DMN: Sporting News writer: Greg Hardy has rendered himself 'almost untouchable'

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
Thanks. I think that was the case. Her testimony was a bit shaky, and she vanished into thin air - taking Hardy's money with her. :laugh:

This has been said a billion times. If Hardy reached a settlement with Holder, which we don't know, it was to avoid a Civil Trial because any kind of BS charge to go to a Civil Trial will cost you a half million dollars in legal fees. Every defense attorney recommends small settlements of the civil side.

Paying someone off in CRIMINAL TRIAL is a felony and the DA would lose his job and his law license if dropped a case knowing a witness had been paid off.

Criminal DV cases - and convictions - happen without the lone witness testifying. The reason the DA couldn't do so in this case is that the sole witness completely contradicted herself, would have zero credibility in front of a jury and would potentially face perjury charges.

Whatever people want to believe after reading a one paragraph regurgitation from JJ Taylor, the DA in this case dropped all charges without even asking for a plea bargain. He did so because he had absolutely no credible evidence he could take to trial. And don't say the pictures of Holder's bruises because her testimony in the bench trial was that he never touched her body, only her neck.
 

JoeKing

Diehard
Messages
36,678
Reaction score
31,964
The DA's office has said it, and Hardy has never refuted it. I wouldn't think the prosecutor's office would tell a bold-faced lie like that.

Get your facts right. The DA said he "thinks she reached a settlement". He never said it was financial. I personally think she was lying the whole time. When her statements on the witness stand conflicted with her statements from the night of the incident, the DA knew he could never present her side to a jury. She was most likely facing charges herself for false statements but was offered the option of quietly disappearing with her freedom in exchange for the bogus charges being dropped... thus the settlement.
 
Last edited:

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,359
Reaction score
32,746
This has been said a billion times. If Hardy reached a settlement with Holder, which we don't know, it was to avoid a Civil Trial because any kind of BS charge to go to a Civil Trial will cost you a half million dollars in legal fees. Every defense attorney recommends small settlements of the civil side.

First, no, not EVERY defense attorney recommends a small settlement in a civil case.

Second, a client is not required to take the recommendation of his attorney, especially if he wants to fight the case.

Third, if the criminal case was THAT shaky, then Hardy should have had no problems dragging Holder into court to fight for his name.

Fourth, the DA reported that Hardy settled with Holder, and Hardy has yet to refute the DA's claim. And the DA's office isn't known to report information about a case that is actually and factually a lie.

Fifth, (and the more relevant point to this situation), if you settle with a case, then you don't necessarily get the benefit of the doubt. You may not be guilty. You may not want to fight for your name in court. But you don't get the benefit of the doubt if people read into your settlement an admission of guilt.

Paying someone off in CRIMINAL TRIAL is a felony and the DA would lose his job and his law license if dropped a case knowing a witness had been paid off.

Uh, okay. But who said the DA paid off the woman? :huh:

Criminal DV cases - and convictions - happen without the lone witness testifying. The reason the DA couldn't do so in this case is that the sole witness completely contradicted herself, would have zero credibility in front of a jury and would potentially face perjury charges.

Whatever people want to believe after reading a one paragraph regurgitation from JJ Taylor, the DA in this case dropped all charges without even asking for a plea bargain. He did so because he had absolutely no credible evidence he could take to trial. And don't say the pictures of Holder's bruises because her testimony in the bench trial was that he never touched her body, only her neck.

Uh, okay, so what does this have to do with what I said? :huh:
 

cowboy_ron

You Can't Fix Stupid
Messages
15,361
Reaction score
24,303
People seem to be of the opinion that the DV past he had is why teams are avoiding him like the plague but I think it has much more to do with what he did (or rather didn't do) with his 2nd chance the Cowboys gave him......being late or missing team meetings, his me first attitude rather than the team....not well liked by numerous players.....not really a player teams want in the lockerroom.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
Third, if the criminal case was THAT shaky, then Hardy should have had no problems dragging Holder into court to fight for his name.

That's proof you haven't dealt with civil trials - and that it isn't your half million or million dollars being spent.

The rest of your post are things you will understand if you go back and read the thread again.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,359
Reaction score
32,746
Get your facts right. The DA said he "thinks she reached a settlement". He never said it was financial. I personally think she was lying the whole time. When her statements on the witness stand conflicted with her statements from the night of the incident, the DA knew he could never present her side to a jury. She was most likely facing charges herself for false statements but was offered the option of quietly disappearing with her freedom in exchange for the bogus charges being dropped... thus the settlement.

Just a word of caution. Before you go telling people "get their facts" straight maybe you need to get your own straight.

First, you provided no citation for your quote.

Second, the Internet is a world of information, meaning you can find facts from a number of sources. So why do I say the DA gave testimony to the payment/settlement?

[URL said:
http://nypost.com/2015/02/09/greg-hardy-case-dismissed-after-paid-off-accuser-disappears/][/url]
The dismissal happened just as Hardy’s appeal in the case was set to begin. Mecklenburg County district attorney Andrew Murray told the judge that officials attempted many times to contact the woman, but failed. Murray said the woman had reached a civil suit agreement with Hardy.

There is no "I think" he (Hardy) had reached a settlement. He makes a definitive statement, and in this context, to a judge.

More evidence for my point:

The prosecutor also told Superior Court Judge Robert Sumner that Holder had agreed to a settlement with Hardy, which heads off any civil lawsuits she might file in connection with the case. No dollar amount was mentioned.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html#storylink=cpy

Again, no "I think Hardy settled." Murray is telling A JUDGE that there was a settlement.

Your anger at anyone who would DARE speak against Hardy clouds your judgment and your ability to discern context.

I don't want to get into another long, drawn-out argument about Hardy's case. My point is understandable and comprehensible to people who don't have their head so far up Hardy's behind they can blink his eyes for him.

Get my facts straight? :laugh:
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,359
Reaction score
32,746
That's proof you haven't dealt with civil trials - and that it isn't your half million or million dollars being spent.

The rest of your post are things you will understand if you go back and read the thread again.

Son, I've covered civil and criminal court cases as a reporter.

Try again. :)
 

Plankton

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,321
Reaction score
18,790
That's proof you haven't dealt with civil trials - and that it isn't your half million or million dollars being spent.

The rest of your post are things you will understand if you go back and read the thread again.

I can honestly say that if it were me, I would spend what it would take to clear my name if I were falsely accused of domestic violence, rape, etc.

Especially if I made in excess of $10M per year. I would never settle if I were falsely accused. My name and reputation means something to me. But, that's me.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
People seem to be of the opinion that the DV past he had is why teams are avoiding him like the plague but I think it has much more to do with what he did (or rather didn't do) with his 2nd chance the Cowboys gave him......being late or missing team meetings, his me first attitude rather than the team....not well liked by numerous players.....not really a player teams want in the lockerroom.

CASmith heard that the team felt Hardy quit when the won/loss record got really bad, I think that is the most likely explanation. If you look at Garrett cutting Christine Michael, Corey White, Davon Coleman, etc - he didn't have a problem getting rid of marginal players that weren't giving 100%. Hardy was in a different category because even loafing he was better than anyone we had, plus he could have snapped out of the funk at any time.

The other part of the current situation is we don't know how much money Hardy is asking for. If he wanted to be paid 13 Million again, no one would touch him until he contract demands came down.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,359
Reaction score
32,746
People seem to be of the opinion that the DV past he had is why teams are avoiding him like the plague but I think it has much more to do with what he did (or rather didn't do) with his 2nd chance the Cowboys gave him......being late or missing team meetings, his me first attitude rather than the team....not well liked by numerous players.....not really a player teams want in the lockerroom.

The same was said about TO and Albert Haynesworth, etc.

It's not JUST what he did with the Cowboys. It's also his DV situation. It's not an either/or situation. It's both.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
I can honestly say that if it were me, I would spend what it would take to clear my name if I were falsely accused of domestic violence, rape, etc.

I get that, but its easier said than done. If the girl takes 25K in exchange for not bringing a BS charge in a civil case, your name is cleared because the accusation never goes into a civil case.

If he files a BS charge and you win in court, you lost a million dollars and the haters will believe you got off on a technicality anyway - something we have seen about the Criminal trial in the 5000 threads on this forum.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,359
Reaction score
32,746
I can honestly say that if it were me, I would spend what it would take to clear my name if I were falsely accused of domestic violence, rape, etc.

Especially if I made in excess of $10M per year. I would never settle if I were falsely accused. My name and reputation means something to me. But, that's me.

Especially if the case was as shaky as everyone claims it was.

Ironically, the case and his subsequent behavior may cost him more than if he had challenged this woman's account in a civil case.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
Again, no "I think Hardy settled." Murray is telling A JUDGE that there was a settlement.

The DA said he had "reliable information" there was a settlement, concerning a very high profile, unraveling case they never should have brought, about a witness they made almost no effort to contact during the process. Holder worked at the same job for months prior to the charges being dropped and they never talked to her, they just sent a black and white to her previous address.

The DA had every reason to cover his backside in the press, and laying the dismissal at the feet of the witness was the easiest way to do that.

The DA also hid exculpatory evidence, which you can read about in the NFL hearing transcript that BKnight posted.
 

Plankton

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,321
Reaction score
18,790
I get that, but its easier said than done. If the girl takes 25K in exchange for not bringing a BS charge in a civil case, your name is cleared because the accusation never goes into a civil case.

If he files a BS charge and you win in court, you lost a million dollars and the haters will believe you got off on a technicality anyway - something we have seen about the Criminal trial in the 5000 threads on this forum.

Here's the problem - the accusation was already public thanks to the criminal charges. At that point, if I am innocent, I wouldn't pay the accuser who was trying to sully my name one dime. I would be in the media as much as possible to proclaim my innocence. If there were a civil trial, I would fight it every step of the way. My name and reputation have a worth far beyond 25K or $1M. Because, like it or not, once my career would end, my name and reputation do not. That endures.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,359
Reaction score
32,746
The DA said he had "reliable information" there was a settlement, concerning a very high profile, unraveling case they never should have brought, about a witness they made almost no effort to contact during the process. Holder worked at the same job for months prior to the charges being dropped and they never talked to her, they just sent a black and white to her previous address.

The DA had every reason to cover his backside in the press, and laying the dismissal at the feet of the witness was the easiest way to do that.

The DA also hid exculpatory evidence, which you can read about in the NFL hearing transcript that BKnight posted.

Look, a statement of "He settled with the defendant" doesn't need multiple interpretations. It is an emphatic statement, a declaratory statement.

Second, I have not read anywhere where Hardy or his attorney refutes that he paid Holder. For a man who recently declared his innocence, you would think he would/could also say he didn't pay her to go away.

Third, I'm not interested in rehashing this case. YOU told me I needed to get my facts straight. I provided you with my facts. I asked you for a citation where Murray says he "thinks" there was a settlement, but you did not provide one.
Now you're asking me to go search if I want to verify your statement. :laugh: Uh, that's not how this works.

Fourth, as I said before, I don't care to retry Hardy's case. Legally, he's not guilty. But there's the court of law and the court of public opinion. I'm speaking about the latter. And, unfortunately for Hardy, he can't make the principals in this court disappear.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
28,430
Fourth, as I said before, I don't care to retry Hardy's case.

After three pages of retrying Hardy's case, the reporter that won't do his own homework says he won't retry Hardy's case.

Color me unimpressed.
 

Miller

ARTIST FORMERLY KNOWN AS TEXASFROG
Messages
12,422
Reaction score
14,161
This has been said a billion times. If Hardy reached a settlement with Holder, which we don't know, it was to avoid a Civil Trial because any kind of BS charge to go to a Civil Trial will cost you a half million dollars in legal fees. Every defense attorney recommends small settlements of the civil side.

Paying someone off in CRIMINAL TRIAL is a felony and the DA would lose his job and his law license if dropped a case knowing a witness had been paid off.

Criminal DV cases - and convictions - happen without the lone witness testifying. The reason the DA couldn't do so in this case is that the sole witness completely contradicted herself, would have zero credibility in front of a jury and would potentially face perjury charges.

Whatever people want to believe after reading a one paragraph regurgitation from JJ Taylor, the DA in this case dropped all charges without even asking for a plea bargain. He did so because he had absolutely no credible evidence he could take to trial. And don't say the pictures of Holder's bruises because her testimony in the bench trial was that he never touched her body, only her neck.

This whole post is so wrong in so many ways. Tyke covered it but what you are saying is basically false. I'll make it short. Yes, people settle civil trials. Happens all time. They do it so the facts aren't dragged out again or because they will get nailed for millions. Attorney's fees are hardly a matter with these athletes and its not up to the Defendant to chose to settle and not spend those fees. She could have said screw you and gone forward but there is a massive chance she got the cash she wanted. But that has ZERO to do with the criminal trial or what you are implying is an argument from anyone. The prosecutor didn't drop the case and ruin his law career because of a payoff he helped orchestrate. He dropped it because she got money, left and he had no witness to put on the stand to make the case more personal. Nothing that has been said implies anyone with the DA was in on the payoff.
 
Top