Peter King busted

[Panthers_Lover]

Yes, but the transcript has to be transcribed by the court reporter from legal shorthand to a longhand document. And I believe it has to be verified by a second party aside from the reporter.

 

 

Peter King didn't say he read a transcript. He said "read the court testimony." There was testimony and apparently there were reporters there. I have read portions of the testimony in their reporting.

 

This story, for example: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/07/15/5044910/panthers-greg-hardy-arrives-for.html#.VBg5EFfrzbw

[Darth Biscuit]

Peter King didn't say he read a transcript. He said "read the court testimony." There was testimony and apparently there were reporters there. I have read portions of the testimony in their reporting.

 

This story, for example: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/07/15/5044910/panthers-greg-hardy-arrives-for.html#.VBg5EFfrzbw

 

 

I agree that that's what he said, but that's relying on a 3rd party, unofficial source for a court proceeding... not to mention, which Florio of all people pointed out yesterday, that initial bench trial in NC is of so little consequence that they don't bother to keep an official transcript.

 

As Bill Voth pointed out last night on Twitter, it's not just King, a lot of the national media is taking this thing and running with it without actually looking into what is happening.  NC law is just a little different in this regard but that doesn't seem to matter to the talking heads, they just want to run around screaming "CONVICTED"  and consequences be damned.

[PntherPryd]

Peter King didn't say he read a transcript. He said "read the court testimony." There was testimony and apparently there were reporters there. I have read portions of the testimony in their reporting.

 

This story, for example: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/07/15/5044910/panthers-greg-hardy-arrives-for.html#.VBg5EFfrzbw

 

 

then Peter King plagiarized those reporters by not giving him credit.

 

By telling all his readers to "read the court testimony" he is actively and strongly insinuating that he, himself did.  And that these reading efforts on his part led to his hatchet job on Hardy.

 

I don't have a problem with pointing out the character flaws of Greg Hardy, it really doesn't take a lot of investigative reporting to write a lengthy column.  But I do have a problem with witch hunts based on innuendo and lazy reporting.

[Panthers_Lover]

I agree that that's what he said, but that's relying on a 3rd party, unofficial source for a court proceeding... not to mention, which Florio of all people pointed out yesterday, that initial bench trial in NC is of so little consequence that they don't bother to keep an official transcript.

 

As Bill Voth pointed out last night on Twitter, it's not just King, a lot of the national media is taking this thing and running with it without actually looking into what is happening.  NC law is just a little different in this regard but that doesn't seem to matter to the talking heads, they just want to run around screaming "CONVICTED"  and consequences be damned.

 

But there are those who refuse to understand that, like it or not, he was convicted. That is a fact. Now, the appeal (which is not automatic) means his jury trial will be the final word.

[Panthers_Lover]

then Peter King plagiarized those reporters by not giving him credit.

 

By telling all his readers to "read the court testimony" he is actively and strongly insinuating that he, himself did.  And that these reading efforts on his part led to his hatchet job on Hardy.

 

I don't have a problem with pointing out the character flaws of Greg Hardy, it really doesn't take a lot of investigative reporting to write a lengthy column.  But I do have a problem with witch hunts based on innuendo and lazy reporting.

 

That may be true ... but those here who scream "but there's no transcript, so how does anybody know what was said," forget that reporters were there. The testimony is out there. I'm not defending King's or anyone else's journalistic skills ... just saying that what was said in the bench trial is not a secret.

[Mr. Scot]

I'd assume it would've been a clocking a barista or bartender for ruining next week's Coffee/Beernerdness

 

 

[PntherPryd]

That may be true ... but those here who scream "but there's no transcript, so how does anybody know what was said," forget that reporters were there. The testimony is out there. I'm not defending King's or anyone else's journalistic skills ... just saying that what was said in the bench trial is not a secret.

 

 

see, that's just it.  The testimony is not out there because transcripts are not Standard Operating Procedure in NC bench trials, that is proof positive of the significance of a "guilty" verdict in a bench trial.  In this case there is reportedly a transcript only because Hardy's lawyers paid for one .... so that they could have "testimony" that would be admissible in either the jury trial or the expected civil suits later.

 

You (and perhaps Peter King, although I don't think he thought about it as much as you have) are confusing reporting with testimony, it is not the same thing.  Bill Voth's interpretation of court comments is not "testimony".

[Panthers_Lover]

see, that's just it.  The testimony is not out there because transcripts are not Standard Operating Procedure in NC bench trials, that is proof positive of the significance of a "guilty" verdict in a bench trial.  In this case there is reportedly a transcript only because Hardy's lawyers paid for one .... so that they could have "testimony" that would be admissible in either the jury trial or the expected civil suits later.

 

You (and perhaps Peter King, although I don't think he thought about it as much as you have) are confusing reporting with testimony, it is not the same thing.  Bill Voth's interpretation of court comments is not "testimony".

 

Listen ... I was a reporter and editor for 20+ years. I am not confused. I've covered court, and I've quoted testimony. You are playing semantics. If someone testifies in a trial -- bench trial or not -- and I'm a news reporter covering that trial, I can write that the person "testified that ...." whatever. That's what news reporters do. I don't have to wait until I get a transcript to be able to report that.

[Darth Biscuit]

But there are those who refuse to understand that, like it or not, he was convicted. That is a fact. Now, the appeal (which is not automatic) means his jury trial will be the final word.

 

*sigh*

 

This is the exact same argument we were having last night on Twitter PL... please look into it a little more because you're not understanding the way the trial system works for this.

 

 

I hate it that I'm having to quote Florio but...

 

 

 

Previously, the NFL had decided not to penalize Hardy because Hardy’s legal case has not been resolved.  He still hasn’t had a trial before a jury; his trial before a judge was under North Carolina criminal procedure was so preliminary and cursory that a transcript isn’t prepared unless the defendant chooses to hire a court reporter.  (In this case, Hardy did.)

[PntherPryd]

Listen ... I was a reporter and editor for 20+ years. I am not confused. I've covered court, and I've quoted testimony. You are playing semantics. If someone testifies in a trial -- bench trial or not -- and I'm a news reporter covering that trial, I can write that the person "testified that ...." whatever. That's what news reporters do. I don't have to wait until I get a transcript to be able to report that.

 

 

If I'm playing semantics I'm just returning serve.

 

You said the "testimony" is out there.  Where?  

 

Testimony means that it would be admissible in court.  Your reporting, Bill Voth's reporting, Peter King's reporting.... is not testimony.  That is not "semantics".

[Panthers_Lover]

*sigh*

 

This is the exact same argument we were having last night on Twitter PL... please look into it a little more because you're not understanding the way the trial system works for this.

 

 

I hate it that I'm having to quote Florio but...

 

I understand it completely. I have read NC law and do understand the process. Others, like you, choose not to understand that the bench trial is not nothing. If no appeal is filed (again, it is not automatic), the conviction stands. It is an absolute, pure fact that Hardy was convicted. I do understand that with his appeal, there is a jury trial now so the conviction and any sentence (which was handed down) are suspended. Still does not negate the FACT that he was convicted. Now, I do also understand that the conviction has absolutely no relevance to the jury trial.

[Panthers_Lover]

If I'm playing semantics I'm just returning serve.

 

You said the "testimony" is out there.  Where?  

 

Testimony means that it would be admissible in court.  Your reporting, Bill Voth's reporting, Peter King's reporting.... is not testimony.  That is not "semantics".

 

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

[Darth Biscuit]

I understand it completely. I have read NC law and do understand the process. Others, like you, choose not to understand that the bench trial is not nothing. If no appeal is filed (again, it is not automatic), the conviction stands. It is an absolute, pure fact that Hardy was convicted. I do understand that with his appeal, there is a jury trial now so the conviction and any sentence (which was handed down) are suspended. Still does not negate the FACT that he was convicted. Now, I do also understand that the conviction has absolutely no relevance to the jury trial.

 

 

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.

[Jeremy Igo]

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

 

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.