- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Tim Hennis:More DNA Fraud Revealed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 27 2010, 03:53 PM (16,062 Views) | |
| Sydney Carton | Mar 22 2012, 03:24 PM Post #16 |
|
"Footprints found outside the house were three sizes smaller than Hennis’s shoes. A spot of blood discovered on a bathroom towel did not match Hennis’s blood. Investigators had found in the Eastburns’ house several hairs—including a pubic hair—that belonged to neither Hennis nor the victims. The house was a rental, and the pubic hair had been found near a couch in the living room, not on Katie Eastburn’s body, but the prosecution did little to contest the defense’s presentation. As for the fire that Hennis set in his back yard after the murder, the defense asserted that nothing in the charred remains had been traced to the Eastburn home. And not only did Hennis’s Members Only jacket lack bloodstains: an analyst from the International Fabric Care Institute testified that Varsol, the chemical used in dry cleaning, could not remove all traces of blood." from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_schmidle#ixzz1psZ15p9L Edited by Sydney Carton, Mar 22 2012, 03:25 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Sydney Carton | May 7 2014, 05:37 PM Post #17 |
|
Hennis lost his latest appeal last month, but without prejudice to a re-argument of the points at a later time. http://www.fayobserver.com/military/article_0ae1306d-aec0-5e69-a3b5-794cfd20afd5.html Edited by Sydney Carton, May 8 2014, 10:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Mar 24 2015, 01:35 PM Post #18 |
|
Hennis filed a new appeal before a federal court this month-his eleventh-to again argue that he is entitled to immediate release. Ten times, so far, those federal courts have either declined to hear argument or claimed that they would hear it only after it was denied in the course of the regular appeal of the verdict . As the average time spent on death row after a military conviction is twenty-eight years, the courts seem determined to give Hennis a life sentence in what they admit in an "unprecedented case" in which he "well be entitled to relief." Apparently they are so in awe of almighty DNA evidence about the semen that they belief he deserves anything that he gets. But this is to ignore the other two pieces of DNA evidence. (1)The same male DNA is found under the fingernails of both the victim and one of her daughters. It is not does match Hennis. The only time on which both victims could have acquired the DNA was in their death struggles. (2) The mother's blood formed a complete footprint of the murderer's shoe. That footprint shows a completely different shoe size than that of Sergeant Hennis. (3) A pubic hair found on the spot of the rape.Again the DNA is not that of Hennis For the sake of argument, but only for the sake of argument, let us assume that Hennis did leave the sperm deposit, it could have been left at any period of up to twenty-four hours before death. The blood and the fingernail deposits could only have been left in the death agony. If all three were left simultaneously, there must have been two murderers and this is not anyone's case. And (4) there is the very positive evidence of the original army forensic expert from the circa 1995 investigation (evidence which he repeated for the Hennis defense in the 2010) trial that the Hennis semen was not there when he made the original tests. The 2010 trial transcript ,so far as I can discover, is not available on line, but if he gave the evidence as reported and remained firm under cross-examination, it is near impossible to believe that the semen is not a deliberate plant. (5) There is also a man's hair in her bed which is not her husband's and does not, according to the DNA evidence, belong to Hennis.However, like the semen, and unlike the fingernail scrapings, the blood, and the pubic hair,there is no time or space link to the killings Here is the link to a recent(January 16) tv treatment of the case.One of the few sources which,like yours truly,seems to believe that something may have gone terribly wrong here. https/www.youtube.com/watch?v=63mi1fbucU Edited by Sydney Carton, Mar 24 2015, 04:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Apr 15 2015, 05:41 PM Post #19 |
|
Here is a Hennis report from the website of Dr.Maurice Godwin who advised the defense between 2008 and 2010. Dr.Godwin has an excellent reputation and he obviously still thinks that there is something very wrong here.As I have pointed out before there are many ,many points still to be made for Hennis which(in the absence of a transcript) would not appear to have been made at his third trial and are not being emphasized by present legal representatives. http://www.drmauricegodwin.com/eastburnmurders.html#.VS7lNHugqmc INVESTIGATIVE FAILURES IN THE EASTBURN MURDER CASE 1. Failed to keep a log entry book for those who entered and exited the crime scene to sign 2. Investigator Trogdon failed to wear gloves while dusting for prints on the front storm door 3. Failed to cast an impression of the tennis shoe print found behind the house near the air condition unit 4. Failed to take photos of the exterior of the home from all sides 5. Failed to collect a cigarette butt lying next to the strip of cloth found across from the home 6. Failed to collect clothing hanging on the closet door in the master bedroom 7. Failed to vacuumed floors in a timely manner after the murders 8. Failed to collect (cut out) floor title with bloody shoe impression to preserve as evidence 9. Failed to collect (cut out) carpet with bloody shoe impression to preserve as evidence 10. Failed to safely secure and retain dresser draws from the master bedroom for evidence 11. Failed to secure and retain contents from Kathryn Eastburn’s purse found in the living room 12. Failed to follow-up on another man who came by the Eastburn home on May 3rd to see the dog 13. Failed to follow-up on Eastburn’s JC Penny and gas credit cards to see if they had been used 14. Failed to type blood found in various locations in the house 15. Failed to collect and retain candy jar from dresser draw in master bedroom for examination purposes. Jar had key to missing metal box and some coins in it 16. Failed to collect and retain dresser draw at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom. This draw was where the money was stolen from an envelope 17. Failed to take scaled crime scene photographs throughout the house 18. Failed to make a proper and timely crime scene sketch – supposedly investigators lost the originals crime scene sketch – finally made a non scaled sketch was made a year later but back dated the sketch to make it appear as though it was drawn the day after the murders 19. Failed to properly document and photograph a bloody brush pattern on the wall in the hallway 20. Failed to collect orange throw pillows from living room 21. Investigators failed to wear proper shoe protection while working the crime scene 22. Failed to use evidence number markers, to show directionality of the bloody shoe tracks leading down the driveway from the carport door 23. Missed a blood spatter above the master bedroom door in the hallway 24. Failed to dust for prints on widow frame and seal in children’s bedroom – first bedroom on left – window was partly opened 25. Failed to collect white substance on carpet between Erin Eastburn’s legs 26. No crime scene photos showing clean-up of blood on sink in master bath 27. Failed to photograph hair found stuck on sliding glass patio door in den 28. Failed to collect glad trash bag box 29. Failed to properly document and photograph bloody shoe tracks in the hallway leading away from the master bedroom 30. Failed to properly document and photograph left bloody shoe tracks leading to master bedroom 31. Failed to use evidence number markers, to show directionality of the bloody shoe tracks going towards the master bedroom and leading away from the master bedroom into the den/kitchen area 32. Failed to collect several blue bath towels in master bathroom 33. Failed to photograph partial shoe impressions in front of dresser at foot of bed and around bed 34. Failed to photograph door knobs with blood on same 35. Failed to photograph blood droplets and spatter on wall in hallway 36. Failed to collect or examine bottom of Kathryn Eastburn’s tennis shoes for evidence 37. Failed to properly document or photograph bloody shoe tracks on front porch 38. Failed to properly document or photograph all fingerprints before lifting them from the surfaces 39. Failed to properly document or photograph all palm prints before lifting them from the surfaces 40. Failed to properly document or photograph all hairs before collecting them. Excluded are hairs retrieved through tapings 41. Failed to process the stereo unit, which was found on when deputies first entered the Eastburn house 42. Failed to document or photograph paper tissue in small trash can located in master bedroom 43. Failed to originally find or collect condom wrapper located under the master bed 44. Failed to collect glass vase which was lying in front of master bathroom door on the floor. 45. Failed to process the crime scene before collecting evidence 46. Mislabeled pillow from the master bedroom as coming from child’s bedroom – first bedroom on left 47. Failed to collect the dust ruffle from the master bed – the skirting had blood on it 48. Failed to photograph white piece of clothing laying next to Kathryn Eastburn’s body 49. Failed to photograph tip of latex glove in location where it was originally found – living room 50. Failed to collect the mattress cover from master bed 51. Failed to photograph bath towels lying in the master bedroom prior to collecting same 52. SBI claimed to have conducted ninhydrine examination of the interior hall walls and latent fingerprints were found and photographed. However, no photos of the fingerprints have been reviewed by this examiner 53. Kathryn Eastburn’s master card credit card was stolen along with her wallet. Investigators failed to check to see if her credit cards such as VISA and JC Penny had been used after the murders. 54. Failed to document or collect pubic hairs from Kathryn Eastburn which were matted with whitish creamy fluid 55. Failed to arrest the real killers Quite a list. Edited by Sydney Carton, Apr 15 2015, 05:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Oct 1 2015, 03:28 PM Post #20 |
|
As of Sept.29,the government is applying the same technique as is being applied to Tommy Zeigler in Florida.They clearly hope that he will die of old age before they get around to even hearing arguments on the very serious constitutional questions at the heart of this case. September 29, 2015 Need we say more The Law Office of Philip D. Cave Share Tweet this Post Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Timothy Hennis filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Hennis is confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (“USDB”). He challenges his 2010 conviction by general court-martial for a triple murder that occurred in 1985. Petitioner mainly claims that the military court-martial lacked jurisdiction. He alleges other constitutional violations in the 14 grounds presented in his petition. The Court has screened the petition and finds that Mr. Hennis had not exhausted military court remedies. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Hennis v. Nelson. A good recitation of habeas for military accused’s and prisoners. Of note: Mr. Hennis filed the instant petition pro se and has not sought appointment of counsel. In fact, he expresses his intent to litigate this federal habeas petition pro se and even his desire to manage his defense during his military criminal appeals. Mr. Hennis is currently represented by multiple counsel on his military direct appeals. He unwisely seeks to simultaneously litigate the exact same claims in federal civilian court while representing himself. The Court strongly urges Mr. Hennis to consult with his military defense team as to all matters having to do with his military convictions and sentence and to discuss with them all possible defenses and concerns. Any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be exhausted in the military courts. Mr. Hennis should carefully consider the pitfalls he has already encountered in this pro se attempt to prematurely assert his claims in civilian federal court. Even if he continues to believe that he is more capable to argue the facts of his case than any of his attorneys, he is strongly urged to take full advantage of the expertise and resources of his defense team. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:55 AM Jul 13