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

[Sameera]

Here's a link to another article about testimony on the testing from a scientist who couldn't link the samples to Hennis but his method was less precise. And there is a "black hole" regarding what happened to the samples between 1989 and 2005:

http://fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/03/18/984396

To my mind it's all beginning to look like a trial by experts. The case could run the danger of too many experts who can't agree, so the jury ends up saying "forget the whole thing" and throw out the charges because they decide the state hasn't proved its case sufficiently.

 

[JulieR]

Wow I just can't believe this is being tried again. I sure feel bad for Mr. Hennis if he's not guilty. I go back and forth with it, but one thing I feel pretty sure of, there is not enough to send this man to prison or for that fact to his death. Who knows where that DNA has been or if it was even planted. I would love to see the murderer rot in hell just like every one else, but I couldn't send Mr. Hennis to his death on the evidence they got. If this comes out in his favor I think this time he should sue the military for putting him through this again.

 

[lonetraveler]

Ihttp://fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/03/18/984396
“In spring 1985, forensic DNA testing was four years away from its first use in the American court system, Murch said.
Murch's testing looked at blood enzymes - different people have different types of enzymes in their blood, he said. The method was far less precise than DNA testing, he said.
In response to a question from a juror, Murch said the enzymes in the vaginal material matched the enzymes in Eastburn's blood, but he found no sign of the enzymes from Hennis' blood. The enzymes in Hennis' blood are found in 1.4 percent of the population, Murch said, and were different from the enzymes he found in Eastburn's blood.
Murch said his enzyme testing could not say whether Hennis was the source of the sperm cells in the vaginal material. He was not asked by prosecutors, defense lawyers or the jury to explain further.
DNA testing is many orders of magnitude more reliable than the enzyme test, Murch said. Originally, DNA testing of sperm required about one million sperm cells, Murch said, "and now it's down to one or less."”
The test you are referring to was conducted in 1985. Blood enzyme testing was done then. Now, DNA testing is done and is much more reliable than the enzyme test. The DNA test matched Hennis to the sperm cells found in vaginal tissue from Eastburn.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100329/APN/1003291217&tc=email_newsletter

The above link is about the DNA match.
Prosecutors presented a final witness Monday in the case against 51-year-old Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis. Jennifer Hopper, a former forensic analyst with the State Bureau of Investigation, testified that DNA she tested in 2005 matched DNA collected from Hennis in 1985.
Hennis faces 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.
Hopper said sperm on a vaginal swab taken from Eastburn's body matched Hennis' DNA profile. Using a database that mirrors the population of North Carolina, she said the odds that the sperm came from another white man were 12.1 thousand trillion to one.

 

[sundrop]

Jennifer Hopper tested what she assumed was semen; she did not examine the source of the DNA for semen but rather believed what was written on the outside of the package. Also, the location of this DNA package has gaps that cannot be accounted for; hence the chain of custody is broken.

 

[Sameera]

The prosecution has rested its case now and it's the turn of the defence experts. Let's see what their conclusions are.

And there is that "black hole" regarding the samples between 1989 and 2005. The prosecution needs to fill it in fast, or it will look suspicious in the wake of those old allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[Sameera]

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.

The eyewitnesses were discredited at the second trial.

 

[Sameera]

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.

DNA used to be a clincher for me as well, but going back through my press cuttings I have read cases where it turned out to be wrong, just as other scientific evidence turned out to be just plain wrong in many cases. A classic example is the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia.

And I've been watching TV and finding out why: it's a question of whether the forensics are based on good science or bad science. So many forensics have been based on "bad science" ie based on assumption or even prejudice rather than tried-and-true experimentation, and many experts have been demolished by it. One example is "crazed glass" which was widely believed to be caused by accelerants - which was then taken as proof of arson. A scientist called this to question after seeing crazed glass in a bush fire and decided to scientifically test it. His tests found that crazed glass was caused by heated glass being cooled too quickly, so it was the firefighters who caused the crazing, not accelerants. The crazed glass is only one of many "tests" that have now been discredited because they were based on bad science and caused the false imprisonment of a lot of people.

The question of whether the DNA tests are based on good science or bad science is going to be one of many that will be a hot potato in this trial.

 

[Boyz_Mum]

DNA used to be a clincher for me as well, but going back through my press cuttings I have read cases where it turned out to be wrong, just as other scientific evidence turned out to be just plain wrong in many cases. A classic example is the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia.

Sorry for snipping you Sameera.

Today I received a google update/news article which I can't link because I deleted it when I was done with the article.

Anyway... within the article, I thought I read that Hennis' DNA was identified (within the trillionth mark that was posted earlier) and the sample would have had to come from Hennis or his brother or father or grandfather (I'm explaining what I think I read, so please excuse my ignorance on DNA.)

Then it said that the sample could not be exclusively linked as belonging to Kathryn and DNA samples from a victim of sexual assault may not come out as being correct. What I took it to mean was that if I were raped and a semen sample were taken, the sample could identify the rapist but my DNA would not be conclusive as being the victim?

Was I misinterpreting the article? I couldn't for the life of me figure out how any rape kit could identify the attacker and not the victim and both being conclusive findings.

I am bad at explaining things, I hope you all can understand my questions and break it down for me in layman's terms.

 

[Sameera]

Sorry for snipping you Sameera.

Today I received a google update/news article which I can't link because I deleted it when I was done with the article.

Anyway... within the article, I thought I read that Hennis' DNA was identified (within the trillionth mark that was posted earlier) and the sample would have had to come from Hennis or his brother or father or grandfather (I'm explaining what I think I read, so please excuse my ignorance on DNA.)

Then it said that the sample could not be exclusively linked as belonging to Kathryn and DNA samples from a victim of sexual assault may not come out as being correct. What I took it to mean was that if I were raped and a semen sample were taken, the sample could identify the rapist but my DNA would not be conclusive as being the victim?

Was I misinterpreting the article? I couldn't for the life of me figure out how any rape kit could identify the attacker and not the victim and both being conclusive findings.

I am bad at explaining things, I hope you all can understand my questions and break it down for me in layman's terms.

Ah, you probably mean the Hopper lady, the final witness for the prosecution and one of the better ones by the sound of it. I got the same alert (handy isn't it, this google alert facility?). A lot of this DNA evidence goes way over my head so I don't know. The case for the Defence is open now, so shall we see wait and see how well (or not) the defence experts refute the DNA evidence of the prosecution?

 

[Sameera]

Here's another link, this time to the identification evidence of Cone and Cook (and the late Margaret Tillison). The judge hasn't ruled yet on whether to allow their evidence. Could be interesting considering that he is ruling on the evidence of two witnesses who were discredited at the second trial.

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/08/19/925865

 

[Storm_91]

Evidence,Evidence what has the prosecution (TC) really proved in this case? The FBI testified that they could show no link between the accused and the crime scene.The SBI lab which tested The DNA,was compromised.The SBI lab caretaker of the evidence was fired for misconduct.Out of the 6 DNA test only 1 suggest A possible match,funny enough its the one from the State.The ones the prosecution (Military) done came back inconclusive or a Non Match.One of the key witness's for the prosecution was arrested that same year for ATM card theft.But yet the judge said his past criminal history was not a part of the case.They asked for A Mistrial this morning saying the Judge was being biased for the prosecution.He didn't even let the jury hear The DNA results that the Military did according to all the newspaper articles(The ones that showed the Non-Match).So all the Evidence presented so far points toward the Accused he is Innocent.What do we really have hear?No witness can say with certainty that he was there.The FBI can show no link.20 years later A DNA sample came from the state,but all other tests done either by the Military or Defense doesn't match there results.Plus that in no way makes him Guilty of the crimes he is charged with.So there is more than reasonable doubt that he is innocent of the crimes he has been charged with.

 

[Sameera]

Evidence,Evidence what has the prosecution (TC) really proved in this case? The FBI testified that they could show no link between the accused and the crime scene.The SBI lab which tested The DNA,was compromised.The SBI lab caretaker of the evidence was fired for misconduct.Out of the 6 DNA test only 1 suggest A possible match,funny enough its the one from the State.The ones the prosecution (Military) done came back inconclusive or a Non Match.One of the key witness's for the prosecution was arrested that same year for ATM card theft.But yet the judge said his past criminal history was not a part of the case.They asked for A Mistrial this morning saying the Judge was being biased for the prosecution.He didn't even let the jury hear The DNA results that the Military did according to all the newspaper articles(The ones that showed the Non-Match).So all the Evidence presented so far points toward the Accused he is Innocent.What do we really have hear?No witness can say with certainty that he was there.The FBI can show no link.20 years later A DNA sample came from the state,but all other tests done either by the Military or Defense doesn't match there results.Plus that in no way makes him Guilty of the crimes he is charged with.So there is more than reasonable doubt that he is innocent of the crimes he has been charged with.

Ooh, the Defence asked for a mistrial today because they say the judge is biased? Where did you read that?

 

[Storm_91]

What's the question?

 

[dragnet]

Cone and Cook have already testified, which was last week.

 

[Storm_91]

Today's request for A mistrial wasn't granted.The Court Martial Proceeded.However it has been recorded and documented.Why is this important?

Can everyone please explain all the rules in Governing A General Court Martial?

 

[Sameera]

Defense lawyers claimed that the judge, Col. P, acted with partiality - or the appearance of partiality - in front of the jury Monday.It all can be read in the Fayetteville N.C. Papers.

Definition Partiality -Favorable prejudice or bias.

Another google alert says the motion for a mistrial was rejected. Surprised? I'll be if you are!

 

[dragnet]

That individual has been swabbed and his DNA was no match.

>Did you know there was someone questioned by the Authorities,that had scratches on him and the Authorites didn't even get any samples and just let him go.But we will see.

 

[Sameera]

Evidence,Evidence what has the prosecution (TC) really proved in this case? The FBI testified that they could show no link between the accused and the crime scene.The SBI lab which tested The DNA,was compromised.The SBI lab caretaker of the evidence was fired for misconduct.Out of the 6 DNA test only 1 suggest A possible match,funny enough its the one from the State.The ones the prosecution (Military) done came back inconclusive or a Non Match.One of the key witness's for the prosecution was arrested that same year for ATM card theft.But yet the judge said his past criminal history was not a part of the case.They asked for A Mistrial this morning saying the Judge was being biased for the prosecution.He didn't even let the jury hear The DNA results that the Military did according to all the newspaper articles(The ones that showed the Non-Match).So all the Evidence presented so far points toward the Accused he is Innocent.What do we really have hear?No witness can say with certainty that he was there.The FBI can show no link.20 years later A DNA sample came from the state,but all other tests done either by the Military or Defense doesn't match there results.Plus that in no way makes him Guilty of the crimes he is charged with.So there is more than reasonable doubt that he is innocent of the crimes he has been charged with.

Maybe the DNA issue isn't as clear-cut as it first seemed.

Allegations of bias on the judge's part are going to look bad. Pro-Hennis people will see it as a throwback to the first trial which was heavily condemned in the Whisnant book as being a railroad, even allowing the prosecutor to have his horror show.

 

[Sameera]

That individual has been swabbed and his DNA was no match.

>Did you know there was someone questioned by the Authorities,that had scratches on him and the Authorites didn't even get any samples and just let him go.But we will see.

Yes, he was discussed in the Whisnant book as a Mr X suspect. Has anyone been re-checking this angle?

 

[Storm_91]

What happened in Hirshberg case?