Thomas5737 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 54 minutes ago, The LBC said: 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. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 10 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 mmmm.. not according to his attorneys. According to them the NFL's investigators themselves said they couldnt prove that was due to him. In fact, some of them even said she was lying about when the "abuse" occurred - some of the bruising came from a time which he wasn't around her and other of the bruising came from a fist fight she was in at a bar. At least that is my very basic understanding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Matts4313 said: mmmm.. not according to his attorneys. According to them the NFL's investigators themselves said they couldnt prove that was due to him. In fact, some of them even said she was lying about when the "abuse" occurred - some of the bruising came from a time which he wasn't around her and other of the bruising came from a fist fight she was in at a bar. At least that is my very basic understanding of it. Of course they can't prove it was him. Without video evidence, there's always some degree of chance that someone else assaulted her or that she wounded herself or that some weird series of accidents caused the injuries (by the same logic, Elliott cannot prove that it WASN'T him.) But they don't need to prove it's him. They just have to assess that it was most likely him. And since the injuries and photos match her story, that's what they decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Matts4313 said: mmmm.. not according to his attorneys. According to them the NFL's investigators themselves said they couldnt prove that was due to him. In fact, some of them even said she was lying about when the "abuse" occurred - some of the bruising came from a time which he wasn't around her and other of the bruising came from a fist fight she was in at a bar. At least that is my very basic understanding of it. Now im purely basing this off of the nfl press release and the letter sent to elliot, so ill add a caveat that its possible that we dont have all the information but according to the letter to elliot, the forensic investigators who examined the photos found that the injuries and bruises were consistent with dv and her story. Which to me would b enough to meet a preponderance standard without some sort of viable alternative explanation that is also consistent. So the defense would have to present an expert who can contradict their findings. Which im sure elliots attorneys are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsendor1 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 It's only shameful if he actually did it. Otherwise there is no shame in it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said: It's only shameful if he actually did it. Otherwise there is no shame in it at all. No its shameful under any circumstances. If you are innocent present your case, dont victim blame in the media in an attempt to win in the court of public opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 As a Cowboys fan I’m pretty frustrated. I don’t think Zeke has a good shot at getting the suspension reduced and I’m not going to try to make any legal case that it should be. Greg Hardy, though clearly more guilty, had a much better shot at reducing his suspension due to precedent. But not only does the NFL have the right to the impose this punishment on Elliott, they’re pretty much without obstacle to do so. I’m annoyed for a multitude of reasons with the situation, but I think what irks me the most is that the NFL is able to levy such a serious punishment and brand a person for life without a serious burden of proof to do so. If they happened to get this one right and Elliott committed what he was accused of (of which I’m still unsure of the finer details), then fine; he deserves what he got and possibly more. But with consideration to everything I know currently, it seems like the NFL worked backward to come up with a statement punishment to answer to a growing PR problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Superman(DH23) said: No its shameful under any circumstances. If you are innocent present your case, dont victim blame in the media in an attempt to win in the court of public opinion If you are innocent there isn't a victim. And she started it, she accused him of being a woman beater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said: If you are innocent there isn't a victim. And she started it, she accused him of being a woman beater. Thats the same logic that leads to **** shaming in a rape case. Elliots defense team has been saying they have new exculpatory evidence in these text messages but there is nothing new about it and the nfl considered that in their decision. It was clearly a case of trying to sway the public and the media to their side. Which leads me to believe they dont have a counter expert to refute the findings of the independent experts hired by the nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, Nova said: As a Cowboys fan I’m pretty frustrated. I don’t think Zeke has a good shot at getting the suspension reduced and I’m not going to try to make any legal case that it should be. Greg Hardy, though clearly more guilty, had a much better shot at reducing his suspension due to precedent. But not only does the NFL have the right to the impose this punishment on Elliott, they’re pretty much without obstacle to do so. I’m annoyed for a multitude of reasons with the situation, but I think what irks me the most is that the NFL is able to levy such a serious punishment and brand a person for life without a serious burden of proof to do so. If they happened to get this one right and Elliott committed what he was accused of (of which I’m still unsure of the finer details), then fine; he deserves what he got and possibly more. But with consideration to everything I know currently, it seems like the NFL worked backward to come up with a statement punishment to answer to a growing PR problem. They didnt come up with a statement punishment. They followed the precedent and terms they established with the nflpa following the ray rice situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Superman(DH23) said: They didnt come up with a statement punishment. They followed the precedent and terms they established with the nflpa following the ray rice situation I see people keep stating stuff like this and it's pretty much wrong. Yes, the protocol 1st time DV punishment is 6 games. But the league has the ability to increase or decrease that punishment-- ala Josh Brown. With everything surrounding Thompson's credibility with the investigation, I just don't believe the league would have suspended Elliott a full 6 games if not for the bungling of Josh Brown's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Nova said: I see people keep stating stuff like this and it's pretty much wrong. Yes, the protocol 1st time DV punishment is 6 games. But the league has the ability to increase or decrease that punishment-- ala Josh Brown. With everything surrounding Thompson's credibility with the investigation, I just don't believe the league would have suspended Elliott a full 6 games if not for the bungling of Josh Brown's case. No the league does not. As explained in previous posts by lbc josh brown was not suspended under the league's then new dv policy. He was suspended under the personal conduct policy, which gives the commish more autonomy in terms of length, primarily bc the league couldnt get any information from the criminal investigation. So with the media firestorm that happened as a result of browns wife coming forward they rushed into a decision and as soon as the reports came out from the criminal investigators brown was effectively retired by the league and the giants. As lbc stated before if brown attempts a comeback hes likely looking at a 6 game suspension for dv which is likely to prevent any team from signing him. The league does not have the authority to change a collectively bargained disciplinary policy. Thats not how cbas work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Seems like the NFL is doubling down on their decision ahead of appeal hearings. It looks like a sign that the full 6 games will be upheld and in a quick decision. Here is hoping, honestly. Get this behind us and lets get back to football. Ive said it already, but I think the Cowboys can remain competitive without Zeke for the first six games. They play: Sun, Sep 10 vs Giants 8:30 PM Sun, Sep 17 @ Broncos 4:25 PM Mon, Sep 25 @ Cardinals 8:30 PM Sun, Oct 1 vs Rams 1:00 PM Sun, Oct 8 vs Packers 4:25 PM Sun, Oct 22 @ 49ers 4:05 PM Two of those games are very winable in LA and SF. If they can get just one win out of NYG, DEN, ARI, or GB that would be ok and keep them in the division hunt IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 25 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said: No the league does not. As explained in previous posts by lbc josh brown was not suspended under the league's then new dv policy. He was suspended under the personal conduct policy, which gives the commish more autonomy in terms of length, primarily bc the league couldnt get any information from the criminal investigation. So with the media firestorm that happened as a result of browns wife coming forward they rushed into a decision and as soon as the reports came out from the criminal investigators brown was effectively retired by the league and the giants. As lbc stated before if brown attempts a comeback hes likely looking at a 6 game suspension for dv which is likely to prevent any team from signing him. The league does not have the authority to change a collectively bargained disciplinary policy. Thats not how cbas work My bad, man. You're right. That seems technically/legally true. I've read about flexibility with regard to the punishment before, but it seems like they just categorize the charge differently at times to avoid imposing the 6 game mandatory. it's like you say, Conduct Detrimental STEMMING FROM DV Charge is usually the punishment, for which 16 out of 18 DV incidents have been categorized. But my overall point still remains. Elliott likely would have been in the same boat if they hadn't bungled so many lately, including Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.