posted at 8/30/2013 9:41 AM EDT
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:
Belichick, per a close Hernandez associate, had told him to lay low, rent a safe house for a while.
close Hernandez associate = street thug
So we're supposed to take the word of one of AH's friends over Jonathan Kraft and BB? Yeah, so I'm gonna go with the word pillar of the community and the guy who runs a pretty good football operation over the guy who probably sells crack for a living.
There are a couple of ways to view this.
The "street thug" has nothing to lose or gain by telling the truth or lying.
Kraft and Belichick know the only people who can know if a certain conversation took place are Belichick and Hernandez. They can deny it to their graves and no one can prove it otherwise. The Pats organization has a lot to gain by denying it, nothing to gain by admitting it.
I don't know who is telling the truth, the Pats or the former associate of Hernandez.
But the point, to me I guess, is that Borges' information and sourcing is poor and not verifiable. Of course, with his caveats, Borges goes out of his way to say, in effect, "...hey, I'm only telling you what I heard through the grapevine." He's including something in the article that comes from a third party, a guy who is not even the source of the quote, and using it to advance his anti-BB agenda. Typical Borges.
So yeah, BB and Kraft have everything to lose, but the Hernandez associate, the guy who is probably a punk on the street, has nothing to gain? How about 15 minutes of fame, a quote in Rolling Stone, or being paid for his information? If this guy exists, and if he's telling the truth, why hide?
Again, this is typical Borges. He lets his hatred overtake his credibility.