim Hennis took the rap for what he did. Now it looks like Eastburn may yet again get away with it, as I view it as very possible that Eastburn did this or was involved somehow, I just find that very strange how he would happen to be just by coincidence be gone, afterall, if Tim Hennis did this, how would he have anyway of knowing Mr. Eastburn wasnt there since on the day he had gone to adopt the dog, was Mr. Eastburn home with his family? After reading that article, I find it very interesting about those mysterious postcards, it seems likely whoever is the writer of the post cards is the murderer.

I use to wonder about Eastburn too because of the McDonald case, but I recently researched the topic and discovered he was in Alabama at a training program for AF officers. Hennis could have learned of Eastburn's absence when he went to pick up the dog. It isn't that difficult to figure that one out.

As far as this *new* DNA evidence, there is no *new* evidence.they couldn't run the DNA back then. The technology to run DNA did not exist then. But samples were taken then, so no *new* evidence.
Has there been anything new on this case since this first started??

[kadrmas15]

Well, actually I am not sure I buy that, was the husband gone at training when Hennis actually went to pick up the puppy a week or so before the murders? Also, why would the wife tell a perfect stranger "oh yeah, my husband is gone at training in Alabama so we are home all alone here."? It doesnt make a whole lot of sense, also they could test DNA in 1988, 1989, not to the same quality they can now of course but they could test DNA in 1988 and 1989 and it came b ack that it didnt match Hennis, now all of a sudden they claim it did match? There is just something that stinks here and I find it very fishy how all of a sudden after all these years this new evidence suddenly springs up, it wasnt old evidence that they re-tested, the cops and the prosecutor specifically said this was evidence they suddenly discovered in 2004.

[BuffaloBill]

This whole case boggles the mind. It almost seems like the Duke lacross case all over again. They are determined to bring an end to this case just to prove they got their man. The prosecution has to get a conviction somehow
and its almost as if they cant rest until Hennis is put away again. This is the same bunch of lies and deception we saw in Mike Nifung. This incredible slam dunk evidence that turned out to be "hot air" in the the end. Based upon the history of this case I wouldnt trust the prosecution with any of their so called evidence faster than I could trust Larry from Three's Company trying to sell me a used car. Like you said Kadrmas 15 something is fishy about the whole case...Personaly usually when the fish stinks it starts from the top-in this case the prosecution.

[kadrmas15]

Hey Buffalo Bill, I couldnt agree more and a good comparsion. Yeah, good ol Nifong was touting DNA evidence that later turned out to be fake and didnt match, I think he was honestly hoping those guys would get scared and take some plea bargain or something, however that ended up blowing up in his face.

Yes I agree, the prosecutor was ticked because he lost a case, and he decided he was going to get Tim Hennis one way or the other, it didnt match him in 1989, Hennis was on duty the night of those murders, I mean, frankly, he should have never been convicted in the first place, but the wrong was made right until now. This prosecutor even admitted from the second that Hennis was acquitted he was looking for more evidence to nail him with. Now suddenly 15 years after the fact, he suddenly "finds" this new evidence that supposedly links Hennis to the murders, this prosecutor is spending 15 years trying to find it and only in 2004 does he suddenly find this "new" evidence?

There is just something wrong here, something fishy, and of course the prosecutor knew he couldnt re-try Hennis in state court because of the acquittal so he decided to use the federal system to go after him, specifically military courts, big surprise Hennis was re-called to active duty in late 2006 so the Army could charge him, since Hennis retired in early 2004 with the 2nd highest rank you can get on the enlisted scale, and I believe there is a 3 year statue of limitations that the military has where they can charge a retired or f ormer member, so clearly they had to charge him before the statue of limitations ran out and they did it just in the nick of time.

[SylvreWolfe]

There is no statute of limitations on charging for murder, even in the military. They dropped the rape charge because at the time of the rape the statute of limitations was shorter for the military than it is now. They can bring anyone back to active duty until the day they die to charge them with murder.
You guys are trying to make sense where sense doesn't happen so much. Why would this woman believe this person was going to kill her? He just came by for the dog. The husband was out of town at the time, in another state. So unless he was able to bail out of Air Force officer training in Alabama long enough to travel back to NC, kill them, then travel back to Alabama, without being missed then he could not have done it. Now, could he have had something to do with it? Sure, it wouldn't be the first time. But given the recent case involving McDonald, Eastburn was investigated. The spouse of a murder victim is always the first suspect.

The evidence they are referring to is not evidence they obtained in 2004. That is when they tested the evidence. Where does this 1989 year come from? The murders took place before then. They did not have the technology to do accurate DNA testing then. It was not proven science, therefore could not be put in court. The samples used were samples taken at the time of the original investigation.The only new evidence was that they were able to finally test the DNA, at the suggestion of the guy who wrote the book. They compared the samples Hennis gave at the time to semen samples they took from Eastburn's dead wife. There are no new samples.

Then there is this question of the original prosecutor. He isn't bringing this to trial. The US Army did its own investigation, not the original prosecutor. They didn't just take his word for it. They investigated on their own after the DNA tests. Given the circumstances of the original trial I believe the US Army made sure their investigation wasn't filled with as many holes as the original prosecutor's investigation was. You guys seem to be focusing only on the original case and not the year the Army spent investigating it. He isn't doing this, they are.

Hey, I use to think this guy got railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor. I use to bring this case up a lot when Nifong was doing his thing. I want to know why he is allowed to remain a prosecutor after pulling a stunt like this. But I am nowhere near a conspiracy nut enough to believe that 20 years later the state of NC and the US Army are conspiring together to railroad this guy again. That is just too much conspiracy for me. The Army wouldn't do this if they didn't think there was enough evidence. They have enough of a tarnished reputation right now, as is. The last thing they want is to court martial someone they know is innocent. The military tends to withdraw to protect its own. They would not pull someone back to active duty to prosecute them if they didn't believe there was something there. It makes them look bad and that is what they care about.

[kadrmas15]

Hmm, well I disagree here. You are right the original prosecutor in the 1986 conviction had nothing to do with this, however the prosecutor from the 1989 re-trial where Hennis was acquitted did have a lot to do with this, he had been pushing the military to do this for years, in 2004 they suddenly test this evidence?

Actually, it wasnt even in 2004 that they tested it, they didnt start the investigation until then, because in 2004, Hennis retired and he was out there living his life until late 2006 when the military decided to bring him back to active duty, so they could charge him, since if he was a civilian they couldnt charge him.

Like I said, plenty stinks in this case, again, I find this fishy how they have this supposed DNA evidence, they had the technology to test it for many years before they did, yet they wait for years and years with a person they think is a triple murderer on their h ands?

No, this reeks of a prosecutor having sour grapes about losing, he was pressuring the military for years to investigate this, pretty much from the time Hennis was acquitted in 1989 he was looking for a way to nail him, If Hennis had never gone back to the military he couldnt have been brought back for charges now because he wouldnt be collecting a military pension and because he had been out of the military so long he wouldnt even be in the in active reserve he would be a full blown civilian, however he went back, seemingly never committing another murder, fighing in the Gulf War and I believe Somalia honorably and retiring in 2004 with a full pension and the 2nd highest rank on the enlisted scale, something on this case stinks, also in 1989, they were saying the DNA evidence did not match him, Hennis was one of the first people to be seemingly exonorated by DNA.

[kadrmas15]

Also, I have always been suscipicous of that eyewitness Patrick Cone, and according to an article I just read, also it was the same detectives, civilian detectives that were on the case back in the mid to late 80's that suddenly in 2005 decided to have this semen swab tested for DNA and big surprise it supposedly matched Tim Hennis! What a shocker!

Now, it is possible Hennis did this, however it troubles me as I said earlier, that suddenly after all these years, they suddenly decide to have this stuff tested, they wait until Hennis is retired, seemingly so they can pounce on him, I personally think evidence can be planted and that prosecutors and police detectives do lie, it does happen, sorry to say, do defense lawyers lie too? Of course they do!

However where it bothers me is when people for some reason instantly assume a defendent and a defense attorney to be liars and dotn assume the same of prosecutors and police, I guess it is because people like to think all prosecutors and police are out for "justice" when in fact they are out for convictions and dont really care who they have to nail to get it just as long as the case file gets cleared adn the public shuts up about it.

[kadrmas15]

Here is another link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/573385-p2.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/505233.html

[SylvreWolfe]

Do you have any links to this 1989 DNA testing? Or prior military involvement? And you do realize that DNA testing was not that accurate in 1989? According to all of the articles I have read they didn't test the DNA until 2004, after the author suggested it, which tells me they weren't hounding this guy as much as some claim they were. If they really were out to *get* this guy, then they wouldn't have stopped and they wouldn't have needed prodding by the author of the book.

And hey Tim McVeigh served honorably too, and served in a war, that didn't stop him from becoming a mass murderer.
There are some people out there who commit a crime and never do it again. I remember a few years ago watching the news about a man who was a convicted murderer, he escaped from prison, and lived a model life for 30 years, not even a speeding ticket, before he was finally caught again.
Another case was about a man who murdered his entire family and ran off, I think this one was on UM, and he lived an exemplary life after the original murders.

And who says he didn't commit any more crimes? Maybe he did.

But the point is, you guys are automatically accusing the military of some kind of wrong doing before the court martial even starts.

[kadrmas15]

Yes, I realize DNA testing was not that accurate in 1989, however DNA testing has always been accurate when it has come to EXCLUDING somebody as the possible donor of the DNA, it is proving someone is the donor of the DNA that was the point that was not so accurate back then.

Well, I never said the military was involved previously, I said the civilian DA's office, the same DA's office that prosecuted Hennis twice presented what their sheriff's department supposedly found in this supposed new evidence and they presented it to the Army for review because the civilian DA's office couldnt prosecute him again due to double jeapordy laws.

In fact, Hennis couldnt even be really tried for murder in regular federal court, the most he could be tried for would be violating the civil rights of the three murder victims which if ran consecutively the most he could get is 30 years in federal prison.

The Army is re-trying him because he could receive up to the death penalty, the Army is allowed to re-try him because he was collecting retirement pay, if he hadnt been collecting retirement pay and if he had been out of active duty so long that he was no longer in the inactive reserves then he couldnt be charged in military court.

What I found interesting in your little statement is how you accuse me and Buffalo Bill of accusing the military of wrong doing before the court-martial starts, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You have already been judge, jury and executioner before the court-martial starts.

As for Timothy McVeigh and comparing him to Tim Hennis that is a ridiculous comparison, while they were both in the Army and while both served honorably in their military service and both were Gulf War veterans, McVeigh was a terrorist that killed nearly 170 people, Hennis for all we know is an innocent man that is being targeted yet again by the over zealous Cumberland County, North Carolina sheriff's department and district attorney.

Yes, Cumberland County is not technically prosecuting him, the military is but Cumberland County is behind it. By the way, Cumberland County has had their screw ups on several cases, I can think of the Debbie Wolfe case for example where I believe the sheriff's departmetn destroyed evidence and failed to follow up on leads.

Also, there is no evidence Tim Hennis has committed any other killings or any other crimes.

[m14expert]

It is unfortunate that the lives of many people have been ruined by this terrible tragedy. I know Tim Hennis from our days together in Boy Scouts on Ft Lewis. I am upset thathe may have been involved in such a terrible act and I hope that he gets a fair trial by the Govt. He is innocent until proven guilty and as such I pray for him and his family. If he is guilty then he will have to pay the ultimate price for his wickedness.

[txcuti133]

I read the book Innocent Victims, and the prosecution had no desire to test the semen sample in 1992. When the murder occurred in 1985, the only evidence that they could have compared against the semen sample would have been the blood type. I do not believe for one second that Tim Hennis murdered Kathryn, Kara, and Erin Eastburn. He was railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor twice. However, the retrial was not even done in Fayetteville due to the publicity. I think someone is just disappointed that this case was not a "slam dunk" case after all.

[Briony Coote]

According to the book, the issue of DNA testing was raised at the trial - only to reveal that the test had not been done on the semen because it had not been preserved. And it was rotten luck that they didn't have the DNA test available to begin with, to settle the matter right there and then. Instead the whole case depended on Cone's identification of the walker.

On a different matter; we've only had one book written on the case, "Innocent Victims". Detractors have slammed it for being slanted too heavily in favour of Hennis. Maybe it's time for another book? There seems to be a golden opportunity in the wake of renewed interest, new evidence, and the third trial.

[smiley2]

I just don't understand how anyone can say Tim Hennis is not guilty. I too read the book and watched the movie, and I admit, I thought he might be innocent, but I believe DNA=guilty. If they found his semen, he was there and he did it. Which leads to the next question, how can someone put on the great charade he did all those years? It boggles my mind.

[Briony Coote]

I just don't understand how anyone can say Tim Hennis is not guilty. I too read the book and watched the movie, and I admit, I thought he might be innocent, but I believe DNA=guilty. If they found his semen, he was there and he did it. Which leads to the next question, how can someone put on the great charade he did all those years? It boggles my mind.


Mistakes have been made with forensic evidence and DNA is no exception. I think there was a case in New Zealand where a rape case was thrown out because of DNA evidence - but the DNA evidence was later disproved. There are also the questions of the semen sample not being properly preserved and possibilities of contamination among other things.

[kadrmas15]

Well, fact of the matter is, forensic evidence is sometimes wrong. I am curious as to why more people do not find it more highly suspect that Hennis was indicted until 17 years after his acquittal? Afterall, Hennis was free for 17 years, why was this 'evidence' not developed earlier? Oh wait. They did not have it! Fact of the matter is, a disgruntled prosecutor who has always wanted to hang Tim Hennis finally got his chance and folks are believing it which in my opinion is sad. DNA evidence is NEVER wrong when it excludes someone which it did in the Hennis case.

[BuffaloBill]

Someone ----hopefully that is Common Sense----make this prosecutor and the military realize this isnt a best of 3 series....where by we need a tiebrkr
here. Based on the history of this case the prosecutor just cant accept the fact he lost, the case was a joke to begin with, time to accept THE TRUTH its the SAME DNA evidence you had before, nothing is new. Just something
reprocessed to appear they got something new.:rolleyes:



**********T.O IS IN MY HOUSE *******************************

[DP1]

Was this case profiled on AMW?

[Briony Coote]

Was this case profiled on AMW?


No idea, but I doubt it. It was never a fugitive case. It's the sort of thing that might feature on "Unsolved Mysteries", though.

[Briony Coote]

Well, fact of the matter is, forensic evidence is sometimes wrong. I am curious as to why more people do not find it more highly suspect that Hennis was indicted until 17 years after his acquittal? Afterall, Hennis was free for 17 years, why was this 'evidence' not developed earlier? Oh wait. They did not have it! Fact of the matter is, a disgruntled prosecutor who has always wanted to hang Tim Hennis finally got his chance and folks are believing it which in my opinion is sad. DNA evidence is NEVER wrong when it excludes someone which it did in the Hennis case.


URRGGHH ... it seems there are cases where DNA evidence has been falsified. I found this from another thread:

And then there are the "team players". Like the forensic DNA tester in Texas who was rigging the DNA tests to convict innocent people who the Police "just knew" were guilty. Needless to say she was the most renowned and popular scientists in the lab (in the eyes of her police brotherhood) and quickly moved up the ranks to become the counties lead forensic scientist. Sometimes when an oranization rewards and promotes based on merit and succeses, that's what we get. (and exploded space shuttles) I suspect this bullying mob mentality might be taking place in the Amanda Knox case in Italy.

Gee, I hope that none of that is happening in this case. But at the beginning there was evidence of misconduct on the prosecutor's part: hiding evidence that pointed away from Tim Hennis. At least that was only VanStorey; the attorneys who prosecuted Hennis in the second trial did so fair and square, and there has been no indication of misconduct on their part in the Hennis case.

Anyway, it certainly shows that DNA evidence is not as concrete as we (including myself) think; like other forensic evidence it can be open to tampering, contamination, misinterpretation and other human failings.

[kadrmas15]

No evidence huh? Which case are you following?

[Briony Coote]

No evidence huh? Which case are you following?

Oh, here it is; I got it off another sitcom thread:

Here's a very long article (with footnotes even) that doesn't really name names but explains a lot about everything from sloppy lab work all the way up to intentional falsification of information. Houston gets a mention or two, and even an FBI lab was messed up.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/62...257124006f9177

This is from wikipedia. I still haven't been able to track down a specific name, other than Vanessa G. Nelson. I can't remember if this is the person Franklin was talking about or not. This article (and the innocence project site) mentions the Houston Chronicle having the best coverage of the info. I did a quick search for it at www.chron.com and can't find anything though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Police_Department

Crime lab problems
In November 2002, the CBS local tv station KHOU began broadcasting a multi-part investigation into the accuracy of the HPD Crime Lab's findings. Particularly of interest to the reporters were criminal cases that involved DNA analysis and serological (body fluid) testing. Night after night journalists David Raziq, Anna Werner and Chris Henao presented case after case in which the labs work was dangerously sloppy or just plain wrong and may have been sending the innocent to prison while letting the guilty go free. As a result of those broadcasts, at the end of the week the Houston Police Department declared they would have a team of independent scientists audit the lab and its procedures. However, the audit's findings were so troublesome that one month later,in mid- December, HPD closed the DNA section of the laboratory. Not only did the audit bolster KHOU's report but also found that samples were contaminated and the lab's files were very poorly maintained. The audit revealed that a section of the lab's roof was leaking into sample-containment areas, lab technicians were seriously undereducated or unqualified for their jobs, samples had been incorrectly tagged, and samples had been contaminated through improper handling. Worse, many people had been convicted and sent to prison based upon the evidence contained in the crime lab. The New York Times asked the question, "Worst Crime Lab in the Country?" in a March 2003 article [10].

Beginning in early 2003, the HPD Crime Lab began cooperating with outside DNA testing facilities to review criminal cases involving cases or convictions associated with Crime Lab evidence. However this again came as a result of some prompting investigatory work done by the tv station KHOU. Not long after their first broadcasts, reporters David Raziq, Anna Werner and Chris Henao got an e-mail from a local mother. She was desperate. She told them that her son, Josiah Sutton, had been tried for rape in 1999 and found guilty based upon HPD Crime Lab testing. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. So KHOU began to take an intensive look at the Sutton case. Raziq and Werner analyzed the HPD lab's DNA report with the help of DNA expert Bill Thompson of the University of California-Irvine. They found terrible and obvious mistakes in the report that the lab should have known about. When the reporters presented this new information to the local jurists who had helped convict Sutton, they were mortified. Not long after that broadcast, the HPD agreed to an immediate retest of the DNA evidence in the Sutton case. Those tests showed the DNA collected in the case did not belong to Sutton. He was released from prison in March 2003 and given a full pardon in 2004.

As a result of the scandal, nine Crime Lab technicians were disciplined with suspensions and one analyst was terminated. However, that analyst was fully reinstated to her previous position in January 2004, less than one month after her December 2003 termination. Many HPD supervisors and Houston residents called for more stringent disciplinary actions against the Crime Lab employees. However, the city panel responsible for disciplining the lab technicians repeatedly resisted these arguments and instead reduced the employees' punishments[citation needed]. Irma Rios was hired in 2003 as Lab Director, replacing Interim Lab Director Frank Fitzpatrick.

In May 2005, the Houston Police Department announced that with much effort and coordination on their part, they had received national accreditation through the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD). The ASCLD stated that the lab had met or exceeded standards for accreditation in all areas except DNA[citation needed]. Through independent research and testing, it was determined in January 2006 that of 1,100 samples reviewed, 40% of DNA samples and 23% of blood evidence samples had serious problems [11]. As of April 2006, the DNA section of the Crime Lab remained closed.[12][13][14]

In the October 6, 2007 The Houston Chronicle published allegations of Employees cheating on an open-book proficiency test.[15] some details now:

[kadrmas15]

Yes I know about that, in fact I agree that DNA test can be tampered with and often is to convict innocent people. I am confused though, are you arguing that Tim Hennis was convicted in the first place because of tampered DNA evidence or are you arguing that he was acquitted because of mishandled DNA evidence? I can tell you he was not acquitted because of anything being mishandled. This whole thing is just sour grapes over a prosecutor being mad that he lost a case. He had always said he would find a way to get Hennis charged again and he did, albeit it is not his office doing the prosecuting but the military even though there is no more evidence now than there was in 1989 when the evidence proved Hennis's innocence not his guilt.

[Briony Coote]

Yes I know about that, in fact I agree that DNA test can be tampered with and often is to convict innocent people. I am confused though, are you arguing that Tim Hennis was convicted in the first place because of tampered DNA evidence or are you arguing that he was acquitted because of mishandled DNA evidence? I can tell you he was not acquitted because of anything being mishandled. This whole thing is just sour grapes over a prosecutor being mad that he lost a case. He had always said he would find a way to get Hennis charged again and he did, albeit it is not his office doing the prosecuting but the military even though there is no more evidence now than there was in 1989 when the evidence proved Hennis's innocence not his guilt.

No, no, Tim Hennis was not convicted and then acquitted over DNA evidence. At the first trial DNA evidence was not available (really annoying that - if it had been, the whole matter could have been settled then and there), and in the second trial they could not use it because the semen sample was ruined. I just drew attention to this DNA mishandling to illustrate that DNA evidence is not as concrete and final as we may think - it is still subject to human error, mishandling, contamination, or worse. So don't jump to conclusions that DNA convicts Hennis, period - we need to wait and see how well the DNA evidence holds up under scrutiny, cross-examination, and all the rest of it.

[Briony Coote]

I just heard - the trial has been deferred again - to 14 September!

[kadrmas15]

Oh no, I am a believer in Tim Hennis's innocence not his guilt. So yeah I do agree it (the DNA) needs to be looked at and cross-examined by his defense as it should be.

[Briony Coote]

The trial is underway now. We shall see what we shall see. But even if Hennis is found guilty there is still the matter of appeals. If he is acquitted then that is that officially, but lingering suspicions and firm opinions will never go away. If it is a hung jury, goodness knows what will happen.