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

[Faust]

Jurors in Aaron Hernandez trial call Robert Kraft's testimony compelling

 

[Faust]

Aaron Hernandez' prison is a 3.5 mile drive from Gillette

 

[Faust]

Aaron Hernandez appeared to mouth 'wrong' at jurors after guilty verdict

 

[Faust]

Maurice Clarett on what Aaron Hernandez can expect in jail

 

[Faust]

Former Patriots star Aaron Hernandez found guilty of first-degree murder

 

[Faust]

Hernandez prosecutors meticulous

 

[DropKick]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 99.99995%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

fixed

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

a 3.5 mile drive

ummmm.....

 

[David Dodds]

Breaking News: Roger Goodell has just given Aaron Hernandez a 2 game suspension.

 

[GregR]

I'm not disagreeing a jury should have found him guilty.

But that one tidbit from the article: "He told Robt. Kraft he was elsewhere at the time of the murder. But, if he didn't do it, how'd he know when the murder was in the first place?" These amateur Perry Masons could be using logic like that to convict when there could be a totally normal reason, like, the cops asked him where he was at the time already.

We should really look at a new system of jury selection. Most juries can't keep up with modern technology and convict on random and wrong observations. Serial interviewed one juror who convicted based on Jay's testimony she reasoned "he wouldn't be testifying if it wasn't true", but was then later told, after the case, that the testimony was in exchange for a reduced sentence in another case. "Oh, well that changes things."

Similarly in The Staircase, jurors were everywhere with their reasoning. "He didn't take the stand, so, he must have been guilty." and stuff like that.

I think a better complaint would have been, why any focus on the lie to Kraft about the timing when the defense already admitted his presence at the killing.

Though also worth mentioning... for an example like you gave where the defense could easily refute it by putting on the stand the cop who gave away the timing or playing a tape of the questioning... I'm not sure the jury is wrong to give that particular hypothetical explanation lower weight than one that couldn't be so obviously defended against.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

Wait what?

William Blackstone, a famous British judge from a few hundred years ago, said that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than to lock up one innocent person. That would suggest that around 91% certainty is good enough.

Benjamin Franklin said basically the same thing, except he used 99 instead of 10, which suggests that we need to be around 99% certain.

There's no official percentage associated with "beyond a reasonable doubt," but somewhere between 91% and 99% seems about right.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think a better complaint would have been, why any focus on the lie to Kraft about the timing when the defense already admitted his presence at the killing.

Being there is bad, but being there and lying about it is worse.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think another interesting question will be if they elect to testify at Hernandez' appeal hearing or other murder trial (if that could get them a reduced sentence).

There won't be testimony on appeal. Appellate judges are going to decide whatever they decide based on the written transcripts from the trial. They don't want any actual witnesses to come anywhere near them.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Summing up of the trial, jury deliberations and expected appeal possibilities, by SI's Michael McCann.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/15/aaron-hernandez-guilty-first-degree-murder-odin-lloyd

AH eluded NFL DBs and coverage schemes with ease, but couldn't escape the dark undertow of his Bristol roots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/sports/football/aaron-hernandez-guilty-of-murder-shed-tackles-but-not-his-past.html?_r=0

AH's Life Sentence: What he can expect behind bars (details on his prison and typical routine)

http://www.ibtimes.com/aaron-hernandez-life-sentence-what-he-can-expect-behind-bars-mci-cedar-junction-1883660

 

[VarsityBlues123]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

Wait what?

what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?

Old joke from a Playboy mag:

Head Juror: Guilty, your Honor. We figure where there's smoke, there's fire.

lol, but in this case there is tons of evidence putting him at the scene (his lawyers actually admitted that). Then they have him on videotape waving around a gun and imprints of his shoe at the murder scene.

Obviously there is tons of other evidence as well. I just don't see how anyone can bash the jury for finding him guilty.

if you think people are bashing the jury for the conviction it means you are not reading full posts before you type because no one is bashing the jury because they found him guilty they are bashing the jury because of how they handled themselves and came to the conclusion. when they spoke after the fact it doesnt take a jury to conclude this was a group of dumb people.

on the evidence front. no gun motive or witness but tons of evidence? they had circumstantial evidence at best to assume it was 95% a lock with only circumstantial evidence is so off base. i thought he was guilty but could of got off because it was circumstantial and because juries are dumb.

please read comments to the fullest if you are going to respond to a comment. i too think he is guilty but i think the jury was as dumb as a box of rocks.

the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Moonlight]

I would guess that the murder rate in Massachusetss has gone down during the year Hernandez has been incarcerated.

 

[randall146]

I think another interesting question will be if they elect to testify at Hernandez' appeal hearing or other murder trial (if that could get them a reduced sentence).

There won't be testimony on appeal. Appellate judges are going to decide whatever they decide based on the written transcripts from the trial. They don't want any actual witnesses to come anywhere near them.

The other thing people seem not to understand is that the appellate court doesn't review the evidence to decide whether he's guilty. The appellate court decides whether there was prejudicial legal error. So they'd never consider statements by witnesses who weren't offered at trial. They won't consider whether the jury gave too much weight to Bob Kraft's testimony.

Basically the appeal is about whether the judge allowed or prohibited evidence she shouldn't have, and whether that made a difference.

Otherwise in the appeal there will only be a cursory review of the evidence to see if it is legally sufficient, if looked at in a light most favorable to the prosecution, to support the verdict. There is clearly more than sufficient evidence here. AH's chance to win was at trial, not appeal.

AND any ineffective assistance of counsel claim (which is ridiculous on it's face here and a VERY difficult thing to show when you hired your own attorney) is not considered at the appeal stage. AH can claim ineffective assistance is a post-conviction proceeding after his appeal is denied. He will lose that too.

 

[RUSF18]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

Wait what?

what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?

Old joke from a Playboy mag:

Head Juror: Guilty, your Honor. We figure where there's smoke, there's fire.

lol, but in this case there is tons of evidence putting him at the scene (his lawyers actually admitted that). Then they have him on videotape waving around a gun and imprints of his shoe at the murder scene.

Obviously there is tons of other evidence as well. I just don't see how anyone can bash the jury for finding him guilty.

if you think people are bashing the jury for the conviction it means you are not reading full posts before you type because no one is bashing the jury because they found him guilty they are bashing the jury because of how they handled themselves and came to the conclusion. when they spoke after the fact it doesnt take a jury to conclude this was a group of dumb people.

on the evidence front. no gun motive or witness but tons of evidence? they had circumstantial evidence at best to assume it was 95% a lock with only circumstantial evidence is so off base. i thought he was guilty but could of got off because it was circumstantial and because juries are dumb.

please read comments to the fullest if you are going to respond to a comment. i too think he is guilty but i think the jury was as dumb as a box of rocks.

the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

You insult the juries but your entire argument is based off the faulty logic you've come up with from watching courtroom dramas, because if you had any actual knowledge, you would never type out the phrase "only circumstantial evidence".

 

[unckeyherb]

I think another interesting question will be if they elect to testify at Hernandez' appeal hearing or other murder trial (if that could get them a reduced sentence).

There won't be testimony on appeal. Appellate judges are going to decide whatever they decide based on the written transcripts from the trial. They don't want any actual witnesses to come anywhere near them.

The other thing people seem not to understand is that the appellate court doesn't review the evidence to decide whether he's guilty. The appellate court decides whether there was prejudicial legal error. So they'd never consider statements by witnesses who weren't offered at trial. They won't consider whether the jury gave too much weight to Bob Kraft's testimony.

Basically the appeal is about whether the judge allowed or prohibited evidence she shouldn't have, and whether that made a difference.

Otherwise in the appeal there will only be a cursory review of the evidence to see if it is legally sufficient, if looked at in a light most favorable to the prosecution, to support the verdict. There is clearly more than sufficient evidence here. AH's chance to win was at trial, not appeal.

AND any ineffective assistance of counsel claim (which is ridiculous on it's face here and a VERY difficult thing to show when you hired your own attorney) is not considered at the appeal stage. AH can claim ineffective assistance is a post-conviction proceeding after his appeal is denied. He will lose that too.

There was someone on Mike and Mike today that said they DID consider it at this stage. However, he noted that there have been instances where the attorney literally fell asleep in the courtroom and was not found to be ineffective. Basically, whenever that gets reviewed, there is zero chance that he could successfully claim ineffective assistance.

 

[stbugs]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

Wait what?

what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?

Old joke from a Playboy mag:

Head Juror: Guilty, your Honor. We figure where there's smoke, there's fire.

lol, but in this case there is tons of evidence putting him at the scene (his lawyers actually admitted that). Then they have him on videotape waving around a gun and imprints of his shoe at the murder scene.

Obviously there is tons of other evidence as well. I just don't see how anyone can bash the jury for finding him guilty.

I'm not disagreeing a jury should have found him guilty.

But that one tidbit from the article: "He told Robt. Kraft he was elsewhere at the time of the murder. But, if he didn't do it, how'd he know when the murder was in the first place?" These amateur Perry Masons could be using logic like that to convict when there could be a totally normal reason, like, the cops asked him where he was at the time already.

We should really look at a new system of jury selection. Most juries can't keep up with modern technology and convict on random and wrong observations. Serial interviewed one juror who convicted based on Jay's testimony she reasoned "he wouldn't be testifying if it wasn't true", but was then later told, after the case, that the testimony was in exchange for a reduced sentence in another case. "Oh, well that changes things."

Similarly in The Staircase, jurors were everywhere with their reasoning. "He didn't take the stand, so, he must have been guilty." and stuff like that.

I know you are trying to fish here, but if this is what you are hanging your hat on, you may not be as smart as the jury. I thought the reason why Kraft was a witness was based on the fact that AH lied directly to him about having nothing to do with it and having an alibi that was easily disproved based on his own surveillance videos, let alone his attorneys putting him at the crime scene during the trial. What was the time-frame of all of this? I thought I read that Kraft's testimony was useful because the time of the murder hadn't been established yet to AH when he was asked by Kraft. That was before he was arrested. I could be wrong, but you may want to look that up before saying that is the reason why they are stupid.

 

[Touchdown There]

How Hernandez could have pulled this off:

• Don't leave the keys in Lloyd's pocket to a rental car in your own name
• Don't leave a ganja blunt at the scene
• Don't leave spent shell casings in your rental car
• Don't leave your home surveillance system on and then do a poor job of destroying it later, it has a power cord
• Don't let your attorney admit you were at the scene
• Don't let your intended victim text out minutes before you intend to whack him. A $500 unit seems like chump change when you have a $40MM contract.
• Don't leave weapons and drugs in your house for mystery box removal

He's a thug. Logical analysis doesn't apply.

Thugs have been getting away with murder for tens of thousands of years.

Behind every great fortune there is a crime.— Balzac

 

[QuizGuy66]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

Smart people get out of jury duty

They should start paying 70k per year equivalent to be on a jury.

just my opinion after watching the interview that the prosecution looked to get the dumbest jury possible. this group of people couldlt look or act any more ignorant in front of the camera. im not judging them as people in their lives but as jurors from the little i saw of them they really looked like they were the stereotype and too dumb to get out of jury duty. i think one woman had a side pony tail. i mean if she doesnt realize that hair style is out of whack how can she really determine the meaning of law.

i still think they got the verdict right by default but im thinking the big picture of juries and how it isnt hard for them to get things so wrong.

Exactly. "Dumbest jury possible."

The OJ case was famous for the pre-trial voir dire questionnaire handed prospective jurors: "Have you or a family member undergone an amniocentesis procedure while pregnant?" Seems innocent enough, but everyone who answered "Yes" was excused from jury duty. OJ's legal team snuck that one by the prosecution... the question was to determine if the juror had any understanding at all of how DNA works. Anyone who did got kicked off. Then they get to act surprised that the jury just "threw away the DNA evidence because we didn't understand it."

Yikes. This legal system we have may be the "Best in the world", but it's also pretty terrible.

The brutal part of the OJ thing to me was Marcia Clark's jury pool selection methods. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

-QG

 

[Johnny Bing]

I had to laugh this morning listening to Mike Florio on NFL Radio as he brought up a good point.

Mike was poking fun at the defense attorney in his final argument for admitting Hernandez was at the scene of the murder, but then later in the defense he spends time poking holes in the footprint experts testimony.

You just admitted he was there! So how can you now poke holes in the experts testimony?

 

[randall146]

I had to laugh this morning listening to Mike Florio on NFL Radio as he brought up a good point.

Mike was poking fun at the defense attorney in his final argument for admitting Hernandez was at the scene of the murder, but then later in the defense he spends time poking holes in the footprint experts testimony.

You just admitted he was there! So how can you now poke holes in the experts testimony?

Monday morning lawyering is just as bad as Monday morning quarterbacking. The evidence put AH at the scene. The defense chose to concede that fact in order to maintain credibility.

The footprint evidence was critical to the prosecutors argument that AH was the shooter. The defense was arguing AH wasn't the shooter, so they had to attack the footprint expert.

There's nothing inconsistent about it.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

http://deadspin.com/jurors-say-aaron-hernandezs-defense-was-baffling-1697994540?

No shtick, some of the juror comments make them sound like idiots. We really need to overhaul the jury system in this country. Not enough people smart enough to handle the job.

They came to the right conclusion. Based on the evidence there is a 95%+ chance he was involved, that's beyond reasonable doubt.

The few tidbits we've heard from them don't sound that good but they had all the evidence. How can anyone be disappointed with their decision?

Wait what?

what % do you consider beyond reasonable doubt?

Old joke from a Playboy mag:

Head Juror: Guilty, your Honor. We figure where there's smoke, there's fire.

lol, but in this case there is tons of evidence putting him at the scene (his lawyers actually admitted that). Then they have him on videotape waving around a gun and imprints of his shoe at the murder scene.

Obviously there is tons of other evidence as well. I just don't see how anyone can bash the jury for finding him guilty.

if you think people are bashing the jury for the conviction it means you are not reading full posts before you type because no one is bashing the jury because they found him guilty they are bashing the jury because of how they handled themselves and came to the conclusion. when they spoke after the fact it doesnt take a jury to conclude this was a group of dumb people.

on the evidence front. no gun motive or witness but tons of evidence? they had circumstantial evidence at best to assume it was 95% a lock with only circumstantial evidence is so off base. i thought he was guilty but could of got off because it was circumstantial and because juries are dumb.

please read comments to the fullest if you are going to respond to a comment. i too think he is guilty but i think the jury was as dumb as a box of rocks.

the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

You insult the juries but your entire argument is based off the faulty logic you've come up with from watching courtroom dramas, because if you had any actual knowledge, you would never type out the phrase "only circumstantial evidence".

many cases fall a part because the case is nothing but circumstantial evidence. sometimes prosecutors dont even indict with only circumstantial evidence. so yes only having circumstantial evidence is not a good thing for prosecutors lacking the three major evident components.

why did roger cosack on espn say the same thing, about only having circumstantial evidence and none of the three important pieces of evidence. This was piece the puzzle together case with no witnesses no weapon and no motive. as many analysts say with out those it is tougher to convict. not impossible but harder.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

many cases fall a part because the case is nothing but circumstantial evidence. sometimes prosecutors dont even indict with only circumstantial evidence. so yes only having circumstantial evidence is not a good thing for prosecutors lacking the three major evident components.

Many cases fall apart because they have nothing but direct evidence. Sometimes prosecutors don't even indict with only direct evidence. (Think uncorroborated rape accusations.)

Circumstantial versus direct doesn't matter. Strong versus weak matters.

You can have strong circumstantial evidence (e.g., DNA evidence, or fingerprints on a gun), just as you can have weak direct evidence (e.g., eyewitness testimony from an obvious liar).

 

[Johnny Bing]

I had to laugh this morning listening to Mike Florio on NFL Radio as he brought up a good point.

Mike was poking fun at the defense attorney in his final argument for admitting Hernandez was at the scene of the murder, but then later in the defense he spends time poking holes in the footprint experts testimony.

You just admitted he was there! So how can you now poke holes in the experts testimony?

Monday morning lawyering is just as bad as Monday morning quarterbacking.The evidence put AH at the scene. The defense chose to concede that fact in order to maintain credibility.

The footprint evidence was critical to the prosecutors argument that AH was the shooter. The defense was arguing AH wasn't the shooter, so they had to attack the footprint expert.

There's nothing inconsistent about it.

But isn't the main stance from a defense attorney is to poke as many holes and doubt in the prosecution's case. Why would you concede on one of the most important elements of the case? To keep credibility with them? If that was the case, they should have told his GF to tell the truth. If you want to talk about credibility she had zero on the stand.

You can call it Monday morning QB'ing but that play call was about as bad as Seattle passing it in the Super Bowl.

Don't get me wrong, glad with the verdict. But I don't think the defense did him any favors that for sure.

 

[davearm]

I had to laugh this morning listening to Mike Florio on NFL Radio as he brought up a good point.

Mike was poking fun at the defense attorney in his final argument for admitting Hernandez was at the scene of the murder, but then later in the defense he spends time poking holes in the footprint experts testimony.

You just admitted he was there! So how can you now poke holes in the experts testimony?

Monday morning lawyering is just as bad as Monday morning quarterbacking.The evidence put AH at the scene. The defense chose to concede that fact in order to maintain credibility.

The footprint evidence was critical to the prosecutors argument that AH was the shooter. The defense was arguing AH wasn't the shooter, so they had to attack the footprint expert.

There's nothing inconsistent about it.

I get where you're coming from, but I'll respectfully disagree.

As I see it, when the defense acknowledged AH was at the scene, in that instant they tore down virtually all of the reasonable doubt they had spent the entire length of the trial trying to create.

If I'm on the jury, and I'm reviewing all of the various witnesses and pieces of evidence, I'm thinking...

Was that a gun in his hand in that home surveillance video? Who cares, he was there.

What the heck was in the mystery box? Who cares, he was there.

Were those his footprints in the mud? Who cares, he was there.

Did he lie to Robert Kraft? Who cares, he was there.

Once it's established he was there, the only pertinent question remaining is, was he there with the intent to kill Odin Lloyd? That's the only issue left to resolve in reaching a verdict.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Once it's established he was there, the only pertinent question remaining is, was he there with the intent to kill Odin Lloyd? That's the only issue left to resolve in reaching a verdict.

I didn't follow any of this trial, besides occasionally reading this thread, but I'd assume the defense conceded he was there because he was there and they would lose that point to the evidence, anyway, so why contest the fact?

they moved on to a battle they thought they had a better chance at.

 

[GregR]

Yes, I imagine the defense tried to poke holes to keep it from being proven sufficiently that he was there. And failed.

At which point they switched to focusing on saying he was neither the triggerman nor aware of an intent to do murder. Admitting his presence allowed them to give the jury an alternate explanation since he is then supposedly a witness.

If they had done a better job creating doubt in the earlier evidence, the latter PCP defense probably never happens.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

He was definitely at the scene.

They had his cell phone pings at the park. They had him on video driving into and out of the park. They had his footprints. They had the blunt with his DNA on it. All of it shows that he was at the scene without a doubt. Admitting that he was at the scene is like admitting that his home was nearby. There was no use denying it.

 

[davearm]

One of the jurors said "we were all shocked" that the defense conceded the point. I'm not sure the evidence was as clear cut as you suggest... not to the jury at least.

 

[renesauz]

I'm still confused by those claiming it's 100% "circumstantial".

DNA is NOT circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Footprints are not circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Examples of evidence that WAS circumstantial include:

Being seen on your own camera with a gun.

If it could be proven that the gun is the same type used to commit murder: strong, but circumstantial unless it's a very rare gun.

Being at the scene (proven by FACTS ABOVE) could be considered circumstantial, but it's pretty strong. Given rules and laws about felonies and joint ventures, being at the scene without providing immediate witness testimony against the "real killer" could very well move this from merely circumstantial to "proof".

It's ridiculous to claim it's all "just circumstantial".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

DNA is NOT circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Footprints are not circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Yes, these things are circumstantial.

 

[renesauz]

DNA is NOT circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Footprints are not circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Yes, these things are circumstantial.

Based on that definition (which is far from logical), then virtually EVERY conviction is based on "circumstantial evidence". A fingerprint does indeed PROVE that someone touched something. The inference is about WHEN they touched it. DNA proves someone did something (had sex, chewed gum or smoked a specific joint). The inference (circumstantial aspect) is that they did so at the time and location of the rime. In a very real way, much evidence is both "proof" AND "circumstantial". Facts and the conclusions inferred are not one in the same.

Maybe we need new words to describe things. "Circumstantial" is loaded with misconception and miscommunication. Most people (including me much of the time) equate the term circumstantial to coincidental. But it's not like sharing the same birthday with the guy you sat next to on a bus. It's possible AH left his joint and footprint at the murder scene the day before the murder and not the day of, thus it is by definition "circumstantial", but such a thing strains the logic of "coincidence". Couple those facts with others, such as the FACT that he knew the victim, the "circumstance" that his prints and the victims are on the same car, along with a dozen other things, and the circumstances quickly grow well beyond any remotely reasonable combination of possible "coincidences". There are thousands of known FACTS involved which are not by themselves circumstantial.

 

[Faust]

What Did They Know? What Can They Learn?

 

[Faust]

What's next for Aaron Hernandez: Case is even stronger in next trial

 

[Faust]

Aaron Hernandez and the NFL: A History of Violence

 

[Faust]

Report: Urban Meyer Convinced Bill Belichick That Aaron Hernandez Would Behave In NFL

 

[Faust]

Former Patriots adviser admits team knew Aaron Hernandez had issues

 

[lod01]

What's next for Aaron Hernandez: Case is even stronger in next trial

From what I hear, making license plates for 50 cents an hour. What a loser.

 

[GregR]

DNA is NOT circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Footprints are not circumstantial when they place the defendant at the scene.

Yes, these things are circumstantial.

Based on that definition (which is far from logical), then virtually EVERY conviction is based on "circumstantial evidence". A fingerprint does indeed PROVE that someone touched something. The inference is about WHEN they touched it. DNA proves someone did something (had sex, chewed gum or smoked a specific joint). The inference (circumstantial aspect) is that they did so at the time and location of the rime. In a very real way, much evidence is both "proof" AND "circumstantial". Facts and the conclusions inferred are not one in the same.

Maybe we need new words to describe things. "Circumstantial" is loaded with misconception and miscommunication. Most people (including me much of the time) equate the term circumstantial to coincidental. But it's not like sharing the same birthday with the guy you sat next to on a bus. It's possible AH left his joint and footprint at the murder scene the day before the murder and not the day of, thus it is by definition "circumstantial", but such a thing strains the logic of "coincidence". Couple those facts with others, such as the FACT that he knew the victim, the "circumstance" that his prints and the victims are on the same car, along with a dozen other things, and the circumstances quickly grow well beyond any remotely reasonable combination of possible "coincidences". There are thousands of known FACTS involved which are not by themselves circumstantial.

I imagine a lot of the common circumstantial evidence we have today in the information age and with modern science, is far stronger than it was.

It's not the definition that changed, but maybe public perception of how strong circumstantial evidence can be, hasn't kept up with the world.

 

[Faust]

Former Patriots adviser admits team knew Aaron Hernandez had issues

Adviser: Patriots structured Aaron Hernandez's contract around troubled past

 

[rockaction]

Hernandez now on suicide watch in prison. I'm not sure what that means or what causes that (it could be simple bureaucratic or legal triggers), but it can't be good.

 

[cstu]

Hernandez now on suicide watch in prison. I'm not sure what that means or what causes that (it could be simple bureaucratic or legal triggers), but it can't be good.

How much are tickets?

 

[cstu]

Should've hired me:

"He made a mess of my house and destroyed my security system, see. Then he offered to fix it and pay for my night out. Everything was great but on the way back home he decided to break my phone. He felt so bad about all of this that he shot himself. I knew he was a nature lover so I helped put his body in a field. It was a nice night so I decided to park the car and walk home after that. Oh, and the cleaning ladies were coming early in the morning so I didn't have time to deal with the police all night."

 

[Pots]

"He made a mess of my house and destroyed my security system, see. Then he offered to fix it and pay for my night out. Everything was great but on the way back home he decided to break my phone. He felt so bad about all of this that he shot himself. I knew he was a nature lover so I helped put his body in a field. It was a nice night so I decided to park the car and walk home after that. Oh, and the cleaning ladies were coming early in the morning so I didn't have time to deal with the police all night."

Are you ****ing serious?

 

[rockaction]

"He made a mess of my house and destroyed my security system, see. Then he offered to fix it and pay for my night out. Everything was great but on the way back home he decided to break my phone. He felt so bad about all of this that he shot himself. I knew he was a nature lover so I helped put his body in a field. It was a nice night so I decided to park the car and walk home after that. Oh, and the cleaning ladies were coming early in the morning so I didn't have time to deal with the police all night."

Are you ****ing serious?

No. Your sarcasm detector hasn't just gone down, it's hit the fritz.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Pretty good article, got a rec from Peter King's MMQB column today.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/cold-blood-aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-article-1.2189918?cid=bitly

 

[PatsWillWin]

Hernandez now on suicide watch in prison. I'm not sure what that means or what causes that (it could be simple bureaucratic or legal triggers), but it can't be good.

I feel like it could be SOP after a long conviction or something.