Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    In response to kevin13130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to kevin13130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Seriously. Why don't the Pats just assume everyone on their team is a murderer? It's good policy. I'm surprised more businesses don't do it. Kraft needs to run background checks on Brady and Belichick like yesterday.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    C'mon Kevin. You cant be that dumb. Can you?

     

    Of course don't assume that everyone is a murderer. Assume no one is. But if a team is getting ready to give a guy $40 million dollars, don't they do some deeper research on him, especially when his team mates have openly questioned him to the GM/Coach? When he has a 2nd apartment 5 miles from the stadium that is frequented by drug dealers and users? His family back ground and childhood and long time friends are known criminals?

     

    Geez, how many red flags does one need to assume due diligence is in order?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    If you took my point literally, then I'm not the one who's being dumb. Every business does its due diligence on its employees, and I'm sure the Pats looked into Aaron Hernandez probably much earlier than when they drafted him and certainly right after. We can only assume few or no red flags popped up there because the Pats ultimately drafted him and played him. Once a company hires an employee, it doesn't run background checks on the guy every time they give him a promotion. That'd be ridiculous, not to mention insulting.

     

    And you do realize that a background check only goes so far, right? At most, it verifies the person's identity, credit history, and criminal history. It does not entail hiring a PI and following the guy around, which is what probably would've been required for the Pats to know about Hernandez's off-field activities.

     

    Looking back, knowing what we know now, should the Pats have investigated Hernandez? No. Because unless there is a real, imminent threat (like if Hernandez taped himself saying he's going to go on a rampage), there is literally no reason for anyone to suspect him, even if he hangs out with bad company. You can't live in the US and enjoy the freedom of association and right to privacy, then rip on organizations and law enforcement for respecting those freedoms before they have strong evidence that someone has committed a crime. If that were possible, we could all badmouth someone we hated and get innocent people into trouble, which is what happens in some countries around the world today. Everything you've listed as "red flags" for Hernandez are either rumors or circumstantial evidence. It's a good thing our justice system, and indeed our society as a whole, doesn't operate the way you're suggesting.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Outstanding post Kevin.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    In response to kevin13130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to kevin13130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Seriously. Why don't the Pats just assume everyone on their team is a murderer? It's good policy. I'm surprised more businesses don't do it. Kraft needs to run background checks on Brady and Belichick like yesterday.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    C'mon Kevin. You cant be that dumb. Can you?

     

    Of course don't assume that everyone is a murderer. Assume no one is. But if a team is getting ready to give a guy $40 million dollars, don't they do some deeper research on him, especially when his team mates have openly questioned him to the GM/Coach? When he has a 2nd apartment 5 miles from the stadium that is frequented by drug dealers and users? His family back ground and childhood and long time friends are known criminals?

     

    Geez, how many red flags does one need to assume due diligence is in order?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    If you took my point literally, then I'm not the one who's being dumb. Every business does its due diligence on its employees, and I'm sure the Pats looked into Aaron Hernandez probably much earlier than when they drafted him and certainly right after. We can only assume few or no red flags popped up there because the Pats ultimately drafted him and played him. Once a company hires an employee, it doesn't run background checks on the guy every time they give him a promotion. That'd be ridiculous, not to mention insulting.

     

    And you do realize that a background check only goes so far, right? At most, it verifies the person's identity, credit history, and criminal history. It does not entail hiring a PI and following the guy around, which is what probably would've been required for the Pats to know about Hernandez's off-field activities.

     

    Looking back, knowing what we know now, should the Pats have investigated Hernandez? No. Because unless there is a real, imminent threat (like if Hernandez taped himself saying he's going to go on a rampage), there is literally no reason for anyone to suspect him, even if he hangs out with bad company. You can't live in the US and enjoy the freedom of association and right to privacy, then rip on organizations and law enforcement for respecting those freedoms before they have strong evidence that someone has committed a crime. If that were possible, we could all badmouth someone we hated and get innocent people into trouble, which is what happens in some countries around the world today. Everything you've listed as "red flags" for Hernandez are either rumors or circumstantial evidence. It's a good thing our justice system, and indeed our society as a whole, doesn't operate the way you're suggesting.

    [/QUOTE]

    you are mixing up government and private citizens as opposed to big private business and its contracted employees. 

    with Hern, there were multiple instances that should have given the Pats just cause

    you are aware that at one time in the early spring there were 7 private investigaters following Manziel, right?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

     

    you are mixing up government and private citizens as opposed to big private business and its contracted employees. with Hern, there were multiple instances that should have given the Pats just cause

    you are aware that at one time in the early spring there were 7 private investigaters following Manziel, right

     

    Karp

    I am not sure I like the kind of surveillance oriented society you are suggesting! The fear, paranoia and social control that this kind of society generates is a bigger problem than the things it protects us from.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kevin13130. Show kevin13130's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    In response to rkarp's comment:


    In response to kevin13130's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to rkarp's comment:


    [QUOTE]


     


    In response to kevin13130's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Seriously. Why don't the Pats just assume everyone on their team is a murderer? It's good policy. I'm surprised more businesses don't do it. Kraft needs to run background checks on Brady and Belichick like yesterday.


     



     


     


    C'mon Kevin. You cant be that dumb. Can you?


    Of course don't assume that everyone is a murderer. Assume no one is. But if a team is getting ready to give a guy $40 million dollars, don't they do some deeper research on him, especially when his team mates have openly questioned him to the GM/Coach? When he has a 2nd apartment 5 miles from the stadium that is frequented by drug dealers and users? His family back ground and childhood and long time friends are known criminals?


     


    Geez, how many red flags does one need to assume due diligence is in order?


     


    [/QUOTE]


     


    If you took my point literally, then I'm not the one who's being dumb. Every business does its due diligence on its employees, and I'm sure the Pats looked into Aaron Hernandez probably much earlier than when they drafted him and certainly right after. We can only assume few or no red flags popped up there because the Pats ultimately drafted him and played him. Once a company hires an employee, it doesn't run background checks on the guy every time they give him a promotion. That'd be ridiculous, not to mention insulting.


    And you do realize that a background check only goes so far, right? At most, it verifies the person's identity, credit history, and criminal history. It does not entail hiring a PI and following the guy around, which is what probably would've been required for the Pats to know about Hernandez's off-field activities.


    Looking back, knowing what we know now, should the Pats have investigated Hernandez? No. Because unless there is a real, imminent threat (like if Hernandez taped himself saying he's going to go on a rampage), there is literally no reason for anyone to suspect him, even if he hangs out with bad company. You can't live in the US and enjoy the freedom of association and right to privacy, then rip on organizations and law enforcement for respecting those freedoms before they have strong evidence that someone has committed a crime. If that were possible, we could all badmouth someone we hated and get innocent people into trouble, which is what happens in some countries around the world today. Everything you've listed as "red flags" for Hernandez are either rumors or circumstantial evidence. It's a good thing our justice system, and indeed our society as a whole, doesn't operate the way you're suggesting.


    [/QUOTE]


    you are mixing up government and private citizens as opposed to big private business and its contracted employees.


    with Hern, there were multiple instances that should have given the Pats just cause


    you are aware that at one time in the early spring there were 7 private investigaters following Manziel, right?


    [/QUOTE]



    You're right, of course, that private firms and organizations reserve the right to investigate individuals, especially those whom they have a contract with, as is the case between the Pats and Hernandez. I've implied as much in suggesting that the Pats must not have found anything alarming early on regarding Aaron since they drafted him and made him a key contributor. What I'm saying is that, after the "initial screening", there was no more reason to suspect Hernandez of any wrongdoing. Why would there be? He had no run-ins with the law (until he did). He maybe hung out with some shady characters, but you could say that about a lot of NFL players. We heard rumors about his aggressive/strange attitude at times, but you'd have to have a mean streak to play in the NFL. Brandon Lloyd is apparently a bit of a jerk, does that mean he's a felon too?



    You're wrong though in saying I'm confusing government/law enforcement with private business. Government cannot dictate who you associate with or violate your privacy. Your employer, in a way, can do these things through the threat of terminating your employment. However, just because the Pats can control and uncover every aspect of their players' lives, doesn't mean they do or should. And indeed, it's not just the Pats. What company do you know hires PI's to regularly follow their employees around? What manager sends out investigators to look into someone before deciding whether to give them a promotion?


    It's unprofessional and arguably unethical to go spying on your employees without very compelling reason. If a CEO ordered regular checkups on employees, then the Board would get rid of him or her in a second. It's not only a waste of money, but who'd ever want to work for you again? I don't think I've ever heard of a company being held responsible for what one of its employees does in his/her spare time, and yet here we are, with the media (and evidently you) trying to throwing all this crap onto Belichick and Kraft. This is why, with a few exceptions, I have no respect for sports media.



    Btw, your Manziel example is meaningless because that's a pre-screening process - getting to know a guy before he joins an organization. Aaron was already here and contributing. Do you have an example of a team investigating a veteran player who had no arrests while with the team and was, by all accounts, a solid teammate and charitable person? I'll wager it's not an established practice.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle Rico. Show Uncle Rico's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    Hernandez has a case here.

    Who was the female poster on the forum who was defending him from the very beginning?  What if she is right?

     

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/how-will-aaron-hernandez-s-attorneys-play-defense-060214

    In a recent motion seeking the dismissal of the charges, Hernandez’s lawyers wrote: “Despite the enormous quantity of evidence presented, the Commonwealth utterly failed to establish probable cause that Hernandez either murdered Odin Lloyd himself or participated in a joint venture with others to do so. Specifically, there was no forensic evidence presented linking Hernandez to the shooting, no eyewitness testimony, no inculpatory statements by Hernandez, and no evidence that Hernandez had motive to kill Lloyd. Basically, all that the Commonwealth showed the grand jury is that Hernandez was in a car with Lloyd and several other individuals shortly before Lloyd was shot to death.”

    “Other than having Hernandez in the car with Odin Lloyd, there’s no one identifying him of doing the shooting,” said Stephen Weymouth, a Boston criminal defense attorney.

    One tactic he said Hernandez’s lawyers could attempt would be to seek a court order to sever the former NFL star’s case from those of Ortiz and Wallace. Then, if Hernandez is tried separately, his legal team would undoubtedly subpoena Ortiz and Wallace to testify. Because both have also been indicted on murder charges, each would almost certainly invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify. And that could benefit Hernandez.

    “That will leave an impression with the jury,” Weymouth said.

    And even if either were to testify, defense attorneys would have plenty of ammunition to discredit either one.

    Ortiz has a criminal record, and days after Lloyd was killed authorities in Connecticut sought to revoke Ortiz’s probation in a larceny case after he tested positive for alcohol, cocaine, THC and PCP. And prosecutors have acknowledged publicly that he has changed his story about the night Lloyd was killed – opening the door for defense attorneys to attack his credibility if he were to offer testimony that was damaging to Hernandez.

    Wallace is in essentially the same situation. He has a criminal record going back to 1988, and a slew of aliases, and is accused of fleeing to Florida in the days after Lloyd’s killing – all of which the defense could be expected to pounce on if he were to testify.

    **

    Back in '82, I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile.

    How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?... Yeah... Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

     


     


     I'm no fan of big brother, private or public, but again I think Rkarp's point is simply that other teams seem to have thought Hernandez was too risky to draft.  Is it possible that the Pats should have reached the same conclusion? And since they didn't reach the same conclusion was it because they failed to uncover risks that other teams apparently uncovered or because they simply are willing to take risks other teams are unwilling to take? If the latter, is it prudent to take such risks, or should the Pats reevaluate their strategy? I don't know the answers, but I'm quite certain Bob Kraft has asked himself and his team the same questions, so why should we condem fans for asking similar questions? They are very good questions.


     


    We just have no way, as fans, of answering them, which I guess is why ATJ questions the point of asking such questions . . .   

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

     If BPD could not figure out the Hernandez was a risk in July 2012, how does one expect the Patriots to know either. Sociopaths are good at fooling people.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     If BPD could not figure out the Hernandez was a risk in July 2012, how does one expect the Patriots to know either. Sociopaths are good at fooling people.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, it doesn't look like AHERN was that smart.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NYC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Repeat ad nauseum. Why didnt the Pats check with the BPD before giving him a huge contract?

    [/QUOTE]

    You keep saying the Pats should have known. Well, BPD knew nothing about AH's criminal activity; they completely overlooked him at the club and did not even question him.

    [/QUOTE]

    That is not true. I do not keep saying that the pats should have known. I keep saying they should have asked, and should have checked. Per the article in the globe, according to the BPD, the pats security staff at the time, and the FBI, the Pats did not. The Pats have a huge budget for checking player back grounds, have a full time staff and have access to the NFL's even larger network and budget if they wish. 

    Yes, the BPD may have been negligent and/or lazy, but unless someone is telling lies, so were the Pats. 

    Unfortunately with regards to the BPD, another person was killed. Obviously to a much lesser degree of any importance, the Pats are left with an $8m cap hit and a gaping hole at the Move TE position. We can speculate on end if the Pats win the SB with Hern, regardless of the other injured players. 

    [/QUOTE]

    They can be forgiven.  They were duped.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    I am not sure why this thread got hijacked into a discussion about what the Pat's should have known about AH and when they should have known it. If you want to discuss that start a new discussion. This thread is about the BPD and what they knew and when did they know it. It seams to me that they used an event that happen a year later to circle around back to AH and the question is why did it take that event for them to do so? All the evidence they reference in the indictment they had at the time of the murders. They were not given the evidence after the Lloyd murder. You have a high paid pro football player at the same location and a expensive SUV involved in the drive by shooting why would you not put two and two together? The least they could have done is brought him in for questioning. Even if they were not aware of his gang activities back in Bristol you would have thought they would have cross the T's and dot the i's. I think with the number of cases they have to handle and who the vics were it just was not a high priority to solve the case. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    In response to fourjays30's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not sure why this thread got hijacked into a discussion about what the Pat's should have known about AH and when they should have known it. If you want to discuss that start a new discussion. This thread is about the BPD and what they knew and when did they know it. It seams to me that they used an event that happen a year later to circle around back to AH and the question is why did it take that event for them to do so? All the evidence they reference in the indictment they had at the time of the murders. They were not given the evidence after the Lloyd murder. You have a high paid pro football player at the same location and a expensive SUV involved in the drive by shooting why would you not put two and two together? The least they could have done is brought him in for questioning. Even if they were not aware of his gang activities back in Bristol you would have thought they would have cross the T's and dot the i's. I think with the number of cases they have to handle and who the vics were it just was not a high priority to solve the case. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Thank you for refocusing the discussion. BPD missed what was right in front of them. They had all the evidence on tape at the club and at the parking garage just down the street from the club. I am surprised that the local Boston media or national media has not picked this up and questioned BPD about it! Lloyd likely lost his life because of it.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Could BPD have Prevented the Lloyd Murder?

    If I was beat writer or reporter for one of the local media outlets I would be doing just that. Not only that it would not surprise me if the Lloyd family files a civil suit against the BPD. They might not get any money out of AH but they certainly could get a settlement from the city of Boston. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share