Hardy Investigation Thread

[Stash]

Who offered that quote? Hardy? The police? Holder?
Who recorded it?

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/panthers-hardy-trial-start-tuesday/ngfk8/

 

[Stash]

Just for clarity on the Hardy matter, I feel this needs to be detailed thoroughly AGAIN.....

In North Carolina, misdemeanors are first tried before a judge in district court. If the defendant is acquitted, that’s the end of the case. If convicted, the defendant may appeal to superior court for a trial de novo, this time with a jury. The state saves considerable money and time in prosecuting misdemeanor cases because the district court trial is without a jury or court reporter and most defendants accept the verdict there, while the constitutional right to a jury is preserved by the option of carrying the case to superior court.

A Trial de novo means new, so the concept is a new trial. It’s still an appeal, though, but it doesn't limit how new the new trial is to be conducted.

The most commonly stated explanation of appeal to superior court for a trial de novo is that “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). Or, put another way, “The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” Id. The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

The United States Supreme Court has characterized the verdict in the lower court in a trial de novo system as “no more than an offer in settlement” of the state’s case. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 119 (1972). The defendant is free to either accept the offer or appeal and seek the decision of a jury in superior court. As the North Carolina Supreme Court has said:

"The purpose of our de novo procedure is to provide all criminal defendants charged with misdemeanor violations the right to a ‘speedy trial’ in the District Court and to offer them an opportunity to learn about the State’s case without revealing their own. In the latter sense, this procedure can be viewed as a method of ‘free’ criminal discovery."

Brooks, 287 N.C. at 406.

Because the appeal is a trial de novo and the slate is wiped clean of the district court proceedings, the superior court may impose a harsher sentence than the defendant received below. Colten v. Kentucky, supra; State v. Sparrow, supra. The defendant may not be questioned about having pled guilty in district court. State v. Overby, 4 N.C. App. 280 (1969). Nor may the defendant be asked about failing to testify in district court. State v. Ferrell, 75 N.C. App. 156 (1985). On the other hand, the state is no longer bound by a plea bargain which allowed the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in district court; it may proceed on the original charge in superior court. State v. Fox, 34 N.C. App. 576 (1977).

In other words, Hardy has no conviction on his record and as discussed previously he is in the process of having the arrest expunged from his record as well. If one were to conduct a background check on Mr. Hardy this matter would not even exist.

Further, the Prosecution had every right to pursue the charges without the alleged victim. As stated in the Charlotte Observer:

"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray (District Attorney Andrew Murray), though, said the Hardy case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holder’s credibility in a statement to the judge.

But other details also raised unanswered questions about prosecutors’ handling of the case. Hardy’s defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in July. But 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.”

Apologies for the length of the post but the legal minutiae needs to be parsed out. There are a number of false statements on this board and every other medium being presented as legal truth or fact. I am merely trying to offer clarity. This case is more gray than black and white as a previous poster stated. The fact that some fall on one side of guilt or innocence and other people fall on the opposite side is totally understandable.

Thanks very much for taking the time to try to clear some facts up.

Not that it will change some closed minds, but thanks for making the effort nonetheless.

 

[superonyx]

Many disliked him before the Ray Rice case.

You actually believe people hate Goodell because they want the league to allow players to run wild and do anything they want?
Come on....
Ben Rapesherburger got what? 2 games?
Ray Rice? 2 games

Goodell and the league are turning people off because the fans are not stupid. We can see that they are over stepping their bounds to make up for how he blew it with Ray Rice.
The reason fans are not upset with Brady getting 4 games is because he was caught cheating in a game. This is a serious offense and the text messages he sent after prove he knew about it and then tried to cover it up. It makes no difference if it is a legal crime. Its a violation of the game rules. Spygate wasn't a legal crime either but they deserved punishment for it.
What Hardy did was away from the game and had nothing to do with the game. He was accused of something that turned into nothing legally.

 

[Stash]

You actually believe people hate Goodell because they want the league to allow players to run wild and do anything they want?
Come on....
Ben Rapesherburger got what? 2 games?
Ray Rice? 2 games

Goodell and the league are turning people off because the fans are not stupid. We can see that they are over stepping their bounds to make up for how he blew it with Ray Rice.
The reason fans are not upset with Brady getting 4 games is because he was caught cheating in a game. This is a serious offense and the text messages he sent after prove he knew about it and then tried to cover it up. It makes no difference if it is a legal crime. Its a violation of the game rules. Spygate wasn't a legal crime either but they deserved punishment for it.
What Hardy did was away from the game and had nothing to do with the game. He was accused of something that turned into nothing legally.

And something which doesn't ruin the competitive balance of the entire sport and the integrity of the game.

If Gooddell had his way, Greg Hardy will have missed 25 games for something he was found not guilty of, while Tom Brady will get his 4 game suspension for cheating on the field appealed down or dismissed entirely.

 

[cowboyvic]

Guilty much?
I said SOME people hate Goodell because ..., not ALL people.
If your reason for hating Goodell doesn't have anything to do with his "get tough on bad conduct" policy, then, obviously, you're not who I'm talking about.

I have a problem with Goodell on all counts. the only reason he is going overboard with these punishments now is because he was exposed by screwing up the Ray rice case. by only giving him 2 freaking games. he screwed up. and he gets away with it. yet he is the one still punishing people.GIVE ME A BREAK!

 

[AsthmaField]

Not sure what you're referring to as far as the three bodies go, but even if he is guilty of the charges that have just been dismissed, it's perfectly reasonable for people to be ok with a player guilty of a misdemeanor offense that carried with it a total of 18 months of probation to play for their favorite team. Whether it's because they don't expect an NFL team to be comprised of boy scouts, or because they believe in people getting opportunities to rehabilitate, or they are just content to move on knowing worse things happen in the workplace and across the league all the time.

If he is calling the NFL one of those "three bodies", then that isn't correct, IMO.

The NFL is interested in one thing and one thing only: Making sure they appear as harsh as possible to the public on any domestic violence situation. That they deemed their evidence enough to punish Hardy means very little to his actual guilt or innocence, I believe.

They were going to hit Hardy as hard as they possible could, even going as far as trying to make it into 4 separate instances instead of one like a court would. It is laughable really, to use that investigation as anything other than what it was... which was just covering their *** for public opinion as well as the opinion of advertisers... which of course only care because of public opinion.

 

[CowboyGil]

Just for clarity on the Hardy matter, I feel this needs to be detailed thoroughly AGAIN.....

In North Carolina, misdemeanors are first tried before a judge in district court. If the defendant is acquitted, that’s the end of the case. If convicted, the defendant may appeal to superior court for a trial de novo, this time with a jury. The state saves considerable money and time in prosecuting misdemeanor cases because the district court trial is without a jury or court reporter and most defendants accept the verdict there, while the constitutional right to a jury is preserved by the option of carrying the case to superior court.

A Trial de novo means new, so the concept is a new trial. It’s still an appeal, though, but it doesn't limit how new the new trial is to be conducted.

The most commonly stated explanation of appeal to superior court for a trial de novo is that “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). Or, put another way, “The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” Id. The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

The United States Supreme Court has characterized the verdict in the lower court in a trial de novo system as “no more than an offer in settlement” of the state’s case. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 119 (1972). The defendant is free to either accept the offer or appeal and seek the decision of a jury in superior court. As the North Carolina Supreme Court has said:

"The purpose of our de novo procedure is to provide all criminal defendants charged with misdemeanor violations the right to a ‘speedy trial’ in the District Court and to offer them an opportunity to learn about the State’s case without revealing their own. In the latter sense, this procedure can be viewed as a method of ‘free’ criminal discovery."

Brooks, 287 N.C. at 406.

Because the appeal is a trial de novo and the slate is wiped clean of the district court proceedings, the superior court may impose a harsher sentence than the defendant received below. Colten v. Kentucky, supra; State v. Sparrow, supra. The defendant may not be questioned about having pled guilty in district court. State v. Overby, 4 N.C. App. 280 (1969). Nor may the defendant be asked about failing to testify in district court. State v. Ferrell, 75 N.C. App. 156 (1985). On the other hand, the state is no longer bound by a plea bargain which allowed the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in district court; it may proceed on the original charge in superior court. State v. Fox, 34 N.C. App. 576 (1977).

In other words, Hardy has no conviction on his record and as discussed previously he is in the process of having the arrest expunged from his record as well. If one were to conduct a background check on Mr. Hardy this matter would not even exist.

Further, the Prosecution had every right to pursue the charges without the alleged victim. As stated in the Charlotte Observer:

"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray (District Attorney Andrew Murray), though, said the Hardy case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holder’s credibility in a statement to the judge.

But other details also raised unanswered questions about prosecutors’ handling of the case. Hardy’s defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in July. But 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.”

Apologies for the length of the post but the legal minutiae needs to be parsed out. There are a number of false statements on this board and every other medium being presented as legal truth or fact. I am merely trying to offer clarity. This case is more gray than black and white as a previous poster stated. The fact that some fall on one side of guilt or innocence and other people fall on the opposite side is totally understandable.

Nice post there, slick.

 

[tyke1doe]

It sounds like you cant even stick to a point.

From you:
What's wrong with being holier than thou when holiness means not beating women or tossing them on a bed of weapons

You have now spoke of Hardy beating a woman many times in this thread.
Is is too much to ask for you to explain the evidence you have that shows how he beat his ex girlfriend.
The NFL did an investigation that says Hardy pushed her a few times. It mentions how he is bigger than she is so it must have really scared her.
Is it really so difficult for you to understand why people may feel that a player doesn't deserve this level of punishment when the most they could conclude was that he pushed her?

I can't stick to a point?

Since you're so interested in sticking to points, maybe you can tell me why I offered the "holier than thou" rebuttal instead of trying to shift out some hidden meaning that I'm saying Hardy beat the woman?

And actually what I said is what's holier than thou about beating women OR throwing a woman on a bed of weapons.

If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. That's all I ask of you.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

If I saw the "victim" of Greg Hardy I would ask her why she should be believed when:

A) her bench trial testimony completely contracts his sworn police statement the night of the event

B) the forensic evidence completely contradicts her sworn police statement

C) she admits she was on coke at the time of the incident

D) she had to be physically restrained from attacking Hardy's car a few days prior by a security guard.


All the "facts" are on Hardy's side, which is why the DA dropped the case without even attempting a jury trial. There is only one thing anyone can point to as the girl being a "victim" and its the claims the girl made that are completely contradictory, made while on drugs and made when she had a huge financial motive to make them.

Yes, we git it, counselor.

Blame the victim. she had it coming. Hey, was it fun going back to the 1950s????

 

[slomoxn]

Just for clarity on the Hardy matter, I feel this needs to be detailed thoroughly AGAIN.....

In North Carolina, misdemeanors are first tried before a judge in district court. If the defendant is acquitted, that’s the end of the case. If convicted, the defendant may appeal to superior court for a trial de novo, this time with a jury. The state saves considerable money and time in prosecuting misdemeanor cases because the district court trial is without a jury or court reporter and most defendants accept the verdict there, while the constitutional right to a jury is preserved by the option of carrying the case to superior court.

A Trial de novo means new, so the concept is a new trial. It’s still an appeal, though, but it doesn't limit how new the new trial is to be conducted.

The most commonly stated explanation of appeal to superior court for a trial de novo is that “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). Or, put another way, “The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” Id. The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

The United States Supreme Court has characterized the verdict in the lower court in a trial de novo system as “no more than an offer in settlement” of the state’s case. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 119 (1972). The defendant is free to either accept the offer or appeal and seek the decision of a jury in superior court. As the North Carolina Supreme Court has said:

"The purpose of our de novo procedure is to provide all criminal defendants charged with misdemeanor violations the right to a ‘speedy trial’ in the District Court and to offer them an opportunity to learn about the State’s case without revealing their own. In the latter sense, this procedure can be viewed as a method of ‘free’ criminal discovery."

Brooks, 287 N.C. at 406.

Because the appeal is a trial de novo and the slate is wiped clean of the district court proceedings, the superior court may impose a harsher sentence than the defendant received below. Colten v. Kentucky, supra; State v. Sparrow, supra. The defendant may not be questioned about having pled guilty in district court. State v. Overby, 4 N.C. App. 280 (1969). Nor may the defendant be asked about failing to testify in district court. State v. Ferrell, 75 N.C. App. 156 (1985). On the other hand, the state is no longer bound by a plea bargain which allowed the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in district court; it may proceed on the original charge in superior court. State v. Fox, 34 N.C. App. 576 (1977).

In other words, Hardy has no conviction on his record and as discussed previously he is in the process of having the arrest expunged from his record as well. If one were to conduct a background check on Mr. Hardy this matter would not even exist.

Further, the Prosecution had every right to pursue the charges without the alleged victim. As stated in the Charlotte Observer:

"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray (District Attorney Andrew Murray), though, said the Hardy case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holder’s credibility in a statement to the judge.

But other details also raised unanswered questions about prosecutors’ handling of the case. Hardy’s defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in July. But 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.”

Apologies for the length of the post but the legal minutiae needs to be parsed out. There are a number of false statements on this board and every other medium being presented as legal truth or fact. I am merely trying to offer clarity. This case is more gray than black and white as a previous poster stated. The fact that some fall on one side of guilt or innocence and other people fall on the opposite side is totally understandable.

You know no one wants to hear this, at least those that have an ax to grind or whatever against Hardy. In my opinion if Witten who came from an abusive environment has no problem; neither do I. But then again I believe him.

 

[superonyx]

I can't stick to a point?

Since you're so interested in sticking to points, maybe you can tell me why I offered the "holier than thou" rebuttal instead of trying to shift out some hidden meaning that I'm saying Hardy beat the woman?

And actually what I said is what's holier than thou about beating women OR throwing a woman on a bed of weapons.

If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. That's all I ask of you.

I actually quoted you correctly. Post 79 of this thread. I see you want to change what you said. Pathetic.
Instead of backing away from what you said multiple times how about you just answer for it?....wait a minute....because you cant.

 

[Corso]

Yes, we git it, counselor.

Blame the victim. she had it coming. Hey, was it fun going back to the 1950s????

The 50's doesn't look very fun...

 

[Stash]

You know no one wants to hear this, at least those that have an ax to grind or whatever against Hardy. In my opinion if Witten who came from an abusive environment has no problem; neither do I. But then again I believe him.

No, some people just assume 'the guy did it' whenever these things come up. It's easier than actually taking the time to do any research or actually thinking about the facts surrounding the case. We live in an age where many people yearn to be free of the burden of actually having to think.

Look no further than the post above yours.

 

[tyke1doe]

You actually believe people hate Goodell because they want the league to allow players to run wild and do anything they want?
Come on....
Ben Rapesherburger got what? 2 games?
Ray Rice? 2 games

Yep. And that would include Steelers fans would fall into that category also. There were just as many Steelers fans upset by the suspension of Big Ben as there are those Cowboys fans upset with the Hardy case.

As has been said on this board, and I'm sure on other boards, many fans don't care about mixing sports and morality. They just want their favorite team to win, and if getting a person of questionable character means Super Bowl, then they're all for it.

But Goodell is now getting tougher, and many people don't like it.

Yes, I stand by what I said.

 

[DFWJC]

The law didn't say he wasn't a woman beater. The law said the first time he was guilty. The law said the second time there's not enough evidence to bring him to trial, particularly because the key witness was paid in a settlement and couldn't be found to participate in the second trial.

And if the agenda is to call attention to professional football players beating women then it's a good agenda.

The previous agenda was for the league to turn its collective head and say, like so many on this forum say, "Beating? What beating?"

You guys need to quit saying he beat her.
Nobody, including her, has ever said that.

3 shoves and he put his hands around her knock...the latter being the worst by far.

He took the bait and was an idiot for losing his cool, but he never hit or beat her.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

The 50's doesn't look very fun...

now don't go all existentialist on me!

 

[WoodysGirl]

Just for clarity on the Hardy matter, I feel this needs to be detailed thoroughly AGAIN.....

In North Carolina, misdemeanors are first tried before a judge in district court. If the defendant is acquitted, that’s the end of the case. If convicted, the defendant may appeal to superior court for a trial de novo, this time with a jury. The state saves considerable money and time in prosecuting misdemeanor cases because the district court trial is without a jury or court reporter and most defendants accept the verdict there, while the constitutional right to a jury is preserved by the option of carrying the case to superior court.

A Trial de novo means new, so the concept is a new trial. It’s still an appeal, though, but it doesn't limit how new the new trial is to be conducted.

The most commonly stated explanation of appeal to superior court for a trial de novo is that “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). Or, put another way, “The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” Id. The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

The United States Supreme Court has characterized the verdict in the lower court in a trial de novo system as “no more than an offer in settlement” of the state’s case. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 119 (1972). The defendant is free to either accept the offer or appeal and seek the decision of a jury in superior court. As the North Carolina Supreme Court has said:

"The purpose of our de novo procedure is to provide all criminal defendants charged with misdemeanor violations the right to a ‘speedy trial’ in the District Court and to offer them an opportunity to learn about the State’s case without revealing their own. In the latter sense, this procedure can be viewed as a method of ‘free’ criminal discovery."

Brooks, 287 N.C. at 406.

Because the appeal is a trial de novo and the slate is wiped clean of the district court proceedings, the superior court may impose a harsher sentence than the defendant received below. Colten v. Kentucky, supra; State v. Sparrow, supra. The defendant may not be questioned about having pled guilty in district court. State v. Overby, 4 N.C. App. 280 (1969). Nor may the defendant be asked about failing to testify in district court. State v. Ferrell, 75 N.C. App. 156 (1985). On the other hand, the state is no longer bound by a plea bargain which allowed the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in district court; it may proceed on the original charge in superior court. State v. Fox, 34 N.C. App. 576 (1977).

In other words, Hardy has no conviction on his record and as discussed previously he is in the process of having the arrest expunged from his record as well. If one were to conduct a background check on Mr. Hardy this matter would not even exist.

Further, the Prosecution had every right to pursue the charges without the alleged victim. As stated in the Charlotte Observer:

"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray (District Attorney Andrew Murray), though, said the Hardy case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holder’s credibility in a statement to the judge.

But other details also raised unanswered questions about prosecutors’ handling of the case. Hardy’s defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in July. But 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.”

Apologies for the length of the post but the legal minutiae needs to be parsed out. There are a number of false statements on this board and every other medium being presented as legal truth or fact. I am merely trying to offer clarity. This case is more gray than black and white as a previous poster stated. The fact that some fall on one side of guilt or innocence and other people fall on the opposite side is totally understandable.

Clarifies a number of things re: the legal proceedings.

And with that, I'm going back to looking for Cowboys golf tweets.

 

[tyke1doe]

I actually quoted you correctly. Post 79 of this thread. I see you want to change what you said. Pathetic.
Instead of backing away from what you said multiple times how about you just answer for it?....wait a minute....because you cant.

No, I'm not changing what I said. You quoted my "holier than thou" thread. I know what I said and I meant. You don't. You ASSUME you know.

And for one quoting me and accusing me not sticking to the point, you conveniently ignore the point of why I offered the statement.

Be that as it may, again, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. And if you're going to make an assumption, at the very least, ask politely if you have interpreted me correctly.

There are others on this board who have asked me politely what did I mean by a statement, and I have addressed them. I've even amended my statement as it relates to a particular observation I made in this very thread.

So I'm no strange to changing my position or explaining myself.

But if you wanna play the "gotcha" game. By all means do so. You'll just have to play by yourself.

Peace.

 

[DFWJC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law

No way this applies in any way or form.

It requires 3 different circumstances and 3 convictions.
This had neither

 

[superonyx]

No, I'm not changing what I said. You quoted my "holier than thou" thread. I know what I said and I meant. You don't. You ASSUME you know.

And for one quoting me and accusing me not sticking to the point, you conveniently ignore the point of why I offered the statement.

Be that as it may, again, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. And if you're going to make an assumption, at the very least, ask politely if you have interpreted me correctly.

There are others on this board who have asked me politely what did I mean by a statement, and I have addressed them. I've even amended my statement as it relates to a particular observation I made in this very thread.

So I'm no strange to changing my position or explaining myself.

But if you wanna play the "gotcha" game. By all means do so. You'll just have to play by yourself.

Peace.

In other words all of your post mentioning Hardy and beating a women were taken wrong....you never even implied that he was beating her.
When you spoke of hearing a woman getting beat it wasn't in any way saying that Hardy beat her.

Ok then.....I see..
So that you are not misinterpreted or no assumptions are made about you, what did Hardy do to her that night? And how do you feel the league should punish him for his actions?