re: NFL presented Vilma w/sworn affidavit of GW stating Vilma offered 10k for Favre

quote:

---

and he will have someone write it

---

im sure that loser will

quote:

---

How are statements from supervisors about a subordinate's actions during a meeting not sufficient?

---

1.corr.'s statement is one and that has good weight by itself( but most likely will not be good enough in the eyes of the jury to prove jsutification. they need more)
2.GW's statement can be shown as a conflict of interest bc he isnt fired he is suspended indef. and has chance to get his job back.
3. from what i heard so far, the statements contradict each other in a small but important way. now GW statement is holds less weight than before and corr's statement which was fine on its own is now shown to contradict someone else's. so his statement will hold less weight just bc of that small contradiction bc you can show they obviously how things happened 100%. bc of this there needs to be written documents, but what has been shown so far is that written documents contradict events like saying fujita was on the team in 2010

quote:

---

Remember that the players who were accused refused to meet with Goodell and defend themselves

---

yea but in court this doesnt matter.you dont have to meet with someone who is accusing you publicly to go over there evidence. its the responsibility of the accuser to make sure his evidence is valid before going public. (and im pretty sure he asked them to meet after he had accused them publicly) OSN - this whole thing is going to have to come down to court bc im sure goodell will uphold the suspensions with bs justifications.

quote:

---

Again, the defamation suit isn't about Goodell having to prove that Vilma offered a bounty .

---

yes it is

quote:

---

I don't see how Vilma proves defamation

---

he doesnt have to

i am a media member and say on air that you used steroids while playing baseball. you file a defamation suit against me. the suit goes to court. i will be required to show what evidence i have and show how it justifies my statement. you are not required to prove anything but have your attorney poke wholes in the evidence you present to show the evidence is not valid enough for me to make the statement that i did.

alright somehow TD messed up quotes and what i wrote