All Episodes Discussion

[pamplemousse]

If Boulder, CO is anything like a lot of other self-regarding social-climbing towns with quite a lot of rich people, I wouldn't be surprised if Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, that detective who spent a little time with the Ramseys and seemed to decide from the get-go that they were innocent and some intruder with a stun gun (or, if the DNA evidence exonerating the Ramseys -- according to Mary Lacy -- is to be believed, a "foreign faction" of 5-6 people with a stun gun) did it, all of them seemed to pander to the Ramseys' wealth, status in the community, and influence. I'm unsurprised that Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and other higher-up people in Boulder's judicial system would either be close with the Ramseys or have mutual friends -- they probably all ran in the same social circles.

[Ohmo]

Quote

The more I read  Stampiron's information about Burke, the more it sounds like he was dangerously jealous of Jon Benet. It seems more and more likely that he would act out against her after she was made the center of attention during the holiday.

I had this on my DVR and watched it last night.  I think it was Burke, either by accident or intentionally.  Too many things about the intruder theory just seem so outlandish to me.  Waiting in the house and writing the ransom note?  Coming up with the figure of $118,000?  I have 3 siblings, and I buy that Burke could have hurt her without realizing it.  I remember a couple of times as kids that we sustained injuries because we didn't realize that we were being as rough as we were with one another.

I also buy the possibility that Burke could have been jealous of JonBenet and killed her on purpose.  The potential staging of the crime scene and Patsy's past with pageants fit together in a weird way for me.  Pageants are productions, and Patsy had a lot of experience with them.  She knew how to project a certain image and tell a story.  The Ramseys were well-known in society.  If Burke were deranged enough to kill his sister, that's not something that a high-society woman like Patsy would ever want known.  Yes, the garrote is macabre, but the possibility exists that Burke was that deranged that he made a garrote or Patsy wanted to make sure that people would believe the intruder theory.  She had already lost one child and now the other was at stake.

The $118,000 is key to me.  A person's bonus is usually a very personal matter.  That rules out a stranger, and I think the police would have turned up something to connect someone from their circle.  That is a detail that Patsy would know.  Someone upthread mentioned that they couldn't see Patsy and Jon staging that horrific a crime scene.  To save your 9-year old who just killed your 6-year old might be a good reason.  This will probably sound horrific, but we have no way of knowing if Burke had the stun gun.  Maybe he got hold of it somehow.  This is really frightening, but Ariel Castro, Jeffrey Dahlmer, and Ted Bundy were all once children, too.  If Burke was mentally unstable to begin with, who knows what seeing his 6 year-old sister prance around on stage did to him?

No possible legit ID of an intruder has ever been made, and the stun gun and other items have disappeared?  John Ramsey could make that happen, and Patsy Ramsey could sell a non-specific intruder.

[Ohmo]

On 9/11/2016 at 11:27 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

As far as the ransom note goes, even if I believed that John may have dictated the tough guy lines to Patsy (and why not just write it himself?) I don't believe for a minute he would have her write that their daughter would be beheaded if instructions were not followed. Not for a second. But a kidnapper would want to put that horrible imagine in the minds of the parents to scare them even further. I did roll my eyes though at the cop who said that when they got the code black call, he and his partner 'saddled up' to go to the call. Talk about watching too many movies - westerns in this case, apparently.

But see, that goes back to the idea of perspective.  Just like the poster upthread who said that she couldn't imagine hitting a sibling.  I have two siblings who are relatively close in age.  We came from a happy home, yet those two fought like cats and dogs until they got to high school.  That included hitting each other at times.

If Burke had just killed JonBenet, for whatever reason, to save their son, sure I can see Patsy telling Jon, "Jon. we have to really sell this story or we'll lose Burke, too."  So, yeah, I can believe that they would come up with language that horrific if they felt it was needed to protect their remaining child.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ohmo

[ElleBee]

On 9/15/2016 at 5:51 AM, NewDigs said:

Wow. Does that happen as infrequently as I think it does?

I thought the grand jury was a kind of a gold standard for DA offices. 

Weighing in, since I was on a grand jury for a double homicide case. We also voted to indict the suspected murderer, but the DA decided not to pursue the case. It wasn't for any kind of "political" reason (the suspect was decidedly middle class with zero influence); the DA just didn't feel like he had enough, even though we did. Ultimately that was his decision, since grand jurors are allowed to hear testimony that isn't admissible in court, but it was frustrating nonetheless. After four months of missing work (luckily my company paid, though I had to work evenings after court to stay caught up. Many on the jury were self-employed and simply lost out on substantial earnings, or had to burn through all their vacation time and then go unpaid), spending endless days at the courthouse listening to witnesses, and thoroughly debating through our decision before deciding on indictment, the DA ended up essentially saying, "Thanks but nah, don't think so." I understand the rationale, but it was a difficult outcome to process, especially since the guy had clearly done it but had just lucked out since the most damning evidence he'd left was inadmissible. 

[nora1992]

I can't comment on the circumstances of the case; the only thing that is definite is the fact that someone got away with murder.

But watching this show, I have to ask: how close was the pilot's wife to the family, really?  In other words, was the relationship close enough that she was an invited guest barbecues, or was she allowed in because she picked up last minute but necessary items and the family wasn't totally boorish?  Not having followed this case beyond the headlines, I couldn't shake the impression that the pilot's wife held the Ramseys in some esteem, and was grateful for even the smallest crumb of attention from the family.  I hope I'm wrong, but was this a relationship a real friendship, or was it more like a fan club?  Can anyone add any details to this?

[Stampiron]

@nora1992 Both Mike and Pam Archuleta (her previous last name) were close friends with the Ramseys. Pam has often been described as one of Patsy's most loyal friends and defenders. 

[UsernameFatigue]

Wow, I just watched the A&E special and what an eye opener it was. It really made the Dateline show seem incompetent as reporters. And Josh even more so as an interviewer. Now there were a few things just off the top of my head that I felt when watching the Dateline show that showed his prejudice against the parents. First of all commenting on JonBenet's participation in pageants. That is his opinion and he should not be voicing it as an interviewer. Secondly when he said that the Ramsey's let the 11am deadline of hearing from the kidnappers come and go without mentioning it. It was in the police report that NO ONE mentioned it -  including the police were the ones running the investigation and had set up wiretap. Also the ransom money was ready to go at 7:30 am. The other thing that stood out to me at the time watching the show was Josh stating that is was unusual for a DA (Mary Lacy) to exonerate the Ramsey's without charging someone else. WTF? They were exonerated because of the DNA evidence that there was an unknown male's DNA on her tights in two places and on her underwear. People are cleared of crimes all the time because of DNA. The fact that the DNA has never been matched to someone as yet in the system is irrelevent. What an idiot.

The A&E show brought up many points that I did not previously know. The prosecutors listed 200 points that pointed away from the Ramsey's and towards an intruder. On the list they made, they themselves noted that the pineapple in JB's stomach could have been eaten the previous day according to pathologists.

The show also divulged that the special prosecutor who had been brought in to convene a grand jury petitioned to have the evidence that detective Smit (who was brought in by the PD to investigate) had collected, turned over and destroyed!! Yes, destroyed!! Because his evidence pointed to an intruder which was not where the PD wanted it to point.

They also showed actual photos of the rope round JB's neck. There are marks above the rope consistent with her scratching at the rope around her neck to try to breathe. This debunks the police assertion that JB was killed by a blow to the head accidentally, and the garrot added after to cover up. The blow came after the strangulation because if it had come first, given the amount of swelling in her brain, she would not have been conscious to try fight to breathe. Also consistent her being carried to the basement to be assaulted by the paintbrush which was right there, the garrot made with the paint brush, then hit afterwards. Also makes sense as to why the intruder would have taped her mouth to keep her from screaming. Several pathologists agreed that the PD theory was not possible given the facts.

The show talked also about the amount of lies that the PD 'leaked' to the media, including the assertions of sexual abuse. There was absolutely no evidence of prior sexual abuse. Smit himself in a previous interview said that when he was brought into the case he thought the Ramsey's were guilty, based on what he had read. Then he found out that much of what he had read were outright lies. Planted by the PD to bolster their case, and in hopes that the Ramseys would turn against each other. Honestly, (and this is not the first time I have seen this with regards to a PD) some of these members of the PD should have been brought up on charges of falsifying evidence. Because they did. Disgusting.

It will be interesting to see how CBS handles their turn at this case. But so far I would say Dateline did a piss poor job.

Edited September 18, 2016 by UsernameFatigue

[Court]

A&E was heavily biased towards the parents. 

Dateline was more balanced, imo. The pageant comment should have been left out but many then did see that as weird. I don't but bleaching your 5 year olds hair for pageants is over the top. But the rest of it appeared to present the evidence as balanced. The issue is some things can point to the parents and the intruder.

A DA has no authority to exonerate anyone. Only a judge can do that. The DNA only used 4 markers, 13 is the standard. It is highly likely a judge wouldnt even allow it in trial.

Smit's involvement and evidence is also a point of controversy. The DA that hired him believed he became too close to the Ramsey's to properly investigate the case. He actually went to work for them after resigning from the DA. Many believe he shared confidential information with them which he was not allowed to do.

The sexual abuse is dependent on who you ask. They truly don't know. While the vaginosis could explain signs of sexual abuse, that doesn't mean there wasn't any. A child can have vaginosis and be sexually abused. The vaginosis could have been caused by it. Or the vaginosis is common and there was no sexual abuse.

The Ramsey's used the media as much as the PD did. 

The police and prosecutors were at odds from the beginning for a few reasons. One was the DA doesn't try cases he can't win. A&E didn't mention that the grand jury had voted to indict on a charge. The charge was the one that the Ramsey's were involved in some way. 

[Ohmo]

Housekeeping question for my fellow crime show peeps: Are we discussing the CBS JonBenet presentation in the 48 Hours thread?  It's not technically 48 Hours, but that's the closest CBS franchise.  I won't be able to watch until tomorrow, and I want to know where to go once I have.

[Court]

57 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

Housekeeping question for my fellow crime show peeps: Are we discussing the CBS JonBenet presentation in the 48 Hours thread?  It's not technically 48 Hours, but that's the closest CBS franchise.  I won't be able to watch until tomorrow, and I want to know where to go once I have.

http://forums.previously.tv/forum/2694-the-case-of-jonbenét-ramsey/

 

There's a forum for it. :)

[UsernameFatigue]

3 hours ago, Court said:

A&E was heavily biased towards the parents. 

Dateline was more balanced, imo. The pageant comment should have been left out but many then did see that as weird. I don't but bleaching your 5 year olds hair for pageants is over the top. But the rest of it appeared to present the evidence as balanced. The issue is some things can point to the parents and the intruder.

A DA has no authority to exonerate anyone. Only a judge can do that. The DNA only used 4 markers, 13 is the standard. It is highly likely a judge wouldnt even allow it in trial.

Smit's involvement and evidence is also a point of controversy. The DA that hired him believed he became too close to the Ramsey's to properly investigate the case. He actually went to work for them after resigning from the DA. Many believe he shared confidential information with them which he was not allowed to do.

The sexual abuse is dependent on who you ask. They truly don't know. While the vaginosis could explain signs of sexual abuse, that doesn't mean there wasn't any. A child can have vaginosis and be sexually abused. The vaginosis could have been caused by it. Or the vaginosis is common and there was no sexual abuse.

The Ramsey's used the media as much as the PD did. 

The police and prosecutors were at odds from the beginning for a few reasons. One was the DA doesn't try cases he can't win. A&E didn't mention that the grand jury had voted to indict on a charge. The charge was the one that the Ramsey's were involved in some way. 

I thought just the opposite - that A&E was balanced and Dateline was heavily biased against the parents.

Of course a DA can rule out someone who has been a suspect, and then the DNA proves that they are not guilty. Happens all the time (at least in the many true crime shows I watch). Why would a judge even be involved if the person has not been charged? Also the DNA had 10 out of 13 markers, which is why it has been able to be entered into the CODIS data base. 

Yes, Smit did go to work for the Ramsey's after he left working for the PD as he felt that the parents were being railroaded, and that the PD was ignoring evidence that pointed to an intruder. Which was true, considering the special prosecutor tried to have his evidence destroyed! He was still working on the case on his own for many years after he retired, and right up until his death in 2010.

Several experts on sexual abuse were interviewed, as well as JonBenet's own pediatrician who had treated her for vaginosis. He said that as a pediatrician he was always very aware of checking for sexual abuse and saw absolutely nothing to indicate it. One of the experts who had said she was sexually abused found out later that she had vaginosis and said that had he known that he would not have said she was sexually abused.

The Ramsey's had to use the media, since they were targeted right from the start by the incompetent PD department who also planted lies with the media. Why wouldn't they? 

A&E absolutely said that the grand jury had voted to indict both the Ramsey's. And yes, the DA did not charge them because he knew he could not win the case.  Likely something to do with the 200 points that his office came up with that pointed to an intruder. 

[Court]

Just as the police didn't want to hear the intruder theory, the DA wouldnt listen to anyone who thought the opposite.  Maybe the police had 200 points pointing towards the Ramsey's.

You can have vaginosis and be a victim of sexual abuse. These are not mutually exclusive. It just muddies the water.

They only used 4 markers to identify it using touch DNA. 13 is the standard. 

Supporting that claim is Gordon Coombes, who worked as an investigator in the Boulder County district attorney’s office — though not directly on the JonBenét case — from 2008 to 2011. He joined the office under DA Mary Lacy when they were testing the victim’s long johns for “touch” DNA. According to Coombes, during this time, Lacy used to host occasional lunchtime sessions for the staff to make the case, internally, that JonBenét was killed by an intruder — which struck the former cop as odd.

“I was told when I went to the DA’s office, ‘Don’t voice against the intruder theory because you may be forced out if you don’t fall in line. If you don’t believe in it, just keep your mouth shut,’ ” Coombes tells The Post. “It just seemed weird the whole premise of … this attempt to influence the entire agency.”

There's a rumor that Lacey and John Ramsey were more than friends. 

[Ohmo]

The season premiere of a new Dateline season.  This case was atypical in that the significant other didn't do it.  Patrick was definitely guilty (as well as creepy).  Fifteen women is a powerful set of evidence, I don't care how unreliable eyewitness testimony often can be.

[JudyObscure]

Really, how could there be any question of his guilt? 

His pathetic little wife is "standing by him," so long as he's behind bars, but I'll bet she would be very afraid if he ever got out.  Her story of him liking to do a little light choking during sex didn't help his case at all.

I really admired the women realtors who listened to their instincts and refused to show him around.

Keith told him that he was hiding behind his Christianity and I think a lot of creeps are learning to do that in prison.  It's sickening to think this man was active in church and leading the music.  

[LGGirl]

His ticks were a tell for lying.   I saw a lot of them during the interview. 

[tobeannounced]

I vaguely remembered this case from another true crime show, but my memory is sufficiently bad that I really enjoyed this.  IDK if "enjoy" is a great word to use, but it was a good mystery.  Well, that even seems crass considering someone lost their life, but I hope y'all know what I mean.

He was a real piece of work, totally delusional.  I loved that Keith went off on him when he was talking about his ex-wife and said he had a lot he could say about her but wouldn't because he's a Christian.  I'll give him credit for sticking to his story no matter what though (eye roll).

[LakeGal]

I was glad they started the season with Keith.

I do remember this case from another show.  But we heard more about the victim in this one.

[Janc]

Glad a new season has begun. Gotta say though, those 2 hour versions try to give you so many red herrings that really just malign the innocent people they are trying to cast suspicion on. Like the fiancé who 'married' her while in her coffin - yeah that was weird but did that really have to be told to the entire viewing audience, how embarrassing for him now? Or the fake number that the killer gave in one of his house viewings, that ended up being a fax number for the wife of a guy who had a background in drug addiction and assaults.  They gave his full name, why?!? What about some privacy for these innocent people that have nothing to do with the crime!

And the scumbag killer, hiding behind Christianity in his 'innocence'.  And what happened to the ring? Turn up in a pawn shop?

Edited September 25, 2016 by Janc

[ChristmasJones]

I can't cite the source, but I recall reading somewhere that if a man chokes a woman during domestic violence (or other violence), it is likely that he may eventually go on to murder her. Essentially, women should take choking very seriously.

This case was interesting due to the incredibly strong consistent pattern he exhibited.

[UsernameFatigue]

As usual Dateline left several things hanging in the air without an explanation. They alluded to her engagement ring being stolen, and towards the end of the show said there were marks where it was taken off her finger. But both her friends and her boyfriend said the engagement was off, so I was wondering why she would be wearing her engagement ring if she was not currently engaged? But yes, was it ever found?

The animal lover in me spent the whole two hours wondering what happened to her dogs, as at the first of the show when the showed the footage of the police going to her home you could see their food and water bowls on the kitchen floor. Since they were never mentioned during the whole show as having been there when she was killed I rewound and saw one of the dogs inside jumping at the window when the police arrived. I wonder if she had put them in a room because this guy was coming over and then he let them out after he killed her? I can't imagine that they would have stood by and let him hurt, then kill her. But as is often typical of Dateline they were never mentioned, other than the boyfriend thought she should give them up for him. (Which for me would never have gotten him past the first couple of dates!).

[Albino]

2 hours ago, Janc said:

Glad a new season has begun. Gotta say though, those 2 hour versions try to give you so many red herrings that really just malign the innocent people they are trying to cast suspicion on.

ITA.  I was watching Shark Tank and switched to Dateline for the second hour.  So I missed the original exposition of the crime, but really...I picked up the important stuff in like 5 minutes.  Two hours is ridiculous for such a non-complex crime.  I mean...they had his tag number for God's sake.  And I loved that the woman wrote it down.

[Lizzing]

3 hours ago, Janc said:

Gotta say though, those 2 hour versions try to give you so many red herrings that really just malign the innocent people they are trying to cast suspicion on. Like the fiancé who 'married' her while in her coffin - yeah that was weird but did that really have to be told to the entire viewing audience, how embarrassing for him now? Or the fake number that the killer gave in one of his house viewings, that ended up being a fax number for the wife of a guy who had a background in drug addiction and assaults.  They gave his full name, why?!? What about some privacy for these innocent people that have nothing to do with the crime!

I completely see what you're saying, especially with regard to the second guy, but my take on the (ex?) fiance's story was different.  While I certainly can see how he'd be deeply embarrassed by the world knowing his straight up weirdness of a casket side 'wedding', I took it more as showing the audience that seemingly viable suspects can act all kinds of crazy, and yet still be not guilty.  Same thing with the coworker: the cops there said he "seemed too eager" to help.  He was another odd duck, but proved that being a little out of the ordinary doesn't equal murderer, and what might read as "too eager" might just mean the guy really wanted the killer caught and he liked the idea of feeling important in that task.

I did wonder about the dogs too, I don't know if I'd get past the "just lunch" first meeting with a dude who didn't like live in dogs, let alone get engaged to him.

As for the killer guy, if he was the guy behind freaking out at least 15 of the 30 women they brought in for the line ups, I kind of wonder if this victim was his only murder.  They didn't mention any other potentially linked murders, but if he choked out the woman for which he did a few years' time a good while before the killing, and cleaned up the crime scene so well, it'd seem like he could have killed others.

Oh, did they ever explain the hairs on the wet towel?  I can't remember if they tied up that towel they mentioned several times.

[JudyObscure]

4 hours ago, Lizzing said:

  Same thing with the coworker: the cops there said he "seemed too eager" to help.

Yes, after they went on and on about his weirdness I was expecting Norman Bates.  Then they brought him in and he really just sounded like a nice, slightly nerdy young man with a crush on a sweet woman.  I wish she had been engaged to him  -- he would have been there for her.

I always worry about the dogs, too.  The murderer might have just yelled at them and shut them out of the bedroom.  We always think our dogs would attack anyone trying to kill us, but highly domesticated, gentle dogs like her golden retriever mixes, would have a very hard time making themselves actually bite a human.  They would be worried, upset  and confused, but not likely to cross a "no hurt," line that's strong in their minds. I saw a case in the newspaper once, of a woman who was walking her Doberman Pinscher when she was attacked and knifed to death.  The dog was found later, shaking and upset.  With a few exceptions, most breeds have to be actually trained to protect his human beyond barking and snarling.  I know my Mini-Dachshund would bite, but she's a vicious little bitch who would love nothing more than to be fed Girl Scouts for breakfast. Still, one swift kick from an intruder would kill her so there's that.

[ButterQueen]

The hairs on the towel.  Could not exclude the killer, but could exclude the other 2 suspects.  Just added evidence.

[partofme]

23 hours ago, Janc said:

Glad a new season has begun. Gotta say though, those 2 hour versions try to give you so many red herrings that really just malign the innocent people they are trying to cast suspicion on. Like the fiancé who 'married' her while in her coffin - yeah that was weird but did that really have to be told to the entire viewing audience, how embarrassing for him now? 

I don't feel too bad for him, that was the creepiest thing ever.   Made me wonder what was wrong with him or if he was trying to claim an inheritance.    Was really surprised he wasn't guilty. 

[Court]

Patrick is delusional and a sociopath. He claims not to remember choking and almost killing the first person he actually confessed to? Claiming he's behind bars because he's a Christian? No, you're there because you're a murderer.

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 11:45 PM, Janc said:

Glad a new season has begun. Gotta say though, those 2 hour versions try to give you so many red herrings that really just malign the innocent people they are trying to cast suspicion on. Like the fiancé who 'married' her while in her coffin - yeah that was weird but did that really have to be told to the entire viewing audience, how embarrassing for him now? Or the fake number that the killer gave in one of his house viewings, that ended up being a fax number for the wife of a guy who had a background in drug addiction and assaults.  They gave his full name, why?!? What about some privacy for these innocent people that have nothing to do with the crime!

And the scumbag killer, hiding behind Christianity in his 'innocence'.  And what happened to the ring? Turn up in a pawn shop?

That bothered me, too.  Especially how the victim's friends went on and on about the fiancé's behavior.  They knew full well he was innocent by this time, yet they did their best to make him seem like the killer.  I'm also bothered by the lack of explanation about her dogs.  The dogs were jumping at the glass and barking aggressively when the cops arrived, yet they calmly watched their mom be murdered?  And if she'd put them away when this guy arrived to look at the house, how were they now free to be caught on video?  And why did a very busy and successful woman show her house to a stranger?  Did she list her own house?  Was she that cheap?  Why was she dating other men while wearing her engagement ring?  Why did her friends take so much pleasure in saying she didn't want to ever marry this guy?  Don't they realize they're making HER look bad?  These are questions that could have been answered if so much time wasn't wasted on red herrings.

[psychoticstate]

On 9/18/2016 at 9:32 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

thought just the opposite - that A&E was balanced and Dateline was heavily biased against the parents.

I agree.  I watched both and I thought the A&E version was much more unbiased in presenting all possible scenarios and sides.

[One Tough Cookie]

I was just coming over to post my Pam Hupp update but you guys beat me to it.  Let's hope this murdering bitch gets what's coming to her in this world as well as the next. Keith Morrison:  GET BUSY. We want an update!

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pamela-hupp-charged-with-murder-in-alleged-frame-up-tied/article_916845ac-de2f-5d1e-ae5d-2b11a25b7287.html

 

http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/pamela-hupp-pam-missouri-charged-louis-gumpenberger-russell-faria-betsy-russ-murder-trial-shooting-intruder-photos-st-louis-ofallon/

[PepperMonkey]

It makes me physically ill that Pam Hupp murdered a young man with traumatic brain injury.

I hope everyone in the state sues those prosecutors for ignoring her as a suspect so they could go after Russ.

I hope next time she tries to kill herself, she succeeds. Or barring that, I, who do not even believe in the death penalty, hope she GETS the death penalty.

I have never been so disgusted in my life as I am with this set of circumstances.

[Fable]

Discuss episodes and events not otherwise covered in this forum.  

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Fable

[Fable]

Did anyone see this weekend’s episode The Accused.  The mother’s ex-boyfriend (Nick Hillary) is investigated and brought to trial for the death of a 12-year-old boy, Garrett Phillips.  The prosecution is based on the fact that he was spotted at the school where Garrett was last seen alive, and apparently some of the friction in his relationship with Garrett’s mom was due to issues regarding conflict between Garrett and Nick.

I was undecided about this.  There were moments where I believed what Nick was saying, and yet I couldn’t get passed how conveniently he seemed to forget things as they were related to the case.   That said, I don’t think the evidence was strong enough to convict him, and I think he was smart to go before the bench rather than have a trial by jury. 

[LakeGal]

I watched this.  I started out thinking Nick was not guilty.  But as it went on I changed my mind.  I think he did it.  The video of his SUV following Garrett was very telling.  I also think he was not a very good liar.  He claimed to not remember why they broke up. 

[Albino]

I really enjoyed this episode although I never heard of it, despite the claim that it received national attention.  I do agree with the verdict but I think he could have done it, and likely did.

On one hand, there was no evidence and the fingerprints on the window were not a match to Nick. But really, who else would have a motive to kill a young boy? And his refusal to show the police his ankle 2 days later was a little iffy. (I wonder why they didn't try to match the footprint tread to any of his shoes?) And the footage of his car leaving the parking lot 30 seconds after the boy came through was also suspect.

It was really the most circumstantial case I've ever heard of. They probably should have waited until they got more solid evidence before filing charges.

I would have voted Not Guilty if I had been on the jury (if there had been a jury) but only because the prosecution failed to prove the case, not because I thought he was innocent.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Albino
Screwed up Nick's name.

[UsernameFatigue]

I think Hillary was smart to go with the bench deciding his fate rather than a jury. I can't imagine any judge finding him guilty based on the flimsy case presented. I watched this epi tonight and right after it watched 20/20's version of the same case. I think it was 20/20 that brought up two interesting points. The cop who came to the apartment after the 911 call said that while he was waiting for the landlord to bring the master key so that he could enter the apartment, he could hear that someone was in the apartment. It would have to have been the killer as the boy was unresponsive by that time. But at this time, while the cop was waiting outside the door, Nick Hillary was at his assistant coach's home. 

Nick left the parking lot just after Garrett did. He would have to have driven very slowly to follow the kid on the skateboard and wait for him to get home? Why not just abduct him along the way? Why wait for him to get into his apartment and show up right away? How did Nick even know that Garrett was going home? The mother said that Garrett went home because she told him he had to - he had been playing basketball in the gym (I think it was) but because he had not done his homework she made him go home. How would Nick know that Garrett was going to be leaving the school to go home? If his mother hadn't told him to he would have stayed playing basketball in the gym.

I can't remember if this was brought up in the Dateline show but in the 20/20 one the mother admitted that Nick had never been physical with her sons. Ever. Seems like a stretch that he would then strangle the kid to death? Also the story that she told of Nick coming into her house and bedroom in the middle of the night was a lie, which she admitted under oath. 

I don't know if he did or did not kill Garrett but I am definitely leaning towards not. It seemed again to be a case of the DA and the other guy she brought in trying to fit the evidence to who they wanted it to be. I am glad they lost. 

[biakbiak]

I wonder how bad his lawyer friend who handled the civil case felt after the deposition in that case lead directly to his arrest in the murder. I mean it does seem like there was a case if he was detained when he asked to leave when he wasn't under arrest and the different way they treated him when taking the pictures of the body compared to the cop ex-boyfriend but it was still extremely risky decision to proceed when he seemed to be the only suspect that the police were interested in.

I wonder if they are going to try to settle the civil case since the lawyer for the insurance company's main argument seemed to be that his rights weren't violated if he was guilty which I don't understand because even guilty people still have rights.

I kept going back and forth on his guilt and still don't know. The ankle injury and following him at the school were red flags but not enough to convict. Does anyone know why the assistant coach was so certain that he arrived at 5:21? That is such a specific time to remember a few days later.

I also thought it was interesting how the cops played the initial questioning. With Nick who the thought was a suspect they brought him into a large office and sat as you would with any meeting and we're laid back in the body language at the beginning until they began the tougher questions because they clearly wanted him to think they were looking for help and that he wasn't a suspect to see if he let things slip. Cut to the interview with the assistant coach who is put into an interrogation room with a chair isolated against the back of a wall and officers across the room (you couldn't see them on the tape), repeatedly firing questions at him even though they knew he was just a witness, I thought it was clear they were trying to intimidate him.

At the beginning of the show I thought the mother did it because they were only showing her head and shoulders and the orange sweater was so unflattering on her hat I assumed it was prison issued.

(I wonder why they didn't try to match the footprint tread to any of his shoes?)

They said because of the mud any comparison would be inconclusive because the impression of the footprint wasn't clear.

Edited October 2, 2016 by biakbiak

[tobeannounced]

Yeah, I don't think I could convict on this one either, but I'm not sure he's not guilty.  But who's to say the kid just didn't walk in on a burglary or something though.

[UsernameFatigue]

I thought the burglary scenario was just as likely as Garrett's mother's ex boyfriend killing him. Also given that the only evidence was unknown fingerprints on the window. He was killed within minutes of when he left the school - pretty much as soon as he got home. And the neighbour who called 911 said she thought she heard "no" and "help" but not arguing before hand. And if Nick was to arrive at Garrett's door at soon as he got home with the intent of killing the boy, why would he leave the door unlocked for someone to possibly hear something and walk in. Or the other brother arrive home? Not to mention that he would have taken the chance of people seeing his car at or near the building (no one said they did), and after he jumped out the back window would have to then go back around to the area where his car was parked, get in it and leave. With most likely the police on the way since if it was him he would have known that a neighbour came to the door to see if their was a problem. 

The 20/20 show also said that he had been a math teacher before landing the job at the university. And that his lawyers were paid for by a wealthy Hollywood producer - a woman who they interviewed - who went to his alma mater and believed he was innocent. The 20/20 show also said the benefactor paid the bail money, but Dateline said it was paid for by the army friends and from what I remember never mentioned the producer. The 20/20 show also asked his lawyers if they regretted launching the civil suit as that seemed to have led to his arrest but they said no, because he was innocent. I agree that they made the right move because he was under suspicion the entire time beforehand anyway so I think it was to his benefit to go to trial and be found not guilty. 

[Ohmo]

5 hours ago, tobeannounced said:

Yeah, I don't think I could convict on this one either, but I'm not sure he's not guilty.  But who's to say the kid just didn't walk in on a burglary or something though.

This is where I am.  I understand why he was found not guilty, but I'm not sure that he's innocent either.  The robbery angle just seems random to me.  Why that apartment?  I guess it could be argued that this was a robber's first robbery, and he panicked, but robberies often happen in a string.  That apartment house is also not that big, so even if Garrett's apartment is empty, you're going to take the chance that someone doesn't hear you rattling around in that old building?  The neighbors said they heard the boys roughhousing all the time.

The manner in which Garrett died is a flag for me.  What random robbery suspect knows a choke hold?  Why not bash Garrett's head in with the nearest heavy object?  People who've served in the military often know how to choke someone.  I think it's possible that Nick saw Garrett and was hoping to talk to him to air things out.  Something transpired between them, and it's possible that Nick just lost it.

For some reason, I buy the story of Nick picking Tandy up off the ground in that one instance, and I also buy the characterization of Nick as controlling.  It's not obvious, but something about him makes me think there's truth to that.  All of the "I can't recall" statements give me pause as well.

I understand the verdict.  I think the judge was correct to rule as he did, but I also think Nick likely did it.

[biakbiak]

I don't really buy the burglary angle because nothing was out of place in the apartment and 5pm on a weekday, in an apartment on the second floor on a fairly busy street in a small building just does not seem a prime target. The window screen was also pushed out from the inside and there was no signs of forced entry, it just seems very unlikely.

[ElleBee]

20 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Nick left the parking lot just after Garrett did. He would have to have driven very slowly to follow the kid on the skateboard and wait for him to get home? Why not just abduct him along the way? Why wait for him to get into his apartment and show up right away? How did Nick even know that Garrett was going home? The mother said that Garrett went home because she told him he had to - he had been playing basketball in the gym (I think it was) but because he had not done his homework she made him go home. How would Nick know that Garrett was going to be leaving the school to go home? If his mother hadn't told him to he would have stayed playing basketball in the gym.

I came to the same conclusion, but for a different reasons (though your reasons make a lot of sense too). Clearly Nick knew where Garrett lived and possibly even something (at least generally) about his schedule. Why then bother to "stalk" him at the school and follow him home? It would make much more sense for him to wait at the apartments, or somewhere nearby, where he could secretively see him come home and ensure he was alone. Following him home from school would have no apparent benefit and would only serve to expose himself to that many more witnesses.

I'm not sure of the new DA's intentions--maybe they were good--but it kind of seemed like she leveraged her campaign off of the hot button issue of a child murder. I got the sense that she was more interested in a campaign-promised conviction than she was about finding the right person. 

There were some parts that gave me pause, especially the left turn when he'd insisted that he'd gone straight home. I also agree he was cagey about the reason for the break-up, likely because the break-up was over the kids, like the mom said, but he knew admitting that would be detrimental. But I still don't think he killed Garrett. The evidence was just too light, IMO, especially since the finger prints on the window frame weren't his and there was no other physical evidence on scene or in his car.

Smart that he went with a trial by judge--if I ever get into a predicament, I think I'd be inclined to do the same. Juries just tend to be too unpredictable.

[biakbiak]

54 minutes ago, ElleBee said:

Smart that he went with a trial by judge--if I ever get into a predicament, I think I'd be inclined to do the same. Juries just tend to be too unpredictable.

I have always said that if I were innocent would go with a trial by judge (particularly if it's a totally circumstantial case), if I was guilty I would go with a jury.

Edited October 3, 2016 by biakbiak

[UsernameFatigue]

39 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I have always said that if I would go with a trial by judge (particularly if it's a totally circumstantial case), if I was guilty I would go with a jury.

The fact that Nick chose trial by judge also made me think he was innocent. Like you, if I were innocent I would go with a judge, if I were guilty I would go with a jury.

The apartment building also makes me think that Nick is more likely innocent. He and Tandy were still seeing each other after she moved in there, so he would be quite aware that sounds carried between apartments, and that at that time of day there would most likely be neighbours home.

However I am likely 60/40 that Nick is innocent, whereas I usually have a much stronger feeling in these cases one way or the other. The only thing I am 100 percent sure of is that the DA did not prove her case and the judge was right to declare Hillary not guilty. 

[FanOfTheFans]

I wouldn't have been able to convict either but I am not sure he is innocent. One thing that gave me pause was him showing up in the middle of the night standing over her bed after they had broken-up. That creeped me out but again it is not evidence to convict, although it gives me a gut instinct that he isn't as nice a guy as he portrays. 

[Court]

I think the new DA saw an easy conviction and was only willing to pursue Nick despite the flimsy evidence. Remember, he was the only black family in that town in a county that was 98% white. He requested a jury trial after 10 jurors were slected and they were all white.  I think they wanted to hold someone, anyone responsible for the murder and Nick was a convenient suspect.

The mom is the only one who said there was friction. The child psychologist Garrett was seeing said the child never complained about Nick. 

I think he is likely controlling but I'm 90% sure he is innocent. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Court

[CaughtOnTape]

On 10/1/2016 at 11:25 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

I think Hillary was smart to go with the bench deciding his fate rather than a jury. I can't imagine any judge finding him guilty based on the flimsy case presented. I watched this epi tonight and right after it watched 20/20's version of the same case. I think it was 20/20 that brought up two interesting points. The cop who came to the apartment after the 911 call said that while he was waiting for the landlord to bring the master key so that he could enter the apartment, he could hear that someone was in the apartment. It would have to have been the killer as the boy was unresponsive by that time. But at this time, while the cop was waiting outside the door, Nick Hillary was at his assistant coach's home. 

Nick left the parking lot just after Garrett did. He would have to have driven very slowly to follow the kid on the skateboard and wait for him to get home? Why not just abduct him along the way? Why wait for him to get into his apartment and show up right away? How did Nick even know that Garrett was going home? The mother said that Garrett went home because she told him he had to - he had been playing basketball in the gym (I think it was) but because he had not done his homework she made him go home. How would Nick know that Garrett was going to be leaving the school to go home? If his mother hadn't told him to he would have stayed playing basketball in the gym.

I can't remember if this was brought up in the Dateline show but in the 20/20 one the mother admitted that Nick had never been physical with her sons. Ever. Seems like a stretch that he would then strangle the kid to death? Also the story that she told of Nick coming into her house and bedroom in the middle of the night was a lie, which she admitted under oath. 

I don't know if he did or did not kill Garrett but I am definitely leaning towards not. It seemed again to be a case of the DA and the other guy she brought in trying to fit the evidence to who they wanted it to be. I am glad they lost. 

This is where I am.  There wasn't enough for me to say he did it.  In fact I don't think he did it.  Too much didn't make an sense.

As far as Tandy claiming he came in and hovered over her bed, mmmmmdon't think that happened.  She was the only person who claimed there were any issues with him.  He had friends so loyal to him that they paid for his bills to keep his head above water while he was on trial.  I mean...I love my friends but I dunno if I'd be paying their bills.  She was fine on Dateline, but on 20/20 she came off as very narcissistic to me.  Both of these shows made mention about her looks and how she was the pretty girl in town...I think she's been told that her whole life and likely something went on between them we will never know.  Don't know what that was but...she just came off weird to me.

[partofme]

11 minutes ago, CaughtOnTape said:

As far as Tandy claiming he came in and hovered over her bed, mmmmmdon't think that happened.  She was the only person who claimed there were any issues with him.  

Didn't Dateline even say that she admitted on the witness stand that this never happened.

[CaughtOnTape]

12 minutes ago, partofme said:

Didn't Dateline even say that she admitted on the witness stand that this never happened.

Did they say that? I missed it.  I did hear them say that she was the only person who ever made that claim that he'd done something weird like that.

[FanOfTheFans]

If she made that up, then shame shame on her. If someone killed my child, I would want the true murderer caught. You really have to be holding a grudge against a person to lie about them under these circumstances.  So she tries to get him convicted and in the meantime, the real bad guy is free?  If so, how pathetic.  

[JudyObscure]

Last night's, episode, "Death on a Lonely Road," was the worst example of strettttttching to reach 2 hours that I've seen.  I don't mind it too much if they're showing us lots of suspicious characters, but they spent the entire first hour just telling us that Brittany was really determined to find out what happened to her mother. 

Then we get the depressing lack of effort by the local police force.  Russell Adkins reports driving by and spotting a woman by the side of the road.  Find out the next day Adkins was actually the person last seen with her...in his car.  Victim shows no abrasions but her head has been bashed in by a blunt instrument.  Bloody pool cue found nearby.  Adkins works in a pool hall.  Police have no clue who the murderer might be.  Do nothing for 18 years.

Earlier yesterday I watched "Dr. Phil," which was about a 17 year old girl brutally killed while on spring break.  I'm getting really sick of men killing women.  You see the awful statistics but this show makes it all too real.