Aaron Hernandez trial

[JudynTX]

It starts on Tuesday, in case you were wondering. :wakeup

[Big Empty]

It starts on Tuesday, in case you were wondering. :wakeup
Were you high when you heard this?

[DJR210]

:lol

[baseline bum]

Belichick was probably behind killing those three niggas tbh

[lefty]

Belichick was probably behind killing those three niggas tbh
Which means he'll get away with it


Bill is dat nigga tbh, ALPHA

[DJR210]

Take away a 1st round pick in 2016 and set that man free IMO.

[DMX7]

If I didn't have a job and I were a housewife, I'd totally be tuned in to HLN for every minute of the action.

[JudynTX]

Opening statements on Thursday.

[mrsmaalox]

Did it get postponed because of the big storm?

[JudynTX]

Yes, it was supposed to start today.

[SupremeGuy]

AH was killing niggas left and right, and all the media could focus on at the time was the ZMan. lol Fucking idiots.

[JudynTX]

In case anyone wants to see live stream.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/aaron-hernandez-live-stream/

[hater]

boring

[JudynTX]

Female juror got dismissed today. She lied on the questionnaire about how many Patriots games she attended. She also discussed the case on social media about how hard it would be hard to convict AH without the murder weapon.

[DJR210]

What New Englander in their right mind is gonna convict a Patriot after their big win? He's a hero, and should be freed. We celebrate Chris Kyle's lethality, why not Aaron Hernandez?

[Fabbs]

Female juror got dismissed today. She lied on the questionnaire about how many Patriots games she attended. She also discussed the case on social media about how hard it would be hard to convict AH without the murder weapon.:lmao
How many votes needed to convict?
Is this gonna be like OJ where Johny Cockroach said "just give me one black juror?"

"Just give me one Pats moron."

[JudynTX]

:lmao
How many votes needed to convict?
Is this gonna be like OJ where Johny Cockroach said "just give me one black juror?"

"Just give me one Pats moron."

It has to be unanimous. :lol So far, the state hasn't proved anything. :\

[MultiTroll]

It has to be unanimous. :lol So far, the state hasn't proved anything. :\
His babymama Shayanna Jenkins granted immunity and now considered a prosecution witness.
What? Is this some schemey bullshit his liarwyers have cooked up?

[JudynTX]

His babymama Shayanna Jenkins granted immunity and now considered a prosecution witness.
What? Is this some schemey bullshit his liarwyers have cooked up?

Won't mean anything unless she testifies where the smoking gun is. TBH

[MultiTroll]

Won't mean anything unless she testifies where the smoking gun is. TBH
Right. Probably just a scheme with her liarwyers coaching her to, now that immunity is obtained just turn around and shit on the prosecution. I remember when Michael Jacksons purchased wife did this exact same thing.

[MultiTroll]

So Judy is the Scheme Team winning so far?
Will it matter with only 1 Pats Moron needed on the jury?

[MultiTroll]

Ok Judy it's already established this kuunt judge refused to recluse herself in spite of past bad blood between her and the prosecuter.
Now this? WTF good reason is there to NOT allow the texts in?

FALL RIVER, Mass. — The judge and prosecutor in the murder trial of former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez got into a heated argument Friday over text messages sent by the victim in the minutes before he was killed. Hernandez is accused in the June 17, 2013, killing of Odin Lloyd, the boyfriend of his fiancee’s sister. Lloyd sent several texts to his sister early that morning. Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh previously has ruled them inadmissible. In one, Lloyd wrote he was with “NFL.” Prosecutor William McCauley told Garsh he wanted jurors to hear that four text messages were sent moments before Lloyd died. The judge said he couldn’t ask Lloyd’s sister about texts. McCauley became exercised and pushed, and the judge angrily replied, “My ruling stands!” McCauley indicated he’d appeal.

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2015/02/prosecutor-judge-in-aaron-hernandez-trial-argue-over-odin-lloyd-texts/

[MultiTroll]

Bring on the emergency appeals court.
I want this kuuunt judge out ASAP.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/2015/02/communication_showdown_heats_up_aaron_hernandez_tr ial

[MultiTroll]

Judge Kuunt reverses her decision. :dramaquee :rolleyes

The judge has since reversed that decision, however, and today said she would allow the number of texts, the times the texts were sent and the location from where they were sent to be allowed in court. That information has not yet been presented.

[FromWayDowntown]

The fact that the judge and the prosecutor have a history is no legal basis to recuse her, particularly since the problem might well be the prosecutor. If the standard for recusal was that low, any smart attorney with a case in front of an unfavorable judge would just create a conflict and then demand recusal.

Continue with the completely objective and unbiased posting!

[MultiTroll]

The fact that the judge and the prosecutor have a history is no legal basis to recuse her, particularly since the problem might well be the prosecutor. If the standard for recusal was that low, any smart attorney with a case in front of an unfavorable judge would just create a conflict and then demand recusal.

Continue with the completely objective and unbiased posting!
Tell me how that ruling with the texts just went. :rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

Tell me how that ruling with the texts just went. :rolleyes

I made a point about the general idea that a judge shouldn't be allowed to stay on a case if she has had past brushes with the prosecutor. I'm not trying to say that anyone in the courtroom is right or wrong, just that you're whining about this judge staying on the case isn't consistent with the law of any jurisdiction. That's all.

I'm not sure how the response to that point involves the judge reconsidering a point and changing her mind about it. What does that have to do with recusing herself from the case?

Frankly, I don't really care if Hernandez is convicted or not.

[MultiTroll]

The texts are a major piece of evidence from a juries point of view.
Were i sitting in the jury box with my unbiased point of view, i would absolutely want the text evidence in.
The fact this judge even tried to suppress it, indeed did suppress it and obviously it's implied the only reason the texts will now allowed in is she was forced to.
She had even blathered "an appeals court will back up my ruling".

Obvious bias.

I don't care that what she did can be loopholed thru the bullshit bylaws and power trips that judges are able to scheme thru *legal* means.
Just like the OJ stuff in his White Bronco glove box that was inadmissable because of some bullshit loophole and/or crappy police work.

The prosection most likely wanted to get the text info in on a Friday so the jury could be impressed over the weekend. It's an old courtroom trick used by both prosecution and defenses. Not saying it would make that much of a difference in todays age where, who are we kidding of course the jurors are reading stuff even tho they are not *supposed* to. Still, it jacked with their timing. Oh well, it's gonna be in now.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hmmm. Now the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure, which are intended to ensure the protection of the accused's Constitutional rights, are "bullshit loopholes?"

Why even bother with trials? Why don't we just convict people upon a suspicion that they have committed a crime; after all, we should just consider the worst things about the accused in determining guilt or innocence without regard to the relevance or reliability of that proof.

[JudynTX]

So Judy is the Scheme Team winning so far?
Will it matter with only 1 Pats Moron needed on the jury?

TBH, the state hasn't presented much. And you're right, there's at least one Patriots moron on this jury.

[MultiTroll]

TBH, the state hasn't presented much. And you're right, there's at least one Patriots moron on this jury.
I see where Hernandez girlfriend is seen removing a box in a garbage bag from the basement the next day ala Kardashian coming into OJs house to remove shit.

I know i know, she had baked some cookies for the church bake sale and was removing the cookie sheets from the house to take over to her aunts for blah blah blah.

Will be interesting to see the spin -if she testifies at all.

[MultiTroll]

3 housekeepers testify 3 guns in the house all the time. Under the mattress, etc.
Right after girlfriend leaves house with garbage bag -poof- no guns.

Yet the skank girlfriend who was granted immunity will probably not testify.
WTF was the purpose of granting her?

[MultiTroll]

TBH, the state hasn't presented much. And you're right, there's at least one Patriots moron on this jury.
Judge Judy and FromWayDowntown,
Where do you put the presentation of the gun casings etc?
Prosecution win or police work botched, defense liarywers were able to cast doubt.

i don't mean from this jurys point of view, it's not gonna matter. They have at least one Pats Moron so even verified videotape of Henandez offing Odin is not gonna matter. I mean from what you two saw, were the bullets definitely from Hernandez gun, tire tracks etc convincing to you?

[Fabbs]

In a case where the murder weapon has yet to be found, that’s a useful way of showing that the man accused of killing someone with a handgun had multiple handguns in his home. And the handguns weren’t in a safe or any other secure location; they were found in various places throughout the home, for example, in a sock drawer and in a pair of pants that had been left on the floor.

Both maids were later asked by Hernandez to sign non-disclosure agreements. They refused, and they were fired
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/aaron-hernandez-case/

Stay classy Hernandez.

[MultiTroll]

Hmmm. Now the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure, which are intended to ensure the protection of the accused's Constitutional rights, are "bullshit loopholes?"

Why even bother with trials? Why don't we just convict people upon a suspicion that they have committed a crime; after all, we should just consider the worst things about the accused in determining guilt or innocence without regard to the relevance or reliability of that proof.
Should Hernandez shooting Alexander Bradley also be allowed in?
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/potential-devastating-turn-for-aaron-hernandez-002553227.html
Think maybe it's reliable and relevant?

[FromWayDowntown]

Prior bad acts are generally not admissible because they tend to suggest a decision on a basis other than the facts of the particular case. That stuff doesn't just come in because there's some passing similarity in the acts. There's little doubt that the judge did the right thing in excluding any evidence of the Bradley shooting in her pre-trial rulings; absent some very unusual circumstances, that type of proof virtually never is admissible in a trial, and particularly not in a criminal trial.

It's certainly an interesting argument to suggest that Hernandez has opened the door to the admission of the proof by insisting that he wouldn't shoot a friend. My guess is that Hernandez will argue that it shouldn't come in because it's just a matter of Bradley's word -- Hernandez hasn't (as far as I know) been indicted or charged with a crime in the Bradley incident -- and that such proof would be unreliable and that, in any event, the prejudicial effect of that evidence would substantially outweigh whatever probative value it might have. But there may be merit, particularly under Massachusetts law (which I have never studied) to the idea that a defendant can open the door to this sort of evidence by his choice of a trial strategy.

It's not a slam dunk that it comes in, nor should it be if you believe in the right to due process of law and the Constitutional rights of the accused.

[FromWayDowntown]

Judge Judy and FromWayDowntown,
Where do you put the presentation of the gun casings etc?
Prosecution win or police work botched, defense liarywers were able to cast doubt.

i don't mean from this jurys point of view, it's not gonna matter. They have at least one Pats Moron so even verified videotape of Henandez offing Odin is not gonna matter. I mean from what you two saw, were the bullets definitely from Hernandez gun, tire tracks etc convincing to you?

No idea. Not paying much attention to this trial.

[MultiTroll]

It's not a slam dunk that it comes in, nor should it be if you believe in the right to due process of law and the Constitutional rights of the accused.
I believe in victims rights. I'm well aware of the accused having rights, and in no way shape or form do i think abuses happen only on the defense side.
That having been said, the US Injustice system is woeful when it comes to victims rights.

That the Bradley info should be allowed is a slam dunk in moral terms. Whether or not his defense can slease the system to keep it out, we shall see.

From the article:
"His friend Odin," is how Hernandez's attorney Michael Fee repeatedly described their relationship during January's opening statements in the trial of whether the former New England Patriot killed Lloyd on June 17, 2013. Fee used the term "friend" over a dozen times that day. >end exerpt

His defense is so obviously getting to play the "why would he shoot his friend?" card, the prosecution should absolutely be allowed to bring the Bradley shooting info in. Bradley is suing Hernandez for 100K in Federal court. He chooses not to cooperate with LE in any criminal pursuit of Hernandez.

[FromWayDowntown]

He chooses not to cooperate with LE in any criminal pursuit of Hernandez.

So, basically, we should just be able to take his word for it and that should be good enough.

Nobody has ever fabricated the identity of an attacker. Ever.

[MultiTroll]

So, basically, we should just be able to take his word for it and that should be good enough.

Nobody has ever fabricated the identity of an attacker. Ever.
Straw,
The jury should be able to hear the allegations. They can decide how relevant or not they are.
Same as with the texts.

[FromWayDowntown]

So you'd just throw out the Constitution altogether?

Why not just immediately convict those accused of crimes? It would save the hassles of trials and due process.

[MultiTroll]

So you'd just throw out the Constitution altogether?

Why not just immediately convict those accused of crimes? It would save the hassles of trials and due process.
Are you one of the sites trolls just looking for hits?
Hey, gotta keep that post count going.

To play your game, Why not just keep ALL evidence out? Make the victims have video combined with audio of the crime, and also require at least 47 witnesses for proof. Anything less then that and the criminal skates, period. Throw out everything else under the Straw umbrella of the accused rights being violated.

[FromWayDowntown]

The victim's rights cannot outweigh the rights of the accused if you believe in due process at all or unless you think that being accused of a crime necessarily means you did it. Our law presumes the innocence of the accused until he or she is proven guilty; what you want is presume the guilt of the accused. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty of that crime. Treating the accused as though they are presumptively guilty doesn't protect anyone's rights.

We diminish rights of the convicted, but that requires proof in a trial of the accused who has been afforded due process.

If you believe otherwise, that's certainly your prerogative, but you might as well admit to thinking constitutional due process has no place in our system of justice.

[Fabbs]

The victim's rights cannot outweigh the rights of the accused if you believe in due process at all or unless you think that being accused of a crime necessarily means you did it. Our law presumes the innocence of the accused until he or she is proven guilty; what you want is presume the guilt of the accused. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty of that crime. Treating the accused as though they are presumptively guilty doesn't protect anyone's rights.

We diminish rights of the convicted, but that requires proof in a trial of the accused who has been afforded due process.

If you believe otherwise, that's certainly your prerogative, but you might as well admit to thinking constitutional due process has no place in our system of justice.
I'll get back to the rest of your straw later, but for now regarding the constitution:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy conceded Thursday that the Constitution is not meant to be interpreted in its original, literal state, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

In a speech at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Monterey, Calif., Kennedy asserted that the authors intentionally used general language so that guiding principles could steer lawmakers tackling present-day issues.

“The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” he said, pointing to original text allowing for slavery. “The framers were wise enough to know that they could not foresee the injustices” of the future.

[Fabbs]

The Criminal Injustice System
The following comparison of the effects of a crime on a criminal and on his victim are based on a chart published in The Daily Oklahoman and prepared by Oklahoma’s attorney general, Mike Turpin.
THE CRIMINAL
Has a choice—to commit crime or not.
If he commits the crime, he may (1)*be caught and arrested
(possibility, about one in five in the United States) (2)*not be
caught and probably continue a life of crime.
Arrest
1. Must be informed of his rights.
2. If injured while committing the crime or during his arrest,
he receives immediate medical attention.
3. Is provided with a lawyer if unable to afford one.
4. May be released on bail or own recognizance.
Pretrial
1. Is provided food and accommodation.
2. Books, TV, and recreation available.
3. Medical facilities, including drug and alcohol counseling,
are made available.
Trial
1. Is provided with state-appointed attorney.
2. Can plea bargain to obtain lesser sentence.
3. Can delay the trial and change its venue.
4. Can use various maneuvers to suppress evidence or get
acquittal.
5. If convicted (only 3 percent of crimes result in a
conviction), he can appeal.
Sentencing
1. May not go to prison—there are numerous alternatives.
Sentence
1. If sent to prison, has free food and accommodation again.
2. Has access to all kinds of medical and psychological
treatment at state expense.
3. Can improve education and develop job skills.
4. Numerous rehabilitation programs available.
5. With good conduct and work, can get early release.
After Release
1. Aid programs and loans available.
End Result
Large proportion return to a life of crime.
THE VICTIM
Has no choice—involuntary victim of crime.
Arrest
1. If injured, pays own medical and ambulance bills. Perhaps
carries psychological consequences for life.
2. Is responsible for replacing own property losses.
3. Is responsible for economic problems resulting from crime.
4. Loses time in cooperating with law-enforcement agencies.
5. Is generally not informed of progress of case.
Pretrial
1. Must arrange for and pay for own transport to court and
police offices. Work time and perhaps wages are lost.
2. Is still kept in the dark on case progress.
Trial
1. Again must arrange for and pay for transport and parking.
2. Must pay baby-sitter or other home costs.
3. Must recount the crime and be subjected to rigorous
cross-examination. He is just another piece of evidence.
4. The prosecuting attorney represents the state, not the
victim. Usually no restitution is demanded for the victim.
5. Has no right of appeal, even if criminal is released.
Sentencing
1. Has no say in decision, pleas, or sentencing.
2. Is often not even called for the sentencing.
After Release
1. Is often dissatisfied with criminal “justice” system.
2. Is in fear of released criminal(s) and retaliation.
3. Trauma may continue for rest of his/her life.
End Result
No longer respects a system that bends over backward to respect
the rights of the criminal but that ignores the needs of the
victim.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, if you're accused of a crime, are you presumptively guilty or presumptively innocent?

Honest question.

[Fabbs]

So, if you're accused of a crime, are you presumptively guilty or presumptively innocent?

Honest question.
I myself assume neither guilt nor innocence.
From there the reasonable and fair thing is to have as much information, ie *evidence* as possible.

Very familiar with The Court of Last Resort, a group including the author of all the Perry Masons, Erle Stanley Gardner.
Which btw if you watch many Perrys, one quickly finds out often the accused and seemingly guilty are innocent.
Modern version would be The Innocence Project.
So ya i assume on neither side.

[Fabbs]

The victim's rights cannot outweigh the rights of the accused if you believe in due process at all or unless you think that being accused of a crime necessarily means you did it. Our law presumes the innocence of the accused until he or she is proven guilty; what you want is presume the guilt of the accused. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty of that crime. Treating the accused as though they are presumptively guilty doesn't protect anyone's rights.

We diminish rights of the convicted, but that requires proof in a trial of the accused who has been afforded due process.

If you believe otherwise, that's certainly your prerogative, but you might as well admit to thinking constitutional due process has no place in our system of justice.
Question for you regarding due process and the constitution.
Honest question.

Sicko pedophile rapes and tortures infants and children. Why stop there, throw in adults.
He is arrested with tons of evidence against him, but the cop does not read his Miranda rights properly.
The entire charges are dropped because of this technicality.

He was not afforded *due process* and his *konstitushunal rights* were *violated*.

Did the system work?
b. How about the victim(s)?

[FromWayDowntown]

You can claim to presume nothing, but our law is absolutely founded on the presumption of innocence and the imposition of the burden upon the state to prove guilt. So, ultimately, your complaints here are wholly without any legal foundation. You can complain about the manner in which American criminal cases are tried, but people who are far smarter than you or me have developed that standard to protect the innocent -- as Benjamin Franklin stated explained, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

In that regard, The Innocence Project is a perfect example of why your complaints about evidence in the Hernandez case should be disregarded.

That group exonerates plenty of people based upon - among other things - the admission of unreliable evidence in the form of things like other bad acts by the accused. The Innocence Project's lawyers show, frequently, that juries were provided with information that was inflammatory and highly prejudicial to the accused and that the outcome of the trial is questionable (if not entirely erroneous) because of the likelihood that the jury convicted on an improper basis. The Innocence Project is the walking, talking proof that we shouldn't just let anything in that might incriminate the accused and let the jury sort it out; the Innocence Project absolutely insists (as it should) that the accused should be presumed innocent and that the accused should be convicted only upon the State introducing proof go guilt beyond any reasonable doubt in a trial in which the accused Constitutional rights have been vigorously protected.

[FromWayDowntown]

Question for you regarding due process and the constitution.
Honest question.

Sicko pedophile rapes and tortures infants and children. Why stop there, throw in adults.
He is arrested with tons of evidence against him, but the cop does not read his Miranda rights properly.
The entire charges are dropped because of this technicality.

He was not afforded *due process* and his *konstitushunal rights* were *violated*.

Did the system work?
b. How about the victim(s)?

Miranda is only applicable to confessions by the accused; if the only evidence against the accused is a confession given without notice of his Miranda rights (a circumstance in which the State's proof would be iffy, regardless) then yes.

But in your hypothetical, there is tons of evidence against him (presumably including the testimony of those he attacked), so the fact that a confession might be tainted isn't likely to provide a basis for dropping the case.

[Fabbs]

Miranda is only applicable to confessions by the accused; if the only evidence against the accused is a confession given without notice of his Miranda rights (a circumstance in which the State's proof would be iffy, regardless) then yes.

But in your hypothetical, there is tons of evidence against him (presumably including the testimony of those he attacked), so the fact that a confession might be tainted isn't likely to provide a basis for dropping the case.
"Isn't likely".
Meaning it's possible and has happened X times over the years that it was the case of Pedophile/violent crime/financial rip off etc etc was thrown out. Strictly due to a technicality.

What comfort is that to the victims?

[Fabbs]

as Benjamin Franklin stated explained, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."
I will totally take Ben to task for that.
Better that 100 criminals inflicting harm are set free to (studies and common sense will show) continue to wreak havoc on how many more people as they continue their crimes? Why not, they got off scott free. Or went to prison and learned in more detail how to commit criminal acts.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That having been said, of course an innocent should not be falsely found guilty. Happens all the time tho in our "Constitutional" arrangement.

[Fabbs]

You can claim to presume nothing, but our law is absolutely founded on the presumption of innocence and the imposition of the burden upon the state to prove guilt. So, ultimately, your complaints here are wholly without any legal foundation.
And in doing so, the law presumes the one making the accusations is false.
No other way to spin it.

As to the Innocence Project* and the Hernandez case, i completely disagree that the Bradley shooting should be excluded. The judge says because it was a "different type" of shooting. :lol Look i've already read the *legal* reasons why it's excluded. I don't contest the *legal* reasons. But how it's excluded is beyond me. Ditto with the girlfriend not having to testify. What f'd up set of laws that someone with absolute knowledge of what came down can hide behind some bullshit law and avoid testifying.

To put it in general terms, did you see OJ criminal trial? Of course you did. Compare with OJ civil trial. No no no don't give the "lesser burden of proof" dance. I mean in that evidence that OJ's liarwyers were able to exclude in the 1st trial we in for the 2nd.
On and on.
OJ 1 held in heavy black hood with heavy black jury. Where, many of them had experienced direct or indirect police abuse. Where they unbiased? :lol Cockroach even said "just give me one black juror". Combine that with incompetent police work, Dardens incredible brain fart and you have OJ skating.
Compare with the competent civil trial and you had a juror saying "finding OJ Simpson guilty was very easy" -paraphrasing. Was she an OJ hater? No, she meant the evidence was so obvious.

You are surely not going tell me you think OJ was innnocent? Yet here we had under the *legal* system his skating 100%. Not our fault he was a dumbfuck and tried to bully the memoribilia guys.

*The Innnocence Project with the same Barry Sheck who fought viciously to get OJ off. :rolleyes

[MultiTroll]

a trial in which the accused Constitutional rights have been vigorously protected.
Tell me how in terms of fairness, Hernandez girlfriend, who is already busted for lying to the grand jury, gets offered immunity to maybe testify in Hernandez trial? :lmao:lmao

What does that have to do with justice and a search for the truth?
Oh i've read the legal mumble jumble as to why the prosecution more or less has to choose this route.
She can't be forced to testify about her own criminal acts because she cannot *self incriminate* WTF is that?
All because of her Konstitushunal Wrights.



For F's sake. :rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

She can't be required to testify because she (like everyone else in this country) has an absolute right against self-incrimination - which effectuates the presumption of innocence - and can invoke that right as to any question she might be asked in a court proceeding. The Commonwealth offers her an immunity deal, hoping that if she is assured that she won't face prosecution based upon what she might say (and thus, doesn't have a need to invoke her 5th Amendment rights), that she'll be forthcoming and revelatory. The State doesn't have to offer her that deal; assuming that she doesn't enjoy any sort of immunity from her relationship with Hernandez, the prosecution could presumably subpoena her and force her to either testify or invoke her 5th Amendment right, which tends to play poorly to a jury. But the Commonwealth would prefer that she offer substantive testimony and thinks that the only way to get her to do that is to offer her immunity. The only way to get around that is to eliminate the 5th Amendment right, which I don't think any reasonable person has actually suggested.

I get it. You hate the Constitution. Have a nice day.

[MultiTroll]

I get it. You hate the Constitution. Have a nice day.
I said i already knew the legal mumble jumble reasons. My q was how in terms of fairness can she refuse to testify. Your answer provided none of that.

Regarding the constitution, you completely did not respond to this post:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy conceded Thursday that the Constitution is not meant to be interpreted in its original, literal state, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

In a speech at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Monterey, Calif., Kennedy asserted that the authors intentionally used general language so that guiding principles could steer lawmakers tackling present-day issues.

“The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” he said, pointing to original text allowing for slavery. “The framers were wise enough to know that they could not foresee the injustices” of the future.

Along with post #45.

We're real big on defendants rights.
Victims rights, not so much?

Do you, like so many legal one sided Konstitution lovers benefit financially from the ability of the document to be manipulated? Ie lawyers - legal field?

[FromWayDowntown]

I did address your question; I just didn't give you the answer you wanted.

You see the Constitution as a trifle that gets in the way of what you perceive to be justice. That's fine, but don't expect a lot of people to agree with you.

The Constitution is precisely the reason she can refuse to testify and it's fair to the accused (or to those who might be accused) because at that point in time, they are only accused and not yet guilty. What you want is to deprive the accused (who, again, is merely accused and has not yet been convicted) of the protections against being incriminated on a wrongful basis in order to give a victim more rights just because he was victimized.

I get the desire to protect the victim, but exalting the rights of the victim over the accused only makes sense if you presume that being accused of a crime means that you did it unless you prove otherwise. If a trial is tilted toward ensuring that the victim is remedied with a conviction then the only thing that really matters is the conviction not whether that conviction was factually justified and obtained after a trial that was fair. At some point, the balance has to tip one way or the other; if we presume guilt, then the balance would tip in favor of the victim, but we presume innocence, which necessarily means that ensuring fairness tilts the balance of equities at trial in favor of the accused.

That's the way it is (and I think that's the way it should be if you believe (as I do) that the accused are simply accused and no more and that the State that elects to prosecute them is obligated to prove guilt). If you don't like it, then run for office and seek to make a change. At this point, your railing on an internet message board is completely counter to all prevailing constitutional theory and law on these issues.

Justice Kennedy has a point about there being some flaws in certain parts of the Constitution, but contrary to your suggestion, you are in a very small minority that would suggest that the Fifth Amendment's protections of due process and the right against self-incrimination are among those flaws. I don't see any widespread cry to amend the Constitution to rewrite the Fifth Amendment, to curb fundamental notions of due process in criminal proceedings, or to compel individuals to incriminate themselves at the whim of the State. So, the fact that other parts of the Constitution have been revisited over time does not compel the conclusion that any part of the Constitution is in any way infirm, as you seem to suggest.

[Blake]

"Isn't likely".
Meaning it's possible and has happened X times over the years that it was the case of Pedophile/violent crime/financial rip off etc etc was thrown out. Strictly due to a technicality.

What comfort is that to the victims?

Name a case where an alleged rapist was set free because he didn't get his Miranda rights read to him.

[cantthinkofanything]

Name a case where an alleged rapist was set free because he didn't get his Miranda rights read to him.

Pillowcase Rapist.

[MultiTroll]

No you didn't respond to my questions.
Not one word about post 45.

On the other I'll make it real simple for you.
The 5th Am protects ones from being falsely accused while at the same time allows guilty ones to hide behind it.
"One can chose to not self incriminate even when one is guilty as hell."

Ya that is what the Constitution was meant to be. :rolleyes

Change is coming, but i won't be running for office.

[unleashbaynes]

No you didn't respond to my questions.
Not one word about post 45.

On the other I'll make it real simple for you.
The 5th Am protects ones from being falsely accused while at the same time allows guilty ones to hide behind it.
"One can chose to not self incriminate even when one is guilty as hell."

Ya that is what the Constitution was meant to be. :rolleyes

Change is coming, but i won't be running for office.
Yes, that is literally why the fifth amendment exists you fucking idiot.

[Blake]

Pillowcase Rapist.

that dude was in jail for a long time. He's currently under house arrest

[FromWayDowntown]

No you didn't respond to my questions.
Not one word about post 45.

Why should I respond to some prosecutor's whining about the Constitution? He'd prefer to make it even easier than it already is to convict people on iffy evidence.

Besides, his entire list assumes that the person being tried for the crime is a "criminal;" he's a criminal ONLY if he is actually convicted of the crime, which does not happen until the State carries its burden of proof. A prosecutor ignoring the presumption of innocence? Shocking.


On the other I'll make it real simple for you.
The 5th Am protects ones from being falsely accused while at the same time allows guilty ones to hide behind it.
"One can chose to not self incriminate even when one is guilty as hell."

Ya that is what the Constitution was meant to be. :rolleyes

Oh, so what the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be . . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was really meant to say was: "No person shall be . . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," unless, of course, we all have chosen to believe that he committed the crime, in which case he should be required to admit to the fact that we think we already know.


Change is coming, but i won't be running for office.

Honest question: Can you point to anyone with a reasonable chance to win public office who is urging revision of the Fifth Amendment?

[DisAsTerBot]

fabbs got dumber when he started using multitroll......who'd've thought?

[MultiTroll]

Why should I respond to some prosecutor's whining about the Constitution?
Your stance on guilty people who get off due in large part to suppressed evidence is ____?
Your stance on guilty people who escape testifying using the 5th as a cowardice is ___?

[cantthinkofanything]

that dude was in jail for a long time. He's currently under house arrest

Good. He's a rapist. Would you have him running around willy nilly in public?

[FromWayDowntown]

Your stance on guilty people who get off due in large part to suppressed evidence is ____?
Your stance on guilty people who escape testifying using the 5th as a cowardice is ___?

My position on each question is that the Constitution protects the accused from being wrongfully convicted. I agree with many others in the view that the greatest injustice of all is the wrongful conviction of anyone. Even with all the Due Process protections that exist in criminal trials, innocent people are still convicted, are still imprisoned, and in some cases are still executed. That is unconscionable. What you propose would only make that happen more often. I don't see how that could possibly be a good thing.

If you do, again, more power to you and your anti-Constitutionalist self. Should your argument win out, I pray that neither you nor anyone you care about is ever accused of a crime.

[MultiTroll]

The 5th Am protects ones from being falsely accused while at the same time allows guilty ones to hide behind it.
"One can chose to not self incriminate even when one is guilty as hell."

Ya that is what the Constitution was meant to be. :rolleyes


Yes, that is literally why the fifth amendment exists you fucking idiot.
No Numb Nutts, the original Constitution was not drafted so guilty sleazy cowards could hide behind and loophole out of accountability.

[MultiTroll]

My position on each question is that the Constitution protects the accused from being wrongfully convicted.
:lol You didn't answer either question.
I'm talking about when people are guilty and skate.

[Blake]

Your stance on guilty people who get off due in large part to suppressed evidence is ____?
Your stance on guilty people who escape testifying using the 5th as a cowardice is ___?

How do you know when evidence has been suppressed?

What way do you want to force people to testify?

[Blake]

:lol You didn't answer either question.
I'm talking about when people are guilty and skate.

Who exactly has skated on 5th amendment technicalities?

[cantthinkofanything]

Who exactly has skated on 5th amendment technicalities?

Pillowcase rapist.

[FromWayDowntown]

:lol You didn't answer either question.
I'm talking about when people are guilty and skate.

How do you KNOW that they're guilty? With Hernandez, you seem to have concluded that he's guilty, but unless you were there on the night of Lloyd's murder, you don't have any way at this point to KNOW that. You'll have to pardon me if I don't take your assumption of an accused's guilt as the gospel truth, particularly since you do seem prone to knee-jerk conclusions about things, often with incomplete knowledge about them.

In any event, my stance is that even people who are objectively guilty of crimes should not be deprived of due process protections and should not be obligated to incriminate themselves and if the State can't prove guilt within the strictures of the due process requirements of law, then our rule of law has been fulfilled even if the outcome of the case might seem unjust to you.

[Blake]

Pillowcase rapist.

nope

[FromWayDowntown]

No Numb Nutts, the original Constitution was not drafted so guilty sleazy cowards could hide behind and loophole out of accountability.

That's a pretty remarkable claim, given that the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be . . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," since that phrase has been part of the Constitution since 1791, and since that phrase was included in the Bill of Rights by the same men who wrote the Constitution itself, largely.

I think it pretty clearly means that the "original Constitution" was drafted so that those who are accused of crimes -- even those who might be objectively guilty of those crimes -- have a "loophole out of accountability," or at least the protection against incriminating themselves if they so choose.

[MultiTroll]

How do you KNOW that they're guilty? With Hernandez,
You're changing the subject knee jerk style to Hernandez.
I'm talking about cases where, in retrospect the person was guilty and got off.
Ever heard of that? In the history of court cases....:rolleyes

[cantthinkofanything]

nope

Peanut the Kidnapper?

[FromWayDowntown]

You're changing the subject knee jerk style to Hernandez.
I'm talking about cases where, in retrospect the person was guilty and got off.
Ever heard of that? In the history of court cases....:rolleyes


In any event, my stance is that even people who are objectively guilty of crimes should not be deprived of due process protections and should not be obligated to incriminate themselves. If the State can't prove guilt within the strictures of the due process requirements of law, then our rule of law has been fulfilled even if the outcome of the case might seem unjust to you.

[MultiTroll]

:lol "might seem unjust to me".
When guilty child molesters have gotten off due to some legal technicality, do you think that was unjust?

...I know que some legalistic non answer.....
Hopefully you will never become the victim of a crime that does you or yours real damage.
Guaranteed you will stop living in your head and have a whole new perspective of both sides.

[MultiTroll]

How do you KNOW that they're guilty? With Hernandez, you seem to have concluded that he's guilty, but unless you were there on the night of Lloyd's murder, you don't have any way at this point to KNOW that. You'll have to pardon me if I don't take your assumption of an accused's guilt as the gospel truth, particularly since you do seem prone to knee-jerk conclusions about things, often with incomplete knowledge about them.

In any event, my stance is that even people who are objectively guilty of crimes should not be deprived of due process protections and should not be obligated to incriminate themselves and if the State can't prove guilt within the strictures of the due process requirements of law, then our rule of law has been fulfilled even if the outcome of the case might seem unjust to you.
Never have posted one iota that i KNOW Hernandez is guilty.
Yes i lean towards his being guilty, oh hell yes.

To the point of this thread, his *girlfriend* / babymama packing shit out of the house and not having to testify about it, is pure bullshit. Nothing merititious about it whatsoever, regardless of the legal shiftiness.

[Blake]

:lol "might seem unjust to me".
When guilty child molesters have gotten off due to some legal technicality, do you think that was unjust?

...I know que some legalistic non answer.....
Hopefully you will never become the victim of a crime that does you or yours real damage.
Guaranteed you will stop living in your head and have a whole new perspective of both sides.

What guilty child molesters have gotten off due to a technicality?

Straw.

[Blake]

Never have posted one iota that i KNOW Hernandez is guilty.
Yes i lean towards his being guilty, oh hell yes.

To the point of this thread, his *girlfriend* / babymama packing shit out of the house and not having to testify about it, is pure bullshit. Nothing merititious about it whatsoever, regardless of the legal shiftiness.

How do you propose we make her testify? Jail? Waterboard?

[MultiTroll]

What guilty child molesters have gotten off due to a technicality?

Straw.
:lol BlakeChumper.
I hope you never sell (give up, whatever) your site but if it keeps you on the keyboard in the meanwhile.....

[FromWayDowntown]

:lol "might seem unjust to me".
When guilty child molesters have gotten off due to some legal technicality, do you think that was unjust?

...I know que some legalistic non answer.....
Hopefully you will never become the victim of a crime that does you or yours real damage.
Guaranteed you will stop living in your head and have a whole new perspective of both sides.

I can assure you that I'm not living in my head and my position is hardly "legalistic." The Constitution is not merely some technicality.

I can also assure you that my positions on these issues have not been arrived at lightly. But my positions are legally sound and based on an understanding of why the principles we're discussing exist. If you think otherwise, that's fine.

[Blake]

:lol BlakeChumper.
I hope you never sell (give up, whatever) your site but if it keeps you on the keyboard in the meanwhile.....

It's a serious question. If you can't back it up, then all you're doing here is setting up a mean ol strawman to beat up on.

[DJR210]

How's the reasonable doubt coming along in this case? Haven't followed it..

[cantthinkofanything]

It's a serious question. If you can't back it up, then all you're doing here is setting up a mean ol strawman to beat up on.Maybe Papa Eggshell.

[MultiTroll]

It's a serious question. If you can't back it up, then all you're doing here is setting up a mean ol strawman to beat up on.
Here is a very mild one. And by mild i don't mean the impact on the victims, i mean it's *only* a taped confession.

Just to get you started.
Despite taped confession, accused child molester walks freehttp://www.komonews.com/news/local/When-is-a-taped-confession-of-child-sex-abuse-not-enough-for-a-conviction-177702721.html

[Blake]

Here is a very mild one. And by mild i don't mean the impact on the victims, i mean it's *only* a taped confession.

Just to get you started.
Despite taped confession, accused child molester walks freehttp://www.komonews.com/news/local/When-is-a-taped-confession-of-child-sex-abuse-not-enough-for-a-conviction-177702721.html

.....


There's a natural instinct when someone confesses to a crime to say, that's what we need. He says he did it. but in order to overcome the hurdle of the corpus delicti rule you have to have that independent evidence.....

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/When-is-a-taped-confession-of-child-sex-abuse-not-enough-for-a-conviction-177702721.html?mobile=y

If someone walks into a police station and says on video "i committed a murder", but the police have nothing else to go on, do you believe that should be enough to convict him of murder?

[MultiTroll]

.....



If someone walks into a police station and says on video "i committed a murder", but the police have nothing else to go on, do you believe that should be enough to convict him of murder?
How about if the police have plenty else to go on?
Here is another mild one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/12/17/murder-tossed-on-technicality/

[Blake]

How about if the police have plenty else to go on?
Here is another mild one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/12/17/murder-tossed-on-technicality/

The cases were re-tried and both dudes are currently serving life sentences in Pennsylvania.
And Ohio legislators changed the law to avoid future loopholes.

And you still haven't answered my question.

[MultiTroll]

The cases were re-tried and both dudes are currently serving life sentences in Pennsylvania.
And Ohio legislators changed the law to avoid future loopholes.

And you still haven't answered my question.
About time the vegislators changed the law. :rolleyes

I'm still looking for child molesters that got off due to technicality.
It appears FromWayDowntown and other defendant rights only types have lobbied Google to show only falsely accused.

[MultiTroll]

The cases were re-tried and both dudes are currently serving life sentences in Pennsylvania.
They both had plenty of time to flee to a country that does not extradite.

[Blake]

I'm still looking for child molesters that got off due to technicality.
It appears FromWayDowntown and other defendant rights only types have lobbied Google to show only falsely accused.

you really love you some conspiracy theories don't you

[Blake]

They both had plenty of time to flee to a country that does not extradite.

they were never released. They were immediately extradited to Pennsylvania.

Smh.

[MultiTroll]

you really love you some conspiracy theories don't you
Some? Yes.
Here are some facts for you.
Over A Dozen Convicted Murderers Released From Prison On Technicalityhttp://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/07/11/over-a-dozen-convicted-killers-released-from-prison-on-technicality-more-could-follow/

[MultiTroll]

More coming at you Blakey and From.
In this one both he and his kuunt ex wife should be looking at charges:

'7th Heaven' Dad Stephen Collins

Confesses on tape to Child Molestation

NYPD Investigating [AUDIO]



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/07/stephen-collins-child-molestation-7th-heaven-audio-tape-nypd-investigation/#ixzz3UwQGkHnO

http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/07/stephen-collins-child-molestation-7th-heaven-audio-tape-nypd-investigation/

[MultiTroll]

sheesh, here is a bizarre one:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1290&dat=19910221&id=yfVTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4887,2931895&hl=en
Molesting father falsely confesses to get molesting son off.
Sounds like something you "defendants rights only" pushers would just love.

[Blake]

Some? Yes.
Here are some facts for you.
Over A Dozen Convicted Murderers Released From Prison On Technicalityhttp://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/07/11/over-a-dozen-convicted-killers-released-from-prison-on-technicality-more-could-follow/

Sigh.


All of these men were convicted before 1980. And since then, the court has changed the way juries are allowed to decide cases.

Apparently the Maryland court system was bullshit in the 60s and 70s. They fixed the problems.

Those old men that were released are all still on probation. A few of them might even actually be innocent.

[MultiTroll]

A few of them might even actually be innocent.
Are you saying most of them are guilty?!
Did you want to confer with FromWayDowntown before making this statement?


Those old men that were released are all still on probation.
It was taking down but in last nights spam wars between TrillTrollerator and Benefvckter, the later put up a link of a 50 year old guy, twice earlier convicted who while on probation tried porking a very young girl. (or was it he did, was caught raping again).

Don't misread this Blake, just like in Shawshank Redemption the Morgan Freeman character really did murder, was truly sorry and was no threat to society. Wouldn't hurt a fly. I get it, perhaps most of these older guys even if guilty will live it out in peace.

[MultiTroll]

Here is a San Antone/Austin one:

SAN ANTONIO — A man who confessed in group therapy to inappropriately touching a 5-year-old girl, leading to his arrest a week later, was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years deferred adjudication probation.
Richard Maxwell Residor (http://www.mysanantonio.com/search/?action=search&channel=news%2Flocal&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Richard+Maxwell+Residor%22), who turns 28 Wednesday, will not have a conviction on his record for the second-degree felony offense of indecency with a child if he successfully completes his decade of probation.
Residor was initially arrested on a charge of continuous sexual abuse of a child after telling police the touching happened at least three times over several months in 2011 and 2012. However, Residor pleaded guilty in February to the lesser charge as part of an agreement with prosecutors that also capped his possible punishment at 20 years in prison.
The district attorney's office was opposed to probation, according to plea paperwork. Visiting Judge George Godwin (http://www.mysanantonio.com/search/?action=search&channel=news%2Flocal&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22George+Godwin%22) decided the sentence.
Residor was in Austin at a three-day therapy and self-help seminar in September 2012 when he made the confession to the group, court records indicate. A Child Protective Services (http://www.mysanantonio.com/search/?action=search&channel=news%2Flocal&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Child+Protective+Services%22) investigator, accompanied by San Antonio police for backup, showed up a week later at his Southwest Side apartment to investigate the anonymous tip that had come from a meeting attendee.

rest of article:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Molester-gets-probation-following-group-therapy-5439713.php

[FromWayDowntown]

I just love it when Constitutional rights are considered to be "technicalities."

[Blake]

Are you saying most of them are guilty?!
Did you want to confer with FromWayDowntown before making this statement?

no, but you're saying they're all guilty.

[MultiTroll]

I just love it when Constitutional rights are considered to be "technicalities."
So when one is guilty, but gets off "Constitutionally" you are just fine with that. Wow.

[MultiTroll]

no, but you're saying they're all guilty.
:lol try to have a minute amount of game, FlakeHumper.

[Blake]

:lol try to have a minute amount of game, FlakeHumper.

i think you're the only one here that thinks you're winning at your game

[FromWayDowntown]

So when one is guilty, but gets off "Constitutionally" you are just fine with that. Wow.

The Constitution means what it says or it doesn't.

I guess you think it doesn't really mean what it says.

[MultiTroll]

The Constitution means what it says or it doesn't.

I guess you think it doesn't really mean what it says.
:lol Ya just wont give a direct answer.
As said previously, the day may well come (I hope it does not but if it does) where you or one of yours is a victim and you'll change your tune.

[FromWayDowntown]

Again, the number of circumstances in which those who are convicted of a crime truly "get off" is extremely small for a substantial number of reasons. Even the examples you've posted here are instances in which the accused/convicted were only given new trials and my guess would be that in most of those new trials, the same result -- conviction -- obtained. I don't see it as a trifle that the State be required to dot it's i's and cross it's t's as a predicate to depriving a person of liberty (and, sometimes, life).

Suppose for one second that we had proof that an executed "murderer" (i.e., someone the state has already killed) was not given a fair trial and that had he been given a fair trial, proof that established his innocence would have come in. Are you cool with his execution because someone at some point in time thought he was probably guilty?

[MultiTroll]

i think you're the only one here that thinks you're winning at your game
Oh i don't think i am, i know i am.

As to me not participating in the SpursTalk Troll contest "Whoever gets the most responses regardless of subject gets to give a rim job to the other trolls" i just ignore. You can keep competing. Most of the SpursTalk "debates" are likely the same poster on opposing sides. IDGAF. :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

:lol Ya just wont give a direct answer.
As said previously, the day may well come (I hope it does not but if it does) where you or one of yours is a victim and you'll change your tune.

The fact that I don't answer the question the way that you want me to doesn't make my answer indirect or irrelevant. But, as I've said before, I steadfastly agree with the legion of legal scholars who believe that it would be better to let 100 guilty people go than to let 1 innocent person be convicted.

As for your hypothesis about the certainly of my belief, I can assure you that you're wrong because I believe in both the protections afforded by the Constitution and the need for the State to adhere to those things. What I couldn't ever countenance is the possibility that someone who is falsely alleged to have victimized someone I care about has been wrongly imprisoned.

[FromWayDowntown]

lol

"winning" on the internet.

[JudynTX]

What happened here? :lol

Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club. :lol

[cantthinkofanything]

What happened here? :lol

Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club. :lol

Quit worrying about fucking Aaron Hernandez. You realize the Spurs are playing tonight? Can you pull up your panties for one goddamn moment and help root the Spurs on to victory?

[JudynTX]

Quit worrying about fucking Aaron Hernandez. You realize the Spurs are playing tonight? Can you pull up your panties for one goddamn moment and help root the Spurs on to victory?

:lmao I'm not worrying about AH. I want him to die in prison.

[cantthinkofanything]

:lmao I'm not worrying about AH. I want him to die in prison.

it sounds like you're worrying that he won't die in prison.

Anyway, put on your nylons and stilettos, shove in a couple of tampons. And let's get thing started. Gonna be a bumpy ride but the Spurs are going to ring this year.
Are you in? Or are you going to sit there hunkered down in a pool of urine and spilt salsa and hope the boogeyman Aaron Hernandez doesn't find you?

[Blake]

Oh i don't think i am, i know i am.

As to me not participating in the SpursTalk Troll contest "Whoever gets the most responses regardless of subject gets to give a rim job to the other trolls" i just ignore. You can keep competing. Most of the SpursTalk "debates" are likely the same poster on opposing sides. IDGAF. :lol

The difference for me and you is that I wasn't competing to begin with; I'm here in this thread for my own edification.

But feel free to go make yourself a trophy if it helps det ego.

[MultiTroll]

Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club. :lol
They showed a clip of that? :lol Saw her but did not see the clip from the club.
https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/kasey-arma.jpg?w=625

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2815187863/79cbd3dcaf35be2101c6dc7482630d18.jpeg

[MultiTroll]

I just love it when Constitutional rights are considered to be "technicalities."
Ya do?
Okay.
Courtesy of boutons:

more abuse of 1st Amendment which guarantees Freedom of Upskirt Photos

Pervs in Texas Can Still Legally Snap Photos Up Women's Skirts, Court Rules

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/upskirt.png


Ensuring that creeps will still be able to slip their camera phones under unsuspecting women's skirts, snap photos, then plaster them all over the Internet, Texas' highest criminal court struck down part of a law that would have banned “upskirt” photos (http://www.salon.com/2008/11/25/upskirting/) [3] this week.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that banning "improper photography or visual recording," goes against First Amendment freedom of speech rights. It argued that photos taken without permission in public are protected, and went as far as to say that such a ban was "paternalistic" as it would attempt to regulate photographer's thoughts.
In the court’s 8-1 opinion Judge Sharon Keller wrote:

“The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush. A person’s purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.”

http://www.alternet.org/gender/pervs-texas-can-still-legally-snap-photos-womens-skirts-court-rules?akid=12266.187590.tsPiAA&rd=1&src=newsletter 1019995&t=7

holy shit, TX, and its Repug judges, are really really fucked up.

[FromWayDowntown]

holy shit, TX, and its Repug judges, are really really fucked up.

Ironically, those judges are the ones who are most likely to side with your arguments about the conduct of a criminal trial through limiting the relative rights of criminal defendants.

I guess they're brilliant when they rule that way.

[MultiTroll]

Of course Hernadez and co killers missing tennis shoes are pure coincidence. :rolleyes

The prosecution showed before-and-after photos of a closet in Hernandez's home in North Attleboro. One photo from June 2013 showed the sneakers Hernandez wore the night Lloyd was killed. It also showed the shoes Hernandez associate Carlos Ortiz wore the same night. The two pairs of shoes rested on top of a bunch of other shoes.
In the second photo, taken in November 2014, the same closet is seen with all of the shoes except the ones Hernandez and Ortiz were wearing the night of the shooting. They were no longer in the closet or any other part of the house.
Prosecutors wanted to link Jenkins to the disappearance of the shoes. McCauley referred to the defendant's jailhouse comments that "she does what I want," referring to Jenkins.

[MultiTroll]

Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club. :lol
video.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/21/us/aaron-hernandez-murder-trial/

[MultiTroll]

Baby Mama looks guilty in about every court photo.
Wonder how much Hernandez paid her / has dirt / bullies threatened her to shut up?
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFhApz_f9qcFDx__OEhRoPQ5Tn5Hwa1 KS3w9pP98TcOQ5ejXd8
:lol missing from court everytime testimony on Hernandez trying to bone other chicks is in session.
:lol other days mouths choreographed "I love you's" back and forth with him.

[Blake]

Baby Mama looks guilty in about every court photo.


which counts as evidence in the fabbs court system

[MultiTroll]

Bradley, another fine associate of choir boi Hernandez.
Should the prosecution let him testify?
Judge Kuunt has said he cannot comment on Henandez shooting him between the eyes. That would be too relevant.
However if he decides F it, im telling the jury that Hernandez shot me, it's grounds for a mistrial. :lmao
The US Injustice system. Lovely.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/03/mcgovern_opening_pandora_s_box_in_aaron_hernandez_ trial

[MultiTroll]

Baby Mama looks guilty in about every court photo.
Wonder how much Hernandez paid her / has dirt / bullies threatened her to shut up?
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFhApz_f9qcFDx__OEhRoPQ5Tn5Hwa1 KS3w9pP98TcOQ5ejXd8
:lol missing from court everytime testimony on Hernandez trying to bone other chicks is in session.
:lol other days mouths choreographed "I love you's" back and forth with him.
Friday we get to find out what she will or will not say.
Last seen in court not wearing the large engagment ring that killer Hernandez bought her.
eh, might not mean anything.

[Fabbs]

Babymama
10/10 on the lying scale. :rollin

[Blake]

:cry fabbs got his user name back :tears of joy

[Fabbs]

I've always had my Fabbs profile.
Since your snitching, i got tired of having to log in/out from the Spurs forum.

[Blake]

Oh it doesn't work in the spurs forum?

Rofl

[Fabbs]

:lol Atty for Lying Baby Mama says she cannot come back tommorow.
He should be put in the same jail cell as Hernandez and Mama.

[Fabbs]

^^ Looks like atty for Lying Baby Mama had a change of heart under threat of contempt.
Oh and it's a she atty, not a he.

What a dumb twunt.
Pictured on right. Lie coaching in action. :lol
Flake and Downtown must be so proud.
http://www.gazettenet.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=qWzLB hN3_gqf8o8BvOY6b8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtPAVRLLb21kNj QnhW3E8GyWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

[MultiTroll]

A nice objective article.
Shayanna Jenkins' Testimony Is Difficult to Believehttp://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/30/shayanna-jenkins-aaron-hernandez-trial-testimony-leaves-more-questions-than-answers/

[Silver&Black]

Damn....I thought I smoked a lot of weed back in the day.

This nigga Hernandez smoked an ounce a day. And you know this was the good shit too....

[MultiTroll]

I guess the whole point, the only point in having Cheatriots Robert Craft on was to reveal that Henandez blabbed "I couldn't have killed him, i was at the Club" -when at the time he had no evidence of when Lloyd was killed.

Otherwise the sappy shit coming out of Kraft "Hernandez always hugged and kissed me. He looked me in the eye and said he did not kill him" pssssh as if heartless punk assed killers are going to say "Yes i killed him. Glad you asked me"

I continue to think it's not going to matter how much evidence points to Hernandez and his thug lying Baby Momma.
There is at least one Pats Moron on the jury. :lol

[MultiTroll]

Defense Liarwyer wearing Patriots tie to appeal to Pats Moron. :lol

[MultiTroll]

:lmao
After barking like a little ankle biter over tennis shoes, tire tracks, timelines etc, Hernandez defense liarwyer now says oh yeah Hernandez was at the murder scene.

Fuckin A you clowns Flake and Down.

[MultiTroll]

which counts as evidence in the fabbs court system
Don't hear a peep out of you and Mister Konstitushual Wrights guy.
Freakin asshole was at the scene.

If you're waiting to rejoice over my potential disgust at his not getting convicted, i already predicted there is at least one Pats Moron and/or bought off juror.

[JudynTX]

Still no verdict. SMDH

[tlongII]

The longer they deliberate, the better it is for the defense imo.

[CosmicCowboy]

The longer they deliberate, the better it is for the defense imo.

yep. All they had to do was give them a little doubt. Bet the prosecutor wishes he had the box the bitch tossed.

[Darth_Pelican]

Verdict: First Degree Murder

[MultiTroll]

:lmao I'm not worrying about AH. I want him to die in prison.

[MultiTroll]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTcZq6TSgGE
For now and the near future this will wipe the fake smirk off Hernandez face.
Hope he changes his way in the long run.

Now go after the bitch Baby Mama.

[RD2191]

Only white people can get away with murder. Silly ******.

[FromWayDowntown]

See, we abided by the Constitution and still got the verdict that you wanted. I know you're still bothered by the trifle that is our founding document and the protections it ensures all citizens in all circumstances, but in the end, the system got this one right and did it after a fair trial to the accused.

[Darth_Pelican]

The longer they deliberate, the better it is for the defense imo.

It turns out that they were just trolling the defense by deliberating so long.

[MultiTroll]

^^ did i want some pompous asstard who murdered another person and tried to cover it up every way he could convicted? Yes.

Sad that you would have been just as satisfied had he gotten off.
The system got "this one" right. Which in and of itself is your admission that it gets others wrong. Bravo.

[MultiTroll]

It turns out that they were just trolling the defense by deliberating so long.
naw some of the talking heads were relating other cases that took just as long, even longer and came back with guilty verdicts.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^ did i want some pompous asstard who murdered another person and tried to cover it up every way he could convicted? Yes.

Sad that you would have been just as satisfied had he gotten off.
The system got "this one" right. Which in and of itself is your admission that it gets others wrong. Bravo.

I wouldn't have been satisfied if he had gotten off; I would have accepted it, but I would have thought that verdict wrong. But I don't think we needed to run roughshod over his Constitutional rights to get to a conviction.

And it's unquestionable that the system gets other cases wrong, primarily because the courts allow in things that they shouldn't and permit juries to convict on improper bases.

[lebomb]

Aaron Hernandez is one of the biggest assshole dumbassess I have ever seen. You go from a superstar signing a 40mil contract, to a person who THOUGHT he could get away with murder....now serving a lifetime behind bars with not a fucking thing to live for. Millionaire to locked in a cage forever. :lmao

How fuggin stupid you must be. I mean, this takes the cake in stupidity. Noone is invincible or untouchable, as he thought he was himself.

[lebomb]

Rae Carruth is a close second in stupidity. Just pay the damn chile suppote and live as a free millionaire man. Nope, kill the bish and go to jail forever. Wow.....

[MultiTroll]

Interesting to see if Hernandez Scheme Team of defense liarwyers reveals their motive for the last minute strategy of saying "Oh yes, he was at the murder scene after all." Wonder if they got leaked info that the jury did not have any Pats Morons. Incredible given that areas PatsMo population. Guess the Schemers figured out they were not facing Pete Caroll for the end of game gift.

I'm still pleasantly stunned that no jurors were bought off/intimidated. Undoubtedly sleazeball Hernandez tried.

[Trill Clinton]

Rae Carruth is a close second in stupidity. Just pay the damn chile suppote and live as a free millionaire man. Nope, kill the bish and go to jail forever. Wow.....


check your pm's fam

[lebomb]

check your pm's fam

Got it..........sent you and Kool a PM

[Avante]

The "Duh" lineup

Mercury Morris
Warren Wells
Bob Hayes
Lance Rentzal
Tyson Gay
Lawrence Philips
Chris Nellom
Xavier Carter
Rae Carruth
Ben Johnson
Riley Washington
Maurice Clarett
Aaron Hernandez
Justin Gatlin
O.J.Simpson

[JudynTX]

I'm satisfied and so is the family of Odin Lloyd.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTcZq6TSgGE
For now and the near future this will wipe the fake smirk off Hernandez face.
Hope he changes his way in the long run.

Now go after the bitch Baby Mama.

They probably won't because of the baby.


Interesting to see if Hernandez Scheme Team of defense liarwyers reveals their motive for the last minute strategy of saying "Oh yes, he was at the murder scene after all." Wonder if they got leaked info that the jury did not have any Pats Morons. Incredible given that areas PatsMo population. Guess the Schemers figured out they were not facing Pete Caroll for the end of game gift.

I'm still pleasantly stunned that no jurors were bought off/intimidated. Undoubtedly sleazeball Hernandez tried.

:lmao Even the jurors laughed at Sultan's hail mary attempt.

[InRareForm]

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/4/21/8463607/aaron-hernandez-thinks-jail-training-camp

arron think jail is basically training camp

[MultiTroll]

^^ Jim Rome radio (i know he's a punk ass but has some good interviews) had a caller who had spent 5 years in the pen. He sounded very intelligent and not full of himself at all. He said he had observed this over and over, that being incoming inmates with Hernandez type demeanor keep that for about 2, 3 months tops. He said without fail every single full-of-themselves type loses the act in that time frame. Not saying this will for a fact apply to where Hernandez is going but it was an interesting talk from one who has been there.

[Fabbs]

:lmao Even the jurors laughed at Sultan's hail mary attempt.
For Fs sake.
Now look at what defense liarwyer Sultan is going to attempt. :lmao

FALL RIVER, Mass. -- A lawyer for Aaron Hernandez says he's concerned one of the jurors who convicted the former New England Patriots player of murder may have been "untruthful" during jury selection.

In redacted court documents released Monday, lawyer James Sultan says an anonymous tipster first called him April 16, a day after the 12-person jury convicted Hernandez of first-degree murder in the 2013 killing of Odin Lloyd in North Attleborough. Hernandez was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The name of the juror and the caller is redacted throughout the documents, as are details of what the caller said and what was said during the jury selection process before the trial.

In the papers, Sultan told the judge the female tipster would not give him her last name and called him several times from a blocked number.

During those conversations, one lasting as long as 25 minutes, Sultan said she told him that she recognized the juror from TV and that the juror had been present for a discussion about a Boston double murder case that Hernandez is also charged in. Mention of those killings was barred at trial. Hernandez has pleaded not guilty.

He also said the anonymous caller told him that she heard someone else say the juror had wanted to be seated on the Hernandez panel.

"She told me she does not want [redacted] into trouble, but it is on her conscience that she knows some information which may be important," Sultan wrote.

Sultan says if the juror had disclosed knowing about the Boston case during jury selection or had shown an interest in being on the jury, Hernandez's defense team would have asked that the juror be excused.

One juror was dismissed during the trial after the judge said evidence emerged that she had previously discussed the case and had an early interest in being seated on the panel.

He asked the judge to authorize a subpoena to trace the calls.

The papers were originally filed under seal. Superior Court Judge Susan Garsh on Monday decided to release the filings but partially redacted them to protect the identity of the juror. GateHouse Media, which publishes The Providence Journal and The Herald News of Fall River, had asked last week in court that the documents be unsealed and that the media be given immediate access.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13084205/lawyer-aaron-hernandez-juror-untruthful

[Fabbs]

:lmao Even the jurors laughed at Sultan's hail mary attempt.
and his latest Hail Mary to have informant person who *worked* with a juror claim said juror told her she was well aware of the other murder Hernandez committed. Technically a no-no.

Now it's uncovered the *informant* never did work with the juror and was obsessively sending Hernandez nudie photos in hopes of some fornicatin after he got off. :rolleyes

Hey on the Baby Mama front, did you see where Shayanna Jenkins the untruthful skank had her name changed legally to Jenkins-Hernandez? As we learned from the OJ case, NFL pensions are both fat and damn near untouchable.
That is what this is all about, right?
So she, thru the baby can get in on Hernandez NFL pension money?

[Fabbs]

The two guys at the murder scene have decided to plead guilty.
Not so helpful for Hernandez appeal hopes.

FALL RIVER, Mass. (AP) -- A friend of former New England Patriots star tight end Aaron Hernandez pleaded guilty on Monday to accessory after the fact for helping the NFL player after he shot a man to death in 2013.

Carlos Ortiz, 30, of Bristol, Connecticut, changed his plea to guilty on Monday in Bristol County Superior Court in Massachusetts as part of a deal with prosecutors, who dropped murder charges against him. He was sentenced to 4 1/2 to 7 years in prison.

Both Ortiz and Wallace were initially charged with accessory after the fact and later charged with murder. Wallace was tried earlier this year and convicted of the accessory charge, but found not guilty of murder. He also was sentenced to 4 to 7 years in prison.

She explained that prosecutors would have had to prove that Ortiz knew Hernandez killed Lloyd, and she asked him how he knew that.

"When we got to the spot, the only two people that got out of the car was Aaron Hernandez and Odin Lloyd," Ortiz told her. He said when he heard the gunshot, he turned around to look.

"The only one person that came in was Aaron Hernandez," he said.


"My heart aches, for three years of not hearing my son's voice, not seeing his smiling face," Ursula Ward said.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/hernandezs-friend-set-to-change-plea-in-2013-killing/ar-AAhGmmY?ocid=spartandhp

[Fabbs]

Hernandez latest, this time a double murder.
...pretrial hearing was Dec. 27. Hernandez, who is serving a life sentence for a 2013 murder, is scheduled to go on trial in Feb 13 2017 in the murder of two men in a 2012 drive-by shooting.

The man who tattooed guns and the phrase “God Forgives” on former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez, months after Hernandez allegedly killed two men in a drive-by shooting, is scheduled to testify for prosecutors at his upcoming double murder trial.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/30/aaron-hernandez-tattoo-artist-testify-double-murder-trial/pXWdKhmreME3AjarYeoIqI/story.html

[Will Hunting]

:lmao continuing to talk to yourself in a thread for the last 18 months
:lmao paying close attention to the Hernandez trial when the rest of the world views it as yesterday's news
:lmao obsessed with everything even remotely Patriots related

[monosylab1k]

http://static1.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/3/6/4/large1500/4630986.jpg

[Fabbs]

:lmao continuing to talk to yourself in a thread for the last 18 months
:lmao paying close attention to the Hernandez trial when the rest of the world views it as yesterday's news
:lmao obsessed with everything even remotely Patriots related
This is from just a couple of days ago.

I thought Hernandez's appeals were already over. I can't imagine that there's any real chance that he'll get a new trial and the system will have worked.
A couple of us board adults were talking about this in a similar case. I thought it might best be posted here in the Hernandez thread.
You might want to use a few more emoticons to look even more faggy.
Run along now to the Krew Car Meeting.

[redzero]

I have no problem rooting for serial rapists, but I draw the line at serial killers. Patriots fans should be ashamed!