Hoofbite
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 40,954
- Reaction score
- 11,692
He said they compared her two statements and didn't feel they could use her initial statement without her being present. Does that mean there are inconsistencies? I think it's fairly safe to assume that is what the DA is implying, but who actually knows. I would also question how significant they actually would be because her initial statement to police was assuredly mentioned in the bench trial. The very fact that she would refuse would probably bring her credibility into question to a great enough extent to get a ruling in Greg's favor. It's also possible (at least according to an article from the Charlotte Observer that I read) that her initial statement could have been blocked from being admitted in the 2nd trial because of the right to face one's accuser. How would that have played out? Neither her initial statement nor testimony receive any sort of mention at all in a jury trial because she doesn't show? Pretty hard to imagine a conviction with those circumstances.
And this is exactly what I am talking about. It would take a statement that nobody should ever expect to get in order for you to believe he settled. The information the DA has regarding the settlement isn't enough even though it would be unnecessary to explicitly state such a thing if the credibility of the key witness/victim was in serious question. If you're dropping the charges because the case has fallen apart based on fabrications, does a settlement even matter? At the same time, the mere mention of a comparison of her two statements and decision not to proceed is enough to completely discredit this person. The DA explicitly states that he fully believes there was a settlement but doesn't elaborate on the comparison of her two statements, and yet the overwhelming conclusion is that her story is bogus and no settlement ever occurred. I'm sorry, but this is just cherry picking of the most egregious kind.
I've read it right here on this board that this wasn't a "real" court proceeding so there'd be no incentive to settle before it is suspected that he actually he did. Settle because of a pending procedural hearing that is basically inconsequential......Why?
When he settled doesn't matter if the cost of settling is more than he was willing to pay at any given time. If you have two cracks at something, why pay earlier than you have to? Charity, I suppose. It was a calculated decision, no doubt. Innocent in the bench trial and he likely doesn't see anything in terms of punishment. Guilty in the bench trial and he can still pay for the entire situation to go away at a later date, and he made this decision at a point in time when he probably didn't anticipate any sort of punishment even if it ever got that far. Knowing what we know now, an earlier settlement would have been much more beneficial for him because it would have predated the Rice situation.
To be honest, I don't really care who is more believable. Then again, I don't have any sort of fandom built up for this guy. He's never played a snap as a Cowboy and I don't expect he'll be on the team after this season. I think the team is renting him for the time being and nothing more.
Some how...like 99% of the league (probably even greater) doesn't have to worry about this sort of problem, which leaves a couple of possible options. Either gold diggers aren't nearly as prevalent as people believe and it's nearly impossible to be stupid enough to get involved with one, or accusations are based on something that actually happened. There have been some monumentally dumb players that have come through the league who have somehow been "fortunate" enough to not get caught up in a DV incident. I guess we could also throw out the possibility that there are players who are dumb enough to not be able to spot the rare psycho until it's too late.
Ultimately, discussing the trial is a waste of time because as I have said before the conviction is independent of punishment from the NFL, and that's exactly how it should be. These players have more than enough money to wiggle their way out of almost anything. Ben raped that girl and wasn't charged. That by itself is enough to figure out how the system works.
