Nearly two weeks ago, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in a memorabilia fraud lawsuit against the Giants produced an email that arguably contains smoking-gun evidence of quarterback Eli Manning’s involvement in the scheme, with Eli asking the team’s equipment manager for two helmets that can “pass as game used.” On Wednesday, the lawyers representing the Giants and Manning released emails aimed at showing Eli was not involved.
But the article from ESPN.com, which quotes an email reflecting a 2012 effort by Manning to get equipment manager Jeff Skiba to secure Manning’s primary helmet and his backup helmet, contains no emails or other specific factual information that would explain why or how the 2010 “pass as game used” email doesn’t mean what it seems to mean.
Per the ESPN.com article, the lawyers claim that the plaintiffs “have no evidence of what was even produced after those emails were sent and have no direct knowledge of Manning producing anything that turned out to be fake.”
“The Manning defendants produced all of their documents concerning Mr. Manning’s equipment that he provided to Steiner Sports for the simple reason that they have nothing to hide and vehemently deny that they ever provided Steiner Sports with equipment they did not believe was game-used,” the attorneys representing the Giants and Manning wrote in an item submitted last week to the court presiding over the case.
That’s fine and it’s fair, but it sheds no light on why or how Manning sending an email in 2010 asking for two helmets that can “pass as game used” doesn’t mean what it seems to mean. If the email was taken out of context, what was the context and what does it mean within that context?
It would be ironic, to say the least, if lawyers accusing the Giants and Manning of fraud are perpetrating a fraud with an email that doesn’t mean what they claim it means. To date, however, there has been nothing from the the Giants, Manning, or their lawyers that specifically shows why or how that email has been warped, embellished, or otherwise bastardized by the plaintiffs. Producing emails that suggest there wasn’t a scam doesn’t erase the one email that suggests there was; the one email that suggests there was needs to be shown that it’s not what it seems to be in order to change the minds of those who look at that one email as proof of shenanigans.
I like Eli. I respect him and the work he does for worthy causes like the fight against the tragedy of childhood cancer. I want to believe that there’s nothing to any of this. It would be much easier if someone would provide, once and for all, an explanation of the “pass as game used” email that meshes fully and completely with the notion that Eli is being accused of something he didn’t do.