BuffaloBillsForever Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 So destroying something you own is a crime ?? Under the condition something was knowningly destroyed that the police, investigators and DA believe was used in a crime. ABSOLUTELY! 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!!! I'm sure obstruction will be one of the charges along with 1st degree murder against him.
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 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. Of course there was something incriminating on there. But it isn't what you believe, it is what you can prove. I don't know all the details, and I am sure that they could prosecute him for obstruction, but going by what the dozens of lawyers have said about the obstruction in this case, it is a very weak case unless the police have more information that isn't being shared. It has to be proven that the surveillance had something to do with the crime. A good defense lawyer could argue he destroyed it because it had him walking around naked banging women, and he didn't want it to turn into a sex tape on the internet. Which is believeable, because it seems people are leaning that Lloyd was not killed in the house. There are a lot of scenarios. But based on what the lawyers have said who commented on the case, it is a flimsy case to prove unless the police know a lot more than what has been released.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Of course there was something incriminating on there. But it isn't what you believe, it is what you can prove. I don't know all the details, and I am sure that they could prosecute him for obstruction, but going by what the dozens of lawyers have said about the obstruction in this case, it is a very weak case unless the police have more information that isn't being shared. It has to be proven that the surveillance had something to do with the crime. A good defense lawyer could argue he destroyed it because it had him walking around naked banging women, and he didn't want it to turn into a sex tape on the internet. Which is believeable, because it seems people are leaning that Lloyd was not killed in the house. There are a lot of scenarios. But based on what the lawyers have said who commented on the case, it is a flimsy case to prove unless the police know a lot more than what has been released. With the home security tape, the prosection can use it to prove a pattern of behaviour that is consistent with the actions of Hernandez being involved in a murder. They don't have to prove what was on the tape. The destroying of the tape IMO is strong circumstantial evidence against him. Edited July 12, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 With the home security tape, the prosection can use it to prove a pattern of behaviour that is consistent with the actions of Hernandez being involved in a murder. They don't have to prove what was on the tape. The destroying of the tape IMO is strong circumstantial evidence against him. I get that, but every lawyer that I have heard has said differently.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 I get that, but every lawyer that I have heard has said differently. I haven't.
JohnC Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) 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. I respectfully disagree on this issue. Just because a segment of the evidence is destroyed doesn't mean that the crime didn't occur. In this case there is a body with bullet holes to prove that there was a crime. The point of the law is by creating obstacles to solving a crime you are obstructing justice. Using a prior example if you learn that there is an impending criminal or civil investigation regarding bank fraud you are prohibited by law from shredding documents that would be pertinent to the investigation. Even if the investigation hasn't been formalized you are still not permitted to destroy documents that may be relevant to an impending investigation. The shredding of relevant documents implicates you to the crime, not absolves you from the crime. Your point seems to be since evidence was destroyed that the crime can't be proved. The flip side is that since you have destroyed the evidence to, in this case, an actual crime that your actions/behavior are a testament to your culpability (in some way) to the crime. In other words being slick doesn't alter the reality that a crime has been committed. Edited July 12, 2013 by JohnC
Mr. WEO Posted July 12, 2013 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. As soon as the police asked for the surveillance tape and he handed it over, destroyed, it was evidence. If a person destroys evidence in the investigation of a crime, he is guilty of obstruction of justice--even if he wasn't compelled to produce evidence (AH kind of was). It doesnt matter what is on the tape--as long as it is asked for by officers of the court in a criminal investigation, it's evidence. The kicker here is that Mass is one of only 7 states that do not criminalize destruction of evidence. They limit obstruction of justice to obstruction by force or threats. Go figure.
JohnC Posted July 12, 2013 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. The real issue isn't proving obstruction because it is a miniscule issue for the authorities working on a murder case. The issue that is relevant is how he behaved after the killing. Destroying evidence whether it can be restored or not reflects an involvement in the murder.The timeline of the destruction also comes into play. What would be his explanation as to why and when he destroyed his security tape or cell phone?
3rdand12 Posted July 12, 2013 Posted July 12, 2013 if he is up for moida, obstruction of justice is irrelevant. If they dont have enough for murder then they will find everything else they can to throw at him and see what sticks including obstruction, they know he was there and had a role .
bowery4 Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Under the condition something was knowningly destroyed that the police, investigators and DA believe was used in a crime. ABSOLUTELY! I'm sure obstruction will be one of the charges along with 1st degree murder against him. Wait.... don't we already know the charges against him? I thought that was what the arraignment is, no? As soon as the police asked for the surveillance tape and he handed it over, destroyed, it was evidence. If a person destroys evidence in the investigation of a crime, he is guilty of obstruction of justice--even if he wasn't compelled to produce evidence (AH kind of was). It doesnt matter what is on the tape--as long as it is asked for by officers of the court in a criminal investigation, it's evidence. The kicker here is that Mass is one of only 7 states that do not criminalize destruction of evidence. They limit obstruction of justice to obstruction by force or threats. Go figure. And that would explain why no charge was filed. The fact he destroyed the system (and phone) is going to be very strong evidence, so it doesn't really matter anyway. Makes it clear he was doing a job of trying (very sloppy but trying) to cover his tracks.
BillsWatch Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 The kicker here is that Mass is one of only 7 states that do not criminalize destruction of evidence. They limit obstruction of justice to obstruction by force or threats. Go figure. What are the other states which Patriots* can move to and continue destruction of evidence? I am surprised Hernandez did not get advice on destruction of evidence from Roger Goodell.
ganesh Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 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. Fair enough. However the thread had migrated off (or others attacking my comment) to AH being guilty with all these facts...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Nothing wrong with supporting your friends, but come on Pouncey Brothers! @Deadspin Here's what appears to be two former Aaron Hernandez teammates wearing "Free Hernandez" hats in a club http://deadsp.in/mtuPVGR
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Hopefully it was photoshopped but the Pounceys are/were reportedly close with Hernandez. At least back when they were all in Gainesville.
NoSaint Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Hopefully it was photoshopped but the Pounceys are/were reportedly close with Hernandez. At least back when they were all in Gainesville. Their names seemed to come up every time he was questioned in Gainesville - I don't know if anyone else noticed that
K-9 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Nothing wrong with supporting your friends, but come on Pouncey Brothers! @Deadspin Here's what appears to be two former Aaron Hernandez teammates wearing "Free Hernandez" hats in a club http://deadsp.in/mtuPVGR That's about as stupid as players can get. Just goes to show how insulated these aholes are. It's really becoming more and more difficult to remain a fan of this game. GO BILLS!!!
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Nothing wrong with supporting your friends, but come on Pouncey Brothers! @Deadspin Here's what appears to be two former Aaron Hernandez teammates wearing "Free Hernandez" hats in a club http://deadsp.in/mtuPVGR To cut to the chase, this goes hand in hand with another NFL player tweeting (in amusement) that Hernandez' entourage had turned over on him. There is a widespread culture that you don't rat on your friends and in that culture of codes, ratting is one of the worst things a person can do, regardless of the circumstances. So the question then becomes, how does everyone feel about being the ringleader of a murder and having your closest friends (who were involved) turn over on you? Of course none of us would be in this position so that being the case the question becomes, how would you feel about conspiring with friends on any hypothetical felony and then having law enforcement pressure your friends into turning over on you?
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 So the question then becomes, how does everyone feel about being the ringleader of a murder and having your closest friends (who were involved) turn over on you? Of course none of us would be in this position so that being the case the question becomes, how would you feel about conspiring with friends on any hypothetical felony and then having law enforcement pressure your friends into turning over on you? Couldn't say. So far, /dev/null, Rosen, and Fig Newton haven't flipped on me for that thing in Provo...
Doc Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Their names seemed to come up every time he was questioned in Gainesville - I don't know if anyone else noticed that I did and I was just about to post that.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Couldn't say. So far, /dev/null, Rosen, and Fig Newton haven't flipped on me for that thing in Provo... Not sure what you're talking about but I noticed that all your boys went out and bought new cars… and furs for their wives.
Recommended Posts