Quem Matou Garrett Phillips?

"Who Killed Garrett Phillips?" (2019 release; in 2 parts; 185 min.) is a documentary about the death if a 12 yr. boy in Potsdam, NY on October 24, 2011. As the movie opens, it is "Summer, 2010", and several neighbors talk about the 12 yr. old boy, his brother and his single mom moving into the apartment building, keeping to themselves. Then on that fateful day in 2011, the neighbors hear some noises next door, including a cry for "no!" and "help". One of the neighbors calls 911, and within minutes, the police is there. But no-one answers the door... At this point we are 10 min. into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is the latest documentary from producer-director Liz Garbus, a well-respected and award winning documentarion whose previous work includes "Bobby Fisher Against the World" and "There's Something Wrong With Aunt Diane", among many others. Here she brings the true crime story of the mysterious death (by strangulation) of 12 yr. old Garrett, and the subsequent investigation of a black man (who happens to have dated the boy's mom in the previous year), to the exclusion of other options or possibilities, and despite the scant evidence. It is, frankly, shocking to see it all develop and play out. Part 1 (80 min.) looks at the investigation, and Part 2 (105 min.) zeroes in at the eventual trial and its aftermath. Potsdam's local police and district attorneys (yes, plural) come out bruised and battered in this documentary, and have no-one but themselves to blame for that. If it wasn't for the actual footage that we watch, it wouldn't be believable. Check out the scene in part 1, where the suspect is tricked into coming to the police station, and then is prevented (in multiple ways and with a slew of lies and tricks) from leaving for 8 hours, even though he is "not under arrest". The underlying bias (if not racism) to focus almost exclusively on this suspect is obvious to all. Meanwhile, the director gives each side prominent screen time to explain what happened, and amazingly the local police and prosecuting team all do it with a straight face. For shame. If you are worried that the documentary's running time of just over 3 hours seems a bit long, let me reassure you that it is not too long, and in fact these 3 hours flew by in no time (for me anyway). Yes, there is that much ground to cover.

"Who Killed Garrett Phillips?" premiered this week on HBO (and is now available at HBO On Demand), as part of HBO's excellent summer series of true crime documentaries. If you love a good documentary or true crime stories, I'd readily suggest you check this out, be it on VOD or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

Moto of this story. If your black in redneck Banjo country move out. No need for pioneers. John jones has a lot to answer.

This is startling to watch. My heart bleeds for Mr. Hillary and to the young victim in this case, Garrett; neither of which are given justice. The law enforcement officers illegally and blatantly ignored Mr. Hillary's miranda rights and held him without a warrant and he wasn't even under arrest.This is a grievous miscarriage of justice. Somehow though, this arrogant cop who interviewed him has the audacity to paint Mr. Hillary as something else when the video clearly shows the pose, respect, and restraint he had towards the officers during this cruel strip search.

Justice for Garrett! Arrest ALL these corrupt cops.

A video surveillance camera showing briefly the victim riding his skateboard on a sidewalk and the defendant's SUV turning left instead of right from a school. That was basically the entire case against defendant Nick Hillary in the killing of a pre-adolescent boy, Garrett Phillips. Everything else was conjecture which had no supporting evidence. If that's enough evidence to bring a case to trial, we still have serious problems with our justice system. It seems the case should have been thrown out immediately, which actually it was initially.

In 2011, a pre-adolescent boy residing with his single mom was murdered in their small apartment in Potsdam, NY, a mostly white small town in Upstate New York. He was alone at home except with the killer(s). Some neighbors working on a car outside heard strange noises but didn't see anything. No one saw anyone enter or leave the apartment, except one of the windows were broken from the inside, which was the only trace of physical evidence of the killer, save the dead boy, who was determined to have been strangled.

Garrett's single mother, Tandy Cyrus, had had two relationships before the murder. One with a deputy sheriff, John Jones, and the other with a black soccer coach, Nick Hillary. For all intents and purposes, Hillary and Cyrus had broken up about a month before the murder. The locals of Potsdam become obsessed with the case, putting signs all over NY state "Justice of Garrett".

What the documentary shows concerning the investigation is the local police's and eventual prosecution's obsession with only one suspect: Nick Hillary. And yet they could find no evidence against Hillary at the crime scene. Even before the end of the night of the murder, the police decided they were convinced it was Nick Hillary. They even bring him in for questioning before they've explored all leads. Interestingly, John Jones, a local sheriff's deputy, was not only seen near the crime scene on the day and near the time of the murder, but his ex-girlfriend Cyrus had written a statement saying she feared Jones. He became heavily involved in the case. It seems maybe he should have recused himself from the case because of his relationship with the victim's mother.

They interrogate Hillary shortly after the murder, claiming they want information about his soccer team. When they start asking him questions about his whereabouts at the time of the murder, he becomes defensive. They also take his cell phone, behaving as if he's under arrest. I thought law enforcement couldn't deprive someone of their property unless they're being indicted or under arrest.

Interestingly, during the entire time, Nick Hillary seems very composed for a guy supposedly who had just killed a boy. They even interview his coaching assistant asking him over and over again if Hillary seemed agitated the day after the murder, and over and over again, the coach says he didn't. During the trial, they paint Hillary as this man obsessed with Cyrus who sought revenge for their break-up by murdering her son. If he was, I didn't see the prosecution's evidence that this was true, except for when Hillary becomes agitated, naturally, with his interrogation.

A poignant documentary about the trouble with rush-to-judgements and a public obsessed with "justice". Justice should mean finding and indicting the right person who is guilty of the crime, not just indicting a scapegoat to satisfy the public's need for closure. Even in one of the final interviews of one of the prosecutors, he admits that the case probably should be thrown out. But he says "But I couldn't do that to Tandy Cyrus and her family." That is NOT what prosecution is or what it should be about.

The documentary proves that prosecutors shouldn't t indict people and bring cases against them to give the family members of victims closure, as much as that may be a motivating factor. Cases should be brought against defendants who are highly likely to be guilty of a crime or crimes in which the case brought against them meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. A lot of people in our country do not understand that people should be convicted a crime if the evidence against them is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not about whether a bunch of people want someone to be guilty. The community wanted someone to be found guilty but many criminal cases go unsolved. Finding someone guilty who is innocent is not justice.

After watching this documentary I'm struck by how little information there is about the boy who died. We don't learn anything about this boy who should be central focus of his own murder. The defendants is shown as a loving father but it is never explained why the victim and the defendant did not get along. The defendant himself never talks about the victim whatsoever but instead is always focused on himself. I feel like there are missing pieces to this picture.