Post by hi224 on Aug 20, 2019 3:19:27 GMT
Just finished "Who Killed Garrett Phillips?" on HBO. I was blown away. I have watched many of murder docs and always get frustrated by one sided narratives and objectives by producers to make the audience see it their way (especially HBO).
I very rarely side with the forced narrative. I also have strong opinions on those who were convicted that claim innocent i.e. Adnan Syed and Steven Avery, both of which I feel are guilty. However, despite the clear objective of the producers to side with Hillary, I still saw at no time any evidence that proved he was the murderer, or should be considered the ONLY SUSPECT for that matter.
I needed to do more research on this topic to see how much the HBO produced DOC left out and after reading a few old articles (NYT, Grantland, and NPR) and watched both a Dateline and 20/20 piece on the subject (both featured an interview from Garrett's mother). I have compiled some interesting observations for both sides and have two new THEORIES on who may have murdered Garrett.
First I will point out something that 20/20 focused on that Dateline and Doc and the articles did not spend a lot of time on. Hillary's ankle injury. 20/20 said that it was not only scraped but sprained and Hillary admitted to it being sprained. Now I know that is not enough to convict him of murder but it was a significant omission.
20/20 interviewer Elizabeth Vargas was a lot of harder on Hillary than any other interviewers I saw, but Hillary again was calm and convincing when stating his case including heavy questions on whether he did it or not. My wife watching with me is convinced he didn't do it especially after the 20/20 interview.
Dateline was the only story that explained exactly how Garrett was strangled. It was suggested that he was pinned down and sat on while a choke hold was applied to his neck. Up until I heard that, I always assumed that he was strangled by hands not by a choke hold. This suggest to me that the killer could have already been in the house and snuck up on Garrett when he got home. Of course it is also logical that a much stronger adult would be able to put Garrett in a choke hold from any position, but I always found it odd that the timeline always assumed the assailant was let in by Garrett.
The one thing I have never heard or read about in this case is a plausible motive, nor what the killer would have to gain from this murder. The DAs motive for Hillary was so weak, and very out of character for him. The reason DAs gave for Hillary wanting to kill Garrett made more sense for someone like Deputy Jones's not Hillary.
Killing a little boy just because he didn't like you and broke you up with your girlfriend seems so far fetched. While possible it just seems like Hillary was smarter than someone that would just murder his enemy (in this case Garrett) at his home? What would Hillary gain by that? Revenge? That is really hard to see based on his interviews and the way he takes care of his family.
NOW THE NEW DA IN ST LAWERENCE COUNTY HAS SAID THE CASE IS NOT CLOSED AND THERE IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION
So with all that being said, Who are some new SUSPECTS that need to be looked at?
?
THEORY 1: A RACIST OBSESSED STALKER Race could have played a hand in this murder, but from someone who was disgusted by Tandy's relationship with a black man and wanted to take out this frustration on her knowing that the police would probably pin it on Hillary. It's a close knit town but that doesn't mean Tandy had a close relationship with the killer if this theory was true.
This man could have been stalking her, could have been obsessed with her, maybe he was in the house doing a panty raid, whatever it was Garrett was in the wrong place at the wrong time (which was his home). It is also reasonable to think the front door could have been unlocked, but even if it wasn't, it's still logical to think that Garrett would not lock the door behind him and the assailant could have just come in after Garrett.
Whether the assailant wanted to rape or kill Tandy, or just punish her, Garrett stood in the way of this plan. Everything suggests that Garrett was an athlete and someone who would fight back or not backdown from an assailant so it's possible he tried to fight the man off and because of this the assailant put him in a chokehold to subdue him not necessarily kill him.
Also no one mentions that in late October in North Country on a Rainy Evening its Dark by 5pm. So if he jumped out the back window he could have easily walked away with no one seeing him. After all, no one knew to be looking for someone. Also they lived in an open neighborhood and an apartment complex, it could have been a neighbor, but considering the cops only zeroed in on Hillary they were never looking at neighbors as possible suspects.
Also why didn't the officer at the door Knock it down? He had PROBABLE CAUSE to knock it down, but instead he waited 20 minutes for the landlord to unlock the door even though there was clearly someone behind the door not answering. Why did that cop NOT do anything, and why is no one making a bigger deal out of that?
This theory does not rule out Jones, only the camera timeline does. If he was walking his dog at 5:12 with the killer supposedly still in the apt at that time then he could not be the killer. Same for Hillary as he was with his assistant coach at 5:21. That is of course if the killer was actually still in the apartment like the officer said. It should be noted that it can't be ruled out that the officer heard Garrett fighting for his life on the other side of the door, which again I hope this is not the case because that officer should have knocked that DAMN door down! You could go crazy thinking about all the possibilities. Unfortunately for Hillary his alibis are pretty weak, but I am sure a lot of people in that town of 9,000 have a weak alibi too.
THEORY 2: The Knockout Theory. Everyone in town had an initial gut reaction, including the principal, that Garrett was killed playing Knockout, a game where kids Garrett's age during that time were putting each other in choke holds trying to knock each other out. Out of all the theories I heard this is the one that makes the most sense. From locking the door when the neighbor knocked to jumping out the window, all ideas a kid would think of. This explains no forced entry. This explains the finger prints that don't match anyone, etc, etc. Also an athletic 12 year old could easily jump down 10 ft to the ledge and then another 10 ft to the ground and not hurt themselves. The ground was soft from being wet too. I jumped many of fences when I was that age, and a kid coming in all dirty and with a limp in not something a parent would think twice about.
This is only a theory and again no evidence will prove this either, but if the cops were not so centered on Hillary it could have been something investigated further. Interviews with classmates, someone could have slipped said something.
That's what I have right now... what do you guys think?
I very rarely side with the forced narrative. I also have strong opinions on those who were convicted that claim innocent i.e. Adnan Syed and Steven Avery, both of which I feel are guilty. However, despite the clear objective of the producers to side with Hillary, I still saw at no time any evidence that proved he was the murderer, or should be considered the ONLY SUSPECT for that matter.
I needed to do more research on this topic to see how much the HBO produced DOC left out and after reading a few old articles (NYT, Grantland, and NPR) and watched both a Dateline and 20/20 piece on the subject (both featured an interview from Garrett's mother). I have compiled some interesting observations for both sides and have two new THEORIES on who may have murdered Garrett.
First I will point out something that 20/20 focused on that Dateline and Doc and the articles did not spend a lot of time on. Hillary's ankle injury. 20/20 said that it was not only scraped but sprained and Hillary admitted to it being sprained. Now I know that is not enough to convict him of murder but it was a significant omission.
20/20 interviewer Elizabeth Vargas was a lot of harder on Hillary than any other interviewers I saw, but Hillary again was calm and convincing when stating his case including heavy questions on whether he did it or not. My wife watching with me is convinced he didn't do it especially after the 20/20 interview.
Dateline was the only story that explained exactly how Garrett was strangled. It was suggested that he was pinned down and sat on while a choke hold was applied to his neck. Up until I heard that, I always assumed that he was strangled by hands not by a choke hold. This suggest to me that the killer could have already been in the house and snuck up on Garrett when he got home. Of course it is also logical that a much stronger adult would be able to put Garrett in a choke hold from any position, but I always found it odd that the timeline always assumed the assailant was let in by Garrett.
The one thing I have never heard or read about in this case is a plausible motive, nor what the killer would have to gain from this murder. The DAs motive for Hillary was so weak, and very out of character for him. The reason DAs gave for Hillary wanting to kill Garrett made more sense for someone like Deputy Jones's not Hillary.
Killing a little boy just because he didn't like you and broke you up with your girlfriend seems so far fetched. While possible it just seems like Hillary was smarter than someone that would just murder his enemy (in this case Garrett) at his home? What would Hillary gain by that? Revenge? That is really hard to see based on his interviews and the way he takes care of his family.
NOW THE NEW DA IN ST LAWERENCE COUNTY HAS SAID THE CASE IS NOT CLOSED AND THERE IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION
So with all that being said, Who are some new SUSPECTS that need to be looked at?
?THEORY 1: A RACIST OBSESSED STALKER Race could have played a hand in this murder, but from someone who was disgusted by Tandy's relationship with a black man and wanted to take out this frustration on her knowing that the police would probably pin it on Hillary. It's a close knit town but that doesn't mean Tandy had a close relationship with the killer if this theory was true.
This man could have been stalking her, could have been obsessed with her, maybe he was in the house doing a panty raid, whatever it was Garrett was in the wrong place at the wrong time (which was his home). It is also reasonable to think the front door could have been unlocked, but even if it wasn't, it's still logical to think that Garrett would not lock the door behind him and the assailant could have just come in after Garrett.
Whether the assailant wanted to rape or kill Tandy, or just punish her, Garrett stood in the way of this plan. Everything suggests that Garrett was an athlete and someone who would fight back or not backdown from an assailant so it's possible he tried to fight the man off and because of this the assailant put him in a chokehold to subdue him not necessarily kill him.
Also no one mentions that in late October in North Country on a Rainy Evening its Dark by 5pm. So if he jumped out the back window he could have easily walked away with no one seeing him. After all, no one knew to be looking for someone. Also they lived in an open neighborhood and an apartment complex, it could have been a neighbor, but considering the cops only zeroed in on Hillary they were never looking at neighbors as possible suspects.
Also why didn't the officer at the door Knock it down? He had PROBABLE CAUSE to knock it down, but instead he waited 20 minutes for the landlord to unlock the door even though there was clearly someone behind the door not answering. Why did that cop NOT do anything, and why is no one making a bigger deal out of that?
This theory does not rule out Jones, only the camera timeline does. If he was walking his dog at 5:12 with the killer supposedly still in the apt at that time then he could not be the killer. Same for Hillary as he was with his assistant coach at 5:21. That is of course if the killer was actually still in the apartment like the officer said. It should be noted that it can't be ruled out that the officer heard Garrett fighting for his life on the other side of the door, which again I hope this is not the case because that officer should have knocked that DAMN door down! You could go crazy thinking about all the possibilities. Unfortunately for Hillary his alibis are pretty weak, but I am sure a lot of people in that town of 9,000 have a weak alibi too.
THEORY 2: The Knockout Theory. Everyone in town had an initial gut reaction, including the principal, that Garrett was killed playing Knockout, a game where kids Garrett's age during that time were putting each other in choke holds trying to knock each other out. Out of all the theories I heard this is the one that makes the most sense. From locking the door when the neighbor knocked to jumping out the window, all ideas a kid would think of. This explains no forced entry. This explains the finger prints that don't match anyone, etc, etc. Also an athletic 12 year old could easily jump down 10 ft to the ledge and then another 10 ft to the ground and not hurt themselves. The ground was soft from being wet too. I jumped many of fences when I was that age, and a kid coming in all dirty and with a limp in not something a parent would think twice about.
This is only a theory and again no evidence will prove this either, but if the cops were not so centered on Hillary it could have been something investigated further. Interviews with classmates, someone could have slipped said something.
That's what I have right now... what do you guys think?
