thanks for ignoring me
Please don't feel like you're being ignored.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52582&highlight=Tim+Hennis
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41362&highlight=Tim+Hennis
These are links to discussions about Tim Hennis, on WS.
I am not able to answer your question, but I think the reason the military brought Hennis out of retirement is because they can try him where he couldn't be retried in a "normal" trial?
I hope this makes sense, and if it doesn't, I hope you can forgive me? I'm not well versed on the law (and most other things). :blushing:
thanks.
it really does seem like he is guilty
but i dont like the constitution being abused to put a murderer away.......if you cancel double jeopardy to get a killer, you can just as soon do it to frame up an inncoent person
I go back and forth with whether I think he's innocent or guilty. After seeing the movie, I kind of felt he was innocent, but then reading comments, I start thinking he's guilty.
Until this case, I didn't know that military law (if that's what it's called?) operated seperately (sort of) than regular civilian law/courts. I didn't look at it how you explained your opinion on Double Jeopardy, until reading your post.
I am praying this works out as justice for the victims.
i hate that you have to live with that if this guy really is guilty.
but since when does double jeopardy not attach when a person is acquitted?
The military has its own judicial system and does not have to go by what the state finds in a court for military personnel. The state tried him the first time, guilty, the second time, not guilty. Along comes new evidence pointing to his guilt and the military exerts their right to try one of their own in their own court. Double jeopardy does not apply unless the military has already tried him.
BTW, you were not ignored. I had filed information and links that would have explained way better than I could the reason why the military could try Hennis. Yesterday when I was going to send them to you, they had disappeared. I have a lot going on right now.
http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/01/06/965696 (snip-more at link)
Frank J. Spinner, Hennis' civilian lawyer in the new trial, said Richardson filed the lawsuit as a procedural matter - the law requires a lawyer licensed in the Eastern District of North Carolina to file a petition on Hennis' behalf.
Lawyers argue in the petition that a military trial would violate Hennis' constitutional rights because the Army lacks jurisdiction.
The author of the book was very bias on his opinon about Hennis. He believed that Hennis was innocent and wrote the book accordingly.Welcome to Websleuths, Rachy.
This is one case that I am anxious to see solved and have justice served for the victims. I go back and forth with myself regarding Hennis, one day I think he's innocent, one day I think he's guilty.
If you get the book and read it, I'd love to hear what you think of it. I leaned toward Hennis being innocent, after watching the movie. I haven't read the book.
Here are a couple of links where the crime has been discussed here on Websleuths (in different areas of the forum):
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65680&highlight=Tim+Hennis
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41362&highlight=Tim+Hennis