Started By
Message
A short primer on "evidence"
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:23 pm
I have seen a number of posts that point out, incorrectly, that there is no "evidence" of any wrongdoing by Cam Newton. This is incorrect because witness statements or testimony certainly qualify as evidence under any definition of the word. So if several people from MSU are saying that they were approached for money, or were told that other people were offering money, then that is evidence against Cam Newton.
I think what you all are trying to say is that there is no documentary evidence, or no tangible something-I-can-hold-in-my-hand evidence. That certainly seems to be the case at this point. But to keep saying "there is not one shred of evidence" is just wrong.
/rant
I think what you all are trying to say is that there is no documentary evidence, or no tangible something-I-can-hold-in-my-hand evidence. That certainly seems to be the case at this point. But to keep saying "there is not one shred of evidence" is just wrong.
/rant
4
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:30 pm to Prodigal Tiger
Not really evidence unless sources are identified and statements are made. Un-named sources are not evidence or am I missing something?
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:34 pm to slacker130
quote:
Not really evidence unless sources are identified and statements are made. Un-named sources are not evidence or am I missing something?
Just because they are un-named sources to the public doesn't mean they are un-named to the SEC, NCAA or FBI for that matter. People get convicted for murder every week in this country on circumstantial evidence. If there are indeed tapes, then you have direct evidence of solicitation and strong circumstantial evidence against Auburn.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:36 pm to DeltaDoc
How about no evidence that has been made public. Can we agree on that?
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:38 pm to slacker130
quote:
Un-named sources are not evidence or am I missing something?
Confidential informants, and their remarks, are used all the time. Now, other evidentiary items must be introduced to satisfy the requiste burden of proof in corroborating the aformentioned...but the threshold is much lower in earlier stages, i.e issuance of a warrant/subpoena.
Don't forget, these are all courtroom matters. The NCAA can use whatever it pleases.
This post was edited on 11/10/10 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:39 pm to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
How about no evidence that has been made public. Can we agree on that?
Not really. I mean it has been made public that two MSU recruiters have stated that they had conversations with Cam and his Dad about money. That is called evidence. Could the evidence be made up? Sure it could, but any evidence could be made up.
It's not the best evidence, and it's not as good as tapes or bank records, but it is real evidence that could be put before a jury.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:43 pm to Prodigal Tiger
This isn't a courtroom. The NCAA can do what they want.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:46 pm to FinkyStinger
This. See my post above. People are losing sight of the forest due to focusing on a tree. The NCAA sees something they feel comfortable running with...it's over.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:51 pm to NBamaAlum
id say theres circumstancial evidence and some dots that have been connected. but no, as of right now, theres no $200K deposit slips in the newton's bank accounts
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:52 pm to Prodigal Tiger
imo more aubbies are caught up on the ncaa having to have hard evidence when they dont. this isn't court this is the ncaa
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:53 pm to FinkyStinger
quote:exactly they had no hard evidence that lester earl was paid to come to LSU yet they hammered us with it like we would give some scrub money to shite all over the court
This isn't a courtroom. The NCAA can do what they want
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:55 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
The NCAA sees something they feel comfortable running with...it's over.
Absolutely correct. And why would anyone believe that the NCAA would involve the FBI if there wasn't something there?
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:56 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
NBamaAlum
cropped version is pretty priceless
glad someone was able to do it
Posted on 11/10/10 at 1:59 pm to WelcomeToDeathValley
It is money for sure. Thanks again. 
Posted on 11/10/10 at 2:00 pm to NBamaAlum
no worries
Posted on 11/10/10 at 2:02 pm to WelcomeToDeathValley
La. C.E. art. 802
-Yeah, it's evidence, but it's inadmissible.
-Yeah, it's evidence, but it's inadmissible.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 2:03 pm to The Virginian
Friend pointed out to me last night that the NCAA does not operate in a court of law. They don't have a burden of proof and they don't have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. They do whatever the hell they want.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 2:07 pm to The Virginian
I am not licensed in La., so I'm not up on the Nap. code...but under the ARE's and FRE's some of this stuff would get it as exceptions to 802.
*edit* Again, this is irrelevent to the discussion as the NCAA isn't a judicial body in the classic sense.
*edit* Again, this is irrelevent to the discussion as the NCAA isn't a judicial body in the classic sense.
This post was edited on 11/10/10 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 11/10/10 at 2:09 pm to Prodigal Tiger
Not too mention that this is the NCAA and not the American judicial system.
We learned that hearsay, especially from coaches ("recruiters" at MSU) is basically the gospel according to some NCAA investigators.
We learned that hearsay, especially from coaches ("recruiters" at MSU) is basically the gospel according to some NCAA investigators.
Posted on 11/10/10 at 2:09 pm to slacker130
Sources have been named e.g. John Bond...
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News