NoSaint Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 All the stuff quoted above have no indication that it was Hernandez who killed Lloyd...Just saying. Please tell me which one of the item from your list indicates that Hernandez committed a crime...Renting a car in which four people (including the victim) traveled, cell phone records (I don't think Hernandez has denied that he was with Lloyd), surveillance video (coincidence). I am pretty sure Hernandez had a role (if not commited the murder), but none of what you list will prove anything in the court of law. They don't have to prove he pulled the trigger for the conviction based on his perceived planning and presence, I believe, from initial reports.... So while its nice, it's more of a bow on top than crucial piece if that true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Please tell me which one of the item from your list indicates that Hernandez committed a crime...Renting a car in which four people (including the victim) traveled, cell phone records (I don't think Hernandez has denied that he was with Lloyd), surveillance video (coincidence). I am pretty sure Hernandez had a role (if not commited the murder), but none of what you list will prove anything in the court of law. Okay: - the keys in the victim's pocket that belong to a car rented in Hernandez's name, this likely puts Hernandez with the victim the night of the murder - the bullet casing under the seat of said rental car indicates that whomever shot Lloyd was very likely in that car - the surveillance video from the neighborhood that Lloyd was picked up from shows him getting into the rental car - the cell phone records with text messages placing Hernandez and Lloyd together the night of the murder clearly indicate that Hernandez was planning to pick Lloyd up, and also show that Lloyd texted his sister to tell her he was with someone from the NFL "just so she knew" - the surveillance video from Hernandez's security system that shows him entering the house 3 minutes after gunshots were heard shows that he got out of the rental car in which a bullet casing matching the caliber bullet that killed Lloyd was found; the bullet was found under the driver's seat; Hernandez got out of the driver's seat Are you really arguing that he shouldn't have been arrested for orchestrating the murder in light of the above evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I think AH is screwed if the cops find any gun residue on the stuff they siezed. Then it wont just be circumstantial evidence anymore CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I think AH is screwed if the cops find any gun residue on the stuff they siezed. Then it wont just be circumstantial evidence anymore CBF He's screwed anyway; he destroyed his own security system to cover up a murder. Whether it can be proven if he committed it or not, he's guilty of obstruction and weapons chargers; he's going to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 http://profootballta...rsay-questions/ More on hearsay with a definite maybe. That was a terrific link you provided. It explained a lot and it also demonstrated the complexity of the law applied to circumstances. After reading the link I've come to the conclusion that the best strategy for the prosecution is keeping it simple and don't get too involved with some of the issues that can be challenged on appeal. There is already a mountain of evidence that continues to grow. Why risk using some of the secondary hearsey testimoney when you have the primary co-conspirator testimony? I salute JR Pitts. for his explanation of the hearsey rules. He was right on. If I ever decide to assassinate someone he will be called to represent me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Thanks! I always aspired to representing cold-blooded killers. Remember, there is a presumption of innocense.! You also need to come to your assignment with your eyes wide open. If you fail at what you are generously paid to do some of my Sicilian associates will take you for a late night ride to one of our own junkyard sites. Trust me, they conduct their business with much more professionalism than the sloppy Herandez gang! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) If you fail at what you are generously paid to do some of my Sicilian associates will take you for a late night ride to one of our own junkyard sites. Trust me, they conduct their business with much more professionalism than the sloppy Herandez gang! -Another example of the co-conspirator exception to the Hearsay Rule Edited July 12, 2013 by BringBackFergy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 No, that would make it also a lie. Sorry, If AH didn't say it directly to Ortiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 All the stuff quoted above have no indication that it was Hernandez who killed Lloyd...Just saying. Please tell me which one of the item from your list indicates that Hernandez committed a crime...Renting a car in which four people (including the victim) traveled, cell phone records (I don't think Hernandez has denied that he was with Lloyd), surveillance video (coincidence). I am pretty sure Hernandez had a role (if not commited the murder), but none of what you list will prove anything in the court of law. Actually, what you were "just sayin" was that until they found the flop hosue, the cops "didn't have anything on him". You also said they did a good job of hiding the evidnce until that poitn, whereas many people have pointed out what an epically bad job he did of hiding the evidence of this crime. Yes, none of this proves AH pulled the trigger (neither does anything found in the apartment), but that wasn't a claim that I was responding to (and the DA has only charged him with orchestrating the murder, they didn't name him as the shooter when they arrested him). I was debunking your crazy idea that they did a good job at hiding the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 He's screwed anyway; he destroyed his own security system to cover up a murder. Whether it can be proven if he committed it or not, he's guilty of obstruction and weapons chargers; he's going to jail. So destroying something you own is a crime ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 So destroying something you own is a crime ?? If it is evidence in a crime it is. If he destroyed the gun used to kill someone it would be a crime. If he damaged the security system that recorded his coming and going related to the crime event it certainly is a crime. If an accountant gets rid of documents that he owns and controls knowing that an investigation is occurring or likely to occur that is a crime. etc., etc., etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If it is evidence in a crime it is. If he destroyed the gun used to kill someone it would be a crime. If he damaged the security system that recorded his coming and going related to the crime event it certainly is a crime. If an accountant gets rid of documents that he owns and controls knowing that an investigation is occurring or likely to occur that is a crime. etc., etc., etc., etc. I am not sure I understand this one, because the argument could be made that without said destroyed evidence there is no crime. Therefore, logically, if there is no real existence of the evidence there is no crime of that evidence - but it is a crime to destroy what could be evidence. A good lawyer could reasonably argue that it was not ever part of any crime. However, as deep as AH is, he has no hope for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) So destroying something you own is a crime ?? You're joking, right? In light of the facts of the case, and the fact that he'd been questioned & named as a person of interest, as well as having been subpoenaed & subsequently asked to submit his security system footage for investigation, you simply must be joking. Edited July 12, 2013 by thebandit27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I am not sure I understand this one, because the argument could be made that without said destroyed evidence there is no crime. Therefore, logically, if there is no real existence of the evidence there is no crime of that evidence - but it is a crime to destroy what could be evidence. A good lawyer could reasonably argue that it was not ever part of any crime. However, as deep as AH is, he has no hope for that. He can't make that argument. It doesn't matter what is or is not on the surveillance film. He was under investigation and asked to hand over his video system. He destroyed it and handed it over (same with his phone). The crime is obstruction of justice, which he committed when he destroyed the evidence the police requested. No lawyer can argue that away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 He can't make that argument. It doesn't matter what is or is not on the surveillance film. He was under investigation and asked to hand over his video system. He destroyed it and handed it over (same with his phone). The crime is obstruction of justice, which he committed when he destroyed the evidence the police requested. No lawyer can argue that away. Lawyers commenting on the case have said that to convict him of obstruction, the prosecution would have to prove that what he destroyed was actually evidence, which isn't easy to do since it is destroyed and there isn't much to go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) I think AH is screwed if the cops find any gun residue on the stuff they siezed. Then it wont just be circumstantial evidence anymore CBF Won't matter much IMO. It would be just the cherry on top for the prosecution. Keep in mind, rarely do investigartos or prosecturos have the "smoking gun" to go with. Jury's have convicted individuals of murder even when there isn't even evidence of what was the cause of death or even have a body of a victim. Jury's usally convict on circumstantial evidence and the cirumstantial evidence is VERY strong against Hernandez. Edited July 12, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Lawyers commenting on the case have said that to convict him of obstruction, the prosecution would have to prove that what he destroyed was actually evidence, which isn't easy to do since it is destroyed and there isn't much to go on. I still feel they will get him for destroying the phone though since those records are easily obtained from the carrier. I would think any contact that was made with Lloyd (assuming it was made from his phone) would then constitute as obstruction. Which the prosecution would probably try to move that the security system was destroyed for the same reason which would be a toss up for the judge allowed it. Edited July 12, 2013 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Lawyers commenting on the case have said that to convict him of obstruction, the prosecution would have to prove that what he destroyed was actually evidence, which isn't easy to do since it is destroyed and there isn't much to go on. To me, it's as simple as pulling the text records, which have AH asking his cohorts to come to town, as well as AH picking up Lloyd. That's enough to put him with the victim the night of the murder, and can easily be considered evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) To me, it's as simple as pulling the text records, which have AH asking his cohorts to come to town, as well as AH picking up Lloyd. That's enough to put him with the victim the night of the murder, and can easily be considered evidence. Usually why judges don't allow some things that could be evidence because its "prejudical". I don't see any reason why a judge wouldn't allow this evidence. Edited July 12, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Lawyers commenting on the case have said that to convict him of obstruction, the prosecution would have to prove that what he destroyed was actually evidence, which isn't easy to do since it is destroyed and there isn't much to go on. Is it reasonable to believe there was something on that video that may have shed light on the investigation? Don't know what lawyers are commenting on the case, but any reasonable person would conclude "yes." A good prosecutor would have no problem bringing the charge of obstruction. Not that they'll need to. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts