Aaron Hernandez charged with 1st degree murder; released by Patriots

Status
Not open for further replies.

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
Fred in Lynn said:
On the second bolded part, Joe Paterno says 'hi.'
 
The two cases could not be more different.
 
Joe Paterno allegedly convinced & stopped Penn State officials from confronting Sandusky & going to legal authorities after McQueary reported a possible child rape. 
 
No one in the Patriots organization saw what Hernandez did that night (nor any other accused murders), report any possible crimes up the chain, and BB did not stop Kraft or anyone else from going to the authorities.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
Montana Fan said:
The only value I've ever seen from Borges was his prediction that Holyfield would whip Tyson and why. No one else predicated that.

So basically no value in at least the last 17 years.
 
What I am shocked by is that Borges didn't dredge up Nic Kaczur to accuse Patriots of turning Foxboro into the hub of oxycodon distribution in New England. 
 
Then again, perhaps I've just given him an idea for a follow-up piece. 
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,824
Needham, MA
SeoulSoxFan said:
 
The two cases could not be more different.
 
Joe Paterno allegedly convinced & stopped Penn State officials from confronting Sandusky & going to legal authorities after McQueary reported a possible child rape. 
 
No one in the Patriots organization saw what Hernandez did that night (nor any other accused murders), report any possible crimes up the chain, and BB did not stop Kraft or anyone else from going to the authorities.
 
Not only that, but Dr. Leather's point was about the obligation of a team to monitor the personal activities of a player (or in the PSU case a coach).  Paterno got taken down not because Sandusky was a child diddler in his spare time and Paterno did not do enough to monitor Sandusky to find out about it.  He got taken down because he DID know and failed to do anything about it.  If it had come out earlier that Sandusky was a child molester and nobody at Penn State knew anything about it except maybe there were rumors or something that Sandusky was a little strange (but no actual evidence), and nothing actually happened at any official team events or in any of the team facilities, Paterno would not have lost his job.
 
To analogize to the current situation, I think everyone understands that if Bill Belichick had personal knowledge that Aaron Hernandez murdered two guys last summer and failed to go to the authorities with whatever evidence he had, then BB and the Pats absolutely would have some culpability here (maybe not legally, but certainly morally) for Odin Lloyd's murder, and I think it very likely would have cost Belichick his job in that case.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
smastroyin said:
So after all this stuff about all this shit Hernandez is doing off the field, Solotaroff thinks he's going to get off and be back in the NFL?
 
Is he trying to make some grandiose point about the NFL's tolerance for thugs or something?
 
And why does he keep saying no eyewitness when the preponderance of evidence tells us that someone in that car has identified Hernandez as being present for the murder?
 
Maybe he's right and the rich and talented get away with whatever, but his connecting of the dots is essentially monkey poo flinging.
 
Not really. The preponderance of evidence available to us tells us someone in that car murdered Lloyd and that Hernandez was present. The "eyewitness" says he stayed in the backseat, didn't see it happen, and was told later by Wallace that Hernandez pulled the trigger. That's like, not an eyewitness by any reasonable definition of the term. Further, Ortiz has a credibility problem that will be used by the defense. The article rightly speculates that the story of what happened at the industrial park will be Wallace & Hernandez vs. Ortiz and it takes one juror to wonder why Ortiz hasn't been charged (at this point) or where the actual murder weapon is (still not found) to get an acquittal. It's plausible that the defense can convince a juror that Ortiz pulled the trigger and that Hernandez did not. IANAL, but this is why Solotaroff made a big deal of the State choosing to charge at the first-degree level. 
 
The article is mostly poo-flinging but there is not an "eyewitness" and what witness there was is not a credible one. Hernandez, even if acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge is not going to play in the NFL again. But it is not a forgone conclusion that Hernandez "did it", nor is it known what happened or who did it. All we really know is that Hernandez was involved in it and can afford great attorneys who will do everything they can to raise reasonable doubt - of which there is some at this point.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,724
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Ron Borges' friend Frank Mendes, who was fired 10 years ago as security director of the Pats, has spent the time since being canned as the Security Director for the Archdiocese of Boston.
 
Now there's a guy who clearly has a good handle on the people working for him.
 

The Kid

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
2
Just to clarify.  There is no actual evidence that Paterno did anything illegal or perhaps even wrong without the benefit of hindsight.  There is no proof that he knew anything prior to the incident when an assistant couch reported to him that he saw something of a sexual nature in a shower with Sandusky and a youth.  When this was reported to Paterno, he did exactly what University policy told him to do, which was to report it to his superiors.  He also followed up with the asst. coach to ask him if this was being addressed, to which the asst. coach said yes.  Also worth noting is that at the time Sandusky was not employed by the football team or under Paterno's supervision.  In fact, when the original Grand Jury presentment was made, not only was Paterno not charged with anything, he was singled out by the DA at the time, for his cooperation.
 
The issue with Paterno and the relevance to Belichick/Kraft is in the court of public opinion.  Given Paterno's stature, he became the story, in fact even more so than Sandusky.  Media coverage on this was like a million Borges were let loose on a story involving a larger than life figure who people expected more from.   The danger here is that bad reporting leads to this being about Belichick and not about Hernandez.  The media always gravitates to and looks for "the bigger story."    It generates more eyeballs and more dollars.  The bigger story was Paterno not Sandusky and could also become Belichick not Hernandez.
 

Dotrat

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 11, 2002
2,135
Morris County NJ
I have some questions for any members with experience in journalism or media in general: One of the new developments this piece discloses is that Hernandez was at the combine in Indianapolis, which other reporters (including Albert Breer, I believe)have since corroborated. The story claims that at the Combine, Hernandez tells BB that he's in fear for his life, that Bristol thugs he's known since childhood are out to get him and want to murder him. Apparently, Belichick's response is something along the lines of, "Find a yourself place where you can lay low and sort of hide out." This seems to be the genesis of the Franklin condo flophouse where Hernandez may have stored weapons and guns. My questions are: Wouldn't what was discussed at this meeting at the Combine have been a pretty good-sized offseason story, one in which one of the team's (and the league's) star TEs who has just re-upped with the team for big money is either in danger or wildly paranoid? If this tale is true, how did it not get reported at the time?
 

Mr Mulliner

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
793
The Kid said:
Just to clarify.  There is no actual evidence that Paterno did anything illegal or perhaps even wrong without the benefit of hindsight.  There is no proof that he knew anything prior to the incident when an assistant couch reported to him that he saw something of a sexual nature in a shower with Sandusky and a youth.  When this was reported to Paterno, he did exactly what University policy told him to do, which was to report it to his superiors.  He also followed up with the asst. coach to ask him if this was being addressed, to which the asst. coach said yes.  Also worth noting is that at the time Sandusky was not employed by the football team or under Paterno's supervision.  In fact, when the original Grand Jury presentment was made, not only was Paterno not charged with anything, he was singled out by the DA at the time, for his cooperation.
 
The issue with Paterno and the relevance to Belichick/Kraft is in the court of public opinion.  Given Paterno's stature, he became the story, in fact even more so than Sandusky.  Media coverage on this was like a million Borges were let loose on a story involving a larger than life figure who people expected more from.   The danger here is that bad reporting leads to this being about Belichick and not about Hernandez.  The media always gravitates to and looks for "the bigger story."    It generates more eyeballs and more dollars.  The bigger story was Paterno not Sandusky and could also become Belichick not Hernandez.
So what year did you graduate from Penn State?
 
This is a total aside, but I wonder if part of the reason BB went off on Breer the other day was because he knew this story was coming out and knew or suspected that Breer either was the source (or gave Borges the source) of the details re the combine meeting.  Breer wasted no time tweeting about how that meeting "100% happened" right after the Rolling Stone story was published yesterday and was extremely complimentary of the reporting in the story in a second tweet.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
The Kid said:
Just to clarify.  There is no actual evidence that Paterno did anything illegal or perhaps even wrong without the benefit of hindsight.  There is no proof that he knew anything prior to the incident when an assistant couch reported to him that he saw something of a sexual nature in a shower with Sandusky and a youth.  When this was reported to Paterno, he did exactly what University policy told him to do, which was to report it to his superiors.  He also followed up with the asst. coach to ask him if this was being addressed, to which the asst. coach said yes.  Also worth noting is that at the time Sandusky was not employed by the football team or under Paterno's supervision.  In fact, when the original Grand Jury presentment was made, not only was Paterno not charged with anything, he was singled out by the DA at the time, for his cooperation.
 
The issue with Paterno and the relevance to Belichick/Kraft is in the court of public opinion.  Given Paterno's stature, he became the story, in fact even more so than Sandusky.  Media coverage on this was like a million Borges were let loose on a story involving a larger than life figure who people expected more from.   The danger here is that bad reporting leads to this being about Belichick and not about Hernandez.  The media always gravitates to and looks for "the bigger story."    It generates more eyeballs and more dollars.  The bigger story was Paterno not Sandusky and could also become Belichick not Hernandez.
 
This should be your first and last post. There's so much awful in this one post it's terrifying. Paterno didn't become the story because of his stature, he became the story because he knew about it. Apples and oranges here to the Pats.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Dotrat said:
I have some questions for any members with experience in journalism or media in general: One of the new developments this piece discloses is that Hernandez was at the combine in Indianapolis, which other reporters (including Albert Breer, I believe)have since corroborated. The story claims that at the Combine, Hernandez tells BB that he's in fear for his life, that Bristol thugs he's known since childhood are out to get him and want to murder him. Apparently, Belichick's response is something along the lines of, "Find a yourself place where you can lay low and sort of hide out." This seems to be the genesis of the Franklin condo flophouse where Hernandez may have stored weapons and guns. My questions are: Wouldn't what was discussed at this meeting at the Combine have been a pretty good-sized offseason story, one in which one of the team's (and the league's) star TEs who has just re-upped with the team for big money is either in danger or wildly paranoid? If this tale is true, how did it not get reported at the time?
Not a media member but i would say that it wasn't reported on at the time for a few reasons. The first being that, in February, the comings and goings of Aaron Hernandez didn't raise the antennae of any media member, even seeing him in Indy probably didn't raise too many eyebrows.  As to the details of the meeting, the only 2 people who know what happened during it (assuming it was just Aaron and Bill) are Aaron and Bill and neither of them were the direct source for this bit.  What we're getting is a well-after-the-fact game of telephone
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
If the meeting did happen, it's a big "who the f*** cares".  Belichick telling AH to rent an apartment is not the same as saying "go rent a flophouse and bring along your addict friends".  And that's assuming the meeting did happen as reported, which is a HUGE assumption, given the sources here.
 
Ron Borges is just running for the 2013 John Tomase award of reporting false stories. 
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,754
Wilmington, MA
Dotrat said:
I have some questions for any members with experience in journalism or media in general: One of the new developments this piece discloses is that Hernandez was at the combine in Indianapolis, which other reporters (including Albert Breer, I believe)have since corroborated. The story claims that at the Combine, Hernandez tells BB that he's in fear for his life, that Bristol thugs he's known since childhood are out to get him and want to murder him. Apparently, Belichick's response is something along the lines of, "Find a yourself place where you can lay low and sort of hide out." This seems to be the genesis of the Franklin condo flophouse where Hernandez may have stored weapons and guns. My questions are: Wouldn't what was discussed at this meeting at the Combine have been a pretty good-sized offseason story, one in which one of the team's (and the league's) star TEs who has just re-upped with the team for big money is either in danger or wildly paranoid? If this tale is true, how did it not get reported at the time?
 
Probably because at the time nobody cared about what Hernandez was doing, so nobody bothered to follow up what happened between him and Belichick.  It's only now that he's a multiple murder suspect and his actions over the previous years are viewed in hindsight through that lens that this stood out and the story was further investigated. 
 
Edit:  What steveluck said.
 

Dotrat

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 11, 2002
2,135
Morris County NJ
lexrageorge said:
If the meeting did happen, it's a big "who the f*** cares".  Belichick telling AH to rent an apartment is not the same as saying "go rent a flophouse and bring along your addict friends".  And that's assuming the meeting did happen as reported, which is a HUGE assumption, given the sources here.
 
Ron Borges is just running for the 2013 John Tomase award of reporting false stories. 
 
 
steveluck7 said:
Not a media member but i would say that it wasn't reported on at the time for a few reasons. The first being that, in February, the comings and goings of Aaron Hernandez didn't raise the antennae of any media member, even seeing him in Indy probably didn't raise too many eyebrows.  As to the details of the meeting, the only 2 people who know what happened during it (assuming it was just Aaron and Bill) are Aaron and Bill and neither of them were the direct source for this bit.  What we're getting is a well-after-the-fact game of telephone
 
Yes, which is my point, I suppose--that is, if the conversation took place as it's now being reported, then it would have been a story in February, which leads me to doubt it. That I'm not sure we've ever heard anything about the details of Belichick's private conversations with players makes me doubt it even more. It sounds like something Borges or Soloratoff were told by a friend of AH without any ability or desire on the part of Rolling Stone to confirm that this was indeed the way the conversation went. And who could confirm it, anyway? We know that Belichick isn't going to say anything, so only Hernandez or hearsay from someone he knows could do the trick, neither of which is enough to convince me that any of this bit is true, compelling as it might be.
 

The Kid

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
2
NortheasternPJ said:
 
This should be your first and last post. There's so much awful in this one post it's terrifying. Paterno didn't become the story because of his stature, he became the story because he knew about it. Apples and oranges here to the Pats.
 
Sorry for "terrifying you" with my post. As a Penn State grad and fan, I have followed this story very closely beyond just the headlines and have actually read the Grand Jury Presentment, the Freeh Report and the Thornburgh report.  Having done so, I can with confidence tell you that the media got some things wrong around Paterno's involvement.   Bob Costas has for one come out and said that he and others rushed to judgement.  Paterno himself, said that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he did more.  The operative phrase being "benefit of hindsight".  That is a far cry from "allegedly convinced & stopped Penn State officials from confronting Sandusky" as someone suggested.
 
I am also, like most here, both a lifelong Pats and Sox fan, although one who is a Boston transplant. So  while this is my first post, I've been a long time lurker as I think the community here is a great place to see intelligent talk about the teams I feel passionately about.  While content to mostly just follow the conversations, I jumped in on this because I wanted to point out the misperceptions with Paterno's involvement because 1) they are misperceptions and 2) there is some relevance here.
 
Look at how quickly the national media picked up on the Belichick angle of this story.   No one questioning the source (the biased Borges) and even the inaccuracies in the article.  That is the only parallel I was making.
 
Anyway, don't want to digress and turn this into a Penn State debate, but since someone else raised it felt the need to jump in.
 

Mr Mulliner

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
793
Dotrat said:
 
 
 
Yes, which is my point, I suppose--that is, if the conversation took place as it's now being reported, then it would have been a story in February, which leads me to doubt it. That I'm not sure we've ever heard anything about the details of Belichick's private conversations with players makes me doubt it even more. It sounds like something Borges or Soloratoff were told by a friend of AH without any ability or desire on the part of Rolling Stone to confirm that this was indeed the way the conversation went. And who could confirm it, anyway? We know that Belichick isn't going to say anything, so only Hernandez or hearsay from someone he knows could do the trick, neither of which is enough to convince me that any of this bit is true, compelling as it might be.
I don't know - I tend to think the conversation did take place, but I fail to see how it's an indictment of Bill or the Patriots.  Hernandez is in trouble with Bill for blowing off his PT sessions while in CA where he went to get away from some issues here, and got dinged for a domestic issue while out there.  Bill gets angry, Hernandez flies to combine to attempt to explain to him that he might be in some personal trouble.  Bill listens to him talk about how he thinks his life might be in danger, says, "well, if you're that worried about it, get an apartment near the stadium, lay low, focus on football until this blows over."
 
There is zero evidence that Bill would have said anything like that if he really knew what was going on with Hernandez.  There's just no way they even remotely suspected that the guy had apparently killed two people last year and was about to kill another.  Guys with unsavory ties are all over the league - guys with gun charges, assaults, etc.. - why would they have thought that Hernandez was the one guy who was actually murdering people?  Fuck, the police had no idea, and even if they did apparently no one was taking their calls in Foxboro.  It seems to me that the fact that they had cut ties with local police further insulates them from culpability.  IF their security was still heavily tied in to law enforcement, then perhaps one could make the argument that they had heard some whispers about AH and chose to ignore them.  Since, according to the story, they don't have that line of communication to the extent that they used to, it's all the more likely they had no idea what AH was up to.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
bankshot1 said:
My football concern is that Goodell (who probably is sensitive to image/Rolling Stone) says to Kraft the Elder, have a greater degree of oversight of your organization. I'm tired of Spygate, crack smoking killers and DUI cop-smacking CBs, muddy up the pristine image of the NFL.  And if that means more Kraft, less BB, and a fed-up BB, then it may have an impact on the Pats . 
 
I think there's an internal contradiction in this statement.
 
 
Ralphwiggum said:
 
So along comes a murdering thug tight end and Gooddell is going to force Bob Kraft, one of the most powerful and influential owners in the league, to strip his coach of some of his power, why exactly?  Because he didn't have the clairvoyance to cut Hernandez before he murdered someone?
 
Plus he still hasn't found the rebel's hidden fortress.
 
I'm not gonna read that article, but how is the fact that the NFL's drug testing system didn't catch Hernandez not getting any burn? Seems like this is more league responsibility than Belichick's under the current regime.
 
 
drleather2001 said:
"The Patriot Way" is about as real as "The Curse of the Bambino" in that it's a media concoction that is useful to fall back for people who would rather not admit that sports can be complex and frustrating to explain, but isn't based on anything tangible. 
 
So any article that uses "The Patriot Way" as evidence of something that once was, or is no longer, is as credible to me as an article citing "Yankee Aura and Mystique" as a reason that the Yankees win a lot.   It's New York Post level bullshit.
 
The Patriot Way was always more about football operations and emphasizing team and football over all else. I think people liked to believe that that meant that all the guys were going to be good character guys, but that's just like how people like to believe that every NASCAR driver has great family values. It's basically just people's desire to link character and success--good things happen to good people and that sort of nonsense.
 
 
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Ron Borges' friend Frank Mendes, who was fired 10 years ago as security director of the Pats, has spent the time since being canned as the Security Director for the Archdiocese of Boston.
 
Now there's a guy who clearly has a good handle on the people working for him.
 
You can't be serious.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
The Kid said:
 
Sorry for "terrifying you" with my post. As a Penn State grad and fan, I have followed this story very closely beyond just the headlines and have actually read the Grand Jury Presentment, the Freeh Report and the Thornburgh report.  Having done so, I can with confidence tell you that the media got some things wrong around Paterno's involvement.   Bob Costas has for one come out and said that he and others rushed to judgement.  Paterno himself, said that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he did more.  The operative phrase being "benefit of hindsight".  That is a far cry from "allegedly convinced & stopped Penn State officials from confronting Sandusky" as someone suggested.
 
I am also, like most here, both a lifelong Pats and Sox fan, although one who is a Boston transplant. So  while this is my first post, I've been a long time lurker as I think the community here is a great place to see intelligent talk about the teams I feel passionately about.  While content to mostly just follow the conversations, I jumped in on this because I wanted to point out the misperceptions with Paterno's involvement because 1) they are misperceptions and 2) there is some relevance here.
 
Look at how quickly the national media picked up on the Belichick angle of this story.   No one questioning the source (the biased Borges) and even the inaccuracies in the article.  That is the only parallel I was making.
 
Anyway, don't want to digress and turn this into a Penn State debate, but since someone else raised it felt the need to jump in.
 
We have a thread that goes over all of this in the College subforum if you are so inclined. I wouldn't recommend it though.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
The Kid said:
 
...
Look at how quickly the national media picked up on the Belichick angle of this story.   No one questioning the source (the biased Borges) and even the inaccuracies in the article.  That is the only parallel I was making.
 
Anyway, don't want to digress and turn this into a Penn State debate, but since someone else raised it felt the need to jump in.
I'll take a pass on discussing Paterno in this thread.  However, if you look today at espn.com, boston.com, or bostonherald.com, and click on the NFL or Patriots links, the Solotaroff story is just one of many.  The big story on ESPN is the concussion lawsuit settlement, and a bunch of stories about the final roster battles taking place.  The local links mostly discuss Tebow (of course) and remaining roster battles.  It's a far, far cry from the Penn State coverage, Spygate, or Tomase-gate. 
 
Basically, everyone is agreeing that the BB/AH angle is a big don't-care.  Borges will bleat on forever about it, but the story is a sidelight that doesn't change the basic facts.  At the end of the day, the Patriots were Hernandez employer; nothing more, nothing less.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
Mr Poon 14 said:
 Guys with unsavory ties are all over the league - guys with gun charges, assaults, etc.. - why would they have thought that Hernandez was the one guy who was actually murdering people?  Fuck, the police had no idea, and even if they did apparently no one was taking their calls in Foxboro.  It seems to me that the fact that they had cut ties with local police further insulates them from culpability.  IF their security was still heavily tied in to law enforcement, then perhaps one could make the argument that they had heard some whispers about AH and chose to ignore them.  Since, according to the story, they don't have that line of communication to the extent that they used to, it's all the more likely they had no idea what AH was up to.
 
 
 
If you gave an order, that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
soxfan121 said:
 
Not really. The preponderance of evidence available to us tells us someone in that car murdered Lloyd and that Hernandez was present. The "eyewitness" says he stayed in the backseat, didn't see it happen, and was told later by Wallace that Hernandez pulled the trigger. That's like, not an eyewitness by any reasonable definition of the term. Further, Ortiz has a credibility problem that will be used by the defense. The article rightly speculates that the story of what happened at the industrial park will be Wallace & Hernandez vs. Ortiz and it takes one juror to wonder why Ortiz hasn't been charged (at this point) or where the actual murder weapon is (still not found) to get an acquittal. It's plausible that the defense can convince a juror that Ortiz pulled the trigger and that Hernandez did not. IANAL, but this is why Solotaroff made a big deal of the State choosing to charge at the first-degree level. 
 
The article is mostly poo-flinging but there is not an "eyewitness" and what witness there was is not a credible one. Hernandez, even if acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge is not going to play in the NFL again. But it is not a forgone conclusion that Hernandez "did it", nor is it known what happened or who did it. All we really know is that Hernandez was involved in it and can afford great attorneys who will do everything they can to raise reasonable doubt - of which there is some at this point.
 
His comments on the radio are in addition to the article.  
 
On the radio interview, his insinuation (not very tightly veiled) is that he thinks Hernandez did it and more, but that the State has nothing and because he is a big bad Patriot NFL player he'll get away with it and that he will be welcomed back in the NFL because the NFL cares about talent.
 
Regardless, 4 people were in the car, one got shot, and someone witnessed something, unless they all had some kind of stroke event right at the time of the shooting.  As well, we have what was released and what was released was exactly enough to get a no bail decision and an indictment on first degree murder.  If it's all they have to go on, I would be pretty surprised.  So yeah, I think the preponderance of evidence (surveillance tapes, etc.) is that there was an eyewitness.  Oden Lloyd wasn't killed in the woods with noone around.  Whether the eyewitness is credible and whether the eyewitness actually saw the bullet leave the chamber are irrelevant to my point.
 
Beyond that, you missed one of the fundamental arguments of his hypocrisy, which is that he spends a lot of time talking about how bad of a guy Aaron Hernandez is, how the Patriots knew about it, and then goes on to say "but he'll probably get off and be back in the NFL."  If he is addicted to PCPs and can't even arrive at practice on a regular basis no fucking coach is going to take him and give him a starting job, not even in the depraved version of the NFL that Salotaroff has imagined.  Fuck, one of his big points is that Belichick himself was one step away from cutting Hernandez for his behavior.  so basically, he is saying, the Patriots failed to control this guy because they are terrible, but he'll get another job...why, exactly?  I guess because all NFL teams are terrible at tracking a guy like Hernandez?  But then what's so special and bad about the Patriots?  You see what I'm getting at here?
 
BTW I'm not even a Patriots fan and usually take great pleasure in anything that takes Belichick down a peg or 12.  
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,631
jp
GTFO with the "Paterno says hi" crap.  I am as big a mocker of the "Patriot Way" nonsense as anyone else.  But to liken the AH situation (or any drafting/signing of a guy with questionable character) to what Paterno did is ridiculous.  In order for the Paterno analogy to hold, we would need evidence that BB was actively impeding the investigation into AH in order to maintain the Patriot brand.
 
Jul 18, 2005
29
lexrageorge said:
I'll take a pass on discussing Paterno in this thread.  However, if you look today at espn.com, boston.com, or bostonherald.com, and click on the NFL or Patriots links, the Solotaroff story is just one of many.  The big story on ESPN is the concussion lawsuit settlement, and a bunch of stories about the final roster battles taking place.  The local links mostly discuss Tebow (of course) and remaining roster battles.  It's a far, far cry from the Penn State coverage, Spygate, or Tomase-gate. 
 
Basically, everyone is agreeing that the BB/AH angle is a big don't-care.  Borges will bleat on forever about it, but the story is a sidelight that doesn't change the basic facts.  At the end of the day, the Patriots were Hernandez employer; nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not sure you were looking in the right place.  It was one of the five or so blurbs in the lead in to Good Morning America this morning.  The blurb ended with something like, "How much did BB and the Patriots know?".  I remember it because I was surprised that BB was mentioned without any mention of Meyer.
 

Bucket1923

New Member
Apr 21, 2006
28
Rapid City, SD
Reverend said:
 
I'm not gonna read that article, but how is the fact that the NFL's drug testing system didn't catch Hernandez not getting any burn? Seems like this is more league responsibility than Belichick's under the current regime.
 
 
 
 
I agree regarding the NFL drug testing angle being overlooked.   I admit to being ignorant to the ins and outs of the NFL drug testing policy but this quote from Ben Volin's piece this morning blew me away
 
"Hernandez could easily get away with a drug habit. Per NFL rules, players are tested for street drugs (cocaine, marijuana, total morphine and codeine, opioids, hydrocodone, oxycodone, PCP, MDMA) just once a year, between April 20 and Aug. 9."
 
That's a god awful testing procedure if your goal is to eliminate the use of elicit drugs in your organization/enterprise.  It really brings into focus just how dumb Von Miller would have to be to (allegedly) piss hot for Molly when he knew the specific dates they are allowed to test for that.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Bucket1923 said:
I agree regarding the NFL drug testing angle being overlooked.   I admit to being ignorant to the ins and outs of the NFL drug testing policy but this quote from Ben Volin's piece this morning blew me away
 
"Hernandez could easily get away with a drug habit. Per NFL rules, players are tested for street drugs (cocaine, marijuana, total morphine and codeine, opioids, hydrocodone, oxycodone, PCP, MDMA) just once a year, between April 20 and Aug. 9."
 
That's a god awful testing procedure if your goal is to eliminate the use of elicit drugs in your organization/enterprise.  It really brings into focus just how dumb Von Miller would have to be to (allegedly) piss hot for Molly when he knew the specific dates they are allowed to test for that.
 
I knew this about the NBA policy--talked to a bench basketball player at Rutgers once and he said that the NBA tells the guys when the test is and then they throw huge parties the night after the tests. Didn't know the NFL had a lamer if somewhat more stringent approach as well.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,675
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Bucket1923 said:
I agree regarding the NFL drug testing angle being overlooked.   I admit to being ignorant to the ins and outs of the NFL drug testing policy but this quote from Ben Volin's piece this morning blew me away
 
"Hernandez could easily get away with a drug habit. Per NFL rules, players are tested for street drugs (cocaine, marijuana, total morphine and codeine, opioids, hydrocodone, oxycodone, PCP, MDMA) just once a year, between April 20 and Aug. 9."
 
That's a god awful testing procedure if your goal is to eliminate the use of elicit drugs in your organization/enterprise.  It really brings into focus just how dumb Von Miller would have to be to (allegedly) piss hot for Molly when he knew the specific dates they are allowed to test for that.
 
Well, this is the problem with simply saying "there's a drug testing policy" - obviously some of them can be more or less meaningless.   If someone has a chronic problem, you might be surprised at how they rationalize drug use.  I mean some people literally can't Not do their drug - no matter what the consequences.
 
Although I'm sure a great number of NFL players throw parties on Aug. 10th. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Reverend said:
 
smastroyin said:
 
His comments on the radio are in addition to the article.  
 
Fuck, one of his big points is that Belichick himself was one step away from cutting Hernandez for his behavior.  so basically, he is saying, the Patriots failed to control this guy because they are terrible, but he'll get another job...why, exactly?  I guess because all NFL teams are terrible at tracking a guy like Hernandez?  But then what's so special and bad about the Patriots?  You see what I'm getting at here?
 
I do, and thanks for clarifying about the radio interview.
 

strek1

Run, Forrest, run!
SoSH Member
Jun 13, 2006
31,747
Hartford area

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
Anyone catch Borges' appearance on D&C?
 
Minihane pushed him on what evidence Ron had on BB being "above" everyone else. He could not give a specific response, and replied with "do YOU have any evidence that BB isn't above everyone else" defense.
 
Borges also dug up Christian Peter -- yes, that Christian Peter that was drafted in nineteen-ninety-six, as an example that Patriots organization isn't run like it used to.
 
Not making it up, sadly. 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Playing in the NFL again...not going to happen.  He's dead to rights on the weapons charges and the commissioner will blackball him if he somehow walks outside a prison again.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,675
Miami (oh, Miami!)
strek1 said:
Rolling Stone Editor thinks Hernadez will beat charges & return to NFL...
 
http://gottlieb.radio.cbssports.com/2013/08/29/paul-solotaroff-aaron-hernandez-grossly-overcharged/
 
It's one thing to think he can get off in this trial (Stranger things have happened in Court),
but to think he will then beat the other pending cases that will follow and then think anyone in their right mind would sign this clown is a real stretch (IMO)
 
I'm not barred in MA, but in most jurisdictions the prosecution can amend the charging document to bring greater or lesser charges as they see fit.  So the "overcharging" hasn't happened yet - won't happen until the jury hears the actual charges read to it. 
 
Given what's been reported on this case, I can come up with the basic narrative structures for a few defenses for A.H. off the top of my head; it was an accident and/or the co-defendant's did it and threatened to blame him unless he helped, or a third unknown party did the killing. 
 
Most of those crumble under accessory theory and the physical evidence of an execution style shooting.  (Accessory theory is the argument that A.H. knew and helped with the crime before the shooting, or helped cover-up after the shooting.)  The rest of my ideas run aground on the co-defendant flipping/confessing (which you can fight by arguing that it was coerced, but at the end of the day if their buddy was shot by unknown men, why not call the police?)
 
I'd guess his best defense is that one of his co-defendants did the shooting, AH got scared and was also blackmailed/forced into covering up the crime.  There are a lot of counter arguments to that one though.  A lot.  And it does not cleanly get him out of accessory-after-the-fact theories
 
There's a sort of an emotional line in the sand you have to draw when assessing a case from the defense perspective.  Balancing argument against argument is a valid way to assess a case's strengths and weaknesses, but you always end up making something of a "gut" call when advising clients about whether to try a case or take a plea.  Most of that emotional assessment just comes down to whether or not the case/defense is "believable" - in a very common sense kind of way.   A lot of it is tied up in who is going to present the info to the jury and how they're going to come across.  The basic problem for the defense in this case is that A.H. looks and acts *exactly* like the kind of guy who'd do this sort of thing (don't underestimate this). 
 
No one's going to believe he was under the thumb of the other two co-defendants.  No one's going to believe that he didn't take a major role in covering up a murder he viewed with his own eyes.  Given the drugs and the thug life and the photos and the clowns that were involved in this case, it just makes too much sense that AH knew about the killing, ordered it, or covered it up to save his own ass.   Accomplice theory, his attitude, his tats, circumstantial evidence, the physical evidence of the execution style killing, and the flipped co-defendant is more than enough to bring him down. 
 
*IF* there's no police hanky-panky, and the prosecution uses accessory theory (and seems like they can argue it correctly), I'd be telling my client to take any kind of deal that got him out of prison at some point during his natural life expectancy. Hell, you never know what sort of crazy things will happen at trial, but at this point the case seems like it's worth *at least* 40 years, with a full confession and restitution to the victim's family (and that's with the quasi-mitigating drug addition/psychological issues argument, full and complete cooperation, surrendering all his assets, etc.). 
 
However, you add in the other murders, plus the golden-child "betrayal" factor, and I doubt there would even be an offer on the table.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Ron Borges' friend Frank Mendes, who was fired 10 years ago as security director of the Pats, has spent the time since being canned as the Security Director for the Archdiocese of Boston.
 
Even better, Jonathan Kraft:
pointed out that former security officer Frank Mendes was not the team’s chief of security, as was portrayed in the story
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2013/08/jonathan_kraft_responds_to_rolling_stone_article.html
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
Anyone catch Borges' appearance on D&C?

Minihane pushed him on what evidence Ron had on BB being "above" everyone else. He could not give a specific response, and replied with "do YOU have any evidence that BB isn't above everyone else" defense.

Borges also dug up Christian Peter -- yes, that Christian Peter that was drafted in nineteen-ninety-six, as an example that Patriots organization isn't run like it used to.

Not making it up, sadly.


loved hearing Minihane hold Borges' feet to the fire. It was killing me, though, that when Borges kept coming back at Minihane with his, as you describe it," 'do YOU have any evidence that BB isn't above everyone else' defense," Minihane didn't just say, "Ron, I'm not the one who wrote an article."

Borges kept trying to imply that the burden of proof was somehow balanced. He showed zero accountability as a reporter making serious claims. Any objective listener had to come away realizing Borges has an axe to grind with Belichick.

In any case, here's the interview -->

http://audio.weei.com/device/mobile/a/80188501/ron-borges-on-his-aaron-hernandez-story.htm
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Rovin Romine said:
 
There's a sort of an emotional line in the sand you have to draw when assessing a case from the defense perspective.  Balancing argument against argument is a valid way to assess a case's strengths and weaknesses, but you always end up making something of a "gut" call when advising clients about whether to try a case or take a plea.  Most of that emotional assessment just comes down to whether or not the case/defense is "believable" - in a very common sense kind of way.   A lot of it is tied up in who is going to present the info to the jury and how they're going to come across.  The basic problem for the defense in this case is that A.H. looks and acts *exactly* like the kind of guy who'd do this sort of thing (don't underestimate this). 
 
No one's going to believe he was under the thumb of the other two co-defendants.  No one's going to believe that he didn't take a major role in covering up a murder he viewed with his own eyes.  Given the drugs and the thug life and the photos and the clowns that were involved in this case, it just makes too much sense that AH knew about the killing, ordered it, or covered it up to save his own ass.   Accomplice theory, his attitude, his tats, circumstantial evidence, the physical evidence of the execution style killing, and the flipped co-defendant is more than enough to bring him down. 
 
*IF* there's no police hanky-panky, and the prosecution uses accessory theory (and seems like they can argue it correctly), I'd be telling my client to take any kind of deal that got him out of prison at some point during his natural life expectancy. Hell, you never know what sort of crazy things will happen at trial, but at this point the case seems like it's worth *at least* 40 years, with a full confession and restitution to the victim's family (and that's with the quasi-mitigating drug addition/psychological issues argument, full and complete cooperation, surrendering all his assets, etc.). 
 
However, you add in the other murders, plus the golden-child "betrayal" factor, and I doubt there would even be an offer on the table.
 
Thank you for offering the perspective of someone who actually practices criminal law.
 
I hope that the people who keep insisting "AH is going to beat this, just like OJ" can at least stop and consider that the facts of this case are not even remotely similar to what happened in OJ's case.  To others who keep pointing out that the "eyewitness" testimony is somehow tainted, the overwhelming nature of the evidence we actually know about is more than enough to secure a conviction in this case.
 
The prosecution does not have to prove the defendant guilty beyond all doubt.  They have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether he goes away for pulling the trigger or being an accomplice/accessory after the fact, he is going away.  Those who insist otherwise are simply flaunting their lack of familiarity with how the criminal justice system works.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
loved hearing Minihane hold Borges' feet to the fire. It was killing me, though, that when Borges kept coming back at Minihane with his, as you describe it," 'do YOU have any evidence that BB isn't above everyone else' defense," Minihane didn't just say, "Ron, I'm not the one who wrote an article."

Borges kept trying to imply that the burden of proof was somehow balanced. He showed zero accountability as a reporter making serious claims. Any objective listener had to come away realizing Borges has an axe to grind with Belichick.

In any case, here's the interview -->

http://audio.weei.com/device/mobile/a/80188501/ron-borges-on-his-aaron-hernandez-story.htm


Borges gets incredibly defensive in this section. Callahan goes right at saying Belichick has never been a Patriot Way proponent – that maybe ownership pushed it but that Belichick wasn't even around for Christian Peter. Borges has no real answer and says "Can we move on?"
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Haha, Borges is such a prick. That interview is a wonderful little snapshot of the guy, and, before anyone dismisses Rolling Stone of culpability, be aware that they knew exactly who Borges was when they picked him.

The best is when he is challenged on whether BB ever said they were above other organizations morally, he couldn't find an example, and his response was "can you find an example of BB saying he never said it!?" Ummm, what? And, believe you me, if BB ever had said something to the effect, don't for a minute think Borges would forget it.

Borges is the worst sports reporter in Boston, and that is no small accomplishment.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
Rovin Romine said:
 
I'm not barred in MA, but in most jurisdictions the prosecution can amend the charging document to bring greater or lesser charges as they see fit.  So the "overcharging" hasn't happened yet - won't happen until the jury hears the actual charges read to it. 
 
Given what's been reported on this case, I can come up with the basic narrative structures for a few defenses for A.H. off the top of my head; it was an accident and/or the co-defendant's did it and threatened to blame him unless he helped, or a third unknown party did the killing. 
 
Most of those crumble under accessory theory and the physical evidence of an execution style shooting.  (Accessory theory is the argument that A.H. knew and helped with the crime before the shooting, or helped cover-up after the shooting.)  The rest of my ideas run aground on the co-defendant flipping/confessing (which you can fight by arguing that it was coerced, but at the end of the day if their buddy was shot by unknown men, why not call the police?)
 
I'd guess his best defense is that one of his co-defendants did the shooting, AH got scared and was also blackmailed/forced into covering up the crime.  There are a lot of counter arguments to that one though.  A lot.  And it does not cleanly get him out of accessory-after-the-fact theories
 
There's a sort of an emotional line in the sand you have to draw when assessing a case from the defense perspective.  Balancing argument against argument is a valid way to assess a case's strengths and weaknesses, but you always end up making something of a "gut" call when advising clients about whether to try a case or take a plea.  Most of that emotional assessment just comes down to whether or not the case/defense is "believable" - in a very common sense kind of way.   A lot of it is tied up in who is going to present the info to the jury and how they're going to come across.  The basic problem for the defense in this case is that A.H. looks and acts *exactly* like the kind of guy who'd do this sort of thing (don't underestimate this). 
 
No one's going to believe he was under the thumb of the other two co-defendants.  No one's going to believe that he didn't take a major role in covering up a murder he viewed with his own eyes.  Given the drugs and the thug life and the photos and the clowns that were involved in this case, it just makes too much sense that AH knew about the killing, ordered it, or covered it up to save his own ass.   Accomplice theory, his attitude, his tats, circumstantial evidence, the physical evidence of the execution style killing, and the flipped co-defendant is more than enough to bring him down. 
 
*IF* there's no police hanky-panky, and the prosecution uses accessory theory (and seems like they can argue it correctly), I'd be telling my client to take any kind of deal that got him out of prison at some point during his natural life expectancy. Hell, you never know what sort of crazy things will happen at trial, but at this point the case seems like it's worth *at least* 40 years, with a full confession and restitution to the victim's family (and that's with the quasi-mitigating drug addition/psychological issues argument, full and complete cooperation, surrendering all his assets, etc.). 
 
However, you add in the other murders, plus the golden-child "betrayal" factor, and I doubt there would even be an offer on the table.
 
And doesn't that defense approach mean they likely need to put AH and/or the other dudes on the witness stand?  Given the fact that none of these guys seem to be Rhodes Scholars I would imagine opening them up to a cross examination by the DA would be a huge risk.  All the DA might need to accomplish in that cross would be to make these guys seem flustered or unclear on details in order to punch holes in their testimony.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
twibnotes said:
loved hearing Minihane hold Borges' feet to the fire. It was killing me, though, that when Borges kept coming back at Minihane with his, as you describe it," 'do YOU have any evidence that BB isn't above everyone else' defense," Minihane didn't just say, "Ron, I'm not the one who wrote an article.
 
That's because Minihane has been beat up in the past for going too hard on the guests. He can really be a pitbull and keep hammering on a point, which is his saving grace. You can tell he was biting his lips on that one.
 
For those who still haven't clicked on Twib's link, you owe yourself a listen. As EH commented above, that's a snapshot of Borges and he reveals it all too transparently. 
 
All the anti-Patriots slant on that article, which are all too gleefully picked up quoted by the Mike Florio of the world, have Borge's axe marks all over it -- with numerous factual inaccuracies to boot. That's a definition of a hack.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,675
Miami (oh, Miami!)
86spike said:
 
And doesn't that defense approach mean they likely need to put AH and/or the other dudes on the witness stand?  Given the fact that none of these guys seem to be Rhodes Scholars I would imagine opening them up to a cross examination by the DA would be a huge risk.  All the DA might need to accomplish in that cross would be to make these guys seem flustered or unclear on details in order to punch holes in their testimony.
 
Sort of.  The state has to prove the case, so basically anything that they don't address the defense can use.  But there are limits to what a defense attorney can do (both ethically and practically).  A good example dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence is the cookie jar scenario. 
 
So - there's a cookie jar.  You put oreo cookies in the jar.  You leave it alone and go outside to get the mail.  Your 6 year old is the only person in the house.  You come back in 10 min later and the kid's covered in cookie crumbs and the cookie jar is empty.  
 
If I'm defending I can't effectively argue that aliens ate the cookies.  If there was any sort of real defense, I'd probably have to put the kid on to explain it.  Say - that the neighbor crept in through the window and did it, if the kid himself came up with the idea. 
 
Ethically, as a defense attorney, I can't just make "positive facts" up or "suggest" defenses that the defendant can testify to - the defendant has to tell me what happened and then I can go after whatever that situation is.  I can't call the defendant as a witness if I know he'll be lying about something.  However, ethically, I can and must pursue any possibilities that are not explained by the State's theory of what happened.  There's a big difference between the two (see next paragraph).  The trick is not to pursue stupid possibilities and exhaust the patience of the jury.
 
But if we change the cookie scenario a bit - say, you're out of the house for 3 hours.  Other kids are inside playing.  There are no cookie crumbs found on anyone.  The dog seems very smug and has gas.   Now under this new scenario, if I'm defending, I can effectively argue that maybe it was someone other than your kid, without ever putting the kid on the stand.  The basic facts give rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether the kid was the actual person who took the cookies.  I don't have to come up with a "theory" of defense because the state can't reasonably prove that one kid out of many was the wrong doer.   And I can talk all day about how the jury didn't hear from the other kids, and how the state can't explain the lack of cookie crumbs, and how no one can rule out the dog, and ask just what you were doing leaving a bunch of six year olds alone in a house for three hours - and if that has any bearing on your testimony.   The kid does not have to take the stand for that - those are basic problems within the facts of the state's case. 
 
***
So here, AH's attorney can punch whatever holes he wants in the physical evidence, and the motivations of people testifying.  If one of those witnesses says something the defense can use (like Odin feared a random third person would kill him, or the now-dead co-defendant planned to kill when AH simply wanted Odin scared) they can build on the "what if" scenarios.  
 
However, there's a point where a case can be so "tight" (first cookie scenario) that AH pretty much has to take the stand to fill in the gaps in the narrative.  "There was another shooter" is one of those defenses where AH would have to testify.   "I was blackmailed" is another defense where he'd have to testify. 
 
He'll probably be shredded on the stand if he does.  Although you'd be surprised at how bad most prosecutors are on cross.  They don't get to use it much. 
 
In terms of the other defendants, if there's a deal, the state will call them as friendly witnesses, and the defense will cross them. 
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Just a suggestion:
 
Could a Mod move the discussion(s) of Borges' input to the Rolling Stone article to the Media subforum?  There are two distinct discussions going on here: one having to do with the legal aspects of AH's case, and one complaining about the slant/reporting of the article and how it reflects on the Patriots. 
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
drleather2001 said:
Just a suggestion:
 
Could a Mod move the discussion(s) of Borges' input to the Rolling Stone article to the Media subforum?  There are two distinct discussions going on here: one having to do with the legal aspects of AH's case, and one complaining about the slant/reporting of the article and how it reflects on the Patriots. 
 
I disagree here DRL.
 
By the same logic this thread should be moved to V&N. I think any media discussion, including Borges -- who shares a byline with the RS article -- and his past biases belong in this thread, along with Kraft's direct responses to the said article. 
 
P.S. Also, isn't it true that Kraft & BB needs to be very careful in their responses to the RS (and any other) public comments as they could be called as witnesses?
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Rovin Romine said:
 


***
So here, AH's attorney can punch whatever holes he wants in the physical evidence, and the motivations of people testifying.  If one of those witnesses says something the defense can use (like Odin feared a random third person would kill him, or the now-dead co-defendant planned to kill when AH simply wanted Odin scared) they can build on the "what if" scenarios.  
 
However, there's a point where a case can be so "tight" (first cookie scenario) that AH pretty much has to take the stand to fill in the gaps in the narrative.  "There was another shooter" is one of those defenses where AH would have to testify.   "I was blackmailed" is another defense where he'd have to testify. 
 
He'll probably be shredded on the stand if he does.  Although you'd be surprised at how bad most prosecutors are on cross.  They don't get to use it much. 
 
In terms of the other defendants, if there's a deal, the state will call them as friendly witnesses, and the defense will cross them. 
 
I've been traveling and not paying that much attention in the past couple of weeks, but this jumped out at me.
 
I know that lots of folks in AH's orbit have died recently, but I was not aware that either of the two co-defendants (Meaning - the two who were in the car that night) were among these. Did I miss this?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,675
Miami (oh, Miami!)
SeoulSoxFan said:
 
I disagree here DRL.
 
By the same logic this thread should be moved to V&N. I think any media discussion, including Borges -- who shares a byline with the RS article -- and his past biases belong in this thread, along with Kraft's direct responses to the said article. 
 
P.S. Also, isn't it true that Kraft & BB needs to be very careful in their responses to the RS (and any other) public comments as they could be called as witnesses?
 
I think this is highly unlikely.  Generally (unless we're talking about a court certified "expert witness" like a DNA analyst) a regular/ordinary witness usually needs to see something with their own eyes or hear it with their own ears for them to testify in a criminal case.  Further, what they testify to usually has to be relevant to the criminal act itself. 
 
There are scenarios that Kraft or BB could be called in a criminal case - for example if AH made a confession to them about what he did and why, or if the defense wanted them to testify as witnesses to AH's general reputation in the community as having good character or not being violent (Not Likely!).   However all of these scenarios would be kind of contortionist litigating involving narrow exceptions to the general rule.  I just don't see why any of them would be used. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,675
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Average Reds said:
 
I've been traveling and not paying that much attention in the past couple of weeks, but this jumped out at me.
 
I know that lots of folks in AH's orbit have died recently, but I was not aware that either of the two co-defendants (Meaning - the two who were in the car that night) were among these. Did I miss this?
 
Hmm.  You might be right - maybe I'm getting the uncle confused with the guy who was alleged to be the trigger man? 
 
Edit: Yep, that's exactly what I did.  The Co-Ds are Ortiz and Wallace, both alive and in custody.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Rovin Romine said:
 
Hmm.  You might be right - maybe I'm getting the uncle confused with the guy who was alleged to be the trigger man? 
 
The point is that if his co-defendants are very much alive and on trial with him, his ability to place the guilt on one or both of them almost vanishes.
 
I know that many seem to believe that real life is like a Law and Order episode where the inability of the state to pin down the exact identity of the shooter is a fatal error, but my understanding is that two co-defendants implicating each other in a killing like this (where there is no plausible claim of self-defense or any other explanation of the act) simply buries both of them.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
SeoulSoxFan said:
 
I disagree here DRL.
 
By the same logic this thread should be moved to V&N. I think any media discussion, including Borges -- who shares a byline with the RS article -- and his past biases belong in this thread, along with Kraft's direct responses to the said article. 
 
P.S. Also, isn't it true that Kraft & BB needs to be very careful in their responses to the RS (and any other) public comments as they could be called as witnesses?
 
Do you think that the Patriots are going to be named as a Defendant? If not, why on earth would BB and Kraft be called as witnesses?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Rovin Romine said:
 
I think this is highly unlikely.  Generally (unless we're talking about a court certified "expert witness" like a DNA analyst) a regular/ordinary witness usually needs to see something with their own eyes or hear it with their own ears for them to testify in a criminal case.  Further, what they testify to usually has to be relevant to the criminal act itself. 
 
There are scenarios that Kraft or BB could be called in a criminal case - for example if AH made a confession to them about what he did and why, or if the defense wanted them to testify as witnesses to AH's general reputation in the community as having good character or not being violent (Not Likely!).   However all of these scenarios would be kind of contortionist litigating involving narrow exceptions to the general rule.  I just don't see why any of them would be used. 
 
 
Agree.  Perhaps the prosecution could call one of them to establish something temporally -- what, I have no idea.  And it seems extremely unlikely that the defense would call one of them to establish a diminished capacity defense, as AH doesn't appear to be going in that director.
 
As for a civil suit vs the Pats, I await an explanation of how such a case could be brought based on existing law or a good faith attempt to extend it.  The point has been made above -- this would be an out of control expression of the nanny state.
 
By the way, the stuff regarding PCP that you and the doctor contributed enable me to wrap my mind around this behavior in a way that I couldn't before.  It rings true.
 
My question is, if he was so drug addled, why aren't we hearing jailhouse stories about AH's withdrawal?
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
drleather2001 said:
Do you think that the Patriots are going to be named as a Defendant? If not, why on earth would BB and Kraft be called as witnesses?
 
I actually had no idea -- thus the posed question. Very appreciative of RR for clarifying that. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Average Reds said:
 
Thank you for offering the perspective of someone who actually practices criminal law.
 
I hope that the people who keep insisting "AH is going to beat this, just like OJ" can at least stop and consider that the facts of this case are not even remotely similar to what happened in OJ's case.  To others who keep pointing out that the "eyewitness" testimony is somehow tainted, the overwhelming nature of the evidence we actually know about is more than enough to secure a conviction in this case.
 
The prosecution does not have to prove the defendant guilty beyond all doubt.  They have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether he goes away for pulling the trigger or being an accomplice/accessory after the fact, he is going away.  Those who insist otherwise are simply flaunting their lack of familiarity with how the criminal justice system works.
 
We have a whole generation or three of people who took from the OJ Trial that a crack criminal defense team can get anyone off. As RR mentions with respect to police "hanky panky," a big part of the OJ case was the absolute botching of things by the police.
 
 
Ed Hillel said:
Haha, Borges is such a prick. That interview is a wonderful little snapshot of the guy, and, before anyone dismisses Rolling Stone of culpability, be aware that they knew exactly who Borges was when they picked him.

The best is when he is challenged on whether BB ever said they were above other organizations morally, he couldn't find an example, and his response was "can you find an example of BB saying he never said it!?" Ummm, what? And, believe you me, if BB ever had said something to the effect, don't for a minute think Borges would forget it.

Borges is the worst sports reporter in Boston, and that is no small accomplishment.
 
Did he really say that?
 
 
SeoulSoxFan said:
 
For those who still haven't clicked on Twib's link, you owe yourself a listen. As EH commented above, that's a snapshot of Borges and he reveals it all too transparently. 
 
I sooooo don't owe this to myself.
 
 
dcmissle said:
 
By the way, the stuff regarding PCP that you and the doctor contributed enable me to wrap my mind around this behavior in a way that I couldn't before.  It rings true.
 
My question is, if he was so drug addled, why aren't we hearing jailhouse stories about AH's withdrawal?
 
PCP makes people nuts, and people crave it because they are drawn to the feelings it gives you (some of them anyway), but it's not physically addicting (for most people anyway) in the way that opium based drugs, for example, are. So he might be ornery that he's not feeling the god-like power of the drug, but he's not going to breaking into sweats and shaking, I don't think. It's more like LSD or something, if LSD could cause you to freak out to the point you could break out of handcuffs*.
 
*It's argued that someone can only break out of handcuffs that are defective, but at some point, that becomes tautalogical. As the medical professionals above indicated, people on PCP are wild, and you can look up video and see. The idea of a guy like Aaron Hernandez on PCP is absolutely terrifying.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
Reverend said:
 
Did he really say that?
 
I sooooo don't owe this to myself.
 
Yes, and yes. Borges comes off worse than any quote I can post here. He had to be defensive and bite back because he literally had no evidence to back him up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.