Hardy Suspension Reduced to 4 games *Merge*

[Corso]

You can call me Froderick if I can call you Abby something...

I can call you Betty,
and Betty when you call me,
you can call me Al.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I read somewhere that attorney costs were getting out of control for Hardy.

It could be worth it in the long run. He has a long term deal to sign and his end of season stats could weigh very large. For his long term earning potential every game could count for Hardy

 

[AsthmaField]

I can call you Betty,
and Betty when you call me,
you can call me Al.

Sweet. Thanks. I'll be singing that tune for the next week or so.

 

[Nightman]

I read somewhere that attorney costs were getting out of control for Hardy.

It could be worth it in the long run. He has a long term deal to sign and his end of season stats could weigh very large. For his long term earning potential every game could count for Hardy

I seriously doubt lawyer fee are too bad.

His criminal charges were dropped. His appeal with Henderson took a few hours and any appeal would be covered by the NFLPA.

He stands to lose 2.3m in games checks this year alone. Even more next year like you described. That is worth fighting for.

 

[Corso]

Sweet. Thanks. I'll be singing that tune for the next week or so.

It was natural that I would post some Paul Simon.
I've had 50 Ways stuck in my head for at least three days.
And I'm happy in my relationship! I told my girl and she gave me that shifty, sideways look.

What's up, Eli? You got something you want to say?
And of course I break out: Hop on the bus Gus, You don't need to discuss muuuuuuuuuuuuuch! Just set yourself free.

That helped clear the air...

 

[Beast_from_East]

Great news!!!!

 

[guag]

You've got to believe it was likely extremely difficult convincing Goodell to go along with the seriously lesser punishment. It might at least partly explain why it took as long as it did to arrive at a decision.

That does make sense actually, didn't think of that.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Four seem fair but remember, at what price?

 

[Oh_Canada]

You have ZERO knowledge yourself. I do know that he did something and I can sure as hell say lucky and sickening. I have my opinion and you have yours.

It's amazing, 89 posts from a troll who knows zero about the case. Let me guess Giant fan?

What's sickening is Hardy gets any games, because to me this wasn't even a case at all, if he had done what was alleged, the DA would have continued prosecuting Hardy with or without Holder. Bottom line is this 110lb woman suffered a scratch from a raging 6'5 270lb beast who allegedly was throwing her around like a rag doll....yet all she suffered was just a scratch. Lunacy.

 

[Rockport]

I don't understand why most people believe that Hardy was in the wrong in this incident. From my experience, the woman is the instigator 9 times out of 10. Now he shouldn't be physical with her, but is there evidence of that? If so, I'd like to see it.

 

[Rogah]

and you continue to be ignorant to due process. case was dismissed in a higher court. You sure love to wave your hands at an aberration of NC law.

Sorry, but you'll have to try harder. The case was not dismissed; rather, the charges were dropped. Newsflash: There's a difference.

Gee, for someone lecturing others on how ignorant they are, you sure don't seem terribly well educated yourself.

FACT: In the one trial that went to completion, Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by someone who is not an "internet lawyer".

 

[theogt]

Sorry, but you'll have to try harder. The case was not dismissed; rather, the charges were dropped. Newsflash: There's a difference.

Gee, for someone lecturing others on how ignorant they are, you sure don't seem terribly well educated yourself.

FACT: In the one trial that went to completion, Hardy was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by someone who is not an "internet lawyer".

Right, the prosecutors dropped the case and told the judge they didn't believe the only witnesses testimony.

 

[Rogah]

Unfortunately, he has been labeled guilty by the court of public opinion with the lynch mob being the Media

Better be careful... whenever I say the same thing, I get attacked for some reason.

 

[Rogah]

Right, the prosecutors dropped the case and told the judge they didn't believe the only witnesses testimony.

That is an outright lie and anyone with a modicum of familiarity with this case knows it.

The fact that you have to lie to support your argument really only proves that your argument is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[theogt]

That is an outright lie and anyone with a modicum of familiarity with this case knows it.

The fact that you have to lie to support your argument really only proves that your argument is intellectually bankrupt.

It's fact. The prosecutors didn't need the witness to testify in the jury trial. They simply needed to submit her prior testimony as evidence. They're prohibited from doing that if they have reason to believe the testimony was untrue. When the prosecutor requested the judge to dismiss the case, the prosecutor told the judge that they could not use the prior testimony as they had reason to believe it was not true.

 

[Rogah]

It's fact. The prosecutors didn't need the witness to testify in the jury trial. They simply needed to submit her prior testimony as evidence. They're prohibited from doing that if they have reason to believe the testimony was untrue. When the prosecutor requested the judge to dismiss the case, the prosecutor told the judge that they could not use the prior testimony as they had reason to believe it was not true.

The more widely accept theory for everyone on the planet (except certain members of this forum in extreme denial) is that the prosecutor was blocked from using the testimony by Hardy's lawyer, as it is his right to do.

Defendants also have the right to confront every witness, said Charlotte attorney Jim Cooney. Fialko may have successfully blocked Holder’s previous testimony and statements to police as a violation of this constitutional protection.

Besides, Cooney added, “Reading a two-hour transcript (from a previous trial) is about the worst way to present evidence that I know of, and if she’s not there, it presents substantial doubts about her credibility.”

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

Dude, seriously. It's ok to admit that not everyone who wears the star on Sundays is a hero. Seriously. You can still root for the team without living in your ridiculously naïve, polyanna world. Seriously.

 

[Nightman]

The sad and amazing fact is that Ray Rice is eligible to play and Greg Hardy is not

 

[xwalker]

You have ZERO knowledge yourself. I do know that he did something and I can sure as hell say lucky and sickening. I have my opinion and you have yours.

I studied this case before he ever signed with the Cowboys. There is zero proof that he did anything wrong.

He called 911 and she was in the background running around screaming "just break my arm". Most of the evidence points to her intentionally causing the entire situation to occur.

This was my conclusion before he signed with the Cowboys.

 

[xwalker]

The more widely accept theory for everyone on the planet (except certain members of this forum in extreme denial) is that the prosecutor was blocked from using the testimony by Hardy's lawyer, as it is his right to do.

Defendants also have the right to confront every witness, said Charlotte attorney Jim Cooney. Fialko may have successfully blocked Holder’s previous testimony and statements to police as a violation of this constitutional protection.

Besides, Cooney added, “Reading a two-hour transcript (from a previous trial) is about the worst way to present evidence that I know of, and if she’s not there, it presents substantial doubts about her credibility.”

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

Dude, seriously. It's ok to admit that not everyone who wears the star on Sundays is a hero. Seriously. You can still root for the team without living in your ridiculously naïve, polyanna world. Seriously.

It is OK to admit that you don't know jack but like to pretend that you do.

Even if she testified, it is her word against his. There is no proof that he did anything.

 

[Kaiser]

The more widely accept theory for everyone on the planet (except certain members of this forum in extreme denial) is that the prosecutor was blocked from using the testimony by Hardy's lawyer, as it is his right to do.

That is a ridiculous level of cherry picking, especially from someone throwing stones at every one as being naive.

What you are quoting is the situation if the sole witness/accuser refuses to testify. Even then the Prosecutor can subpoena the girl to testify and (as has been posted a billion times) the girl worked at the same job for months after and posted her whereabouts on Facebook. The reason Holder didn't want to testify was she had perjured herself and was open to a lawsuit from Hardy. The reason the Prosecutor didn't use her as a witness was that she had no credibility.

Its ludicrous to claim that criminal defendants get to veto witnesses in felony trials.