- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Tim Hennis:More DNA Fraud Revealed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 27 2010, 03:53 PM (16,061 Views) | |
| Sydney Carton | Mar 27 2010, 03:53 PM Post #1 |
|
We've all seen those thousands of headlines detailing how the new DNA evidence conclusively proves (10,000 to 1!)proves that Master Sargeant Timothy Hennis committed the three heinous murders of which he was fairly acquitted iin state court.Well here's what happened yesterday. Shades of Edward Meehan! ----------------------------------------------------- Here's your link: http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2010/03/26/986482/HTML] The prosecution is in an even worse situation than we just reported .It seems there is only a 400 to 1 possibility that the crime was committed by a white male at all as opposed to the possibility of a black at 331 and the possibility oof a a Latino at 229. Why was this case ever brought up to re-trial? Who is that desperate for headlines? Today's Military Times headlines "Expert Identifies DNA ". Identified it as what? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the exact quote from the Fayette paper cited above ,which gives a 200 figure for Latinos and no per centage for Hennis males.On the basis of its past performance,this most likely to be the correct account: In this test, the DNA that is examined is identical among brothers, and it passes from father to son to grandson, and so on, Higgins said. His results found, with a 95 percent certainty, that one caucasian man out of 426 matches the DNA from the murder, one black man out of every 329 matches that DNA, and one Hispanic man of every 200 matches. Lt. Col. Kris Poppe, a defense lawyer, closely questioned Higgins about the testing methods. He tried to get Higgins to say a portion of the results of the male DNA test indicates the DNA did not come from Hennis. Higgins refused to agree. He said that Poppe was focusing on an example of a specific error that is sometimes generated in DNA analyses. Analysts are trained to look out for this type of error to avoid making a mistake in their results, he said. Higgins had only a small amount of vaginal material to check for DNA, and his tests used up most of it. He sent the remaining DNA to a private laboratory to conduct a more sensitive and precise test. The jury has not yet heard those results. Although the slide had sperm cells on it, that private laboratory's test found only DNA from Eastburn, the lawyers told the judge at a pre-trial hearing. The method doesn't always detect all the sources of DNA in a sample, the lawyers said. Several other items were tested for DNA, Higgins told the jury: A bloody towel from the Eastburns' bathroom had DNA from three people, one of them male. The male DNA did not come from Hennis, Higgins said. Anyone who touched the towel could have left DNA, he said. There has been previous testimony that in 1985, detectives and crime-scene investigators often went without gloves when they picked up evidence. DNA was found on fingernail clippings taken from Erin and Kathryn Eastburn's bodies. The DNA on Kathryn's fingernails appeared to be from more than one man. Higgins couldn't eliminate Hennis as a source for the DNA on Kathryn and Erin's fingernails. There was DNA on a glove tip that was found in the Eastburn house. It had DNA from more than one person on it, Higgins said, and he was unable to include or exclude Hennis as a source for any of it. The prosecutors said they have one more witness to present before they rest their case. The court-martial continues at 9 a.m. Monday in the new courthouse on Normandy Drive at Fort Bragg. |
 |
 
|
| Sydney Carton | Mar 29 2010, 12:36 PM Post #2 |
|
Well,the Prosecution got a witness who puts the odds that the sperm comes from Hennis even higher than any previously named figures.The defense opens this afternoon. From FayeObserver.com Published: 10:45 AM, Mon Mar 29, 2010 Prosecution rests case in Hennis court-martial The prosecution rested its case this morning in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis. The state's last witness testified that a sperm sample taken from Kathryn Eastburn's body belonged to Hennis. snip Jennifer Hopper is the former forensic biologist with the State Bureau of Investigation's crime lab who tested a vaginal swab taken from Eastburn's body. Hopper said the DNA profile found in the sperm matched Hennis. She said she used a database of the North Carolina population to calculate the chances that another white male would have the same DNA profile and found odds of 12.1 thousand trillion to one. During cross-examination, defense attorneys asked if the sample could have been contaminated when it was handled during prior trials. snip SC: Unfortunately her answer is not recorded! But she also said Hennis' DNA didn't match samples from under Kathryn Eastburn's fingernails or a bloody towel found at the Fayetteville home where she and two of her daughters were killed. The defense now has a blood expert on the stand to swear that the murderer must have been soaked in blood whereas there was no trace of blood found in either the Hennis car or the Hennis premises. Edited by Sydney Carton, Mar 29 2010, 05:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Mar 29 2010, 05:33 PM Post #3 |
|
Defense finiished off well today.They expected this and are pushing hard on the planted evidence theory. The defense began presenting its case with a DNA analyst from Raleigh who was sent extracted DNA from the same sample by the military. He testified that the only identifiable DNA he could find in the sample came from Eastburn. The test indicated there could be other DNA in the sample, but not enough to show up on the test. A medical examiner from Colorado who reviewed the autopsy reports and materials from the killings testified that the sperm found in Eastburn's body could have been there for several days before she was killed. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Mar 31 2010, 10:32 AM Post #4 |
|
Interesting correspondence here from Lone Traveller,one of the twelve who acquitted Hennis at the secod trial and who now has some salient comments on the witnesses and strategies being used at the third trial. He stands firm for the defendant. www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4995949 |
|
|
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2010, 11:19 AM Post #5 |
|
Brodhead was accustomed to dealing with dunderhead cops before he came South. Here's the latest on the way the retiring New Haven incompetent who trashed the Jovin case will be paid to teach--would I lie to you? Army lawyers! State Prosecutor Retiring To Teach Army Lawyers Hartford Courant http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-clark-jovin-0331.artmar31,0,6408950.story I put this here because it involves mistakes with DNA--and almost unbelievable delay with DNA testing on the soda pop bottle found with Jovin. Edited by Payback, Mar 31 2010, 11:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Mar 31 2010, 12:25 PM Post #6 |
|
Thanks a lot for the new info,Payback;new links and alternative patterns keep emerging from the most unexpected places when we getr iinto this field.It also turns out that the victim's babysitter has close ties to the Jeffrey MacDonald case. As far as the admirable intention of clearing people at Fort Bragg(or in the general area) with DNA testing goes,there is a very big problem.Earlier in the trial the FBI agent who handled the alleged DNA samples from the beginning admitted that there is no chain of custody for the swab containing this new Hennis DNA sample for over fifteen years(and the same observation applies in scores of other cases at the same lab).Once that it was known that it is possible to plant DNA,this was an ideal lab to start experimenting one way or the other. All the successful Innocence Project cases already adjucated( and those still pending) involve periods before it was possible to manipulate the same.The rules change for both the prosecution and defense after the date forensiic experts(like Joyce Gilmore) learned about these fascinating possibilities. In the Hennis case we have already had an expert who participated in the original testinig saying that he doesn't believe the DNA sperm could have survived the original 1985-1989 tests if had been on the swab at that time. Any which way,this case(in all its torturous intricacy) becomes more fascinating by the minute. The defense put on two tried and true witnesses for Hennis who were disbelieved by the first jury but were enthusiastically accepted by the second jury which acquitted in a mere 2 1/2 hours. They are a married(then courting)couple named Radtke.They were passing the house about 3:30 a.m. the alleged time of the murders.(This tiime frame depends entirely on the assumption that Paul Cove is a truthful witness.) They didn't see anyone on the road ad they didn't see any white chevie. They saw a man with short blonde hair cut military style ,wearing a black beret and a black members only jacket, and carrying a bag over his shoulder,several times in the area both before and after the murder.He is definitely not Hennis. All of which,if believed, indicates that Paul Cove is an extremely perjured witness.A witess who works only a few hundred feet from the ATM machine where the victim's stolen credit cards were twice cashed.And has no alibi for either occasiion. The prosecution is making a big thing out of the fact that Hennis had a large bonfire in his trash burner the Saturday after the murders but the witnesses to this fixed the time as just before 9 a.m,whereas the stolen credit card is stamped at 8:56 a.m. (SC: My summary of various accounts.One report has the Radtkes walking past the house at 3:30 ,another has the m driving past at 3:00 a.m.). |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 5 2010, 04:13 PM Post #7 |
|
The defense called alibi witnesses to prove that Hennis reported at base around five a.m. in absolutely fresh condition only 90 minutes after Paul Cook swears that he saw him leaving the crime scene. They further produced evidence tending to show that Hennis was on base at the time when the two ATM withdrawls were made with the victim's credit card. The jury heard testimony, read from a transcript from one of the previous trials, from the day room soldier, Kaarlo Ward. Ward said he called Hennis from the day room about 10:45 p.m. to get permission to close the room for the night. But Ward acknowledged he didn't wear a watch and it could have been as early as 10:30 p.m. He estimated it took 15 to 30 minutes to clean and shut down the day room, and Hennis checked it when he was done, between 11 and 11:30 p.m. The stolen bank card was used at a BB&T teller machine across Ramsey Street from Methodist University at 10:53 p.m. and 10:54 p.m. A Sheriff's Office investigator previously testified that he drove two likely routes between Hennis' office and the bank machine. His fastest time was 14 1/2minutes, suggesting that if Hennis used the stolen card, the soonest he could return to the CQ desk at Bragg would be about 11:10 p.m. Former Sgt. Manuel Fonseca had the next CQ shift, which would run 24 hours. He testified that he arrived at 8:25 a.m. on May 11, 1985, for his 8:30 a.m. start time, and that Hennis left between 8:40 and 8:50 a.m. Hennis wore battle dress. He did not seem to be in a hurry, he said. The stolen bank card was again used at the Ramsey Street bank machine at 8:55 a.m. and 8:56 a.m. that day. And three neighbors remember that Hennis started burning trash at his house before 9.00.am. The defense has indicated that it will rest after calling a final witness. Apparently the defendant will not testify. The prosecution indicates that there is another counter attack coming up. Edited by Sydney Carton, May 7 2014, 05:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 6 2010, 02:48 PM Post #8 |
|
The defense rested thiis morning without calling Sargeant Hennis despite a flurry of media reports that he would be the final witness. The prosecution did not challenge any of the defense forensic evidence and attempted to call only a single witness in rebuttal but his evidence was excluded on the grounds that it would violate attorney client privelege.This relates to an id witness put on by the defense whose testimony we have not discussed here. Frankly we think his attorneys made a big mistake in calling her in what was otherwise an exemplary presentation of a remarkedly well attested defense. Summations begin at 9 a.m. The lawyers are meeting with the judge today to work out what the final instructions will say. Hennis is charged with premeditated murder. The prosecutors said they want to give the jury the option of the lesser charge of unpremeditated murder, while the defense lawyers don't want to allow that option. "I understand that you prefer it to be all-or-nothing," said the judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, but he said the evidence presented could fit that charge, so he was inclined to keep it as an option. Other instructions may discuss the testimony of eye-witnesses and the issue of "chain-of-custody." Chain-of-custody refers to the records and procedures used to keep track of the storage and handling of evidence - if there is a gap in the records in the 25-year-history of the case, the defense could argue evidence could have been tampered with or accidentally otherwise tainted. There are fourteen jurors on a court martial but the law allows a conviction with a two thirds majority,ten total.However it would require a unanimous verdict of fourteen to impose a death sentence,which can not happen if even a single juror harbors a reasonable doubt. It would seem ,almost ,impossible that such could happen here. Edited by Sydney Carton, Apr 6 2010, 05:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 8 2010, 02:30 PM Post #9 |
|
The jury came in around 10:45 this morning. They convictred after a mere 2 hours and forty-five minutes of deliberation. It is not yet known if it was unanimous. Frankly,this is the only occasion in the four years since we came here that an accused whom we defended in advance of a verdict was convicted,or,more generally even went to trial.I am not apologizing.It was a bad verdict.I hope for the honor of the armed forces that some one, or four, had the decency to hold out. Undoubtedly the defense lost by suddenly resorting in its summation to what I have several times referred to as the Inkst versus Pinksk defense. It's an old Jewish joke told around Columbia law school. Inkst is suing Pinkst on charges of borrowing and breaking Inkst's fabulous T'ang dynasty vase.When Pinkst's lawyer gets up to open the defense he tells the jury "We have witnesses who can prove my client never borrowed the vase;we have witnesses who saw the broken loong before it was allegedly borrowed;and there are witnesses who remember that it was returned in perfect condition." Actually this is only outrageous because Pinkst is sitting there and can obviously tell us ,if he chooses to testify,which of these three defenses is the correct alternative.Suppose Pinkst has died or become incapacitated before trial,the executors of his estate would be perfectly justified in arguing,"We have no means of knowing what transpired between Inkst and Pinkst,but our investigation has proven that the aaaaaavailable witnesses are split four ways,(even some in Inkst own household),you can not therefore find for Inkst on a fair preponderance of the evidence." In the Hennis case,a previous jury which heard nearly identical evidence when the incidents were much fresher in the witnesses' minds took only two and a half hours to acquit.Some of them have been heard from in the course of the present proceedings and these still believe the defendant to be innocent. One particularly strong point is the presence of blood stained footprints leading from the bodies to the driveway.Contrary to suppositions about a white Chevrolet allegedly parked in the vicinity being the vehicle,the inference seems obvious that the car was parked in the driveway.And that,further, the murderer would have left blood inside the autobile.Not the slightest trace of blood was found in the Hennis auto or in the Hennis home despite the best medical opinion that the murderer, not merely his shoes,would be drenched in blood. Moreover, the best forensic opinion is that the bloody shoe imprints are size 9, not the huge size 12 worn by the defendant.Hennis can't squeeze into a size 9.And none of the alien DNa found at the scene(some under the fingernails) matches Hennis. Hennis' attorney was therefore justified in arguing that"EVEN IF you do not believe my client's denial that he had sex with this woman,she could have been murdered at any time in most of a three day period.There is therefore no reason to believe the semen was deposited at the time of the murder." The evidence which was unquestionably deposited at the time of the murders is,and has always been ,completely in my client's favor." On the other hand,if he was so unwise as to introduce consensual sex as an alternative affirmative defense(this very serious distinction is not sufficently clarified in the press reports) he has served his client very badly indeed. But whatever the error by counsel, it should not have cost his client the rest of his life,though it well may have done so. Edited by Sydney Carton, Apr 8 2010, 03:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 9 2010, 02:59 PM Post #10 |
|
What these men did yesterday was a disgrace to the uniform which they wear,regardless of the defendant's guilt or innocence. They reached a unanimous verdict in only two hours and forty-five minutes after three weeks of testimony.Quite obviously they never bothered to discuss ninety-five per cent of the evidence(even the weight of the total forensic evidence) at all. Both the North Carolina Supreme Court and the second jury held the entirety of that evidence to be "questionable" or mendacious.There was nothing new in the present case save the evidence of sperm on the swab,sperm which may or may not have been found iin the victim's body as it was only "found" on the swab a quarter of a century later. If it were deposited in 1984 there is a period of nearly four days in which the intercourse might have occurred.On the other hand the numerous bloody footprints (and the bloody towel) could only have been left by the killer at the exact time of the crime.The partial footprints all measure size 9(Hennis wears a gigantic size 12) and there is no Hennis DNA on the towel;although there is clear male DNA which under such circumstances would logically been left only by the killer. Moreover, the bloody footprints led directly into the driveway where a car(whatever its make) must have been waiting(i.e.the murderer's car could not be identical with the white chevy which two witnesses came to imaginie, many months later, that they saw parked opposite the victims'house). And not one spot of blood was found in either the Hennis car or at the Hennis home. In addition the victim's stolen credit card was cashed twice at the same AT&T, circa 10:50 p.m the night of the alleged murder time and again around 8:52 the following morning. Unless the credit card thief and the murderer are two separate people there is no way that Hennis is the killer.And unless there are two killers,one wearing 9 shoes and the only one soaked in the blood,there is no way Hennis is the killer at all. He was on duty from 5a.m. to shortly before 9 am of the following morning.So has a good alibi for the first occasion(but he was on break) and an ironclad alibi for the second cashing. He was seen leaving the base at around eight-fifty and three neighbors(at least one of whom is a prosecutiion witness) remember him burning trash at 8:57 am. None of this(and there is much more) made the slightest impression on these jurors.They did not even bother to examine a single one of the numerous pieces of evidence which established the above facts quite clearly twenty-five years ago.And which were regarded as determinative by two separate groups of fact triers with as good,or much better,qualifications than their own. I wrote a few days ago that it was almost impossible that fourteen decent,rational, men would convict on such evidence.However,the Law operates on the purely theoretical premise that all men are inherently rational,and fourteen of them did the decently impossible. The Sentencing Hearing is Monday .Only the worst can be expected from these men. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 13 2010, 04:56 PM Post #11 |
|
The penalty went to the jury a couple of hours ago. Frankly it looks grim.They were reported to be "misty eyed" while listening to the prosecution witnesses and the defense witnesses were frequently gouded to say that they (rightly in our firm opinion) did not accept the jurors' verdict. The fact is that Tim Hennis had an admirable career and left a fine impression on every single individual who has had the pleasure of his acquaintance since 1984. Here are statements from a few: Retired Army Col. Michael Hampson testified that Hennis was an assistant scoutmaster with him at Fort Lewis. Once when Hampson was out of town and his son needed to complete a 5-mile hike for Boy Scouts, Hennis took him on the hike, he testified. "He was very generous with his time with all the boys," Hampson said. "He was very good, very patient with them. He had a unique way of turning their energy into productivity without losing his temper with them." Hampson also served with Hennis in Iraq during the first Gulf War. Hennis then was a staff sergeant. "He brought a leadership to the platoon," Hampson said. Retired officers and enlisted personnel who worked with Hennis at Fort Lewis said he was a strong, paternal leader and a role model. They said he was a key person in smoothing over the inevitable cultural conflicts when a unit was formed by combining 100 Army Reservists with 70 Army soldiers. An officer said Hennis deserved the credit for the rapid, successful and on-budget completion of a $500,000 remodeling project at Fort Lewis. Another said that when he needed a sergeant major on a task force and none was available, Hennis, who at master sergeant was one rank below, was his first choice to serve as the acting sergeant major, and he did the job well. "He was the first one there in the mornings, last one there in the evenings," said retired Col. Joseph Williams, who became friends with Hennis as well as his supervisor. Maj. Rob Stelle, a prosecutor, asked Williams on cross-examination what his thoughts were on Hennis now that he is a convicted murderer. Williams said that he understands that the jury based its decision on the evidence it saw, and he respects that decision, but "I still hold Tim Hennis in high regard." |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 15 2010, 02:55 PM Post #12 |
|
About forty-five minutes ago. It was inevitable,as we predicted, given the false and iniquitous verdict.After some thirteen hours of deliberation they voted for death.Apparently one or two people held out for three days.It will plead for their humanity when they are eventually judged in their turn for the ooutrage which they perpetrated. I will print links when I can formulate a reasonably clear account of what happened. |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 15 2010, 05:25 PM Post #13 |
|
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-40/1271366737303790.xml&storylist=national |
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Jan 24 2011, 04:44 PM Post #14 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/22/937216/nc-soldier-sbi-lab-problems-should.html Published Sat, Jan 22, 2011 02:39 PM Modified Sat, Jan 22, 2011 02:40 PM N.C. soldier: SBI lab problems should mean new trial FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. Attorneys for a former Fort Bragg soldier who is on death row in the killings of a mother and her two children say problems at North Carolina's crime lab should give him a new trial. Jurors in the military trial might have changed their minds about convicting Timothy Hennis or sentencing him to death if defense attorneys were aware that a State Bureau of Investigation crime lab worker who testified was accused of writing misleading reports in other cases, according to The Fayetteville Observer, which had a reporter at a hearing Friday held at Fort Leavenworth where Hennis is imprisoned. The military judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, didn't make a ruling at the hearing, saying he would issue a written decision later. Hennis was convicted at a court-martial last year after he was recalled to Army duty to face a trail in the killings of Kathryn Eastburn and her 5- and 3-year-old daughters more than 25 years ago. Hennis was originally found guilty of the slayings in state court in 1985, but that conviction was overturned. Problems in the SBI lab surfaced shortly before Hennis' court-martial began and his attorneys didn't have time to digest them, said one of Hennis' lawyers, Lt. Col. Andrew Glass. A lab worker who testified about DNA evidence, Brenda Bissette Dew, was cited two dozens times in other cases for writing misleading reports. If Hennis' lawyers had known that, they would have tried to discredit her testimony, Glass said. "It's evidence of her bias," Glass said. "She thinks she works for the government. She thinks it's her job to put Master Sgt. Hennis away." But prosecutors argued that defense attorneys never questioned the credibility of the DNA evidence Dew presented and have never released the results of their own DNA tests. Capt. Jody Young, a prosecutor, also pointed out the defense argued the DNA resulted from consensual sex between Hennis and Eastburn. "How can you argue consent and then say (the SBI) got it wrong?" Young asked. SC:Actually,not true.Hennis has repeatedly sworn that he did not have sex with the victim but his attorneys chose to argue that even if the jury the recently discovered DNA was left there at the time of the crime,not placed there many years later,the jury had the alternative since Hennis did not testify this time of finding that it came from consensual sex. Army prosecutors began pursuing Hennis again in 2006 after a new DNA test linked Hennis from evidence collected from Eastburn's body. Young also asked the judge to consider Eastburn's family and not make her husband have to go to another trial and "tell 14 more strangers how he felt when his family was murdered." The judge did deny a request from defense attorneys to get documents from an investigation into the SBI crime lab. Hennis is separately asking a federal appeals court to rule that the Army had no jurisdiction and shouldn't have forced him back into uniform after he was discharged. Information from: The Fayetteville Observer, http://www.fayobserver.com Please remember the DNA found under the victim's fingertips does not match Hennis.Also never forget that the partial set of blood soaked footprints leading away from the body measure size twelve(Hennis wears an 8) and further,this crime lab has been the subject of terrific scandals involving hundreds of pieces of evidence which have gone missing. Moreover the first analysis of the DNA(see above) in no way coincides with that given by the state's expert in the recent trial. Admittedly we have an axe to grind.Since we came here over four years ago this is the only case in which we went to bat for a non-convicted defendant who was subsequently convicted.In fact in my entire life I've only had to such that were not subsequently overturned(and one of them lost by a three-two decision). On the other hand it took Steve Trusscott, whom I backed since the early seventies over forty years. to get acquitted and indemnified while Hennis is up against the entire US Army. Thanks abb. Edited by Sydney Carton, Jan 24 2011, 04:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Mar 22 2012, 02:08 PM Post #15 |
|
thanks abb http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/11/1700974/deadly-crimes-seeds-of-doubt.html Published Sun, Dec 11, 2011 02:00 AM Modified Fri, Dec 09, 2011 06:02 PM Deadly crimes, seeds of doubt BY STEVE FORD - Editorial Page Editor snip We'll close our little survey by calling the name of Timothy Hennis, as brought to mind in a recent issue of The New Yorker. Yes, Hennis' saga got the full New Yorker treatment, in an article for the Nov. 14 edition that takes up 11 pages. It begins with a full-page color reproduction of a booking photo from the City County Bureau of Identification in Fayetteville. Hennis, then a Fort Bragg sergeant, was boyish looking at the time of his arrest. But then it dawns on you how big he is: The height scale behind him shows him at 77 inches - a hulking blonde dude convicted in the gruesome 1985 murders of Katie Eastburn and two young daughters. There are six people on the U.S. military's death row, at the Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Hennis is one of them. That gives him a ghoulish claim to fame, for this is his death row No. 2. Hennis initially was found guilty by a Cumberland County jury - three counts of murder, one count of raping Katie Eastburn. (He had made contact with Eastburn, whose Air Force pilot husband was away on a training mission, when he answered an ad about a dog the Eastburns wanted to give away.) Soon he was a resident of death row at Central Prison. There had been evidence appearing to point toward Hennis, but prosecutors overplayed their hand in the use of graphic photos, or so the state Supreme Court ruled in awarding him a new trial. The second time around, in 1989, his lawyers undermined the state's case so thoroughly that he was acquitted. Hennis re-enlisted and finished out a 23-year Army career in good standing. After his retirement he and his family settled near Fort Lewis, Wash. But the good life came to a crashing, shocking halt. A Cumberland County investigator learned that samples taken from Eastburn's body had not been tested for DNA, a procedure that was not well developed in the mid-1980s. In 2005 he had the samples sent to the SBI crime lab. The match came back: Hennis, to an utter certainty. The New Yorker piece, by Nicholas Schmidle, doesn't fail to note that our valiant SBI lab was found to have misreported or withheld blood evidence in ways advantageous to prosecutors. Could those DNA results have been similarly twisted by people frustrated that Hennis had gone free? Or could the DNA findings have reflected an instance of consenting adults doing what adults sometimes do? Not that Hennis used that excuse when the Army recalled him to active duty, court-martialed him, convicted him and sent him to Leavenworth for execution. The magazine piece raises the issue of double jeopardy, which is complicated by Hennis' military status. But the issue that conspicuously sifts out after those 11 pages involves the accuracy and significance of the DNA findings - in the context of an SBI whose credibility took a serious hit, and of further disclosures about the tactics of prosecutors who can't stand to lose. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all Edited by Sydney Carton, Mar 22 2012, 03:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:55 AM Jul 13