Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr.
Guilty

United States

#1175 Apr 12, 2014
Yawn! And Guy's Heiney is still where it belongs -- prison. LOL
talleigh

Nottingham, UK

#1176 Apr 13, 2014
Guilty wrote:
Yawn! And Guy's Heiney is still where it belongs -- prison. LOL
For now. it won't be the first and deffinately won't be the last time an innocent individual is released from your joke of a CJS.
Guilty

United States

#1177 Apr 13, 2014
talleigh wrote:
<quoted text>
For now. it won't be the first and deffinately won't be the last time an innocent individual is released from your joke of a CJS.
The joke are you and your ilk who believe that convictions should be reversed because a bunch of idiots sign petitions. Get real. Not one of you have articulated a legal error that would mandate a reversal of the convictions. Believe it or not, you whining that you think he is innocent just doesn't cut it.
talleigh

Nottingham, UK

#1178 Apr 13, 2014
Guilty wrote:
<quoted text>
The joke are you and your ilk who believe that convictions should be reversed because a bunch of idiots sign petitions. Get real. Not one of you have articulated a legal error that would mandate a reversal of the convictions. Believe it or not, you whining that you think he is innocent just doesn't cut it.
My ilk. You mean 7 years of study in law, criminology and criminal justice with first class degrees and a masters. I'd say I'm well versed thanks. Not once have I mentioned a 'reversal of conviction' although its rare it is not an impossibilty and if you can't see any legal errors or otherwise within this case and its handling then I'd say I'm not the only idiot roaming these boards.
Guilty

United States

#1179 Apr 13, 2014
talleigh wrote:
<quoted text>
My ilk. You mean 7 years of study in law, criminology and criminal justice with first class degrees and a masters. I'd say I'm well versed thanks. Not once have I mentioned a 'reversal of conviction' although its rare it is not an impossibilty and if you can't see any legal errors or otherwise within this case and its handling then I'd say I'm not the only idiot roaming these boards.
Actually, no you're not well versed at all. You think he's going to be magically transported out of prison?? Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you are suffering under such a delusion. And no, I see no viable legal errors and neither do you since you have yet to articulate one..
talleigh

Nottingham, UK

#1180 Apr 13, 2014
Guilty wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no you're not well versed at all. You think he's going to be magically transported out of prison?? Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you are suffering under such a delusion. And no, I see no viable legal errors and neither do you since you have yet to articulate one..
I'm under no such delusions. I am very aware that the process is going to take years, if not more and I have never stated otherwise. Until that time my prayers and thoughts are with him and his family.

Feel I must apologise to anyone who my comments may of offended. I am aware our own system is not without its faults and many states far exceed our own in terms of rehabilitation and prevention. Nor do i believe that this was some mass conspiracy that all were in if I have appeared to of suggested otherwise than sorry. Night and godbless
seeking truth

Crawfordville, FL

#1181 Apr 13, 2014
Actually the trial judge could act as the 13th juror and grant a new trial on insufficiency of the evidence at the Motion for New Trial stage. Or the Appellate Court could find that a reasonable trier of fact could not have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the way, rumour has it that BBC One is picking up the series and an updated Guy Heinze encore could come in the next few weeks. Keep your Google Alerts out there and watch for that.
Guilty

United States

#1182 Apr 13, 2014
seeking truth wrote:
Actually the trial judge could act as the 13th juror and grant a new trial on insufficiency of the evidence at the Motion for New Trial stage. Or the Appellate Court could find that a reasonable trier of fact could not have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
By the way, rumour has it that BBC One is picking up the series and an updated Guy Heinze encore could come in the next few weeks. Keep your Google Alerts out there and watch for that.
And pigs could fly...but it ain't going to happen. LOL

There is more than sufficient evidence and when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That his fan club disagrees is irrelevant.

And what's to update? That he now has a fanclub?
seeking truth

Crawfordville, FL

#1183 Apr 14, 2014
That BBC special is pretty compelling for innocence. And given that wasatdatrial says the BBC special was slanted towards the prosecution, it sounds like a pretty good reason to abolish the DP if you ask me. Here in Florida we have had more people exonerated from death row that all other states combined.(Look up DPIC website) I believe we are up over 20 now. Here is hoping Guy Heinze is one of those exonerees.

You folks in California seem to put lots of folks on death row.(over 700 on the row now, but only 13 executed in last 30 years.) What's up with that?
talleigh

Nottingham, UK

#1184 Apr 14, 2014
seeking truth wrote:
That BBC special is pretty compelling for innocence. And given that wasatdatrial says the BBC special was slanted towards the prosecution, it sounds like a pretty good reason to abolish the DP if you ask me. Here in Florida we have had more people exonerated from death row that all other states combined.(Look up DPIC website) I believe we are up over 20 now. Here is hoping Guy Heinze is one of those exonerees.
You folks in California seem to put lots of folks on death row.(over 700 on the row now, but only 13 executed in last 30 years.) What's up with that?
And when you take into consideration that current estimates suggest 1 in 10 on dp are innocent of the charges that's a potential of 70 people murdered mistakingly by the state. Scary and sad thought.
wusatdatrial

Carrollton, GA

#1185 Apr 18, 2014
Miss B - Sorry to be so slow responding to your question of a week ago, but things have been crazy.

The pictures were all shown to the jury on a giant screen, so it was darn near impossible not to look, even if you were trying not to. However, what I saw was Mr. Heinze looked very pained, when he would catch a glimpse of a photo. It appeared that it was very painful for him to look, so he would put his head down, so he did not have to see the horrible sight portrayed by the photos. He seemed especially upset when the Medical Examiner was describing the autopsy of his father. And during the 911 call, it seemed to me that he looked very upset.

It is hard to know how someone is supposed to react when faced with such a horrible sight, but his response seemed appropriate to me for someone whose family was brutally murdered. I don't know if you have seen the BBC special, but his voice on that phone call alone will convince you of his innocence.

I hope that answers your questions.
missb

Wisbech, UK

#1186 Apr 19, 2014
Wusatdatrial, thank you for replying, no need to apologise.
I have seen the documentary and it is due to be shown again this week, on one of the main channels, which will gain more interest I'm sure.
I was reading back and you mentioned something about one of the neighbours over hearing a threat being made, did this neighbour testify in court?
There just seems to be so many questions that are unanswered.
Apologies that I keep coming back to you...
wusatdatrial

Carrollton, GA

#1187 Apr 19, 2014
My recollection is that either Det. Daras or one of the other officers testified that they received several calls on their tip line about this, but I don't think they ever followed up and actually interviewed the person until during the trial.
Irish

Eastbourne, UK

#1188 Apr 22, 2014
Just seen the BBC documentary and my jaw dropped when the verdict was read out!

Can someone explain how a guy can beat 8 people to death with a blunt object in a small trailer without either somebody escaping or injuring the attacker!?

And if you can answer the implausible, where is the evidence that Guy committed said scenario?

I thought it was guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'!
Thornsett

Cambridge, UK

#1189 Apr 22, 2014
I watched the BBC documentary tonight and was not only amazed at the verdict but deeply shocked by the press coverage with TV debates being held about Guy Heine before the trial even took place and so-called 'experts' speculating about his motives/behaviour/state of mind during the attack which they clearly assumed he had committed. As far as they were concerned there was no room for doubt! How can any jury give a reliable verdict when they will already have seen the defendant convicted by a media bent on boosting their ratings by hysterical speculation?

That anyone can suggest that the BBC was biased while turning a blind eye to that level of prejudicial reporting is beyond me. In the UK such press coverage before/during a trial is illegal as it jeopardises any possibility of a fair trial. On that basis alone an appeal would succeed but the paucity of direct evidence and clear inadequacies in the forensic investigation would never have led to a conviction here.
British guy

Evesham, UK

#1190 Apr 22, 2014
I recently watched a documentary following the story of GHJ and the trial. (Life and death row shown on the BBC) give it a watch if you can. When the programme started it explained what GHJ was accused of, at this point with relatively little information on the case I found it pretty unbelievable that a person could single handedly kill eight people without someone sounding an alarm, escaping or over powering him. Through out the programme and the detailing of the trial I found that various other things didn't make sense. I wouldn't necessarily say he's an innocent man, but If I was in the jury I would struggle to say he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That being said I live in Britain and have only just seen this trial so I'm clearly not aware of all the evidence , but from what I've seen it seems hard to believe...
Observer

Lewes, UK

#1191 Apr 23, 2014
Local wrote:
I have been following this since the police cars screamed past my house that morning. I was the first post - and started this thread all those years ago. So yes, I would say I have reviewed every document availible, and talked to many people about this case.
The evidence - though poorly presented - points to one person. And that person is in jail.
Talk it up amongst whatever supporters are out there. The only [email protected] I see is that "Jr" made a piss poor attempt to hide his crime.
One of the most damning statements he made in my opinion was "it looks like they were beat to death". If you followed the case, then you know that those poor people were injured to the point that they resembled gunshot victims. That was what the first officers on the scene reported. How would Jr - seeing them for the first time in his version of the truth- form that opinion?
Another thing he said that wasn't brought up in the trial was about the dog tied to the front steps. He said that dog would bark and bite anyone he didn't know. How did the "cartel" or people the dog didn't know, gain access to the house? The neighbors interviewed said tha dog would bark and wake them if strangers went to that trailer.
Some supporters insist that he may have been there, but there were others involved too. If Jr waived his right to a speedy trial to delay the inevitable, then gave a plea to keep the death penalty off the table, don't you think he would have given up another murderer in a heartbeat?
Again, I truly belive the right person is cooling his heels in the jail. My sympathy is reserved for his victims.
I just wish ol Sunshine was still around to debate with.
I have to say, I don't know how you can claim that you have been following this so closely, and then at the same time allege that he plead guilty. There was no plea. The only agreement, in order to avoid a hung jury, was for juror 152 to be removed, in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table. This was a reasonable deal; it allows the DA to still achieve a successful prosecution, while at the same time allowing the defense a) the chance to get a not guilty verdict (no-one really knew exactly what influence this juror 152 was having) or b) guilty verdict, no death penalty, and plenty of grounds for an appeal - which, needless to say, would not be in front of a jury in future.
You can imply his guilt from this if you want, but it shows poor knowledge of how the criminal justice system operates. This had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but was purely a strategic move in the interests of both sides. To put it another way; are you saying that a DA who is absolutely convinced that this man murdered 8 people by beating them repeatedly to death, and who has 'so much' evidence, and who knows that should the jury return a guilty verdict, they will almost certainly sentence him to death, would actually go for such a deal? The worst case scenario for the DA was a hung jury and a retrial which, as others here have already suggested, would allow him to prepare and fill the gaps in the case that the defense team had pointed out.
The deal was reached so that the matter would not be retried; this was in the interests of a DA, who had a very poorly processed crime scene on his hands, and in the interest of the defense, who had a mountain of quite damning circumstantial evidence to contend with (including their client's conduct - smoking crack all night was not exactly an endearing alibi).
An eventual appeal would deal with these matters in probably the only way that's fair; through the eyes of experienced professionals (i.e. judges).
Observer

Lewes, UK

#1192 Apr 23, 2014
I watched the documentary also, and have tried to get to grips as far as possible with the facts since then. I don't claim to be an expert on this case at all, but I am a reasonably intelligent individual, and I cannot say that I am convinced either way, and when that's the case, it means those who are paid to solve crimes have not done their jobs all that well.

There is no doubting the huge inconsistencies in his own statements, and the circumstantial evidence that would point to his involvement. That said, there are parts of the case that simply don't stack up for me. On the one hand the case is that he was so fuelled up on drugs that an earlier argument about prescription pills (or possibly his father's 25,000 award) made him crack to the extent that he beat everyone to death in rage. Yet, on the other, this aggravating factor (that he had done a hell of a lot of drugs that evening) could quite easily have mitigated against his inconsistent decision-making when he arrived home (i.e. thinking a gun was stolen, when it was not and hiding it for that reason).

Another big issue I have is the how. There is simply no way that one man could inflict that sort of violence, with a blunt object, and virtually have no retaliation from anyone else, including grown men. I don't care how loud the fans were, it is simply not possible in my eyes for them to be so loud that you would not hear the repeated smashing, screaming etc of someone being beaten to death, and then that repeated 7 times (on average, each victim would have had between 20 to 30 wounds).

Which then brings me to the actual murder weapon. So, he kept two innocous items in his car (neither the phone, nor the shotgun he thought was stolen, speak to his guilt; they only imply guilty behaviour after the event) but then successfully disposed of the actual murder weapon? So on the one hand does the very thing that would exonerate him (or at least not implicate him), and does it well since no-one has found the murder weapon, on the other does something to totally undermine that for reasons beyond comprehension? It doesn't make sense to me. If he was able to dispose of the murder weapon, there is simply no conceivable way that he would not also dispose successfully of the other gun he thought was stolen. If he did not dispose of the murder weapon, it goes without saying that there is a fundamental flaw in the case.

I am not arguing for his innocence or otherwise. But the fact that there are still serious unanswered questions should worry you. Because they are not just questions about his guilt or innocence (and therefore the potential of an innocent man in jail). They are questions which also speak to the possibility of a person or persons unknown who got away with beating 8 people to death.
missb

UK

#1193 Apr 23, 2014
Observer - well said, I couldn't agree more. How can someone be premeditated enough to hide a murder weapon and clothes he'd removed (neither ever found, he would have had to have changed clothes as pointed out previously) but then take a gun and some drugs and place in the boot of the car?
Like you I think there are too many unanswered questions.
Rage

Evesham, UK

#1194 Apr 24, 2014
So they believe he could of gone into an uncontrollable rage that lead him to beat 8 family members to death. So I presume the prosecutor would of looked for evidence dated prior to the murder that would show guy Heinz as an angry rage filled person (character assassination) because surely there would be signs of him being an unstable person. Maybe bar fights, or domestic violence... So I waited and watched the documentary but nope nothing , not an extreme history of violence, nothing to suggest that this man was leading to this path. Yet I'm lead to believe that this person snaps so uncontrollably to the point he can kill 8 people. Even further then that, BEAT to death 8 FAMILY members. I did a bit of psychology as part of my university degree and I found often when a murder is committed in such rage (not calculated) there is usually signs in a persons past that suggests emotional instability. Furthermore it's all well and good saying it was committed in rage , but why was there no real motive for the rage. "He was on drugs and went into a rage" but why? What fuels a man to do what he was accused of?! "He was on drugs that's why" yes but was he ever known for being violent prior to the murder on drugs? No, so why is this time different. UNTIL a clear motive that establishes why he did what he is accused of is put in place then how can anyone take this trial seriously?. Psychologists would have examined him and established that he was sane, therefore I would believe a sane person regardless of them being on drugs would need a sane reason to do such a crime. They believe that the murders could of taken place up 2/3 hours! A man stayed consumed in rage for 2/3 hours and the effects of the drugs lasted this long? On someone who has used the drugs prior and would have a higher tolerance to the drugs... And in that time not one person escaped, even rang for the police or over powered a man on drugs?! Who we are lead to believe was so drugged up he didn't know what was going on, how can I man in this state hold and beat 8 people? For me there are many unanswered questions... I wasn't in the trial and can't say a 100% this man is innocent nor can I say he's guilty but what I can say is that the trial hasn't answered all the right questions and until it has we will never know if the correct man is in prison.

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) May 20 elderly abuse 34
Poll Glynn/Brantley Sex...Whats Hot!???? (Jan '10) May 19 Farrell Landon 30
Matt Jordan and Scott Hennig should resign!!! (Mar '11) May 16 A little Birdy says 23
News Anti-Gay Pastor Found Guilty Of Molesting Teena... Apr '17 Here is what I 7
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Apr '17 Showtime 35
News Melvin Shares Life Story in Young Stranger Apr '17 Greg B 1
ex sheriff bennett Mar '17 in the know 1

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages