Aaron Hernandez's interactive arm

So the DA is looking for tattoo artists who may have inked up the alleged murderer in the weeks after those two men were murdered in the South End. The Globe has posted a photo of his arm that you can mouse over and see expanded so that you, too, can look for clues in his tats.



    Free tagging: 


    Nah. If he literally got a

    By on

    Nah. If he literally got a tattoo of a violent nature after he definitely shot those guys, then how is that not more evidence? Its not proof, but it doesn't mean nothing.


    By on

    No more than "violent rap lyrics" mean guilt. Circumstantial evidence, and a bit excessive. Sounds like they want an excuse to shake down some tattoo artists.


    Gotta agree--no gun found in

    Gotta agree--no gun found in the Lloyd case, shaky testimony from shady associates looking for deals, and now a tattoo investigation? Sounds like the prosecution is trying to build a preponderance of circumstantial evidence and hearsay; if they had anything solid they would be moving forward already.

    With the big money lawyers he can buy, Hernandez will be playing in the NFL by 2016. Or at worst the CFL...


    Sorry to rain on ur parade

    By on

    Sorry to rain on ur parade but it's foolish of u to think he will get off the hook with no murder weapon. Of course they can convict him without a weapon. Are u confused with the oj case? Is this Troy crossley that conspiracy theorist ?

    As of right now

    By on

    It sounds like they have more evidence of him doing the double murder in the South End (though I'm pretty sure initial reports had him driving the SUV, now we hear he was actually the shooter) than they do in the Lloyd case. I'm 100% convinced he did kill Lloyd, but there's a significant lack of evidence.


    By on

    if he LITERALLY got a tattoo after he DEFINITELY shot those guys? What does that mean? How does the tattoo prove he DEFINITELY shot someone?

    If it's not proof, then it definitely is nothing.

    To be fair...

    The tattoo could be a nice neat chart with the columns: "People I've killed", "Date & Time", "Location"

    Of course he could argue that using such a tat against him would violate the 5th amendment.


    "If it's not proof, then it

    By on

    "If it's not proof, then it definitely is nothing."

    Poppycock. You can say anything of an evidentiary nature to a jury. He got a tattoo with a bloody cross on it... or whatever... 3 days after he supposedly gunned down Lloyd. He got two others after the South End shooting. You don't have to prove anything about what they mean. You just have to supply that information to the jury and let them draw their own conclusions.

    He's not getting a bench trial, folks. The things you say to a jury are taken in sum, not in part.

    You can say anything of an

    You can say anything of an evidentiary nature to a jury.

    How is this "evidentiary"? It sounds entirely circumstantial, and does nothing to link person to victim.

    Seems more like you are saying that the prosecution can say "anything of a prejudicial nature" to a jury, which isn't exactly the case.

    Circumstantial evidence is

    By on

    Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Does "he got a tattoo" prove anything? No of course not.

    But if he got a tattoo then the prosecution can say that. It is common and known that gang members get tattoos to represent their membership and exploits. These tattoos are and have always been admissible as evidence regarding same. The jury is free to draw their own conclusions.

    I'm no lawyer, but..

    These situations seem entirely disanalogous. Unless they are trying to prove Hernandez is a gang member, I don't think that will fly. We KNOW that gang members get certain tattoos to show certain things, and you can get expert testimony to prove as much. Thus, tattoos in that case do help prove something. In this case, violent tattoos don't seem to prove much for the reasons others have outlined. I suspect, unless you get an expert to testify that only murderers get violent tattoos, that the prosecution would have a very hard time getting it admitted as evidence.

    That said, I think everyone is missing the boat. It sounds like they are looking for the people who may have done such a tattoo. Maybe while getting the tattoo Hernandez said something potentially incriminating, and the DA wants to know about that. I think that is a giant reach, but I'd be surprised if they are trying to get "violent tat" admitted.


    By on

    We should all be pleased that he does not have a spider web on his elbow.

    Kelly.....that is exactly

    By on

    Kelly.....that is exactly what they're hoping for. That he told the tattoo artist why he wanted the tattoo resembling the notches on his belt for the bodies he dropped. And Hernandez certainly seems stupid enough to brag about it, especially if he knew the artist personally.

    The Attleboro case will turn into all three pointing the finger at each other, and at least convictions on second degree murder for all three....maybe first degree because of the way the law is written in Mass.

    The South End case is an open and shut conviction on first degree murder, they have every piece of desirable evidence possible and three eyeball surviving witnesses from the shot up car.

    And as far as the tattoo artist goes they are just piling on with circumstantial evidence if it exists there, which i'm sure is not a high priority for the prosecutor....just a little icing on the evidentiary cake. Circumstantial evidence is used to corroborate guilt in murder cases every single day and if the state thinks it'll help convince the jurors at all of his admission of guilt they will use it....there is nothing to lose in calling the tattoo artist on the stand.

    Snitchin' is what it all

    Snitchin' is what it all comes down to.
    Open & shut, circumstantial or not, shady or honest, the prosecution needs those eyewitnesses and I will bet you a beer they will chicken out. Thats why the prosecution is deep sea fishing...

    and / or

    Perhaps they're trying to associate him with a gang that he is on record denying association with. The tattoo artist could confirm whether the design was intended to be associated with the gang, in terms of symbols' meanings as well as weather AH ran his mouth as you said.