Aaron Hernandez Murder Investigation (Merged)

**HoustonRaven** · 09-28-2013, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

the two witnesses are thugs that will be painted as not credible. video of him in the club doesn't mean he killed someone. I'm just saying all I've seen has been circumstancial and he has the best lawyers money can buy. unless they have hard evidence the defense could get him off IMO. We obviously won't know for months and maybe they'll find the weapon but right now they don't have it

Video of him coming and going from his home carrying the same caliber weapon as the one used on Lloyd.

Video of his car driving on to the lot where Lloyd was murdered and again leaving, with cell pings placing him and his friends there around the time of death.

Hernandez attempting to destroy his home security system and cell phone.

The rental car found with a bullet casing discovered in the back seat that matches similar bullet casing found near Lloyd's body.

Lloyd suspicions about Hernandez and his subsequent texts to his sister.

Circumstantial evidence is something only defense attorneys use as a pejorative. And it's something thousands of suspects are convicted upon every year. Rarely is the weapon found or is there an eye witness to a murder, though in this case there is and he still may talk.

90% of criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. Unless the prosecution is totally inept like in the Simpson case, he's going to be convicted.

**Bigfish** · 09-28-2013, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

the two witnesses are thugs that will be painted as not credible. video of him in the club doesn't mean he killed someone. I'm just saying all I've seen has been circumstancial and he has the best lawyers money can buy. unless they have hard evidence the defense could get him off IMO. We obviously won't know for months and maybe they'll find the weapon but right now they don't have it

The prosecution needs to prove guilt within a reasonable doubt. Considering other high profile trials over the years it's reasonable to have doubts that can be accomplished. The jury selection is often when these cases are won or lost.

**Ravenswintitle** · 09-28-2013, 08:00 PM

yeah I get that there is video with him holding a gun. that doesn't mean he killed this guy. if there is a shell casing they should be able to tell if it's from the bullet that killed the victim but I haven't seen anything that says it is.

All I'm saying is that this is a top notch defense team and if they can create doubt in one juror... you never know. No hard evidence might come back to bite the prosecution

**lowrider** · 09-28-2013, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

90% of criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. Unless the prosecution is totally inept like in the Simpson case, he's going to be convicted.

And a majority of acquittals are based on a lack of hard evidence. Remember George Zimmerman? Even in the Simpson case all they had was a "bloody glove", which proved not to fit. I am pretty sure that Hernandez is guilty, and I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to co convict him, but it is never a sure thing.

**HoustonRaven** · 09-28-2013, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by lowrider

And a majority of acquittals are based on a lack of hard evidence. Remember George Zimmerman? Even in the Simpson case all they had was a "bloody glove", which proved not to fit. I am pretty sure that Hernandez is guilty, and I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to co convict him, but it is never a sure thing.

And I'm not arguing this is a sure thing either.

But to say there's "no evidence" is a bit of a stretch.

**lowrider** · 09-28-2013, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

And I'm not arguing this is a sure thing either.

But to say there's "no evidence" is a bit of a stretch.

I didn't say there was no evidence. There is plenty, but with no eye witnesses and no DNA evidence, it makes the case more difficult for the prosecution. Without hard evidence the defense has an advantage. All they have to do is plant a seed of doubt in the jurors minds.

**HoustonRaven** · 09-28-2013, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by lowrider

I didn't say there was no evidence

Never claimed you did. My thoughts were in response to Ravenswintitle, who said there's "no evidence" in the case.

Originally Posted by lowrider

IThere is plenty, but with no eye witnesses and no DNA evidence, it makes the case more difficult for the prosecution. Without hard evidence the defense has an advantage. All they have to do is plant a seed of doubt in the jurors minds.

Prosecutors call this the CSI effect. No, the defense does not have the advantage in this case. And no, a seed of doubt is not all that's needed and the jury will instructed on such.

**Ravenswintitle** · 09-28-2013, 10:33 PM

his defense team will take the circumstantial evidence and present some scenario that has him having nothing to do with the murder.
It's just a matter of how convincing they are too the jurors

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

**CincyCat** · 09-28-2013, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

his defense team will take the circumstantial evidence and present some scenario that has him having nothing to do with the murder.
It's just a matter of how convincing they are too the jurors

He did it.

**lowrider** · 09-29-2013, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Never claimed you did. My thoughts were in response to Ravenswintitle, who said there's "no evidence" in the case.

Prosecutors call this the CSI effect. No, the defense does not have the advantage in this case. And no, a seed of doubt is not all that's needed and the jury will instructed on such.

I agree that the defense does not have an advantage. However, without hard evidence the prosecution must meet the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". If the defense can produce reasonable doubt then there is always that chance of acquittal. Having said that, this should be a slam dunk case for the prosecution. Unless they somehow bungle it.

**The Excellector** · 09-29-2013, 08:41 AM

If only they held this in the tree court.

**lobachevsky** · 09-29-2013, 09:44 AM

Getting back to the latest developments in the case itself--

Originally Posted by RavenMadness

Hernandez's fiancee indicted on perjury charge - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/235...Rzrd0U.twitter

NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH, Mass. (MyFoxBoston.com) -- Aaron Hernandez's fiancee was indicted on a single charge of perjury Friday in connection to the murder investigation surrounding the ex-New England Patriot.

In August, the Hartford Courant reported investigators searched a storage unit in Bristol, Conn. rented to 24-year-old Shayanna Jenkins because they believed she made "overt attempts to hide evidence" as well as to "hinder and mislead" the murder investigation. The newspaper reports surveillance video, text messages between Jenkins and her sister, as well as an interview with her sister, are all referenced in the documents as officials suggest Jenkins may have information regarding what happened to the handgun used in the shooting.

Sounds like a fairly heavy-handed move to squeeze her into testifying ("tell us where the gun ended up & we'll drop the perjury charge"). Not sure if this suggests a lack of confidence in the current state of their case or a "belt & suspenders" approach. Probably both IMO. What say our (barely-)legal beagles?