lonetraveler
Crime Addict
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 17,583
- Reaction score
- 45,776
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.