0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: tarheelsxxiii on April 19, 2017, 08:35:34 PMQuote from: Neurotic Guy on April 19, 2017, 08:19:47 PMQuote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 07:58:38 PMQuote from: Neurotic Guy on April 19, 2017, 05:59:24 PMQuote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 08:04:32 AMI hope this helps his victims get some closure.I just read an article I didn't understand - maybe you can explain it. Said that since the AH conviction (Lloyd) was pending appeal that the "abatement" rule is in effect which automatically dismisses the original conviction. Thus, Hernandez is now no longer technically guilty of murder.As pertains to victim closure and also possible motive for suicide, I think the article was suggesting that, in effect, this mitigates (or eliminates) the possibility of posthumously litigating for damages. Victims perhaps are victimized again and perhaps provides a motive that the suicide would assure that AH girlfriend and child get whatever remains in his estate. Sounds wrong to me, but maybe you can clarify. Thanks.http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-conviction-abatement/index.htmlNo, the estate can still be sued for damages. What it can't due is use the fact that he was convicted of murder beyond reasonable doubt to automatically establish liability in a civil case. The plaintiffs would have to prove the murder happened, this time by a civil preponderance standard. Think OJ: criminally not guilty, civilly liable.I don't like the abatement rule in general, because most apppeals are nonsense. I would require at least a judicial finding that the appeal shows "prima facae" evidence of trial error before vacating a conviction.Thanks Roy. Does it make any sense (assuming that there is any sanity involved), that Hernandez may have committed suicide knowing about the abatement rule and presuming this would decrease the likelihood (or mitigate the amount) of damages awarded?I wondered the same earlier, but also read reports that he was likely smoking synthetic marijuana in his cell and had written a bible verse (John 3:16) on his forehead. If true, foul play /\or hallucination / psychosis could have played a role.http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/04/19/aaron-hernandez-john-316-prison-cell-death-investigation/ Mental illness and character dirorder definitely part of the picture. Possible some grandiose idea of martyring for his family could be part of the picture.
Quote from: Neurotic Guy on April 19, 2017, 08:19:47 PMQuote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 07:58:38 PMQuote from: Neurotic Guy on April 19, 2017, 05:59:24 PMQuote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 08:04:32 AMI hope this helps his victims get some closure.I just read an article I didn't understand - maybe you can explain it. Said that since the AH conviction (Lloyd) was pending appeal that the "abatement" rule is in effect which automatically dismisses the original conviction. Thus, Hernandez is now no longer technically guilty of murder.As pertains to victim closure and also possible motive for suicide, I think the article was suggesting that, in effect, this mitigates (or eliminates) the possibility of posthumously litigating for damages. Victims perhaps are victimized again and perhaps provides a motive that the suicide would assure that AH girlfriend and child get whatever remains in his estate. Sounds wrong to me, but maybe you can clarify. Thanks.http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-conviction-abatement/index.htmlNo, the estate can still be sued for damages. What it can't due is use the fact that he was convicted of murder beyond reasonable doubt to automatically establish liability in a civil case. The plaintiffs would have to prove the murder happened, this time by a civil preponderance standard. Think OJ: criminally not guilty, civilly liable.I don't like the abatement rule in general, because most apppeals are nonsense. I would require at least a judicial finding that the appeal shows "prima facae" evidence of trial error before vacating a conviction.Thanks Roy. Does it make any sense (assuming that there is any sanity involved), that Hernandez may have committed suicide knowing about the abatement rule and presuming this would decrease the likelihood (or mitigate the amount) of damages awarded?I wondered the same earlier, but also read reports that he was likely smoking synthetic marijuana in his cell and had written a bible verse (John 3:16) on his forehead. If true, foul play /\or hallucination / psychosis could have played a role.http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/04/19/aaron-hernandez-john-316-prison-cell-death-investigation/
Quote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 07:58:38 PMQuote from: Neurotic Guy on April 19, 2017, 05:59:24 PMQuote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 08:04:32 AMI hope this helps his victims get some closure.I just read an article I didn't understand - maybe you can explain it. Said that since the AH conviction (Lloyd) was pending appeal that the "abatement" rule is in effect which automatically dismisses the original conviction. Thus, Hernandez is now no longer technically guilty of murder.As pertains to victim closure and also possible motive for suicide, I think the article was suggesting that, in effect, this mitigates (or eliminates) the possibility of posthumously litigating for damages. Victims perhaps are victimized again and perhaps provides a motive that the suicide would assure that AH girlfriend and child get whatever remains in his estate. Sounds wrong to me, but maybe you can clarify. Thanks.http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-conviction-abatement/index.htmlNo, the estate can still be sued for damages. What it can't due is use the fact that he was convicted of murder beyond reasonable doubt to automatically establish liability in a civil case. The plaintiffs would have to prove the murder happened, this time by a civil preponderance standard. Think OJ: criminally not guilty, civilly liable.I don't like the abatement rule in general, because most apppeals are nonsense. I would require at least a judicial finding that the appeal shows "prima facae" evidence of trial error before vacating a conviction.Thanks Roy. Does it make any sense (assuming that there is any sanity involved), that Hernandez may have committed suicide knowing about the abatement rule and presuming this would decrease the likelihood (or mitigate the amount) of damages awarded?
Quote from: Neurotic Guy on April 19, 2017, 05:59:24 PMQuote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 08:04:32 AMI hope this helps his victims get some closure.I just read an article I didn't understand - maybe you can explain it. Said that since the AH conviction (Lloyd) was pending appeal that the "abatement" rule is in effect which automatically dismisses the original conviction. Thus, Hernandez is now no longer technically guilty of murder.As pertains to victim closure and also possible motive for suicide, I think the article was suggesting that, in effect, this mitigates (or eliminates) the possibility of posthumously litigating for damages. Victims perhaps are victimized again and perhaps provides a motive that the suicide would assure that AH girlfriend and child get whatever remains in his estate. Sounds wrong to me, but maybe you can clarify. Thanks.http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-conviction-abatement/index.htmlNo, the estate can still be sued for damages. What it can't due is use the fact that he was convicted of murder beyond reasonable doubt to automatically establish liability in a civil case. The plaintiffs would have to prove the murder happened, this time by a civil preponderance standard. Think OJ: criminally not guilty, civilly liable.I don't like the abatement rule in general, because most apppeals are nonsense. I would require at least a judicial finding that the appeal shows "prima facae" evidence of trial error before vacating a conviction.
Quote from: Roy H. on April 19, 2017, 08:04:32 AMI hope this helps his victims get some closure.I just read an article I didn't understand - maybe you can explain it. Said that since the AH conviction (Lloyd) was pending appeal that the "abatement" rule is in effect which automatically dismisses the original conviction. Thus, Hernandez is now no longer technically guilty of murder.As pertains to victim closure and also possible motive for suicide, I think the article was suggesting that, in effect, this mitigates (or eliminates) the possibility of posthumously litigating for damages. Victims perhaps are victimized again and perhaps provides a motive that the suicide would assure that AH girlfriend and child get whatever remains in his estate. Sounds wrong to me, but maybe you can clarify. Thanks.http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-conviction-abatement/index.html
I hope this helps his victims get some closure.
Only person I feel sympathy for is his 4 year old daughter who will have to grow up without a father and knowing that her dad likely was a serial killer.I hope the rest of her family helps her along.