Vitt questions whether bounty evidence has been “falsified or tampered with” (1 Viewer)

[lonestarcajun]

Vitt's statements leave some doubt about his guilt because he says "It looks like that document has been falsified or tampered with.", instead of the documents ARE falsified or tampered. If I was innocent, I wouldn't say it "looks like" they were tampered or falsified, because I would know that that is the only possibility. He could have said they are falsified and it should be evident because they look falsified.

Supposedly these were various notes that were consolidated. Vitt has already challenged the one concerning him and had been justified in doing so.

But, he has to realize that he couldn't, with 100% certainty, claim that the documents were definately falsified. And by stating they appear to be falsified or tampered with, there's no direct allegation of wrongdoing by NFL officials. Vitt is actually handling his response the way the NFL should have handled the investigation in the first place:

There appears to be something wrong, but I can't say with 100% certainty until it is proven.​

But, make no mistake. He did come out and say that with 100% certainty that the part about his contribution was completely wrong. A statement backed up by the league. That in itself adds credibility to his point that "if you got the part about me wrong, what else did you get wrong?"... with the added suggestion that perhaps the reason the part about his contribution was wrong was because he overall documentation was falsified.

It's actually some pretty brilliant lawyerish speak. You plant the seed without a direct allegation of liability.

 

[Madmarsha]

Vitt's statements leave some doubt about his guilt because he says "It looks like that document has been falsified or tampered with."

Well, part of the problem is what they've provided is not documents in their original form. We're talking about facsimiles, not copies. You certainly can't aver something with certainty when it's a document you've never seen before even if it contains words you've seen before. It's simply unfair and not allowed if this were a court of law.

 

[saintyclaus]

Good rationalization there.


Let me ask you... how many people's handwriting would you recognize? I can probably pick out my own, but i wouldn't even say i'd be able to recognize my wife's handwriting, if i didn't know it was hers', let alone recognizing one of my co-workers.

And if these hand-written notes were part of keeping track of the system in the saints facilities, then the accused probably saw them anyway, so why hide them.

I hope you aren't thinking I'm defending the NFL. Have you heard of handwriting forensics? There are people out there that can examine an unknown document and determine if a certain person wrote it based on a known source. I'm just saying that if the actual document were shown (I wish they would show it) someone in the media could probably track down some documents to compare to (Cerullo or Ornstein for example).

 

[primadox]

You are referring to a redacted document where someone blacks out a person's name or whatever. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the NFL releases the note exactly as is, they are scared that the whistleblower will be identified by someone recognizing their handwriting.

Well then, release the originals to the attorneys on both sides, as well as those being accused, and don't make them public; issue a gag order in terms of the possible identity of the whistleblower. Yes, those people may be able to recognize the writing, but that doesn't mean that they should be prevented from seeing the evidence against them. JMO.

 

[saintyclaus]

Well then, release the originals to the attorneys on both sides, as well as those being accused, and don't make them public; issue a gag order in terms of the possible identity of the whistleblower. Yes, those people may be able to recognize the writing, but that doesn't mean that they should be prevented from seeing the evidence against them. JMO.

100% agree. But I think Roger and the NFL know that the documents are from a crappy source.

 

[St.Fury]

Dems fightin' words!

 

[TulsaSaint]

One of my biggest problems with some of the NFL's supposed evidence is that they re-wrote or re-typed some of the documentation. I'm sorry but if you have proof why in God's name would you re-do any of it. Just show the original, condeming piece of evidence and be done with it. This just blows my mind.

Exactly. I'm a grad student in history, and unless the archive where I'm doing research has a specific policy banning photography, I take a picture of every document I plan to use as a source for my dissertation. That way, if there's ever any suggestion that I've made up a source or plagiarized, I can produce a photograph of the original document and say, "No, here it is!" And even if the archive will not allow photography, I will copy the document word for word and record where it is. That way anyone who cared enough could go to the archive and verify that my source said what I said that it said.

Basically what the NFL has done is write a dissertation without any sources or footnotes, and when confronted they've told us to take their word for it, without showing us the soures. If that won't fly for a dissertation about the Brazilian military dictatorship, then how much less should it fly for an investigation at which people's income and reputation are at stake?

 

[Professor]

I think the NFL has screwed up royally. The arrogance of Goodell knows no bounds. He has believed that if he controls the media, he will win the war. However, now the media is beginnning to realize there might be some possible collusion by the NFL front office to attempt to paint a team, its coaches, and its players as evil headhunters, seeking to injure players. The vehement denials of coaches and players stating they did not do what they have been accused of doing have caused many of those who blindly accepted the league's accounts to begin a backtrack and question. My guess is that Vitt decided the so-called evidence has been falsified or tampered with when he saw his name next to an amount given to knock Favre out of the game. Because he knows with 100% certainty that he never gave any money to the fund, he knows with 100% certainty that the evidence is either completely false or has been tampered with.

I sincerely hope this ends up in a court of law at some point. The fact that the evidence the NFL has was "transcribed" by some unknown person in the league office would probably cause the transcribed versions to be thrown out. I am no lawyer, but I know one side cannot present evidence it more or less created, at least not in a real court, and not the kangaroo court run by Goodell.

I also find it interesting that Goodell called the media in to view the "evidence," which was further explained by Goodell. The media went with the story (Peter King considered it very damning evidence) without any consideration of any other explanation. The fact that Goodell, for instance, said they know it is Hargrove saying, "Give me my money" because "you can see his lips moving." The fact you only see his lips moving on the word "Bobby" seems to have escaped the notice of everyone in the room.

The Saints' front office, coaches, and players are being railroaded, plain and simple. It's as obvious as the discrepancies between the "evidence" as explained by the NFL and what it finally shows once it is in public view. You know, like the Hargrove "confession."

 

[VDK]

a
H ha

 

[sykobob671]

This comment so far is my favorite:

Game....set...match.
If Fujita and Hargrove file lawsuits, Goodells days may be over.
He will have no credibility, even with the owners, when they
finally realize he made up 99% of this mess.

 

[IceHot]

I'm no lawyer so I'm curious if in a court-of-law, if something similar was presented, would it stand as circumstantial evidence? Or would the original have to be presented to be considered?

The chain of custody on this piece of evidence is incredibly suspect. Even if you have a smoking gun that was used at a crime scene you have to be able to prove chain of custody to use it in court. That is you must be able to identify anyone who touched it or moved it and exactly when they did.

 

[NYCsaint]

Exactly. I'm a grad student in history, and unless the archive where I'm doing research has a specific policy banning photography, I take a picture of every document I plan to use as a source for my dissertation. That way, if there's ever any suggestion that I've made up a source or plagiarized, I can produce a photograph of the original document and say, "No, here it is!" And even if the archive will not allow photography, I will copy the document word for word and record where it is. That way anyone who cared enough could go to the archive and verify that my source said what I said that it said.

Basically what the NFL has done is write a dissertation without any sources or footnotes, and when confronted they've told us to take their word for it, without showing us the soures. If that won't fly for a dissertation about the Brazilian military dictatorship, then how much less should it fly for an investigation at which people's income and reputation are at stake?

are you arguing that you think the document doesnt exist? that they pulled it out of thin air?

if so, cool, but i dont think it goes along with the theme i see of playing loose with interpretations, and coercing some statements that fit those loose interpretations.

totally creating a document out of thin air would be pretty big, and they could have just claimed it typed from the get go - "hey look what we were given!"

 

[mt15]

I think people are suggesting that a certain disgruntled ex-Saints employee made up the evidence, and the NFL goons were stupid enough to not do much in the way of fact checking, they just ran with it. Idiots!

 

[lapaz]

Supposedly these were various notes that were consolidated. Vitt has already challenged the one concerning him and had been justified in doing so.

But, he has to realize that he couldn't, with 100% certainty, claim that the documents were definately falsified. And by stating they appear to be falsified or tampered with, there's no direct allegation of wrongdoing by NFL officials. Vitt is actually handling his response the way the NFL should have handled the investigation in the first place:

There appears to be something wrong, but I can't say with 100% certainty until it is proven.​

But, make no mistake. He did come out and say that with 100% certainty that the part about his contribution was completely wrong. A statement backed up by the league. That in itself adds credibility to his point that "if you got the part about me wrong, what else did you get wrong?"... with the added suggestion that perhaps the reason the part about his contribution was wrong was because he overall documentation was falsified.

It's actually some pretty brilliant lawyerish speak. You plant the seed without a direct allegation of liability.

We know the players had a pool, but there have been lingering questions about what the coaches contributed to the pool. If Vitt did not contribute to a pool, and some document is being presented that states that he did contribute to a pool, then he should say "it is falsified". It doesn't matter if it was falsified by the originator, or the stenographer, or anyone else. If he did not do what the paper says, then it is falsified. Is it tampered? That he may not be able to determine, but he can determine if it is false.

Reading through what Vitt said suggests that he contributed to the performance pool. Up until recently, I thought only Williams contributed to the pool, and that Vitt was supposed to monitor him, so he was punished for not stopping the pool, but Vitt is not clearly denying that he didn't contribute to the pool, so I think he probably did.

 

[blotch1]

Reading through what Vitt said suggests that he contributed to the performance pool. Up until recently, I thought only Williams contributed to the pool, and that Vitt was supposed to monitor him, so he was punished for not stopping the pool, but Vitt is not clearly denying that he didn't contribute to the pool, so I think he probably did.

Joe Vitt “I did not pledge any money for any type of incentive program pertaining to the 2010 NFC Championship game. Furthermore, I have never at any time pledged any money for any type of incentive program, or so-called ‘bounty’ program.”

What are you talking about?