12 replies
  1. Jennifer Kindschi
    Jennifer Kindschi says:

    I think Nick Hillary was targeted with tunnel vision, but I do believe he killed Garrett.

  2. Valerie Sherrard
    Valerie Sherrard says:

    I watched both the Dateline and 20/20 shows about this crime and have rarely been so undecided as to whether or not a suspect was guilty. There was certainly some circumstantial evidence that pointed toward Hillary, but I agree it was not enough to convict. The thing I struggled with the most was the question of motive. It didn’t seem plausible that an ex-boyfriend with no history of violence would commit such a horrible crime. I would have liked to know more about the DNA evidence that was disallowed, as well as the fingerprints on the window, which were not matched to Hillary. Without those details, I feel unsure either way.

    • DMD
      DMD says:

      Every violent person has no history in the beginning. It is not unusual for seemingly peaceful people to snap one day. You never know what is going on inside the mind. Also, just because he has no documented history of violence doesn’t mean he has never been violent. We don’t know. The only thing it guarantees is that he has never been caught.

      As far as motive … that is not important. Sometimes there is no logical explanation for human behavior. We can guess though that hurting his ex would likely be on the top of the list. We all know that losing a child is the most painful thing a human being can experience so it’s not a stretch that he may have wanted to destroy her life in this way.

  3. DMD
    DMD says:

    Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and can be compelling. It’s actually more rare than people realize to have cases with DNA, hair, fingerprints, etc. You can absolutely convict without these things. I saw the episode and believe he is guilty. But, it is what it is, the decision was made and he is guaranteed a second chance. Unfortunately, his victim will never have justice, but that’s the way the system works sometimes.

  4. Strawberry
    Strawberry says:

    He is guilty. He shows no emotion about a 12 year old boy he knew being murdered. The only emotion he has is anger and disgust at being accused.

  5. killer instinct
    killer instinct says:

    Nick seems to me as an intelligent, calculated, powerful, but somehow emotionless, ununderstanding man. That’s a big red flag right there. As much as the team mates swear by his good temper, I would not want to be the person to cross him, and I have a feeling the poor (and dead) kid did that, a heck of a lot of times. Nick seems like someone who does not understand people really well, otherwise he would have known that a mother, especially a widow, will (almost) always side with her son, no matter what. And the best way to a good relationship with her would have been through her son (being best friends with him). I believe he is very controlling. Sports coaches are very controlling and calculating, that is why they are successful. And it shows off in their private lives, too.

    Nevertheless this is a very freaky case, and I can understand why the first DA did not want to touch it with a ten foot pole. On the other hand I see why the cops are on Nick like glue because his testimonies are just all over the place. Emotionlessness aside to me he does not behave like an innocent person.

    (and I would like to add that John Jones also smells fishy to me, mumble grumble).

  6. Golden Giraffe
    Golden Giraffe says:

    I don’t think Nick is guilty. Many peole (who admittedly know nothing about Jamaicans) are rushing to conclusion because he seems detached from the boy’s death. In Jamaica there is an expression ‘big man don’t cry’. Men are expected to be tough and lock it down. Crying and hysterics are the domain of women. It is a part of their culture.

Comments are closed.