NFL Lead Investigator Recommended No Suspension For Elliot

[Superman(DH23)]

Judges dont like getting their decisions reversed so I just have a real hard time seeing another court take on this type of case.

[Dr LBC]

22 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

The NFL can use whatever standard it wants for just about anything thanks to the union. But I was speaking specifically to the player personnel conduct policy for off the field violations. Spygate is a different category, though at the end of the day it ends up the same. Roethlisberger and Elliot are the only two guys suspended under the conduct policy without being charged with a crime.

It's frankly strange the lengths that the NFL went to the lengths they did to investigate the Elliot case. Even since Rice, they haven't had so much...ahem...due diligence. It was about a year in between the story breaking and the suspension. It doesn't seem like that complicated of an affair to me, personally.

And I don't trust the NFL to outline the evidence fairly. We have nothing but a statement from them so far that is obviously going to be one-sided as it is making the league's case for a suspension. So when I look at all of this, it doesn't look to me to be particularly about Elliot, but about the league's stance in future CBA negotiations and the commissioner's power. I suppose I'm walking a fine line here on this topic between what I can or can't say. But the way the league dragged this out for so long never made sense to me if it was simply a fact finding mission.

Um... it absolutely made sense.  Go back and look at how the Josh Brown situation unfolded for them.  They were investigating Brown for alleged domestic abuse/violence and, in some fashion (both the league and the King County Sheriff's office have differing stories), the Sheriff's office was delayed in releasing documents pertaining to a year-old domestic violence charge against Brown, and the league didn't actually receive those documents until 2 months after the NFL had passed judgment on Brown, under the personal conduct policy (1 game).  When those reports were released they contained Brown's own admission of abusing his now-ex-wife.

I know there are going to be folks in here that are going to cry Mara on this - and maybe, at best of what they could argue against him in this instance, is that he pressured the league office to pass judgement before the start of the regular season.  But we're also talking about a kicker here, not exactly a high-priority player.

[Dirk Gently]

6 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

Zeke and Dak are supposed to be the new faces of the franchise, why continue to drag out something like this for one of those guys? Like I said, they can win football games without him and he will be that much fresher at the end of the season and in the playoffs. I highly doubt more information comes out about the investigation...

But a lot of new information is actually coming out and the NFL is refusing to release their investigation findings. Right now Zeke stands defamatorily (is that a word?) accused of domestic violence by someone who has not only clearly lied about it, tried to get others to lie about it, and literally tried to blackmail him with it, but actively stalked and harassed him and his companions during the ongoing investigation (cf. the police complaint from September 2016). If he is innocent and has a real chance to clear his name, it certainly makes sense to do so. the difference in endorsement money alone is reason enough.

[CKSteeler]

2 hours ago, The LBC said:

Um... it absolutely made sense.  Go back and look at how the Josh Brown situation unfolded for them.  They were investigating Brown for alleged domestic abuse/violence and, in some fashion (both the league and the King County Sheriff's office have differing stories), the Sheriff's office was delayed in releasing documents pertaining to a year-old domestic violence charge against Brown, and the league didn't actually receive those documents until 2 months after the NFL had passed judgment on Brown, under the personal conduct policy (1 game).  When those reports were released they contained Brown's own admission of abusing his now-ex-wife.

I know there are going to be folks in here that are going to cry Mara on this - and maybe, at best of what they could argue against him in this instance, is that he pressured the league office to pass judgement before the start of the regular season.  But we're also talking about a kicker here, not exactly a high-priority player.

This isn't how I remember the Brown situation at all. The NFL basically did nothing about it and wasn't investigating anything until the media finally picked up on it. It's not even close to the same as Elliot's case where there was an active investigation since right after the incident.

The fact that you then point out how the NFL gave a guy who admitted in police documents to doing what he was accused of a single game sort of defeats your purpose. But the investigation did not unfold the same way.

[Farsendor1]

 

[fretgod99]

1 hour ago, Dirk Gently said:

But a lot of new information is actually coming out and the NFL is refusing to release their investigation findings. Right now Zeke stands defamatorily (is that a word?) accused of domestic violence by someone who has not only clearly lied about it, tried to get others to lie about it, and literally tried to blackmail him with it, but actively stalked and harassed him and his companions during the ongoing investigation (cf. the police complaint from September 2016). If he is innocent and has a real chance to clear his name, it certainly makes sense to do so. the difference in endorsement money alone is reason enough.

That's not a thing, no. He's been accused of domestic violence, and in this civil setting, it was investigated and determined to be true more likely than not. Defamation is really only a concern if the thing accused of isn't true. That the victim here attempted to get one witness to fabricate some portion of testimony about once instance of their interactions (there were many) casts her testimony into question; it does not abjectly invalidate all of it. For Defamation to be a relevant thing here, he'd have to be able to demonstrate that what she accused him of is absolutely untrue. Even if his appeal is successful and his suspension is lifted (really unlikely), that's still not sufficient in and of itself to establish that defamation (in the legally actionable sense) occurred. There arguably being insufficient evidence to support an accusation is not necessarily enough to say that Elliot was defamed. Not being able to prove something is not the same thing as that thing never having happened.

With regard to going to the courts, Brady's case (since it was appealed to a higher level court) would be binding almost certainly be binding (strictly if not just in an advisory manner, depending on the District the case would be filed in). It'd be nigh impossible for Elliot to argue that Goodell overstepped his authority. The only argument he can really make (IMO) is an insufficiency of evidence argument, and that will be very, very difficult to win.

ETA: Demanding a payout in lieu of going public with an accusation is not, necessarily, blackmail. In order to constitute blackmail, the threat has to be unjustified. You're begging the question when you call her demands blackmail. Generally speaking, they're only blackmail if they are completely fabricated. As it appears right now, there's no reason to think the entirety of the claims are fabricated; the NFL certainly believes there is sufficient evidence to support that Elliot did enough of what he was accused of to warrant sanction.

[Superman(DH23)]

The important thing to remember here is that the evidence isnt just the he said/she said.  There is photographic evidence of the injuries and the nfls independent forensic medical investigators found that the injuries were consistent with domestic violence and matched the victim's story.  While people can easily fake an injury or inflict it on themselves if they chose, its a much different thing to fool medical forensics

[Farsendor1]

 

[Dr LBC]

3 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

The fact that you then point out how the NFL gave a guy who admitted in police documents to doing what he was accused of a single game sort of defeats your purpose. But the investigation did not unfold the same way.

Um... do a better job reading.  I clearly stated that the documents in which Brown admitted to abusing didn't come out until AFTER the suspension was levied.  I even told you how long it was (2 months later).  When those documents came out, Brown was put on the inactive list by the Giants and summarily released less than a week later.  If he were to try and re-enter the league, he'd almost assuredly be subject to a suspension under the Domestic Violence Policy (and it wouldn't be any sort of a double jeopardy situation because he was disciplined under the Player Conduct policy previously), but he's damn near 40 and no one is going to sign him with the admitted wife-beating hanging over his head, so there was no formal suspension issued (as technically he's not a league player/under contract).

As to the NFL not even investigating it... I'd love to see you back that up with anything tangible other than "what you remember."  Because the entire back and forth between the NFL and the King County Sheriff's where the Sheriff's office acknowledge that the league contacted them in writing for information while they were conducting their investigation, that would sure seem to paint a pretty clear picture that the league was... um... investigating.

[Thaiphoon]

19 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

But if they reduce it, then how credible really was their investigation. If you feel domestic violence took place then it can't be reduced. Their policy is pretty null and void. 

I think Jerry and Zeke's representatives are going for no games as opposed to a reduction. Now how likely that happens? Quite slim but if it does happen, they aren't gonna take this lying down and will fight back.

If they challenge it in court, I don't think it gets reduced even one game. That's not how punishments in the NFL recently have worked IIRC. Usually, if you admit it and appeal for a reduction, you get a reduction IIRC. But if they take it to court, Goodell will hold firm at 6. Also, from what I read recently, the punishment was the minimum punishment for DV (6 games at least, but it could've been more). 

[Thaiphoon]

5 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

The important thing to remember here is that the evidence isnt just the he said/she said.  There is photographic evidence of the injuries and the nfls independent forensic medical investigators found that the injuries were consistent with domestic violence and matched the victim's story.  While people can easily fake an injury or inflict it on themselves if they chose, its a much different thing to fool medical forensics

Correct. Additionally, I read the texts (at least what I could see so far), and they are not dispositive that she was completely making it all up. Do I think she was less than honest and had her friend be less than honest? Its possible. Do I think that , given the forensic information that the investigators had which convinced them that, she wasn't lying about him abusing her? Yeah. 

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

Correct. Additionally, I read the texts (at least what I could see so far), and they are not dispositive that she was completely making it all up. Do I think she was less than honest and had her friend be less than honest? Its possible. Do I think that , given the forensic information that the investigators had which convinced them that, she wasn't lying about him abusing her? Yeah. 

That's just picking and choosing what you want to believe. There are facts that we know that shows that the accuser lied and tried getting a friend to lie about her being with the accuser. You choose to believe the evidence that we know nothing about. She was assaulted in some way. She was with the accuser at times that could coincide.

 

Are forensic medical investigators a year later really worth anything? Can they do anymore than look at pictures? It isn't like they are pulling fibers from an untouched corpse.

[Dr LBC]

2 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

If they challenge it in court, I don't think it gets reduced even one game. That's not how punishments in the NFL recently have worked IIRC. Usually, if you admit it and appeal for a reduction, you get a reduction IIRC. But if they take it to court, Goodell will hold firm at 6. Also, from what I read recently, the punishment was the minimum punishment for DV (6 games at least, but it could've been more). 

I haven't read the DV policy verbatim since we were all discussing the Greg Hardy stuff, but I know that 6 games is the punishment for 1st time offenders of the rule.  It wouldn't surprise me if they tacked in an addendum that allowed for more strenuous punishment given truly heinous-in-nature (it sounds weird even qualifying that given the kind of stuff we're talking about in the first place) offense - though if I were to bet, it was likely tacked in there with forethought towards if an instance of child abuse ever comes up (because you know that fans will be calling for a straight up ban from the league if a player is ever found guilty of violently abusing a child).

[Dr LBC]

1 minute ago, Thomas5737 said:

That's just picking and choosing what you want to believe. There are facts that we know that shows that the accuser lied and tried getting a friend to lie about her being with the accuser. You choose to believe the evidence that we know nothing about. She was assaulted in some way. She was with the accuser at times that could coincide.

 

Are forensic medical investigators a year later really worth anything? Can they do anymore than look at pictures? It isn't like they are pulling fibers from an untouched corpse.

I realize that shows like Criminal Minds misrepresent what forensic investigators are capable of to some degree, but there's a lot they can do working with what was documented by medical examiners closer to the commission of the alleged assault, and that's just the tip of the iceberg really.  There's much more to forensics than just DNA testing and the like, especially when you're talking about civil matters where circumstantial evidence holds considerably more gravity than it does in criminal court.

[Spirit In Black]

Is Elliot innocent? I don't know. The guy seems to be a terrible human so I guess I'm not upset about it.