Robert Kraft

[Hawktawk]

Between his blustery defense of his cheating team and his Hernandez friendly testimony on the stand Ive lost a lot of respect for this guy. He always has had this good guy image but now its all about defending his and his team's image truth be damned. Reminds me of when Joe pa was going down in flames. People who enable child molesters and murderers dont deserve oxygen.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry but I don't think I agree. I got no love for the man either, but I'm not a Pat's fan, If I were I'd love that he was willing to turn a blind eye to his team doing whatever it takes to win.

And Kraft's testimony was a big win for the prosecution, it verifies that Hernandez was lying about his initial alibi and establishes that he's been modifying his version of the events. I don't know how you could consider it "Hernandez friendly".

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patrio ... -hernandez

[Hawktawk]

I agree with the journalist and you on the point being discussed, ie the alibi story. But in other remarks Kraft appeared to greatly humanize Hernandez to the jury, talking about how they would hug affectionately and had a great relationship, what a great athlete he was who had earned the 40 million they gave him.
But in the same testimony he said he knew nothing about Hernandez off field activities. I believe that is a lie frankly as it has been reported that Hernandez was on a short leash with BB and had been threatened with release. What did Bill and Bob know and when did they know it? I know once he was arrested he was gone in 50 seconds and people were getting jersey buybacks. The flop house that was the scene of criminal activity and concealment of evidence was rented by Hernandez at the advice of Billacheat.It was widely reported by Rolling Stone among others that Hernandez was paranoid, packing heat and using drugs. I'm not buying Kraft or the Pats were completely blindsided and they have some culpability for what happened IMO.

[jshawaii22]

Hawktawk, do you really think that Bill Belecheck and the team's owner have conversations at that level about specific players? I don't mean AFTER he was arrested, I mean in the years before, when their was no sign of what was going on.

Do you think that Pete calls Paul Allen for personnel advise? I don't think you can be sure that there is a correlation between what 'leash' a coach has with a player and the player's relationship with an owner. It's the owner that signs his paycheck, not the Coach. I'd be nice to the owner, too.

The case is based 100% on circumstantial evidence. No gun, can't prove he committed a crime (in this case)... I think he walks.

js

[RiverDog]

I also don't know how Kraft "enabled" Hernandez. There was never any cover-up or attempted cover-up by Kraft or the team and from all accounts, the team has been more than cooperative with law enforcement authorities. There has been no accusation that anyone else on the team was associated with the crimes Hernandez is accused of committing.

Just an FYI, although I personally think he's guilty as sin, I think there's a good chance Hernandez will walk. All the evidence brought by the prosecution was highly circumstantial. There's no eye witnesses, no murder weapon, and they're extremely weak on motive. I have to be honest, from the evidence I've seen, I'd be awfully challenged to vote for a Murder 1 charge.

[Hawktawk]

I think its 70-30 whether he is rightfully convicted. I think the rules of evidence being employed by this judge are highly questionable.It makes it tough when the jury cant hear he is indicted on 2 other murder charges plus accused of shooting another associate in the face, not to mention all sorts of other testimony including striking part of the testimony of a Glock expert describing what is clearly a black semiautomatic pistol in Hernandez hand.The defense says its a remote control or I pad!!!!!

As for Kraft and BB not even a conspiracy theorist like me believes they tried to cover up the murder.

I do believe and the evidence shows that they coddled and covered for a dangerous gang banger and gave him 40 million because he was an awesome athlete that could help them win. The coach got rid of the law enforcement based security detail and replaced it with a PR firm from Wembley Stadium, basically babysitters and enablers instead of rules enforcers. Its all documented in several news articles that were written around the time of the arrest, notably Rolling Stone which had a very detailed article.
And yes I believe Kraft was a little more engaged than some others like to think. They knew the guy was a bad dude.

[jshawaii22]

if anything, If I was Kraft, I would be looking for a new security team. He's a pot-head, does coke, and he seems to be in charge of a group of drug sellers, moving the pot from Miami to New England and then selling it. Aren't they supposed to be out there looking after the Team's best interests?

And as far as the judge goes, the judges hands are tied as Hernansez has never been convicted of anything. That is why they can't introduce the other charges into this trial.

js

[RiverDog]

How does the Pats changing their security arrangements effect in any way the crimes Hernandez is accused of committing?

I'm no Bob Kraft fan nor a big fan of any of the other owners with the exception of Paul Allen, but there's several owners that I dislike more than I do Kraft.

[Hawktawk]

How does the Pats changing their security arrangements effect in any way the crimes Hernandez is accused of committing?

I'm no Bob Kraft fan nor a big fan of any of the other owners with the exception of Paul Allen, but there's several owners that I dislike more than I do Kraft.

Come on RD dont be Naive. Maybe its sour grapes but former security detail members felt Billacheats move was intended more to shield his boys from scrutiny than keep them in line, OK?Do you see any way it might be a factor?
I dont buy the Pats including Kraft knew nothing about Hernandez's off the field life any more than I buy Goodell didn't see the Rice tape.
Google articles on this subject and decide for yourself but I aint buying it. Like the previous poster stated, if I were Kraft Id sure want to have a better security detail. As much reefer as the guy was smoking I dont know how Kraft missed the smell when they were having their warm embraces.Running guns, shooting various people, smoking angel dust. WOW.
But the Pats had no clue till he was arrested.Yeah right.......I used to have no problem with Kraft at all but between spygate and all thats happened since I loathe him now

[NorthHawk]

The only person who really knows how much Kraft knew is Robert Kraft.

We do know that Kraft doesn't travel in the same circles as his players, so it wouldn't surprise me to find out he doesn't understand how a person who he knows (and maybe likes when he saw him around the team) would take that huge step to murder. It's not an act most people can comprehend and it could lead someone to sound like they are downplaying something when in fact they don't know how to handle it within themselves.

[Uppercut]

I never did like "Velveeta"

[RiverDog]

The only person who really knows how much Kraft knew is Robert Kraft.

We do know that Kraft doesn't travel in the same circles as his players, so it wouldn't surprise me to find out he doesn't understand how a person who he knows (and maybe likes when he saw him around the team) would take that huge step to murder. It's not an act most people can comprehenhat'sTd and it could lead someone to sound like they are downplaying something when in fact they don't know how to handle it within themselves.

That's my take, too. Hernandez and Kraft couldn't have lived in two more different worlds. There's three generations difference between the two men, not to mention that they were from two very distinct social classes. I've been completely surprised by a co worker's private life on a number of occasions, so it is very believable that Kraft was unaware of the scope of Hernandez's activities.

And as far as Kraft should have smelled weed on Hernandez, what kind of a fool (besides Percy Harvin) would allow himself to reek of marijuana when he's going to a function where anyone within team management is likely to be present?

Cbob is right about the damage Kraft's testimony did to Hernandez's defense. Kraft testified that Hernandez indicated to him that he knew what time the murder occurred before that information was made public. It's testimony that can't be refuted unless Hernandez himself goes on the stand to deny it, and his defense team isn't about to put Hernandez on the stand.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, men like Kraft are in tune with the real life, thug life, poor life folks about as much as we are with gnats. Realistically, if anyone in that organization had an idea about the type of stupidity Hernandez was doing, that was not a teammate, it would be BB, as he is interacting with his players on a daily basis. I doubt he knew specifics, but if he was as smart as we have all been led to believe, some educated guesses wouldn't have been to hard to come by. Even there though, BB is in a performance based job, and in his line of work, the best you can hope for is him telling an asset honestly that that is going to catch up to him, and the team. Beyond that, Bill has one focus, and that is winning, succeeding and continuing to be successful. Hernandez helped him do that, and so, even IF he knew, Bill was more than willing to be "willfully ignorant" in regards to his lifestyle outside of the facilities.

[Hawktawk]

Yep, men like Kraft are in tune with the real life, thug life, poor life folks about as much as we are with gnats. Realistically, if anyone in that organization had an idea about the type of stupidity Hernandez was doing, that was not a teammate, it would be BB, as he is interacting with his players on a daily basis. I doubt he knew specifics, but if he was as smart as we have all been led to believe, some educated guesses wouldn't have been to hard to come by. Even there though, BB is in a performance based job, and in his line of work, the best you can hope for is him telling an asset honestly that that is going to catch up to him, and the team. Beyond that, Bill has one focus, and that is winning, succeeding and continuing to be successful. Hernandez helped him do that, and so, even IF he knew, Bill was more than willing to be "willfully ignorant" in regards to his lifestyle outside of the facilities.

Thats kind of what I'm getting at HC. We can quibble on Kraft At a minimum BB knew what was up. Nobody can predict that a seriously bad dude is going to actually murder someone but it was reported BB had warned Hernandez to straighten up or he would be released FOLLOWING the 2013 season. Like u say, gotta make a deal with the devil and get a ring. It isn't the first team or coach or owner playing the game. Last I checked Hardy and McDonald are employed. Hernandez enabling apparently began with good old Urban Meyer as it is reported he failed numerous drug tests and displayed violent tendencies off the field including a rumored drive by shooting that was never proven. Enabling athletes has been going on since before OJ but this Hernandez story is the most bizarre ever.

[NorthHawk]

I'm not so sure even Belichick could relate to any of his players taking that step to murder - and maybe multiple murders even being as close as he is to his players.
He may have known Hernandez had an unsavory aspect to his character, but it's still a huge step to realize or admit to himself that AH might have done this.

Maybe it's just me, but I think killing someone is such a major divide from brutish behavior that it would be difficult to come to admit to myself that someone I know and have dealt with on a daily basis might have intentionally killed a person. And if the story I read is accurate, maybe even executed him let alone be implicated in another murder.

[RiverDog]

No way can we assume that Kraft, BB, or anyone else on the Pats knew what Hernandez was 'up to.' I do think that's it's possible BB knew something wasn't right with Hernandez but either consciously or subconsciously chose to ignore it (not too unlike Pete/USC/Reggie Bush), but to say that he had any idea of the nature or scope of Hernandez's activities goes way beyond any logical conclusion anyone could arrive at. For most of us, and I think for most people in general, murder is way beyond our comprehension. Most people, when interviewed about a neighbor or casual friend they knew that committed a murder, will tell you that they never dreamed that the person they knew was capable of such an act.

As long as it is taking for the jury to come to a verdict, it's becoming clear that Hernandez is not going to be convicted of Murder 1. Based on the evidence I've seen, no way could I lock a person up for life even though I think it's almost inedible that even if he didn't actually pull the trigger, he was deeply complicit and is as dirty as hell. I don't know what options the jury has, if they can convict him of a lesser charge, but I damn sure wouldn't let him walk, either.

[HumanCockroach]

I don't doubt Bellichick did not know about the murder/s aspect , but drug use? Yeah I would suspect he had an inkling, if not, why the flop house recommendation? Those two things don't really jive, being completely clueless about illegal off field activities, yet recommending a flop house?

Don't mistake what I am saying as a statement that he knew everything, or even most of what Hernandez was doing, but some of it? Yeah, I would guess, he had some educated guesses along the "illegal" lines.

[NorthHawk]

Hernandez was convicted of 1st degree Murder this morning.
An appeal is in the works, but he's going to be in jail for a long time yet.

[RiverDog]

Hernandez was convicted of 1st degree Murder this morning.
An appeal is in the works, but he's going to be in jail for a long time yet.

Plus he has a couple of other trials for crimes he's allegedly committed. What a waste!

I'd be curious to see what kind of options the jury had, if they could have convicted him of a lesser charge like manslaughter. I would have had a hard time voting for Murder 1 and putting him away for life on the evidence I've seen presented, but I damn sure wouldn't have let him walk, either. MA law does have a fairly wide definition of Murder 1, though, which is probably what the jury was hanging their hats on.

I did read that after the verdict and for the first time, Hernandez's attorney admitted that Hernandez was present when Lloyd was killed. An admission like that would have made it a little easier to vote for Murder 1.

[kalibane]

As long as it is taking for the jury to come to a verdict, it's becoming clear that Hernandez is not going to be convicted of Murder 1. Based on the evidence I've seen, no way could I lock a person up for life even though I think it's almost inedible that even if he didn't actually pull the trigger, he was deeply complicit and is as dirty as hell. I don't know what options the jury has, if they can convict him of a lesser charge, but I damn sure wouldn't let him walk, either.

It's less and less like this every day River. Yes we are supposed to presume innocent until proven guilty but that isn't how it really works for most people.

A lot of people go into jury duty unconsciously thinking, "well the defendant must have done something wrong to get arrested, because decent people don't get arrested" and then it's just a hop, skip and a jump to confirmation bias that the defendant is guilty of the charges. Generally speaking if a juror cannot identify in any way with the defendant it's very hard to get an acquittal once charged. That's why so many defense attorneys often advise their clients to take a deal instead of going to trial even if they believe the client is 100% innocent.

Now I don't know the jury makeup but I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb in saying I doubt the jury had a way to identify with Hernandez. And I kind of doubt that a football player charged with murder is able to really leverage his fame and popularity for support since OJ.

That being said I'm of the opinion that Hernandez should go to prison. Whether they actually had enough evidence to meet what the standard of proof is supposed to be according to the Jury instructions... Who knows?

[Hawktawk]

Of course he is guilty as hell and on his way there when his pathetic life comes to an end. Maybe he and Lawrence Phillips should be cellmates. There was so much evidence withheld in this trial it was ridiculous. Thank goodness the jury got it right anyway.

Rot in hell you pathetic POS.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't think the jury has to be able to identify with the defendant, they just have to be able to understand the evidence and make a decision. In this case the only thing they don't have is a clear motive (because the motive about Lloyd talking too freely in the nightclub about the drive-by shooting was ruled inadmissible) or a murder weapon. As for what they did have:

- There is no doubt that Lloyd was killed. A murder was unquestionably committed.

- The prosecution established that Hernandez was at the scene when it happened, in fact in closing argument the defense themselves stipulated as much.

- They have security footage and cell phone records to prove that Hernandez arranged for the other two defendants to also be at the scene.

There is no need to prove Hernandez pulled the trigger because the law doesn't require it. He doesn't have to have pulled the trigger to be guilty of murder.

Hernandez is appealing the decision but there is a good chance that by the time an appeal is heard his trial for the drive by case in Boston (a case in which there are 5 eye witnesses and a murder weapon) will be a matter of public record and therefor no longer hearsay and will then be admissible as evidence of motive. even if there was a major procedural error in this trial I still think he's toast.

And rightly so.

[RiverDog]

It's less and less like this every day River. Yes we are supposed to presume innocent until proven guilty but that isn't how it really works for most people.

A lot of people go into jury duty unconsciously thinking, "well the defendant must have done something wrong to get arrested, because decent people don't get arrested" and then it's just a hop, skip and a jump to confirmation bias that the defendant is guilty of the charges. Generally speaking if a juror cannot identify in any way with the defendant it's very hard to get an acquittal once charged. That's why so many defense attorneys often advise their clients to take a deal instead of going to trial even if they believe the client is 100% innocent.

Now I don't know the jury makeup but I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb in saying I doubt the jury had a way to identify with Hernandez. And I kind of doubt that a football player charged with murder is able to really leverage his fame and popularity for support since OJ.

That being said I'm of the opinion that Hernandez should go to prison. Whether they actually had enough evidence to meet what the standard of proof is supposed to be according to the Jury instructions... Who knows?

Well, that's not how I see it. I've seen too many cases, read about one just a few days ago, of innocent people being convicted and spending decades behind bars. The prosecution is going to have to prove it to my complete satisfaction that they're guilty. It makes little difference to me if the accused is a transient or a multi million dollar athlete. Heck, I've never even bought any apparel with a player's name or number on it in my life because I'm not into worshiping other human beings.

CBob is right, MA law does not require that a person actually did the dirty work so long as they prove that they were an active participant in order to be convicted of Murder 1. But the law has its standards and I have mine. I'm not going to be dictated to by some cone headed lawyer. There was no murder weapon, no eyewitness, and no established motive, and that could give me a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying I wouldn't have voted guilty, just that it would be asking a lot for me to lock a person up for life based almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence.

[kalibane]

Bob and Riv,

That's how it should be, that's how it's supposed to work and I'm not saying that some people (perhaps yourselves) aren't able to do the job with impartiality and paying attention only to what they should, the facts of the case. But I don't say things just to spout off at the mouth.

Ask any defense attorney if they've ever encouraged a client they thought was innocent to take the plea. Why does the defense try to get as many minorities and women on the jury when the defendant is a minority? Why does the prosecution try to get as many white middle age men under the same circumstances? Why do defense attorney's dress their defendants up in suits instead of just letting them wear their DOC jumpsuits? Peoples perceptions and their ability to identify with the defendant are MAJOR factors in getting an acquittal.

[Hawktawk]

Do innocent people get convicted of crimes? Sure. But its far more common for guilty people to get off the hook, especially with the ridiculous rules of the evidence as was demonstrated in this case.
Other murder charges(unproven) and an incident where he shot an associate in the face and left him to die along a deserted road.proven IMO) Neither was admissible.
Texts from Loyd to his sister minutes before the slaying expressing his fear and saying"if something happens NFL, just so you know.....Not admissible WTF!!!!!. Testimony from a Glock salesman regarding the gun Hernandez is holding in a video TEN MINUTES after the slaying being partially stricken and changed to say it was his "opinion" and not allowing him to testify about certain characteristics of the gun. Hernandez had every chance in the world, something his victims never got.

And really RD? You need more evidence? Ive always said i want you as my jury foreman if I'm charged with a crime but WOW............

[RiverDog]

Do innocent people get convicted of crimes? Sure. But its far more common for guilty people to get off the hook, especially with the ridiculous rules of the evidence as was demonstrated in this case.
Other murder charges(unproven) and an incident where he shot an associate in the face and left him to die along a deserted road.proven IMO) Neither was admissible.
Texts from Loyd to his sister minutes before the slaying expressing his fear and saying"if something happens NFL, just so you know.....Not admissible WTF!!!!!. Testimony from a Glock salesman regarding the gun Hernandez is holding in a video TEN MINUTES after the slaying being partially stricken and changed to say it was his "opinion" and not allowing him to testify about certain characteristics of the gun. Hernandez had every chance in the world, something his victims never got.

And really RD? You need more evidence? Ive always said i want you as my jury foreman if I'm charged with a crime but WOW............

I didn't say that I needed more evidence. What I said was that it would be a tough sell for me to convict him of Murder 1 and lock him up for life based on the evidence I've seen, but no way would I let him walk as I do feel that he was at least partially responsible for the murder. If a lesser charge was available, I would have given it serious consideration. If not, then I would have voted to convict him of the Murder 1 charge and let him take his chances with another court/jury on appeal.

Murder 1 is the most serious of all crimes and entails the worst of all punishments our society can inflict on a fellow human being. I do not take it lightly.

[RiverDog]

Bob and Riv,

That's how it should be, that's how it's supposed to work and I'm not saying that some people (perhaps yourselves) aren't able to do the job with impartiality and paying attention only to what they should, the facts of the case. But I don't say things just to spout off at the mouth.

Ask any defense attorney if they've ever encouraged a client they thought was innocent to take the plea. Why does the defense try to get as many minorities and women on the jury when the defendant is a minority? Why does the prosecution try to get as many white middle age men under the same circumstances? Why do defense attorney's dress their defendants up in suits instead of just letting them wear their DOC jumpsuits? Peoples perceptions and their ability to identify with the defendant are MAJOR factors in getting an acquittal.

I agree with you. I was simply speaking for myself. I honestly don't think any of what you said applies to me personally.

Oh, and speaking of dressing clients up in suits vs. DOC jumpsuits, do you remember when Martha Stewart brought that hugely expensive purse with her to her trial? Or how about the props Johnny Cochran used in his final presentation to the jury in the OJ trial?

[jshawaii22]

Do innocent people get convicted of crimes? Sure. But its far more common for guilty people to get off the hook, especially with the ridiculous rules of the evidence as was demonstrated in this case.
Other murder charges(unproven) and an incident where he shot an associate in the face and left him to die along a deserted road.proven IMO) Neither was admissible.
Texts from Loyd to his sister minutes before the slaying expressing his fear and saying"if something happens NFL, just so you know.....Not admissible WTF!!!!!. Testimony from a Glock salesman regarding the gun Hernandez is holding in a video TEN MINUTES after the slaying being partially stricken and changed to say it was his "opinion" and not allowing him to testify about certain characteristics of the gun. Hernandez had every chance in the world, something his victims never got.

And really RD? You need more evidence? Ive always said i want you as my jury foreman if I'm charged with a crime but WOW............

Hawktawk,

You better hope that it's never you or a family member that's the accused. Under your rules, there are no rules. Think about what you're saying. You want to bring 'evidence of past crimes' into a murder trial, when he's never been tried for the crime let alone convicted? You want a text THAT COULD OF BEEN SENT BY ANYONE WITH THE PHONE to be proof of a murder? As much as our rules of law are cumbersome and yes, sometimes they fail, they are there to protect you from the evils of the prosecution and police. Many innocent people are in jail because the people who are sworn to protect are the ones doing the worst. You want to convict someone of a crime. Prove It! I'll take the current rules over the wild-wild-west that you want.

js

[kalibane]

Oh yeah Riv at no point was I trying to apply that to you personally or anyone in this forum. Just speaking in general.

Hawktawk... per the 2010 Attorney statistics. The U.S. Attorney had a 93% conviction rate. You honestly think in that 7% of people who were acquitted that more of them are actually guilty than there are actual innocent people in the 93% of cases where there was a conviction?

Kind of speaks to exactly what I was saying. Gotta agree with JS. No one is arguing that Hernandez didn't get a fair trial but rules of evidence are there for a reason. I don't think anyone believes Hernandez is innocent or got railroaded. I feel sorry for anyone on trial if you are sitting on the jury. They don't have a chance in hell.

[c_hawkbob]

Even at a 93% conviction rate for the Federal court (which sees for the most part cases with stronger evidence) I'd guess that yes, more guilty still go free than innocent are convicted. (State courts BTW tend to see a much lower conviction rate: 84% in Texas, 82% in California, 72% in New York, 67% in North Carolina, and 59% in Florida, according to an article by Peter Coughlan in defense of unanimous jury convictions).

Our system is set up that way. We have to be certain of an egregious wrongdoing before taking away a persons liberty (or life), but the imperative to protect individual freedom has to be weighed against the greater good (I know that's a tired cliche, but it's a real thing). It's better to let a guilty man free than to hang an innocent man, but criminals need to be aware that society will demand strong punishment for their crimes.

Just as an aside, in England the Crown has an 80% conviction rate. In Japan it exceeds 99%.

[RiverDog]

I don't agree that you can draw a correlation between innocent people going to jail vs. guilty being allowed to walk. As a rule, most prosecutors will not try a crime unless they stand a pretty good chance of obtaining a conviction. It's the taxpayers money they're spending, and they don't want the negative publicity of going to trial on flimsy evidence. If they don't think they have a solid case, they'll either offer a deal or drop the charges entirely. I'm quite certain that the reason for that high conviction rate is that the lion's share of that 93% consists of slam dunk cases.

Modern science and technology, such as DNA testing, cell phones, and video cameras has reduced the likelihood of a person being convicted of a crime they did not commit. We've all complained about the "big brother" government that is watching us (see OT forum), but one of the benefits of living in an age where every trip to a public bathroom is monitored by someone is that there is a lot more checks and balances than what existed in the past. 30 years ago, that cop that shot and killed the black guy during a traffic stop in South Carolina would have gotten away with murder and the police department would have backed him up instead of turning on him like they did.

[Hawktown]

Just because you see checks and balances does not mean that anyone has the right to SPY on ANYONE! We have a RIGHT to PRIVACY and those who are willing to give that up, you are literally, on my shyt list. I have no concern for those people well being, lets put it that way!

[RiverDog]

Just because you see checks and balances does not mean that anyone has the right to SPY on ANYONE! We have a RIGHT to PRIVACY and those who are willing to give that up, you are literally, on my shyt list. I have no concern for those people well being, lets put it that way!

Chill out, guy. I'm not advocating drones flying around the bedroom windows of law abiding citizens. What I am saying is that there is an upside to the privacy we've given up in public, and that is that it makes it far less likely that an innocent person is convicted of a crime they did not commit.

[Hawktawk]

As was reported by Rolling Stone in 2013 it was released that Hernandez was smoking Angel Dust laced blunts for several years before the murders.Violent and paranoid behavior is a common side effect. He was so brazen he would torch them up in restaurants or bars and managers would beg him to stop or they would lose their licenses.Everyone in this guys circle knew about it but the team didn't know anything apparently....
Like I said in 2013, what did the Patriot organization know and when did they know it?
Of course Goody will never ask the question, they cant even get to the bottom of flat balls 3 months later.

[RiverDog]

As was reported by Rolling Stone in 2013 it was released that Hernandez was smoking Angel Dust laced blunts for several years before the murders.Violent and paranoid behavior is a common side effect. He was so brazen he would torch them up in restaurants or bars and managers would beg him to stop or they would lose their licenses.Everyone in this guys circle knew about it but the team didn't know anything apparently....
Like I said in 2013, what did the Patriot organization know and when did they know it?
Of course Goody will never ask the question, they cant even get to the bottom of flat balls 3 months later.

I wouldn't accept any quote from Rolling Stone as the truth unless it can be verified by other more reliable sources. They're not much more credible than the National Enquirer.

The Patriot organization, along with every other team in the league, knew that Aaron Hernandez was a major risk before they drafted him. He had first round talent but failed drug tests and rumors about his lifestyle caused him to slide into the 4th round where the Pats, bargain basement shoppers due to their perennial success limiting their draft capital and with a reputation of taking chances on players that other teams, for one reason or another, decided were not worth the risk (Randy Moss, Tim Tebow, Brandon Browner to name a few), decided to roll the dice on Hernandez, and they got burned. It was a major blunder by the Pats, and yes, the money they threw at Hernandez did indirectly enable him. Shame on the Pats for not paying more attention to the red flags. They were warned.

However, in a league where parity is the watch word, if you are going to achieve and sustain success, every now and then you have to be willing to go against conventional wisdom and take a chance on a player that other teams wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Much like the Patriots did with Hernandez, we ignored a bevvy of red flags and took a chance on Percy Harvin and had it blow up in our face. Just as Bill Belichick was warned about Hernandez, Pete Carroll was warned about Harvin. But if you aren't willing to take an occasional chance like that, you and your team more times than not will end up like Tim Ruskell and the 2009 Seahawks. No guts, no glory.

Unless new information from a credible source comes to light that suggests the possibility that the Pats had prior knowledge of criminal activity by one of their players while they were on their team and chose not to report it to law enforcement, I see no reason for Goodell or anyone else to investigate any of the Pat's actions or inactions regarding Aaron Hernandez.