GUILTY NC - Tim Hennis on trial in the '85 Eastburn murders, Fort Bragg

[lonetraveler]

So if the semen sample was not properly preserved in the 80's how could it be viable now? That seems like a very weak part of the Army's case but a major point upon which their case is based. Especially if the packaging of the evidence swabs was compromised sometime in the last 20+ years and there is a gap in the chain of custody logs for those swabs.

The sample itself was not compromised. Today, DNA requires much less of a sample than earlier years.

 

[Sameera]

I have a feeling that if there is a hung jury that the charges will be dropped. I just can not see trying this case again, but I didn't think that this third trial would ever happen either.

I doubt the state will drop the charges that easily, given their determination that he is guilty. They will certainly at least try to get a fourth trial.

Incidentally, I remember reading somewhere that Scott Whisnant said he kept having strange dreams about a third trial but couldn't believe it either. I don't suppose the dreams showed him the outcome of the trial? Nope, don't think so....

 

[BOZGAL]

I have a feeling that if there is a hung jury that the charges will be dropped. I just can not see trying this case again, but I didn't think that this third trial would ever happen either.

I am totally shocked over the number of trials. Seems like overkill to me. I truly believe TM is innocent and his life and his family members has been ruined and overshadowed by this. Its been going on for years for crying out loud.

JMO

 

[Sameera]

I am totally shocked over the number of trials. Seems like overkill to me. I truly believe TM is innocent and his life and his family members has been ruined and overshadowed by this. Its been going on for years for crying out loud.

JMO

Trouble was, they couldn't test for DNA evidence at the time of the second trial because the sample was ruined. If they were able to, it would have ended there. And if DNA evidence had been around at the time of the first trial, things would have ended straight away. So now it's back to the dock for Hennis for the
third time. Moreover the state always believed Hennis was guilty and they would want justice for the victims.

 

[sundrop]

Where did you get this information? From the information I've read, the DNA is definitely Hennis's.

No DNA test conclusively links to Mr. Hennis. One test is a limited partial DNA profile consisting of two bands out of 15 bands. This is very weak. The additional test using the same DNA source is inconclusively with reference to family DNA. In no way do these results implicate Mr. Hennis. In fact, in most states a partial DNA profile is considered a non-match.

 

[Prancy]

Hi,
I actually own this book (it's somewhere in a box in my garage) and read it quite awhile ago. I remember thinking that there were an awful lot of coincidences involved in this case. Tim Hennis got the dog from this woman, and a few days later, she and her children are brutally murdered (and I have to warn you, the crime scene descriptions are seriously disturbing--especially the descriptions about the children). Tim was seen burning items in a barrel in his backyard the day after the murders, and someone ID'd him as looking very similar to person seen leaving the Eastburn residence in the very early morning hours after the murders. I wish I could remember more about this case--maybe I'll go fish the book out and read it again. I remember there was some catch in the book about a neighborhood woman who was delivering the papers and passed a van parked at the Eastburn residence and a man (whom she said was NOT Tim Hennis) carrying a full garbage bag out of the house before daylight around the time of the murders. Apparently, while Tim Hennis was under investigation (and possibly already in jail), this woman (who remained quiet out of fear) was being stalked by someone who kept calling her & saying that he knew where she lived and that he'd be right over. Apparently Katie Eastburn had received some calls similar to this before her death. Half-way through the book, I was convinced that Tim Hennis committed this murder, and then the last half of the book I started thinking maybe it was a case of mistaken prosecution. I think of this case once in awhile, and I still flop back and forth on whether I think Tim Hennis had anything to do with it.
Anyways, I'll go try to find the book and see if there was any potential DNA evidence left at the scene and get back to you.

I had the same experience. I too read the book and thought he was guilty, then was not so sure. It's been awhile since I read the book. I'll have to go back and refresh my memory.

 

[kemo]

From what I understand, when miniscule amounts of DNA is available, there is a method of "Amplifying" it in order to test it. There is a problem that either random mutations or changes resulting from decay of the sample could be "amplified" to create testable sample that did not match the original. Until recentally, the FBI and American courts have tended not to use this method. Now, as research has demonstrated that this method is highly unlikely to cause a "false positive", it is becoming more accepted. Still, the results are likely to be challenged. A technition can say "4 trillion to one, its him" while a defense attorney can still argue "reasonable doubt".

From what I can tell, w/o DNA, there was plenty of evidence against Hennis but there was also enough mitigating evidence to create "reasonable doubt". My guess is the jurrors will see the DNA as "tending to support guilt". Will this be enough to eliminate reasonable doubt? We will see. I have no idea how Military juries differ from civilian ones.

If he is convicted, I'm sure he will base his appeal on the DNA.

 

[Sameera]

Originally Posted by kaybee View Post
Hi,
I actually own this book (it's somewhere in a box in my garage) and read it quite awhile ago. I remember thinking that there were an awful lot of coincidences involved in this case. Tim Hennis got the dog from this woman, and a few days later, she and her children are brutally murdered (and I have to warn you, the crime scene descriptions are seriously disturbing--especially the descriptions about the children). Tim was seen burning items in a barrel in his backyard the day after the murders, and someone ID'd him as looking very similar to person seen leaving the Eastburn residence in the very early morning hours after the murders. I wish I could remember more about this case--maybe I'll go fish the book out and read it again. I remember there was some catch in the book about a neighborhood woman who was delivering the papers and passed a van parked at the Eastburn residence and a man (whom she said was NOT Tim Hennis) carrying a full garbage bag out of the house before daylight around the time of the murders. Apparently, while Tim Hennis was under investigation (and possibly already in jail), this woman (who remained quiet out of fear) was being stalked by someone who kept calling her & saying that he knew where she lived and that he'd be right over. Apparently Katie Eastburn had received some calls similar to this before her death. Half-way through the book, I was convinced that Tim Hennis committed this murder, and then the last half of the book I started thinking maybe it was a case of mistaken prosecution. I think of this case once in awhile, and I still flop back and forth on whether I think Tim Hennis had anything to do with it.
Anyways, I'll go try to find the book and see if there was any potential DNA evidence left at the scene and get back to you.

I had the same experience. I too read the book and thought he was guilty, then was not so sure. It's been awhile since I read the book. I'll have to go back and refresh my memory.

I have the same book. The most definitive piece of DNA evidence left at the scene was the semen sample on Mrs Eastburn's clothes. However DNA testing was not available at the time of the first trial and the tests that were available were not definite enough to rule Hennis in or out. At the second trial DNA testing had become available, but they could not do the test because the sample had not been preserved.

 

[dragnet]

The last two posts are not accurate. DNA profiling was not used in the USA until 1991 in a rape case. Also, other than the alleged DNA no other physical evidence links Mr. Hennis to the crime scene.

 

[kemo]

Of course DNA was not used in the original trials but it has been introduced as evidence in the Couty Martial that is going on now. Thatis the big difference with this trial.

There was no forensic evidence introduced at the firsts trials but there was plenty of circustancial evidence; partaicularly the eyewitness. The semens do not seemed to have had much significance.

 

[dragnet]

You're wrong. The DNA is not a match. The overall results are inconclusive. Also, in most all states partial DNA matches are considered non-matches. You can't believe what the media is reporting.

---
If you are referring to "Innocent Victims", I met with Scott, the author when he was writing this book. Scott has always worn "blinders" when it came to this trial. The dna was semen, matching Tim Hennis.

 

[lonetraveler]

Originally Posted by kaybee View Post
Hi,
I actually own this book (it's somewhere in a box in my garage) and read it quite awhile ago. I remember thinking that there were an awful lot of coincidences involved in this case. Tim Hennis got the dog from this woman, and a few days later, she and her children are brutally murdered (and I have to warn you, the crime scene descriptions are seriously disturbing--especially the descriptions about the children). Tim was seen burning items in a barrel in his backyard the day after the murders, and someone ID'd him as looking very similar to person seen leaving the Eastburn residence in the very early morning hours after the murders. I wish I could remember more about this case--maybe I'll go fish the book out and read it again. I remember there was some catch in the book about a neighborhood woman who was delivering the papers and passed a van parked at the Eastburn residence and a man (whom she said was NOT Tim Hennis) carrying a full garbage bag out of the house before daylight around the time of the murders. Apparently, while Tim Hennis was under investigation (and possibly already in jail), this woman (who remained quiet out of fear) was being stalked by someone who kept calling her & saying that he knew where she lived and that he'd be right over. Apparently Katie Eastburn had received some calls similar to this before her death. Half-way through the book, I was convinced that Tim Hennis committed this murder, and then the last half of the book I started thinking maybe it was a case of mistaken prosecution. I think of this case once in awhile, and I still flop back and forth on whether I think Tim Hennis had anything to do with it.
Anyways, I'll go try to find the book and see if there was any potential DNA evidence left at the scene and get back to you.

I had the same experience. I too read the book and thought he was guilty, then was not so sure. It's been awhile since I read the book. I'll have to go back and refresh my memory.

I have the same book. The most definitive piece of DNA evidence left at the scene was the semen sample on Mrs Eastburn's clothes. However DNA testing was not available at the time of the first trial and the tests that were available were not definite enough to rule Hennis in or out. At the second trial DNA testing had become available, but they could not do the test because the sample had not been preserved.

At the time of the second trial any testing of body fluid required a much larger sample than DNA of today. The semen evidence was sufficient for DNA testing for trial no. 3.

 

[Rachy]

I ended up forgetting about this site though and just found it again. I still havent bought the book. I have it saved in my cart on Amazon though.

I have gone back and forth about whether or not he is guilty. There's just so many inconsistencies and reasonable doubt that I dont know how they can find him guilty or keep trying him. It's sad that he got out and went on to serve our country and live a life and now they come after him with this again.

They really need to go back and check the phone records and talk with that babysitter again. Her story didnt make sense and her connection with Jeffrey McDonald is really disturbing. I wish we could see the actual evidence and everything that the investigators have because I know movie directors and authors tend to make a lot of stuff up so are these things that really happened? The phone calls, the Mr X cards, Tim burning garbage, Tim being on base around the time the murders happened, the use of her credit card, things like that.

So many things really make it sound like he did it but so many things dont. I'm not saying I believe hes innocent but you can't convict someone on an assumption of guilt. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and since they dont have that, they should leave him alone. He will get his if he really did it. He's probably spent more time in prison than murderers who really did do a crime with 100% "you're guilty" evidence but got off due to a technicality or due to a jury who weren't quite certain.

Sometimes cops seem to take the easy route to putting someone in jail and choose an easy target than working on finding the real guilty person.
Does someone remember about how they found out that he was the one who bought the dog from her. Isn't he the one who went to the cops? It's been a while since I have seen the movie and I cant remember.

This country is really disturbing and baby killers need to be punished. They really need to get a cold case detective to go through everything and go through evidence with a fresh set of eyes.

 

[dragnet]

At the time of the second trial any testing of body fluid required a much larger sample than DNA of today. The semen evidence was sufficient for DNA testing for trial no. 3.

The DNA testing for trial 3 has been done by both the prosecution and defense experts. The overall results are weak at best or inconclusive.

 

[lonetraveler]

The DNA testing for trial 3 has been done by both the prosecution and defense experts. The overall results are weak at best or inconclusive.

The results of the DNA testing obviously met the requirements needed in order for the third trial to be granted. Defense may argue that the tests were inconclusive but the prosecution will definitely argue that the tests showed that the DNA was Hennis's DNA.

 

[lonetraveler]

I ended up forgetting about this site though and just found it again. I still havent bought the book. I have it saved in my cart on Amazon though.

I have gone back and forth about whether or not he is guilty. There's just so many inconsistencies and reasonable doubt that I dont know how they can find him guilty or keep trying him. It's sad that he got out and went on to serve our country and live a life and now they come after him with this again.

They really need to go back and check the phone records and talk with that babysitter again. Her story didnt make sense and her connection with Jeffrey McDonald is really disturbing. I wish we could see the actual evidence and everything that the investigators have because I know movie directors and authors tend to make a lot of stuff up so are these things that really happened? The phone calls, the Mr X cards, Tim burning garbage, Tim being on base around the time the murders happened, the use of her credit card, things like that.

So many things really make it sound like he did it but so many things dont. I'm not saying I believe hes innocent but you can't convict someone on an assumption of guilt. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and since they dont have that, they should leave him alone. He will get his if he really did it. He's probably spent more time in prison than murderers who really did do a crime with 100% "you're guilty" evidence but got off due to a technicality or due to a jury who weren't quite certain.

Sometimes cops seem to take the easy route to putting someone in jail and choose an easy target than working on finding the real guilty person.
Does someone remember about how they found out that he was the one who bought the dog from her. Isn't he the one who went to the cops? It's been a while since I have seen the movie and I cant remember.

This country is really disturbing and baby killers need to be punished. They really need to get a cold case detective to go through everything and go through evidence with a fresh set of eyes.

Hennis watched a request on TV from LE for the man who bought the dog from the Eastburns to contact LE and voluntarily went in to LE for questioning.

 

[bamabeauty]

Can you direct me to this post? I do not remember anything about a teenage neighbor. However, young babysitter was a groupie for Jeffrey McDonald and McDonald was trying anything and everything to get a new trial. Julie Czernick, the babysitter, was a faithful pen pal of McDonald and even received a phone call from Jeffrey McDonald on her birthday. Jeff McDonald cut all ties to Julie Czernick at the same time that Hennis was arrested. I have always wondered just how far Julie Czernick was willing to go to get Jeffrey McDonald a retrial.

Also, there is the young man called "The Walker", John Raupach. He was located and brought into the courtroom on the second trial. He was a dead ringer for Hennis. He was also known to walk the Eastburn's neighborhood in the early hours before daylight. Also, wore a Members Only jacket. He had a lot of impact on the jury on the second trial. Definitely cast doubt on if the eye witness (Patrick Cone) saw Hennis or did he see John Raupach? Hennis and Raupach could easily be mistaken for each other.

I was referring to Raupach. He was a teenage neighbor wasn't he? I was curious if you thought he might have something to do with it. I really think the baby sitter needs to be looked at again. I just keep going back and forth on this. DNA has always been a clincher for me in cases but now I am not sure what to think about the DNA because of all the back and forth about it. If the do in fact have his semen from one of the body I would think that was a no brainier but like I said all the back and forth has me even doubting DNA now.

 

[lonetraveler]

I was referring to Raupach. He was a teenage neighbor wasn't he? I was curious if you thought he might have something to do with it. I really think the baby sitter needs to be looked at again. I just keep going back and forth on this. DNA has always been a clincher for me in cases but now I am not sure what to think about the DNA because of all the back and forth about it. If the do in fact have his semen from one of the body I would think that was a no brainier but like I said all the back and forth has me even doubting DNA now.

I definitely think that the babysitter with her infatuation with Jeffrey McDonald could have been involved with the murders to show a crime just like the McDonald case. It could have won McDonald a new trial if Hennis had not been arrested. I also am very concerned about the DNA. I really hate to even think that a murderer could have been released after murdering the two children and their mother.

 

[Sameera]

I ended up forgetting about this site though and just found it again. I still havent bought the book. I have it saved in my cart on Amazon though.

I have gone back and forth about whether or not he is guilty. There's just so many inconsistencies and reasonable doubt that I dont know how they can find him guilty or keep trying him. It's sad that he got out and went on to serve our country and live a life and now they come after him with this again.

They really need to go back and check the phone records and talk with that babysitter again. Her story didnt make sense and her connection with Jeffrey McDonald is really disturbing. I wish we could see the actual evidence and everything that the investigators have because I know movie directors and authors tend to make a lot of stuff up so are these things that really happened? The phone calls, the Mr X cards, Tim burning garbage, Tim being on base around the time the murders happened, the use of her credit card, things like that.

So many things really make it sound like he did it but so many things dont. I'm not saying I believe hes innocent but you can't convict someone on an assumption of guilt. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and since they dont have that, they should leave him alone. He will get his if he really did it. He's probably spent more time in prison than murderers who really did do a crime with 100% "you're guilty" evidence but got off due to a technicality or due to a jury who weren't quite certain.

Sometimes cops seem to take the easy route to putting someone in jail and choose an easy target than working on finding the real guilty person.
Does someone remember about how they found out that he was the one who bought the dog from her. Isn't he the one who went to the cops? It's been a while since I have seen the movie and I cant remember.

This country is really disturbing and baby killers need to be punished. They really need to get a cold case detective to go through everything and go through evidence with a fresh set of eyes.

Yes, the babysitter definitely needs to be checked again. I highly doubt that Jeff MacDonald himself was involved but the babysitter was a MacDonald fanatic and the crime scene was altered to make it look MacDonald-like. There are the Mr X letters as well. And what about those creepy phone calls made to Mrs Eastburn just before she was murdered? I don't think it's coincidence, but I don't see any reference that they were checked up on. And they were never linked to Hennis.

But I doubt they will get a cold case cop to look at this case with fresh eyes because their minds are set that Hennis did it. If any cold case cop does work on it they will most likely be an independent.

 

[Sameera]

Here's the latest news on the DNA evidence. See what you think.

News.MyNC.com
A forensics technician with the Army's criminal investigations lab testified Friday that DNA samples from the victim matched 51-year-old Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis. "Master Sgt. Hennis and all his male, paternal relatives can't be excluded as a source," said Brian Higgins, ... Hennis is being tried a third time on charges of premeditated murder in the 1985 stabbing deaths of Kathryn Eastburn and two of her daughters, 5-year-old Kara Sue and 3-year-old Erin Nicole. ...
http://news.mync.com/site/news/story/49954/army-expert-dna-from-scene-matches-nc-soldier/

Hmm, I also see they have brought back Pat Cone and Lucille Cook although both witnesses were discredited at the second trial and it will surely be perfunctory manner for the Defence to discredit them again. Unless the State has something new about these witnesses, or some other new evidence besides the DNA evidence. But what else could be new? There never was much to begin with; everything centred on whether Cone had identified Hennis correctly.