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

[Miller]

You're going to cite me a NYPost headline based on his comment in the dismissal paperwork as evidence that the paperwork itself exists?

Do you know what a circular argument is? Again. The Charlotte press asked him about it repeatedly and he would never own much less qualify any of it.

It's a quote. He is a public official. So in crazy/inane Cowboyzone world, all common sense and law leaves and everyone from the DA to Hardy's attorney are lying? I've put out 3 quotes today mentioned from his attorney and the DA regarding a settlement. And you are making up things and when I refuted it with facts and law you continue to lie to fit your agenda. We've already had one guy claim this was because the DA was afraid of the transcript...one that doesn't exist officially (the defense did their own but there was no official transcript). Others have conspiracies that DON'T happen in legal proceedings. He said he had it on good sources that a settlement was reached. This was brought up in front of the judge and every outlet reported it. Hardy's team didn't refute even though it makes them look bad. She went away shopping. If you can't follow the law and basic reasoning then there is no reason to post with denseness.

 

[JoeKing]

Sigh.

What other settlement would there be than a financial settlement? This isn't a desegregation lawsuit where two parties agree to settle some institutional wrong that can't be compensated financially.

When I say it's a financial settlement, I say so on the basis of what is normal in these situations. And in many of these cases, especially ones of this nature, the settlement involves money.

Because this is the norm, it is REASONABLE to conclude that the settlement involves money.

If the settlement did not involve money, then it would necessary to clarify what settlement.

You're offering Internet theories that aren't connected to how the real world functions.

I have no problem with acknowledging what you are saying is a reasonable assumption to what is normal. But let's also acknowledge if "normal" exist then that requires the existence of anomaly on occasion. The DA admitted this case was different. The sequence of events reported in this case make me believe anomaly could very well be at play. The reports of the bench trail appeared to portray this as a slam dunk case. Even without Holder's testimony in a jury trial, there should have been enough admissible evidence from her previous interviews and court testimony to at least attempt to bring this case to a jury. Also let's remember the witnesses and photos were still available for the jury trial. So why did the DA drop the charges? I don't believe it was just because of Holder's absence. One reason I believe this is because of the article from the Charlotte Observer, "Greg Hardy case was unraveling for weeks".

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html

Now that we've seen the photos and have had access to her statements at the scene of the incident and can compare that to her testimony in the bench trial, there are some glaring inconsistencies. Her statements exonerate Hardy from causing any of the injuries to her other than those on her neck/throat. She states he did not touch her anywhere else. Conveniently for her, her court testimony told a different story. The contractions from her weakens her credibility. Were her contradictions being scrutinized by the DA as evidence of false testimony? This should have been the case. Somehow her appearant lies were not only ignored but dismissed altogether. My explanation for this and the charges being dropped is a settlement of a non financial nature, not normal procedure but none the less explains both.

 

[Miller]

Wow, how can you be so off on this. I'm including facts and scenarios that never happened? Okay. I didn't even say anything DID happen. You have a trouble with understanding what is a fact and what is not.

1. The article you posted, and 100s of others ARE NOT EVIDENCE. That is a fact. Lots of articles said there was a video of Dez too. Lots of articles have said a lot of things that were not true. It doesn't matter if you have 1 or 1,000,000 articles, they aren't evidence of facts. Furthermore, ALL of those articles all tie back to ONE SINGLE SOURCE. The statement by the DA that they had reliable information of a settlement. That itself is not a statement of fact of a settlement, it is a statement that implies the DA has information that leads them to BELIEVE there was a settlement. It is not an indisputable charge that it absolutely did happen.

2. I never stated there wasn't a settlement. You're just believing what you want to believe about that without any evidence, just like you do about everything it seems. I honestly don't care if there is one as it's irrelevant to anything as far as Hardy's guilt is concerned.

3. When did I, or anyone, claim the DA was involved in the settlement? Who said the settlement was of the criminal case? You seem to be imagining a lot of things, you might want to take a break from all of this until you can collect your thoughts and read a bit better.

4. Once a civil settlement is reach it doesn't give her the right to do as she pleases. If subpoenaed for the criminal case, she still has to show up! The DAs case was not hard to go forward with because she was not there, but because of her conflicting statements/testimony.

There nothing else to say but you are dead wrong and just ignored the law, what it means to be a prosecutor and common sense. As for As of #3 this was your quote

And you still don't seem to understand that a civil settlement (which was never filed) which was used to avoid testimony in a CRIMINAL case would be illegal, right? Hardy could pay her off to be silent, then she could go right into court and testify against him and he could do NOTHING to her

What does that mean except that you wrongly concluded that a) a civil trial has to be filed to settle..already refuted that and b) that a settlement in general would be illegal if she didn't show.

Also as far as her not showing

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12300188/charges-vs-greg-hardy-carolina-panthers-tossed

Prosecutors have been unable to locate Holder to issue her a subpoena, which would have compelled her to testify in the trial. Holder's civil attorney also has refused to assist prosecutors in locating his client.

"To prosecute domestic violence cases, we encourage domestic violence victims to not only report domestic violence but to participate in every level of the prosecution," Charlotte District Attorney Andrew Murray said outside the courthouse. "We need that participation in order to gain justice for not only victims of domestic violence, but for this community."


She can do as she pleases and if unavailable and they can't find her they would have to use official transcripts....none existed. She was the witness. Many people scare off and never show and nothing is done. You are right on one thing, her testimony probably did have inconsistencies but that is why you need to bring her in. To tell her story and clear these up. Once they couldn't bring her in they dismissed.

 

[Miller]

Uh, the link you posted and quoted said so. You even made it bold like this: "Murray said the woman had reached a civil suit agreement with Hardy".

Civil Suit Agreement!!!!Agreement is key word. Doesn't mean it was filed. I'm not sure why I have to do this a 3rd time but
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/settlement

Settlement may occur before or during the early stages of a trial. In fact, simple settlements regularly take place before a lawsuit is even filed

 

[Kaiser]

It's a quote. He is a public official. So in crazy/inane Cowboyzone world, all common sense and law leaves and everyone from the DA to Hardy's attorney are lying? I've put out 3 quotes today mentioned from his attorney and the DA regarding a settlement.

That's a fantasy. Hardy's attorney never said that and its not in the links you posted today.

 

[Miller]

It's been fun and I've posted all I can. No harm, no foul

 

[Nightman]

It's been fun and I've posted all I can. No harm, no foul

Not so fast Froggy. You boomed your dynamite prematurely.

You are talking out your rear because there are no transcripts of the bench trial. I really would think that you and others would stop embarrassing yourselves with your conspiracies. And by the way it's almost a no-brainer that any settlement would not involve her settling because she was under pressure from the law

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/15/transcript-doesnt-exist-for-hardys-first-trial-yet/


Boom goes the dynamite

The Defense paid for their own transcripts and the DA even filed a motion to look at them. When the defense finally gave them a copy their mistakes were on the record. Holder lied and the DA hid it. They realized they were caught red-handed and dismissed all charges instead of walking into a perjury trap at worst or a thrashing in court at best.

Here are the DA's words to the judge in his dismissal motion:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/288765063/Feb-Court-Dismissal#fullscreen

 

[Miller]

Not so fast Froggy. You boomed your dynamite prematurely.



The Defense paid for their own transcripts and the DA even filed a motion to look at them. When the defense finally gave them a copy their mistakes were on the record. Holder lied and the DA hid it. They realized they were caught red-handed and dismissed all charges instead of walking into a perjury trap at worst or a thrashing in court at best.

Here are the DA's words to the judge in his dismissal motion:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/288765063/Feb-Court-Dismissal#fullscreen

I alluded to their transcript in another post...keep reading... but its not an official transcript. So not a surprise. The bench trials don't have one to depend on. The circled part changes nothing. That has been quoted in multiple threads...I even admitted to needing her present because that is how prosecutors clear conflicting statements and it sends a message. the DA straight out said this all along yet I was called a liar. (see below) There is absolutely zero, I mean zero proof that the DA lied or hid anything. They had pics, police statements, etc to go on. A judge found him guilty on it. Part of being a DA is knowing when to go forward and when to stop. This happens EVERY day in America. The legal talk myself and other have been presenting is how civil and criminal trials and settlements work. Its basics that happen daily. The conspiracies presented here are not based on anything in reality. Nothing. I've been in a DA office like I said and DAs have to deal with less than honorable people daily but there are also victims to deal with. And ignoring a DV case is nothing short of stupid. Nothing here or that has been discussed for 37 pages even gets close to showing what happened that night. And by the way, after his cased was dismissed not only did Holder's civil atty decline comment but so did Hardy and his attorney yet people have been saying the DA is lying because he didn't give America details. Why not hold them to the same standard? They could easily say "there was no settlement." The reason for leaving the thread is there is nothing more to explain to people like you who have no legal background because you assume the courts and how they work are on the fly and that white lies, misconduct, etc are commonplace. Not true. They had a case, lost their witness to a civil settlement and had to bail. This was something that was an issue even before the bench trial.

http://www.foxsports.com/carolinas/...ccuser-no-shows-nfl-still-may-weigh-in-020915

"Due to the circumstances of this case, the victim's testimony would have been critical evidence for the jury to consider," Murray said. "The victim appears to have made herself unavailable to the state."

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-new...-missing-no-show-social-media-nfl-free-agency

During Hardy's initial trial over the summer, there was doubt that Holder would take the stand. She ultimately showed up and testified. But after Hardy appealed for a jury trial, the prosecution lost contact with Holder.

 

[Nightman]

I alluded to their transcript in another post but its not an official transcript. The bench trials don't have one to depend on. The circled parts changes nothing. That has been quoted in multiple threads...I even admitted to needing her present because that is how prosecutors clear conflicting statements and it sends a message. There is absolutely zero, I mean zero proof that the DA lied or hid anything. They had pics, police statements, etc to go on. A judge found him guilty on it. Part of being a DA is knowing when to go forward and when to stop. This happens EVERY day in America. The legal talk myself and other have been presenting is how civil and criminal trials and settlements work. Its basics that happen daily. The conspiracies presented here are not based on anything in reality. Nothing. I've been in a DA office like I said and DAs have to deal with less than honorable people daily but there are also victims to deal with. Nothing here or that has been discussed for 37 pages even gets close to showing what happened that night. And by the way, after his cased was dismissed not only did Holder's civil atty decline comment but so did Hardy and his attorney yet people have been saying the DA is lying because he didn't give America details. Night!

There is nothing you can say that will ever be taken seriously again.

You made a big show of calling me out over the lack of transcripts and when proven wrong you don't apologize, you double down. That makes you stubborn and ignorant.

You lose.

Boom goes the Dynamite.

 

[Miller]

There is nothing you can say that will ever be taken seriously again.

You made a big show of calling me out over the lack of transcripts and when proven wrong you don't apologize, you double down. That makes you stubborn and ignorant.

You lose.

Boom goes the Dynamite.

What are you talking about? I mentioned their transcripts in another post after I wrote you. Read please. Post 721 above. The prosecutors had no official transcripts. The courts don't have transcripts for bench trials. People like you make it hard to stay on a board. Pure ignorance to facts and the ability to comprehend reality. You're a wannabe PI with no sense that is sticking up for scum because you love football.

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

Your argument was the DA was playing fast and loose, had trial transcripts with all kids of lies and hid it. They didn't even have official transcripts and when made aware of different statements...along with her being unavailble...they dismissed. It's common in courts. You got busted in a made up conspiracy and failed.

Here is another example of your repeated failures

It is meaningless and you know it. It is so open-ended it is laughable. A snitch could be reliable.

A settlement for money that requires she doesn't testify is a crime, period.
A settlement for a civil case that was never filed is illogical.
A settlement with no paper trail is toothless.

There is no proof because that would be evidence of crime. No proof = speculation.

First thing in bold is not at issue here...she settled a civil case and ran

Second thing is patently false as I already posted on 3 occassions that a good many settlements happen before anything is filed

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/settlement

Settlement may occur before or during the early stages of a trial. In fact, simple settlements regularly take place before a lawsuit is even filed

Third is false because there doesn't have to be a filing. Not everything is public record.

You know nothing regarding the legal system so who is toothless?

 

[Nightman]

You don't get it, a settlement would hurt Hardy. It would've only helped before the bench trial.

He needed his day in court to salvage any bit of his image.

His team was dying to go to court and erase that bogus bench trial verdict.

Once the charges were dropped, Hardy didn't get any positive results form the press or the league. It didn't help him one bit. The NFL sued to see the pictures from a trial that never happened.

Proving or disproving a settlement is irrelevant. It is a red herring.

 

[Miller]

You don't get it, a settlement would hurt Hardy. It would've only helped before the bench trial.

He needed his day in court to salvage any bit of his image.

His team was dying to go to court and erase that bogus bench trial verdict.

Once the charges were dropped, Hardy didn't get any positive results form the press or the league. It didn't help him one bit. The NFL sued to see the pictures from a trial that never happened.

Proving or disproving a settlement is irrelevant. It is a red herring.

Listen I have nothing against you. It's not personal. But you have something stuck in your head that just isn't true and to me is simple and part of the legal process. I'm not changing that but you really should know how things go down. You've been throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks..see my post above refuting the civil stuff.. He didn't need any of that. People settle to keep things quiet. A trial exposes many faults...of both parties. He settled the civil before it was filed because it saves him exposure and once the criminal case was dismissed, he had nothing to say. I posted this earlier but

http://litigation.findlaw.com/filin...ore-trial-settlement-alternative-dispute.html

Consider the following points:

• Amount he or she thinks the case is worth in a range of dollar amounts.
• Verdicts and settlements in similar cases.
• Chances of winning at trial.
• Unfavorable publicity for either side (civil court trials are open to the public and media scrutiny).
• Amount of personal information that could be revealed at trial or through further discovery.

- See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/filin...alternative-dispute.html#sthash.vA4rQGH0.dpuf

The last two points alone don't help...pics come out, stories come out, his ex-gfs come out, past fights between the two come out. Its not only bad for him but makes her probably look horrible. A settlement makes it go away and in most cases the stipulation is nothing comes out..ever. She gets cash and goes along. Criminally we don't know, despite her background, if she is a battered woman or an outright liar. There are plenty of abused women who hide stuff from those around them and who live in fear.

So its not a red herring. Again, you obviously don't care to know, but these situations aren't rare. DAs get enough info to file. The interview witnesses, etc. They filed, the judge found guilty, they found conflicting info, there was a civil settlement and it was dropped because she was unavailable to clear it up. The bench trial wasn't bogus. The pics were not manufactured. You think they'd see those and hear the story and ignore it? Theyd be crucified. I don't care if you think he is guilty or innocent or whatever but the conspiracies don't mesh because what happened happens all the time. There was even talk of looking at her for false statements/ Everything they did was by the book

http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/foo...-charges-greg-hardy-dropped-article-1.2108351

“For the past several months, the alleged victim, Nicole Holder, has made herself completely unavailable to the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office for the purpose of preparing for trial, and the State has been unable to locate her for the purpose of serving her with a subpoena, which would have compelled her to appear for the scheduled trial of Mr. Hardy,” reads the release from Murray’s office. “The victim appears to have intentionally made herself unavailable to the State.”

The DA’s release also stated that the civil settlement reached between Hardy and Holder “was directly related to the events that occurred at the residence of Mr. Hardy on May 13, 2014, which led to these criminal charges.”

Katie Ray-Jones, the president of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told the Daily News that it is “fairly common for the accuser not to show up” at court in these types of cases.

“It could be out of fear, or the abusive partner may have threatened the victim,” said Ray-Jones. She added that in her experience, a common thread among victims of domestic abuse was to have someone from victim advocacy groups accompany them to court.

“After a thorough review of the available facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the State has determined that it would not be just or appropriate to go forward with a jury trial without the live testimony of Ms. Holder,” reads the DA’s release. “Therefore, the State is compelled to dismiss the criminal charges against Mr. Hardy.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html

Murray said prosecutors only “recently” had compared what Holder told police the night of the alleged assault with her testimony at Hardy’s first trial.
That’s because prosecutors didn’t have a trial transcript. Hardy’s defense team did – attorney Chris Fialko hired a court reporter at Hardy’s trial in District Court where transcripts are not normally prepared. According to court records, Fialko also fought the prosecution’s request for a copy of the transcript in the weeks leading up to Hardy’s trial this week.

Murray’s office would not elaborate on what prosecutors found when they compared Holder’s statements, but the district attorney said in court that with Holder unavailable, they “did not have sufficient legal basis” to enter her statements to police as evidence.

Several legal experts around town speculated that prosecutors spotted inconsistencies that prevented them from building their case around Holder’s former accounts. To enter an unavailable witness’s prior testimony and statements as evidence, prosecutors have “to vouch” for its truthfulness, said Charlotte defense attorney George Laughrun.

“If they’re seeing something in the evidence that gives them pause, they may have been placed in a ethical dilemma where they don’t want to vouch for their witness.”


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html#storylink=cpy

So they ethically did the right thing. Nothing here happened that wasn't through the process.


Night!That really is all I can say. Its all normal and has happened before.

 

[tyke1doe]

What I implied in my statement was hard evidence. A suggestive statement by the DA's office is not such. Most civil suit agreements are confidential, but I believe this is with respect to their content, not with respect to the notion that one has been settled.

With this thread being so long, I can't remember what you implied.
Be that as it may, the DA told the judge Hardy reached a settlement/agreement with Holder.
This was reported by the home-town newspaper. Having been a former court reporter and having talked to judges and lawyers both on the record and off the record, I see no reason why the reporter would have fabricated this information if it were not true.
Furthermore, I found no retraction from the newspaper, no demand by the DA's office that Murray was misquoted about the settlement comment in court and no refutation of the claim by Hardy or his attorney.

That, to me, establishes the credibility and believability of Murray's statement.

 

[Kevinicus]

There nothing else to say but you are dead wrong and just ignored the law, what it means to be a prosecutor and common sense. As for As of #3 this was your quote



What does that mean except that you wrongly concluded that a) a civil trial has to be filed to settle..already refuted that and b) that a settlement in general would be illegal if she didn't show.

Also as far as her not showing

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12300188/charges-vs-greg-hardy-carolina-panthers-tossed

Prosecutors have been unable to locate Holder to issue her a subpoena, which would have compelled her to testify in the trial. Holder's civil attorney also has refused to assist prosecutors in locating his client.

"To prosecute domestic violence cases, we encourage domestic violence victims to not only report domestic violence but to participate in every level of the prosecution," Charlotte District Attorney Andrew Murray said outside the courthouse. "We need that participation in order to gain justice for not only victims of domestic violence, but for this community."


She can do as she pleases and if unavailable and they can't find her they would have to use official transcripts....none existed. She was the witness. Many people scare off and never show and nothing is done. You are right on one thing, her testimony probably did have inconsistencies but that is why you need to bring her in. To tell her story and clear these up. Once they couldn't bring her in they dismissed.

Your reading comprehension is off the charts bad. Try not listening to the assumptions you make about what you think I, or anyone else, said.

 

[tyke1doe]

I have no problem with acknowledging what you are saying is a reasonable assumption to what is normal. But let's also acknowledge if "normal" exist then that requires the existence of anomaly on occasion. The DA admitted this case was different. The sequence of events reported in this case make me believe anomaly could very well be at play. The reports of the bench trail appeared to portray this as a slam dunk case. Even without Holder's testimony in a jury trial, there should have been enough admissible evidence from her previous interviews and court testimony to at least attempt to bring this case to a jury. Also let's remember the witnesses and photos were still available for the jury trial. So why did the DA drop the charges? I don't believe it was just because of Holder's absence. One reason I believe this is because of the article from the Charlotte Observer, "Greg Hardy case was unraveling for weeks".

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html

Now that we've seen the photos and have had access to her statements at the scene of the incident and can compare that to her testimony in the bench trial, there are some glaring inconsistencies. Her statements exonerate Hardy from causing any of the injuries to her other than those on her neck/throat. She states he did not touch her anywhere else. Conveniently for her, her court testimony told a different story. The contractions from her weakens her credibility. Were her contradictions being scrutinized by the DA as evidence of false testimony? This should have been the case. Somehow her appearant lies were not only ignored but dismissed altogether. My explanation for this and the charges being dropped is a settlement of a non financial nature, not normal procedure but none the less explains both.

Just to be clear, are you saying the DA "settled" the case with Holder?

 

[Mountaineerfan]

It isn't a real trial. It occurs too quickly and has to be done in one day. That isn't justice. It is just the first step.

It is has no meaning the moment it is appealed. It is completely vacated, as if it never happened.

The NFL and the media have intentionally misrepresented this crucial distinction.

It is a very real trial. The only difference is it is a bench trial in front of a very real judge. In fact there has been probable cause found by a magistrate even before a charge can be issued for district court. I'm not sure where you got your information but yes it can even take longer than a single day. I suggest you come to NC watch one of our very real trials in Distict court. The only thing misrepresented is the fact that once appealed there is no conviction. Please stop cheapening our Court System because the NFL and media can't report the actual facts.

 

[Nightman]

It is a very real trial. The only difference is it is a bench trial in front of a very real judge. In fact there has been probable cause found by a magistrate even before a charge can be issued for district court. I'm not sure where you got your information but yes it can even take longer than a single day. I suggest you come to NC watch one of our very real trials in Distict court. The only thing misrepresented is the fact that once appealed there is no conviction. Please stop cheapening our Court System because the NFL and media can't report the actual facts.

You don't have to defend it's flaws just because you are from there.

The judge made it a special point to not go over 1 day no matter what.

It is not a legitimate trial according to the Constitution and that is all that matters.

How meaningful is it if it is rendered completely irrelevant before the defendant even leaves the building.

They don't even keep transcripts and I understand that the defendant even has to get arraigned again.

 

[Mountaineerfan]

It is not a legitimate trial according to the Constitution and that is all that matters.

LOL now your just being obtuse.

 

[SultanOfSix]

With this thread being so long, I can't remember what you implied.
Be that as it may, the DA told the judge Hardy reached a settlement/agreement with Holder.
This was reported by the home-town newspaper. Having been a former court reporter and having talked to judges and lawyers both on the record and off the record, I see no reason why the reporter would have fabricated this information if it were not true.
Furthermore, I found no retraction from the newspaper, no demand by the DA's office that Murray was misquoted about the settlement comment in court and no refutation of the claim by Hardy or his attorney.

That, to me, establishes the credibility and believability of Murray's statement.

The longest description in any news article that I searched for regarding a reference to a possible settlement is detailed here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article10422650.html

"The Observer later sought additional information about the search for Holder, the decision to drop the charges and whether prosecutors considered launching a witness-tampering investigation when they learned of the settlement between Holder and Hardy, among other topics.

Witness tampering is a felony under North Carolina law, but it is also a charge that is rarely prosecuted, recently retired Superior Court Judge Richard Boner said Monday.

That’s because investigators need firm proof of a “quid pro quo,” that money changed hands to keep a witness from testifying in a criminal case. A civil settlement could have the same net effect but not meet the requirements of a tampering charge, Boner said.

“If you have proof of quid pro quo, then you’ve got some possible criminal liability. It’s the district attorney’s call. There’s a fine line,” Boner said.

As Hardy left the courthouse, at least one reporter asked whether he’d left the impression that he paid Holder off. He declined to comment on that and other questions.

Fialko did the same. “Don’t make me do a Marshawn Lynch on you,” he told the Observer as he left the courthouse, a reference to the Seattle Seahawks player who refused to talk with the media at the recent Super Bowl.

Hardy and his entourage drove off in a Honda Accord."

I don't know why it's so difficult to evidence a "quid pro quo" in this case. Hardy has substantial amounts of cash. Holder had no job or income source such that she went to Hardy's the day of the supposed incident to get money from him to pay her rent.

How hard is it to subpoena bank records if the DA had "reliable" information that a settlement was reached? It should be very easy to prove such considering the situation of the two parties. Why wouldn't they follow through with an investigation since it is illegal to witness-tamper? The explanation given in this article as to why it did not happen is impotent, and seems like a way to just throw an aura of credibility onto specious reasoning. How is there a "fine line" in this case? Everyone already presumes he paid her off.

I see insufficiently answered questions in these said events. I think the state knew they didn't have a case because the reliability of Holder was suspect and if they forced the witness to appear in trial they would have eventually looked stupid by the defense team. So, they simply let it go and then threw some thinly disguised aspersions on their way out onto the party already perceived as guilty (by suggesting a payoff) while wrapping it in an air of professionalism to make it seem like there was nothing they could really do when that simply wasn't true. On Hardy's end, the case was thrown out and he had nothing more to worry about. Once his record was expunged that probably only further solidified it in his mind. Little did he know that the stench of the DV charges would be brought up over and over again well after the fact, and that every action of his would be magnified to tie back to the said events and the pictures from the case would be leaked and it would still be impacting him well over a year after it happened.

It's ironic that a no refutation of the claim (sticking with no comment and silence) by Hardy and his attorney implicitly suggests that he did it, but when he adamantly denies ever hitting Holder, it's simply dismissed. I guess people are just going to see what they want to see.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL now your just being obtuse.

The 'conviction' is set aside and a jury trial is automatically scheduled because by itself the process does not mean the standard of due process. trial by jury is right there in the bill of rights.

In action what it does is give leverage to prosecutors particularly in municipalities where they are buddy buddy with the judge. It's not an indictment; it's a conviction! When you consider small town politics and the good ole boy system one can see why those types might like such an arrangement.

Not surprising coming out of NC.