Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (4 Viewers)

[mbuehner]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

Everyone in that car that walked away alive is a killer. Evidence seems to be pretty convincing that Hernandez was in the car.

Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal. Quit with your stinky bait.

If someone is killed while you are participating in the commission of a felony, you are an accessory to the murder. Happens all the time.

 

[Anarchy99]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

The good or bad outcome is in terms of proving the prosecution's case. If they have evidence that exonerates AH and can be used to convict someone else, so be it. Maybe I am way off base here, but I do not think that the cops are trying to frame Hernandez for something he didn't do.

But my point was that simply having the murder weapon does not automatically strengthen the state's case. IMO, finding the murder weapon without a slam dunk tie in to AH would probably hurt them more than help them.

As far as "Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal," it most definitely can be considered a crime. If that were to happen, the witness has an obligation to report the incident immediately and cooperate with the police in their investigation. If not, they will be considered as an accessory, a participant, or a conspirator to commit the crime. That part is particularly relevant in the AH case, as you don't get a year to concoct a story that another guy went crazy and you just happened to be there as your defense. You would need to have done that and exemplified that from the time of the crime.

 

[Sarnoff]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

Everyone in that car that walked away alive is a killer. Evidence seems to be pretty convincing that Hernandez was in the car.

Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal. Quit with your stinky bait.

If someone is killed while you are participating in the commission of a felony, you are an accessory to the murder. Happens all the time.

OK, what's the underlying felony that you're pinning the felony-murder on? That Hernandez drove Lloyd around in his car? That's the crime? Either AH took the guy to the quarry with the express intention of killing him (and then it's straight premeditated homicide and not felony-murder), or, he had no idea what was going on and someone else pulled the trigger without any foreknowledge or planning (therefore, no felony before the murder). You can't have it both ways. Felony-murder applies to the unintentional and accidental killing of someone during the commission of a felony. Like a gun going off and killing a teller during a bank robbery. A situation where you know someone could get hurt and you go ahead with it anyway. Not "we got into a car to talk, then from out of nowhere Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I had no idea what Carlos was doing." That's not a crime.

 

[Sarnoff]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

The good or bad outcome is in terms of proving the prosecution's case. If they have evidence that exonerates AH and can be used to convict someone else, so be it. Maybe I am way off base here, but I do not think that the cops are trying to frame Hernandez for something he didn't do.

But my point was that simply having the murder weapon does not automatically strengthen the state's case. IMO, finding the murder weapon without a slam dunk tie in to AH would probably hurt them more than help them.

As far as "Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal," it most definitely can be considered a crime. If that were to happen, the witness has an obligation to report the incident immediately and cooperate with the police in their investigation. If not, they will be considered as an accessory, a participant, or a conspirator to commit the crime. That part is particularly relevant in the AH case, as you don't get a year to concoct a story that another guy went crazy and you just happened to be there as your defense. You would need to have done that and exemplified that from the time of the crime.

"I was talking to Odin, and all of a sudden Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I started to panic. Carlos was on some serious drugs at the time, and next thing I know, he's pointing the gun towards me. 'I'm on your security tape, man, I can't be seen there,' he says. 'You gotta smash that thing or bad #### is gonna happen.' He didn't put the gun away. Carlos kept it out, looked right at me, and coldly tells me to drive back to my house and get rid of any evidence he was ever there, or else, as he put it, 'You and me are going to have a problem.' So I got rid of things right then, that night, before I could even think clearly."

Next thing, cops are all over him and the police moved forward with the arrest before they even knew what happened. At that point, Hernandez had to lawyer up. We have no idea how cooperative he may have been if the DA didn't go running around New England throwing immunity deals at everyone who'd say they saw Hernandez do so much as jaywalk so that the DA could nail a high-profile suspect. He never had the chance to cooperate, the DA was hell-bent on making a case against Hernandez in particular, whether or not he actually did it, to the point that the DA has given a deal to pretty much all the other possible suspects regardless of whether or not they're the actual murderers.

Any defense lawyer who tells his client "You've been arrested, and have right to remain silent, but I'd advise you to spill your guts and answer every question the cops have" would be disbarred for incompetence. A lawyer would tell him to sit tight, shut up, and wait for the trial and then, once the prosecution has made whatever case they come up with, blow it out of the water My Cousin Vinny style.

 

[mbuehner]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

Everyone in that car that walked away alive is a killer. Evidence seems to be pretty convincing that Hernandez was in the car.

Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal. Quit with your stinky bait.

If someone is killed while you are participating in the commission of a felony, you are an accessory to the murder. Happens all the time.

OK, what's the underlying felony that you're pinning the felony-murder on? That Hernandez drove Lloyd around in his car? That's the crime? Either AH took the guy to the quarry with the express intention of killing him (and then it's straight premeditated homicide and not felony-murder), or, he had no idea what was going on and someone else pulled the trigger without any foreknowledge or planning (therefore, no felony before the murder). You can't have it both ways. Felony-murder applies to the unintentional and accidental killing of someone during the commission of a felony. Like a gun going off and killing a teller during a bank robbery. A situation where you know someone could get hurt and you go ahead with it anyway. Not "we got into a car to talk, then from out of nowhere Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I had no idea what Carlos was doing." That's not a crime.

What do you think AH's buddies supposed he called them up for to drive up in the middle of the night, load the car up with guns and go pick up Lloyd, and drive him to an abandoned warehouse? You're right, either it was premeditated murder, or they had some other plan for Lloyd that went awry. A beating? A kidnapping? A kneecapping? At the very least whoever is not the shooter is an accessory after the fact. But the circumstances point to this being a conspiracy of some kind to do injury to Lloyd.

 

[Anarchy99]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

The good or bad outcome is in terms of proving the prosecution's case. If they have evidence that exonerates AH and can be used to convict someone else, so be it. Maybe I am way off base here, but I do not think that the cops are trying to frame Hernandez for something he didn't do.

But my point was that simply having the murder weapon does not automatically strengthen the state's case. IMO, finding the murder weapon without a slam dunk tie in to AH would probably hurt them more than help them.

As far as "Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal," it most definitely can be considered a crime. If that were to happen, the witness has an obligation to report the incident immediately and cooperate with the police in their investigation. If not, they will be considered as an accessory, a participant, or a conspirator to commit the crime. That part is particularly relevant in the AH case, as you don't get a year to concoct a story that another guy went crazy and you just happened to be there as your defense. You would need to have done that and exemplified that from the time of the crime.

"I was talking to Odin, and all of a sudden Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I started to panic. Carlos was on some serious drugs at the time, and next thing I know, he's pointing the gun towards me. 'I'm on your security tape, man, I can't be seen there,' he says. 'You gotta smash that thing or bad #### is gonna happen.' He didn't put the gun away. Carlos kept it out, looked right at me, and coldly tells me to drive back to my house and get rid of any evidence he was ever there, or else, as he put it, 'You and me are going to have a problem.' So I got rid of things right then, that night, before I could even think clearly."

Next thing, cops are all over him and the police moved forward with the arrest before they even knew what happened. At that point, Hernandez had to lawyer up. We have no idea how cooperative he may have been if the DA didn't go running around New England throwing immunity deals at everyone who'd say they saw Hernandez do so much as jaywalk so that the DA could nail a high-profile suspect. He never had the chance to cooperate, the DA was hell-bent on making a case against Hernandez in particular, whether or not he actually did it, to the point that the DA has given a deal to pretty much all the other possible suspects regardless of whether or not they're the actual murderers.

1) Did AH immediately report the crime? No.

2) Did AH cooperate with the police? No.

3) Did AH convey the story you outlined to the cops? No.

4) Did AH even give a statement or an explanation to the police? No.

5) Did AH refuse to talk to the police and immediately lawyer up? Yes.

6) Did AH present any items or materials to show his innocence and support his claims that and one of the other whack jobs killed Lloyd out of the blue? No.

7) Did AH attempt to destroy evidence to what happened? Yes.

Also, your version of what happened didn't actually happen. It was 9 or 10 days before Hernandez was arrested. He had P-L-E-N-T-Y of time to convey his side to the police. Any arrests, immunity or plea deals, etc. were 2-3 weeks after the murder happened.

And if as you suggest, if AH only wanted to talk to Odin Lloyd, why did he have two goons drive up to be there with him. He could have talked to him without having the heavies high tail it up to Massachusetts. And even if one of the two henchman actually did the shooting, that doesn't mean AH gets off, especially if they are doing what Hernandez told them or brought them there to do, especially if they were running around with weapons supplied by Hernandez.

 

[cstu]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

Everyone in that car that walked away alive is a killer. Evidence seems to be pretty convincing that Hernandez was in the car.

Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal. Quit with your stinky bait.

If someone is killed while you are participating in the commission of a felony, you are an accessory to the murder. Happens all the time.

OK, what's the underlying felony that you're pinning the felony-murder on? That Hernandez drove Lloyd around in his car? That's the crime? Either AH took the guy to the quarry with the express intention of killing him (and then it's straight premeditated homicide and not felony-murder), or, he had no idea what was going on and someone else pulled the trigger without any foreknowledge or planning (therefore, no felony before the murder). You can't have it both ways. Felony-murder applies to the unintentional and accidental killing of someone during the commission of a felony. Like a gun going off and killing a teller during a bank robbery. A situation where you know someone could get hurt and you go ahead with it anyway. Not "we got into a car to talk, then from out of nowhere Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I had no idea what Carlos was doing." That's not a crime.

Kidnapping. There apparently was a fight outside the vehicle that resulted in a broken mirror so I would argue that they kidnapped him and took him to the place where he was murdered.

 

[Tool]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

The good or bad outcome is in terms of proving the prosecution's case. If they have evidence that exonerates AH and can be used to convict someone else, so be it. Maybe I am way off base here, but I do not think that the cops are trying to frame Hernandez for something he didn't do.

But my point was that simply having the murder weapon does not automatically strengthen the state's case. IMO, finding the murder weapon without a slam dunk tie in to AH would probably hurt them more than help them.

As far as "Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal," it most definitely can be considered a crime. If that were to happen, the witness has an obligation to report the incident immediately and cooperate with the police in their investigation. If not, they will be considered as an accessory, a participant, or a conspirator to commit the crime. That part is particularly relevant in the AH case, as you don't get a year to concoct a story that another guy went crazy and you just happened to be there as your defense. You would need to have done that and exemplified that from the time of the crime.

"I was talking to Odin, and all of a sudden Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I started to panic. Carlos was on some serious drugs at the time, and next thing I know, he's pointing the gun towards me. 'I'm on your security tape, man, I can't be seen there,' he says. 'You gotta smash that thing or bad #### is gonna happen.' He didn't put the gun away. Carlos kept it out, looked right at me, and coldly tells me to drive back to my house and get rid of any evidence he was ever there, or else, as he put it, 'You and me are going to have a problem.' So I got rid of things right then, that night, before I could even think clearly."

Next thing, cops are all over him and the police moved forward with the arrest before they even knew what happened. At that point, Hernandez had to lawyer up. We have no idea how cooperative he may have been if the DA didn't go running around New England throwing immunity deals at everyone who'd say they saw Hernandez do so much as jaywalk so that the DA could nail a high-profile suspect. He never had the chance to cooperate, the DA was hell-bent on making a case against Hernandez in particular, whether or not he actually did it, to the point that the DA has given a deal to pretty much all the other possible suspects regardless of whether or not they're the actual murderers.

1) Did AH immediately report the crime? No.

2) Did AH cooperate with the police? No.

3) Did AH convey the story you outlined to the cops? No.

4) Did AH even give a statement or an explanation to the police? No.

5) Did AH refuse to talk to the police and immediately lawyer up? Yes.

6) Did AH present any items or materials to show his innocence and support his claims that and one of the other whack jobs killed Lloyd out of the blue? No.

7) Did AH attempt to destroy evidence to what happened? Yes.

Also, your version of what happened didn't actually happen. It was 9 or 10 days before Hernandez was arrested. He had P-L-E-N-T-Y of time to convey his side to the police. Any arrests, immunity or plea deals, etc. were 2-3 weeks after the murder happened.

And if as you suggest, if AH only wanted to talk to Odin Lloyd, why did he have two goons drive up to be there with him. He could have talked to him without having the heavies high tail it up to Massachusetts. And even if one of the two henchman actually did the shooting, that doesn't mean AH gets off, especially if they are doing what Hernandez told them or brought them there to do, especially if they were running around with weapons supplied by Hernandez.

What if, and i'm only suggesting this as a possibility, not necessarilly likely, he was obeying a gang code of no snitching and if he had come clean, someone would've taken him out?

 

[Anarchy99]

What if, and i'm only suggesting this as a possibility, not necessarilly likely, he was obeying a gang code of no snitching and if he had come clean, someone would've taken him out?

None of these hypotheticals make much sense. If AH was 100% innocent and victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it would take a real suspension of disbelief to believe him. He initiated contacting the goons and them driving from CT to MA. He complained to them that they were taking too long to get there. He was the one that rented and drove the car to a relatively remote location. He was the one whose house they went to. From all accounts, he was the one that supplied the weapons. And of course, he was the one that tried to destroy the evidence.

So if what you are suggested could be even a remote possibility, all AH needed to do was talk to the police, say effectively nothing, and say that he didn't know what happened. Instead he ditched the cops, refused to talk to them, and destroyed evidence. While that alone won't convict him for murder, it certainly makes him look guilty and makes him look like the ring leader.

Even after he was arrested, he could have spoken to the police and expressed that he couldn't talk for fear of getting whacked. But he never even talked to the police, and if he communicated with them at all it was through his attorneys (so effectively he did not tell them much of anything).

 

[Tool]

What if, and i'm only suggesting this as a possibility, not necessarilly likely, he was obeying a gang code of no snitching and if he had come clean, someone would've taken him out?

None of these hypotheticals make much sense. If AH was 100% innocent and victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it would take a real suspension of disbelief to believe him. He initiated contacting the goons and them driving from CT to MA. He complained to them that they were taking too long to get there. He was the one that rented and drove the car to a relatively remote location. He was the one whose house they went to. From all accounts, he was the one that supplied the weapons. And of course, he was the one that tried to destroy the evidence.

So if what you are suggested could be even a remote possibility, all AH needed to do was talk to the police, say effectively nothing, and say that he didn't know what happened. Instead he ditched the cops, refused to talk to them, and destroyed evidence. While that alone won't convict him for murder, it certainly makes him look guilty and makes him look like the ring leader.

Even after he was arrested, he could have spoken to the police and expressed that he couldn't talk for fear of getting whacked. But he never even talked to the police, and if he communicated with them at all it was through his attorneys (so effectively he did not tell them much of anything).

Well he couldn't say he didn't know what happened because there's evidence of him being involved and at the crime scene. He couldn't say anything to the police b/c once he's out, he's going to get whacked.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

1) Did AH immediately report the crime? No.

2) Did AH cooperate with the police? No.
3) Did AH convey the story you outlined to the cops? No.

4) Did AH even give a statement or an explanation to the police? No.

5) Did AH refuse to talk to the police and immediately lawyer up? Yes.

6) Did AH present any items or materials to show his innocence and support his claims that and one of the other whack jobs killed Lloyd out of the blue? No.

7) Did AH attempt to destroy evidence to what happened? Yes.

Also, your version of what happened didn't actually happen. It was 9 or 10 days before Hernandez was arrested. He had P-L-E-N-T-Y of time to convey his side to the police. Any arrests, immunity or plea deals, etc. were 2-3 weeks after the murder happened.

And if as you suggest, if AH only wanted to talk to Odin Lloyd, why did he have two goons drive up to be there with him. He could have talked to him without having the heavies high tail it up to Massachusetts. And even if one of the two henchman actually did the shooting, that doesn't mean AH gets off, especially if they are doing what Hernandez told them or brought them there to do, especially if they were running around with weapons supplied by Hernandez.

(I'm rusty on my criminal law stuff, and welcome corrections from anyone who's more familiar with these issues. But here are some of my thoughts.)

There's no general duty to report crimes. If the shooter shot Lloyd in front of Hernandez, but Hernandez had no reason to suspect that any such thing was at all likely to happen, Hernandez does not have a duty to report the shooting. (He certainly doesn't have a duty to refrain from lawyering up.)

Where the duty to report might come into play is if it's established that Hernandez and the shooter had formed some kind of conspiracy. Maybe they conspired to threaten Lloyd, and then the shooter went a step further all on his own and actually shot Lloyd. In that case, one conspirator is generally criminally liable for his co-conspirator's actions. So Hernandez could be convicted of murder if his co-conspirator shot Lloyd even if that wasn't part of the plan, and Hernandez didn't want Lloyd to be shot. While laws differ from state to state, there may be an exception to this if Hernandez withdraws from the conspiracy before Lloyd is shot. When the shooter points the gun at Lloyd, Hernandez would have to say, "No, don't shoot him. And by the way, I hereby quit this conspiracy!" In that case, Hernandez would no longer be criminally liable for the shooter's actions from that point forward -- as long as Hernandez promptly reported the shooting to the cops.

The fact that Hernandez didn't report the shooting to the cops means that, even if somebody else pulled the trigger, Hernandez is still responsible for any murder committed by any of his co-conspirators.

But that depends on the existence of a conspiracy in the first place. There'd have to be a conspiracy to do something -- kidnapping, beating, threatening, whatever -- that Hernandez was a part of. That might not be too hard to show (especially if Ortiz testifies to it), but it would have to be established before Hernandez's reporting or not reporting the shooting would legally matter.

 

[Anarchy99]

MT -

They've had a criminal defense attorney and law professor on the airwaves here many times and he has explained things as follows. If an 84 year old grandmother was in a liquor store that was being held up and there was no tie in to the person holding up the store, she would not be obligated to report anything or do anything. That would be a classic case of innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In Hernandez' case, 4 guys went for a ride initiated by AH and one of them was shot in cold blood multiple times. No way could a gun accidently go off 5 times, so the oops it was an accident defense would be off the table. That's where the attorney said the law in Massachusetts kicks in. In order to not be considered involved as a co-conspirator (and thus not be charged with a crime), according to the attorney, AH had an obligation to distance himself from the others, report the crime, and cooperate with the authorities in a reasonable timeframe. Failure to do so would get him grouped in with the other guys and all of them could be tried for murder, no matter who pulled the trigger.

He also said that waiting a year to draft a defense strategy that basically invokes the "I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't do anything and one of the other guys went nuts and shot him" would not fly as a defense. He indicated that to use that as a valid defense strategy, it had to be introduced from the beginning and the accused would have to make a concerted effort to distance himself from the others and act in good faith to determine who actual was involved and who did what.

That's what the attorney said, whether that is accurate or inaccurate I have no idea.

 

[Sarnoff]

the accused would have to make a concerted effort to distance himself

The accused cannot make a concerted effort on his own. One makes a concerted effort in concert with others. He would make a concerted effort to further a conspiracy. He would, as an individual, have to make a conscious effort to remove himself from one.

:wordnerd:

 

[Paris]

the accused would have to make a concerted effort to distance himself

The accused cannot make a concerted effort on his own. One makes a concerted effort in concert with others. He would make a concerted effort to further a conspiracy. He would, as an individual, have to make a conscious effort to remove himself from one.

:wordnerd:

If one is working with the authorities and investigators, would that not be a concerted effort?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

the accused would have to make a concerted effort to distance himself

The accused cannot make a concerted effort on his own. One makes a concerted effort in concert with others. He would make a concerted effort to further a conspiracy. He would, as an individual, have to make a conscious effort to remove himself from one.

:wordnerd:

What if the person has multiple personalities

 

[mbuehner]

the accused would have to make a concerted effort to distance himself

The accused cannot make a concerted effort on his own. One makes a concerted effort in concert with others. He would make a concerted effort to further a conspiracy.

:wordnerd:

True- but he also could have made concerted efforts by himself.

 

[Faust]

Patriots exec disputes Rolling Stone's Hernandez storyBy Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League Editor

New England Patriots president Jonathan Kraft responded to a recent Rolling Stone article about former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez on Thursday, saying the story contained a number of factual errors.

"Reading the article, there were two, three, four things in particular that I saw that are completely, factually inaccurate," Kraft said on WBZ-FM, via The Boston Globe. "I don't know the facts around the other pieces of the story, but it really makes me question it."

The magazine article alleged that Hernandez flew to the NFL Scouting Combine in February to tell Patriots coach Bill Belichick that the tight end's life was in danger. Belichick reportedly responded by telling Hernandez to rent a second apartment for safety.

Kraft asked Belichick about it Thursday.

"I saw Bill today and asked, 'Did Aaron ever tell you his life was in danger?' He's like, 'Absolutely not,' " Kraft said. "If a player had told Bill that his life was in danger, Bill would say, 'We're calling (security chief) Mark Briggs, we're calling the authorities.' His response wouldn't be, 'We're going to get a safe house and you're going to lie low.' I know Bill, that's not what he would say."

Kraft also said Belichick never threatened to cut Hernandez if he slipped up one more time.

"If we had known what people seem to think what we know about Aaron Hernandez, we would not have done that deal (the five-year, $40 million extension he signed last year), and Bill would never threaten a player with being cut 12 months down the road," Kraft said. "It makes no sense both in terms of how you're interacting with the player and in terms of the (salary) cap."

The "Around The League Podcast" is now available on iTunes! Click here to listen and subscribe.

 

[unckeyherb]

Patriots exec disputes Rolling Stone's Hernandez story

By Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League Editor

New England Patriots president Jonathan Kraft responded to a recent Rolling Stone article about former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez on Thursday, saying the story contained a number of factual errors.

"Reading the article, there were two, three, four things in particular that I saw that are completely, factually inaccurate," Kraft said on WBZ-FM, via The Boston Globe. "I don't know the facts around the other pieces of the story, but it really makes me question it."

The magazine article alleged that Hernandez flew to the NFL Scouting Combine in February to tell Patriots coach Bill Belichick that the tight end's life was in danger. Belichick reportedly responded by telling Hernandez to rent a second apartment for safety.

Kraft asked Belichick about it Thursday.

"I saw Bill today and asked, 'Did Aaron ever tell you his life was in danger?' He's like, 'Absolutely not,' " Kraft said. "If a player had told Bill that his life was in danger, Bill would say, 'We're calling (security chief) Mark Briggs, we're calling the authorities.' His response wouldn't be, 'We're going to get a safe house and you're going to lie low.' I know Bill, that's not what he would say."

Kraft also said Belichick never threatened to cut Hernandez if he slipped up one more time.

"If we had known what people seem to think what we know about Aaron Hernandez, we would not have done that deal (the five-year, $40 million extension he signed last year), and Bill would never threaten a player with being cut 12 months down the road," Kraft said. "It makes no sense both in terms of how you're interacting with the player and in terms of the (salary) cap."

The "Around The League Podcast" is now available on iTunes! Click here to listen and subscribe.

So, the President of the New England Patriots says that all the bad things written about the Patriots are not true becuase, "I know Bill, thats not what he would say". m'kay.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Patriots exec disputes Rolling Stone's Hernandez story

By Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League Editor

New England Patriots president Jonathan Kraft responded to a recent Rolling Stone article about former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez on Thursday, saying the story contained a number of factual errors.

"Reading the article, there were two, three, four things in particular that I saw that are completely, factually inaccurate," Kraft said on WBZ-FM, via The Boston Globe. "I don't know the facts around the other pieces of the story, but it really makes me question it."

The magazine article alleged that Hernandez flew to the NFL Scouting Combine in February to tell Patriots coach Bill Belichick that the tight end's life was in danger. Belichick reportedly responded by telling Hernandez to rent a second apartment for safety.

Kraft asked Belichick about it Thursday.

"I saw Bill today and asked, 'Did Aaron ever tell you his life was in danger?' He's like, 'Absolutely not,' " Kraft said. "If a player had told Bill that his life was in danger, Bill would say, 'We're calling (security chief) Mark Briggs, we're calling the authorities.' His response wouldn't be, 'We're going to get a safe house and you're going to lie low.' I know Bill, that's not what he would say."

Kraft also said Belichick never threatened to cut Hernandez if he slipped up one more time.

"If we had known what people seem to think what we know about Aaron Hernandez, we would not have done that deal (the five-year, $40 million extension he signed last year), and Bill would never threaten a player with being cut 12 months down the road," Kraft said. "It makes no sense both in terms of how you're interacting with the player and in terms of the (salary) cap."

The "Around The League Podcast" is now available on iTunes! Click here to listen and subscribe.

So, the President of the New England Patriots says that all the bad things written about the Patriots are not true becuase, "I know Bill, thats not what he would say". m'kay.

That, and because they make absolutely no sense.

I'm sure Aaron Hernandez is a credible sourse.

 

[PatsFanCT]

If they find it with AH's fingerprints, GSR, and the victim's blood on it, it's registered to him, and they have a receipt and video of him buying it, that's a good outcome. Or it could have someone else's fingerprints on it, it could be registered to someone else, and it may have nothing at all to tie it back to Hernandez (which obviously would be a bad outcome).

What's this "good outcome", "bad outcome" nonsense? How is it a "bad outcome" if police are able to prove who actually did it, whether or not it's Hernandez? Isn't finding the real killer what's important here, not making sure Hernandez goes to jail no matter what?

The good or bad outcome is in terms of proving the prosecution's case. If they have evidence that exonerates AH and can be used to convict someone else, so be it. Maybe I am way off base here, but I do not think that the cops are trying to frame Hernandez for something he didn't do.

But my point was that simply having the murder weapon does not automatically strengthen the state's case. IMO, finding the murder weapon without a slam dunk tie in to AH would probably hurt them more than help them.

As far as "Standing next to a crazy guy who pulls a gun out of nowhere and kills a guy isn't illegal," it most definitely can be considered a crime. If that were to happen, the witness has an obligation to report the incident immediately and cooperate with the police in their investigation. If not, they will be considered as an accessory, a participant, or a conspirator to commit the crime. That part is particularly relevant in the AH case, as you don't get a year to concoct a story that another guy went crazy and you just happened to be there as your defense. You would need to have done that and exemplified that from the time of the crime.

"I was talking to Odin, and all of a sudden Carlos pulled out a gun and shot him. I started to panic. Carlos was on some serious drugs at the time, and next thing I know, he's pointing the gun towards me. 'I'm on your security tape, man, I can't be seen there,' he says. 'You gotta smash that thing or bad #### is gonna happen.' He didn't put the gun away. Carlos kept it out, looked right at me, and coldly tells me to drive back to my house and get rid of any evidence he was ever there, or else, as he put it, 'You and me are going to have a problem.' So I got rid of things right then, that night, before I could even think clearly."

Next thing, cops are all over him and the police moved forward with the arrest before they even knew what happened. At that point, Hernandez had to lawyer up. We have no idea how cooperative he may have been if the DA didn't go running around New England throwing immunity deals at everyone who'd say they saw Hernandez do so much as jaywalk so that the DA could nail a high-profile suspect. He never had the chance to cooperate, the DA was hell-bent on making a case against Hernandez in particular, whether or not he actually did it, to the point that the DA has given a deal to pretty much all the other possible suspects regardless of whether or not they're the actual murderers.

Any defense lawyer who tells his client "You've been arrested, and have right to remain silent, but I'd advise you to spill your guts and answer every question the cops have" would be disbarred for incompetence. A lawyer would tell him to sit tight, shut up, and wait for the trial and then, once the prosecution has made whatever case they come up with, blow it out of the water My Cousin Vinny style.

Ok. I'm starting to believe this isn't Schtick. But it has to be, right?

 

[Faust]

Aaron Hernandez's fiance, cousin indicted in connection to shooting

 

[fantasycurse42]

Carlos changed his story a little today...

Somehow, I think AH (who is the most guilty murderer of all time) might beat the murder rap. They have him dead to rights on endless firearms offenses and if the judge decides, even if acquitted on the murder rap, he could end up in jail for decades (where he belongs).

 

[Faust]

Prosecution in Aaron Hernandez case wants judge to recuse herself

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Patriots exec disputes Rolling Stone's Hernandez story

By Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League Editor

New England Patriots president Jonathan Kraft responded to a recent Rolling Stone article about former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez on Thursday, saying the story contained a number of factual errors.

"Reading the article, there were two, three, four things in particular that I saw that are completely, factually inaccurate," Kraft said on WBZ-FM, via The Boston Globe. "I don't know the facts around the other pieces of the story, but it really makes me question it."

The magazine article alleged that Hernandez flew to the NFL Scouting Combine in February to tell Patriots coach Bill Belichick that the tight end's life was in danger. Belichick reportedly responded by telling Hernandez to rent a second apartment for safety.

Kraft asked Belichick about it Thursday.

"I saw Bill today and asked, 'Did Aaron ever tell you his life was in danger?' He's like, 'Absolutely not,' " Kraft said. "If a player had told Bill that his life was in danger, Bill would say, 'We're calling (security chief) Mark Briggs, we're calling the authorities.' His response wouldn't be, 'We're going to get a safe house and you're going to lie low.' I know Bill, that's not what he would say."

Kraft also said Belichick never threatened to cut Hernandez if he slipped up one more time.

"If we had known what people seem to think what we know about Aaron Hernandez, we would not have done that deal (the five-year, $40 million extension he signed last year), and Bill would never threaten a player with being cut 12 months down the road," Kraft said. "It makes no sense both in terms of how you're interacting with the player and in terms of the (salary) cap."

The "Around The League Podcast" is now available on iTunes! Click here to listen and subscribe.

Whoever Mark Briggs is, now that would make a good TV show or front office story...the guy who gets the phone call when things are breaking bad for an NFL player. "Security Chief"

 

[Super King]

Patriots exec disputes Rolling Stone's Hernandez story

By Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League Editor

New England Patriots president Jonathan Kraft responded to a recent Rolling Stone article about former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez on Thursday, saying the story contained a number of factual errors.

"Reading the article, there were two, three, four things in particular that I saw that are completely, factually inaccurate," Kraft said on WBZ-FM, via The Boston Globe. "I don't know the facts around the other pieces of the story, but it really makes me question it."

The magazine article alleged that Hernandez flew to the NFL Scouting Combine in February to tell Patriots coach Bill Belichick that the tight end's life was in danger. Belichick reportedly responded by telling Hernandez to rent a second apartment for safety.

Kraft asked Belichick about it Thursday.

"I saw Bill today and asked, 'Did Aaron ever tell you his life was in danger?' He's like, 'Absolutely not,' " Kraft said. "If a player had told Bill that his life was in danger, Bill would say, 'We're calling (security chief) Mark Briggs, we're calling the authorities.' His response wouldn't be, 'We're going to get a safe house and you're going to lie low.' I know Bill, that's not what he would say."

Kraft also said Belichick never threatened to cut Hernandez if he slipped up one more time.

"If we had known what people seem to think what we know about Aaron Hernandez, we would not have done that deal (the five-year, $40 million extension he signed last year), and Bill would never threaten a player with being cut 12 months down the road," Kraft said. "It makes no sense both in terms of how you're interacting with the player and in terms of the (salary) cap."

The "Around The League Podcast" is now available on iTunes! Click here to listen and subscribe.

Whoever Mark Briggs is, now that would make a good TV show or front office story...the guy who gets the phone call when things are breaking bad for an NFL player. "Security Chief"

That would be a sweet show.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

SI.com's Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard report Dolphins C Mike Pouncey has been served a grand-jury subpoena in connection with Aaron Hernandez's murder case.
Pouncey was served just after Sunday's Patriots-Dolphins game. Pouncey is not considered a suspect, but Massachusetts State Police are investigating Hernandez for "interstate gun trafficking," and "focusing on multiple transactions that involve (Pouncey) and Hernandez." Pouncey and Hernandez were teammates under Urban Meyer at Florida. Police consider Pouncey a "material witness." Back in July, Pouncey and his brother Maurkice were photographed in a nightclub wearing "Free Hernandez" hats. Maurkice, who later issued a public apology, is not known to have been served the same papers as his brother.

Source: SI.com

 

[Truman]

Goodell will love this news. Steelers visit New England next week. I think Maurkice stays home to continue his rehab.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Rotoworld:

SI.com's Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard report Dolphins C Mike Pouncey has been served a grand-jury subpoena in connection with Aaron Hernandez's murder case.
Pouncey was served just after Sunday's Patriots-Dolphins game. Pouncey is not considered a suspect, but Massachusetts State Police are investigating Hernandez for "interstate gun trafficking," and "focusing on multiple transactions that involve (Pouncey) and Hernandez." Pouncey and Hernandez were teammates under Urban Meyer at Florida. Police consider Pouncey a "material witness." Back in July, Pouncey and his brother Maurkice were photographed in a nightclub wearing "Free Hernandez" hats. Maurkice, who later issued a public apology, is not known to have been served the same papers as his brother.

Source: SI.com

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/22757441/mike-and-maurkice-pouncey-wore-free-hernandez-hats

That's what you get for acting like a fool. I also think the police are trying to make life as miserable as possible for anyone that knew him so Hernandez caves and pleads guilty. His fiancé and any close friend has ben hauled in by this point.

 

[thehornet]

Rotoworld:

SI.com's Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard report Dolphins C Mike Pouncey has been served a grand-jury subpoena in connection with Aaron Hernandez's murder case.

Pouncey was served just after Sunday's Patriots-Dolphins game. Pouncey is not considered a suspect, but Massachusetts State Police are investigating Hernandez for "interstate gun trafficking," and "focusing on multiple transactions that involve (Pouncey) and Hernandez." Pouncey and Hernandez were teammates under Urban Meyer at Florida. Police consider Pouncey a "material witness." Back in July, Pouncey and his brother Maurkice were photographed in a nightclub wearing "Free Hernandez" hats. Maurkice, who later issued a public apology, is not known to have been served the same papers as his brother.

Source: SI.com

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/22757441/mike-and-maurkice-pouncey-wore-free-hernandez-hatsThat's what you get for acting like a fool. I also think the police are trying to make life as miserable as possible for anyone that knew him so Hernandez caves and pleads guilty. His fiancé and any close friend has ben hauled in by this point.

ah will never plead guilty

 

[mad sweeney]

Rotoworld:

SI.com's Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard report Dolphins C Mike Pouncey has been served a grand-jury subpoena in connection with Aaron Hernandez's murder case.
Pouncey was served just after Sunday's Patriots-Dolphins game. Pouncey is not considered a suspect, but Massachusetts State Police are investigating Hernandez for "interstate gun trafficking," and "focusing on multiple transactions that involve (Pouncey) and Hernandez." Pouncey and Hernandez were teammates under Urban Meyer at Florida. Police consider Pouncey a "material witness." Back in July, Pouncey and his brother Maurkice were photographed in a nightclub wearing "Free Hernandez" hats. Maurkice, who later issued a public apology, is not known to have been served the same papers as his brother.

Source: SI.com

I hadn't heard that there were any gun running charges being looked at. Just his own weapons. This dude is seriously screwed even without any of the murder charges sticking.

 

[MNTom]

Sounds like a thread that could have been for Tony Montana.

 

[Sarnoff]

Subpoenaed for wearing a hat. Makes about as much sense as charging a guy for murder based on the bubbilicious flavor he chews. Sounds to me like the DA's on a fishing expedition because his case is falling apart.

 

[mad sweeney]

Subpoenaed for wearing a hat. Makes about as much sense as charging a guy for murder based on the bubbilicious flavor he chews. Sounds to me like the DA's on a fishing expedition because his case is falling apart.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Top story on the local news here in Miami...focus on multiple transactions relating to guns, just what Miami needed.

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/09/aaron-hernandez-jail-letter-naked-doodle-stressed/

 

[Banger]

Seeing this thread just reminds me of whatt an incredible waste this whole situation was. Guy had everything in the world and gave it away for nothing.

 

[unckeyherb]

Seeing this thread just reminds me of whatt an incredible waste this whole situation was. Guy had everything in the world and gave it away for nothing.

"We kept our rep bro!"

 

[tjnc09]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525423/Third-person-connected-Aaron-Hernandez-dies-awaits-trial.html

 

[Bamac]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525423/Third-person-connected-Aaron-Hernandez-dies-awaits-trial.html

They couldn't find a better picture of the deceased? Classy.

Also, I'd like to state here that I have no knowledge of the Aaron Hernandez situation. I'm not even sure who this Hernandez fella is.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525423/Third-person-connected-Aaron-Hernandez-dies-awaits-trial.html

Acquittal more and more likely every day that he waits for the trial to start.

 

[domvin]

http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/09/aaron-hernandez-jail-letter-naked-doodle-stressed/

Brooks was Here

 

[GregR]

The Boston Globe ‏@BostonGlobe 32m

UPCOMING: The family of murder victim Odin Lloyd has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez

Retweeted by Jason La Canfora

 

[kOOk]

http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/09/aaron-hernandez-jail-letter-naked-doodle-stressed/

I'm really surprised that that's aaron hernandez's penmanship. and drawing for that matter. did the other letter that got out look like that?

 

[Paulymaggs]

Rotoworld:

SI.com's Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard report Dolphins C Mike Pouncey has been served a grand-jury subpoena in connection with Aaron Hernandez's murder case.
Pouncey was served just after Sunday's Patriots-Dolphins game. Pouncey is not considered a suspect, but Massachusetts State Police are investigating Hernandez for "interstate gun trafficking," and "focusing on multiple transactions that involve (Pouncey) and Hernandez." Pouncey and Hernandez were teammates under Urban Meyer at Florida. Police consider Pouncey a "material witness." Back in July, Pouncey and his brother Maurkice were photographed in a nightclub wearing "Free Hernandez" hats. Maurkice, who later issued a public apology, is not known to have been served the same papers as his brother.

Source: SI.com

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/22757441/mike-and-maurkice-pouncey-wore-free-hernandez-hats

That's what you get for acting like a fool. I also think the police are trying to make life as miserable as possible for anyone that knew him so Hernandez caves and pleads guilty. His fiancé and any close friend has ben hauled in by this point.

Faust is not a fool.

 

[Casting Couch]

Rotoworld:

SI.com's Pete Thamel and Greg Bedard report Dolphins C Mike Pouncey has been served a grand-jury subpoena in connection with Aaron Hernandez's murder case.
Pouncey was served just after Sunday's Patriots-Dolphins game. Pouncey is not considered a suspect, but Massachusetts State Police are investigating Hernandez for "interstate gun trafficking," and "focusing on multiple transactions that involve (Pouncey) and Hernandez." Pouncey and Hernandez were teammates under Urban Meyer at Florida. Police consider Pouncey a "material witness." Back in July, Pouncey and his brother Maurkice were photographed in a nightclub wearing "Free Hernandez" hats. Maurkice, who later issued a public apology, is not known to have been served the same papers as his brother.

Source: SI.com

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/22757441/mike-and-maurkice-pouncey-wore-free-hernandez-hats

That's what you get for acting like a fool. I also think the police are trying to make life as miserable as possible for anyone that knew him so Hernandez caves and pleads guilty. His fiancé and any close friend has ben hauled in by this point.

Faust is not a fool.

No he's not, but Maurkice Pouncey sure is.

 

[Faust]

Video Link:

SI Now: Could Aaron Hernandez play in the NFL again?

On Friday's SI Now, Sports Illustrated legal analyst Michael McCann discusses the Aaron Hernandez murder trial and how Hernandez could be out of jail and possibly playing in the NFL again before he's out of his twenties.

 

[Sabertooth]

Both Pounceys and that white guy have extremely punch able faces. They look like total tools.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Video Link:

SI Now: Could Aaron Hernandez play in the NFL again?

On Friday's SI Now, Sports Illustrated legal analyst Michael McCann discusses the Aaron Hernandez murder trial and how Hernandez could be out of jail and possibly playing in the NFL again before he's out of his twenties.

If and, if and, if and, if and, if and... Aaron Hernandez could be out of jail before he's out of his 20s.

 

[The Great Snook]

Video Link:

SI Now: Could Aaron Hernandez play in the NFL again?

On Friday's SI Now, Sports Illustrated legal analyst Michael McCann discusses the Aaron Hernandez murder trial and how Hernandez could be out of jail and possibly playing in the NFL again before he's out of his twenties.

Patriot homer over here, and I don't believe this for a second. Even if he got out of prison by his late twenties, he will still have to face NFL discipline. There is also the issue of which team would be willing to take the PR hit to sign him, assuming there isn't NFL collusion to make sure he doesn't sign. Lastly, If he spends six years in prison subsisting on prison food and exercise, the chances are he will not come out even close to how he went in.

 

[Bri]

Starting to think he gets off and this becomes like OJ on TV.