MA - Aaron Hernandez, N E Patriots player, charged with homicides, commits suicide #7

Status
Not open for further replies.

turaj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5,715
to make one even sicker....The Baez Law office website is now touting him as the new "Johnny Cochran" what a role model!!
 

turaj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5,715
From the Boston Herald..."The deliberating jury returned to the ninth-floor courtroom briefly after the verdicts were read, and foreperson Lindsey Stringer read a statement as the others stood somberly around her."

I noted that too....zero interaction amongst the jurors and faces that looked so sad and somber...I think that reflects what happened in that jury room and they acquitted based on "the law" and I get how the cw fell down in their case and so now at best based on both cases either AH or AB killed those men and neither of them will be held accountable for the crime. No matter how you look at this justice was not done here. I imagine that immunity deal with AB will haunt the cw. They could not even get a hung jury which for them based on this case would have been a victory.
 

siriunsun

Former Member
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
349
Reaction score
10
Website
siriunsun.blogspot.com
Funny coincidence that people keep dying violent deaths around Mr. Hernandez and he seems to have real issues with controlling his temper.

Boy it's a stretch to think that a convicted killer could possibly be involved in another murder.



Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?
 

turaj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5,715
Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?

it seems cw saw their only chance with AB which was a BIG MISTAKE.
 

turaj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5,715
also just thought about that comparison he is now using to promote himself as the new Johnny Cochran...do you recall him making a big deal out of Ab being Rocky and then he did that terrible movement saying "ride um Rocky" or something similar and I know I sort of cringed...well guess jury did not throw it out...I guess we have to remember they probably know very little if anything about Baez whereas we have been watching him for years...he got to them. That was sort of his "if the glove does not fit you must acquit".
 

Niner

Long time Websleuther
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
63,802
Reaction score
192,971
to make one even sicker....The Baez Law office website is now touting him as the new "Johnny Cochran" what a role model!!

Oh give me a fricking break.... really? No way, I say! :gaah:

Still in :shocked2:

And you are most welcome KaraKitty! :wave:
 

zoey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
17,162
Reaction score
160
to make one even sicker....The Baez Law office website is now touting him as the new "Johnny Cochran" what a role model!!

not surprised---thought they were doing that already......
 

Rocco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,096
Reaction score
10,377
Thanks for the article, BUF.
It seems with this win, Baez may have to take on clients with lots of dough. No need to take on cases per gratis/pro bono. That may take AH out of the equation for future appeal unless "supporters" come forward!

I wonder who these 'supporters' might be?
 

GoJacks

Unknown Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
15,940
Thanks for the article, BUF.
It seems with this win, Baez may have to take on clients with lots of dough. No need to take on cases per gratis/pro bono. That may take AH out of the equation for future appeal unless "supporters" come forward!

If anyone is interested here's Baez's next client.

James Woo...killed his ''girlfriend'' and hid her in a storage locker before trying to flee the country.

http://www.krdo.com/news/crime/el-p...ing-colorado-springs-murder-suspect/450999151
 

jkly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
610
Reaction score
621
Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?


If all the circumstantial evidence points in one direction and one direction only, the prosecutors proved their case. Circumstantial evidence is by law supposed to be given the same weight as direct evidence and that is usually stated in jury instructions.
 

ATasteOfHoney

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,882
Reaction score
97
Legally, it IS a stretch. It is also very important for prosecutors to PROVE their cases, even if all the circumstantial evidence points one direction, and one direction only. Lets not give Project Innocence any more business than they already have. How difficult would it have been for the prosecutor to work a little harder and truly establish guilt?

Just thinking out loud & pondering: **do juries expect to see DNA evidence, surveillance footage of the crime being committed, and a corroborating ey e witness** to render a guilty verdict?
I understand their instructions about circumstantial evidence but that might not be enough in the applicable sense?
Without prosecutors presenting all 3 elements in my above **parameters, does it leave a big opening for "reasonable doubt"?
 

siriunsun

Former Member
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
349
Reaction score
10
Website
siriunsun.blogspot.com
also just thought about that comparison he is now using to promote himself as the new Johnny Cochran...do you recall him making a big deal out of Ab being Rocky and then he did that terrible movement saying "ride um Rocky" or something similar and I know I sort of cringed...well guess jury did not throw it out...I guess we have to remember they probably know very little if anything about Baez whereas we have been watching him for years...he got to them. That was sort of his "if the glove does not fit you must acquit".


He's a defense attorney representing his client, and if it looks like he has found a way to do convince a jury of his client's innocence, that is what he is required to do. It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt.
 

siriunsun

Former Member
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
349
Reaction score
10
Website
siriunsun.blogspot.com
Just thinking out loud & pondering: **do juries expect to see DNA evidence, surveillance footage of the crime being committed, and a corroborating ey e witness** to render a guilty verdict?
I understand their instructions about circumstantial evidence but that might not be enough in the applicable sense?
Without prosecutors presenting all 3 elements in my above **parameters, does it leave a big opening for "reasonable doubt"?


A jury expects to see a defendant absolutely connected to a crime. Eye witnesses have been wrong on many occasions, and we have even imposed the death penalty on defendants who were later found to be not guilty. All of those types of evidence you mentioned are very compelling, and if they exist, the jury DOES expect to see them. I would never vote to convict a defendant without the prosecution's explanation of EVERYTHING. If the prosecution did not have an explanation for something, or expected me to convict if it appeared that exculpatory evidence was not discussed at trial, I would not convict.
 

jkly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
610
Reaction score
621
He's a defense attorney representing his client, and if it looks like he has found a way to do convince a jury of his client's innocence, that is what he is required to do. It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt.

That doesn't mean he isn't a narcissistic, ambulance chasing, murderer seeking *******.

The issue I have with this line of thinking is that two people are dead and the prosecution, however shoddy, sure didn't kill them. The victims get lost in an avalanche of BS, which is absolutely unfair to them.

In this case, IMO, there was more than enough evidence.

I'm not saying the prosecution doesn't bear some of the blame, but IMO, that doesn't absolve the jury or the defense. Especially the jury, who it seems, just couldn't take the defense's version with a grain of salt.
 

Crazyjster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
301
Reaction score
604
Hi Bordem, long time!!

Maybe Baez can arrange a meeting with Casey and Aaron...2 murderers he managed to acquit. :(
I have some "nasty thoughts" about that one...,lol...Baez, a video camera, and one "killer" prison date :eek:
 

jkly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
610
Reaction score
621
A jury expects to see a defendant absolutely connected to a crime. Eye witnesses have been wrong on many occasions, and we have even imposed the death penalty on defendants who were later found to be not guilty. All of those types of evidence you mentioned are very compelling, and if they exist, the jury DOES expect to see them. I would never vote to convict a defendant without the prosecution's explanation of EVERYTHING. If the prosecution did not have an explanation for something, or expected me to convict if it appeared that exculpatory evidence was not discussed at trial, I would not convict.

No one can answer every single question except for the murderer and they usually don't. They also don't like to videotape their crimes or commit them in front of eyewitnesses if they can help it.

Oh and they have a tendency to lie, point the finger at other people (especially eyewitnesses) and bring up, (or just make up) really nasty stories about the people they are trying to blame. They also like to make excuses for themselves.

Some juries appear to throw common sense to the wind (even though they are instructed that they can use it) and mistake this as reasonable doubt, because, well, there's maybe a chance it could have happened.

They're also confused because, by golly, the defense and the prosecution were inconsiderate enough to present them with two different scenarios and they don't feel that it's their job to connect the dots.

Some of these defendants, when they go free, go on to "impose death" on more innocent victims.

Then these new murder victims don't get a trial beforehand, but guess who does?
 

Niner

Long time Websleuther
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
63,802
Reaction score
192,971
If Baez is defending this guy in Colorado Springs, don't lawyers need a law degree from the State of Colorado? I thought you need a law degree in each state that you practice law?

No? :dunno:

TIA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top