Patriots' Hernandez Questioned By Police in Homicide Probe

[DaneMcCloud]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl...#ixzz2WbiGOtye

NORTH ATTLEBORO, Mass. -- New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was questioned by police investigating a possible homicide in this town 40 miles south of Boston. A source with knowledge of the investigation said Massachusetts State police spoke to Hernandez on Monday and were interested in possibly searching his home.

Hernandez is not believed to be a murder suspect, according to a source, but a vehicle rented in his name has emerged as a key piece of evidence in the investigation. The Sun Chronicle of Attleboro, Mass., reported on Tuesday that police identified a rented 2013 Chevrolet Suburban with Rhode Island license plates in connection with the possible homicide. According to the paper, the vehicle is registered to Enterprise and investigators were hoping to analyze it for fingerprints. A source said Hernandez's name is tied to that rental vehicle.

A jogger found the body of a 27-year-old Boston man on Monday in an North Attleboro clearing, less than a mile from Hernandez's home.

A North Attleboro police car idled in front of Hernandez's home on Tuesday, parked across the street from two television news vans. Yasmina Serdarevic, a spokesperson for the Bristol County District Attorney's Office, declined comment on Tuesday afternoon when contacted by SI.com.

A source close to Hernandez confirmed that the player had spoken with authorities in connection with case, but would not elaborate. Athletes First, Hernandez's agency, declined comment when contacted by SI.com. Hernandez has consulted with a lawyer, who did not return a call from SI.com.

A fourth-round pick in the 2010 draft, Hernandez was named to the Pro Bowl in his second season. Last season he caught 51 passes and scored five touchdowns for the Patriots.

-------------------

Holy shit

[Pepe Silvia]

Thug Life

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But flight can be introduced as evidence of guilt. The law does adopt the idea that 'innocent people don't act this way' and have essentially codified it into the rules of evidence.

Has he run from law enforcement? Are you the same guy that earlier said he or anyone else would be foolish to cooperate with the police?

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And yes, the justice system only works if people use their brains and adopt an acceptable definition of 'reasonable' doubt. Oftentimes that does require the use of inference and supposition.

Unfortunately, our citizens often can't understand process. I can't even begin to tell you my experiences in jury duty over the years (as well as serving on a jury) which have completely taken me by surprise due to the incompetence and sub-90 IQ levels of the other jurors.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If a prosecutor stood before and presented compelling evidence of what ABC News and others have reported, surely you'd be willing to convict on Obstruction and potentially as an accessory (after the fact, if nothing else). And no, we haven't had a prosecutor do such a thing, but I feel like there are enough independent sources leaking this information that we can certainly start to speculate on what it means.

If someone put a gun to my head right now and said "if you're wrong, you die", I'd say that Aaron Hernandez is absolutely an accomplice to murder and guilty of obstruction of justice. The End.

I don't see anything wrong with making those statements on a chat board, Twitter or facebook.

That's fine and that's your right. I never said that someone should be allowed to form an opinion based on the leaks. But to infer that the entire legal process should be skipped in favor of locking him up or executing him, is wrong and outright sick, IMO.

[Mother****erJones]

Dane GangstaMcCloud

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Mother****erJones

Dane GangstaMcCloud

[sedated]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Why would he destroy his security system, cell phone and hire a professional clean up company if there was nothing to hide?

Well, the first assumption we jump to HAS to be the truth.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Has he run from law enforcement? Are you the same guy that earlier said he or anyone else would be foolish to cooperate with the police?

He hasn't, but it appears quite likely he destroyed evidence. So my point is that the law allows for an inference that "innocent people don't act this way" and the destruction of salient evidence would certainly seem to qualify, would it not?

And yes, I did say that an individual is silly to cooperate with law enforcement. There's a big big difference between not voluntarily disclosing information and actively destroying evidence.

That's why the law doesn't allow you to infer guilt from someone hiring a lawyer but will allow you to infer guilt from a number of other acts/omissions.

[sedated]

Him and his boys were probably high on PCP. Explains the smashed up equipment and the clean up crew.

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He hasn't, but it appears quite likely he destroyed evidence. So my point is that the law allows for an inference that "innocent people don't act this way" and the destruction of salient evidence would certainly seem to qualify, would it not?

And yes, I did say that an individual is silly to cooperate with law enforcement. There's a big big difference between not voluntarily disclosing information and actively destroying evidence.

That's why the law doesn't allow you to infer guilt from someone hiring a lawyer but will allow you to infer guilt from a number of other acts/omissions.

maybe he destroyed it, because of something else, maybe dudes into the bdsm lifestyle and didnt want anyone see'ing it. lol we dont know. Or maybe its just a media leak thats totally fabricated.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Thank you. I'll make this brief. I'm personally not an expert on gang life but I have some fairly close friends that work in law enforcement in Los Angeles (one guy was formerly head of SWAT and now is a SWAT trainer). The stories I've heard, and I've heard a lot because I find it very interesting, are mind blowing.

I also have a close friend that did an award winning documentary on gangsters and gang life. I've met some of those guys and had conversations with them (the main character escaped the gang life and now works with urban youths to avoid gang life).

Gang life, much like life in the Mafia, is a complete sub-culture, with their own rules. It's all built on trust (which ironically is what brought the Italian mafia down when everyone starting turning on each other in the 90's).

That said, they are not rules nor is it a lifestyle that I'm familiar with because I grew up in a suburban Caucasian home. But through friends, meetings and acquaintances, I do have some understanding of how their lifestyle works.

Thanks, it sounds like you have at least some inside knowledge of gang culture. I'm not going to say your knowledge is greater than mine, because I have seen Boyz N Tha Hood and Menace II Society several times and I also stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He hasn't, but it appears quite likely he destroyed evidence. So my point is that the law allows for an inference that "innocent people don't act this way" and the destruction of salient evidence would certainly seem to qualify, would it not?

And I would argue that destroying a surveillance system, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing. I could walk upstairs and tear out my ADT Pulse system and it wouldn't prove that I committed a crime.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And yes, I did say that an individual is silly to cooperate with law enforcement. There's a big big difference between not voluntarily disclosing information and actively destroying evidence.

If the only thing he destroyed was his surveillance system, I still don't view that as a crime in and of itself. There's no way to prove that anything of substance had been recorded on said system.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's why the law doesn't allow you to infer guilt from someone hiring a lawyer but will allow you to infer guilt from a number of other acts/omissions.

I understand and I also understand that warrants are issued so that law enforcement can attempt to ascertain and collect evidence. I also believe that things don't appear to be going so well for Hernandez in this particular case.

But I'm not ready to convict him based on what little evidence we have at this time.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Fruit Ninja

maybe he destroyed it, because of something else, maybe dudes into the bdsm lifestyle and didnt want anyone see'ing it. lol we dont know. Or maybe its just a media leak thats totally fabricated.

Again, on an internet chat board, I'm going to stick to reviewing this in the context of "the most likely scenario".

But if you really want to argue that the more likely scenario is that Aaron Hernandez destroyed his security system 24 hours after gunshots were heard in his upper-class neighborhood because he was afraid someone might see videos of him in a rubber-suit, go ahead and give it your best shot.

People that view the justice system as you view it ("well the **** if I know, maybe it was aliens!") are as bad or worse for its just administration as those that want to hang them all and let God sort them out.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And I would argue that destroying a surveillance system, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing. I could walk upstairs and tear out my ADT Pulse system and it wouldn't prove that I committed a crime.

Evidence of nothing? Well that's just wrong. Is it compelling evidence on its own? Of course not, but a brick does not have to be a wall. A man physically demolishing a sophisticated security system in his own home raises alarm bells in my world. I wouldn't convict on it, but it's still evidence.

I just get frustrated by the fact that the average juror in criminal matters refuses to stack the bricks. They want one goddamn piece of drywall the size of bus. You can give them 1,000 damn bricks and they'll leave them sitting in piles on the ground, each time saying "well that isn't evidence" because it won't convict on it's own.

Yes. Destroying your security system is evidence. Demolishing your cell phone is evidence. Hiring a new cleaning crew the monday after the murder is evidence. Bodies being found near vehicles rented in your name is evidence. All of these are decent little bricks and it takes common ****ing sense to act as mortar.

And all too often, people completely refuse to exercise it. As a consequence, people like Casey Anthony get to murder their children and walk away.

My complete lack of confidence in juries to convict anymore is why I'll never step anywhere near a criminal courtroom. Juries have forgotten that they act as both gatekeepers for the authorities but also as people responsible for dispensing justice those that have been wronged.

All because Gus Grissom finds blood and semen in every crime scene he's in and because we've become a society that adheres to a victim's mentality.

[Braincase]

Mr. Hernandez, call for you from Rae Carruth on the white courtesy phone.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Evidence of nothing? Well that's just wrong. Is it compelling evidence on its own? Of course not, but a brick does not have to be a wall. A man physically demolishing a sophisticated security system in his own home raises alarm bells in my world. I wouldn't convict on it, but it's still evidence.

I agree that if you look at the aggregate of evidence, it's quite possible that he was involved in the murder of this man. But whether it's enough for a conviction is up to a judge and jury, not idiots on Twitter and Facebook and every other type of social media.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I just get frustrated by the fact that the average juror in criminal matters refuses to stack the bricks. They want one goddamn piece of drywall the size of bus. You can give them 1,000 damn bricks and they'll leave them sitting in piles on the ground, each time saying "well that isn't evidence" because it won't convict on it's own.

I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in Cali, the prosecutors seem to be able to put the dumbest human beings alive on juries. Maybe it's because of our lax rules regarding juries (length of time paid by employers, personal hardship, etc.) but it's absolutely astounding.

I've served on juries with the elderly, with people who's first language is not English (not that there's anything wrong with that outside of criminal proceedings), with government workers that were "happy" to have the "vacation" away from the Post Office and what not, etc. and so on.

And people wonder why Casey Anthony and O.J. walk.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yes. Destroying your security system is evidence. Demolishing your cell phone is evidence. Hiring a new cleaning crew the monday after the murder is evidence. Bodies being found near vehicles rented in your name is evidence. All of these are decent little bricks and it takes common ****ing sense to act as mortar.

And all too often, people completely refuse to exercise it. As a consequence, people like Casey Anthony get to murder their children and walk away.

Yep.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

My complete lack of confidence in juries to convict anymore is why I'll never step anywhere near a criminal courtroom. Juries have forgotten that they act as both gatekeepers for the authorities but also as people responsible for dispensing justice those that have been wronged.

All because Gus Grissom finds blood and semen in every crime scene he's in and because we've become a society that adheres to a victim's mentality.

I think there's even more to it than that. I think that some people can't make a conscious decision to convict someone. I think that some people don't want to be involved in a murder trial, a rape trial, a drug trial, for fear of not only judging someone and seeing that type of horror first hand, but for fear of retribution.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you personally been mistreated by the police?

i know you didnt ask me but i have seen it multiple times first hand