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

[jslk]

I wonder why the attending police officer didn't just bust the door down? It is unfortunately restrained to wait for the landlord to arrive, as we can see with hindsight that the perpetrator would have been caught if the police had forced entry.

I hope that there are other leads to be pursued now, although, to paraphrase someone in the documentary film, other people have been allowed to melt away in the decision to just focus on NH - people who may have had injuries from jumping from the window, for example.

JJ asserted that the complaint made by TC of DV wasn't her words - who does he think wrote it, and why? And how were the two seemingly on such good terms when this had happened?

I am appalled at the racism directed at a couple of mixed ethnicities. Is this still the case?!

 

[mrazda71]

Waving my 'I just watched the HBO doc' banner ...

What a rollercoaster documentary that was!

Absolutely believe that Nick Hillary has the patience of a saint! He KNEW almost instantly that those 2 cops were trying to put words in his mouth and he did not play their game for a single second.

As was mentioned by his friend the lawyer ... if the person the police DECIDED had done it was a 16 year old for example, or of low intelligence, or reacted emotionally - this would be a very different situation.

My thoughts? Either it was another kid known to Garret OR someone was in the apartment (burglar or maybe someone with a infatuation for Tandy going through her underwear drawer hence the random bra) already and was disturbed by Garrett coming home and panicked.

Finally - a BIG well done to the blonde witness (I forget her name) who had the brilliant forethought to record her phone call with her the tyre changing bf (by then ex I imagine).

 

[Funky funky]

I’ve just watched the documentary, or should I say documentaries as I then watched the other two (Rear Window and The Accused) The HBO one I feel was more pro defence, I had originally felt sympathy with Nick due to the clear racism and also because i’m the daughter of a Jamaican immigrant and being from a small city in Ireland, my father was also the only person of colour around in the early years. But I digress, I’m sorry to say I think he did it guys. The ankle injury, the cctv at the school is all just too coincidental. Also, his statement analysis is off. The other docs are worth a watch, Hillary is sadly a liar and his alibi is inconsistent. What are your thoughts?

 

[mrazda71]

I’ve just watched the documentary, or should I say documentaries as I then watched the other two (Rear Window and The Accused) The HBO one I feel was more pro defence, I had originally felt sympathy with Nick due to the clear racism and also because i’m the daughter of a Jamaican immigrant and being from a small city in Ireland, my father was also the only person of colour around in the early years. But I digress, I’m sorry to say I think he did it guys. The ankle injury, the cctv at the school is all just too coincidental. Also, his statement analysis is off. The other docs are worth a watch, Hillary is sadly a liar and his alibi is inconsistent. What are your thoughts?

If Nick were guilty ... how does that timeline work?

Nick leaves the parking lot at 16.53 - Garrets neighbours call police at 17.07 to say they're concerned - police arrive at 17.14 - police officer says he hears footsteps inside possibly twice while he's waiting at the door - young couple fixing car below the window with the broken screen say (with the help if text timings) that they were there 4.45 - 5.20 - Nick arrives at assistants house at 17.21 ...

These timings don't work Nick couldn't jump out of a window, get back to his car, drive to Assistant's home and stroll in like everything's normal all in the space of 1 minute.

Even if we go back to the carpark, is 10 minutes enough time to drive to Garrets apartment, park his car, get in unseen through the front door of the main building, get into Garrets apartment and kill Garret?

The Ankle 'injury' was tiny and if I recall (can't find a photo) it was quite small and looked older than 36ish hours old too me.

Personally, John Jones is as stinky as the stinkiest of cheese but I think that there was someone already in the apartment when Garret arrived home... but, who

 

[mrazda71]

Dear American Sleuthers ...

Has Nick Hillary or anyone else (lol) ever taken a polygraph test? We don't do tem here in the UK but, I know you do there after seeing the Chris Watts videos ... it would certainly be interesting!

 

[Funky funky]

If Nick were guilty ... how does that timeline work?

Nick leaves the parking lot at 16.53 - Garrets neighbours call police at 17.07 to say they're concerned - police arrive at 17.14 - police officer says he hears footsteps inside possibly twice while he's waiting at the door - young couple fixing car below the window with the broken screen say (with the help if text timings) that they were there 4.45 - 5.20 - Nick arrives at assistants house at 17.21 ...

These timings don't work Nick couldn't jump out of a window, get back to his car, drive to Assistant's home and stroll in like everything's normal all in the space of 1 minute.

Even if we go back to the carpark, is 10 minutes enough time to drive to Garrets apartment, park his car, get in unseen through the front door of the main building, get into Garrets apartment and kill Garret?

The Ankle 'injury' was tiny and if I recall (can't find a photo) it was quite small and looked older than 36ish hours old too me.

Personally, John Jones is as stinky as the stinkiest of cheese but I think that there was someone already in the apartment when Garret arrived home... but, who

Have you watched the other documentaries? You’ll find a more accurate time line in those and a close of picture of the swollen ankle, yes, it was a small cut but there was also swelling around the area, the person who observed it said it was also fresh.

 

[mrazda71]

Have you watched the other documentaries? You’ll find a more accurate time line in those and a close of picture of the swollen ankle, yes, it was a small cut but there was also swelling around the area, the person who observed it said it was also fresh.

Hey Right, I've now watched the other 2 documentaries you mentioned and ... I'm still nowhere near convinced that Nick Hillary is guilty of killing Garret.

This photo of Nick's ankle was taken within 36 hours of the murder and this does not look like a fresh injury to me - it looks like a dried up scab that's been picked at around the edges.

The police covertly videos Nick and proclaim a significant limp - I see no such limp and neither do most people so police say 'well he wasn't as excitable on the side lines as he usually is' Well, maybe that's beca6 a child he has a connection too has just been found dead? IF he was his 'normal self' police would say 'a child he once lived with is dead and he acts like nothing is wrong' ...

The police - John Jones & cop chums especially decided that Nick did it and they convinced Tandy that Nick did it and they tried to get evidence to fit that instead of looking for the real killer ...

Lots of things have been twisted to make Nick look bad - Nick appeared in her apartment in the middle of the night' (makes you think oooh bad guy that's creepy AF! Right? ) BUT then we learn that she gave him a key! and that during the time of him being in her apartment that night, they had sex ...

John jones is the REALLY bitter ex of Tandy ' the one she says physically shoved her so she ended their relationship - the one she said had scared her kids ... she said no such things about Nick before her son was murdered.

Nick was an Army man, a sports coach and he patented with discipline and rules, her parenting style seemed to be fairly lax to me so it's no wonder Garrett 'didn't like' Nick but that's not indicative of hatred from either one or a reason that Nick would Murder Garrett. What would Nick gain from a pre-planned murder of Garett?

The finger prints on the broken screen were not Nick's but I think they are the killers ... and I still think that whoever killed Garett was already in the apartment that day before Garret got home. Garett disturbed them and they had to shut him up from yelling ...

 

[mrazda71]

Nick's ankle

 

[LillyGrace]

Joining the party from the UK, having just watched the documentary. Who killed Garrett Phillips. I must say throughout the 3 hours, 2 part documentary, I was torn in my opinions on whether Hilary was intact guilty or innocent. It wasn’t until about 10 minutes towards the end, where I formed the opinion that I believe he is innocent in this case. I can see a clear level of racism, which is actually disgusting yet so visible to anyone I think watching. I don’t necessarily have a theory as to WHO actually killed Garett, but I’d be interested in seeing what new leads there are. I hope that Nick Hilary can begin to rebuild his life with his family, his children who clearly adore him, and reclaim everything that he worked so hard for.

 

[Bart Versieck]

This has to be the worst case against a defendant that's ever been presented in a documentary. Terrible case, terrible defense team.

Also when Mary Rain stated that "she knew one of the jurors" and felt like they would present a fair defense...isn't that somehow a conflict of interests or at the very least reason to be removed from the jury? Yes...I know it was a bench trial, but just the fact that prior to that happening the defense attorney was a good acquaintance of a juror seems odd. But I'm no legal expert.

Indeed it is (or it should be at the very least in fact), but I wonder whether it is normal that the defendant himself could have the 10 people jury option axed in favour of one sole ruling judge, because then every murder trial procedure could be in jeopardy if that is the case, since such decision can be take at any time apparently, resulting in the system being regarded as foolish?

 

[Bart Versieck]

Joining the party from the UK, having just watched the documentary Who killed Garrett Phillips? I must say throughout the 3 hours, 2 part documentary, I was torn in my opinions on whether Hilary was intact guilty or innocent. It wasn’t until about 10 minutes towards the end, where I formed the opinion that I believe he is innocent in this case. I can see a clear level of racism, which is actually disgusting yet so visible to anyone I think watching. I don’t necessarily have a theory as to WHO actually killed Garrett, but I’d be interested in seeing what new leads there are. I hope that Nick Hilary can begin to rebuild his life with his family, his children who clearly adore him, and reclaim everything that he worked so hard for.

Full marks for this comment from you, my dear friend: I am also thinking along those lines, regrettably so, and moreover, why can both the sacked prosecuting attorney Mary Rain and John Jones (also a possible killer)/his brother/Tandy Cyrus (allegedly in her case) be 100% certain or sure that he did it, while there is no physical or which other evidence at all? And I honestly or really do hope that I'm wrong, but it's even possible that the so-called witness (who was flown in from far away Hawaii especially for the trail) would have been willing to commit perjury (= lie under oath) by claiming he saw Oral ''Nick(olas)'' Hillary standing in that window, this after being bribed (= given a large sum of money) by a member of the prosecuting team, so if the defence team hadn't contacted the private investigator who telephoned the man in question they wouldn't have had the dissimilar testimony from the woman who was with that guy at the time, since she wasn't on their list of witnesses for the defence: simply outrageous!

 

[Bart Versieck]

Nick's ankle

I just saw the two part documentary (first part last week on Monday, and second part yesterday) as well on the Flemish national television (=VRT): no evidence at all either with this, and why keeping Nick illegitimately at the police station, having already summoned him under false pretences, while he wasn't arrested, told he could leave at any time, but when he wanted to do so was stopped, had to take off all his clothes in order to be photographed and was being held not freely for several hours, after appearing for a short interview, or so he was lured by them anyway?

 

[Bart Versieck]

I watched the documentary and it is ridiculous that the police and DA wasted all these years trying to fraudulently make a case against Hillary with no evidence. They jumped off the track from the start by focusing exclusively on him.
When something happens to a latchkey kid at home after school, I think the odds heavily favor that student peers were involved in bullying or dangerous play. They never investigated that angle because they wanted it to be Hillary.

Indeed so, and, moreover, why would NH gamble on entering this building at that time of the day, if he knew that Garrett would be there in his room alone (this again does pop up the very important question of the whereabouts of his younger brother and mother at that time?!?), and by the way, why did JJ telephone some officer in order to ask whether Garrett had said anything?

 

[Bart Versieck]

Conclusion: they desperately wanted him to be the culprit (having former assistant sheriff John Jones as her also former partner and predecessor of Nick Hillary in their team only strengthened their goal and motives in that regard), even lying to him when he came voluntarily to them by telling him that Garrett had spoken the paramedics shortly before he died (but not revealing what this was), therefore purposely omitting to have the fingerprints of his classmates/friends/neighbours of a similar age to his being taken (at least for exclusion purposes) and most probably making themselves responsible for the real murderer being still at large almost a decade later on, i.e. in 2020! Also neglecting the testimonies of his assistant coach and oldest child, a daughter, trying to make up a time frame which would possibly get him.

 

[Bart Versieck]

What about the bra found at the scene? Whose was it?

This still strikes me the most: why didn't they do anything with this at all other than mentioning it was lying there, for a bra in a 12-year-old boy's room is not normal, is it (was it his mum's, and why would she leave it in his apartment?), so therefore I'm thinking along the lines of "a strangling game gone fatally or horribly wrong", which would imply a peer committing the crime?!?

 

[TTF14]

Just watched the documentary and I'm so glad it ended with him being found NG. I was really disturbed by that initial police interrogation. They were idiots. Trying to accuse him of lying because he said he doesn't watch CSI? He was way smarter than them. He showed extraordinary patience with that strip search. Good God. Then LE says "well he wasn't the only one to be photographed nude." "Who else was?" "Garret Phillips."

I don't know who is responsible here, but I know it was not Coach Phillips!

 

[Malene]

Wauw I just watch the documentary on HBO. Disturbing to say the least.
First of all what a tragedy the little boy lost his life. My heart goes to the family and friends.
My heart also goes to the man and his family that was accused and found not guilty. My god what a story.
Having just seen the one documentary and reading a few articles I really lack details of the situation/case. Like something is missing (beside a killer of course). With in mind that my knowledge is primarily from the HBO doc:
1. The actual crime scene - details like was anything out of place, missing, knocked over, broken etc.
2. Cause of dead stated (strangulation and suffocation), but where there any other injuries or sign of abuse. Was he killed by bare hands?
3. There is very little to none about other possibly suspect, like parents, immediate family. How they were ruled out.

There’s some really weird fix points from the prosecutions side:
1. Like the portrait of the mother as being so beautiful and attractive as it would be a motive in it self. Very little focus that it actually seems she lived a bit promiscuous - love-life wise. If they play the scorned boyfriend motive, there could possible be other suspect too that may not be obvious to the police, friends and family. Like online dates for an example. Don’t believe I heard or saw any theories on that nor that anyone looked that direction.
2. The theory of motive seems a little of. Presented the murder does not seem well planned (though someone got away). It seems more random or in the heat of the moment.
Random angle - a burglar maybe or a stalker/friend of the mother (whome the kid do not know and therefor can’t be explained why the person is in the apartment (the two latest BF’s having a key).
Heat of the moment- someone known to the kids/family where somethings getting out of hands. Maybe a BF who is absolutely not to be there and the child threatens to call the mother or something and the person gets desperate, grab the boy and silence him, maybe by accident.

If thoroughly researched I wonder what is most likely?

I think it’s very sad if police and family consider the case solved, but without conviction.
I hope the one day there will be answers and justice for this little boy.

 

[Seratonin]

 

[wrytergirl]

Follow up on the leads from last year Garrett Phillips revisited: 2019 leads in murder case fall flat

I finally watched the doc and reading this article which mentions no marks at all on Garrett makes me think neither JJ or NH were involved. An adult attack that is a crime of anger but leaves no marks? And what would either of them get out of it? Weird revenge?

It really seems like an accident, either with other kids or alone.

 

[Blanche]

just watched the documentary " Who killed Garrett Philips?" , my gut reaction is this didn't seem like a homicide, what evidence was there of it being a murder and not an accident? I would really like to read the autopsy report to see what was found, together with the fact that if it was a murder how was it possible to jump out of a window and escape with not being seen given the fact the neighbours were out there? also how did they get in without being seen?

where was the mother and the brother ? why were they not in the property at the time and where had they been during that day? so many questions