Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[WPBCowboysFan]

 

[Kevinicus]

Yeah. Sure. He is going to prosecute the victim of a domestic violence assault.

That would be a great career move for the DA! The public loves seeing women who get beat up by professional athletes end up being the ones who get prosecuted!

So you're saying he is derelict in his duty? And this is the guy we should trust about there being a payoff (note: he did not say it was a FACT that there was one). Facepalm indeed.

 

[Rogah]

So you're saying he is derelict in his duty?

I am not saying that at all and I don't really see what sort of twisted logic you employed to deduce that from my statements.

 

[Rogah]

The bench trial is most similar to a Grand Jury indictment.

I've already disproven that time and again. Here's the short version:

In most grand juries, the accused does not get to present a defense. Also, grand juries have a significantly lower burden of proof than a bench trial.

But yeah, other than those 2 critical facts, they're practically the same.

 

[Rogah]

Try again. The bench trial testimony is where the sole accuser completely contradicted her sworn police statement. And where she admitted to being on coke at the time of the incident. And admitting she had attacked his car several days prior before security guards pulled her away.

Sure all those things came out - and the DA got the guilty verdict anyway.

Try again.

 

[Kevinicus]

I am not saying that at all and I don't really see what sort of twisted logic you employed to deduce that from my statements.

You're saying he is allowing public opinion and not the law to dictate his actions as DA. It's not too difficult to understand. It's called actual logic.

 

[PoundTheRock]

Brady will get no games.

 

[Kaiser]

Sure all those things came out - and the DA got the guilty verdict anyway.

Try again.

They didn't come out immediately because the venue is roughly the same as traffic court. There was a guilty verdict from a female judge coming up on an election, who was known for DV convictions, ruling against a black defendant.

And that guilty verdict was vacated the second Hardy asked for a jury trial.

The minute the DA was tasked with taking Hardy to a Jury Trial - after Holder's contradictions - he dropped all charges.

 

[Doomsay]

In this particular case, what the DA does is go to a bench trial and get a guilty verdict.

And that's exactly what happened.

And then what happened? Nothing, right?

You are a mid-trial expert commentator that never gets asked back, for obvious reasons.

 

[Rogah]

You're saying he is allowing public opinion and not the law to dictate his actions as DA. It's not too difficult to understand. It's called actual logic.

Your lack of logical thinking is surpassed only by your ignorance of the criminal court system.

Newsflash: Factoring in public sentiment and media attention is something any responsible DA would do when deciding if/how to proceed with a case. Taking a woman who has been traumatized by being assaulted by a boyfriend, and then traumatizing her again by arresting her and bringing her to trial, does not serve the public good (not to mention it would be career suicide). No jury on the planet is going to convict a woman who was beat up by her boyfriend. Furthermore, you run the risk of frightening away other victims of domestic violence.

So yeah, gauging the public sentiment, determining what serves the public good, determining what is in the victim's best interests and predicting the likelihood of conviction are certainly factors a responsible, ethical DA considers. Those won't be the only considerations, but they are certainly among them.

 

[Rogah]

And then what happened? Nothing, right?

No, not right. Something did happen after the bench trial: Hardy paid her off to disappear (figuratively speaking).

 

[AsthmaField]

Hardy paid her off to disappear (figuratively speaking).

You think that happened.

 

[Rogah]

You think that happened.

The evidence supporting that conclusion is so overwhelming as to be considered proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It simply cannot be reasonably doubted that she was paid to be silent.

 

[AsthmaField]

The evidence supporting that conclusion is so overwhelming as to be considered proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It simply cannot be reasonably doubted that she was paid to be silent.

Then you should say that evidence points to her being paid off.

As much trouble as it might be, I think we'd all appreciate accuracy on both sides of the debate.

 

[Beats_By_Zeke]

I had no idea this thread would reach 10 pages long. Damn!!!

 

[Rogah]

Then you should say that evidence points to her being paid off.

Except the evidence is so overwhelming as to be considered proven to have happened beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is simply no plausible deniability on this matter. She's like a poker player who flopped the nut flush. You don't fold your hand and walk away when you've got the nuts, and "by the nuts" is how she had Hardy after that bench trial guilty verdict.

 

[AsthmaField]

Except the evidence is so overwhelming as to be considered proven to have happened beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is simply no plausible deniability on this matter. She's like a poker player who flopped the nut flush. You don't fold your hand and walk away when you've got the nuts, and "by the nuts" is how she had Hardy after that bench trial guilty verdict.

See... that takes way more time than typing: "evidence points to her being paid off."

Yet I've seen you type it over and over again.

 

[Rogah]

See... that takes way more time than typing: "evidence points to her being paid off."

Which is why I generally simply say "Hardy paid her off to disappear."

 

[AsthmaField]

Which is why I generally simply say "Hardy paid her off to disappear."

You think that happened.

 

[Rogah]

You think that happened.

No, I and anyone who knows the fact of this case knows it happened.

Hardy paid her off.