NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[UCSBDirtyBird]

(09-18-2012 02:29 AM)AUTiger7222 Wrote:  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!

Every single affidavit is self serving in one way or another. What matters is whether or not Vilma's lawyers can prove that Goodell made the March statements without reckless or deliberate disregard for the truth. Williams affidavit makes that absurdly hard to prove.

I love watching taints grasping at straws. (Not calling you a taint AUTiger, just using your point to rehash my previous argument).

[AsylumGuido]

(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.

If you would take the time to read the thread in its entirety you would see that I agreed that there was no way that Vilma could ever win the lawsuit. I too believe that Goodell believed what he claimed. The problem is that he believed two people that have no credibility.

By the way, the declaration signed by Gregg Williams that Goodell presented to Vilma yesterday (Monday) was signed and dated this past Friday. Considering Goodell claimed he has had proof all along of Vilma offering $10000 for teammates to injure Favre why was it not until a few days ago that the proof was actually gathered? Could it be that Williams was coerced into signing the document? You know that his future is totally in Goodell's hands.

Another interesting note is that the declaration from Mike Cerullo, the only other person to claim a bounty was placed, supposedly offers up a different set of events than Williams' story.

Also, Vilma has had NINE individuals that were in all of those defensive meetings that have sworn in federal court that there was no existence of any plan to ever intentionally injure an opponent.

[AsylumGuido]

(09-18-2012 02:47 AM)UCSBDirtyBird Wrote:  Every single affidavit is self serving in one way or another. What matters is whether or not Vilma's lawyers can prove that Goodell made the March statements without reckless or deliberate disregard for the truth. Williams affidavit makes that absurdly hard to prove.

I love watching taints grasping at straws. (Not calling you a taint AUTiger, just using your point to rehash my previous argument).

As I said, Vilma never had a chance to win this suit. His whole cause is to get the truth out there to clear his name. Someone IS lying here. Is it Vilma and the nine players and coaches that all testified in Ferderal court? Or is it Mike Cerullo, an ex-employee of the Saints that got fired after the 2009-2010 season for lying to the club on multiple occasions about leaves he took during the season? Or is it Gregg Williams who initially denied any bounty system, but did admit to a pay for performance program he instituted, and now has his future being held for ransom?

[AsylumGuido]

League produces Cerullo declaration for Vilma

The NFL finally has outed the whistleblower.

After months of blurring the line between reasonably protecting persons who provided information confidentially and unreasonably shielding key witnesses from scrutiny, the league produced a declaration from former Saints assistant coach Mike Cerullo to Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma during Monday’s marathon meeting at 345 Park Avenue, according to Albert Breer of NFL.com.

Per Breer, Cerullo’s declaration contradicts portions of Gregg Williams’ declaration.

Hopefully, we’ll eventually have a chance to compare and contrast the allegations and explanations. Until then, the significant news is that the league has fully embraced its do-over, dramatically reversing course on a stubborn refusal to disclose Cerullo’s name.

Vilma’s lawsuit challenging his initial suspension contends that Cerullo blew the whistle, and that Cerullo had pledged revenge against the Saints and specifically assistant head coach Joe Vitt after Cerullo was fired in 2010. Cerullo had maintained a low profile throughout the bounty investigation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. You now have ALL of the so called evidence against the Saints. Although, it has been suspected for months that Cerullo and Williams himself made up the totality of the "multiple sources" cited by Goodell. Two is more than one and technically is therefore multiple and it sounds so much better when running a smear campaign to the media.

[JDaveG]

(09-18-2012 02:29 AM)AUTiger7222 Wrote:  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!

Which is comical, because you can't prove a negative.

It is possible that 9 people don't know anything about it, but 1 guy says it happened. As I said upstream, it goes to weight, not admissibility.

[UCSBDirtyBird]

(09-18-2012 09:58 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  If you would take the time to read the thread in its entirety you would see that I agreed that there was no way that Vilma could ever win the lawsuit. I too believe that Goodell believed what he claimed. The problem is that he believed two people that have no credibility.

By the way, the declaration signed by Gregg Williams that Goodell presented to Vilma yesterday (Monday) was signed and dated this past Friday. Considering Goodell claimed he has had proof all along of Vilma offering $10000 for teammates to injure Favre why was it not until a few days ago that the proof was actually gathered? Could it be that Williams was coerced into signing the document? You know that his future is totally in Goodell's hands.

Another interesting note is that the declaration from Mike Cerullo, the only other person to claim a bounty was placed, supposedly offers up a different set of events than Williams' story.

Also, Vilma has had NINE individuals that were in all of those defensive meetings that have sworn in federal court that there was no existence of any plan to ever intentionally injure an opponent.

Well, I may have skipped a hundred or so pages in the middle.

I make no claims about the truth of the matter, though I tend to believe the truth is ultimately somewhere in between "The Saints are Angels" and "The Saints are Hitler." Any attorney worth their salt could find a reason to question the motives of anybody testifying. So just because an ex-employee and a suspended coach may have reason to lie, doesn't make their statements inherently dishonest, just like a statement made by a current coach or suspended player isn't inherently dishonest.

There are many different pieces of evidence to consider, and I will let you believe whatever you want. Ultimately though, the Saints did something wrong, and I really enjoy watching the taints implode.

Enjoy the high draft pick in 2013.

[AUTiger7222]

Woah! Just realized this thread is 121 pages long.

[AsylumGuido]

(09-18-2012 10:23 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  Which is comical, because you can't prove a negative.

It is possible that 9 people don't know anything about it, but 1 guy says it happened. As I said upstream, it goes to weight, not admissibility.

Don't forget that all nine of those people were in every defensive meeting and this reportedly happened in a defensive meeting, although the two stories do not match. Yes, it goes to weight, and the sworn testimony of nine people who were there in the meeting where this supposedly happened, in addition to Vilma's own vehement denial of that happening, carries more weight than the mismatched claims of the two others.

[AsylumGuido]

(09-18-2012 10:26 AM)UCSBDirtyBird Wrote:  Well, I may have skipped a hundred or so pages in the middle.

I make no claims about the truth of the matter, though I tend to believe the truth is ultimately somewhere in between "The Saints are Angels" and "The Saints are Hitler." Any attorney worth their salt could find a reason to question the motives of anybody testifying. So just because an ex-employee and a suspended coach may have reason to lie, doesn't make their statements inherently dishonest, just like a statement made by a current coach or suspended player isn't inherently dishonest.

There are many different pieces of evidence to consider, and I will let you believe whatever you want. Ultimately though, the Saints did something wrong, and I really enjoy watching the taints implode.

Enjoy the high draft pick in 2013.

Yes, the Saints did do something wrong. They were engaged in a pay for performance program, not unlike many others across the league, but they got caught and deserved punishment ... just not the punishment handed down.

Oh, and I would count the Saints out if I was you. It is very early and there is a lot of football left to play.

[JDaveG]

(09-18-2012 10:43 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Don't forget that all nine of those people were in every defensive meeting and this reportedly happened in a defensive meeting, although the two stories do not match. Yes, it goes to weight, and the sworn testimony of nine people who were there in the meeting where this supposedly happened, in addition to Vilma's own vehement denial of that happening, carries more weight than the mismatched claims of the two others.

Here's your problem -- you ain't the one what gets to weigh the evidence.

So your opinion on the weight of the evidence counts no more than mine, or Geraldo Rivera's, or Nancy Grace's, or Nipsy Russell's, etc.