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

[tyke1doe]

Where is the court reporter stuff coming from? Who says the journalist reporter "fabricated" anything? What information would that be?

Go back and reread the thread. I have neither the time or inclination to bring you up to speed.

There is so much piss poor communication going on in this thread. People not reading things right. People trying to infer things that aren't there. People making things up. It's a mess.

So what you're saying is this is probably a good stopping point?

 

[tyke1doe]

You think you live in a world where DAs never lie to judges? Under table deals don't happen? Wise up man, corruption runs amuck much more than you want to believe.

Sigh.

It's about the norm vs. the abnormal. It's about the regular vs. the irregular.

If a ball falls to the ground, that's the norm. This phenomenon falls within the scientific parameters of a force we know and call gravity. We don't question it because there are principles that govern this routine occurrence.

If a ball when dropped moves upward - against the norm - this would require more investigation, explanation and verification because it goes against the norm.

The normal/regular pattern for attorneys is to tell the truth in court, and particularly to a judge who has the power to hold an attorney in contempt. Attorneys are held to a set of professional ethics/standards/principles. Any practicing attorney will tell you this.

So ... when someone offers that an attorney has lied or fabricated a story in court, because it is abnormal or irregular, it is incumbent on the person who makes the charge to provide evidence in support of his accusation.

Therefore, an accusation of fabrication is taken more seriously and requires more verification because it is against the norm.

What you all seem to be doing is tossing out the possibility of impropriety with no evidence, and then thinking that your speculation is worthy to be compared with what actually happened as reported by the Charlotte Observer. And, to top it off, you (maybe not you but someone did) imply that the reporter fabricated or misunderstood what occurred in court. If he did, then I can assure you as a former reporter myself who has worked for four daily newspapers, covered courts and who, however, rarely, has made a mistake in a story, that's not what happened. Every time a mistake happens, there is a process in place to identify the mistake and correct the mistake, which includes publishing a retraction. This is ESPECIALLY true with news stories, that provide the facts of a particular event and are different from editorials and commentaries that are based on opinions.

Despite what people think, reporters aren't regularly going around fabricating stories. And the ones who do won't be in the business long.

Yes, corruption does occur. But it's not the norm, particularly with respect to what an attorney tells a judge in court. And I'm not going to treat it as if it does nor am I going to place it on par with the truth that we know because someone who is eager to defend Greg Hardy wants it to be so.

 

[iceberg]

Go back and reread the thread. I have neither the time or inclination to bring you up to speed.

you left off "or the intelligence"

 

[casmith07]

40 pages on a dude who's a free agent and never coming back, lol.

 

[tyke1doe]

you left off "or the intelligence"

Actually, my "intelligence" is what draws you into this argument.

 

[iceberg]

Actually, my "intelligence" is what draws you into this argument.

actually it was seeing an empty screen and making the tragic mistake of hitting "show ignored posts". your "intelligence" has been out of my life for over a year.

 

[tyke1doe]

actually it was seeing an empty screen and making the tragic mistake of hitting "show ignored posts". your "intelligence" has been out of my life for over a year.

And yet you're still responding to my posts. How delightful.

Look, if you don't want to hold a discussion with me, fine. But if you're going to ignore me, please spare me the "I'm going to ignore you by telling you I'm ignoring you in a futile attempt to hurt your fweelings" and just ignore me.

I promise you I won't lose any sleep.

 

[big dog cowboy]

40 pages on a dude who's a free agent and never coming back, lol.

Thread started April 1st so we are going strong for almost two weeks.

 

[Nightman]

out of my own morbid curiosity - is it even remotely possible to have a new thought on the hardy situation or is everyone flinging their polished up powerpoints back and forth at each other now hoping THIS TIME the explanation will enlighten the other party?

I will say this: if a video turned up and showed Hardy pulling a Ray Rice on Holder I would be shocked and embarrassed for defending him for so long. I initially thought he just another dirt bag but after a little digging I am convinced he is the victim of a fatal attraction. He became the punching bag for DV(no pun intended) for the media and the league and I think that is unfair. A minor fight/incident one night shouldn't affect someone's life this much.

But the case really is a fascinating study of athletes, DV charges, punishments, peer pressure and the media. That is why it is still being debated. There are so many grey areas. Everyone saw Ray Rice punch his wife in the face. But she then forgave him, he lost a step or two and everyone moved on.

I would hope that if a video came out and showed Hardy really did show restraint and tried to control a person in a rage that may hurt herself or others that they could admit they were wrong. It is possible that Hardy was seriously wronged just because he broke up with an emotional woman.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Impotent compared to what other explanation?
With respect to subpoenaing bank records, how do we know this wasn't given consideration? However, it is the practice of many athletes to carry large sums of cash.
Let's say Hardy regularly pulls out $100,000 in cash from his weekly check. Even if you subpoenaed bank records, it wouldn't tell you anything other than Hardy had a regular habit of pulling $100,000 in cash from his account (if he has direct deposit) or depositing everything except $100,000.

If he paid Holder $50,000 in cash and Holder goes on a buying spree as has been reported, you could draw a conclusion, but this is hardly evidence.

Second, we really don't know what the "reliable information" is. It could be anything. I don't feel the need to speculate what it is. I just know the DA made a statement to the press and told a judge that a settlement exists.




I think this is what happened. I think Murray realized he didn't have as strong a case without Holder. And once Holder was uncooperative, I think he just decided it wasn't worth it to prosecute Hardy.

However, I DO NOT believe Murray made up the settlement to save face. I think such an assertion is rather ridiculous. You don't need to fabricate the existence of a settlement to drop a case and, quite frankly, you cause more problems than you solve by doing so.

He said there was reliable info and never shared what that was. Empiricism asks for verification and not just an assertion.

 

[DallasEast]

I might have guessed Nicole Holder would have resurfaced publicly by now with the prevalence of Facebook and reality television. Heck, I'm surprised ESPN hasn't tracked her down by now for a few ambiguous comments they could include with a 30 for 30 mini-documentary on Greg Hardy.

 

[robjay04]

I might have guessed Nicole Holder would have resurfaced publicly by now with the prevalence of Facebook and reality television. Heck, I'm surprised ESPN hasn't tracked her down by now for a few ambiguous comments they could include with a 30 for 30 mini-documentary on Greg Hardy.

She would probably owe Greg Hardy all her settlement back if she opened her mouth.

 

[DallasEast]

She would probably owe Greg Hardy all her settlement back if she opened her mouth.

That's kind of funny. A settlement, which the public knows zero details about, that stifles even ambiguous statements. That would be a notable feat in today's I don't give a damn western society. It may be so ironclad that she cannot even be named as an unnamed source. Now that would be an impressive concession nowadays.

 

[Kaiser]

I might have guessed Nicole Holder would have resurfaced publicly by now with the prevalence of Facebook and reality television. Heck, I'm surprised ESPN hasn't tracked her down by now for a few ambiguous comments they could include with a 30 for 30 mini-documentary on Greg Hardy.

That's a very good point. ESPN is still beating the drum on this and could make a prime time special out of a tearful victim recounting the horror of that fateful night.

The fact is hasn't happened very likely means one of two things - either 1) ESPN has talked to her and knows she has no credibility, or 2) they have tried and she won't talk about which sworn statement she gave is true and which one is perjury.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

this thread should be moved to the move on from this loser Zone! 40 pages? Really?

 

[JoeKing]

Sigh.

It's about the norm vs. the abnormal. It's about the regular vs. the irregular.

If a ball falls to the ground, that's the norm. This phenomenon falls within the scientific parameters of a force we know and call gravity. We don't question it because there are principles that govern this routine occurrence.

If a ball when dropped moves upward - against the norm - this would require more investigation, explanation and verification because it goes against the norm.

The normal/regular pattern for attorneys is to tell the truth in court, and particularly to a judge who has the power to hold an attorney in contempt. Attorneys are held to a set of professional ethics/standards/principles. Any practicing attorney will tell you this.

So ... when someone offers that an attorney has lied or fabricated a story in court, because it is abnormal or irregular, it is incumbent on the person who makes the charge to provide evidence in support of his accusation.

Therefore, an accusation of fabrication is taken more seriously and requires more verification because it is against the norm.

What you all seem to be doing is tossing out the possibility of impropriety with no evidence, and then thinking that your speculation is worthy to be compared with what actually happened as reported by the Charlotte Observer. And, to top it off, you (maybe not you but someone did) imply that the reporter fabricated or misunderstood what occurred in court. If he did, then I can assure you as a former reporter myself who has worked for four daily newspapers, covered courts and who, however, rarely, has made a mistake in a story, that's not what happened. Every time a mistake happens, there is a process in place to identify the mistake and correct the mistake, which includes publishing a retraction. This is ESPECIALLY true with news stories, that provide the facts of a particular event and are different from editorials and commentaries that are based on opinions.

Despite what people think, reporters aren't regularly going around fabricating stories. And the ones who do won't be in the business long.

Yes, corruption does occur. But it's not the norm, particularly with respect to what an attorney tells a judge in court. And I'm not going to treat it as if it does nor am I going to place it on par with the truth that we know because someone who is eager to defend Greg Hardy wants it to be so.

You seem to selectively pick and choose which of the DA's words you believe to fit what you want to believe. The DA admitted this case is different. Have you not ever speculated what he meant by that? Have you ever questioned the sincerity of the DA when he said the search for Nicole Holder was extensively exhausting yet social media could easily track her moves.

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

It doesn't appear he really wanted to find her. An alleged victim avoiding to testify in a court of law to a traumatic experience in the presence of the accused perpetrator is a reasonable explanation for her lack of cooperation... not that that is what really happen. What is the reasonable explanation for social media's ability to tracking Holders whereabouts while the DA's claim of an exhaustive search bearing no fruit. I think it is reasonable to doubt this claim by the DA. So what else is the DA being disingenuous about? A civil lawsuit settlement? I have my doubts.

 

[DallasEast]

That's a very good point. ESPN is still beating the drum on this and could make a prime time special out of a tearful victim recounting the horror of that fateful night.

The fact is hasn't happened very likely means one of two things - either 1) ESPN has talked to her and knows she has no credibility, or 2) they have tried and she won't talk about which sworn statement she gave is true and which one is perjury.

I used ESPN as an example of a media source that would be interested in Holder's comments. Whether ESPN has actually attempted to contact her is anyone's guess.

I'm not going to pretend that I have knowledge in how this particular settlement works or any other settlement for that matter. What gets me is that settlements have been created throughout the era of widely distributed media--yet they haven't squashed every tell all book, exclusive interview, etc. that have surfaced after the fact.

lol. This particular settlement may end up putting the Warren Commission sealing of the Kennedy investigation to shame.

 

[Kaiser]

Have you ever questioned the sincerity of the DA when he said the search for Nicole Holder was extensively exhausting yet social media could easily track her moves.

Holder also worked the same job for months after this incident. Finding her was about as hard as solving the puzzle in "Blue's Clues".

 

[tyke1doe]

You seem to selectively pick and choose which of the DA's words you believe to fit what you want to believe. The DA admitted this case is different. Have you not ever speculated what he meant by that? Have you ever questioned the sincerity of the DA when he said the search for Nicole Holder was extensively exhausting yet social media could easily track her moves.

Sigh. There's a difference between speculating what he meant and speculating that because the case is different he "settled" the case with Holder.

I've never heard the term "settlement" used when a DA agrees not to prosecute for lesser charges or threatens a perjury charge (or whatever the threat may be) against a reluctant witness but then drops it, have you?

It doesn't appear he really wanted to find her. An alleged victim avoiding to testify in a court of law to a traumatic experience in the presence of the accused perpetrator is a reasonable explanation for her lack of cooperation... not that that is what really happen. What is the reasonable explanation for social media's ability to tracking Holders whereabouts while the DA's claim of an exhaustive search bearing no fruit. I think it is reasonable to doubt this claim by the DA. So what else is the DA being disingenuous about? A civil lawsuit settlement? I have my doubts.

You can have your doubts. But I don't believe those doubts amount to a reporter putting words in a DA's mouth that he settled a case nor a DA telling a judge in court that Hardy reached a settlement with Holder.

But we've beat the heck out of this dead horse, and the horse is still dead.

 

[tyke1doe]

this thread should be moved to the move on from this loser Zone! 40 pages? Really?

Did you say it should be moved to the Loser's Zone?