Good lord. He must be one of the stupidest people not just alive, but quite possibly to have ever lived.
I’m surprised that we haven’t found any evidence in an abandoned amusement park, or that Hernandez has yet to utter the phrase, “I’d have gotten away with it, too - if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!”
Yeah, George W. sees himself moving up the list right now.
OTOH the sad part is how easily people he was able to lead a double life, telling the public how he had changed his life and was serious about his football career while still hanging around with criminals and acting like the typical gangsta who ends up just like this. And equally sad how easily people fell for it just because he could play football.
Maybe I am reading Lloyd’s text all wrong, but he sent his sister two texts around 3:25am
“NFL”
“Just so you know”
Reads to me like he was letting his sister know something might be going down and that Hernandez (NFL) was the cause.
My guess is also that it’s made up as part of the game.
But I’m really not sure. I mean, based on every other dumb thing he’s done, would this really be out of place?
Well, I can’t find a cite for the concrete on shoes, if that proves anything.
That’s how I’m reading it as well - but I don’t know why he didn’t just say it outright, unless he was texting suripticiously.
Yes, the concrete evidence was made up for the game. But it sounds so plausible…
If you want to play a game set up a new thread, please.
Thank you.
Rae Carruth is laughing his ass off in a cell somewhere…
For the record, my post was also made up. Aaron Hernandez was not tied to the Taman Shud case.
If by chance you have a #81 Hernandez jersey, the Patriots are allowing people to come to the team shop at Gillette next weekend and exchange it for a different jersey for free.
Yeah, Rae Carruth is looking like a veritable criminal genius by comparison right now.
Agreed. The whole exchange was:
Cite.
This looks like pretty damning evidence. And of course, while it’s not mentioned in the article, the police would be able to track the location of LLoyd’s phone at the time the text messages were sent.
I keep reading about how most (all?) of this evidence is circumstancial… and by definition it is, but it also seems pretty damning.
I know that proving guilt is sometimes quite different than what our logic tells us. I mean come on, Hernandez did it and we know it and so did O.J. BUT can they prove it?
I am not a lawyer, but would love some opinions on how strong the case is as of right now. If they do NOT find the gun, if they do NOT get some witness to testify, can he walk even with all this mounting (but circumstancial) evidence?
I asked a lawyer friend about this once.
What he said was that circumstantial evidence is still evidence. It’s doesn’t mean “fake” or “insufficient”. It just means it’s not direct evidence. And it can certainly be used to build a case.
For example, if a guy is seen stabbed at precisely 3:32pm (nobody sees the stabber) but a witness 200 feet down the road has on video a guy running down the street at 3:33pm with a bloody knife - that’s circumstantial evidence. It also happens to be strong enough that it’s reasonable for a jury to convict, even if the knife is never recovered.
We’ve just been trained by years of TV and movies to associate “circumstantial evidence” with insufficient evidence. Who figured TV trials aren’t accurate?
Agreed. I think there’s also a tendency for people to assume “circumstantial” means something like “coincidental”.
It’s always better to have direct evidence, but there’s no rule that says a person cannot be convicted solely based on circumstantial evidence. In any unwitnessed murder case that’s likely to be all you have.
Circumstantial evidence is that from which a new fact may be drawn. For example, from “I saw Aaron covered in blood” a factfinder (juror, generally) could infer that Aaron handled the body. A second inference from that one brings us to the idea that Aaron killed the dude.
Direct evidence is that from which no inference is necessary to demonstrate some element of the matter. For example, no inference is required from “I saw Aaron shoot the dude”. That statement alone proves at least one element of the crime.
The inferences from circumstantial evidence can be so strong that direct evidence is really unnecessary. For example, a dent the shape of a person and paint traces on the victim are circumstantial evidence that a car was involved in a hit-and-run, but they’re pretty damn good. There are very few logical inferences from those facts that would not prove an element of a hit-and-run homicide.
In other cases, we might have a bunch of circumstantial facts which all share one likely inference (“I saw Aaron covered in blood”, “I saw Aaron holding a gun”, “I saw Aaron putting a body in a dumpster” and so on.)
It is usually hard to convict a murderer without the weapon because the most important inferential link is that the accused fired the shot that killed the victim. Certainly not impossible, though.
If the theory is that Hernandez had Lloyd killed because Lloyd knew about the other murders, I assume the prosecution will try pretty hard to get the other guys to plead guilty and testify against Hernandez. If that works, they would have that much more evidence. Of course if the facts check out and Hernandez could eventually get charged for his involvement in those other murders eventually.
I don’t doubt Ortiz and Wallace are singing like canaries already, trying to shift as much guilt off themselves and onto Hernandez as they can.
There’s nothing inadequate about circumstantial evidence, btw - plenty of people have been convicted on nothing but. The prosecution does *not *have to prove directly that there is no reasonable doubt that the accused did it; they can instead prove that there is no reasonable *possibility *that he didn’t. That’s the same logical result even if it’s more work to get there.
