GUILTY NC - Tim Hennis on trial in the '85 Eastburn murders, Fort Bragg
- Thread starter crimson3
- Start date
I agree about that lawyer! On many forums back in 2010, people were saying the idea that Hennis was saying (they incorrectly thought) that he and Katie had had consensual sex proved in their minds that he had to be the killer (I would think this as well, if I thought Hennis said this).
If it was Seefeldt , though, CODIS will not get the hit. What can be done if thhe killer was in fact Seefeldt?
Hoping for something to come out for Hennis.....
You would have to get someone, a PI or other dedicated person, to try and get a sample surreptitiously. Steal the trash or if he smokes try to get a cigarette, bottle etc. And then his defense team would have to pay to get a lab to test the sample to see if it has familial links that match the towel.
Do we know if the fingernail dna matches the towel dna or not? I know that the fingernail dna is a partial and doesn't match Hennis (nor does the towel dna match Hennis), but is it excluded as being a match to the donor of the towel dna profile? If they do not match for certain, then that points to 2 people. I do believe at least 2 people were involved. If it can't be excluded then I would guess it probably belongs to the same person even if that can't be proven scientifically since the fingernail dna is only a partial profile.
Do we know if the fingernail dna matches the towel dna or not? I know that the fingernail dna is a partial and doesn't match Hennis (nor does the towel dna match Hennis), but is it excluded as being a match to the donor of the towel dna profile? If they do not match for certain, then that points to 2 people. I do believe at least 2 people were involved. If it can't be excluded then I would guess it probably belongs to the same person even if that can't be proven scientifically since the fingernail dna is only a partial profile.
As I wrote that above, it gave me another question. Let's say you get an object that has Seefeldt's son's dna on it. You get it tested and pull up the profile. Does the defense have access to the towel dna profile for comparison, or would the defense have to beg and plead for the prosecutor's to compare it to the towel profile? If that is how it works, that the defense has to rely on the prosecution/police/military prosecutor's to get anything compared to the towel dna, then it won't happen through ordinary means. It would take a lot of pressure from somewhere to get them to even check. I'm thinking the answer to this question is going to be that prosecutor's control everything.
sloane7777
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,652
- Reaction score
- 12,727
I am confused the entire time I was reading on this I thought we were talking about Jeffery Macdonald then I realized the timing was off but remembered seeing the movie with Gary Cole in late 84 Fatal Vision it' s almost an identical story has anyone mentioned this?
Oh yes, the stories are similar. The houses are within a mile or 2 of each other as well. The story is so complicated you will have to get the book I'm afraid to understand the similiarities. The babysitter in the case was writing MacDonald and was reading the Fatal Vision book when the crime happened. The forensic investigator was the same guy who worked out the MacDonald case (the defense used him I think, Paul Stombaugh). The movie is still on youtube right now, but better catch it soon before it goes poof. Innocent Victims is the movie name and the book title. The book/movie only go through the end of the 2nd trial and don't include the 3rd unprecedented trial in recent years.
Also, there's the show On Death Row, or Death Row Stories (done by CNN, narrated by Susan Sarandon) that is about the Eastburn murder and conviction of Tim Hennis that you can watch as well.
Also, there's the show On Death Row, or Death Row Stories (done by CNN, narrated by Susan Sarandon) that is about the Eastburn murder and conviction of Tim Hennis that you can watch as well.
Sundrop, the above post is a response to someone else, a new poster. My reply to you is back on the previous page. I'm aware Seefeldt has passed as I've been faithfully following your posts about this case.
I had been asking if you could somehow get Seefeldt's son or daughter's dna surreptitiously, could it even get compared to the towel? Would you have to get permission for access to the towel dna for comparison from prosecutor's or can the defense compare it to anyone they want providing they provide the sample for comparison? If that makes sense...sorry. Trying to explain myself, inadequately possibly.
I had been asking if you could somehow get Seefeldt's son or daughter's dna surreptitiously, could it even get compared to the towel? Would you have to get permission for access to the towel dna for comparison from prosecutor's or can the defense compare it to anyone they want providing they provide the sample for comparison? If that makes sense...sorry. Trying to explain myself, inadequately possibly.
To anyone reading here who is interested, I found that Observer expose on the crooked SBI lab. (I know Sundrop doesn't need re-acquainting with it as he knows it too well I'm sure). But it's an important part of why I believe the DNA isn't trustworthy. It has 4 parts. The subsequent parts are over on the right side of the page. If you read nothing else, read part 3.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/agents-secrets/article10365317.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/agents-secrets/article10365317.html
I was just watching the vid on your channel about Jaye Potter Mintz from February of 2015. Have they got any DNA from her case? I realize in 1987 they wouldn't have tested for it obviously, but did they get a semen sample or a vaginal swab from her body? Do they still have all the clothing, sheets or bedding, the pillowcase over her head? Has it been looked at recently for possible DNA since the sample requirements are now so miniscule? You don't think it could be the same killer from the Eastburn case?
There are so many similarities.
1. Appearance of victim
2. Throat slit deeply, multiple stabbing.
3. Young child left alive and crying.
4. The killer is believed to be someone responding to her ad selling a waterbed. The killer left the newspaper with the ad circled in red at the home. (Katie selling the dog through an ad.)
5. Child said "mean man made Mommy cry" and Jana said "hide from the burglar'.
6. An article about the case said she had received strange phone calls in the weeks leading up to her murder. Caller would hang up. Katie got strange calls, as did witness Charlotte Kirby.
7. Face covered with pillowcase, Kara's face covered by blanket or bedding.
8. Both bound.
I know this doesn't really mean anything, but I recall Kirby saying the caller said they would try out her waterbed, and then it's a waterbed she was selling. Coincidence I guess, but strange.
The last one I know often suggests that the person is known to the victim so they cover the face, unable to look at them in death. But the child said it was a white male and a stranger, that the man rushed in when she answered the door.If it's the ad person, it doesn't sound like the victim knew the assailant. The weirdest thing is how no one saw him when businesses were so close and it was the middle of the day, however. How did the killer get that lucky that no one saw him? Sometimes when killers have gotten away with something in the past (such as possibly Katie and the girls), they begin to feel invincible and start taking more chances. Could this be why he would do something as bold as this?
There are so many similarities.
1. Appearance of victim
2. Throat slit deeply, multiple stabbing.
3. Young child left alive and crying.
4. The killer is believed to be someone responding to her ad selling a waterbed. The killer left the newspaper with the ad circled in red at the home. (Katie selling the dog through an ad.)
5. Child said "mean man made Mommy cry" and Jana said "hide from the burglar'.
6. An article about the case said she had received strange phone calls in the weeks leading up to her murder. Caller would hang up. Katie got strange calls, as did witness Charlotte Kirby.
7. Face covered with pillowcase, Kara's face covered by blanket or bedding.
8. Both bound.
I know this doesn't really mean anything, but I recall Kirby saying the caller said they would try out her waterbed, and then it's a waterbed she was selling. Coincidence I guess, but strange.
The last one I know often suggests that the person is known to the victim so they cover the face, unable to look at them in death. But the child said it was a white male and a stranger, that the man rushed in when she answered the door.If it's the ad person, it doesn't sound like the victim knew the assailant. The weirdest thing is how no one saw him when businesses were so close and it was the middle of the day, however. How did the killer get that lucky that no one saw him? Sometimes when killers have gotten away with something in the past (such as possibly Katie and the girls), they begin to feel invincible and start taking more chances. Could this be why he would do something as bold as this?