YDR Opinion: Witman innocent? Doubtful

YDR Opinion: Witman innocent? Doubtful

There are 18 comments on the The York Daily Record story from Jan 2, 2011, titled YDR Opinion: Witman innocent? Doubtful. In it, The York Daily Record reports that:

Could Zachary Witman be innocent of the horrific 1998 killing of his younger brother Gregory in their New Freedom home? Police and prosecutors didn't think so.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The York Daily Record.

George

Washington, DC

#1 Jan 3, 2011
Guilty as hell and rot in hell murderer!
The Real Deal

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jan 4, 2011
So sad that this brainwashing corporate newspaper passes judgement like this and convinces everyone else of it. I for one do NOT believe a teenage boy, only 2 years older than his brother, and not much bigger or stronger, could have done this all by himself in 7.5 minutes. Yes, that does mean that that someone else did it, but the someone else could be BIGGER and STRONGER than the victim. And why are we assumming the murder was committed by ONLY ONE PERSON??? If anything, I think at least 2 or 3 people had to be involved. Even if Zachary did it, he MUST have had help. And if that's the case, I do not think he would have gone this long without confessing and ratting out who helped him. That lousy knife could not have been the ONLY murder weapon. It was probably only used a few times just get his blood on it. A stronger knife or several knives must have been used. I agree with the Whitmans that someone knew about Zachary's knife collection and planted it to frame him. And just so you know, I am NOT one of the Whitmans, nor a friend of them. I have never met them. I am someone who cares about wrongful prosecution and is not brainwashed by government and corporate propaganda.
George

Washington, DC

#4 Jan 4, 2011
The Real Deal wrote:
So sad that this brainwashing corporate newspaper passes judgement like this and convinces everyone else of it. I for one do NOT believe a teenage boy, only 2 years older than his brother, and not much bigger or stronger, could have done this all by himself in 7.5 minutes. Yes, that does mean that that someone else did it, but the someone else could be BIGGER and STRONGER than the victim. And why are we assumming the murder was committed by ONLY ONE PERSON??? If anything, I think at least 2 or 3 people had to be involved. Even if Zachary did it, he MUST have had help. And if that's the case, I do not think he would have gone this long without confessing and ratting out who helped him. That lousy knife could not have been the ONLY murder weapon. It was probably only used a few times just get his blood on it. A stronger knife or several knives must have been used. I agree with the Whitmans that someone knew about Zachary's knife collection and planted it to frame him. And just so you know, I am NOT one of the Whitmans, nor a friend of them. I have never met them. I am someone who cares about wrongful prosecution and is not brainwashed by government and corporate propaganda.
Too bad that the people that actually count (the jury) thought otherwise!
Don

AOL

#5 Jan 4, 2011
George,you are dispectable.the jury convicted him.Yes my friend was released from Texas prison last week after 34yrs in prison.Yes,the jury convicted him and the new D/A FREED HIM.I hope you never get blamed for anything that you didn,t do.
Tellingthetruth

York, PA

#6 Jan 4, 2011
OH he did it and you all know it. If it smells like a rat its a rat. Let him rot in jail. He wasn't even put in prison right away. If it was anyone else they would have been put in prison the same day. Not him he was out shopping with his crazy daddy. Now he has plenty of time to think about what is right and what is wrong. In the mean time he should join the muslim faith in prison. I believe that is what most of the jail birds do. When you do the crime, you have to serve some time. He should have gotten the electric chair. That away it would be no more appealing and wasting tax payers money. Cry baby Fry baby.
Snake doc

Harrisburg, PA

#7 Jan 5, 2011
The Real Deal wrote:
So sad that this brainwashing corporate newspaper passes judgement like this and convinces everyone else of it. I for one do NOT believe a teenage boy, only 2 years older than his brother, and not much bigger or stronger, could have done this all by himself in 7.5 minutes. Yes, that does mean that that someone else did it, but the someone else could be BIGGER and STRONGER than the victim. And why are we assumming the murder was committed by ONLY ONE PERSON??? If anything, I think at least 2 or 3 people had to be involved. Even if Zachary did it, he MUST have had help. And if that's the case, I do not think he would have gone this long without confessing and ratting out who helped him. That lousy knife could not have been the ONLY murder weapon. It was probably only used a few times just get his blood on it. A stronger knife or several knives must have been used. I agree with the Whitmans that someone knew about Zachary's knife collection and planted it to frame him. And just so you know, I am NOT one of the Whitmans, nor a friend of them. I have never met them. I am someone who cares about wrongful prosecution and is not brainwashed by government and corporate propaganda.
You try to use common sense and reason to say why he couldn't have done it. Yet you come up with an unreasonable scenario for how it could have occurred. Does that make sense to you? What possible motivation is there for "someone" to come up with an elaborate plan to kill a 13 yr old boy and frame his 15 yr old brother? That's reasonable to you? I say you are the one who is brainwashed by too much TV and movies. You use common sense and reason to solve crimes but you apply it to the evidence that exists in the case. You incorrectly assume that every other possibility wasn't considered and throughly investigated. You only go down those roads so far before they prove fruitless or lead back to the same suspect. You fail to realize that a prosecution doesn't present all the aspects of a criminal investigation that were explored and proved fruitless. That isn't neccessary to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He was convicted on the evidence that he tried, unsuccessfully to conceal. He was convicted correctly, the system worked.
The Real Deal

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Jan 5, 2011
Snake doc wrote:
<quoted text>
You try to use common sense and reason to say why he couldn't have done it. Yet you come up with an unreasonable scenario for how it could have occurred. Does that make sense to you? What possible motivation is there for "someone" to come up with an elaborate plan to kill a 13 yr old boy and frame his 15 yr old brother? That's reasonable to you? I say you are the one who is brainwashed by too much TV and movies. You use common sense and reason to solve crimes but you apply it to the evidence that exists in the case. You incorrectly assume that every other possibility wasn't considered and throughly investigated. You only go down those roads so far before they prove fruitless or lead back to the same suspect. You fail to realize that a prosecution doesn't present all the aspects of a criminal investigation that were explored and proved fruitless. That isn't neccessary to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He was convicted on the evidence that he tried, unsuccessfully to conceal. He was convicted correctly, the system worked.
You say that I "incorrectly assume" that every other possibility was not considered, yet I read nothing about the prosecution "considering" the possibility that more than one person was involved in the murder. You ask "what possible motivation is there for "someone" to come up with an elaborate plan to kill a 13 yr old boy and frame his 15 yr old brother?" yet neither you nor the prosecution can name any motivation that the 15 year old had for killing his brother. What does motivate a person to kill? Perhaps it wasn't even about the 2 boys. Maybe the parents have an enemy that wanted to ruin them. I fail to see any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this boy killed his brother. The system DID NOT work.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#9 Jan 5, 2011
The Real Deal wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that I "incorrectly assume" that every other possibility was not considered, yet I read nothing about the prosecution "considering" the possibility that more than one person was involved in the murder. You ask "what possible motivation is there for "someone" to come up with an elaborate plan to kill a 13 yr old boy and frame his 15 yr old brother?" yet neither you nor the prosecution can name any motivation that the 15 year old had for killing his brother. What does motivate a person to kill? Perhaps it wasn't even about the 2 boys. Maybe the parents have an enemy that wanted to ruin them. I fail to see any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this boy killed his brother. The system DID NOT work.
So what family member are you? All of the evidence that was permitted in court pointed to Zack and nobody else. Even the evidence that was ruled inadmissible only pointed to Zack.

How do you explain the bloody footprint matching Zack's size going from the house to the bush where the gloves and knife was found and the prints back to the house?

Don't forget the knives that were in the dishwasher were ruled inadmissible. Don't forget some of Greg's friends have said that Greg was afraid to go home that day because he knew his brother was home alone.
The Real Deal

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Jan 5, 2011
The prosecution cliams that just because they couldn't find a motive for Zachary to kill his brother, doesn't mean there wasn't one. Likewise, just because the prosecution can't come up with another suspect or "suspects" doesn't mean there aren't any. Just because they can't come up with a reason why someone else would kill this boy, doesn't mean there isn't one. It works both ways. As Don mentioned above, there have been people in prison for many years charged with crimes that they were not guilty of. How many times was Ray Crone in a courtroom with the same witnesses present and convicted each time? If I were working on this case, I would start by asking who all knew about Zachary's knife collection? Yes, it is a shame that juries are convinced of impossible things, but it has happened plenty of times before. Let's not forget, its the prosecution's job to get a conviction once they persue a case against someone. They don't care if the the person is guilty or not, they only care about looking like they know what they are doing in front of the public. Ray Crone is a good example. I heard they tried to have him put back in prison even though they know he's not guilty, based on a technicality. I know it doesn't matter to anyone else but to me, Zachary has NOT been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I will be the first admit that I am wrong if they can come up with a motive he had for killing his brother, or some other "smoking gun" evidence that he is guilty. The puny knife is NOT that kind of evidence. It just doesn't make sense that he would kill his brother. What would he have to gain? Why attempt to hide the knife in a place where it could easily be discovered? It doesn't add up. That's the system for you. When you can't find any evidence pointing to someone else, you convict the only person that any evidence remotely points to. Sometimes, that just means the real criminal is really good at covering their tracks. Like Don said, all of you that are so convinced that this man is guilty, let's hope you are never charged and convicted of something you didn't do, when in fact someone else is really good at framing you for it. And there are plenty of TRUE stories where that has happened.
The Drama Continues

Harrisburg, PA

#11 Jan 5, 2011
Just as the court of public opinion has no bearing on ones guilt it also has no bearing on ones innocence.

He was found GUILTY by a jury of his peers.

If there IS grounds for a retrial , a judge will decide , not the public. Everything everyone is saying in their attempt to discredit his conviction is based on norms and averages. Determined people can do amazing things when they WNAT to. Regardless of their apparent physical limitations.

Goliath NEVER thougt for one second that little David could take him down.:)

Snake doc

Harrisburg, PA

#12 Jan 6, 2011
The Real Deal wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that I "incorrectly assume" that every other possibility was not considered, yet I read nothing about the prosecution "considering" the possibility that more than one person was involved in the murder. You ask "what possible motivation is there for "someone" to come up with an elaborate plan to kill a 13 yr old boy and frame his 15 yr old brother?" yet neither you nor the prosecution can name any motivation that the 15 year old had for killing his brother. What does motivate a person to kill? Perhaps it wasn't even about the 2 boys. Maybe the parents have an enemy that wanted to ruin them. I fail to see any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this boy killed his brother. The system DID NOT work.
You wouldn't read about the aspects of the investigation that proved fruitless you moron. It's a newspaper article not a court transcript or a police report. The reporter chooses what's relevant to their story. You believe everything you read in the news? You are inncorrect, he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt becuase a jury said so. You keep referencing Ray Crone. Do you actually know anything about his case? He was convicted on junk science bite mark exemplars. DNA exonerated him from being the person that actually made the bite. Nobody is denying that people are sometimes wrongly convicted. That fact alone doesn't make this kid innocent. If the parents had so bitter an enemy that someone would want to take their children away, I'm pretty sure given what the parents are doing now, that they'd be screaming the person's name from the top of the highest nearby hill. That's not the case is it. Instead they are doing what every guilty party does, pointing to the technicallity issues and perceived evidence weaknesses to try and get the conviction overturned. You are arguing on evidence that's already been decided on by a jury. There is no process for lay people to overturn a conviction based on what seems reasonable or likely. It doesn't matter, you aren't on the jury (thank the lord). You are not the judge. The system is not perfect and it does fail some people. Not the case here. There hasn't been another suspect developed becuase there isn't one. Not becuase prosecutors want to "look good." I don't blame the parents for still holding out hope that he didn't do it, it's understandable why they would feel that way. As parents we should fight for our kids. They are fighting the wrong fight though. You won't in your entire life see this kid get out. The best thing this kid could possibly do is admit, explain, and live out his life knowing that at least he took responsibility for his actions. That won't happen, just like his exonoration.
xray

Harrisburg, PA

#13 Jan 6, 2011
Another rerun of a B rated movie.Ple...ase, let it go! Channel Ydr 5:00 "Zach is back,"6:00 "Zach is back," 7:00 "Zach is back."
WTF

United States

#14 Jan 6, 2011
Did we beat this dead horse enough already???
Robiam

Shrewsbury, PA

#15 Jan 18, 2011
Don wrote:
George,you are dispectable.
I am still trying to figure out what "dispectable" means ...
Ditto

York, PA

#16 Jan 18, 2011
WTF wrote:
Did we beat this dead horse enough already???
You are not kidding. I live in the area and my son went to school with Zach. I remember it well, the evidence was overwhelming. Hey Real Deal - give it up, you have not a clue what you are talking about. Several of us who have posted followed this case from the day of the murder to the conviction. We have the facts. You are just spinning crap that you want to believe. Manage by fact not by what you believe or don't believe.
john

York, PA

#17 Jan 18, 2011
Don wrote:
George,you are dispectable.the jury convicted him.Yes my friend was released from Texas prison last week after 34yrs in prison.Yes,the jury convicted him and the new D/A FREED HIM.I hope you never get blamed for anything that you didn,t do.
the two storys are differant. they didnt have dna back then! or is everybody innocent that is in jail!
George

Washington, DC

#18 Jan 18, 2011
"dispectable"??????? HUH???? Do you really think the Whitmans want any of the DNA in this case tested????
Rick

Baltimore, MD

#19 Jan 19, 2011
john wrote:
<quoted text> the two storys are differant. they didnt have dna back then!
That's right! All life on earth was silicon-based in those days.
You could look it up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Freedom Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
zachary witman "rage turned murder" (Jan '07) Dec 19 Erin 34
News Friends of Fawn Twp. homicide victim call abuse... (May '11) Nov '17 Joe dirt 24
News A look at the family rescued from Taliban-linke... Oct '17 Lucky 1
News Reading & Northern Railroad... Sep '17 YouChewPoop 6
News Cider fest returns to Gettysburg (May '17) Aug '17 Costard 10
Seiling Furniture Co. Railroad, Pa (Aug '10) Aug '17 Gloria Lauria 29
News If your neighbor's house is falling apart, don'... (Mar '11) Aug '17 Denise Leigh 53

New Freedom Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

New Freedom Mortgages