Damn, that's really surprising.
I actually watched the opening and closing arguments, and even though I thought the prosecutors were light on forensic evidence I thought there was still enough there to convict. I actually gave the prosecutors a 70% chance of conviction. Some of the things that were convincing to me were:
- Club's camera placed both Hernandez and Bradley there that night
- Both guys left the parking garage in Hernandez's car
- Streets video cameras placed both Hernandez and Bradley leading up to the actual murder scene
- Inside the car that got shot, the people that didn't die identified 'a thin-ish white male in light hat with colours' as the shooter (i.e., not 'round face black male' which is more what Bradley looks like).
- Hernandez' car went missing, later found at one of his relatives house and been collecting dust there for a year
- Lack of forensic: How could there be any in a drive by shooting?
Put all together I think there is enough there to convict. I sorta think maybe the prosecutors muddied the water themselves by giving Bradley immunity and letting him take the stand. It gave the prosecutors something to 'latched onto' and attacked in the closing argument. The defense's strongest argument to me was the lack of motive. Would you kill someone over spilled drinks? The defense asserted that it was Bradley's drug deal gone wrong in the club that led to the killing. Also the shooting came from the driver's side, Hernandez would have had to have gone over the driver to shoot out the window (no dispute Bradley was the driver). That whole thing about Hernandez shooting Bradley in the face - I thought that whole thing was trash - there was absolutely no evidence of that. The prosecutors made a mistake bringing all that in, to me it was all just a waste of time.
Do I think Baez do anything special in this trial? Not really. I think he threw up enough doubts there but most of the doubts were on Bradley which to me is a given anyway. Baez actually came across to me as this high profile lawyer, someone only a person like Hernandez could afford, and would say anything to get his client off. But apparently the jury didn't hold that against him.
Would be interested to hear someone else's take on the trial & what you think.
I actually watched the opening and closing arguments, and even though I thought the prosecutors were light on forensic evidence I thought there was still enough there to convict. I actually gave the prosecutors a 70% chance of conviction. Some of the things that were convincing to me were:
- Club's camera placed both Hernandez and Bradley there that night
- Both guys left the parking garage in Hernandez's car
- Streets video cameras placed both Hernandez and Bradley leading up to the actual murder scene
- Inside the car that got shot, the people that didn't die identified 'a thin-ish white male in light hat with colours' as the shooter (i.e., not 'round face black male' which is more what Bradley looks like).
- Hernandez' car went missing, later found at one of his relatives house and been collecting dust there for a year
- Lack of forensic: How could there be any in a drive by shooting?
Put all together I think there is enough there to convict. I sorta think maybe the prosecutors muddied the water themselves by giving Bradley immunity and letting him take the stand. It gave the prosecutors something to 'latched onto' and attacked in the closing argument. The defense's strongest argument to me was the lack of motive. Would you kill someone over spilled drinks? The defense asserted that it was Bradley's drug deal gone wrong in the club that led to the killing. Also the shooting came from the driver's side, Hernandez would have had to have gone over the driver to shoot out the window (no dispute Bradley was the driver). That whole thing about Hernandez shooting Bradley in the face - I thought that whole thing was trash - there was absolutely no evidence of that. The prosecutors made a mistake bringing all that in, to me it was all just a waste of time.
Do I think Baez do anything special in this trial? Not really. I think he threw up enough doubts there but most of the doubts were on Bradley which to me is a given anyway. Baez actually came across to me as this high profile lawyer, someone only a person like Hernandez could afford, and would say anything to get his client off. But apparently the jury didn't hold that against him.
Would be interested to hear someone else's take on the trial & what you think.