Great, just for future reference don't bother chiming in about events that you have no clue about.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
RUSF18
Footballguy
Warrior
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
Key pieces of evidence at center of Day 8 of Aaron Hernandez trial:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/13/aaron-hernandez-trial-day-8
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/13/aaron-hernandez-trial-day-8
Skeletore Eh
Footballguy
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
When the indictment was read, this was kinda the feeling.
IIRC, during the indictment they said they had him with the victim at the time of the murder, a shell casing with his DNA, a body a mile from his house, video of him holding a gun, and some other stuff I'm forgetting.
I remember hearing it and my jaw just dropping. Sounded like a home run for the prosecution.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Except for the part where he was correct from the start, you really showed him.
Last edited by a moderator:
The case was all based on circumstantial evidence at the outset, they had no witness testimony, or murder weapon and the video they had of him entering his condo showed him carrying a cell phone, not the gun.
On top of that his lawyers got many pieces of key evidence ruled inadmissible such as the text messages which further weakened the prosecutions case. Many local legal analysts familiar with the case, the local court system and the laws of MA said Hernandez had an excellent shot of beating the murder charge going in. Not my words, theirs.
So for all those self proclaimed experts on the case now beating their chests after the news that his girlfriend is testifying congrats as NOW it looks like he is screwed. That wasn't the case at the outset of the trial. I never said he was guaranteed to walk only that he had an excellent chance to of which he did before the girlfriend rolled. Now with her testimony he has almost zero shot to walk on the murder charge. Everything has changed exponentially.
On top of that his lawyers got many pieces of key evidence ruled inadmissible such as the text messages which further weakened the prosecutions case. Many local legal analysts familiar with the case, the local court system and the laws of MA said Hernandez had an excellent shot of beating the murder charge going in. Not my words, theirs.
So for all those self proclaimed experts on the case now beating their chests after the news that his girlfriend is testifying congrats as NOW it looks like he is screwed. That wasn't the case at the outset of the trial. I never said he was guaranteed to walk only that he had an excellent chance to of which he did before the girlfriend rolled. Now with her testimony he has almost zero shot to walk on the murder charge. Everything has changed exponentially.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence (overwhelming in this case IMO).
Especially when you pick up the victim in the middle of the night with two other people who don't even know who he is.
Furthermore, I'd consider the shell casing pretty damning physical evidence.
Just my
GregR
Footballguy
Sounds like you're equating circumstantial evidence with "weak evidence". Other than an eyewitness account or an audio or video recording of the crime, there isn't much evidence that isn't circumstantial, that can stand on its own as direct evidence of guilt without anything else needed. Just because evidence is circumstantial doesn't mean it's weak, especially when viewed collectively. The murder weapon would be circumstantial too as by itself it isn't proof the accused fired the shot.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
Guys, ROCKET has this under control. He heard some dudes talking on the radio in New England and he saw a bunch of episodes of The Wire. Circumstantial evidence and Latin kings, open and shut case, he walks. Thanks ROCKET!
I haven't been following the case closely, but the biggest hurdle to convicting him is proving premeditation under Mass. law, so it falls under joint venture liability.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-dardashtian/aaron-hernandez-trial_b_6641080.html
Up to this point, there wasn't a clear motive for the murder. Everyone kept coming up with random theories. I imagine his GF will testify what his motive was -- that would sink him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-dardashtian/aaron-hernandez-trial_b_6641080.html
Up to this point, there wasn't a clear motive for the murder. Everyone kept coming up with random theories. I imagine his GF will testify what his motive was -- that would sink him.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I don't get the girlfriend, immunity, and testifying thing. While many people are saying that spells checkmate and by extension she is throwing AH overboard, she has still been supporting him and in his corner at the trial. She also has been seen smiling and essentially flirting with him in court. That doesn't sound like someone that is going to pour gasoline on the fire to bury him.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
From what I've read, she can't plead the fifth on the stand with immunity. I suspect she just lies the entire time on the stand to protect him. No chance she goes up there and throws him under the bus. I really hope the prosecutor isn't relying on her too much for their case.
Last edited by a moderator:
If she does that then wouldn't it hurt the prosecution's case? I can't see them giving her immunity and having her testify on AH's behalf?
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
I'm under the impression witnesses normally give depositions before a trial, so the prosecutors would already have a record from her of the events.
It would seem like it shouldn't be that difficult to have an immunity agreement that would be voided if her testimony on the stand contradicts the version she gave in the deposition. Can any of our resident lawyers weigh in if there are measures like this in place normally?
It would seem like it shouldn't be that difficult to have an immunity agreement that would be voided if her testimony on the stand contradicts the version she gave in the deposition. Can any of our resident lawyers weigh in if there are measures like this in place normally?
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
From the evidence they already have, I can't see them relying on his fiancée/daughters mother as their ace in the hole. Their case doesn't rely on this (hopefully), and if it does, then they're ####### awful!
That would be the case in a civil trial.Greg Russell said:
I don't do any criminal law, especially not in Massachusetts, but I don't think depositions are nearly as common in criminal cases. I think they're used only (or mainly) when the witness is not expected to be available to testify at trial.
There might be an agreement in place that her immunity would be voided if her testimony contradicts a statement she's given to the police or the prosecutors. But it's also possible, based on post #3848, that she doesn't have an immunity agreement; she just has immunity. The state might have given her immunity just so it could force her to take the stand. In that case, she may still lie like crazy.
This thread needs more Woz. I really don't know much criminal procedure at all.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Anything worth noting this week in the trial?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Say he is completely exonerated. Where do you draft him? 
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Reading trough these articles, it feels like the only thing the defense can do is try to raise a little doubt. He's way too guilty to be proven innocent, but I guess their game is raising some doubt and pulling off a hung jury. Almost impossible they find him innocent.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
So everyone is convicting him prior to the defense calling a witness? His defense team is going to tear to sheds the Barney Fife's in North Attleboro that handled their first murder investigation in several years.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
He is a murderer and I hope he's found guilty of murder, but there are some incompetent law enforcement people out there, so it's not impossible that an outcome outside of guilty happens...
I think guilty/hung jury are much much more likely than an outright acquittal, which would be a terrible outcome.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Didn't shelter the fact he was with him during the murder, left his home video rolling, left key physical evidence behind, left a body around the corner from his suburban upper class home.Bob Magaw said:
I'm fairly certain a C- student in 7th grade could've done this better.
G
General Tso
Guest
After OJ, I have no faith whatsoever in our judicial system, especially when the defendant is a millionaire. Money can easily buy a not guilty verdict in this country. We've seen it many times. I've said from the start that he will not be convicted of murder, but most likely a lesser crime, and spend at most 15 years in prison. When AH is my age (47) he'll be walking the streets a free man.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Well, I don't see how he skates on fun charges. That's 5 years. And if he is found guilty of a lesser charge, maybe that's 15 years. And he still has his double homicide case after this one. Maybe that turns out to be another 15 years. Add it all up and he could be locked up until he's in his 60s and that's not even getting found guilty for murder.
G
General Tso
Guest
I hope to God you are right and I am wrong.
Last edited:
Goodell disposed of the murder weapon with the spy gate tapes.
Regardless, this trail has taken way to long so I expect Goodell will be fired.
Casting Couch
Footballguy
Hmmmmm, and I actually thought an Obama impeachment was in order for this case.BassNBrew said:
Circumstantial evidence is in dire need of a public relations agency. Often described as weak and unconvincing, it is continually bashed by criminal defense attorneys as being synonymous with reasonable doubt. It enjoys none of the glamour of its attractive twin sisters DNA and scientifically based forensic evidence, who even get their own TV shows.
In truth, though, circumstantial evidence can sometimes be compelling and highly reliable. When combined with a touch of supporting direct evidence it can be the strongest of all cases as it does not rely on frequently unreliable eyewitnesses. As prosecutors often say in their summations, circumstantial evidence has no motive to lie and no problem with its eyesight.
In a Massachusetts' courtroom, the murder trial of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez in the death of Odin Lloyd may prove to be a textbook study of circumstantial evidence and its struggle to overcome reasonable doubt and celebrity status.
Prosecutors are meticulously building a case using surveillance video and other evidence to link Hernandez to the killing. Surveillance video already publicly disclosed depicts a pre-homicide meeting between Hernandez and his friends Ernest Wallace and Carlos Ortiz, also charged in the case, at the Hernandez home in North Attleboro. Hernandez is seen walking around with a gun and then departing with his two pals in what appears to be a Nissan Altima.
Later video shows Hernandez, Ortiz and Wallace making a fuel stop where driver Hernandez purchases what will later prove to be a very important pack of Bubblicious gum. Prosecutors assert that a trail of text messages and more surveillance video, this time from a vantage point across the street from Lloyd's apartment, show Lloyd entering the vehicle in response to a Hernandez invite. Later at a time consistent with the time necessary to travel from Lloyd's apartment, a vehicle is seen entering a remote industrial park approximately a mile from the Hernandez home.
Roughly three minutes after shots were heard by workers in the vicinity, the Hernandez Altima with no Lloyd in sight pulls into the Hernandez garage. A jury visit to the scene demonstrates the distance from the industrial park to the Hernandez home can be covered in three minutes. Three men exit the vehicle and the driver, Hernandez, pulls what prosecutors say is a gun from his waistband. The video is unclear, howls the defense; it might be a cell phone.
Lloyd's body, riddled by .45 caliber bullets, is found in the industrial park. Prosecutors say they have more video showing Hernandez's fiancée throwing out a trash bag under suspicious circumstances. They say she was ditching the murder weapon to help the father of her child. And for the coup de grace, the Bubblilicious gum reappears. A chewed piece of the gum with wrapper is found in a trash container wrapped around a .45 caliber shell casing consistent with the ammunition used to kill Lloyd.
Prosecutors say DNA testing links the bubblegum bullet casing to Hernandez, who they contend threw it in the trash container when returning the rental Nissan Altima used in the killing. And by the way, the car had dirt on its tires and side panels consistent with the dirt in the industrial park.
Under Massachusetts' joint venture law, all those acting in concert to assist in a murder are guilty. No need to prove who was the triggerman -- or even a motive, which is conspicuously missing in the prosecution's pile of evidence. Prosecutors promise even more evidence hinting that this is a slam dunk circumstantial case.
But is any circumstantial murder case a "slam dunk" case?
Here is what Massachusetts' judges customarily tell the jury about circumstantial evidence at the end of a criminal case:
"You have direct evidence where a witness testifies directly about the fact that is to be proved, based on what he claims to have seen or heard or felt with his own senses, and the only question is whether you believe the witness. ..."
In the case of circumstantial evidence, the jury is asked to draw "reasonable inferences" from facts presented. The "mailman analogy" is used in Massachusetts to demonstrate the concept:
"Your daughter might tell you one morning that she sees the mailman at your mailbox. That is direct evidence that the mailman has been to your house. On the other hand, she might tell you only that she sees mail in the mailbox. That is circumstantial evidence that the mailman has been there; no one has seen him, but you can reasonably infer that he has been there since there is mail in the box. ..."
New York and several other states use variations of the rain analogy, which goes as follows:
"Suppose ... the witness testified that it was clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the witness' testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that it was raining in the area."
(From New York model criminal jury instructions)
The judge, in a Massachusetts case, then will warn the jury to be careful:
"There are two things to keep in mind about circumstantial evidence: The first one is that you may draw inferences and conclusions only from facts that have been proved to you. The second rule is that any inferences or conclusions which you draw must be reasonable and natural, based on your common sense and experience of life. In a chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not required that every one of your inferences and conclusions be inevitable, but it is required that each of them be reasonable, that they all be consistent with one another, and that together they establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Commonwealth's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, you may find the defendant guilty only if those circumstances are conclusive enough to leave you with a moral certainty, a clear and settled belief, that the defendant is guilty and that there is no other reasonable explanation of the facts as proven. The evidence must not only be consistent with the defendant's guilt, it must be inconsistent with his (her) innocence."
It's still early in the Hernandez trial, but with surveillance video, the evidence of dirt from the industrial park on the Hernandez car, the bullet-riddled body of Odin Lloyd, the alleged removal of the murder weapon from the Hernandez house in a trash bag by his already perjury-indicted fiancée, it appears that rain may be in the forecast when the trial concludes in the coming weeks. In the absence of some defense-produced sunshine, Hernandez may soon discover that the mailman also delivers to the MCI-Cedar Junction state prison at Walpole.
In truth, though, circumstantial evidence can sometimes be compelling and highly reliable. When combined with a touch of supporting direct evidence it can be the strongest of all cases as it does not rely on frequently unreliable eyewitnesses. As prosecutors often say in their summations, circumstantial evidence has no motive to lie and no problem with its eyesight.
In a Massachusetts' courtroom, the murder trial of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez in the death of Odin Lloyd may prove to be a textbook study of circumstantial evidence and its struggle to overcome reasonable doubt and celebrity status.
Prosecutors are meticulously building a case using surveillance video and other evidence to link Hernandez to the killing. Surveillance video already publicly disclosed depicts a pre-homicide meeting between Hernandez and his friends Ernest Wallace and Carlos Ortiz, also charged in the case, at the Hernandez home in North Attleboro. Hernandez is seen walking around with a gun and then departing with his two pals in what appears to be a Nissan Altima.
Later video shows Hernandez, Ortiz and Wallace making a fuel stop where driver Hernandez purchases what will later prove to be a very important pack of Bubblicious gum. Prosecutors assert that a trail of text messages and more surveillance video, this time from a vantage point across the street from Lloyd's apartment, show Lloyd entering the vehicle in response to a Hernandez invite. Later at a time consistent with the time necessary to travel from Lloyd's apartment, a vehicle is seen entering a remote industrial park approximately a mile from the Hernandez home.
Roughly three minutes after shots were heard by workers in the vicinity, the Hernandez Altima with no Lloyd in sight pulls into the Hernandez garage. A jury visit to the scene demonstrates the distance from the industrial park to the Hernandez home can be covered in three minutes. Three men exit the vehicle and the driver, Hernandez, pulls what prosecutors say is a gun from his waistband. The video is unclear, howls the defense; it might be a cell phone.
Lloyd's body, riddled by .45 caliber bullets, is found in the industrial park. Prosecutors say they have more video showing Hernandez's fiancée throwing out a trash bag under suspicious circumstances. They say she was ditching the murder weapon to help the father of her child. And for the coup de grace, the Bubblilicious gum reappears. A chewed piece of the gum with wrapper is found in a trash container wrapped around a .45 caliber shell casing consistent with the ammunition used to kill Lloyd.
Prosecutors say DNA testing links the bubblegum bullet casing to Hernandez, who they contend threw it in the trash container when returning the rental Nissan Altima used in the killing. And by the way, the car had dirt on its tires and side panels consistent with the dirt in the industrial park.
Under Massachusetts' joint venture law, all those acting in concert to assist in a murder are guilty. No need to prove who was the triggerman -- or even a motive, which is conspicuously missing in the prosecution's pile of evidence. Prosecutors promise even more evidence hinting that this is a slam dunk circumstantial case.
But is any circumstantial murder case a "slam dunk" case?
Here is what Massachusetts' judges customarily tell the jury about circumstantial evidence at the end of a criminal case:
"You have direct evidence where a witness testifies directly about the fact that is to be proved, based on what he claims to have seen or heard or felt with his own senses, and the only question is whether you believe the witness. ..."
In the case of circumstantial evidence, the jury is asked to draw "reasonable inferences" from facts presented. The "mailman analogy" is used in Massachusetts to demonstrate the concept:
"Your daughter might tell you one morning that she sees the mailman at your mailbox. That is direct evidence that the mailman has been to your house. On the other hand, she might tell you only that she sees mail in the mailbox. That is circumstantial evidence that the mailman has been there; no one has seen him, but you can reasonably infer that he has been there since there is mail in the box. ..."
New York and several other states use variations of the rain analogy, which goes as follows:
"Suppose ... the witness testified that it was clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the witness' testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that it was raining in the area."
(From New York model criminal jury instructions)
The judge, in a Massachusetts case, then will warn the jury to be careful:
"There are two things to keep in mind about circumstantial evidence: The first one is that you may draw inferences and conclusions only from facts that have been proved to you. The second rule is that any inferences or conclusions which you draw must be reasonable and natural, based on your common sense and experience of life. In a chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not required that every one of your inferences and conclusions be inevitable, but it is required that each of them be reasonable, that they all be consistent with one another, and that together they establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Commonwealth's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, you may find the defendant guilty only if those circumstances are conclusive enough to leave you with a moral certainty, a clear and settled belief, that the defendant is guilty and that there is no other reasonable explanation of the facts as proven. The evidence must not only be consistent with the defendant's guilt, it must be inconsistent with his (her) innocence."
It's still early in the Hernandez trial, but with surveillance video, the evidence of dirt from the industrial park on the Hernandez car, the bullet-riddled body of Odin Lloyd, the alleged removal of the murder weapon from the Hernandez house in a trash bag by his already perjury-indicted fiancée, it appears that rain may be in the forecast when the trial concludes in the coming weeks. In the absence of some defense-produced sunshine, Hernandez may soon discover that the mailman also delivers to the MCI-Cedar Junction state prison at Walpole.
I think Hernandez' and the other defendants best case scenario is a muddled case where the prosecution can prove Llloyd was killed at the industrial park by one of the three but can't nail any one person for the actual murder. If they don't get a damning testimony from the girlfriend and have no other witnesses come forward I don't see them getting a murder conviction on any of them.
Take the fiance out of the equation for a second. In a nut shell you would have three suspects that were at the scene and all would deny doing it. If they all were silent how do you pin it on any of them?
The weak link in the chain is the fiance as the other three know how to play the game and would keep their mouth's shut. Good thing for the prosecution if she talks as without her they wouldn't be able to make it stick on any of the three. Her testimony alone will decide the chance of any murder charge on AH. The rest of the evidence in and of itself won't convict him.
Take the fiance out of the equation for a second. In a nut shell you would have three suspects that were at the scene and all would deny doing it. If they all were silent how do you pin it on any of them?
The weak link in the chain is the fiance as the other three know how to play the game and would keep their mouth's shut. Good thing for the prosecution if she talks as without her they wouldn't be able to make it stick on any of the three. Her testimony alone will decide the chance of any murder charge on AH. The rest of the evidence in and of itself won't convict him.
Dragon1952
Footballguy
ha ha.....true, but then again, anyone that kills someone and expects to get away with it isn't very smart to begin with. It would likely have to be something purposely random to have a shot (no pun intended) now days.Bob Magaw said:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The problem with this scenario is that the case is being tried as a group murder (I forget the technical term), so if the jury finds that a murder was committed the prosecution does not have to prove which one pulled the trigger. Of course, that rests on whether they can prove that there was a preplanned conspiracy to kill Lloyd. From what I read, AH would have to report the crime, immediately distance himself from the others, and fully cooperate with law enforcement if he wanted to avoid being charged with the other two. He also cannot then claim one of the other two did it at trial.
However, FWIW (which could be nothing), a co-conspirator is saying AH had the gun . . .
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/devices/news/local_news/associate-places-gun-in-hernandez-s-hand-in-north-attleboro/article_4a61ab56-ee51-58a1-b06b-9c75ef4fc252.html
Last edited by a moderator:
per post above:
Under Massachusetts' joint venture law, all those acting in concert to assist in a murder are guilty. No need to prove who was the triggerman -- or even a motive, which is conspicuously missing in the prosecution's pile of evidence.
RUSF18
Footballguy
BUT RAY LEWIS!!!!!!
Love how the one guy in here who keeps claiming people talk about this case without knowing anything about it STILL has no clue about one of the primary considerations of the charge.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
lots of big developments today. cleaning lady going to testify that she saw guns in Hernandez's home. also, judge decides to admit text messages sent from Odin Lloyd before he was allegedly murdered. i'm going to withhold my opinion until I hear local Patriot radio's legal analyst weigh in, though.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Similar threads
