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

[lonetraveler]

Here's A theory that I can't seem to figure out.Is it possible that A witness saw the accused the night he picked up the dog?My reasoning is the sketch was so detailed for someone who passed a man at 3am on a fogy night for a mere second.And also to pick out his car from over 250 feet away on A cloudy night.Also I am not saying the babysitter has anything to do with the crime.But she has to testify.Maybe someone confided in her what was actually going on in her life.

In the second trial when Cone was asked how close he was to the man leaving the Eastburn's driveway, he said that "he was close enough to pass "dap". Most of the jurors including the judge did not know what "dap" meant and the judge stopped Cone and asked him to explain what it meant. Cone is a black man and a lot of black people in the court room laughed at the request. Cone said that "dap" was the hand shake procedure that black brothers did when they meet each other on the street. So, I took that to mean that Cone was close enough to the man he saw leaving the Eastburn's driveway to shake hands with him. So, he was really close.

 

[Storm_91]

In the second trial when Cone was asked how close he was to the man leaving the Eastburn's driveway, he said that "he was close enough to pass "dap". Most of the jurors including the judge did not know what "dap" meant and the judge stopped Cone and asked him to explain what it meant. Cone is a black man and a lot of black people in the court room laughed at the request. Cone said that "dap" was the hand shake procedure that black brothers did when they meet each other on the street. So, I took that to mean that Cone was close enough to the man he saw leaving the Eastburn's driveway to shake hands with him. So, he was really close.

I don't know anything about what differen't words mean.However The Man's name you have mentioned that was so close to the accused.Was arrested later that year on Theft of an ATM card.

 

[lonetraveler]

I don't know anything about what differen't words mean.However The Man's name you have mentioned that was so close to the accused.Was arrested later that year on Theft of an ATM card.

I'm well aware that Cone was arrested for theft of an ATM card. I was sharing a bit of testimony that was given in the second trial by the star witness as to how close he claimed to have been to the accused. A post was questioning how he could give such a detailed description for the sketch.

 

[Storm_91]

I'm well aware that Cone was arrested for theft of an ATM card. I was sharing a bit of testimony that was given in the second trial by the star witness as to how close he claimed to have been to the accused. A post was questioning how he could give such a detailed description for the sketch.

Ok were good.Your own words A "Star Witness"

 

[lonetraveler]

Ok were good.Your own words A "Star Witness"

Actually Cone has been called the "star" witness since this case first began, even by the defense, although they were probably being sarcastic when they referred to Cone as the "star" witness.

I'm beginning to feel better and better about the second verdict.

 

[Storm_91]

Actually Cone has been called the "star" witness since this case first began, even by the defense, although they were probably being sarcastic when they referred to Cone as the "star" witness.

I'm beginning to feel better and better about the second verdict.

Well I know alot of people have formed there own opions in this case.To be honest I support the 5th Amendment of The United States.(Double jeopardy)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Did you know the Very first line of A Soldiers Oath.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Now is it fair that the Military aren't guarnteed the same rights as everyone else?

 

[lonetraveler]

Well I know alot of people have formed there own opions in this case.To be honest I support the 5th Amendment of The United States.(Double jeopardy)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This case has definitely been abnormal, that's for sure. I have a personal interest in this trial. I served as a juror on Hennis' second trial, the jury who acquitted him. I was really concerned when I found out that he was reinstate into the service and charged again with the same three murders.

 

[Storm_91]

This case has definitely been abnormal, that's for sure. I have a personal interest in this trial. I served as a juror on Hennis' second trial, the jury who acquitted him. I was really concerned when I found out that he was reinstate into the service and charged again with the same three murders.

Wow that is Amazing,well I am A very fair person.And I believe in Freedoms and rights of all Americans.So far to me this sounds like a Mock trial of the second.I know,I know there is some question about the so called new DNA.But if anything I feel the (TC) has mad A stronger case for his innoncence.And now his Defense will have the next 3 weeks to perform all there own duties.And he has probably has as good defense counsel as he did before.

 

[lonetraveler]

Wow that is Amazing,well I am A very fair person.And I believe in Freedoms and rights of all Americans.So far to me this sounds like a Mock trial of the second.I know,I know there is some question about the so called new DNA.But if anything I feel the (TC) has mad A stronger case for his innoncence.And now his Defense will have the next 3 weeks to perform all there own duties.And he has probably has as good defense counsel as he did before.

He had very dedicated and good attorneys (Beaver and Richardson) on the second trial. I felt very strongly that there was more than reasonable doubt for a not guilty verdict.

 

[Sameera]

Well I know alot of people have formed there own opions in this case.To be honest I support the 5th Amendment of The United States.(Double jeopardy)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Did you know the Very first line of A Soldiers Oath.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Now is it fair that the Military aren't guarnteed the same rights as everyone else?

This case definitely raises questions about double jeopardy and whether there is a double standard in the military being able to try the case despite the double jeopardy because their jurisdiction is different.

I don't know how much precedence there is for the military to try the case despite double jeopardy, but the Hennis case is definitely setting one precedent with far-reaching implications. What other floodgates might open? Would there be lobbies for law change?

 

[Sameera]

This case has definitely been abnormal, that's for sure. I have a personal interest in this trial. I served as a juror on Hennis' second trial, the jury who acquitted him. I was really concerned when I found out that he was reinstate into the service and charged again with the same three murders.

So you are feeling more confident that you made the right decision in the second trial? I am glad for you because I imagine you probably have had some niggling worries that you made the wrong one. Some of your fellow jurors probably felt that way and must be even more so with the third trial and DNA testing.

I can sympathise as I served on a jury where we thought the guy probably did it, but the prosecution hadn't proved it sufficiently, so...
we probably made the wrong decision but we had to play by the rules. *Sigh...*

 

[Storm_91]

They say the Defense may rest tomorrow?

 

[Sameera]

More fun and games over DNA evidence with a sub-headline: "DNA Experts Disagree"

http://fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/03/29/987027

And the return of Charlotte Kirby who testified she saw a man other than Hennis and received terrifying phone calls, and evidence discrediting Patrick Cone's identification:

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/03/31/987624

I imagine things will go quiet over the Easter period while both sides prepare their final arguments. Hmm, I wonder if Hennis himself will testify?

 

[Sameera]

The Defence rests its case and deliberations could begin Wednesday. Read about it here:

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/04/06/989120

The defence has rejected the prosecutors' option of the lesser charge of unpremeditated murder to the jury. Interestingly, the judge is keeping that option open because he reckons the evidence could fit that charge.

Oh yeah - and what about those threatening phone calls Mrs Eastburn received just before she was killed? Unpremeditated murder, my foot!

 

[dragnet]

It has never been proven that Mr. Hennis made any threatening phone calls to Mrs. Eastburn.

 

[Storm_91]

Hello everyone, its been days since i have posted. Now I am only guessing here, but the reason I guess the prosecution is asking for a lesser charge, is because it will require only A 2/3rd vote which is (10 of 14) for a sentence of Probation up to ten years.Or A 3/4 vote (12 of 14) for 10 to life.And I believe All Captial Case's in the Military you have to have unanimous the same as Civilian Juror's.Which in this case would be 14 of 14.Now one thing comes to mind here is Article 43 of the UCMJ Manual.Unpremeditated murder is not death eligible.The trial Counsel (Prosecution) I believe from the very begining has asked for the death penalty in this case.And the lesser charge is not A death penalty offense.It will be interesting to see how the Judge rules.But the defense have a super arguement and even better if they would have to appeal.

 

[Sameera]

It has never been proven that Mr. Hennis made any threatening phone calls to Mrs. Eastburn.

Precisely! Mrs Eastburn received threatening phone calls just before she was murdered and I don't think that's coincidence. But no evidence has ever been produced linking them to Hennis. For that matter, did the police investigate them (phone records, etc)?

 

[Boyz_Mum]

I know it doesn't make a difference but if I were on the jury, I couldn't find Hennis guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and I don't think I could find him guilty on a lesser count.

I can't say, "he's for sure innocent" but I also can't say, "he's for sure guilty". I am so thankful that I've never been on a jury.

JMO.

 

[Sameera]

I know it doesn't make a difference but if I were on the jury, I couldn't find Hennis guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and I don't think I could find him guilty on a lesser count.

I can't say, "he's for sure innocent" but I also can't say, "he's for sure guilty". I am so thankful that I've never been on a jury.

JMO.

In other words, decide that the prosecution hasn't proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (even though you think the defendant probably did it). All the more reason to keep your fingers crossed and hope you don't make it to a jury. I am in no hurry to serve on a jury again.

This DNA evidence sure sounds complicated and murky to me. I wonder what the jury will make of it? Perhaps they'll decide they can't agree and just "forget about the whole thing".

 

[Storm_91]

Samera ,Dragnet and Boys Mum you all are very correct. How could it not be premeditated with the threating phone calls and all. And there never has been A link between the phone calls and Mr.Hennis.But my observation here, which basically means nothing. I think the (TC) Prosecution must feel they don't have A unanimous vote which is required in A Military Capital case. I know all civilian cases they seat 12 jurors with Alternates. But in the Military you have to have at least 12 for A Capital case and the Military doesn't have alternates. So this case they chose 14 so all 14 will have a vote.