Wednesday, September 28, 2016

WDT: Will Karma Get Nick Hillary ?

   A relative of the deceased 12 year old shouted that Karma would get Nick Hillary following Mr. Hillary's acquittal in the 2011 murder of young Garrett Phillips.
    Where do you go at age 42 when every time somebody Googles you , it comes up you were charged with murdering a child.  Acquittal or not, few would hire such a person, but liberal academia can be forgiving, so who knows ?
      If he really did it, how does the mind compartmentalize such things without the fight of a trial to win ?
      OJ was a major league sociopath, but I don't know about this guy.
       I can't help but think today's world where a woman meets a guy in a bar and moves him with her and the kids is not the way I was raised. Our world where everyone in a family has a different last name and there's always the previous and future boyfriends in the wings.
       As for Mr. Hillary, maybe he covered it well or maybe he was lucky the cops and DA weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. 
      Of course, maybe he didn't do it....In which case, who did ? The other person talked about was busy getting some ink in the Times the day of the verdict.
       Sadly, a young man was lost and all the careers and billable hours later don't really justify the loss the 12 year old suffered.
Watertown Daily Times | Nick Hillary found not guilty in murder trial


Anonymous said...

The dannies could have him run for political office, or as you say, some university can make him head of the black studies dept. He will have no problem making a living. And if he has problems, he can write a book about black murderer's lives matter.

Anonymous said...

Saw this brilliant comment and it is worth repeating:

"Danny, not sure why you claim 11:07 was making a racist comment. The only people who made race an issue was the defense - and they did raise it as a red herring. The only racist comment came from Hillary's side (calling people cracker).

Because someone is not guilty does not mean they did not do the crime. OJ was found not guilty criminally but civilly responsible.

The statement that all the evidence pointed away from Hillary shows you did not follow the trial closely. Evidence can be interpreted differently by different people but to say it all pointed away is naive. The grand jury indicted and a judge said their was sufficient evidence to uphold the indictment. Therefore, there must have been some evidence that pointed his way.

What we do know is he had motive. The mother testified she broke up with Hillary because her kids did not like him. (A reasonable person can think this is motive or can think it is not but it is evidence) He stated he was one place while video showed he lied and was somewhere else. Lying can be used as an indicator of guilt.

For you to so readily turn aside those that think a person who committed murder is walking freely on the streets shows that you are narrow minded and unwilling to consider those that have opinions differing from yours."

Anonymous said...

Wasn't he a coach at Clarkson?

He'll have no problem getting employment in acedemia even with his blighted past.

Anonymous said...

All of this would go away if he would just take a polygraph by a licensed professional. He could have that linked to every search page on the web in about 30 seconds. If he doesn't then it's obvious why.

Anonymous said...

Still think this was a big mistake by the da jumping the gun.I understand the crime happened five years ago,but sometimes,evidence developes,either through technology evolving or perhaps the suspect breaking down and telling someone else that he did it,and how.Now,if he is the guy,it is all done,he can't be tried again,and because that da thought she had to make a promise to get elected.Sad.

Anonymous said...

The victim's mommy made a political statement. She wanted companionship so badly that she brought home a man she shouldn't have. So the kid paid the price. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

An innocent 12 year old was murdered and his mother will grieve forever. 12:23 - you lack basic human decency.....

Anonymous said...

The fact remains ,like it or not in AMERICA , a person is presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY . In this case the prosecutionFAILED to prove guilt ,BEYOND reasonable doubt . The case was weak , the corroborative evidence was not there , the police may have bungled the investigation , theDA may have overstated her ability to bring this to a conviction for political reasons , whatever .. BUT The system and the judge worked based on the actual facts or lack thereof

THAT is our system and the bitching and crying is fruitless until THAT standard is altered . The death of an innocent is horrible and the grief is unbearable and we ALL empathesize relative ro that fact , but the judge did the right thing based on the trial and the lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt .

Anonymous said...

9:21, "beyond reasonable doubt" is a matter of opinion. We only have the official opinion of one judge who said the proof was not beyond reasonable doubt. If the case was tried in front of a jury and THEY acquitted, then you would be on solid footing to state that the judge came to the correct verdict.

The judge could have said more than he did, but chose the cowards way out. He could have said not guilty but lectured the murderer for lying and interfering with an investigation. He could have said not guilty and apologized for unfairly taking him to trial. But instead he kept repeating that there was some doubt and the proof of guilt was less than infinity.