How much money would it have taken to change your mind about the case?

[ed bell]

Not an expert on such things, but I don't think paying off someone in the neighborhood of a million dollars is like sliding someone a Benjamin

[SCP]

I'd take a quarter-mil to disappear and $1.5 million to make a statement that I lied about it because I was high on coke.

[L-TownCat]

If it were me, Id point at my gun covered futon and ask, "Who's in charge here again"?

 

'nuff said.

[Inimicus]

This is something that Person tweeted.  Given that he's covered the team for a while, and that he's attributing this to State officials that he's presumably been in contact with about the case, it's probably a little more than some conspiracy level rumor.  And frankly, it makes a lot of sense for Hardy to pay her to go away, the only question is how much.  And that depends on whether it's nuisance money or something to really help him avoid serious liability.  Basically, it has a ring of truth to it.

 

I also wonder how long it is before the number is leaked, and which side does the leaking...

 

I'm not sure that it does make sense since it skates mighty close to my understanding of witness tampering. 

 

I admit I'm little more than a legal hobbyist so it could well be that I'm way out of bounds here but; since the charges were brought by the State and it was their case to prosecute, if Hardy bribed their star witness I'm sure he would be facing more than the misdemeanor that he was otherwise looking at.

 

 

 

I think when the District Attorneys office says it in their official statement as to why they were dismissing charges, it's probably a little more than just a rumor via tweet.

 

In a statement explaining the decision to dismiss charges, the district attorney's office said it has "reliable information" that Holder and Hardy have reached a civil settlement and that she has "intentionally made herself unavailable to the State."

Prosecutors have been unable to locate Holder to issue her a subpoena, which would have compelled her to testify in the trial. Holder's civil attorney also has refused to assist prosecutors in locating his client.

 

Well maybe I'm wrong.

 

Just seems to me that its awful vauge and self serving. I'm not quite believing that the statement wouldn't have been followed up by a statement announcing an investigation into tampering by Hardy.

 

 

 

 

But what do I know...

 

[Cyberjag]

I'm not sure that it does make sense since it skates mighty close to my understanding of witness tampering. 

 

I admit I'm little more than a legal hobbyist so it could well be that I'm way out of bounds here but; since the charges were brought by the State and it was their case to prosecute, if Hardy bribed their star witness I'm sure he would be facing more than the misdemeanor that he was otherwise looking at.

 

 

 

 

Well maybe I'm wrong.

 

Just seems to me that its awful vauge and self serving. I'm not quite believing that the statement wouldn't have been followed up by a statement announcing an investigation into tampering by Hardy.

 

 

 

 

But what do I know...

 

 

You're probably right, the info suggests that they were trying to get Holder to appear and can't find her, which means that they can't subpeona her.  I'm sure that if they had unlimited time and resources they would pursue a case against Hardy for tampering, but that's so difficult to prove at the outset they are probably just going to complain to the media and then go off to the next case.

[hepcat]

SMH, this could't have been done back in July?  Guess Holder had to wait for Hardy to put some of that 13 million in his back account for sitting at home making shitty rap songs.

[teeray]

I think when the District Attorneys office says it in their official statement as to why they were dismissing charges, it's probably a little more than just a rumor via tweet.

In a statement explaining the decision to dismiss charges, the district attorney's office said it has "reliable information" that Holder and Hardy have reached a civil settlement and that she has "intentionally made herself unavailable to the State."

Prosecutors have been unable to locate Holder to issue her a subpoena, which would have compelled her to testify in the trial. Holder's civil attorney also has refused to assist prosecutors in locating his client.

You really believe the DA is above the fray on this kind of thing?

The haven't talked to the girl in like 4 months. They think this is what happened and are leaking it to save face.

[Anybodyhome]

Who cares if there was a settlement and/or how much iot may have been? You guys act as though nothing like this has ever happened before.

 

In the State of North Carolina vs. Greg Hardy, the prosecuting State of North Carolina was unable to serve a subpoena to their star, and likely only witness for the last 3 months. Either Greg Hardy paid a helluva lot of money to keep a lot of people quiet, which I highly doubt; or, the prosecuting State of North Carolina had such a weak case they really didn't try too hard to find their star witness, which is far more likely.

[csx]

So, it's being whispered that Hardy made Holder go away by paying her off.  Personally, based on my admittedly low level of knowledge of the case, I think he would have been found innocent anyway.  But that would have meant legal fees at the very least, and at the worst he would have been found guilty and then been exposed to potential civil liability.

 

If I heard that he gave her millions to go away, I would probably change my mind considerably.  Right now I'm betting the number is closer to 50K.

 

What do you guys think?  And what number would change your current thinking to something different?

 

 

I would assume he paid her alot more than he would pay his lawyers to work another week or two of the trial. 

[csx]

Who cares if there was a settlement and/or how much iot may have been? You guys act as though nothing like this has ever happened before.

 

In the State of North Carolina vs. Greg Hardy, the prosecuting State of North Carolina was unable to serve a subpoena to their star, and likely only witness for the last 3 months. Either Greg Hardy paid a helluva lot of money to keep a lot of people quiet, which I highly doubt; or, the prosecuting State of North Carolina had such a weak case they really didn't try too hard to find their star witness, which is far more likely.

 

3 months? That's a crazy amount of time for a misdemeanor trial. 

[TimTom]

3 months? That's a crazy amount of time for a misdemeanor trial. 

 

your tax dollars at work!!

[csx]

your tax dollars at work!!

Where did the 3 month figure come from. A quick search suggests that domestic assault cases typically don't go longer than 2 days. This one might go longer but certainly not 3 months.

 

This article suggests "2 days or longer"  http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12299734/greg-hardy-carolina-panthers-appeals-domestic-violence-conviction

 

This wasn''t the OJ trial.

[CatMan72]

If she can put a price on her dignity then it was money well spent.

[CatMan72]

Who cares if there was a settlement and/or how much iot may have been? You guys act as though nothing like this has ever happened before.

In the State of North Carolina vs. Greg Hardy, the prosecuting State of North Carolina was unable to serve a subpoena to their star, and likely only witness for the last 3 months. Either Greg Hardy paid a helluva lot of money to keep a lot of people quiet, which I highly doubt; or, the prosecuting State of North Carolina had such a weak case they really didn't try too hard to find their star witness, which is far more likely.

Good point, the only objective witness was in another room and never actually saw anything.