PFT: NFL declines to release Elliott investigative report, transcript of hearing

[erod]

I've read the report but my observation & recall skills aren't what they used to be. Since I have been unable to find the words "woman beater", can you kindly give me a hint as to which part of the report I'll find it? thx

In the letter, it says, "On mulitiple occasions, you used physical force against Ms. Thompson."

 

[Cowboys22]

I think i'm done commenting on this issue. I don't really have any clue what happened and what will happen. I think its time to sit back and observe the whole affair and its aftermath which I am beginning to suspect will be wildly entertaining and historically significant. At least I hope Zeke is willing to take it that far and not roll over and be labeled an abuser by his employer even though they can't prove it.

 

[yimyammer]

In the letter, it says, "On mulitiple occasions, you used physical force against Ms. Thompson."

right, I saw that, thx.

I didn't think they'd use the terms "woman beater" which is why I was asking, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am merely trying to sift through the hyperbole (not accusing you of this) to find as much of the truth as it relates to this issue as possible

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Columbus DA didn't change his mind. He said he believed her but couldn't get a conviction, so he didn't pursue it. DA's don't decide to pursue convictions based upon what/who they believe. They focus on the evidence and determine likelihood of a conviction. In a court of law, there would likely be reasonable doubt because the evidence is circumstantial and Tiffany's credibility is weak because she lied.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not the DA believed some abuse occurred.

He changed his mind because in September 2016 when he closed the case he cited the affidavits that showed that:

1. Thompson lied about the July 21st incident.

2. Thompson sent a text asking her friend to lie to police for her based on that incident.

2. Thompson yelled at Elliott saying that she was going to ruin his career.

3. Thompson was involved in a fist fight with another woman outside a bar just prior and that likely caused the bruises.


The DA also stated there were inconsistencies involved with the accusation.

Typically if a DA believed the accuser they would not show only the affidavits that work against the accuser and claim there was inconsistencies. They would usually just state that there was not enough evidence to support an arrest.

Something has changed the DA's mind and he's willing to believe a person that shows a pattern of behavior that is untrustworthy, hostile and violent.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

In the letter, it says, "On mulitiple occasions, you used physical force against Ms. Thompson."

Furthermore, the letter states:

With respect to discipline for violations that involve physical force against a woman in the context of an intimate relationship.

That negates any claim that the NFL is suspending EE on 'conduct' and not domestic violence.

They clearly stated that they are suspending him based on domestic violence.




YR

 

[LandryFan]

The League has ACTED as if they had legal standing. They have come to a verdict and convicted him with what looks to be tainted evidence at best.
The labled him a woman beater after the justice system refused to prosecute.

With all the federal laws and regulations a smart lawyer should be able to find the NFL did something wrong here.

As was the case with Brady, it doesn't matter if the league "did something wrong". The only thing the courts would rule on would be whether the NFL overstepped its bounds regarding player discipline within the bounds of the CBA. From what I can see, he (Goodell) has not done that. Now the league may end up reducing the suspension, but it won't be because of any court ruling, IMO.

 

[LandryFan]

It's not slander or libel unless he can show that it is false. The same problem exists for defamation of character. The information has to be "demonstrably and objectively false."

I do not know if there's any way that he can prove that it is false since the NFL has cast him as guilty. I don't think he could have been proven guilty in court based on everything that I've read, but now that the NFL has cast him as guilty, he has to show that he's innocent and the NFL purposely lied about it.

I'm no lawyer and have only taken a few business law classes but from what I recall on this topic, It not only has to be false, but the person who did the libeling/slandering had to have the intent to harm with the lies. That is very difficult to prove.

 

[casmith07]

I'm no lawyer and have only taken a few business law classes but from what I recall on this topic, It not only has to be false, but the person who did the libeling/slandering had to have the intent to harm with the lies. That is very difficult to prove.

Someone should've received an A+ in class. Sincerely, your attorney-at-zone lol.

 

[Direwolf63]

I think i'm done commenting on this issue. I don't really have any clue what happened and what will happen. I think its time to sit back and observe the whole affair and its aftermath which I am beginning to suspect will be wildly entertaining and historically significant. At least I hope Zeke is willing to take it that far and not roll over and be labeled an abuser by his employer even though they can't prove it.

This is about where I am as well. I'm just hoping for a reduction to 2 or 3 games.

 

[LandryFan]

Someone should've received an A+ in class. Sincerely, your attorney-at-zone lol.

4.0, buddy...4.0

 

[Irvin88_4life]

This isn't just a Cowboys issue. It's a league wide issue. It's been his M.O. since the new CBA.

You'll find a lot of hyperbole on fan forums but he really should be removed as commissioner.

I vote for Risen to be the new commissioner

 

[casmith07]

Furthermore, the letter states:

With respect to discipline for violations that involve physical force against a woman in the context of an intimate relationship.

That negates any claim that the NFL is suspending EE on 'conduct' and not domestic violence.

They clearly stated that they are suspending him based on domestic violence.




YR

And then cited the overly vague "personal conduct policy" instead of the more specific domestic violence policy.

Add another argument to Zeke's complaint: procedural error.

 

[LandryFan]

The league issued its punishment based on its conduct clause. The clause itself is nebulous (unless there are specific examples of bad conduct) and a catch-all that can include criminal and non-criminal behavior. If so, I don't see where Zeke's team can argue he was branded a criminal when the league can counter that he merely exhibited conduct that gave the league a black eye.

Remember, the league has its lawyers too. They carefully weighed the decision with a legal perspective in mind.

Yep. This is similar to Article 134, or the "General Article" (aka the "catch-all" article) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. That article basically states that if they can't charge you with any of the other articles, they can charge you with art. 134 and get you that way.

 

[CowboyGil]

 

[Alexander]

I vote for Risen to be the new commissioner

I am not sure people would accept Carson Wentz' immediate induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame though.

 

[Sydla]

Yep. This is similar to Article 134, or the "General Article" (aka the "catch-all" article) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. That article basically states that if they can't charge you with any of the other articles, they can charge you with art. 134 and get you that way.

But the problem is they don't appear to have punished him under the nebulous conduct unbecoming............... they punished him under the DV policy.

 

[gimmesix]

I'm no lawyer and have only taken a few business law classes but from what I recall on this topic, It not only has to be false, but the person who did the libeling/slandering had to have the intent to harm with the lies. That is very difficult to prove.

That's true to an extent, but depends on the defamation from my understanding.

This is from legalzoom.com:

Importance of Intent

Another crucial part of a defamation case is that the person makes the false statement with a certain kind of intent. The statement must have been made with knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth (meaning the person who said it questioned the truthfulness but said it anyhow). If the person being defamed is a private citizen and not a celebrity or public figure, defamation can also be proven when the statement was made with negligence as to determining its truth (the person speaking should have known it was false or should have questioned it). This means it is easier to prove defamation when you are a private citizen. There is a higher standard required if you are a public figure.

Some states have laws that automatically make certain statements defamation. Any false statement that a person has committed a serious crime, has a serious infectious disease, or is incompetent in his profession are automatically defamatory under these laws.

For Elliott, he would have to prove that the statements made by the NFL that he "has committed a serious crime" are false for it to qualify as defamation, but it may not be necessary for him to prove the statements were "made with the knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth." However, I'm not sure if the public figure exception would be in effect where it would be held to a higher standard.

When the news first broke, I was on board with the defamation angle, but after thinking about it, I just don't think Elliott can prove the first thing needed for a defamation suit, that the information is false. It may be false, there may be reasons to believe it is false, but I can't see how he would be able to prove it without witnesses or video evidence to substantiate his claims.

This is not saying he doesn't have an argument against the suspension. The league "convicted" him based on the testimony of one witness who had shown herself to be unreliable and out to get Elliott. Such a conviction likely would not stand up in a court, but again, we have to deal with the powers given to the commissioner to punish regardless of guilt being proven.

I think a court should limit those powers to the league only being able to punish players when there has been a clear violation of law (such as video evidence, a court conviction, etc.), but considering that this is an employer-employee relationship, I'm not sure how much authority the courts will have. Ultimately, it will likely be up to the NFLPA to negotiate this power down in the next CBA unless it wants to take drastic measures.

 

[bsbellomy]

Did they ever show the public how they knew Brady deflated footballs?

Difference here is that Zeke has been proven innocent by legal authorities. No such backing in the Brady case. Even Big Ben had the civil court conviction, a judge would throw this out in a second if Thompson tried to sue in court.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

I am not sure people would accept Carson Wentz' immediate induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame though.

Would be the first player inducted while he was still playing haha

 

[ThreeandOut]

I am not sure people would accept Carson Wentz' immediate induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame though.

But it would be worth it just to watch him have to hand over that Super Bowl MVP trophy to Dak.