NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[AsylumGuido]

(09-17-2012 07:39 PM)RFlagg Wrote:  Here is Gregg Williams affidavit released today:


That's pretty damning right there. Good afternoon, good evening, and good night.

If it can be believed. He was being faced by a permanent suspension. Did he lie or did all of the players and coaches that swore that didn't happen? Who had the most to gain by lying?

[AsylumGuido]

(09-17-2012 08:11 PM)papachaz Wrote:  that should kill the defamation suit for sure.

Absolutely not. Because Gregg Williams will have to swear under oath. Let's see how that comes out.

[UCSBDirtyBird]

(09-17-2012 08:19 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Absolutely not. Because Gregg Williams will have to swear under oath. Let's see how that comes out.

You sound like a knowledgeable gent when it comes to the law. Which state is lucky enough to count you as a member of their bar?

What is that? You aren't a lawyer? Well, that is weird. Well, in any case, as an attorney (Drake can chime in if I get off point) I can tell you that one of the key elements of a defamation suit (of a public figure) is that the party making the injurious statements must be shown to have made the statements with reckless or willful disregard of their truthfulness.

This statement from Greg Williams would severely undermine any notion that Goodell was playing fast and loose with the truth. (I caution here that the preceding only applies if the Greg Williams statement is a contemporary reduction to writing of an earlier oral conversation/deposition).

Whether or not Greg Williams is a credible witness is one thing, but assuming Roger Goodell beleived him, the S.S. Slandersuit just struck an iceberg and is sinking rapidly somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico.

[ATLBound]

(09-17-2012 08:18 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  If it can be believed. He was being faced by a permanent suspension. Did he lie or did all of the players and coaches that swore that didn't happen? Who had the most to gain by lying?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just another disgruntled ex-Saints employee....

Who didn't see this response coming?

Oh btw.....*thumbs up*

[Beef]

(09-17-2012 08:19 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Absolutely not. Because Gregg Williams will have to swear under oath. Let's see how that comes out.

Absolutely so.

Even if it turns out Gregg Williams lied, there's no way Goodell would have known that.

You're wrong yet again and Vilma is screwed. Your team had a pay for injury program.

Now STFU and disappear.

[juraitwaluzka]

(09-17-2012 08:34 PM)UCSBDirtyBird Wrote:  Whether or not Greg Williams is a credible witness is one thing, but assuming Roger Goodell beleived him, the S.S. Slandersuit just struck an iceberg and is sinking rapidly somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico.

S.S. Slandersuit!!!!!

[papachaz]

(09-17-2012 08:34 PM)UCSBDirtyBird Wrote:  You sound like a knowledgeable gent when it comes to the law. Which state is lucky enough to count you as a member of their bar?

What is that? You aren't a lawyer? Well, that is weird. Well, in any case, as an attorney (Drake can chime in if I get off point) I can tell you that one of the key elements of a defamation suit (of a public figure) is that the party making the injurious statements must be shown to have made the statements with reckless or willful disregard of their truthfulness.

This statement from Greg Williams would severely undermine any notion that Goodell was playing fast and loose with the truth. (I caution here that the preceding only applies if the Greg Williams statement is a contemporary reduction to writing of an earlier oral conversation/deposition).

Whether or not Greg Williams is a credible witness is one thing, but assuming Roger Goodell beleived him, the S.S. Slandersuit just struck an iceberg and is sinking rapidly somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico.

one of the reports I just saw about this was Vilma tweeting that the affidavit was only signed three days ago, BUT the report said that the affidavit is the written version of what GW had told the commissioner months ago. That being said, GW's honesty doesn't play in, because all Goodell has to say is 'i believed he was telling me the truth' and boom, no more defamation suit.

I personally believe that Williams was telling the truth, he's already banned for life, so what good would it do him to lie? To help get him a reinstatement? well, if he's caught in ANOTHER lie (he admitted to lieing about the "program") then that permanent ban stays in effect for sure.

so let common sense prevail, who has more to lose NOW??? Williams is permanently unemployed. Vilma is only unemployed for a year (I know I know the suspension was overturned, but I fully expect him to still spend some time in suspension) Vilma clearly has more to gain if a lie by him and the others who 'swore of his innocence' was believed.

So now he'll have to swear under oath, I've had to give depositions and sign affidavits in the past, and guess what, those were done 'under oath'. He was subpeanaed (sp) to testify, big deal, he's already signed that affidavit. I fully expect vilma to face suspension time. Williams could get on the stand and say "i lied to Roger" and the affidavit is false. that still relieves Goodell, because he based what he did and said on Williams (the DC who said he handled the money), statement that vilma made the pledge for 10K for knocking Favre out of the game.

of course vilma and his lawyer are going to deny it, that's what they do

[Drathdon]

A man who offered to pay $10,000 to hurt another player would stoop to lying too? Who would believe such a thing? Obviously a man who would offer to pay $10,000 to hurt another player is a fine, upstanding citizen beyond reproach.

What is this world coming to when you can't believe the word of a man who offered $10,000 to hurt another player?

[AUTiger7222]

Vilma said they have 1 affidavit saying I did do it and I've got 9 saying I didn't do it. You do the math. LMAO!

[UCSBDirtyBird]

(09-18-2012 01:32 AM)papachaz Wrote:  one of the reports I just saw about this was Vilma tweeting that the affidavit was only signed three days ago, BUT the report said that the affidavit is the written version of what GW had told the commissioner months ago. That being said, GW's honesty doesn't play in, because all Goodell has to say is 'i believed he was telling me the truth' and boom, no more defamation suit.

I personally believe that Williams was telling the truth, he's already banned for life, so what good would it do him to lie? To help get him a reinstatement? well, if he's caught in ANOTHER lie (he admitted to lieing about the "program") then that permanent ban stays in effect for sure.

so let common sense prevail, who has more to lose NOW??? Williams is permanently unemployed. Vilma is only unemployed for a year (I know I know the suspension was overturned, but I fully expect him to still spend some time in suspension) Vilma clearly has more to gain if a lie by him and the others who 'swore of his innocence' was believed.

So now he'll have to swear under oath, I've had to give depositions and sign affidavits in the past, and guess what, those were done 'under oath'. He was subpeanaed (sp) to testify, big deal, he's already signed that affidavit. I fully expect vilma to face suspension time. Williams could get on the stand and say "i lied to Roger" and the affidavit is false. that still relieves Goodell, because he based what he did and said on Williams (the DC who said he handled the money), statement that vilma made the pledge for 10K for knocking Favre out of the game.

of course vilma and his lawyer are going to deny it, that's what they do

Very well said.