I went down the rabbit hole of watching a number of true crime series and a few of the horrid cases have stuck in my mind. For example:
Tim Hennis - the decorated senior military officer who was convicted of the unbelievably brutal murder of the wife and two small children (5 and 3 year-old girls) of a fellow officer Gary Eastburn.
It's the "Double Jeopardy" episode on the "Death Row Stories" on Prime (free). I really can't get my head around this case and I keep thinking he is innocent. It just doesn't make sense. He was happily married with an infant daughter whom he adored, a decorated war hero who has (before and after the initial conviction) lived an absolutely picture-perfect life with not a single black mark against his character. How can this be reconciled with someone who stabbed two infant children 15 times each for apparently no reason at all other than to brutally rape and also absolutely savagely murder their mother? There was a lot of DNA at the scene, which didn't match his - male DNA under the fingernails of the victims, pubic hair, blood etc. It appears absolutely everyone was convinced this was a wrongful conviction. But then over 20 years later, the one bit of DNA that matched was the sperm inside the mother. He says they had consensual sex a few days before the murders, which also doesn't quite ring true. I really don't understand this case. It's such a tragedy for both the Eastburn and the Hennis families.
David Bain - the only survivor of the Bain family murders in NZ. I watched the "Bain Family Murders" series on Channel 4 (it's still on All 4) - not a documentary, but it's apparently very close to the real events. David was the sole survivor of the massacre of his whole family - father, mother, two sisters aged 19 and 18 and younger brother aged 14.
David was the eldest of the children at 22 and was allegedly doing his paper round when the murders took place. There was a typed note on the family computer saying "Sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay". There has been a lot debate about whether it was David or his father Robin who committed the murders. But having looked at the evidence (from what's available online) I cannot believe that David Bain is now free to walk the streets. There was so much evidence that he was the one who killed his whole family. The younger brother put up a huge fight and David could never explain the fresh injuries he sustained that morning; David's bloodied gloves were used on the gun (why would the father use gloves if he wanted to commit suicide?); David's broken glasses were found in the brother's room; the brother had fibres from David's sweater under his finger nails; David claimed to have heard his youngest sister gurgle up blood which scientifically would only have been possible if he was the killer; the way the father allegedly killed himself was almost an impossible position to recreate (and why would he use a silencer to make it even more awkward to kill himself?); he washed his clothes before calling the police and there was a bloodied finger print on the washing machine etc etc etc. It's so strange to me that his conviction was quashed based on the testimony of a few witnesses who claimed the youngest daughter was making contradictory claims that the father had abused her (I don't think that was ever proven to be true).
The Menendez brothers - the two sons of the famous Hollywood producer who murdered both their parents. Were they spoiled rich boys only after their parent's fortune or tragic victims of sexual abuse in fear for their lives? This is another Channel 4 documentary (I watched it on catch up on All 4).
Another very bizarre case. The multimillionaire Hollywood producer (who I believe produced Rambo and possibly Rocky) had the perfect Beverly Hills life with his wife and two good-looking seemingly carefree, typical "rich boys" sons. Until one day both he and his wife were brutally gunned down in their home. The murder was so brutal that the police initially thought this was a mafia hit and no one suspected the sons until the younger one stupidly confided in a crooked psychologist. The prosecution believed their only motivation was greed and money because the father was allegedly going to cut them out of his will. However, during the trial, they brought a totally unexpected defence - that they had been the victims of the most cruel sexual abuse at the hands of their father since early childhood and that they feared for their lives because they were going to expose their father. The mother apparently knew and enabled him. The defence had 51 witnesses (friends and family members) all testify what a horrible bastard the father was and it appears everyone hated him. But was he really sexually abusing his sons and were they really in fear for their lives when they killed their parents or were they just greedy rich boys after their parents' money? I'm really torn on this case. On the one hand, it's quite telling that the whole family on both sides is supporting them and that 51 witnesses all testified to say the father was an arsehole and their own evidence was very believable on the stand; however, the comments made by the elder brother after the first trial (that they managed to fool the jury) and their general behaviour and demeanour makes me think they made it up.
Anyone else interested in controversial convictions? Any opinions on either of the above cases or any other similar cases?
Apologies for the extremely long post 😬