>> that seems difficult. >> it's very difficult. it's very difficult. what the defense just said is he was there, he witnessed it, but he wasn't in on it. so the question is going to become, does all the circumstantial evidence that we were all analyzing and saying, of course it puts him at the scene, of course he was involved in it, now they're going to take a focus and look at it and say, well, does all this circumstantial evidence, the bubble gum, the shell casing, the shoe print, the joint with the dna at the scene, the video image of him pulling out a gun in his house. of course the defense is saying tifs an ipad. does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he shared the intent behind what happened there of killing him, or was he just a bystander? for me personally, i don't think two people would be killing somebody else in front of aaron hernandez and then going back to his house and casually hanging out if they didn't think aaron