Transcripts from the NFL hearing released - Bombshells

[khiladi]

Wasn't the NFL suppose to suspend Brady even after the process decision.. Oh, surprising...

Everybody forgot about their cheating..

 

[khiladi]

Jeff Van Gundy just took a shot at Hardy.. The guy, while he makes a living broadcasting right next to Marv Albert... The irony....

 

[Philmonroe]

Um, no. The shame is in having one standard for "defendant's rights" for famous people or athletes and another much more restrictive one for ordinary Joes. Innocent until proven guilty? For most defendants its usually the opposite.

Um, no you're still not making sense. We don't know the "ordinary joes" so what is your point? All this other stuff is just typing that has nothing to do with my point at all. Also to be honest Hardy is definitely not being portrayed by the masses as "innocent until proven guilty" so again what are you saying?

 

[Plumfool]

Jeff Van Gundy just took a shot at Hardy.. The guy, while he makes a living broadcasting right next to Marv Albert... The irony....

Very ironic. It's laughable the hypocrisy that exists in modern media.

 

[Nightman]

Jeff Van Gundy just took a shot at Hardy.. The guy, while he makes a living broadcasting right next to Marv Albert... The irony....

So did SAS and Skippy and Dale Hansen and everyone on Sportscenter and Rusillo and Kanell and on and on and on.....

This will never stop for Hardy or the Cowboys. No one outside of this forum will ever change their minds.

If Nicole Holder went on the View and took full responsibilty, Hardy would still be demonized and take the blame.

 

[Plumfool]

I just read the whole thing, thanks again for posting it. A couple of thoughts, there are bombshells like you said. As if it wasn't obvious before, this is further proof the story played out like we thought. This the first time you have a transcript of Holder on the 911 call saying "I don't want to go to jail".

Also its the usual lawyer histrionics to say the DA committed malpractice by withholding exculpatory evidence but its basically true. The DA should have spent more time on this case in the very beginning and dropped it then instead of letting go to the Bench Trial, but that takes effort and a small supply of guts. Hence, it didn't happen.

One thing I changed my mind on, what I read before was that Hardy's attorneys denied there was a settlement. Reading this I think Hardy's attorneys were too clever by half of deflecting the question without answering it, leaving everyone in the room thinking he had. Now I'm thinking he probably did giver a settlement, but Hardy's attorneys would have served him much better by saying "Yes, we gave her 100K to go away because it cheaper than going through a Civil Trial and no one wants to drag Hardy and the NFL through the mud in a case like that". They should have just said that instead of spending so much time deflecting the question.

I can also see the other side. They were in the room. And if you're giving solid evidence for your case, and you sense it's being ignored because the interviewer has a point of contention that doesn't necessarily mean you're guilty but doesn't paint you in the brightest of lights either, Deflection seems to be the only recourse.

I've used the same tactic in interviews with suspects that the nfl used. Harp on one point even its razor thin.

 

[DallasEast]

Hardy's team asked the Mecklenburg County ME to look over the evidence before they called in a paid expert and here is some of his report.

Thanks bknight. The testimony doesn't surprise me one bit. All bruising trauma is not equal. I have seen more than my fair share of such injuries in my profession. When I saw the photographs I immediately said Hardy was in a no-win situation. Why? Because any semblance of injuries doomed him in court if professional medical evaluation was ignored or dismissed.

 

[EPL0c0]

"They dismissed the case because their prosecutor offered into evidence testimony against him, while they had in their files -- and the prosecutor is on constructieve notice of that which law enforcement has -- they had in their files exculpatory evidence. And they did not want this out in court."

I think this part is what really gets me. in a criminal jury trial, no doubt this would have created plenty of reasonable doubt

 

[knightrider94]

So did SAS and Skippy and Dale Hansen and everyone on Sportscenter and Rusillo and Kanell and on and on and on.....

This will never stop for Hardy or the Cowboys. No one outside of this forum will ever change their minds.

If Nicole Holder went on the View and took full responsibilty, Hardy would still be demonized and take the blame.

This morning, Greenberg on Mike and Mike had a $600 check for the lineman who punched Geno Smith in the face to pay Geno'a debt. All fun and games...

 

[Nightman]

This morning, Greenberg on Mike and Mike had a $600 check for the lineman who punched Geno Smith in the face to pay Geno'a debt. All fun and games...

Breaking a coworkers jaw on the job with a sucker punch is rewarded. The Bills made him the Captain tonight.

 

[EST_1986]

I am officially a 110% Greg Hardy sympathizer, he's getting beaten down day after day for something he obviously did not do

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I am officially a 110% Greg Hardy sympathizer, he's getting beaten down day after day for something he obviously did not do

The only thing that makes me wonder is Laurence's 911 call. She wasn't in the room and she was Holder's friend. But, she obviously sounded terrified and I am skeptical of her not being able to decipher a man beating a woman since she was close.

But by the same token, Laurence probably could not have been able to tell if Holder threw a shoe and hit Hardy.

I think it's obvious that the media wants to fry Hardy and doesn't care to have the entire story out there. For instance, there is a viral video in the Bronx of a 6'6" man getting harassed by 3 girls and eventually he calls her a name and starts to walk away. She hits him upside the head with a shoe and then he turns around and overhand slaps her. When the DA saw the video, he dismissed the charges against him (last name was Pena) and continued to press charges against the woman.

The thing was that most of the media, when they saw the video, agreed that the woman got what she deserved. In fact, the entire panel of The View...led by Whoopi Goldberg...absolutely sided with the man.

IMO, the man had a better opportunity to walk away than what appears to have happened in the Hardy situation. But, the man absolutely had the right to be where he was in the subway and not be bothered and the law agreed that he absolutely had the right to overhand slap her after she hit him, first.

The problem in all of this isn't the double standard that some people have of 'you should never hit a woman under any circumstances.' The bigger issue is that our society will take the woman's side of the story almost every time. The man in the Bronx case was just fortunate that there was a video. In fact, he had to spend FOUR days in jail while the woman was immediately released on bond. Without that video, he would have been unjustly prosecuted and had a criminal record which comes with jail time and heavy fines he could not afford.

Hardy didn't have that benefit. And at the very least, the story the media has portrayed in the incident is far different from what we can gather about the facts and evidence of the case.




YR

 

[Plumfool]

The only thing that makes me wonder is Laurence's 911 call. She wasn't in the room and she was Holder's friend. But, she obviously sounded terrified and I am skeptical of her not being able to decipher a man beating a woman since she was close.

But by the same token, Laurence probably could not have been able to tell if Holder threw a shoe and hit Hardy.

I think it's obvious that the media wants to fry Hardy and doesn't care to have the entire story out there. For instance, there is a viral video in the Bronx of a 6'6" man getting harassed by 3 girls and eventually he calls her a name and starts to walk away. She hits him upside the head with a shoe and then he turns around and overhand slaps her. When the DA saw the video, he dismissed the charges against him (last name was Pena) and continued to press charges against the woman.

The thing was that most of the media, when they saw the video, agreed that the woman got what she deserved. In fact, the entire panel of The View...led by Whoopi Goldberg...absolutely sided with the man.

IMO, the man had a better opportunity to walk away than what appears to have happened in the Hardy situation. But, the man absolutely had the right to be where he was in the subway and not be bothered and the law agreed that he absolutely had the right to overhand slap her after she hit him, first.

The problem in all of this isn't the double standard that some people have of 'you should never hit a woman under any circumstances.' The bigger issue is that our society will take the woman's side of the story almost every time. The man in the Bronx case was just fortunate that there was a video. In fact, he had to spend FOUR days in jail while the woman was immediately released on bond. Without that video, he would have been unjustly prosecuted and had a criminal record which comes with jail time and heavy fines he could not afford.

Hardy didn't have that benefit. And at the very least, the story the media has portrayed in the incident is far different from what we can gather about the facts and evidence of the case.




YR

partly medias fault mostly the governments fault. It doesn't take cases of male DV cases seriously. A man can go to a police station make a complaint and be ridiculed for his efforts. He can't go to shelters because they only help women. In fact there is only maybe five shelters nationwide that'll sympathize with men on the issue.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

partly medias fault mostly the governments fault. It doesn't take cases of male DV cases seriously. A man can go to a police station make a complaint and be ridiculed for his efforts. He can't go to shelters because they only help women. In fact there is only maybe five shelters nationwide that'll sympathize with men on the issue.

I think it is more the media's fault because the media has its portrayal, the citizens buy into it and the citizens vote for the government officials based on it.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when previous generations neglect something. Eventually it comes around and they go to the other extreme.

About 7 years ago, a girl told her friends that I 'tried to rape her.' Not only did I not rape her and I didn't have intercourse with her, I actually never physically touched her the entire night and she was out on a date with my roommate (we went to a bar together). After the bar closed, she wanted me to drive her to a place across town despite her living about a mile from where I did. I relented because it was 2 AM and I was tired. I just tried to convince her to let me drop her off at her place or if she wanted to still drink, we had plenty of alcohol at our place.

The sad part of all of this is all of my friends just thought it was funny and nothing to be upset over and I was 'being ridiculous' for being mad at her. That's just an example of the perception and I think the media plays into that and that eventually leads to whom we elect.




YR

 

[Plumfool]

I think it is more the media's fault because the media has its portrayal, the citizens buy into it and the citizens vote for the government officials based on it.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when previous generations neglect something. Eventually it comes around and they go to the other extreme.

About 7 years ago, a girl told her friends that I 'tried to rape her.' Not only did I not rape her and I didn't have intercourse with her, I actually never physically touched her the entire night and she was out on a date with my roommate (we went to a bar together). After the bar closed, she wanted me to drive her to a place across town despite her living about a mile from where I did. I relented because it was 2 AM and I was tired. I just tried to convince her to let me drop her off at her place or if she wanted to still drink, we had plenty of alcohol at our place.

The sad part of all of this is all of my friends just thought it was funny and nothing to be upset over and I was 'being ridiculous' for being mad at her. That's just an example of the perception and I think the media plays into that and that eventually leads to whom we elect.




YR

Ill have to agree. Media convicted Hardy even before Judge Tin did. Her response could have been as a result of what the media would report. So the response is a conviction with the knowledge that the decision would be appealed anyway and she could save face.

 

[slick325]

Thanks for posting bkight13. Very good information. The credence and deference given to the allegations of a civil settlement was very apparent in the line of questioning by the League. Hardy's attorbeys didn't give the proper response in my opinion. They should have pointed out that the DA could have pursued criminal charges with or with out Ms. Holder especially since (thanks Hardy's counsel) there was a written transcript of her testimony in the Bench Trial. The DA chose not to pursue it not because there was a civil settlement but because they would have to vouch for the veracity of Ms. Holder's statements. That could put their legal careers and reputations on the line should there be inconsistencies in her statements.

That is the response they should have given in my opinion.

 

[DallasEast]

Thanks for posting bkight13. Very good information. The credence and deference given to the allegations of a civil settlement was very apparent in the line of questioning by the League. Hardy's attorbeys didn't give the proper response in my opinion. They should have pointed out that the DA could have pursued criminal charges with or with out Ms. Holder especially since (thanks Hardy's counsel) there was a written transcript of her testimony in the Bench Trial. The DA chose not to pursue it not because there was a civil settlement but because they would have to vouch for the veracity of Ms. Holder's statements. That could put their legal careers and reputations on the line should there be inconsistencies in her statements.

That is the response they should have given in my opinion.

Didn't Hardy's attorneys elaborate how the district attorney's office should have carried out their legal responsibility to Ms. Holder and the citizens of Mecklenburg County by process of immediately appealing the bench court's decision? The DA had two choices at that point: a) prosecute Hardy in a jury trial or b) request a dismissal. They sought and achieved the latter. What else should Hardy's legal counsel have done towards prompting the DA's office to do its job?

 

[slick325]

Didn't Hardy's attorneys elaborate how the district attorney's office should have carried out their legal responsibility to Ms. Holder and the citizens of Mecklenburg County by process of immediately appealing the bench court's decision? The DA had two choices at that point: a) prosecute Hardy in a jury trial or b) request a dismissal. They sought and achieved the latter. What else should Hardy's legal counsel have done towards prompting the DA's office to do its job?

Didn't Hardy's attorneys elaborate how the district attorney's office should have carried out their legal responsibility to Ms. Holder and the citizens of Mecklenburg County by process of immediately appealing the bench court's decision? The DA had two choices at that point: a) prosecute Hardy in a jury trial or b) request a dismissal. They sought and achieved the latter. What else should Hardy's legal counsel have done towards prompting the DA's office to do its job?

I am referring to the League's attorneys questioning about whether a civil settlement had occurred. The League's attorneys kept asking if one had occurred. They asked it repeatedly because it is apparent to me that they believe that the only way the prosecutors could have pursued Hardy was if Ms. Holder was present to testify. That is untrue. The inference by the League's attorneys and the media is that the civil settlement (if there was in fact one) is what kept her from being there AND they couldn't proceed without her.

Thus, in response to those continued questions and insinuations, Hardy's attorneys should have responded with what I stated rather than get upset (as one attorney seemed to) by the question. The fact of the matter is, the Hardy teams stance should have been that the notion of a civil settlement is irrelevant. The DA didn't need Ms. Holder to proceed. They had her statements from the police and her testimony at the bench trial and could have proceeded. They chose not to, I suspect, because they didn't want to stake their names and careers on the veracity of the statements of a non-appearing witness (which is required by law if you submit the testimony of one who doesn't appear for cross examination).

 

[Kaiser]

Thus, in response to those continued questions and insinuations, Hardy's attorneys should have responded with what I stated rather than get upset (as one attorney seemed to) by the question. The fact of the matter is, the Hardy teams stance should have been that the notion of a civil settlement is irrelevant.

I agree and I'm critical of Hardy's attorneys also. They did argue a civil settlement was irrelevant but did the standard legal tactic of neither confirming nor denying - which gives the implication they will provide the information if the NFL gives them something in return. Your strategy would have been better.

Also IMO, if there was no settlement they should have forcefully denied there was one. By arguing they created a clear impression there was one, and with the NFL in rear-covering-mode, it gave the NFL more reason, not less, to come down hard on Hardy. Hardy's attorneys were playing on a legal field but the NFL was playing on a PR field. They didn't care about Hardy's guilt or what had been proven in court, they were concerned about what would might hit the press and embarrass the NFL. If Hardy's team did make some token payout on a civil suit, they should have laid out exactly why and that they were doing it to make sure there wasn't a more expensive, more embarrassing food fight in a civil suit later.

I definitely think Hardy's team overlawyered this.

 

[DallasEast]

I am referring to the League's attorneys questioning about whether a civil settlement had occurred. The League's attorneys kept asking if one had occurred. They asked it repeatedly because it is apparent to me that they believe that the only way the prosecutors could have pursued Hardy was if Ms. Holder was present to testify. That is untrue. The inference by the League's attorneys and the media is that the civil settlement (if there was in fact one) is what kept her from being there AND they couldn't proceed without her.

Thus, in response to those continued questions and insinuations, Hardy's attorneys should have responded with what I stated rather than get upset (as one attorney seemed to) by the question. The fact of the matter is, the Hardy teams stance should have been that the notion of a civil settlement is irrelevant. The DA didn't need Ms. Holder to proceed. They had her statements from the police and her testimony at the bench trial and could have proceeded. They chose not to, I suspect, because they didn't want to stake their names and careers on the veracity of the statements of a non-appearing witness (which is required by law if you submit the testimony of one who doesn't appear for cross examination).

Oh, my bad. I read that wrong. Personally, I don't care what the League thinks or their public statements in the matter. Or the verdict handed down by the court of public opinion for that matter. My primary interest always lies with what happens within America's judicial system. Accusers and accused deserve justice equally. It grates on my last nerve when the system fails due to human failings. It's not right. And it's not justice.