Just served to emphasize that capital punishment has no place in a civilised society. Hideous practice that has religion's outdated vengeful, eye for an eye, ways wrapped all over it.
?!?! Really? Cut someone who wants to execute people in public at sports matches some slack? Guess we have different standards then. Maybe we could bring back the colisseum to make it even more entertaining.
Telling the child was an absolute no no, I couldnt see any parent here doing that, everything seems so "gun ho" in the states. I think they need to sort out the gun problem (thats a recipe for disaster)
?!?! Really? Cut someone who wants to execute people in public at sports matches some slack? Guess we have different standards then. Maybe we could bring back the colisseum to make it even more entertaining.
I don't agree with her, but you're failing to have any empathy with a woman who's daughter has been raped & nearly murdered - that says a lot about you & it's not good.
Re tonight's show, Guy Heinze:
1) I agree with the guilty verdict
2) I think that he should be executed
3) I think that all countries should adopt the Scottish system of juries consisting of 15 people
That was another grim show. I can't imagine the feeling of responsibility the various members of the jury must feel, knowing (as they thought, at the time) that the death penalty was on the table.
If there were any uncertainties, then life imprisonment was the way to go. Depending on your viewpoint, its a harsher sentence than the death penalty anyway, as they will have longer having to live without freedom rather than having the 'freedom' of death, so that's another way of looking at it...?.
One thing to be really picky about - it was mentioned that someone thought they caught him making a quick grin, as he was looking down while the jury were shown photos from the crime scene. Of course that can seem bad but in the back of my mind I seemed to remember hearing that smiling isn't always done to represent happiness - it can equally be a nervous reaction to a very stressful, or uncomfortable, situation. He was trying to shield himself from it - I think that showed some level of emotion at least, that he couldn't face it all but I can understand others who could argue that maybe it points towards feelings of guilt, which would imply he did it. I don't know, its not a good impression to make if he stood and stared right at all the images and didn't shield himself from it and didn't show any sign of any type of emotion either...hmmm...food for thought?.
Re tonight's show, Guy Heinze:
1) I agree with the guilty verdict
2) I think that he should be executed
3) I think that all countries should adopt the Scottish system of juries consisting of 15 people
Now I know we only saw an hours worth of a trail that went on for weeks
But I saw absolutely zero evidence of anything pinning him directly to the murders
From the way the program was displayed to us, I was thinking in my head just before the verdict was given, that this is surely going to be a 100% innocent verdict and the man should not be anywhere near a prison with no physical evidence showing he killed them family members
Shocking imo
The fact you suggest he should be executed going off that program disgusts me
Agree with the verdict.
Awful police work.could have made the case far stronger and left any doubt.
I support death penalty in some cases, never in this type of case. you should never execute on circumstantial evidence.
Very interesting to hear the juries views but it shouldn't be allowed.
Should be a serious charge of contempt of court to identify a juror or his address.
Would be interesting to find out if our juries are allowed to talk about their deliberations over famous cases years later in the UK. fact i can't remember it ever happening ,so i assume they can't.
Now I know we only saw an hours worth of a trail that went on for weeks
But I saw absolutely zero evidence of anything pinning him directly to the murders
From the way the program was displayed to us, I was thinking in my head just before the verdict was given, that this is surely going to be a 100% innocent verdict and the man should not be anywhere near a prison with no physical evidence showing he killed them family members
Shocking imo
The fact you suggest he should be executed going off that program disgusts me
I was pretty much convinced he'd be found guilty, given the way the various people (the jurors) were talking and having seen other cases of American trials, on TV before. I was surprised he didn't get the death penalty to be honest. I'm still very much against the death penalty on principle - im not sure if any TV programme can really challenge my viewpoint.
However, I thought the strongest 'evidence' was that they claimed they could only find his DNA on the property and no-one else's.
ETA - a quick, basic question. When the replacement juror came in, s/he had attended the whole trial beforehand presumably, or how does that work? because if they had been excused from the jury, they could have seen biased media coverage of the trial and to then be reinstated could jeopardise the verdict being fair, surely? but if not, then what were they doing? sitting around the court house as potential stand by jurors, unable to watch TV etc. incase their called in? does that happen?
Now I know we only saw an hours worth of a trail that went on for weeks
But I saw absolutely zero evidence of anything pinning him directly to the murders
I found him having their blood on him to be very convincing.
If it had just been on his shorts or shirt, maybe he could have knelt down to check if anyone was alive or just hysterical and touched them for whatever reason. But having blood on the shorts underneath as well was way too fishy
I was pretty much convinced he'd be found guilty, given the way the various people (the jurors) were talking and having seen other cases of American trials, on TV before. I was surprised he didn't get the death penalty to be honest. I'm still very much against the death penalty on principle - im not sure if any TV programme can really challenge my viewpoint.
However, I thought the strongest 'evidence' was that they claimed they could only find his DNA on the property and no-one else's.
ETA - a quick, basic question. When the replacement juror came in, s/he had attended the whole trial beforehand presumably, or how does that work? because if they had been excused from the jury, they could have seen biased media coverage of the trial and to then be reinstated could jeopardise the verdict being fair, surely? but if not, then what were they doing? sitting around the court house as potential stand by jurors, unable to watch TV etc. incase their called in? does that happen?
His DNA being the only DNA found didn't carry any weight for me, it was his family so unless it could be proven he had never stepped foot inside the trailer before the killings then you would expect to find his DNA anyway. can't remember the prosecution pointing this out, maybe they did and it was edited out in the documentry
Absolutely disgraceful police work not collecting the blood stained material in the bathroom. that could have added a completely different complexion to the trial, that made me very suspicious of the police evidence gathered, seems an incredible stupid mistake to make, to bad to be true for me.
This has been mentioned a lot over here the last few months ,for very big very long expensive trials allow an extra 3 spare people to sit through the trial as spares, just in case of illness etc if a joror has to leave the jury. seems a good idea. maybe the USA use this system already now.
His DNA being the only DNA found didn't carry any weight for me, it was his family so unless it could be proven he had never stepped foot inside the trailer before the killings then you would expect to find his DNA anyway. can't remember the prosecution pointing this out, maybe they did and it was edited out in the documentry
Absolutely disgraceful police work not collecting the blood stained material in the bathroom. that could have added a completely different complexion to the trial, that made me very suspicious of the police evidence gathered, seems an incredible stupid mistake to make, to bad to be true for me.
This has been mentioned a lot over here the last few months ,for very big very long expensive trials allow an extra 3 spare people to sit through the trial as spares, just in case of illness etc if a joror has to leave the jury. seems a good idea. maybe the USA use this system already now.
Ah ok, that makes sense. That must be frustrating though if your asked to attend but may not get a say in the verdict.
I suppose I was thinking of DNA as rather more like fingerprints, as in it would have some sort of time stamp to it but I suppose not? maybe I didn't think that through properly
Ah ok, that makes sense. That must be frustrating though if your asked to attend but may not get a say in the verdict.
I suppose I was thinking of DNA as rather more like fingerprints, as in it would have some sort of time stamp to it but I suppose not? maybe I didn't think that through properly
Yes i imagine it must be. especially if the jury give a verdict you totally disagree with, no chance to put forward important points you had picked up on.>:(
Wondered about this when 2 of the girls interviewed mentioned they were confused most of the time.
Doesn't seem right that they should be allowed a vote if they find the evidence confusing. maybe one of the extra jurors could step in under those circumstances as well.
I think you made a valid point , fact is his DNA was found ,they just dont say where in the documentary. if his DNA was found in every single room and on all the victims clothes then that would be enough to convince me, just think any Innocent person walking into that scene would have seen the first few bodies and ran out and called for help. police and ambulance, then maybe had a tentative look round to see if anyone was alive knowing they were walking round a crime scene.
i suppose they had to edit out a lot to cram everything into one hour.
I think one of the major factors determining Guy Heinze fate was the fact no money or items were stolen. If he didn't commit the terrible crimes and intruders entered the trailer the logical/obvious conclusion is: a robbery that went hideously out of control. There was no mention of any forced entry, no mention of money/items taken. The chances of a gang of people entering someone's home, battering all the residents to death, and just leaving seems incredibly unlikely. Intruders would take something, surely?
Without any credible reason why anyone other than Guy committed the crime, as well as the compelling fact he had some of one of the victim's blood on his inner pants, this would suggest he was the killer. He also showed zero emotion after the verdict was announced. If he were innocent you might expect him to show anger or burst into tears. His face remained emotionless. His brother's reaction seemed the natural response. He swore and left the court in tears. But Guy Heinze looked impassive.
Yes, they did seem to gloss over how one assailant batters eight people to death without some of them finding out (hearing the screams). That does seem odd. Perhaps the family were on drugs at the time or drunk? Ideally, you would want your victims to be incapacitated prior to the killing. If the family were under the influence of drugs/drink that would make it much easier to commit the crimes. There was no mention of drugs/drink in the court case! Apart from Guy, himself, of course.
Just to add, Heinze was found guilty on both counts.
One was murder.
The other was being involved in the murder. (can't remember the precise wording but it did concern involvement or something very similar)
It's possible there could have been more than one killer but Guy Heinze was found guilty of being involved in the killings. Just wanted to mention that point! Perhaps he had an accomplice. This would be consistent with the forensic guy that stated there had to be more than one killer.
Some more details on the case (stuff I didn't pick up on in the tv programme)
Prosecutors said Heinze had been smoking crack cocaine when he killed his father and the other victims, all members of an extended family. They said he killed the first victim in a dispute over a bottle of prescription painkillers he wanted to steal, then killed the others to avoid getting caught.
Each of the victims died from multiple crushing blows to the head from what police believe was a shotgun barrel, jurors heard. Autopsies showed they suffered a combined total of more than 220 wounds. The murder weapon was never found.
Although the attack happened in the night and most of the victims were found in bed, defense attorneys argued a single assailant couldn't possibly have inflicted such carnage. They insisted that Heinze would not kill loved ones over a bottle of weak prescription pills and that police ignored evidence and alternate suspects in a rush to accuse him.
Heinze had told police he found the victims' bodies after returning from a late night away from home.
So there's the clear motive (as presented by the prosecution):
Prosecutors said Heinze had been smoking crack cocaine when he killed his father and the other victims, all members of an extended family. They said he killed the first victim in a dispute over a bottle of prescription painkillers he wanted to steal, then killed the others to avoid getting caught.
I don't think this was mentioned in the programme? Can't recall it being mentioned.
How did he managed to inflict 40 odd fatal injuries onto each person of eight without anybody waking up or challenging him
What was his motive
Yes, that made me wonder if someone else had been involved, no logic to it even if they were all asleep you would still think someone would have woke up and fought back. doubt if they would have overpowered him but they would have left a mark. think he definitely was guilty but we don't know the full truth, could possibly be others involved,
Ray makes and excellent point, nothing stolen rules out criminals, had to be personal.
He was high on cocaine, parents helped to buy a pool etc for other children.if you believe his ex colleague then he felt he had been neglected and angry,even saying he wanted to kill them.
It's possible the trial mentioned the possibility of an accomplice and other stuff concerning how he managed to kill eight people without them stopping him but this might have been edited out of the show. We got to see bits of the trial, the jurors had two weeks of evidence to consider. There must have been a fair amount we didn't see.
Do you maybe want to have a another think about what you've written there and why it is completely abhorrent?
Why? if the choice is between the death penalty and life imprisonment, life imprisonment is clearly the correct sentence. The death penalty should only ever be used (though to me its never appropriate but some who are pro death penalty, would say this) when there are no doubts whatsoever, no potential possibility at all that the person wasn't to blame...if that can ever be the case.
If their imprisoned then at least there's always that chance for the truth to be uncovered and them to be set free. There have been several cases of overturned verdicts in the last decade or so, the first to come to mind being women accused of killing their offspring, whereby the validity so called medical experts testimony was put into doubt.
Of course if its not clear that the defendent was guilty, then either an acquittal or a not guilty verdict should be the result but, as I understand it, three of the original jury (2 or 3?) had an opposing view, so there must have been some element of uncertainty, or why did they not agree to the guilty verdict? hence when they did agree to a guilty verdict, perhaps life imprisonment was the way to go. Thats the way the criminal justice system works there, the jury all have to agree to the same verdict but when the 3 of them went against the rest, to me that says that most feel sure he was guilty but there's a percentage of doubt from some, so, to me, any doubt should allow the person the chance to be able to have their case reviewed later on but unfortunately for them, the majority still agreed on a guilty verdict, so they have to be presumed to be guilty on that basis but given a slightly lesser sentence (depending on your opinion if life is less of an ordeal than the death penalty). I hope that makes sense? thats just my thinking.
Now I know we only saw an hours worth of a trail that went on for weeks
But I saw absolutely zero evidence of anything pinning him directly to the murders
From the way the program was displayed to us, I was thinking in my head just before the verdict was given, that this is surely going to be a 100% innocent verdict and the man should not be anywhere near a prison with no physical evidence showing he killed them family members
Shocking imo
The fact you suggest he should be executed going off that program disgusts me
He had the victims' blood on his underpants. He said they'd been beaten to death when the method at the time hadn't been established & experienced police officers initially thought it was a shooting incident. He was high on crack - and crack can turn a puny person in to Mike Tyson (my fiance knows nightclub bouncers from the gym, & it can take 8 bouncers to hold down one troublesome guy if that guy is on crack).
Anyway, with the death penalty they're not executed immediately upon conviction, it takes place circa 10 years later, so that's 10 years grace if new evidence came to light.
Anyway, with the death penalty they're not executed immediately upon conviction, it takes place circa 10 years later, so that's 10 years grace if new evidence came to light.
Sometimes it takes longer than 10 years for evidence to be found, or for findings to be disproven etc. some people have been released from prison decades later.
Comments
Those on the right lapped it up clearly.
?!?! Really? Cut someone who wants to execute people in public at sports matches some slack? Guess we have different standards then. Maybe we could bring back the colisseum to make it even more entertaining.
I don't agree with her, but you're failing to have any empathy with a woman who's daughter has been raped & nearly murdered - that says a lot about you & it's not good.
1) I agree with the guilty verdict
2) I think that he should be executed
3) I think that all countries should adopt the Scottish system of juries consisting of 15 people
If there were any uncertainties, then life imprisonment was the way to go. Depending on your viewpoint, its a harsher sentence than the death penalty anyway, as they will have longer having to live without freedom rather than having the 'freedom' of death, so that's another way of looking at it...?.
One thing to be really picky about - it was mentioned that someone thought they caught him making a quick grin, as he was looking down while the jury were shown photos from the crime scene. Of course that can seem bad but in the back of my mind I seemed to remember hearing that smiling isn't always done to represent happiness - it can equally be a nervous reaction to a very stressful, or uncomfortable, situation. He was trying to shield himself from it - I think that showed some level of emotion at least, that he couldn't face it all but I can understand others who could argue that maybe it points towards feelings of guilt, which would imply he did it. I don't know, its not a good impression to make if he stood and stared right at all the images and didn't shield himself from it and didn't show any sign of any type of emotion either...hmmm...food for thought?.
Now I know we only saw an hours worth of a trail that went on for weeks
But I saw absolutely zero evidence of anything pinning him directly to the murders
From the way the program was displayed to us, I was thinking in my head just before the verdict was given, that this is surely going to be a 100% innocent verdict and the man should not be anywhere near a prison with no physical evidence showing he killed them family members
Shocking imo
The fact you suggest he should be executed going off that program disgusts me
Awful police work.could have made the case far stronger and left any doubt.
I support death penalty in some cases, never in this type of case. you should never execute on circumstantial evidence.
Very interesting to hear the juries views but it shouldn't be allowed.
Should be a serious charge of contempt of court to identify a juror or his address.
Would be interesting to find out if our juries are allowed to talk about their deliberations over famous cases years later in the UK. fact i can't remember it ever happening ,so i assume they can't.
I was pretty much convinced he'd be found guilty, given the way the various people (the jurors) were talking and having seen other cases of American trials, on TV before. I was surprised he didn't get the death penalty to be honest. I'm still very much against the death penalty on principle - im not sure if any TV programme can really challenge my viewpoint.
However, I thought the strongest 'evidence' was that they claimed they could only find his DNA on the property and no-one else's.
ETA - a quick, basic question. When the replacement juror came in, s/he had attended the whole trial beforehand presumably, or how does that work? because if they had been excused from the jury, they could have seen biased media coverage of the trial and to then be reinstated could jeopardise the verdict being fair, surely? but if not, then what were they doing? sitting around the court house as potential stand by jurors, unable to watch TV etc. incase their called in? does that happen?
I found him having their blood on him to be very convincing.
If it had just been on his shorts or shirt, maybe he could have knelt down to check if anyone was alive or just hysterical and touched them for whatever reason. But having blood on the shorts underneath as well was way too fishy
His DNA being the only DNA found didn't carry any weight for me, it was his family so unless it could be proven he had never stepped foot inside the trailer before the killings then you would expect to find his DNA anyway. can't remember the prosecution pointing this out, maybe they did and it was edited out in the documentry
Absolutely disgraceful police work not collecting the blood stained material in the bathroom. that could have added a completely different complexion to the trial, that made me very suspicious of the police evidence gathered, seems an incredible stupid mistake to make, to bad to be true for me.
This has been mentioned a lot over here the last few months ,for very big very long expensive trials allow an extra 3 spare people to sit through the trial as spares, just in case of illness etc if a joror has to leave the jury. seems a good idea. maybe the USA use this system already now.
Ah ok, that makes sense. That must be frustrating though if your asked to attend but may not get a say in the verdict.
I suppose I was thinking of DNA as rather more like fingerprints, as in it would have some sort of time stamp to it but I suppose not? maybe I didn't think that through properly
Wondered about this when 2 of the girls interviewed mentioned they were confused most of the time.
Doesn't seem right that they should be allowed a vote if they find the evidence confusing. maybe one of the extra jurors could step in under those circumstances as well.
I think you made a valid point , fact is his DNA was found ,they just dont say where in the documentary. if his DNA was found in every single room and on all the victims clothes then that would be enough to convince me, just think any Innocent person walking into that scene would have seen the first few bodies and ran out and called for help. police and ambulance, then maybe had a tentative look round to see if anyone was alive knowing they were walking round a crime scene.
i suppose they had to edit out a lot to cram everything into one hour.
Without any credible reason why anyone other than Guy committed the crime, as well as the compelling fact he had some of one of the victim's blood on his inner pants, this would suggest he was the killer. He also showed zero emotion after the verdict was announced. If he were innocent you might expect him to show anger or burst into tears. His face remained emotionless. His brother's reaction seemed the natural response. He swore and left the court in tears. But Guy Heinze looked impassive.
What was his motive
Do you maybe want to have a another think about what you've written there and why it is completely abhorrent?
One was murder.
The other was being involved in the murder. (can't remember the precise wording but it did concern involvement or something very similar)
It's possible there could have been more than one killer but Guy Heinze was found guilty of being involved in the killings. Just wanted to mention that point! Perhaps he had an accomplice. This would be consistent with the forensic guy that stated there had to be more than one killer.
So there's the clear motive (as presented by the prosecution):
I don't think this was mentioned in the programme? Can't recall it being mentioned.
Yes, that made me wonder if someone else had been involved, no logic to it even if they were all asleep you would still think someone would have woke up and fought back. doubt if they would have overpowered him but they would have left a mark. think he definitely was guilty but we don't know the full truth, could possibly be others involved,
Ray makes and excellent point, nothing stolen rules out criminals, had to be personal.
He was high on cocaine, parents helped to buy a pool etc for other children.if you believe his ex colleague then he felt he had been neglected and angry,even saying he wanted to kill them.
Why? if the choice is between the death penalty and life imprisonment, life imprisonment is clearly the correct sentence. The death penalty should only ever be used (though to me its never appropriate but some who are pro death penalty, would say this) when there are no doubts whatsoever, no potential possibility at all that the person wasn't to blame...if that can ever be the case.
If their imprisoned then at least there's always that chance for the truth to be uncovered and them to be set free. There have been several cases of overturned verdicts in the last decade or so, the first to come to mind being women accused of killing their offspring, whereby the validity so called medical experts testimony was put into doubt.
Of course if its not clear that the defendent was guilty, then either an acquittal or a not guilty verdict should be the result but, as I understand it, three of the original jury (2 or 3?) had an opposing view, so there must have been some element of uncertainty, or why did they not agree to the guilty verdict? hence when they did agree to a guilty verdict, perhaps life imprisonment was the way to go. Thats the way the criminal justice system works there, the jury all have to agree to the same verdict but when the 3 of them went against the rest, to me that says that most feel sure he was guilty but there's a percentage of doubt from some, so, to me, any doubt should allow the person the chance to be able to have their case reviewed later on but unfortunately for them, the majority still agreed on a guilty verdict, so they have to be presumed to be guilty on that basis but given a slightly lesser sentence (depending on your opinion if life is less of an ordeal than the death penalty). I hope that makes sense? thats just my thinking.
He had the victims' blood on his underpants. He said they'd been beaten to death when the method at the time hadn't been established & experienced police officers initially thought it was a shooting incident. He was high on crack - and crack can turn a puny person in to Mike Tyson (my fiance knows nightclub bouncers from the gym, & it can take 8 bouncers to hold down one troublesome guy if that guy is on crack).
Sometimes it takes longer than 10 years for evidence to be found, or for findings to be disproven etc. some people have been released from prison decades later.