NY - Garrett Phillips, 12, murdered in his Potsdam home, 24 Oct 2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

SilentSleuth said:
Very interesting article regarding this case: http://www.northcountrypublicradio....s-justice-for-garrett-phillips-so-complicated
Click to expand...


What an interesting article indeed! I have just spent a huge amount of time pouring over different articles and reading comments. Although much of the comments are pointless or mean, I was interested in people's opinion who may be close to key individuals. I didn't really intend to...just fell into one wormhole after the other. And, after everything I've read, I am more convinced than ever that Oral Hillary may be innocent. This article does a great job of summing up just how "complicated" this case has become. I'm still not entirely convinced that Sheriff Jones is guilty. I'm leaning towards him, but really it could be anyone with a motive to enter the home.
One thing that really intrigued me is the information about the assistant coach. I knew he was one of the alibi witnesses, but until this article, we had not heard much about it. Some people think the signs that followed him downstate are creepy, but it doesn't bother me in that way. I see it more as possibly the desperate act of one of GP's family members...who clearly believe he is lying. That person needs to seriously question WHY he would protect the killer of an innocent child. It makes no sense!! Perhaps the person placing the signs needs to believe the assistant is lying, because the alternative would force them to find someone else to blame-someone they may not want to consider?
I find it even more fascinating that the police repeatedly tried to get Ian F. to change his statement. Again, why in the world would he protect a killer? They are not related, did not serve in the army together, etc... Are the police just so convinced he is lying, or are they trying to protect Jones?
 
Another good feature article, from July:

http://grantland.com/features/a-nig...on-university-trial-garrett-phillips-killing/

Garrett loved April Fools’ Day and cared little for video games. He was smart but restless, sweet but loud. He walked at 9 months. He rode roller coasters at 10 years old. He dominated on the lacrosse and soccer fields, but he was just as happy at the hockey rink — anywhere he could sweat and compete and surround himself with friends.

And on the afternoon of October 24, 2011, just after he finished playing basketball, Garrett took a call from his mother and rode his skateboard home from school. According to officers’ notes, surveillance video shows a child passing the hospital on a skateboard at 4:50:29.

About 15 minutes later, the neighbors heard a scream.
Click to expand...

Hillary's trial is scheduled to begin November 30.
 
This is the first I'm ever hearing of this case and I must say I'm absolutely stumped as to what in the world has gone on here!! The news articles are vague, the police claim to have, 'volumes' of evidence yet here we are YEARS later and just going to trial?

This is strange for sure.
 
http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Mu...-Out-About-Hillary-Trial-Delay-367402281.html

The mother of 12-year-old murder victim Garrett Phillips says she feels her family is getting "tossed aside" by the court and the judicial system with another delay in the trial of the man accused of strangling her son.

As 7 News reported Monday night, the February 16 murder trial of Oral "Nick" Hillary has been postponed for a third time after a closed door conference between prosecutors and Hillary's lawyers...

The trial delay resulted when Hillary's lawyers expressed concerns over whether prosecutors have turned over all relevant evidence involving DNA.
Click to expand...
 
OkieGranny said:
http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Mu...-Out-About-Hillary-Trial-Delay-367402281.html
Click to expand...

The very last sentence of the article, if accurate, begs a lot of questions. What is DA Rain trying to withhold from the defense? IMO if, whatever it is, was detrimental to Hillary, the prosecutors would have handed it over already. Especially since DA Mary Rain has already been to court over this issue. A judge had to instruct her to hand over "anything and everything" to the defense.
 
I am trying to make some sense out of the alleged timeline. Between the surveillance camera notes and Jone's statement, I'm having a hard time understanding how the prosecution came up with the specific times. It appears like they used Jone's statement, rather than the footage, to determine the timeframe of the dog-walking. A statement he made four days after the murder, and which he stated the times as approximate. This could be very important.

file:///Users/macbookpro/Downloads/Hillary+motion.pdf
 
GumDrop said:
I am trying to make some sense out of the alleged timeline. Between the surveillance camera notes and Jone's statement, I'm having a hard time understanding how the prosecution came up with the specific times. It appears like they used Jone's statement, rather than the footage, to determine the timeframe of the dog-walking. A statement he made four days after the murder, and which he stated the times as approximate. This could be very important.

file:///Users/macbookpro/Downloads/Hillary+motion.pdf
Click to expand...

http://media.wwnytv.com/documents/Hillary+motion.pdf
 
This is the first I've read of this sad story.

Strangling a teenage boy (he was 12, but looks like he could put up a very good physical defense for himself) is a very odd way to kill him. I would doubt anyone would choose to strangle him with their hands - there must have been a rope or other weapon involved?

What a messy case. If I had to guess, I'd guess Jones over Hillary as the murderer, but it doesn't seem certain either one are guilty.
 
As far as I know, there was no weapon found, or evidence of one. Most accounts say any markings were minimal. I agree, strangulation with barehands does seem odd...IF the murderer had planned this. My thought from the very beginning, is that this murder was not premeditated. And, I also agree that Jones seems more likely than Hillary, although it could very well be someone completely different. My opinion is that the poor child either came home, not knowing someone was there, or vice-versa; the killer entered, not knowing Garrett was there. I've done a bit of research on unintentional death due to 'restraint asphyxia', and I think it's a possibility. It happens when too much force is used in attempt to silence a person. There are bio-chemical reactions, within the victim, from the struggle, fear and panic, when the perpetrator is covering their mouth to stop them from yelling for help. (We can hold our breath for extended periods of time, when we choose to. We likely can't hold it for that same amount of time when in a violent struggle.) For me, the question becomes WHO had motive to trespass, and would be the kind of person to NOT call for help or admit it happened.
 
It took more than 30 months for prosecutors to charge him with second-degree murder, in May 2014 — and months more to secure a second indictment after the first was thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct. Despite the long pursuit, the case that a jury will hear this summer is far from perfect: There is a distinct lack of hard evidence, according to police testimony — no fingerprints, no witnesses, no hair or tissue samples, seemingly no conclusive forensic evidence at all connecting Mr. Hillary to the crime.

In the long lead-up to the prosecution of Mr. Hillary, his supporters have highlighted not only the absence of physical evidence but the lack of any plausible motive or history that would suggest he was capable of murdering a child. They have also said that another man, a local sheriff’s deputy who once dated Garrett’s mother, was removed from suspicion too quickly.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/nyregion/murder-of-garrett-phillips-in-potsdam-new-york.html?_r=0
 
The NY Times article linked some very telling documents. I suggest checking them out. In particular, the depositions of Tischler and Murray, deposed by Tafari for the civil suit. The chief appears to be saying that Hillary was a suspect/POI from the start, and that's why he was singled out. But, Murray states that the reason he went to Hillary's house the next morning was to just let him know what happened-as a "courtesy to him".
It's heartbreaking to keep reading over and over that absolutely no one else was even considered. And the only semblance of an excuse is that everyone else cooperated, except Hillary, since he invoked his right to remain silent until he had an attorney present. That weighed more than documented reports of physical violence, harassment and threats? It is maddening that they went as far as testing an alibi witness's fingerprints (Ian F.) but NOT Jones. Not that I'm totally convinced he is guilty. I'm not sure, but it seems as though he should have looked at in-depth. Instead, he was allowed to sit in with Tandy, at the police station, the very next morning. (I have always thought, that if he was indeed guilty, then insinuating himself as close as possible to Tandy, it would make it difficult for her to step back and view him as anything but supportive and helpful).

Still I have my doubts about Jones. A few things nag at me. It's interesting that the mother called Jones to go to the hospital before she got there. They must have been on better terms than in the past, but I suspect the main reason was because he lives literally across the street. Plus, as a well known officer, she must have known that the CPH staff would have communicated to him about the boy. (As opposed to some other ex-boyfriend just walking in and asking about her child.) I would imagine that if he had harmed Garrett, he would fear being identified. However, there is a possibility that he knew he was unconscious, since the attending PA called Jones around the same time that Tandy did, letting him know that Garrett was there.
The biggest thing that bothers me, is if it was Jones-sneaking around the apartment, would this incite a violent struggle? If Jones and Tandy were on such friendly terms, would seeing him make Garrett surprised or fearful? A stranger certainly would. It is quite interesting that Jones handed over a key, to be compared with any that might be found at Hillary's home. It at least confirms that he had a way into the apartment. The most infuriating thing is that Jones's guilt can easily and quickly be determined by testing his DNA and prints.
 
I know I touched on this before but, did anyone else notice that Rice's notes get weird when it comes to Jones walking the dog. In the lead sheet statement, he notes the time GP passed camera 11, right to the second. But when he notes JJ walking his dog, he does not put any time and uses vague terms "a few minutes later". Likewise, in the attached notes, almost all of the times listed include the seconds. Except the dog walking, which clearly says, '5:03 Jones returns home with dog carrying umbrella'. Incredibly, the time he left was not noted. Only the time he returned-sans the seconds. Also, all other lines seem pretty equally spaced but, this line looks squeezed in.(JMO) Even more perplexing, is that The police time-line puts the dog walking at a precise 5:12:33-5:13:47. They note the time-line differential as only 30 seconds slower than the radiology camera. Still no where near 5:03. Where did they get these times? Coincidently (or not) placing Jones on the walk at this time-frame clears him from possible involvement. Since we can safely assume that the killer was in the home from at least 5:07 to about 5:24, putting JJ on the walk, smack dab in the middle of that, gives him a solid alibi. On the contrary, if he walked the dog-and returned, much earlier then maybe there is a possibility that he left again (back door perhaps). Pure speculation, but the discrepancies are in black and white. It could mean little, or it could mean an attempt to clear JJ, because they believe he is innocent, or because they want to frame NH. No idea, but it makes me wonder.
 
GumDrop said:
I know I touched on this before but, did anyone else notice that Rice's notes get weird when it comes to Jones walking the dog. In the lead sheet statement, he notes the time GP passed camera 11, right to the second. But when he notes JJ walking his dog, he does not put any time and uses vague terms "a few minutes later". Likewise, in the attached notes, almost all of the times listed include the seconds. Except the dog walking, which clearly says, '5:03 Jones returns home with dog carrying umbrella'. Incredibly, the time he left was not noted. Only the time he returned-sans the seconds. Also, all other lines seem pretty equally spaced but, this line looks squeezed in.(JMO) Even more perplexing, is that The police time-line puts the dog walking at a precise 5:12:33-5:13:47. They note the time-line differential as only 30 seconds slower than the radiology camera. Still no where near 5:03. Where did they get these times? Coincidently (or not) placing Jones on the walk at this time-frame clears him from possible involvement. Since we can safely assume that the killer was in the home from at least 5:07 to about 5:24, putting JJ on the walk, smack dab in the middle of that, gives him a solid alibi. On the contrary, if he walked the dog-and returned, much earlier then maybe there is a possibility that he left again (back door perhaps). Pure speculation, but the discrepancies are in black and white. It could mean little, or it could mean an attempt to clear JJ, because they believe he is innocent, or because they want to frame NH. No idea, but it makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

Where do you see notes saying Jones returned home at 5:03? I don't see an investigator Rice listed anywhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 608 (members: 128, guests: 480)

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
480
Total visitors
608
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,268
Messages
18,237,012
Members
234,327
Latest member
EmilyShaul2
Back
Top