Hernandez Gets life in Prison without the possibility of Parole

[emhoward]

All that money and dude wanna play in the streets.

[CatMan72]

He had been questioned by the police prior to the talk with Kraft. More than likely they asked him where he had been the night before suggesting Hernandez would say he was at the club that night. Not indicating he knew when it happened because he was a part of it but because he was told.

Either way he was there so it's really a moot point but the fact the jury lacked any sort of deductive reasoning to come to that possibility is beyond me. Especially to speculate that because he knew the time he must have been the shooter when two other people were in the car.

And yes, one juror said he believed he was the killer based on that.

 

The police play their cards pretty close to their vest when they're questioning a potential suspect for this very reason, so I would be really surprised if they disclosed any details based on the evidence they had gathered at that point. 

 

Even more damaging was his lawyers admission that Hernandez witnessed the murder during his closing argument. It left the jury to try and understand why Hernandez would witness the murder of a close friend and then immediately invite the murderer back to his house to play video games. 

[ashehudson]

You are confusing Life in Prison and Life in Prison without the possibility of parole. Two different sentences.

First is eligible for parole...second rots in a cell until they die.

Oh well, I was hoping to justify the tax payer money. FBI probably should have taken over to make it more efficient. Anyone know why a multi state serial killer is not a FBI case?

[MedellinHeel]

Wow....I had a feeling the jury come back hung due to the evidence being circumstantial.  But I'm glad they got it right.

 

Evidence was tight. There was no question about what the outcome of this would be. 

[Cary Kollins]

Evidence was tight. There was no question about what the outcome of this would be.

Incorrect.

Why do you think the jury deliberated for like four days?

[MadHatter]

Incorrect.

Why do you think the jury deliberated for like four days?

 

Because they took their job seriously and a man's life was at stake.  They did exactly what a jury is supposed to do....problem is that many don't.

[Cary Kollins]

No murder weapon. No witnesses. No clear motive.

Far from a slam dunk case.

[KittyLover]

Kraft testified that he asked Hernandez about the killing and Hernandez said he wasn't involved and that he was in a club when it occurred.

Problem with that is no details had been released about the when the killing had occurred at that point... LOL

I'm wondering if Kraft put two and two together at that point and knew he was involved.

[sharkkiller]

He had been questioned by the police prior to the talk with Kraft. More than likely they asked him where he had been the night before suggesting Hernandez would say he was at the club that night. Not indicating he knew when it happened because he was a part of it but because he was told.

Either way he was there so it's really a moot point but the fact the jury lacked any sort of deductive reasoning to come to that possibility is beyond me. Especially to speculate that because he knew the time he must have been the shooter when two other people were in the car.

And yes, one juror said he believed he was the killer based on that.

 

Let's get this part clear about the Kraft testimony:

 

Kraft asked him if he was involved, and Hernandez said that he hoped the time of death would come out because he was in the club at that time. Not that he was in the club that night, but that he knew when the killing occurred and had an alibi for that time. 

[Anybodyhome]

Let's get this part clear about the Kraft testimony:

 

Kraft asked him if he was involved, and Hernandez said that he hoped the time of death would come out because he was in the club at that time. Not that he was in the club that night, but that he knew when the killing occurred and had an alibi for that time. 

 

And suddenly, the defense comes up with the notion that Hernandez was there, but had no role in the murder and makes this claim during closing arguments.

 

So, which was it? Hernandez made the claim he was in the club and his attorney made the claim he was present at the site of the murder.

 

[tiger7_88]

Incorrect.

Why do you think the jury deliberated for like four days?

The jury said in their interview that it took them that long because they thought it was their job to review ALL the evidence that had been presented to them in the case.

Simple as that.

They made it clear that after the evidence had been reviewed they all came to the same conclusion pretty quickly.

Sounds like a textbook definition of a slam-dunk case.

[Cary Kollins]

The jury said in their interview that it took them that long because they thought it was their job to review ALL the evidence that had been presented to them in the case.

Simple as that.

They made it clear that after the evidence had been reviewed they all came to the same conclusion pretty quickly.

Sounds like a textbook definition of a slam-dunk case.

 

 

I heard from multiple legal experts on sports radio talk about how it was specifically not a slam dunk case and he could walk.

 

 

It's not just my words. There are lots of articles online stating the same.

[Mr. Scot]

I heard from multiple legal experts on sports radio talk about how it was specifically not a slam dunk case and he could walk.

It's not just my words. There are lots of articles online stating the same.

To be fair, though, those were written before the verdict and the jury interviews

[Cary Kollins]

To be fair, though, those were written before the verdict and the jury interviews

 

 

exactly, it's easy to say that after the fact

 

 

 

doesn't really matter either way