Part 12 Guy Heinze Jr.
Emma

Nottingham, UK

#1195 Apr 24, 2014
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
He did it. He got caught. He got convicted. Give it up already.
Thank goodness you weren't on the jury. Glad there were people on the jury that understood basic evidence 101 and were not fooled by the "Keystone cops" defense. I think they did an outstanding job processing such a vast crime scene.
Are you for real? "outstanding"?? It was absolutely disgraceful a monkey could have done better!
Local Neighbor

Washington, DC

#1196 Apr 24, 2014
I have to ask, how long was this documentary? Have any of you blokes across the pond read this thread from start to finish? Many of your questions have been answered here multiple times.

Hour

Evesham, UK

#1197 Apr 24, 2014
Local Neighbor wrote:
I have to ask, how long was this documentary? Have any of you blokes across the pond read this thread from start to finish? Many of your questions have been answered here multiple times.


One hour, give it a watch
Turnip

Warrington, UK

#1198 Apr 24, 2014
So many unanswered questions, and almost criminal that evidence that would have been available had the scene been processed properly, is now lost. But the guilty supporters appear to be hanging their opinions on two key pieces of evidence. The blood on his pants, and his actions regards the shotgun/phone after discovering the scene. So just addressing those first, you have a police department who collected all his clothing and placed them in one bag. No one is disputing he had blood on his outer shorts. He had walked through the crime scene, he had checked some of the victims. So is it really utterly impossible that his underwear was contaminated by his bloodied clothing when screwed up and tossed in the same bag as his outer clothing? Is it utterly impossible that in the several hours after discovering the crime scene, he didn't at some point need to urinate? Did he place a blood smeared hand down his shorts? Is it utterly impossible that with a brain utterly fried by a scene reminiscent of a horror movie, he removed what he believed was a stolen shotgun? Is it utterly impossible that for a brief moment he believed he knew who may have done this and was taking the gun to exact revenge? Did the phone he must have had difficulty finding in this scene of utter carnage, that he then picked up along with the gun, contain the numbers of the people he believed may have done this? In grief, anger, fear, shock, was he indeed about to set off on a route of revenge, to then be overwhelmed by the weight of what he had discovered at which point he gave into it all and broke down? Of course, I'm just theorising. But there again, that's all the prosecution did. I, like so many, am staggered that a case can even be considered for a DP trial, based solely on circumstantial evidence (he discovered the scene..) and a police departments theory. Of course if one man who bludgeoned 8 people to death over a period of what must have been an hour or so, would be saturated in blood and would have some physical wounds to show for it. He did all that without even breaking a fingernail ? This is not, and should not be a question of do you beleive he did it? Opinion is utterly irrelevant. T he only thing that's relevant is that you have enough clear, indisputable facts to say 100% that this person committed this act. I haven't seen 1. And as to the great desire of the US to convict on circumstantial evidence alone, as has happened here, we learnt 800 years ago the danger of that. Almost every child in the land is brought up, knowing the tale of Bethgellert. CIrcumstantial evidence is a dangerous and arrogant creature.
Turnip

Warrington, UK

#1199 Apr 24, 2014
Just addressing the huge void that seems to have appeared between us here in the UK and those in the US. The strength of feeling over here is due to several parts of the US justice system that are illegal over here. The chief of police who led the investigation stated (I ad lib as I can't remember word for word) "we knew it was him, we just then had to prove it".(sic) Deciding on a guilty party, and then building a case to fit, is illegal over here. It's called fitting up. You have to show that you have indeed investigated all other possibilities and discounted them. Secondly, the Asst DA who made the opening remarks at the trial, opened by addressing the jury with "what you are about to hear is a case based on circumstantial evidence" (sic). Here in the UK, a judge on hearing that, would have suspended the trial as soon as those words were out of his mouth, and dismissed the case. Circumstantial evidence is no evidence. We are not trying a 6 year old regards stolen cookies from a jar. This was for the death penalty. It then moves on to jurors who are "Confused from start to finish" to the point of sacking a juror because he wouldn't play ball. Again here in the UK it's nigh on impossible to have a juror removed, and jurors have and do get prison sentences for failing in their duty. Then there's the US TV and media coverage. Here in the UK it's again illegal to comment or pass judgment on an ongoing trial. We are utterly shocked at the trial by media that happens over there, WHILST a trial is ongoing. Finally, the death penalty. Yes it's controversial, but there are plenty here who support it, so this isn't just a tree hugging human rights thing. But what we do demand here, if the death penalty were to be reintroduced, is a 'smoking gun'. Anything less just wouldnt wash. You cannot risk a miscarriage of justice, not with a death sentence. What utterly staggers us here, is the acceptance by the US people that someone who looks all wrong, or has spent their youth carjacking and smoking weed, probably deserves to die. The level of hard evidence required to see someone sent to death row, or LWOP in the US is ridiculously tiny, and convicting on a tiny amount of hard evidence, by default, requires the court and the jury to ignore the huge amount of evidence pointing to innocence. This attitude in itself, is what we here in the UK find utterly incomprehensible.
Potato

Evesham, UK

#1200 Apr 24, 2014
Turnip wrote:
Just addressing the huge void that seems to have appeared between us here in the UK and those in the US. The strength of feeling over here is due to several parts of the US justice system that are illegal over here. The chief of police who led the investigation stated (I ad lib as I can't remember word for word) "we knew it was him, we just then had to prove it".(sic) Deciding on a guilty party, and then building a case to fit, is illegal over here. It's called fitting up. You have to show that you have indeed investigated all other possibilities and discounted them. Secondly, the Asst DA who made the opening remarks at the trial, opened by addressing the jury with "what you are about to hear is a case based on circumstantial evidence" (sic). Here in the UK, a judge on hearing that, would have suspended the trial as soon as those words were out of his mouth, and dismissed the case. Circumstantial evidence is no evidence. We are not trying a 6 year old regards stolen cookies from a jar. This was for the death penalty. It then moves on to jurors who are "Confused from start to finish" to the point of sacking a juror because he wouldn't play ball. Again here in the UK it's nigh on impossible to have a juror removed, and jurors have and do get prison sentences for failing in their duty. Then there's the US TV and media coverage. Here in the UK it's again illegal to comment or pass judgment on an ongoing trial. We are utterly shocked at the trial by media that happens over there, WHILST a trial is ongoing. Finally, the death penalty. Yes it's controversial, but there are plenty here who support it, so this isn't just a tree hugging human rights thing. But what we do demand here, if the death penalty were to be reintroduced, is a 'smoking gun'. Anything less just wouldnt wash. You cannot risk a miscarriage of justice, not with a death sentence. What utterly staggers us here, is the acceptance by the US people that someone who looks all wrong, or has spent their youth carjacking and smoking weed, probably deserves to die. The level of hard evidence required to see someone sent to death row, or LWOP in the US is ridiculously tiny, and convicting on a tiny amount of hard evidence, by default, requires the court and the jury to ignore the huge amount of evidence pointing to innocence. This attitude in itself, is what we here in the UK find utterly incomprehensible.
.

Spot on post, I feel us here in the UK are more amazed at how this trial was allowed to play out. The idea that someone can be sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence is a crazy thought.
wusatdatrial

Carrollton, GA

#1201 Apr 24, 2014
The folks from across the pond get it. My theory about the blood was two fold. Maybe he just needed to scratch himself at some point, but I like the urination theory. However, it is equally possible that when the detective threw all of the clothes into that bag that rode around in his trunk for two days, that there was just blood transfer from still slightly wet clothing when he was arrested at the scene. Remember, Mr. Knox testified that this was not blood spatter, but rather blood transfer.(The killer should have had extensive spatter on his clothing.)

As for the gun, I thought the whole time that when he arrived at the nightmare of a crime scene, he was not only horrified at the sight, but scared for his own safety and grabbed the gun that he knew was in the house to protect himself in case the intruders were still there.

Finally, I forgot to mention in my earlier postings that the police never once tested his body for blood. The photographs of his body were nearly pristine showing no fight wounds, but they never checked him with luminol or a black light, or any other test for blood.(The case in the 1800s that caring is so fond of, they checked for and found blood on the defendant's ear.) If they really thought he did it, seems like that would have been one of the first tests that they would have run.(Seems like the Glynn County police could at least employ 19th Century police techniques, if not 20th or 21st Century techniques.)
wusatdatrial

Carrollton, GA

#1202 Apr 24, 2014
The Beth Gellert tale reminds me of a story a friend of mine used to tell from his boyhood days on the farm. While helping his father out in the fields as a child, he went back to the farmhouse to get a dip of water from the well. As he was drinking, he noticed that his mother was cooling one of her famous blackberry pies in the kitchen window. Unable to resist, he crept into the house and cut him a sliver of pie. Realizing that his mother would be furious, he looked around and saw his old cat laying under the kitchen table. He quickly dipped the cat's paws in the pie juice and dropped the cat on the table, leaving a trail of blackberry stained paw prints all over the clean white linen tablecloth. My friend went back to his chores.

A while later, he saw his father head towards the house, presumably for a dip of water himself. Shortly thereafter, he heard the screen door slam shut followed by a loud "blam" that he knew could only come from his father's shotgun. Once his father had settled back into the farm work, my friend peeked over the little rise towards the house, and sure enough. There lay his cat, a victim of circumstantial evidence.

If only the jury had know about Beth Gellert or my friend's old cat.
Observer

UK

#1203 Apr 25, 2014
"Is there any other evidence to go to any other person? Out of 60,000 peopleĀ in Glynn - the only person wearing these clothes is the defendant. The only person with the phone; the only person who said my family was beat to death, the only person is that person right there," he said. "That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That rules out everybody."
This is the prosecutor's case in his own words. I don't think it is a question of not having answrrs because we haven't read the rest of this forum.it is a question of thise answers not being available because there was simply no attempt to actually solve the crime.
Turnip

Warrington, UK

#1204 Apr 25, 2014
wusatdatrial wrote:
The folks from across the pond get it. My theory about the blood was two fold. Maybe he just needed to scratch himself at some point, but I like the urination theory. However, it is equally possible that when the detective threw all of the clothes into that bag that rode around in his trunk for two days, that there was just blood transfer from still slightly wet clothing when he was arrested at the scene. Remember, Mr. Knox testified that this was not blood spatter, but rather blood transfer.(The killer should have had extensive spatter on his clothing.)
As for the gun, I thought the whole time that when he arrived at the nightmare of a crime scene, he was not only horrified at the sight, but scared for his own safety and grabbed the gun that he knew was in the house to protect himself in case the intruders were still there.
Finally, I forgot to mention in my earlier postings that the police never once tested his body for blood. The photographs of his body were nearly pristine showing no fight wounds, but they never checked him with luminol or a black light, or any other test for blood.(The case in the 1800s that caring is so fond of, they checked for and found blood on the defendant's ear.) If they really thought he did it, seems like that would have been one of the first tests that they would have run.(Seems like the Glynn County police could at least employ 19th Century police techniques, if not 20th or 21st Century techniques.)
Good post. Of course it's not for us to 'prove' an alternate theory, which I think is what the guilty supporters expect. Just as it wasn't for the defence to prove an alternate theory also. It was for the prosecution to present indisputable evidence of guilt. They didn't, they didn't come close. In the last 40 years, 144 US death row convicts have been exonerated. You can times this figure at least threefold, for those executed who then didn't leave behind family or funds, to continue the fight to clear their name. Justice, post-execution is a tad futile. The UK abolished the death penalty in the 1960s, based on the whole, on just one case of a miscarriage of justice. That's how shocked the nation were at a single mis-appropriation of 'justice'. That's how valuable a life is here, even a life lived in a bar, whorehouse or crack den.

More recently, We had a high profile murder here of a TV presenter Jill Dando. The police acted just as the Georgia police acted here. They picked a guilty suspect, Barry George, and then built the case to prosecute him. In doing so not only did they ensure the conviction of an innocent man,(who was subsequently exonerated) but they 'lost' the critical evidence that would have been available at the time, due to their misguided obsession. Worse, they refused to submit the evidence both to court or the defence team, of the one eyewitness who saw the killer. Quite simply his very clear description of the killer, didn't match Barry George, so they buried it.
Jill Dandos murder will now remain an un solved murder for time immemorial. How can that be justice? For Jill, for Barry George or for the true killer? I'm sure we too, have many cases of police fit up, it goes with the territory of 'power', but we do have a safety net, and that is that a wrongly convicted person indeed can still live with hope that their innocence may be proved.
talleigh

Nottingham, UK

#1205 Apr 25, 2014
Its good to see some rational peoples thoughts on this matter that have observed the case as open minded unbiased outsiders who are viewing the case on evidence given at the trial rather than those whose minds were made up about his guilt before it even made it to court.

Police stated that they didn't collect or process other evidence because they had enough which implicated guy. I've never heard such arrogant crap. All they had was circumstantial twaddle which adds up to nothing. Any investigator worth there salt would have exhausted every avenue to either solidify there case with hard evidence to ensure the guilty party did not walk free or would of wanted to make sure that they had without a doubt the right person/s, especially in light of the brutality of the crime. Anything less and they have/ had failed in their duties!.

All I can think is that they feared other evidence would of led them away from their original suspect and did not want to jeopardise what little they already had such has not doing any further finger print analysis on the bloody hand print on the wall that did not match guy.

Shame on the police for failing the victims and the tax paying citizens they vowed to protect.
Observer

UK

#1206 Apr 25, 2014
talleigh wrote:
Its good to see some rational peoples thoughts on this matter that have observed the case as open minded unbiased outsiders who are viewing the case on evidence given at the trial rather than those whose minds were made up about his guilt before it even made it to court.
Police stated that they didn't collect or process other evidence because they had enough which implicated guy. I've never heard such arrogant crap. All they had was circumstantial twaddle which adds up to nothing. Any investigator worth there salt would have exhausted every avenue to either solidify there case with hard evidence to ensure the guilty party did not walk free or would of wanted to make sure that they had without a doubt the right person/s, especially in light of the brutality of the crime. Anything less and they have/ had failed in their duties!.
All I can think is that they feared other evidence would of led them away from their original suspect and did not want to jeopardise what little they already had such has not doing any further finger print analysis on the bloody hand print on the wall that did not match guy.
Shame on the police for failing the victims and the tax paying citizens they vowed to protect.
personally, the impression I get is that the police who attended the scene were simply out of their depth. I think they were faced with what they thought was the insurmountable (but quite necessary) task of collecting all the evidence from the crime scene and, having seen the footage, to do it properly would have been a mammoth task. And I think that once the only suspect failed to have an alibi and freely admitted being a drug user, it was simply easier and politically more expedient to arrest and try him as the killer; I think this is particularly so given the fact that us networks appear to be able to freely comment on someone's guilt before a trial (something illegal and often prosecuted here) which means that by and large public opinion has already begun supporting the prosecution of the crazy crackhead who killed his family.
wusatdatrial

Carrollton, GA

#1207 Apr 29, 2014
New study. 4% of death row inmates are likely innocent, using statistical analysis of those that have already been exonerated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/inno...
Scary.
Anonymous

Gloversville, NY

#1208 Jul 30, 2014
this case has me in an awe. I believe Guy is innocent. Is there any new news anybody came across?
Anonymous

Brunswick, GA

#1209 Aug 6, 2014
There is new news. He still did it!
anonymous

Gloversville, NY

#1210 Aug 6, 2014
How can you think he did it? Where is the evidence???
anonymous

Gloversville, NY

#1211 Aug 6, 2014
I think he is innocent. Obviously you didn't look into it very well
wusatdatrial

Villa Rica, GA

#1212 Aug 10, 2014
BBC special to aire on National Geographic channel tonight at 9:00 EDT for those of you who have not yet seen it. It is condensed into 60 minutes, so not sure what the edits look like.

Check it out!
anonymous

Gloversville, NY

#1213 Aug 10, 2014
yeah I have already seen it. poor innocent man
Get Over It

Chatsworth, CA

#1215 Aug 13, 2014
He will not be granted a new trial based on insufficient evidence. That others not on the jury disagree is irrelevant. His convictions may be reversed if the defense can demonstrate a serious procedural legal error. I'd be shocked if they can do that. His attys would have to advise him of the adverse consequences of having the conviction reversed, i.e., when they retried him he would again be looking at the death penalty, which he deserves.

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
What McIntosh/Darien does not want you to know (May '13) Jul 9 Nteri 26
Mcintosh/Darien CROOKED RACIST COPS (May '13) Jul 8 LELEDAWN 58
Divorce Attorney Jun '16 Jail The Ho 2
Judge Jean Bolin (May '12) Jun '16 Meth-intosh Busted 12
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Jun '16 Mcintrash Finest 8
companies Jun '16 the local hog hun... 1
The Villas at Golden Isles May '16 LoriAnne 2

Brunswick Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages