- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Zeke Elliott suspended 6 games
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:00 pm to KosmoCramer
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:00 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:I mean given the evidence of her actions and deceptions, the evidence to meet that standard, better be overwhelming. In fact, it would seem that the additional evidence would have to essentially have to meet the criminal court burden, to offset an her orchestration of the same crimes.
It seems like they are working under the burden of the preponderance of the evidence, similar to civil court.
But even then, while the suspension may be warranted, the accusation that he committed a serious crime and stating this in absolute terms is disturbing. Either they are making a serious accusation to a level unsupported by the evidence, and/or my competence of my own city's attorney's office is concerning.
quote:And I don't quite understand this, if you say they are using the standard of preponderance. Because wouldn't this mean they met an even higher standard, despite not having to? Or are they using one standard of evidence, and then subjectively concluding one well above it? Because that would be disturbing.
I'm just pointing out that they must truly think this is not even a question this happened.
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 10:09 pm
3
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:13 pm to buckeye_vol
I'm saying they have to be very confident they reached the preponderance of the evidence to write that strongly worded of a letter.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:20 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And I don't quite understand this, if you say they are using the standard of preponderance. Because wouldn't this mean they met an even higher standard, despite not having to? Or are they using one standard of evidence, and then subjectively concluding one well above it? Because that would be disturbing.
To meet "preponderance" the NFL would simply have to have enough evidence that abuse more than likely happened. They can then state that their belief is that Elliot committed the actions they accuse him of committing. They likely have, in their opinion, met this higher-than-necessary standard because they know Elliot's representation and the NFLPA will challenge the suspension. Thus, they would want to have a case already built that will stand up in front of an arbitrator or even civil court.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:29 pm to buckeye_vol
I'm trying to understand this expert advisory panel.
These two make sense, since they are both attorneys and ex-prosecutors, although White's expertise. .
These two make sense, since they are both attorneys and ex-prosecutors, although White's expertise. .
quote:
PETER HARVEY, Esq., former Attorney General for the State of New Jersey.
quote:But I'm not understanding the expertise regarding these two:
MARY JO WHITE, Esq., former United States attorney and former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
quote:
KEN HOUSTON, member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, who played in 14 seasons in the NFL.
quote:I mean both of them seem to do good work now, with Houston working with children in Texas, and Lovelace with advocacy work. I mean she does have an anti-violence against women initiative. However, I don't see how their work makes them an expert for this purpose. And in Lovelace's case, she may have an understandable bias towards potential victims, which is probably necessary for her work, but may be detrimental when trying make an unbiased decision.
TONYA LOVELACE, MA, Chief Executive Officer of The Women of Color Network, Inc.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:34 pm to buckeye_vol
The idea, right or wrong, is to represent all the groups involved. You have two lawyers or law experts to handle the "what if this is appealed or taken to court?" question while the former player (Houston) represents the perspective of the player in question while the DV activist represents the interests of the alleged victim. In theory, these people each bring a different perspective that, even if it is not completely unbiased individually, will take into account the perspectives of all sides of an issue.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:36 pm to DoreonthePlains
quote:I get what that means. I didn't understand what Kosmo meant by saying they think it defintely happened, but it seems they are using preponderance of the evidence. Maybe they are, but those two statements didn't make sense since one seemed to be based in the other and none of us know at this point.
To meet "preponderance" the NFL would simply have to have enough evidence that abuse more than likely happened.
quote:Yeah. They better hope their belief is rational though, since they are assuming all roles at this point.
They likely have, in their opinion, met this higher-than-necessary standard because they know Elliot's representation and the NFLPA will challenge the suspension. Thus, they would want to have a case already built that will stand up in front of an arbitrator or even civil court.
I'm biased because I am a Zeke fan, but given the actions and deception of the accuser, I would think that all evidence would require a higher standard than a typical accusation.
And I am really confused by their "4 expert advisors," when it seems like "2 expert advisors," and 2 people who do good work xls their communities, but have no legal or law enforcement background whatsoever.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:42 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I get what that means. I didn't understand what Kosmo meant by saying they think it defintely happened, but it seems they are using preponderance of the evidence. Maybe they are, but those two statements didn't make sense since one seemed to be based in the other and none of us know at this point.
Because, legally, I can say "X did Y based upon [insert Z burden of proof]" as long as a neutral party (legally speaking, it would be a judge or jury) can then view the evidence presented and agree that I met that burden of proof. Of course, the NFL's required burden of proof is implied when they make a statement. They are not a criminal court, so they don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt before making a statement of guilt.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:48 pm to DoreonthePlains
quote:And that really doesn't make a lot of sense given that it was essentially handled as a criminal/legal case.
The idea, right or wrong, is to represent all the groups involved. You have two lawyers or law experts to handle the "what if this is appealed or taken to court?" question while the former player (Houston) represents the perspective of the player in question while the DV activist represents the interests of the alleged victim. In theory, these people each bring a different perspective that, even if it is not completely unbiased individually, will take into account the perspectives of all sides of an issue.
And I guess Houston can be considered an expert football player, but this Lovelace lady's bio doesn't really imply expertise in any field. Nothing wrong with that, but even if she is an expert in something, it's not applicable to the case at hand.
I can think of a number of experts in non-legal and non-law enforcement areas that could be useful (psychologists, criminologists), so it's weird that this was the collection they convened for this issue given they seemed to present they seemed be using it as an appeal to authority to bolster their presentation.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 10:59 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And that really doesn't make a lot of sense given that it was essentially handled as a criminal/legal case.
The 4 person panel is standard operating procedure, I believe. The NFL does appear to have taken a more careful approach for this case than normal though.
quote:
And I guess Houston can be considered an expert football player, but this Lovelace lady's bio doesn't really imply expertise in any field. Nothing wrong with that, but even if she is an expert in something, it's not applicable to the case at hand.
Her area of expertise is women who are the victims, alleged or actual, of domestic violence. She was the CEO of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. If you can't see how a panel made of 2 law experts, a former football player, and a domestic violence advocate is applicable for a suspension decision for a football player based upon possible domestic violence when the NFL expects a legal rebuttal makes sense, you're not looking at this logically.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:03 pm to DoreonthePlains
quote:His statement seemed contradictory, but I back a couple of his posts and see that he was basically arguing this. So it seemed contradictory because he was addressing two seperate points from the broader discussion.
Because, legally, I can say "X did Y based upon [insert Z burden of proof]" as long as a neutral party (legally speaking, it would be a judge or jury) can then view the evidence presented and agree that I met that burden of proof. Of course, the NFL's required burden of proof is implied when they make a statement. They are not a criminal court, so they don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt before making a statement of guilt.
I suspect that they are making a PR play a bit with the statement. Presenting it as if they may the highest standard, with some experts authorities providing advice to ensure this.
Obviously that doesn't matter in regards to the burden if/when it's appealed, but I suspect this is just history repeating itself again. Making their conclusions seem stronger than the evidence suggests, then when the public sees its not, then they have another PR issue.
Now I also wonder of they'll use different terminology on their conclusions since the deflategate used better than 50/50. Although that may have been appropriate terminology given the standards and evidence, but people really seemed to find that problematic given how strong the NFL seemed to think it was.
And I could see some self-deception on their own part by trying to make it seem stronger in the report, and even stronger in their PR.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:54 pm to DoreonthePlains
quote:I don't think this is true. I checked her bio on her web page, and her linkedin profile, and nothing that states this, although the Women of Color Network is associated with then and she is the CEO.
She was the CEO of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
quote:For some reason I thought they called them experts, so maybe that's where I was getting a bit confused.
If you can't see how a panel made of 2 law experts, a former football player, and a domestic violence advocate is applicable for a suspension decision for a football player based upon possible domestic violence when the NFL expects a legal rebuttal makes sense, you're not looking at this logically.
I guess the collection makes sense from a PR perspective then, and their assistance makes sense.
But when the letter says after consulting with advisors we've made the following decisions, I wonder how much say the 2 non-legal advisors had, especially because a victim advocate may have a natural tendency to favor the victim. That is probably good when working with the alleged victim, but detrimental when making a decision that will need to stand up to legal scrutiny.
But here is a statement I found interesting:
quote:This is a bit confusing because the discussion is about something inherently criminal and nature, but likely a civil standard.
Harvey said Elliott's representatives presented "alternative theories" to how she may have sustained the injuries, including a fight with another woman, falling down the stairs or at her job as a server, but did not offer evidence of the injuries occurring under those circumstances.
"So while alternative theories are interesting, in my judgment they have to be supported by evidence, and that was lacking in this particular situation," Harvey said.
So in a criminal trial they wouldn't "have" to provide any evidence to support an alternative theory since the burden is not on them.
But then again at a criminal trial, they would likely have more power to obtain that evidence, right?
So if this is appealed, would they have greater authority to subpoena records and testimony, to support other theories?
Posted on 8/12/17 at 12:08 am to buckeye_vol
The problem is that it doesn't matter what actually happened. Goodell gets to decide under the negotiated CBA what happened whether it's rooted in fact or not. The NFLPA gave that douchy frick Goodell all the authority to do what he wants with no oversight.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 12:11 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I don't think this is true. I checked her bio on her web page, and her linkedin profile, and nothing that states this, although the Women of Color Network is associated with then and she is the CEO.
I misread her WOCN profile. She's the CEO of WOCN, which she helped spin off from the NRCoDV. So she only worked with the NRCoDV, not ran it.
quote:
For some reason I thought they called them experts, so maybe that's where I was getting a bit confused.
Not sure if the NFL used the term "experts," but there are more fields of expertise than just law. She IS (allegedly, I suppose) an expert on domestic violence, even if it's not in a legal sense.
quote:
But when the letter says after consulting with advisors we've made the following decisions, I wonder how much say the 2 non-legal advisors had, especially because a victim advocate may have a natural tendency to favor the victim. That is probably good when working with the alleged victim, but detrimental when making a decision that will need to stand up to legal scrutiny.
That's why it's a panel. Each person can make their input. Even if she is personally biased to want to drop the hammer on Elliot, you would expect the former player and 2 legal experts to oppose something drastic like a lifetime ban, not that I am suggesting she proposed one.
quote:
This is a bit confusing because the discussion is about something inherently criminal and nature, but likely a civil standard.
The quoted statement about "alternative theories" is interesting, but let's be clear, criminal standards for "burden of proof" will NEVER apply to this case. The NFL is not pushing for prosecution of Elliot. This will almost certainly NEVER go to criminal court since the DA already declined to prosecute. Just because the action that violates the leagues personal conduct policy is a crime does not mean the league has to use "beyond reasonable doubt" like a criminal court to punish the player.
This post was edited on 8/12/17 at 12:12 am
Posted on 8/12/17 at 12:59 am to DoreonthePlains
quote:Yeah. I get that. That's why I referenced psychologist as a potential expert.
Not sure if the NFL used the term "experts," but there are more fields of expertise than just law. She IS (allegedly, I suppose) an expert on domestic violence, even if it's not in a legal sense.
And I see the value of an advocate in assisting with a case of this nature. And while she may have expertise in that advocacy, I think it would be dangerous to call her an expert on DV beyond the advocacy and assistance she provides.
quote:I'm more speaking to the conclusion of "guilt." I'm not sure if they even provided recommendations regarding the severity of the punishment, but it seemed they were consulted regarding the "guilt."
That's why it's a panel. Each person can make their input. Even if she is personally biased to want to drop the hammer on Elliot, you would expect the former player and 2 legal experts to oppose something drastic like a lifetime ban, not that I am suggesting she proposed one.
My point about her is that her "expertise" as an advocate probably requires her to assume and treat every person under the assumption of truth. While that's necessary in advocacy, that's not the standard in this case, so the inherent and necessary bias she would be fight against is the unconditional belief in the accuser's story.
That's a problematic issue when looking for the most objective conclusions possible.
quote:I get that, it just makes it confusing when thinking about an issue that is usually associated with one standard but a suggest standard is applied.
Just because the action that violates the leagues personal conduct policy is a crime does not mean the league has to use "beyond reasonable doubt" like a criminal court to punish the player.
But reading the report and conclusions, Elliot and his lawyers were able to sit down with the advisors and provide what is essentially a "defense." But the report makes it seem more of an interview and discussion than anything else. So when Harvey said "they didn't provide any evidence for alternative theory," it seems a little deceiving if they didn't have much power to obtain any since it wasn't a legal proceeding.
But when it reaches that point, wouldn't Zeke and his team have a greater ability to obtain and present evidence?
In addition, are the "independent advisors" compensated for their work? Because like expert witnesses, wouldn't the incentive, to err in the size of whomever hired you? I'm not implying any bring nefarious, but with reasonable margin of error for any decision, then it would seem there would be an incentive to err on one side of that reasonable range than the other.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 1:52 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:Yeah. It just seems so off that after his inexcusably poor handling of obvious cases of domestic assault that included videos and confessions, Goodell decided to pursue a case that was already investigated and no charges were filed and I don't recall any public outcry either. So there was no push for an investigation, and he had an actual criminal investigation to fall back in anyways.
The problem is that it doesn't matter what actually happened. Goodell gets to decide under the negotiated CBA what happened whether it's rooted in fact or not. The NFLPA gave that douchy frick Goodell all the authority to do what he wants with no oversight.
So he instead decided to pursue it for some reason. But what is maybe most baffling, is that the entire case relies on a single accuser but we have text messages and a signed affidavit that show the accuser not only lied about an incident she was basically attempting to conspire with others to support her lie.
The NFL argues that this information was taken into account, and cite other incidents. Yet, all or those incidents occur in the days surrounding that known lie. So we have to believe that Zeke's entire domestic violence history occured within a few day time span, and somehow ignore or dismiss that we know one of the incidents was a setup on the accuser's part.
I mean it's possible, but strange, that a person's entire known violent history a against women occured exclusively within a could days. Not before, and not after. And occured exclusively with one person. And even though that one person set him up on one of those days, she was completely honest the rest of their days.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 2:11 am to DoreonthePlains
quote:Here is another statement from Harvey that is interesting.
The quoted statement about "alternative theories" is interesting, but let's be clear, criminal standards for "burden of proof" will NEVER apply to this case.
The NFL Is Still Just Making It Up As It Goes Along
quote:Apparently the NFL tried to walk back from this, and had an anonymous source refute this.
One problem, he said, was that Elliott’s witnesses did not cooperate with them. Harvey told reporters that the people who offered affidavits to Columbus prosecutors “declined to be interviewed by the NFL’s investigators, which raised suspicions in our minds about the veracity of these witnesses.”
But refute it all they want, they have one of their independent legal expert advisors on record saying that they official criminal affidavits can be more or less invalidated, not by any evidence that they were inaccurate or dishonest, but because they declined to provide the information to their investigation.
So it seems like they would put more value in cooperation, with no legal obligation to cooperate and no (or less) legal obligation to be honest when if cooperative, than the criminal investigation.
That seems like a troubling basis for making such a decision.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 6:52 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
If he wants more endorsements, he should stop pulling girls' tops down a public..
He learned from his mistake. Just recently he sucker-punched a guy in the face while out drinking... BUT it wasn't outside in broad daylight at a public event. It was in a windowless club long after dark.
I'm not Ben Roethlisberger (or any number of Cowboy players from the late 90s/early 2000s) - So I have no clue what the going rate is for 30 mind-wiped witnesses and 20 minutes of malfunctioning security video...
Not that it would matter. Whatever the amount wouldn't add up to much more than a drop or two from Jerry's hush-slush-fund bucket.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 6:56 am to yurintroubl
He should sue the NFL for defamation of character. Could cost him millions of dollars in endorsements.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:01 am to David Ricky
quote:
To me - this could read like she had lied previously to cover Zeke's arse and asked her friend to do the same... but now she wants the person to tell what actually happened.
Posted on 8/12/17 at 7:03 am to goldenbadger08
Badger
You list 4 but give record of 1-4.
Eh?
You list 4 but give record of 1-4.
Eh?
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News