Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Read on Twitter: Overall record on murder trials BUFF 1-0 NWE. 0-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Read on Twitter: Overall record on murder trials BUFF 1-0 NWE. 0-1 :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 LOL CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Read on Twitter: Overall record on murder trials BUFF 1-0 NWE. 0-1 omg this made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaccof Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Any chance we see AH, while on work release, manning a snow plow at Gillette Stadium some time in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Any chance we see AH, while on work release, manning a snow plow at Gillette Stadium some time in the future? They may never let him out his cell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Any chance we see AH, while on work release, manning a snow plow at Gillette Stadium some time in the future? Lol!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 His defense may have screwed up royally. Although you never know. The jurors all said that they were shocked in the closing arguments of the defense when AH's (which stands for ****) attorney said that he was at the murder scene and witnessed the murder. There had never been any testimony to that. It's actually more shocking that they were shocked by it, but they held a joint press conference all seemed to agree. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/15/jurors-were-shocked-by-concession-that-hernandez-was-at-scene-of-murder/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills Fan in MD Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) The more I read and think about it, it's crazy that the defense admitted that he was present for the crime. To believe that he was there, but didn't participate in any way defies common sense. AH was the star athlete with millions of dollars. Everything I've seen indicates that he was the leader among his group of friends, the "alpha dog" or whatever you want to call it. He gave the instructions, paid for everything, and directed where they went and when. For him to claim that he was just an innocent bystander (who subsequently took everyone back to his house and then smashed his own security tapes and cell phone) is just plan crazy. Edited April 15, 2015 by Bills Fan in MD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) The more I read and think about it, it's crazy that the defense admitted that he was present for the crime. To believe that he was there, but didn't participate in any way defies common sense. AH was the star athlete with millions of dollars. Everything I've seen indicates that he was the leader among his group of friends, the "alpha dog" or whatever you want to call it. He gave the instructions, paid for everything, and directed where they went and when. For him to claim that he was just an innocent bystander (who subsequently took everyone back to his house and then smashed his own security tapes and cell phone) is just plan crazy. I strongly disagree. Read my earlier post in the thread. Short of a plea to murder 2 (which carries the possibility of parole), this was the best chance the defense had. There was no way around the fact that the evidence put him at the scene, and the defense had to come up with an explanation for how he could be there and not be responsible for what happened. The proof on this point will be in the pudding that will be the appeal. I'm not licensed in Massachusetts, but I would be very surprised if appellate counsel doesn't contend that trial counsel was ineffective in admitting Hernandez's presence at the scene on summation. In layman's terms, to say that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel means that defense counsel was so bad it was like having no attorney at all. That contention won't fly here because there is a strategic explanation for counsel's argument (the explanation I gave earlier in the thread). On balance, from what I understand the evidentiary rulings were favorable to Hernandez and there was no funny business at trial, so my guess is the best shot Hernandez has will be to argue that there isn't enough evidence to convict him of murder 1, and that his conviction should be reduced to murder 2. I wouldn't hold my breath. EDIT: I just read Florio's post on PFT on the topic. I think he's a smart guy, but I don't agree with at least a few things he's had to say about the trial. From what I understand, Hernandez's DNA was on a blunt found at the scene, tire tracks identified at the scene match the tread on the tires of the vehicle Hernandez drove on the night of the murder, and a shoe print found at the scene matches a sneaker photographed in Hernandez's closet during the execution of a search warrant prior to Hernandez's arrest. All due respect to Florio, but if I have all of that right, Hernandez was at the scene. I think it would have been fair comment for the prosecution to say as much, and I think the nitpicking here is simply misguided. Edited April 15, 2015 by BuffaloPowerEye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I strongly disagree. Read my earlier post in the thread. Short of a plea to murder 2 (which carries the possibility of parole), this was the best chance the defense had. There was no way around the fact that the evidence put him at the scene, and the defense had to come up with an explanation for how he could be there and not be responsible for what happened. The proof on this point will be in the pudding that will be the appeal. I'm not licensed in Massachusetts, but I would be very surprised if appellate counsel doesn't contend that trial counsel was ineffective in admitting Hernandez's presence at the scene on summation. In layman's terms, to say that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel means that defense counsel was so bad it was like having no attorney at all. That contention won't fly here because there is a strategic explanation for counsel's argument (the explanation I gave earlier in the thread). On balance, from what I understand the evidentiary rulings were favorable to Hernandez and there was no funny business at trial, so my guess is the best shot Hernandez has will be to argue that there isn't enough evidence to convict him of murder 1, and that his conviction should be reduced to murder 2. I wouldn't hold my breath. EDIT: I just read Florio's post on PFT on the topic. I think he's a smart guy, but I don't agree with at least a few things he's had to say about the trial. From what I understand, Hernandez's DNA was on a blunt found at the scene, tire tracks identified at the scene match the tread on the tires of the vehicle Hernandez drove on the night of the murder, and a shoe print found at the scene matches a sneaker photographed in Hernandez's closet during the execution of a search warrant prior to Hernandez's arrest. All due respect to Florio, but if I have all of that right, Hernandez was at the scene. I think it would have been fair comment for the prosecution to say as much, and I think the nitpicking here is simply misguided. How does all of that you say reconcile with the entire jury agreeing that they were "shocked" in final arguments to hear that Hernandez was at the scene? I don't believe they meant that they were shocked to hear the lawyer say it, I think they meant that they were shocked to learn for sure that he was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) How does all of that you say reconcile with the entire jury agreeing that they were "shocked" in final arguments to hear that Hernandez was at the scene? I don't believe they meant that they were shocked to hear the lawyer say it, I think they meant that they were shocked to learn for sure that he was I didn't see the comments of the jurors, but I think the words "for sure" might be key in your post. If I'm trying that case, and if my understanding of the evidence is correct, he was at the scene. Granted, the evidence placing him there is arguably circumstantial, but I think the defense had to acknowledge that he was there to try and salvage some credibility with the jury. The fact that, in hindsight, the jury was "shocked" by this "revelation" is just "one of those things." Acknowledging Hernandez's presence was the best play they had, and the fact that it didn't work is just life (pun intended). Indeed, sometimes jurors aren't all that smart. Think of one of the male jurors who was interviewed after the Corasanti criminal trial. To paraphrase, this guy went on TV and said that Corasanti was "reckless" in striking the victim with his automobile, but just not "reckless enough." Here's the deal. Recklessness in that context was a black or white thing. The actions either were reckless, or they were not. There was no question of degree there, and perhaps because that guy and a few others on the jury were a little slow on that point Corasanti was spared a state prison sentence. It's possible that there could have been some dullards on this jury who didn't pick up on the facts I noted above (assuming I have the facts right). I'll also pose a question. What was the better play here for the defense? Maybe to stand silent, argue that the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove murder 1, and hope for murder 2 and the possibility of parole? The case was about as strong a circumstantial case as you can have---like I said before, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. So I have no idea what the play is other than to admit he was there, which I think to any reasonable observer was a safe thing, and then argue that the prosecution couldn't prove that Hernandez either pulled the trigger or shared an intent to kill with the guy who pulled the trigger. Finally, about the appellate issues, to the extent an ineffective assistance of counsel contention hinges on the admission of Hernandez's presence at the scene of the murder, there is absolutely, positively, 100%, bet my house, no way Hernandez prevails on that question. Counsel is not ineffective (it is a double negative) when there is a strategic explanation for the alleged error. Here there obviously is. So Hernandez loses. In this state the jurors' comments with respect to surprise almost certainly wouldn't make a record on direct appeal---counsel could maybe sneak it in through a post trial motion---, but in any event the appellate court wouldn't consider it in evaluating an ineffective assistance contention. (There might be other ways to bring up the comments in NYS, and I'm not sure if Mass has similar mechanisms. But even if those comments get before a court, Hernandez will lose on this point because of the strategy reason.) Edited April 15, 2015 by BuffaloPowerEye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) You can be totally reasonable and believe that there is no way that anyone should be convicted of "first degree" murder - and end up with life in prison with no chance of parole - with no witness or weapon. Knowing nothing about the courts and nothing about the case. That is a totally reasonable fundamental stance under any circumstance. This is just silly on it's face. There should be few adults in this country who truly are not familiar with the possibility a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. I'm completely certain a guy like Spikes is not one of those people. Also, you cannot disconnect circumstantial evidence (which is overwhelming in this case) from the concept of guilt by the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. As for the jury--they were shocked that the defense conceded he was at the murder scene in closing. Obviously they already concluded he was there. Edited April 16, 2015 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Read on Twitter: Overall record on murder trials BUFF 1-0 NWE. 0-1 another offseason Win ! is it true that he will be confined within a mile of Gillette stadium ? How ironic that might be? Think the guards might let him into the playground when the home game is on. Just for the rub? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 another offseason Win !is it true that he will be confined within a mile of Gillette stadium ? How ironic that might be? Think the guards might let him into the playground when the home game is on. Just for the rub? He will do intake at a max facility very close to Gillette. Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous, is it not? This is just silly on it's face. There should be few adults in this country who truly are not familiar with the possibility a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. I'm completely certain a guy like Spikes is not one of those people. Also, you cannot disconnect circumstantial evidence (which is overwhelming in this case) from the concept of guilt by the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. As for the jury--they were shocked that the defense conceded he was at the murder scene in closing. Obviously they already concluded he was there. You must have read Florio. In something he posted this morning he mentioned the preponderance of the evidence standard in connection with this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 He will do intake at a max facility very close to Gillette. Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous, is it not? You must have read Florio. In something he posted this morning he mentioned the preponderance of the evidence standard in connection with this case. you get my post i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 This is just silly on it's face. There should be few adults in this country who truly are not familiar with the possibility a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. I'm completely certain a guy like Spikes is not one of those people. Also, you cannot disconnect circumstantial evidence (which is overwhelming in this case) from the concept of guilt by the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. As for the jury--they were shocked that the defense conceded he was at the murder scene in closing. Obviously they already concluded he was there. It sounds to me like they didn't know, and when he conceded it, that is the first time. That played a factor in their verdict. Otherwise they didn't know if he was there or not. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/15/relieved-aaron-hernandez-trial-jurors-said-they-were-shocked-defense-admission-was-murder-scene/yNepbRcXeyHpPjrzmCsKjK/story.html?hootPostID=e9c5059ca1ae98b32951809ca2e8ae1a As to the first thing you said, I answered that above. But will repeat it here... This discussion of a specific case evolved into a theory discussion. As a blanket statement that no one should ever be convicted of first degree murder without a witness or weapon is, of course, pretty unreasonable. That's not what I meant though. I was talking about a fundamental theory of it, especially as it applies to this case and cases like it. It's not unreasonable IMO whatsoever to believe in theory, that if you know three guys were there and one of them very likely did it but there is no proof, that you shouldnt be convicted of first degree murder. A lot of people here and everywhere thought he was going to get off completely because of that. That is what I was talking about when I suggested that Spikes may just simply believe that there is no way he should get life in prison with no parole with no witness and no weapon when they knew three guys were there and it could have been any of them. That's not my belief. I think it's very reasonable to believe a guy should get what Hernandez did. I was playing devil's advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 He will do intake at a max facility very close to Gillette. Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous, is it not? You must have read Florio. In something he posted this morning he mentioned the preponderance of the evidence standard in connection with this case. Haven't seen it. As you said, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. The jury easily made the obvious conclusion. It sounds to me like they didn't know, and when he conceded it, that is the first time. That played a factor in their verdict. Otherwise they didn't know if he was there or not. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/15/relieved-aaron-hernandez-trial-jurors-said-they-were-shocked-defense-admission-was-murder-scene/yNepbRcXeyHpPjrzmCsKjK/story.html?hootPostID=e9c5059ca1ae98b32951809ca2e8ae1a As to the first thing you said, I answered that above. But will repeat it here... This discussion of a specific case evolved into a theory discussion. As a blanket statement that no one should ever be convicted of first degree murder without a witness or weapon is, of course, pretty unreasonable. That's not what I meant though. I was talking about a fundamental theory of it, especially as it applies to this case and cases like it. It's not unreasonable IMO whatsoever to believe in theory, that if you know three guys were there and one of them very likely did it but there is no proof, that you shouldnt be convicted of first degree murder. A lot of people here and everywhere thought he was going to get off completely because of that. That is what I was talking about when I suggested that Spikes may just simply believe that there is no way he should get life in prison with no parole with no witness and no weapon when they knew three guys were there and it could have been any of them. That's not my belief. I think it's very reasonable to believe a guy should get what Hernandez did. I was playing devil's advocate. You can't concede that a "blanket statement" (without a weapon or weapon) would be unreasonable and then say it's reasonable for Spikes to believe there is "no way" he can get convicted without a witness or a weapon. And the jury would have found guilt based on the evidence he was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Several lives wasted and lost for no good reason. Sad.... with his money and fame he could have changed 100 lives. He did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I'm glad you changed that. I read the first version and reasonably thought that what you were saying was completely unreasonable. Read through it too fast and didn't read the name...assumed he was talking about Hernandez. His defense may have screwed up royally. Although you never know. The jurors all said that they were shocked in the closing arguments of the defense when AH's (which stands for ****) attorney said that he was at the murder scene and witnessed the murder. There had never been any testimony to that. It's actually more shocking that they were shocked by it, but they held a joint press conference all seemed to agree. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/15/jurors-were-shocked-by-concession-that-hernandez-was-at-scene-of-murder/ I just a dumb civilian, is it possible that the defense did this to give AH a reason for appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts