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

[lonetraveler]

If I remember the book correctly there were three jurors who were in favour of "not guilty" but were pressured by the majority who were in favour of guilty and what's more, wanted to wrap it up quickly so they could go off and do other things. It was also the 4 July holiday, putting additional pressure on jurors for a fast (perhaps too fast verdict) so they wouldn't miss out.
The wrong size boot is interesting. So either Hennis isn't the murderer, or he had an accomplice who did leave the footprint. However, to the best of my knowledge the prosecution has never made allegations that Hennis had an accomplice. The defence expert at the first trial thought there was an accomplice for the murders but got laughed out of court. Is it possible there was an accomplice, either for Hennis or someone else? It has happened before with partners in crime, such as the Moors murders and Rosemary West. Or is it more common for these types of murderers to act alone? I don't know enough about this sort of thing and would appreciate some input.

Even if Hennis is found guilty there are still unanswered questions. Examples include: the threatening telephone calls Mrs Eastburn received before she was murdered. What Charlotte Kirby saw that led her to receive similar threatening phone calls. The lingering cloud of suspicion over the babysitter. The wrong size footprint. The alteration of the crime scene to make it Jeff Mcdonald-like. How Hennis managed to get rid of the physical evidence and alter the crime scene without anyone noticing or leaving a clear trace leading right to him. And if Hennis did it, why did he do it?

I have to disagree with your comment bolded above. The jury took this trial very seriously and no one was in a hurry to go do other things. The author of the book was not in the jury room. The evidence was discussed and the doubts about proof on guilt were discussed by each juror. NO, no one was in a hurry to do other things. I am talking about the second trial. Are you referring to the first trial with your comment about the three jurors wanting a not guilty verdict? In the second trial it was the opposite: three jurors for guilty and nine for not guilty in the first poll. Verdict eventually came back as "not guilty" in the second trial.

 

[Storm_91]

I will never understand this case.

 

[Sameera]

I have to disagree with your comment bolded above. The jury took this trial very seriously and no one was in a hurry to go do other things. The author of the book was not in the jury room. The evidence was discussed and the doubts about proof on guilt were discussed by each juror. NO, no one was in a hurry to do other things. I am talking about the second trial. Are you referring to the first trial with your comment about the three jurors wanting a not guilty verdict? In the second trial it was the opposite: three jurors for guilty and nine for not guilty in the first poll. Verdict eventually came back as "not guilty" in the second trial.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear I was talking about the FIRST jury, not the second. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

 

[Sameera]

I think it was a jolly stupid idea for the defence to allege that Hennis was having an affair with Eastburn - I don't think that went down well with the jury! When I read they were forwarding that argument, I had an immediate feeling the verdict would go against Hennis. They should have hammered against the DNA evidence a whole lot more (that's assuming the DNA is not Hennis's and the prosecution isn't right after all).

Well, it's not the end you know - there are still appeals. But what grounds would there be for an appeal? There is no horror-show that got the first conviction reversed.

And what's his sentence? The worst is the death penalty - again.

And still those unanswered questions I was talking about earlier; they haven't gone away. I wonder if there will be any more Mr X letters in the wake of the verdict. I bet there'll be more books and probably a revised "Innocent Victims".

 

[lonetraveler]

Sorry, I thought I made it clear I was talking about the FIRST jury, not the second. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

I'm sorry. I had just found out the verdict and I think I was still in shock and thought you were talking about the second jury. This is hard to understand. I feel that the babysitter and her brothers should have been under the microscope in this case. She was much too chummy with Jeffrey McDonald and he was trying very hard to get a new trial at the time. What better way to get a new trial than a copy cat murder scene with mother and children murdered the same way as McDonald's family?

 

[lonetraveler]

I think it was a jolly stupid idea for the defence to allege that Hennis was having an affair with Eastburn - I don't think that went down well with the jury! When I read they were forwarding that argument, I had an immediate feeling the verdict would go against Hennis. They should have hammered against the DNA evidence a whole lot more (that's assuming the DNA is not Hennis's and the prosecution isn't right after all).

Well, it's not the end you know - there are still appeals. But what grounds would there be for an appeal? There is no horror-show that got the first conviction reversed.

And what's his sentence? The worst is the death penalty - again.

And still those unanswered questions I was talking about earlier; they haven't gone away. I wonder if there will be any more Mr X letters in the wake of the verdict. I bet there'll be more books and probably a revised "Innocent Victims".

I can tell you that even a little hint at consenual sex between Mrs. Eastburn and Hennis totally P'D off the jury in the second trial.

 

[BOZGAL]

Wow, this has hit me like a ton of bricks. I did not think that they would find him guilty. I have been very worried after hearing that the DNA matched Hennis. Eastburn was raped, IMO there could not have been an affair, out of the question to me. Now, I feel like I let a murderer of two little children and their mother go free for 20 years.................sick to my stomach right now.

Don't feel bad lonetraveler.
You did your duty as a member of the jury. Went with the evidence, reasonable doubt, instructions, etc. I respect your opinion about the affair but I am still not convinced of it. Like I said I have too many unanswered questions that would just knaw at me. I am still standing with my NG.


jmo

 

[Sameera]

I'm sorry. I had just found out the verdict and I think I was still in shock and thought you were talking about the second jury. This is hard to understand. I feel that the babysitter and her brothers should have been under the microscope in this case. She was much too chummy with Jeffrey McDonald and he was trying very hard to get a new trial at the time. What better way to get a new trial than a copy cat murder scene with mother and children murdered the same way as McDonald's family?

That's okay, I thought it was something like that.

I also have to live with the thought that I may have set a guilty person free last year to commit more crimes and will find it out for certain someday. But at the time we decided the prosecution hadn't proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I also feel the babysitter should be checked out further (but I find it very hard to believe that McDonald himself would engineer a copycat murder as the evidence against him for the Fatal Vision murders is growing increasingly dubious), to say nothing of the creepy phone calls. And what about the wrong size footprint - different man committed the crimes or did Hennis have an accomplice? Did the defence advance any of these before the jury?

From all these reports on the DNA it seemed so confusing and murky and not as clear-cut as it originally seemed, and I wouldn't be able to decide. I reckon it was the consensual sex allegations that did it.

As for unpremeditated murder - no way! These murders were premeditated, Hennis or someone else.

 

[Rachy]

I dont get this verdict. It really is not right that they even were trying him considering he went through two trials already and the military should have no right to go after him like this. They should have done it years ago. DNA evidence has been around since the 90's, why go after him now. They let him serve our country and now they charge him.

Someone said in an earlier post that size 9 shoeprints were found. Well what size did the babysitter wear? Size 9 sounds like it could be a womans and if I remember right, didnt someone give the baby a bottle or do something. That sounds like a nurturing babysitter if you ask me.

Can someone refresh my memory on what "Members Only" jacket means.

This case is crazy and I really dont think there is enough evidence to convict him and he shouldnt have been found guilty now. It really sounds like a dept under pressure to find the murderer because children were involved so they went after the first suspect that came along. It really makes me sick that he has had to go through another trial because of some loophole in the system.

If he is guilty, then there should be more proof. They let murderers and rapists go when there is a ton of evidence. Why cant they let this guy live his life. I'm not saying I believe hes definitely innocent, but he served our country and never committed another crime (that I have heard of), it just doesnt make sense that he had committed this brutal murder. Maybe i'm just too naive to believe that someone could murder a child when they had a child of their own at home and then live a normal life after being released from prison. Criminals always seem to commit another crime or had a history of criminal activity. Ugh. I wish I knew the truth.

 

[Sameera]

Have they revealed any psychological information about this defendant over the years? Have there been allegations or confirmations of mental illness, sexual perversions, etc.?

Yeah, they never put forward a convincing motive, did they? I always had the impression that the murders were committed by one of those sick, perverted "Jack the Ripper" types but there was never any evidence to suggest Hennis fitted this profile in any way, or was mentally or psychologically disturbed. And to the best of my knowledge Hennis has never been linked to any other murders, and these types of killers do tend to kill again.

 

[kbl8201]

Hennis found guilty could face death.

too bad oj wasnt in the army. then we could throw his acquitall out too.

i still think this is manure, guilty or not

 

[Sameera]

too bad oj wasnt in the army. then we could throw his acquitall out too.

i still think this is manure, guilty or not

Er, what do you think is manure - Hennis case or OJ case?

 

[kbl8201]

using the military as an excuse to get around doouble jeopardy is manure.

when you join the armed services you swear to protect and defend the constitution........why bother if you dont get the same protections the rest of us do?

 

[Maznblu1]

Yeah, they never put forward a convincing motive, did they? I always had the impression that the murders were committed by one of those sick, perverted "Jack the Ripper" types but there was never any evidence to suggest Hennis fitted this profile in any way, or was mentally or psychologically disturbed. And to the best of my knowledge Hennis has never been linked to any other murders, and these types of killers do tend to kill again.

I would think that 3 years on death row might help "cure" someone from the need to kill again.

 

[Belinda]

This is one really strange case. I really didn't expect that he would be found guilty. Still haven't formulated an opinion on whether he did it or not, but thought there was so much contradictory evidence that they couldn't possibly convict him.

 

[Storm_91]

Like I said before,I will never understand.

 

[Boyz_Mum]

I can tell you that even a little hint at consenual sex between Mrs. Eastburn and Hennis totally P'D off the jury in the second trial.

I found that line of reasoning pretty repulsive and strange. If Hennis had only met the victim(s) when he went to retrieve the dog, that in itself points toward them having no previous relationship, IMO.

The DNA evidence presented this time (with today's technology advancements) really baffled me. With so much time having lapsed, IMO, I couldn't say Hennis is guilty because I'd have the niggling doubt that the DNA was compromised. JMO.

I feel terrible for the survivors of this crime. lonetraveler, I'm sorry this verdict left you feeling the way it did. You served on that jury, you all made the best decision you could have at the time and with the amount of information you all had, IMO.

 

[kemo]

Anytime you have DNA that is not "pristine", you give the defense a chance to create "reasonable doubt" yet every situation is different. In this particular case, I can see no other explanation for Hennis's Y Chromosomes being in Kathryn's "vaginal vault" except through intercourse. Obviously, the reason the defense postulated that they may have had "consensual" sex at the time he picked up the dog was that they feared the jury would find the DNA evidence credible. Any "attack the victim" defense is inherently risky. It is considered a "desperation" tactic. My guess is that after they ran their "dueling experts" gambit, the defense decided that the prosecution’s experts would prevail and the DNA evidence would be found credible.

 

[sundrop]

What this trial/judge failed to allow is testing on unknown male DNA found at the crime scene.

 

[Sameera]

What this trial/judge failed to allow is testing on unknown male DNA found at the crime scene.

Now that's interesting! I wonder what sort of DNA sample it was. If it was, say, saliva, then it could have come from anywhere. But if it was something that could be linked to the crime then it might be grounds for appeal.

There has been speculation as to whether the judge has conducted the case fairly. This could open up criticism that the trial was a railroad, and the first of Hennis's trials was criticised for this in the Whisnant book.