News: It is official! Zeke suspended 6 games **merged**

[waldoputty]

Dude. My opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours. This isn't about me. I am speculating how the committee and Roger could have reached their conclusion that he committed violence. I am simply backing into a potential scenario on how it played out based upon everything I am hearing and reading.

very simple.
pandering to women's groups using one of the highest profile players.

 

[Avery]

My guess is that it gets reduced to 2-3 games. I think that's about the only silver lining.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

What is bad is in the letter they sent to EE, they never once mention the incident on the 21st nor Thompson lying to the police and trying to get her friend to lie. All of this was available thru the sworn affidavits. It wasn't until one of the advisers, Pete Harvey, did a press conference call and stated that they do know that Thompson lied to the police and tried to get her friend to lie.

Why would you leave that out in the letter?

I fail to trust the NFL at this point. Particularly when Harvey's conclusion is that there was an eyewitness to all of this which was Thompson...the eyewitness to her own accusation. I guess OJ was the witness to him not killing Ron and Nicole.

So I don't believe them when they say the witnesses for EE didn't come forward. And it's a moot point anyway since they made out sworn affidavits which are punishable by law if they are falsified.

The plan of attack for EE should be the following:

1. Try to get proof that he was not with Thompson on July 19th (if he wasn't with her on the 19th). This is what the NFL's case hinges on. The league has simply chosen to ignore what happened on the 21st because it doesn't fit their vendetta. Getting proof would have to come from a witness that can state that they were with EE at the time or perhaps some sort of cell phone records. This would also be 'new evidence' to be presented at appeal which could help the case for reducing the sentence (although if EE didn't do it, he shouldn't serve any suspension).


2. Get medical experts that can counter the argument that the bruises suffered occurred at an earlier time or they are not consistent with Thompson's statements.


3. Put pressure on the Columbus DA to explain why he changed his mind on EE's innocence. Also ask why the DA didn't arrest Thompson for lying to police and tampering with a witness. These are both crimes and it's his job to prosecute these crimes. If the DA changes his mind, again, to believing EE then the league has a major hole in their case.


4. Find out Thompson's criminal background. Find out if she has been involved in a lot of fights at bars. Find out if she has been involved with fraudulent claims of battery against former boyfriends, etc. This won't be good enough no matter how bad Thompson's background may be...but, if you can get #1, #2 and #3...you've helped solidify the case with an accuser that lacks credibility, EE proving that he wasn't with her on the 19th, the bruising doesn't jive with the non-credible accuser's accusations and a member of law enforcement not siding with EE.,





YR

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

My guess is that it gets reduced to 2-3 games. I think that's about the only silver lining.

Based on what? Just asking because every article I'm seeing is that the appeal win will almost be impossible. It sucks that he will miss NYG and GB game 2 vital games for playoff seeding.

 

[TheCount]

Totally understand that this isn't a court of law and the threshold is lower than a court. But there are serious holes in this girl's story and the league has basically taken the approach of instead of proving with some level of certainty Elliott did this, they in fact have taken the tact that it's up to Elliott to prove how this girl got her bruises and if he can't, then they believe he did it. That's preposterous IMO.

Guys, this isn't court. For the millionth time.

If the cops believe you stole the 10 big screens in your garage but can't prove it, they may not charge you with a crime.

Your boss can still call you in and say, this looks bad for business. Can you prove to us that the TV's were obtained legally?

Whether you stole them or not, if you can't give them some proof to show the world that they are backing a non-thief, they can still let you go because it looks bad for their business.

It's not about being innocent or guilty. It's all about appearance, that's all the NFL fives a crap about.

 

[goshan]

What is bad is in the letter they sent to EE, they never once mention the incident on the 21st nor Thompson lying to the police and trying to get her friend to lie. All of this was available thru the sworn affidavits. It wasn't until one of the advisers, Pete Harvey, did a press conference call and stated that they do know that Thompson lied to the police and tried to get her friend to lie.

Why would you leave that out in the letter?

I fail to trust the NFL at this point. Particularly when Harvey's conclusion is that there was an eyewitness to all of this which was Thompson...the eyewitness to her own accusation. I guess OJ was the witness to him not killing Ron and Nicole.

So I don't believe them when they say the witnesses for EE didn't come forward. And it's a moot point anyway since they made out sworn affidavits which are punishable by law if they are falsified.

The plan of attack for EE should be the following:

1. Try to get proof that he was not with Thompson on July 19th (if he wasn't with her on the 19th). This is what the NFL's case hinges on. The league has simply chosen to ignore what happened on the 21st because it doesn't fit their vendetta. Getting proof would have to come from a witness that can state that they were with EE at the time or perhaps some sort of cell phone records. This would also be 'new evidence' to be presented at appeal which could help the case for reducing the sentence (although if EE didn't do it, he shouldn't serve any suspension).


2. Get medical experts that can counter the argument that the bruises suffered occurred at an earlier time or they are not consistent with Thompson's statements.


3. Put pressure on the Columbus DA to explain why he changed his mind on EE's innocence. Also ask why the DA didn't arrest Thompson for lying to police and tampering with a witness. These are both crimes and it's his job to prosecute these crimes. If the DA changes his mind, again, to believing EE then the league has a major hole in their case.


4. Find out Thompson's criminal background. Find out if she has been involved in a lot of fights at bars. Find out if she has been involved with fraudulent claims of battery against former boyfriends, etc. This won't be good enough no matter how bad Thompson's background may be...but, if you can get #1, #2 and #3...you've helped solidify the case with an accuser that lacks credibility, EE proving that he wasn't with her on the 19th, the bruising doesn't jive with the non-credible accuser's accusations and a member of law enforcement not siding with EE.,





YR

If he really didn't do it, the first move is to come out and say 'I DIDN'T COMMIT ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE. PERIOD'. Instead, the statement he issued this morning talked about 'disappointment'. In my opinion, indications are that he did it by the way HE is acting. So I expect the following to happen:

1. They will focus on the length of the suspension in the appeal. It will get reduced to 4 games.
2. Elliott won't talk much more about it.

There isn't going to be legal battles, law suits, etc.

 

[Sydla]

I suspect Tiffany came clean and acknowledged she lied about the car incident when the NFL spoke to her (probably multiple times), and admitted she did ask her friends to lie and help ruin him. But she was probably consistent and articulate regarding the other violence incidents, and had the pics (with time stamps) on her cell phone. Whereas Zeke focused on the fact that she wasn't credible (because she lied) but never came out and said 'I didn't commit any violence. period'. Add then his witnesses weren't willing to talk in person, which is bad.

Without being there face to face to hear Tiffany and Zeke talk, who knows, but I can see how you would come to the conclusion that he probably committed violence. He was evasive and defensive, she was probably direct, showed pictures and described all the incidents in detail. It's very different than a court of law. It's a man's opinion on 'likelihood'.

I'll ask again, because I don't know the answer. But where was it reported that his witnesses refused to talk to the NFL? Did the NFL rep state that?

And again, time stamped photos doesn't prove anything. I can show you a time stamped photo of my 5 year old's leg that has a massive bruise on it. You can probably put me in the room with her at some point. Using the NFL's logic, I probably beat my kid. They can put me in the room at some point with the kid, she has a bruise that might fit the time line for when she said she got a "boo boo" and because I can't explain how she exactly got the bruise, therefore, I must have beaten him.

 

[waldoputty]

Guys, this isn't court. For the millionth time.

If the cops believe you stole the 10 big screens in your garage but can't prove it, they may not charge you with a crime.

Your boss can still call you in and say, this looks bad for business. Can you prove to us that the TV's were obtained legally?

Whether you stole them or not, if you can't give them some proof to show the world that they are backing a non-thief, they can still let you go because it looks bad for their business.

It's not about being innocent or guilty. It's all about appearance, that's all the NFL fives a crap about.

yes, but the country believes in 'innocent until proven guilty'.

a press conference by lawyers should be held to highlight 3 simple points to rile up the public (NF cares about brand).
1. falsified evidence
2. employer treating Elliott differently from other players
3. the board is filled with biased fans

the court case should be focused on the falsified evidence and the unequal punishment for different players.

 

[waldoputty]

If he really didn't do it, the first move is to come out and say 'I DIDN'T COMMIT ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE. PERIOD'. Instead, the statement he issued this morning talked about 'disappointment'. In my opinion, indications are that he did it by the way HE is acting. So I expect the following to happen:

1. They will focus on the length of the suspension in the appeal. It will get reduced to 4 games.
2. Elliott won't talk much more about it.

There isn't going to be legal battles, law suits, etc.

Sounds like you really want Elliott suspended for as many games as you can get.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If he really didn't do it, the first move is to come out and say 'I DIDN'T COMMIT ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE. PERIOD'. Instead, the statement he issued this morning talked about 'disappointment'. In my opinion, indications are that he did it by the way HE is acting. So I expect the following to happen:

1. They will focus on the length of the suspension in the appeal. It will get reduced to 4 games.
2. Elliott won't talk much more about it.

There isn't going to be legal battles, law suits, etc.

He did say that he didn't do it. He said he extremely disagreed with the findings. Just because it doesn't fit your semantics, doesn't mean he did it.

How about Thompson being caught, red handed, lying to police and then asking her friend to lie for her? Aren't those indications that she's making this because of the way SHE is acting?

Take your double standards elsewhere.




YR

 

[Sydla]

Guys, this isn't court. For the millionth time.

If the cops believe you stole the 10 big screens in your garage but can't prove it, they may not charge you with a crime.

Your boss can still call you in and say, this looks bad for business. Can you prove to us that the TV's were obtained legally?

Whether you stole them or not, if you can't give them some proof to show the world that they are backing a non-thief, they can still let you go because it looks bad for their business.

It's not about being innocent or guilty. It's all about appearance, that's all the NFL fives a crap about.

That's a pretty strange analogy.

Elliott doesn't have anything in his possession that he would have to explain. He's basically being asked to prove he didn't cause those bruises, which is largely an impossible task unless he was with the girl 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, watching her like a hawk. She could have gotten those bruises any number of possible ways but because Elliott can't say for certainty where the bruises came from, therefore he's guilty.

A better analogy would be the police find 10 TVs in your neighbor's house. They come to you and state they can put you with your neighbor at various times during the period when the TV was stolen. Can you explain why those TVs are in your neighbor's house? Oh you can't? Well, then, you probably stole them yourself.

 

[Sydla]

If he really didn't do it, the first move is to come out and say 'I DIDN'T COMMIT ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE. PERIOD'. Instead, the statement he issued this morning talked about 'disappointment'. In my opinion, indications are that he did it by the way HE is acting. So I expect the following to happen:

1. They will focus on the length of the suspension in the appeal. It will get reduced to 4 games.
2. Elliott won't talk much more about it.

There isn't going to be legal battles, law suits, etc.

That's your proof? Because he didn't say what you wanted him to say, ergo, he probably committed the crimes?

What he said is a standard answer in situations like this. It's PR 101. Further, his attorney issued a statement essentially stating he's innocent, showing some examples of flaws in their story.

 

[Bigdog]

Can this thread get to 100?

 

[Mountaineerfan]

I for one would love to see women held to the same standards as men when it comes to domestic violence.

 

[waldoputty]

well it looks like Jerry lost the 2018 NFL draft.

if i was Goodell, i would be scared out of my mind to show my face in Dallas for years.

 

[waldoputty]

That's a pretty strange analogy.

Elliott doesn't have anything in his possession that he would have to explain. He's basically being asked to prove he didn't cause those bruises, which is largely an impossible task unless he was with the girl 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, watching her like a hawk. She could have gotten those bruises any number of possible ways but because Elliott can't say for certainty where the bruises came from, therefore he's guilty.

A better analogy would be the police find 10 TVs in your neighbor's house. They come to you and state they can put you with your neighbor at various times during the period when the TV was stolen. Can you explain why those TVs are in your neighbor's house? Oh you can't? Well, then, you probably stole them yourself.

yes, they are working from the 'guilty until proven innocent' paradigm.

 

[TheCount]

That's a pretty strange analogy.

Elliott doesn't have anything in his possession that he would have to explain. He's basically being asked to prove he didn't cause those bruises, which is largely an impossible task unless he was with the girl 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, watching her like a hawk. She could have gotten those bruises any number of possible ways but because Elliott can't say for certainty where the bruises came from, therefore he's guilty.

A better analogy would be the police find 10 TVs in your neighbor's house. They come to you and state they can put you with your neighbor at various times during the period when the TV was stolen. Can you explain why those TVs are in your neighbor's house? Oh you can't? Well, then, you probably stole them yourself.

No, the police is not the same as your job and your neighbor might be a fine analogy if you were sleeping with him/her and in a relationship, sure.

If you were sleeping with your neighbor and in an intimate relationship and 10 TV's appeared, your job can say prove you weren't involved or we'll have to let you go because we look bad if we can't offer proof to our clients, because that's what's most important to them - not your innocence.

Again, the NFL is a business, not the police.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

He did say that he didn't do it. He said he extremely disagreed with the findings. Just because it doesn't fit your semantics, doesn't mean he did it.

How about Thompson being caught, red handed, lying to police and then asking her friend to lie for her? Aren't those indications that she's making this because of the way SHE is acting?

Take your double standards elsewhere.




YR

Language matters.; especially if he plans on taking future legal action which has been insinuated.

If you think that initial response statement was penned at the hand of Zeke himself you're naive.

There's no doubt that response was crafted or vetted by someone likely from his legal team.

 

[speedkilz88]

yes, they are working from the 'guilty until proven innocent' paradigm.

Stalin would be proud.

 

[Qbert]

Not a big Florio fan, but he's spot on here