RealGM

Verdict announced about one hour ago.

Faces sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. But there is an automatic appeal attached to this process, according to the legal reporters.

#PatriotWay

Trm3 wrote:#PatriotWay

#Keepitclassy
#Keepitintelligent
#Neitherthepatriotsorthesportoffootballcreatesorendorseskillers

Justice

Stunner. Seemed innocent.

A case based on basically nothing but circumstantial evidence and still gets the conviction. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the justice system and the fairness of this decision, but it feels right.

Prosecution did an amazing job gathering all that evidence.

Good article on this below:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12696042/aaron-hernandez-prosecutors-score-enormous-triumph-murder-conviction

DJhitek wrote:A case based on basically nothing but circumstantial evidence and still gets the conviction. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the justice system and the fairness of this decision, but it feels right.

Just so there is no confusion with this post following mine and someone reads them back to back, I was joking about the "seemed innocent" comment. Circumstantial, yes. But its an absolute avalanche of circumstantial evidence that pointed to guilt in an almost obscene degree. I didn't follow the story closely enough to know everything, but my guess is he only even bothered going to trial because the prosecution was offering virtually nothing in exchange for a guilty plea.

DJhitek wrote:A case based on basically nothing but circumstantial evidence and still gets the conviction. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the justice system and the fairness of this decision, but it feels right.

I feel you. I didn't know how to feel at first either. But what I have found is that the importance of circumstantial evidence has been horribly devalued in the American justice system. While it may be different that direct evidence, it's significance should not be underestimated.

I was listening to the radio today and there was a guy that was on talking about how the concept of reasonable doubt has been used as a loophole for so many years. To the point where people fail to use common sense. He likened it to an overnight snow storm. Just because you didn't see the snow fall while you were sleeping doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The several inches of snow on the ground begs us to use common sense that it happened even though it's circumstantial evidence. I'd even take it a step further with another analogy. People don't need to show us air in order for us to know it's there. The mere fact that we are all breathing should be proof enough. However..us breathing is purely circumstantial evidence.

So that's pretty much the gist of my position on this. I believe that there was enough pieces to this puzzle there in order to make it clear of what happened. Even if there were a few pieces missing.

DJhitek wrote:A case based on basically nothing but circumstantial evidence and still gets the conviction. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the justice system and the fairness of this decision, but it feels right.

There was no doubt from the people who saw the evidence and heard the testimony.

He will appeal. But he killed at least two other people so not looking great for him.

Horrible story.

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

DJhitek wrote:A case based on basically nothing but circumstantial evidence and still gets the conviction. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the justice system and the fairness of this decision, but it feels right.

I feel you. I didn't know how to feel at first either. But what I have found is that the importance of circumstantial evidence has been horribly devalued in the American justice system. While it may be different that direct evidence, it's significance should not be underestimated.

I was listening to the radio today and there was a guy that was on talking about how the concept of reasonable doubt has been used as a loophole for so many years. To the point where people fail to use common sense. He likened it to an overnight snow storm. Just because you didn't see the snow fall while you were sleeping doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The several inches of snow on the ground begs us to use common sense that it happened even though it's circumstantial evidence. I'd even take it a step further with another analogy. People don't need to show us air in order for us to know it's there. The mere fact that we are all breathing should be proof enough. However..us breathing is purely circumstantial evidence.

So that's pretty much the gist of my position on this. I believe that there was enough pieces to this puzzle there in order to make it clear of what happened. Even if there were a few pieces missing.

Pretty good analogy.

After fighting tooth and nail for 8 weeks the defense said, oh now I remember. I WAS there!

kyrv wrote:After fighting tooth and nail for 8 weeks the defense said, oh now I remember. I WAS there!

This was the thing that really got me. No murder weapon, no proof, but the circumstantial evidence was SO OVERWHELMINGLY DEFINITIVE that his defense attorneys did a complete 180 in their closing statement and changed their story from "he doesn't know anything" to "well, he was there, he saw it, but he didn't pull the trigger."

Hernandez also did himself no favors by claiming "I wish the time of the murder was released because I was at a club when it happened"
....
If nobody knows what time he was murdered (including the police/investigators), THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE GOT MURDERED UNLESS YOU WERE IN ON IT!?!?

The Prosecutors had evidence to go along with circumstantial.

1. Cigarette next to dead body has Hernandez DNA
2. Shell casing matching glock and bullet(in lloyd) found in Hernandez rented car
3. Home camera and cell phone records placing Hernandez at the scene with the two other guys, with the murder weapon.

And the Defense had to say he was at the crime scene or they had no shot. The prosecutor proved without a doubt Hernandez was at the scene and had a gun in his hand matching the murder weapon minutes before the murder. Their last ditch effort was to say he was high out of his mind and frightened and to blame the other guys. If this method confused even 1 juror he would have gotten off.

thedarkstark wrote:

kyrv wrote:After fighting tooth and nail for 8 weeks the defense said, oh now I remember. I WAS there!

This was the thing that really got me. No murder weapon, no proof, but the circumstantial evidence was SO OVERWHELMINGLY DEFINITIVE that his defense attorneys did a complete 180 in their closing statement and changed their story from "he doesn't know anything" to "well, he was there, he saw it, but he didn't pull the trigger."

Hernandez also did himself no favors by claiming "I wish the time of the murder was released because I was at a club when it happened"
....
If nobody knows what time he was murdered (including the police/investigators), THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE GOT MURDERED UNLESS YOU WERE IN ON IT!?!?

That is classic. Fair or not, the defense in cases like this needs to come up with some remotely plausible alternative. They had nothing.

Aaron Hernandez case was pieced together like an episode of SVU. People randomly remembering the color of the bubblegum he had

Speaking of obscene amounts of circumstantial evidence and obvious guilt.. this guy will be free and back on a golf course near you soon.

thedarkstark wrote:
Hernandez also did himself no favors when he killed that guy

fixed

johnnyvann840 wrote:Speaking of obscene amounts of circumstantial evidence and obvious guilt.. this guy will be free and back on a golf course near you soon.

Watch out real killers!

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

Trm3 wrote:#PatriotWay

#Keepitclassy
#Keepitintelligent
#Neitherthepatriotsorthesportoffootballcreatesorendorseskillers

Ray Lewis