Now that new information has been gathered, can case be reopened in Columbus?

erod

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,063
Reaction score
61,015
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Local authorities in Columbus didn't have the technology to extract the metadata from cell phones during their investigation.

Now that that information had been discovered, could they reported reopen the case?

Zeke could have bigger problems ahead.
 
erod said:
Local authorities in Columbus didn't have the technology to extract the metadata from cell phones during their investigation.

Now that that information had been discovered, could they reported reopen the case?

Zeke could have bigger problems ahead.
Click to expand...

If this is the case I'm hoping for an out of court settlement. Something tells me this is what she was looking for all along- a payday. Pretty soon everybody will be happy except Zeke and a few million Cowboys fans.
 
There is still no evidence proving he did it. The league just decided to believe her and not him. The police and prosecutors don't have that luxury. They need facts and evidence to prove it.
 
What new evidence?

The evidence isn't new. The only thing the NFL has done is had experts claim that the bruising was consistent with some sort of fight.

The DA has that evidence and all along could get experts that could claim that the bruising was consistent with a fight.

But the issue for the DA would the affidavits that placed Thompson in a fight with another female in a bar on the 21st

And that the bruising in the photos on the 19th don't show actual *proof* that she was assaulted by EE. EE's lawyers could simply claim that she got into a fight with somebody else or get their own experts to state that those bruises are consistent with those that were suffered weeks before.

The main issue for the DA is that he needs to go to trial with a case that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that EE assaulted her. The NFL doesn't have to do that.



YR
 
Yakuza Rich said:
What new evidence?

The evidence isn't new. The only thing the NFL has done is had experts claim that the bruising was consistent with some sort of fight.

The DA has that evidence and all along could get experts that could claim that the bruising was consistent with a fight.

But the issue for the DA would the affidavits that placed Thompson in a fight with another female in a bar on the 21st

And that the bruising in the photos on the 19th don't show actual *proof* that she was assaulted by EE. EE's lawyers could simply claim that she got into a fight with somebody else or get their own experts to state that those bruises are consistent with those that were suffered weeks before.

The main issue for the DA is that he needs to go to trial with a case that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that EE assaulted her. The NFL doesn't have to do that.



YR
Click to expand...
The metadata of the pictures on her phone are consistent with the timeline she claimed the abuse occurred. The police couldn't corroborate that with the technology they had.
 
erod said:
The metadata of the pictures on her phone are consistent with the timeline she claimed the abuse occurred. The police couldn't corroborate that with the technology they had.
Click to expand...

Which proves nothing.

My wife can create a timeline based on actual facts when we were together and claim I beat her when in fact I did not. Just because a photo backs up a claim as to when she was beaten, does not mean she was actually beaten by Elliott.

Further, that metadata apparently proved to the NFL that something probably happened on that last night in question. PRoblem is, her story has been refuted by multiple witnesses. So then, just how reliable is that metadata?

Essentially, the NFL case is that they have pictures that would seem to be time stamped around the right time she claimed she was beaten, they can put the two together on the days she claims she was beaten, and while THEY CAN'T PROVE HE HIT HER, the fact he can't prove he didn't, is more than enough to hang him. They also just glossed right over the clear credibility issues the alleged victim had.

I hope if Elliott is able to strike this down in court, he goes after Goodell and the NFL for defamation. If he truly did not commit these crimes and can prove it, the league has sullied his name, likely in the name of getting good, positive PR for themselves in the DV area after so many previous screw ups.
 
erod said:
The metadata of the pictures on her phone are consistent with the timeline she claimed the abuse occurred. The police couldn't corroborate that with the technology they had.
Click to expand...

The metadata only matters if EE claimed that he wasn't in Columbus on that day.

That's all the metadata proves. If EE states that he was in Columbus that day (which I would believe he did since he had affidavits about the 'ruin your career' incident) then the metadata isn't really new evidence.




YR
 
Yakuza Rich said:
The metadata only matters if EE claimed that he wasn't in Columbus on that day.

That's all the metadata proves. If EE states that he was in Columbus that day (which I would believe he did since he had affidavits about the 'ruin your career' incident) then the metadata isn't really new evidence.




YR
Click to expand...
How Zeke reacts will be telling.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
 
One other thing. The NFL claims they based this on "evidence".

However, they dropped a little contradictory nugget in their letter to Elliott. They casually talk about the credibility issues of the girl but gloss over it citing that the detectives told them that they did not believe she was lying.

So essentially, they took the word of the detective over the actual evidence surrounding the credibility of the woman - signed affidavits, text messages and witness accounts that show the alleged victim clearly made up the last night's incident claiming Elliott had ripped her out of her car.

So when the "evidence" ran counter to the outcome the NFL wanted, they glossed over it and tried to explain it away with nothing more than an opinion.
 
Sydla said:
One other thing. The NFL claims they based this on "evidence".

However, they dropped a little contradictory nugget in their letter to Elliott. They casually talk about the credibility issues of the girl but gloss over it citing that the detectives told them that they did not believe she was lying.

So essentially, they took the word of the detective over the actual evidence surrounding the credibility of the woman - signed affidavits, text messages and witness accounts that show the alleged victim clearly made up the last night's incident claiming Elliott had ripped her out of her car.

So when the "evidence" ran counter to the outcome the NFL wanted, they glossed over it and tried to explain it away with nothing more than an opinion.
Click to expand...

They also claimed that they acknowledge that Thompson was in a fight with a woman, but that the bruises weren't consistent with *that* fight because witnesses claimed that she wasn't hit with fists.

Obviously, that could be true...but it could also be true that she may have been hit with a fist that the witnesses didn't see or hit with a knee, elbow, headbutted, etc.
This sounds a lot like a leap of faith by the NFL and the DA. I would imagine if the situations were reversed and Elliott claimed he had been assaulted by Thompson...just the mere fact that she was a woman and he is a man....that once he would be found of asking a friend to lie for him they would never given him any other credibility to his other claims.





YR
 
He should have paid her off then all this would have never happened
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 103 more.
Total: 1,085 (members: 203, guests: 882)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,459
Messages
13,876,295
Members
23,791
Latest member
mashburn
Back
Top