eball Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Many of you seem to be thinking that I have doubts about Brady's guilt. I don't. I'm just saying that there is room for doubt. Dave, there's *any* doubt and then there's *reasonable* doubt. I just don't see how anyone could argue there is reasonable doubt as to Brady's culpability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Dave, there's *any* doubt and then there's *reasonable* doubt. I just don't see how anyone could argue there is reasonable doubt as to Brady's culpability. Actually, there is another "any" doubt, which means you can be 99.9% sure by circumstantial evidence, too. Which is different than "any" doubt like cold hard proof the sun rises in the east. But people cling on to the one in a thousand chance it is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Yes...if game time temperature was -75 F! So the nor'easter is to blame. SCIENCE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Dave, there's *any* doubt and then there's *reasonable* doubt. I just don't see how anyone could argue there is reasonable doubt as to Brady's culpability. I really think there is more room for doubt than people think. For instance, the fact that Brady exchanged texts with Jastremski after this all came down: many seem to see it as evidence of guilt. An equally reasonable interpretation is that Brady is a decent person, loyal to fellow Pats employees, and simply expressing concern for his well-being given the intense media pressure (something that Jastremski has never had to deal with--unlike Brady, who is well positioned to provide advice on this issue). There is nothing in those texts that suggests culpability; it really boils down to the sort of personality you project onto Brady. No one here likes him, so they assume the texts are evidence of a coverup. Others feel differently. The league has a lot more freedom to dole out punishment than a court of law and the hammer will come down, but in a courtroom a decent lawyer could tear that particular inference to shreds. Especially in the state of Massachusetts. Edited May 7, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Polian is on Cowheard , just killing Don Yee, Brady's agent. Too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I really think there is more room for doubt than people think. For instance, the fact that Brady exchanged texts with Jastremski after this all came down: many seem to see it as evidence of guilt. An equally reasonable interpretation is that Brady is a decent person, loyal to fellow Pats employees, and simply expressing concern for his well-being given the intense media pressure (something that Jastremski has never had to deal with--unlike Brady, who is well positioned to provide advice on this issue). Reasonable interpretation of expressing concern for his well being, when no one knew who he was, with calls that were Two calls lasting 25 minutes and 2 seconds on January 19th; Two calls lasting 9 minutes and 55 seconds on January 20th; Two calls lasting 20 minutes and 52 seconds on January 21st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I really think there is more room for doubt than people think. For instance, the fact that Brady exchanged texts with Jastremski after this all came down: many seem to see it as evidence of guilt. An equally reasonable interpretation is that Brady is a decent person, loyal to fellow Pats employees, and simply expressing concern for his well-being given the intense media pressure (something that Jastremski has never had to deal with--unlike Brady, who is well positioned to provide advice on this issue). There is nothing in those texts that suggests culpability; it really boils down to the sort of personality you project onto Brady. No one here likes him, so they assume the texts are evidence of a coverup. Others feel differently. The league has a lot more freedom to dole out punishment than a court of law and the hammer will come down, but in a courtroom a decent lawyer could tear that particular inference to shreds. Especially in the state of Massachusetts. but “FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He‟s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it's unrealistic you did it yourself...” Did you pick his brain btw, Dave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 i do not think that people put spy gate on brady, but instead of BB. It's doubtful Brady didn't know about it. But even if he didn't, he benefitted from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Dave, there's *any* doubt and then there's *reasonable* doubt. I just don't see how anyone could argue there is reasonable doubt as to Brady's culpability. Exactly. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean the absence of any doubt - or to a scientific certainty. It simply means that, based on the evidence presented, it is more reasonable to believe it is true than not. The report clearly presented evidence that reached that standard. There is also another aspect to reasonable doubt, and that is the existence of a contradicting theory that is equally reasonable. In this case, that means an equally reasonable theory that McNally and Jastremski did this entirely without the direction, approval, or knowledge of Brady. I just don't see any compelling argument or evidence to support that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I really think there is more room for doubt than people think. For instance, the fact that Brady exchanged texts with Jastremski after this all came down: many seem to see it as evidence of guilt. An equally reasonable interpretation is that Brady is a decent person, loyal to fellow Pats employees, and simply expressing concern for his well-being given the intense media pressure (something that Jastremski has never had to deal with--unlike Brady, who is well positioned to provide advice on this issue). There is nothing in those texts that suggests culpability; it really boils down to the sort of personality you project onto Brady. No one here likes him, so they assume the texts are evidence of a coverup. Others feel differently. The league has a lot more freedom to dole out punishment than a court of law and the hammer will come down, but in a courtroom a decent lawyer could tear that particular inference to shreds. Especially in the state of Massachusetts. Why do people keep insisting on talking about reasonable doubt? All that is needed to conclude guilt here is preponderance of evidence. Only criminal proceedings deal with reasonable doubt. So yes, since Wells concluded that there was a greater than 50% chance Brady did what he did, then he's considered to have committed a violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Reasonable interpretation of expressing concern for his well being, when no one knew who he was, with calls that were Two calls lasting 25 minutes and 2 seconds on January 19th; Two calls lasting 9 minutes and 55 seconds on January 20th; Two calls lasting 20 minutes and 52 seconds on January 21st You're making my argumenyt for me - you're projecting a particular negative image of Brady's personality onto him and drawing a conclusion based on that. You're certainly not basing your argument on any actual evidence of culpability. Not one shred. It's equally plausible to project a positive image of Brady and apply it to this situation - the ultimate team player who forgoes a chunk of salary to ensure the team is better off overall (which is true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I really think there is more room for doubt than people think. For instance, the fact that Brady exchanged texts with Jastremski after this all came down: many seem to see it as evidence of guilt. An equally reasonable interpretation is that Brady is a decent person, loyal to fellow Pats employees, and simply expressing concern for his well-being. There is nothing in those texts that suggests culpability; it really boils down to the sort of personality you project onto Brady. No one here likes him, so they assume the texts are evidence of a coverup. Others feel differently. The league has a lot more power than a court of law and the hammer will come down, but in a courtroom a decent lawyer could tear that particular inference to shreds. Particularly in the state of Massachusetts. Pointing out an issue where some people eroneously think there is evidence of guilt does not supply more room for doubt. The crux question is... What reasonable explanation could there be to suggest that the texts implicating Brady were somehow false or misleading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I'm actually okay with this. Next years 1st round pick for them will be much higher than this years due to the team falling apart from Brady's suspension of 4-6 games that i think he will get. I rather they lose a pick from the 18-25 range than the 31st or 32 pick. fwiw. Big Pappy Or Garoppolo plays like the second coming of Brady who never gets his starting job back, gets traded for a first and the Pats* dominance extends to another 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Polian is on Cowheard , just killing Don Yee, Brady's agent. Too funny. I normally don't like Cowherd but he's killing it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Why do people keep insisting on talking about reasonable doubt? All that is needed to conclude guilt here is preponderance of evidence. Only criminal proceedings deal with reasonable doubt. So yes, since Wells concluded that there was a greater than 50% chance Brady did what he did, then he's considered to have committed a violation. Because it is clearly beyond reasonable doubt that Brady is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Why do people keep insisting on talking about reasonable doubt? All that is needed to conclude guilt here is preponderance of evidence. Only criminal proceedings deal with reasonable doubt. So yes, since Wells concluded that there was a greater than 50% chance Brady did what he did, then he's considered to have committed a violation. Well, as one of my legal eagle colleagues said to me, there is the issue of a defamation case. Brady is a public figure so the bar is extraordinarily high, but he could conceivably devise an argument based on a careless disregard for the facts (conclusions based on hearsay and strained inferences) that resulted in a monetarily quantifiable blow to his good name. A-Rod threatened to go to court based on far less (almost nothing, actually, given the ledgers with his name on it). There's a reason why there are so many weasel words in that report - I wouldn't be shocked if the league is concerned about that issue. Just playing devil's advocate here ... Edited May 7, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 You're making my argumenyt for me - you're projecting a particular negative image of Brady's personality onto him and drawing a conclusion based on that. You're certainly not basing your argument on any actual evidence of culpability. Not one shred. It's equally plausible to project a positive image of Brady and apply it to this situation - the ultimate team player who forgoes a chunk of salary to ensure the team is better off overall (which is true). The opposite. You are just using basic theory rather than the specifics of the case. Sure, in general and in theory, a guy might be a good guy and have communication with an underling under stress. Absolutely true and undeniable. But in this specific case, it's undeniable that these two hated him, he is not likely to be a good guy calling these guys, and he called him six times, talking at length. Twice a day for three days. That makes it completely unreasonable that he was just consoling him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 The opposite. You are just using basic theory rather than the specifics of the case. Sure, in general and in theory, a guy might be a good guy and have communication with an underling under stress. Absolutely true and undeniable. But in this specific case, it's undeniable that these two hated him, he is not likely to be a good guy calling these guys, and he called him six times, talking at length. Twice a day for three days. That makes it completely unreasonable that he was just consoling him. In my reading of the report, McNally doesn't like him. I never read anything in those exchanges suggesting Jastremski had an issue with Brady. One could easily conclude that the much younger Jastremski played go-along get-along with the crusty old McNally simply to avoid confrontation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Because it is clearly beyond reasonable doubt that Brady is guilty. No, I get that, it's just not necessary in this instance. I'm talking about how people keep harping on the 'more probable than not' terminology Wells used as a way to cast doubt on his findings as if they are completely made up or something. Well, as one of my legal eagle colleagues said to me, there is the issue of a defamation case. Brady is a public figure so the bar is extraordinarily high, but he could conceivably devise an argument based on a careless disregard for the facts (conclusions based on hearsay and strained inferences) that resulted in a monetarily quantifiable blow to his good name. A-Rod threatened to go to court based on far less (almost nothing, actually, given the ledgers with his name on it). There's a reason why there are so many weasel words in that report - I wouldn't be shocked if the league is concerned about that issue. Just playing devil's advocate here ... Interesting possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 this reminds me of the Roger Clemens thing. Everyone knew he was full of it and kept fighting and fighting and kept tarnishing his career. Brady and the Pats have handled this poorly from day 1 and continue to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts