I know it was never profiled on UM, but there has been a fair amount of discussion here about the case, so I thought I would make an exception.

Timothy Hennis, Army Master Sergeant, is back on trial for his life for the MacDonald-esque massacre of a family in Fayetteville, NC in 1985. Lots of good articles here on the case.

http://fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/04/07/989371

Jury find NC soldier guilty in 1985 triple slaying
By KEVIN MAURER (AP) – 2 hours ago

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — A soldier who was acquitted in civilian court more than 20 years ago has been convicted by a military jury of murdering a North Carolina mother and her two children in 1985.

Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis was found guilty of three counts of premeditated murder Thursday. The jury had deliberated less than three hours following three weeks of testimony in the case.

The jury will next decide if Hennis should be put to death. Those deliberations start Friday.

Hennis showed no reaction to the verdict. Relatives of his victims hugged and cried.

Hennis was first convicted in state court, but won an appeal and was acquitted in a second trial. He couldn't be tried in state court again, so the case was turned over to the Army after investigators examined DNA evidence that couldn't be tested in the mid-1980s.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) — A soldier who was acquitted in civilian court nearly 25 years ago has been convicted by a military jury of murdering a North Carolina mother and her two children in 1985.

Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis was found guilty of three counts of premeditated murder Thursday. The jury had deliberated less than three hours following three weeks of testimony in the case.

The jury will next decide if Hennis should be put to death. Those deliberations start Friday.

Hennis showed no reaction to the verdict. Relatives of his victims hugged and cried.

Hennis was first convicted in state court, but won an appeal and was acquitted in a second trial. He couldn't be tried in state court again, so the case was turned over to the Army after investigators examined DNA evidence that couldn't be tested in the mid-1980s.

(This version CORRECTS time period in lede.)

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Now having been found guilty of this crime a second time, the score stands 2 to 1 for the prosecution. I'm amazed that it only took 3 hours to convict this guy, when he was previously was aquited years ago. Years and years of evidence , and were talking alot of years ! All done in 3 hours. I cannot see there not being a forth trial. I just think the whole thing smells from this guy even getting a fair trial again here. Anyone have additional thoughts ?

His DNA inside the mother does it for me. Hennis is guilty. Way to go, jury.

Except Thinman, it does not do it for me. They got it wrong. Three hours, pathetic. Yeah, Hennis will be getting death again. The military did not even have the authority to try this case. Yes, I agree, Hennis, I hate to say it, when he got into military court, I knew he was going down. Certainly in North Carolina, yeah, it is just not good.

I could tell from what the members or as they are called in the civilian world 'jurors' that they all pretty much assumed that someone accused of killing a child was guilty. Also, the DNA did not actually match Hennis. That is the thing that I find amusing. People are like oh it matches case closed. Actually it did not match. It was inconclusive. It was not nearly as solid as many of the pro prosecution people like to make it seem that it is.

I don't know, I in some ways cannot and do not want to believe the prosecutors got away with this crap again. Even though he was not actually the prosecutor this time, the state prosecutor that lost the case back in 1989 was behind the whole thing. This was the only murder case he probably ever lost and he was always angry about it and always vowed to get even with Hennis.

Yeah, it is just a shame. I still find that mighty interesting how the cops claim they could allegedly not test this so called DNA until 2006? Why not send it out much earlier? Heck Hennis was in the Army until 2004. But yeah, if I were Hennis I would not have even gone back to the Army. He still could have potentially been charged in federal civilian court but had he not gone back to the Army, specifically had he not retired from the Army and been collecting benefits, the Army could not have recalled him to active duty to charge him. I don't know, something about this whole mess just does not seem right.

Incredible to me. Only in this country could a guy get convicted, get sent to death row, then get a new trial, get acquitted. Go back to his family and his career for so many years and then 16 years after his acquittal get charged again and 21 years after his acquittal get convicted again of the same crime in a completely different court. I certainly would not want to go on trial in the military, I imagine that they have higher conviction rates than civilian courts do but I cannot say that for sure. It just seems military law and the members selected to serve which it is a mixture of enlisted and officers correct would be more conservative?

But yeah, I would be surprised if Hennis does not get the death penalty again. The odds that he would ever actually be executed are slim. However I would not be so quick to assume this thing is over. I do think there will be a fourth trial in this instance. I think eventually the U.S. Federal Court will rule that the military did not truly have the jurisdiction to even prosecute this case. In fact, the trial judge in this case, the Colonel, he instructed the jury on unpremeditated murder as a lesser included offense when he could not even legally do that as at that time the statute of limitations on that charge was 3 years.

But like I said, the DNA did not actually match Hennis as was falsely reported. It was inconclusive. That means maybe his, maybe not aka this case should have ended in an acquittal. In fact the DNA sample that they got, like I said, could not be matched to Hennis. While he could not be eliminated it could not be matched to him either.

The odds also considering how advanced modern DNA testing is, the odds that they got in this sample were and are not in fact very impressive. One out of every 426 white male would match the DNA sample. One out of every 329 black males would match the sample and one out of every 200 hispanic males would match the sample. Now that was the military who tested this at their lab and strangely could not link Hennis to any of this.

However here is what did Hennis in. The military when they could not find a match to Hennis after they had used up most of the sample in the first testing, sent what little was left to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation. She claimed that Hennis's DNA was inside Mrs. Eastburn's body. However she did admit that the skin from under Mrs. Eastburn's fingernails and the blood found on the bloody towel at the Eastburn home, that DNA did not match Tim Hennis and he was eliminated as the contributor in both those instances.

Basically this case was botched. Even if Tim Hennis did have sex with Mrs. Eastburn, that hardly makes him a murderer. I would not blame him for lying knowing how it would look. The pro prosecution people say oh, well if he is truly innocent why not just admit that you had sex with Mrs. Eastburn. But you know what they would say if he said that or claimed that? They would twist it and say that he was just saying that to justify his DNA being there.

However no one could have committed this crime without there being blood on them. Mrs. Eastburn struggled for her life and scratched the hell out of her assailant yet the skin from underneath her fingernails did not match Hennis! The blood on the towel that the perpetrator used to wipe himself off, that blood did not match Tim Hennis he was eliminated to 100 percent certainty in both of those instances! So there was plenty of reasonable doubt here. The show CSI has done more damage to criminal justice than one could possibly fathom.

Please provide some actual sources to back up your claims. Everything I have read says that the DNA sample could not be conclusively identified back in 1985, but that it can be now. Where are you finding that it was inconclusive from 2006-present? If that were the case, there is no way there would have been a conviction.

The most alarming thing as that in a military trail like this, If I'm understanding it correct that it only has to be a majority vote to convict, so in other words if there are 14 jurors all you need is 8 to convict. So assentionally you can put Hennis to death with an 8-6 vote. Why not just hand a gun to the judge and shoot him right after the verdict.....GREAT SYSTEM for a capital murder case. As usual you hit the nail on the head
kadrmas15, sore looser prosecutor, questionalable DNA, VERY VERY BAD police work.

Define questionable DNA. It either matches or it does not. You are trying to say that with the technology we have available today, they really are not sure? They just think it might be Hennis's DNA? Cases that are much older, with less-preserved DNA samples have been solved in the past few years. Look no further than Cold Case Files and Forensic Files for evidence of this.

Spare me the whole Hennis was having an affair with Kathryn Eastburn. I can understand why the lawyers would try that defense since his DNA was left inside of her. But if that was true, why did Hennis not take the stand and go into great detail about their love affair and pretend to be devastated by the horrible death of his mistress? He claims he never saw her again after adopting the dog.

Okay thinman, I am not going to argue with you about whether Hennis is guilty or innocent. You think he is completely guilty, you always have and always will so there is no reason to beat that dead horse. However in terms of the DNA, first off, I do not have to provide you a source. What do you think I am pulling facts out of my rear end and just making them up? Come on. I read it in the Fayetteville Observer Newspaper. It was in an article dated March 26th, 2010. Now, I would give you the link but you will have to go to the archives if they even exist on the newspaper's website to find it.

However, the above facts I told you were mentioned, at least in the Fayetteville Observer newspaper so unless they are lying too. The expert that said those things might have got it wrong but that was from the military's own expert. The military's own lab person said this stuff. Yes DNA can still come back as inconclusive, especially if it is an old sample and the stuff you are testing is degraded. Just because it happens to come back no problem in some cases does not mean it always does. This stuff is over 25 years old, and was tested more than once for DNA before, who knows what happened with contamination and the like? It was tested back in 1989 when DNA was in its infancy.

Also, you are rather simplistic when you say that DNA is such an exact science. In fact it is not. You can exclude someone by DNA to 100 percent scientific acceptability. We all agree on that. The problem is when you try to include people. That is when you run into problems. At least according to the military expert, this DNA test result was not even close to implicating Hennis. It was inconclusive. Again, he was not eliminated as the donor of that DNA, but he was also not linked in any way via the DNA either. The odds are not very impressive at least when you go by the military's own guy. 1 out of every 426 white men matching that sample? I mean do you have any idea how many white men that would leave that would match the sample?

So with those less than stellar numbers the military went to the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation's lab. Suddenly, what a shock the same state who had once got Hennis convicted and then lost on retrial and was angry about it ever since claims that it was Hennis's DNA. However this person also claimed the odds of it being anyone else's DNA was 1 in 12 trillion. Okay except for one problem, clearly it can't be both. So which one is it? That presents a problem to me. I would think it would even be a problem for you pro-prosecution thinman, that both of the prosecution's experts are coming up with two very different numbers and neither could for sure 100 percent say that it was in fact Hennis's DNA. They would say it was his DNA, well the military expert said he was '95 percent sure' and the civilian expert said she was 100 percent sure. However both admitted that the DNA samples did not rule out that it literally could be someone other than Hennis's DNA.

Also, lets look at the other evidence which you glossed over. First off Hennis does not have to take the stand. That is in a little thing called the constitution. Also, you as a juror are not supposed to hold it against a defendant for not testifying or assume guilt either before trial or because a defendant did not testify during trial. Now interestingly the military and civilian experts disagreed on these points as well in regards to the evidence. The military expert, claimed that more than one man's DNA was underneath Kathryn and Erin Eastburn's fingernails, but he said he could not link or eliminate Hennis. There was DNA on a glove tip in the Eastburn home, again
he could not link or eliminate Hennis as the contributor of the DNA but there was DNA from more than one person in the glove tip as well. The bloody towel according to the expert had DNA from three people on it, one of them male, Hennis was eliminated to 100 percent acceptability as the donor of the unknown male DNA on the towel.

Now, the civilian expert, here is what she found for the same evidence. She eliminated Tim Hennis to 100 percent acceptability as being the donor of the unknown male DNA underneath Kathryn and Erin Eastburn's fingernails. She also like the military expert eliminated Hennis as the donor of the male DNA found on the bloody towel. She also eliminated Hennis as the donor of the DNA that was found inside the glove tip.

Well you should be proud thinman, the members seemed to do what you did, pick one piece of evidence and say guilty when much of the other evidence that also should have proven this did not prove it but in fact eliminated Hennis. I mean to me, that is reasonable doubt even if one were to believe it was his DNA inside Mrs. Eastburn.

I mean for as vicious of a crime as this was, all the blood and all that, the skin underneath the fingernails, the bloody towel, there is no way the perpetrator was not bloody, there is just no way. Yet none of Tim Hennis's blood or skin was found in that house. Not one bit. Where is it? I mean no one is smart enough to just wipe up their own blood and pick up their own skin cells but no one else's. I mean the thing is, you can't actually place him in the house. That is a problem.

His DNA allegedly being inside Mrs. Eastburn is not really this discovery of the age that you make it to be. I mean how do you know he was not having an affair with her? How do you not know he never had sex with her? Are you saying that it is not at all possible that he had an affair with her or had consensual sex with her? Just because you believe his DNA was there does not mean he must be the one that raped and murdered Mrs. Eastburn and two of her daughters. You can't place him in the house where the killings took place on the night the killings happened. That is a problem.

Buffalo Bill, thanks for the kind words man, could not agree more. But I do need to correct you one thing, from what I read, military verdicts have to only be 2/3rd majority. It has to be more than just a simple majority but does not have to be unanimous. A death sentence though for that to be handed down does have to be unanimous under military law. However from what I understand, all 14 jurors did believe Hennis was guilty even though with 2/3rds, how many would that be? At least 10 would have to believe Hennis was guilty?

Looking at the panel, some officers some enlisted but at least 1/3 of the jury would have to be enlisted personnel. I am trying to get the final numbers. As of March 13th, 10 jurors had been seated. Of the 6 final perspective jurors that were interviewed on the 13th. 3 were Colonels and 3 Sergeants I believe. Okay as of Friday March 12th, of the 10 jurors seated, 5 were officers and 5 were enlisted. Jury selection is always a huge part of any trial and from what I am reading about some of the panel, I am not exactly encouraged.

first off, I do not have to provide you a source. How convenient.



What do you think I am pulling facts out of my rear end and just making them up?

Probably.

When did I ever say that Hennis was required to take the stand? I just said that if the supposed affair actually existed, he would be singing about it like a canary. What did he have to lose? His attorney (assuming he is worth his salt) would want him to give a detailed explanation to sway the jury.

It's laughable that you use the blood excuse when it is convenient for you. So, it is inconceivable that none of Hennis's blood was found in the house. Yet, it is perfectly logical how 4+ hippies left no blood in the MacDonald household.

Thinman, I am not going to talk about the MacDonald case with you, that is why we have a thread for that. I told you to go to the Fayetteville observer and look up the March 26th, 2010 article. That is absurd that you would think I would make up numbers. If I was going to make them up I certainly would pick better numbers than these. That is what the article said, so unless they were lying that is what the numbers were.

Actually Thinman, I never was using the blood excuse as an excuse when it was convenient for me as you falsely claimed. I was merely pointing out that for as much blood as was there and as viciously as these people were stabbed I would think the killer would cut himself and since the killer was scratched that the killers skin cells and blood would be in the house and possibly on the victims. None of Hennis's blood was there.

Also to a reasonable person you implied that Hennis was guilty if he did not take the stand. You did not actually say the words 'Hennis is guilty if he does not take the stand' but you might as well have because that is what you were getting at. There were plenty of reasons for Hennis not to take the stand. His demeanor would not help him. Also if he took the stand and repeated the thing about an affair, if he said that, you would not believe him anyway so what would be the point of sticking him on the stand? Just to solidify the idea even further in your mind that he is a murderer and a liar? Does not make a whole lot of sense to me but that is just an opinion. No competent lawyer would put their client on the stand in that situation. It is easier for you to say in hindsight after he was already convicted, oh well he should have testified he had nothing to lose. He had a whole hell of a lot to lose. He has already lost his freedom and he might lose his life before it is all said and done. That is a lot to lose. Maybe you can run your mouth about it if you are a criminal defendant in a capital murder case sometime.

Again, go to the Fayetteville Observer and look it up yourself. I am not making up nothing, I have no reason to. I was merely repeating two prosecution experts disagreed and quoted the exact figures that were given verbatim in the article. If you do not like or agree with them that is your choice but just because you do not like or agree with them does not make me a liar. You never even bothered to look for it or do your own research. You disagree with and dislike my opinions so you assume I am a liar.

Also thinman you might want to study basic American jurisprudence, it is not on the burden of the defendant to prove anything. It is on the burden of the prosecution to prove that Hennis was in that house. How can you prove a man killed three people if you cannot even prove that he was in the house?

Here is the exact quote from the Fayette paper cited above ,which gives a 200 figure for Latinos and no per centage for Hennis males.

"On the basis of its past performance,this most likely to be the correct account:
In this test, the DNA that is examined is identical among brothers, and it passes from father to son to grandson, and so on, Higgins said.

His results found, with a 95 percent certainty, that one caucasian man out of 426 matches the DNA from the murder, one black man out of every 329 matches that DNA, and one Hispanic man of every 200 matches.

Lt. Col. Kris Poppe, a defense lawyer, closely questioned Higgins about the testing methods. He tried to get Higgins to say a portion of the results of the male DNA test indicates the DNA did not come from Hennis.

Higgins refused to agree. He said that Poppe was focusing on an example of a specific error that is sometimes generated in DNA analyses. Analysts are trained to look out for this type of error to avoid making a mistake in their results, he said.

Higgins had only a small amount of vaginal material to check for DNA, and his tests used up most of it. He sent the remaining DNA to a private laboratory to conduct a more sensitive and precise test. The jury has not yet heard those results.

Although the slide had sperm cells on it, that private laboratory's test found only DNA from Eastburn, the lawyers told the judge at a pre-trial hearing. The method doesn't always detect all the sources of DNA in a sample, the lawyers said.

Several other items were tested for DNA, Higgins told the jury:

A bloody towel from the Eastburns' bathroom had DNA from three people, one of them male. The male DNA did not come from Hennis, Higgins said. Anyone who touched the towel could have left DNA, he said. There has been previous testimony that in 1985, detectives and crime-scene investigators often went without gloves when they picked up evidence.

DNA was found on fingernail clippings taken from Erin and Kathryn Eastburn's bodies. The DNA on Kathryn's fingernails appeared to be from more than one man. Higgins couldn't eliminate Hennis as a source for the DNA on Kathryn and Erin's fingernails.

There was DNA on a glove tip that was found in the Eastburn house. It had DNA from more than one person on it, Higgins said, and he was unable to include or exclude Hennis as a source for any of it.

The prosecutors said they have one more witness to present before they rest their case. The court-martial continues at 9 a.m. Monday in the new courthouse on Normandy Drive at Fort Bragg."

From FayObserver.com


Published: 10:45 AM, Mon Mar 29, 2010
Prosecution rests case in Hennis court-martial



The prosecution rested its case this morning in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis.

The state's last witness testified that a sperm sample taken from Kathryn Eastburn's body belonged to Hennis.
snip

Jennifer Hopper is the former forensic biologist with the State Bureau of Investigation's crime lab who tested a vaginal swab taken from Eastburn's body.

Hopper said the DNA profile found in the sperm matched Hennis. She said she used a database of the North Carolina population to calculate the chances that another white male would have the same DNA profile and found odds of 12 trillion to one.

During cross-examination, defense attorneys asked if the sample could have been contaminated when it was handled during prior trials she also said Hennis' DNA didn't match samples from under Kathryn Eastburn's fingernails or a bloody towel found at the Fayetteville home where she and two of her daughters were killed.
The defense now has a blood expert on the stand to swear that the murderer must have been soaked in blood whereas there was no trace of blood found in either the Hennis car or the Hennis premises.

Also thinman you might want to study basic American jurisprudence, it is not on the burden of the defendant to prove anything. It is on the burden of the prosecution to prove that Hennis was in that house. How can you prove a man killed three people if you cannot even prove that he was in the house?

I am well aware of how our legal system is set up, Mr. Wannabe Law Student. But, if you think that it is not just as important for a defendant to prove his innocence, you are kidding yourself. Otherwise, why the need for alibis? So, if Mr. Hennis was in Thailand at the time of the killings, he really wouldn't need to point that out because it isn't up to him to prove anything, right?

Regarding the bloody towel and the fingernail scrapings, how do we know that only one man was responsible for this crime? Hennis may have had an accomplice. Or, how do we know that the bloody towel wasn't from the HVAC serviceman who cut himself while working at the house earlier in the week?

Oh I see thinman, switching strategies, typical for the statist. Okay, so first it was Hennis was the boogeyman, acting alone and then when the evidence, a couple of crucial pieces of it showed the male DNA on it was not his, now suddenly he might have had an accomplice? Come on. The prosecutors and cops, your pals, have never even alleged that Hennis had an accomplice.

I did not say it was not important for a defendant to prove his innocence. I said legally that is not how the system was set up. I am not sure how much you really know about the law because you seem to be under this mistaken impression that the defendant needs to wow you with official sounding terms and other things to 'prove' to you that he is innocent. I mean that is kind of scary to me but that is just an opinion.

Also, you are distorting the truth. Yes alibi's are important but that is because the cops and prosecutors demand them otherwise they label you guilty if you cannot explain where you are literally every second of every day and if someone else cannot verify your whereabouts every second of every day. However you are looking at the issue rather simplistically as alibis, many innocent guys have actually had verified alibis yet they were convicted anyway.

I mean, I suppose in some ways you are right and I hate to admit that, that you are right that the American public has shifted the burden. Just because they have done that though does not make it right. But yes, I am sad to say this country has become such a police state due mostly to paranoia and 24/7 sensational media are largely to blame. However yes, I do think we are at a point in this country where I think you are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent which is sad, pathetic and unfortunate.

The problem is, it is not always possible to prove innocence. Like let's say a guy gets in a fight with his boss in front of a group of people. The guy leaves later on in the day, not because he was mad at the boss but rather because he was sick. Well that night, the guy's boss gets murdered. Now, the guy did not do it, he was home sick, problem is, he lives alone and thus no one could verify he was actually at home and not murdering his boss even though he of course knows he was at home. Thus when the cops start investigating, the guys co-workers tell the cops about how the boss and the worker had a heated argument and how later on the guy left work early appearing to be distressed when in fact he was sick. The guy cannot produce an alibi because his only alibi is that he was home alone and did not talk to anyone and no one saw him, thus his alibi cannot be substantiated, thus under your logic, you would probably convict this guy even though there was no other evidence against him other than eyewitnesses saying the guy appeared to be in a huff. It might be hypothetical but this kind of scenario happens a lot.

Well, we do know it was not the HVAC repairman. There were no reports of a repairman working on anything at the Eastburn home. Further, this occurred in the evening, why would Mrs. Eastburn not have washed a bloody towel had your implausible scenario happened? The towel was not from earlier in the week. The Eastburn's blood was on the towel too. That and an unknown male's DNA. Further, your logic fails because you are again presuming Hennis's guilt. So even though you know it is not Hennis's, you in essence try to throw up a smokescreen and say well it could have been this guy or this guy, maybe Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick, who knows.

It is ironic, under your own logic, Hennis would be acquitted because you are arguing that the bloody towel which everyone agrees did not have Hennis's blood on it but did have the Eastburn's blood and an unknown male DNA on it, thus reasonable doubt. Hennis, there is no way he could stab someone this many times and not get blood on him. There is just no way. Your logic also is contradictory when you say that oh, well if he is truly innocent he should be able to explain this or explain that or explain whatever. He does not have to explain anything. The prosecutors, it is just amazing to me how they have now got a conviction twice, yet have never been able to prove that Hennis was even in the house the night 3 people were murdered. I mean that is just astounding to me how you can convict a guy when you cannot even prove he was in the house.

Oh I see thinman, switching strategies, typical for the statist. Okay, so first it was Hennis was the boogeyman, acting alone and then when the evidence, a couple of crucial pieces of it showed the male DNA on it was not his, now suddenly he might have had an accomplice? Come on. The prosecutors and cops, your pals, have never even alleged that Hennis had an accomplice.

Paragraph after paragraph of fluff, typical of the student trying to fill out a length-required term paper.

So, Hennis couldn't be the boogeyman and have an accomplice? I don't think he did. I just said it was possible.

I did not say it was not important for a defendant to prove his innocence. I said legally that is not how the system was set up. I am not sure how much you really know about the law because you seem to be under this mistaken impression that the defendant needs to wow you with official sounding terms and other things to 'prove' to you that he is innocent. I mean that is kind of scary to me but that is just an opinion.

Also, you are distorting the truth. Yes alibi's are important but that is because the cops and prosecutors demand them otherwise they label you guilty if you cannot explain where you are literally every second of every day and if someone else cannot verify your whereabouts every second of every day. However you are looking at the issue rather simplistically as alibis, many innocent guys have actually had verified alibis yet they were convicted anyway.

Distorting the truth? How? Because I say alibis are important?

I mean, I suppose in some ways you are right and I hate to admit that, that you are right that the American public has shifted the burden. Just because they have done that though does not make it right. But yes, I am sad to say this country has become such a police state due mostly to paranoia and 24/7 sensational media are largely to blame. However yes, I do think we are at a point in this country where I think you are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent which is sad, pathetic and unfortunate.

The problem is, it is not always possible to prove innocence. Like let's say a guy gets in a fight with his boss in front of a group of people. The guy leaves later on in the day, not because he was mad at the boss but rather because he was sick. Well that night, the guy's boss gets murdered. Now, the guy did not do it, he was home sick, problem is, he lives alone and thus no one could verify he was actually at home and not murdering his boss even though he of course knows he was at home. Thus when the cops start investigating, the guys co-workers tell the cops about how the boss and the worker had a heated argument and how later on the guy left work early appearing to be distressed when in fact he was sick. The guy cannot produce an alibi because his only alibi is that he was home alone and did not talk to anyone and no one saw him, thus his alibi cannot be substantiated, thus under your logic, you would probably convict this guy even though there was no other evidence against him other than eyewitnesses saying the guy appeared to be in a huff. It might be hypothetical but this kind of scenario happens a lot.

Well, we do know it was not the HVAC repairman. There were no reports of a repairman working on anything at the Eastburn home. Further, this occurred in the evening, why would Mrs. Eastburn not have washed a bloody towel had your implausible scenario happened? The towel was not from earlier in the week. The Eastburn's blood was on the towel too. That and an unknown male's DNA. Further, your logic fails because you are again presuming Hennis's guilt. So even though you know it is not Hennis's, you in essence try to throw up a smokescreen and say well it could have been this guy or this guy, maybe Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick, who knows.

So, you are allowed fictional examples, but I am not? Okay, that's fair.

It is ironic, under your own logic, Hennis would be acquitted because you are arguing that the bloody towel which everyone agrees did not have Hennis's blood on it but did have the Eastburn's blood and an unknown male DNA on it, thus reasonable doubt. Hennis, there is no way he could stab someone this many times and not get blood on him. There is just no way. Your logic also is contradictory when you say that oh, well if he is truly innocent he should be able to explain this or explain that or explain whatever. He does not have to explain anything. The prosecutors, it is just amazing to me how they have now got a conviction twice, yet have never been able to prove that Hennis was even in the house the night 3 people were murdered. I mean that is just astounding to me how you can convict a guy when you cannot even prove he was in the house.

How do you know he was not covered in blood? Were you there?




Overall translation: I don't think anyone is guilty except for those that are caught on videotape, have many items of physical evidence pointing to them (except Jeffrey MacDonald), and confess. Also, I like to babble.

I am talking about a defendant's innocence, you are talking about his guilt. The system is innocent until proven guilty, hence why I brought up the example. There is nothing wrong with looking for excuses to acquit a guy, there is something wrong with looking for excuses to convict a guy as that is illegal. However in any event, I never disallowed you from making the example. You made it and I shot it down because you were doing what you always do which is turn the tables and invoke your police state mentality and look for excuses to convict, that is all I was pointing out thinman.

It was not fluff at all thinman. I was merely rebutting your absurd points, point by point. That takes some doing when the person you are trying to rebut insists on baffling with bullcrap rather than dazzle with brilliance because bullcrap is frankly all you have so why be surprised? So nothing new from you there. Again it takes time to rebut the absurdity that you were flinging against the wall hoping some of it would stick. Also thanks for taking the cheap shot at me for being a student. At least I got ambition though thinman.

Thinman, spare me the whole you don't think anyone is guilty unless if caught on video. You think Hennis is guilty and you thought it from the get-go, certainly long before this most recent trial yet unless you are aware of something I am not, the crime was not caught on video? Am I missing something? Does a video of the crime exist that I should know about? Also, Hennis does not have 'many' pieces of physical evidence pointing to him. In fact he does not have any by your prosecutor buddies own admission except for an alleged semen match which oddly had never been tied to Hennis despite his DNA being on file and being repeatedly tested throughout the 1990's and the first half of this decade and then surprise surprise suddenly a match.

I am talking about a defendant's innocence, you are talking about his guilt. The system is innocent until proven guilty, hence why I brought up the example. There is nothing wrong with looking for excuses to acquit a guy, there is something wrong with looking for excuses to convict a guy as that is illegal. However in any event, I never disallowed you from making the example. You made it and I shot it down because you were doing what you always do which is turn the tables and invoke your police state mentality and look for excuses to convict, that is all I was pointing out thinman.

I think you care more about poking holes in the judicial system and defending a defendant's rights than whether a person is guilty or not. That is truly sad.

It was not fluff at all thinman. I was merely rebutting your absurd points, point by point. That takes some doing when the person you are trying to rebut insists on baffling with bullcrap rather than dazzle with brilliance because bullcrap is frankly all you have so why be surprised? I've got a coffee mug that has that on it. Awesome! So nothing new from you there. Again it takes time to rebut the absurdity that you were flinging against the wall hoping some of it would stick. Hey mods, I'm offended! I got chastised for making similar remarks. Also thanks for taking the cheap shot at me for being a student. At least I got ambition though thinman.

Congratulations on all that ambition. I sure wish I had some of that.

Thinman, spare me the whole you don't think anyone is guilty unless if caught on video. You think Hennis is guilty and you thought it from the get-go, certainly long before this most recent trial yet unless you are aware of something I am not, the crime was not caught on video? Am I missing something? Does a video of the crime exist that I should know about? Also, Hennis does not have 'many' pieces of physical evidence pointing to him. In fact he does not have any by your prosecutor buddies own admission except for an alleged semen match which oddly had never been tied to Hennis despite his DNA being on file and being repeatedly tested throughout the 1990's and the first half of this decade and then surprise surprise suddenly a match.

Oh, so you are aware of how often they were testing the DNA. Please share your superior knowledge of "repeatedly" tested DNA samples.

Well it said it in the newspaper thinman if you would bother to read. Actually you are also as usual for you incorrect on my beliefs. While I certainly care very much about protecting defendants rights (that is in a little thing called the constitution in case you forgot and I find that sad that you think that is sad) but that said, sure defendants can be guilty. You know, sometimes I actually throw up arguments just to see folks like yourself get completely bent out of shape at the fact that someone would dare to question whether or not someone is actually guilty. It is kind of funny because you go for it every time.

Also, explain to me why you would find it sad that I would defend a defendant's rights? I have yet to figure this one out why you would find it sad? We are an innocent until proven guilty society thinman like it or not. We are not the police state or at least are not supposed to be the police state that you so desire this country to be for some reason. All I am doing is taking an unpopular view because it is mandated by the constitution that we being an innocent until proven guilty society. Heck, our legal system in theory is set up so it is supposed to be extremely difficult to convict someone and not be so casual. So why you take issue with this and further why you take your frustrations out on me when all I did was disagree with you is really beyond me.

But as much as I would like to continue this stupid argument it is like talking into a dead phone so I am going to take the high road and just end it. You win thinman, congrats.

@ kadrmas15

1:12,000,000,000,000 seems like pretty long odds on someone else being the sperm donor. Did I miss something in what you wrote detailing why this evidence shouldn't be believed?

This is the frist I've ever heard of this whole case so I'm ignorant if the defense already allowed that there was a sexual relationship between the convicted and the victim, thus explaining his semen being present in the vaginal swabs.

I'm in agreement with you that the other DNA evidence should NEVER convict someone and when taken into account with the forensic blood examination this doesn seem liek a miscarriage of justice. However I'm really interested in hearing what your take is on the outside DNA match not being enough to sway the verdict from innocent to guilty.

Once again, good knowledge.

Hey Corky, well it is not so much that I said the evidence should not be believed. The defense never said one way or the other whether Hennis did or did not have consensual sex with Mrs. Eastburn. What they did say, was they felt the DNA was possibly contaminated as the evidence had been handled so many times by so many different people. The consensual sex theory was one that I came up with myself, as far as I know Hennis has never claimed one way or the other whether he ever had sex with Mrs. Eastburn only he has always denied being in their home the night of the murders.

Hennis did not testify in this trial. So basically, the defense was questioning the DNA evidence in terms of could it have been contaminated and they found it strange that after all of this time suddenly a match as do I. Part of why I had doubts was okay, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the DNA evidence really was Tim Hennis's that was inside Mrs. Eastburn, that does not really prove anything other than that he sex with her. He was never asked if he had sex with her, he was asked if he was in the home the night of the murders and he said no.

The big problems I have with this case, I am not literally saying that Tim Hennis could not have done the murders. He maybe did for all I know, I was not there so I cannot say one way or the other. When I say innocent, I mean legally innocent. To me there is enough there for me to be comfortable in convicting this guy when the only evidence of anything you have is that he had sex with Mrs. Eastburn. Having sex with a murder victim does not necessarily make Tim Hennis the murderer.

The big problem too that I have in this case is how can you convict someone of murder when you cannot even prove (by the prosecutors own admission they cannot prove this) that Hennis was even in the Eastburn home on the night of the murders? I mean if you can't prove your murder suspect was even in the home where the murders too place on the night the murders took place that is a problem.

To be honest, if I had been the defense attorney in this case. I would have argued that Hennis did have sex with Mrs. Eastburn but that it was consensual. I mean, that I am sure sounds awful and vile to many people but you have to remember I am looking at this from a law standpoint and not from an emotional standpoint. It is not that I do not care about victims like some folks like to falsely assume and accuse me of. However how could any defense lawyer properly defend a client if they were emotionally involved?

I mean the DNA, you can have doubts like I do about whether the evidence was tainted, whether it was contaminated whatever. The problem is, even if that were true, jurors are not scientists, they are regular people. Thus in my opinion it is not the best strategy to argue that to them because they won't go for it. Not that arguing you had consensual sex with a murder victim is the best strategy either but it is more plausible and cannot be disproved.

Basically I was saying there was reasonable doubt because the prosecutors argue to you that Hennis must be guilty because his DNA was allegedly inside Mrs. Eastburn but yet the skin under the fingernails of Mrs. Eastburn and one of her daughters did not match Tim Hennis, in fact he was excluded as the donor of that DNA and he also excluded as the donor of the male DNA on the bloody towel in the Eastburn home that had the blood of Mrs. Eastburn and at least one of her daughters on it. So the problem I have is, if Hennis had done this, would his DNA not be under the finger nails and his blood on the towel too?

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/04/15/991361

Game, set, and match. I have no further comment on this thread because it is about to get ugly.

Sadly Hennis got death, shame on the jurors, in particular that one gutless coward that was hanging out for life and then caved. They were out for a couple days, hell they were out way longer on the punishment phase than on the guilt phase. There were holdouts and they caved. Sad but very common. The odds of Hennis ever being executed are extremely slim to I would say none. This is not over, not by a long shot. The death sentence will be thrown out, the conviction will be thrown out. The military and their kangaroo court should never have even been allowed to handle this case. It was outside this jurisdiction. Sad and pathetic day but not surprising. I figured the haters would be on here gloating about the death sentence but that is to be expected and how empty a person's life must be to gloat about a person getting a death sentence, especially when the evidence was hardly solid.

I figured the haters would be on here gloating about the death sentence but that is to be expected and how empty a person's life must be to gloat about a person getting a death sentence, especially when the evidence was hardly solid.

Now, I know this is not directed at yours truly. If so, I said I had no comment, genius. And, don't tell me you know what I was thinking.