Patriots' Hernandez arrested in homicide investigation

[DanInUticaTampa]

Again, I want to emphasize that I am speculating. What is very telling is that he quickly brought in a cleaning crew. If the killing didn't happen in the house then why rush in a cleaning crew?

 

Although I agree that the cleaning crew is a huge red flag, and it cries "i am guilty," there is a lot of things that it could be. He could have been trying to clean up something else that was illegal he didn't want the cops to find, something that had nothing to do with the murder like drugs or something else. Though that sounds far fetched and cleaning up a murder scene makes more sense, there are a lot of oddball arguments that can be made about the cleaning crew. But with everything that has happened with the cleaning crew and all the searches, my money is that the murder happened in that house somewhere.

[Chandler#81]

 

 

Why would the execute him in his car or house and then bring him to a secluded area? Why not bring him there first and then shoot him?

 

 

Maybe he is simply a volatile dummy? Thugs don't always act in a well reasoned way when they are killing someone.

 

And he HAS a history of being a volatile dummy -which brings in BuffaloBob's and No Saint's discussion. Wouldn't this be a Prosecution 'must have' to build a circumstantial case, should the need arise?

[JohnC]

not even a "did you previously make this statement under oath?"

 

and i am talking all florida incident in february, nothing to do with the murder. if the guy goes under oath and claims that AH shot him, wouldnt a florida prosecutor have some heavy pressure to pursue that, if its at all credible?

 

I apologize. I thought you were referring to the Florida case impacting the New England case.

 

Theoretically the prosecution could wait for the civil case to play out and then review the evidence. Or theoretically the prosecution could review the case and get involved. But why would they? The alleged victim didn't file a criminal complaint and still hasn't. This is a case that the prosecution's office wouldn't waste precious resources and have an overworked staff get involved in.

Edited June 25, 2013 by JohnC

[NoSaint]

 

 

I apologize. I thought you were referring to the Florida case impacting the New England case.

 

Theoretically the prosecution could wait for the civil case to play out and then review the evidence. Or theoretically the prosecution could review the case and get involved. But why would they? The alleged victim didn't file a criminal complaint and still hasn't. This is a case that the prosecution's office wouldn't waste precious resources and have an overworked staff to get involved in.

 

Again, assuming its at all credible, the pressure of CNN coverage on the testimony of a man saying "aaron hernandez shot me in the face" puts the DA in a tough spot.

 

even without a complaint from the victim, their job is to prosecute criminals and id think a guy shooting someone in the face is not something theyd chalk up as "meh, the civil case took care of that" unless it was really spotty evidence.

[DC Tom]

even without a complaint from the victim, their job is to prosecute criminals and id think a guy shooting someone in the face is not something theyd chalk up as "meh, the civil case took care of that" unless it was really spotty evidence.

 

Maybe. Simple assault, you need a complainant. Aggravated assault...I'd imagine you don't (I have a very hard time with the idea of "He shot you in the liver, do you want to press charges? No? Okay..."), but I don't know Florida law. I'd also assume that, even if you need someone to press charges and they don't, there's other statutes you can arrest them under.

[JohnC]

And he HAS a history of being a volatile dummy -which brings in BuffaloBob's and No Saint's discussion. Wouldn't this be a Prosecution 'must have' to build a circumstantial case, should the need arise?

 

I'm not sure if you are referring to his history of losing his temper as the "must have" in this case. It certainly is a factor in describing what type of person he is and if he is capable of such a brutal deed. As it stands we don't know exactly what evidence the authorties have. If it is blood stains that come from the victim then that is powerful evidence against AH. There is a time-line where AH and his crew were with the victim. That certainly isn't working in their favor. Destroying the cell phone and security system don't work in the suspects favor.

 

In a case where three or four reprobates are involved in a "savage incident" odds are that loyalty to one's self takes a priority over one's loyalty to the clan. Out of one's own preservation fingers will be pointing and mouths will be yapping.

 

By no means is this a perfect case but it appears to be a very strong case.

 

Again, assuming its at all credible, the pressure of CNN coverage on the testimony of a man saying "aaron hernandez shot me in the face" puts the DA in a tough spot.

 

even without a complaint from the victim, their job is to prosecute criminals and id think a guy shooting someone in the face is not something theyd chalk up as "meh, the civil case took care of that" unless it was really spotty evidence.

 

I'll hold to my opinion that they wouldn't get too belatedly involved in this murky incident involving a questionable character who hasn't even made a criminal complaint. That's not to say that they wouldn't open an investigation. But I don't think they would put too much effort into it. I'm not saying that I know for sure. Just an opinion.

Edited June 25, 2013 by JohnC

[BuffaloBob]

i understand you need the witness, but the prosecutor could call him as a witness and in turn question him about his previous sworn statements - could he not?

First off, what crime are you going to charge Hernandez with? Attempted murder? Criminal negligence? Where is the gun? Where is the physical evidence that the shot was fired by Hernandez? Where's the car that he was driving with the bullet hole or the gun shot residue?

 

You could certainly compel the vic to appear, but you would have no control over what he said. He could simply decline to answer, based on the 5th amendment. He could say it was negligence but not intentional. Moreover, the defense could then cross-examine him about his failure to report or cooperate with authorities, the lack of physical evidence and his sudden need to sue for money but not press charges to attack his credibility. Not to mention he's a convicted drug dealer himself.

 

There is no way any competent DA is going to bring a case he or she can't win. You have to convict Hernandez of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. What physical evidence that could have connected Hernandez to a crime is long gone. It's the vic's word against Hernandez. That just ain't gonna get you a conviction in a criminal trial, especially when the credibility of the vic is going to be so suspect.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BuffaloBob

[BuffaloBob]

And he HAS a history of being a volatile dummy -which brings in BuffaloBob's and No Saint's discussion. Wouldn't this be a Prosecution 'must have' to build a circumstantial case, should the need arise?

You have to PROVE a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an extremely high burden of proof. Even in a circumstantial case, you have to have SOME physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime. It's not enough to say, we can prove the defendant was with the vic that night, the vic was shot, the vic claims it was the defendant, even though he filed no report, wouldn't tell the police who shot him or any of the details, I rest my case! Any physical evidence linking Hernandez to this shooting is long gone, or certainly corrupted through improper handling. No DA in his/her right mind brings this case without physical evidence tying Hernandez to the crime. It's Crim Law 101! Edited June 25, 2013 by BuffaloBob

[SRQ_BillsFan]

 

 

As BuffaloBob noted the civil case has no bearing in the current criminal case. The judge would not permit anything associated with that civil case to be introduced in this New England case when/if it gets to trial. These cases are two distinct entities that will never be allowed to mingle.

 

Could they hold him on contempt charges if they have sworn testimony from the civil trial and he refuses to cooperate?

 

Never mind. After reading the last few posts, doesn't matter.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2013 by SRQ_BillsFan

[NoSaint]

 

First off, what crime are you going to charge Hernandez with? Attempted murder? Criminal negligence? Where is the gun? Where is the physical evidence that the shot was fired by Hernandez? Where's the car that he was driving with the bullet hole or the gun shot residue?

 

You could certainly compel the vic to appear, but you would have no control over what he said. He could simply decline to answer, based on the 5th amendment. He could say it was negligence but not intentional. Moreover, the defense could then cross-examine him about his failure to report or cooperate with authorities, the lack of physical evidence and his sudden need to sue for money but not press charges to attack his credibility. Not to mention he's a convicted drug dealer himself.

 

There is no way any competent DA is going to bring a case he or she can't win. You have to convict Hernandez of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. What physical evidence that could have connected Hernandez to a crime is long gone. It's the vic's word against Hernandez. That just ain't gonna get you a conviction in a criminal trial, especially when the credibility of the vic is going to be so suspect.

 

well, we have no idea what exists and ive been a strong voice of "likely a lot of it is gone after 4 months" but my discussion was that if it was actually a compelling case - the type of which would win him money, it would be hard for the DA to just totally ignore it even if the victim doesnt come out and press charges.

 

 

 

Maybe. Simple assault, you need a complainant. Aggravated assault...I'd imagine you don't (I have a very hard time with the idea of "He shot you in the liver, do you want to press charges? No? Okay..."), but I don't know Florida law. I'd also assume that, even if you need someone to press charges and they don't, there's other statutes you can arrest them under.

 

thats essentially the point i was making. again, assuming he has real evidence and isnt just a nut - i dont know the specifics of the jurisdiction and could be off base, but i dont think the state lets you say "yea he shot me in the face but im cool not pressing charges - its all good."

 

coupled with the presence of a civil case, where hes on record with a narrative and has produced evidence of it... it would be a lot harder for the victim to not cooperate. in the original incident they had no idea where to even start proceedings without his help, but now he will be giving them information even if hes not handing it directly to the DA

Edited June 25, 2013 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

And he HAS a history of being a volatile dummy -which brings in BuffaloBob's and No Saint's discussion. Wouldn't this be a Prosecution 'must have' to build a circumstantial case, should the need arise?

I apologize. I thought you were referring to the Florida case impacting the New England case.

 

Theoretically the prosecution could wait for the civil case to play out and then review the evidence. Or theoretically the prosecution could review the case and get involved. But why would they? The alleged victim didn't file a criminal complaint and still hasn't. This is a case that the prosecution's office wouldn't waste precious resources and have an overworked staff get involved in.

Again, assuming its at all credible, the pressure of CNN coverage on the testimony of a man saying "aaron hernandez shot me in the face" puts the DA in a tough spot.

 

even without a complaint from the victim, their job is to prosecute criminals and id think a guy shooting someone in the face is not something theyd chalk up as "meh, the civil case took care of that" unless it was really spotty evidence.

Maybe. Simple assault, you need a complainant. Aggravated assault...I'd imagine you don't (I have a very hard time with the idea of "He shot you in the liver, do you want to press charges? No? Okay..."), but I don't know Florida law. I'd also assume that, even if you need someone to press charges and they don't, there's other statutes you can arrest them under.

First off, what crime are you going to charge Hernandez with? Attempted murder? Criminal negligence? Where is the gun? Where is the physical evidence that the shot was fired by Hernandez? Where's the car that he was driving with the bullet hole or the gun shot residue?

 

You could certainly compel the vic to appear, but you would have no control over what he said. He could simply decline to answer, based on the 5th amendment. He could say it was negligence but not intentional. Moreover, the defense could then cross-examine him about his failure to report or cooperate with authorities, the lack of physical evidence and his sudden need to sue for money but not press charges to attack his credibility. Not to mention he's a convicted drug dealer himself.

 

There is no way any competent DA is going to bring a case he or she can't win. You have to convict Hernandez of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. What physical evidence that could have connected Hernandez to a crime is long gone. It's the vic's word against Hernandez. That just ain't gonna get you a conviction in a criminal trial, especially when the credibility of the vic is going to be so suspect.

 

Where was this "sworn statement" by the drug dealer made? Who did he swear it to? Certainly not the police--he is only on record saying he doesn't know who shot him. What crime will they charge him with if he refuses to make a statement to the cops ID'ing AH?

[BuffaloBob]

well, we have no idea what exists and ive been a strong voice of "likely a lot of it is gone after 4 months" but my discussion was that if it was actually a compelling case - the type of which would win him money, it would be hard for the DA to just totally ignore it even if the victim doesnt come out and press charges.

You think Hernandez still has that gun? You think the hospital still has the bullet or fragments? Even if the gun is around, you can't prove it was fired four months ago. Even if the hospital kept bullets fragments, which I assure they did not because that's not their thing, it would be inadmissible because of chain of custody issues.

 

Dude, please. It is NOT a compelling case. It's a loser. The civil case itself is a crap shoot. The vic is hoping he can knock down a settlement because without physical evidence the likelihood he gets a verdict in his favor in a civil trial is slim to none. The only reason he gets slim in the civil case is that the burden of proof is more likely than not (better than 50-50). Beyond a reasonable doubt is better than 99%.

 

The criminal case is dead. It ain't happening.

[NoSaint]

 

Where was this "sworn statement" by the drug dealer made? Who did he swear it to? Certainly not the police--he is only on record saying he doesn't know who shot him. What crime will they charge him with if he refuses to make a statement to the cops ID'ing AH?

 

the statement would be if he goes forward with a civil trial. one pretty much must assume hes going to testify in open court to the events of the evening, should it go to court.

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where was this "sworn statement" by the drug dealer made? Who did he swear it to? Certainly not the police--he is only on record saying he doesn't know who shot him. What crime will they charge him with if he refuses to make a statement to the cops ID'ing AH?

There might have been a sworn affidavit that accompanied the civil complaint, but not necessarily. In an civil trial, the vic would have to get on the stand to testify under oath but his credibility would be shredded by his past and his lack of cooperation the authorities when it happened. The lack of admissible physical evidence linking Hernandez to the shooting would seal the deal even in the civil case. Edited June 25, 2013 by BuffaloBob

[NoSaint]

 

You think Hernandez still has that gun? You think the hospital still has the bullet or fragments? Even if the gun is around, you can't prove it was fired four months ago. Even if the hospital kept bullets fragments, which I assure they did not because that's not their thing, it would be inadmissible because of chain of custody issues.

 

Dude, please. It is NOT a compelling case. It's a loser. The civil case itself is a crap shoot. The vic is hoping he can knock down a settlement because without physical evidence the likelihood he gets a verdict in his favor in a civil trial is slim to none. The only reason he gets slim in the civil case is that the burden of proof is more likely than not (better than 50-50). Beyond a reasonable doubt is better than 99%.

 

The criminal case is dead. It ain't happening.

 

as i said up thread, unless the hernandez side has done something incredibly stupid, or the victim has somehow managed to do something incredibly smart along the way, you are likely right. again, if you go back to the start, that is all i have said and it was simply in contrast to statements that LE would have no way to go after him without the victim cooperating. they could still proceed, and depending on the evidence produced may feel pressure to do so, even without the victim pressing charges.

 

it seems we agree that they could, but its unlikely that the guy has any real credibility at this point so its unlikely they will have a reason to.

 

i was discussing it as a legal hypothetical since we know so few facts, and you are discussing it as a factual certainty based on your (generally reasonable) assumptions is the primary difference at this point - not our opinions.

Edited June 25, 2013 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

You think Hernandez still has that gun? You think the hospital still has the bullet or fragments? Even if the gun is around, you can't prove it was fired four months ago. Even if the hospital kept bullets fragments, which I assure they did not because that's not their thing, it would be inadmissible because of chain of custody issues.

 

Dude, please. It is NOT a compelling case. It's a loser. The civil case itself is a crap shoot. The vic is hoping he can knock down a settlement because without physical evidence the likelihood he gets a verdict in his favor in a civil trial is slim to none. The only reason he gets slim in the civil case is that the burden of proof is more likely than not (better than 50-50). Beyond a reasonable doubt is better than 99%.

 

The criminal case is dead. It ain't happening.

 

A guy brought in to the ED shot in the arm/face would bring in the police. Unless the shooter was definitely known at that time, the bullet or fragments would be removed by the physician and given to the cops directly after surgery (with an attestation that that was the bullet they removed). That's how it usually is done.

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

as i said up thread, unless the hernandez side has done something incredibly stupid, or the victim has somehow managed to do something incredibly smart along the way, you are likely right. again, if you go back to the start, that is all i have said and it was simply in contrast to statements that LE would have no way to go after him without the victim cooperating. they could still proceed, and depending on the evidence produced may feel pressure to do so, even without the victim pressing charges.

 

it seems we agree that they could, but its unlikely that the guy has any real credibility at this point so its unlikely they will have a reason to.

Even if the vic kept the bullet fragments, it's inadmissible, so I'm not sure what he could have done that was so smart. After four months, there is going to be no ADMISSIBLE physical evidence linking Hernandez to a crime. There is ZERO chance that a DA would file a criminal case based on his civil suit at this point. He or she would be fired for being unbelievably incompetent and stupid. I do not agree with you that they could. Such a filing would likely require an indictment showing probable cause for arrest and to support the criminal charges. Any such attempt would be laughed out of a courtroom.

 

Yeah, sure it could happen. And monkeys could fly out of my butt!

 

 

 

A guy brought in to the ED shot in the arm/face would bring in the police. Unless the shooter was definitely known at that time, the bullet or fragments would be removed by the physician and given to the cops directly after surgery (with an attestation that that was the bullet they removed). That's how it usually is done.

You think the cops maintain evidence for a case with no investigation because the vic was uncooperative? He refused to cooperate before he even went to the hospital. They questioned him at the scene where he was found and he refused to cooperate with him. Even if they have bullet fragments, good luck finding that gun now. And if it was unregistered to Hernandez, even if they found it somewhere, how do you ascribe the shooting to him, let alone that it was in his possession at that time?

[NoSaint]

Even if the vic kept the bullet fragments, it's inadmissible, so I'm not sure what he could have done that was so smart. After four months, there is going to be no ADMISSIBLE physical evidence linking Hernandez to a crime. There is ZERO chance that a DA would file a criminal case based on his civil suit at this point. He or she would be fired for being unbelievably incompetent and stupid. I do not agree with you that they could. Such a filing would likely require an indictment showing probable cause for arrest and to support the criminal charges. Any such attempt would be laughed out of a courtroom.

 

Yeah, sure it could happen. And monkeys could fly out of my butt!

 

You think the cops maintain evidence for a case with no investigation because the vic was uncooperative? He refused to cooperate before he even went to the hospital. They questioned him at the scene where he was found and he refused to cooperate with him. Even if they have bullet fragments, good luck finding that gun now. And if it was unregistered to Hernandez, even if they found it somewhere, how do you ascribe the shooting to him, let alone that it was in his possession at that time?

 

 

unless somewhere along the way, theres some variety of documentation of communication between the victim and the AH camp for instance. while docs assertion that there was a signed statement from AH was way out in left field, it would be dumb but not unheard of for someone to think they could broker a back room deal and provide the victim an accidental admission.

 

like i said, barring the victim doing something really smart to document this, or AH doing something incredibly dumb - i dont think the civil case even has legs (even if the alleged events are true). if the victim has some sort of evidence that we arent expecting though, the state could have a case even without his cooperation.

 

so again - it sounds like we agree on our views of the case, and we agree on our views of the law, so we probably have no need to drag out a fight. ill leave it here.

[Mr. WEO]

Even if the vic kept the bullet fragments, it's inadmissible, so I'm not sure what he could have done that was so smart. After four months, there is going to be no ADMISSIBLE physical evidence linking Hernandez to a crime. There is ZERO chance that a DA would file a criminal case based on his civil suit at this point. He or she would be fired for being unbelievably incompetent and stupid. I do not agree with you that they could. Such a filing would likely require an indictment showing probable cause for arrest and to support the criminal charges. Any such attempt would be laughed out of a courtroom.

 

Yeah, sure it could happen. And monkeys could fly out of my butt!

 

You think the cops maintain evidence for a case with no investigation because the vic was uncooperative? He refused to cooperate before he even went to the hospital. They questioned him at the scene where he was found and he refused to cooperate with him. Even if they have bullet fragments, good luck finding that gun now. And if it was unregistered to Hernandez, even if they found it somewhere, how do you ascribe the shooting to him, let alone that it was in his possession at that time?

 

I don't think the civil case has any chance. The lawyer smells a settlement and a few minutes in the limelight....so, forward goes the case.

 

I was just correcting your assumption of how such evidence is treated by the hospital staff.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I don't think the civil case has any chance. The lawyer smells a settlement and a few minutes in the limelight....so, forward goes the case.

 

I was just correcting your assumption of how such evidence is treated by the hospital staff.

 

likewise.

 

but was just saying that i thought in a shooting a case could legally go forward without a victim pressing charges, though agreeing its highly unlikely in THIS case.