Hardy insists he's innocent until proven guilty

[tyke1doe]

Not trying to and I admit I misspoke.

I wasn't saying you were playing the "Gotcha" game. I was saying I'm not trying to play the "Gotcah" game. And I was saying we all misspeak. Basically, I was giving you a compliment.

 

[phildadon86]

If he was going to be found not guilty at trial, why did he pay her to not show up? My point is that you are talking nonsense rather than admit that you have been wrong.

It's probably what his agent said to do. You know so there isn't more media ripping the guy apart. I'm not wrong. We have a difference of opinion. That's it

 

[KB1122]

You can always sue. But he would lose.

Hardy is a public figure and the story is newsworthy. So he would have to prove that the statements are false, and if they are false that the publisher either knew it was false or was reckless with regard to whether it was false.

Its a tough case to win.

It's especially a tough case to win if the allegations are true.

 

[KB1122]

Either A) Hardy is incredibly stupid. B) He has no handlers. C) Both. Adrian Peterson is past it. Why? He let it die.

He also came forward, admitted his wrongdoing publicly, served his time and threw himself on the mercy of public opinion. None of which have we seen Hardy do.

 

[KB1122]

You seem to keep stating she was paid off as a fact. Where is this fact? A "settlement" was reached. That isnt necessarily a bribe. It literally could have been hardys attorney telling her, you story holds no water and i am going to destroy you on the stand, and the DA agreeing with said attorney. There is no "PROOF" that she was "PAID". So stop stating that it is a fact.

If it is false, he could go to court. Or he could (and almost certainly would) deny it. But he hasn't.

 

[Nightman]

If he was going to be found not guilty at trial, why did he pay her to not show up? My point is that you are talking nonsense rather than admit that you have been wrong.

He got probation after then bench trial. That is what he was facing worst case scenario after the jury trial, a misdemeanor with no jail time. SO if he was going to pay her off he would have done it before the bench trial. Why wait until after the bench trial with the faux conviction and bad press?

He wanted to go to the jury trial. He would have probably won once her story was truly vetted upon cross and the defense witnesses had their full chance to testify. Paying her off only makes him look guilty.

 

[JoeKing]

You are guessing what would have happened if he had a "competent" attorney. I may be delusional, but I am not wrong. He paid her off. That is a fact. He was never found innocent, only found guilty. That is a fact. Everybody that has looked into this, from the media, the NFL, the Panthers and Cowboys front offices all believe him guilty. You believe him innocent and cite testimony from a trial that never took place.

I believe that the facts are on my side and wishful thinking is on yours.

Give up yet?

He paid her off? You call that fact? Then you will have no problem substantiating that claim. All I've seen about this was speculation... that is a fact. And one is not "found innocent", one simply is innocent until proven guilty which has not happened by a jury of his peers.

 

[Hawkeye19]

Another broad generalization based on no facts.
You fit in well.

Sure it's based on facts... A judge found him guilty in a court of law, there's a 911 transcript and photos that document enough of the story for anyone to know that more bad than good was happening that night. Are you saying he WASN'T involved in a physical assault with Holder? Where are YOUR facts?

And as far as the generalization goes about our fan base-- I've been a fan since the early 80's-- people believe what they want to believe. They hate Deion Sanders when he's a Falcon or a 49er-- love him when he's a Cowboy. Hated Haley when he was a 49er too-- until we traded for him.

It's no different with Hardy. If he had been picked up by another team-- we'd be rooting against him. But because he's a Cowboy, people feel they owe him blind loyalty.

 

[DogFace]

Sure it's based on facts... A judge found him guilty in a court of law, there's a 911 transcript and photos that document enough of the story for anyone to know that more bad than good was happening that night. Are you saying he WASN'T involved in a physical assault with Holder? Where are YOUR facts?

And as far as the generalization goes about our fan base-- I've been a fan since the early 80's-- people believe what they want to believe. They hate Deion Sanders when he's a Falcon or a 49er-- love him when he's a Cowboy. Hated Haley when he was a 49er too-- until we traded for him.

It's no different with Hardy. If he had been picked up by another team-- we'd be rooting against him. But because he's a Cowboy, people feel they owe him blind loyalty.

Exactly. More broad generalizations about your impression of what fans think. You don't know. I liked Primetime as a falcon, niner, Cowboy, and Brave.
I'm sure there are others who feel the same. So you absolutely have no facts to back up your stupid insinuation of what all others think.

A judge found Hardy guilty of a misdemeanor. This is a preliminary hearing. I have no idea what happened. Sure it didn't sound like he was playing patty cakes with her. But you have no idea of the circumstances involved and maybe the judge who chose to make it a misdemeanor and a suspended sentence knew Holder held some blame. I don't know. Neither do you. Hardy had the right as a North Carolna citizen to appeal her decision and he did. The prosecuter could have pursued the case with the testimony. He chose not to and it could possibly be because her testimony was inconsistent and wouldn't stand up to cross examination. You don't know . You are assuming.

You want me to PROVE Hardy's innocence or that there was no physical altercation? We have rules in America. You don't have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. That's how it works. Maybe youre confusing our system with Saudia Arabia's where heresy is enough for a public stoning.

 

[PAINFROMUKRAINE]

Exactly. More broad generalizations about your impression of what fans think. You don't know. I liked Primetime as a falcon, niner, Cowboy, and Brave.
I'm sure there are others who feel the same. So you absolutely have no facts to back up your stupid insinuation of what all others think.

A judge found Hardy guilty of a misdemeanor. This is a preliminary hearing. I have no idea what happened. Sure it didn't sound like he was playing patty cakes with her. But you have no idea of the circumstances involved and maybe the judge who chose to make it a misdemeanor and a suspended sentence knew Holder held some blame. I don't know. Neither do you. Hardy had the right as a North Carolna citizen to appeal her decision and he did. The prosecuter could have pursued the case with the testimony. He chose not to and it could possibly be because her testimony was inconsistent and wouldn't stand up to cross examination. You don't know . You are assuming.

You want me to PROVE Hardy's innocence or that there was no physical altercation? We have rules in America. You don't have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. That's how it works. Maybe youre confusing our system with Saudia Arabia's where heresy is enough for a public stoning.

I disagree. You are guilty until proven innocent. Why are "accused" criminals not free before their court hearings if they are innocent? There should be no bail and you should not have to serve any time in jail before the court hearing since you are innocent. I was involved in a work related situation and we were all fired due to the fact that the employee accused us of wrongful actions with no proof to justify this action. I had to go to court to prove my innocence even though I was wrongfully accused of being guilty of some wrongful actions.

 

[knightrider94]

They hate Deion Sanders when he's a Falcon or a 49er-- love him when he's a Cowboy.

Ummmmm...not me. He is the one player I wish never put on the Star.

 

[DogFace]

I disagree. You are guilty until proven innocent. Why are "accused" criminals not free before their court hearings if they are innocent? There should be no bail and you should not have to serve any time in jail before the court hearing since you are innocent. I was involved in a work related situation and we were all fired due to the fact that the employee accused us of wrongful actions with no proof to justify this action. I had to go to court to prove my innocence even though I was wrongfully accused of being guilty of some wrongful actions.

You have to account for what you're accused. You don't have to prove your innocence. The burden of proof is squarely on the prosecution.

In this case he took it to a bench trial to challenge his guilty verdict and the prosecution felt they could not prove their case so it was dismissed. It wasn't dropped because he proved his innocence. Clearly.

 

[speedkilz88]

I disagree. You are guilty until proven innocent. Why are "accused" criminals not free before their court hearings if they are innocent? There should be no bail and you should not have to serve any time in jail before the court hearing since you are innocent. I was involved in a work related situation and we were all fired due to the fact that the employee accused us of wrongful actions with no proof to justify this action. I had to go to court to prove my innocence even though I was wrongfully accused of being guilty of some wrongful actions.

Then you should understand what Hardy is going through.

 

[PAINFROMUKRAINE]

Then you should understand what Hardy is going through.

I understand his issues but the photographs and any possible "payoff" does not help his innocence. On the surface, he seems like a violent guy with a short temper as well. He could have snapped for a few minutes and bruised her up. I do not think it was premeditated or continuous constant abuse for a long period of time. He should have had his day in court. The "cloud" hanging above his head is the "possible payoff". She must have signed a contract with a confidentially clause so she technically does not have to admit to any payoff. He can deny any payoffs and nobody can challenge this claim.

 

[Hawkeye19]

Exactly. More broad generalizations about your impression of what fans think. You don't know. I liked Primetime as a falcon, niner, Cowboy, and Brave.
I'm sure there are others who feel the same. So you absolutely have no facts to back up your stupid insinuation of what all others think.

A judge found Hardy guilty of a misdemeanor. This is a preliminary hearing. I have no idea what happened. Sure it didn't sound like he was playing patty cakes with her. But you have no idea of the circumstances involved and maybe the judge who chose to make it a misdemeanor and a suspended sentence knew Holder held some blame. I don't know. Neither do you. Hardy had the right as a North Carolna citizen to appeal her decision and he did. The prosecuter could have pursued the case with the testimony. He chose not to and it could possibly be because her testimony was inconsistent and wouldn't stand up to cross examination. You don't know . You are assuming.

You want me to PROVE Hardy's innocence or that there was no physical altercation? We have rules in America. You don't have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. That's how it works. Maybe youre confusing our system with Saudia Arabia's where heresy is enough for a public stoning.

The judge listened to 11 hours of testimony and actually stated for the record:

""the court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats."

Beyond that-- I wasn't insinuating that "all fans" hold to what I was saying-- I was merely stating the FACT that I have indeed watched that phenomenon take place over 30 YEARS of being a fan. If you don't like it-- well, the man with the experience is NEVER at the mercy of the man with the opinion. Whether or not YOU fit that type of fan behavior is irrelevant-- there certainly are fans that hate a player when he's on another team-- and then blindly love him when he's on their team.

 

[fortdick]

It's common for things to get settled all the time because its cheaper and just better to move on. A settlement doesnt mean one is guilty.

Some times in life its a matter of knowing which battles are worth fighting.

How did that work out for him? Did it go away? It cost him a bunch of money, and it sure didn't make things easier. Either his lawyers and agents are very dumb, or he had something to hide.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

How did that work out for him? Did it go away? It cost him a bunch of money, and it sure didn't make things easier. Either his lawyers and agents are very dumb, or he had something to hide.

Actually, he signed with the Dallas Cowboys. If he was with any of the other 31 teams it would have been swept under the rug already. If he was in NE Belicheat would be praised for his culture and ability to take "problem" players and make them model citizens. If he had signed with Pittsburgh, we would be hearing about the big hearts and great sympathizers the Rooney family are and how they have a model organization. Im willing to bet even Merill Hoge would be singing the praises of the signing by the Rooney's.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

He also came forward, admitted his wrongdoing publicly, served his time and threw himself on the mercy of public opinion. None of which have we seen Hardy do.

He also served less time than Hardy. Hardy got essentially 19-games off to Peterson's 15-games.

And he 'threw himself on the mercy of public opinion' is intellectually dishonest. He didn't say really anything. He was guilty. They had pictures of the brutal and permanent scars on his 4-year old son to prove it.

For Hardy, there is no proof that he broke the law and in fact, his record of this incident was expunged by the DA. The DA has publicly admitted that he had problems with the contradictions in Holder's bench trial testimony versus what she told police and the evidence. Such as her telling police that Sammy Curtis caused the bruises on her arm and then at the bench trial claiming the Hardy did it by slamming the toilet lid on her arms. And that she claimed that Hardy was choking her, but there are no strangulation marks on her neck or throat.

Getting a DA to expunge somebody's record, even in cases where the person has been determined innocent thru DNA evidence, is often like pulling teeth. Maybe it wasn't as big of an issue for the DA as it would be for other DA's, but it's still not something that a DA usually does at a drop of a hat.

And I would argue that Hardy's alleged crime was not nearly as bad as Peterson's. Hardy's alleged crime occurred between him and an adult female who was drunk and high on coke. Peterson permanently scarred a 4-year old child that even the most ardent corporal punishment believers feel that he went overboard. A 4-year old child isn't likely to know right and wrong very well, probably could not have done something so bad that would warrant a vicious beating like that and can't defend himself.

So I don't see why Hardy should beg for forgiveness if he is saying that what he did was perfectly legal and the DA has, more or less, agreed with him. And the severity of Peterson's crime is, in my mind, much worse than Hardy's alleged crime and nobody has ever demanded that Peterson be banned from the NFL.

And I honestly doubt that if Hardy did all of the things he was told, that people would have left it at that. It's a media thing. The media is always looking for stories that can drive ratings and clicks. And a star player for the Cowboys draws a lot more attention than a star play for the Vikings.





YR

 

[Philmonroe]

I understand his issues but the photographs and any possible "payoff" does not help his innocence. On the surface, he seems like a violent guy with a short temper as well. He could have snapped for a few minutes and bruised her up. I do not think it was premeditated or continuous constant abuse for a long period of time. He should have had his day in court. The "cloud" hanging above his head is the "possible payoff". She must have signed a contract with a confidentially clause so she technically does not have to admit to any payoff. He can deny any payoffs and nobody can challenge this claim.

On the surface of what? Playing football? You can't be serious. You have people that act a fool even upstanding guys like Jason Witten that don't have any record but because of what someone does during a game (that most fans want the players to show emotion in) he's violent? Smh. I see how things happened to people in the past when there was no cameras, google, etc for,people to find the truth if they wanted to. People make up all kinds of lazy narratives but that also seems to be human nature when its not somebody close and or actually you(general)

 

[khiladi]

You can always sue. But he would lose.

Hardy is a public figure and the story is newsworthy. So he would have to prove that the statements are false, and if they are false that the publisher either knew it was false or was reckless with regard to whether it was false.

Its a tough case to win.

They technically are false.

http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/loca...ial-that-ended-before-even-starting/23137621/

Criminal defense attorney Melissa Owen, who played no role in the case, said, "It's very difficult in a domestic violence case to proceed without a victim."

Former prosecutor and now defense attorney Thomas Porter said in many cases, prosecutors do proceed in domestic violence cases without a victim.

"There must have been something wrong wither her testimony. Inconsistencies, and they realized they probably were not going to be successful, so they just cut their losses." Porter said.

As for the possible settlement Murray had mentioned in court, Porter said it is likely no one will ever know the details.

"If there was a settlement, I'm not sure anything would have been filed. It would just be an agreement between the parties," he said.