Four teens were allegedly at the Windsor clubhouse the evening Mikayla Miller was assaulted. DA Marion Ryan cleared them based on weak alibis. Mikayla and her mother reported that teens pushed and punched her and she had a bloody lip to prove it. Yet the police didn’t log the assault or the discovery of her body the next day.
Based on sketchy evidence, Mikayla’s ex-girlfriend Katelyn visited Mikayla on April 17th to get her clothes. Katelyn was driven to the location by an adult woman and she brought three high school friends with her. Apparently, Mikayla refused to give Katelyn back her clothes, had a fit, and threw furniture. It was then that the three teens exited the car, confronted Mikayla, pushed and punched her.
After seeing Mikayla’s injured face, Mikayla’s concerned mother demanded justice by calling the police who arrived about 7:20 pm. An officer took their statements and noted that Mikayla had a bloody lip consistent with her testimony that she had been punched in the face. Then the officer spoke to the two teen girls who had been involved in the altercation. “Investigators determined through digital evidence and phone records that the two girls were at the same location from 8:41 p.m. on April 17 until 5:48 a.m. on April 18.”
I don’t know the location where the girls spent the night, but the investigator spoke to them soon after talking with Mikayla, so they were either in Hopkinton or near Hopkinton. “7:43 p.m.: Hopkinton Police dispatched to residence of one of the females involved in altercation and obtained statements from two of the females involved.” The digital evidence is not reliable. For example, someone can type on a someone’s home computer to make it seem that the owner is typing on their computer.
Phone records can also falsify evidence. For example, Katelyn could leave her phone on her desk so it seems she’s home, and then walk outside unbeknownst to anyone. The GPS on her phone says she is at home, but she could be 100 miles away. Also, relatives and friends can provide a false alibi for her.
I’m not stating that the girls are guilty of murder. I’m stating a fact: that they don’t have strong alibis. An example of a strong alibi would be if a murder victim is seen by apartment surveillance getting their mail at 8 am and then found dead at 12 pm, and the prime suspect reports for work at the post office at 8 am and is seen on surveillance video at their work location until 5 pm. The prime suspect has a strong alibi because the video proves that they were not at the victim’s home at the time of death.
The woman driving the car “has witnesses who put her at her house that evening.” This is also a weak alibi because 1) her family and friends might not be telling the truth and 2) I assume the witnesses went to bed and weren’t watching her every second. So, she probably had at least 6 hours to commit murder that night. I know some of you are thinking “What motivation would she have to kill Mikayla?” but the sole purpose of this diary is to prove all five alibis are bad, therefore, the DA should not have exonerated the suspects based on weak alibis.
The DA also reported that “The two boys were tracked via E-Z Pass getting on the Massachusetts Turnpike at 8:08 p.m. and getting off in Charlton at 8:58 p.m. They were also seen on surveillance video buying food at a Wendy’s restaurant in Sturbridge at 9:06 p.m.” Based on this evidence, we’re supposed to believe it was impossible for them to commit murder that night. It takes 36 minutes to go from Hopkinton to Sturbridge and 36 minutes to go back, therefore, they could have been back in Hopkinton by 9:45 pm; and that would give them 10 hours to kill Mikayla and hang her body from the tree where she was discovered the next day at 7:45 am.
E-Z Pass is an electronic device on a car that records when a car travels on a toll road and the driver is charged once a month for all the tolls they passed. E-Z Pass charges tolls going east and west in Interstate 90. “Cost of the Toll Road: Fixed variable rate based on time of day Eastbound: $7.10 max Westbound: $10.60 max.” DA Ryan only provided evidence that the boys were leaving Hopkinton, but she apparently did not record whether they went back that night.
The boys are from North Brookfield, a town about 1 hour and 10 minutes from Hopkinton. Sturbridge, where they dined at Wendy’s, is on the way to North Brookfield; so they could have simply been going home and that might be where they went after stopping at Wendy’s. Again, this diary is not about accusing anyone of murder. The purpose of this diary is to clarify that none of the five people involved in the April 17th altercation with Mikayla have strong alibis.
My point is that the DA had an obligation to investigate whether Mikayla died of suicide or murder, and she failed to investigate this case thoroughly. She quickly dismissed the thought that one of the people involved in the altercation could have killed Mikayla, and she based her dismissal on ridiculous alibis that prove nothing. Each one of those people should have been investigated to the full extent of the law, and that should have been mentioned in her statement. Instead, the assault against Mikayla and her death the next day were not logged, her mother stated at the vigil that the Hopkinton Police Dept. didn’t even write a report about the assault a week later and I know from experience that it usually takes them a day to finish the report, and Mikayla’s grieving mother had to wait 12 days before the DA would speak to her personally.
One last thing. It’s highly suspicious that the boys stopped at a place that had surveillance cameras at approximately the same time that the DA alleged that Mikayla left her apartment. She stated that the boys were seen on video at the Sturbridge Wendy’s at 9:06 pm and “that a health app on Miller’s cell phone tracked movement between 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on April 17, and that Miller traveled roughly 1,316 steps during that time, about the distance from her home to the woods where her body was found. Strothers said Miller’s phone was not activated and could not have tracked that information, according to information she received from Apple.”
Apparently, the DA reported a false story about Mikayla leaving her home at the same time that she knew the boys were seen on video 34 miles away. That indicates that she or the police falsified evidence to protect the boys, and makes them now the prime suspects according to the evidence published in the media. The DA’s apparently “untrue” statement is the most potent BLM accusation against the authorities. If she had just told the truth then the police and the District Attorney’s Office would be a lot more believable, but they are now in a lot of trouble.