Peter King busted

[Pox 08]

Please quote me where I said that the bench trial "was nothing".  I never said that.  However, it is part of the process, which is what I and "others like me" have been saying the entire time.  It's a way for the trial system to kick trials out the door or to kick them down the road to the jury system.

 

Someone is just going to quote ya and say he's guilty and already convicted and he's just being pathetic and trying to escape his punishment.   It's the new form of trolling that Panther fans do to other Panther fans.       

[PandaPancake]

People believe Hardy it's guilty just like they believe in fracking is bad, GMOs are bad, and Jesus is real. Even if he is found innocent all these "fans" are still going to say they believe he was guilty.

[Cat]

So in all these other cases there are photos showing the abuse and videos showing the abuse. Are there pictures showing Holders injuries? I'm just surprised those haven't come to light with the way the media is covering all this, if they exist at all. 

[rainwater]

Thats correct. But, that isn't testimony. King should have said "read the media coverage". Him saying he read testimony is a pretty bad mistake in terms of journalism.

Not true.  Much of the testimony has been quoted in articles.  I think you are confusing testimony with transcript.  Again it is all semantics.  You can read what each witness said.  People freaking out over semantics are focusing on the wrong things.

[Jeremy Igo]

Not true.  Much of the testimony has been quoted in articles.  I think you are confusing testimony with transcript.  Again it is all semantics.  You can read what each witness said.  People freaking out over semantics are focusing on the wrong things.

 

Testimony of a court trial can only come from the mouth of the witness or the official court transcript.

 

Reading what a journalist says she said is not testimony.

[csx]

Any reporter who was in the courtroom reported on the testimony. Their reports are "out there." That's all I'm saying.

Media reports (mostly Tweets) are not testimony.

 

Peter King surely knows this he just knows how to craft things to sound good. You can bet your ass that someone with his amount of professional experience knows that he is crafting headlines and spinning things.

[rainwater]

Testimony of a court trial can only come from the mouth of the witness or the official court transcript.

 

Reading what a journalist says she said is not testimony.

If they are quoting their testimony then it is testimony.  Is it official?  Of course not.

[PandaPancake]

Media reports (mostly Tweets) are not testimony.

Peter King surely knows this he just knows how to craft things to sound good. You can bet your ass that someone with his amount of professional experience knows that he is crafting headlines and spinning things.

Would this be the same professional who blocked me after asking where he found these transcripts?

[csx]

Would this be the same professional who blocked me after asking where he found these transcripts?

I'm not saying he is professional acting. But he's been in the business long enough to know what game he is playing with this. He knows he is full of poo on this.

[PntherPryd]

Not true.  Much of the testimony has been quoted in articles.  I think you are confusing testimony with transcript.  Again it is all semantics.  You can read what each witness said.  People freaking out over semantics are focusing on the wrong things.

 

It's all opinions too; you have yours, I have mine.

 

My opinion is that pointing out a premier, nationally known sports journalist not only directly inferred that he had fully read court "testimony" but asked his readers to study them also is not freaking out,  it is holding him to his own high standards.

 

And pointing out that local media news stories of partial official quotes during the bench trial process (many of which were held out of their earshot) does not equate to "transcribed testimony" that can be admitted as evidence in the resulting trial(s) is not freaking out either.

 

Hardy's lawyers need to get the transcription they paid for out there right away, as well as any other evidence they have to the new NFL guru that just got hired.  Right now details are so slim that reporters and fans are making up their own facts to fit their opinions.

[rainwater]

It's all opinions too; you have yours, I have mine.

 

My opinion is that pointing out a premier, nationally known sports journalist not only directly inferred that he had fully read court "testimony" but asked his readers to study them also is not freaking out,  it is holding him to his own high standards.

 

And pointing out that local media news stories of partial official quotes during the bench trial process (many of which were held out of their earshot) does not equate to "transcribed testimony" that can be admitted as evidence in the resulting trial(s) is not freaking out either.

 

Hardy's lawyers need to get the transcription they paid for out there right away, as well as any other evidence they have to the new NFL guru that just got hired.  Right now details are so slim that reporters and fans are making up their own facts to fit their opinions.

 

I never said Peter King wasn't stretching the truth.  And he was very clever in how it is worded (he never said he read it).  But to say no one knows what was said during the testimony at the trial is just as disingenuous as what Peter Kind was saying.

[PntherPryd]

I never said Peter King wasn't stretching the truth.  And he was very clever in how it is worded (he never said he read it).  But to say no one knows what was said during the testimony at the trial is just as disingenuous as what Peter Kind was saying.

 

 

not sure how to respond to this other than 

 

1)  thank you for agreeing that a national columnist/journalist just "stretched the truth".  That was kind of the point of the thread.

 

2)  where were statements in this thread that said no one knows what was said during testimony?  The only thing I said close to this is that none of the reported upon "testimony" is admissible in future court procedures.  Which is true until and unless Hardy's lawyers release their transcription.

[rainwater]

not sure how to respond to this other than 

 

1)  thank you for agreeing that a national columnist/journalist just "stretched the truth".  That was kind of the point of the thread.

 

2)  where were statements in this thread that said no one knows what was said during testimony?  The only thing I said close to this is that none of the reported upon "testimony" is admissible in future court procedures.  Which is true until and unless Hardy's lawyers release their transcription.

 

There's 10 pages of comments about court transcriptions.  When Peter King's article said court testimony (and nothing about court transcriptions).  It is well known what was said at the trial and has been reported to death.  People in this thread are acting like this is legally impossible since there is technically no court transcription.  The amount of semantics in this thread is hilarious especially when it has little to do with what Peter Kind said.

[Growl]

aww man did i miss up making peter king look like a dunce?

ugh why wasnt i told