Zeke's accuser admitted to talk of leveraging sex videos of RB for money

[Denim Chicken]

They said it had no impact on the six games, which was a given under the DV policy. This isn't criminal court. They can do what they want.

Actually they said it will "not be considered separately as a basis for additional suspension..."

 

[Cowboys22]

What I do not get is one of the investigator said they looked at the photos from Thompson phone that she took and medical experts looked at these photos to determine abuse. Now these photos are her photos, she never went to a hospital or doctor where they normally will take photos of injuries in cases of Domestic Abuse. So we are to take her photos as the truth and medical experts can make a determination without actually examining the victim?

Who's to say those are real bruises. If she is a stripper or whatever, she has plenty of access to makeup and/or makeup artists who can whip up some fake bruises.

 

[mkindred]

They said it had no impact on the six games, which was a given under the DV policy. This isn't criminal court. They can do what they want.

It states, "The Commissioner also had determined that the March 11, 2017, St. Patrick's Day parade incident in Dallas will not be considered separately as a basis for additional discipline under the Policy given the circumstances surrounding the incident."

Which is exactly that case I'm trying to make but either I'm not clearly articulating my point or you aren't understanding. The NFL previously tried to give a suspension of 2 games to Ray Rice, then attempted to increase the suspension once the tape was released. This, however, was overruled by a higher court stating the NFL cannot increase a suspension just because a tape was released, i.e., no new incidents or information were released - only a video representation of what he was suspended for in the first place. The decision of 6 games was made, they saw nothing to warrant additional time for the suspension based on that incident - if they try and backtrack and say "Well we're giving you 2 games for this incident" when the report clearly says 0 games for this, the precedent has already been set by the Ray Rice verdict of not being able to increase suspension time of an investigation that was already made and the outcome determined.

If they would have said up front "A combined series of incidents, including the St. Patrick's Day incident, we are giving you X number of games" they'd have a leg to stand on.

 

[erod]

It states, "The Commissioner also had determined that the March 11, 2017, St. Patrick's Day parade incident in Dallas will not be considered separately as a basis for additional discipline under the Policy given the circumstances surrounding the incident."

Which is exactly that case I'm trying to make but either I'm not clearly articulating my point or you aren't understanding. The NFL previously tried to give a suspension of 2 games to Ray Rice, then attempted to increase the suspension once the tape was released. This, however, was overruled by a higher court stating the NFL cannot increase a suspension just because a tape was released, i.e., no new incidents or information were released - only a video representation of what he was suspended for in the first place. The decision of 6 games was made, they saw nothing to warrant additional time for the suspension based on that incident - if they try and backtrack and say "Well we're giving you 2 games for this incident" when the report clearly says 0 games for this, the precedent has already been set by the Ray Rice verdict of not being able to increase suspension time of an investigation that was already made and the outcome determined.

If they would have said up front "A combined series of incidents, including the St. Patrick's Day incident, we are giving you X number of games" they'd have a leg to stand on.

Read that statement. It will not be considered separately for additional discipline, which means it's included here. So even if somehow they dropped the case with Ms. Thompson, that parade incident is still there and there could be residual suspension from it.

They have dropped the nightclub incident, pending any further information.

 

[erod]

Who's to say those are real bruises. If she is a stripper or whatever, she has plenty of access to makeup and/or makeup artists who can whip up some fake bruises.

LOL, wow.

I'd be more inclined to believe that she bruised herself intentionally than to think she's suddenly a horror movie makeup artist.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

If someone is 100% innocent, it is best to deny it. Especially when you are battling public perception, which is largely the case here. The same path Michael Irvin went down recently when he was accused of sexual assault. He very clearly denied it with specific and pointed language, meaning 'I DID NOT COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT'.

Jourdan Lewis did the same thing and it worked for both of them, but if his lawyers are tellling him to stay quiet, what can he do?

 

[erod]

Actually they said it will "not be considered separately as a basis for additional suspension..."

Meaning, they considered as part of a whole investigation, not two separate investigations with additional witness accounts, interviewing the girl, etc.

It was included, not dismissed.

 

[Stash]

Read that statement. It will not be considered separately for additional discipline, which means it's included it's included here. So even if somehow they dropped the case with Ms. Thompson, that parade incident is still there and there could be residual suspension from it.

I'm interested in your honest opinion.

If and when the league loses the Thompson case, do you honestly think that they would then try to use the parade incident as some last ditch attempt to give him something?

 

[mkindred]

Read that statement. It will not be considered separately for additional discipline, which means it's included it's included here. So even if somehow they dropped the case with Ms. Thompson, that parade incident is still there and there could be residual suspension from it.

They have dropped the nightclub incident, pending any further information.

You actually are correct that the wording may leave them open to include it within the original suspension - very crafty of them to word it as they did. I'm no lawyer, but the second sentence could make the argument that it was completely dismissed from any consideration when they state "You should understand, however, that your behavior during this event was inappropriate and disturbing, and reflected a lack of respect for women."

At first glance it does appear that they viewed the incidents as separate and no punishment would be handed down over the St. Patrick's Day incident, however, you are correct that the way the first sentence describing the St. Patrick's day incident is worded can be open for interpretation.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

What am I missing about this case, because it currently screams out as setting up every player in the league for extortion attempts.

Casual Observers see where the NFL is making decisions based on nothing more than pics with bruises that cannot actually be traced to Elliott from the testimony of a proven liar that stated she would make this happen. Every opportunistic person in America will line up schemes to trap players and the players will pay them because it would be far worse than forking over six game checks from a league that will work from the "guilty until proven innocent" angle.

This just sounds absurd at the moment.

 

[ThreeandOut]

I'm interested in your honest opinion.

If and when the league loses the Thompson case, do you honestly think that they would then try to use the parade incident as some last ditch attempt to give him something?

Goodell won't still have his job at that point.

 

[goshan]

I'm interested in your honest opinion.

If and when the league loses the Thompson case, do you honestly think that they would then try to use the parade incident as some last ditch attempt to give him something?

I could see him getting a single game for that.

 

[Stash]

Goodell won't still have his job at that point.

My guess is that the NFL will pull his teeth and allow him to rise out his term.

Publicly firing him does further damage to the brand and they won't want that.

 

[Stash]

I could see him getting a single game for that.

I only see the league further embarrassing themselves by carrying it on any further. They'd look like petulant children after getting their ***** kicked on the true matter. And they'd lose. Again.

 

[mkindred]

I could see him getting a single game for that.

I don't think many people would have an issue with that. I just cannot see the NFL coming out and stating they got it so wrong that they completely dismiss him of all allegations tied to Tiffany Thompson and domestic violence, even as adamant as I am (assuming there is no incriminating evidence we aren't aware of at this time) that the evidence doesn't support the crime.

 

[casmith07]

So what exactly did these "investigators" see that made them come up with their conclusion?

Bruises and her word? Yet there was a police report of her getting in a fight that week and mountains of evidence saying she is, at minimum, a liar.

They saw PR points to score.

Or, the investigators saw this all and made their recommendation to Goodell, and Goodell did what he does and HE saw the PR points to score and did his own thing.

 

[Idgit]

I just don't understand why the league is subjecting itself to all of this on purpose. It's completely unnecessary.

 

[casmith07]

If someone is 100% innocent, it is best to deny it. Especially when you are battling public perception, which is largely the case here. The same path Michael Irvin went down recently when he was accused of sexual assault. He very clearly denied it with specific and pointed language, meaning 'I DID NOT COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT'.

No. If you're planning on going to court, the best thing to do is to be quiet until you're under oath in a court of law when it all counts and your attorneys can help control the narrative.

 

[casmith07]

I just don't understand why the league is subjecting itself to all of this on purpose. It's completely unnecessary.

Because Goodell just ain't that smart at the end of the day. Hubris.

 

[camaro69]

Again though, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.That's the point that so many people are missing. Is she the scum of the earth? It appears that she is. But, that doesn't mean that he's incapable of harming her, and this isn't about her, this is about him.

Doesn't mean it did happen. She could of had her friend beat on her? Selling a sex tape for money and her friend is like - OK we could be rich, there's a text of her asking a friend to lie to the cop about this DV abuse. If it happened why lie? This man beat on you and your mind go to lets sell the sex tape and get rich. Boy she"s one classy chick