What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (2 Viewers)

It'll be interesting to see what other details come out when these other two cats go to trial.

And it'll be interesting to see if they're convicted. JMHO but I could see them making the "just riding along" defense work.

 
It'll be interesting to see what other details come out when these other two cats go to trial.

And it'll be interesting to see if they're convicted. JMHO but I could see them making the "just riding along" defense work.
When did cats get involved with this case?? :unsure:

 
How amazingly sobering. People in this world that have it ALL...have it ALL...and they can't simply be respectful to other life.

So this guy goes from a lifestyle that millions envy to walking out of his mansion in sweats and handcuffs, to breathing every breath of his long life behind bars.

And the Mass. tax payers get to pay for that for his next 50-70 years.
He should have his bank account emptied to pay for his own incarceration. Of course, Lloyd's family should be paid for wrongful death first, but after that it should all go to the state.
Is that your thought on how it SHOULD go or is that how it works in Mass.? Yeah, the civil case should give a ton to Odin's family but any left over, would seem fitting, to set aside a trust for educational purposes for any offspring but also set aside an amount to pay for his 25 year old self being in jail for life. That is a LONG haul.

 
It'll be interesting to see what other details come out when these other two cats go to trial.

And it'll be interesting to see if they're convicted. JMHO but I could see them making the "just riding along" defense work.
Just riding along as part of this joint venture?

-QG

 
Hernandez got what he deserved, i say that because im about to lay into the jury.

they have said time after time that they are not going to discuss what happened in the jury room, if you are not there to discuss that there isnt much to hear. the jury is obviously drooling for camera time and their 15 minutes from how they are taking this interview. laughing after sending a man away for killing another man does not seem like something i would be laughing about on camera either with the number of lives that were changed from this. seeing who the jury members were and my perception, they got the right verdict but they do not seem like a bright group of people.

just my perception from this group interview.

 
Jury debrief/interview was interesting.

Interesting bit at end was how they still don't know the time of Odin Lloyd's death - and the juror said that he found it interesting that Hernandez definitively said that he was at a club at the time of the murder. If the medical examiner couldn't pinpoint that how could Hernnandez know where he was when the murder happened. (Unstated by juror is that the closing statement of course put Hernandez at murder scene.)

-QG

 
Hernandez got what he deserved, i say that because im about to lay into the jury.

they have said time after time that they are not going to discuss what happened in the jury room, if you are not there to discuss that there isnt much to hear. the jury is obviously drooling for camera time and their 15 minutes from how they are taking this interview. laughing after sending a man away for killing another man does not seem like something i would be laughing about on camera either with the number of lives that were changed from this. seeing who the jury members were and my perception, they got the right verdict but they do not seem like a bright group of people.

just my perception from this group interview.
Juries are rarely a bright bunch of people. I have served twice, and came away both times feeling very happy I've never had to face a jury. I think the best you can hope for is one or two people capable of critical thinking who won't cower when the majority says things like "he just looks guilty" and "I am not going to miss another day of work."

Obviously this was a bigger trial than most, but I was shocked at how few of my fellow jurors even understood what we were trying to discern.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's clear some folks have a very difficult time distinguishing between what they think must've happened, and what the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you convict someone of murder based on that alone you would not be following the law. Intent needs to be proved.
In retrospect, do you guys feel like the jury got it wrong?

.
I mean, i wasnt privy to what evidence the jury saw, and im prejudiced because i along with everyone else had access to additional information that they couldnt use to make a decision. I think he did it so being that he was convicted i think they got it right. I was surprised to see them convict based on the evidence i saw presented however. But i cant say they got it wrong because i think he is guilty. :shrug:

 
This is pretty much exactly what I said at the time. Why admit to being there and witnessing the murder? There are basically three things to prove in a joint venture charge. One, was the defendant there, two, was a crime committed, and three did the defendant conspire or participate. The defense basically admitted to the first two in their closing argument by admitting that AH was there and witnessed the murder. It was not a great leap for jurors to find that he conspired from there.

IMO, a better strategy for the defense was to throw out possible explanations as to what happened. Maybe Hernandez like to jog around his neighborhood and there were leftover footprints from his morning jog. Maybe the four men came home together and dropped AH at his house and the other 3 alone went to the industrial park in the car AH had rented and acted alone. Maybe AH stayed in the car when Lloyd and one of the others went to take a whiz at the end of the road at the industrial park. Anything along those lines (even if untrue or not really believable) might resonate and create some doubt in one of the jurors. But saying that he was there and witnessed what happened IMO just makes him look more guilty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It'll be interesting to see what other details come out when these other two cats go to trial.

And it'll be interesting to see if they're convicted. JMHO but I could see them making the "just riding along" defense work.
Just riding along as part of this joint venture?

-QG
The "just riding along" defense would contend the other defendant(s) were not a part of the joint venture, because they lacked the intent and/or the knowledge components.

 
Massachusetts Juries>California Juries.

Still a murdering scumbag, OJ!
They got the Manson family and Night Stalker right, but do seem to have trouble with celeb cases (Robert Blake got off, Phil Spector took a second trial for a conviction after an initial hung jury). The OJ prosecution was incompetent, Bugliosi (Manson trial prosecutor) would have had a better chance of a conviction, especially if the venue was left in Santa Monica, where it should have been.

AH is a sociopath and serial killer that needs to be off the street, period.

Two other murders, shot a guy in the face and left for dead/attempted murder, investigated shooting when he was in college at Florida, assault in jail, plus a terrorist threat of murder against a guard, that we know about. Wouldn't be a surprise if there were other shootings or even murders, that we don't know about*.

Has an NFL player ever received life in prison for murder, WHILE ACTIVE?

* The behaviour of the flunkies kinda didn't sound like it was their first rodeo, either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
glad to see they got the right decision.
He is a soco

Massachusetts Juries>California Juries.

Still a murdering scumbag, OJ!
They got the Manson family right and Night Stalker right, but do seem to have trouble with celeb cases (Robert Blake got off, Phil Spector took a second trial for a conviction after an initial hung jury). The OJ prosecution was incompetent, Bugliosi (Manson trial prosecutor) would have had a better chance of a conviction, especially if the venue was left in Santa Monica, where it should have been.

AH was a sociopath and serial killer that needs to be off the street, period.

Two other murders, shot a guy in the face, investigated shooting when he was in college, assault in jail, plus a terrorist threat of murder against a guard. That we know about. Wouldn't be a surprise if there were other shootings or even murdets, that we don't know about.

Has an NFL player ever received life in prison for murder, WHILE ACTIVE?
how many people do we think he has actually killed in addition to Odin? there's the 2 in the other trial. Wasnt there suspicion of at least one down in florida?

 
When he was shakng his head after the verdict was announced, it wasn't in disbelief that the jury got it wrong.

AH thought balloon: Note to Self- Maybe I should have turned the home surveillance cameras off BEFORE murdering somebody a few blocks from home and waving a gun around like Scarface immediately before and after?

 
Anarchy99 said:
RUSF18 said:
This is pretty much exactly what I said at the time. Why admit to being there and witnessing the murder? There are basically three things to prove in a joint venture charge. One, was the defendant there, two, was a crime committed, and three did the defendant conspire or participate. The defense basically admitted to the first two in their closing argument by admitting that AH was there and witnessed the murder. It was not a great leap for jurors to find that he conspired from there.

IMO, a better strategy for the defense was to throw out possible explanations as to what happened. Maybe Hernandez like to jog around his neighborhood and there were leftover footprints from his morning jog. Maybe the four men came home together and dropped AH at his house and the other 3 alone went to the industrial park in the car AH had rented and acted alone. Maybe AH stayed in the car when Lloyd and one of the others went to take a whiz at the end of the road at the industrial park. Anything along those lines (even if untrue or not really believable) might resonate and create some doubt in one of the jurors. But saying that he was there and witnessed what happened IMO just makes him look more guilty.
Setting up for the Incompetent Attorney appeal. AH walks.
That's an incredibly high bar, especially considering the experience and cost of his defense team - this wasn't some overburdened 25 year old public defender who flunked the bar 3 times. In order to walk because his attorney was incompetent, he'll have to prove (1) incompetency AND (2) that the jury would've found him not guilty but for that incompetent representation. Good luck with that Aaron.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
Smart people get out of jury duty
True story - the one jury I was on, the foreman was the seismologist dude from Cal Tech that comes on camera after an earthquake in and around LA.

 
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
Smart people get out of jury duty

They should start paying 70k per year equivalent to be on a jury.
Yes this is exactly the problem. When i did jury duty last everyone had an excuse as to why they couldn't do it. Half the people who ended up on the jury had no interest in being there and wanted it over as fast as possible.

 
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
Smart people get out of jury duty

They should start paying 70k per year equivalent to be on a jury.
just my opinion after watching the interview that the prosecution looked to get the dumbest jury possible. this group of people couldlt look or act any more ignorant in front of the camera. im not judging them as people in their lives but as jurors from the little i saw of them they really looked like they were the stereotype and too dumb to get out of jury duty. i think one woman had a side pony tail. i mean if she doesnt realize that hair style is out of whack how can she really determine the meaning of law.

i still think they got the verdict right by default but im thinking the big picture of juries and how it isnt hard for them to get things so wrong.

 
How Hernandez could have pulled this off:

  1. Don't leave the keys in Lloyd's pocket to a rental car in your own name
  2. Don't leave a ganja blunt at the scene
  3. Don't leave spent shell casings in your rental car
  4. Don't leave your home surveillance system on and then do a poor job of destroying it later, it has a power cord
  5. Don't let your attorney admit you were at the scene
  6. Don't let your intended victim text out minutes before you intend to whack him. A $500 unit seems like chump change when you have a $40MM contract.
  7. Don't leave weapons and drugs in your house for mystery box removal
 
How Hernandez could have pulled this off:

  1. Don't leave the keys in Lloyd's pocket to a rental car in your own name
  2. Don't leave a ganja blunt at the scene
  3. Don't leave spent shell casings in your rental car
  4. Don't leave your home surveillance system on and then do a poor job of destroying it later, it has a power cord
  5. Don't let your attorney admit you were at the scene
  6. Don't let your intended victim text out minutes before you intend to whack him. A $500 unit seems like chump change when you have a $40MM contract.
  7. Don't leave weapons and drugs in your house for mystery box removal
#8. Don't murder anyone

 
wouldn't the shark move here be to fire your lawyers and just defend yourself at this next one to save a few bucks?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comment from an ESPN legal analyst:

It is a conviction that will withstand any attempt by Hernandez and his lawyers to reverse it on appeal. To achieve success on an appeal, Hernandez must show that Bristol County Superior Court Judge E. Susan Garsh is guilty of "reversible error," a mistake so egregious that she deprived Hernandez of a fair trial. Garsh, in her rulings before and during the trial, favored Hernandez, depriving the prosecution of dramatic evidence. Any error she might have made hurt the prosecution more than it hurt Hernandez.
Seems a little strong of a statement, but the part about rulings having favored Hernandez seems like it's probably right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

 
It will be interesting to see if Ortiz and Wallace take the stand in their trials now and what rendition of events they give.

 
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?
Wait what?

 
It will be interesting to see if Ortiz and Wallace take the stand in their trials now and what rendition of events they give.
The same joint venture rules apply, so if they finger AH they will need to come up with a plausible explanation as to why they did nothing while Hernandez did everything. Participating in = murder in Massachusetts.

Since everyone was so focused on Hernandez, we don't really know what physical evidence places Ortiz and Wallace at the scene and what the police found elsewhere. Given that Hernandez has blown through his money and has a lot more legal proceedings to get through, one would think these two won't have as high a pedigree in terms of legal representation (not that it helped AH that much).

I think another interesting question will be if they elect to testify at Hernandez' appeal hearing or other murder trial (if that could get them a reduced sentence).

 
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?
Wait what?
what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?

 
If they don't think AH has a strong case at the appellate level, the prosecution in the case/s of Ortiz and Wallace wouldn't seem likely to feel the need to cut them a deal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?
Wait what?
what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?
Old joke from a Playboy mag:

Head Juror: Guilty, your Honor. We figure where there's smoke, there's fire.

 
RUSF18 said:
No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.
They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?
Wait what?
what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?
Old joke from a Playboy mag:

Head Juror: Guilty, your Honor. We figure where there's smoke, there's fire.
lol, but in this case there is tons of evidence putting him at the scene (his lawyers actually admitted that). Then they have him on videotape waving around a gun and imprints of his shoe at the murder scene.

Obviously there is tons of other evidence as well. I just don't see how anyone can bash the jury for finding him guilty.

 
isn't hernandez already in jail for life?

I don't really understand what his accomplices have to offer the da
Hernandez still gets his automatic appeal and still has his double murder to fight. If the two goons from the single murder come clean and say AH really was the trigger man, they might get Murder 2 or Manslaughter and be out in 15-20 years. The prosecution then has way more to work with in both cases and potentially saves the government tons of money. Unless Ortiz and Wallace feel that they would get rubbed out, it makes sense for them. It may not make as much sense for the state, however.

 
It will be interesting to see if Ortiz and Wallace take the stand in their trials now and what rendition of events they give.
The same joint venture rules apply, so if they finger AH they will need to come up with a plausible explanation as to why they did nothing while Hernandez did everything. Participating in = murder in Massachusetts.

Since everyone was so focused on Hernandez, we don't really know what physical evidence places Ortiz and Wallace at the scene and what the police found elsewhere. Given that Hernandez has blown through his money and has a lot more legal proceedings to get through, one would think these two won't have as high a pedigree in terms of legal representation (not that it helped AH that much).

I think another interesting question will be if they elect to testify at Hernandez' appeal hearing or other murder trial (if that could get them a reduced sentence).
The key part for Hernandez will be the key part for them as well. The state has to either convince the jury they pulled the trigger, or they had knowledge of the intent.

So their defense would be what Hernandez tried to do with the PCP defense... saying someone else did it (AH) and that they didn't know what he was planning.

It would get really interesting if Hernandez figures he won't win an appeal, so he testifies for his homies in their trials that he was the gunman and they didn't know what, or help in, what he planned. Note, I think the odds of that are miniscule, he'll cling to any hope in an appeal. But the situation has some interesting possibilities.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How Hernandez could have pulled this off:

  • Don't leave the keys in Lloyd's pocket to a rental car in your own name
  • Don't leave a ganja blunt at the scene
  • Don't leave spent shell casings in your rental car
  • Don't leave your home surveillance system on and then do a poor job of destroying it later, it has a power cord
  • Don't let your attorney admit you were at the scene
  • Don't let your intended victim text out minutes before you intend to whack him. A $500 unit seems like chump change when you have a $40MM contract.
  • Don't leave weapons and drugs in your house for mystery box removal
He's a thug. Logical analysis doesn't apply.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top