Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hernandez convicted of first-degree murder; found deceased in his cell. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
If the motive was to silence a witness in the pending double murder trial, they were precluded from that.
There were some inferential arguments addressed in the article, one explicitly used in the trial. It gets to common sense and what constitutes reasonable doubt. If they were really zombie PCP maniacs that accidentally flipped out and murdered people with no cause due to hallucinations, would you invite them in for a cup of joe later, where your fiance and baby are? Send them (finace and baby) out in the middle of the night to be a bag man for these raging, murderous PCP fiends. It doesn't add up. His actions were consistint with trusting them. They weren't murderous, hallucinating PCP zombies.
GregR
Footballguy
Just about everything in this case is unsubstantiated and/or circumstantial. The defense doesn't have a burden of proof. They simply need to float as many unsubstantiated theories as they need to in order to create reasonable doubt.
He didn't ask about motive. He asked about intent.
The point is, the prosecution didn't establish that AH intended for Lloyd to be killed that night.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
Does the Jury know about this? Was this discussed in trial? Are they allowed to consider it?
Also forget PCP, he obviously hung out with some unsavory characters. It would be crazy for one of them to just lose it and shoot the guy without AH knowing that was going to happen. It is baffling that if he had the intent he would do it that close to his house and in the manner he did.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
BTW, what happened to his gun? Why wouldn't it be at his house if it wasn't used in a murder? Did he lose it? Smuggled it out of the house in some other way than the box? But if so, why? These seem like reasonable questions the jury can ask themselves.Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
He was waving around a gun-like object right after the murder, than it is gone. The fact that it may have been disposed of in a box that also contained weed is not something I find problematic as an explanation of the most likely way the murder weapon was disposed of.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Which is my point, it didn't appear reasonable, and it sounded like some holes were punched in the testimony of the star PCP witness, so it may have backfired. That isn't reasonable.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
I believe in the instructions they said covering up a murder does not prove intent to murder. So just because he ditched his gun and probably other stuff doesnt prove intent. Isnt that one of the things they have to prove?BTW, what happened to his gun? Why wouldn't it be at his house if it wasn't used in a murder? Did he lose it? Smuggled it out of the house in some other way than the box? But if so, why? These seem like reasonable questions the jury can ask themselves.Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
He was waving around a gun-like object right after the murder, than it is gone. The fact that it may have been disposed of in a box that also contained weed is not something I find problematic as an explanation of the most likely way the murder weapon was disposed of.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I think of intent as related to motive. Because he needed to be silenced about the double murder, AH intended to murder him. If you take the motive out of the equation, because it is barred from being discussed (he hasn't been convicted on the double murder), that complicates establishing intent without the context by which you could do so.
It again gets down to common sense. If I'm a juror, it seems more reasonable that he was murdered with intent for reasons we ultimately don't know. I don't buy the hallucinating PCP zombie assassin theory for a second. That is extremely weak to me.
I'm not faulting the defense, they were dealt a weak hand, imo. The evidence seems stacked against them, circumstantial yes, but a mountain of it. But to me, the PCP theory smacks of desperation, like they were grabbing at straws. They can say anything, but if it goes too far beyond the pale, it could backfire on them, than it could undermine their credibility. And that is bad for Hernandez.
In your opinion, would it be reasonable to send out your fiance and child as a bag man to some isolated place, for a meet with unpredictable PCP zombies who randomly murder people because Soupy Sales spoke to them in a hallucination and told them to? To me, it doesn't add up. We'll see if it does to the jury.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
maybe he murdered somebody else with it and had to dispose of itBTW, what happened to his gun? Why wouldn't it be at his house if it wasn't used in a murder? Did he lose it? Smuggled it out of the house in some other way than the box? But if so, why? These seem like reasonable questions the jury can ask themselves.Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
He was waving around a gun-like object right after the murder, than it is gone. The fact that it may have been disposed of in a box that also contained weed is not something I find problematic as an explanation of the most likely way the murder weapon was disposed of.
but not lloyd
GregR
Footballguy
I think the box is strong evidence for the prosecution.
The fiancee reportedly had great recollection about everything they asked until it came to disposing of the box. It strains credibility to think when your husband is being investigated for murder and he asks you to dispose of a box by unusual means (not just putting it out with the trash), that would not stand out strongly in anyone's memory.
So I'd have a very hard time believing she wasn't lying about not remembering where she disposed of it. If it could be recovered and just had weed, no murder weapon in it, it would help Hernandez. In which case she wouldn't have reason to lie.
Given all of that, I would infer the box did contain the murder weapon.
The fiancee reportedly had great recollection about everything they asked until it came to disposing of the box. It strains credibility to think when your husband is being investigated for murder and he asks you to dispose of a box by unusual means (not just putting it out with the trash), that would not stand out strongly in anyone's memory.
So I'd have a very hard time believing she wasn't lying about not remembering where she disposed of it. If it could be recovered and just had weed, no murder weapon in it, it would help Hernandez. In which case she wouldn't have reason to lie.
Given all of that, I would infer the box did contain the murder weapon.
Last edited by a moderator:
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
but the jury doesnt know about the double murder if im not mistaken. Or at least they arent allowed to consider that unless i missed something.
What gun? AH is accused of having several guns. A couple 22's, and some rifle of some sort.BTW, what happened to his gun? Why wouldn't it be at his house if it wasn't used in a murder? Did he lose it? Smuggled it out of the house in some other way than the box? But if so, why? These seem like reasonable questions the jury can ask themselves.Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
He was waving around a gun-like object right after the murder, than it is gone. The fact that it may have been disposed of in a box that also contained weed is not something I find problematic as an explanation of the most likely way the murder weapon was disposed of.
The "gun-like object" may or may not actually be a gun. The prosecution attempted to prove it was a gun; the defense attempted to cast that interpretation in doubt.
The prosecution hasn't done well at all (IMO) at putting AH in possession of a Glock pistol, which they say was the murder weapon.
Again IMO, the fact that the prosecution has simultaneously insisted the murder weapon was a Glock, and also failed to provide evidence that AH owned/possessed a Glock, works in AH's favor.
When you use phrases like "may have been" and "most likely", you're describing reasonable doubt.
I wouldn't say AH was "being investigated for murder" when the box was disposed of. This was the next day. The cops didn't have a lead at that time. All AH knew was the cops were going to be searching his house.
The fiancee's professed ignorance about the contents of the box strains credibility to be sure. Where it was disposed of, however, seems pretty irrelevant. It's not going to be recovered in any case. It's at the bottom of a landfill somewhere.
VarsityBlues123
Footballguy
I dont care what case it is AH or any other joe blow but to make assumptions like just assuming a box had a gun in it without proof and knowing what was in it makes the person doing the assuming the worst type of juror.
Thats called reasonable doubt. Its not about what you believe its about what they proved.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Any one piece of evidence in isolation can be picked at. But they are looking at a web of interconnected facts.
AH calls some people to his house. They pick up somebody. He ends up dead a few blocks from his house. He is seen waving around a gun-shaped object minutes after the murder (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck). Hours before a search warrant is served, his fiance throws away a mystery box and later claims she has no idea where she put it.
The jury will have to decide if the thing AH was waving around was just a brownie that once he took a few bites out of it just happened to look like a gun.
If his fiance disposed of the gun, it was going to be hard for the prosecution to put AH together with it. OJ wasn't put together with the murder weapon knife, but I don't think that was the reason he wasn't convicted.
An interesting question is whether the unsequestered jury is aware of the pictures of AH with a Glock (I think I saw this?), and if so, are they able to unremember it, compartmentalize and forget about it for the purposes of the trial (I think it was inadmissable evidence, for one thing, it might not have been his, maybe only borrowed it for the picture, may have lost it, whatever)?
"May have been" or "most likely" referred to whether or not there was weed in the box the murder weapon was most likely disposed of.* Again, it isn't reasonable doubt about each item of evidence to be considered in isolation, but how they all fit together and make a picture. The zombie PCP assassin theory strains credulity to and beyond the snapping point, IMO. Everthing points to AH organizing an execution, and three people acting in concert under his direction.
The gun really isn't that important. If one or both of the gunnies shot him, because they were directed to, which seems like the reasonable assumption, and not the zombie PCP assassin randomly hallucinating cause, it really makes no difference whether he pulled the trigger or not.
* EDIT/ADD - Most likely may mean different things to you than me, but you are addressing things more in isolation, to me, the pattern of evidence, events and timeline is more damning to me than it appears to you. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I remain no less unconvinced about the feeble, meager zombie hallucinating PCP assassin theory.
AH calls some people to his house. They pick up somebody. He ends up dead a few blocks from his house. He is seen waving around a gun-shaped object minutes after the murder (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck). Hours before a search warrant is served, his fiance throws away a mystery box and later claims she has no idea where she put it.
The jury will have to decide if the thing AH was waving around was just a brownie that once he took a few bites out of it just happened to look like a gun.
If his fiance disposed of the gun, it was going to be hard for the prosecution to put AH together with it. OJ wasn't put together with the murder weapon knife, but I don't think that was the reason he wasn't convicted.
An interesting question is whether the unsequestered jury is aware of the pictures of AH with a Glock (I think I saw this?), and if so, are they able to unremember it, compartmentalize and forget about it for the purposes of the trial (I think it was inadmissable evidence, for one thing, it might not have been his, maybe only borrowed it for the picture, may have lost it, whatever)?
"May have been" or "most likely" referred to whether or not there was weed in the box the murder weapon was most likely disposed of.* Again, it isn't reasonable doubt about each item of evidence to be considered in isolation, but how they all fit together and make a picture. The zombie PCP assassin theory strains credulity to and beyond the snapping point, IMO. Everthing points to AH organizing an execution, and three people acting in concert under his direction.
The gun really isn't that important. If one or both of the gunnies shot him, because they were directed to, which seems like the reasonable assumption, and not the zombie PCP assassin randomly hallucinating cause, it really makes no difference whether he pulled the trigger or not.
* EDIT/ADD - Most likely may mean different things to you than me, but you are addressing things more in isolation, to me, the pattern of evidence, events and timeline is more damning to me than it appears to you. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I remain no less unconvinced about the feeble, meager zombie hallucinating PCP assassin theory.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
The evidence isn't in isolation.
He calls some gunnies, they pick up some dude, he gets murdered a few blocks from his house, he is seen waving a gun shaped object around minutes later, than his fiance is seen dumping a box a day or so later. Maybe there were old blue chip stamp books in there?
Nobody is making blind assumptions about the box.
It isn't like the only thing they discussed was this one box, with no other contextual information, and ask the jury, guess if there was a gun in here or not.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
I have a question for Patriots fans, if I can ask this without it being turned into a fishing trip by others. Or added to fishing trips already underway.
What has it been like watching all of this play out with someone I assume you once cheered heavily? I don't think I have much a parallel in my own life to compare it to. Lance Armstrong I suppose, though I wasn't the biggest cycling fan. But I wore one of his bracelets in memory of my grandfather, and the cheating news kind of left me feeling like it had tainted that remembrance.
But I don't know that would really compare how I'd feel if this were, say, Arian Foster or Andre Johnson.
What has it been like watching all of this play out with someone I assume you once cheered heavily? I don't think I have much a parallel in my own life to compare it to. Lance Armstrong I suppose, though I wasn't the biggest cycling fan. But I wore one of his bracelets in memory of my grandfather, and the cheating news kind of left me feeling like it had tainted that remembrance.
But I don't know that would really compare how I'd feel if this were, say, Arian Foster or Andre Johnson.
I agree there. I was very surprised that the defense went in this direction. It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall when that strategy was decided on.
I can only surmise that they decided that denying AH was even at the scene was even sketchier. And once they decided they had to own that he was there, they needed a story.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
I wonder if they planned to save that disclosure for closing. Think about it, prosecution spends time proving he was there, and defense waits until closing to essentially say "duh." It kind of makes the juror stop and rethink how they may have approached the case and focus on intent which may have not been as thoroughly proven during the trial.
As a Pats fan I am disappointed that the team invested in the guy so heavily and got burned. It's obvious to me that AH was either a really good bs'er or the Pats really dropped the ball on this one.
AH is a product of his environment in which he grew up in and followed the wrong crowd. Guys like him don't live in reality. He's a selfish, arrogant pos who will be getting his shortly.
I have zero attachment to the guy as I can't relate to him and never could. If it were Gronk we'd be talking another story. But then again guys like Gronk who I can relate to don't turn into cold blooded killers too often. Other than the damage it did to the football team on the playing field it doesn't really bother me in the least.
GregR
Footballguy
I wasn't going to bother to reply because I figure it wouldn't do any good. And I still don't think it will.
But I thought it humorous reading Florio refer to jurors coming to my same conclusion about the box contents as "applying common sense" when you call it making someone the worst type of juror.
Party on Wayne.
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
The defense did a better job than the prosecution, but there is just so much evidence.
Anyone who is shocked that his defense lawyer said he witnessed the murder hasn't been paying attention. Based on evidence presented, they've already placed him at the scene, they needed to counter it, and he did in his closing so there couldn't be much rebuttal or prep for the statement. Smart IMO. It's not joint venture bc hew was a participant (sure) and there was no felony being committed at the time (basically wrong place, wrong time).
Still think he's very guilty and found guilty. Regardless, he's stil got two more murder charges to face.
Anyone who is shocked that his defense lawyer said he witnessed the murder hasn't been paying attention. Based on evidence presented, they've already placed him at the scene, they needed to counter it, and he did in his closing so there couldn't be much rebuttal or prep for the statement. Smart IMO. It's not joint venture bc hew was a participant (sure) and there was no felony being committed at the time (basically wrong place, wrong time).
Still think he's very guilty and found guilty. Regardless, he's stil got two more murder charges to face.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You make some good points. I could be way off and he gets an innocent (or maybe more likely, if that isn't guilty, a mistrial?). The American justice system has twelve jurors, and a conviction requires voting in unison one way or the other (only takes one dissenting vote to hang a jury). It makes mistakes, like the wrongful deathrow conviction on the testimony of a criminal who police sided with, which was later exposed by the Erroll Morris doc Thin Blue Line. But it is literally stacked, quite consciously so, against a wrongful convicion of an innocent man. The burden of proof is a steep one. I just found the zombie PCP assassin theory BIZARRE, but maybe you are right, they had to think up something. Not much getting around the fact that he was there (at least the joint with his DNA puts him at the scene). I was unclear about what the evidence contamination complaint was about with the shell casing with gum stuck to it in the dumpster. AH returns a rental car with a shell casing that ballistics matches with as being consistent with the murder weapon. It gets tossed in the trash, and some gum sticks to it, either before, during or after the trashing. not sure why that matters, if the rental car employee can confirm the shell was in the car when it was returned?
GregR
Footballguy
I had missed hearing this part that AH was witnessed getting a gun from his car after video showed him being angry with Lloyd.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
That was a good article linked by Faust, as to the synopsis of the summation of prosecution. Lester Munson is ESPN's legal expert who has been covering the trial. He thinks the proscution did enough, and predicts a conviction. Interesting, because the McCann article that was furnished stopped short of that. But it was written a day or two ago, and didn't incorporate the final summation, no idea if that would have altered his impression?
In Vincent Bugliosi's Outrage, the Simpson Trial post-mortem (he convicted the Manson Family), he heavily criticized a few things, like the decision to change the venue, which was at the discretion of the DAs office. But he savaged the prosecution for looking disorganized in their summation (Clark and Darden), like they were up all night and scrambled to come up with one at the last second. I forget the exact number, but he said he went through something like 20-50 or more "drafts" of his final summation, because it was so important to him to absolutely nail it, relentlessly leave no stone unturned, formulate the best possible rebuttal of the defense's objections, leaving the jury with as little doubt as possible, to maximally increase the chance of prosecution with everything that was in his control and power.
I was impressed with a few elements of the summation.
Like Greg, I forgot something to, that they have him with the gun in his hand, not only 10 minutes after, but two hours before the murder (if the expert witness is trusted, that isn't certain).
He reminded the jury that the mystery box dumping location amnesia was not credible. Which I guess answers the question about about whether considerations about AH and his fiance conspiring to hide or destroy evidence bearing on the case could be considered or not, if that was a question, it sounds like yes, at least in this case, there was no objection to strike it.
The gun at the club bit, in conjunction with his appearing agitated at Lloyd on camera, could bear on motive, if AH was a hot head and felt disrespected.
Classic how in response to the assertion that AH and Lloyd were bud buddies (how could he kill his friend?), the prosecutor reminded the jury that buying from a dealer and smoking with them didn't constitute friendship - and reminded me of the scene in Pineapple Express when James Franco bursts into tears because Seth Rogen (sp?) tells him he is just a dealer to him (he didn't really mean it).
On the Cheech and Chong, bluntmaster defense, that he was the only person on Eastern seaboard that could procure weed and roll blunts, he reminded the jury that all three men in the car were drug dealers that had supplied AH in the past (BURN!). That one was REALLY reaching, and the prosecution laid waste to that particular, clumsy, hamhanded defense theory.
Of Sultan's four reasonable doubt questions to leave the jury with:
Why would AH kill Lloyd within blocks of his home? Maybe, so his lawyer could say, Why would AH kill Lloyd within blocks of his home?
Why would he bring along two witnesses was answered, their were other fingerprints on the door, pointing towards the accomplices helping to drag Lloyd out of the car.
Why would he leave a blunt at the scene? Since when is being a genius a prerequisite to murdering somebody? Even under the zany zombie PCP assasssin theory, where he had no idea what was going on, maybe they were just going to roast some marshmallows and make some s'mores in an industrial park area (hey you guys, where are the graham crackers?), he DID leave the blunt, either way. Why did he leave the shell casing in the returned rental car, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess he wasn't watching a lot of Columbo and CSI repeats in syndication when he was growing up, this whole freak show murder orchestration caught on HIS OWN SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM in part, never screamed criminal mastermind. Dumb happens, and needs no further excuse or justification. It just IS.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
PFT/Florio's "Fritos" take
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/07/hernandez-lawyers-stunning-claim-defies-logic-evidence/
Hernandez lawyer’s stunning claim defies logic, evidence
Posted by Mike Florio on April 7, 2015, 6:16 PM EDT
"Lawyers have extensive discretion when making statements during closing arguments, limited only by the willingness of the opposing lawyer to interrupt with an objection and the presiding judge to sustain it. As a result, many outlandish claims routinely are made in the name of securing a victory — claims that defy logic and, most importantly, conflict with the evidence introduced during the trial.
On Tuesday, the lawyer presenting the closing argument on behalf of former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez made a claim that defies both logic and the evidence.
“He was a 23-year-old kid who witnessed something, a shocking killing, committed by someone he knew,” James Sultan told the jury, via ESPN.com. “He didn’t know what to do, so he just put one foot in front of the other.”
While it became fairly obvious as a result of the testimony offered Monday regarding the potential effects of PCP use that Hernandez’s lawyers want jurors to think Carlos Ortiz or Ernest Wallace shot and killed Odin Lloyd, the trial included no evidence that Hernandez witnessed the killing of Odin Lloyd, primarily because Hernandez didn’t testify.
The notion that Hernandez was “shocked” by the killing of Odin Lloyd (the man Sultan described as during the closing as a close friend and future brother-in-law of Hernandez) also doesn’t mesh with the subsequent events — specifically, Hernandez bringing Lloyd’s killer to Hernandez’s home, where his young daughter was sleeping.
It’s impossible to know how any of us would handle the aftermath of witnessing a murder, but it’s hard to imagine that someone who was shocked by seeing the unexpected murder of a close friend and future family member would bring the killer back to the witness’s home, possibly to watch some TV, play some FIFA, and eat some Fritos.
Sultan’s claim didn’t draw an objection, and it may never be known whether it resonated with the jury. If Hernandez is convicted, it will mean that it didn’t. If he’s acquitted, maybe it worked."
* Being shocked and horrified by some random act of senseless and lethal violence perpetrated on a beloved bluntmaster, isn't really consistent with his post-murder behavior, loungin by the pool, having some drinks, chillin with the alleged executioners (who might unload their guns into him and his family at any moment from a PCP hallucination, maybe a commercial with the Pillsbury Doughboy telling them to kill everybody). Why expose his baby if they were really foaming at the mouth, crazed, maniacal, murderous PCP fiends?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/07/hernandez-lawyers-stunning-claim-defies-logic-evidence/
Hernandez lawyer’s stunning claim defies logic, evidence
Posted by Mike Florio on April 7, 2015, 6:16 PM EDT
"Lawyers have extensive discretion when making statements during closing arguments, limited only by the willingness of the opposing lawyer to interrupt with an objection and the presiding judge to sustain it. As a result, many outlandish claims routinely are made in the name of securing a victory — claims that defy logic and, most importantly, conflict with the evidence introduced during the trial.
On Tuesday, the lawyer presenting the closing argument on behalf of former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez made a claim that defies both logic and the evidence.
“He was a 23-year-old kid who witnessed something, a shocking killing, committed by someone he knew,” James Sultan told the jury, via ESPN.com. “He didn’t know what to do, so he just put one foot in front of the other.”
While it became fairly obvious as a result of the testimony offered Monday regarding the potential effects of PCP use that Hernandez’s lawyers want jurors to think Carlos Ortiz or Ernest Wallace shot and killed Odin Lloyd, the trial included no evidence that Hernandez witnessed the killing of Odin Lloyd, primarily because Hernandez didn’t testify.
The notion that Hernandez was “shocked” by the killing of Odin Lloyd (the man Sultan described as during the closing as a close friend and future brother-in-law of Hernandez) also doesn’t mesh with the subsequent events — specifically, Hernandez bringing Lloyd’s killer to Hernandez’s home, where his young daughter was sleeping.
It’s impossible to know how any of us would handle the aftermath of witnessing a murder, but it’s hard to imagine that someone who was shocked by seeing the unexpected murder of a close friend and future family member would bring the killer back to the witness’s home, possibly to watch some TV, play some FIFA, and eat some Fritos.
Sultan’s claim didn’t draw an objection, and it may never be known whether it resonated with the jury. If Hernandez is convicted, it will mean that it didn’t. If he’s acquitted, maybe it worked."
* Being shocked and horrified by some random act of senseless and lethal violence perpetrated on a beloved bluntmaster, isn't really consistent with his post-murder behavior, loungin by the pool, having some drinks, chillin with the alleged executioners (who might unload their guns into him and his family at any moment from a PCP hallucination, maybe a commercial with the Pillsbury Doughboy telling them to kill everybody). Why expose his baby if they were really foaming at the mouth, crazed, maniacal, murderous PCP fiends?
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, here is a snippet from the defense attorney's closing argument:
The attorneys' comment applies to much of the evidence and testimony, but no more so than the box. What was in that thing is pure, 100% speculation.
I'd say the defense's strategy here is the proverbial desperation Hail Mary. Putting AH at the scene gets the prosecution 90% of the way to a conviction.
They must've decided, we're going down if we try and ask the jury to believe he wasn't even there. The prosecution's timeline is way too airtight.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
CNN wrap up, evidently, by the next day, AH was able to emerge from the nightmarish fog of shock, pain and anguish from the grief felt over the loss of his beloved bluntmaster to remark on the hit his brand took. Sounds like he was pretty busted up about the random murder of a dear friend.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial/
Excerpt - "The prosecution, however, portrayed Hernandez as cold, calculating and insecure -- a man who believed others should be grateful for his attention, one capable of murder for merely disrespecting him in the presence of others.
Prosecutor William McCauley asked jurors: What was Hernandez talking about a day after Lloyd's bullet-riddled body was found at a Massachusetts industrial park in June 2013? " 'My endorsements are gone,' " Hernandez said, according to McCauley said. "He's not talking about Odin."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial/
Excerpt - "The prosecution, however, portrayed Hernandez as cold, calculating and insecure -- a man who believed others should be grateful for his attention, one capable of murder for merely disrespecting him in the presence of others.
Prosecutor William McCauley asked jurors: What was Hernandez talking about a day after Lloyd's bullet-riddled body was found at a Massachusetts industrial park in June 2013? " 'My endorsements are gone,' " Hernandez said, according to McCauley said. "He's not talking about Odin."
Last edited by a moderator:
On it's own, sure, but in the overall context it's just another compelling pieceOf course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
For murder 1 I believe it is. That's what manslaughter convictions are for though. Murder 1 might be a stretch to prove all things considered, but anyone still doubting that AH was involved in killing the guy needs his head examined. Manslaughter seems like a no-brainer conviction here.I believe in the instructions they said covering up a murder does not prove intent to murder. So just because he ditched his gun and probably other stuff doesnt prove intent. Isnt that one of the things they have to prove?BTW, what happened to his gun? Why wouldn't it be at his house if it wasn't used in a murder? Did he lose it? Smuggled it out of the house in some other way than the box? But if so, why? These seem like reasonable questions the jury can ask themselves.Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
He was waving around a gun-like object right after the murder, than it is gone. The fact that it may have been disposed of in a box that also contained weed is not something I find problematic as an explanation of the most likely way the murder weapon was disposed of.
It may be compelling to you, but it isn't to me. The box contained something he didn't want the police to find. With this guy, that could be any number of things.On it's own, sure, but in the overall context it's just another compelling pieceOf course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
The prosecution has to prove intent for the murder charge. Both first and second degree require it.From what I've read, manslaughter isn't an option for the jury to consider.For murder 1 I believe it is. That's what manslaughter convictions are for though. Murder 1 might be a stretch to prove all things considered, but anyone still doubting that AH was involved in killing the guy needs his head examined. Manslaughter seems like a no-brainer conviction here.I believe in the instructions they said covering up a murder does not prove intent to murder. So just because he ditched his gun and probably other stuff doesnt prove intent. Isnt that one of the things they have to prove?BTW, what happened to his gun? Why wouldn't it be at his house if it wasn't used in a murder? Did he lose it? Smuggled it out of the house in some other way than the box? But if so, why? These seem like reasonable questions the jury can ask themselves.Of course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
He was waving around a gun-like object right after the murder, than it is gone. The fact that it may have been disposed of in a box that also contained weed is not something I find problematic as an explanation of the most likely way the murder weapon was disposed of.
There is a HUGE difference between an "educated guess" and wild "100% speculation". The contents of the box is a well informed educated guess. Not proof by itself, but taken in context is a long way from "100% speculation"
Sure it could have been. But ALL of those other things would have HELPED his case. Yet, for some reason, the girlfriend who could remember EVERYTHING else still couldn't remember where the box was at? And did AH EVER tell ANYONE what was in the box? Offer ANY alternative explanation at all?It may be compelling to you, but it isn't to me. The box contained something he didn't want the police to find. With this guy, that could be any number of things.On it's own, sure, but in the overall context it's just another compelling pieceOf course they could consider that possibility.And they don't have to be mutually exclusive. The jury could consider the possibility that a box could hold both.How about marijuana.Is there a reasonable doubt that the mystery box contained anything but the murder weapon. Stale girl scout cookies? Old IEEE proceedings publications?
If I had a box full of weed and I knew the cops would be executing a search warrant, then I think I'd try to get rid of that box before they got there.
The prosecution has a to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.
I'm obviously not on the jury, but "the box may have simply had a bunch of weed in it" constitutes reasonable doubt to me -- about the contents of that box anyway.
JMHO but the box is weak for the prosecution.
Sure...it isn't "proof", but it doesn't require a whole lot of common sense to see this as another nail.
Well, he was there, and he did witness the shooting. Based on the evidence, that's impossible to deny.
If the defense had told the jury that AH pulled the trigger, that would be a bad strategy. But just telling them that he was at the scene ... they had no choice. He was obviously at the scene. To deny that would be to lose all credibility.
Right. Motive is not required to be shown in any murder case, ever. Otherwise, the effect would be that murder is illegal if you have a reason, but totally legal if you just do it randomly for no reason.
But having a gun in the box isn't one of the things he was charged with. He was charged with murder, and people can murder other people without putting their guns in boxes. It'd be nice for the prosecution if they could prove that the murder weapon was in AH's box, but it's not one of the things they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or at all, really).
Intent is the tricky element here. This is from Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 455-456 (2009):
To succeed on a theory of deliberately premeditated murder as a joint venturer under our present articulation of the law, the Commonwealth was required to prove that the defendant was (1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement, was willing and available to help the other if necessary. The Commonwealth also needed to prove the defendant shared the mental state or intent for deliberately premeditated murder, which is malice, and, in particular, an intent to kill. In addition, the Commonwealth needed to prove deliberate premeditation, that the defendant's decision to kill was the product of cool reflection. We have also stated that under a theory of joint venture premeditated murder during which another person carried and used the gun, the Commonwealth must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the other person had a gun with him.
Here, the evidence was uncontroverted that one of the four persons in the car driven by Toney had shot and killed the victim, and that the defendant was a passenger in the car at the time. Thus, the first element of our traditional expression of a joint venture theory of guilt was made out: the defendant was present at the scene of the crime. There was also sufficient evidence that another person, besides the defendant, could have been the shooter. The jury reasonably could have inferred that Lopez fired the fatal shot, because the defendant in his statement to the police stated he heard a shot and then saw Lopez pass a gun wrapped in a sock from the back of the car to Toney in the front. The failure of proof of joint venture in this case is that, if the jury did conclude that Lopez was the person who actually fired the gun, there is no evidence that would reasonably permit the jury also to find beyond a reasonable doubt, by direct evidence or inference, that before Lopez fired the gun, the defendant (1) knew that Lopez had the weapon and was intending to kill the victim with it; (2) shared Lopez's intent; and (3) by agreement was ready and willing to help.
(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
I think there's enough evidence of Hernandez's intent to support a conviction (meaning that a conviction wouldn't be overturned on appeal for lack of sufficient evidence). But I'm not sure there's enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
(I'm not saying "I'm not sure" because I think reasonable doubt is appropriate. I'm saying "I'm not sure" because I didn't watch the trial or read enough about it to have an opinion about whether reasonable doubt is appropriate.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
