I don't know anything about the legal side, but normally you would need to have a gun to prove that the person had anything to do with the murder weapon. Now they have a picture of a .45 caliber Glock in his hands at about the same time as the murder, bullets in the victim, with the distinctive 8 groove rifling from a Glock, and the knowledge that Hernadez was destroying evidence. Seems like, with the other evidence, they might have a good case. Normally, you (a reasonable person, not a lawyer) might argue that even a guy owns the right model of gun, was it stolen, or somewhere else at the time, there could be some doubt. But now, he is on tape with it, so that argument doesn't really work (at least to a reasonable person), since he has it in his hand.
Maybe not, but that along with a lot of other evidence is starting to become pretty damning.
Maybe not, but that along with a lot of other evidence is starting to become pretty damning.
Comment