Monday, April 26, 2010
"In 3rd Trial, Conviction in Murders From 1985" by John Schwartz
Twenty years ago a soldier, Master Sgt. Timothy B Hennis was tried in civilian court for 3 murders. Hennis was acquitted of the the murders. This month Hennis was recalled to face the military court at Fort Brag. Hennis was convicted of the same murders he was acquitted because of DNA tests that were not available during the first trial. Originally, he had been convicted of raping and murdering Kathryn Eastburn and killing her two daughters in 1985. Since then, the DNA identification technology and the field of forensic science has improved tremendously. The military jury was able to try him again this year. Forensic scientists were able to provide convicting evidence linking Hennis' DNA to Ms Eastburns DNA. Evidently, Forensic science has made many advances over the years and is extremely useful in solving crimes. These DNA tests were very helpful in solving this case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
In this article it talks about a soldier who had been tried for 3 accounts of murder, but was freed under insuffient evidence. He was put on the list of freed people who were at one time on death row. I though that artie did a good job of explaining the article and the time periods which were present, because the crime was committed in 1985, it took a while for the scientists to be able to come to a firm conclusion on this case. I thought that it was a very interesting article and I thought that artie did a good job of explaining the whole situation and the circumstances in which the felon was in during the time from the crime to present day, over all I thought it was a very interesting article.
This article is very intriguing and very well writen. It is short sweet and to the point, and the story is fantastic. I liked the part where Artie said that Forensic science has really become advanced over the past 25 years. And it really helped catch the Sargent who murdered and raped 3 women.
How can we believe in forensic science when they take out more than one case at a time or more than one piece of evidence to the crime? It’s called contamination they can’t even get that right. The lady was fired for doing this that tested the evidence in this case. so if u want to tell me that forensic science has come a long way in 25yrs still has a long way to go be for its done right...
Three things I liked about this article where how he explained the case which Hennis was convicted for. I also liked how we were studying DNA this year in forensics and were able to relate to this article about how DNA has improved over the years. Finally I realy liked how he went into detail on how much time he was in jail and what kidn of act he was convicted for.
I would suggest to state what the trial is at today and if he is still going to serve time for his conviction or have they proved the past court wrong. I would also suggest explaining how the DNA evidence was found and where they would look to study this DNA 20 years later.
One aspect I really liked about this article was how we were able to relate to this article after studying DNA this year.
Three things I liked about this article where how he explained the case which Hennis was convicted for. I also liked how we were studying DNA this year in forensics and were able to relate to this article about how DNA has improved over the years. Finally I realy liked how he went into detail on how much time he was in jail and what kidn of act he was convicted forOne aspect I really liked about this article was how we were able to relate to this article after studying DNA this year.
There were three main things that I liked about this review. First of all it was different than most of the trial posts, which are about men who are aquitted. This post is about a man who was committed instead. Second of all, it was on topic as it was about the effect of DNA evidence. Thirdly, it was concise without overwhelming the reader with unnecessary facts.
There were two things that I did not like about this review. One was that it states that "This month" Hennis goes on trial but the month is never actually given. The article could be from a while ago but we do not know from this review. Another was that it did not explain fully how one man can go on three trials for the same crime. It probably has to do with him being in the military but to me it wasn't clear.
This review basically just brought more attention to the fact that DNA evidence is becoming more and more important in criminal trials as time passes, even to older cases.
I think this review is very interesting and well done. The first thing he did well is that he explained the case in which Hennis was convicted for. I also liked how Artie related our forensic study of DNA to the article. He also talked about how this study has improved over time. Lastly, I really enjoyed the detail that Artie went into about the conviction of the crime and the time served in jail.
I believe Artie did very well, but could have talked more about the current state of the case. I also believe it would have helped him to explain all about how the DNA was found so much later.
I most enjoyed the fact that this article related the topic to what we are currently learning.
Three things I liked about this article were how Artie explained the case that Hennis was convicted for. I also liked how we’re studying DNA this year in forensics and therefore are able to relate to this article about how DNA has improved over the years. Lastly, I liked how he went into detail on how much time he was in jail and what type of act he was convicted for. I would suggest explaining where this trial is at today and if Hennis is going to serve time for his conviction. I enjoyed this article because I liked how we’re able to relate to it after studying DNA this year.
There were three main things that I liked about this article and review. First of all it was very different than most of the trial posts, which are about men who are aquitted. This post is different it discusses a man who was committed instead. Secondly, the article was right on forensic topic as it was about the effect of DNA evidence. Thirdly, the article and review were very concise without overwhelming the reader with unnecessary facts
The one thing I did not enjoy about the article and review was that it did not fully explain how one man can go on three trials for the same crime.
One aspect about this review I really liked was that the article just brought more attention to the fact that DNA evidence is becoming more and more important in criminal trials
Post a Comment