Any word on Hardy?

[AzorAhai]

If she could be bought off then why not do it before the bench trial? And why is the prosecutors' word any more valid than Hardy's team?

And like I said, that is a serious crime. It would be witness tampering, why not charge it?

Because Hardy is guilty, that psychic hotline told me for only 7.99/ min. I don't know why they even bother with those expensive trials for the price I paid.

 

[speedkilz88]

you mean except for the word of the prosecutors?
Hardy, who made $13.1 million last year while on the commissioner's exempt list, agreed to pay an undisclosed financial settlement to Holder, according to prosecutors.

That's a case of misreporting. The prosecutor in charge of the case made veiled accusation without merit when he dropped the case. The DAs office has no evidence at all of this being true.

 

[jrumann59]

Because Hardy is guilty, that psychic hotline told me for only 7.99/ min. I don't know why they even bother with those expensive trials for the price I paid.

Funny when I called I paid 12.99 and they said he is not guilty.

 

[AzorAhai]

Funny when I called I paid 12.99 and they said he is not guilty.

Best 2 out if 3?

 

[Kaiser]

Seri

Serous question. Have you seen them? The judge made reference to them in her verdict

You haven't seen them either. Given that the girl filed a police report saying she had "bruises from head to toe" and then said she had no injuries at the trial, the photos entered as evidence could very well have shown she only had minor abrasions. That would be consistent with Hardy's story and would be completely in line with the DA dropping the case rather than going to a jury trial.

 

[jrumann59]

Best 2 out if 3?

Dionne Warwick told me your were going to say that.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Because Hardy is guilty, that psychic hotline told me for only 7.99/ min. I don't know why they even bother with those expensive trials for the price I paid.

 

[speedkilz88]

I'll take that as a no. Yet you concretely state that the evidence was not overwhelming.

Face palm for sure

Albert he claimed it was overwhelming without seeing jack. Common sense says that if it was overwhelming he would have been charged more than a misdemeanor. But I understand you lack that.

 

[speedkilz88]

You haven't seen them either. Given that the girl filed a police report saying she had "bruises from head to toe" and then said she had no injuries at the trial, the photos entered as evidence could very well have shown she only had minor abrasions. That would be consistent with Hardy's story and would be completely in line with the DA dropping the case rather than going to a jury trial.

I would surmise that she had minor bruising on her arms that she may have gotten from him or his friend grabbing her arm to escort her out the door when she was going off on him.

 

[jterrell]

Yes prosecutors in NC HAVE NEVER been known to bend the truth or imply things through the media. Daniel Nifong says HI

please stop posting things that dumb the board down.
holder hired a "civil" attorney then took off to colorado for snow-skiing followed by shopping in NYC.
she has been everywhere but colorado.
hardy and his team have made zero denials about a settlement.
holder and her attorney likely can't as it is a standard part of any deal.
the prosecution likely has very real evidence of paperwork filed IN COURT as part of the settlement.

there have been zero intelligent individuals trey to deny a settlement was reached.

 

[TheDude]

If she could be bought off then why not do it before the bench trial? And why is the prosecutors' word any more valid than Hardy's team?

And like I said, that is a serious crime. It would be witness tampering, why not charge it?

In the real world, the prosecution wont go after that. A victim can accept money to settle or prevent a civil case. They could have structured that settlement pending the outcome of the criminal trial - not specifically to "not" testify.

 

[jterrell]

I would surmise that she had minor bruising on her arms that she may have gotten from him or his friend grabbing her arm to escort her out the door when she was going off on him.

she had bruising on her throat and scratches on her face, shoulder and arm according to medical staff at the hospital where at least some of the pics were taken.
those images will be released if hardy decides to ask for his property back in the case(guns). --worth a lot of money.
he has not chosen to do so at this point and likely never will.

again the judge in the case didn't equivocate in finding hardy guilty of assaulting a female.

no need to surmise or guess her verdict because it is public record.

in a domestic case if the plaintiff is paid off and goes away the case likely goes with it. --in this case they were behind closed doors and the only two within eyesight.
that is pretty clearly what happened here.
it is not all that hard to see what happened, she stuck around, got a civil lawyer and testified and got a conviction, he then paid her off and she left on vacations she'd never afford on the waitress salary she had when she met him.

neither party comes off looking good and the only thing worse is the goofballs defending his "honor".
maybe they can hook up with him.

 

[TheDude]

You haven't seen them either. Given that the girl filed a police report saying she had "bruises from head to toe" and then said she had no injuries at the trial, the photos entered as evidence could very well have shown she only had minor abrasions. That would be consistent with Hardy's story and would be completely in line with the DA dropping the case rather than going to a jury trial.

I havent seen them but a judge did and referenced those pictures in her verdict. So if your position is that she railroaded him for fun, then ok. Holder very could have thrown herself against the tub and wall like Hardy said as well. His case potentially looked better since he had the transcripts.

But I dont know enough to speak to with certainty about items I havent seen or witnessed. All I have is the judges words reported at the bench trial

 

[TheDude]

Albert he claimed it was overwhelming without seeing jack. Common sense says that if it was overwhelming he would have been charged more than a misdemeanor. But I understand you lack that.

Beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal is thought of as 95-99%. Preponderance of the evidence for civil is 51%. 80% of all DV cases are not tried if the witness does not show. But your too lazy to look that up.

 

[jterrell]

In the real world, the prosecution wont go after that. A victim can accept money to settle or prevent a civil case. They could have structured that settlement pending the outcome of the criminal trial - not specifically to "not" testify.

Actually it goes beyond that.
Hardy could have simply refused the first attempts at settling and they were actually vaguely referenced in trial by Hardy's lawyer...
The settlement could have stated she was not to return to Carolina for X amount of time. OR made a secondary payment to her available only after X amount of months. So she could have legally been bound to not say anythign about the case ever again or to be present in the state for some predetermined length of time.

The courts do not dissuade the handling of these as a civil manner.
They only ask that they not be "coerced".

Were I Hardy's lawyer/agent that's exactly what I would have done.
Said stay the heck away from her, avoid women who can push your buttons and cut her a check.
Time to repair your image and get you a big money contract.

Be glad it wasn't a divorce settlement and there were no kids involved.

 

[Stash]

Yes it equals guilt. He's a worthless POS who considers it okay to manhandle women when he is unhappy with their actions. Hopefully the Commish sees it the same way and bans him to protect the shield.

Ok. I see your mind's been made up.

 

[justbob]

I can see this is getting way off course with the results being several people close to taking a vacation.Which would be a shame with free agency so close.Back between the lines gentlemen.

 

[justbob]

Last warning.Enough of playing lawyers. This thread is simply whether we will sign Hardy or not.Anything else will be handled as trolling which is against the rules.

 

[TheDude]

She doesn't have the power to railroad Hardy. The judge has nothing to lose by a guilty verdict. A criminal verdict of guilty is going to get appealed and vacated. The fact that a live woman is accusing Hardy is enough to hold it over for a jury trial. Once she refused the rest of the evidence didn't look so strong apparently.

I'll keep reiterating this, his record is clean - sign him. The girl could have lied and snowed everyone in the initial trial as easily as him being guilty.

That said, I do not buy a judge simply rubber stamps guilty verdicts after 10 hours of testimony because "She's got nothing to lose" . Most of these cases are not appealed and a judge who simply says "**** - GUILTY" is a scary premise.

80% of DV cases are not prosecuted if the main witness will not testify. This is just fact, the bar would have to be huge (like broken bones, severe cuts, etc.). Part of the conviction was her testimony that "He threatened to kill me." That part of the case (communicating threats) was not winnable if she didnt testify.

The fact remains that a judge, sworn to uphold the law, is the only one tasked with (and actually seen/heard) the evidence and testimony in the case and rendered a decision. That bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt" , not maybe and not "**** - guilty." She did not buy it. That is a cloud that the NFL will certainly investigate.

Ultimately your argument is that she was a corrupt judge or a judge who was snowed by the optic of poor girl / big NFL player. I would like to believe the latter as opposed to former.

Sweeping the first trial under the rug as some Judge Joe Brown show is a little weak. If the roles were reversed and Holder could turn the corner and close on a QB while playing stout run D, I doubt many would be clamoring not to sign her because she "unequivocally lied" in a DV case.

 

[justbob]

I am leaning towards reopening this thread...... With a major warning . This thread does not have anything to do with the abuse case. If you need to discuss your legal expertise, do it by private message. Reading your opinions with the eyes of someone who has been in the criminal investigations field since 1985 has been entertaining, but unfortunately not very fact worthy. Save your self from unfounded remarks and from being benched and stay on thread