Jeff Hardy Innocent???

[colalella2891]

So Matt Hardy had a link to this on his twitter. I thought I'd post it here to see what you all think of the situation as of now.

"Breaking Rumor: Jeff Hardy Could Be Found Innocent of Drug Trafficking Charges

by Joe Burgett

First off, I want everyone to know before you read this that a lot of this is only a rumor as of now. So while it could be proven as fact later on, nothing is confirmed as of yet.

People should keep in mind that there is some truth in every rumor. While not everything rumored will come to pass every time, something rumored can be the truth, and that should not be overlooked.

Now to Jeff Hardy.

As most of us know by now, Jeff Hardy was arrested a few months back on drug charges. But the big charge that people focused on was drug trafficking.

The reason it is considered trafficking is not that he was selling the drugs, but because of the weight of the drugs he had.

Different states have different rules on how much weight the drugs can be before a trafficking charge will be filed. If all of the drugs that were found had a prescription, then no charges would be filed as it is legal to have any drug with a legit prescription.

Now, the way they caught Hardy was off a supposed "tip" from an anonymous party. They laid out a package for Jeff, he took it inside, and they invaded the home shortly thereafter. It was sort of a sting operation.

The package had most of the drugs Hardy was said to have. The police set him up by packing on charges that were not needed. They arrested Hardy and once bail was set, he was bailed out and went home.

People should keep in mind that the police do not release anyone if they have legit drug charges against them; they keep them jailed until a trial is set.

The reason Hardy was let go was because they couldn't prove the drugs were his, at least not the ones they laid out.

The trafficking charge was added because of the weight, so because the police added what Hardy had already to what the package had, the trafficking charge came about.

Because they added their drugs to Hardy's, the trafficking charge should be dropped when Hardy goes to trial. The police padded charges, which is not right, but they did it as a way to check his home.

They apparently couldn't invade his home while he was out to check what he had, so they set him up to get in. They had to arrest him to go through with everything. And they couldn't even get their story straight on who bailed out Hardy.

The bailout happened because they couldn't keep him jailed without proof. So as it stands, Hardy was taken to jail for no reason. He did have the drugs in his possession, but they were not his drugs.

He was said to not even have an idea of what was in the package until he opened to find drugs that he did not order. And while it's obvious you have to open a package to know what is inside, usually if you are expecting something you know what is in the package and you know the address it is mailed from.

Hardy was said to have barely got the package open before police raided his home.

The one charge Hardy will have against him will be the cocaine. It was a small trace, which meant that he probably wouldn't get jail time for it. He has never had drug charges filed against him, which is surprising, I know.

He was suspended a few times from the WWE, but he never saw jail time or fines from police. So, this would be his first drug charge. And because it is so small, it could have been old cocaine that he used a while back, yet was never seen until the police checked every part of his home with drug dogs, drug identification machines, and what not.

But no one has a clear-cut answer on how old the cocaine was. I still see some sort of charge, but no jail time.

If this rumor—that the police padded charges just to get into Hardy's home over a supposed tip—is true, Hardy will get off. The worst he could see is some sort of probation.

Again, I want to stress that this information I revealed here has not been confirmed. As of right now, it is considered a rumor floating around. However, there are a ton of Jeff Hardy fans out there, and I want to keep them updated as much as possible.

Hardy's trial is set for Nov. 4, so we should be finding out more from Hardy and others by this time next week. Stayed tuned to B/R for updates."

Article found at:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...hardy-could-be-found-innocent-of-drug-charges

 

[Alex]

i always thought the painkillers were his but the steroids and cocaine i was always suspicious about, i thought the cocaine might have been from a party he held or something like that, the steroids i couldn't comprehend as 1. he's not roided up 2. he made a shit load of money in WWE so why would he need to sell steroids, anyway we'll find out the truth soon enough hopefully

 

[JeffBrand]

Hell yea.Im sure hes innocent no doubt the package might be for beth?the steriods hes not buff like batista so dont think its his.the cocaine,thats making me wonder.

 

[AzLunchbox]

"the steroids i couldn't comprehend as 1. he's not roided up 2. he made a shit load of money in WWE so why would he need to sell steroids"

Actually you can take roids without looking like Scott Steiner.

Many smaller or out of shape wrestlers are busted with Roids....hell wasn't William Regal even busted with them?.....and look at him!

Roids are often used by athletes not to bulk up....but to lessen recovery times.....your body heals itself much faster on roids....that's what they do. Most people use this to be able to work out more then usual due to the muscles regenerating and not getting as worn out. But they can also be used just to help heal and not add muscle.

So if you can understand the pain killers then you should understand the roids too because they are both used by people who get hurt alot.

I can deffinately believe the roids the pain killers and the cocaine. Noone is perfect....even if they are celebrities. Jeff has most likely been involved in all of that stuff at some point. After all cops don't just throw drugs into your house for no reason......well......most of the time. But yeah.....I'm sure he brought it upon himself in some way.

I am a fan of the man.....but i do not feel bad for him or feel he was "set up" or anything....he made some mistakes.....time for both him and his fans to move on and hope that he can better himself and not make those mistakes again.

 

[Megadeth]

If this is true, than not only would Hardy be found innocent, but he could probably sue for being wrongfully arrested. But I don't think these facts are quite right. What seems more likely is the police got wind of an order Hardy had placed and and it was flagged to be tracked, and when it showed up at Hardy's residence it gave the police all the probable cause they needed. This article if I understood it correctly, seems to imply the cops dropped off a package of drugs at Hardy's house and then arrested him for it. That would be incredibly illegal on the cops side for doing that if that is what happened. Plus, the article mentions that the cops don't release people with legit drug charges against them, I am not a legal expert, but I am fairly sure a judge, not the cops, decide on whether bail is allowed and how much. The guy that wrote this article, in my opinion, comes off sounding like he doesn't really know what he is talking about.

 

[DrBassman]

As someone who IS something of a legal expert, I can confirm for you that the person who wrote this article has absolutely no clue about this subject. Literally EVERYTHING that the author has to say about Jeff Hardy's situation is completely wrong, and I can say that without knowing any of the facts. Our system doesn't work even remotely the way the author thinks it does.

As Asm92784 correctly stated, a "sting" does not involve the police dropping something off at your house and then arresting you for taking it inside. Jeff might be trying to claim that, but if he is he should fire his lawyer because no judge or jury in the world is going to believe that story. The government bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, so a "sting" like that wouldn't even work...unless the prosecutor can prove that Jeff knowingly and willingly engaged in a drug transaction, the charges don't stick. Trying to convict somebody with a "sting" operation like that would be like trying to pay for groceries with a ball of string. It's so incredibly stupid and so thoroughly certain to fail that nobody would be dumb enough to try it. Don't try to answer with "maybe they were stupid cops." No. No cop in the world who is authorized to conduct investigations would think that they could get away with that. You can't get the job without that knowledge.

Furthermore, the author's understanding of bail bears absolutely no relation to how it really works. A defendant isn't held or let go based on the weight of the evidence against them...the weight of the evidence isn't determined until trial. That's the whole purpose OF a trial. There are two factors, and two factors only that go into a bail determination (which Asm92784 once again correctly states is done by a judge, not the cops). The two factors are whether the defendant is a flight risk (meaning they might run away and disappear and not show up for trial), and whether they pose an immediate danger to the public. In Jeff's case, there's nothing violent about his crime so he's clearly not a danger to the public. As for whether he's a flight risk, the fact that he's a celebrity makes it harder for him to run because he'd be recognized almost everywhere, and the fact that his whole family lives nearby in Cameron gives him a lot of reason to stay put. Even so, it sounds from previous information like his bail was set pretty high, which means that DESPITE those factors, they thought he was STILL a moderately significant flight risk. There's only one reason they would think that...he's facing a LOT of jail time. So even the author's conclusion is exactly the opposite of what the evidence shows. People are a lot more likely to run away if they think they're going to face a very serious sentence at trial, so the high dollar amount of Jeff's bail suggests that he is in fact facing very serious charges.

Some of the charges may ultimately be dropped but it won't necessarily be because they were "fake," some charges are often dropped as part of a plea bargain, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty and spare the government the time and resources that a trial would involve, in exchange for reduced charges and a recommendation to the judge that the judge issue a lighter sentence (which is still the judge's decision).

Hope that clears some of this up. Bottom line...the article gives absolutely no credible evidence that Jeff is not guilty. The government still has to prove him guilty and maybe they won't, but nothing in that article has any insight into that whatsoever.

 

[XgringolocoX]

Who the hell knows? The whole thing sounds pretty shady to me. Leave WWE while he's getting the biggest push of his life, then gets nailed for drug possesion & trafficing.
Hardy selling I don't believe, but possesion is a no brainer.
I have serious doubts that Hardy will come outta this one unscathed.

 

[JDavis328]

Yea ill be honest and say idk anything. Nothing about the legal system,nothing about jeff hardy,nothing about drugs,nothing at all on any of this. But I just feel it seems weird. See jeff had been planning on leaving for a while in wwe. Vince asked him to stay till some more guys like taker came back so he wasnt lost on star power on smackdown. So i would say from the sounds of the articles posted talking about jeff staying,he stayed a extra month or two. He was off contract during say half of that as in a couple episodes and the last ppv. So to say he just was gonna whoop it up after leaving wwe and give caution to the wind doesnt make sense to me. The bust happened the same month he left. Infact only 2 weeks after. If it was a smaller amount and smaller range of things i would believe it was deffintly possible. But how there was a huge amount of things and the huge range of things it just doesnt make sense. Also the fact that cops caught wind of this at the time they did. I mean if he had that much stuff then I would think he had been getting other stuff in the past or that it didnt just come in 1 big nice package full of everything they found. Like i said idk anwsers to it but it just seems weird and doesnt make sense to me.

 

[maar130]

Well I just hope that if Jeff is innocent everything against him gets dropped. I mean the guy is no angle but certainly has bad luck man. Look at it this way, he was suspended right before his big push from Money in the Bank which Punk got (not that Punk didn't deserved it). His house got cought on fire, his dog died and now he gets arrested, that's just shitty luck.

 

[bcwar]

This is a shame. Joe Burgett is a glorified blogger not a credible news source. He can't even be bothered to spell check his own "stories".

Mr. Burgett is reporting facts that any credible journalist could've had over a month ago by reading the police report. He's interjecting his own opinions into his news story which any real journalist would not do unless they are writing an opinion column. He obviously doesn't have clue one on how the American legal system works either, because if the nonsense he is reporting is true this case would already have been thrown out.

Apparently he believes he's doing Jeff Hardy some kind of service. Either that or he's just feeding his ego by being a hot topic on twitter. Once again it's a shame that people are giving this guy any kind of attention at all. The stuff he's writing isn't even worthy of a good blog much less the news story he's trying to pass this off as.

One would hope that something like this wouldn't be true. I for one am very disappointed that a hero of teens and children is mixed up in this. Right now the evidence doesn't look very good. Before you jump on this guys conspiracy band wagon the events leading up to Hardy's arrest think very carefully. The police don't operate sting operations anywhere near the way Mr. Burgett implies. The drugs in question would have had to have been addressed to Jeff Hardy or he would never have been charged at all.

Though i doubt that repercussions will come his way, I hope that the rumors and lies that Mr. Burgett is spreading give him all the attention he seems to crave. Jeff Burgett is a pathetic excuse for a journalist. But this shouldn't be a surprise since according to his Bleacher report profile he aspires to be an actor.

Hopefully WrestleZone will check the sources of its reports from now on.

 

[Freddy4190]

I don't know to be honest. I always felt like the whole drug bust was a little shady. I think Jeff is innocent to an extent, but I don't think he's completely innocent. Somebody set him up, I don't know all the details and or what to believe because there's so much shit coming in I don't know quite what to believe. I'd love to see him beat this thing, not even because i'm a huge Jeff Hardy fan, I respect the man quite frankly. He's a hero to so many little kids, and everyone hates Jeff Hardy for reasons that are pretty dumb, there's no saying he wasn't popular, he wasn't a role model. I know my little nephew idolizes him, he thinks Jeff's the coolest dude ever. Dunno, it's a weird situation. I just want to see him get past all the bullshit.

 

[yur_momma]

whoever wrote that article is a freakin moron who knows squat about the law or bail or anything. but there is a great post on the first page covering all that so i wont go there again.
matt is coming off like a total moron, cheerleading for his drug addict brother. he keeps saying everyone should wait for the truth to come out, dont judge jeff, etc. yet he keeps running his mouth trying to sway opinion which completely goes against him telling everyone to wait for the truth. i kno im in the minority here but the hardys were never more than mid carders to me who were shoved down our throats because they go through precut tables and can do spinny-flippy things.
but matt's constant public outcry for us to not form opinions while at the same time trying to sway our opinions makes him look like a hypocrite.

 

[gd]

I can't trust anyone who writes that poorly.

As for the whole Jeff thing, do I think the police didn't handle the it completely the right way? Possibly, some things sound kind of shady. However, do I think that Jeff had a shitload of drugs at his house? Most likely.

Anyway you look at it, Jeff Hardy had a drug problem in the past and they found drugs at his home. I don't hate the guy and I don't have a personal vendetta against him, but if he did the crime, he should do the time. Simple as that.

 

[Southwind]

I don't care if he is "innocent", he still has issues with drugs they were found on his property, and it's no coincidence this all happened after he got "burnt out" and needed some time off (to support his vices).

If the WWE wants to appeal to little kids and their parents then re-hiring a implicated felon isn't really the way to go.

I enjoyed him, even though he was just a spot monkey he was very good for what he was. He has more important things to worry about the WWE shouldn't really be in his mind right now.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

As someone who IS something of a legal expert, I can confirm for you that the person who wrote this article has absolutely no clue about this subject. Literally EVERYTHING that the author has to say about Jeff Hardy's situation is completely wrong, and I can say that without knowing any of the facts. Our system doesn't work even remotely the way the author thinks it does.

As Asm92784 correctly stated, a "sting" does not involve the police dropping something off at your house and then arresting you for taking it inside. Jeff might be trying to claim that, but if he is he should fire his lawyer because no judge or jury in the world is going to believe that story. The government bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, so a "sting" like that wouldn't even work...unless the prosecutor can prove that Jeff knowingly and willingly engaged in a drug transaction, the charges don't stick. Trying to convict somebody with a "sting" operation like that would be like trying to pay for groceries with a ball of string. It's so incredibly stupid and so thoroughly certain to fail that nobody would be dumb enough to try it. Don't try to answer with "maybe they were stupid cops." No. No cop in the world who is authorized to conduct investigations would think that they could get away with that. You can't get the job without that knowledge.

Furthermore, the author's understanding of bail bears absolutely no relation to how it really works. A defendant isn't held or let go based on the weight of the evidence against them...the weight of the evidence isn't determined until trial. That's the whole purpose OF a trial. There are two factors, and two factors only that go into a bail determination (which Asm92784 once again correctly states is done by a judge, not the cops). The two factors are whether the defendant is a flight risk (meaning they might run away and disappear and not show up for trial), and whether they pose an immediate danger to the public. In Jeff's case, there's nothing violent about his crime so he's clearly not a danger to the public. As for whether he's a flight risk, the fact that he's a celebrity makes it harder for him to run because he'd be recognized almost everywhere, and the fact that his whole family lives nearby in Cameron gives him a lot of reason to stay put. Even so, it sounds from previous information like his bail was set pretty high, which means that DESPITE those factors, they thought he was STILL a moderately significant flight risk. There's only one reason they would think that...he's facing a LOT of jail time. So even the author's conclusion is exactly the opposite of what the evidence shows. People are a lot more likely to run away if they think they're going to face a very serious sentence at trial, so the high dollar amount of Jeff's bail suggests that he is in fact facing very serious charges.

Some of the charges may ultimately be dropped but it won't necessarily be because they were "fake," some charges are often dropped as part of a plea bargain, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty and spare the government the time and resources that a trial would involve, in exchange for reduced charges and a recommendation to the judge that the judge issue a lighter sentence (which is still the judge's decision).

Hope that clears some of this up. Bottom line...the article gives absolutely no credible evidence that Jeff is not guilty. The government still has to prove him guilty and maybe they won't, but nothing in that article has any insight into that whatsoever.

Excellent post and you nailed it exactly.

As far as Hardy's "innocence or guilt" goes, that can be a very complex situation. Even if Hardy is found not guilty during his trial, that still doesn't necessarily mean that he's innocent. He may well be guilty of everything he's charged with, only that the prosocuter couldn't prove it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. When it comes to innocence, you've got "I'm innocent and I really didn't do anything wrong" and then you've got "I'm innocent because you couldn't make your case in court".

 

[JBK2008]

If he is indeed innocent, he should just get his ass back in the WWE and stay there no matter what. He was out just a few days when this shit went down. He needs to keep busy or something so shit like this doesn't happen again. No matter what happens though, I just hope the guy comes back and stays out of trouble.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

As someone who IS something of a legal expert, I can confirm for you that the person who wrote this article has absolutely no clue about this subject. Literally EVERYTHING that the author has to say about Jeff Hardy's situation is completely wrong, and I can say that without knowing any of the facts. Our system doesn't work even remotely the way the author thinks it does.

As Asm92784 correctly stated, a "sting" does not involve the police dropping something off at your house and then arresting you for taking it inside. Jeff might be trying to claim that, but if he is he should fire his lawyer because no judge or jury in the world is going to believe that story. The government bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, so a "sting" like that wouldn't even work...unless the prosecutor can prove that Jeff knowingly and willingly engaged in a drug transaction, the charges don't stick. Trying to convict somebody with a "sting" operation like that would be like trying to pay for groceries with a ball of string. It's so incredibly stupid and so thoroughly certain to fail that nobody would be dumb enough to try it. Don't try to answer with "maybe they were stupid cops." No. No cop in the world who is authorized to conduct investigations would think that they could get away with that. You can't get the job without that knowledge.

Furthermore, the author's understanding of bail bears absolutely no relation to how it really works. A defendant isn't held or let go based on the weight of the evidence against them...the weight of the evidence isn't determined until trial. That's the whole purpose OF a trial. There are two factors, and two factors only that go into a bail determination (which Asm92784 once again correctly states is done by a judge, not the cops). The two factors are whether the defendant is a flight risk (meaning they might run away and disappear and not show up for trial), and whether they pose an immediate danger to the public. In Jeff's case, there's nothing violent about his crime so he's clearly not a danger to the public. As for whether he's a flight risk, the fact that he's a celebrity makes it harder for him to run because he'd be recognized almost everywhere, and the fact that his whole family lives nearby in Cameron gives him a lot of reason to stay put. Even so, it sounds from previous information like his bail was set pretty high, which means that DESPITE those factors, they thought he was STILL a moderately significant flight risk. There's only one reason they would think that...he's facing a LOT of jail time. So even the author's conclusion is exactly the opposite of what the evidence shows. People are a lot more likely to run away if they think they're going to face a very serious sentence at trial, so the high dollar amount of Jeff's bail suggests that he is in fact facing very serious charges.

Some of the charges may ultimately be dropped but it won't necessarily be because they were "fake," some charges are often dropped as part of a plea bargain, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty and spare the government the time and resources that a trial would involve, in exchange for reduced charges and a recommendation to the judge that the judge issue a lighter sentence (which is still the judge's decision).

Hope that clears some of this up. Bottom line...the article gives absolutely no credible evidence that Jeff is not guilty. The government still has to prove him guilty and maybe they won't, but nothing in that article has any insight into that whatsoever.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Come on people the police wouldn't even do something like Jeff is claiming they did for another pretty simple reason. If they placed a package on Jeff's door that was full of drugs, and they knew Jeff had no idea what was in it when he opened it, then they arrest him, that's called entrapment, which is illegal. So anything that would come after Jeff opened that package inside his house, could not be used, it'd be called 'fruit of the poisinous tree'.

So it's a ludricrous idea to believe that would happen. Yes I know sometimes police agencies do indeed plant evidence... but they would have to pretty stupid to do it in a case that could become this huge and open to the public. So all in all Jeff and his attorney are just throwing accusations out there so he can try to save some face. Now I don't believe he was selling it, I believe he just had a lot of it, which still sucks, because he still needs help, that is the key here people, he needs help. The police had a reason to be watching him and the WWE had their reasons to fire and suspend him a couple of times. Jeff is an addict who can't help himself. Matt needs to stop trying to make things go away for Jeff and protect him. Matt needs to get Jeff the help he needs and stop enabling him.

 

[captain.charisma]

First of all, the idea that you don't get released from jail if they have evidence against you is patently false, everyone is given the opportunity and it is generally only revoked if:
1. You can't make bail.
2. You're a flight risk.
3. You're accused of a particularly heinous crime.

Now, regarding the idea of the police just putting drugs in a package outside of his house and waiting for him to pick it up could be misleading. There may be more to the story. For instance, someone could have called him to setup a deal or something to that effect, which would mean that he was conspiring or something to that effect. If they, however, just left the package there and he picked it up, and then busted in, that's entrapment. If that's the case the evidence therein and the evidence gathered in the search is invalid.

If it is just the trace amounts of cocaine, it's going to be a misdemeanor ticket, maybe probation but probably not, and a fine.

I still think there's more to this story than we're hearing about and I'm not making a rush to judgment until a verdict is reached. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Jeff Hardy fan and I hope he's innocent (and at least of trafficking, I think he is) but he does have a history of drug use, which doesn't help his cause.

 

[Tastycles]

Jesus, people are clutching at straws. If the police had done that, then they woud be guilty of breaking Agent Provacateur laws. If this was the case, then the officers concerned would find themselves out of a job, and possibly even in gaol themselves. You can't trick people into committing crimes, and there isn't s judge in the world who'd let that go to trial.

As for taking steroids, remember that Shawn Michaels failed a drugs test, and Bret Hart quite openly said he took them for years. You don't have to look like Chris Masters to take steroids. I don't doubt that Jeff did just buy in bulk, considering how much travelling he used to do, and that he wasn't intending on selling them, but the law is the law, and you can't have that much drugs without being punished for it.

 

[yur_momma]

quoted from Matt Fox above: "Matt needs to stop trying to make things go away for Jeff and protect him. Matt needs to get Jeff the help he needs and stop enabling him."

so perfectly worded. i got -rep for saying the same thing but oh wel. hardy fans just like to choose to blind themselves but then bash other wrestlers in different threads for unfounded things posted by Nick Paglino on WZ...its hypocrisy at its best.

Matt Hardy says: "Jeff was setup! Jeff is innocent! The truth will all come out! Jeff has big future plans! Everything will be dropped because Jeff is innocent..." on and on and on...

all while Matt also says: "Please dont judge Jeff or form opinions until the truth comes out."

trying to sway public opinion every week for your drug addicted brother and then saying dont form an opinion at the same time makes Matt look like an absolute idiot. which he is.

 

[Alex]

Matt Hardy says: "Jeff was setup! Jeff is innocent! The truth will all come out! Jeff has big future plans! Everything will be dropped because Jeff is innocent..." on and on and on...

all while Matt also says: "Please dont judge Jeff or form opinions until the truth comes out."

trying to sway public opinion every week for your drug addicted brother and then saying dont form an opinion at the same time makes Matt look like an absolute idiot. which he is.

Now now this is natural human behaviour, of course Matt wants to make it out Jeff is innocent he's his brother, people do this sort of thing for family and friends, also Matt is right don't form an opinion because no matter what happens you'll stick by your opinion

 

[yur_momma]

alex-awesome: my point is he cannot try to convince people that his brother is innocent and it was evil, corrupt cops who "set him up" but then in the same breath ask us to not form an opinion.