NFL Lead Investigator Recommended No Suspension For Elliot

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Shocked it is 6 games, looking forward to reading the why because up until this point what we knew made me think maybe 1 or 2 games

[BigD88]

Response from Elliott's camp...

[deltarich87]

This....this is not a good defense

[Jakuvious]

44 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

I dunno. I admit if there wasn't evidence of her lying about details of some of these incidents that it would be a lot easier to believe her version over his. As it stands, she is a proven liar and he is just a possible, even if likely, liar/abuser.

 

"In the commissioner's judgement, there has been no persuasive evidence presented on your behalf with respect to how Ms Thompson's obvious injuries were incurred other than conjecture"

"There was no evidence that anyone else could have caused these injuries"

So he had to prove how the injuries happened to another person to clear himself? I don't think that is how it is supposed to work whether it is the judicial system or the NFL. O.J. would have searched for the real killer in other places than the golf course if that was the case.

 

 

THat isn't how it would work in the justice system, for sure, but there's nothing really saying that isn't how it would work for the NFL. If they have evidence that the injuries occurred, and the injuries they have evidence of lined up with her version of the story and appear consistent with DV, which they did (see quote below), that's fairly compelling evidence. I don't think he necessarily needed to come up with evidence, it's more a matter that the evidence she provided was very compelling, and he didn't have a real counter to that.

Quote

These injuries are portrayed in photographs (6 series) confirmed by forensic analysis to have been taken by Ms. Thompson on the afternoon of July 21, 2016 and concurrently sent via text message to her mother....A review of these photographs by both medical experts determined that the injuries displayed appear recent and consistent with Ms. Thompson's description of the incident and how they occurred.

And there's 3 sets of very similar quotes regarding different dates, so it isn't even just one set of injuries and photographs.

For the judicial system, this would be insufficient. Basically you have her argument as, I have proof of these injuries, and a story of how they occurred (DV.) A defense of, those injuries could have occurred many ways, can be enough to derail a case in court, because it needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt that her argument is true, and that there's basically no other logical explanation for the events.

For the NFL, this is fine. The evidence matches her story, Elliott doesn't really have a story to counter it, so hey, it probably happened, let's suspend the guy.

[cddolphin]

Just now, deltarich87 said:

This....this is not a good defense

Depends on where the bruises are, how serious they, how old they were, etc etc. Neither you nor I can say for certainty.

My sister is a server and she bruises herself all the time. If I sneeze near my girlfriend she'll wake up with a bruise. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

[Webmaster]

Let's stick to football.  We don't need to hear about your personal experiences with bruising or debate how someone could get bruised.

Discuss the suspension, the appeal, the Cowboys backfield, predictions on the Cowboys record with out Elliot, etc.  

 

[BigD88]

I thought there was an affidavit says she got the bruises in a bar fight?

[Webmaster]

1 minute ago, BigD88 said:

I thought there was an affidavit says she got the bruises in a bar fight?

Let's stick to football.  We don't need to debate how someone could get bruised.

[BigD88]

Just now, Webmaster said:

Let's stick to football.  We don't need to debate how someone could get bruised.

You right, Webby, you right.

The last time the Cowboys had a RB not named Zeke, McFadden was a top 5 rusher in the league and that was on a team continuously playing from behind with Brandon Weeden and Matt Cassel at quarterback.  I'd imagine McFadden/Morris will still find success behind the brick wall of an OL in Dallas.

[SteelKing728]

How do you guys think Darren McFadden will do in Elliot's place for the duration of the suspension?

Looking for a stat projection*

[MacReady]

He probably wouldn't have been suspended if he didn't pull that woman's top down.  If you're under investigation by your employer for mistreating a woman, don't mistreat another woman on video.

Anyway, I don't think the suspension will last more than 4 games.  He'll probably come back just in time to play the Packers in week 5. 

[Broncofan]

The biggest issue with Zeke's suspension is that D-Mac isn't healthy (again).   I'm almost thinking Morris might get the lion's share for DAL.

As a Broncos fan, never hope for this, but can't deny it's a huge break to face DAL week 2 at home and now no Zeke, with an OL in flux.   Our run D is our biggest weakness, so this really helps us.  And hurts DAL.  

For DAL, surviving the first 6 weeks is crucial.  Hosting NYG and GB gives them a shot there, and the 4 other games are up for grabs, really hosting Rams and @SF should be W's normally.  @DEN and @ARI are a lot tougher now.   If DAL ends up 3-3 or better, then they've got all their suspended players from the DL (minus Gregory, IMO a lost cause), and Zeke back.   Start off 2-4, no margin for error.

[fretgod99]

34 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

But does that say more about the judicial system, or the opinion of the majority?

It says more about the general lack of understanding about how the criminal and civil justice systems work.

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

So he had to prove how the injuries happened to another person to clear himself? I don't think that is how it is supposed to work whether it is the judicial system or the NFL. O.J. would have searched for the real killer in other places than the golf course if that was the case.

The initial burden is on the party bringing the allegation. This is known as the "Burden of Production". In essence, the claiming party has to present enough evidence to demonstrate their case could be decided in their favor in the absence of any evidence from the other party. So as long as there is sufficient credible evidence to prove the claiming party's case (up to the relevant burden of proof), then yes, the burden does actually tend to switch to the defending party, particularly in civil cases where the burden is a preponderance of the evidence (in other words, "more likely than not"). So if I present enough evidence that you are more likely than not to have caused the thing I said you caused that harmed me, it is now incumbent upon you to provide some amount of evidence that either controverts my evidence or shifts the blame elsewhere.

Because the burdens of proof are drastically different in criminal and civil cases, people sometimes have difficulty reconciling the two seemingly disparate outcomes. But if one wants to be able to discuss with any credibility the merits of the NFL's actions in these types of disciplinary settings, it really is paramount that one understands that while the cases (criminal and civil and disciplinary) all concern similar subject matter, they are in fact very different in nature.

This discussion necessarily involves whether the NFL is appropriately exercising its power. But in order to be able to have that conversation, we have to understand the differences in proof relevant to these different types of cases. If you're going to hold the NFL to the same stringent standards as the criminal justice system, none of their disciplinary proceedings will ever make sense to you. And because the NFL is not, nor should it be, beholden to the outcomes of the criminal justice system when dolling out punishment under the CBA, it makes no sense to argue that the NFL should just abide by whatever is determined by the criminal justice system when determining fault on the part of one of its players.

[Farsendor1]

A little insight not much. PK is a journalist in Nashville TN that mostly covers Titans. 

[incognito_man]

10 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

It says more about the general lack of understanding about how the criminal and civil justice systems work.

The initial burden is on the party bringing the allegation. This is known as the "Burden of Production". In essence, the claiming party has to present enough evidence to demonstrate their case could be decided in their favor in the absence of any evidence from the other party. So as long as there is sufficient credible evidence to prove the claiming party's case (up to the relevant burden of proof), then yes, the burden does actually tend to switch to the defending party, particularly in civil cases where the burden is a preponderance of the evidence (in other words, "more likely than not"). So if I present enough evidence that you are more likely than not to have caused the thing I said you caused that harmed me, it is now incumbent upon you to provide some amount of evidence that either controverts my evidence or shifts the blame elsewhere.

Because the burdens of proof are drastically different in criminal and civil cases, people sometimes have difficulty reconciling the two seemingly disparate outcomes. But if one wants to be able to discuss with any credibility the merits of the NFL's actions in these types of disciplinary settings, it really is paramount that one understands that while the cases (criminal and civil and disciplinary) all concern similar subject matter, they are in fact very different in nature.

This discussion necessarily involves whether the NFL is appropriately exercising its power. But in order to be able to have that conversation, we have to understand the differences in proof relevant to these different types of cases. If you're going to hold the NFL to the same stringent standards as the criminal justice system, none of their disciplinary proceedings will ever make sense to you. And because the NFL is not, nor should it be, beholden to the outcomes of the criminal justice system when dolling out punishment under the CBA, it makes no sense to argue that the NFL should just abide by whatever is determined by the criminal justice system when determining fault on the part of one of its players.

A must read for all participants in this thread, so I am quoting to emphasize