|
Posts:
9,664
Registered:
4/5/05
|
|
(152 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Sep 13, 2008 3:57 AM
|
What injustices go on in North Carolina??
**He can't think about anything else but those trips**
Walk in the Clouds??
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
5/21/07
|
|
(151 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Sep 13, 2008 3:29 AM
|
ouecreole,
I wish you were right about this story quietly going away but it is a huge issue in NC so I don't believe it will just go away. The Hennis family has gone through so much it's too bad it won't likely go away quietly. The court martial was scheduled for this month sometime, I bet it'll pop back up in the news sometime before the end of the month even if it's just to "refresh" everyone's memory that this is going on. The incompetent, at least in my opinion, DA's office in NC isn't going to let it drop off the radar too much.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
Registered:
8/12/07
|
|
(150 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Sep 13, 2008 12:15 AM
|
hmmm...well still no new news!
i surmise this will be one of those story's that quietly goes away!
and since i believe mr. hennis is innocent, bout time!
the police department must reopen the cold case and do their d*)()m job... start by following up at the grocery store, the notes, find the photos you lost, and the newspaper delivery woman's threats!!
on another note, whew i wouldnt live in North Carolina to save a limb. their police departments and courts can sure **(&&($ people lives, instead of doing their jobs... i've seen and read too many stories of injustices in that state!!
|
|
|
Posts:
25
From:
New York City
Registered:
8/8/08
|
|
(149 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Aug 10, 2008 6:13 AM
|
|
bump
|
|
|
Posts:
66
From:
San Antonio, Tex
Registered:
6/16/06
|
|
(148 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Aug 9, 2008 11:16 PM
|
|
bump
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
5/21/07
|
|
(147 of 152)
Re: It's been more then a month
Aug 6, 2008 11:39 PM
|
|
There have been no updates on the Hennis trial. It is scheduled for September sometime at this point but likely will be postponed.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
8/4/08
|
|
(146 of 152)
It's been more then a month
Aug 4, 2008 8:26 AM
|
...since the last post. I keep forgetting to check back, but the case fascinates me.
Any update on where Tim is with his new trial?
|
|
|
Posts:
377
From:
Midwest
Registered:
7/8/04
|
|
(145 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 31, 2008 4:11 AM
|
Not sure suzy . . . I've been having deletions and difficulty posting in the last few days myself.
Wondering if there's any updates on this case?
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
Jacksonvill, N.C.
Registered:
7/29/08
|
|
(144 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 30, 2008 10:06 PM
|
|
why was my previous post deleted? just wondering..
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
5/21/07
|
|
(143 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 3, 2008 4:16 PM
|
wfulaw,
I do understand that the military made the decision to proceed, however that decision was based on evidence the DA brought to the military not on any investigating done or new evidence found by the military. At the article 32 there is one man (well 3 individual men at different levels) responsible for deciding the fate of someone; there is too much room for individual error and accusation of bias so I do not question the decision to proceed to court martial. I believe that decision (and yes, it's my opinion only) was partially based on the fact that they would rather have a jury decide the fate of Mr. Hennis; there would then be no question as to impartiallity.
As for the evidence, David talked of the open packages that were repackaged and not documented, you mentioned in an earlier post you were unaware of this information. What wasn't mentioned, and is just as important to this case as the repackaging and testing, is that there is no chain of custody for the evidence for the last 20 years and one man in charge of evidence lock up, where the evidence for this case was stored at least for a time, was arrested and convicted of evidence tampering or stealing evidence (I can't remember the exact charge) in another case.
So again, while I know the military made the ultimate decision it is based on what the DA brought them--very questionable evidence that still brings up questions as to the DA's motive toward Mr. Hennis.
|
|
|
Posts:
258
Registered:
2/6/07
|
|
(142 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 3, 2008 3:08 PM
|
> wfulaw,
>
> The DA in Cumberland County is the same one that was
> there in 1989, the year Hennis's conviction was
> overturned. He took over for the DA who was there
> when Hennis was convicted; I believe, but don't quote
> me, that he took over shortly after the conviction.
> He was VERY upset when the conviction was overturned
> d in 1989 and has continually made statements that
> Hennis is the only man he believes did the crime.
> They (either DA) NEVER looked at anyone else as
> s possible suspects and even after reopening this
> case the DA has made comments that Hennis is the only
> one he believes did it. He has basically said you
> can't convince him that there is a possibility of
> someone else having done this although he has not
> been quoted as using those words. To me this sounds
> like someone who isn't looking at this objectively if
> he won't even look at other possible suspects (and
> there were several).
The DA here may be after Hennis and may have acted improperly. It is even possible that some intentional wrong was done to make Hennis look guilty. We don't know that, though. It is not unusual for a detective or a DA to zero in on someone as their suspect and put the blinders on regarding any evidence of other perps. Not necessarily right, but happens all the time. They certainly thought OJ was the right guy (so do I, BTW). Even after OJ's acquittal, the ones who prosecuted him still believe he was guilty and would love to see someone get another shot at the case but the feds never had jurisdiction. As for Hennis, the local DA didn't make the decision for the military to prefer charges. The local DA did not act as the Investigating Officer at the Article 32 and recommend that charges be referred to court-martial, and the local DA didn't actually decide to send the case to a court-martial. So, I don't see that the DA's objectivity matters, unless he manufactured evidence. I don't think the DA has that much influence over the Army. The Army made its decisions based on the evidence they see. Did the DA somehow "create" that new evidence? We don't know. Is it a shame that Hennis must go this? Yes. As I said before, I agree that the law on double jeopardy should preclude this prosecution, but it doesn't. I understand that people question the motives and actions of the DA. It is reasonable to do so. But there is no proof of wrongdoing on the DA's part.
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
5/21/07
|
|
(141 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 3, 2008 12:10 PM
|
wfulaw,
The DA in Cumberland County is the same one that was there in 1989, the year Hennis's conviction was overturned. He took over for the DA who was there when Hennis was convicted; I believe, but don't quote me, that he took over shortly after the conviction. He was VERY upset when the conviction was overturned in 1989 and has continually made statements that Hennis is the only man he believes did the crime. They (either DA) NEVER looked at anyone else as possible suspects and even after reopening this case the DA has made comments that Hennis is the only one he believes did it. He has basically said you can't convince him that there is a possibility of someone else having done this although he has not been quoted as using those words. To me this sounds like someone who isn't looking at this objectively if he won't even look at other possible suspects (and there were several).
|
|
|
Posts:
258
Registered:
2/6/07
|
|
(140 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 3, 2008 10:45 AM
|
>
> 1. (Regarding cross-contamination) Hennis came in
> voluntarily in 1985 and gave samples of hair saliva
> and blood, not knowing he may be charged with the
> murders. All of this presumably is in the evidence
> packets.
>
> Some of the evidence packets have been reported to be
> torn open with no record explaining how or why this
> happened. So far I haven't read anything that
> details what the open packets contained.
>
> If you have Hennis' DNA and swabs from the victim
> (without any other DNA on the swabs) you could easily
> "contaminate" the swab with some of Hennis' DNA.
> Remember there was no trauma noted in the victim's
> s vaginal area typical for a rape victim. It's
> conceivable to argue that there was no rape. If that
> was the case, then there would be no semen.
>
> The DNA specialist who did the testing said she
> didn't know if what she tested was sperm or not, then
> changed her testimony. At first she assumed it was
> sperm because it was part of a rape kit test. She is
> also reported as saying that the sample was too small
> and she didn't want to waste any of the usable sample
> trying to determine if it was sperm. That must be a
> really small sample or one that has significantly
> degraded over time.
>
> The other possibility is police error. A murder of
> this severity and heinousness and an insufficient
> sample of vaginal fluid is taken from a murder victim
> who was reportedly believed by the police to be
> raped?
>
> Can you see some problems here for the prosecution?
Thanks for the explanation of what may have happened here. i did not know the details of what had happened with the samples. I definitely see some problems for the prosecution.
>
> 2. (Double Jeopardy) There is no question that
> Hennis is being exposed to double jeopardy, although
> legally it is allowed. Being tried for the same
> crime twice is being tried for the same crime twice,
> no matter jurisdictional issues. That is just the
> government trying to get a "do-over".
>
> If the Army wanted to prefer charges against Hennis
> they should have fought for jurisdiction back in
> 1985. If they were concerned at all why would they
> have continued to employ him and let him retire with
> honors from the military?
>
> When soldiers are stationed overseas they are subject
> to the laws of the country they are stationed in.
> But they are clearly multi-jurisdictional being
> g subject to the UCMJ and the local foreign laws.
> There is an agreement in most countries, if not all,
> where US Troops are stationed (usually called the
> "Status of Forces Agreement") which establishes a
> procedure to determine who will prosecute a soldier
> who commits a crime (even if committed on a US
> installation the host country still has
> jurisdictional rights, as does the USA if the soldier
> commits the crime while off base).
>
> Just because there is multi-jurtisdiction over an
> area shouldn't mean that every authority has the
> right to try an alleged criminal. Jurisdiction
> should be established by agreement or default. The
> first entity in line gets to take the only shot, or
> the competing authorities duke it out in court to
> establish who gets to take the one and only shot.
>
> Try this "What if?"... Suppose, after being found
> guilty by the state of North Carolina, the Federal
> government or the Army decided it wanted to try
> Hennis to see if he was innocent? What prevents that
> scenario from happening? And what if the
> jurisdictional authorities were reversed? The Feds
> tried him first and the state next, regardless of
> what the trial outcomes were... whose finding of
> guilt or innocence should prevail?
>
> There may be some legal block for such an action, I
> don't know law that well. But if there is then that
> would be illogical and unfair. If you can try an
> innocent man twice for the same crime because of
> jurisdictional considerations, why not one who has
> been found guilty? Is there now a presumption of
> guilt that erases Federal jurisdictional rights?
>
> I think the idea behind preventing double jeopardy is
> clear. Tried once means tried once...
>
> No hoop-jumping to have a second or third chance at a
> conviction. How many overlapping jurisdictions can
> there be? How many trials should a person be forced
> to go through for the same crime? Quadruple
> Jeopardy? Just some meanderings of an interested
> mind...
>
I see and understand your concerns. However, the US Supreme Court has clearly decided this issue. The state and Feds can both try a person for the same act. Now, a military member cannot be tried by court-martial and then by a federal court. While I happen to agree with you on what double jeopardy should be, the fact is that the Supreme Court has decided this issue and it falls against Hennis. I can now understand why the military would now want to prosecute him. Imagine you are the Staff Judge Advocate (head of the base legal office) and you get a report on this case. It seems that new DNA testing techniques show that Hennis probably committed this heinous crime (forget for a moment the potential problems with the evidence). Wouldn't you want this guy in prison if you believed the evidence showed he killed three people, including two young children, and the state of the law is that you DO have jurisdiction? I would.
As for the "quadruple" jurisdiction, that couldn't happen. If a crime is committed by a military member in the US, then a state and the feds may have jurisdiction. If the crime is committed overseas, then that country or the military/fed would have jurisdiction. In either case, there are possibly two opportunities to prosecute. In reality, situations like the Hennis case are very rare. Usually, one jurisdiction will prosecute. If they fail to get a conviction, the case is over. As for prosecuting after the other jurisdiction has convicted, why would you? There is just no incentive to do that.
> 3. (DA office involvement, and problems with THIS
> DA's office) The DA's office's reputation is
> tarnished (in the department's eyes) by their failure
> to convict Hennis (since they have continued to
> presume him guilty, in spite of the court reversal
> and second jury's findings). Taking another shot at
> this through double jeopardy since "new evidentiary
> technique" happens to come along gives the DA a
> chance to "rectify" previous failures and restore a
> bit of lustre to the office (and they do not care if
> they put an innocent man away, it happens everyday in
> America, and all too publicly frequently in North
> Carolina, Nifong, Gell et al).
I certainly know nothing about the DA office there. Again, if I had the legal means of putting a guilty person in prison, I would do so. I certainly don't know if there is wrongdoing here. Maybe there is. Is the DA the same person as back in the 80's? That is a serious question, because I don't know the answer. If not, it seems doubtful that a new DA would be that concerned about the loss of one case by a previous DA. The only people who might have a black eye over the loss of the case were the DA at the time and the attorney(s) who actually tried the case. The acquittal occurred in 1989, which is 19 years ago.
>
> I hope you made it this far...
>
> David
Yes, I read it all. You made some great points. I happen to agree with you on the Double Jeopardy issues. Unfortunately for Hennis, the law does not support him.
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
5/21/07
|
|
(139 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 2, 2008 6:27 PM
|
|
Great points David!
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
7/2/08
|
|
(138 of 152)
Re: Eastburn Murders Reopened
Jul 2, 2008 5:04 PM
|
Hi wfulaw,
I wanted to respond to what you wrote, so here goes.
1. (Regarding cross-contamination) Hennis came in voluntarily in 1985 and gave samples of hair saliva and blood, not knowing he may be charged with the murders. All of this presumably is in the evidence packets.
Some of the evidence packets have been reported to be torn open with no record explaining how or why this happened. So far I haven't read anything that details what the open packets contained.
If you have Hennis' DNA and swabs from the victim (without any other DNA on the swabs) you could easily "contaminate" the swab with some of Hennis' DNA. Remember there was no trauma noted in the victim's vaginal area typical for a rape victim. It's conceivable to argue that there was no rape. If that was the case, then there would be no semen.
The DNA specialist who did the testing said she didn't know if what she tested was sperm or not, then changed her testimony. At first she assumed it was sperm because it was part of a rape kit test. She is also reported as saying that the sample was too small and she didn't want to waste any of the usable sample trying to determine if it was sperm. That must be a really small sample or one that has significantly degraded over time.
The other possibility is police error. A murder of this severity and heinousness and an insufficient sample of vaginal fluid is taken from a murder victim who was reportedly believed by the police to be raped?
Can you see some problems here for the prosecution?
2. (Double Jeopardy) There is no question that Hennis is being exposed to double jeopardy, although legally it is allowed. Being tried for the same crime twice is being tried for the same crime twice, no matter jurisdictional issues. That is just the government trying to get a "do-over".
If the Army wanted to prefer charges against Hennis they should have fought for jurisdiction back in 1985. If they were concerned at all why would they have continued to employ him and let him retire with honors from the military?
When soldiers are stationed overseas they are subject to the laws of the country they are stationed in. But they are clearly multi-jurisdictional being subject to the UCMJ and the local foreign laws. There is an agreement in most countries, if not all, where US Troops are stationed (usually called the "Status of Forces Agreement") which establishes a procedure to determine who will prosecute a soldier who commits a crime (even if committed on a US installation the host country still has jurisdictional rights, as does the USA if the soldier commits the crime while off base).
Just because there is multi-jurtisdiction over an area shouldn't mean that every authority has the right to try an alleged criminal. Jurisdiction should be established by agreement or default. The first entity in line gets to take the only shot, or the competing authorities duke it out in court to establish who gets to take the one and only shot.
Try this "What if?"... Suppose, after being found guilty by the state of North Carolina, the Federal government or the Army decided it wanted to try Hennis to see if he was innocent? What prevents that scenario from happening? And what if the jurisdictional authorities were reversed? The Feds tried him first and the state next, regardless of what the trial outcomes were... whose finding of guilt or innocence should prevail?
There may be some legal block for such an action, I don't know law that well. But if there is then that would be illogical and unfair. If you can try an innocent man twice for the same crime because of jurisdictional considerations, why not one who has been found guilty? Is there now a presumption of guilt that erases Federal jurisdictional rights?
I think the idea behind preventing double jeopardy is clear. Tried once means tried once...
No hoop-jumping to have a second or third chance at a conviction. How many overlapping jurisdictions can there be? How many trials should a person be forced to go through for the same crime? Quadruple Jeopardy? Just some meanderings of an interested mind...
3. (DA office involvement, and problems with THIS DA's office) The DA's office's reputation is tarnished (in the department's eyes) by their failure to convict Hennis (since they have continued to presume him guilty, in spite of the court reversal and second jury's findings). Taking another shot at this through double jeopardy since "new evidentiary technique" happens to come along gives the DA a chance to "rectify" previous failures and restore a bit of lustre to the office (and they do not care if they put an innocent man away, it happens everyday in America, and all too publicly frequently in North Carolina, Nifong, Gell et al). I also happen to know that the current regime in Cumberland County is committing criminal acts and ommissions, as well as ethical breaches, tampering with innocent lives, right now.
Now I don't see a legal problem (just a big ethical one) with the DA getting involved with having the Army try to redo what the DA views as it's failed job with Hennis. But the questionable circumstances and careless performance of the DA's office regarding the problems with witnesses and evidence will melt away if the Army convicts Hennis.
This would be a good thing for the Cumberland County DA's office (in the DA's eyes). I don't know how good a thing this would be, but the motivating factors may be compromising the integrity and veracity of the office, trying to erase that black eye suffered not to long ago (exoneration of Hennis occurred in 1994. A lot of folks in the DA's office now were starting their careers back then.) Could it lead to possible tampering with evidence? Of course it could. Did it? That's something that I feel should be looked into immediately and thoroughly by the Attorney General's Office.
There is one problem with that. The AG doesn't have jurisdiction over the DA offices in the state of North Carolina. It would take a request from an elected official (any elected official) to Roy Cooper to get an investigation started, and it would proceed only if Mr. Cooper believes it should.
WOW!!!... That was much longer than I thought it would be!!!...
I hope you made it this far...
David
|
|
|
|
|
