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

[karmarooster]

A lot of people in here are too quick to close the door on this one. What ever happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"? All these crimes are alleged, and all the evidence is circumstantial at best. Oh, it's the same flavor of Bubbilicious, he must be guilty! Oh, uncorroborated accomplice testimony, it must be 100% accurate!

There's more evidence of George Zimmerman's guilt in the Trayvon Martin case than what we've seen here so far, but people can't wait to call him guilty. Let's wait for some real facts to come out, instead of hearsay and conjecture, and see what the real story is before we start nailing up the coffin.

The two cases are not even close. Nobody is questioning that Zimmerman pulled the trigger. That case is about intent. Was it self defense or was a case of vigilantism?

The circumstantial evidence against Hernandez is strong, but there are also others involved. But the video evidence alone places Hernandez within proximity to the crime scene shortly before and after the crime. It looks bad walking into your house minutes after your car was scene leaving the crime scene.

What would be more amazing is the incredible effort it would take to frame Hernandez. Most things in life are answered by the more logical and obvious solution. If it looks like a horse, sounds like a horse, and walks like a horse, more likely than not it is in fact a horse and not the Zebra you wish it was.

Agreed. "innocent until proven guilty" is just a legal concept that illustrates that the prosecution has the burden of proof in any criminal case because the defendants life/liberty is at stake.

It does NOT mean that people cannot make assumptions about it prior to an actual finding of guilt. Otherwise, how would anyone ever plea bargain? DA: "look, we've got you pinned. take the plea and save yourself 20 years." Def: "but i'm innocent until proven guilty!" DA: "Ok, then we'll prove you guilty and lock you up for 30."

Also - the idea that it's "circumstantial evidence at best" is not a compelling argument. If they found his glock, at the bottom of the river, with his fingerprints on it, and it matches the bullets found at the scene... that would STILL be 'circumstantial' because it requires the inference of "if his finger prints are on it, he must have fired it." Because, there could be some crazy scenario where he touched the gun after the murder took place.

The only thing better than circumstantial evidence would be something that requires NO inference to connect the dots... like, an admission of guilt or a witness to the murder or a video tape of the murder in which it's clear his identity is shown.

Keep in the mind the boston bomber has only 'circumstantial evidence at best' against him too... and yet no one is crying about him. They found bomb material at his house, have a video of him carrying a bag to the marathon, and then a bomb went off, and the shootout entailed. It requires the inference that he bombed the marathon.

 

[DropKick]

People seem to be arguing different things:

1. He did it and will be found guilty.

2. He did it and will be found not guilty.

3. He didn't do it and will be found not guilty.

4. He didn't do it and will be found guilty.

I don't think anyone is arguing #4, so let's ignore that one.

I think it's 1, but I completely understand someone arguing 2 because of what might happen in a courtroom.

Is anyone really arguing 3?

What's "it"? Actually pulling the trigger, or just being in the area when it happened? I've seen no evidence at all that AH has committed murder. He may have had some thugs in his car in a situation that got out of hand before he realized how far it was going to go. AH may be able to argue that some low-life friends from his past got carried away trying to live the Thug Life and now are trying to tell police that he was the one who did it. He may be an accessory, he may be a co-conspirator, but no one's shown proof that AH 1) knew the final result of that car ride beforehand, and 2) actually fired the murder weapon.

Great example of a dynasty owner in denial for my dissertation. Thanks for the input! Absolutely crassic!

 

[NJ]

Are you saying the cops didn't plant any evidence in the Simpson case? Too long ago for me to remember any details but I recall one of them (Furman maybe?) was caught tampering with the evidence.

I don't think anyone was ever "caught" tampering or planting evidence, that was just what the defense alleged happened as that was the easiest way to explain away all of the blood evidence. Furman was caught in a lie under oath, they asked him if he had ever used the "N" word and he claimed he hadn't used it in the last 10 years and the defense was able to prove that was a lie. So basically you had a white cop, caught in a lie under oath that has now been labeled a racist so it didn't take a lot of effort at that point to convince a jury that he would/could have planted evidence to frame OJ. That was apparantly enough to put reasonable doubt in the jurors minds, but that's not the equivalent of catching someone planting evidence.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've seen no evidence at all that AH has committed murder. He may have had some thugs in his car in a situation that got out of hand before he realized how far it was going to go. AH may be able to argue that some low-life friends from his past got carried away trying to live the Thug Life and now are trying to tell police that he was the one who did it.

He won't argue that, because he won't take the stand.

But even if he did argue that, and even if the jury believed every word of it, he should still be found guilty of murder. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he orchestrated the hit, whether or not he pulled the trigger.

 

[BigJim®]

Florio at PFT is doing a pretty good job breaking down the evidence described in affidavits. As damning as the evidence seems, gotta say I'd be a little worried if my star witness claimed to have been asleep up until the shooting, and claimed he went to sleep immediately after a murder. Sounds like he's distancing himself a bit too much, and I'd definitely expect his credibility to be hammered away at by the defense if he got reduced charges for his testimony.

 

[biju]

It's mind boggling other than fishing in here how someone could defend Hernandez at this point.

I don't see anyone defending Hernandez. I have seen people point out that we are only hearing one side of the story (the police and prosecuters side). While I think most of us here believe Hernandez committed the murder there is history in this country of inept prosecution and shady cops planting evidence. See the OJ Simpson case, for example.

Oh come on.

Are you saying the cops didn't plant any evidence in the Simpson case? Too long ago for me to remember any details but I recall one of them (Furman maybe?) was caught tampering with the evidence. And the prosecution was totally inept and owned by Johnnie Cochran.

No, they did not (from what I recall). They bungled the handling of the evidence, but they did not "plant" anything. That last part about the inept prosecution was true and the judge was pretty inept too.

People also seem to forget that this case used DNA samples well ahead of DNA being considered a "smoking gun" like it is today. The defense successfully argued in that case that it was "possible" it was someone else's DNA. Yeah, they would have a better chance at getting the Chewbacca defense to work in today's courtroom.

 

[GregR]

Florio at PFT is doing a pretty good job breaking down the evidence described in affidavits. As damning as the evidence seems, gotta say I'd be a little worried if my star witness claimed to have been asleep up until the shooting, and claimed he went to sleep immediately after a murder. Sounds like he's distancing himself a bit too much, and I'd definitely expect his credibility to be hammered away at by the defense if he got reduced charges for his testimony.

I agree that the reports of the affidavit's content about Ortiz's version might not carry a lot of weight. Given the other evidence though, unless a lot of it gets thrown out in court, I don't think they really need to put Ortiz on the stand.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Florio at PFT is doing a pretty good job breaking down the evidence described in affidavits. As damning as the evidence seems, gotta say I'd be a little worried if my star witness claimed to have been asleep up until the shooting, and claimed he went to sleep immediately after a murder. Sounds like he's distancing himself a bit too much, and I'd definitely expect his credibility to be hammered away at by the defense if he got reduced charges for his testimony.

Ortiz's testimony goes out the window if the other guy claims that Ortiz was in fact awake. Then they both end up simply finger pointing. The prosecution may never put either on the stand unless their stories actually work together.

 

[ghostguy123]

Am I in the wrong forum?

 

[The Kerminator]

Am I in the wrong forum?

If you're looking for advise as to whether you should trade Doug Martin for the 1.02 pick in your rookie draft, then yes, you are.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Can someone clear something up for me? Ortiz said Wallace got out of the car, but it was also reported that Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez told him he shot Lloyd. Seems like Wallace would have been an eyewitness who did not need to be told.

 

[Anarchy99]

Can someone clear something up for me? Ortiz said Wallace got out of the car, but it was also reported that Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez told him he shot Lloyd. Seems like Wallace would have been an eyewitness who did not need to be told.

Yes, this story seems flimsy at best. From what I heard, Ortiz said Wallace told him the next day that AH confessed to shooting Lloyd. If Wallace were with AH, he would not need to be told. Even if Hernandez told Wallace to scout the area to make sure there were no witnesses and AH shot Lloyd with the two of them there alone, Wallace would not need to be told that AH did it (as there was no one else there).

It sounds more likely to me that the following day Wallace told Ortiz that Wallace didn't do it and that AH was the shooter . . . which is different than trying to introduce an AH confession by hearsay. I wonder if documentation of Ortiz' statement just listed it wrong.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Thanks, David, your theory does make sense. I don't understand why this inconsistency is not mentioned in the coverage. I heard Ed Werder report "AH told Wallace he did it" piece yesterday. You would think ESPN, who lives for this stuff, would explore, or at least mention the inconsistency with "Everyone but Ortiz got out of the car" vs blindly report it. Esp. since an eyewitness report is more credible than simply being told by Hernandez.

 

[Anarchy99]

In thinking about this further, I wonder if what Ortiz was describing the OTHER killings. Maybe he said AH admitted to Wallace that AH was the shooter in the DOUBLE HOMICIDE from last year. That would make way more sense and would be way more damning. Who knows whether that statement would be allowed in the Lloyd killing trial (or a trial for the other killings).

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I just spent some time searching, but articles on this pretty consistently seem to have "Hernandez told Wallace" as the headline, while the body of article just says that Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez did it. Did find infor that Ortiz was already on probation and has been heavy into drugs and alcohol, so I am sure his credibility as a witness will be attacked.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/07/10/aaron-hernandez-carlos-ortiz-drugs/2507429/

ETA- Even if it was mixed up and related to 2012 incident, I would guess the only hope of getting it into evidence in this case would be if they could link the two cases, ie that Lloyd was silenced because he talked about 2012 incident. And then would still probably be hearsay and need to hear from Wallace.

 

[3nOut]

Through all this, I still have not heard what Hernandez's alibi is. Where did he say he was all night? If he says he was home, his security system would dispute that since only a portion of the video was destroyed (I believe after the point when he returned home). If he says he was out, who was he with? Can they corroborate his story?

 

[Mookie]

You guys are getting too caught up in the semantics of the warrant and subsequent reporting. I strongly doubt that AH said "I hereby confess that I shot and killed Odin Lloyd." It was something conversational that was passed from Ah to Wallace to Ortiz and to the cops.

For example, AH "telling" Wallace something that Wallace witnessed could have been a flippant statement like "Did you see the look on that punk's face when I pulled the trigger? He was crying like a *******" That is AH's "confession" that he shot Lloyd. Wallace then relays that "confession" to Ortiz, Ortiz tells the cops etc..

 

[GregR]

The affidavit that the "Hernandez told Wallace" stuff came from... was paperwork filed by Florida police to get a search warrant for Wallace's home. It wasn't necessarily a complete transcription or complete summary of what Ortiz told police.

Not a lawyer, but I think that context makes that phrasing make a bit more sense. The affidavit is to show probable cause Wallace has some culpability in the crime (accessory after the fact) to where a search is warranted. So it is going to focus on what evidence there is Wallace had involvement, rather than focus on Hernandez.

While it might be hearsay if they tried to use it against Hernandez... correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't hearsay if used against Wallace. His own statement showed he believed the murder was committed, and he didn't come forward about it.

So in other words, I wouldn't get too caught up in over analyzing that phrasing. It's focus was not on Hernandez's culpability, it was on Wallace's.

 

[Mookie]

Through all this, I still have not heard what Hernandez's alibi is. Where did he say he was all night? If he says he was home, his security system would dispute that since only a portion of the video was destroyed (I believe after the point when he returned home). If he says he was out, who was he with? Can they corroborate his story?

He's got no alibi (the video and eyewitness evidence is overwhelming where he was), and I suspect his defense will be that the prosecution can only prove he was there - not that he pulled the trigger (i.e. there is reasonable doubt). If he asserts some alibi, he has to formally declare it as part of the discovery process leading up to trial. They have a ways to go before any court deadlines kick in so I guess that still could be coming. It's highly unlikely though.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I get what you are saying, Mookie, and I could see it being easier for Ortiz, ie less of a "tattletale" on Wallace, by characterizing it that Wallace was told vs Wallace saw/knew.

It still seems odd that professional journalists would not make that distinction or raise the discrepancy.

 

[Two Deep]

From yahoo sports:

Revelation after revelation about the shooting death of Odin Lloyd has appeared to tighten the net around former New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez. However, defense attorneys with experience in both high-profile criminal cases and murder investigations caution against passing swift public judgment on Hernandez's fate.

Why? Because of a simple phrase we've all heard so many times it's become rote: innocent until proven guilty.

Prosecutors must prove Hernandez guilty of the crime of murder. Hernandez has no burden to prove himself innocent; at the moment, legally speaking, he's as innocent of the crime as you or me.

This is a bunch of bull####; the justice system can say this all it wants but the fact is you are quilty until proven innocent. If Hernandez is so ####### innocent why is he sitting in jail with no bail?

 

[GregR]

From yahoo sports:

Revelation after revelation about the shooting death of Odin Lloyd has appeared to tighten the net around former New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez. However, defense attorneys with experience in both high-profile criminal cases and murder investigations caution against passing swift public judgment on Hernandez's fate.

Why? Because of a simple phrase we've all heard so many times it's become rote: innocent until proven guilty.

Prosecutors must prove Hernandez guilty of the crime of murder. Hernandez has no burden to prove himself innocent; at the moment, legally speaking, he's as innocent of the crime as you or me.

This is a bunch of bull####; the justice system can say this all it wants but the fact is you are quilty until proven innocent. If Hernandez is so ####### innocent why is he sitting in jail with no bail?

Let's be a little reasonable. Obviously "innocent until proven guilty" does not mean you cannot be incarcerated to be brought to trial. That's a ridiculous notion. It would mean cops couldn't even stop you in the act of committing a crime, because you hadn't yet been proven guilty in a court that they would have no right to take you to since you're still innocent.

Obviously that is a gross mischaracterization of what the phrase means. Innocent until proven guilty means that in court the burden is on the prosecutors to show you are guilty rather than the burden being on you to show you are innocent.

There is nothing wrong how things are going. Hernandez was presumed innocent in court until the cops showed evidence of probable cause to search his house. He was presumed innocent in court during the arraignment until the prosecutor gave enough evidence to show he should be held for trial. He will continue to be presumed innocent in court when his trial begins until the prosecutors have made a case that the jury agrees with. Let it go.

 

[karmarooster]

Yeah you're not in jail, so I'd say you are slightly more innocent at this point than Hernandez.

To understand that comment, you need only look at the source: "DEFENSE ATTORNEYS." They are, by definition, mouth-pieces who have incentives to shout from the hilltops "He's innocent! all criminal defendant's are innocent!"

This is like listening to a spokesman for Montsanto, saying "Agent Orange isn't that bad!" Just because he was paid to say that agent orange isn't bad doesn't mean agent orange isn't bad.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Through all this, I still have not heard what Hernandez's alibi is. Where did he say he was all night? If he says he was home, his security system would dispute that since only a portion of the video was destroyed (I believe after the point when he returned home). If he says he was out, who was he with? Can they corroborate his story?

I don't think Hernandez will be offering an alibi. I think he'll instead be exercising his right to remain silent.

 

[KellysHeroes]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

 

[FantasyMan]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

 

[Faust]

Affidavit shows Carlos Ortiz used PCP, alcohol, THC daily

By Ryan Wilson | CBSSports.com

July 11, 2013 12:18 pm ET

Aaron Hernandez is currently in jail awaiting trial on first-degree murder charges in the shooting death of Odin Lloyd. And Hernandez told Ernest Wallace -- who is also in custody as part of the investigation -- that he shot Lloyd, according to court documents attributing that allegation to the third man charged in the case, Carlos Ortiz.

While the prosecution might consider Ortiz, 27, an integral witness, it wouldn't be surprising if the defense tries to show that he was a drug abuser with an extensive criminal record.

Ortiz has previously been convicted of larceny, assault, criminal mischief and interfering with an officer. According to an affidavit obtained by USAToday.com, police say Ortiz told his probation officer on May 21 -- a month before Lloyd's death -- "that he was abusing PCP, alcohol and THC daily." He was ordered to an in-patient treatment drug-abuse program but missed an appointment two days later, and he used a variety of excuses to duck treatment over the next month.

On Tuesday, a Massachusetts judge made public documents surrounding the case. These documents showed that Ortiz, who has been charged with carrying an unlicensed firearm in the Lloyd case, offered details into exactly how Lloyd died.

Ortiz told authorities that although he was with Hernandez and Wallace on the night of the shooting, he wasn't present when Lloyd was shot. As Ortiz explained it, the men made a brief stop on the way home so that Lloyd, Hernandez and Wallace could get out of the car and urinate while Ortiz stayed in the vehicle.

Ortiz then heard a gunshot, which was followed by Hernandez and Wallace returning to the car without Lloyd. At some point after the gunshot, Ortiz said, Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez admitted to shooting Lloyd.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Ortiz then heard a gunshot, which was followed by Hernandez and Wallace returning to the car without Lloyd. At some point after the gunshot, Ortiz said, Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez admitted to shooting Lloyd.

Yeah... this makes no sense.

 

[KellysHeroes]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

it soon will be

 

[HellToupee]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

Massachusetts has strict gun and weapons possession laws. If you are convicted of carrying a firearm without an F.I.D card, you face a mandatory minimum eighteen-month house-of-correction sentence. A Mandatory minimum sentence means that the judge has no discretion to impose a lighter sentence or to provide probation .

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

If Hernandez if found 'Not Guilty' he'll probably shoot someone on the way out of court.

 

[Anarchy99]

If Hernandez if found 'Not Guilty' he'll probably shoot someone on the way out of court.

Hernandez isn't the brightest bulb in the pack. He'd shoot someone on his way in to court. Right after he finished urinating outside the court house.

 

[Two Deep]

Ortiz then heard a gunshot, which was followed by Hernandez and Wallace returning to the car without Lloyd. At some point after the gunshot, Ortiz said, Wallace told Ortiz that Hernandez admitted to shooting Lloyd.

Yeah... this makes no sense.

A gunshot? was he deaf during the other 4

 

[Shutout]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

In some ways it is. If you look at it purely from a perspective of how much obvious evidence seems to be pointing Hernandez's way and, as a result, so many people are simply williling to say their opinion is that he is guilty, it is really not that different. It was the same way with OJ. More so in fact. Look at some of the evidence in Oj's case that looked like a no-brainer, yet he was not convicted.

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

For those of us old enough to remember that trial and how it seemingly just piled on obvious evidence day after day after day, this case with Hernandez isn't at all any more damning. I mean, if you can say we found hair, blood and clothing from the victims and the perp cross-contaminated over every venue of the crime scene and personal areas, and you don't convict, then you have to see Kelly's take on it as plausible.

 

[Phenix]

Again folks, innocent until proven guilty. It is still not out of the realm of possibility he was set up. While I do not think he was, it is more possible now that facts are coming out.

 

[Anarchy99]

Again folks, innocent until proven guilty. It is still not out of the realm of possibility he was set up. While I do not think he was, it is more possible now that facts are coming out.

Set up by whom? If anything, it's starting to sound more like he is a thug, been involved in multiple infractions, hangs out with goons, and he was the one that called up the boys to deal with a problem.

If you are saying that the cops are trying to make him the fall guy and pin him for this and that he wasn't the shooter. Per the laws of MA, it doesn't matter if he pulled the trigger or not. No matter how you slice it, there is no way that AH is INNOCENT. If people want to say there is a chance he is found not guilty that's different. But I don't see how anyone could suggest that he played no role in this and did nothing wrong.

 

[massraider]

Again folks, innocent until proven guilty. It is still not out of the realm of possibility he was set up. While I do not think he was, it is more possible now that facts are coming out.

Let me guess: ' just saying'........

 

[Sarnoff]

Again folks, innocent until proven guilty. It is still not out of the realm of possibility he was set up. While I do not think he was, it is more possible now that facts are coming out.

Set up by whom? If anything, it's starting to sound more like he is a thug, been involved in multiple infractions, hangs out with goons, and he was the one that called up the boys to deal with a problem.

If you are saying that the cops are trying to make him the fall guy and pin him for this and that he wasn't the shooter. Per the laws of MA, it doesn't matter if he pulled the trigger or not. No matter how you slice it, there is no way that AH is INNOCENT. If people want to say there is a chance he is found not guilty that's different. But I don't see how anyone could suggest that he played no role in this and did nothing wrong.

In the court of public opinion, of course it matters whether he pulled the trigger or not. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that he did, but there's no proof of that. And if the prosecution can't prove it was AH that fired the fatal bullet, he'll always be able to say "I'm not a killer". While he may be legally guilty of accessory to murder, or conspiracy to murder, or whatever, he'll never be "a killer". It's something the public implicitly understands as separate from the legal realm. And it'll be remembered that he didn't do it.

 

[nirad3]

This is still being discussed?

Dude is a gangsta' who just happened to be incredibly talented at football. You can't remove the thug from a thug.

 

[Phenix]

From yahoo sports:

Revelation after revelation about the shooting death of Odin Lloyd has appeared to tighten the net around former New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez. However, defense attorneys with experience in both high-profile criminal cases and murder investigations caution against passing swift public judgment on Hernandez's fate.

Why? Because of a simple phrase we've all heard so many times it's become rote: innocent until proven guilty.

Prosecutors must prove Hernandez guilty of the crime of murder. Hernandez has no burden to prove himself innocent; at the moment, legally speaking, he's as innocent of the crime as you or me.

This is a bunch of bull####; the justice system can say this all it wants but the fact is you are quilty until proven innocent. If Hernandez is so ####### innocent why is he sitting in jail with no bail?

You are kidding me right?

 

[cobalt_27]

Again folks, innocent until proven guilty. It is still not out of the realm of possibility he was set up. While I do not think he was, it is more possible now that facts are coming out.

Set up by whom? If anything, it's starting to sound more like he is a thug, been involved in multiple infractions, hangs out with goons, and he was the one that called up the boys to deal with a problem.If you are saying that the cops are trying to make him the fall guy and pin him for this and that he wasn't the shooter. Per the laws of MA, it doesn't matter if he pulled the trigger or not. No matter how you slice it, there is no way that AH is INNOCENT. If people want to say there is a chance he is found not guilty that's different. But I don't see how anyone could suggest that he played no role in this and did nothing wrong.

In the court of public opinion, of course it matters whether he pulled the trigger or not. Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that he did, but there's no proof of that. And if the prosecution can't prove it was AH that fired the fatal bullet, he'll always be able to say "I'm not a killer". While he may be legally guilty of accessory to murder, or conspiracy to murder, or whatever, he'll never be "a killer". It's something the public implicitly understands as separate from the legal realm. And it'll be remembered that he didn't do it.

Are you saying it's an open/shut case that he's not guilty? In other words, it was Wallace that killed Lloyd? It's either one or the other. Unless you're open to the possibility that Sasquatch came out from behind the bushes and pulled a gun on him.The prosecution can make a successful case that Hernandez killed Lloyd many different ways. As we saw in the OJ trial, the defense can sway a jury by its own tactics, as well. But, I'm not sure anyone remembers OJ as the one who was found innocent of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Everyone but the most delusional of conspiracy theorists knows OJ killed them and got away with murder. We shall see how the AH case transpires, but I don't think you have enough going here to say the prosecution doesn't have enough to convict (how could you possibly know all that they have) and your case is even worse in predicting that everyone view a not guilty verdict as definitively proving AH didn't kill Lloyd.

 

[Phenix]

This is still being discussed?

Dude is a gangsta' who just happened to be incredibly talented at football. You can't remove the thug from a thug.

What?! So people from the ghetto who were once thugs will never be anything else? Is that your blanket statement?

I'm shocked people are still so ignorant.

Yes, I think Hernandez did it, but that does not make your statement any less dumb.

 

[KellysHeroes]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

In some ways it is. If you look at it purely from a perspective of how much obvious evidence seems to be pointing Hernandez's way and, as a result, so many people are simply williling to say their opinion is that he is guilty, it is really not that different. It was the same way with OJ. More so in fact. Look at some of the evidence in Oj's case that looked like a no-brainer, yet he was not convicted.

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

For those of us old enough to remember that trial and how it seemingly just piled on obvious evidence day after day after day, this case with Hernandez isn't at all any more damning. I mean, if you can say we found hair, blood and clothing from the victims and the perp cross-contaminated over every venue of the crime scene and personal areas, and you don't convict, then you have to see Kelly's take on it as plausible.

if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit

 

[Phenix]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

In some ways it is. If you look at it purely from a perspective of how much obvious evidence seems to be pointing Hernandez's way and, as a result, so many people are simply williling to say their opinion is that he is guilty, it is really not that different. It was the same way with OJ. More so in fact. Look at some of the evidence in Oj's case that looked like a no-brainer, yet he was not convicted.

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

For those of us old enough to remember that trial and how it seemingly just piled on obvious evidence day after day after day, this case with Hernandez isn't at all any more damning. I mean, if you can say we found hair, blood and clothing from the victims and the perp cross-contaminated over every venue of the crime scene and personal areas, and you don't convict, then you have to see Kelly's take on it as plausible.

if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit

The writing on the wall is this guy will get off on reasonable doubt! Their lawyers are building a case, do you think they are gonna share it with you right now so you can feel better about his guilty with his life on the line.

It sucks I have to defend Hernandez who I believe is guilty because I believe in something bigger which are our rights. We will fight for the right to keep guns and bare arms, but we wont fight for our privacy, right to free speech and journalism, and right to a fair trial where we are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of those 12 people sitting in that box.

Those rights, yeah who cares about that ####?

 

[nirad3]

This is still being discussed?

Dude is a gangsta' who just happened to be incredibly talented at football. You can't remove the thug from a thug.

What?! So people from the ghetto who were once thugs will never be anything else? Is that your blanket statement?

I'm shocked people are still so ignorant.

Yes, I think Hernandez did it, but that does not make your statement any less dumb.

Hmm, what gated community did you grow up in?

Sorry, guess I should have sugar-coated it for you sensitive types.

In many cases, you can't remove the thug from the thug.

That better?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The writing on the wall is this guy will get off on reasonable doubt!

You and I are reading entirely different walls.

 

[cstu]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

In some ways it is. If you look at it purely from a perspective of how much obvious evidence seems to be pointing Hernandez's way and, as a result, so many people are simply williling to say their opinion is that he is guilty, it is really not that different. It was the same way with OJ. More so in fact. Look at some of the evidence in Oj's case that looked like a no-brainer, yet he was not convicted.

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

For those of us old enough to remember that trial and how it seemingly just piled on obvious evidence day after day after day, this case with Hernandez isn't at all any more damning. I mean, if you can say we found hair, blood and clothing from the victims and the perp cross-contaminated over every venue of the crime scene and personal areas, and you don't convict, then you have to see Kelly's take on it as plausible.

Many people didn't trust DNA evidence in 1994. If the murders happened today there's no question in my mind he would have been found guilty.

 

[Phenix]

The writing on the wall is this guy will get off on reasonable doubt!

You and I are reading entirely different walls.

Nah, just don't trust the legal system to do the right thing here.

 

[cobalt_27]

this is OJ Simpson part 2.

He'll get off on the murder charges and probably get probation for the weapons. The Pats will be forced to pay him the millions they owe him. Hernandez will lose a civil suit from Llyod's family and live the rest of his life in scrutiny like OJ.

This is nothing like the Simpson case, other than both he and Hernandez used to play in the NFL.

In some ways it is. If you look at it purely from a perspective of how much obvious evidence seems to be pointing Hernandez's way and, as a result, so many people are simply williling to say their opinion is that he is guilty, it is really not that different. It was the same way with OJ. More so in fact. Look at some of the evidence in Oj's case that looked like a no-brainer, yet he was not convicted.1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

For those of us old enough to remember that trial and how it seemingly just piled on obvious evidence day after day after day, this case with Hernandez isn't at all any more damning. I mean, if you can say we found hair, blood and clothing from the victims and the perp cross-contaminated over every venue of the crime scene and personal areas, and you don't convict, then you have to see Kelly's take on it as plausible.

if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit

The writing on the wall is this guy will get off on reasonable doubt! Their lawyers are building a case, do you think they are gonna share it with you right now so you can feel better about his guilty with his life on the line.

It sucks I have to defend Hernandez who I believe is guilty because I believe in something bigger which are our rights. We will fight for the right to keep guns and bare arms, but we wont fight for our privacy, right to free speech and journalism, and right to a fair trial where we are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of those 12 people sitting in that box.

Those rights, yeah who cares about that ####?

Is it not possible for him to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and yet still widely believed by the general public to be the killer here? In fact, what is so wrong with the general public interpreting the known data and formulating an opinion based on that? So long as he is fairly tried, who cares what anybody else thinks? You shouldn't feel compelled to defend him, especially when you claim to think he's guilty, yourself. He's got good lawyers who will do the heavy lifting on that front. And, you sound like a reasonable person. You're more than entitled to make judgments about data, even if you don't have the full data set in front of you. We do that so much of the time, why is it sacred ground in a high profile murder case that the general public who has no representative stake in determining the outcome held to a standard of agnosticism here?If you think he's guilty, just say so. I think the guy is a murderer, absolutely. But, just because I think it doesn't make it so. More mportantly, it doesn't mean a jury of his peers will agree that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[petenice15]

I think there is more evidence against him then the public knows. For example, they found the hat and sweatshirt he was wearing that night at his apartment. I'm sure they will test that for gun shot residue and that may be the smoking gun they need.