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

[SMK]

Very interesting. I think you said you did watch the Death Row Stories episode about Hennis. You might find the episode (can't remember if that's the right title, but the series done by CNN that had one on Hennis is what I mean) on Kevin Cooper interesting as it kind of resembles a scenario that you just mentioned about the handprints. Cooper begged for DNA testing. A surviving victim who was a child in the case said it was a group of white men who attacked his family and himself, but later changed his testimony after police talked to him. This was to help seal the conviction on Kevin Cooper (who was no angel). Cooper begged for DNA testing on a shirt, but then it turned out to be his dna. Many believe they planted this on the shirt. It is the crime known as the Chino Hills murders.

With Hennis and the towel dna, they can't pull something like that since the dna has already been established. They already have their planted or contaminated dna with vaginal swab that wasn't supposed to exist until they magically found some more to work with.

I did, yes. I will have to look for that one, sounds very close to what I read.

I wish the towel DNA would be identified and help Hennis, as it appears to be his last hope for justice. Don't know how he has lasted these past 6 years on death row......

 

[sundrop]

Hopefully the military appeals court will overturn his conviction

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[SMK]

Hopefully the military appeals court will overturn his conviction

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Would they do that due to the DNA testing, or for no jurisdiction, so that the DNA testing could come later to exonerate him?

 

[sundrop]

Really for Tim to get the unknown DNA further tested he really needs to have a new trial

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[SMK]

Really for Tim to get the unknown DNA further tested he really needs to have a new trial

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Oh, dear. . . Does he at least stand a good chance that his conviction will be overturned?

 

[sundrop]

I think he does, we should know soon

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[msvick66]

I was reading about a different case recently and came across the assertion made by an investigator that usually you will not see a perp do a clean-up in a homicide case if they are a stranger to the victim. I would think a rudimentary effort might be made, but in 1985 without DNA to worry about, would it make sense to clean up the scene? It was said a substantial effort was made to clean the Eastburn crime scene which would have the perp(s) risking being in the house longer or even coming back (I think that has been suggested) later to do a better job. This has me wondering about whether the clean up does indicate the offender was someone well known to Katie and the girls. Since the witnesses are all dead, if the perp is a total stranger why the desperate clean up of evidence?

Regarding the towel next to Katie's body that produced a full male DNA profile, was it retrieved from suspect blood or could it have had seminal fluid on it mixed with blood (the victim's or the killer's)? It occurs to me that after the rape, the rapist may have wiped himself off with the towel. This could be really important if they did find any semen on the towel (in addition to blood). If there was semen that was tested or perhaps wasn't looked for but was there as well, a dna profile from the semen which did not match Tim would be highly significant. If blood and semen are on the same object, can the dna be distinguished as to whether it came from the blood or the seminal fluid?

 

[SMK]

msvick66: I have heard the same about the clean up of a homicide scene. This is why, with her knowledge of the lockbox, the interior of the house, and her drug and Macdonald connections, I picture Julie as involved in the clean up.

 

[sundrop]

Especially in 1985

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[msvick66]

Yet they dismissed her and didn't even have her testify at any of the trials. If she had something to do with it, she had to have enticed her brothers or someone else. Still, it's hard to believe anyone would go so far as to kill these little kids. But really, what were the chances that those kids could have identified the killer if they had never seen them before? That makes me think it's someone they knew by name who was involved. The perp was let in, right? They didn't break in as far as we know?

 

[SMK]

There was no break in, but it doesn't necessarily mean Katie let them in. She hadn't gone to bed yet and was folding laundry and may not have locked the doors yet. Someone could have entered through the side door.

Julie's prints, hair, and DNA would have been in the house due to 8 months of babysitting and caring for kids. So it may have confused investigators who were seeking Hennis. I would assume male associates would have done the actual killing. But the MacDonald motive set forth by Stombaugh should have been taken seriously.

What bothers me is there will be no further testing unless Hennis is granted a new trial. Even if his conviction is overturned, he will not be exonerated.

 

[sundrop]

But some of the crime scene was staged

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[msvick66]

Staged in what way? I've read John Douglas' thoughts about staging as well, and usually means it's someone close to the victim or someone who would be considered a suspect. They are trying to point it to someone else. Hennis would have no reason to stage or clean up the scene really, nor any stranger or even drug dealers.

 

[sundrop]

Who said it was hennis or drug people?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[SMK]

What parts of the crime scene were staged???

 

[msvick66]

Just reaffirming that Hennis wouldn't need to stage nor would strangers/drug dealers. The drug dealer angle comes from Julie being a narc and setting up a drug buy at the house the weekend of the murders. But what parts were staged if you can clarify? I'm also still wondering what besides the window latch remark makes Seefeldt a suspect. I could see him needing to stage and the girls knew him. But is there anything else he has done or investigation into him that puts him on your list? Maybe you can't reveal it yet, but just curious.

 

[sundrop]

Seefeldt died several weeks ago. I have looked into him, there's one aspect of this case that people outside of the case do not know, I can't say here. I am thinking about doing a podcast on this case

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[msvick66]

Please do a podcast. I think Hennis needs one to get more to people to care about his case and the terrible injustice to him and to the victims.

I am almost scared to ask, because I never, ever seriously considered it, but when something like this happens the husband is always a suspect. I know he was not in town, and he seems very genuine, and I don't actually think he could have been involved. But there is always people setting things up--it's happened before. Staging to look like a stranger's work would be workable in a scenario where he paid someone to do it. Maybe wanted a clean break to England. Now again, I don't really think this, but just want to know how much was this angle looked at since they usually ALWAYS look to the spouse in a family killing. The fact that Gary says he said, "How many of them are dead" or "Are they all dead?" when he got the phone call before they even told him what happened reportedly, plus he didn't ask anyone to check on them when she didn't call as scheduled seems like something that in any other case would have set off a red flag. Just wondering if the idea was even investigated or if his alibi alone cleared him without any further digging.

 

[SMK]

In Whisnant's book, the detectives were initially suspicious of Gary Eastburn, due to his question over the phone of "how many of them are dead?" before he had been told anything.

They separated him from his friend and interviewed both for many hours. They took hair and saliva samples from Eastburn, and even checked to see if he might have flown from the base back up to Fayetteville- but found although he was an air traffic controller, he had no pilot's license and didn't know how to fly, plus no planes left the base on May 9th.

Of course this does not preclude a hired hit, but nothing ever pointed in that direction.

 

[msvick66]

Here's another angle. Since Gary was an officer, and if you say a scene was staged (wish we knew exactly how or what is thought be staged, I don't think I ever heard that), then you have the idea that someone was trying to set up Gary. Who could have done that? Maybe what Sundrop means is the part about the glove tip being found which made it look like MacDonald. But that falls back on Julie again, trying to stage the crime to be a copycat of the MacDonald case. But what if it was a friend of Gary's who liked his wife? He flipped out and raped her, then realizes what he has done, the kids saw him (this might work with Seefeldt as well) so he has to kill them. He thinks hard on what to do and decides to make the scene similar to Fatal Vision so they will think it was Gary. Another possibility?