Started By
Message

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

Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:07 pm to
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
62057 posts
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:07 pm to
quote:

He will need written evidence prove himself.


And he will have someone write it

quote:

goodell has to prove he had sufficient evidence that allowed him to make the statements he made.


How are statements from supervisors about a subordinate's actions during a meeting not sufficient? Remember that the players who were accused refused to meet with Goodell and defend themselves. They had their reasons for that, but this appears to be the sequence of events:

1) Cerullo gives the initial story which lines up with the NFL's legal interests and the witch hunt is on. Now all RG needs is a good villain or 2.

2) Saints cooperate fully and turnover all of their emails.

3) FO/Coaching staff are interviewed
- GW squeals like a pig and throws everyone under the bus in the process
- Payton and Loomis may or may not know what went down but they do know they were letting GW do his own thing so they accept responsibility while blaming everything on GW
- Vitt denies things and Goodell decides that he is lying and suspends him for lying.

4) Accused players refuse to meet with Goodell.

So all of Goodell's evidence either corroborates the Vilma bounty, or has been determined to be a lie. The players do not meet with Goodell to refute the accusations and offer their own version of events. At this point Goodell has no reason to doubt his information. Again, the defamation suit isn't about Goodell having to prove that Vilma offered a bounty but Vilma proving that it was unreasonable to assume that he did. Vilma didn't bother defending himself when given the chance and none of his superiors defended him.

I'm no lawyer but short of an email from Goodell proving it was a witch hunt, I don't see how Vilma proves defamation. Goodell had every reason to believe what had been discovered and no obligation to investigate further that I can see. Now if Vilma had met with Goodell and denied the accusations and said every single teammate and a few coaches would back him up and Goodell refused to follow that up and then made the bounty claims he might have a case, but I think Vilma not defending himself gave Goodell the green light to stop the investigation with the limited "evidence" he had.

quote:

Side note: What was Cerullo's role in the Saint's organization? People keep referring to two coaches implicating Vilma but I thought Cerullo was some minor administrative functionary.


He was a "Saints Quality Control Coach"
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 3:12 pm
Posted by Chad504boy
4 posts
Member since Feb 2005
170161 posts
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:16 pm to
its outlined in his declaration all of his important duties.
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15766 posts
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:15 pm to
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
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 4:20 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram