Mickey

You have no idea what he did or didn't do nor whether those actions constitute a criminal act. If you have evidence material to the case, you should report it to the police asap.

I was picking up the discussion where you took it, that he had information about someone else and refused to talk so that he could then be charged with obstruction. Obviously, they would have to compel him to testify first and he would have to take the 5th. I didn't think it was necessary to cover that assumption. They can't arrest a guy for not talking when they haven't even asked him a question. My discussion was targeted to how, after all that, they prove that he had no basis for taking the 5th. It is difficult to prove. I don't think you will find many cases where someone was convicted of obstruction of justice for taking the 5th improperly. When it does come up, it is usually contempt, such as when a witness takes the 5th on the stand and the Judge orders him to answer after making a finding that the question did not reasonably invoke the 5th. If the witness continues to refuse to answer, the judge hits him with contempt.

Proving that the right was invoked improperly is often difficult to the point of impossible. Even then, I don't think it would be obustruction if he had a good faith belief that his assertion of the right was proper. All that he would have to show is that he acted on the advice of counsel.

His accuracy degenerated, especially on deep balls and in bad weather. For awhile there, he was a very good quarterback and an even better leader. It didn't last forever, nothing does. It is worth remembering that he was benched, not because of his performance but because of the, as it turned out, unjustified enthusiasm over RJ's abilities.

Sure it could happen, anything is possible. He might have thought he just hit a curb, no one knows what happened. Defendants win ties. Prosecutor has the burden of proof. A DA with a solid case makes an arrest. A DA with a circumstantial case is in a grey area, maybe he has a case, maybe not. To know, he or she has to know all the circumstances so he can show that those circumstances leave only one possibility. My guess is that they know it was his car that hit her but don't have any other evidence to show it was him. So they need details on his activities that night and anyone else's who could potentially have had access to the car or been driving with Lynch as a passenger. A defendant's silence can't be used as proof of his guilt. I think Lynch's atty has reached the same conclusion. Every day that goes by without an arrest or cooperation by Lynch is an indication that they don't have all the evidence they need. Its all speculation and guesses at this point but if I had to bet that is where I would go.

Obviously, you are free to draw your own conclusions, even in the absence of facts, as to what is wrong and right, moral and immoral in this situation. I have a feeling that the DA's office is going to do what is in their best interests, regardless of right and wrong or "karma". I am pretty certain that the woman who was injured, if even only slightly, will do what is in her best interests regardless of what is right or wrong. Not knowing the facts, I have no problem with Lynch doing what is in his best interests as well. As for what he loses or gains, I think he loses a lot more from a wrongful conviction than he does from shutting up until this all blows over. There are situations where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. This may be the case for Lynch. If he was the driver and, with no plea bargain in place he fesses up, he will be at the mercy of a prosecutor who would have every reason to go way overboard. He would also be handing the victim and her attorneys a victory in court and believe me, they will have no morals when it comes to grabbing every dime they can get, warranted or not. I'd lose respect for him if he talked under these circumstances because he would be an idiot.

Makes sense, he is keeping quiet to protect Mom. Who could blame him?

I agree. It would be nice if everyone could just be a "stand up guy" and take responsibility for their actions but that isn't the world we live in. He would be opening himself to the whims and discretions, or lack thereof, of a prosecutors office which is filled with ambitious lawyers hoping for a big score to launch their careers. The DA that was involved in that Duke Lacrosse situation is a good example of that kind of prosecutor. I would have no problem with a guy taking responsibility if I thought that there was a pretty good guarantee that he would be given his just punishment. However, that would be out of his control once he confesses. The only leverage an accused has, especially a guilty one, is the time, effort and difficulty the state will bear to prove his guilt. Once he gives that up, the state can punish him, over-punish him, be merciful, whatever they want, at their discretion. That is why there are plea bargains. The accused gets to limit just how badly he will be punished and the state is saved the uncertain results and increased expenses of a trial. In this case, it looks like a hefty fine is in order along with a suspension of his license followed by a rather painful, for Lynch, civil trial. If he was behind the wheel, that is what his atty should be looking for. Damage control. Limit the loss and cost to the client and get it over with. I imagine that the DA is probably not relishing a trial against Lynch if they don't have proof, dispositive proof, that he was the driver. DA's are elected officials and Bills fans vote. They will stick with Lynch unless and until there is solid proof he was the bad driver. That is especially so due to, thank God, the injuries being minor. I wouldn't bother charging him unless I thought I had him nailed as the driver.

He has no obligation to provide evidence to the police at all, zero. The right to remain silent wouldn't be much of a right if they could charge you with a bunch of crimes for exercising it. As an atty, for what it is worth, my total guess would be that the police don't know and can't prove who was behind the wheel and they want to interview Lynch hoping that he will give him the proof they need that either he or someone else was driving. Another guess would be that they do have some proof that he was driving but aren't quite positive and want to make sure he doesn't have any proof that it was really some one else before they charge him. His atty probably doesn't know either way and is gambling that if they could have arrested him on what they have, they would have already done so. The fact that they haven't could be a sign that they don't have enough proof. If that is the case, Lynch's best play is to exercise his right to remain silent. The file would eventually be closed for lack of evidence. In the end, these kind of cases often end up turning on circumstantial evidence. Its his car, right? He didn't loan it out to anyone, right? It wasn't reported stolen, right? He offers no alibi, right?, There was no one staying with him, right? etc. etc. This kind of proof sometimes makes it to a jury and sometimes doesn't. No hard and fast rule as to when there is enough circumstantial evidence warranting a trial.

..all that and our cheerleaders are hot too.

"...speaks volumes..."?????? No it doesn't. I could think of half a dozen reasons why he wouldn't make a public statement yet that would have nothing to do with whether he committed an offense or not. His silence means absoultely nothing. If I had to speculate, I would guess that though we haven't heard from his atty, he has and has been advised to say nothing until the police investigation is closed. I might also guess that from a PR standpoint, denials do nothing but give the media a reason to run the story all over again, giving it more and more play. First they cover the initial report, then they cover the police statement, then they covery Marshawn's denial, then they cover the team's reaction, etc. etc. Speaking about it now when, for all he knows, the police are going to drop the investigation tommorow, would be about as smart as him renting out a billboard that says "some people think I ran over a lady with my Porsche and then drove off leaving her for dead..." We know nothing and all this tea leaf reading is more worthy of Britney Spears fans than Bills fans.

Actually, that VERY GOOD Bills teams wasn't really all that good. They had struggled with Todd Collins and Billy Joe Idiot which prompted us to get RJ at a significant cost. He was the starter and I think we lost our first 3 or 4 until he got hurt well into a game against SF. Flutie then started and we ran off a string of victories so that when RJ was ready to play again, Flutie had won the job. The time between Kelly and Flutie was a bad, bad time for us. Give Flutie his due.

I don't think teams adhere to strategies like that independent of what they have in the locker room. Our defense needs to improve and if you look over the talent in the locker room on defense, especially after signing Stroud and Mitchell, the place to improve was at CB regardless of whether CBs are or are not the vital players they were back in the day. It is where we had to go to get better, so we did. We are solid at SS and FS. We just extended/re-signed our DE's. We used a top pick last year to get a MLB and we signed a top OLB in Mitchell plus, Crowell has been one of our few playmakers. We used a top pick on McCargo and he is coming along fine and we signed Stroud. The only position left to try an upgrade was CB where we were thin on numbers and talent.

The bottom line is that we fielded the worst offense in the history of the franchise last year and everyone involved, Dick, Fairchild, both QB's, etc, etc all have to take a share of the blame for it. All the excuses in the world for the offense or each individual player on it aren't going to change the plain and simple fact that our offense was beyond terrible last year. This offense has a lot to prove.

Whenever this idea has been discussed hereabouts, the reaction has been vitriolic. People aren't willing to accept the economic realities on the horizon and start thinking about what the best option is if the team simply can't remain in Buffalo full time. Its kind of like a custody fight in a divorce. Realizing that you just aren't going to be able to see the kids every day and have to learn to make the best of the time you do get is heart breakingly difficult. Frankly, only if we are lucky, sharing the Bills will be a choice on the table when the dreaded day comes. Otherwise, its over. I want the whole loaf too but if the best we can get is a half a loaf, I'll deal and be glad we aren't breadless.

Will the offense be better? I agree with Lee Evans, "...it couldn't be any worse." And that is why my optimism is guarded. I certainly am confident that the defense will be much improved, heck, if the starters last to week 2, they'll be better than last year. But the offense is another story. It was the worst in franchise history. I don't know if it reasonable to expect that they will climb out of a hole that deep and into the playoffs in one year. It'd be nice though.

Didn't we clock them in a season opener one year and then get the tar beat out of us later that year by the identical score we had beaten them by? 2003 maybe, 31-0, 0-31?

If I am not mistaken, OJ's first wife (Marguerite?) had him charged on at least one occasion.

Don't they have a senator who has sex with other men in public bathrooms still walking the floor of the US Senate? How many administration officials are currently dodging congressional subpoenas? How long did they cover up/ignore Senator Foley fondling boy pages? Maybe you could explain to me why we spent what we spent investigating a blow job of all things and nothing to investigate the Vice President of the United States shooting a guy in the face. Neither party has a defensible record when it comes to accountability and as a supposed independent, I fail to understand what difference you see in them. As for republicans not blaming others, you're not seriously going to argue that republicans don't blame the media for everything they aren't blaming the democrats for???? I can't count the number of times I have heard that things are going great in Iraq but that durned media just won't report it.

He is going to be in negotiations with the team over his salary and first contract which will, I am sure, include some sort of morals clause. I wouldn't be surprised if his statement was approved by the Bills' front office before it went out. I do agree though that he doesn't really owe an apology to a bunch of strangers but a little PR never hurts. I am sure he hopes to get some endorsement money someday.

I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that his agent wrote his statement and that he was smart enough to know that you don't get the allegation off the front pages by repeating it in your apology thereby injecting the allegation into the mediasphere yet again. Even though it is couched in the form of a denial, the negative statement about your client gets repeated for yet another news cycle when your goal is to get everyone to forget the allegation as soon as possible.

He is a risk, no doubt about it. But he has abilities and off the field issues in his favor that balance the risk. Every pick is a gamble to one extent or another. All you can do is balance it all out and make a judgment call. Warren Sapp and Randy Moss all dropped in the drafts where they were taken because of off the field issues and depite all their antics, were very, very good players. As for "unreported incidents", I am sure there are such incidents with practically every player in the draft. We heard the same kind of thing about Marshawn Lynch last year. Bruce Smith was arrested for punching a bouncer, suspended for drugs, fined for yelling at Marv Levy, had DWI's, etc. These guys are all risks. All things considered, I am comfortable with the risk they took.

Could be, but isn't a far more likely scenario that the police were paid off as part of a grand plot, so ingenious, so diabolical, so fiendishly devised that all traces of its existence have vanished rendering it indetectable? Hmmm?

You and your "details", sheeesh. We have the "facts" so stop trying to derail the gossip train, we are trying to destroy a guy's rep before he even signs his contract and all this smarmy insistence on the "truth" is getting in our way. All kidding aside, there is a practical effect to this event as I am sure it is going to come up in contract negotiations. I wouldn't be surprised if they beef up the morals clause. Maybe ask him to stop carrying a weapon or something to that effect.

Should we find out the facts first or just assume that the article is 100% accurate and ignore the fact that the police found no reason to file any charges which would clearly have been the case if there was any truth at all in the article?