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

[Sameera]

What's the latest on the hearing? I constantly look for updates but nothing seems to be happening.

In the original case the only things connecting Hennis to the case were Patrick Cone who identified him as a man walking near the scene of the crime and the fact that he visited the Eastburn house once in response to a newspaper ad. There was the witness who identified him as the man using the Eastburns' credit card at an ATM but at retrial she was discreditied as a liar. The whole case hinged on Cone's identification but at the retrial evidence was produced that he could have mistaken Hennis for another man. If Hennis really had murdered the Eastburns there should have been a whole lot more evidence tying him to the case than that. Even if it was Hennis, there are still things unexplained - like the creepy phone calls Mrs Eastburn received prior to her death. No evidence was ever produced tying Hennis to these phone calls.

Therefore I find it interesting to see how this new DNA evidence works out. And remember - there have been cases where DNA has been proved to be wrong (mistakes in the laboratory, contamination, etc). I think there was one in New Zealand where DNA evidence was discredited in a rape case - but not before it got a guilty man free and the rape victim being turned out of house and home when it seemed the DNA evidence proved her mistaken.

And no, I don't buy any theories that Jeff MacDonald engineered the Eastburn killings in the hope that a copycat crime might force the authorities to reconsider his case. For one thing, it does not explain the "Mr X" letters, the creepy phone calls Mrs Eastburn received just before she was killed, or similar phone calls a defence witness received, or the "Ah! History," note Jerry Beaver received after a homicide which seemed to bear hallmarks to the Eastburn case.

 

[zoey555]

Seems there's nothing new to report. Don't even know if the new trial has gone to court. Don't know if they're even still holding Hennis is jail? This case just seems to have evaporated, newswise.

Update, while googling Tim Hennis November 2008, I came up with the following. I'll try to get more info by googling concerning the pretrial motions when I return home from town this afternoon:

News Update 06.02.08

North Carolina

A military court at Fort Bragg will hear pretrial motions today in the case of Timothy Hennis. Hennis was acquitted of three counts of first-degree murder in civilian court, but is being retried by the military. If convicted, Hennis could become the tenth person on the military’s death row.

 

[Sameera]

Prosecutor's and police conduct from the first trial has me nervous about how they are testing the DNA samples. There is no indication of downright fabrication of evidence but they did withhold evidence, such as the timesheet which proved Hennis' alibi and the existence of Raupach, and from the beginning they had a mindset that Hennis did it, which prevented them from objectively examining evidence, including evidence which pointed away from Hennis. One of the prosecution witnesses was proved to be lying at the second trial, but no evidence for a motive was ever produced, so we have no way of knowing if she was, say, bribed or coerced into giving that evidence.

Even if Hennis did it, the State still hasn't answered questions. They produced no satisfactory motive, no evidence that Hennis was mentally capable of the crime (and to my mind, only a "Jack the Ripper" type could commit that kind of crime) - and they never solved the mystery of those threatening phone calls Mrs Eastburn received prior to her murder. No evidence was ever found linking Hennis to those phone calls, and you would think the police would check the phone records. Why was the murder scene arranged to resemble the McDonald murders? And what about the Mr X letters - the work of a crank or the real murderer?

Another NZ case which springs to mind about DNA evidence is the Scott Watson case. The only serious forensic evidence linking him to the case was a hair from the victim which was in the bag of samples collected from his boat. However, there was a rip in the sample bag(!) which suggests there could have been contamination.

 

[Sameera]

Trial is canceled as of now, whatever that means, I am wondering is he in jail now or free?

Good question. If they dropped the charges, surely there would have been something about it? Maybe it's some hold-up somewhere. But is the trial "postponed" or "cancelled"? Does anyone know for sure? It just seems to have petered out. Which could indicate the DNA evidence is not as strong as previously thought and is not sufficient to hold up a third prosecution. If it was more definitive, why isn't the case proceeding?

It's really frustrating that this case occurred just before DNA evidence became available to begin with. Then DNA evidence would have ruled Hennis in or out from the start instead of being totally dependent on one eyewitness - who didn't even see the crime, just a man walking around at the time.

 

[Mary456]

But is the trial "postponed" or "cancelled"? Does anyone know for sure?

They haven't dropped the charges; the defense keeps asking for more time to prepare, so the trial has been delayed.

It's really frustrating that this case occurred just before DNA evidence became available to begin with. Then DNA evidence would have ruled Hennis in or out from the start instead of being totally dependent on one eyewitness - who didn't even see the crime, just a man walking around at the time.

Actually, Patrick Cone positively identified Hennis as the man he saw leaving the Eastburn home the night of the murders. He described him so well that a composite sketch was made & it was a dead ringer for Hennis. Not only that, but Cone also saw the man get into a white Chevette & drive away.

Guess what kind of car Hennis owned...a white Chevette.

 

[Mary456]

Sameera, just a comment.

As far as I know, the only book written about this case is Innocent Victims by Scott Whisnant. It's extremely biased in favor of Hennis - so much so that Whisnant resorted to a LOT of half truths & innuendo. You really have to take much of his book with a grain of salt. He tells you only what he wants you to know. It's like watching a trial & seeing only the defense's side.

If I were rich, I'd buy the transcript from the first trial, just so Whisnant could have a little egg rubbed in his face, lol. There's two sides to every story, and we're only getting one side from that author.

 

[Sameera]

Guess what kind of car Hennis owned...a white Chevette.

Did they check Hennis' white Chevette for forensic evidence?

 

[Sameera]

As far as I know, the only book written about this case is Innocent Victims by Scott Whisnant. It's extremely biased in favor of Hennis - so much so that Whisnant resorted to a LOT of half truths & innuendo. You really have to take much of his book with a grain of salt. He tells you only what he wants you to know. It's like watching a trial & seeing only the defense's side.


Yes, it is admittedly biased in favour of Hennis. But can you be more specific about half-truths and innuendo from the book and give some examples?

 

[Mary456]

Guess what kind of car Hennis owned...a white Chevette.

Did they check Hennis' white Chevette for forensic evidence?

Yes. There wasn't any, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. He tried to clean up the blood at the Eastburn's home, and could have done the same to his car before the bodies were even found.

That's assuming that he even left any blood in the car. He may not have, depending on how well he cleaned up.

 

[Mary456]

As far as I know, the only book written about this case is Innocent Victims by Scott Whisnant. It's extremely biased in favor of Hennis - so much so that Whisnant resorted to a LOT of half truths & innuendo. You really have to take much of his book with a grain of salt. He tells you only what he wants you to know. It's like watching a trial & seeing only the defense's side.


Yes, it is admittedly biased in favour of Hennis. But can you be more specific about half-truths and innuendo from the book and give some examples?

I'm glad you asked, because that's something I've been meaning to do. Give me a few days, ok?

 

[Sameera]

He tried to clean up the blood at the Eastburn's home, and could have done the same to his car before the bodies were even found.

Ahem - someone did indeed try to clean up at the Eastburn home but what exactly links it to Hennis? Okay, so forensics were not as advanced as they are now - no DNA evidence back then, which could have settled the question right there and then, and I don't know if they had cadaver dogs at the time. Still, the deed was so bloody that even allowing for cleanups Hennis could not have walked away without leaving some trace on himself, his clothes, or his car. Were any of his clothes and shoes tested for blood? Were there any items missing from his wardrobe which could have been destroyed? The car tested negative for forensic evidence, and even allowing for a cleanup there should have been something. I have seen cases on TV where the police did find something despite cleanups, such as blood that dripped down the boot of a car. And it has been a while since I read the book, but is there any evidence that Hennis actually cleaned up his car at the time of the murder?

 

[zoey555]

He tried to clean up the blood at the Eastburn's home, and could have done the same to his car before the bodies were even found.

Ahem - someone did indeed try to clean up at the Eastburn home but what exactly links it to Hennis? Okay, so forensics were not as advanced as they are now - no DNA evidence back then, which could have settled the question right there and then, and I don't know if they had cadaver dogs at the time. Still, the deed was so bloody that even allowing for cleanups Hennis could not have walked away without leaving some trace on himself, his clothes, or his car. Were any of his clothes and shoes tested for blood? Were there any items missing from his wardrobe which could have been destroyed? The car tested negative for forensic evidence, and even allowing for a cleanup there should have been something. I have seen cases on TV where the police did find something despite cleanups, such as blood that dripped down the boot of a car. And it has been a while since I read the book, but is there any evidence that Hennis actually cleaned up his car at the time of the murder?

Also, surely they had the use of Luminol (an agent that turns blue when sprayed on blood stains) that no amount of cleaning would have erased.

 

[Sameera]

I'm glad you asked, because that's [rebuttal to Whisnant book] something I've been meaning to do. Give me a few days, ok?

Okay, we shall be looking forward to seeing it. If you're planning an in-depth rebuttal to the Whisnant book, how about posting it up as a web page or something so people can go and visit and leave comments?

 

[Mary456]

Also, surely they had the use of Luminol (an agent that turns blue when sprayed on blood stains) that no amount of cleaning would have erased.

They used luminol.

It showed a lot of blood that had been wiped up, including footprints, but luminol only shows where blood has been. It doesn't produce blood type or DNA.

 

[Mary456]

Ahem - someone did indeed try to clean up at the Eastburn home but what exactly links it to Hennis? Okay, so forensics were not as advanced as they are now - no DNA evidence back then, which could have settled the question right there and then, and I don't know if they had cadaver dogs at the time.

Cadaver dogs are trained to find dead bodies, so that's a moot point. Do you mean bloodhounds? Yes, they're routinely used by law enforcement, but aren't much good tracking a murderer three days after the fact.

Still, the deed was so bloody that even allowing for cleanups Hennis could not have walked away without leaving some trace on himself, his clothes, or his car.

Yeah, he could have. Obviously, SOMEONE killed three human beings and cleaned up well enough to not leave a detectable trace by 1985 standards.

The same could be said about fingerprints. No identifiable prints were found at the bloody crime scene, either. Cleaning up (and Hennis definitely cleaned up), can get a lot of murderers home free.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence.

I have seen cases on TV...

Uh oh. The CSI affect. No offense, but what we see on TV has no resemblance to the real world of crime scene investigation.

And it has been a while since I read the book, but is there any evidence that Hennis actually cleaned up his car at the time of the murder?

Is there any evidence that he didn't clean up the car?

I mean, did anyone NOT see him clean up the car?

It is so hard to prove a negative.

 

[Sameera]

As far as I know, the only book written about this case is Innocent Victims by Scott Whisnant.

I believe it is. Maybe someone should consider a second book on the case. The re-opening of the case with the third trial sounds like a golden opportunity to me.

 

[Sameera]

Uh oh. The CSI affect. No offense, but what we see on TV has no resemblance to the real world of crime scene investigation.
I know - that's why I don't watch programmes like CSI. I go for forensic programmes which reconstruct how forensics were used to solve real-life cases.

The same could be said about fingerprints. No identifiable prints were found at the bloody crime scene, either. Cleaning up (and Hennis definitely cleaned up), can get a lot of murderers home free.

Wasn't there something about a bloody footprint at the crime scene?

 

[Mary456]

Wasn't there something about a bloody footprint at the crime scene?

Hi Sam. Yes, there was and this is a good example of Whisnant's bias.

Page 116: "A 6-inch ruler had been placed beside the footprints for reference. Beaver could extrapolate well enough to see the prints were about 9 1/2 inches long. His client's foot measured 11 1/2 inches."

This gives the reader the impression that the footprints couldn't possibly belong to Hennis, right?

Then you come to page 183. Navarro, a fingerprint expert, testified in the first trial that "without portions of the heel and toe, no one could measure it, leaving open the possibility Hennis's foot could have made the print."

I'm not saying that Whisnant lied in his book, because he didn't. But he wrote it in such a way that it can be very misleading. It's told almost entirely from the defense's point of view.

In fact, the first tip-off is in his Acknowledgments. He thanks the entire staff of Beaver, Holt, Richardson (Hennis's lawyers) for their help. He apparently never even consulted the prosecution for their input.

There are a lot more examples. I'm going through the book & will post them when I get a chance.

 

[Mary456]

I believe it is. Maybe someone should consider a second book on the case. The re-opening of the case with the third trial sounds like a golden opportunity to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if a second book is already in the works by some author. You're right, it's a golden opportunity.

This could be the first time that DNA proves, twenty-three years after the fact, that a "not guilty" verdict was wrong.

Ya know, in rereading the book, the cards were really stacked against the State in the retrial. The prosecutors were new to the case, with very little time to prepare, while the defense lawyers stayed the same. They knew the case inside & out & had years to put their spin on the evidence. Also, right after the prosecutors rested their case, the Judge's wife became very ill & court was recessed for almost a month. That really took a punch out of the State's case, because the jurors probably forgot a lot of the information presented.

Imo, Tim Hennis was one of the luckiest dudes to ever walk the face of the earth. That luck may be running out, though.

 

[southerngal]

They haven't dropped the charges; the defense keeps asking for more time to prepare, so the trial has been delayed.



Actually, Patrick Cone positively identified Hennis as the man he saw leaving the Eastburn home the night of the murders. He described him so well that a composite sketch was made & it was a dead ringer for Hennis. Not only that, but Cone also saw the man get into a white Chevette & drive away.

Guess what kind of car Hennis owned...a white Chevette.

The goverment is the one asking for more time to prepare.

The composite was also a dead ringer for a neighborhood boy that walked to work by the house every morning.