Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

Sarnoff is gonna be catching fish for years in this thread.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Add this:

...immediately afterward, he grabbed the gun away from his friend, and panicked. Did not think of the consequences of his actions. Decided to call his agent and say he's in some trouble. His agent said, "if there's evidence, get rid of it". Then put him in touch with a very bad lawyer who gave him bad advice, like "don't report it right away, let's figure out our response first." By the time he got good legal advice, it was too late and the police were searching his house based on the information given to them by the actual killers looking to frame him. He's one or two legal malpractice suits away from a not-guilty verdict.

If they'd found gunpowder residue on AH, the DA certainly would have said so by now. There's still no indication he pulled the trigger. Until there is, a lot of scenarios are within the realm of possibility.

You're better than this.

 

[Michael Brown]

Let's not forget that the scenario where he's supposedly "totally innocent" involves him having his friends put a scare into a guy in an abandoned lot. Pretty sure that's already a serious crime

 

[Bob Magaw]

The OJ walked observation is sometimes invoked.

But if a camera had caught his vehicle right by the site of the murder within a few minutes, and his home security footage caught him returning home with a knife dripping blood (I grabbed it from somebody trying to scare her and he slipped), would even the dream team been able to get him off?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

The OJ walked observation is sometimes invoked.

But if a camera had caught his vehicle right by the site of the murder within a few minutes, and his home security footage caught him returning home with a knife dripping blood (I grabbed it from somebody trying to scare her and he slipped), would even the dream team been able to get him off?

IMO the OJ verdict was more about the jury making a social statement and a statement about the LAPD -- I don't think that jury cared a ton what kind of evidence was presented to them.

 

[False Start]

Where did a lot of this info come from? Mostly from the story by the criminals who are not being called to the stand for some reason. Do they have a murder weapon, video tape of the actual act, or any eyewitnesses not affiliated with the murder? Easier to believe if they had something more than hearsay. All that points to a not guilty verdict. Unless Hernandez was dumb enough to incriminate himself in a text message or recorded phone call, he will get off. A photo of him holding a gun after the crime, renting a car, having the same ammo all is not evidence of a crime. He had a hand in the events sure and that is only my thought and opinion but there is no proof he committed the murder AS OF NOW to convince 12 people he committed murder. You just can't throw a man in jail for the rest of his life on a hunch, you need solid balls to the wall proof. Some people do have horrible luck of always being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Bob Magaw]

The OJ walked observation is sometimes invoked.

But if a camera had caught his vehicle right by the site of the murder within a few minutes, and his home security footage caught him returning home with a knife dripping blood (I grabbed it from somebody trying to scare her and he slipped), would even the dream team been able to get him off?

IMO the OJ verdict was more about the jury making a social statement and a statement about the LAPD -- I don't think that jury cared a ton what kind of evidence was presented to them.

I agree, but IMO, in the above scenario, there would have been a conviction. In fact, I think he may have looked for a plea.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Where did a lot of this info come from? Mostly from the story by the criminals who are not being called to the stand for some reason. Do they have a murder weapon, video tape of the actual act, or any eyewitnesses not affiliated with the murder? Easier to believe if they had something more than hearsay. All that points to a not guilty verdict. Unless Hernandez was dumb enough to incriminate himself in a text message or recorded phone call, he will get off. A photo of him holding a gun after the crime, renting a car, having the same ammo all is not evidence of a crime. He had a hand in the events sure and that is only my thought and opinion but there is no proof he committed the murder AS OF NOW to convince 12 people he committed murder. You just can't throw a man in jail for the rest of his life on a hunch, you need solid balls to the wall proof. Some people do have horrible luck of always being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't think you have a consensus view of the legitimacy of overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Many murders are prosecuted and convictions gained without murder weapon, live video tape or cooperative witnesses.Even if AH shot Lloyd several times on the 50 yard line of a Pats game at half time, handed a still smoking gun with his fingerprints over to the police and 60,000 plus witnesses were deposed, Sarnoff would still argue a sniper had a rifle trained on AH or they kidnapped his family and made him do it.

This is an abstract exercise for you. Just as a thought experiment, God forbid AH murdered somebody close to you (say a good friend), would you be as willing to overlook the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to him, and still fight for his right to get out on bail?

* You seem to be following Sarnoff's lead, but he seems fundamentally mistaken, quoting Maurile as saying something he disavowed. He did have an obligation to cooperate in a murder investigation, he obstructed it when he disabled his security system, and gave up the right to claim innocence of conspiracy charges by not cooperating.

Picture yourself and two or three buddies standing over a still fresh bullet ridden corpse outside a police station or courthouse. Another friend takes the murder weapons and throws them in a lake. No gun powder residue because you all fired guns covered with bubble wrap. No camera. All you guys have to do is clam up and not rat each other out, and you get off scot free. It is that simple, right? And absolutely you should get out on bail, because there is no "proof" you did it. So what if he was one of your associates, somebody else did it and took off, wasn't you.

 

[General Tso]

http://touch.courant.com/#section/2225/article/p2p-79164178/

Related?? This guy was with AH the night of the double murder. Still getting shot at....

 

[Hipple II]

Rotoworld:

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez case won't call Carlos Ortiz, once believed to be the star witness, to the stand to testify as a witness at all.
Neither Ortiz nor Ernest Wallace, the two men believed to be in the car with Hernandez and victim Odin Lloyd on the night of the murder, apparently will not be called as witnesses. Prosecutors reportedly view Ortiz as "completely unreliable" because his story has changed dramatically over the past couple months. Prosecutors now want to look over Hernandez's phone conversations via text message in search of "coded messages" he may have sent to his fiancee or cousin. The case against Hernandez may not be as strong as once believed.

Source: Taunton Daily Gazette

Thats because all the information never presents itself at one time. We all knew from the get go their was a lot of circumstantial evidence and this is another reason why a man not convicted of a crime should not be in prison. Maybe a ankle bracelet and house arrest, but leaving a possible innocent man behind bars bothers me a good bit as it has bothered some others from reading over older posts.

Too bad Hernandez isn't even remotely "possibly innocent". It's conceivable he didn't pull a trigger (although I doubt it) but no, not innocent by any means.

This always bothers me when a guy so far away listens to what is said in the media and put out there by the people trying to convince everyone he is guilty, the prosecutors. Not even possibly innocent huh?

GIve a plausible scenario where he's innocent of all charges

One scenario is a jury of his peers could say so.

Innocence has nothing to do with a jury of his peers because, one thing you're right about - juries can be unpredictable and even a little soft. But no, there is "no way" that Hernandez is innocent.

And please stop with the idea that we're brainwashed by the media. I think you've deluded yourself playing the contrarian.

sounds like you ae talking about moral guilt/innocence and not criminal guilt -what most ffers are interested in--, because hernandez is absolutely innocent, as we all are until proven guilty.

 

[False Start]

Rotoworld:

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez case won't call Carlos Ortiz, once believed to be the star witness, to the stand to testify as a witness at all.
Neither Ortiz nor Ernest Wallace, the two men believed to be in the car with Hernandez and victim Odin Lloyd on the night of the murder, apparently will not be called as witnesses. Prosecutors reportedly view Ortiz as "completely unreliable" because his story has changed dramatically over the past couple months. Prosecutors now want to look over Hernandez's phone conversations via text message in search of "coded messages" he may have sent to his fiancee or cousin. The case against Hernandez may not be as strong as once believed.

Source: Taunton Daily Gazette

Thats because all the information never presents itself at one time. We all knew from the get go their was a lot of circumstantial evidence and this is another reason why a man not convicted of a crime should not be in prison. Maybe a ankle bracelet and house arrest, but leaving a possible innocent man behind bars bothers me a good bit as it has bothered some others from reading over older posts.

Too bad Hernandez isn't even remotely "possibly innocent". It's conceivable he didn't pull a trigger (although I doubt it) but no, not innocent by any means.

This always bothers me when a guy so far away listens to what is said in the media and put out there by the people trying to convince everyone he is guilty, the prosecutors. Not even possibly innocent huh?

GIve a plausible scenario where he's innocent of all charges

One scenario is a jury of his peers could say so.

Innocence has nothing to do with a jury of his peers because, one thing you're right about - juries can be unpredictable and even a little soft. But no, there is "no way" that Hernandez is innocent.

And please stop with the idea that we're brainwashed by the media. I think you've deluded yourself playing the contrarian.

So a jury can be unpredictable but there is NO way he is innocent? Strange. You actually said that in the same statement. I

As far as its not possible for people to be brainwashed by the media? Two words for you "Fox News." I deluded myself for playing an American citizens who believes in laws an innocent until proven guilty and that you have to have proof of a crime not just a bunch of stories? I'm just objective and wait for evidence to convict a man for the rest of his life. Quite obvious you are not objective seeing as how an objective person would never say "he has NO chance to be innocent." When he actually quite literally has a 1 in 12 chance. Thats all it takes.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Rotoworld:

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez case won't call Carlos Ortiz, once believed to be the star witness, to the stand to testify as a witness at all.
Neither Ortiz nor Ernest Wallace, the two men believed to be in the car with Hernandez and victim Odin Lloyd on the night of the murder, apparently will not be called as witnesses. Prosecutors reportedly view Ortiz as "completely unreliable" because his story has changed dramatically over the past couple months. Prosecutors now want to look over Hernandez's phone conversations via text message in search of "coded messages" he may have sent to his fiancee or cousin. The case against Hernandez may not be as strong as once believed.

Source: Taunton Daily Gazette

Thats because all the information never presents itself at one time. We all knew from the get go their was a lot of circumstantial evidence and this is another reason why a man not convicted of a crime should not be in prison. Maybe a ankle bracelet and house arrest, but leaving a possible innocent man behind bars bothers me a good bit as it has bothered some others from reading over older posts.

Too bad Hernandez isn't even remotely "possibly innocent". It's conceivable he didn't pull a trigger (although I doubt it) but no, not innocent by any means.

This always bothers me when a guy so far away listens to what is said in the media and put out there by the people trying to convince everyone he is guilty, the prosecutors. Not even possibly innocent huh?

GIve a plausible scenario where he's innocent of all charges

One scenario is a jury of his peers could say so.

Innocence has nothing to do with a jury of his peers because, one thing you're right about - juries can be unpredictable and even a little soft. But no, there is "no way" that Hernandez is innocent.

And please stop with the idea that we're brainwashed by the media. I think you've deluded yourself playing the contrarian.

So a jury can be unpredictable but there is NO way he is innocent? Strange. You actually said that in the same statement. I

As far as its not possible for people to be brainwashed by the media? Two words for you "Fox News." I deluded myself for playing an American citizens who believes in laws an innocent until proven guilty and that you have to have proof of a crime not just a bunch of stories? I'm just objective and wait for evidence to convict a man for the rest of his life. Quite obvious you are not objective seeing as how an objective person would never say "he has NO chance to be innocent." When he actually quite literally has a 1 in 12 chance. Thats all it takes.

I don't agree with your position on innocent until proven guilty, that applies ONLY to criminal law in the eyes of the government, not real life.

That said, the numbers are even more in your favor than you suggest as 1 in 12.

In order to convict, all 12 must agree. So 1 in 12 isn't his "chance". Looked at that way, his "chance" would be 1-(.5 (assuming 50/50 chance for each juror) ^ 12), which gives a well over 99% chance he gets off!

I have my doubts on that 50/50 prospect though.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@DailyMailUS: EXCLUSIVE: Aaron Hernandez 'apparently high' and dancing before friend's murder http://t.co/7C0icX4Aox

 

[TheMagus]

Where did a lot of this info come from? Mostly from the story by the criminals who are not being called to the stand for some reason. Do they have a murder weapon, video tape of the actual act, or any eyewitnesses not affiliated with the murder? Easier to believe if they had something more than hearsay. All that points to a not guilty verdict. Unless Hernandez was dumb enough to incriminate himself in a text message or recorded phone call, he will get off. A photo of him holding a gun after the crime, renting a car, having the same ammo all is not evidence of a crime. He had a hand in the events sure and that is only my thought and opinion but there is no proof he committed the murder AS OF NOW to convince 12 people he committed murder. You just can't throw a man in jail for the rest of his life on a hunch, you need solid balls to the wall proof. Some people do have horrible luck of always being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So you are saying in order to get a murder conviction in this country you need definitive evidence like a video of the crime or an eye witness?

I think you watch too many crime dramas on the television.

 

[KellysHeroes]

might have to pick AH off the waivers when my leagues open

 

[DropKick]

Rotoworld:

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez case won't call Carlos Ortiz, once believed to be the star witness, to the stand to testify as a witness at all.
Neither Ortiz nor Ernest Wallace, the two men believed to be in the car with Hernandez and victim Odin Lloyd on the night of the murder, apparently will not be called as witnesses. Prosecutors reportedly view Ortiz as "completely unreliable" because his story has changed dramatically over the past couple months. Prosecutors now want to look over Hernandez's phone conversations via text message in search of "coded messages" he may have sent to his fiancee or cousin. The case against Hernandez may not be as strong as once believed.

Source: Taunton Daily Gazette

Thats because all the information never presents itself at one time. We all knew from the get go their was a lot of circumstantial evidence and this is another reason why a man not convicted of a crime should not be in prison. Maybe a ankle bracelet and house arrest, but leaving a possible innocent man behind bars bothers me a good bit as it has bothered some others from reading over older posts.

Too bad Hernandez isn't even remotely "possibly innocent". It's conceivable he didn't pull a trigger (although I doubt it) but no, not innocent by any means.

This always bothers me when a guy so far away listens to what is said in the media and put out there by the people trying to convince everyone he is guilty, the prosecutors. Not even possibly innocent huh?

GIve a plausible scenario where he's innocent of all charges

One scenario is a jury of his peers could say so.

Innocence has nothing to do with a jury of his peers because, one thing you're right about - juries can be unpredictable and even a little soft. But no, there is "no way" that Hernandez is innocent.

And please stop with the idea that we're brainwashed by the media. I think you've deluded yourself playing the contrarian.

sounds like you ae talking about moral guilt/innocence and not criminal guilt -what most ffers are interested in--, because hernandez is absolutely innocent, as we all are until proven guilty.

I'm talking about factual guilt.

 

[DropKick]

Rotoworld:

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez case won't call Carlos Ortiz, once believed to be the star witness, to the stand to testify as a witness at all.
Neither Ortiz nor Ernest Wallace, the two men believed to be in the car with Hernandez and victim Odin Lloyd on the night of the murder, apparently will not be called as witnesses. Prosecutors reportedly view Ortiz as "completely unreliable" because his story has changed dramatically over the past couple months. Prosecutors now want to look over Hernandez's phone conversations via text message in search of "coded messages" he may have sent to his fiancee or cousin. The case against Hernandez may not be as strong as once believed.

Source: Taunton Daily Gazette

Thats because all the information never presents itself at one time. We all knew from the get go their was a lot of circumstantial evidence and this is another reason why a man not convicted of a crime should not be in prison. Maybe a ankle bracelet and house arrest, but leaving a possible innocent man behind bars bothers me a good bit as it has bothered some others from reading over older posts.

Too bad Hernandez isn't even remotely "possibly innocent". It's conceivable he didn't pull a trigger (although I doubt it) but no, not innocent by any means.

This always bothers me when a guy so far away listens to what is said in the media and put out there by the people trying to convince everyone he is guilty, the prosecutors. Not even possibly innocent huh?

GIve a plausible scenario where he's innocent of all charges

One scenario is a jury of his peers could say so.

Innocence has nothing to do with a jury of his peers because, one thing you're right about - juries can be unpredictable and even a little soft. But no, there is "no way" that Hernandez is innocent.

And please stop with the idea that we're brainwashed by the media. I think you've deluded yourself playing the contrarian.

sounds like you ae talking about moral guilt/innocence and not criminal guilt -what most ffers are interested in--, because hernandez is absolutely innocent, as we all are until proven guilty.

Incidentally, he is not "absolutely innocent". Your referring to the presumption of innocence which, in our legal system means the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It makes for great banter but if he was considered absolutely innocent, he would not be in a jail cell, right?

Innocent people have been found guilty in a court of law, right?

Guilty people have been found innocent in a court of law, right?

Being "found guilty or innocent" is not the same as being guilty or innocent

 

[False Start]

Rotoworld:

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez case won't call Carlos Ortiz, once believed to be the star witness, to the stand to testify as a witness at all.
Neither Ortiz nor Ernest Wallace, the two men believed to be in the car with Hernandez and victim Odin Lloyd on the night of the murder, apparently will not be called as witnesses. Prosecutors reportedly view Ortiz as "completely unreliable" because his story has changed dramatically over the past couple months. Prosecutors now want to look over Hernandez's phone conversations via text message in search of "coded messages" he may have sent to his fiancee or cousin. The case against Hernandez may not be as strong as once believed.

Source: Taunton Daily Gazette

Thats because all the information never presents itself at one time. We all knew from the get go their was a lot of circumstantial evidence and this is another reason why a man not convicted of a crime should not be in prison. Maybe a ankle bracelet and house arrest, but leaving a possible innocent man behind bars bothers me a good bit as it has bothered some others from reading over older posts.

Too bad Hernandez isn't even remotely "possibly innocent". It's conceivable he didn't pull a trigger (although I doubt it) but no, not innocent by any means.

This always bothers me when a guy so far away listens to what is said in the media and put out there by the people trying to convince everyone he is guilty, the prosecutors. Not even possibly innocent huh?

GIve a plausible scenario where he's innocent of all charges

One scenario is a jury of his peers could say so.

Innocence has nothing to do with a jury of his peers because, one thing you're right about - juries can be unpredictable and even a little soft. But no, there is "no way" that Hernandez is innocent.

And please stop with the idea that we're brainwashed by the media. I think you've deluded yourself playing the contrarian.

So a jury can be unpredictable but there is NO way he is innocent? Strange. You actually said that in the same statement. I

As far as its not possible for people to be brainwashed by the media? Two words for you "Fox News." I deluded myself for playing an American citizens who believes in laws an innocent until proven guilty and that you have to have proof of a crime not just a bunch of stories? I'm just objective and wait for evidence to convict a man for the rest of his life. Quite obvious you are not objective seeing as how an objective person would never say "he has NO chance to be innocent." When he actually quite literally has a 1 in 12 chance. Thats all it takes.

I don't agree with your position on innocent until proven guilty, that applies ONLY to criminal law in the eyes of the government, not real life.

That said, the numbers are even more in your favor than you suggest as 1 in 12.

In order to convict, all 12 must agree. So 1 in 12 isn't his "chance". Looked at that way, his "chance" would be 1-(.5 (assuming 50/50 chance for each juror) ^ 12), which gives a well over 99% chance he gets off!

I have my doubts on that 50/50 prospect though.

Real life? You mean "people who judge something from a far with just the information media provides real life?" Glad the government does it a better way then you then. When I said 1 in 12 chance, that means all it takes is one out of 12 to not convict, thanks for not understanding how I said it. I am sorry you think people did stuff just because you saw some stuff on the TV. Were you in the interrogation room, are you in on the conversations? No, so passing judgement without the facts shows you don't need all the facts to judge someone which if you call that real life, well I guess you would be right. That is what the majority of society does anyways, judge people without reason or proof.

 

[ghostguy123]

At some point they need to put hernandez in pay per view doing something to raise money for some sort of cause. Maybe for the families of all the people he killed.....that we know about.

Maybe he can fight zimmerman.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I don't agree with your position on innocent until proven guilty, that applies ONLY to criminal law in the eyes of the government, not real life.

That said, the numbers are even more in your favor than you suggest as 1 in 12.

In order to convict, all 12 must agree. So 1 in 12 isn't his "chance". Looked at that way, his "chance" would be 1-(.5 (assuming 50/50 chance for each juror) ^ 12), which gives a well over 99% chance he gets off!

I have my doubts on that 50/50 prospect though.

Real life? You mean "people who judge something from a far with just the information media provides real life?" Glad the government does it a better way then you then. When I said 1 in 12 chance, that means all it takes is one out of 12 to not convict, thanks for not understanding how I said it. I am sorry you think people did stuff just because you saw some stuff on the TV. Were you in the interrogation room, are you in on the conversations? No, so passing judgement without the facts shows you don't need all the facts to judge someone which if you call that real life, well I guess you would be right. That is what the majority of society does anyways, judge people without reason or proof.

I'm not sure I understand all of your point(s), but I'll give it a shot... On the "real life" thing, others have already explained that. If I go out tonight, break into some random person's house and kill them while leaving ZERO evidence, I will never be found guilty of anything. I will be legally "innocent". That doesn't mean I'm not a murderer. That's real life (or "factual guilt" as others have called it).

I am FINE with the way government does it. While not perfect, I think the court system does a decent job most of the time. That system put Hernandez in jail until the trial is over (at least) and I am fine with that.

As for the numbers, in no scenario does 1 in 12 make any kind of real sense, but I was more or less funnin you on that anyway. I know what you were saying, and your essential point is very true. All it takes is one guy to not be convinced and AH will not be found guilty on that charge. However, a hung jury (the scenario you are talking about) does NOT determine innocence either. He'd probably still be in jail awaiting a re-trial.

As for passing judgment without any first-hand knowledge of the situation, you are right, we are all guilty of that more or less every day on a million different things. I believe in atoms because of what I have read, not because I can see them. I believe certain congressmen do a better job than others not because I am in the rotunda listening to them cast their votes, it's because I get the summary from the news. I don't even "know" for certain AH is in jail right now - but I believe the news reported that "fact" correctly. This is no different. Yes, the evil media could be lying to us about every detail of this case, but I have enough trust (not perfect trust, but enough trust) to believe enough of what I've heard to make a "judgment" that he's PROBABLY guilty of quite a bit of nastiness (if not directly pulling the trigger). I could change my mind of course, and the jurors will see a lot more than we've been privy to, so it is CERTAINLY possible he will be found not guilty of some of the charges.

Hopefully, that addresses any concerns you may have of me wanting to throw innocent folks in jail willy-nilly.

 

[KellysHeroes]

OJ was found Innocent. Casey Anthony too.

 

[CapnJB]

OJ was found Innocent. Casey Anthony too.

They were found not guilty. Not guilty and innocent are two very different things.

 

[Bob Magaw]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

 

[DropKick]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Apparently...

The contrarians in this thread... I'll call them that because they thrive on playing devil's advocate but even they don't believe what they say... would like to have you believe that every AH story was construed by the "media" in some kind of anti-Pats conspiracy. I mean, why else would anyone just single out and pick on poor Aaron? Hey, we're lucky Incognito wasn't a Patriot because THAT would have been a real story.

What do we have though? Gang affiliation? Drug use? Bizarre conduct? Video evidence with gun in hand? Another allegation of a double murder? Incriminating phone and text messages? Another man shot in the face? Destroyed his own security system?. Questioned in a 2007 murder? The victim's own messages indicating he was with Aaron? I could go on...

Is he innocent? Sure! Innocent men call their friends for help, get high, possibly on angel dust, break dance at the gas station, buy some gum, kill their fiancee's sister's boyfriend, leave the dead body down the street from the house, leave the chewed gum in the vehicle with shell casings, destroy their home security system and fail to cooperate with authorities, while they hire professional cleaning services...


Hey, it's just first degree murder and five gun related charges. Absolutely innocent! It's clearly just the "man" trying to keep a Puerto Rican/Italian from being successful.

Fantasy football question. I've been holding Barry Sanders for some time now hoping he would come out of retirement. should I offer him up for AH? Once these trumped up charges are proven untrue, he could be a top TE again, right?

 

[False Start]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Apparently...

The contrarians in this thread... I'll call them that because they thrive on playing devil's advocate but even they don't believe what they say... would like to have you believe that every AH story was construed by the "media" in some kind of anti-Pats conspiracy. I mean, why else would anyone just single out and pick on poor Aaron? Hey, we're lucky Incognito wasn't a Patriot because THAT would have been a real story.

What do we have though? Gang affiliation? Drug use? Bizarre conduct? Video evidence with gun in hand? Another allegation of a double murder? Incriminating phone and text messages? Another man shot in the face? Destroyed his own security system?. Questioned in a 2007 murder? The victim's own messages indicating he was with Aaron? I could go on...

Is he innocent? Sure! Innocent men call their friends for help, get high, possibly on angel dust, break dance at the gas station, buy some gum, kill their fiancee's sister's boyfriend, leave the dead body down the street from the house, leave the chewed gum in the vehicle with shell casings, destroy their home security system and fail to cooperate with authorities, while they hire professional cleaning services...


Hey, it's just first degree murder and five gun related charges. Absolutely innocent! It's clearly just the "man" trying to keep a Puerto Rican/Italian from being successful.

Fantasy football question. I've been holding Barry Sanders for some time now hoping he would come out of retirement. should I offer him up for AH? Once these trumped up charges are proven untrue, he could be a top TE again, right?

As opposed to just forcing your circumstantial views on everyone else. Because I don't agree with you I don't believe what I am saying? You want to throw him in jail without his day in court. Also, is any of the underlined a proof of guilt? No. It's just someone, like the media, filling in holes with their agenda or what they want people to believe. The fact you don't think law enforcement has put crimes on innocent people bothers me. I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm saying there is no hard evidence and he will be found not guilty.

Gang affiliation? = So he must of killed someone, they all do.

Drug use? = I smoke weed and I never killed anyone

Bizarre conduct? = Really?

Video evidence with gun in hand? He must of been the one to use it and it must have been that weapon you can tell all this from pictures.

Another allegation of a double murder? You said it yourself, allegation.

Incriminating phone and text messages? You read all the texts in order in there full context?

Another man shot in the face? People die everyday and get killed everyday, Hernandez must of killed them all

Destroyed his own security system? It was his to do what he likes.

Questioned in a 2007 murder? So asking someone questions means they killed someone

The victim's own messages indicating he was with Aaron? Not proof Aaron was there at the time of the crime or that he pulled the trigger.

No murder weapon, no evidence other than circumstantial and no credible witnesses - that is a not guilty verdict in the court of law.

Innocence is not for me to decide when I was not there, I just like any reasonable and rational people need hard evidence and not a story from the media to put people away for the rest of their life.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible.

You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

 

[False Start]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible.

You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

 

[Amused to Death]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible. You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

Public opinion is not the same as convicting.

 

[False Start]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible. You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

Public opinion is not the same as convicting.

Public opinion does not matter when you are facing life. Needless to say Hernandez does not care about your opinion and the verdict is all that matters to him.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible.

You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

I wasn't talking to you, why do you feel the need to jump in?

 

[False Start]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible.

You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

I wasn't talking to you, why do you feel the need to jump in?

Because you typed a comment that I didn't agree with on a public discussion forum and thought I would help the people who do not believe in the constitution out.

 

[Amused to Death]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible. You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

Public opinion is not the same as convicting.

Public opinion does not matter when you are facing life. Needless to say Hernandez does not care about your opinion and the verdict is all that matters to him.

Your words were "no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court". No one here is "convicting" - it's public opinion.

If 2 men walk into an empty room and outside you hear a gun shot. One man walks out holding a gun and the other is dead, that man is still presumed innocent in a court of law. Common sense tells you the man with the gun is guilty.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

 

[False Start]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible. You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

Public opinion is not the same as convicting.

Public opinion does not matter when you are facing life. Needless to say Hernandez does not care about your opinion and the verdict is all that matters to him.

Your words were "no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court". No one here is "convicting" - it's public opinion.

If 2 men walk into an empty room and outside you hear a gun shot. One man walks out holding a gun and the other is dead, that man is still presumed innocent in a court of law. Common sense tells you the man with the gun is guilty.

Common sense tells me to listen to the mans story and see if there is an corroborating evidence to his proof of guilt SINCE I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. Did anyone here witness Hernandez kill Lloyd? didnt think so. By the way if you say he is guilty without his day in court you are convicting him in the court of public opinion.

 

[KellysHeroes]

OJ was found Innocent. Casey Anthony too.

They were found not guilty. Not guilty and innocent are two very different things.

good point, but I'm afraid Hernandez is going to join this club

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=FLf7y6lSuVqGScZkKj-WviKw

 

[False Start]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

 

[Amused to Death]

Common sense tells me to listen to the mans story and see if there is an corroborating evidence to his proof of guilt SINCE I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. Did anyone here witness Hernandez kill Lloyd? didnt think so. By the way if you say he is guilty without his day in court you are convicting him in the court of public opinion.

Sorry, I don't have the power to convict - only offer an opinion. Like everyone else one this board.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

AH is seen minutes after the murder holding a gun in his hand. Are we supposed to ignore that because it was reported by the media?

Bob, you are wasting your time arguing with anyone who believe Hernandez is innocent. Even an elementary school kid can connect the dots on this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty however we have a growing pattern here with Hernandez. Could Aaron get off on some technicality or find 2 members of a jury that simply won't convict and therefore something else is what he is charged with? I guess anything is possible. You have to put on your common sense hat and that is something as a society we have lost. He looks as guilty as sin from all the press that has been published but contrarians would spin it some other way. Some folks just like a good argument like the Monthy Python skit and that's why it really doesn't do a lot of good to argue about something you know you are right about.

Even if AH were somehow to be found not guilty(notice I didn't say innocent) I would bet the farm he will be found guilty in a civil trial. Even if he didn't pull the trigger he was an accomplice to murder. But some folks like to argue.

Being found not guilty is being acquitted and exonerated of all charges and is innocence. Everything else is just an opinion of the ill informed. The exact definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense." Says not guilty in the actual definition for crying out loud. Funny no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court off circumstantial evidence not fully known but yet you guys get on the ones waiting for due process of the constitution.

Public opinion is not the same as convicting.

Public opinion does not matter when you are facing life. Needless to say Hernandez does not care about your opinion and the verdict is all that matters to him.

Your words were "no one sees anything wrong with convicting a guy before his day in court". No one here is "convicting" - it's public opinion.

If 2 men walk into an empty room and outside you hear a gun shot. One man walks out holding a gun and the other is dead, that man is still presumed innocent in a court of law. Common sense tells you the man with the gun is guilty.

Common sense tells me to listen to the mans story and see if there is an corroborating evidence to his proof of guilt SINCE I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. Did anyone here witness Hernandez kill Lloyd? didnt think so. By the way if you say he is guilty without his day in court you are convicting him in the court of public opinion.

It doesn't matter that you saw it or not. The human memory is famous for screwing things up. Even people with good memories are prone to poor specific memories. In fact, the more often you access a memory the greater the chance of you altering it. So your most accurate memories are the ones you've forgotten.

 

[False Start]

OJ was found Innocent. Casey Anthony too.

They were found not guilty. Not guilty and innocent are two very different things.

good point, but I'm afraid Hernandez is going to join this club

Not really. Not guilty and innocent are the same EXACT thing according to the definition of the word "innocent."

 

[MoveToSkypager]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

 

[False Start]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

 

[False Start]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

Any less weird than talking about pooping on a porch or can a judge convict a tree?

Answer is yes, he could of punched a guy out cold took a gun shot someone put the gun in the passed out guys hand and ran. Point is this is why evidence matters more then hearsay and stories. GSR was found on a guys jacket he threw in the garbage while running. This is a true story. Thank god the public opinion wasn't proof of guilt or my friend would be in jail and the murderer would be out free.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

Any less weird than talking about pooping on a porch or can a judge convict a tree?

Answer is yes, he could of punched a guy out cold took a gun shot someone put the gun in the passed out guys hand and ran. Point is this is why evidence matters more then hearsay and stories. GSR was found on a guys jacket he threw in the garbage while running. This is a true story. Thank god the public opinion wasn't proof of guilt or my friend would be in jail and the murderer would be out free.

It's much more weird. I asked you a question and you asked a question in response. That's weird, and evasive.

 

[False Start]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

Any less weird than talking about pooping on a porch or can a judge convict a tree?

Answer is yes, he could of punched a guy out cold took a gun shot someone put the gun in the passed out guys hand and ran. Point is this is why evidence matters more then hearsay and stories. GSR was found on a guys jacket he threw in the garbage while running. This is a true story. Thank god the public opinion wasn't proof of guilt or my friend would be in jail and the murderer would be out free.

It's much more weird. I asked you a question and you asked a question in response. That's weird, and evasive.

No its answering one of your comparisons with a comparison of my own. I am failing to understand why people asking for due process before just saying "he did it" are getting ran through the ringer. Seems pretty fair to wait for all evidence to present itself doesn't it?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

Any less weird than talking about pooping on a porch or can a judge convict a tree?

Answer is yes, he could of punched a guy out cold took a gun shot someone put the gun in the passed out guys hand and ran. Point is this is why evidence matters more then hearsay and stories. GSR was found on a guys jacket he threw in the garbage while running. This is a true story. Thank god the public opinion wasn't proof of guilt or my friend would be in jail and the murderer would be out free.

It's much more weird. I asked you a question and you asked a question in response. That's weird, and evasive.

No its answering one of your comparisons with a comparison of my own. I am failing to understand why people asking for due process before just saying "he did it" are getting ran through the ringer. Seems pretty fair to wait for all evidence to present itself doesn't it?

You answered a question with a question. I don't know why you deny that. That is weird. You shouldn't do that of course, and you should definitely report MOP for his abusive behavior.

 

[False Start]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

Any less weird than talking about pooping on a porch or can a judge convict a tree?

Answer is yes, he could of punched a guy out cold took a gun shot someone put the gun in the passed out guys hand and ran. Point is this is why evidence matters more then hearsay and stories. GSR was found on a guys jacket he threw in the garbage while running. This is a true story. Thank god the public opinion wasn't proof of guilt or my friend would be in jail and the murderer would be out free.

It's much more weird. I asked you a question and you asked a question in response. That's weird, and evasive.

No its answering one of your comparisons with a comparison of my own. I am failing to understand why people asking for due process before just saying "he did it" are getting ran through the ringer. Seems pretty fair to wait for all evidence to present itself doesn't it?

You answered a question with a question. I don't know why you deny that. That is weird. You shouldn't do that of course, and you should definitely report MOP for his abusive behavior.

No need to report anyone, people are entitled to their opinion and people can see that his claims are not true. I am not here to get people in trouble or enrage anyone. Cant believe i am going to respond to this but to your question if I saw someone pooping on my porch and he was found not guilty, yes he still did it. I saw it with my own eyes. I did not see Hernandez kill anyone with my own eyes.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

False Start: If a tree falls in the woods, but a court doesn't convict it, does it make a sound?

Did someone hear it make a sound?

Doesn't matter. How about this one:

If you see someone pooping on your porch. Being frightened, you call the police and they tell you tough luck, go get a broom. This porchpooper never gets convicted of pooping on your porch. He walks around a free man. Since a court never convicts him of porch pooping, would you say he never pooped on your porch?

If three people are hanging out and they all touched a gun at some point so all the prints are on it and one friend ends up dead from a gunshot, one ends up passed out with a gun in his hand and another is seen running. Who killed the guy?

Is it possible that the guy running killed the guy who is dead?

That's a really weird answer.

Any less weird than talking about pooping on a porch or can a judge convict a tree?

Answer is yes, he could of punched a guy out cold took a gun shot someone put the gun in the passed out guys hand and ran. Point is this is why evidence matters more then hearsay and stories. GSR was found on a guys jacket he threw in the garbage while running. This is a true story. Thank god the public opinion wasn't proof of guilt or my friend would be in jail and the murderer would be out free.

It's much more weird. I asked you a question and you asked a question in response. That's weird, and evasive.

No its answering one of your comparisons with a comparison of my own. I am failing to understand why people asking for due process before just saying "he did it" are getting ran through the ringer. Seems pretty fair to wait for all evidence to present itself doesn't it?

You answered a question with a question. I don't know why you deny that. That is weird. You shouldn't do that of course, and you should definitely report MOP for his abusive behavior.

No need to report anyone, people are entitled to their opinion and people can see that his claims are not true. I am not here to get people in trouble or enrage anyone. Cant believe i am going to respond to this but to your question if I saw someone pooping on my porch and he was found not guilty, yes he still did it. I saw it with my own eyes. I did not see Hernandez kill anyone with my own eyes.

You should refer to my post about memories.

 

[bucsbaby]

Quite the fishing trip going on in here

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Wow, this is what you say to someone who disagrees with you on a public forum? You call them turdmonsters? Is that really being excellent to one another? You want private conversations go to a PM. Yes, please be excellent to one another.

You're not worth the aggravation

:ignore:

I would encourage others just like I did with MTS who gets no responses from me either. It's nothing but a fishing expedition to try and get under folks skin. Good luck and bye bye