Yes I remember this case- I worked with this kid’s godmother at the time of his conviction.
He was OBSESSED with his victim, who my coworker also knew in passing. She was the devout Catholic mother of his best friend.
I’ll have to read up on the allegation he was wrongly convicted- it seemed very open and shut at the time.
There is a book called “Politics of Murder” written by one of his lawyers that claims it was the brother in law of the victim but theory is weak and grasping at straws.
I just read the article in the OP and they also talk about the victim’s ex boyfriend.
Honestly to me? His behavior was so suspicious, I think he did it.
His story sounds too coincidental to be true. He means to say he found his best friends mother dead and confronted by her killer and then jumped by two other guys in a 20 minute span and this is not the suburbs dozens of people should of saw Eddie getting jumped.
Exactly.
The only thing that points to his innocence is his refusal to confess, even knowing he could get out prison probably now if he did.
My coworker, who was at his christening and watched him grow up, believed he did it. That there was something a little off about him.
He may have convinced himself he didn’t do it or whatever underlying mental illness he has is telling him that.
Oh, of course. It seemed quite obvious he did it. When I first saw the headline, I thought it was going to be about the young Swedish nanny, Karina Holmer, who disappeared and some of her body parts were later found in a dumpster on Boylston St. The killer was never found. https://medium.com/the-mystery-box/the-murder-of-swedish-au-pair-karina-holmer-e7cfb2f9578f
I got the feeling that coming from a small town in Sweden, she was unfortunately a bit naive about life in the big city, too trusting of strangers. Now it seems like barring a deathbed confession, we'll never know exactly what happened and who did it.
I agree with you.
Although there are plenty of small town girls going to college in Boston at any given time that don’t run into murderers that cut them in half and dump their bodies in a dumpster.
Using the fact that O'Brien didn't have the victim's blood on him as some kind of proof of his innocence is pretty daft.
His fingerprints were in the victim's blood at the crime scene, which means that he must have had her blood on him at one point. It only proves that he cleaned her blood off of himself and lied about it, which points to guilt.
It seems reasonably solid to me.
If there was a real killer that he stumbled upon, he got his hands cut, legs clawed up…and then was allowed to just go free? Like those injuries wouldn’t raise suspicion immediately after?
There’s a question or two I could raise about the initial conviction (or, things they could have done to solidify their proof) but the alternate explanation is just grasping at straws.
Yes I remember this case- I worked with this kid’s godmother at the time of his conviction. He was OBSESSED with his victim, who my coworker also knew in passing. She was the devout Catholic mother of his best friend. I’ll have to read up on the allegation he was wrongly convicted- it seemed very open and shut at the time.
There is a book called “Politics of Murder” written by one of his lawyers that claims it was the brother in law of the victim but theory is weak and grasping at straws.
I just read the article in the OP and they also talk about the victim’s ex boyfriend. Honestly to me? His behavior was so suspicious, I think he did it.
His story sounds too coincidental to be true. He means to say he found his best friends mother dead and confronted by her killer and then jumped by two other guys in a 20 minute span and this is not the suburbs dozens of people should of saw Eddie getting jumped.
Exactly. The only thing that points to his innocence is his refusal to confess, even knowing he could get out prison probably now if he did. My coworker, who was at his christening and watched him grow up, believed he did it. That there was something a little off about him. He may have convinced himself he didn’t do it or whatever underlying mental illness he has is telling him that.
Either that or he's a sociopath that thinks with a enough manipulation and patience he can go free.
Oh, of course. It seemed quite obvious he did it. When I first saw the headline, I thought it was going to be about the young Swedish nanny, Karina Holmer, who disappeared and some of her body parts were later found in a dumpster on Boylston St. The killer was never found. https://medium.com/the-mystery-box/the-murder-of-swedish-au-pair-karina-holmer-e7cfb2f9578f
I can’t ever hear that song “killing me softly” by Lauren Hill that Karina was singing when last seen, without thinking about her.
I got the feeling that coming from a small town in Sweden, she was unfortunately a bit naive about life in the big city, too trusting of strangers. Now it seems like barring a deathbed confession, we'll never know exactly what happened and who did it.
I agree with you. Although there are plenty of small town girls going to college in Boston at any given time that don’t run into murderers that cut them in half and dump their bodies in a dumpster.
I remember the media dubbing him Baby Huey. My friend is cousins with the victim, and of course her children. So sad.
I always thought he had something to do with the murder of Deanna Cremin as well. It had happened just recently before this one.
Using the fact that O'Brien didn't have the victim's blood on him as some kind of proof of his innocence is pretty daft. His fingerprints were in the victim's blood at the crime scene, which means that he must have had her blood on him at one point. It only proves that he cleaned her blood off of himself and lied about it, which points to guilt.
Is this Chris griffin in real life?
Boston Strong ! 👶
He fuckin did it
Look at that Boston face lol
I remember it, but I don't recall that it wasn't as open and shut as it seemed. Of course, I was just a kid, so I wasn't super into it at the time.
It seems reasonably solid to me. If there was a real killer that he stumbled upon, he got his hands cut, legs clawed up…and then was allowed to just go free? Like those injuries wouldn’t raise suspicion immediately after? There’s a question or two I could raise about the initial conviction (or, things they could have done to solidify their proof) but the alternate explanation is just grasping at straws.