Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr.
Guilty

United States

#1075 Mar 27, 2014
It was a horrible documentary and was extremely biased -- just like the first one of the series: they skip over evidence pointing to guilt. It's more than arrogant for people who know little of the evidence and nothing about the applicable law to claim the jury and judge got it wrong. They did not.

Defendants are not required to take the stand. They also have the absolute right to testify if they choose to do so:

Reasons why an atty may advise a client not to testify:

1. prior convictions or bad acts that can be used to impeach their testimony.

2. testifying would open the door to other unfavorable evidence coming in.

3. client is a loose cannon and won't be able to control themselves.

4. client intends to perjure himself An atty can not ask questions that he knows will elicit perjury

You're right that the sentence was wrong: he deserved the death penalty. He murdered 8 people and severely brain damaged a child.
Caring

Albany, GA

#1076 Mar 27, 2014
In a way I wish you hadn't posted back to me. It makes me feel I have bad manners if I don't answer you.:) lol

I can only guess why he did not take the stand. Most defendants in murder cases do not take the stand here. It is a rarity rather than a norm. Once the defendant takes the stand subliminally the burden can shift and if the defendant is not believed then that does not bode well for them in the end. And most defendant who do testify aren't believed. They tend to make terrible witnesses, and can be caught in many lies, and inconsistencies. Also if he took the stand then he opens himself up to anything that his defense team may have successfully gotten suppressed that the Judge had ruled too prejudicial to come in the state's case in chief. The gloves are off so to speak when a defendant decides to testify in his behalf. No longer is anything suppressed. Everything is going to come in then. Defense attorneys know that all too well, and usually advises the client not to testify because they can incriminate themselves.

And all citizens have a right to a speedy trial in our country. All they have to do is exercise their constitutional right. However; Guy Heinz Jr. waived his right to a speedy trial and was content to sit in jail awaiting trial for four years. That may not speak volumes to you, but it does to me. No innocent person is going to willingly give up their freedom for years when they can go to trial in 6 months after being arrested and charged.

What did the four jurors have to say when interviewed by the BBC? And did they actually interview the prosecutor, and police or only show prior taped footage without actually interviewing them about what they thought about the evidence and the trial itself? If they did not do so, and only used video footage of them, and then actually interviewed Tyler, and the grandmother that is very slanted, imo.

We have the same kind of documentaries here about high profile cases. Heinz' case wasn't high profile here though. The national media touched on the case when it first happened, and quickly moved on.

The national media did a one minute blurb about him being found guilty and that was it. Perhaps it was because the murdered family wasn't upper or even middle class but were dirt poor instead. These type of cases never seem to gain the national media's attention here. About the only one that even carried the trial itself was a newspaper out of Jacksonville, Florida which is not too far from Brunswick, Georgia.

It isn't hard for me to believe he did this alone. I have been reading about mass murder cases done by one lone perpetrator for years now. Sadly it isn't some new phenomenon by any means.

Yes, it is hard for any sane person to fathom that someone could do this to their own family, but more murders are perpetrated against family members than any other kind of murder.

Yes, he is IUPG until he is convicted by a jury. That has now happened. At that time he is no longer presumed innocent, but guilty of the crimes charged against him.

He knew he was very much guilty, and that is why he gladly accepted the deal of 8 consecutive life sentences. Too bad that the life of his own family members weren't as important to him as saving his own life.

Have a nice evening or whatever time it is in the UK. Its 10:27 where I live.:)
Caring

Albany, GA

#1077 Mar 27, 2014
Guilty wrote:
It was a horrible documentary and was extremely biased -- just like the first one of the series: they skip over evidence pointing to guilt. It's more than arrogant for people who know little of the evidence and nothing about the applicable law to claim the jury and judge got it wrong. They did not.
Defendants are not required to take the stand. They also have the absolute right to testify if they choose to do so:
Reasons why an atty may advise a client not to testify:
1. prior convictions or bad acts that can be used to impeach their testimony.
2. testifying would open the door to other unfavorable evidence coming in.
3. client is a loose cannon and won't be able to control themselves.
4. client intends to perjure himself An atty can not ask questions that he knows will elicit perjury
You're right that the sentence was wrong: he deserved the death penalty. He murdered 8 people and severely brain damaged a child.
Thank you. I am glad to see someone here in the states that watched the documentary. We know so much more about this case since so many really kept up with the trial as it was happening day after day until the end.

I had suspected all along the documentary was biased. Maybe I will download the BBC reader so I can watch it for myself. It will probably highly upset me when I see all the biases and important information left out..........and on purpose imo. All this documentary was intended to do is get the Brits in an uproar over our judicial system especially since this was a death penalty case.

That is my only regret too, Guilty. I hate that he was spared his life when he so cruelly, and viscously, murdered 8 innocent people, and tried to murdered a three year old little boy who has been left severely brain damaged because of what GHJ did to him.

GHJ lied..........he told the police he checked on EVERYONE when he couldn't have because Byron was the most alive...even more alive than poor Michael who was dying and already comatose unable to speak. Even the police heard Byron crying when they came in to that house of horrors.
Guilty

United States

#1078 Mar 27, 2014
Try downloading from one of these sites. They're safe:

http://goo.gl/gg62KD
Guilty

United States

#1079 Mar 27, 2014
All these antiDP groups coordinate. Their latest meme is that these murderers were too immature to appreciate what they were doing at the time they committed their vicious crimes. So, expect to see a bunch of baby face little monsters portrayed in these documentaries. It drives the hybristophiliacs wild. lol
britgirl

Harpenden, UK

#1080 Mar 28, 2014
Caring: Yes it is interviews now after the verdict that with the jurors, prosecution and police.

Thankyou for replying to me - and being well mannored.

I think class has a lot to do with media coverage and how much they care - for instance over here the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is a massive high profile case (her parents are doctors and well off) whereas other missing children don't get half the attention they deserve. I cant lie the way that family were living was a massive shock to me and that there was a toddler in the trailer too.....its very sad that people have to live that way.

Hope you see the documentary - if you do please post your opinions on it.

Take care :-)
britgirl

Harpenden, UK

#1081 Mar 28, 2014
** mannered
britgirl

Harpenden, UK

#1082 Mar 28, 2014
Guilty wrote:
It was a horrible documentary and was extremely biased -- just like the first one of the series: they skip over evidence pointing to guilt. It's more than arrogant for people who know little of the evidence and nothing about the applicable law to claim the jury and judge got it wrong. They did not.
Defendants are not required to take the stand. They also have the absolute right to testify if they choose to do so:
Reasons why an atty may advise a client not to testify:
1. prior convictions or bad acts that can be used to impeach their testimony.
2. testifying would open the door to other unfavorable evidence coming in.
3. client is a loose cannon and won't be able to control themselves.
4. client intends to perjure himself An atty can not ask questions that he knows will elicit perjury
You're right that the sentence was wrong: he deserved the death penalty. He murdered 8 people and severely brain damaged a child.
Like I said Guilty I have read this whole blog, I have googled the case so much - I watched the (biased) documentary. I might not have followed this from the beginning as I was never aware such a disturbing crime had gone on.
Also i re-iterate I said I have a gut feeling he was involved.
However I will continue being arrogant and say from what I have read and from seeing the documentary there is just too much doubt (beyond reasonable) that he did it. So therefore imo he shouldn't have been convicted.
Everyone is entitled to there own opinion, I don't call your arrogant I just merely accept it. I don't expect to change your or carings opinions or wouldn't want to - a world where we all think the same would be a very boring 1 at that.
I see caring knows a lot about this crime and America law and just wanted some answers - she has been more than kind enough to reply.

I guess you saw the previous documentary too where they showed do death row prisoners about to be executed? That made for difficult viewing. I was extremely torn. The first guy who had tortured his victims got what he deserved. The second guy the baby face young guy did seem to hit a nerve he was young and dumb he did make a mistake he didn't torture anyone and he was a good kid previously from a nice home. Imo (which we are all allowed) I believe the death penalty should have been stripped and obviously so did people in high places as they stopped his execution. Yes it may still go ahead but they have only ever stopped something stupid like 1 execution in the past.....(dont quote me on the exact number as it was a few weeks ago I watched that) Sorry this has gone off topic a bit but I think this is what guilty was getting so worked up about.
As stated previously I do think your justice system is better than ours - life here is a few years. Life should mean life. Britain is terribly lenient on offenders.
britgirl

Harpenden, UK

#1083 Mar 28, 2014
Sorry last post for today as off to work in a minute - the prosecution made a great comment on the documentary he said something along the lines off:

Its like someone eating all the cookies out the jar - you finding your child with the cookie crumbs over its face - you know the child has taken and eaten the cookie but you need to prove it.
Guilty

United States

#1084 Mar 28, 2014
You continue to be a font of ignorance and arrogance. Haynes execution was stayed for a lower court to review a procedural issue.

Haynes committed a string of armed robberies that night before he murdered Off. Kincaid. He confessed that he shot him because he was a police officer and bragged to his friends that he shot a cop. He also told people that he should have killed Kincaid's wife so there would have been no witnesses. After the murder, he partied. But to fools like you that was just a "mistake."

He did not come from a "good" home but a a home where the parents just kept giving him shit even though he was threatening everyone at school, attacked his baby sister, pulled a gun on his father, tried to kill the family dog, etc. He's a sociopath and he's the same sociopath today as he was before they locked his murdering ass up.
britgirl

Harpenden, UK

#1085 Mar 29, 2014
Sorry Guilty I didn't realilse you knew Haynes and his family well - it clearly hit a nerve as you know the case personally and not just through media or internet articles...

Clearly i'm not alone with being arrogant and ignorant as your law system has decided to review his case and apparently its very rare they do this.

Have a good day :-)
Guilty

United States

#1086 Mar 29, 2014
No, I don't know them. I don't socialize with gangbangers. And no the legal system is not arrogant/ignorant but you sure are. And no it is not very rare or even rare to grant review of a case. But thanks for pretending that you are now an expert in capital appellate procedure.
britgirl

Harpenden, UK

#1087 Mar 29, 2014
haha guilty.....If im guilty of being arrogant then you sure are too!
Caring

Albany, GA

#1088 Mar 29, 2014
I respect anyone's rights to believe as they wish to believe. However; through the many years of debate with the anti-death penalty advocates some puzzling things remain consistent. Things I do not understand nor will never understand the logic behind them.

1. Anti-death penalty advocates seem to have little or absolutely no sympathy/empathy for the victims themselves. Nothing much is ever mentioned about the horror and pain suffered by those who crossed paths with the murderer that the ADP advocates desperately see worth saving. It is as if they believe that the victim's life really didn't have that much value, as if to infer,'oh well, they are dead now, so lets move on to being very sympathetic to the cruel and evil one that took their live or lives.' As if murdering 8 defenseless souls and brain damaging a little three year old isn't that big of a deal, and its all about saving the depraved guilty inmate. Really? Seriously?

2. I also notice that the excuses for the murderer are unlimited and flow like water. All of a sudden having a 'bad childhood' becomes an excuse somehow. Yet, in truth, there are over 6 million males and females collectively, who are grossly abused during their childhood every YEAR in our country unfortunately, yet very little of them go on to abuse another person, much less murder others in cruel and heinous ways. Why reward the ones who do so by sparing their lives and not honor the vast majority who never harm anyone?

3. Another thing I do not understand is the ADP will rise up in protest to an execution of a man or woman who has done the most horrendous things to human beings imaginable. One who has only brought pain and misery on others. But they NEVER rise up in great protests that these kind of murderers take so many innocent lives, senselessly, and needlessly and a lot of times just for the hell of it.

4. The ADP groups say that it isn't right to take the life of someone who has done such despicable things. To them it seems they think the DP is done out of revenge. In truth it has nothing to do with revenge, and everything to do with what society believes is just punishment for the individual that rises above the level of what society is willing to accept.

5. Their stance seems to be that society is just to accept it as if it is the norm... When it is as far from normal has it can possibly be. And that is why the death penalty is used sparingly. If justice was really about revenge then every conviction of a defendant could be seen as revenge or payback for their acts.

6. And just let the DR inmate get religion AFTER they are sent to death row. Now that seems to just erase anything and everything for some of the ADP people. For example: Clara Faye Tucker found God while in prison. Good for her, and I hope she asked for forgiveness before she was executed. However: she wasn't sent to death row for that reason. She had no remorse at all at the time when she hacked people to death with an axe, and even said it gave her a sexual thrill when murdering them.(GAG!) Is that a normal person? Even for a plain old run of the mill Jane/ John Doe murderer who may lose their cool and kill someone in a heat of passion? Nope, and those who get death aren't normal anything. They are the worst of the worst that humanity has to offer.

That is my one regret about the Heinz case. He so richly deserved death, and nothing less, but I am not surprised he took the cowardly way out instead.
BritBoy

London, UK

#1089 Mar 29, 2014
BritBoy

London, UK

#1090 Mar 29, 2014
I have read a lot of research which says the death penalty is actually more expensive than locking someone up for life. All of the appeals (95% fail) and the actual execution cost a fortune, not to mention the prisoners are locked up on death row for an average of 20 years before being killed.

In my personal opinion prison should be a place for protection and rehabilitation. A prisoner is in prison to keep the public protected and to rehabitate him so he knows right from wrong. Many cases in the USA and around the world involve children as young as 13 who are given a 170 year jail sentence for murder etc, clearly they will never be released from jail. What is the purpose of that sentence? Interviews with a prisoner who is now 39 after being given a life sentence at just 13 years old and spending 25 years in jail clearly show he knows right from wrong, he has clearly been rehabilitated and he is clearly no longer a threat to society because he has been educated to know and to respect the law.. He made a mistake as a child and will be punished for the rest of his life for it. And that is what many justice systems around the world are, solely a form of punishment. Why continue to lock someone up who is genuiney remoreseful, has been rehabilitated to know what is right from wrong and is no longer a threat to society? The reason they are still locked up is because the system is out for revenge rather than education or rehabiitation.

It is why I don't agree with whole life sentences in this country because it transforms our justice system from being a tool to protect the public whist rehabilitating the prisoner into a system where we re just seeking revenge and punishment.
BritBoy

London, UK

#1091 Mar 29, 2014
The death penalty is a form of punishment with the sole purpose of gaining revenge. The American judicial system is based on a system of revenge.

The death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime, the death penalty is more expensive than a life time jail sentence, the death penalty promotes revenge so what is the point in keeping it?

Like I said in my previous post, the prison system of a country should be based on 2 points, protecting the public whilst rehabilitating the criminal.

There are so many people on death row who have been there for 20 years who no longer pose a threat to society because they have been rehabilitated. They know right from wrong and they respect the laws. So why should they still be executed? There is no legitimate excuse to execute a man who has learnt from his mistakes except when you are seeking revenge.
Caring

Leesburg, GA

#1092 Mar 30, 2014
That is another misnomer by the ADP advocates. The death penalty wasn't enacted to deter other crimes any more than the Juvenile Justice System was established to handle juvenile VIOLENT offenders they now find themselves having to deal with in today's time.

The death penalty is a form of punishment meted out to only certain INDIVIDUALS that fall under the death penalty guidelines when aggravating factors exists.

It is not intended nor was it ever intended to deter others. It deters the individuals who have been given the death penalty, and that is what it is suppose to do.

There isn't one person in our country that doesn't know the death penalty exists, yet it never stops those hell bent on doing heinous murders, and never will.... nor was it ever enacted to do so. Not one of them thought .'oh wait, I cant murder these defenseless victims because I could get the death penalty.'

Murderers have a stupid arrogant belief that they will be the "ONE" who will get away with it. It is often their stupid mentality that winds up getting them caught.

Penal codes are about punishments based on each individuals criminal act(s.) Murderers who get LWOP or are on DR aren't rehabilitated for there is no point. They will not be getting out among society again in order to reek more havoc among unsuspecting citizens.

The murderer wouldn't have even gone to trial if she/he did not know right from wrong at the time they murdered. So knowing right from wrong later on is irrelevant. They knew it was wrong when they did it. Defendants are assessed by mental health professionals before the trial even begins to see if they are competent, whether they know right from wrong, and can fully understand the charges against them, and assist their lawyers in their case.

So what if the appeals go on for a long time? It isn't like the inmates are going anywhere. The reason it takes a long time for appeals process is the appeal lawyers do this on their own time pro bono. I do agree however; and the appeal time should be vastly shorten like in other countries who has about a 6 months time window for all appeals to be completed before punishment is carried out.

Sometimes justice is not about the cost it takes to bring it but is more about bringing true justice to the victims who deserve nothing less..........no matter the cost.
BritBoy

London, UK

#1093 Mar 30, 2014
caring wrote

'Sometimes justice is not about the cost it takes to bring it but is more about bringing true justice to the victims who deserve nothing less..........no matter the cost'.
..........

You have just highlighted my point that the death penalty is purely used for revenge. You label it as justice but anyone with a brain cn see that your definition of justice is revenge.
Caring

Leesburg, GA

#1094 Mar 30, 2014
BritBoy wrote:
caring wrote
'Sometimes justice is not about the cost it takes to bring it but is more about bringing true justice to the victims who deserve nothing less..........no matter the cost'.
..........
You have just highlighted my point that the death penalty is purely used for revenge. You label it as justice but anyone with a brain cn see that your definition of justice is revenge.
You don't have to resort in trying to insult my intelligence level in order to get your point across. My intelligence is just fine and very much intact.

One's argument is lost when all they have left is to insult someone who doesn't have the same like opinion.

I tell you what. You worry about your own justice system, and we will continue to uphold , honor, and respect the laws that govern our own criminal justice system. We don't give a damn about your system or for that matter what the Brits 'think' about our justice system.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Mon Carlo c 11
pillpoppers (Nov '10) Aug 16 sick 11
Local cop rides with 1%MC club (Sep '13) Aug 15 Anonymous 15
What Y'all think of District Attorney Jackie Jo... (Nov '11) Aug 12 Justice for Jerrod 102
Family doctor recommendation in or around Bruns... Aug 8 NewToGA 1
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Jul '16 Nteri 26
Mcintosh/Darien CROOKED RACIST COPS (May '13) Jul '16 LELEDAWN 58

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages