I was terrified watching Part 2 that Hillary was going to be convicted as a result of a smear campaign that infected Potsdam. Fortunately, the judge wisely determined that there was insufficient evidence of guilt (along with shady behavior by the prosecution) and found Mr. Hillary innocent.
I suspect Mr Jones, the weird ex-boyfriend of Tandy of doing this. Where was the mother when her son was home alone? What was Jones doing with her at the police station. There's a lot of impropriety going on in this case and I think Hillary has plenty of reason to sue this town for their treatment of him from the beginning and for the long-term effect this has and will have on his livelihood and his family. He is a victim in this horrible event too.
35 Reviews
Gripping documentary exposing shocking bias (if not racism)
paul-allaer25 July 2019
"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.
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.
A Botched Murder Investigation Leads to the Eventual Indictment of an Innocent Man
classicalsteve23 March 2020
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.
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.
Good but incomplete
lhmosca15 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this convinced Hillary didn't do it, convinced that nasty racist cop DID...but honestly? I don't know. It's very obvious this docu was 100% one-sided and the makers FULLY intended to convince us of Hillary's innocence and highlight the racists aspects of this community. What they failed to do was examine WHY the family is so convinced Hillary did it. And that Jones guy? He's shady AF!! Maybe not guilty, but shady AF nonetheless. So after watching in full and sitting with it for a little while, I'm not 100% convinced of anything. I've been where this family is and cannot imagine not having definitive answers. My heart breaks for them.
I am so utterly sad and embarrassed by our judicial system.
jldivelbiss25 July 2019
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.
Justice for Garrett! Arrest ALL these corrupt cops.
Where are the details about Garrett
nobo-883383 April 2020
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.
Potsdam Police are the real criminals in this story
alainashilling7 August 2019
Watching the documentary is heartbreaking. The entire town singles out the black man instead of trying to find the real killer or killers! Completely trampled on his rights outright lies and does everything possible to ensure that an innocent man with a solid alibi is put away just so they can say justice was served.
Very One Sided
nichalosburke14 February 2020
This special is a very good idea to help spread national awareness of the effect of small town murders. However Liz Garbus did not properly show both sides of the case evenly and managed to portray Potsdam as a racist town that tried to put all blame on one man. Garbus shows how Potsdam went against Hillary but by doing so she managed to make Hilliary the victim when in reality she failed to show the injustice for the Phillips' family. If there would have been more information provided about the case in general instead of victimizing Hillary then this documentary would be a more credible and reliable source.
Potsdam sucks
rochanmaheshwari25 July 2019
Why did the storytellers choose not to include more of the story?
sendbriceemail30 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
First, this is an interesting watch. It keeps your attention. However, it focuses 90% of its time on a man accused of murdering a 12-year-old boy, but leaves so many questions. Too many.
The boy's mother dated the accused for a year & even lived with him. Why are we never told what about Nick Hillary led her to believe he killed her child? Although she did not participate in the documentary, her family members did and surely she was interviewed by police and possible testified in the trial to explain how the deceased and the accused did not get along. All we are told that the 12 year-old hated Hillary because he wouldn't let him watch enough TV or go outside and play enough. What does that mean? Did the kid not like having a strict father figure around, or was Hillary so much different with this boy than he was his own kids in front of the cameras? They never explain why not letting a kid watch TV or play outside whenever they want would indicate that person might be the type who would end up killing the child. Going from this documentary alone, it certainly does not look like the prosecution had a case at all other than Hillary's vehicle being seen going the same direction as the boy at about the same time. They said he was captured on two more cameras on his way home, but no one ever mentions anything about Hillary's vehicle being spotted on either camera. So what was it? Wouldn't one suspect Hillary would've shown up on the same camera if he was going to the same place as the boy?
At the same time, it bothered me throughout the documentary regarding how little there was about the child who was murdered. I also was taken aback by how little the accused seemed to think about this child who lost his life.
Overall, it is an interesting documentary, but there are so many holes the documentarians completely ignore, leaving the viewer wondering why such important information would be missing. Why did the mother think he would be capable of killing her child? Did she ever see a violent side to him? What exactly was his relationship with the child like? How did he act towards she and her family after they broke up? Were there problems with him? These are the things of you were wonders about while watching this story about a woman who is made to believe that her ex boyfriend could have just barged into her apartment and killed the child for no logical reason. What would make someone believe such a thing about someone they knew? There's just too much information missing, which made me constantly wonder how much other information from the trial the documentarians just didn't bother telling us.
I sincerely hope Hillary was innocent of these charges and Ken live a fruitful life. I also hope whoever did do this is caught. The documentarians focusing on the ex-boyfriend cop seemed to go nowhere and almost results in character assassination, even though he is a creepy dude. What are the first suggestions early in the program is that people believed that other kids might've been involved. My first thought was the choking game. The boy was suffocated and they said a bra was nearby his body, but that's all it was said. Where was the bra was it unusual that it would be wherever it was? Was there ever any testing to see if that was around the child's neck? What did the autopsy determine caused the strangulation? We never find out. Could it have been boys taking turns hanging themselves for a rush? Sadly, this is something that happens. Maybe the other boys took off? They didn't really go into this topic at all other than a mention or two by interviewees, so I am assuming there must've not been any evidence that that could've been what happened.
The boy's mother dated the accused for a year & even lived with him. Why are we never told what about Nick Hillary led her to believe he killed her child? Although she did not participate in the documentary, her family members did and surely she was interviewed by police and possible testified in the trial to explain how the deceased and the accused did not get along. All we are told that the 12 year-old hated Hillary because he wouldn't let him watch enough TV or go outside and play enough. What does that mean? Did the kid not like having a strict father figure around, or was Hillary so much different with this boy than he was his own kids in front of the cameras? They never explain why not letting a kid watch TV or play outside whenever they want would indicate that person might be the type who would end up killing the child. Going from this documentary alone, it certainly does not look like the prosecution had a case at all other than Hillary's vehicle being seen going the same direction as the boy at about the same time. They said he was captured on two more cameras on his way home, but no one ever mentions anything about Hillary's vehicle being spotted on either camera. So what was it? Wouldn't one suspect Hillary would've shown up on the same camera if he was going to the same place as the boy?
At the same time, it bothered me throughout the documentary regarding how little there was about the child who was murdered. I also was taken aback by how little the accused seemed to think about this child who lost his life.
Overall, it is an interesting documentary, but there are so many holes the documentarians completely ignore, leaving the viewer wondering why such important information would be missing. Why did the mother think he would be capable of killing her child? Did she ever see a violent side to him? What exactly was his relationship with the child like? How did he act towards she and her family after they broke up? Were there problems with him? These are the things of you were wonders about while watching this story about a woman who is made to believe that her ex boyfriend could have just barged into her apartment and killed the child for no logical reason. What would make someone believe such a thing about someone they knew? There's just too much information missing, which made me constantly wonder how much other information from the trial the documentarians just didn't bother telling us.
I sincerely hope Hillary was innocent of these charges and Ken live a fruitful life. I also hope whoever did do this is caught. The documentarians focusing on the ex-boyfriend cop seemed to go nowhere and almost results in character assassination, even though he is a creepy dude. What are the first suggestions early in the program is that people believed that other kids might've been involved. My first thought was the choking game. The boy was suffocated and they said a bra was nearby his body, but that's all it was said. Where was the bra was it unusual that it would be wherever it was? Was there ever any testing to see if that was around the child's neck? What did the autopsy determine caused the strangulation? We never find out. Could it have been boys taking turns hanging themselves for a rush? Sadly, this is something that happens. Maybe the other boys took off? They didn't really go into this topic at all other than a mention or two by interviewees, so I am assuming there must've not been any evidence that that could've been what happened.
Wow!!!Amazing!!!
hickeytaraann27 July 2019
of course, he's guilty
leopoldjoshuaenoch26 July 2021
He was exonerated because of the lack of evidence against him, not because he's innocent. Of course he killed the boy, angry that his mom and him don't want him. He was very talkative in the police station UNTIL they've asked him when did he had a practice that evening. THEN, he refused to answer and wanted to leave. He didn't want to say what piece of furniture he hit his ankle against, knowing that is a lie and that they will not find any of his DNK there. The police was a bit rough but that is a standard procedure to pressure the suspect into talking, it has nothing to do with racism. People, you are so naive and the authors of this documentary are so deceptive.
misleading title, shoddy documentary
wonderland_zzzzzz4 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A documentarian should be skillful enough to allow us to hold two truths at the same time - the tragedy of a child's life lost, and the tragedy of a man's life destroyed by false allegations. This documentarian only seems capable of handling one truth at a time.
What happened to Nick Hillary is horrific. 5 stars for revealing the corruption we're all getting used to seeing from law enforcement in these types of cases as well as the covert racism prevalent in New England vs the overt racism often seen the American South.
Minus 5 stars for misleading me with a title like "Who Killed Garrett Phillips?" instead of "Who Framed Nick Hillary?" A CHILD was MURDERED, and not only does it seem like his own mother and town would rather see a conviction than hold the ACTUAL PERPETRATOR responsible, but it doesn't really seem like the documentarian cares who killed Garrett Phillips either. What I'd love to see is an investigative doc into WHO ACTUALLY KILLED GARRETT PHILLIPS. You know, or maybe an interview with actual family members? Or his lil friends? Or his teachers? Or his coaches? Maybe some home videos of Garrett Phillips while he was alive, so that that viewers really feel the impact of his death?
What happened to Nick Hillary is horrific. 5 stars for revealing the corruption we're all getting used to seeing from law enforcement in these types of cases as well as the covert racism prevalent in New England vs the overt racism often seen the American South.
Minus 5 stars for misleading me with a title like "Who Killed Garrett Phillips?" instead of "Who Framed Nick Hillary?" A CHILD was MURDERED, and not only does it seem like his own mother and town would rather see a conviction than hold the ACTUAL PERPETRATOR responsible, but it doesn't really seem like the documentarian cares who killed Garrett Phillips either. What I'd love to see is an investigative doc into WHO ACTUALLY KILLED GARRETT PHILLIPS. You know, or maybe an interview with actual family members? Or his lil friends? Or his teachers? Or his coaches? Maybe some home videos of Garrett Phillips while he was alive, so that that viewers really feel the impact of his death?
Innocent Man Exonerated
fandomly17 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Very compelling docuseries about Nick Hillary, a man accused of killing 12 year old Garrett Phillips. What I found the most shocking was that Nick Hillary had two air tight alibis proving his innocence and yet was still charged in the murder of Garrett Philips.
Then to top it off, you had Jones, the ex-boyfriend of the victim's mother, who was law enforcement and very eerily embedded himself into the investigation from the very beginning, was also on camera the day the boy died within proximity of the child riding down the street. Jones and Nick BOTH happened to be within close proximity of the boy as he rode down the street, and NEITHER saw him. Based on video shown, it was a gloomy, rainy day and I'm sure both men had priorities elsewhere. YET, because Nick was near the boy, he became a suspect, but Jones, also near the boy and on camera, was never seriously looked at. The double standard was clear.
It's beyond belief that law enforcement wasted all this time and energy investigating a man with an alibi all because supposedly this kid didn't like him, because the kids at school made fun of him because his mother was dating a black man. This magically becomes a motive for why an otherwise upstanding man murders a child. This makes no sense. Especially not when you consider that Nick and Tandy were separated at the time of the murder, and while Nick wanted to be back with Tandy, he wasn't being aggressive about it. In fact, he was slowly interacting with her less and less. That's not the sign of someone obsessed with you. It's clear Nick was moving on. Who wasn't moving on? Jones. He clearly became attached to Tandy from the hip right after the murder. If someone did kill the child to get to the mom, who exactly made headway doing that?
Jones is also the one with a temper. Tandy had stated that she was afraid of him, and feared for her children. Does it get clearer than this? Not to mention that when Jones suspected Tandy was seeing Nick, Jones went to NIck's home (a stranger to him) to confront him. Who does that??
A normal person would simply ask their girlfriend for the truth. If you don't trust her or think she's lying, why are you still with her? In the interviews, Jones acted all nonchalant like he couldn't care less about who Tandy dated, yet clearly the second he heard a rumor she might be seeing Nick, he went over to his house to confront him about it. That's not normal behavior.
Ultimately, there isn't enough evidence for me to say Jones is guilty. But he looks like a better suspect to investigate than Nick ever did.
Then to top it off, you had Jones, the ex-boyfriend of the victim's mother, who was law enforcement and very eerily embedded himself into the investigation from the very beginning, was also on camera the day the boy died within proximity of the child riding down the street. Jones and Nick BOTH happened to be within close proximity of the boy as he rode down the street, and NEITHER saw him. Based on video shown, it was a gloomy, rainy day and I'm sure both men had priorities elsewhere. YET, because Nick was near the boy, he became a suspect, but Jones, also near the boy and on camera, was never seriously looked at. The double standard was clear.
It's beyond belief that law enforcement wasted all this time and energy investigating a man with an alibi all because supposedly this kid didn't like him, because the kids at school made fun of him because his mother was dating a black man. This magically becomes a motive for why an otherwise upstanding man murders a child. This makes no sense. Especially not when you consider that Nick and Tandy were separated at the time of the murder, and while Nick wanted to be back with Tandy, he wasn't being aggressive about it. In fact, he was slowly interacting with her less and less. That's not the sign of someone obsessed with you. It's clear Nick was moving on. Who wasn't moving on? Jones. He clearly became attached to Tandy from the hip right after the murder. If someone did kill the child to get to the mom, who exactly made headway doing that?
Jones is also the one with a temper. Tandy had stated that she was afraid of him, and feared for her children. Does it get clearer than this? Not to mention that when Jones suspected Tandy was seeing Nick, Jones went to NIck's home (a stranger to him) to confront him. Who does that??
A normal person would simply ask their girlfriend for the truth. If you don't trust her or think she's lying, why are you still with her? In the interviews, Jones acted all nonchalant like he couldn't care less about who Tandy dated, yet clearly the second he heard a rumor she might be seeing Nick, he went over to his house to confront him about it. That's not normal behavior.
Ultimately, there isn't enough evidence for me to say Jones is guilty. But he looks like a better suspect to investigate than Nick ever did.
Heads up!
pumpkinlove-030064 August 2020
Potsdam Police you are disgusting
WhoMadeYouGod20 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Compelling, interesting and highly emotive viewing.
The 'interviews' of Nick were so anger inducing, I am so pleased these have been aired for all to see.
This wasn't about catching a killer, it was making a conviction stick, the way this man was treated was disgusting shame on all of them.
Compassionately told and I'm pleased for Nick he has been given a voice. Well made and put together, thank you for making this.
This wasn't about catching a killer, it was making a conviction stick, the way this man was treated was disgusting shame on all of them.
Compassionately told and I'm pleased for Nick he has been given a voice. Well made and put together, thank you for making this.
Injustice in all it's Glory
debrahnava-5249624 July 2019
Compelling and heartbreaking story. The injustice of being a black man accused of murdering a white 12 yr old kid. He was the son of his ex-girlfriend and how she even turned against him despite no corroborating evidence that Nick Hillary committed the murder.
Misleading
kannetidwell25 September 2022
I really wish some of the docuseries would at least pretend to care about the victim. It's absolutely possible to make a documentary about how the justice system screwed over Hillary without throwing a murdered child to the side. There could even be different episodes focusing on different subjects but instead, Garrett Phillips is essentially ignored. The docuseries does not do a good job of explaining the murder, Hillary's relationships with the family once he'd broken up with the mom nor the piles of evidence you could find from a cursory Google search. This series was 100% made because the filmmakers could exploit the issues in the justice system- not to give a voice to a murdered child.
Disappointing power play by police
adetolla8 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Hope Garrett's family find peace.
Don't know why they didn't look at John, he couldn't take it that Tandy left him. He went to Nick's house to ask him if they were dating, why? He told Nick's wife, why? He was obsessed with Tandy but no one looked at him. Shocking, disgusting, disturbing.
Don't know why they didn't look at John, he couldn't take it that Tandy left him. He went to Nick's house to ask him if they were dating, why? He told Nick's wife, why? He was obsessed with Tandy but no one looked at him. Shocking, disgusting, disturbing.
Welcome to Portsdam, NY
stephenljenkins27 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is essential. Great documentary but it became predictable. How could it not? The case never reveals compelling evidence from those clowns. It is shocking enough without watching it unfold and people still not be convinced. That town seems like a racial cesspool. Subject matter 10...actual production 8. Sorry, Portsdam...but you have serious issues.
'we're not that racist' LOL
monikamarie9 February 2022
Typical small-minded, small-town yahoos and Keystone cops: zoom right in on the black guy and totally disregard the white, vindictive cop who also happens to be an ex-boyfriend. He can't even look at the camera. Cops protecting their own as usual and they wonder why they're so hated and not trusted?
Kudos, Liz Garbus
gfunkbsafe26 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Masterfully presented documentary about the brutal murder of a 12 year old boy.
While the crime itself is infuriating, what is also infuriating is the fact that some amateurish and possibly racist local cops destroyed a man's life with basically zero hard evidence against him, with the aid of an overzealous and self-interested politician.
Whether you think that the accused was guilty or not, it's incomprehensible to think that he could have been convicted with such flimsy circumstancial evidence. Although justice for little Garrett hasn't been served yet, in the case of Nick Hillary the justice system worked.
While the crime itself is infuriating, what is also infuriating is the fact that some amateurish and possibly racist local cops destroyed a man's life with basically zero hard evidence against him, with the aid of an overzealous and self-interested politician.
Whether you think that the accused was guilty or not, it's incomprehensible to think that he could have been convicted with such flimsy circumstancial evidence. Although justice for little Garrett hasn't been served yet, in the case of Nick Hillary the justice system worked.
You have to ask yourself who are the real victims here.
integritylegalvideo26 July 2019
I gave this one star and it has nothing to do with the quality of the project. It has to do with the accuracy and how it is delivered. When you watch this documentary, you would think that Mr. Hillary is innocent. However, when you research what ex-girlfriend stated and others really stated and saw in the real World, you have very little doubt that he isn't the murderer. It is possible he is innocent. Do I think he is innocent? No! I believe he murdered the boy, If you research the real case you have to go down a couple pages before you get real material from real people related to the facts. The first couple pages in nothing but the documentary (fictional version) in which a model black guy was victimized by not just a town, but the entire region for hundreds of miles and they were out to get him. Yeah....same HBO plot they've been using for decades. I really feel sorry for the family and Garretts friends who have to be slapped in the face over and over by this Atrocity of a film!!
Excellent investigative journalism
rishan_muneer24 July 2019
HARD TO SWALLOW/ WATCH
macfonty8 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I truly believe Nick Hillary was and is innocent. This doc just shows how racially motivated a community can be....purely based on suspicion and no hard facts or evidence. I felt like crying for Nick but also felt so helpless for the poor child who died.....people will draw their own conclusions, but I think the verdict was 100% God hope they find Garret's killer...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
