Guy Heinze jr. - another wrongful conviction

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have been following this case from the start. The fix was in, and the jury duly returned a conviction (with a little help from the judge). I have wondered if there would ever be any hope for this guy.

Now it looks like maybe there is...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...w-documentary-stirs-up-support-173732040.html

This is another "Wonderland" style execution, not too unlike the Lundy case except it involved eight victims instead of two. Obviously one person could not have done this crime.

 

[RoseMontague]

Very strange. How could one person have accomplished this alone without any injuries to himself. Wouldn't somebody have had time to at least call the cops or run out the door? This is a big mystery without any motive. Why did his defense agree to allow the holdout juror (for not guilty) to be replaced? This sounds like a setup.

 

[Kaosium]

Very strange. How could one person have accomplished this alone without any injuries to himself. Wouldn't somebody have had time to at least call the cops or run out the door? This is a big mystery without any motive. Why did his defense agree to allow the holdout juror (for not guilty) to be replaced? This sounds like a setup.

According to the article posted:

The state agreed to take the death sentence off the table in exchange for getting a juror replaced.

I guess that must be it.

What an odd case, I wonder what really happened here. What does the blood evidence amount to?

 

[Antony]

Classic case of police who see their job as "solving" the crime the easiest way possible: by charging the person who called them to the scene.

 

[RoseMontague]

According to the article posted:



I guess that must be it.

What an odd case, I wonder what really happened here. What does the blood evidence amount to?

Is that a legal "deal"? Once the jury is set there has to be only limited reasons a juror can be replaced.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

According to the article posted:



I guess that must be it.

What an odd case, I wonder what really happened here. What does the blood evidence amount to?

This was low-life family. Somebody in the family ran afoul of drug dealers or other dangerous people. They owed money. They stole money or drugs. They ratted someone out. Something like that...

 

[Kaosium]

Is that a legal "deal"? Once the jury is set there has to be only limited reasons a juror can be replaced.

If it's not, then that's probably a good thing (at this stage). It would give him a legitimate uncorrected error to appeal.

Regarding the blood evidence, this strikes me as strange:

The strongest forensic evidence leading to Heinze’s conviction came from victims’ blood spots on a pair of gym shorts worn the morning he found his family dead. The problem was the stain was on gym shorts worn under a pair of unstained khaki shorts.

“How does the blood get on those when he was wearing shorts over them?” State prosecutor John B. Johnson told BBC.

Heinze told police it must have been picked up when he went through the mobile home, and at one point, sat on a bed.

The defence admitted the blood evidence hurt their case, but suggested it was far from being a smoking gun as there was no blood anywhere else on Heinze.
​

Victims'--that's plural. From the rest of the paragraph it sounds like that blood must have been on the back of those shorts that were underneath the other shorts. If he came back to a bloodbath scene and sat down I could see how the one pair might hike up as he sat and some blood mixed from the murders got on to the inner pair. I'm having trouble devising a scenario where he gets mixed blood from more than one victim on the back of his undershorts as evidence he committed the crime.

Also, how did they know who the blood belonged to if:

Investigators did not collect DNA samples from the scene.

 

[Kaosium]

This was low-life family. Somebody in the family ran afoul of drug dealers or other dangerous people. They owed money. They stole money or drugs. They ratted someone out. Something like that...

I would guess they'd have to be very dangerous people and I suppose drugs might be one motive, it just doesn't fit with my mental image of what Brunswick Georgia is like. That's just up the coast from Jacksonville, I've been there and know something about the area. However I wasn't looking for drugs when I ventured into the seedy areas of town so perhaps I missed the worst elements and/or it's declined alarmingly since.

Did police at least try to follow up on where Guy Heinze got the crack from?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would guess they'd have to be very dangerous people and I suppose drugs might be one motive, it just doesn't fit with my mental image of what Brunswick Georgia is like. That's just up the coast from Jacksonville, I've been there and know something about the area. However I wasn't looking for drugs when I ventured into the seedy areas of town so perhaps I missed the worst elements and/or it's declined alarmingly since.

Did police at least try to follow up on where Guy Heinze got the crack from?

I don't know what kind of investigation was done. I followed this case in the media from the time of the murders, in 2008 I believe. It was a big story for a couple of days, and then Police Chief Doering did his press conference to announce that Heinze Jr. had been arrested, without giving any details whatsoever.

I immediately thought, "this guy could not have done this crime, and if he had done it, they would have him dead to rights with loads of physical evidence, and they would be talking about the evidence."

After that I set a Google alert, and the news coverage was almost nil. They held Heinze Jr. for several years while they tried to put together a case. The prosecution kept requesting and getting continuances. There was a problem with a judge who had to be removed or step down because of an ethics dispute related to another case. The defense seemed to be somewhat competent, as they were demanding oversight of DNA testing, which further delayed the trial.

The coverage of the trial was skimpy too, although it was obvious the "evidence" was contrived, and the prosecution theory was full of holes.

I strongly suspect there are lots of people, including cops, who know what really happened and who probably did it. Everyone knows it was done by people who will break into a house and bludgeon an entire family to death if they have a grievance... which discourages curiosity.

 

[Antony]

This was low-life family. Somebody in the family ran afoul of drug dealers or other dangerous people. They owed money. They stole money or drugs. They ratted someone out. Something like that...

All the more reason for the police not wanting to tangle with the real killers.

 

[katy_did]

I saw this documentary the other day. My first thought was how one person could possibly have killed that number of people without any of them really fighting back or even getting out of bed. Several of them were killed in the same room as each other. Weird case.

I'm puzzled as to why his lawyers don't seem to have appealed - is it because this would put the death penalty back on the table? In hindsight it's obvious they made a mistake by agreeing to have the one juror removed in exchange for taking away the death penalty option. It seemed as if they didn't want a retrial because they were worried the prosecution would then know the whole defence case and be better prepared.

The documentary series is available to watch here - the whole series is excellent (if it's region-locked you may be able to watch it using Hola).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Collecting evidence is such a chore

"Bloody clothes seen in the bathroom, bloody hand marks and fingerprints seen elsewhere were also not collected for evidence."

Ridiculous. As for the spot of blood on the gym shorts, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that it is not the defendant's own blood, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Darat]

Very strange. How could one person have accomplished this alone without any injuries to himself. Wouldn't somebody have had time to at least call the cops or run out the door? This is a big mystery without any motive. Why did his defense agree to allow the holdout juror (for not guilty) to be replaced? This sounds like a setup.

According to the article posted:



I guess that must be it.

What an odd case, I wonder what really happened here. What does the blood evidence amount to?

How on earth is that allowed? I am astonished that it is legal.

Yes I know a judge can do a lot of shenanigans with juries when it can't produce a result but an actual "deal"?

 

[Samson]

How on earth is that allowed? I am astonished that it is legal.

Yes I know a judge can do a lot of shenanigans with juries when it can't produce a result but an actual "deal"?

Is there ignoble cause abandonment of judicial process? "Lowlives" are sacrificed? It happened to Teina Pora, lazy 20 year lag, and rightwingers here say it was a good outcome for a gang prospect with no prospects. Is this what happens? I would like the proposition to be specifically refuted, because it seems commonplace, with no official or effective political condemnation.

Please tell me it ain't so!!

 

[a_unique_person]

How can a juror be replaced after the evidence has been completed? I don't believe that would be possible in Australia.

 

[newyorkguy]

When I read the news link in the OP I was astounded to discover all eight victims were beaten to death. I sure didn't see that coming.

Heinze was convicted in the 2009 beating death of eight members of his family at the New Hope trailer park in Brunswick, Ga. He was 22 at the time. All were capable of defending themselves and there was no evidence they were drugged or bound.

Autopsy results showed each victim sustained dozens of wounds from being hit with a blunt object, fracturing skulls and teeth, breaking bones and in some cases, showing defensive wounds. It took two days of testimony by the coroner to list all the injuries.

The jury replacement sounds very unjust.

After several hours, they took a vote and it was 9-3 in favour of a guilty verdict. The foreman told BBC one juror, who believed Heinze was guilty, said nothing would convince him to change his mind. When the same question was put to the three who at that point believed Heinze was not guilty, one juror said she would not change her mind. The arguments continued the next morning, the documentary shows, and notes came out to the court that singled out juror 152 who believed Heinze should not be convicted.

Usually, a hung jury means an end to the trail and the process has to begin again after a new jury is chosen. In this case, the defence and prosecution both told BBC they agreed to allow the judge to dismiss juror 152 in hopes of reaching a verdict.

The judge then brought in an alternate juror and deliberations began from scratch, jurors said. Early on they asked the new female juror if she wanted to take a vote, according to the foreman. When she agreed, they came back with a unanimous guilty verdict. Ironically, had the defence not agreed with the dismissal of the juror, Heinze would likely have had a new trial, according to the documentary and comments from Heinze’s family members to Yahoo Canada News.

Why in the world would Heinze's defense lawyer, knowing the jury was already 9-3 to convict, agree to replacing one of the jurors who was voting for acquittal? That sounds like reversible error right there; that Heinze was not provided with competent or adequate defense.

 

[RoseMontague]

Is that a legal "deal"? Once the jury is set there has to be only limited reasons a juror can be replaced.

Usually I have seen it in reference to misconduct or disobeying a judges orders not to discus the case or watch or read the news about the case, or for medical reasons that sometimes arise. I have never heard of this one before. Substituting a juror in favor of not guilty in exchange for a deal to take the death penalty off the table?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not good practice

Usually I have seen it in reference to misconduct or disobeying a judges orders not to discus the case or watch or read the news about the case, or for medical reasons that sometimes arise. I have never heard of this one before. Substituting a juror in favor of not guilty in exchange for a deal to take the death penalty off the table?

After reading several news stories collected at Murderpedia, I came away with the impression that the authorities wished to imply some sort of juror misconduct. However, color me unimpressed; they may have intended to mislead: "When court opened Monday, a bailiff told Scarlett the juror said on the second day of the two-week trial he couldn’t find Heinze guilty. The juror also was overheard talking with his wife about the trial Sunday during a closely monitored visit with family members."

I also read that there was blood from three people on his athletic shorts, which I presume means that they did some DNA testing. It also occurs to me to ask whether Mr. Heinze was wearing only his athletic shorts at the time that he discovered the bodies and later pulled on another pair shorts over those. The prosecution acknowledges some errors during the collection of evidence, but not nearly enough. It is almost as if they used the films of the Rome FP as a training manual.

"Of the Tyvek suits, Strohl said, “It’s a good practice. It’s not always done.”

“The Tyvek suit is for my protection,’’ he said, and not to prevent the transfer of blood evidence from one point to another.

Daras had testified earlier that even with Tyvek shoe coverings evidence can be tracked from one room to another.
Hamilton asked Strohl if investigators had established “clean areas’’ in the single-wide mobile home where they could place items without contaminating the crime scene.

“There was not a clean area inside that residence,” Strohl testified. “There was not enough room to put much on the floor.”"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Juvenal

"Kenneth Blackstone, 63, of Stone Mountain pleaded guilty Friday to a single count of perjury over his testimony on July 18, 2013, in a motions hearing in Heinze’s case, District Attorney Jackie Johnson said in a release....Blackstone, who was hired by Heinze’s defense team, testified that the test indicated the Heinze was not being deceptive when he said he had not killed the eight victims." Blackstone said that he had sent his results out for review, when he had not. Who polygraphs the polygraphers?

"Hamilton said that Gail Priest, the former manager of New Hope Mobile Park where the slayings occurred, had told police about a month after the slayings she had found what appeared to be a pair of bloody nunchucks made of pipe secured with a chain." link

 

[RoseMontague]

After reading several news stories collected at Murderpedia, I came away with the impression that the authorities wished to imply some sort of juror misconduct. However, color me unimpressed; they may have intended to mislead: "When court opened Monday, a bailiff told Scarlett the juror said on the second day of the two-week trial he couldn’t find Heinze guilty. The juror also was overheard talking with his wife about the trial Sunday during a closely monitored visit with family members."

I also read that there was blood from three people on his athletic shorts, which I presume means that they did some DNA testing. It also occurs to me to ask whether Mr. Heinze was wearing only his athletic shorts at the time that he discovered the bodies and later pulled on another pair shorts over those. The prosecution acknowledges some errors during the collection of evidence, but not nearly enough. It is almost as if they used the films of the Rome FP as a training manual.

"Of the Tyvek suits, Strohl said, “It’s a good practice. It’s not always done.”

“The Tyvek suit is for my protection,’’ he said, and not to prevent the transfer of blood evidence from one point to another.

Daras had testified earlier that even with Tyvek shoe coverings evidence can be tracked from one room to another.
Hamilton asked Strohl if investigators had established “clean areas’’ in the single-wide mobile home where they could place items without contaminating the crime scene.

“There was not a clean area inside that residence,” Strohl testified. “There was not enough room to put much on the floor.”"

Here is a quote from another of those articles

Among the evidence against Heinze:

He had taken a shotgun from the house and put it in the car he was driving before calling for help for the seven already dead and two struggling for their lives.

Inside the car, police found the narcotic prescription medication of Michael Toler and Michelle Toler’s cell phone with West’s dried blood on it.

Beneath a pair of khaki shorts, Heinze was wearing a pair of gym shorts with the blood of three victims and there was also victims’ blood on his flip-flops.

The Drug Factor

The drug charges, a felony and a misdemeanor, arose from the prescription painkillers and a small amount of marijuana police found that morning in the car Heinze was driving. He could get a maximum five years on the felony.

Hamilton and defense witnesses asserted that no one person could have killed all the victims, but Doering said he still believes Heinze alone carried out the killings.

Under cross-examination during the trial, Daras said he believed that Heinze, who admitted smoking crack all night, had wanted Michael Toler’s pills and was rebuffed. He had come back later to get the pills and all the money in the house. If so, he missed some money. Russell Toler Jr. had $61 in his pockets. No one else had any.

He went inside the house and before calling the cops removed a shotgun later saying he did that because he knew it was stolen. Blood on his flip flops isn't unusual from walking around a crime scene covered with blood. I guess they are saying he killed them in his flip flops if they are using that against him, 8 people with a blunt instrument and none managed to get away or called for help. I wonder if he put something on over his gym shorts before calling the cops as well. What did he do with the supposedly stolen money and pills (the motive doesn't make much sense to me).

I get the impression his defense lawyer was happy with the outcome. There is something that reeks about this case.