Hey, there! Log in / Register

Interview with teen who took in the three pizza murder suspects after the murder

WBUR interviews a Hyde Park High School student who found her best friend and two guys in her yard around 2 a.m. last Wednesday:

Valery doesn't understand why they came to her house afterwards.

"It really sickens me. And [they] actually brought the box of pizza home and [were] offering me a slice of pizza ... and [they're] really letting me eat this pizza and [they] know [they] just robbed somebody and killed them," she said.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Because they (allegedly) told her a fake story, has she dodged being an accessory after the fact or harboring a fugitive?

Eyewitnesses, phone records, surveillence video, undoubtedly these geneiuses left DNA and physical evidence, a full confession and now this news.

I wonder if this girl will testify?

Boston Herald: Suffolk District Attorney Jennifer Hickman: Hickman said police later found the bloody pizza box, with three uneaten slices, near Nova’s 1995 Subaru Legacy, which the trio allegedly stole and abandoned. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20...

WBUR: Valery says they put a Dominos pizza box into her refrigerator. And she went to sleep. http://www.wbur.org/2010/09/08/deliveryman-stabbing

Boston Globe: The bloodstained pizza box was found under a car parked next to the Legacy — with three slices of pizza still inside.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art...

"I'll take a plain, leave the pepperoni"?

he was a pizza delivery man.

As well, I don't think there are any signs of impropriety or any indications of complicity by Valery.

WBUR is following up on a high-profile story to give listeners/readers some insight into the disposition of the alleged murders.

The poor girl.

This makes her former "BFF" seem all the more like a sociopath, and not the hapless innocent kid with no record her lawyer paints her to be.

1. The "facts" from which we're trying to reason are inconsistent and don't make much sense.

2. I haven't heard anyone yet mention the possibility that, if the accused are indeed guilty, that they might have not normally been inclined to do something criminal, but were under the influence of a drug.

So if they were under the influence of a drug - any drug - would you advocate a lesser sentence (presuming they are found responsible for the crime)?

I speaking only to the "sociopath" question, and, more generally, to the limited usefulness of speculation on so little information.

I'd advocate a harsher penalty.

Get doped up all you want, but do something while doped up be prepared to pay a higher price.

Did it occur to you that she gave the interview just to cover her own ass, either on the advice of her family or a lawyer? Just the fact that she granted the interview is really odd. And to WBUR? Sounds like someone went shopping for a sympathetic reporter, and WBUR bit.

It's not an interview; it's a press release. Literally. It reads exactly like a press releases generated by companies when they have something they want to announce, only instead of an executive with some fancy product or service to sell, it's a teenager looking at accessory charges...

Or looking at ostracism at school.

She wasn't exactly home alone. Her mother was there, they asked lots of questions, then they let them wash up, and fully cooperated with police. Don't you think she and her mother would have been arrested by now if they were under any suspicion? The Herald has a bit more info.

Note that they didn't take her along on their excursions, either, even though she was a fairly close associate of all of them - hmmm, like, a conscience can sometimes be a pest, as can its owner?