boyst Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 If any of them get arrested they will make bail. AH will front it just to keep himself safe.
Fan in San Diego Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 If any of them get arrested they will make bail. AH will front it just to keep himself safe. If I was the judge I wouldn't give them bail. Flight risks.
boyst Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 If I was the judge I wouldn't give them bail. Flight risks. all the monitoring out there now.... nah
Fan in San Diego Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 all the monitoring out there now.... nah I still wouldn't give them bail.
DanInUticaTampa Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 probably all fair projections. would the destroyed security system potentially get them carte blanch for searches atleast out of the gate? i would think between evidence they were together, and the destroyed equipment a judge would likely give a lot of leeway. they could be doing a couple extra searches knowing the cameras are there and "OMG DOGS AND BAGS?!?!?" could put extra pressure on the guys when it hits the national news. how well they scrubbed that house, which likely had not just evidence of that evening, but i dont think its crazy to say possibly recreational guns, drugs, etc... will be what a lot of this hinges on i think. well, that and if any of them start talking suddenly. I think that the broken security system was huge in getting the search warrents. Not sure how much smoke and mirrors are going on the police side. They haven't said much. It is obvious they don't have the murder weapon and none of the guys are talking, and they need at least one of those things very much. What they do have though is a questionmark. And if all they have is the stuff that was reported (they were together that night, witnesses saw them together, hernandez is accused of shooting someone in flordia, he broke is cell phone and security system, hired a cleaning crew, body was found close to his house) they really don't have much. If people saw him alone with the guy, it would be a different story. But since it is a group, it throws a lot of doubt in there with a lot more possible scenarios. If any of them get arrested they will make bail. AH will front it just to keep himself safe. That is what I would figure, though it isn't a sure thing
KD in CA Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I want updates damn it...updates!! We're entitled!! F5!!! btw, PFW is reporting that Hernandez is on his way to Chicago to meet with the Bears.
DanInUticaTampa Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 F5!!! btw, PFW is reporting that Hernandez is on his way to Chicago to meet with the Bears. is PFW still functional?
JohnC Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I think that the broken security system was huge in getting the search warrents. Not sure how much smoke and mirrors are going on the police side. They haven't said much. It is obvious they don't have the murder weapon and none of the guys are talking, and they need at least one of those things very much. What they do have though is a questionmark. And if all they have is the stuff that was reported (they were together that night, witnesses saw them together, hernandez is accused of shooting someone in flordia, he broke is cell phone and security system, hired a cleaning crew, body was found close to his house) they really don't have much. If people saw him alone with the guy, it would be a different story. But since it is a group, it throws a lot of doubt in there with a lot more possible scenarios. That is what I would figure, though it isn't a sure thing My opinion is based on speculation as it is with most others. The authorities might not find the gun that was used in the murder. But if the killing was done at AH's house then there is without a doubt blood evidence. I don't care how good the cleaning outfit is they are not going to clean all the blood from the scene, There is no doubt that the cleaning crew is going to be asked exactly where and what they cleaned up. These individuals have no interest in protecting AH and putting themselves in jeopardy. Destroying the cell phone and the security system is obviously very telling. If it can be proved that the victim was in the house or if there are blood stains that prove to be his then the group is in serious jeopardy. What the authorities do know for sure is that the suspects were seen with the victim. From my understanding (not sure) the neighbors heard gun shots late at night and if I'm not mistaken some of the neighbors witnessed AH either coming or going around that time. In addition AH destroyed his cell phone and security taping system that would have shown who entered and left the residence. As it stands right now not having the gun doesn't help the case but the circumstantial evidence and time line is lining up on behalf of the side of the authorities. It would be interesting to know if AH has a registered weapon that he can't produce for the police. If that is the case and the bullet fragments in the victim matches the gun caliber then that is another building block used against the the suspects.
BuffaloBob Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I cannot imagine that Florida LE could fail to indict AH if he admitted to shooting someone there. They have said that they will not proceed without the complainant in the civil suits cooperation. I find that pretty remarkable in itself since his claim, a public document, alleges negligent use of a firearm/or alternatively the intentional infliction of bodily harm. I did not see where the claim was supported with an affidavit or other sworn statement although normally this would be the case and in any event if the civil case is to proceed his allegations will eventually have to be entered into evidence under oath and be subject to examination by AHs lawyers. With a detailed sworn statement I would have expected the DA to act. It's clear that the "victim" just wants to hit AH up for cash and not pursue a criminal action. But I would have thought what he wanted was pretty much irrelevant. The gist of it is that shooting somebody in the face is also a matter in which the People have an interest-peace, order, good government and bodily security.. After all if he did it once he might go out and do it again to somebody else-oh wait! I wonder if Burriss was the complainant when he shot himself. Or maybe there are no laws in Florida. You do realize that for a criminal case to proceed, they would have to know that the vic would be willing to testify right? There is apparently no other witness to the shooting, or if there is, the vic has not so alleged. Without the vic being willing to get on the stand and swear under oath what happened, the proceedings in the civil trial will not be enough to convict, so no DA proceeds with such a case unless the vic cooperates. The case is already corrupted as it is. There would likely be no forensic evidence available, or if there is, its handling would likely not be sound enough for a criminal case. It would be a tough case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt even if the vic is willing to cooperate now.
NoSaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 You do realize that for a criminal case to proceed, they would have to know that the vic would be willing to testify right? There is apparently no other witness to the shooting, or if there is, the vic has not so alleged. Without the vic being willing to get on the stand and swear under oath what happened, the proceedings in the civil trial will not be enough to convict, so no DA proceeds with such a case unless the vic cooperates. The case is already corrupted as it is. There would likely be no forensic evidence available, or if there is, its handling would likely not be sound enough for a criminal case. It would be a tough case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt even if the vic is willing to cooperate now. you do realize that the prosecutor would have, likely, sworn testimony from the victims civil case and an interest to make sure this is prosecuted given its national attention - if theres any credibility
Doc Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 My opinion is based on speculation as it is with most others. The authorities might not find the gun that was used in the murder. But if the killing was done at AH's house then there is without a doubt blood evidence. I don't care how good the cleaning outfit is they are not going to clean all the blood from the scene, There is no doubt that the cleaning crew is going to be asked exactly where and what they cleaned up. These individuals have no interest in protecting AH and putting themselves in jeopardy. Destroying the cell phone and the security system is obviously very telling. If it can be proved that the victim was in the house or if there are blood stains that prove to be his then the group is in serious jeopardy. What the authorities do know for sure is that the suspects were seen with the victim. From my understanding (not sure) the neighbors heard gun shots late at night and if I'm not mistaken some of the neighbors witnessed AH either coming or going around that time. In addition AH destroyed his cell phone and security taping system that would have shown who entered and left the residence. As it stands right now not having the gun doesn't help the case but the circumstantial evidence and time line is lining up on behalf of the side of the authorities. It would be interesting to know if AH has a registered weapon that he can't produce for the police. If that is the case and the bullet fragments in the victim matches the gun caliber then that is another building block used against the the suspects. I've been unsure about whether the hit was carried-out in the car or AH's house. He took it in the back of the head, but I haven't read that they recovered a bullet from the car or noticed any exit holes in the car. And likely some, if not all, weapons AH has are unregistered.
Mr. WEO Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I've been unsure about whether the hit was carried-out in the car or AH's house. He took it in the back of the head, but I haven't read that they recovered a bullet from the car or noticed any exit holes in the car. And likely some, if not all, weapons AH has are unregistered. 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?
JohnC Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I've been unsure about whether the hit was carried-out in the car or AH's house. He took it in the back of the head, but I haven't read that they recovered a bullet from the car or noticed any exit holes in the car. And likely some, if not all, weapons AH has are unregistered. 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? In the issue of the killing bullet there is no reporting one way or another. As I stated in a prior posting the authorities have been impressively leak proof in this high profile case. With respect to the killing bullet there could be fragments in the victim and/or the size of the hole can give them a clue as to the type of weapon. I agree with you that there is a good chance that AH has guns that are not registered. But there is also a chance that he has a gun that is registered and he can't produce. If that is the case then that adds to the mounting circumstantial evidence working against him.
BuffaloBob Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) you do realize that the prosecutor would have, likely, sworn testimony from the victims civil case and an interest to make sure this is prosecuted given its national attention - if theres any credibility You do realize that any testimonial evidence from the civil case would be inadmissible in the criminal case given that the witness is available to give the testimony in person right? Otherwise, there is no opportunity to cross-examine the witness based on his testimony in front of the jury, right? At the very least, he would have to be available and corroborate his civi trial testimony and be available to the defense for cross-examination. There is no way a criminal case proceeds based on evidence given in the civil case without cooperation from the vic. It would be a waste of time an money and the judge would probably throw it out before it ever got to a jury. Edited June 25, 2013 by BuffaloBob
JohnC Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 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.
NoSaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 You do realize that any testimonial evidence from the civil case would be inadmissible in the criminal case given that the witness is available to give the testimony in person right? Otherwise, there is no opportunity to cross-examine the witness based on his testimony, right? There is no way a criminal case proceeds based on evidence given in the civil case without cooperation from the vic. It would be a waste of time an money and the judge would probably throw it out before it ever got to a jury. 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?
DanInUticaTampa Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 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? It might not have been premeditated or planned. It might have started as a heated argument that got out of hand
JohnC Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 you do realize that the prosecutor would have, likely, sworn testimony from the victims civil case and an interest to make sure this is prosecuted given its national attention - if theres any credibility 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.
boyst Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Its not easy to drag a professional athlete anywhere unnoticed. If AH and posse had anything to do with it the guy was there voluntarily or he was dumped. Its a lot easier to move a corpse then it is a human.
NoSaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) 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. 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? Edited June 25, 2013 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts