NFL Lead Investigator Recommended No Suspension For Elliot

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour 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

Disagree. Like if she is trying "to ruin your career" and image, I completely understand and have no objection to it if you know she is making this all up. Now if you're doing this knowing that she is telling the truth then it's messed up.

[Dirk Gently]

This regarding the NFL's statement on victim shaming

[sp6488]

6 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

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.

"Something was caused by X" and "something could have been caused by X" are two wildly different things.  The forensic investigators, who are looking at pictures, not examining a patient/victim in person, are clearly stating the latter.

[sp6488]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

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.

Where they have flexibility is in determining whether this represents a DV incident.  Saying that six games is all that was possible presupposes that there was indeed DV, which I'm not sure any of us are equipped to answer.

[Dome]

Let's all drop the victim shaming talk. It's got nothing to do with football.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

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.

Entirely different. In those cases the accused admitted to having sexual activity with the victim and in this case the accused did not admit to causing bodily harm.

There were bruises caused by something and most likely someone. How do you refute that? That is the only evidence that I am aware of other than that they were together at certain points that may correlate with the timing. Her testimony means very little after trying to get a friend to lie about her being with the accused. That isn't a typical victim move, that is however typical for someone trying to do what she has been accused of doing.

I have no idea of innocence or guilt. There may evidence unavailable to us (unlikely or the authorities would have followed through with charging him) and she was just stupid fabricating a story when she didn't need to.

If he isn't guilty, he should be angry and pretty much anything he says negative about her should be expected.

[Thomas5737]

22 minutes ago, domepatrol91 said:

Let's all drop the victim shaming talk. It's got nothing to do with football.

Don't tell us that, now we feel bad.

[Webmaster]

Let's get back to football.  I don't want to have to lock this topic.

[BayRaider]

I feel like this is all being over blown in the media because they want something to talk about. Really simple guys.

- NFL doesn't have the same standards as a criminal prosecution. Which is completely in their right and makes sense. They don't need beyond reasonable doubt. They just need a more likely than not and they must feel confident that Elliott did something. I hate to put a percentage on it but let's say they are 85-95% that Elliott is guilty of at least some form of one case of domestic violence. You also have to consider the casual fans who are not Cowboy fans. Some of them who feel Elliott is guilty and the NFL does nothing, these fans could be disgusted and the NFL Rating plummet even more.

- I think six games is reasonable. With an appeal, probably four games which is NFL's plan.

- NFL gets one of it's star players back for a huge showdown with Green Bay, casual fans who wanted some kind of punishment for domestic violence get it, and the suspension isn't overly harsh considering it's domestic violence and there's no rock hard evidence. Obviously if it was proven, he'd be looking at a lot more than six games. I feel everyone ends up satisfied in this situation and it will be forgotten about once he comes back.

[Nova]

1 hour ago, sp6488 said:

Where they have flexibility is in determining whether this represents a DV incident.  Saying that six games is all that was possible presupposes that there was indeed DV, which I'm not sure any of us are equipped to answer.

That's absolutely a fair assessment. Which is why I've tempered my original statement with the precursor "based on what we know".

But at the same time, why would anyone's default stance be that the NFL got this right?

[Dr LBC]

15 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Such as?

Such as the many other sciences which make up forensics: Pattern recognition, epidemiology, just to name a couple.

[Playmaker55]

First off i am a cowboys fan i will say that. If Zeke is guilty not only should he be suspended but i think kicked off the team. I think that would send a message that this isn't tolerable. 

Could zeke have committed domestic violence? Yes. Could he have not? I think there is reasonable evidence presented that he may have not as well. If the NFL just took this girls word despite conflicting evidence then they are wrong. Forget zeke the football player, what about Zeke the person. Has he done some stupid things yes, pulling the girl shirt down comes to mind. But this is domestic violence. This is serious. To convict this guy in the court of public opinion when there is reasonable doubt is irresponsible and just shows the NFL thinks they can do whatever they want. 

 

Again if zeke fights this even though he did it. Kick him out the league! However if he didn't then the NFL is wrong.

[Thomas5737]

53 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Such as the many other sciences which make up forensics: Pattern recognition, epidemiology, just to name a couple.

I mean, what specifically? If there was something concrete he would be charged (or should be anyway). So what is there that would show a probability that it was the accused which would hurt the his appeal process?  Just theoretically, I know you don't know the details but what could potentially show up? Something that would link the accused, not just confirm that there was an incident that caused bodily harm to the accuser but at least point it in the direction of the accused. Something other than it did happen (pics) or she was with him at least around the time the bruising happened (who knows).

[fretgod99]

24 minutes ago, Playmaker55 said:

This is serious. To convict this guy in the court of public opinion when there is reasonable doubt is irresponsible and just shows the NFL thinks they can do whatever they want. 

The court of public opinion is not bound by the standard of reasonable doubt, nor should it be. The NFL is not bound by the standard of reasonable doubt, nor should it be.

I don't think people realize how stringent that burden really is.

[Dr LBC]

8 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

I mean, what specifically? If there was something concrete he would be charged (or should be anyway). So what is there that would show a probability that it was the accused which would hurt the his appeal process?  Just theoretically, I know you don't know the details but what could potentially show up? Something that would link the accused, not just confirm that there was an incident that caused bodily harm to the accuser but at least point it in the direction of the accused. Something other than it did happen (pics) or she was with him at least around the time the bruising happened (who knows).

Unless she scratched him you're not going to get 100% DNA evidence linking him.  However, a good forensic scientist can deduce whether the bruises match up with her story and whether the manner with those bruises match with them having come from someone of Zeke's physical build, height, dominant hand, etc.  Again, the NFL does not have the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt," theirs is "more likely than not."  And if a woman with whom Zeke has previous contact has bruises that can be determined to be consistent with being inflicted by an individual the size, strength, hand-size, right-handed vs left-handed, etc. of Zeke, it tends to lend credence in the "more likely than not" sphere that it was Zeke vs someone other than Zeke - or as Zeke's attorneys have suggested that she got them "falling down stairs."