Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (3 Viewers)

[12punch]

This gets me back to the instruction of the jurors. If we are to believe the legal talking heads, "motive" is not required to be shown or addressed in Mass joint venture cases.

Right. Motive is not required to be shown in any murder case, ever. Otherwise, the effect would be that murder is illegal if you have a reason, but totally legal if you just do it randomly for no reason.

wat

 

[davearm]

I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.

But having a gun in the box isn't one of the things he was charged with. He was charged with murder, and people can murder other people without putting their guns in boxes. It'd be nice for the prosecution if they could prove that the murder weapon was in AH's box, but it's not one of the things they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or at all, really).

Correct. I'm just explaining why that particular piece of prosecution evidence doesn't carry weight with me.

 

[davearm]

I think the box is strong evidence for the prosecution.

The fiancee reportedly had great recollection about everything they asked until it came to disposing of the box. It strains credibility to think when your husband is being investigated for murder and he asks you to dispose of a box by unusual means (not just putting it out with the trash), that would not stand out strongly in anyone's memory.

So I'd have a very hard time believing she wasn't lying about not remembering where she disposed of it. If it could be recovered and just had weed, no murder weapon in it, it would help Hernandez. In which case she wouldn't have reason to lie.

Given all of that, I would infer the box did contain the murder weapon.

I dont care what case it is AH or any other joe blow but to make assumptions like just assuming a box had a gun in it without proof and knowing what was in it makes the person doing the assuming the worst type of juror.

Thats called reasonable doubt. Its not about what you believe its about what they proved.

I wasn't going to bother to reply because I figure it wouldn't do any good. And I still don't think it will.

But I thought it humorous reading Florio refer to jurors coming to my same conclusion about the box contents as "applying common sense" when you call it making someone the worst type of juror.

Party on Wayne.

FWIW, here is a snippet from the defense attorney's closing argument:

He also reminded them that they are charged with finding fault beyond a reasonable doubt. “You are being asked [by prosecutors] to speculate and figure things out, fill in gaps," Sultan admonished. “That’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

The attorneys' comment applies to much of the evidence and testimony, but no more so than the box. What was in that thing is pure, 100% speculation.

There is a HUGE difference between an "educated guess" and wild "100% speculation". The contents of the box is a well informed educated guess. Not proof by itself, but taken in context is a long way from "100% speculation"

Actually there's not a huge difference, or even any difference. When you make a guess (even an educated guess), you're speculating.

When you guess about how something is going to come out (or how it happened), that's speculation. You're making an educated guess.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/speculation

 

[davearm]

The prosecution has to prove intent for the murder charge. Both first and second degree require it.

I think there's enough evidence of Hernandez's intent to support a conviction (meaning that a conviction wouldn't be overturned on appeal for lack of sufficient evidence). But I'm not sure there's enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

(I'm not saying "I'm not sure" because I think reasonable doubt is appropriate. I'm saying "I'm not sure" because I didn't watch the trial or read enough about it to have an opinion about whether reasonable doubt is appropriate.)

This is where I am as well. But I must admit, the defense theory of the sudden and unexpected PCP rage strains credibility.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

I think the box is strong evidence for the prosecution.

The fiancee reportedly had great recollection about everything they asked until it came to disposing of the box. It strains credibility to think when your husband is being investigated for murder and he asks you to dispose of a box by unusual means (not just putting it out with the trash), that would not stand out strongly in anyone's memory.

So I'd have a very hard time believing she wasn't lying about not remembering where she disposed of it. If it could be recovered and just had weed, no murder weapon in it, it would help Hernandez. In which case she wouldn't have reason to lie.

Given all of that, I would infer the box did contain the murder weapon.

I dont care what case it is AH or any other joe blow but to make assumptions like just assuming a box had a gun in it without proof and knowing what was in it makes the person doing the assuming the worst type of juror.

Thats called reasonable doubt. Its not about what you believe its about what they proved.

I wasn't going to bother to reply because I figure it wouldn't do any good. And I still don't think it will.

But I thought it humorous reading Florio refer to jurors coming to my same conclusion about the box contents as "applying common sense" when you call it making someone the worst type of juror.

Party on Wayne.

FWIW, here is a snippet from the defense attorney's closing argument:

He also reminded them that they are charged with finding fault beyond a reasonable doubt. “You are being asked [by prosecutors] to speculate and figure things out, fill in gaps," Sultan admonished. “That’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

The attorneys' comment applies to much of the evidence and testimony, but no more so than the box. What was in that thing is pure, 100% speculation.

There is a HUGE difference between an "educated guess" and wild "100% speculation". The contents of the box is a well informed educated guess. Not proof by itself, but taken in context is a long way from "100% speculation"

Actually there's not a huge difference, or even any difference. When you make a guess (even an educated guess), you're speculating.

When you guess about how something is going to come out (or how it happened), that's speculation. You're making an educated guess.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/speculation

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

 

[Tool]

I think the box is strong evidence for the prosecution.

The fiancee reportedly had great recollection about everything they asked until it came to disposing of the box. It strains credibility to think when your husband is being investigated for murder and he asks you to dispose of a box by unusual means (not just putting it out with the trash), that would not stand out strongly in anyone's memory.

So I'd have a very hard time believing she wasn't lying about not remembering where she disposed of it. If it could be recovered and just had weed, no murder weapon in it, it would help Hernandez. In which case she wouldn't have reason to lie.

Given all of that, I would infer the box did contain the murder weapon.

I dont care what case it is AH or any other joe blow but to make assumptions like just assuming a box had a gun in it without proof and knowing what was in it makes the person doing the assuming the worst type of juror.

Thats called reasonable doubt. Its not about what you believe its about what they proved.

I wasn't going to bother to reply because I figure it wouldn't do any good. And I still don't think it will.

But I thought it humorous reading Florio refer to jurors coming to my same conclusion about the box contents as "applying common sense" when you call it making someone the worst type of juror.

Party on Wayne.

FWIW, here is a snippet from the defense attorney's closing argument:

He also reminded them that they are charged with finding fault beyond a reasonable doubt. “You are being asked [by prosecutors] to speculate and figure things out, fill in gaps," Sultan admonished. “That’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

The attorneys' comment applies to much of the evidence and testimony, but no more so than the box. What was in that thing is pure, 100% speculation.

There is a HUGE difference between an "educated guess" and wild "100% speculation". The contents of the box is a well informed educated guess. Not proof by itself, but taken in context is a long way from "100% speculation"

Actually there's not a huge difference, or even any difference. When you make a guess (even an educated guess), you're speculating.

When you guess about how something is going to come out (or how it happened), that's speculation. You're making an educated guess.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/speculation

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

I think you're confused about the definition of speculation.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

I think the box is strong evidence for the prosecution.

The fiancee reportedly had great recollection about everything they asked until it came to disposing of the box. It strains credibility to think when your husband is being investigated for murder and he asks you to dispose of a box by unusual means (not just putting it out with the trash), that would not stand out strongly in anyone's memory.

So I'd have a very hard time believing she wasn't lying about not remembering where she disposed of it. If it could be recovered and just had weed, no murder weapon in it, it would help Hernandez. In which case she wouldn't have reason to lie.

Given all of that, I would infer the box did contain the murder weapon.

I dont care what case it is AH or any other joe blow but to make assumptions like just assuming a box had a gun in it without proof and knowing what was in it makes the person doing the assuming the worst type of juror.

Thats called reasonable doubt. Its not about what you believe its about what they proved.

I wasn't going to bother to reply because I figure it wouldn't do any good. And I still don't think it will.

But I thought it humorous reading Florio refer to jurors coming to my same conclusion about the box contents as "applying common sense" when you call it making someone the worst type of juror.

Party on Wayne.

FWIW, here is a snippet from the defense attorney's closing argument:

He also reminded them that they are charged with finding fault beyond a reasonable doubt. “You are being asked [by prosecutors] to speculate and figure things out, fill in gaps," Sultan admonished. “That’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

The attorneys' comment applies to much of the evidence and testimony, but no more so than the box. What was in that thing is pure, 100% speculation.

There is a HUGE difference between an "educated guess" and wild "100% speculation". The contents of the box is a well informed educated guess. Not proof by itself, but taken in context is a long way from "100% speculation"

Actually there's not a huge difference, or even any difference. When you make a guess (even an educated guess), you're speculating.

When you guess about how something is going to come out (or how it happened), that's speculation. You're making an educated guess.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/speculation

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

I think you're confused about the definition of speculation.

I think it is as i depicted above.

spec·u·la·tion

1. 1.
   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
   
   
   

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This gets me back to the instruction of the jurors. If we are to believe the legal talking heads, "motive" is not required to be shown or addressed in Mass joint venture cases.

Right. Motive is not required to be shown in any murder case, ever. Otherwise, the effect would be that murder is illegal if you have a reason, but totally legal if you just do it randomly for no reason.

wat

motive =/ intent

 

[Dr. Octopus]

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

You really think there is no evidence in this case?

Also people seem to think that "circumstantial evidence" is a negative and can not be used to show guilt.

Ok, two people are locked in a room for an hour with no one watching them and later one of them is discovered to be dead. The cause of his death is determined to be a crushed windpipe, but there were no witness, no signs of struggle on the survivor (cuts, bruises and such), no DNA evidence showing the survivor laid any hands on the deceased. Should the survivor not be convicted since all we have is circumstantial evidence?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is mounds and mounds of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Why do we need the murder weapon? Isn't there a dead man either way? There's very few murder cases that are witnessed, since most of the time these things don't happen in a public area with other people around.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard, of course, but some people want to take that to more of an extreme than it should be taken.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

You really think there is no evidence in this case?

Also people seem to think that "circumstantial evidence" is a negative and can not be used to show guilt.

Ok, two people are locked in a room for an hour with no one watching them and later one of them is discovered to be dead. The cause of his death is determined to be a crushed windpipe, but there were no witness, no signs of struggle on the survivor (cuts, bruises and such), no DNA evidence showing the survivor laid any hands on the deceased. Should the survivor not be convicted since all we have is circumstantial evidence?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is mounds and mounds of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Why do we need the murder weapon? Isn't there a dead man either way? There's very few murder cases that are witnessed, since most of the time these things don't happen in a public area with other people around.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard, of course, but some people want to take that to more of an extreme than it should be taken.

i didnt say that i said there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but as a former juror of a murder trial i would argue circumstantial evidence without any witness to the actual crime or murder weapon cant be used to convict. circumstantial evidence used to corroborate witness testimony or used in conjunction with a murder weapon is more note worthy and useful.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

You really think there is no evidence in this case?

Also people seem to think that "circumstantial evidence" is a negative and can not be used to show guilt.

Ok, two people are locked in a room for an hour with no one watching them and later one of them is discovered to be dead. The cause of his death is determined to be a crushed windpipe, but there were no witness, no signs of struggle on the survivor (cuts, bruises and such), no DNA evidence showing the survivor laid any hands on the deceased. Should the survivor not be convicted since all we have is circumstantial evidence?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is mounds and mounds of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Why do we need the murder weapon? Isn't there a dead man either way? There's very few murder cases that are witnessed, since most of the time these things don't happen in a public area with other people around.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard, of course, but some people want to take that to more of an extreme than it should be taken.

i didnt say that i said there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but as a former juror of a murder trial i would argue circumstantial evidence without any witness to the actual crime or murder weapon cant be used to convict. circumstantial evidence used to corroborate witness testimony or used in conjunction with a murder weapon is more note worthy and useful.

Your second sentence is true. Your first sentence is not.

What about the scenario I laid out. Surely you would agree that (only) circumstantial evidence in that case would be enough to convict?

 

[VarsityBlues123]

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

You really think there is no evidence in this case?

Also people seem to think that "circumstantial evidence" is a negative and can not be used to show guilt.

Ok, two people are locked in a room for an hour with no one watching them and later one of them is discovered to be dead. The cause of his death is determined to be a crushed windpipe, but there were no witness, no signs of struggle on the survivor (cuts, bruises and such), no DNA evidence showing the survivor laid any hands on the deceased. Should the survivor not be convicted since all we have is circumstantial evidence?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is mounds and mounds of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Why do we need the murder weapon? Isn't there a dead man either way? There's very few murder cases that are witnessed, since most of the time these things don't happen in a public area with other people around.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard, of course, but some people want to take that to more of an extreme than it should be taken.

i didnt say that i said there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but as a former juror of a murder trial i would argue circumstantial evidence without any witness to the actual crime or murder weapon cant be used to convict. circumstantial evidence used to corroborate witness testimony or used in conjunction with a murder weapon is more note worthy and useful.

Your second sentence is true. Your first sentence is not.

What about the scenario I laid out. Surely you would agree that (only) circumstantial evidence in that case would be enough to convict?

thats the thing about circumstantial evidence it depends on the circumstances of the case and each one is different. i am not here to debate your made up case to defend your angle i am here to discuss the hernandez case.

my first sentence is true depending on who you ask, you ask me it is very true. there is very little motive in this case even. because odin dissed him he waited six months to kill him? while its easy to say he did it with all the circumstantial evidence are you willing to convict a man for that guess it depends on the jury. ojs jury decided not to convict.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

You really think there is no evidence in this case?

Also people seem to think that "circumstantial evidence" is a negative and can not be used to show guilt.

Ok, two people are locked in a room for an hour with no one watching them and later one of them is discovered to be dead. The cause of his death is determined to be a crushed windpipe, but there were no witness, no signs of struggle on the survivor (cuts, bruises and such), no DNA evidence showing the survivor laid any hands on the deceased. Should the survivor not be convicted since all we have is circumstantial evidence?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is mounds and mounds of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Why do we need the murder weapon? Isn't there a dead man either way? There's very few murder cases that are witnessed, since most of the time these things don't happen in a public area with other people around.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard, of course, but some people want to take that to more of an extreme than it should be taken.

i didnt say that i said there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but as a former juror of a murder trial i would argue circumstantial evidence without any witness to the actual crime or murder weapon cant be used to convict. circumstantial evidence used to corroborate witness testimony or used in conjunction with a murder weapon is more note worthy and useful.

Your second sentence is true. Your first sentence is not.

What about the scenario I laid out. Surely you would agree that (only) circumstantial evidence in that case would be enough to convict?

thats the thing about circumstantial evidence it depends on the circumstances of the case and each one is different. i am not here to debate your made up case to defend your angle i am here to discuss the hernandez case.

my first sentence is true depending on who you ask, you ask me it is very true. there is very little motive in this case even. because odin dissed him he waited six months to kill him? while its easy to say he did it with all the circumstantial evidence are you willing to convict a man for that guess it depends on the jury. ojs jury decided not to convict.

Whether circumstantial evidence is enough to legally convict someone isn't an opinion.

 

[GregR]

If you dont have a murder weapon or witness how do they win this?

I don't see why having the murder weapon is so important.

If the state doesn't have a murder weapon, what are we supposed to infer? That maybe there is no murder weapon, and therefore no murder? Maybe Lloyd died of natural causes?

Obviously not that. There's no question that Lloyd was murdered. The only question is whether Hernandez was involved. There's an awful lot of evidence that he was.

It'd be nice if the police had the murder weapon with Hernandez's finger prints on it, but that's certainly not required for a conviction. Think about all the cases where a murder weapon doesn't even exist -- choking by hand, pushing someone off a cliff, drowning, poisoning, etc. Lots of murder cases don't have murder weapons, but many still result in convictions.

Bumping this.

 

[Touchdown There]

They are randomly tested from a pool 4-5 times per in season.

NFL players get tested once a year around training camp, pass and they can smoke the rest of the year without worry. failing the test puts them in stage 1 where they get tested randomly for 90 days, pass and they can go back to smoking all they want, fail a test during stage 1 and they are ####ed putting them in stage 2 where almost every piss they take will be tested and probably fail since it takes weeks for weed to leave their system, this is where careers end since the fails start to rack up even if they havent smoked. the NFL doesnt really care if the players are smoking weed, the system is there to flag the addicts and idiots since they know months in advance when to quit and stay clean for a few weeks. thats why people like josh gordon and fred davis and that combine kid are so concerning, they know they are going to be tested yet still screw up out of ego/ignorance/addiction.

its like most jobs, they piss you once to make sure youre not a complete idiot that would fail a drug test at your job interview then never test you again.

You may be talking about the old policy, not sure. Here is a copy and paste from the CBA:

General Policy.

(a) The parties agree that substance abuse and the use of anabolic steroids are unacceptable within the NFL, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to deter and detect substance abuse and steroid use and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation, and support to players who have substance abuse problems."

(b) Policies. The parties confirm that the Program on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances will include both annual blood testing and random blood testing for human growth hormone, with discipline for positive tests at the same level as for stero­ids.

Additionally, teams are permitted to test players on their own if they have a reasonable basis to do so.

From this link: The NFL can perform random drug testing year round. Every player in the league gets tested at least once a year through urine sampling.

You may have interpreted "once a year" but the rules actually state a minimum of one blood test a year, but then random urine tests. The randoms are not announced ahead of the players showing up and they even randomly select athletes in the offseason. They also have to be completely naked, whereas in the NCAA you just have to have your shirt off and pants around ankles.

 

[Touchdown There]

Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?

How about marijuana.

If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.

You can bet that both the murder weapon and any illegal drugs in the house were in that box, so probably a half truth.

 

[GregR]

They are randomly tested from a pool 4-5 times per in season.

NFL players get tested once a year around training camp, pass and they can smoke the rest of the year without worry. failing the test puts them in stage 1 where they get tested randomly for 90 days, pass and they can go back to smoking all they want, fail a test during stage 1 and they are ####ed putting them in stage 2 where almost every piss they take will be tested and probably fail since it takes weeks for weed to leave their system, this is where careers end since the fails start to rack up even if they havent smoked. the NFL doesnt really care if the players are smoking weed, the system is there to flag the addicts and idiots since they know months in advance when to quit and stay clean for a few weeks. thats why people like josh gordon and fred davis and that combine kid are so concerning, they know they are going to be tested yet still screw up out of ego/ignorance/addiction.

its like most jobs, they piss you once to make sure youre not a complete idiot that would fail a drug test at your job interview then never test you again.

You may be talking about the old policy, not sure. Here is a copy and paste from the CBA:

General Policy.

(a) The parties agree that substance abuse and the use of anabolic steroids are unacceptable within the NFL, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to deter and detect substance abuse and steroid use and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation, and support to players who have substance abuse problems."

(b) Policies. The parties confirm that the Program on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances will include both annual blood testing and random blood testing for human growth hormone, with discipline for positive tests at the same level as for stero­ids.

Additionally, teams are permitted to test players on their own if they have a reasonable basis to do so.

From this link: The NFL can perform random drug testing year round. Every player in the league gets tested at least once a year through urine sampling.

You may have interpreted "once a year" but the rules actually state a minimum of one blood test a year, but then random urine tests. The randoms are not announced ahead of the players showing up and they even randomly select athletes in the offseason. They also have to be completely naked, whereas in the NCAA you just have to have your shirt off and pants around ankles.

I believe the discussion was about how Hernandez evaded detection for marijuana use. So the policy in effect at the time, not the new one.

And we're talking marijuana. Substances of abuse were tested for once a year between April and August as stated. You're bolding the testing policy for PEDs which tests more often but doesn't have anything to do with marijuana.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i think speculation is the only thing you need to send a man to prison for the rest of his life. why have proof. no murder weapon no witnesses to testify? what are we discussing here a bunch of speculation and circumstantial evidence. sure thing he is guilty then.

You really think there is no evidence in this case?

Also people seem to think that "circumstantial evidence" is a negative and can not be used to show guilt.

Ok, two people are locked in a room for an hour with no one watching them and later one of them is discovered to be dead. The cause of his death is determined to be a crushed windpipe, but there were no witness, no signs of struggle on the survivor (cuts, bruises and such), no DNA evidence showing the survivor laid any hands on the deceased. Should the survivor not be convicted since all we have is circumstantial evidence?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but the point is mounds and mounds of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Why do we need the murder weapon? Isn't there a dead man either way? There's very few murder cases that are witnessed, since most of the time these things don't happen in a public area with other people around.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard, of course, but some people want to take that to more of an extreme than it should be taken.

i didnt say that i said there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but as a former juror of a murder trial i would argue circumstantial evidence without any witness to the actual crime or murder weapon cant be used to convict. circumstantial evidence used to corroborate witness testimony or used in conjunction with a murder weapon is more note worthy and useful.

Your second sentence is true. Your first sentence is not.

What about the scenario I laid out. Surely you would agree that (only) circumstantial evidence in that case would be enough to convict?

thats the thing about circumstantial evidence it depends on the circumstances of the case and each one is different. i am not here to debate your made up case to defend your angle i am here to discuss the hernandez case.

my first sentence is true depending on who you ask, you ask me it is very true. there is very little motive in this case even. because odin dissed him he waited six months to kill him? while its easy to say he did it with all the circumstantial evidence are you willing to convict a man for that guess it depends on the jury. ojs jury decided not to convict.

Maurile dscussed motive above. It can't be a requirement, otherwise, motiveless random murders would be grounds for being set free (no motive).

You said you were here to talk about AH but brought up OJ, so since you did, guess it is OK to talk about that.

OJ was not convicted, and maybe AH won't be either. There were a lot of problems with the OJ case. Unnecessarily changing the venue. Baffling decisions to not include evidence about the Bronco chase, disguise, passports, cash, an apparent suicide threat, a letter that showed signs of a confession (don't remember the lost soul OJ). Putting investigating homicide detective Fuhrman on the stand who perjured himself and the glove fiasco (if it doesn't fit, you must acquit) were not the prosecution's finest moments. Evidence gathering irregularities. The case may have been incompetently handled.

But I'm not sure if it was circumstantial when there were mountains of DNA, blood, fiber, other trace evidence, shoe imprints and the like which linked OJ to the murder scene in both directions (evidence of his presence there, and blood and DNA from her in the vehicle and at his home). Fuhrman compromised that, and put doubt in the jurors mind. One lost opportunity was when he denied owning Bruno Magli shoes. After he received a not guilty, photos later surfaced where he was rocking Bruno Magli shoes. He lied.

Later, when jurors were interviewed, one (an African American woman) said something to the effect, we were instructed to consider the evidence of spousal abuse, but I never did, a man beating a woman up don't mean nothing. IMO, that witness should have been arrested (if that is a crime and possible, of course - might also be a bad precedent to arrest jurors, and discourage others from participating in the process), she willfully ignored and disregarded the judge's instruction to consider EVERYTHING they discussed. Would that willful disobedience of fairly clear judge's instructions have happened in Santa Monica (where there may not be as much societal and cultural spousal abuse context and familiarity)?

There had been an earlier exchange in the trial. The prosecution had been presenting spousal abuse evidence (of which there was a lot, as I recall). A defense attorney brought up the stat that very few woman that are abused by their spouse, are killed by them. Than the prosecution followed up with another stat. In those cases where a woman was violently murdered that had earlier been the victim of spousal abuse, a frighteningly high percentage of the murderers were said spouse. So looking at things through a slightly different lens dramatically changed the inferential information. But this juror completely ignored it, contrary to instructions.

In another question to the thread, if I don't check the weather report, but come to the conclusion that it probably won't be raining 10" in Death Valley today, is that speculation, or something that could be called informed conjecture, if there is a difference?

 

[Touchdown There]

They are randomly tested from a pool 4-5 times per in season.

NFL players get tested once a year around training camp, pass and they can smoke the rest of the year without worry. failing the test puts them in stage 1 where they get tested randomly for 90 days, pass and they can go back to smoking all they want, fail a test during stage 1 and they are ####ed putting them in stage 2 where almost every piss they take will be tested and probably fail since it takes weeks for weed to leave their system, this is where careers end since the fails start to rack up even if they havent smoked. the NFL doesnt really care if the players are smoking weed, the system is there to flag the addicts and idiots since they know months in advance when to quit and stay clean for a few weeks. thats why people like josh gordon and fred davis and that combine kid are so concerning, they know they are going to be tested yet still screw up out of ego/ignorance/addiction.

its like most jobs, they piss you once to make sure youre not a complete idiot that would fail a drug test at your job interview then never test you again.

You may be talking about the old policy, not sure. Here is a copy and paste from the CBA:

General Policy.

(a) The parties agree that substance abuse and the use of anabolic steroids are unacceptable within the NFL, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to deter and detect substance abuse and steroid use and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation, and support to players who have substance abuse problems."

(b) Policies. The parties confirm that the Program on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances will include both annual blood testing and random blood testing for human growth hormone, with discipline for positive tests at the same level as for stero­ids.

Additionally, teams are permitted to test players on their own if they have a reasonable basis to do so.

From this link: The NFL can perform random drug testing year round. Every player in the league gets tested at least once a year through urine sampling.

You may have interpreted "once a year" but the rules actually state a minimum of one blood test a year, but then random urine tests. The randoms are not announced ahead of the players showing up and they even randomly select athletes in the offseason. They also have to be completely naked, whereas in the NCAA you just have to have your shirt off and pants around ankles.

I believe the discussion was about how Hernandez evaded detection for marijuana use. So the policy in effect at the time, not the new one.

And we're talking marijuana. Substances of abuse were tested for once a year between April and August as stated. You're bolding the testing policy for PEDs which tests more often but doesn't have anything to do with marijuana.

New policy went into effect in 4-5 years ago, so we are talking about the new CBA policy, not the old one. I bolded and underlined "related substances" because that is much more generalized than steroids and PEDs. It can be interpreted as any illegal drug. If it was just steroids and PEDs, they would have specifically wrote just steroids and PEDs.

 

[GregR]

They are randomly tested from a pool 4-5 times per in season.

NFL players get tested once a year around training camp, pass and they can smoke the rest of the year without worry. failing the test puts them in stage 1 where they get tested randomly for 90 days, pass and they can go back to smoking all they want, fail a test during stage 1 and they are ####ed putting them in stage 2 where almost every piss they take will be tested and probably fail since it takes weeks for weed to leave their system, this is where careers end since the fails start to rack up even if they havent smoked. the NFL doesnt really care if the players are smoking weed, the system is there to flag the addicts and idiots since they know months in advance when to quit and stay clean for a few weeks. thats why people like josh gordon and fred davis and that combine kid are so concerning, they know they are going to be tested yet still screw up out of ego/ignorance/addiction.

its like most jobs, they piss you once to make sure youre not a complete idiot that would fail a drug test at your job interview then never test you again.

You may be talking about the old policy, not sure. Here is a copy and paste from the CBA:

General Policy.

(a) The parties agree that substance abuse and the use of anabolic steroids are unacceptable within the NFL, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to deter and detect substance abuse and steroid use and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation, and support to players who have substance abuse problems."

(b) Policies. The parties confirm that the Program on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances will include both annual blood testing and random blood testing for human growth hormone, with discipline for positive tests at the same level as for stero­ids.

Additionally, teams are permitted to test players on their own if they have a reasonable basis to do so.

From this link: The NFL can perform random drug testing year round. Every player in the league gets tested at least once a year through urine sampling.

You may have interpreted "once a year" but the rules actually state a minimum of one blood test a year, but then random urine tests. The randoms are not announced ahead of the players showing up and they even randomly select athletes in the offseason. They also have to be completely naked, whereas in the NCAA you just have to have your shirt off and pants around ankles.

I believe the discussion was about how Hernandez evaded detection for marijuana use. So the policy in effect at the time, not the new one.

And we're talking marijuana. Substances of abuse were tested for once a year between April and August as stated. You're bolding the testing policy for PEDs which tests more often but doesn't have anything to do with marijuana.

New policy went into effect in 4-5 years ago, so we are talking about the new CBA policy, not the old one. I bolded and underlined "related substances" because that is much more generalized than steroids and PEDs. It can be interpreted as any illegal drug. If it was just steroids and PEDs, they would have specifically wrote just steroids and PEDs.

Boston Globe: How did Aaron Hernandez not fail NFL drug tests?

■The NFL and NFL Players Association collectively bargained two policies: one for performance-enhancing drugs, and one for substances of abuse. For the PED policy, the NFL has a list of banned substances five pages long, in categories such as stimulants, anabolic steroids, and masking agents On the list of banned substances of abuse are street drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, oxycodone, and PCP.

■ Both policies include random testing, but the PED policy has much more teeth to it. For substances of abuse, players are only tested once per year, in a window between April 20-Aug. 9. Realistically, most of the testing is done at the beginning of training camp, and by position group. If a player passes his one test, he won’t be tested again until the next April-August. One former medical personnel called it an “intelligence test, because it’s once a year, and you know it’s coming.” One agent quipped that players sometimes will throw “smoking parties” as soon as their testing is complete.

Two different policies, one covering PEDs, one covering substances of abuse which includes marijuana and which only tested once per year.

What you are calling new policies were replaced at the beginning of last season, making them "old policies" now. But they were the ones in place at the time of Hernandez's use.

 

[Touchdown There]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

 

[Anarchy99]

The jury has requested a complete list of the 439 exhibits presented in the trial. For whatever that is worth in the speculation and analysis department.

 

[GregR]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

I quoted the reporter giving the specific start and end dates for substances of abuse testing from the NFLPA-NFL agreement as April 20 and August 9. You can easily find a multitude of other articles confirming this on google. Yes he also said that "Realistically, most of the testing is done at the beginning of training camp". Which falls within the April 20-August 9 time span for random testing from the agreement.

 

[Touchdown There]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

I quoted the reporter giving the specific start and end dates for substances of abuse testing from the NFLPA-NFL agreement as April 20 and August 9. You can easily find a multitude of other articles confirming this on google. Yes he also said that "Realistically, most of the testing is done at the beginning of training camp". Which falls within the April 20-August 9 time span for random testing from the agreement.

Link one of those articles for me. I saw one or two and the source of the information came from the same reporter. Can you find any NFL/NFLPA documentation for this rule?

 

[PinkydaPimp]

The jury has requested a complete list of the 439 exhibits presented in the trial. For whatever that is worth in the speculation and analysis department.

Could they be over thinking it? or trying to link it all together. i assume they will be deliberating for a good while.

 

[Dezbelief]

The jury has requested a complete list of the 439 exhibits presented in the trial. For whatever that is worth in the speculation and analysis department.

Could they be over thinking it? or trying to link it all together. i assume they will be deliberating for a good while.

Sounds like a holdout's stall tactic.

 

[Bob Magaw]

They may want to take a closer look at images of what apppear to be a gun wielding Hernandez on the night of Lloyd's ordered execution (or as the defense would have it - zombie PCP assassination).

http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-aaron-hernandez-holding-gun-murder-2013-7

I don't know about yous guys, but that doesn't look like he is holding a chocolate Easter bunny to me.

The defense said it could be an ipad. Do they make ipads shaped like guns with trigger guards?

* And at this pre-trial hearing, the image is shadowy, but doesn't appear to be an ipad.

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=509944

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

They may want to take a closer look at images of what apppear to be a gun wielding Hernandez on the night of Lloyd's ordered execution (or as the defense would have it - zombie PCP assassination).

http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-aaron-hernandez-holding-gun-murder-2013-7

That looks like a gun to me.

More importantly, if I'm a juror, I'm thinking to myself, "If it's not a gun, why doesn't Hernandez take the stand and tell us what it is?" Jurors will be instructed not to have those thoughts, but realistically, how can they not?

 

[GregR]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

I quoted the reporter giving the specific start and end dates for substances of abuse testing from the NFLPA-NFL agreement as April 20 and August 9. You can easily find a multitude of other articles confirming this on google. Yes he also said that "Realistically, most of the testing is done at the beginning of training camp". Which falls within the April 20-August 9 time span for random testing from the agreement.

Link one of those articles for me. I saw one or two and the source of the information came from the same reporter. Can you find any NFL/NFLPA documentation for this rule?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nfl+drug+%22april+20%22+%22august+9%22

Street Drugs in Sports: The NFL's Double Standard - The ...

www.theofficialreview.com/street-drugs-in-sports-the-nfls-double-standa...

Nov 21, 2013 - happens just once a year — between April 20 and August 9 during the preseason. After that test, the player isn't tested again until the next year.

Don't miss any updates from Eric Edholm - Twitter

https://twitter.com/eric_edholm/status/578556730654633984

Mar 19, 2015 - #NFLPA sends reminder to agents that NFL players subject to one random drug test this offseason between April 20-August 9 at OTAs, etc.

NFLPA Reminds Its Players That The NFL's Annual Drug ...

nextimpulsesports.com/.../nflpa-reminds-its-players-that-the-nfls-annual-...

Mar 19, 2015 - All Players under contract with an NFL Club will be tested once during the period beginning April 20 and continuing through August 9.

The NFL's Pot Problem - MensJournal.com

www.mensjournal.com/magazine/the-nfls-pot-problem-20140919

Sep 19, 2014 - Players with no prior drug violations can be tested just once between April 20 and August 9, and only during organized team activities.

Report: Hernandez failed no drug tests with Patriots ...

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/.../report-hernandez-fa...

Profootballtalk.com

Jul 7, 2013 - Regardless of whether Aaron Hernandez failed one drug test or six drug tests ... Florida, Hernandez reportedly failed no drug tests during his NFL career. ... isn't tested again until the next stretch from April 20 through August 9.

NFL Players and Their Continued Use and Abuse of ...

www.vetsonmedia.com/nfl-players-banned-substance/

Jun 5, 2014 - Perhaps, a refresher of the NFL's drug policy and the collective ... testing can happen any time between April 20th through August 9th), how ...

An explainer: The NFL's drug policies - The Denver Post

www.denverpost.com/.../an-explainer-nfls-drug-policies

The Denver Post

Sep 3, 2014 - Welker called the NFL's drug policies "clearly flawed," but what exactly are ... (Players may be tested only between April 20 and August 9 for ...

Essentials of Sports Law - Page 301 - Google Books Result

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0313356750

Glenn M. Wong - 2010 - ‎Law

NFL: The Eighth Circuit Flags the NFL for Interference with State Drug ... Regarding illegal drugs other than steroids, all players must be tested once between April 20 and August 9, at a random time determined by the NFL's medical director.

[PDF]NFL drug policy - atgweb 3 or 4

extras.mnginteractive.com/.../20130819_025353_NFL-Drug-Policy.pdf

Aug 19, 2013 - following terms of a policy regarding substance abuse in the NFL (hereinafter referred to as the. “Policy”). ..... tested once during the period beginning April 20 and continuing through August 9. ... take place after August 9. c.

 

[Bayhawks]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

I quoted the reporter giving the specific start and end dates for substances of abuse testing from the NFLPA-NFL agreement as April 20 and August 9. You can easily find a multitude of other articles confirming this on google. Yes he also said that "Realistically, most of the testing is done at the beginning of training camp". Which falls within the April 20-August 9 time span for random testing from the agreement.

Link one of those articles for me. I saw one or two and the source of the information came from the same reporter. Can you find any NFL/NFLPA documentation for this rule?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nfl+drug+"april+20"+"august+9"

Street Drugs in Sports: The NFL's Double Standard - The ...

www.theofficialreview.com/street-drugs-in-sports-the-nfls-double-standa...

Nov 21, 2013 - happens just once a year — between April 20 and August 9 during the preseason. After that test, the player isn't tested again until the next year.

Don't miss any updates from Eric Edholm - Twitter

https://twitter.com/eric_edholm/status/578556730654633984

Mar 19, 2015 - #NFLPA sends reminder to agents that NFL players subject to one random drug test this offseason between April 20-August 9 at OTAs, etc.

NFLPA Reminds Its Players That The NFL's Annual Drug ...

nextimpulsesports.com/.../nflpa-reminds-its-players-that-the-nfls-annual-...

Mar 19, 2015 - All Players under contract with an NFL Club will be tested once during the period beginning April 20 and continuing through August 9.

The NFL's Pot Problem - MensJournal.com

www.mensjournal.com/magazine/the-nfls-pot-problem-20140919

Sep 19, 2014 - Players with no prior drug violations can be tested just once between April 20 and August 9, and only during organized team activities.

Report: Hernandez failed no drug tests with Patriots ...

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/.../report-hernandez-fa...

Profootballtalk.com

Jul 7, 2013 - Regardless of whether Aaron Hernandez failed one drug test or six drug tests ... Florida, Hernandez reportedly failed no drug tests during his NFL career. ... isn't tested again until the next stretch from April 20 through August 9.

NFL Players and Their Continued Use and Abuse of ...

www.vetsonmedia.com/nfl-players-banned-substance/

Jun 5, 2014 - Perhaps, a refresher of the NFL's drug policy and the collective ... testing can happen any time between April 20th through August 9th), how ...

An explainer: The NFL's drug policies - The Denver Post

www.denverpost.com/.../an-explainer-nfls-drug-policies

The Denver Post

Sep 3, 2014 - Welker called the NFL's drug policies "clearly flawed," but what exactly are ... (Players may be tested only between April 20 and August 9 for ...

Essentials of Sports Law - Page 301 - Google Books Result

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0313356750

Glenn M. Wong - 2010 - ‎Law

NFL: The Eighth Circuit Flags the NFL for Interference with State Drug ... Regarding illegal drugs other than steroids, all players must be tested once between April 20 and August 9, at a random time determined by the NFL's medical director.

[PDF]NFL drug policy - atgweb 3 or 4

extras.mnginteractive.com/.../20130819_025353_NFL-Drug-Policy.pdf

Aug 19, 2013 - following terms of a policy regarding substance abuse in the NFL (hereinafter referred to as the. “Policy”). ..... tested once during the period beginning April 20 and continuing through August 9. ... take place after August 9. c.

He said "link ONE!"

 

[Rimez]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

but they dont, they randomly test for things like adderall and EPO during the season but once you pass your "recreational drug" test youre in the clear the rest of the year. active and retired players mention it in interviews and books all the time and talk about huge smoking and drug parties after the team passes their tests with all the hookers and blow you can handle, and some guys even play stoned on sundays. hernandez was tested dozens of times mid season for PEDs so why do you think he was never caught for weed or cocaine or pcp? easy answer, they werent screening him for it.

half the league would be suspended if they randomly tested for recreational drugs around christmas time. everyone tune in for the super bowl battle between brock osweiler and luke mccown because manning and brees are suspended for weed and unprescribed vicodin lol.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Serious question - for locals, how would you characterize this jurisdiction or region socioeconomically? Since AH had a nice house, I'm guessing at least upper middle class if not higher. Just trying to get a sense of where the jury pool is being drawn from.

* Also, may have been buried in one of the articles (I think McCann), but he said, depending on how you define rare, mistrials aren't like a 1% rare, but happen about 10-15% of the time. So if true, there is a good chance the jury will be able to arrive at a verdict.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Van from Boston TV station allegedly followed Hernandez jurors home

That would be creepy if a few jurors die under suspicious circumstances* (staged suicides, driving off a cliff), AH beams an extra big smile during the announcement by the judge, than he looks knowingly and nods slowly at the jury box, lingering on each of them individually for a few moments.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/09/van-from-boston-tv-station-allegedly-followed-hernandez-jurors-home/

The wait for a verdict in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial continues on Thursday amid allegations that a Boston television station went a little too far in their attempt to see what jurors were up to during the deliberation phase of the case.

Two jurors told Bristol Superior Court Judge E. Susan Garsh that a WHDH van followed them home from the courthouse after Wednesday’s session came to an end, leading Judge Garsh to request an opportunity to speak to the person in the van. Judge Garsh said, via the Boston Globe, that she wants that person to “tell me whether anyone in the company directed him” to follow the jurors. WHDH released a statement on the matter.

“This morning, in the Aaron Hernandez trial, the judge questioned 7News as to any impropriety with the jury in the case,” the statement reads. “7News did not approach any juror or talk to any juror. We also did not videotape or take pictures of any juror. We are continuing to work with the court and investigate the situation.”

Judge Garsh said that she is not banning WHDH from covering the trial at this point, but offered a reminder that jury harassment is a felony and said that she could still bar the station based on the answers to the questions she has about their conduct.

* Third person linked to Aaron Hernandez dies unexpectedly

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/person-linked-aaron-hernandez-dies-unexpectedly-article-1.1550853

Twenty-seven-year-old Tabitha Perry was found unconscious and not breathing by emergency responders Tuesday. Perry had a child with Thaddeus Singleton III, a friend of Hernandez who died in a car accident in June. Hernandez's uncle, Robert Valentine, died in a crash in Aug.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Van from Boston TV station allegedly followed Hernandez jurors home

That would be creepy if a few jurors die under suspicious circumstances* (staged suicides, driving off a cliff), AH beams an extra big smile during the announcement by the judge, than he looks knowingly and nods slowly at the jury box, lingering on each of them individually for a few moments.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/09/van-from-boston-tv-station-allegedly-followed-hernandez-jurors-home/

The wait for a verdict in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial continues on Thursday amid allegations that a Boston television station went a little too far in their attempt to see what jurors were up to during the deliberation phase of the case.

Two jurors told Bristol Superior Court Judge E. Susan Garsh that a WHDH van followed them home from the courthouse after Wednesday’s session came to an end, leading Judge Garsh to request an opportunity to speak to the person in the van. Judge Garsh said, via the Boston Globe, that she wants that person to “tell me whether anyone in the company directed him” to follow the jurors. WHDH released a statement on the matter.

“This morning, in the Aaron Hernandez trial, the judge questioned 7News as to any impropriety with the jury in the case,” the statement reads. “7News did not approach any juror or talk to any juror. We also did not videotape or take pictures of any juror. We are continuing to work with the court and investigate the situation.”

Judge Garsh said that she is not banning WHDH from covering the trial at this point, but offered a reminder that jury harassment is a felony and said that she could still bar the station based on the answers to the questions she has about their conduct.

* Third person linked to Aaron Hernandez dies unexpectedly

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/person-linked-aaron-hernandez-dies-unexpectedly-article-1.1550853

Twenty-seven-year-old Tabitha Perry was found unconscious and not breathing by emergency responders Tuesday. Perry had a child with Thaddeus Singleton III, a friend of Hernandez who died in a car accident in June. Hernandez's uncle, Robert Valentine, died in a crash in Aug.

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

 

[Doug B]

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

Was Aaron Hernandez really involved large-scale organized crime? If all these deaths are hits, who's ordering them? Can't be Hernandez making calls from the jailhouse.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

Was Aaron Hernandez really involved large-scale organized crime? If all these deaths are hits, who's ordering them? Can't be Hernandez making calls from the jailhouse.

he was supposedly a part of the Bloods if i recall. Im sure he has hitters inside and out.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

Was Aaron Hernandez really involved large-scale organized crime? If all these deaths are hits, who's ordering them? Can't be Hernandez making calls from the jailhouse.

From the linked article

"There were no suspicious circumstances found at the time of the immediate investigation, but it was the second time Perry was at the scene of a death in the last six months. On June 30, Perry was injured in the single-car crash that killed driver Thaddeus Singleton. Singleton was at the wheel, and lost control of the car, according to police. The car flew 100 feet in the air before crashing into the Farmington Country Club."

"Several friends and family members of Hernandez have died since he was put in jail. Robert Valentine, his mother's brother, died in Bristol at 1:03 a.m. on Aug. 3. Emergency personnel responded to the intersection of Central St. by Church Ave. for a crash involving a moped driven Robert Valentine. He was treated for a head injury, but was determined dead at the scene. He was not wearing a helmet."

Sounds like a series of coincidences, but people do tend to end up dead and riddled with bullet holes or shot in the face when AH is around.

I only posted it because of the media van following jurors. If they could find them (just follow the vehicle following the vehicles)? I doubt if AH has a Bond villain-type of vast criminal network of wetwork agents at his disposal that specialize in remaindering and maximal demotion, and making them look like accidents or natural causes.

Maybe AH will pop up on Raymond Reddington's Blacklist?

 

[General Tso]

Tell you what - it doesn't surprise me one bit what's going on with Aaron and the loyalty/fear with his cronies. In the 90's I did a lot of volunteer work with troubled youths in the Bristol and New Britain area and I got a pretty good insight into the culture. Who knows - I probably interacted with Aaron on a few occasions. I can honestly say that the Puerto Rican mini gangsters from back then were some of the scariest kids I've ever met. They completely overwhelmed the organization I was a part of and we basically had to pull out. In hindsight It was a very wise decision.

 

[Tool]

Van from Boston TV station allegedly followed Hernandez jurors home

That would be creepy if a few jurors die under suspicious circumstances* (staged suicides, driving off a cliff), AH beams an extra big smile during the announcement by the judge, than he looks knowingly and nods slowly at the jury box, lingering on each of them individually for a few moments.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/09/van-from-boston-tv-station-allegedly-followed-hernandez-jurors-home/

The wait for a verdict in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial continues on Thursday amid allegations that a Boston television station went a little too far in their attempt to see what jurors were up to during the deliberation phase of the case.

Two jurors told Bristol Superior Court Judge E. Susan Garsh that a WHDH van followed them home from the courthouse after Wednesday’s session came to an end, leading Judge Garsh to request an opportunity to speak to the person in the van. Judge Garsh said, via the Boston Globe, that she wants that person to “tell me whether anyone in the company directed him” to follow the jurors. WHDH released a statement on the matter.

“This morning, in the Aaron Hernandez trial, the judge questioned 7News as to any impropriety with the jury in the case,” the statement reads. “7News did not approach any juror or talk to any juror. We also did not videotape or take pictures of any juror. We are continuing to work with the court and investigate the situation.”

Judge Garsh said that she is not banning WHDH from covering the trial at this point, but offered a reminder that jury harassment is a felony and said that she could still bar the station based on the answers to the questions she has about their conduct.

* Third person linked to Aaron Hernandez dies unexpectedly

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/person-linked-aaron-hernandez-dies-unexpectedly-article-1.1550853

Twenty-seven-year-old Tabitha Perry was found unconscious and not breathing by emergency responders Tuesday. Perry had a child with Thaddeus Singleton III, a friend of Hernandez who died in a car accident in June. Hernandez's uncle, Robert Valentine, died in a crash in Aug.

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

And no wonder hernandez's wife is lying on the stand. Maybe she'd do it anyway but really has no choice.

 

[renesauz]

I'm absolutely baffled by anyone claiming the whole thing is circumstantial. HE WAS PROVEN TO BE AT THE SCENE. Sure, whether o not he personally pulled the trigger is conjecture based on (STRONG) circumstantial evidence, but HE WAS AT A MURDER SCENE, and he didn't immediately report it or point fingers to who did it. He appears to have misled investigators and hidden facts. That should be more than enough, IMHO, to convict someone of murder. If you're there, and you choose to NOT say why/how/what happened, I'm more than OK with concluding guilt.

There are many aspects which are NOT circumstantial, and logical conclusions (or conjecture if you really want to call it that) are very nicely supported by the MOUNTAINS of "circumstantial" evidence present.

People have too low of an opinion of circumstantial. One or two pieces of it is useless, but put enough of it together with a few pieces of NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL (like the shell casing in the rental car, the DNA, the videos), and it's more than enough IMHO.

 

[rockaction]

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

Was Aaron Hernandez really involved large-scale organized crime? If all these deaths are hits, who's ordering them? Can't be Hernandez making calls from the jailhouse.

From the linked article

"There were no suspicious circumstances found at the time of the immediate investigation, but it was the second time Perry was at the scene of a death in the last six months. On June 30, Perry was injured in the single-car crash that killed driver Thaddeus Singleton. Singleton was at the wheel, and lost control of the car, according to police. The car flew 100 feet in the air before crashing into the Farmington Country Club."

"Several friends and family members of Hernandez have died since he was put in jail. Robert Valentine, his mother's brother, died in Bristol at 1:03 a.m. on Aug. 3. Emergency personnel responded to the intersection of Central St. by Church Ave. for a crash involving a moped driven Robert Valentine. He was treated for a head injury, but was determined dead at the scene. He was not wearing a helmet."

Sounds like a series of coincidences, but people do tend to end up dead and riddled with bullet holes or shot in the face when AH is around.

I only posted it because of the media van following jurors. If they could find them (just follow the vehicle following the vehicles)? I doubt if AH has a Bond villain-type of vast criminal network of wetwork agents at his disposal that specialize in remaindering and maximal demotion, and making them look like accidents or natural causes.

Maybe AH will pop up on Raymond Reddington's Blacklist?

If that's Farmington, CT, anybody can crash into that country club. It's right on the corner of a major intersection in Farmington and any drunk ####### can ride over the lawn and plow into it.

Just for edification.

 

[rockaction]

Tell you what - it doesn't surprise me one bit what's going on with Aaron and the loyalty/fear with his cronies. In the 90's I did a lot of volunteer work with troubled youths in the Bristol and New Britain area and I got a pretty good insight into the culture. Who knows - I probably interacted with Aaron on a few occasions. I can honestly say that the Puerto Rican mini gangsters from back then were some of the scariest kids I've ever met. They completely overwhelmed the organization I was a part of and we basically had to pull out. In hindsight It was a very wise decision.

Worst in CT. Constant fear. When I hung out in SPFLD, MA around some rough dudes (hey, limited nightlife here) the Latin Kings were always the points of reference for behavior in and out of the traps and the like.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I'm absolutely baffled by anyone claiming the whole thing is circumstantial. HE WAS PROVEN TO BE AT THE SCENE. Sure, whether o not he personally pulled the trigger is conjecture based on (STRONG) circumstantial evidence, but HE WAS AT A MURDER SCENE, and he didn't immediately report it or point fingers to who did it. He appears to have misled investigators and hidden facts. That should be more than enough, IMHO, to convict someone of murder. If you're there, and you choose to NOT say why/how/what happened, I'm more than OK with concluding guilt.

There are many aspects which are NOT circumstantial, and logical conclusions (or conjecture if you really want to call it that) are very nicely supported by the MOUNTAINS of "circumstantial" evidence present.

People have too low of an opinion of circumstantial. One or two pieces of it is useless, but put enough of it together with a few pieces of NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL (like the shell casing in the rental car, the DNA, the videos), and it's more than enough IMHO.

If you convict someone of murder based on that alone you would not be following the law. Intent needs to be proved.

 

[davearm]

I'm absolutely baffled by anyone claiming the whole thing is circumstantial. HE WAS PROVEN TO BE AT THE SCENE. Sure, whether o not he personally pulled the trigger is conjecture based on (STRONG) circumstantial evidence, but HE WAS AT A MURDER SCENE, and he didn't immediately report it or point fingers to who did it. He appears to have misled investigators and hidden facts. That should be more than enough, IMHO, to convict someone of murder. If you're there, and you choose to NOT say why/how/what happened, I'm more than OK with concluding guilt.

There are many aspects which are NOT circumstantial, and logical conclusions (or conjecture if you really want to call it that) are very nicely supported by the MOUNTAINS of "circumstantial" evidence present.

People have too low of an opinion of circumstantial. One or two pieces of it is useless, but put enough of it together with a few pieces of NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL (like the shell casing in the rental car, the DNA, the videos), and it's more than enough IMHO.

If you convict someone of murder based on that alone you would not be following the law. Intent needs to be proved.

It's clear some folks have a very difficult time distinguishing between what they think must've happened, and what the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Touchdown There]

You are quoting what a reporter has reported as "realistically", meaning, in practice they usually only get tested once per year. This is not the actual rule. They can actually be tested anytime during the year at random.

I quoted the reporter giving the specific start and end dates for substances of abuse testing from the NFLPA-NFL agreement as April 20 and August 9. You can easily find a multitude of other articles confirming this on google. Yes he also said that "Realistically, most of the testing is done at the beginning of training camp". Which falls within the April 20-August 9 time span for random testing from the agreement.

Link one of those articles for me. I saw one or two and the source of the information came from the same reporter. Can you find any NFL/NFLPA documentation for this rule?

[PDF]NFL drug policy - atgweb 3 or 4

extras.mnginteractive.com/.../20130819_025353_NFL-Drug-Policy.pdf

Aug 19, 2013 - following terms of a policy regarding substance abuse in the NFL (hereinafter referred to as the. “Policy”). ..... tested once during the period beginning April 20 and continuing through August 9. ... take place after August 9. c.

So this should be the important link, except the date on the Policy.pdf is 2010, not Aug 19, 2013. Stale data and possibly the reason these dates are listed everywhere on the internet. Where is the PDF of the new version of the NFL's "Policy and Program for Substances of Abuse".

It is possible the dates are the same, but it seems obvious that any NFL athlete can beat a once a year test within certain dates. Even Josh Gordon could beat the system if if he was not in the advanced stages program.

Can you link the new policy?

 

[Touchdown There]

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

And no wonder hernandez's wife is lying on the stand. Maybe she'd do it anyway but really has no choice.

His wife loves him true gangsta' style and she also has access to the bank account. It was a mistake for the prosecution to put her on the stand and she likely mislead them in the months leading up to her testimony.

 

[General Tso]

Tell you what - it doesn't surprise me one bit what's going on with Aaron and the loyalty/fear with his cronies. In the 90's I did a lot of volunteer work with troubled youths in the Bristol and New Britain area and I got a pretty good insight into the culture. Who knows - I probably interacted with Aaron on a few occasions. I can honestly say that the Puerto Rican mini gangsters from back then were some of the scariest kids I've ever met. They completely overwhelmed the organization I was a part of and we basically had to pull out. In hindsight It was a very wise decision.

Worst in CT. Constant fear. When I hung out in SPFLD, MA around some rough dudes (hey, limited nightlife here) the Latin Kings were always the points of reference for behavior in and out of the traps and the like.

Mardis Gras not good enough for you?

Seriously, watch out for that place as well. I had a VIP room encounter up there with a Russian girl named Lila a few years ago. A week later my credit card company called me asking about a suspicious jewelry purchase in the Ukraine.

 

[stbugs]

I cant imagine how terrified those jurors must be, especially if they know all of this.

And no wonder hernandez's wife is lying on the stand. Maybe she'd do it anyway but really has no choice.

His wife loves him true gangsta' style and she also has access to the bank account. It was a mistake for the prosecution to put her on the stand and she likely mislead them in the months leading up to her testimony.

From what I read, it seemed like the best part of her on the stand was about disposing of a box. She seemed to remember lots of details, but not knowing what was in the box and disposing of it in a trash bin that she can't recall where gives the jurors the ability to see that as the place where the murder weapon was.

 

[stbugs]

I'm absolutely baffled by anyone claiming the whole thing is circumstantial. HE WAS PROVEN TO BE AT THE SCENE. Sure, whether o not he personally pulled the trigger is conjecture based on (STRONG) circumstantial evidence, but HE WAS AT A MURDER SCENE, and he didn't immediately report it or point fingers to who did it. He appears to have misled investigators and hidden facts. That should be more than enough, IMHO, to convict someone of murder. If you're there, and you choose to NOT say why/how/what happened, I'm more than OK with concluding guilt.

There are many aspects which are NOT circumstantial, and logical conclusions (or conjecture if you really want to call it that) are very nicely supported by the MOUNTAINS of "circumstantial" evidence present.

People have too low of an opinion of circumstantial. One or two pieces of it is useless, but put enough of it together with a few pieces of NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL (like the shell casing in the rental car, the DNA, the videos), and it's more than enough IMHO.

If you convict someone of murder based on that alone you would not be following the law. Intent needs to be proved.

It's clear some folks have a very difficult time distinguishing between what they think must've happened, and what the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's also clear that some folks have a difficult time understanding what reasonable doubt is and how circumstantial evidence can be used to convict people. Not sure how you can get reasonable doubt, IMHO, when you have pictures of AH before and after the shooting with a gun in his hands and his defense team has put him at the crime scene. The defense story even has holes in it from some of the things that were also brought up.

Also, please define what "intent" means and how it is proved? IMHO, Hernandez having a gun at the scene seems like there is enough intent to harm based on AH having a gun at that scene. I hate to muck up the thread, but I see no issues with intent based on this link.

 

[GregR]

Not sure telling the jury that AH was there and witnessed the shooting is the best strategy, given the joint venture element of the case.

Well, he was there, and he did witness the shooting. Based on the evidence, that's impossible to deny.

If the defense had told the jury that AH pulled the trigger, that would be a bad strategy. But just telling them that he was at the scene ... they had no choice. He was obviously at the scene. To deny that would be to lose all credibility.

I think ultimately it hurts his case because of how well the prosecution did refuting the evidence-less PCP flashback narrative.

Without this defense, the jury would have to consider the other 2 could have killed Lloyd for any number of reasons. Drug deal, argument that got out of hand, anything they could think of, and then whether AH knew their plans.

Now the defense has said it was a homicidal PCP flashback, anything else someone might have come up with is off the list. As the prosecution pointed out, it strains believability someone would witness a random act of homicide fueled by flashback and just minutes after let them linger around his wife and child, plus send his wife to meet with them a day or two later to give them money.

If the jury thinks AH's post-murder actions are completely inconsistent with his defense, he's basically ruled out the other options besides himself as the shooter.