- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who Killed Garrett Phillips Documentary
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:48 pm
I watched the first of this 2 part documentary on HBO, and it was pretty good.
Anyone else seen it?
Anyone else seen it?
2
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:18 pm to MaroonWhite
I watched both parts. I think he did it. The judge was correct is his judgement though.
If he could explain his ankle injury then I make think different.
If he could explain his ankle injury then I make think different.
Posted on 7/28/19 at 7:13 am to FishQuiz
There was really no physical evidence tying him to the murder. You could definitely argue he had motive though.
I thought that the ankle injury wasn't all that consistent with a jump/fall from a 2nd story building though.
I think he may have done it but probably not.
I thought that the ankle injury wasn't all that consistent with a jump/fall from a 2nd story building though.
I think he may have done it but probably not.
Posted on 7/28/19 at 5:43 pm to FishQuiz
Did it go into STRmix results or the witness that saw someone with black/darker skin at window around possible time of death (I read in one article that defense had brought up a teenage neighbor with differing stories on whereabouts who had a visiting cousin that may have fit this description)? At the time STRmix was less established in the US than the competing method that was inconclusive and the company with competing method was a witness against its use. Judge didn’t allow evidence due to lack of internal review and that state lab used had not been approved to collect samples for this test, but it’s been more excepted in US lately. Ruling was correct on evidence (and even if allowed it would be hard to give it more weight with more known test being inconclusive), but I wondered if outside the legal ruling any opinions had changed about validity of this evidence after a couple of years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/nyregion/judge-rejects-dna-test-in-trial-over-garrett-phillipss-murder.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/nyregion/judge-rejects-dna-test-in-trial-over-garrett-phillipss-murder.html
This post was edited on 7/28/19 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 7/28/19 at 7:24 pm to dallastigers
quote:
Did it go into STRmix results or the witness that saw someone with black/darker skin at window
It did go into both of those topics. I think the judge threw out the STRmix results because he determined that there wasn't enough DNA material to adequately perform the test and the testing lab that did it wasn't certified to perform STRmix tests.
The eye witness didn't end up testifying because I think even the prosecution team thought he was lying. When he talked to the police at the time of the murder he said that he didn't see anyone. It wasn't until 4 years later that he came up with the story that he saw a black man through the window.
Posted on 7/28/19 at 7:43 pm to MaroonWhite
I think the guy did it, but he knew what he was doing and left no trace. Who else would have a single motive to kill this kid. The cops were idiots and went about questioning him all wrong, but it was clear by some of his bullshite answers that he had things to hide, but no hard evidence...
This post was edited on 7/28/19 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 7/29/19 at 10:43 am to MaroonWhite
I’m from that area, spent all my summers as a kid just north of there. It’s a ridiculously slow place. Beautiful, lakes and rivers everywhere. Worst winters ever framed against the best summers ever. Not known either for violent crime, or for solving crime. I’ve kept up with this case since the beginning and I thought the documentary laid it out pretty well. I can tell you the people of that area think Hillary did it. I always thought the NH “ motive “ was weak and I also think that if he did it he is one of the most convincing liars out there. His body language, facial characteristics don’t indicate guilt to me - just on intuitive feel. But I’m conflicted.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 5:19 pm to JCdawg
quote:
I think the guy did it, but he knew what he was doing and left no trace. Who else would have a single motive to kill this kid. The cops were idiots and went about questioning him all wrong, but it was clear by some of his bullshite answers that he had things to hide, but no hard evidence...
Just finished the doc and I'm curious what you mean by "bullshite answers"?
It's not unreasonable to believe that a well known soccer coach in the area would go visit his asst coach/good friend after viewing HS prospects in the area.
Also, I find it interesting that PPD didn't question any of the kids in that area. But immediately went after Hillary over what exactly? The fact that Hillary comes off as a heavy disciplinarian. I've known of plenty of coaches who fit that bill.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 8:07 pm to JBeam
I don’t think he did it. That ankle injury looked like a blister that would seem pretty damn common for someone who coached/played soccer. You can’t convict someone of murder because they took a left out of a parking lot instead of a right. It blows my mind that this ever went to court and I think Hillary was incredibly smart to ask for a bench trial in this situation. If he did it then he is one hell of a liar.
I’ve wondered if the kid walked into a robbery or something and perhaps this was completely random and all this time coming up with motives is a waste. I could see the other dude doing it, the mom had previously had issues with him and he sure did insert himself into the case very quickly and sat with her during questioning. I’m sure he also suggested Hillary as the perp. He came across as a sleazeball to me but that doesn’t make him a murderer.
Did anyone watch the other two they did? One on the girl who encouraged her boyfriend to kill him self and the other on a girl and her families worker found murdered in their house. The latter was really interesting to me because they were both murdered while the parents were home and the house was locked from the inside. No way someone to kill them and get out. I really think one or both of the parents did it.
I’ve wondered if the kid walked into a robbery or something and perhaps this was completely random and all this time coming up with motives is a waste. I could see the other dude doing it, the mom had previously had issues with him and he sure did insert himself into the case very quickly and sat with her during questioning. I’m sure he also suggested Hillary as the perp. He came across as a sleazeball to me but that doesn’t make him a murderer.
Did anyone watch the other two they did? One on the girl who encouraged her boyfriend to kill him self and the other on a girl and her families worker found murdered in their house. The latter was really interesting to me because they were both murdered while the parents were home and the house was locked from the inside. No way someone to kill them and get out. I really think one or both of the parents did it.
This post was edited on 8/5/19 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:04 pm to BigB0882
Just watched both episodes and I can’t believe this case actually went to trial. There was no evidence other than he turned left out the parking lot.
Could he have done it? Yes, but I honestly don’t think he did.
Could he have done it? Yes, but I honestly don’t think he did.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 8:07 am to BigB0882
quote:I remember one of the detectives making a huge deal about the coach having a "limp" while walking with his players during halftime of a game.
I don’t think he did it. That ankle injury looked like a blister that would seem pretty damn common for someone who coached/played soccer. You can’t convict someone of murder because they took a left out of a parking lot instead of a right. It blows my mind that this ever went to court and I think Hillary was incredibly smart to ask for a bench trial in this situation. If he did it then he is one hell of a liar.
While I think the whole interview/strip search of Hillary was complete bullshite. The documentary does not show when the detectives offered Hillary a cigarette. He then smokes it and washes the butt of cigarette off (However PPD was able to extract some of the DNA from it). One of the podcast on this case also mentions the fact that Garrett was previously seeing a therapist and her notes mention his hatred for Hillary. Also, they didn't show Tandy taking the stand.
quote:One of the random things from this case is the bra that is found in Garrett's room. It doesn't belong to Tandy. Some folks have suggested that this could have been a pedophile. While I find Jay Jones extremely sketchy and way too invested in a case involving an ex. I still lean toward this being a group of kids bullying and/or playing around with Garrett. The entire situation where the cop knocks on the door again and can hear footsteps on the inside is wild to me.
I’ve wondered if the kid walked into a robbery or something and perhaps this was completely random and all this time coming up with motives is a waste. I could see the other dude doing it, the mom had previously had issues with him and he sure did insert himself into the case very quickly and sat with her during questioning. I’m sure he also suggested Hillary as the perp. He came across as a sleazeball to me but that doesn’t make him a murderer.
quote:Watching this doc completely changed my opinion on this.
Did anyone watch the other two they did? One on the girl who encouraged her boyfriend to kill him self and the other on a girl
Posted on 8/6/19 at 8:52 am to JBeam
Prosecution had no evidence to remove reasonable doubt. Their biggest item was that he turned left when he left the school, and in no way does that prove that he murdered someone. Where was the physical evidence if he killed the kid?
I thought "I Love You, Now Die" was better that this one. Again, I think she was morally wrong but it would be difficult to send her to prison. It's like being at the bottom of the bridge and telling the guy to jump.
I thought "I Love You, Now Die" was better that this one. Again, I think she was morally wrong but it would be difficult to send her to prison. It's like being at the bottom of the bridge and telling the guy to jump.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 9:06 am to LSUGoose
quote:Exactly.
I thought "I Love You, Now Die" was better that this one. Again, I think she was morally wrong but it would be difficult to send her to prison. It's like being at the bottom of the bridge and telling the guy to jump.
Also, I find it interesting that he attempted suicide previously and the parents didn't setup any boundaries for him afterwards. I think the majority of parents would gps track, monitor text/google searches.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 9:56 am to LSUGoose
quote:
I thought "I Love You, Now Die" was better that this one. Again, I think she was morally wrong but it would be difficult to send her to prison. It's like being at the bottom of the bridge and telling the guy to jump.
Criminal solicitation or "encouragement" to commit a crime is illegal (see The Accused) - but of course, a State would have to have suicide as illegal on their books.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News