View Full Version : Stuart Heaton request for new trial denied


TJ
05-14-2003, 10:25 AM
http://www.leaderunion.com/LEADERUNION/sites/LEADERUNION/0189edition/myarticles537673.asp?P=537673&S=503&PubID=8732

Another attempt by convicted murderer Stuart Heaton to get a new trial has failed.
Fayette County Resident Circuit Judge S. Gene Schwarm denied Heaton’s petition for post-conviction relief in a three-page order filed on Monday.
Schwarm’s denial of Heaton’s request for a new trial comes about seven weeks after a two-day evidentiary hearing in which Heaton’s attorneys presented evidence to support their claim that he was unfairly convicted.
The delay in issuing a ruling in the case was due, in large part, to the time required for Heaton’s attorneys gaining certification from the Illinois Secretary of State on titles of white Dodge Dakota trucks, like the one owned by Heaton, in 1991. That matter was resolved just last week.
Attorneys with Jenner & Block of Chicago argued during the March hearing that Heaton did not have adequate legal representation for his trial, claiming that Heaton’s attorney was negligent for not investigating leads related to the possibility that another Fayette County man murdered Krystal Lynn Naab.
Heaton is serving a life sentence in Menard Correctional Center in Chester for the murder of the 16-year-old in her rural Ramsey home in July 1991.
“Stuart Heaton has not proven by a proponderance of the evidence that there has been a substantial denial of his rights under the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Illinois,” Schwarm said in his order.
“The petition for post-conviction relief is therefore denied,” the order states.
In order for Heaton to get a new trial, Schwarm pointed out that Heaton would have to prove that his “counsel’s performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant” to the extent that he was “deprived of a fair trial.”
A standard set by case law, Schwarm said, “requires a reasonable probability of a different result, not merely a possibility.”
However, Schwarm’s ruling does not necessarily mean that the case is closed.
Heaton’s attorneys have the right to file a motion asking Schwarm to reconsider his ruling, and they may also file an appeal with the Fifth District Appellate Court. Such action would have to be initiated within 30 days.
One of Heaton’s attorneys, Shelley Malinowski, learned of the ruling on Monday afternoon, but declined to comment until she had a chance to read Schwarm’s ruling.
In 1999, a panel of Fifth District Appellate Court judges granted Heaton an evidentiary hearing in which he could present evidence that his trial attorney, Bill Farr of Pana, failed to investigate and present evidence that another Fayette County man murdered Naab.
In their ruling, the appellate judges said a hearing was warranted because Farr “did not even investigate (this other man’s) possible involvement in the murder.”
At the March hearing, the defense presented six people who testified that they saw this other man with Naab just days before the murder. However, the defense was unable to produce a witness who saw them together on the day of the murder.
Two of those witnesses also testified that this man’s brother had a white Dodge Dakota truck similar to one owned by Heaton, and that they had seen the man driving that truck.
However, there was no evidence that the man and Naab were together on the day of the murder, and Schwarm pointed out that none of the defense witnesses said they saw the man driving his brother’s truck on the day of the murder.
The defense witnesses also included a Bluff City man who lived near this man’s brother. Paul Ledbetter testified that he had overheard a phone conversation between this other man and his brother, via a scanner, in which incriminating statements were made.
Ledbetter also testified that this man’s brother disposed of bloody clothes in his burn barrel.
In his ruling, Schwarm described Ledbetter as “a many-time convicted felon” who is currently in prison. “The court finds the testimony of Paul Ledbetter entirely incredible and gives it no weight,” Schwarm said.
Those who testified for the defense at the evidentiary hearing admitted not reporting that they saw this other man with Naab until after Heaton’s conviction and sentencing.
The appellate court addressed such statements in its 1999 ruling, saying that Farr “cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to discover statements which were not even made until after the defendant was convicted; counsel is not required to consult a crystal ball.”




In his ruling, Schwarm also cited the testimony of Heaton’s mother and sister, who claimed that Heaton was horseback riding on the afternoon of the murder. He also noted that Heaton’s mother and wife testified that it was not unusual for Heaton, a carpenter, to have cuts on his hands.
Prosecutors compared those cuts on Heaton to those sustained by Naab.
Schwarm also noted that the defense had presented evidence that there were at least 11 white Dodge Dakotas similar to one owned by Heaton registered in the area at the time of the murder.
However, Schwarm said, “The testimony of trial defense counsel William Farr was vague.
“He did not recall specifics of information allegedly given to him by (the) defendant’s mother. He testified that the focus of his trial strategy was to attack the DNA evidence against the defendant.
“He testified that he had no backup plan if he lost on the DNA evidence,” Schwarm said.
Again, Schwarm said, Heaton would have to prove that he was “prejudiced by the unprofessional conduct” of his attorney, and that the outcome of his trial would have been different if not for the attorney’s “unprofessional errors.”
What’s required, he said, is proof of “a reasonable probability of a different result, not merely a possibility.”
The judge was referring to DNA tests performed on semen collected at the scene of the murder.
In 1991, when DNA testing was relatively new, tests indicated that a white male other than Heaton being the source of that semen was 1 in 52,600.
Last year, Heaton’s attorneys argued for – and were granted – new DNA testing, making the argument that testing methods used today are much more sophisticated than those used in 1991-92.
Those test results, however, were even more damning for the defense. The odds of the semen coming from a white male other than Heaton, according to those tests, were 1 in 31 billion.
Heaton’s attorneys said before the evidentiary hearing that they would not present the DNA test results at the hearing, claiming that they were not relevant to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Those latest test results were not mentioned at the hearing, but Schwarm mentioned them in his order.
“In the court’s view, the case turns on the DNA evidence implicating the defendant.
“This DNA evidence is corroborated by compelling circumstantial evidence,” Schwarm said in his ruling.
He noted that evidence presented by then-State’s Attorney Don Sheafor and his assistant, Richard Day, included:
• The “pairing-type cuts” found on Heaton that matched those “inflicted on the victim.
• The testimony of a man “identifying (Heaton’s) truck as the truck seen at the Naab residence shortly before the murder.”
• The testimony of a man who gave “a physical description of the driver of the white truck seen leaving the Naab residence at approximately 3 p.m. (on the day of the murder), which was comparable to the photograph of the defendant taken on the evening of the murder.”
• The testimony of two men “placing a southbound speeding white truck only approximately five miles from the Bergin (Heaton’s mother’s) residence.”
In closing, Schwarm said in his order, “In light of the DNA evidence implicating (the) defendant and the circumstantial evidence, the court does not believe a reasonable probability of a different result exists.”
Heaton did not take the witness stand at the evidentiary hearing to explain why his DNA would be present at the murder scene.
Nor did he testify at his 1992 trial.
Other than evidence presented over the years by his attorneys in court hearings, the only way Heaton has proclaimed his innocence is through two television shows – an “Unsolved Mysteries” show aired in the 1990s and a Court TV show that has been airing for the last couple of years – and in newspaper stories like the one appearing in “USA Today” in 1994.
During the evidentiary hearing, Heaton’s attorneys argued that there was no proof that semen recovered at the murder scene had been left there just prior to the murder, or even on that day.

EyesoftheNile
06-06-2003, 04:00 PM
Dear TJ,

Hey there. So you're in Marietta? I am closeby, in Norcross. I surmise that since you are a fellow Georgian, that you are also glad that Rudolph was apprehended.



In regards to Stuart Heaton- I am very interested in his case. It is so complicated- and so many questions come to mind.


I gather from your post (although it seemed objective to me) that you think that Stuart Heaton is innocent. Please correct me if I am wrong! Wait a minute, I just contradicted myself, didn't I. How could I have inferred that your opinion is that he is innocent, if your post was truly objective? Well, I am just guessing. But I found the information, which I assume to be on good authority, to be fascinating and compelling.


Is Heaton a wolf in sheeps clothing??????


I saw the interview with Stuart Heaton. I am not an expert, but it seemed, on the outside looking in, that he was being truthful. But some sociopaths are not dissimilar from that. They can lie straight to a person's face, and convince that person that they are being honest.



I think that Stuart Heaton was lying when he said that he did not know the murder victim. Why? Because Heaton did know her (the victim's) other siblings. This would lead me to believe that Heaton may have been prevaricating about the fact that he knew the victim.

Motive? I don't know. Maybe he was having a relationship with the young murder victim (whose name escapes me), and in a jealous rage, stabbed her to death.


Do you know- did they study the lacerations on Heaton's hands? The reason I ask is because if the police did examine the cuts on his hands, I would think that they would be able to extrapolate what sort of object caused the lacerations. Metal, like a knife, leaves infinitessimal traces in wounds- so if they had carefully and meticulously examined Heaton's cuts on his hands, then they would have known for certain where the cuts came from. Maybe the police failed to check? If they were wanting to convict Stuart Heaton , then I imagine that they would have conveniently forgotten to perform some of the normal tasks involved in murder cases.



My opinion? I think that Stuart Heaton did murder the girl. However, (and please don't ask me to justify this, because I don't think that I can) I feel that Heaton deserves another trial. In terms of the preponderance of the evidence, I would say that they did not have sufficient evidence to sentence Heaton.


Ostensibly, many of the officials involved, including one of the doctors who was called upon for the DNA tests, were not objective. I think that most of them had a penchant for giving Stuart Heaton a trial by ordeal.




Sincerely,

EyesoftheNile

EyesoftheNile
06-06-2003, 04:04 PM
Hey TJ-

I would like to add that I think that Stuart Heaton made a grave mistake by not testifying at his trial. The jury may have made the unfair assumption that Heaton was trying to hide something.

Awsi Dooger
06-07-2003, 12:16 AM
Stuart Heaton was another guy I thought was innocent, based solely on the UM segment.

In fact, the Heaton case was on Lifetime a week or so ago. DNA experts debated whether bands matching Heaton's DNA were even present at all. They certainly didn't appear to be there to me, although I don't know if the TV portrayal was precise. The shade of the bands definitely did not match one another.

One troubling aspect of prosecutors and law enforcement that screams from programs like Unsolved Mysteries: the state (or feds) are forever in denial they might have made a mistake, even when significant evidence points in that direction. They seem more intent on keeping an individual in jail and the case closed than granting a new trial, or even the prospect of one. The comments are always a pathetic and robotic, "I'm positive we convicted the right man. The system worked. If he is let out, I'm sure he will kill again."

Then you have the UM case of the mother who was convicted of murdering her child, only to be freed solely due to having another child born in jail who had MMA, and it became obvious that was also what killed her first child, not intentional poisoning. You know damn well prosecutors would have insisted forever she was a hideous murderer, if not for that second child and the publicity the case gained thru UM. That's undoubtedly also true for Johnny Wilson, the mildly retarded guy who was convicted of setting a home on fire and killing the elderly woman owner. Luckily the real guilty party was caught in an unrelated case, and confessed to the Wilson incident including using a stun gun.

Same thing regarding the release of individuals cleared by DNA evidence. I've read many online papers in which prosecutors want judges to disregard new DNA evidence in those cases, because they are "sure" the person was indeed the perpretrator. EVEN WHEN DNA WAS THE HEART OF THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTION!

Can you imagine how many innocent people must be imprisoned right now, and for the rest of their lives, partially because DNA that might clear them was either never available, or subsequently destroyed?

EyesoftheNile
06-07-2003, 08:04 PM
In the event that Stuart Heaton really is innocent, then I think that he should be exonerated.

Unfortunately, there must be some number of innocent people in prison. I feel sympathy for them and thier families.

Was it the Heaton segment, or another one...where an interviewee was talking about the fact that police often cover up if they mess up???? Well, maybe law enforcement made errors in reference to Stuart Heaton, and now, to make an admission of such an error would be the ultimate sin.

I think that the officials should have done tests on Heaton's lacerations on his hands, to establish definitively what object caused them. Perhaps the police elected not to, again, because they were wanting to prove the guilt of Heaton. That kind of subjectivity is reprehensible.


I remember the other cases, like the young Mother who was accused of killing her child by antifreeze poisoning...although IMO that case and Stuart Heaton's case are quite different in nature, the only similarity being DNA testing.

I wonder if Stuart Heaton has called his faith into question. Apparently, his religion teaches that faith must be placed entirely in God, but not men. Does anyone know which religion contains this philosophy? I am curious to know.


This case reminds me of the SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.


I must confess that Stuart Heaton would have to be very very brazen to assert that he is innocent if in fact he did murder that young girl. But I don't think that it is safe to presume that he did not commit the crime just because, on the outside looking in, he appears to be a victim of the legal system, one of those who has slipped through the cracks.

I don't know how I can square this away...I feel that Heaton is the guilty one, yet I do believe that he deserves a new trial.

Why? The evidence was circumstantial.

Kane
06-08-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by EyesoftheNile

Was it the Heaton segment, or another one...where an interviewee was talking about the fact that police often cover up if they mess up????


Actually, that comment came from the segment about the 1991 death of journalist Danny Casolaro. In that segment, one of the interviewees said something to the effect of "Police screw up, they cover up. Sad but true." That case was mishandled very badly, and despite the suicide ruling, Casolaro's family believes he was murdered. That case remains unsolved to this day.

Thracian
06-30-2003, 11:06 PM
The odds of the semen coming from a white male other than Heaton, according to those tests, were 1 in 31 billion.
I had my doubts about this episode. There was something about Heaton I didn't quite like, but I couldn't spot the band they were talking about either. However, this new DNA evidence seems pretty conclusive to me.

Allierain
07-02-2003, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by EyesoftheNile


EyesoftheNile

O/T, sorry, but EYES!!!!!!!!! How are you?!?

canadianmysterygrl
01-06-2004, 12:11 AM
So I understand the new DNA did in fact show Heaton was guilty?
Why did the segment tonight not include at least a typed update? This drives me nuts!

Composite Sketch
01-06-2004, 01:06 AM
Hey, I saw tonight's episode too and was curious if his new trial went through. Guess this answers the question.

About segments without necessary updates, they also showed the case of Le-Zhan Williams, the son of a rapper who was abducted and his mother murdered (with their house burned down to cover up the crime) when he wasn't even a month old. I quickly found out that he was found, perfectly healthy, in December of 2002 just a couple of miles from where he was abducted. Three women have since been arrested but I have yet to find any pictures to compare to the police drawings. And of course, no update on UM. :crazy:

canadianmysterygrl
01-06-2004, 01:00 PM
Hey thanks. That was another case I was wondering about. Now I try really hard to catch the dates at the beginning of the show and I run to the computer to find out if the cases are solved or any news.

I think UM would be much more relevant and appreciated if they would at least type in an update or do a voice over update.

Makes the show seem so lame and outdated when the cass are solved nd UM is till presenting the case as an UNSOLVED MYSTERY.
DAMN THAT BUGS ME.:mad: :mad: :mad:

m0zart
02-12-2004, 07:06 PM
I expect a lot more than supposition when I am on juries. I have been on several, and have often been the one to either lead to acquital or a hung jury. I am honestly so disillusioned with the ability to reason that seems absent from jury members, so much so that I would probably make the request for the judge to issue the verdict instead.

In this case, based solely on the evidence I've read about the case online (from various sources), I couldn't have issued a conviction. I haven't heard anything compelling.

Brent88
02-12-2004, 09:45 PM
This case was on Lifetime tonight, it was not updated. :crazy:

just_my_opinion197
02-15-2004, 01:42 AM
I had watched the Court TV document of the Stuart Heaton case. I am curious to find out the reasoning why there was no police report made for this particular case! Jim Calvert was the officer that had arrested Stuart Heaton on that night. The video was shot in 2000 for the particular taping to be made...I felt Calvert was very nervous and very hostile about the arrest and the situation. Calvert was a former police officer for our town just a few years ago, personally I know his family. He was a very hot headed tempered man! He looked like he had something to hide! Even the investigators on Court TV had said, Calvert knew something and he wasn't telling the whole story on what he knew. I am thinking maybe (and this is my opinion) he had something to do with this case. It wasn't too awfully long (by just within months) that Calvert went off the deep end and shot and killed his estranged wife and himself in Effingham, IL. Maybe that had nothing to do with this case but if Stuart Heaton had been sitting in jail/prison all this time, I am thinking that maybe since the case was being brought up AGAIN then, maybe James "Jim" Calvert had something to do with it...:confused:

nomad 2
04-04-2004, 05:19 PM
I would say the guy is guilty.They placed the white truck at the seen,the cuts on his hands,the DNA test.
The guy never took the stand in his defense.He had no credible alibi to place his whereabouts in the time frame in question.I saw the um version some time ago,and just saw the Court tv version last night.The Court tv version was very one sided ,its as if S Heatons attorneys had paid court tv to do it.NOT ONE interview from Krystal Naabs family.The whole thing was just garbage.

Awsi Dooger
04-07-2004, 04:09 AM
I posted very early in this thread that Heaton was likely innocent, based on the questionable DNA analysis. However, after watching the Court TV version last week and doing subsequent internet searches, the most recent DNA testing leaves little doubt Stuart Heaton is where he belongs.

Heaton was unconvincing in his Court TV denials, especially if his main claim was "no physical evidence" then the DNA screams he was there.

Still, that mustached prosecutor in the Heaton case is a prototype inept wimp who got lucky. I get ill just looking at him, refusing to concede they made any mistakes in the investigation. Such as checking out alternate suspects and conducting extensive interviews. Wow, what radical concepts.

ToryB
07-28-2004, 12:00 PM
UM has updated that Mr. Heaton is due a re-testing of the DNA evidence. Just thought you guys would like to know :)

spockgrokgirl
07-28-2004, 01:38 PM
Just wanted to reiterate the DNA results for the last poster, Heaton's DNA test came back as even more certain that he is very guilty. It stated that the odds were 1 in 38 billion (previous results were 1 in 57,000) that someone else was the donor of the sperm, so it's pretty much an impossibility that anyone else would have that DNA profile.

I don't know how the online petitions can go on with these results in hand. How can they continue fighting for a new trial for this man??

With all this evidence against: his DNA was on the victim's genitals, his hands were covered in cuts as is commonly seen with murder by multiple stabbings, his car was seen parked at the victim's house that day, he personally was seen in the area that day, no one remembered seeing him anywhere else at the time of the murder, he came home that evening in different clothes than the ones he left in, a couple years before he had a rather strange visit with the victim, just the two of them talking alone in her bedroom, but then he claimed not to even KNOW the girl...and also, when the cops asked her brother if he knew anyone with a white truck, Heaton automatically came to mind, someone he hadn't seen in two years. Surely he knew other people with white trucks, especially in a rural area like that where everyone drives trucks. So obviously Heaton left a bad impression on him for him to be the first one he thinks of when his sister's been murdered....all of this is just too much, you've got to have common sense when looking at the huge amount of evidence.

nohwheregirl
07-28-2004, 02:37 PM
Stuart Heaton is a pretty good con-man to have all this support. Just look at him on this segment...he seems like a very sweet young man. He even had Court TV's private investigators fooled. Yes, there were definitely questions about the prosecution's case that needed to be cleared up, but i'm glad this case is resolved once and for all. What a slime.

ToryB
07-28-2004, 02:39 PM
I would also like to say that I have not said whether or not I believe he is guilty. Today was the first time I heard of this case on UM and people on here were talking about no updates on UM so I just thought I would like to point out there is an update now. Do not assume to know what my feelings are on this case. I have not had luck in finding the information on the new DNA test. I was not stating an opinion on the case and "attacking" me in that way was uncalled for. I was not aware that the new DNA evidence was already taken and tested.
Thank you

nohwheregirl
07-28-2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by ToryB
I would also like to say that I have not said whether or not I believe he is guilty. Today was the first time I heard of this case on UM and people on here were talking about no updates on UM so I just thought I would like to point out there is an update now. Do not assume to know what my feelings are on this case. I have not had luck in finding the information on the new DNA test. I was not stating an opinion on the case and "attacking" me in that way was uncalled for. I was not aware that the new DNA evidence was already taken and tested.
Thank you


Nobody here is attacking you. We all guessed from your post that you genuinely didn't know the outcome of the tests. The only way i know about the outcome is b/c of a show they did on Court TV about this case. At the end, they had a paragraph stating that the new DNA results were conclusive. The "supporters" that we are speaking of are all the people that have fallen for this guy's act in the past...i.e., before the new DNA tests, and the people who still don't believe that he's guilty after all of the new testing. My point was that he must be a great actor b/c he had alot of people fooled, even seasoned professionals.

pixienat
07-28-2004, 02:54 PM
if you think this guy is guilt you are stupid.

he is a carptenter you get cuts from your hands!
there were over 100 white trucks in the city where he lived
geez he's not the only one with the car he has. Look outside buddy, how many trucks do you see on the road? Hmm?
The dna crusty and old can't acuartly convict anyone you can test it.
and the juory, stupid people amazed at the large number told by the doctor.

i think some juorys and courts suck and these police men are so blinded by one person that did not due it another guy is going around acted like nothing happened.

scottyr
09-16-2004, 11:25 AM
I lived and went to school in Ramsey illinois when this murdered happened. I knew krystal personally. I believe with the evidence they have they have the right man. She died very brutally.

Mr. Fuji
09-17-2004, 01:50 PM
Stuart Heaton is guilty. I'd bet my life on it.

pixienat
09-24-2004, 06:05 PM
Stuart heaton didn't get a fair trail at ALL. And there's what 6000 milliopn white rtcuks on the planet yet they suspect him because he owns a white truck at that time?

And old dna doesn't prove anything but that the prosucutors are stupid.

unsolved_on_film
09-24-2004, 06:29 PM
If I remember correctly, the girl was pregnant when she was murdered. If they were having an affair together, it's quite possible that he asked her to abort the baby (to protect his ass, of course) and she refused. He might have killed her in a moment of panic. After realizing what he had done, he concocted an elaborate scheme to appear innocent.

There's your motive, folks.

Hang the bastard!

PajamaYoga
09-25-2004, 07:31 AM
This is a shame. It's hard to see Heaton die innocent, but nobody can say he did/didn't do it. I think the accuser was PO-ed at Heaton and said "Ah this guy, an old buddy of mine, has a white truck. We haven't been in touch lately, so go look for him." It's just typical.

chad30
09-25-2004, 01:37 PM
She had a boyfriend when she was killed. I think it's more likely he was the father. If you ask me, the DNA evidence gets too much credibility here. It's also worth noting that there was another suspect who owned a truck like Heaton's, knew Crystal Nabb, and also had a long criminal record. I wonder if the authorities just homed in on Heaton and decided he did it. It may have been small town politics and wanting to throw SOMEONE in jail for the crime. It sure wouldn't be the first time.

nappyjim
01-31-2005, 02:16 PM
I wish they would have been able to test the babys DNA to compare it. If the DNA of the baby was infact Heatons too, then I would have no doubt he is the murderer.

But if the baby was the girls and her boyfriends, I dont see any motive for Heaton to kill her.

But I think the baby was the reason whoever killed her did. Cause obviosuly they didnt go to her house wanting to kill her if they killed her with some scissors!! If, like they say, Stuart Heaton killed her and had a change of clothes...wouldent he bring some other murder weapon? I belive the reason she was stabbed so much times is because the killer wanted to make sure she was dead. Now when you stab someone with a knife, its length and width of the blade give you more confidence that 5 maybe 10 stabs in the right place and that person will be dead. But with scissors, the wound they leave is so small, the person who killed her wanted to be sure she was dead. Which again leads me back to, woudlent Stuart bring some large knife to get the job done with a few fatal stabs? Cause the police are saying this was pre-meditated since he had a change of clothes....and if your going somewhere to murder someone you not gonna think, "well i sure hope they have something at thier house i can murder them with" Gimme a break.

I belive thats babys dad was in the trailer with the girl talking to her. At 3 moonths, she decided to tell him she was pregnant because around 3 months if when MOST women usually start to show. The guy told her to get an aborition, she said no, a fight insued, he grabbed whatever was near him...happened to be scissors and killed her in a RAGE, not pre-meditation.

Now what I have assumed does not exxonerate Stuart because he infact might have had a change of clothes simply because of his job. He goes and gives estimates in a nicer looking outfit and actually works in another. He goes to her house to talk, she tells him shes pregnant with his kid, he kills her BECAUSE of his religion. I belive that Stuart BELIEVES he is very religious and because of this, adultery is one of the big sins. Blinded by that he kills her in a rage knowing that murder is also wrong, but he thinks he will be able to get away with it and be forgiven later. Therefore no one would know about his sins.

angeljeep
01-31-2005, 02:29 PM
I just saw this case on UM for the first time today. Reading the past posts have made me even more curious about what really did happen. Did Stuart Heatons wife stay married to him? Has anyone like a medium or psychic ever been involved with this case? Now if this was a case on CSI: Las Vegas or any of those shows, this case would have been solved in an hour! The DNA they used to test with sounds like it was very minimal and old and crusty...why havent they checked out the other guy who had the same white truck and lengthy criminal record?

TBALADES
01-31-2005, 05:52 PM
Stuart Heaton had disputed who answered the front door when the victim's brother threw him out. But toward the end of the episode he claimed "I did not even know the victim, I never seen her before a day in my life...." Did anyone else catch that one?
I started to have doubts about his guilt, but his own words seem to contradict himself.

TruCrimeJunkie
10-11-2005, 01:37 PM
Hey.. Did his wife leave him? I didn't know that Krystal was pregnant. Do they know how far along she was? Maybe he was having an affair with her and he was the father. He really fooled me.

BuffaloBill
01-10-2006, 11:30 AM
I've seen this case numerous time on UM-the latest yest 1/9......everytime I walk away with the same question for myself.....how the hell was this guy convicted in the first place. You can speculate all you want, but there is absolutely no motive involved or yet alone ever established for Heaton in this crime. There wasn't any blood to speak of in his truck.....this too me is always what hangs a criminal in a murder case when they find blood in the getway car. I'm surprised the jury was not consulted on the fact that the dna breakdown left alot in question and doubt that this was far from a match of dna. Call me nieve but I isnt the type of case what the state of illinois has been famous for through the years. You could almost tell the dimineerer of the prosecutor that "he won the game he didnt deserve to by luck on a bad call , and is trying to get the hell out of Dodge as fast as he can." The prosecutor knows he doesnt stand chance in hell to win this case again if it was ever tried again.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
12-02-2006, 03:53 AM
I've seen this case numerous time on UM-the latest yest 1/9......everytime I walk away with the same question for myself.....how the hell was this guy convicted in the first place. You can speculate all you want, but there is absolutely no motive involved or yet alone ever established for Heaton in this crime. There wasn't any blood to speak of in his truck.....this too me is always what hangs a criminal in a murder case when they find blood in the getway car. I'm surprised the jury was not consulted on the fact that the dna breakdown left alot in question and doubt that this was far from a match of dna. Call me nieve but I isnt the type of case what the state of illinois has been famous for through the years. You could almost tell the dimineerer of the prosecutor that "he won the game he didnt deserve to by luck on a bad call , and is trying to get the hell out of Dodge as fast as he can." The prosecutor knows he doesnt stand chance in hell to win this case again if it was ever tried again.

You're breaking my balls man, Stuart Heaton is a murderer...he slipped up by contridicting himself saying he didn't even know the girl which he clearly knew who she was, and the DNA evidence came back more conclusive then ever after a retest..

He may seem to have truthful words at first from his interviews, but theres just something unsettling and too much evidence..and as someone said, he definatly didnt help the case by not testifying at his trial.

There will be no retrial as he cant be convicted again and you saying the prosecuter know theres no chance to win if the case was re-tried is rediculous. You have too much faith in this guy and the defense, which was weak and didn't even have the accused defend himself in court.

I was just browsing and read through this thread..had to respond to the last to post, saw he was a regular.

Oh and one tidbit, I saw the pictures on the segment where hes revealing the cuts on his hands and after hearing his statement of carpenters always having cuts I can saw that these particular slices looked fresh and an AWFUL lot like scissor cuts. I have seen fresh, deep cuts caused by scissor blades and this is just my opinion..

kadrmas15
12-02-2006, 10:15 AM
Well alright guys. I tend to agree with more with Buffalo Bill. I think people in this country tend to get things confused on the justice system and the rules which are whether you think a person is guilty or innocent if the evidence is not there you are required to acquitt. Or at least you are supposed to acquitt. Sometimes people get convicted of no evidence at all or on very circumstancial evidence as is this case. Just because Stuart Heaton said he did not know the victim does not necessarily mean he killed her even if he was lying about not knowing her. It might hurt his credibility but it does not mean he for sure did it. You also seem to assume that the over zealous prosecutor does not exist which is BS. In this case and in many others you see over zealous prosecutors that will do anything to get a conviction no matter if they have to lie, cheat or steal or hide evidence or stab someone in the back to do it. That prosecutor knew he probably could not get a conviction again and he did not want a re-trial because even if Stuart Heaton was convicted again it would make the prosecutor look bad just because the case came up for re-trial in the first place. Also you can be convicted of a crime twice. You cannot b e re tried if you are acquitted but if you are convicted and your conviction is vacated you can be convicted again in a re-trial. Obviously if you were acquitted the case would be over. I dont know for sure that Heaton didnt do it but regardless if he did or not he should have been acquitted because the evidence was not there and based on our own laws if the prosecution does not have the evidence to convict a person that person should be acquitted.

BuffaloBill
12-03-2006, 02:13 AM
You're breaking my balls man, Stuart Heaton is a murderer...he slipped up by contridicting himself saying he didn't even know the girl which he clearly knew who she was, and the DNA evidence came back more conclusive then ever after a retest..

He may seem to have truthful words at first from his interviews, but theres just something unsettling and too much evidence..and as someone said, he definatly didnt help the case by not testifying at his trial.

There will be no retrial as he cant be convicted again and you saying the prosecuter know theres no chance to win if the case was re-tried is rediculous. You have too much faith in this guy and the defense, which was weak and didn't even have the accused defend himself in court.

I was just browsing and read through this thread..had to respond to the last to post, saw he was a regular.

Oh and one tidbit, I saw the pictures on the segment where hes revealing the cuts on his hands and after hearing his statement of carpenters always having cuts I can saw that these particular slices looked fresh and an AWFUL lot like scissor cuts. I have seen fresh, deep cuts caused by scissor blades and this is just my opinion..

MR Cleveland when did I say once in my little blog that I had faith in Stew Heaton or his defence team , I didnt. For all intents and purposes he may have well been the killer, but based on the lack of evidence and how the case was presented on UM..serious questions should be raised. Yeah Heaton looked a little shady, but that doesn't make him a murderer. Based on the UM
segment you cant walk away thinking the prosecutor did enough, or had enough to get a conviction. The prosecutor didn't come off looking rosey himself. Just out of curiosity do you know Stewart Heaton or have any affiliation to the case. You come across as being very pationate towards this case and Heaton...sounds like you know a little bid more something we do.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
12-03-2006, 06:53 PM
It appears you didn't say you had faith in his defense then, sorry if I made it sound like you said something you didn't. You're not really breaking my balls, that was just an Eric Cartman tidbit..

I don't know Stuart Heaton or affiliated with the case at all..i've just seen the segment a couple times and I guess had some thought into it and wondering if he really was the killer or not.

I don't really know any more then anyone else I had just formed some opinions with how I felt..I kinda just have the somewhat instinctive feeling that he really did have the involvement, with the statements he made and the evidence in general that was there, like the DNA and the cuts on his hands. Also the fact that the same model truck was seen on the scene...

Im not taking any real offense to anyone with the opinion that he is innocent, I just read through this thread and it seemed many here felt that he was innocent or shouldn't of been prosecuted and I wanted to share why I thought he leaned on the guilty side. It came across a bit too..serious like I was a prosecuter or something, haha sorry.

I like how this case was presented on USM in that it wasn't really biased and featured Heatons interviews. With the discussion of how there were other white trucks of the type registered in the same area, and what-not.

Man he really sliced his hands up though..looks less like carpentry cuts and more like they were inflicted in the moment of something, like stabbing someone with scissors..just a thought.

James T
01-13-2007, 08:22 AM
Well having just watched this segment I can say that the forensic work was somewaht tenuous and the attitude of the police and prosecutor was hostile in the extreme from the minute he was arrested and gave me doubts about his guilt, however as soon as they showed the guy on camera and he started speaking that evaporated- he came across as smug, egotistical and a liar- I loved that comment he made about being a Carpenter as if he was the greatest one who ever lived- so many of these cases where the husband or partner etc start talking they come across as gulity

kadrmas15
01-14-2007, 05:48 PM
Well James I am glad you arent on a jury. It seems to me you are basing Heaton's guilt on his personality and in my view that doesnt get it done. There are a lot of people that are smug and arrogant and it doesnt make them murderers. I am not saying he didnt do what he was convicted of. However the fact of the matter is the evidence wasnt there and he shouldnt have been convicted. People forget that when in doubt you are required to acquitt. At the worst a mistrial should have occurred. I think what probably happened here was what happened with Tommy Ziegler in that the jury was probably split and the jurors that wanted to convict bullied the others into changing their votes. Also Cleveland Torso I would be curious how you would know what scissor cuts on a persons hands would look like? I would be curious how you would be able to tell the difference between a cut that happened doing carpentry work and a cut that occured because of scissors?

James T
01-15-2007, 12:09 PM
There was also a lot of other evidence against him such as witnesses placing him at the scene and his own lies that he did not know the victim, it seems the only thing that created doubt was the DNA which now seems to have been proven anyway- you are right being smug and arrogant does not make somebody guilty but juries are human and will take it into account and will be a lot more sympathetic to somebody who comes across well, if he was a smartarse in court it certainly would not have helped him. in many of the cases profiled on UM and on cases we have over here the people interviewed straight away set alarm bells ringing



Well James I am glad you arent on a jury. It seems to me you are basing Heaton's guilt on his personality and in my view that doesnt get it done. There are a lot of people that are smug and arrogant and it doesnt make them murderers. I am not saying he didnt do what he was convicted of. However the fact of the matter is the evidence wasnt there and he shouldnt have been convicted. People forget that when in doubt you are required to acquitt. At the worst a mistrial should have occurred. I think what probably happened here was what happened with Tommy Ziegler in that the jury was probably split and the jurors that wanted to convict bullied the others into changing their votes. Also Cleveland Torso I would be curious how you would know what scissor cuts on a persons hands would look like? I would be curious how you would be able to tell the difference between a cut that happened doing carpentry work and a cut that occured because of scissors?

ClevelandTorsoFiend
01-19-2007, 04:21 AM
Also Cleveland Torso I would be curious how you would know what scissor cuts on a persons hands would look like? I would be curious how you would be able to tell the difference between a cut that happened doing carpentry work and a cut that occured because of scissors?

Me and a friend in school as kids were playing with scissors and both sliced our fingers. They were deep and my friend had to go home because of his haha. But seriously, the cuts on Stuart Heatons hands and fingers looked just like these scissor cuts. They are deep where the skin is flayed split apart with the open wound exposed beneath. A blade wound.

The cuts on his hands were not treated and were caused within a few days prior to his arrest and time of murder, seeing as his arrest was soon after the time of victims discovery. His hand wounds were discovered by the authorities and photographed upon arrest.

The wounds were fresh, inflicted in the same time frame. Carpenters would have scars and abrasions on their hands but not typically deep cuts and wounds throughout their fingers and hands, as if they were working with a blade/tool and continuously slipped and gashed into their hands. I have a brother in law who does professional carpenter work and if his hands were in this condition it would be considered an accident on the job.

You can use judgement for yourself, this doesnt neccesarily prove anything. But remember, he was found guilty by DNA evidence not circumstancial. I personally believe this carpentor talk of his was just an excuse, part of his reasoning like he had for everything else.

BuffaloBill
02-01-2007, 12:33 AM
Are you fricken kidding me ....there was 48,000 men in the us population that could have matched that sample of that DNA to Heaton. Oh my god if that doesn't cryout for at least a new trail I dont know what would. Heatons mom does come across as believeable and sincere. Now no offense to the Victims mom, I truly am sad for her loss, but she comes across like she would believe anything. If the cops would have told her the Easter Bunny or Jason from Friday the 13th killed her daughter she probably would have believed them.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
02-05-2007, 12:08 AM
BuffaloBill, are you judging his guilt by how he comes across or how his mother and the victims mother come across?

Personally, I think Heaton comes across as a liar saying he didnt even know the victim which was false because the victims brother had stated how he had thrown Heaton out of the house before or something to that extent, yet Heaton goes as far as to say he had never seen the victim a day before in her life. He contradicts himself.

Stuart is a pretty good talker but there is alot of evidence against him, and they put him away on DNA not circumstancial (though you can use logic to determine who the killer is).

As a Mr. Fuji or someone on here said, I would bet my life Heaton is guilty. Someone in the area had to murder her, and everything centers around Heaton. He got caught red handed with the scissor slices on his hands and dont give me the carpentry b/s, I have carpenters in the family and you get knicks and what-not as opposed to fresh, deep slices that look as if they were made by rubbing your hand around a blade.

But hey, what do I know. There are other white trucks of the same model in the are and the DNA evidence doesn't convince you, yet alot of people can't seem to use better logic to see his likely guilt.

ObxBeachStar
08-11-2007, 10:12 PM
My family was close friends of krystals family. krystal was my babysitter. I was nine years old when she was murdered. we were actually on our way to vandalia and drove past her house while the cops were there. we lived down the road from her on my grandparents farm. we were told that krystal was going to turn someone in for drugs and as a result was murdered. i do know she was into drugs as she drug me and my cousin to vandalia to get some drugs. now i dont know if this heaton guy did drugs or not. but i was married to a carpenter and he always came home with cuts on his hands. i also know that whoever did this knew the family was going to be away for awhile because afterwards he took a shower in their shower to clean the blood off. he also had to have known where they were going to know about how much time he'd have.

ObxBeachStar
08-12-2007, 12:25 AM
after reading all these comments i had to add another reply. first of all there were not 100 white trunks in the vacinity and second ramsey is not a city. ramsey is a very small community. and heaton did know krystal. as for why no blood was found in the truck the killer took a shower in krystals home. krystal fought for her life. i could see from the road the torn curtains. the cop even pointed it out to my father while we were there talking to him. not sure who the cop was as i was only 9 at the time. but the cop did say that whoever did it found the time to take a shower and clean up before he left so he must have had some idea how long krystals mother and sister were to be gone. they had went to the mall and had invited krystal to go. but she declined. that is what her sister told us.

kadrmas15
08-12-2007, 01:39 AM
Hmm, interesting, well, I will say if the state is so convinced of Stuart Heaton's guilt, why not give him a new trial? Since they are so confident, the results should be the same as the first.

Also, this stuff about Heaton, saying he didnt know the victim, I think this remark was mis interpreted, I think what he was saying, again this is my opinion, but what I feel what he was saying, when he said he didnt know her, was that he was saying he didnt know much about her, he never denied meeting her, he said he didnt know her, which in my mind tells me he didnt know much about her personally other than who she was, he said he didnt know her, he meant he didnt know much about her personally, people misinterpreted this and went off and running with it. The fact the victim was into drugs makes this case stink. Also, how do you not know there wasnt 100 white trucks in the county at the time of the murder?

Heaton was a carpenter, that isnt unusual for a carpenter to show up with cuts on his hands similar to Heaton's, also, the victim was stabbed over 80 times, which tells me it was a very personal killing, this was a killing of anger, rage and hate, there is no other way you could stab someone over 80 times like that, now why would Stuart Heaton murder a young woman in such a fashion? No one can answer that, because he didnt do it.

James T
08-12-2007, 05:35 AM
Perhaps because they do not want to waste money on another trial for somebody whose story does not add up and when the chance of somebody else being responsible is 1 in 38 billion.



Hmm, interesting, well, I will say if the state is so convinced of Stuart Heaton's guilt, why not give him a new trial? Since they are so confident, the results should be the same as the first.

Also, this stuff about Heaton, saying he didnt know the victim, I think this remark was mis interpreted, I think what he was saying, again this is my opinion, but what I feel what he was saying, when he said he didnt know her, was that he was saying he didnt know much about her, he never denied meeting her, he said he didnt know her, which in my mind tells me he didnt know much about her personally other than who she was, he said he didnt know her, he meant he didnt know much about her personally, people misinterpreted this and went off and running with it. The fact the victim was into drugs makes this case stink. Also, how do you not know there wasnt 100 white trucks in the county at the time of the murder?

Heaton was a carpenter, that isnt unusual for a carpenter to show up with cuts on his hands similar to Heaton's, also, the victim was stabbed over 80 times, which tells me it was a very personal killing, this was a killing of anger, rage and hate, there is no other way you could stab someone over 80 times like that, now why would Stuart Heaton murder a young woman in such a fashion? No one can answer that, because he didnt do it.

kadrmas15
08-12-2007, 09:10 AM
Well, I am backing off my claim of Heaton's innocence because I did go back and read, and I didnt realize that the new DNA test had those strong of odds against him, basically confirming there was no way it was anyone's DNA but his at the scene.

I honestly think the only way Heaton can claim innocence is if he can explain why his DNA was there. Could they tell if that semen came from a rape or from consensual sex? They did say it was old and crusty, the sample was.

Was the Court Tv show that Heaton was on, which one was it? Was it the investigators? There is another show called "The wrong man" that is on from time to time where two retired New York cops that are now private investigators look into cases and give their opinions.

However, one thing is for sure, there were problems in Heaton's arrest and trial, there is just no doubt about that, without that DNA evidence, Heaton would have been acquitted probably because they really had nothing else on him, except weak, circumstancial evidence. The prosecutor knew this, as cocky and smug as he was, and as typical as his response is, whenever there is any possiblity of wrong doing in a case, the prosecutors never admit to doing wrong, ever.

Clearly there were problems, if Heaton did it, than he is where he belongs, since Heaton was awarded that new DNA test, I am assuming that it was the defense team's lab that came back with those odds. It just makes me wonder why if Heaton was guilty, why would he request a new DNA test that would erase all doubt? I just dont get it. I do think the things about the truck, and the cuts on his hands, are very circumstancial and certainly not enough to convict someone of murder.

I just find it unusual how Heaton, if he did this murder, would murder Krystal Nabb in such a brutal manner, I mean to stab someone over 80 times with an unusual murder weapon in a pair of scissors? To stab someone that many times, first off there would be blood all over the person that was doing the stabbing, there is no way you could stab someone that many times and not get blood on you.

Also to stab someone that many times, it was overkill, big time, so that is a huge signal that the killing was very personal, the killer was very angry and hated Krystal Nabb, because it was such dramatic overkill, you can tell it was something personal.

James T
08-12-2007, 09:29 AM
There is no way he can explain the DNA now because he says he did not know or barely knew the victim so how could he explain his semen being there without proving he was a liar?

kadrmas15
08-12-2007, 10:08 AM
Well again, I feel those comments were mis interpreted. I dont think he meant he literally didnt know her, I mean why would he even claim that? He was friends with her brother, so he obviously knew who she was, and everyone would know that he would know who she was, he might not have known her very well, as in known much about her, I think that his comment was taken out of context though, but again that is my opinion.

ObxBeachStar
08-12-2007, 01:16 PM
the reason i said there werent 100 white trucks in the area was because we had been told that they were concentrating on ramsey and vandalia. which there wouldnt have been that many white trucks between the two towns. but this was all immediately after the murder. i do not know if they expanded their search to all of fayette county. in that case there probably were more than 100 white trucks.

and as i said before the reason he was not bloody was the cops did say that he took a shower at krystals after the murder. and with heaton arriving at home in a different set of clothes than there wouldnt have been any blood in his truck. and from what i have always been told semen only survives for 7 days. which is why they say after a rape go to the hospital immediately before the evidence is gone. which leads to the fact that the intercourse or rape occured within 7 days of the murder.

crystaldawn
08-12-2007, 03:24 PM
the reason i said there werent 100 white trucks in the area was because we had been told that they were concentrating on ramsey and vandalia. which there wouldnt have been that many white trucks between the two towns. but this was all immediately after the murder. i do not know if they expanded their search to all of fayette county. in that case there probably were more than 100 white trucks.

and as i said before the reason he was not bloody was the cops did say that he took a shower at krystals after the murder. and with heaton arriving at home in a different set of clothes than there wouldnt have been any blood in his truck. and from what i have always been told semen only survives for 7 days. which is why they say after a rape go to the hospital immediately before the evidence is gone. which leads to the fact that the intercourse or rape occured within 7 days of the murder.

Thanks for posting btw. I was really on the fence about his guilt but the more I read the more I'm inclined to believe he may be guilty. Do you think the motive was drug related? Do you think Stuart and Krystal could have been having an affair? I do remember UM saying she was pregnant. Do you know if they were able to do a dna test on the baby and see if by chance it belonged to Stuart. Considering Stuart was married and his wife was pregnant at the time of the murder that could definitely be a motive for murder if that was the case. Anything else you can think of tell us that UM didn't mention, I'd really like to hear.

ObxBeachStar
08-15-2007, 10:45 AM
well keep in my mind i was only 10 when this happened. in my earlier post i said nine. until i seen what the date was lol. it was a long time ago and i didn't remember what date it happened. just that i was out of school so it was sometime that summer. i'll start from the beginning. two years before she babysat me and my cousin while her older sister babysat my brother and my cousins brother. she took us into ramsey and played pool with some other teens while we had to sit there quietly. then she said she needed to go to vandalia which is 12 miles away and started hitchhiking with us. we got a ride from some man and he drove us to a house. she went in for a few minutes and then came back out and the guy drove us back to ramsey. she mentioned the word drugs and flirted with the guy a little bit and then she took us back to her place where her older sister was watching my brother and cousin. i told my parents what happened and she wasnt allowed to babysit us again. two years later we were driving the back way into vandalia which takes us right past krystals house and there were police outside. my father pulled over and talked to one of the cops. they said that her sister and her mother were going into town and had invited krystal along but she chose not to go. and that she had been murdered and that whoever had done it must have known that she would be alone for awhile because he took the time to take a shower after the murder. i looked toward the house and seen that the curtains in the front looked like they were shredded. when we got back home i overheard my parents telling my grandparents what had happened. not sure how much time went by but my parents later told me that they had caught the guy and that he was into drugs and that krystal was going to rat him out to the cops and he found out about it and killed her and that he had planned on killing two other girls from vandalia that were going to rat him out as well. my parents tried to shield me from what was going on but they wanted me to know the guy had been caught. i had refused to sleep with my bedroom door shut until they caught the guy because i was terrified that the killer was going to get me next. as i said i was a little girl at the time. i never knew she was pregnant until i seen it on um. my parents didnt tell me everything. i never even knew the guys name until um. as to why i think he's guilty is no more than logic. i know how dna works and the odds of someone else matching that same dna is highly unlikely. i also know that sperm dies within 7 days. so the encounter had to have been within the week of the murder. and the fact that he lied about knowing her. no one lies unless they have something to hide. the fact that he left wearing one set of clothes and came home in a different set. i have no idea whether they tested the babys dna. as i never knew about a baby before um. i hope that helps.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-15-2007, 05:46 PM
TL/DR

Use paragraphs, damn.

Ban me if you must.

Oh yeah, Heaton is guilty. Just look at the shots the cops took of his sliced up hands. That is not carpentry knicks. Its scissor wounds.

crystaldawn
08-15-2007, 05:52 PM
Ban me if you must.



That can definitely be arranged. Btw this isn't English class.

Thanks for posting that info ObxBeachStar. Not to speak ill of the dead but what a lousy babysitter...she actually hitchhiked with you guys?! Still a horrible fate that she didn't deserve.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-15-2007, 09:45 PM
True, its not english class. Although it doesnt take much effort to sort your posts into paragraphs before, or even after they type it. It makes it much easier to read and the person posting that is probobly not even reading over what they said. Its just common curtiosy.

Also im just not going to take these people as credible if they wont even take the time to use paragraphs, its like how much effort did they put in getting what they say across? Its not even that easy to read when they do this and use run on sentances for like 10 lines.

kadrmas15
08-15-2007, 10:55 PM
Well, Crystaldawn is right, this is not English class, Torso finder, if you do not like it, you can always find another board to post at. By the way, we all know you think Heaton is guilty, since anyone with cuts on their hands is a murderer and should be thrown in prison we all know you are right. Since you claim that you cut your hand with a pair of scissors and that is matched Heaton's cuts, maybe you killed Crystal Knabb for all we know?

LooksLikeCRicci
08-16-2007, 12:59 AM
And from the peanut gallery:

I've worked for lots of lawyers with REALLY REALLY crappy grammar. It doesn't make them less intelligent or credible as attorneys. Remember, this is an ONLINE message board, not an advanced thesis.

ObxBeachStar... what a story! As Crystaldawn's already said, thanks for posting. It's always interesting to hear from those who knew the victims/perps. And yeah... hitchhiking was never on the agenda when I was a babysitter. That's wild.

...and I'm also still on the damned fence in regards to Heaton. The DNA is pretty compelling....

ObxBeachStar
08-16-2007, 01:45 PM
TL/DR

Use paragraphs, damn.

Ban me if you must.

Oh yeah, Heaton is guilty. Just look at the shots the cops took of his sliced up hands. That is not carpentry knicks. Its scissor wounds.


i'm sorry. i have a very high iq and i sometimes forget that i need to make it easier on the simple minded to read my writings.

i will be more considerate in the future. i hope this is easier for you to read.

and yes i do read over what i write.


and hitchiking with us was bad, but remember she was a young teenager at the time herself. and teenagers make a lot of errors as they are not mature enough to make wise decisions.

and no one deserves what happened to krystal.

genxergrrrl
08-16-2007, 03:24 PM
Stuart Heaton is guilty. I personally know people involved with the appeals since '91. They were able to test the baby's DNA, my source couldn't directly say Stuart was the father, but let's just say it was implied. These court tv shows, unsolved mysteries, Connie Chung's show, they manipulate information. It's entertainment. They DON'T give you all the information. Heaton's wife stuck with him through most of the appeals, but after the last DNA results, even she accepted the truth. Heaton is a sociopath who has made bizarre threats on his own pro-bono attorneys. He was a Sunday school teacher with a family, and if news got out about his affair with an underage girl who was pregnant, it would shatter the image he had created for himself and this is why he lashed out so brutally...with the calmness of taking a shower in her home to wash off the blood when he was done! His own mother even said when she saw him that day, he was freshly showered and in different clothes than he was wearing that morning!!

crystaldawn
08-16-2007, 06:02 PM
i'm sorry. i have a very high iq and i sometimes forget that i need to make it easier on the simple minded to read my writings.

i will be more considerate in the future. i hope this is easier for you to read.



Excellent post...:lol:

Thanks genxergrrrl for the information. I initially thought he was innocent because I found him pretty believable on the segment. Then I was on the fence but in my own mind I"m starting to believe he is guilty. It would be very unlikely for both dna tests to be tainted. Very interesting about the baby's dna. If he was the father it would definitely give him a motive for murder in my opinion.

kadrmas15
08-16-2007, 06:49 PM
Hmm, yes, that is interesting about Heaton being implied to be the father, also interesting on him making threats to his pro bono attorneys. After just recently reviewing all the info, Heaton is probably guilty, I mean if he wanted to explain away his DNA he could, but if that kid was his, that would give him the perfect motive to not only murder Krystal Knabb but do it in such a cruel manner.

It was overkill big time, so whether it was Heaton or someone else, the killing was very personal, it would have to be for someone to stab someone else with a pair of scissors over 80 times, huge overkill, she was probably dead after a handful of stab wounds, this is just a theory but still, he probably went over there, to talk to her and try to get her into having an abortion or something and when she wouldnt do it he freaked out and murdered her.

I thought he was innocent until I found out about all of this stuff, not just the odds on the new DNA test, but about him being a Sunday school teacher and having a wife and children, he had at least one child with his wife right?

Yet at the same time, he apperantly was having an affair with a 16 year old girl that had problems and was into drugs, and he apperantly knocked her up and he didnt want anything spoiling that pretty picture of him being the All American, church going, hard working family man and Krystal Knabb certainly could have ended all that for him, a couple of theories I was thinking about today, are, like I said, Heaton went over there, without planning to kill her, but something happened, he either asked her to get an abortion and she refused, or she asked him for drug money and when he wouldnt give it to her she threatened to go public with their affair and her pregnancy so he killed her.

I am not sure he should have been convicted of first degree murder, since I am not sure it was pre meditated, but when this altercation happened, he intended to kill her, he should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder, if it was Heaton that was the killer, it would explain why he was so comfortable in the house as to actually take a shower after he did the murder, afterall, he would have been familiar with the Knabb household, he would have known when people were there and werent there, and he probably figured that if he parked right outside, that no one would think of it as unusual since he had been seen there before.

However the cuts on his hands, I do not think that in itself makes him a murderer, carpenters often have cuts on their hands, but of course Torso finder goes nuts with the stupid scissor cutting thing every chance he gets. I mean if you think the guy did it fine, I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, but you seem obsessed with Stuart Heaton and the scissors, it is just odd, kind of like AKook with Bill Wacker or Thinman with Dr. MacDonald.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-16-2007, 07:43 PM
kadrmas15, fair enough. Just remember I had the impression he was guilty after seeing the segment the first time in a friends basement one lazy day, and it took you convincing from much information brought forth from different people. Dont act like it was the scissor wounds alone that I found incriminating. Its lovely that you suggested I might of been Krystals murderer...real mature.

And....Obxbeachstar, all I can say is sorry for questioning your intellect. I guess I was thinking people with higher IQs naturally use punctuation, even if its just a message board. Guess im wrong. And yeah, it is real unfortuate what happened to Krystal. Its also no big secret that drugs have some kind of involvement in most murder cases.

Its good you posted here because it helps make up peoples minds who cant decide for theirself that Heaton is probobly guilty and incriminates himself in interviews, much like the WM3(just an example). Alot of people just can't figure out what impression they are getting when an accused person is lying to their face (the camera).

kadrmas15
08-16-2007, 08:17 PM
Well, Torso finder, I do not feel you are in any position to judge whether or not someone is mature. Also, I was not seriously saying that you killed Krystal Knabb, it was just you seemed to say because he had cuts on his hands he must be a murderer, so I said that if that were true, than since you said you cut your hands with a pair of scissors once I said you must be a murderer too. However I apperantly misunderstood the point you were trying to make and I apologize.

LooksLikeCRicci
08-16-2007, 08:58 PM
...but you seem obsessed with Stuart Heaton and the scissors, it is just odd, kind of like AKook with Bill Wacker or Thinman with Dr. MacDonald.

...or LooksLikeCRicci and Dislimb with Paul Pollis? :D

Ahh, humor, you are my friend... :)

kadrmas15
08-16-2007, 09:37 PM
Haha funny, CRicci. Although I might have got confused with who was obsessed with Dr. MacDonald, was that Thinman or was it Hyetev? I cant remember which one it was, but it seems we all have our own little obsessions with one person or another on here.

ObxBeachStar
08-16-2007, 10:35 PM
if i was writing a novel then yes i would use the correct punctuations. however this is merely a message board. i didnt realize anyone would seriously be so anal rententive as to be so bothered by others not using the correct punctuations. and looking at your post i see an "im" and quite a few "its" without the proper punctuations. so by your own logic you must not have a very high iq. once again i'm sorry.


also thank you genxergrrrl for your input. i had no idea about the babys dna being tested. i also was unaware that he had a child/children with his wife.

as i said before my ex husband was a carpenter and he came home with cuts on his hands all the time. so that alone is not a reason to convict him. it's that along with all the other evidence that makes him guilty.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-17-2007, 03:37 AM
if i was writing a novel then yes i would use the correct punctuations. however this is merely a message board. i didnt realize anyone would seriously be so anal rententive as to be so bothered by others not using the correct punctuations. and looking at your post i see an "im" and quite a few "its" without the proper punctuations. so by your own logic you must not have a very high iq. once again i'm sorry.


also thank you genxergrrrl for your input. i had no idea about the babys dna being tested. i also was unaware that he had a child/children with his wife.

as i said before my ex husband was a carpenter and he came home with cuts on his hands all the time. so that alone is not a reason to convict him. it's that along with all the other evidence that makes him guilty.

I want to see the police photos of his hands again just to refresh my memory, and get a better visual picture. I think alot of people need to do that, especially if they havent seen it at all. Skipping out on some punctuation=ok, big lump of text with giant run on sentences-ridiculous.

The whole thing isn't even a big deal, its just something I felt the need to comment on for some reason. Apparently people here don't catch on to the tl/dr humor or dont know its significance in the history of trollism. Ohhh, ohhhh sorry.

Lets keep playing the sorry game, its about as fun as the accuse ClevelandTorsoFiend of murdering Stuart Heaton victims game. I got flamed alot so you can't blame me for addressing some comments back to certain posters. I was just trying to...not be some forum lurker.

crystaldawn
08-17-2007, 06:01 AM
Personally I don't think the cuts on his hand were the main factor in determing his guilt. I can see it both ways. I'm sure carpenters cut up their hands on a regular basis. However when you're driving the same type of vehicle last seen at a place where a woman was viciously stabbed, it certainly doesn't look good that you have cuts all over your hands. Does anyone know if Heaton had any other wounds on him, for example scratches anywhere on him from Krystal fighting off an attack? You would think he would unless he attacked her from behind and she didn't get a chance to try and fight him off. Just curious. We only know what UM chooses to tell us so there could have been more evidence against Heaton than we are aware of.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-18-2007, 04:23 AM
I have a brother in law who is a carpenter by trade and from my personal experience I have never seen his hands cut up to that bad of an extent. He may of had some knicks or what-not on his hands at times but that is actually common in alot of lines of work.

It is true that it would not be the same case for every carpenter, but having that many slices looks like you've been having a hard time or there was a little accident on the job. Its not like you continuosly slip and slice your hand on a knife or blade all the time, as in the place of the carpenter im speaking.

There is also the option of gloves that would be typically used for certain things but this may not of been the case with Heaton. He never appeared to be one to wear gloves.

Yeah, anyways you're right crystraldawn. I dont think the cuts on his hands were the main factor of determing his guilt either. That seemed to rest more on the DNA, and of course other factors (vehicle model). His hands were not neccesarily a main factor in this case, but it is important as it is made available with the photographs the police took when he was taken into custody. It's just more or less something I found pretty interesting.

kadrmas15
08-18-2007, 06:53 PM
Actually, I personally feel in my opinion, that neither the cuts, nor the truck played a real strong part in Heaton's conviction, they might have been just things that contributed, but he would have been acquitted if that was all they had. Rather, the jury being wowed by the DNA was what did it. Also Toros finder, I really wish you would end your obsession with Stuart Heaton and the cuts on his hands, just because your relative is a carpenter and didnt happen to have the same cuts doesnt mean that Heaton was lying about where they came from. Also Heaton didnt have a ton of slices, he had like three cuts from what I can see, three or four at the most, so it wasnt like his hands were completely cut up and covered with slices.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-18-2007, 11:20 PM
I already explained how significant the cuts really were. Although, I think they were worse then you remember from the pictures.

hostedbyrobertstack
08-24-2007, 11:31 PM
I always thought he was guilty, just the way he came across. Also, the only person who was on his side was his mother, and I'm sorry but for almost every guilty person, the only person who won't believe they are guilty is their mother. I feel bad for the girl and the family, and it's a very strange story.

kadrmas15
08-25-2007, 06:29 PM
Well, his mom was the only one that spoke on camera, and yes while it is true that a person's mother most of the time would think their child was innocent, a victim's mom would also probably be just as quick to believe that someone accused of murdering their daughter actually did it too, so I am not sure what point you were trying to make. I believe Heaton's wife and most of his friends didnt believe he did it either, it is like this in most cases, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make based on who would or wouldnt think Heaton did this, it doesnt make him any more or less guilty.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-27-2007, 03:34 AM
Well, his mom was the only one that spoke on camera, and yes while it is true that a person's mother most of the time would think their child was innocent, a victim's mom would also probably be just as quick to believe that someone accused of murdering their daughter actually did it too, so I am not sure what point you were trying to make. I believe Heaton's wife and most of his friends didnt believe he did it either, it is like this in most cases, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make based on who would or wouldnt think Heaton did this, it doesnt make him any more or less guilty.

I think he's just sharing his perceptions about things. It doesn't make him prove anything more or anything less. Are you saying you never have gut feelings about stuff, and that it holds no bearing? It's not enough to prosecute anyone, and in this case it didn't have to.

genxergrrrl
08-29-2007, 08:17 PM
Two young girls also testified at Heaton's sentencing that he got them drunk to the point of passing out and sexually assaulted them. (This was just at the sentencing phase, it was not part of his trial). One girl I think was choked unconconscious...its been a while since I had the details. Heaton was well on his way to escalating his crimes, he attempted sex with Krystal post-mortem but was unable to penetrate. I have no doubt he would have gone on to kill more girls in part of hs bizarre and sick sexual fantasy.

kadrmas15
08-30-2007, 02:28 PM
Hmm, hearsay evidence, I mean, no two people are the same, so you cant say for sure, but I would think that if a young woman were choked violently like that, she would have told someone before the murder of Krystal Knabb happened. I imagine these girls testimony wasnt allowed in at trial because it was hearsay? I am sure the prosecutor brought these girls in to try to get a death penalty but it didnt happen.

I always find that suscipicious though when people start crawling out of the woodwork like that when a guy gets arrested, I mean if a girl were choked like that especially or a guy forced sex on them, not all the time, but more often than not I would think the police would get called or they would at least tell another person about it, apperantly that did not happen here until come trial time and the prosecutor needed some witnesses against Heaton and went hunting.

ClevelandTorsoFiend
08-30-2007, 07:45 PM
Hmm, heresay evidence, I mean, no two people are the same, so you cant say for sure, but I would think that if a young woman were choked violently like that, she would have told someone before the murder of Krystal Knabb happened. I imagine these girls testimony wasnt allowed in at trial because it was heresay? I am sure the prosecutor brought these girls in to try to get a death penalty but it didnt happen.

I always find that suscipicious though when people start crawling out of the woodwork like that when a guy gets arrested, I mean if a girl were choked like that especially or a guy forced sex on them, not all the time, but more often than not I would think the police would get called or they would at least tell another person about it, apperantly that did not happen here until come trial time and the prosecutor needed some witnesses against Heaton and went hunting.

I agree with that

walnut
08-31-2007, 12:09 AM
Ok, I am seeing alot of reference to his family(did his wife stay with him, did they have kids together?) What part does that play into any area of his presumed guilt? I personally know him, his family and close relatives of Krystal's family and I am a little perplexed by somethings I have read on here!!! As far as the one who was 9/10 years old and remembers the curtains being torn? How the hell did you see that from the road? Cause if I remember correctly it was July...the corn was way high and 1 close neighbor said she couldn't say a white truck was there because she couldn't see over the corn.
Now I am not saying Stuart is innocent, I am just amazed at how quickly people, especially from the Fayette county area now have all this detailed info to share. And as far as the # of white trucks, hell Filmore alone has like 20....come on people its a rural area!!!

ObxBeachStar
09-03-2007, 12:58 PM
ok well if you remember correctly the corn was planted in the side yards not the front yard. so a neighbor beside Krystals would not have been able to see over the corn, but the front yard which faces the road was bare. therefore i had a clear shot from the road.

wiseguy182
09-11-2007, 05:41 AM
I'm not saying that I 100% believe that Stuart is innocent,

but...

here are some things that I don't think have been mentioned before:

1. The police asked Krystal's brother if he knew anyone that had a white truck. He eventually names Stuart. The brother even admits that it has been a long time since he has seen Stuart. I'm not saying that I think the brother is suspcious, but since it had been awhile since he had seen Stuart, he couldn't even be entirely certain that Stuart still owned the white truck. I tend to agree with kadrmas that it would be rather bizarre for someone to kill a person that they hardly knew and do it so violently.

2. It is possible, I'm not saying that it is certain, that Stuart is a victim of really bad luck, possibly like Larry Race. If Stuart's truck was purple, he wouldn't be a suspect. If he wasn't a carpenter, he wouldn't be a suspect.

3. The clothes: If Stuart had blood on his clothes, or other crucial evidence, it would seem to me that he would wash them himself instead of giving them to his wife to wash. He would have run the risk of his wife turning on him, which is really risky.

4. I believe that the cuts are neither here nor there. It doesn't prove his guilt or disprove it. But what is interesting is that the police seemed so zeroed in on his cuts, photographing them like crazy and seeming absolutely determined that the cuts proved his guilt.

crystaldawn
09-11-2007, 06:28 AM
I'm not saying that I 100% believe that Stuart is innocent,

but...

here are some things that I don't think have been mentioned before:

1. The police asked Krystal's brother if he knew anyone that had a white truck. He eventually names Stuart. The brother even admits that it has been a long time since he has seen Stuart. I'm not saying that I think the brother is suspcious, but since it had been awhile since he had seen Stuart, he couldn't even be entirely certain that Stuart still owned the white truck. I tend to agree with kadrmas that it would be rather bizarre for someone to kill a person that they hardly knew and do it so violently.

2. It is possible, I'm not saying that it is certain, that Stuart is a victim of really bad luck, possibly like Larry Race. If Stuart's truck was purple, he wouldn't be a suspect. If he wasn't a carpenter, he wouldn't be a suspect.

3. The clothes: If Stuart had blood on his clothes, or other crucial evidence, it would seem to me that he would wash them himself instead of giving them to his wife to wash. He would have run the risk of his wife turning on him, which is really risky.

4. I believe that the cuts are neither here nor there. It doesn't prove his guilt or disprove it. But what is interesting is that the police seemed so zeroed in on his cuts, photographing them like crazy and seeming absolutely determined that the cuts proved his guilt.

I agree that the cuts aren't really the main issue in his guilt or innocence. I do think he's guilty and the comments made by people on the board that know more of the situation and more of what came up at trial just cement that for me. I think the big kicker here is the baby that the victim was carrying. Someone did mention that they did a dna test on it. Does anyone know if it turned out to be Stuart's? That would be a huge motive if it turned out to be his since Stuart was married and I believe at the time of the trial his wife was also expecting.

Welcome back wiseguy! :wave:

wiseguy182
09-11-2007, 09:29 PM
thanks crystaldawn :wave:

The segment did state that one of the other people in the immediate area that owned a white truck had a lengthy criminal record and knew Crystal Nabb. I definitely think this should be looked into more as it appears this guy hasn't been looked into at all. I am curious to know if he moved shortly after or not. Someone in the segment, I believe it was the arrogant prosecuting attorney, stated that once he learned about the cuts on Stuart's hands, he was sure they had their man. That just reaffirmed my belief that they were focused solely on Heaton and weren't open to other possibilities. without knowing any of the other factors of a case, I would be more inclined to believe that a person with a long criminal record who knew the victim. would be guilty over a church-going guy with no criminal record at all who barely knew the victim.

the weapon was a pair of sewing scissors, I would imagine the killer found the scissors in Nabb's house. Unless the murder was not premeditated, which is possible, Heaton would have had no idea that the scissors were there. I don't know how well the person I mentioned above with a long criminal record knew Nabb, but he probably couldn't have known her a lot less than Heaton did, and may have known there would have been instruments in the house for him to use.

The white truck was there from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. That is a rather large chunk of time, 5 hours. The segment does not go into great detail about Heaton's timeframe for that block of time. Heaton says he gave a roofing job estimate somewhere in there, later we are told that "the prosecutor shot holes" in that timeframe, which can be taken several ways. But here's the thing: Heaton does not necessarily have to account for the entire 5 hours, he just needs to be anywhere else during the timeframe to shoot down the theory that he was there. Because what are the odds that 2 white trucks were there during those hours - highly unlikely. What I'm getting at is that 5 hours is a long time for someone to not be able to account for what they did during those 5 hours and we're not sure whether or not Heaton was able to answer that question, or whether the other white truck owner I mentioned could.

I'm not saying I 100% believe Heaton, but I think there's enough reasonable doubt to warrant a new trial. And I wanted to present the other side of the case.

wiseguy182
09-11-2007, 11:17 PM
sorry to keep coming back to this, but what proof do we really have at this point that Stuart did it? The only things we know are that he had a white truck, cuts on his hand, a possible change of clothes that day and some possibly faulty DNA evidence that, although it doesn't dismiss him as a suspect, doesn't prove that he's guilty either.

The cuts on his hands from the photos on the UM segment appeared to be minor and few in quantity. Crystal was stabbed 81 times. I would imagine that his hands would have been more cut up than that. Stuart's cuts were more in line with, say, a carpenter IMO.

kadrmas15
02-13-2008, 11:24 PM
This case, I have been going back and forth on. First I thought Heaton was innocent, then I thought he was guilty, now I am just not sure what he is. The DNA just bothers me, why would he so aggressively want it tested if he knew it would come back that it would match him? That just doesnt seem right to me.

Crystal Knabb was stabbed 81 times a very personal killing. There is just no way you could or would stab someone that many times unless it was very personal. Also, I never really understood why the cops assumed that the killer would have cuts on his hands? Just because of the stabbing doesnt mean the killer would cut himself. The certainty would be blood. There is no way you could stab someone that many times and not get blood on you. In fact the blood would splatter back on you so I imagine whoever did this would have a considerable amount of blood on them.

I do think the baby that Crystal Knabb was carrying was the motive for this murder. I dont think it was a drug rift, a drug killing normally would be a couple of stab wounds or a bullet to the head but it wouldnt be extremely personal like this killing was.

Did anyone else find the brother weird? I just thought Curtis Knabb's story about how he hadnt seen Stuart Heaton for a couple years and then when asked if he knew anyone that owned a white truck Heaton is the first one that popped into his mind? Why? Knabb claimed that he had caught Stuart with his older sister alone in a bedroom years earlier yet Curtis's account of the night that supposedly happened changed several times and his sister I believe never admitted that her and Heaton were alone in her bedroom. Even if they were, that would not prove he killed Crystal Knabb years later

The cuts were overall not very impressive. They werent deep cuts they were more like knicks I would say, you could cover these cuts easily with a band-aid they werent large cuts. From what I recall about the pictures one of the cuts was in between two of his fingers and there were was one cut on his hand and others on the sides of his hands.

It just seems to me that the police rushed to judgement here as usual. Once they thought Stuart Heaton was the murderer they were just not willing to consider it was anyone else but him that did it. They had already arrested him, what were they going to do, find someone else and then have to admit they made a mistake arresting Heaton? No way. They would rather put an innocent man in prison for life than admit they screwed up.

The prosecutor in this case made me almost physically sick just to look at and listen to. How he was so arrogant and cocky and saying no way they could have made a mistake and bragging about how he won a case on circumstancial evidence that even in itself wasnt very impressive same with his 1 in 48 thousand odds on the DNA test.

I love how he was complaining about Stuart's lawyers were making a big deal about the DNA test. Interesting how if Stuart were cleared via DNA the prosecutor would probably still claim Stuart did it and that he just wasnt the one that raped or tried to have sex with or on Krystal Knabb's body.

If Stuart was having an affair with Krystal Knabb I can tell you, he would have been A LOT easier in admitting that from the get go. Why? Because he could have justified his DNA being there then if it is in fact his DNA. I guess the one thing I have trouble with is why would Heaton be pushing so hard for the DNA and wanting it tested even now if he knew it would come back to match him therefore sealing his fate? Something in this case just isnt right.

wiseguy182
02-14-2008, 12:00 AM
Yes, once the police have their suspect, they aren't going to change their minds.

Prosecutors can be scumbags. Here's another discouraging example. There was an article in the local paper today about a murder that took place 3 years ago, in an LCC classroom. Oddly enough, both of my classes that term were right next door to the classroom. In any event, they convicted the wrong man and sentenced him to a life term even though the prosecutor had videotape evidence that the accused was in the computer lab the entire time the murder took place! What an outrage. He knowingly sent an innocent man to a life term so they he could put another notch in the win column. I hope he has to answer for that someday.

justins5256
02-14-2008, 08:56 AM
If Stuart was having an affair with Krystal Knabb I can tell you, he would have been A LOT easier in admitting that from the get go. Why? Because he could have justified his DNA being there then if it is in fact his DNA. I guess the one thing I have trouble with is why would Heaton be pushing so hard for the DNA and wanting it tested even now if he knew it would come back to match him therefore sealing his fate? Something in this case just isnt right.

Well kadrmas, I am going to disagree here because, if you remember, Stuart Heaton was married, had a child, and was a Sunday school teacher. I don't think he would want to admit to having an affair, especially with a minor. Also, if he did have sex with Krystal Knabb on the day she was killed, it probably would not have been in his best interest to admit this to the police because I think it would have turned the focus of the investigation onto him. If he admits he was there that morning and had sex with her, that would make him the last person to see her alive - if he wasn't a viable suspect before, he would definitely be one at that point.

As for Heaton pushing for the DNA test, who knows. If we assume that he really is guilty, he's obviosuly arrogant enough to appear on national television proclaiming that he is innocent when he in fact knows otherwise. Why would he not push for a new test? He was hoping the first test would be murky enough to create reasonable doubt. He even said this himself in the UM segment.

wiseguy182
02-14-2008, 10:40 AM
Probably the most unclear thing about this segment is how well Stuart Heaton knew Krystal Nabb. Stuart, and the segment, depicts Stuart as hardly knowing Krystal, he hadn't seen her in years, and only knew her because she was a past friend's sister. Yet there is the theory that she was pregnant with his child, so who knows.

justins5256
02-14-2008, 10:56 AM
Probably the most unclear thing about this segment is how well Stuart Heaton knew Krystal Nabb. Stuart, and the segment, depicts Stuart as hardly knowing Krystal, he hadn't seen her in years, and only knew her because she was a past friend's sister. Yet there is the theory that she was pregnant with his child, so who knows.

I still say that if he was having an affair with her, he would have every reason for wanting to cover it up and then to deny he knew her after the murder. I'll have to see if I can find the thread but I thought someone posted that the DNA testing proved he was the unborn baby's father.

I also noticed that the first post in this thread (written by TJ) mentioned that a more recent DNA test of the semen sample indicated 1 in 1 billion odds against the DNA belonging to someone other than Heaton.

I'll admit I was on the fence about this case for awhile, but it now seems pretty obvious to me.

Architype82
03-07-2008, 08:45 AM
I really don't believe that this man is guilty. After watching this on Court TV I was even more convinced that he was innocent. Regardless of the new DNA matches they have. DNA doesn't automatically make this man a murderer. Looking at all the evidence, clearly shows he's innocent, many people came forward and said they saw Stuart during the time of the murder. Not to mention the insane amount of blood that was left behind. I mean, come on...with THAT much blood, you would think that he'd get it somewhere....cloths? car? shoes? nails? not one spec of blood was found anywhere on him, did the cops even look into it? They jumped to the conclusion that he was guilty so fast they didn't have to look into blood now did they? They claim he cleaned before he left the house, hence the fact there was no blood in the car, okay if this is true then why didn't they test sinks/bathtubs etc etc for blood???? If he did commit this crime, what happened to the blood soaked clothing? They picked him up that very day, I highly doubt this man had enough time to lose the clothing, clean out his car (if in fact their was blood in the car) cean himself and be home in time looking normal. Correct me if I'm wrong but...theirs no such thing as the perfect murder, or so they say. Theirs always something left behind. Losing the clothing is one thing, but losing the shoes is another, if the crime was as brutal as they say, than I'm sure blood would have gotten on his shoes. So he burned his shoes and went out and bought another pair? Did they look into that? Did they check to see if he may have boughten anything after to clean up? I can't even begin to count how many times I've watched shows on Court TV (Forensic Files mostly) where they've found the TINIEST speck of blood, whether it be on a shoe, or cloths, or the car. With that amount of blood their should have been something.


No hair was left behind, no finger prints, no fibers, nothing. This man didn't receive a fair trial at all. This is probably one of the sloppiest cases I've ever seen, and that prosecutor when confronted on live tv, CHOKED. He choked so incredibly bad it was disgusting, when he heard all this new evidence he choked just good enough to save his poor little butt. He probably knows the wrong man is in jail, but doesn't give a damn because he's worried for himself.


Basically they tried a man on three things....a car that was sad to be in the driveway at the time, DNA evidence and supposed cuts from the scissors on his hands. This means nothing to me, a car that many people have, including Ron Harre who I believe is guilty for this crime. The DNA only shows he may have had a relationship with this girl, not that he killed her. All the evidence they used to put this man away is completely bogus. It shows no proof he did anything, and those cuts seriously don't look like scissor wounds to me. They showed pictures of his hands at the time, you see about two tiny little puncture marks on his hands one on each hand, that almost look already as if they've been healing for a short period of time. Not to mention they don't look anything like what a scissor cut would do to someone who was repeatability stabbing someone. 81 stab wounds and he only receives 2 cuts out of it? I would think their would be more than just 2 tiny puncture marks...maybe some scratches as well

They also claim that the house was pretty beat up and that their was an apparent struggle, if their was a struggle and this girl fought back, wheres her DNA under his nails? Where's his fingerprints all over the busted up apartment? Where's any bruises on his body to prove that she may have punched him or kicked or anything of that matter.

This man didn't get a fair trial, I feel badly for him. The police skipped over SO many crucial details, that it's most likely to late for him now. The real murderer is walking free right now. Ron Harre not only has a horrible criminal record (one including where he stabbed someone, and threatened his x wife with a pair of scissors...yes...scissors) but he has a drug record, he also used his brothers truck...the same exact truck as Stuart. Watching him be interviewed on Court TV just proved to me more that he was guilty. He seemed very uneasy very tense, he talked way to much, and had an explanation for just about everything. Even when asked simple questions, it took him minutes to explain. EX: when he was asked about what type of person could do such a horrible thing, he stated. "Someone who at THAT moment was not in the right frame of mind, who was mentally ill" why only in "that" moment? Who says things like that? Normal people would say "someone who's mentally ill possibly" he didn't say "possibly", or "maybe" he said it like he KNEW that the person who did it was mentally unstable at THAT moment. He rambles on for a good two minutes about this, and it's just TO MUCH INFO. Someone who has to much info, is lying about something somewhere.

Oh, and how ironic that shortly after the murder, his brothers car was apparently sold (or something along those lines) and then a little after that taken to a junk yard and smooshed.

Regardless if you think he's innocent or not, he was still denied a fair trial. He got railroaded, and now he'll spend the rest of his life in jail for a crime he didn't commit. The justice system screwed up and no one will admit it because they don't want to look bad, get fired, etc etc.

jailer25
04-23-2008, 01:13 PM
i grew up in the vandalia area at the time of this case and heard alot about it around town and on tv. after working in law enforcement for a few years i remembered this case and i am interested in learning more about it. i was wondering if anybody knows where i could find copies of the court tv and unsolved mysteries shows. i can never catch them on tv. thanks

Eric20005
05-14-2008, 05:53 AM
In my opinion, the right call was made. Stuart Heaton is guilty.

Many of you seem to be overlooking the DNA evidence. The new DNA results show that there is a 1 in 31 billion chance that the semen found on the victim doesn't belong to Stuart Heaton. That is very strong evidence against Stuart. This also catches him in a lie when he claims he didn't know Naab. Some of you have claimed that the semen could have been as old as 7 days, but I find it highly unlikely that she didn't shower some time in between then.

Then you add up all the other evidence. Heaton's vehicle was seen at the house at the time of the murder. Heaton did not have a solid alibi. Heaton had cuts on his hands that matched some of the cuts on Naab. A man saw the driver of the white truck leaving the murder scene, and he gave a physical description that matched Heaton. Two other people saw the white truck speeding away about 5 miles from Naab's house. Heaton had also changed clothes for some odd reason. This is very compelling circumstantial evidence.

Now, there have been posts in this thread which reveal new evidence against Heaton. One poster has claimed there is DNA evidence that proves Naab was pregnant with Heaton's child. Another poster has claimed there is evidence that the murderer took a shower at Naab's house. And another poster has claimed that two other girls came forward at Heaton's trial claiming they were sexually assaulted by Heaton.

This is all substantial evidence that shows Heaton is guilty. I don't understand why some people are questioning the verdict. This is a pretty clear-cut case. Stuart Heaton is guilty.

synthisislab
05-14-2008, 07:42 AM
In my opinion, the right call was made. Stuart Heaton is guilty.

Many of you seem to be overlooking the DNA evidence. The new DNA results show that there is a 1 in 31 billion chance that the semen found on the victim doesn't belong to Stuart Heaton. That is very strong evidence against Stuart. This also catches him in a lie when he claims he didn't know Naab. Some of you have claimed that the semen could have been as old as 7 days, but I find it highly unlikely that she didn't shower some time in between then.

Then you add up all the other evidence. Heaton's vehicle was seen at the house at the time of the murder. Heaton did not have a solid alibi. Heaton had cuts on his hands that matched some of the cuts on Naab. A man saw the driver of the white truck leaving the murder scene, and he gave a physical description that matched Heaton. Two other people saw the white truck speeding away about 5 miles from Naab's house. Heaton had also changed clothes for some odd reason. This is very compelling circumstantial evidence.

Now, there have been posts in this thread which reveal new evidence against Heaton. One poster has claimed there is DNA evidence that proves Naab was pregnant with Heaton's child. Another poster has claimed there is evidence that the murderer took a shower at Naab's house. And another poster has claimed that two other girls came forward at Heaton's trial claiming they were sexually assaulted by Heaton.

This is all substantial evidence that shows Heaton is guilty. I don't understand why some people are questioning the verdict. This is a pretty clear-cut case. Stuart Heaton is guilty.
Yes, I believe the DNA evidence is the clincher. How did dude's semen get on the dead body if he claims that he never met her. Couple that with the circumstancial evidence and he is guilty as hell. He is right where he belongs.

justins5256
05-14-2008, 04:56 PM
Yes, I believe the DNA evidence is the clincher. How did dude's semen get on the dead body if he claims that he never met her. Couple that with the circumstancial evidence and he is guilty as hell. He is right where he belongs.

Yep, I concur. One of the few "Final Appeal" stories that was a no-brainer.

Cori aka ChrisSCrush
06-13-2008, 12:31 AM
I had my doubts about this episode. There was something about Heaton I didn't quite like, but I couldn't spot the band they were talking about either. However, this new DNA evidence seems pretty conclusive to me.

Yeah, I thought based on the Unsolved Mysteries segment there was reasonable doubt, but unless disproven this looks quite bad. Maybe they caught the right man after all.

sutraquio
07-04-2008, 02:58 PM
[/B]Hi everybody.I saw an episode of this case on Court TV on 7/3/08.There seems to be a problem now about the accuracy of the reading of the DNA results.It was said also that the results were "inconclusive".They people from Cort TV are doing a private investigation also.I feel that there is something wrong with the way this case was handled.Also,yesterday Court TV showed their investigators visited the trailer of someone named "Harre"(?).The guy in the trailer talked to them from inside,with the door closed,and told them that the guy they were looking for(Harre) would not be off work until 5 P.M. Then he changed his mind and told them that he was the one they were looking for(Harre).Actually,they wanted to talk to him because he owned a truck which looked identical to Wheaton's and it was Harre's truck instead of Wheaton's that had been seen at Krystal's house.You al can let me know where or if I need to be up-dated.Thanks.

sutraquio
07-04-2008, 03:00 PM
[/B]Pardon so many mistakes.I am new at this.Thanks.

Screamm
08-02-2008, 09:12 PM
I just watched a show called "the investigators" on A&E about Stuart Heaton and I have to say that I can not say that I believe he is guilty. I get they found the DNA but like someone said that could of been there for 7 days. It also mentioned that the doctor that did the testing wouldn't talk to them, why not if he was so sure of it. They did talk to another doctor who said that it should of been inconclusive. This man had never committed a crime before in his life but the other man Ron Harre who they NEVER even questioned had. He was an informant for the police (coincidence I don't think so). His wife spoke of times where he threatened her with scissors and a gun. I would like to read more information on this story if someone knows where I can go.

Justicefirst
10-08-2008, 11:45 AM
Acquittal is really the only thing these jurors could have chose!!

That doesn't mean innocent, that is a very big concept that is often missed in this Justice system. If there is reasonable doubt you can't convict someone. So many people in this world and on this thread are so ready to convict, to point the finger, to find guilty. This is nothing new!!! For all of those who felt that Stuart should have been convicted PLEASE watch the movie "Twelve Angry Men" with Peter Fonda. It may very well change the way you feel. Don't get me wrong I would have no problem voting for a conviction even on circumstantial evidence if it is compelling enough. But in this case I'm sorry too many questions for example;

1. Motive? Any motive offered in this thread is strictly supposition and conjecture. The prosecution offered really no motive for Stuart.
2. The only real evidence was the DNA which was considered by an expert and colleague of the Doctor who did the evaluation as inconclusive at best and most probably exculpatory. Let's assume the dried semen was Stuarts, that only proves he had sex with her since the last time she bathed it doesn't prove he stabbed her 81 times. It would prove he was an adulterer, a liar, and a cad but it doesn't prove he is a murderer. More on the retest later.
3. The arresting officer testified on TV that he saw no cut or scratch marks on Stuarts hands or face while he was handcuffing him and was directed to look for those things when arresting the suspect. Hmmmm Then when he brought it up with his superior he was stonewalled with the words, we got our guy!!!
4. There were at least 4 eye-witnesses that put Stuart miles away as late in the day as 12:30 with his truck. The white truck was seen at the crime scene from 10:00 am till 2:00 pm. How could Stuart be in two places at once.
5. There was another suspect that had been seen with Chystal within 24 hours and also had been driving an exact same kind of truck as Stuarts and was linked to Chrystal and her brother. The police decided not to investigate that lead because the D.A. said the other suspects truck had a crack in the windshield. They never allowed the eye-witnesses that saw the truck see a picture of both trucks. They assumed that they would have remembered every little detail of the truck. Give me a break, would you? Do you study every detail of every vehicle you see? Coincidentally that truck was immediately sold to a junk yard and scrapped. Hmmm

6. This other suspect was not investigated although many in the community pointed the finger his way including his ex-wife who said he had came at her with scissors. He drove the exact same kind of truck, he was seen with the victim the day before, he had a history of violence including sex crimes and stabbing someone. He was also an informant for the Police. Hmmmm The plot thickens. Could this be the reason this guy wasn't investigated? Could this be why there were so many missing reports as confessed by the DA? Could this be why the arresting officer stated he felt that Stuart was being "railroaded"? Could this other suspect have the goods on someone in law enforcement? Could he have said " If I'm going down your going down"? Could this be a motive for someone in law enforcement to plant more of Sturats DNA for the retest? Wouldn't be the first time!!!!

7. Stuart was gainfully employed, regularly attended church did not have any criminal record, had a pregnant wife. There was not one speck of evidence that he was in the house. The semen could have been placed in her pubic hair at a different location. It is bizarre that not one hair or blood or skin or anything actually puts him at the scene of the crime. Conversely there are eye-witnesses who talked to him miles away at the time of the crime.

I'm not asserting that Stuart is 100% innocent but with all of these questions and more I just can't fit in this reply but with all of these question it is shocking to me that the jury came back with ta conviction but Stuart wouldn't be the first. It is the mentality of our society. Kill them all and let God sort it out. Watch "Twelve Angry men" and "Runaway Jury" and if you are ever on a Jury don't be persuaded, consoled, or bullied. Take the time to go over all of the evidence sort it out. NEVER blindly believe Prosecutors or defense attorney's. They will both lie and cheat to get what they want.

I personally feel the defense attorney for Stuart in this case should be disbarred and spend some time in prison, the only reason I can see that Stuart didn't fire this person is was confident the Justice system would work and he win and he was extremely naive.

everybodylovesrs
02-16-2009, 01:26 PM
I just saw it and the last part (obviously recorded during Stack's later years) said UPDATE and that there was new evidence and they would provide an update when it was available. Obviously he died and the show stopped production...and I'm sure it would be too much for the new people in charge to do a feature on it again.

Obi Wan
02-17-2009, 01:55 PM
I checked the prison inmate search and found he is still in prison. Life sentence with no parole is the status. I would post his picture and info but do no know if that is allowed here. So if there was/is any update it is not in his favor it seems.

samuke
02-26-2009, 02:24 AM
Despite popular belief, DNA evidence is not as accurate as people might assume. The 99.9% people often cite is actually just an estimate and no one is actually sure how accurate it might be. While every person's DNA is different, a DNA profile, the bit used as evidence, is only a small sliver of a person's entire DNA, and even siblings may share a very similar DNA profile. In 2001 Kathryn Troyer ran a test of Arizona's DNA database of felons and discovered two felons with DNA profiles where 9 of 13 markers were identical, despite the fact that one was white and one was black, and later discovered dozens of other similar matches, yet the FBI estimates the odds of some one sharing those genetic markers to be 1 in 113 billion. The fact that only 13 markers are used out of the entire DNA strain should bring into question the validity of DNA evidence.I just saw it and the last part (obviously recorded during Stack's later years) said UPDATE and that there was new evidence and they would provide an update when it was available. Obviously he died and the show stopped production...and I'm sure it would be too much for the new people in charge to do a feature on it again.
Actually they started making the show again last year with Dennis Farina as the host (hence the picture at the top here) though mostly it's just re-broadcasts of old stories with Dennis doing the narration...

notwhatuthink
02-26-2009, 09:20 AM
mr heaton is innocent.................. perid 2 weeks after them 2 cops interviewd the arresting officer he and hes wife was killed .a double homiside.and if you watch the man whos name was brough up when they went to talk to him in hes trailor...the first 10 seconds of hes body lingo give him away (he did kill that poor 16 year old girl...(not stuart heaton)..the forensic guy who give evidence in the trail must of been smoking crack he didnt no what he was talking about..mr heaton will die in jail .because the man who did it was a drug police informent...it was all a cover up...so all you ppl who see this .you can all think what you want .mr heaton is inocentttttttttttt period ...shame for hes family hes lost hes life not to mention the poor girl what that veitnam fruitcake old bastard pedofile killed........the cops who was involved in the case should be behind the bars not mr heaton..

notwhatuthink
02-26-2009, 09:26 AM
Stuart Heaton is guilty. I'd bet my life on it.
mr fuji your a ****ing idiot .you got no life to bet....how can you bet your life on it?was you there when that ratt ex veitnam vet killed her.not mr heaton.i mean that drug dealer who was a informant for the copson the case.to tell you the truth your a ****ing mutt

notwhatuthink
02-26-2009, 09:30 AM
Acquittal is really the only thing these jurors could have chose!!

That doesn't mean innocent, that is a very big concept that is often missed in this Justice system. If there is reasonable doubt you can't convict someone. So many people in this world and on this thread are so ready to convict, to point the finger, to find guilty. This is nothing new!!! For all of those who felt that Stuart should have been convicted PLEASE watch the movie "Twelve Angry Men" with Peter Fonda. It may very well change the way you feel. Don't get me wrong I would have no problem voting for a conviction even on circumstantial evidence if it is compelling enough. But in this case I'm sorry too many questions for example;

1. Motive? Any motive offered in this thread is strictly supposition and conjecture. The prosecution offered really no motive for Stuart.
2. The only real evidence was the DNA which was considered by an expert and colleague of the Doctor who did the evaluation as inconclusive at best and most probably exculpatory. Let's assume the dried semen was Stuarts, that only proves he had sex with her since the last time she bathed it doesn't prove he stabbed her 81 times. It would prove he was an adulterer, a liar, and a cad but it doesn't prove he is a murderer. More on the retest later.
3. The arresting officer testified on TV that he saw no cut or scratch marks on Stuarts hands or face while he was handcuffing him and was directed to look for those things when arresting the suspect. Hmmmm Then when he brought it up with his superior he was stonewalled with the words, we got our guy!!!
4. There were at least 4 eye-witnesses that put Stuart miles away as late in the day as 12:30 with his truck. The white truck was seen at the crime scene from 10:00 am till 2:00 pm. How could Stuart be in two places at once.
5. There was another suspect that had been seen with Chystal within 24 hours and also had been driving an exact same kind of truck as Stuarts and was linked to Chrystal and her brother. The police decided not to investigate that lead because the D.A. said the other suspects truck had a crack in the windshield. They never allowed the eye-witnesses that saw the truck see a picture of both trucks. They assumed that they would have remembered every little detail of the truck. Give me a break, would you? Do you study every detail of every vehicle you see? Coincidentally that truck was immediately sold to a junk yard and scrapped. Hmmm

6. This other suspect was not investigated although many in the community pointed the finger his way including his ex-wife who said he had came at her with scissors. He drove the exact same kind of truck, he was seen with the victim the day before, he had a history of violence including sex crimes and stabbing someone. He was also an informant for the Police. Hmmmm The plot thickens. Could this be the reason this guy wasn't investigated? Could this be why there were so many missing reports as confessed by the DA? Could this be why the arresting officer stated he felt that Stuart was being "railroaded"? Could this other suspect have the goods on someone in law enforcement? Could he have said " If I'm going down your going down"? Could this be a motive for someone in law enforcement to plant more of Sturats DNA for the retest? Wouldn't be the first time!!!!

7. Stuart was gainfully employed, regularly attended church did not have any criminal record, had a pregnant wife. There was not one speck of evidence that he was in the house. The semen could have been placed in her pubic hair at a different location. It is bizarre that not one hair or blood or skin or anything actually puts him at the scene of the crime. Conversely there are eye-witnesses who talked to him miles away at the time of the crime.

I'm not asserting that Stuart is 100% innocent but with all of these questions and more I just can't fit in this reply but with all of these question it is shocking to me that the jury came back with ta conviction but Stuart wouldn't be the first. It is the mentality of our society. Kill them all and let God sort it out. Watch "Twelve Angry men" and "Runaway Jury" and if you are ever on a Jury don't be persuaded, consoled, or bullied. Take the time to go over all of the evidence sort it out. NEVER blindly believe Prosecutors or defense attorney's. They will both lie and cheat to get what they want.

I personally feel the defense attorney for Stuart in this case should be disbarred and spend some time in prison, the only reason I can see that Stuart didn't fire this person is was confident the Justice system would work and he win and he was extremely naive.
mr heaton is inocent period.the guy who they got told done it them 2 out of town ex cops asked him qs...within 10 secs i read hes body lingo hes guilty as oj is.....rememmber john gacy? when the cops went to hes home asking qs? he started just like that old fart acting and telling them hes a good person to the community..........mr heaton did not kill that poor girl.but hes going to die in jail because of corrupt cops ...bastards

notwhatuthink
02-26-2009, 09:30 AM
Acquittal is really the only thing these jurors could have chose!!

That doesn't mean innocent, that is a very big concept that is often missed in this Justice system. If there is reasonable doubt you can't convict someone. So many people in this world and on this thread are so ready to convict, to point the finger, to find guilty. This is nothing new!!! For all of those who felt that Stuart should have been convicted PLEASE watch the movie "Twelve Angry Men" with Peter Fonda. It may very well change the way you feel. Don't get me wrong I would have no problem voting for a conviction even on circumstantial evidence if it is compelling enough. But in this case I'm sorry too many questions for example;

1. Motive? Any motive offered in this thread is strictly supposition and conjecture. The prosecution offered really no motive for Stuart.
2. The only real evidence was the DNA which was considered by an expert and colleague of the Doctor who did the evaluation as inconclusive at best and most probably exculpatory. Let's assume the dried semen was Stuarts, that only proves he had sex with her since the last time she bathed it doesn't prove he stabbed her 81 times. It would prove he was an adulterer, a liar, and a cad but it doesn't prove he is a murderer. More on the retest later.
3. The arresting officer testified on TV that he saw no cut or scratch marks on Stuarts hands or face while he was handcuffing him and was directed to look for those things when arresting the suspect. Hmmmm Then when he brought it up with his superior he was stonewalled with the words, we got our guy!!!
4. There were at least 4 eye-witnesses that put Stuart miles away as late in the day as 12:30 with his truck. The white truck was seen at the crime scene from 10:00 am till 2:00 pm. How could Stuart be in two places at once.
5. There was another suspect that had been seen with Chystal within 24 hours and also had been driving an exact same kind of truck as Stuarts and was linked to Chrystal and her brother. The police decided not to investigate that lead because the D.A. said the other suspects truck had a crack in the windshield. They never allowed the eye-witnesses that saw the truck see a picture of both trucks. They assumed that they would have remembered every little detail of the truck. Give me a break, would you? Do you study every detail of every vehicle you see? Coincidentally that truck was immediately sold to a junk yard and scrapped. Hmmm

6. This other suspect was not investigated although many in the community pointed the finger his way including his ex-wife who said he had came at her with scissors. He drove the exact same kind of truck, he was seen with the victim the day before, he had a history of violence including sex crimes and stabbing someone. He was also an informant for the Police. Hmmmm The plot thickens. Could this be the reason this guy wasn't investigated? Could this be why there were so many missing reports as confessed by the DA? Could this be why the arresting officer stated he felt that Stuart was being "railroaded"? Could this other suspect have the goods on someone in law enforcement? Could he have said " If I'm going down your going down"? Could this be a motive for someone in law enforcement to plant more of Sturats DNA for the retest? Wouldn't be the first time!!!!

7. Stuart was gainfully employed, regularly attended church did not have any criminal record, had a pregnant wife. There was not one speck of evidence that he was in the house. The semen could have been placed in her pubic hair at a different location. It is bizarre that not one hair or blood or skin or anything actually puts him at the scene of the crime. Conversely there are eye-witnesses who talked to him miles away at the time of the crime.

I'm not asserting that Stuart is 100% innocent but with all of these questions and more I just can't fit in this reply but with all of these question it is shocking to me that the jury came back with ta conviction but Stuart wouldn't be the first. It is the mentality of our society. Kill them all and let God sort it out. Watch "Twelve Angry men" and "Runaway Jury" and if you are ever on a Jury don't be persuaded, consoled, or bullied. Take the time to go over all of the evidence sort it out. NEVER blindly believe Prosecutors or defense attorney's. They will both lie and cheat to get what they want.

I personally feel the defense attorney for Stuart in this case should be disbarred and spend some time in prison, the only reason I can see that Stuart didn't fire this person is was confident the Justice system would work and he win and he was extremely naive.
mr heaton is inocent period.the guy who they got told done it them 2 out of town ex cops asked him qs...within 10 secs i read hes body lingo hes guilty as oj is.....rememmber john gacy? when the cops went to hes home asking qs? he started just like that old fart acting and telling them hes a good person to the community..........mr heaton did not kill that poor girl.but hes going to die in jail because of corrupt cops ...bastards

justins5256
02-26-2009, 09:51 AM
mr fuji your a ****ing idiot .you got no life to bet....how can you bet your life on it?was you there when that ratt ex veitnam vet killed her.not mr heaton.i mean that drug dealer who was a informant for the copson the case.to tell you the truth your a ****ing mutt

Well, this poster's credibility just went out the window...

TracyLynnS
02-26-2009, 12:56 PM
Well, this poster's credibility just went out the window...

Oh jeez, the run on sentences, the lack of punctuation, the inappropriate punctuation, the spelling errors (how does one master the spelling of Vietnam but fail to spell Rat?), the lack of spaces between words or sentences....

It's physically painful to read. It hurts my eyes and brings on a migraine from the effort of attempting to comprehend the ideas the writer is trying to convey.

And how about the poster right before him? We have to discount DNA matches in crimes now because it's only 99.9% accurate, and that's not good enough to ensure that we've got the right perp.

george ramos
02-28-2009, 07:26 PM
Stuart Heaton just launched his official website. Forgive me if this link is old. I don't visit this forum that much anymore. Hell, I just found out last November that Unsolved Mysteries is back on the air. :D

http://stuartheaton.com/wrongman.html

ps
03-07-2009, 10:41 PM
they went to talk to him in hes trailor...the first 10 seconds of hes body lingo give him away (he did kill that poor 16 year old girl...(not stuart heaton)..

Really? I've been watching shows like this for a while now just because I'm trying to practice my body language reading skills after doing research on the topic. I went into this episode assuming he was innocent (why else would they do the show? I've only seen one episode of "the investigators" before - but figured it's not an interesting show if they show how a guilty guy is guilty...).

After watching Stuart Heaton's interview, I no longer had that feeling at all. He had microexpressions and body language of deception, especially at certain questions. I was actually very surprised when he finished, because I was sure the show was going to come out later and prove he was innocent, but I couldn't shake the feeling that he was a total liar.

Then I saw the old guy talking - and was sure he was going to show clear signs lying given the nature of the show. I watched him, and saw few if any signs of deception. If he was lying, he was either very very good at it or really believed what he was saying. I honestly think, given his medical history, he believed what he was saying even if it was slanted. I was surprised when he said that killing people in war didn't bother him (I'd guess most murders would probably say "yes it bothers me to this day, but I had to do it to protect my country") - but it was an honest answer. His answer about what kind of person would do this crime and the "momentarily insane" person response WAS really creepy and very unsettling (far too detailed for the question), but still seemed like more honesty.

And I found it very unsettling that they presented lots of testimony from witnesses who didn't offer that information until AFTER Heaton was convicted. And it's all stuff that can't be backed by evidence. All those current interviews are CRAP - if they didn't come forward before the trial, then it's made up, period. I think they sort-of believe it, but are making up memories to fit what they want to believe as they don't really remember anything.

All in all, I think Heaton's trial probably did suck and maybe he would have deserved a new one at the time. However, I do fully believe he is guilty - and this show was a very terrible attempt at trying to hint otherwise. Definitely biased, and definitely left out alot of the stuff I'd like to know (like how old were these people at the time, where did they live, why would this happen, what does the victims family think, etc).

And now that they've proven a one in 1.3 billion chance that it was someone else's semen (and no, I don't believe that 'one' other criminal that happens to have with the same dna and white truck also lives in that same area), I'm comforted in knowing he won't be getting out of prison any time soon.

justins5256
03-08-2009, 05:33 PM
Really? I've been watching shows like this for a while now just because I'm trying to practice my body language reading skills after doing research on the topic. I went into this episode assuming he was innocent (why else would they do the show? I've only seen one episode of "the investigators" before - but figured it's not an interesting show if they show how a guilty guy is guilty...).

After watching Stuart Heaton's interview, I no longer had that feeling at all. He had microexpressions and body language of deception, especially at certain questions. I was actually very surprised when he finished, because I was sure the show was going to come out later and prove he was innocent, but I couldn't shake the feeling that he was a total liar.

Hello,

I really like your analysis. I was wondering if you could watch another Unsolved Mysteries segment for me and report back on your findings. I'll send it to you on DVD and will even pay for shipping costs.

Please let me know. Feel free to send me a PM.

Thanks,
Justin :wave:

Big3sCompanyFan
03-22-2009, 08:54 AM
Stuart Heaton just launched his official website. Forgive me if this link is old. I don't visit this forum that much anymore. Hell, I just found out last November that Unsolved Mysteries is back on the air. :D

http://stuartheaton.com/wrongman.html

I was thinking WHY would you have a website saying "wrong man" if the DNA shows that you are guilty but if you look at the "Isn't it Odd" section of the site the DNA evidence is not necessarily a slam dunk.

I saw the one hour special on Heaton on Invesigators or some show like that and the detectives were really thinking he could be innocent but at the end they gave the typed upate that the DNA matched Heaton.

If he feels the DNA sample is compromised he needs to get a DNA expert to testify to that but at this stage it's hard to believe it will do any good anyway.

samuke
03-29-2009, 01:41 AM
I was thinking WHY would you have a website saying "wrong man" if the DNA shows that you are guilty but if you look at the "Isn't it Odd" section of the site the DNA evidence is not necessarily a slam dunk.

I saw the one hour special on Heaton on Invesigators or some show like that and the detectives were really thinking he could be innocent but at the end they gave the typed upate that the DNA matched Heaton.

If he feels the DNA sample is compromised he needs to get a DNA expert to testify to that but at this stage it's hard to believe it will do any good anyway.
Well as I said on the last page here, DNA evidence isn't as cut and dry as most people believe. The DNA profile only uses a small bit, and you can actually have matches across several people...

igotout
04-02-2009, 11:28 AM
I was not around when this happen but came to know about it as I was married to the boyfriend of Krystal at the time of her death. Here is what I know and what I do not understand.


1. The girl's brother didn't know anyone else that had a white truck but named Stuart, But yet Her boyfriend at the time had a brother who did. and was known to drive it.

2. The boyfriend was there the night before the murder and the morning of. was told this by His (the boyfriend) sister. I guess I should mention that she was 15 or 16 and he was almost 19

3. That baby was the Boyfriends. was told this by the boyfriend.

4. The boyfriend is a carpenter that works for his father and he never has any set hours, he came and went as he pleased. he would go in late, come home early ,and when he came home for lunch which was 99% of the time He would take a longer lunch then he should have taken. I know this Because I was married to him.

5. Was told he went to Ramsey everyday at lunch but that day he never went to Ramsey. Was told this by his sister and by him

6. I know he has a very bad temper and is abusive, jealous and controlling. I know from first hand experience.

7. I know that his family will say and do anything to cover up things he does. again I know because I had it happen to me.

8. Things his sister told me when I asked what Happen, That He would always go see her during his lunch and he would drive from Pana to Ramsey. But on that day he didn't go there. Was told he spent the night there and showered before he left that morning. That they did fine His hair in the shower and he had cuts on his hand but that it happened at work weeks before. That the person who did the autopsy cleaned Krystals body before he was able to get samples. I was told they found his blood on her sheets but that was caused from a scab falling off. I had no reason to doubt anything she said and felt awful for him. I was also told that as soon as they heard they went to the girls house. now I read something about them seeing a white truck around 4:30 and it was leaving and there was 3 people in the truck could that have been the Girls boyfriend and his two brothers.

9. When I asked if he testified I was told no that the prosecutors didn't want him to because of his temper. One day He and I went to some people house and they were taking about why he wouldn't testify and was upset he wouldn't.

10. When someone asked him how he got out of not being served he said he had left town for while and he would out run them. When I asked him about that he said he went to Florida for a few weeks that he just needed to get away from it all. at the time I could understand that and didn't ask any more questions

11. It was not until after we where married he started doing meth and became violent, Things got worse when he found out I was leaving, and even after I left I had to get many restraining orders even years after we had been divorced.

12. They said something about the phone being ripped of the wall, I know when I was with him when I went to the phone when I got scared I would get pushed and he would yank the phone out.

I guess what really got me saying things are not right was when I was telling my present husband about him and his temper. Then after I got to thinking about a white van they had. There was a white van behind His Dads work place they had and in was in tall weeds. I never said anything about it as you see that lot around there. But a year or so later His brother and another man took the van to this mans parents farm and took it apart. What is not right about this is that He (the boyfriend's) brother in law owns a junkyard. and I just never understood that. so the more I thought about I decide to do some searching and came across a lot of stuff but it was the Court TV segment that I said something's just not adding up. If it is true that Krystal was riding around with another man that would be enough to start a very bad argument. Now He is very good at saying lets talk and you can talk for hours but when he is not hearing what he wants or things are not going the way he wants that his temper will start to show.Why would The girls brother not say anything about his sister boyfriend driving his brothers white truck. Why would they not say they found two different seman samples when the boyfriend had been with her the night before her death and the baby was his. and if drugs where involved and I think that drugs where involved why would that never come up and why was that not tested for. I can say I don't think Stuart did it but I can't say her boyfriend or that other man didn't do it. They both had the time and the opportunity. But they boyfriend had more of a reason jealousy.

If anyone can help fill in some blanks I would appreciate it. As we share a child togther. Its one thing for him to be abusive them to be a murderer

boco357
04-13-2009, 09:08 AM
The Wrong Man episode on Stuart Heaton will air on Tru Tv's The Investigators at 4am on 4/17.

Queen of the Sea
04-28-2009, 04:11 PM
I think it's REALLY much more convincing Stuart is innocent if you watch the Crime stories version of the story. Ron Harre HAD to have killed Crystal. The unsolved mysteries version tells of the story and what happened and only interviews a few people, but the crime stories version interviews ANOTHER suspect/ Ron Harre which just looking at the guy creeps me out. He @ first says he's never met her and, "When I see her in heaven I still won't know her." Says he's never heard of her, then he says, "well what I have heard about her is...." He just talks and talks and talks about how he is an american and not a killer...which.....why would he say that if the people never asked him anything about that? It is very much more convincing to Ron. He threatened his ex-wife w/ scissors and tore the phone off the wall. In the Nabb murder, the phone was torn off and she was stabbed w/scissors.

rosiecotton
06-11-2009, 09:49 AM
Then I saw the old guy talking - and was sure he was going to show clear signs lying given the nature of the show. I watched him, and saw few if any signs of deception. If he was lying, he was either very very good at it or really believed what he was saying. I honestly think, given his medical history, he believed what he was saying even if it was slanted. I was surprised when he said that killing people in war didn't bother him (I'd guess most murders would probably say "yes it bothers me to this day, but I had to do it to protect my country") - but it was an honest answer. His answer about what kind of person would do this crime and the "momentarily insane" person response WAS really creepy and very unsettling (far too detailed for the question), but still seemed like more honesty.

See, I felt differently when I saw him talk. The fact he kept saying that the murderer had lost his mind at that time, and at that time only, led me to think that he was the guilty party and didn't want - in his own mind - to paint himself as evil, almost making an excuse for his behaviour at that moment in time. Psychologically this is not an uncommon response from criminals. They commit these crimes but in their head try and justify it, don't see it as staining them or making them a bad person.

However, the DNA issue is a very interesting one - that certainly does put the cat among the pigeons. I wasn't at all convinced when I first saw Heaton talk on the WM programme. The mumbo jumbo about falling over, or riding a horse through brambles... all a bit woolly for me. However, there was a lot in the programme which led me to believe he may not be guilty. Having found out about the DNA evidence, though - well, that's pretty damning after all.

There wasn't enough in the programme about Heaton's motive and whether he knew the girl. Did he have a motive? Did he know her? The crime itself certainly wasn't premeditated in my mind, the killer did not come prepared but instead used the weapon found to hand when flying into a rage, which would lead me to believe that perhaps she had just told the father of her child the news - was that Heaton? There just isn't enough evidence out there that covers this.

I feel the trial and the police work in this case was appalling, and he should have another trial. However, I feel that given the DNA results the outcome would in all possibility be the same. It's a curious case though and very poorly handled, which has led to a lot of confusion and uncertainty, not what you want when you are looking for a safe conviction.

samuke
06-17-2009, 09:56 PM
See, I felt differently when I saw him talk. The fact he kept saying that the murderer had lost his mind at that time, and at that time only, led me to think that he was the guilty party and didn't want - in his own mind - to paint himself as evil, almost making an excuse for his behaviour at that moment in time. Psychologically this is not an uncommon response from criminals. They commit these crimes but in their head try and justify it, don't see it as staining them or making them a bad person.

However, the DNA issue is a very interesting one - that certainly does put the cat among the pigeons. I wasn't at all convinced when I first saw Heaton talk on the WM programme. The mumbo jumbo about falling over, or riding a horse through brambles... all a bit woolly for me. However, there was a lot in the programme which led me to believe he may not be guilty. Having found out about the DNA evidence, though - well, that's pretty damning after all.

There wasn't enough in the programme about Heaton's motive and whether he knew the girl. Did he have a motive? Did he know her? The crime itself certainly wasn't premeditated in my mind, the killer did not come prepared but instead used the weapon found to hand when flying into a rage, which would lead me to believe that perhaps she had just told the father of her child the news - was that Heaton? There just isn't enough evidence out there that covers this.

I feel the trial and the police work in this case was appalling, and he should have another trial. However, I feel that given the DNA results the outcome would in all possibility be the same. It's a curious case though and very poorly handled, which has led to a lot of confusion and uncertainty, not what you want when you are looking for a safe conviction.Bah why does everyone keep mentioning the DNA evidence? I keep saying it, again and again, that DNA evidence isn't as damning as everyone thinks. So many people think it's so exacting but it's not because all they use is a dna profile and the 'accuracy' is just numbers given by the FBI based on VERY small test sampling (given the population of the world), and the fact is it's not hard to match somebody's dna profile amongst several different people.

wiseguy182
06-17-2009, 10:46 PM
Bah why does everyone keep mentioning the DNA evidence? I keep saying it, again and again, that DNA evidence isn't as damning as everyone thinks. So many people think it's so exacting but it's not because all they use is a dna profile and the 'accuracy' is just numbers given by the FBI based on VERY small test sampling (given the population of the world), and the fact is it's not hard to match somebody's dna profile amongst several different people.

i agree, plus the sample they used was pretty cruddy. the case against Stuart is really weak: a cruddy DNA sample, cuts on his hand even though he's a carpenter, and that he just so happened to own a white truck. That's the case. yet we have people on here who are 100% positive he's the killer. :rolleyes:

kadrmas15
06-18-2009, 02:10 AM
Well I am not 100 percent positive. I kind of go back and forth on him. I will say without that DNA he should have NEVER been convicted or even charged. I mean the case was very weak, even that cocky, worthless prosecutor, Don Sheafor even admitted that his case stunk, hence why he was looking for a smoking gun and could not find it. The whole odds thing was lackluster and the DNA expert in this case for the prosecution was later found to be biased in that he 'hoped' that the evidence would be enough to convict Heaton yet he himself later discredited the very methods to conclude the 52,000 to 1 odds (which are not impressive) that Heaton was the killer. In fact, in this instance, even if Heaton's DNA did match, it means nothing. The reason is because if he was having an affair with Krystal Nabb than that could be explained away. I dont know, I have gone back and forth as I said, but there is something about this case that does not seem right in that I just have this feeling Heaton is innocent. I mean to me the fact Heaton had cuts on his hands are not convincing. The man was a carpenter, he said that a carpenter actually doing his job will cut his hands, yet some people that like to have the lynch mob mentality took this comment out of context to try to portray Heaton as arrogant when in fact he was just telling the truth and seemed proud of his profession. Again, I think Heaton was just confident in his case and this confidence was misconstrued as arrogance by some people that were desperate to think of him as guilty.

kadrmas15
06-18-2009, 02:23 AM
I do agree though, if Heaton had another trial and that DNA was not discredited through an accredited expert, he would be convicted again. Hell, there was a controversial case in Illinois just recently where a guy that had already been convicted twice, got a third trial, this time because DNA EXCLUDED him as the donor of DNA that was found in vaginal swabs of a 12 year old girl that was raped and killed. The guy was convicted again because he had confessed to police when first arrested. It is my opinion this confession was false but again, most of the time juries cannot get past confessions with the common philosophy of why would you confess to something you did not do? However false confessions happen a lot more than one would think. About 25 percent of the people proven innocent and released had confessed too. I mean there is something very wrong in the State of Illinois and it sort of makes you wonder what the hell is going on?

george ramos
07-16-2009, 05:01 PM
Oh yeah, Juan Rivera is that guy you mentioned. Poor bastard got sentenced to life without parole for the third time.

kadrmas15
07-16-2009, 08:02 PM
Yes, it is really sad, Juan Rivera, another innocent man railroaded by the Judicial System in the State of Illinois. Of course the state once again, switching strategies in this latest prosecution. All along they say, oh Rivera raped and killed this girl, he did it alone, blah, blah. Now that his DNA was excluded, the state switched strategies and said that Rivera was one of two people that killed her, just that Rivera did not rape her. One problem though, the state has shown no interest in finding out whose DNA that really is and where are they now? Sorry, but it is just amazing to me that Rivera was convicted at this third trial with his DNA excluded. That is just incredible to me. But again, as I said, my guess is, the jurors could not get past the confession which Rivera's attorneys unsuccessfully tried to get thrown out. However my guess also is that is the only way they convicted him, I mean there was really nothing else there to convict him off of. All of the physical evidence proved his innocence, not his guilt! So hopefully Rivera can get yet another trial, but again, it is just that confession, that jurors cant seem to get past even though it has basically been discredited. If I was on that jury, I would have hung it up, it would have taken one person to hang it and no one did it. I just really do not know what to say.

george ramos
07-26-2009, 09:44 AM
I never said that I believed Juan was innocent. I wasn't a juror so I don't know what evidence there was. Maybe the jury knew more than we did. As for a fourth trial, that's unlikely. Three strikes and you're out.

TheCars1986
11-10-2010, 07:56 PM
After watching the Court TV special on Heaton, I really couldn't make up my mind. After watching the UM segment originally I thought he was getting railroaded BIG time and that he was 100% innocent. Now? I am leaning toward guilty. First the new DNA results which show that there is a 1 in 31 billion chance that it is someone elses semen found on Naab's body. However, the Stuart Heaton website tries to contradict this new test by saying the DNA tested was actually a mixture of Stuart's, Krystal's, her brother Curtis, and someone elses. Not sure how accurate that is being that it's coming from a Heaton Is Innocent website, but it still clouds certainty. So I despite the odds, the new DNA test wasn't really the clincher.

Next we have the officer who arrested Stuart Heaton appear on camera and say he thought the police were looking at the wrong man. He also said that one of the crime scene experts said that whoever murdered Krystal had fought one hell of a fight with her and would most likely have cuts/lacerations on his hands as well as all over his body. The officer said no such marks existed on Stuart the night they took him in. Also, white pick-up trucks are extremely common in a rural area, so the fact that Stuart owned one isn't really that intriguing.

Then there's the side theory of someone selling drugs/lending money to Curtis Naab and killing Krystal as some sort of payment/payback. The Court TV special even went so far as to interview this man (Ron Harre) who from local gossip seemed like he was a huge drug pusher and also very capable of murder. Harre was probably the other man mentioned in the UM segment and Harre's brother even owned a white pick-up truck which was destroyed in a junkyard a year after Krystal's murder. In his interview on Court TV Harre was caught lying several times and he did come off as a "kook" (thanks, Wackers ;) ). This theory seems plausible enough, but why would someone who's motive is to hurt Curtis murder his young teenage sister in broad daylight? And to be stabbed 81 times? Overkill much? Definitely a crime of passion, no doubt. And I just don't see how the drug theory could fit in a crime of passion scenario.

Which leaves us with the fact that Krystal was pregnant at the time she was murdered. Stuart Heaton was a church-going married man with a young son. In addition to getting charged with statutory rape, his reputation was on the line if it was found out that he was having an affair with Krystal Naab. And to top it all off? She was also pregnant with his child! So then I started thinking and I've noticed that in both the UM and the Court TV segments Stuart NEVER EVER sheds a tear or breaks his concentrated almost angry way in which he speaks about the case. Now granted if Heaton is innocent, he has every right to be extremely pissed. No one in their right mind wouldn't be. But when he's talking about his wife and his son he never cracks or shows any sort of emotion (which is something an innocent man deprived from his family for 10 years would do), and that's what made me lean towards him being guilty.

So I theorized that the day Krysal was murdered, Stuart probably went over to her house because he knew she was alone and it was planned and consenual for them to meet. They probably hung out for quite sometime (the white truck was spotted from 10 in the morning until almost 3 in the afternoon), and had sex which explains his semen being found on her. After the sex I think is when Krystal wanted to tell Stuart she was pregnant and by doing so a heated argument ensued which escalated to Stuart and her fighting and eventually him murdering her. Now this would account for the brutal nature of the crime if the affair was true because Heaton had everything going for him and if it was found out he got a 16 year old pregnant, everything would be gone. This also would account for the reason he didn't have any blood on his clothes and why it was easier for him to clean up and leave. Again this is just my theory on what happened and its pure speculation. The only other nagging thing which is preventing me from saying he's 100% guilty is the fact that there was a bloody handprint found on the scene that didn't match Stuart, Krystal, or Curtis (who found her body). Any thoughts?

TracyLynnS
11-11-2010, 04:08 PM
Does anyone have a link or source for the info in post #18 that says the new DNA evidence in this case came back as 38 Billion to 1, proving Heaton's guilt, rather than the original 52,600 to 1.

A DNA expert interviewed in the segment said that the original sample was not of a good enough quality for testing. Years later they tested it again and came up with the 38,000,000,000:1 number.

I'd like to see something explaining the new DNA test, but in a google search, I only found this site and the site that claims Heaton is innocent, which we have to expect would be biased. His site didn't provide a source or a result. They just said that the second sample had been out of a chain of custody, had not been stored properly, had been moved around different buildings and locations, and was contaminated.

WishfulDreamer
05-18-2011, 12:49 AM
I used to lean toward Heaton being innocent, but now I am convinced otherwise.

But I have some questions:

From the thread I gather that there is debate over the child. The victim had a boyfriend who could have been the father or it could have been Heaton himself if they were having an affair. Can't LE confirm this, or do they feel it unnecessary since the guy is already incarcerated?

Was the victim assaulted or had she undergone consensual intercourse before the attack? The segment never covered this and I think it's pretty vital information.

TheCars1986
05-18-2011, 11:15 AM
Was the victim assaulted or had she undergone consensual intercourse before the attack? The segment never covered this and I think it's pretty vital information.

I thought they determined that Krystal was not sexually assaulted and that the sex was consenual, but I may be wrong on this.

idol
06-29-2011, 06:48 AM
"A carpenter without cuts on his his hands is just an observer."

asmitty
06-29-2011, 10:41 AM
After watching the Court TV special on Heaton, I really couldn't make up my mind. After watching the UM segment originally I thought he was getting railroaded BIG time and that he was 100% innocent. Now? I am leaning toward guilty. First the new DNA results which show that there is a 1 in 31 billion chance that it is someone elses semen found on Naab's body. However, the Stuart Heaton website tries to contradict this new test by saying the DNA tested was actually a mixture of Stuart's, Krystal's, her brother Curtis, and someone elses. Not sure how accurate that is being that it's coming from a Heaton Is Innocent website, but it still clouds certainty. So I despite the odds, the new DNA test wasn't really the clincher.

Next we have the officer who arrested Stuart Heaton appear on camera and say he thought the police were looking at the wrong man. He also said that one of the crime scene experts said that whoever murdered Krystal had fought one hell of a fight with her and would most likely have cuts/lacerations on his hands as well as all over his body. The officer said no such marks existed on Stuart the night they took him in. Also, white pick-up trucks are extremely common in a rural area, so the fact that Stuart owned one isn't really that intriguing.

Then there's the side theory of someone selling drugs/lending money to Curtis Naab and killing Krystal as some sort of payment/payback. The Court TV special even went so far as to interview this man (Ron Harre) who from local gossip seemed like he was a huge drug pusher and also very capable of murder. Harre was probably the other man mentioned in the UM segment and Harre's brother even owned a white pick-up truck which was destroyed in a junkyard a year after Krystal's murder. In his interview on Court TV Harre was caught lying several times and he did come off as a "kook" (thanks, Wackers ;) ). This theory seems plausible enough, but why would someone who's motive is to hurt Curtis murder his young teenage sister in broad daylight? And to be stabbed 81 times? Overkill much? Definitely a crime of passion, no doubt. And I just don't see how the drug theory could fit in a crime of passion scenario.

Which leaves us with the fact that Krystal was pregnant at the time she was murdered. Stuart Heaton was a church-going married man with a young son. In addition to getting charged with statutory rape, his reputation was on the line if it was found out that he was having an affair with Krystal Naab. And to top it all off? She was also pregnant with his child! So then I started thinking and I've noticed that in both the UM and the Court TV segments Stuart NEVER EVER sheds a tear or breaks his concentrated almost angry way in which he speaks about the case. Now granted if Heaton is innocent, he has every right to be extremely pissed. No one in their right mind wouldn't be. But when he's talking about his wife and his son he never cracks or shows any sort of emotion (which is something an innocent man deprived from his family for 10 years would do), and that's what made me lean towards him being guilty.

So I theorized that the day Krysal was murdered, Stuart probably went over to her house because he knew she was alone and it was planned and consenual for them to meet. They probably hung out for quite sometime (the white truck was spotted from 10 in the morning until almost 3 in the afternoon), and had sex which explains his semen being found on her. After the sex I think is when Krystal wanted to tell Stuart she was pregnant and by doing so a heated argument ensued which escalated to Stuart and her fighting and eventually him murdering her. Now this would account for the brutal nature of the crime if the affair was true because Heaton had everything going for him and if it was found out he got a 16 year old pregnant, everything would be gone. This also would account for the reason he didn't have any blood on his clothes and why it was easier for him to clean up and leave. Again this is just my theory on what happened and its pure speculation. The only other nagging thing which is preventing me from saying he's 100% guilty is the fact that there was a bloody handprint found on the scene that didn't match Stuart, Krystal, or Curtis (who found her body). Any thoughts?

I, like you, after seeing the UM segment felt that Stuart was railroaded and not guilty. I'm now undecided. All information of the second DNA test that I have heard has been second hand on this forum. And I know enough about this (college bio major) to know that I would need details on the testing done to make a decision on that for myself. Honestly, I think there is still plenty of evidence that could go either way, other than the second DNA test which I just don't have enough information on.

I will say, if I had been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty. Just too much reasonable doubt at that time.

derbmeister
08-22-2011, 04:50 PM
Does anyone have a link or source for the info in post #18 that says the new DNA evidence in this case came back as 38 Billion to 1, proving Heaton's guilt, rather than the original 52,600 to 1.

A DNA expert interviewed in the segment said that the original sample was not of a good enough quality for testing. Years later they tested it again and came up with the 38,000,000,000:1 number.

I'd like to see something explaining the new DNA test, but in a google search, I only found this site and the site that claims Heaton is innocent, which we have to expect would be biased. His site didn't provide a source or a result. They just said that the second sample had been out of a chain of custody, had not been stored properly, had been moved around different buildings and locations, and was contaminated.
DNA big deal the cops in this case where covering up for Harre the real killer, the dna was planted ,the semen was taken from Stuarts underwear then planted on the victim . when Stuart was arrested they took all of his clothing . It is a proven fact that semen can be found on mens uderwear on any given day. a young man can be aroused during the day and semen will dribble on his underwear

cindyloup
11-01-2011, 08:14 PM
Why would someone guilty want a new DNA test on the belief it will prove
him innocent?And did they actually retest the old semen and compair it to new dna they got from him or is it even remotely possible they thought they were using the old dna originally gotten from the semen to compair to a new
dna sample from Heaton but actually used the old dna they got from heaton from the first test and compaired it to the new.that would make the odds as such as they now say.This is just my crazy way of thinking but it would make for an easy cover up to keep the case closed.Crazy?Probably,but thats just me.

TracyLynnS
11-02-2011, 09:48 AM
"A carpenter without cuts on his his hands is just an observer."

This part of the segment helped convince me of his innocence.

Since she was stabbed so many times with scissors, the officials said that whoever killed her would have cuts on his hands. Then they show photos of Heaton's hands with just small nicks on them, like you would expect for someone in his line of work.

Whoever stabbed her with those scissors had slippery blood all over them and would have likely sliced his hand up much worse than the small nicks that Heaton had.

I really think it was more likely the known criminal who lived nearby and had a truck very similar to Heaton's.

TheCars1986
11-02-2011, 12:29 PM
I never really understood how LE was able to determine that whoever stabbed Krystal would have had several cuts on his/her hands. IIRC, she wasn't sexually assaulted, and being that she was stabbed 81 times definitely screams a crime of passion. I don't see how Ron Harre (the local drug pusher) would fit into that scenario, as his motive for revenge on Krystal's brother is flimsy to say the least.

justins5256
11-02-2011, 08:15 PM
DNA big deal the cops in this case where covering up for Harre the real killer, the dna was planted ,the semen was taken from Stuarts underwear then planted on the victim . when Stuart was arrested they took all of his clothing . It is a proven fact that semen can be found on mens uderwear on any given day. a young man can be aroused during the day and semen will dribble on his underwear

and the cops framed Heaton because why?

TheCars1986
11-03-2011, 07:44 AM
and the cops framed Heaton because why?

Exactly. There is no reason as to why the police in this investigation would plant DNA "extracted" from Stuart Heaton. And there's even less of a reason as to why they would cover up for a low life drug pusher like Ron Harre.

mystery_daisy
11-03-2011, 04:12 PM
For years I thought he was not guilty of this crime but now I think he killed her. The newer DNA tests are accurate even if using a very small, old sample. The new DNA tests have to odds too astronomical out of Stuart's favor for Stuart to say the sample is not his.

If you think about how one would handle scissors to stab, and look at the pics of his hands, those are the places where the cuts are, on the inside of the middle knuckles of his hands.

Also I can see deception in his body language.

Too bad there wasn't DNA done of the fetus or blood saved.

Also I used to work with a carpenter for about a year and a half and i never once saw cuts on his hands, so the statement about a carpenter always having cuts on his hands doesn't fly with me.

TheCars1986
11-04-2011, 08:11 AM
Heaton cannot possibly have any explanation for the new DNA results, and he's never even confessed to having sexual relations with Krystal to this day. Had he came out from the beginning and acknowledged he had an affair with her, than yes you would question his guilt but he never did. If he would lie about that, why wouldn't he lie about his innocence?

justins5256
11-04-2011, 08:30 AM
Re: Heaton

I found this old post earlier on in the thread.

Stuart Heaton is guilty. I personally know people involved with the appeals since '91. They were able to test the baby's DNA, my source couldn't directly say Stuart was the father, but let's just say it was implied. These court tv shows, unsolved mysteries, Connie Chung's show, they manipulate information. It's entertainment. They DON'T give you all the information. Heaton's wife stuck with him through most of the appeals, but after the last DNA results, even she accepted the truth. Heaton is a sociopath who has made bizarre threats on his own pro-bono attorneys. He was a Sunday school teacher with a family, and if news got out about his affair with an underage girl who was pregnant, it would shatter the image he had created for himself and this is why he lashed out so brutally...with the calmness of taking a shower in her home to wash off the blood when he was done! His own mother even said when she saw him that day, he was freshly showered and in different clothes than he was wearing that morning!!

Take it with a grain of salt as it is written by another "one post wonder" type, but I would not be surprised if this were true, really.

TheCars1986
11-05-2011, 09:52 AM
Re: Heaton

I found this old post earlier on in the thread.



Take it with a grain of salt as it is written by another "one post wonder" type, but I would not be surprised if this were true, really.

I've actually theorized that the reason Heaton killed Krystal was because he was having an affair with her and she was going to expose the affair. That makes the most sense in terms of a motive, IMO.

XCalibur
11-05-2011, 01:54 PM
There is still a couple of things that bother me:

1. If Stuart Heaton was guilty, why would he push so hard for a DNA test that would prove that?

2. I hear on the broadcast Crystal Nabb was stabbed like 81 times, that seems more like a crime of passion or absoloute rage, more in line with a man who was getting dumped or scorned by a lover rather than someone who simply wanted to silence a lover from exposing him.

Now without knowing all the facts, these points are not absoloute. But they still leave me wondering about this case.

justins5256
11-06-2011, 01:09 PM
There is still a couple of things that bother me:

1. If Stuart Heaton was guilty, why would he push so hard for a DNA test that would prove that?

A thought provoking question indeed. I've never committed a crime so I can only speculate about what goes through one's mind. That said, I would never assume I know how someone else feels.

Just to throw out a guess though, I would think that if I was convicted of a serious crime I knew I was guilty of, yet I still wanted to get out of prison, I would cling to whatever doubt, however remote, I could produce to prove my "innocence" and ultimately secure my release.

Notice how Heaton's supporters are still grasping at straws to find problems with this new test. That's how you drum up reasonable doubt.


2. I hear on the broadcast Crystal Nabb was stabbed like 81 times, that seems more like a crime of passion or absoloute rage, more in line with a man who was getting dumped or scorned by a lover rather than someone who simply wanted to silence a lover from exposing him.

Now without knowing all the facts, these points are not absoloute. But they still leave me wondering about this case.

Could be he asked her to abort the fetus and she refused. Maybe she was going to tell Heaton's wife. It's hard to say. However, if the baby was Heaton's I could see how he would have a lot more to lose if Knabb had the baby and suddenly Heaton is forced to admit the affair or provide child support on the downlow. These are some serious issues and I tend to think if Heaton is guilty the unborn baby was probably the motive. I could also turn that around and ask what reason Harre would have for stabbing her that many times, especially if his goal was merely to send a message.

TracyLynnS
11-06-2011, 01:45 PM
You guys already know that I tend to believe Heaton is innocent, but the DNA situation is very interesting.

I can't recall right now (of course :crazy: ) but I do remember hearing about convicts who were absolutely guilty, with pretty much no question of innocence in just about anyone's minds, and yet they still insist on more DNA testing to "prove their innocence".

Unless every single lab in the country is conspiring to keep innocent people in jail, then these rightly convicted criminals are just playing us.

Maybe they are grasping at straws; are hoping to confuse the issue in people's minds, since a lot of time has elapsed between the crime, trial, and new DNA test; are unrealistically optimistic that they'll get a false negative that will exonerate them; they just want to milk the system; they like having a change in their dull daily prison routine by having tests done, receiving medical correspondence mail, and enjoy getting extra attention from newspapers, their attorneys, and the courts, etc.

TheCars1986
11-08-2011, 09:11 AM
Heaton continuing to insist his innocence is just a part of his narcissistic character, along the same lines of Jeffrey MacDonald. Both men are con artists, both continue to question unquestionable scientific evidence all the while trying to cast "reasonable doubt" in the public's mind.

soilentgreen
11-08-2011, 01:38 PM
Also I used to work with a carpenter for about a year and a half and i never once saw cuts on his hands, so the statement about a carpenter always having cuts on his hands doesn't fly with me.

Having done capentry and roofing when I was younger, I agree. Heaton should have been able to recall when he received those fresh cuts; they weren't just on his hands, but on his his right leg as well.

From Heaton vs. Gaetz (il.findacase.com)

Photographs taken of Heaton on the evening of the murder showed "numerous small lacerations on his hands, a large laceration on the back of his right calf, and a small cut on his forehead." (Ex. M, p. 4). The pathologist who performed the autopsy on the victim testified that Heaton's wounds were similar to the wounds on the victim and that "both individuals exhibited 'pairing' type wounds that could have been caused by opened scissors."


It also wasn't a basic identification of a white pickup truck:

Heaton owned a white pickup truck which had "distinctive hubcaps." Seven witnesses testified that a white pickup truck was seen in the area on the day of the murder. The witnesses were shown a picture of Heaton's truck, which had large toolboxes in the bed. The witnesses testified that the truck that they saw on the day of the murder did not have toolboxes. Heaton's neighbor testified that he helped Heaton put toolboxes in the bed of his truck at about 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. on the day of the murder.

A mailman, Larry Miller, delivered mail to the victim's trailer at about 12:25 p.m. on the day of the murder. Naab was alive then and waved to him. Miller testified that Heaton's truck was parked in the driveway at that time. Miller knew Heaton, and he specifically identified the truck as belonging to him.


If Stuart Heaton was guilty, why would he push so hard for a DNA test that would prove that?


Just a guess, I'd say some assumed arrogance that Heaton could still outwit everyone or at the very least, as Justins5256 stated, drum up some amount of reasonable doubt.

TracyLynnS
11-08-2011, 02:32 PM
Wow! Didn't know about all that. Quite a bit more detailed info than the sort of vague stuff mentioned in the UM segment.

justins5256
11-08-2011, 02:46 PM
Nice find, soilentgeen. It seems as though he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt and then some.

TheCars1986
11-08-2011, 03:31 PM
I will admit that although I believe Heaton to be guilty, the "small cut" on his forehead looks like a pimple or an ingrown hair in the pictures LE took. Not that that matters at all I still think he's guilty as hell. Leave it up to UM to leave out crucial details like the eyewitness accounts of Heaton's truck. Seems to me like this guy never had a case at all.

soilentgreen
11-08-2011, 03:58 PM
Here's a link to another site that has the above appeal:

http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=19941270640NE2d630_31239.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

I haven't watched the segment in a long time, but didn't Heaton make the comment that he'd been involved with Krystal Naab's sister (when he claimed that he didn't know the victim)?

XCalibur
11-08-2011, 10:43 PM
I will admit that although I believe Heaton to be guilty, the "small cut" on his forehead looks like a pimple or an ingrown hair in the pictures LE took. Not that that matters at all I still think he's guilty as hell. Leave it up to UM to leave out crucial details like the eyewitness accounts of Heaton's truck. Seems to me like this guy never had a case at all.

Actually I believe the broadcast did mention the truck. However, there was a footnote to the broadcast: I don't know if anyone remembers this, but they said that there was another guy who knew Crystal Nabb, drove a truck like Heaton's, and had a criminal record! I think this guy was a factor in some people believing Heaton was innocent. Does anyone know anything about this? It was one reason I myself thought Heaton was innocent.

TracyLynnS
11-09-2011, 09:29 AM
Actually I believe the broadcast did mention the truck. However, there was a footnote to the broadcast: I don't know if anyone remembers this, but they said that there was another guy who knew Crystal Nabb, drove a truck like Heaton's, and had a criminal record! I think this guy was a factor in some people believing Heaton was innocent. Does anyone know anything about this? It was one reason I myself thought Heaton was innocent.

Yep, that local known criminal who owned a truck similar to Heaton's was one reason I thought he was innocent.

RobinW
11-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Actually I believe the broadcast did mention the truck. However, there was a footnote to the broadcast: I don't know if anyone remembers this, but they said that there was another guy who knew Crystal Nabb, drove a truck like Heaton's, and had a criminal record! I think this guy was a factor in some people believing Heaton was innocent. Does anyone know anything about this? It was one reason I myself thought Heaton was innocent.

Yes, several years ago, they did an episode of the Court TV show, "The Investigators", about the Stuart Heaton case that delved into this much further. This episode actually presented a lot more convincing case for Heaton's innocence than the UM segment because the investigators on the show actually spoke to the other suspect who owned the pickup truck who came across as a complete nutjob and seemed like he was capable of having committed the murders.

Of course, any beliefs I had about his innocence pretty much became null and void once the new DNA test came back.

TheCars1986
11-09-2011, 01:00 PM
Take it for what it's worth, but the "explanation" given by the Heaton-is-innocent supporters for the new DNA test results is that they were not compared to the samples found on Krystal Nabb's body but rather compared to the original sample that Heaton gave back in 1994, which is why the match is so precise.

RobinW
11-09-2011, 03:32 PM
Take it for what it's worth, but the "explanation" given by the Heaton-is-innocent supporters for the new DNA test results is that they were not compared to the samples found on Krystal Nabb's body but rather compared to the original sample that Heaton gave back in 1994, which is why the match is so precise.

While I don't believe any claims from Heaton defenders that the cops deliberately framed him, I guess it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they could fudge a DNA test just so they wouldn't have to admit they made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong man. It's not very likely, of course, but it just goes to show that even conclusive DNA evidence will not always change the minds of the most devout supporters.

TheCars1986
11-09-2011, 04:07 PM
While I think Heaton is guilty, I do find it extremely odd that Heaton had no evidence of a struggle with Krystal Nabb other than 4 or 5 cuts on his hand, one on his leg, and a bump on his forehead. You would think in the struggle to save her life Krystal would have been clawing and digging at her attacker and it just seems unlikely that Heaton wouldn't have received more cuts or abrasions. I also find it odd that the Heaton supporters are quick to point out that not one single trace of Heaton's hair or blood was found in the Nabb's trailer, yet they also neglect to mention that there was no trace of Ron Harre's blood or hair either. And the investigators on the scene of the crime stated that there was too much blood to be able to determine if anyone else bled in that trailer anyway.

EDIT: After browsing through the Heaton-is-innocent blog website, they list another potential suspect in the Krystal Nabb slaying. Apparently her boyfriend at the time also owned a white pickup truck similar to Heaton's. Again don't know how much stock you want to put into that, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

XCalibur
11-11-2011, 07:51 PM
While I think Heaton is guilty, I do find it extremely odd that Heaton had no evidence of a struggle with Krystal Nabb other than 4 or 5 cuts on his hand, one on his leg, and a bump on his forehead. You would think in the struggle to save her life Krystal would have been clawing and digging at her attacker and it just seems unlikely that Heaton wouldn't have received more cuts or abrasions. I also find it odd that the Heaton supporters are quick to point out that not one single trace of Heaton's hair or blood was found in the Nabb's trailer, yet they also neglect to mention that there was no trace of Ron Harre's blood or hair either. And the investigators on the scene of the crime stated that there was too much blood to be able to determine if anyone else bled in that trailer anyway.

EDIT: After browsing through the Heaton-is-innocent blog website, they list another potential suspect in the Krystal Nabb slaying. Apparently her boyfriend at the time also owned a white pickup truck similar to Heaton's. Again don't know how much stock you want to put into that, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Another thing I thought the episode said was that Krystal's boyfriend at the time had been eliminated as a suspect. I assumed a couple of things at the time, that the child Krystal was carrying was thought to be his and that he might have been eliminated by a DNA test or an airtight alibi? If not why was he eliminated and was this the same guy mentioned at the end of the segment.

I got no impression at the time that the boyfriend was the same guy who was mentioned at the end of the segment who drove a truck like Heaton's. It seems odd that UM would say at the beginning of the segment that Krystal's boyfriend had been eliminated and then mention this other guy as a possible suspect?

Now I'm hearing that the baby might have been Heaton's?

I'm afraid Krystal was a pretty loose girl, and while that makes her murder no less tragic it sure as hell seems to have made this case pretty complicated.

TheCars1986
11-12-2011, 09:01 AM
Another thing I thought the episode said was that Krystal's boyfriend at the time had been eliminated as a suspect. I assumed a couple of things at the time, that the child Krystal was carrying was thought to be his and that he might have been eliminated by a DNA test or an airtight alibi? If not why was he eliminated and was this the same guy mentioned at the end of the segment.

I don't remember if Krystal's boyfriend was eliminated in the UM segment or not. I wouldn't put much stock in the boyfriend as being a potential suspect being that that information came from a pro-Heaton website. The site simply said her boyfriend owned a white truck that looked similar to Heaton's. I guess the implication was that it's possible that her boyfriend was there during the day which is why people claim to have seen the truck there for such a long period of time.

I got no impression at the time that the boyfriend was the same guy who was mentioned at the end of the segment who drove a truck like Heaton's. It seems odd that UM would say at the beginning of the segment that Krystal's boyfriend had been eliminated and then mention this other guy as a possible suspect?

I believe the other guy is Ron Harre. Seems to be the town's "boogeyman" so to speak.

Now I'm hearing that the baby might have been Heaton's?

It's just pure speculation, but that seems to be a possible motive in her murder that whoever killed her did so out of rage for being pregnant.

TheCars1986
09-25-2012, 03:25 PM
I was just reading the trial transcripts over at the Stuart Heaton is innocent blog website, and I can definitely understand now why he was convicted, even with the confusing/faulty DNA evidence. For one thing, the defense only called 3 witnesses. One was a DNA expert who basically testified that he couldn't draw the same conclusions as the prosecution's DNA expert. He stated that the results were "inconclusive" because the DNA sample taken from Krystal Naab was in a deteriorated condition. The next 2 witnesses were called to place Stuart Heaton at a lumber yard between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m. on the day of the murder. Both testified to seeing him there within that time frame, whereas whoever killed Krystal Naab was seen at her trailer from 10 in the morning to almost 3 in the afternoon. Both witnesses testimonies were impeached however, when the prosecution revealed that when each of them spoke to law enforcement (before the trial) one witness could not recall if it was the exact date of the murder, and the other said she definitely saw Stuart in his truck because she recognized the toolboxes in the bed of his truck. But Stuart did not have toolboxes installed in the back of his truck until after the murder. It gets better....

After the jury found Heaton guilty, the prosecution brought 3 different girls to testify at his sentencing trial. One girl testified that Stuart had asked her out repeatedly and she rejected him and then he called her a "bitch" and later did some damage to her car. The other two testified that they were at a sleepover with another young girl (all of them were 15 at the time of the incident, and Stuart was over 18), when Stuart showed up to the residence with alcohol. The girls began to drink and one of them got drunk and began to vomit and Stuart assured the other girls that he had some training in the medical field and that he would take care of the girl and watch over her in case she got sick again. The girl was taken to a bedroom where Stuart was "watching over her", and the girl fell asleep but then awoke to have Stuart on top of her, raping her. Soon after Stuart came out of the bedroom and acted as if nothing happened and left. One of the girls went into the bedroom to check on the drunk girl and she noticed blood on the bed and the girl told her that Stuart had raped her. The girl did not report anything to authorities because she was embarassed, and afraid that she would get her friend in trouble with her parents for underage drinking.

Just figured I'd pass this along, if Heaton would rape an underage girl is it that much of a stretch to say he would murder one as well? This guy is guilty as hell!

MegtheEgg86
09-25-2012, 03:40 PM
Yep, I concur. One of the few "Final Appeal" stories that was a no-brainer.

I agree. I never understood how the Heaton story ever became a "Final Appeal".

And Cars, that testimony below is atrocious. He's way guilty.

TheCars1986
09-26-2012, 06:59 AM
And Cars, that testimony below is atrocious. He's way guilty.

There was also testimony from a reporter for a local newspaper who interviewed Heaton shortly after he was convicted. The reporter testified at his sentencing, and said that no longer than five hours after being convicted, Heaton had made the comment that Krystal Naab's murder was "the work of the Lord". :rolleyes:

XCalibur
09-26-2012, 04:25 PM
There was also testimony from a reporter for a local newspaper who interviewed Heaton shortly after he was convicted. The reporter testified at his sentencing, and said that no longer than five hours after being convicted, Heaton had made the comment that Krystal Naab's murder was "the work of the Lord". :rolleyes:

Despicable thing for Heaton to say. No brutal murder of a young girl and an unborn baby is the work of the Lord. At least not mine.

TheCars1986
09-27-2012, 08:59 AM
While I still think Heaton is guilty, there is still something that bugs me about this case: there was never any clear connection made between Heaton and Krystal Naab. Even at Heaton's trial, the only connection made between the two was that Heaton and Krystal's brother Curtis were friends at one point. But Curtis himself admitted that the last time he saw Heaton was 1-1/2 to 2 years before Krystal's murder. There's been speculation that Krystal was pregnant with Heaton's baby which is why he killed her, but if this was true Krystal and/or Heaton surely would have told someone else about the affair. I just find it odd that there was never any conclusive connection made between the two.

justins5256
09-27-2012, 09:10 AM
While I still think Heaton is guilty, there is still something that bugs me about this case: there was never any clear connection made between Heaton and Krystal Naab. Even at Heaton's trial, the only connection made between the two was that Heaton and Krystal's brother Curtis were friends at one point. But Curtis himself admitted that the last time he saw Heaton was 1-1/2 to 2 years before Krystal's murder. There's been speculation that Krystal was pregnant with Heaton's baby which is why he killed her, but if this was true Krystal and/or Heaton surely would have told someone else about the affair. I just find it odd that there was never any conclusive connection made between the two.

IDK. If they were having an affair, they both would have had every reason to keep it secret especially since Heaton was married and she was a minor.

TheCars1986
09-27-2012, 09:49 AM
IDK. If they were having an affair, they both would have had every reason to keep it secret especially since Heaton was married and she was a minor.

Don't you think it's extremely hard for a sixteen year old to keep a secret? Having an affair with a married man at sixteen would seem like something that a girl would want to brag about to her friends.

justins5256
09-27-2012, 10:26 AM
Don't you think it's extremely hard for a sixteen year old to keep a secret? Having an affair with a married man at sixteen would seem like something that a girl would want to brag about to her friends.

Probably. I don't see how it matters though. The evidence against Heaton is pretty tight. We'll probably never know what his connection with her was. I always thought it interesting how he emphasized so much that he didn't even know her, like it's another reason to believe his claims. For that reason, I can't see him ever coming clean about the details of their relationship, unfortunately.

TheCars1986
09-27-2012, 11:24 AM
Probably. I don't see how it matters though. The evidence against Heaton is pretty tight. We'll probably never know what his connection with her was. I always thought it interesting how he emphasized so much that he didn't even know her, like it's another reason to believe his claims. For that reason, I can't see him ever coming clean about the details of their relationship, unfortunately.

It's also interesting that he continues to say there was no hair, fibers, fingerprints, blood, etc. found at the scene that connects him to the murder yet he offers no valid alibi for his whereabouts that day. He didn't even take the stand at his own trial, which I've also never been able to understand.

justins5256
09-27-2012, 01:08 PM
He didn't even take the stand at his own trial, which I've also never been able to understand.

The decision to have a defendant testify and ultimately undergo cross examination is a serious consideration. From what little I've seen of Heaton on television, I think they made the correct decision.

TheCars1986
09-29-2012, 10:32 AM
The decision to have a defendant testify and ultimately undergo cross examination is a serious consideration. From what little I've seen of Heaton on television, I think they made the correct decision.

Heaton himself could have testified to back up what Curtis Naab testified too...that the last time he was at the Naab residence was 3 years prior. But all that is a moot point now since the new DNA results show he's exactly where he belongs.

him2012
10-15-2012, 05:44 PM
Hey everyone,

I have never heard the rumor about Krystal and Stewart or a affair but I must say it does make sense.. Does anyone here have anymore information about the case??

WishfulDreamer
10-15-2012, 06:33 PM
It's also interesting that he continues to say there was no hair, fibers, fingerprints, blood, etc. found at the scene that connects him to the murder yet he offers no valid alibi for his whereabouts that day. He didn't even take the stand at his own trial, which I've also never been able to understand.
I distinctly remember RS narrating that Stuart did not take the stand because of his ''religion,'' an excuse which I think is a load of bunk Stuart made up; he probably just was afraid of cross-examination and doubted his ability to testify convincingly on the stand.

Cars, I agree with your earlier statement that the amount of wounds on Heaton does seem odd and you'd probably expect more of a fight from Krystal. But I think perhaps those wounds came from the beginning of the attack and after that she was too incapacitated/ already dead to inflict anymore against him. Maybe she tried to play dead or it was simply too late.


This was an extreme crime of passion, it seems, for one to stab another person so many times. I wonder if the wounds were to her womb area at all; that would express a potential anger at her pregnancy and a possible motive. They should have tested the DNA of the unborn child if they didn't to see if Heaton could have been the father. And I still wonder about my earlier theory that the sexual contact on her at the crime scene could have been evidence of forcible intercourse and the murder resulted from the anger of being spurned or something along those lines.

TheCars1986
10-17-2012, 03:43 PM
And I still wonder about my earlier theory that the sexual contact on her at the crime scene could have been evidence of forcible intercourse and the murder resulted from the anger of being spurned or something along those lines.

IIRC, didn't they say that Krystal Naab had not been sexually assaulted? I seem to remember them saying that the sex was consenual, but I may not be remembering correctly. I think it's possible that the sex was consensual, and that after the sex is when (pure speculation here) Krystal informed Heaton that she was pregnant which set him off into a rage.

WishfulDreamer
10-18-2012, 03:13 AM
IIRC, didn't they say that Krystal Naab had not been sexually assaulted? I seem to remember them saying that the sex was consenual, but I may not be remembering correctly. I think it's possible that the sex was consensual, and that after the sex is when (pure speculation here) Krystal informed Heaton that she was pregnant which set him off into a rage.
The segment said nothing about whether it was consensual or an assault, just that they'd found evidence of sex. But it does seem that they would have been sure to say if it WAS forced because that's a another huge part of the crime, so you are probably right. It's a sad thing to picture. She was three months pregnant, I think. That could have set him off that she'd waited to tell him or maybe she planned to keep the baby, tell his wife, etc. I find it a little odd that nobody knew about this affair if they were indeed having one, but hey, it would have been a secret to keep since both were in relationships with other people. Perhaps the idea of his wife finding out and having to support a kid set him off.

rarjake
02-15-2013, 03:15 AM
i knew this guy was guilty. 1/54,000 is pretty damning it self. but 1 in billions? when he said i didn't take the stand because of my 'religion'.

wiseguy182
02-15-2013, 08:53 AM
if you look back at the entire history of this thread, it's attracted a lot of one-time only posters. This also seems to be a pretty heated thread.

In any event, I know I'm in the minority here, but I'm still not totally sold on Stuart Heaton's guilt. It seems a lot of people are ready to hang him. Yes there is DNA evidence, but wasn't the sample crusty and degraded? And for the people that think he's guilty, why no mention of the guy with the white truck that was in the area that *did* know Krystal Nabb and had a long criminal record? Can you be totally satisfied with your beliefs now?

I think when he said he didn't KNOW Krystal Nabb, that meant he didn't know her well. To clairfy: He knew OF her, but didn't know her. I mean, if you've met someone once in your life, 2 years ago, don't know anything about them and haven't seen them since do you still say you know that person?

What else do we have on him? The cuts on his hand because he's a carpenter?

Could Heaton still be guilty? Sure. But I think at the very least, this other suspect needs to be looked and he never has been, some 20 years plus after the fact. I hope you would all agree with me on that one.

TheCars1986
02-15-2013, 10:07 AM
Could Heaton still be guilty? Sure. But I think at the very least, this other suspect needs to be looked and he never has been, some 20 years plus after the fact. I hope you would all agree with me on that one.

The other suspect, Ron Harre, was looked at. Taken from one of Heaton's appeals:

"At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Heaton also presented testimony from Paul Ledbetter, who claimed that he had evidence which incriminated a man named Ron Harre in the murder. But Ledbetter did not give this information to law enforcement or to Heaton's attorney before trial. The trial court found Ledbetter's evidence to be "entirely incredible" and discounted it; the Fifth District agreed. This factual determination is presumed to be correct and has not been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence."

Heaton's DNA matched, there was testimony at his post-conviction sentencing hearing that he had previously raped a young girl, and he did not testify on his own behalf at his trial. His witnesses who claimed to have seen him during Krystal's murder were picked apart on the stand and deemed unreliable, since they did not come forward until well after he was arrested and could not exactly for sure that they saw him that day (one witness also said they saw Heaton driving around town and recognized his truck because of the distinctive toolboxes in the bed of his truck; the toolboxes were not installed until after the murder). He had the cuts on his hands, drove the same type of truck seen at the residence, and had no concrete alibi for the time during Krystal's murder. Ronald Harre is an oddball, but besides some hearsay evidence about his violent temper, there is nothing to indicate he was the one that murdered Krystal Naab.

wiseguy182
02-16-2013, 01:04 AM
The other suspect, Ron Harre, was looked at. Taken from one of Heaton's appeals:

"At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Heaton also presented testimony from Paul Ledbetter, who claimed that he had evidence which incriminated a man named Ron Harre in the murder. But Ledbetter did not give this information to law enforcement or to Heaton's attorney before trial. The trial court found Ledbetter's evidence to be "entirely incredible" and discounted it; the Fifth District agreed. This factual determination is presumed to be correct and has not been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence."

Heaton's DNA matched, there was testimony at his post-conviction sentencing hearing that he had previously raped a young girl, and he did not testify on his own behalf at his trial. His witnesses who claimed to have seen him during Krystal's murder were picked apart on the stand and deemed unreliable, since they did not come forward until well after he was arrested and could not exactly for sure that they saw him that day (one witness also said they saw Heaton driving around town and recognized his truck because of the distinctive toolboxes in the bed of his truck; the toolboxes were not installed until after the murder). He had the cuts on his hands, drove the same type of truck seen at the residence, and had no concrete alibi for the time during Krystal's murder. Ronald Harre is an oddball, but besides some hearsay evidence about his violent temper, there is nothing to indicate he was the one that murdered Krystal Naab.

Heaton's DNA matched? Perhaps using an old, crusty, degraded sample that was small in quantity and had smudges on it. DNA cannot include people. That is to say, testing cannot speficially state whose DNA it is. It can only exclude people. The odds (which may have been calculated by a biased invididual) were roughly 1:52,000. Today, that would get laughed right out of the courtroom. No prosecutor today would have the chutzpah to try and convict someone on those odds in the DNA world. But the jury in the early 90's when DNA testing was new thought those odds are astronomical.

I'm not sure I understand how you can argue that the defense witnesses are totally unreliable since they didn't come forward until well after the fact when the alleged rape victim apparently did the exact same thing (not come forward until well after the fact.) You can't have it both ways. The toolboxes weren't installed until after the murder? Who put them there? I doubt Stuart since he was imprisoned hours after the murder and has been there ever since.

He had cuts on his hands? He's a carpenter. I was expecting his hands to be more cut up than they were. I only saw a few cuts that were minor. Heaton was arrested because he owned a white truck and he was found guilty because of DNA testing that 1) was done using a poor sample, 2) had incredibly weak odds, 3) the person caculating the odds may have been biased. If that doesn't bother a lot of people than that's pretty sad and 4) the prosecuting attorney said *he hoped* the DNA testing would implicate Heaton. I have an idea, why doesn't the attorney hope the DNA testing implicates the guilty individual instead of one in particular?

You are pretty quick to dismiss this Ronald Harre invididual, citing "some hearsay evidence about his violent temper." Puh-leese. The guy had a LONG criminal record. And again, why would this be classified as hearsay and not the alleged rape victim? You are trying to have it both ways.

I don't want to come off as unsympathetic to this alleged rape victim. If that happened, then that is horrible and I have sympathy for her. But I just don't understand you can totally believe her story while totally dismissing the defense witnesses without knowing more. And I'm not even saying that Heaton couldn't be guilty. But the case is hardly a slam-dunk.

That being said, I do wish there was more info about this case. I would like to see "The Investigators" episode on this, hopefully they will air it. Heaton said he gave a contracting estimate during the time period, it seems like someone should be able to back that up.

TheCars1986
02-16-2013, 02:45 PM
Heaton's DNA matched? Perhaps using an old, crusty, degraded sample that was small in quantity and had smudges on it. DNA cannot include people. That is to say, testing cannot speficially state whose DNA it is. It can only exclude people. The odds (which may have been calculated by a biased invididual) were roughly 1:52,000. Today, that would get laughed right out of the courtroom. No prosecutor today would have the chutzpah to try and convict someone on those odds in the DNA world. But the jury in the early 90's when DNA testing was new thought those odds are astronomical.

At the insistance of the Heaton supporters, his DNA was retested and shown that the odds were 1 in 38 billion that someone other than Heaton was the donor of the sperm found on Krystal Naab. What more evidence do you need?

I'm not sure I understand how you can argue that the defense witnesses are totally unreliable since they didn't come forward until well after the fact when the alleged rape victim apparently did the exact same thing (not come forward until well after the fact.) You can't have it both ways. The toolboxes weren't installed until after the murder? Who put them there? I doubt Stuart since he was imprisoned hours after the murder and has been there ever since.

You do realize that the rape victim was testifying at his sentencing hearing and not at his trial? Her testimony was to show the true character of Stuart Heaton. She testified that she was too scared to come forward because she had been drinking that night and didn't want to get her and her friends in trouble.

Heaton's 2 defense witnesses were picked apart on the stand. The man who claims to have seen him picking up an estimate at a hardware store initially told investigators (who were trying to verify Heaton's story) that he couldn't remember the specific date. Yet when Heaton goes to trial, he has a sudden memory resurgance and is certain of the date and time he saw him. From the trial:

Q: "So a more accurate statement is then, that it was some day Mr. Heaton was in to check on the estimate and you are not certain that it was July 23rd of 1991, is that correct?"

A: "Well I guess I would have to say that but I do know what the, what date the bid was prepared and it couldn't have been prepared any earlier than that."

The witness only verified that a bid was set up for a deck that day. He swore under oath that he could not remember if Heaton was in the store. The other defense witness when talking to investigator Gene Smith said she knew Heaton had passed her because "you can't miss his truck because of the tool box on it". The tool box was put in the bed of his truck in the evening (his neighbor helped him put them in his truck at 5:30) and yes it was a few hours before he was arrested later that night. He did not have the tool box in the bed of his truck when the witness claims to have seen him driving around town.

He had cuts on his hands? He's a carpenter. I was expecting his hands to be more cut up than they were. I only saw a few cuts that were minor. Heaton was arrested because he owned a white truck and he was found guilty because of DNA testing that 1) was done using a poor sample, 2) had incredibly weak odds, 3) the person caculating the odds may have been biased. If that doesn't bother a lot of people than that's pretty sad and 4) the prosecuting attorney said *he hoped* the DNA testing would implicate Heaton. I have an idea, why doesn't the attorney hope the DNA testing implicates the guilty individual instead of one in particular?

The new DNA results shut the door on this case. He's guilty.

You are pretty quick to dismiss this Ronald Harre invididual, citing "some hearsay evidence about his violent temper." Puh-leese. The guy had a LONG criminal record. And again, why would this be classified as hearsay and not the alleged rape victim? You are trying to have it both ways.

Why is there no evidence (like DNA for example) linking Harre to the crime? Long criminal records does not make Harre guilty of the murder of Krystal Naab. The rape victim was not hearsay. You can't get raped by a guy and then testify to what happened and have it called "hearsay". It's ludicrous to say that. She and three other girls testified at Heaton's sentencing about the rape and/or the attitude Heaton had towards girls and women in the town. Heaton apparently had a thing for younger girls, and when one would rebuff his advances, he would become belligerent and insult them. He even went so far to key a woman's car because she told him to buzz off.

I don't want to come off as unsympathetic to this alleged rape victim. If that happened, then that is horrible and I have sympathy for her. But I just don't understand you can totally believe her story while totally dismissing the defense witnesses without knowing more. And I'm not even saying that Heaton couldn't be guilty. But the case is hardly a slam-dunk.

It is a slam-dunk. And it's easy to dismiss the defense witnesses because what they told investigators initially is completely different from what they testified to at the trial! I can believe the rape witness because there were 2 other girls present at the time of this "party" who both verified the story. Heaton's defense witnesses simply think they saw him driving around the town when Krystal Naab was being murdered. There was also some testimony from one of Heaton's wife's co-worker who said that Heaton came by to visit his wife at her work (around 4-4:30) and said his wife remarked about how odd it was for him to visit her that late at work and that he had been acting strange. His wife also told investigators that he was wearing jeans and a t-shirt when he dropped her off at work in the morning, but when he came to pick her up he was wearing a long sleeved shirt and sweat pants. Why feel the need to change?

http://stuart-heaton.blogspot.com/p/trial-transcript.html

And for a shorter condensed version: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19940913_9999.il.htm/qx

There is NO evidence to support Heaton's innocence. None. Nothing was brought up at his trial that offered any concrete proof that he was innocent of the crime.

wiseguy182
02-17-2013, 08:22 AM
Are you changing your tune on this one? You went from thinking Heaton was being "railroaded big time" to on the fence to slam-dunk he's guilty. You're certainly entitled to change your opinion, but that's quite the transformation.

Also, and this is paraphrasing things you said earlier in this thread, but you said 1) you were bothered that there weren't more cuts on Stuart (and more severe in injury), 2) you were bothered that there wasn't any concrete evidence tying Stuart to Krystal Nabb, and 3) a bloody handprint found at the scene that doens't match Stuart, Krystal or her brother Curtis Nabb. To me, these are a lot of nagging questions for somebody that is supposedly very guilty.

And you also said that the baby was proved to be Stuart's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that was ever proved. She did have a boyfriend at the time.

You said the reason you changed your opinion was because Stuart didn't show any emotion. That is weaksauce.

I also don't think it's strange he may have changed his clothes. My brother's ex-girlfriend used to change clothes at least once a day.

Stuart Heaton was arrested because he owned a white truck. He was found guilty because of 1:52,000 DNA odds using a method later discredited by the person conducting it, using an old, degraded crusty sample minute in quality and with smudges on it, and 1:52,000 odds are incredibly weak in the DNA world. That just bothers me. I'm not an expert on DNA and won't pretend to be one. But I'm just not sold.

I want to know more about how the boyfriend was eliminated as a suspect. Stack just simply says he "was eliminated as a suspect." What's interesting to note is that the boyfriend owned a white truck, but Curtis Nabb apparently couldn't recall that, yet he was quick to point out that Stuart Heaton owned a white truck despite not having seen him in 2 or 3 years.

There are some interesting posts by people elsewhere in this thread.

TheCars1986
02-18-2013, 08:28 AM
Are you changing your tune on this one? You went from thinking Heaton was being "railroaded big time" to on the fence to slam-dunk he's guilty. You're certainly entitled to change your opinion, but that's quite the transformation.

That's not what I said at all. I said after watching the UM segment I thought he was beign railroaded, the Court TV special made me question his innocence, and the new DNA evidence (1 in 30-something billion odds that the semen found on Krystal Naab came from someone other than Heaton) is what convinced me of his guilt. The trial transcript affirmed that and made me believe it was a slam dunk case. I just don't understand why you feel the need to nitpick a post from over 2 years ago, when there have been a myriad of posts since then by me and others that have shown new evidence not presented in this case that leave little room for doubt about Heaton's guilt.

Also, and this is paraphrasing things you said earlier in this thread, but you said 1) you were bothered that there weren't more cuts on Stuart (and more severe in injury), 2) you were bothered that there wasn't any concrete evidence tying Stuart to Krystal Nabb, and 3) a bloody handprint found at the scene that doens't match Stuart, Krystal or her brother Curtis Nabb. To me, these are a lot of nagging questions for somebody that is supposedly very guilty.

I wasn't bothered by anything in this case. I found it odd that he didn't have more cuts on his hands, but then again I'm no forensic expert. Here's some testimony from one: "Photographs taken of Heaton on the evening of the murder showed "numerous small lacerations on his hands, a large laceration on the back of his right calf, and a small cut on his forehead." The pathologist who performed the autopsy on the victim testified that Heaton's wounds were similar to the wounds on the victim and that "both individuals exhibited 'pairing' type wounds that could have been caused by opened scissors."

I said it was odd that no one came forward and testified to knowing about an affair between Heaton and Krystal, since Krystal was a teenager and most likely would have confided in someone. That's hardly a "nagging question" about someone's guilt. And the bloody handprint could have came from one of the investigators or crime scene technicians. The handprint does not matter. Heaton says he did not know Krystal Naab. His semen was found on her dead body. There is no way to explain how his semen could have gotten on her dead body if he is truely innocent.

And you also said that the baby was proved to be Stuart's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that was ever proved. She did have a boyfriend at the time.

I never said that. I said my theory was pure speculation about the alleged affair between Stuart and Krystal. Her being pregnant with Heaton's baby was just a theory I had about a motive.

You said the reason you changed your opinion was because Stuart didn't show any emotion. That is weaksauce.

The new DNA evidence. It's strongsauce.

I also don't think it's strange he may have changed his clothes. My brother's ex-girlfriend used to change clothes at least once a day.

She wasn't involved in a murder earlier in the day was she? And did she show up at your brother's work unannounced late in the day acting "strange"?

Stuart Heaton was arrested because he owned a white truck. He was found guilty because of 1:52,000 DNA odds using a method later discredited by the person conducting it, using an old, degraded crusty sample minute in quality and with smudges on it, and 1:52,000 odds are incredibly weak in the DNA world. That just bothers me. I'm not an expert on DNA and won't pretend to be one. But I'm just not sold.

Did you not read anything in this thread about how the new UM updated this segment and said that the did a new round of DNA tests which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Heaton's semen was found on Krystal Naab? Why do you keep using the old 1:52,000 odds? The odds are 1:30-something billion.

I want to know more about how the boyfriend was eliminated as a suspect. Stack just simply says he "was eliminated as a suspect." What's interesting to note is that the boyfriend owned a white truck, but Curtis Nabb apparently couldn't recall that, yet he was quick to point out that Stuart Heaton owned a white truck despite not having seen him in 2 or 3 years.

At Heaton's trial, there was testimony from 2 different people (one of them IIRC was Curtis Naab's uncle) who testified that on the day Krystal was murdered, Curtis was out working on a farm and mowing lawns with his uncle and another worker. That's why he was cleared as a suspect. Unlike Heaton, he had an alibi. And unlike Heaton, his DNA wasn't found on his dead sister.

TheCars1986
02-18-2013, 10:56 AM
In response to those that believe Ron Harre was involved in the murder and that he was not investigated properly, there was testimony brought up at one of Heaton's appeals by Heaton's original defense attorney. There was grand jury testimony brought up about how Harre's brother owned a white pickup truck and that he knew the Naab's. But, there was also testimony that the brother's truck had a large cracked windshield. None of the witnesses who saw the truck at the Naab residence claimed to have seen a cracked windshield on the truck. They did not distinctive hubcaps and one man said he recognized the truck as Heaton's because of the hubcaps.

aln1975
09-25-2014, 12:17 PM
after reading all these comments i had to add another reply. first of all there were not 100 white trunks in the vacinity and second ramsey is not a city. ramsey is a very small community. and heaton did know krystal. as for why no blood was found in the truck the killer took a shower in krystals home. krystal fought for her life. i could see from the road the torn curtains. the cop even pointed it out to my father while we were there talking to him. not sure who the cop was as i was only 9 at the time. but the cop did say that whoever did it found the time to take a shower and clean up before he left so he must have had some idea how long krystals mother and sister were to be gone. they had went to the mall and had invited krystal to go. but she declined. that is what her sister told us.
So curious about you. I am actually family and know that cops were not greeting passing cars on the road telling what had went on in the home. I also know the kitchen curtains were not disturbed. I'm sure nobody reads this forum anymore as it is old news, however I just found it and your posts more than any bother me.

TheCars1986
09-25-2014, 12:38 PM
This forum does have a fair share of one post wonders...

aln1975
09-25-2014, 01:05 PM
I will probably be one of those one hit wonders. I just know some facts and am able to discount a lot of what that person posted. (Like mom and sister were at the mall and invited her along)

TheCars1986
09-25-2014, 02:03 PM
I will probably be one of those one hit wonders. I just know some facts and am able to discount a lot of what that person posted. (Like mom and sister were at the mall and invited her along)

By all means, if you have information related to the case, feel free to stick around and share it!

Usually we do get people who claim to know certain intimate details about other cases discussed on here, but when pressed, they disappear.

Welcome to the board, hope to hear what you know about the Heaton case...it's always been one of my favorites.

rarjake
11-16-2014, 01:17 PM
how does Anybody think this guy is still innocent. Maybe back then when people really didn't know what DNA was. But after the first test, said it was him, then they did do anther test, and it said it was him. How can they discount two dna tests that confirm it was him? I actually found a youtube channel that, is trying to drum up support for this guy. Really good case for a psychopath, and re-watching his unsolved mystery ep now. Can be useful to pick out body language. I like looking back at cases, where we now know the person was lying.

rarjake
11-16-2014, 01:18 PM
I also love , love, his reasoning for NOT taking the stand. "My religion teaches me to PUT your faith in god, and not in yourself, or one person" lol. classic reasoning.

Cori aka ChrisSCrush
11-16-2014, 01:45 PM
He didn't seem like a murderer to me in his interview, but I believe he is guilty. Not just based on the DNA, but what are the chances of his description, the truck's description, and his DNA all matching what was seen around, and found at, the murder scene? The DNA is just the clincher, as eyewitnesses can be wrong or mistaken, but there is just too much of a whole picture here, indicating him.

TheCars1986
03-16-2015, 08:40 PM
Bored today at work and I was reading through the trial transcripts of Heaton's trial. During their respective arguments made during the sentencing phase of the trial, Heaton's lawyer made an odd, cryptic remark...he said, "I think under the circumstance of this case, given his age, there was a horrible mistake made perhaps as the State alluded to, that it was merely a...not merely, but perhaps it was some passion involved in the crime that got horrendously awry. Court's aware that no testimony or evidence presented that, just basically saying I'm here and I think I can state what contact I have had with Mr. Heaton without breeching privileges. And he has accepted what has happened, I think. That's my interpretation. And..."

At that point the judge interrupted Heaton's defense counsel and was kind of taken aback that his lawyer was essentially admitting that Heaton has back handedly admitted to being involved in Krystal's murder. The defense counsel realized his mistake, and quickly moved to strike that statement which the judge granted. Just found it interesting.

ETA: Here is a nice breakdown of the case against Heaton, condensed the best way possible.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2Q6LFrrD8niZTZkMmJjMGQtMjkwNC00NWZlLWFlNDAtMzk5NGM1MWZlYzAz/edit?pli=1

It starts on page 34, and goes extensively into Heaton's background, character, and the murder.

DALLASTEXAN!!
06-22-2015, 04:50 PM
So I just watched this for the first time in a while. I don't think I ever saw the latest update with the 31 billion odds or whatever it was. I'm sure someone else mentioned this.....One thing that I found ironic was that his mom says that it wasn't only the dna that was used against him then goes on to incriminate him more in an effort to defend him.

And he sure did have an excuse for every hole in his story. The carpenter theory was bogus. My grandfather is an excellent carpenter and he doesn't have cut hands all the time.

WishfulDreamer
06-22-2015, 08:37 PM
So I just watched this for the first time in a while. I don't think I ever saw the latest update with the 31 billion odds or whatever it was. I'm sure someone else mentioned this.....One thing that I found ironic was that his mom says that it wasn't only the dna that was used against him then goes on to incriminate him more in an effort to defend him.

I'm pretty sure this was Krystal's stepmother who made these comments about DNA not being the only thing.Stuart's own mother was adamant that all the forensic evidence (hairs, fibers, blood, etc.) did not belong to her son.

My grandfather was a carpenter, too. I was never able to meet him, but every time I watch this segment with my mom, she also vetoes his comment about how all carpenters have to have cuts on their hands all the time.

DALLASTEXAN!!
06-22-2015, 09:40 PM
I'm pretty sure this was Krystal's stepmother who made these comments about DNA not being the only thing.Stuart's own mother was adamant that all the forensic evidence (hairs, fibers, blood, etc.) did not belong to her son.

My grandfather was a carpenter, too. I was never able to meet him, but every time I watch this segment with my mom, she also vetoes his comment about how all carpenters have to have cuts on their hands all the time.
Oh ok thanks for clearing that up that didn't make sense to me. For whatever reason I haven't seen this segment much or tuned it out.

Cool so both of our grandpa's are real carpenters and Stuart is a liar.

marlins3
12-15-2015, 12:00 PM
Heaton conceded he may have been a "poor carpenter". I still hold that Ron Haare is the guilty party. There are witnesses who corroborate Heaton's testimony. During the time a white pick-up was spotted at the Nabb trailer, heaton was picking up supplies and retrieving an estimate on a job.

LooksLikeCRicci
12-15-2015, 07:28 PM
How does one get past the DNA in this case? I was on the fence, but I can't overlook probability of 1 in 31 billion.

Stuart Heaton's ego is what did him in, in my opinion. Here's why: Based on the DNA found on Krystal's body, it's apparent that the two had some sort of sexual relationship. Krystal is dead-- she's not talking. WHY in the WORLD didn't Heaton just cop up to an affair? In that scenario, there's a reasonable explanation for his semen to be on her. Yeah, he's outed as a cheater. He's a bad husband, he's a bad Christian-- but he's not a murderer. At least that would have been the way I would have approached it, had I been his defense attorney.

But no. Heaton decides to go all in and say they never had a relationship of any sort. That's clearly debunked by the DNA. Since he lied about that, it puts everything his defense is putting out there into question. Why insist on a retest of the DNA if you are guilty? Ego. Pure and simple. Heaton's ego was his un-doing here.

DALLASTEXAN!!
12-16-2015, 02:00 AM
How does one get past the DNA in this case? I was on the fence, but I can't overlook probability of 1 in 31 billion.

Stuart Heaton's ego is what did him in, in my opinion. Here's why: Based on the DNA found on Krystal's body, it's apparent that the two had some sort of sexual relationship. Krystal is dead-- she's not talking. WHY in the WORLD didn't Heaton just cop up to an affair? In that scenario, there's a reasonable explanation for his semen to be on her. Yeah, he's outed as a cheater. He's a bad husband, he's a bad Christian-- but he's not a murderer. At least that would have been the way I would have approached it, had I been his defense attorney.

But no. Heaton decides to go all in and say they never had a relationship of any sort. That's clearly debunked by the DNA. Since he lied about that, it puts everything his defense is putting out there into question. Why insist on a retest of the DNA if you are guilty? Ego. Pure and simple. Heaton's ego was his un-doing here.
Interesting ensight there. This was one of those that I jaw dropped when I saw the update.

DALLASTEXAN!!
12-16-2015, 02:02 AM
By all means, if you have information related to the case, feel free to stick around and share it!

Usually we do get people who claim to know certain intimate details about other cases discussed on here, but when pressed, they disappear.

Welcome to the board, hope to hear what you know about the Heaton case...it's always been one of my favorites.
Haha interesting to troll post and never come back. Then there are the ones that change screen names...well I think it's happened once or twice.

unsolvedfan4life
12-16-2015, 08:07 AM
a carpenter without cuts on his hands is not a carpenter they are an observer and I'm a carpenter. this line was right up there with the Michael Jordan one. Still torn on this one if he did it he certainly is one of the most convincing liars.

TheCars1986
12-15-2016, 12:53 PM
Almost a year old bump!

Just curious if anyone thinks that had Stuart Heaton admitted to an affair with Krystal from the get-go, and admitted to being at her trailer at some point that day, if he would have been convicted. I'd lean towards no. He'd have an explanation for the DNA, he had an explanation for the cuts on his hands ("I'm a carpenter"), he'd have an explanation as to why people saw his truck there that day, and he'd have an explanation as to why he would have changed clothes from the time he left his house in the morning, to the time he returned later to pick up his wife.

WilliamHBonney
07-20-2017, 10:39 AM
Just saw the episode on AP yesterday,surprised how many thought he might be innocent from the interviews. Seems like a total creeper,he even lies about knowing her in his final statement in the interview. The 1 in 31 Billion info just confirms what I already assumed.

economistman192
07-29-2017, 07:49 PM
I'm a viewer who is seeing this case for the first time on Amazon Prime. I'm grateful that these message boards still exist, because with some of these cases, the experience of watching them is powerful and you want a place to talk, to vent, to hear what other people think.

This case feels like the stuff of nightmares. I have watched the segment twice and the other segment done on Tru TV. While I cannot say that Stuart Heaton is 100% innocent - I do feel that there is enough evidence to warrant a new trial. My hope is that if the evidence leads a jury to find him guilty, that he will continue to serve his sentence. But I just don't feel right about the information that has been presented in the two programs I've seen.

I watch Heaton and, as many other people, I've tried to get a sense from his body language whether he is telling the truth or not. My suspicion is that there may be another possibility: that he did have some kind of clandestine relationship with the victim, a relationship that had it been found out, would have destroyed his life, but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that he killed her. There is a sense when he is interviewed that he may be withholding something - which comes across as being dishonest and probably makes some people say, "he must be guilty, because I sense he's guilty of something." I suspect that with his fundamentalist background, he may have felt that he couldn't share whatever transgressions there might have been, in declaration of his innocence. Perhaps, as it has been suggested, he's done other things for which he is ashamed. Of course, this is entirely is speculation on my part.

I don't know where the other information is located that has been referred to here, I'd like to read about the women who came forward during sentencing and hear more about their stories- I'd like to hear what they said specifically. I also don't know where people are getting all this new DNA test information from.

I have to say, of all the impressions I'm left with from the program - I feel deeply uncomfortable with the prosecuting attorney in the case. Something about his affect is seriously off, as if he knows something is wrong here but he won't lift a finger to do anything about it, in light of the fact that there is a subject that everyone has been talking about.

It is hard to imagine what it would be like to spend the rest of your life in jail if you were innocent. Again, I'm not saying that that is necessarily Heaton, but I do think he deserves a chance for a jury to hear a balanced version of what took place on that day. I'm not on Heaton's side, but justice's side.

TripleG
09-06-2017, 11:21 AM
I just watched the UM segment on this one last night.

This was one I was on the fence on when I first saw the segment.

On one hand, I thought it was very suspicious that he wouldn't take the stand to defend himself because of his "religion". I've never heard of such a thing.

However, the UM segment portrayed the initial DNA test as there being room for scrutiny, with remaining evidence against him being circumstances.

The cuts on his hands thing always bugged me. I mean, I have cuts on my hands all the time, and I'm not even a carpenter. I'm just clumsy as hell. I mean how many cuts are we talking here before it becomes worthy of suspicion? I just feel like most cuts can easily be explained by something else.

And I couldn't get a good read on him either. Typically in cases where the lead suspect is interviewed, I can get a pretty good feel for if they did it or not. The Noe Family? Guilty as sin. Steve Marfeo? No doubt in my mind he did it. Donny Hansen? If he didn't do it, then I'm a monkey's uncle. On the other side of that, Rob Shafer? Even though his story seemed like something out of a movie, I actually believed him and never felt like he had anything to do with Angela's disappearance. Bob Bean? Yeah I knew he was innocent. He acted almost too smug to be taken seriously as a suspect.

But this guy? I just couldn't tell either way.

So I always felt "You know what? Grant him another test/trial or whatever and see if anything new comes up". Oh, the 2nd DNA test gave a 1 in 31 billion result?

Yeah OK, nevermind. He did it.

RobinW
09-06-2017, 11:51 AM
This is one Final Appeal segment where it did a fairly effective job questioning the evidence and drumming up reasonable doubt about the conviction, but I was just never left with the impression that Heaton was innocent and felt there were a few too many coincidences working against him. When I saw this case profiled on the TV series, "The Investigators" (and you can still watch this episode on Youtube), I started leaning towards Heaton's innocence because they spent a lot of time focusing on an alternate suspect. However, the fact that the new round of DNA testing pointed completely at Heaton made all the info presented on "The Investigators" irrelevant.

drew790
09-06-2017, 07:48 PM
This is what I love about these vintage segments, things we now know to be completely reliable but were in their infancy all those years ago.

An entire segment arguing "how reliable is DNA anyway?", I think even going as far as it call DNA "controversial". Like that "beware the message boards" segment or all the cults. Love it.

LilMissKryssy
09-06-2017, 09:29 PM
What?! He can't be innocent. All new rounds of DNA testing came back. Surprise!, it's him. DNA doesn't lie. 25-30 years ago DNA wasn't as understood as it is today. When your DNA is all over the crime scene....game over (unless your OJ Simpson of course).

Larielle
01-17-2018, 01:08 PM
Longtime lurker, first time poster...

I was watching this segment on Amazon Prime and wondered if there had been any updates...

I see a lot of people citing the latest DNA test as evidence of guilt -- but I still don't see how the results are reliable if it was based on a poor sample to begin with?

I haven't watched the other TV program that featured his case. Perhaps that will clear it up for me.

TheCars1986
01-17-2018, 03:14 PM
^ Regarding the DNA tests, some people (Heaton supporters) believe the sample was tainted, or that the lab screwed up and tested Krystal's DNA instead of Heaton's (which is why the results were so strong). Regardless, I don't know how anyone could read the trial transcripts and come away (DNA or not) thinking Heaton wasn't guilty as sin.

Larielle
01-17-2018, 05:21 PM
^ Regarding the DNA tests, some people (Heaton supporters) believe the sample was tainted, or that the lab screwed up and tested Krystal's DNA instead of Heaton's (which is why the results were so strong). Regardless, I don't know how anyone could read the trial transcripts and come away (DNA or not) thinking Heaton wasn't guilty as sin.

I guess I need to read those, as I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

He did come across mostly believable in the UM segment -- and the police piling on about minor cuts on his hands was just ridiculous, IMO -- but as the segment went on, something about him reminded me of Edward Norton's character in Primal Fear, like he was a smarmy psychopath who was just really skilled at putting on a good face.

LooksLikeCRicci
01-26-2018, 11:26 AM
Longtime lurker, first time poster...

I was watching this segment on Amazon Prime and wondered if there had been any updates...

I see a lot of people citing the latest DNA test as evidence of guilt -- but I still don't see how the results are reliable if it was based on a poor sample to begin with?

I haven't watched the other TV program that featured his case. Perhaps that will clear it up for me.

I have been ridiculously busy these last two weeks. Welcome! Glad to hear (well, read) your thoughts! :wave:

PerhapsIt'sYou
05-15-2018, 06:12 PM
I never had any doubt he was guilty. I'm amazed so many still think he is innocent

TheCars1986
05-16-2018, 05:42 AM
Just goes to show you what a TV show (like "The Investigators") can do to spin a narrative and paint it as the truth.

tsaun
05-16-2018, 06:05 AM
^ Regarding the DNA tests, some people (Heaton supporters) believe the sample was tainted, or that the lab screwed up and tested Krystal's DNA instead of Heaton's (which is why the results were so strong). Regardless, I don't know how anyone could read the trial transcripts and come away (DNA or not) thinking Heaton wasn't guilty as sin.

What were the biggest reasons from the trial transcripts that made you believe he was 100% guilty?

TheCars1986
05-16-2018, 07:02 AM
What were the biggest reasons from the trial transcripts that made you believe he was 100% guilty?

His defense at trial. He did not testify (which is not an indicator of guilt), but hours after his conviction, he made a remark to a reporter who was interviewing him which he commented about how Krystal's murder was some divine work from God. Plus, if he had an airtight alibi as he claimed on UM and did not know Krystal from Adam, he would have no problem with testifying on his own behalf.

His defense called 3 witnesses. The first was the DNA guy interviewed on the segment. The new round of DNA testing puts to bed any and all questions this guy had to the original testing. The 2nd witness was a guy who claimed to have seen Heaton at a lumber yard during the time frame the prosecution contended he was killing Krystal, but the prosecution brought up this guy's original statement to police in which he couldn't remember if it was the day of the murder or days earlier. The 3rd witness was a woman who was sure she saw Heaton driving in his pickup truck around during the time of Krystal's murder, and she was adamant that it was Heaton's truck because she recognized the distinctive looking toolboxes installed in the bed of his truck. The only problem? A neighbr of Heaton's testified at his trial that he helped Heaton install these toolboxes on the evening of the murder at around 5:30 p.m. Krystal was murdered between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. that day. So that lady did not see Heaton driving around during the time that Krystal was being murdered. She saw him after the fact.

There was also testimony from one of Heaton's wife's co-workers, who said that Heaton showed up, unannounced, at his wife's work sometime between 4-4:30 on the day of Krystal's murder, wearing a long sleeve shirt and sweat pants. His wife remarked to the co-worker that it was odd for him to change his clothes because when he dropped her off, he was wearing a t-shirt and jeans. The wife also told the co-worker that it was weird for Heaton to visit her at work (because while he was supposed to be picking her up, her shift did not end until 5, and Heaton never showed up that early to pick her up) and that he had been acting strange.

Also, after Heaton was convicted, at his sentencing there was testimony from 3 young women about incidents that happened prior to Krystal's murder. One was from a woman who rejected Heaton repeatedly, and then he vandalized her car. The other 2 testified to having a sleepover together when Heaton showed up with alcohol. At the time, these girls were 15, and Heaton was over 18. The girls and Heaton drank, and one of the girls got sick, and Heaton said he would help take care of the girl since he had some training in the paramedic field (IIRC). Heaton took her to a bedroom, and the girl passed out but then woke up sometime later to Heaton on top of her, raping her. Sometime later, Heaton left, and the other girl went in to check her friend in the bedroom, and she noticed blood on the bed and that's when she found out that Heaton had raped her friend.

tsaun
05-16-2018, 02:39 PM
His defense at trial. He did not testify (which is not an indicator of guilt), but hours after his conviction, he made a remark to a reporter who was interviewing him which he commented about how Krystal's murder was some divine work from God. Plus, if he had an airtight alibi as he claimed on UM and did not know Krystal from Adam, he would have no problem with testifying on his own behalf.

His defense called 3 witnesses. The first was the DNA guy interviewed on the segment. The new round of DNA testing puts to bed any and all questions this guy had to the original testing. The 2nd witness was a guy who claimed to have seen Heaton at a lumber yard during the time frame the prosecution contended he was killing Krystal, but the prosecution brought up this guy's original statement to police in which he couldn't remember if it was the day of the murder or days earlier. The 3rd witness was a woman who was sure she saw Heaton driving in his pickup truck around during the time of Krystal's murder, and she was adamant that it was Heaton's truck because she recognized the distinctive looking toolboxes installed in the bed of his truck. The only problem? A neighbr of Heaton's testified at his trial that he helped Heaton install these toolboxes on the evening of the murder at around 5:30 p.m. Krystal was murdered between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. that day. So that lady did not see Heaton driving around during the time that Krystal was being murdered. She saw him after the fact.

There was also testimony from one of Heaton's wife's co-workers, who said that Heaton showed up, unannounced, at his wife's work sometime between 4-4:30 on the day of Krystal's murder, wearing a long sleeve shirt and sweat pants. His wife remarked to the co-worker that it was odd for him to change his clothes because when he dropped her off, he was wearing a t-shirt and jeans. The wife also told the co-worker that it was weird for Heaton to visit her at work (because while he was supposed to be picking her up, her shift did not end until 5, and Heaton never showed up that early to pick her up) and that he had been acting strange.

Also, after Heaton was convicted, at his sentencing there was testimony from 3 young women about incidents that happened prior to Krystal's murder. One was from a woman who rejected Heaton repeatedly, and then he vandalized her car. The other 2 testified to having a sleepover together when Heaton showed up with alcohol. At the time, these girls were 15, and Heaton was over 18. The girls and Heaton drank, and one of the girls got sick, and Heaton said he would help take care of the girl since he had some training in the paramedic field (IIRC). Heaton took her to a bedroom, and the girl passed out but then woke up sometime later to Heaton on top of her, raping her. Sometime later, Heaton left, and the other girl went in to check her friend in the bedroom, and she noticed blood on the bed and that's when she found out that Heaton had raped her friend.

I leaned guilty when I saw the segment but now I'm sure he's 100% guilty.

Thanks Cars.

James T
07-19-2018, 10:43 AM
The sort of person you just want to slap-arrogant, full of his own perceived self-importance etc. His defence seemed to be they couldn't prove it was his DNA said with a smug look & tone in his voice, well there is no doubt now is there with the odds against it being his DNA four times plus the population of earth.