MovieChat Forums > Innocent Victims (1996) Discussion > How come Patrick Cone was never consider...

How come Patrick Cone was never considered a suspect?

posted 16 years ago by miguelangel-23
5 replies | jump to latest

I think that Patrick Cone could be a suspect himself... after all consider this:
1- He is the key element in the case against Hennis... Because he was the ONLY person who supposedly saw "somebody" leaving the scene of crime at 3.30 in the morning. But Cone himself is telling us that he was around the Eastburn house at 3.30 am on Thursday 9th.
2-The Eastburn ATM card was used late friday night on Friday 10th and very early Saturday 11th...where? surprisingly not at different and randomly places, but around the same area, across street from Methodist College, and in the Methodist College, curiously, more than 10 miles away from either Fort Bragg where Hennis was on duty, or his residence.
3- Doesn't make a lot more sense that the person who used the ATM had also spent the night nearby between using the card late at night on friday and early on saturday.
5- And curiously Mr. Patrick Cone worked at the Methodist college at that time. Funny huh?
6- A good detective wold think: "Realizing that he made such mistake using the card twice around this area, Cole quit his job at the Methodist college not long after."
Anyway he looks very suspicious to me...

[–] sylvrewolfe-1 16 years ago

The DNA of the semen left in Eastburn matches the DNA of the sample provided by Hennis in the 80s.

[–] miguelangel-23 16 years ago

So, you're telling me that a semen sample recollected from a victim 22 years ago could be preserved intact. The question is, on the retrial (1989) some DNA testing were available, but it wasn't used because the samples from 1985 wasn't preserved.

[–] sylvrewolfe-1 16 years ago

DNA wasn't used that often then and not in this case. It wasn't totally accepted at that time. And yes, DNA can be and is still viable for a lot longer than 22 years. The DNA for this case wasn't tested until recently. The technology just wasn't there for the original case. This is quoted from an article in The Army Times

"It wasn’t until the mid- to late 1980s that DNA started being used in courtrooms, he said.

The Innocence Project is not involved in the Hennis case, but Ferrero said the case “is in the window of time that a number of our cases are, where DNA testing wasn’t used yet.”

If the evidence is properly stored and preserved, scientists can test it decades after the crime, Ferrero said."

[–] jlynnp70 15 years ago

Not only did he work across the street from the ATM used, but Patrick Cone's shoe size is the same size as the bloody footprint found in the house, size 9, Hennis wears a 13. I have always thought Patrick Cone was a suspect...

[–] Stratego (29300) 2 years ago

He may have been a suspect, but he's definitely not the murderer. Silly you.