NFL’s outside lawyer calls evidence against Saints players “quite strong”
 

Mike Florio on May 3, 2012, 11:05 AM EDT
APOn Wednesday, the NFL advised its teams that former prosecutor Mary Jo White has been retained to provide an independent review of the bounty evidence. On Thursday, the NFL made White available to the media.

White, who was retained by the NFL but who described her work as an “independent review” of the process, said that she has reviewed all evidence and that the factual basis for the punishments imposed against the players is “quite strong.” She also described the overall process as “thorough, fair, and robust.”

White characterized the punishments as arising from “very strong corroborating evidence,” both from “multiple, independent first-hand accounts” and the 18,000 documents gathered.

White also pointed out that the individuals who provided information will have their identity kept secret in order to ensure that they will not face retaliation, a noble and appropriate goal with which Jeremy Shockey would surely agree. Still, when pressed on whether the yet-unnamed persons will testify at the appeal hearings or whether the specific names have been given to the NFLPA and the accused players so that they may prepare an adequate defense, White tiptoed through the words in the way that lawyers so often do, declining ultimately to say that the people will testify or that their names have been or will be given to the NFLPA or the accused players.

And so it appears that, for now, only general summaries and characterizations of the information have been provided to the NFLPA. If the players are going to mount any type of a meaningful defense, that’s not good enough.

Yes, folks who cooperated with the investigation must be protected from retaliation. Otherwise, no one will cooperate in the future. But this isn’t some third-world country where folks testify behind a curtain. If the available procedures are going to have any value, the people who are making the allegations need to put their names to their words — especially if the accused players are claiming (as two of them are) that the evidence is false.

Without those fundamental protections, anyone can accuse anyone else of anything.

The league is preparing a full transcript of the conference call with Mary Jo White. I’ll scour it for anything else worth mentioning. For now, the thing that struck me as most significant is the fact that the NFL hasn’t, and possibly won’t, give the players full information regarding the persons who have accused them of participating in a bounty program.

NFL

The NFL lawyer says the evidence is strong. Okay. Fine.

SHOW IT

An article stating "strong evidence against Saints" from Comrade Goodell's outside lawyer and written by Mike Florio. I wish I had several copies so that I could wipe my ass with it.

Precisely. How is her word any different from Roger's? Just another talking head saying the NFL is right and just. They paid her to "review", so of course she's going to say that. I like to see what lawyers who aren't on either side have to say. Because this woman can call it an "independent review" all she wants, but she's being paid by the NFL. Lawyers either defend or prosecute, depending on who they're working for. There is no neutral position with them.

A true outside opinion would be someone not being paid, who is just looking at the information (or lack thereof) for what it is, without any bias or financial motivation. The NFL asked this woman to do this, so there's no way she did it for free.

It's time to start looking for a pro-union activist judge!

......... as if there is a shortage of those :brood:

Something is fishy about all this and it smells ROTTEN!

CAN WE JUST MOVE ALONG!

I'm at the point where I don't care about the evidence anymore.....

Dude I hope not. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. When that happens every one of us will go, "You know...that's pretty flimsy", and Roger Goodell will have to eat a turd. :D

Howdy Ho!!

I am CornFlorio!

What is quite strong is the bad smell this has to it.

Facing your accusers is a right of due process...

We're all just supposed to take some random lawyer's word for it? Seriously?

The blantant efforts to keep from showing the so called strong evidence is pretty telling.

I would be at that point but not until the evidence is presentend and examined in a REAL court of law. I actually care about this more than the entire NFL season. If they are proven guilty fine, but right now the NFL's methods are unfair and unjust and that is not a system anyone in this country should be judged by.

This. I want to see the players and coaches involved get their right of due process satisfied by the US legal system....

I don't know if I really understood this saying until now but: "Our legal system is one of the worst, but its the best one we've got."

Agreed. How can the players lawyers disagree when they don't have the evidence.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the NFL's trump card could be Greg Williams himself. What else could kick off Coach Williams 'pennance tour' like solidifying the NFL's case against the players?

One way or another it's going to come down to someone's personal account. I remember a SportsCaster (Adam Schefter?) saying that he saw this happen in person, but having someone like Williams point the finger could be the best evidence possible.

This is where I'm living too. If guilty based on evidence provided to the people in question, then do your time. But right now I'm not willing to just be happy it's behind us. Not even close.

Mary Jo Whites statements are usual for counsel, but oddly enough still provide no evidence. In fact why is she speaking up for Goodell's position at all at this time?
Seems and odd thing to do, unless your trying to prevent Vilma from civil/legal action.
I mean what is the purpose of it. He was obviously told her to make these statements.
And her statement come down to this " Oh, believe me and roger, they are guilt"

Her motive to me are much more interesting than anything she said, we have all heard this before.

It's the question I want so badly for a journalist (where is the NY Times - they LOVE this kinda stuff) to ask. You keep SAYING you have all this iron clad, damning evidence, and yet you refuse to show it. WHY?

I like that her participation is referred to on ESPN as an 'independent' observation. The NFL paid this woman. Uh...hello?

Her contract for her evaluation probably read something like this:

Consultant fee to be paid:

Favorable to NFL: $2,000,000.00
Unfavorable to NFL: $20.00

Essentially is a pay for preference program.

or

The NFL offered her $10,000.00 to take the NFLPA out of the argument. A bounty program if you will.

Spin baby Spin.....