Gavin,

I appreciate your concern for the truth in the Greg Hardy situation. You seem
to put a lot of stock in the Jason Whitlock blog post on 11/7/15 as you quote
and reference it frequently on your show. You told the listeners that we dont
know much about the case and to find out about it for ourselves. So I did,
and here are a couple of my concerns about the article.
Hardy was convicted of an A1 misdemeanor in North Carolina. His actions
did not rise to the level of a felony. A felony charge would be used if while he
committed the assault he also used a deadly weapon in that assault with or
without the intent to kill. (From the NC Statutes) That does not seem to be
the case here so the District Attorney could not have charged him with a
felony as stated in the article. However, it is somewhat implied in the article
that an A1 assault misdemeanor charge is somehow not really that bad. Here
is the quote from Jason Whitlock:
Tin, Mecklenburg County district attorney Andrew Murray (white) and
assistant district attorney Jamie Adams (black female) saw pictures of the
victims and Hardys injuries, reviewed the pertinent statements and
testimony and deemed the crime a misdemeanor.
Why?
Did a white woman, a white man and a black woman with deep knowledge of
our criminal justice system scheme to let a hulking black man escape prison
for beating the hell out of a white woman?
This is from the North Carolina Gen. Stat. Ann PP 14-33:
An assault that inflicts serious injury is a Class A1 misdemeanor. A serious
injury, while not defined in the statute, is any injury that could require
medical attention. Usually, the victim is not required to actually seek or
receive medical care; it is enough that the injury is of the sort that could
require a doctors attention.
So even though it was a misdemeanor, serious injury did occur as
determined by the judge. He did beat the hell out of a white woman and
was convicted of that charge that happens to be a felony in North Carolina.
If not, he would have been convicted of a class 2 misdemeanor where minor
injuries occurred, not serious as defined by North Carolina law. Jason

Whitlock seems to be saying that because it was a misdemeanor he really

did not do anything that serious.
Here is another quote from the article.
Becky Thorne Tin, a white North Carolina judge far more experienced at
litigating domestic violence issues than members of the media, chose not to
send Hardy to prison.
I am not sure if Jason Whitlock meant Jail or Prison. These are two different
things. The Judge based the jail sentence on the fact that he was convicted
of an A1 misdemeanor in North Carolina, prison time is not an option for that
crime. Jail time up to 60 days is an option. The misleading thing here is the
assumption that the Judge could have sent Hardy to prison. She absolutely
could not have; the district Attorney did not bring felony charges as already
explained. The Judge did say this:
the court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and
communicating threats. (Charolette Observer)
Remember, the judge convicted him of an A1 misdemeanor and not a class
2, which requires serious injury to have happened. So the Judge did think
that he did beat her and that resulted in serious injuries.
Another quote by Jason Whitlock:
This seems unlikely inside Judge Tins courtroom. A magna cum laude
graduate of Harvard, Judge Tin is the co-chair of her alma maters battered
womens advocacy project. In 2007, Judge Tin was involved in a
controversial case related to domestic violence that left her, by her own
admission, traumatized. Over the objections of 32-year-old Sonia Long,
Judge Tin issued a less-restrictive restraining order against Longs estranged
husband, Anthony Long. One week later, Anthony Long murdered his wife.
These facts have nothing to do with this case and her sentencing. Even if
she wanted to send Hardy to prison she could not as explained earlier. She
gave him the maximum sentence she could. Jason Whitlock implies she did
not and gave him a lesser sentence than she could have which is false.
Although, she did suspend Hardys jail time.
Another quote by Jason Whitlock:

Reading the police reports and interviews paints a muddy picture of a highly
dysfunctional relationship soaked for at least one night in alcohol, cocaine
and mistrust. It inevitably erupted into a flurry of drunken violence that left
Holder bruised and Hardy cut. A story published in the Charlotte Observer in
February offered an explanation why the district attorney dropped the case
rather than fight Hardys appeal. Holders lack of cooperation is far from the
lone reason.
Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases
and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray, though, said the Hardy
case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holders
credibility in a statement to the judge. But other details also raised
unanswered questions about prosecutors handling of the case. Hardys
defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in
July. But Murray said prosecutors only recently had compared what Holder
told police the night of the alleged assault with her testimony at Hardys first
trial.
The district Attorney (Murray) said this contradicting Jason Whitlock here:
"To prosecute domestic violence cases, we encourage domestic violence
victims to not only report domestic violence but to participate in every level
of the prosecution We need that participation in order to gain justice for
not only victims of domestic violence, but for this community." (Charlotte
Observer)
It seems they had no case without her testimony which is not uncommon. In
fact, the US Department of Justice says it is the #1 reason why domestic
violence cases are dropped. (From report Practice Implications of Current
Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges,
2009)
Jason says this also:
Is great journalism reading through documents, cherry-picking damning
information and framing those facts in the most sensational fashion?
Wheres the context? Wheres the fairness? Wheres the journalistic
consistency
It seems to me Jason is doing the same thing he is accusing others of.

Thanks for reading this. I am not asking you to change your mind but to look
at different facts and see if you need to adjust your take on it. I dont think
Greg Hardy is a monster and I do think he does not deserve all of the anger
directed toward him. I hope and pray he will never be involved in this again.
I just dont think it is as ambiguous as you think it is.
Thanks for the great show,
Robb