Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="morningwood" data-source="post: 447508" data-attributes="member: 2110"><p>Mary Jo came out and told the public "Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it."</p><p> </p><p>She says that Hargrove submitted a signed declaration that established:</p><p> </p><p>-The existence of the bounty program;</p><p>-That Hargrove knew of the existence of the program;</p><p>-That he particpated in it.</p><p> </p><p>The declaration does none of the three.</p><p> </p><p>Here is the thing that you are missing. At the time Mary Jo publicly characterized the affidavit it was not yet available to the public. She wasn't merely arguing about what she infered from a document that was available to everyone so that they could decide for themsleves whether they agreed with her or not. She was mischaracterizing evidence at a time when the listeners were dependant on her to accurately describe the evidence.</p><p> </p><p>This should tell you two things: 1. Mary Jo is an advocate, not a neutral, and 2. it is important to see the evidence itself and not rely the NFL's characterization of the evidence.</p><p> </p><p>As Jay noted the affidavit was drafted by a lawyer -- the contents were carefully selected. Moreover, this is not the result of Mary Jo being a poor reader. She is a lawyer, and she knew what the affidavit said and what it did not.</p><p> </p><p>Think about this, the NFL claims to have reviewed 50,000 pages in its investigation. Out of those 50k pages the NFL has selected exactly two pages to parade before the public. The Hargrove affidavit and the Ornstein e-mail. Neither is the smoking gun that the NFL claimed.</p><p> </p><p>I am not saying that "nothing happened." I am saying that it is time to quit accepting everything the NFL claims at face value.</p><p> </p><p>A mentor of mine used to say, "I first learn what my case is really about when my client is deposed." Cross examination is a powerful tool for getting to the truth. We have not had that here and Goodell is just as prone as anyone else to making the mistake of falling in love with his "case."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="morningwood, post: 447508, member: 2110"] Mary Jo came out and told the public "Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it." She says that Hargrove submitted a signed declaration that established: -The existence of the bounty program; -That Hargrove knew of the existence of the program; -That he particpated in it. The declaration does none of the three. Here is the thing that you are missing. At the time Mary Jo publicly characterized the affidavit it was not yet available to the public. She wasn't merely arguing about what she infered from a document that was available to everyone so that they could decide for themsleves whether they agreed with her or not. She was mischaracterizing evidence at a time when the listeners were dependant on her to accurately describe the evidence. This should tell you two things: 1. Mary Jo is an advocate, not a neutral, and 2. it is important to see the evidence itself and not rely the NFL's characterization of the evidence. As Jay noted the affidavit was drafted by a lawyer -- the contents were carefully selected. Moreover, this is not the result of Mary Jo being a poor reader. She is a lawyer, and she knew what the affidavit said and what it did not. Think about this, the NFL claims to have reviewed 50,000 pages in its investigation. Out of those 50k pages the NFL has selected exactly two pages to parade before the public. The Hargrove affidavit and the Ornstein e-mail. Neither is the smoking gun that the NFL claimed. I am not saying that "nothing happened." I am saying that it is time to quit accepting everything the NFL claims at face value. A mentor of mine used to say, "I first learn what my case is really about when my client is deposed." Cross examination is a powerful tool for getting to the truth. We have not had that here and Goodell is just as prone as anyone else to making the mistake of falling in love with his "case." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
milani
Pkrjones
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
12 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
13 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 WR room
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 6:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Today at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
M
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: mradtke66
Today at 6:08 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
