Unfortunately at the cost to Mr. HIlary and New York's tax payers, this case reflects more on what is a national problem coming to light after years of abuse. That is the problem of racial inequality. Sad that our country claims All men are created equal when in fact, they are not and that is true in 95% white St Lawrence County, New York. The prosecution's case has less to do with facts and more to do with votes.
6
I have no faith whatsoever in the Criminal Justice (Defendant Justice) system. Will we have another "Central Park Wilding" scenario? No physical evidence tying suspect to the crime, but a white victim and black suspect *demands* black suspect be found guilty.
5
It's not surprising that this case has attracted widespread interest, considering the recent instances of apparent racial profiling and possible police misconduct that have been saturating our media. And reliving the O.J. Simpson case on TV also reminded us that facts can be twisted by clever people. Yes, there is a stunning lack of solid evidence here, and it makes sense to forego a jury trial in a community where few could truly relate to Mr. Hillary's life story.
I grew up in Albany, which the NYT always calls "upstate", although it is central, the Capital, and rich in history, especially political history. Some fine journalists began here, including Andy Rooney, Jack Germond (older readers may
remember them) and Pulitzer Prize winner Gene Weintraub. Twisted NY state politics always makes you want to find the inside, nuanced story! Bravo, Mr McKinley!
I grew up in Albany, which the NYT always calls "upstate", although it is central, the Capital, and rich in history, especially political history. Some fine journalists began here, including Andy Rooney, Jack Germond (older readers may
remember them) and Pulitzer Prize winner Gene Weintraub. Twisted NY state politics always makes you want to find the inside, nuanced story! Bravo, Mr McKinley!
6
Following cases like this for years in print and on TV, several things have been startling to me.
One, the convictions that occur with little evidence and seemingly none that rises to beyond a reasonable doubt. Often people trust the prosecution more than they should, including being convinced that it couldn't be anyone else, with some convictions being overturned years later due to DNA advances showing yes, there could be and was someone else, sometimes a weird loner just passing through.
Second, how sometimes law enforcement &/or the prosecution develops tunnel vision, not letting evidence lead them, but instead ignoring evidence/leads that do not support their pre-determined conclusion.
Third, along with the second, the cases where a probable wrongful conviction has been achieved which now has or even then had strong evidence pointing to someone else, almost surely guilty, but there is an absolute refusal to re-focus on the true evidence (often due to the aforementioned tunnel vision, pride, arrogance, or refusal to admit a mistake.
How lopsided resources and the skill or lack thereof of the defense is allowed to be in favor of the prosecution unless someone is wealthy.
Finally, how much inconsistency there can be between judges. There are far few Solomons out there than the general public thinks.
One, the convictions that occur with little evidence and seemingly none that rises to beyond a reasonable doubt. Often people trust the prosecution more than they should, including being convinced that it couldn't be anyone else, with some convictions being overturned years later due to DNA advances showing yes, there could be and was someone else, sometimes a weird loner just passing through.
Second, how sometimes law enforcement &/or the prosecution develops tunnel vision, not letting evidence lead them, but instead ignoring evidence/leads that do not support their pre-determined conclusion.
Third, along with the second, the cases where a probable wrongful conviction has been achieved which now has or even then had strong evidence pointing to someone else, almost surely guilty, but there is an absolute refusal to re-focus on the true evidence (often due to the aforementioned tunnel vision, pride, arrogance, or refusal to admit a mistake.
How lopsided resources and the skill or lack thereof of the defense is allowed to be in favor of the prosecution unless someone is wealthy.
Finally, how much inconsistency there can be between judges. There are far few Solomons out there than the general public thinks.
6
Fingerprints found by the window were not able to be identified which makes me think the perpetrator was a juvenile as most adults tend to have fingerprints on file somewhere. Blood hound brought to the scene followed a scent trail in the opposite direction of where Hillary was alleged to have been.
5
Local beauty? Anyone who lives here knows she is the local tramp.... She has many and I do mean many boyfriends... Could be anyone of those men...
5
An all-around tragic case which as Mr. McKinley noted will probably never be over for some members of this community.
I read and re-read the paragraph stating there is no forensic evidence linking Mr. Hillary to the crime.
In this age of sophisticated crime scene evidence gathering and analysis, I am under the impression (mostly from reading articles such as this and tv) that it is nearly impossible to leave no evidence if one has been at the scene.
It sounds as though, as implied, this case should never have gone to trial.
Good luck to Mr. Hillary.
I read and re-read the paragraph stating there is no forensic evidence linking Mr. Hillary to the crime.
In this age of sophisticated crime scene evidence gathering and analysis, I am under the impression (mostly from reading articles such as this and tv) that it is nearly impossible to leave no evidence if one has been at the scene.
It sounds as though, as implied, this case should never have gone to trial.
Good luck to Mr. Hillary.
10
I read about this case in the Times, and unless something new comes out at trial, I don't see any case against Mr. Hillary. I'm thankful this is a bench trial, as I believe he will have a better chance at acquittal.
10
100% true.. This small corrupt town has already found him gulity! Not everyone is blind here. I believe it was the sherriff.. He has been caught in several lies from the begining.... Boys in blue stick together!
13
How can the DA simply pass on the facts of st Lawrence. County sheriff officer John Jones being a suspect. He was seen leaving the apartment at the time of the murder. His vehicle is on camera in the area at time of murder. He admitted under oath during this trial that he previously lied under oath in the past. The district attorney's office continually states that he is not a suspect. He had a key made to the apartment before he returned his supposedly only key he had to that apartment after his break up with ms Cyrus. Time to stop protecting one of your own. I think justice would be served if all evidence wasn't hidden.
14
The fact is, Mr Jones was not seen leaving the apartment on the day of the murder. That is a rumor that has not been proven factual. Also, can you provide a motive of why Mr. Jones would want to kill Garrett? Mr. Hillary had a motive, Mr. Jones did not.
6
Jones doesnt have a motive??? You mean to tell me that a white cop who's jilted infavor of a black man doesn't have a motive to lash out against the woman who jilted him? You can't be that naive...
5
Testimony by Garrett's psychologist suggests that Garrett began using racial epithets in the home, which prompted the therapy sessions. In light of this, I offer this scenario...which is 100% better and more logical than the prosecution's motive: Maybe... Nick Hillary really was scouting a soccer game, and saw Garrett by chance. Perhaps, Nick Hillary went to see Garrett that day to talk to him, maybe he had good intentions, maybe he wanted to smooth things over as a path to reconciliation with Tandy. Maybe Garrett got upset and used racial epithets, called Nick the N-word. Maybe this infuriated Nick. Maybe he put his hand over Garrett's mouth to shut him up? Maybe it all snowballed from there? (maybe none of this happened, but its certainly possible....my point being, why did I come up with this instead of the prosecution? Its a better angle than the one they used to lose the case with.)
6
Maybe, maybe, maybe is not evidence and certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
7
Certainly not, but it is certainly a better theory than what the prosecution came up with!
2
You're so upset with Nick Hillary not being convicted that you've made up your own case? Racist much?
I'll wait for your scenario as to how Jones might have committed the crime. *crickets*
I'll wait for your scenario as to how Jones might have committed the crime. *crickets*
1
Tragic case here. Well written. Anyone covering this story and learning the details, context and unknowns would be stressed I would think.
One of those cases where what little concrete evidence there is will be combined with the requirements of law - and with heuristics based on the judge's life experience - to reach a judgment. Hope reason and justice prevail.
One of those cases where what little concrete evidence there is will be combined with the requirements of law - and with heuristics based on the judge's life experience - to reach a judgment. Hope reason and justice prevail.
2
Whether he the victim was killed in "cold blood" or not is speculation, something that has infected this case too much. We don't know what the murderer's emotional state was, most likely an angry, "hot" one, which is the prosecution's theory. Cold blood murders are usually committed by stranger with no prior personal connection with their victims and in fact that very well may have been what happened here.
2
A school soccer coach murders his ex-girlfriend's son, because the kid didn't like him?! This man has to negotiate the emotions (resentment, obstinance, etc.) of his charges, teens and young adults, daily, but murders a child because of the child's feelings towards him? Seems like a real reach. The prosecution obviously had nothing. Does he have a history of abusing his players? There is no evidence, and there appears to be a lack of motive here as well.
16
This article highlights one of the major flaws of our legal system:
its inability to deal with probabilities. Given the evidence and circumstances, we cannot be certain whether Hilary did it or not. As Voltaire wrote, doubt is an unpleasant condition (especially for the victim's family) but certainty is an absurd one. But essentially tossing a coin is not the way to deal with doubt. There remain 2 options: (1) the traditional one of exculpation under uncertainty - seemingly more honored in the breach than the observance, and (2) the rational one: imposing a punishment that reflects the degree of uncertainty (eg 10 years' prison instead of 20). In any case it's clear that professional statisticians should be involved in almost all trials.
its inability to deal with probabilities. Given the evidence and circumstances, we cannot be certain whether Hilary did it or not. As Voltaire wrote, doubt is an unpleasant condition (especially for the victim's family) but certainty is an absurd one. But essentially tossing a coin is not the way to deal with doubt. There remain 2 options: (1) the traditional one of exculpation under uncertainty - seemingly more honored in the breach than the observance, and (2) the rational one: imposing a punishment that reflects the degree of uncertainty (eg 10 years' prison instead of 20). In any case it's clear that professional statisticians should be involved in almost all trials.
5
What an utterly ridiculous notion, so innocent people should serve time in jail based on the probability of guilt? That's also unconstitutional as criminal guilt must be proved overwhelmingly, that is beyond a reasonable doubt. If such probabilities exist then there is insufficient evidence as a matter of law.
24
The dystopian notion of us living under a dictatorship of experts like is suggested above, a scientistic fascist tyranny, is antithetical to our democratic values and has nothing in common with anything Voltaire stood for.
The state of evidence here is insufficient as a matter of law which is why the defense has filed a motion for a directed verdict.
The state of evidence here is insufficient as a matter of law which is why the defense has filed a motion for a directed verdict.
7
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." We do not play with odds in United States' jurisprudence. If there is any doubt the accused walks. He is not innocent but he is "Not Guilty." Your proposal would lead to the end of the legal system that has sustained our basic freedoms for centuries. How far would your system go? If there is a 1% chance I committed a crime that a crime that has a mandatory sentence of 50 years do I have to spend 6 months in jail to make sure justice is done?
10
The prosecution has never offered a credible motive. They say that Garrett didn't like NIck and Garrett's psychologist shot that down. It was conflict with other children in a blended family and the fact his school chums were making negative comments about Nick and Tandy's relationship that was making Garrett unhappy. There is no physical evidence or eyewitnesses linking Nick Hillary to the crime scene, and the that he wasn't there is supported by two alibi witnesses. Both Garrett's extended family and the police have a "feeling" that Nick was involved, but that isn't enough. The unidentified finger prints found in the apartment may solve this eventually.
22
Jesse, would it be possible to touch on the performance of the St. Lawrence County DA throughout the case, Mary Rain? Her behavior both in her role as DA and as a prosecutor in this case have been disgusting and I think that her silence during the proceedings speaks volumes. The woman needs to be disbarred by someone in Albany but no one has taken the initiative.
14
My congratulations to Mr. McKinley for this piece. As a supporter of Nick Hillary and someone who has attended every day of Nick Hillary's trial, I appreciate the article's even, balanced approach; but what I find really compelling are his accounts of the psychological effects on himself, which mirror, as he points out, the harrowing nature of this case. I, like Nick Hillary himself, believe that he is 100% innocent. But it's Mr. McKinley's approach that will help bring justice to this case, by asking questions and shedding light on dark areas of a community's soul.
29
Motive will be the most important factor. This was not a robbery. An angry, very strong person did this. If Hillary takes the stand, then I will be swayed.
1
The prosecution never proved motive. They made a half-baked attempt at saying that he killed the boy because he blamed the boy for the break up of the relationship with the mother. The trial is now over, except for the closing statements. Only an idiot would take the stand in a trial that he is going to win. I suggest you read all the facts about this case, and try being "swayed" that way.
24
Greg you say the you 100% believe in his innocents. I would like to get your views on a few points. if 100 % not guilty, why would he wash the cig butts and try to destroy them? Why not produce the close he was wearing? if some is "not guilty" wouldn't they do everything to cooperate. seems like he did everything not to cooperate.
2
This case is like a down south case in the era of slavery. The black guy did it. All signs point towards people involved in Garrett's life but have deep involvement in the aiding of Tandy, or maybe a classmate. There is no SOLID EVIDENCE, and the defense has set this up for appeal in many ways. Could you imagine if Nick did NOT have the financial backing of the lady with ties to SLU? He probably would've been in jail for awhile now and justice will not have been served. I am hoping the judge can see the lack of evidence and the waste of taxpayer money this truly is.
7