Ray Rice's Domestic Abuse Presser Sends Wrong Message (2 Viewers)

[Doug B]

What would happen is all these "anonymous sources" and "source unauthorized to speak" all of a sudden spoke openly and gave their names? Would the league office and Ravens Central have to let go of half their staffs or something?

 

[T Bell]

Ruh-roh George...

And here I was thinking Goodell was now totally out of the water with the Ray Rice stuff. Let's see if anything sticks here.

EDIT: Reading through the article fully, it doesn't look anyone can yet prove that anyone high up in NFL leadership actually viewed the video. That's going to be the sticking point here. If truly new bombshells don't drop, the absolutely worst that will happen is that some low-level person(s) at the NFL office get the axe. And since those people aren't public figures, even that much may be unnecessary.

...

It was pretty telling that after Steve Bisciotti's press conference the other day, nothing was posted to this thread. The FFA had apparently moved on from the Ray Rice stuff, and I think the general public had as well. Wondering if new allegations against the league office will keep slow-dripping out and lead to any kind of real change.

This is the issue: in law, you have the principle of "construction":

ConstructiveThat which exists, not in fact, but as a result of the operation of law. That which takes on a character as a consequence of the way it is treated by a rule or policy of law, as opposed to its actual character.

For example, constructive knowledge is notice of a fact that a person is presumed by law to have, regardless of whether he or she actually does, since such knowledge is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care.

For example, possession of the key to a safe-deposit box is constructive possession of the contents of the box since the key gives its holder power and control over the contents.

For example, in my law practice, I can't claim without direct proof that a document wasn't served on me if another party addressed an envelope to me, with my name on it, and dropped it in the mail to me, and has a proof of service declaring that they did that. The court doesn't buy it and will presume I was served with the document. It's possible I didn't in fact open that particular piece of mail, or I left a subordinate to do so, but as the responsible attorney of record on a case I'm deemed legally to have viewed the document(s) served on me and I'm therefore responsible for my actions or failures to act in light of my constructive receipt and reading of the document(s).

The NFL is attempting to play the frustrating corporate game that we all hate when people in big organizations claim that they're Peter and they don't know what Paul is doing. The problem is that there are very few private organizations in the US that have a better trained and organized professional security apparatus than the NFL does. The NFL practically sets the standard in the private sector, certainly among companies not engaged in defense or intelligence contracting.

It's still possible that Goodell, simply by virtue of delegation, never personally viewed that video before September. I'm VERY skeptical about that, but it's possible.

However, for the director of security to claim that he did not receive and view the contents of an envelope addressed personally to him and relating to what at the time was THE biggest ongoing security and PR concern for his organization is frankly laughable. Either he's incompetent or severely negligent in carrying out his duties (which I don't buy for a second) or the NFL took an early position of (wilfull) ignorance regarding this video and is now stuck with that story for fear of being caught in a lie, and is being driven as an organization into bigger and more ludicrous lies (like this one) in order to cover up the first one.

And, if you assume as I do that the director of security DID view the contents of that video, do you believe for an instant that he didn't immediately call Goodell and say, "Roger, I've got something you need to see ASAP"?

 

[Tom Servo]

Ruh-roh George...

And here I was thinking Goodell was now totally out of the water with the Ray Rice stuff. Let's see if anything sticks here.

EDIT: Reading through the article fully, it doesn't look anyone can yet prove that anyone high up in NFL leadership actually viewed the video. That's going to be the sticking point here. If truly new bombshells don't drop, the absolutely worst that will happen is that some low-level person(s) at the NFL office get the axe. And since those people aren't public figures, even that much may be unnecessary.

I get that. I think the thing to me is that when the original story of the 12 second voice mail of "yeah, it's terrible" came out, it seemed like there would be another shoe or two to drop. IMO, this is the next shoe. Whether it leads to some "Deep Throat" admitting somebody on Mount NFL saw it, I have no idea.

 

[McGarnicle]

Ruh-roh George...

And here I was thinking Goodell was now totally out of the water with the Ray Rice stuff. Let's see if anything sticks here.

EDIT: Reading through the article fully, it doesn't look anyone can yet prove that anyone high up in NFL leadership actually viewed the video. That's going to be the sticking point here. If truly new bombshells don't drop, the absolutely worst that will happen is that some low-level person(s) at the NFL office get the axe. And since those people aren't public figures, even that much may be unnecessary.

...

It was pretty telling that after Steve Bisciotti's press conference the other day, nothing was posted to this thread. The FFA had apparently moved on from the Ray Rice stuff, and I think the general public had as well. Wondering if new allegations against the league office will keep slow-dripping out and lead to any kind of real change.

This is the issue: in law, you have the principle of "construction":

Constructive

That which exists, not in fact, but as a result of the operation of law. That which takes on a character as a consequence of the way it is treated by a rule or policy of law, as opposed to its actual character.

For example, constructive knowledge is notice of a fact that a person is presumed by law to have, regardless of whether he or she actually does, since such knowledge is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care.

For example, possession of the key to a safe-deposit box is constructive possession of the contents of the box since the key gives its holder power and control over the contents.

For example, in my law practice, I can't claim without direct proof that a document wasn't served on me if another party addressed an envelope to me, with my name on it, and dropped it in the mail to me, and has a proof of service declaring that they did that. The court doesn't buy it and will presume I was served with the document. It's possible I didn't in fact open that particular piece of mail, or I left a subordinate to do so, but as the responsible attorney of record on a case I'm deemed legally to have viewed the document(s) served on me and I'm therefore responsible for my actions or failures to act in light of my constructive receipt and reading of the document(s).

The NFL is attempting to play the frustrating corporate game that we all hate when people in big organizations claim that they're Peter and they don't know what Paul is doing. The problem is that there are very few private organizations in the US that have a better trained and organized professional security apparatus than the NFL does. The NFL practically sets the standard in the private sector, certainly among companies not engaged in defense or intelligence contracting.

It's still possible that Goodell, simply by virtue of delegation, never personally viewed that video before September. I'm VERY skeptical about that, but it's possible.

However, for the director of security to claim that he did not receive and view the contents of an envelope addressed personally to him and relating to what at the time was THE biggest ongoing security and PR concern for his organization is frankly laughable. Either he's incompetent or severely negligent in carrying out his duties (which I don't buy for a second) or the NFL took an early position of (wilfull) ignorance regarding this video and is now stuck with that story for fear of being caught in a lie, and is being driven as an organization into bigger and more ludicrous lies (like this one) in order to cover up the first one.

And, if you assume as I do that the director of security DID view the contents of that video, do you believe for an instant that he didn't immediately call Goodell and say, "Roger, I've got something you need to see ASAP"?

We've gone way past the point of plausible deniability here, straight into absurdville, and Goodell's message to the world is basically, "Yeah? And what're ya gonna do about it?". It's clear he's lying, but he has the support of the owners and isn't going anywhere. He might as well hold another press conference and just hold up both middle fingers for 30 minutes. And this is going just as he wanted...the outrage is subsiding, we're all still watching games...business as usual. His sham of an "independent investigation" will probably conclude on Christmas Eve so it gets zero coverage, and of course nothing will come of it anyway.

 

[culdeus]

Who sends a video by fed ex? what was it on betamax?

 

[culdeus]

Someone needs to ask Roger Goodell if he's seen any of the fappening.

 

[Doug B]

I get that. I think the thing to me is that when the original story of the 12 second voice mail of "yeah, it's terrible" came out, it seemed like there would be another shoe or two to drop. IMO, this is the next shoe. Whether it leads to some "Deep Throat" admitting somebody on Mount NFL saw it, I have no idea.

Agreed. It's just that with the way this has been going so far, it looks like a whole Nike factory is going to have to drop before anything sticks to anyone high in the NFL office.

 

[Doug B]

However, for the director of security to claim that he did not receive and view the contents of an envelope addressed personally to him and relating to what at the time was THE biggest ongoing security and PR concern for his organization is frankly laughable. Either he's incompetent or severely negligent in carrying out his duties (which I don't buy for a second) or the NFL took an early position of (wilfull) ignorance regarding this video and is now stuck with that story for fear of being caught in a lie, and is being driven as an organization into bigger and more ludicrous lies (like this one) in order to cover up the first one.

And, if you assume as I do that the director of security DID view the contents of that video, do you believe for an instant that he didn't immediately call Goodell and say, "Roger, I've got something you need to see ASAP"?

Totally agreed, T Bell. What you wrote will come into play if Ray Rice and Peter Ginsberg ever get this stuff before a judge.

But the league will settle before that point (a la Jonathan Vilma in fall 2012, also represented by Ginsberg). Meanwhile, Goodell & Co. can continue to (im)plausibly deny all. McGarnicle is right on so long as all this stays out of a courtroom.

 

[Doug B]

(Goodell) might as well hold another press conference and just hold up both middle fingers for 30 minutes.

at imagining this happening IRL.

 

[Tom Servo]

(Goodell) might as well hold another press conference and just hold up both middle fingers for 30 minutes.

at imagining this happening IRL.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Someone needs to ask Roger Goodell if he's seen any of the fappening.

He'd probably just lie about that too.

 

[bigbottom]

Who sends a video by fed ex? what was it on betamax?

I'm not sure I understand. I send packages by Fed Ex all the time. And if the guy didn't want it traced back to him, I can see why he would Fed Ex a hard copy, rather than sending an electronic file by email (which would contain all sorts of metadata).

In any event, if it was sent by Fed Ex, I supposed that they could go back now to track its delivery. Should be interesting.

 

[Sweet J]

Who sends a video by fed ex? what was it on betamax?

I'm not sure I understand. I send packages by Fed Ex all the time. And if the guy didn't want it traced back to him, I can see why he would Fed Ex a hard copy, rather than sending an electronic file by email (which would contain all sorts of metadata).

In any event, if it was sent by Fed Ex, I supposed that they could go back now to track its delivery. Should be interesting.

He sent a dummy (burner) cell phone number. I'm sure he could similarly get around fed ex tracking. Couldn't he use a corporate number or something? Would he have to use his real name?

 

[culdeus]

Who sends a video by fed ex? what was it on betamax?

I'm not sure I understand. I send packages by Fed Ex all the time. And if the guy didn't want it traced back to him, I can see why he would Fed Ex a hard copy, rather than sending an electronic file by email (which would contain all sorts of metadata).

In any event, if it was sent by Fed Ex, I supposed that they could go back now to track its delivery. Should be interesting.

Ok well I guess this makes sense but it is sort of odd to me.

 

[bigbottom]

Who sends a video by fed ex? what was it on betamax?

I'm not sure I understand. I send packages by Fed Ex all the time. And if the guy didn't want it traced back to him, I can see why he would Fed Ex a hard copy, rather than sending an electronic file by email (which would contain all sorts of metadata).

In any event, if it was sent by Fed Ex, I supposed that they could go back now to track its delivery. Should be interesting.

He sent a dummy (burner) cell phone number. I'm sure he could similarly get around fed ex tracking. Couldn't he use a corporate number or something? Would he have to use his real name?

No, I mean track it to prove that it was in fact delivered. I didn't read the article. Perhaps they've already done that.

 

[zftcg]

I suppose these details matter to Ray Rice in terms of his appeal, but outside of that, what's the point of analyzing the timeline? It's obvious Goodell is lying and/or laughably incompetent (I suspect the latter, but wouldn't be at all surprised by the former either). There is no plausible scenario in which he handled this case appropriately. That's all I really need to know at this point. And it's also probably not enough to get him fired. If a true smoking gun (e.g., an email from Goodell saying, "Un-see that video, destroy it, and salt the earth you bury it in") emerges, that would probably convince the owners to dump him, but that's not going to happen either.

 

[Christo]

I suppose these details matter to Ray Rice in terms of his appeal, but outside of that, what's the point of analyzing the timeline? It's obvious Goodell is lying and/or laughably incompetent (I suspect the latter, but wouldn't be at all surprised by the former either). There is no plausible scenario in which he handled this case appropriately. That's all I really need to know at this point. And it's also probably not enough to get him fired. If a true smoking gun (e.g., an email from Goodell saying, "Un-see that video, destroy it, and salt the earth you bury it in") emerges, that would probably convince the owners to dump him, but that's not going to happen either.

Unless he is lying I see no reason he should be fired. The NFL has handled these situations the same way from the beginning of time. Goodell handled it as it has always been handled. Essentially, Goodell handled it the same way society at-large has handled it. In one of my first posts in this thread after the tape surfaced I wondered why the NFL was getting so much heat when the prosecutors weren't even though the prosecutors are the ones who owe a duty to the victim. How was Goodell supposed to anticipate that this was going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back? He's the NFL commissioner not a social worker or a cop or a prosecutor. He's essentially being set up as the fall guy for society's failure in this realm. Now Goodell and the NFL know that the old way will no longer be accepted they can evolve just as society should evolve.