Stuart Heaton request for new trial denied

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

What bothers me about this case is the "why"? He claims he never knew Krystal, she was pregnant (I assume from her boyfriend?) and what is the reason for him to commit such a terrible crime by repeated stabbings against a teenage girl? What incited that sort of hatred? Why do it in the middle of the day? Why leave the murder weapon there? Just so many questions to ask and it doesn't make sense. I am not saying he is innocent, but they relied a lot on DNA. I don't remember them even stating a motive

I'm thinking that he assaulted her. but I guess it is possible they were having an affair. there have been similar violent killings when a murderer was rejected by the victim and it sent them into a rage. whatever the motive was, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. several witnesses saw his truck at the trailer, including a mail delivery driver. his defense attempted to discredit these witnesses by providing witnesses that gave contradictory statements to one another. Heaton also had cuts on his hand, his forehead, and calf. 2 separate DNA tests were taken. both pointed to his DNA found on her. So there's only 2 possibilities. One is that he was at the trailer and had contact with her, which is proven by the DNA. But someone else killed her. The other is that Stuart killed her. Since he has has kept to his story about not knowing her and has not cooperated with the investigation, I think it's an open and shut case that he killed her. He accused the state of tampering with the 2nd DNA test. that test left 0 debate that it was his DNA on the victim.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

I'm thinking that he assaulted her. but I guess it is possible they were having an affair. there have been similar violent killings when a murderer was rejected by the victim and it sent them into a rage. whatever the motive was, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. several witnesses saw his truck at the trailer, including a mail delivery driver. his defense attempted to discredit these witnesses by providing witnesses that gave contradictory statements to one another. Heaton also had cuts on his hand, his forehead, and calf. 2 separate DNA tests were taken. both pointed to his DNA found on her. So there's only 2 possibilities. One is that he was at the trailer and had contact with her, which is proven by the DNA. But someone else killed her. The other is that Stuart killed her. Since he has has kept to his story about not knowing her and has not cooperated with the investigation, I think it's an open and shut case that he killed her. He accused the state of tampering with the 2nd DNA test. that test left 0 debate that it was his DNA on the victim.

Fair enough. Is my memory correct when I say he defended himself at the trial without a lawyer? Another thing too, she was pregnant. People have killed over that before, especially a husband with another child. If Stuart killed her is it possible it was his child?

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

What bothers me about this case is the "why"? He claims he never knew Krystal, she was pregnant (I assume from her boyfriend?) and what is the reason for him to commit such a terrible crime by repeated stabbings against a teenage girl? What incited that sort of hatred? Why do it in the middle of the day? Why leave the murder weapon there? Just so many questions to ask and it doesn't make sense. I am not saying he is innocent, but they relied a lot on DNA. I don't remember them even stating a motive

The speculative motive is that he was having an affair with Krystal and that day was when she told him she was pregnant. The realistic motive is that he tried to come on to Krystal that day (knowing she was home alone) and she rejected him, which resulted in Heaton flying into a rage and murdering her.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Fair enough. Is my memory correct when I say he defended himself at the trial without a lawyer? Another thing too, she was pregnant. People have killed over that before, especially a husband with another child. If Stuart killed her is it possible it was his child?

I think it is possible, but more likely that he assaulted her because that's what the evidence shows. her brother mentioned that he had not seen Stuart in a long time. Combine that with the rage violence. I think she may have invited him into the house because she knew him, as he went to school with her brother. and he might have used the rouse of asking about her brother to approach her. He made an advance at her and snapped when she refused him. that alone could have sent him into a rage. She had a boyfriend, so I tend to think she was pregnant with his child.

[Rayroy]

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

Well, I am backing off my claim of Heaton's innocence because I did go back and read, and I didnt realize that the new DNA test had those strong of odds against him, basically confirming there was no way it was anyone's DNA but his at the scene.

I honestly think the only way Heaton can claim innocence is if he can explain why his DNA was there. Could they tell if that semen came from a rape or from consensual sex? They did say it was old and crusty, the sample was.

Was the Court Tv show that Heaton was on, which one was it? Was it the investigators? There is another show called "The wrong man" that is on from time to time where two retired New York cops that are now private investigators look into cases and give their opinions.

However, one thing is for sure, there were problems in Heaton's arrest and trial, there is just no doubt about that, without that DNA evidence, Heaton would have been acquitted probably because they really had nothing else on him, except weak, circumstancial evidence. The prosecutor knew this, as cocky and smug as he was, and as typical as his response is, whenever there is any possiblity of wrong doing in a case, the prosecutors never admit to doing wrong, ever.

Clearly there were problems, if Heaton did it, than he is where he belongs, since Heaton was awarded that new DNA test, I am assuming that it was the defense team's lab that came back with those odds. It just makes me wonder why if Heaton was guilty, why would he request a new DNA test that would erase all doubt? I just dont get it. I do think the things about the truck, and the cuts on his hands, are very circumstancial and certainly not enough to convict someone of murder.

I just find it unusual how Heaton, if he did this murder, would murder Krystal Nabb in such a brutal manner, I mean to stab someone over 80 times with an unusual murder weapon in a pair of scissors? To stab someone that many times, first off there would be blood all over the person that was doing the stabbing, there is no way you could stab someone that many times and not get blood on you.

Also to stab someone that many times, it was overkill, big time, so that is a huge signal that the killing was very personal, the killer was very angry and hated Krystal Nabb, because it was such dramatic overkill, you can tell it was something personal.

Am I the only one who is glad this guy is no longer on the boards? He claims to be a defense attorney. He sounds like a bad one.

[Rayroy]

I have to chime in here about the cuts. I own houses. I've done work on my roofs. I've done most of the carpentry on them over the past 26 years. I've gutted out and rebuilt a 3-bedroom apartment on my own. Those cuts are clear proof he did NOT get them from carpentry. First of all, a good carpenter rarely gets cuts because he knows what he is doing and uses gloves. If he does get cut because he did not use gloves for whatever reason at that moment, they are clean cuts that go straight through because he is using very sharp tools and are away from your fingers and if they do get cut, they tend to be on the BACK of the other hand, i.e. left hand if he is right handed. You don't get cut on the hand that was holding the tool or on the inside or side of the fingers.

The cuts this bloke had were from holding the sharp part of a blade in his clenched fist like someone with a knife stabbing over hand. The scissors in a clenched fist provide these "peeling" cuts he had. He said a carpenter without cuts is an observer? No, a bad carpenter gets cuts and is not a carpenter very long. A real carpenter also has lots of calluses on his palms from gripping tools. He appears to have no calluses. Even with gloves you will get some types of calluses.

If he supposedly had cuts because he is a carpenter, those cuts in the photographs were fresh within the past day and were cleaned. Why didn't he provide proof of a job site where he got cut? That would have been his alibi, no? You guys make me laugh. He was guilty from the start. When I watched that interview, his lying at the end of not knowing the girl made it obvious. He said it to try to be convincing. He wasn't. I guess you have the misfortune to know a lot of liars like I have to know when someone is lying.

If I am correct, looking at the photographs, he is left-handed and he was stabbing the girl with the scissors in his left hand. The two digits cut were the index finger and little finger, showing he was holding the scissors very tightly, with possible movement if he lost his grip stabbing her so many times. Those are NOT carpentry cuts. These are stabbing someone cuts.

[Rayroy]

After reading all the comments here, I have a few questions.

He knew her brother and her sister. How the hell did he not know her?

It was July 23rd. Why would he have a long sleeve shirt and sweats on other than to hide bruises/cuts?

If he was not having an affair with her, or did not rape her, how was his semen on her?

I keep reading people talking about sperm and seven days. Semen is not just sperm. It consists of sperm, so whether sperm is alive or not, the seminal fluid still has his DNA. From what I remember in sex education, sperm live up to 48 hours inside the scrotum, but up to 7 days IN the female body. Any semen on her was dry by the time they found her.

Here are some scenarios. I think he saw her years earlier, but she was too young, even for a pre vert like him being 12 or 13. She was what now, 15 16? That might be what his liking was. He went out there and said hey it's been a while, whatever. Being down home and he being her brother's "friend" she let him in. They chatted for a bit. The mailman comes by, maybe he waited for that. Mailman leaves. He said he is attracted to her. She says he crazy. She's pregnant, she has a boyfriend and he's ugly. He flips out and stabs her with the scissors in a rage and only stops after 81 times because he got tired or the rage wore off. In this case it is second degree murder. He then commits necrophilia to "show" her he gets what he wants. He maybe could not do it because of rigor mortis set in quickly if he killed her around 11 AM, or maybe he started after death, but stopped, so maybe the fluid they found was pre-ejaculatory fluid since they said they found it in her pubic hair if I am not mistaken. He could have also tried to rape her alive and she put up a fight and then he grabbed the scissors nearest to him and stabbed her. Honestly, from what Cars said came out in the trial and sentencing, this sounds like what happened. I don't feel it's first degree murder. I think up to that point he was a rapist, but not a killer and became a killer at that moment.

I'm getting the impression he has a major rejection problem. He's definitely a narcissist and his mother was his enabler and he likely manipulated her and grew up lying all the time and they had a weird relationship sort of manipulating each other. I would guess he had no father around or he was rarely around. He used the religious facade to put on his fake face, to show an illusion of being a good person and to hide his crap under that facade. He's garbage.