Dibs

When those records are varified, he removes 99% of the questions of his guilt. Showing those records should have been his first move.

You are 100 % right. I don't know. I do know that I personally would never presume to have been specially singled out by God ahead of other people who likely are at least my equal in faith and deeds. But I guess that's just me.

Ponder 15.6%

Fitz: 9 of 42 21.4% Ponder: 5 of 32 15.6% Sanchez: 14 of 42 32.6%

Simply acting like you've won an argument does not mean that you have actually won it.

I see what you are saying.....however I tend to think that if MT was legitimately duped and discovered it well after the "death", then that would most likely have severely limited the extent of his &/or ND's involvement in some form of deliberate misrepresentation. By far the biggest boost MT got in terms of gain/fame was due to the "death". If he & ND were ignorant of the situation till early December then a majority of the damage had already been done. An argument could then be made that any misrepresentation done after that could fall under "damage control" as motive.

#12 is the only officially retired number for the Bills.

That's correct. It in no way says nor implies that I thought that he was guilty.....which was the point that I was making. You seem incapable of differentiating between statements showing a belief in the possibility of guilt and statements showing a belief of guilt. That's the first you have brought up the question of my biases. As it happens, I had no idea who he was prior to the Deadspin article apart from that he was a high 1st round LB prospect. I do not follow college football in any way and have no affiliations with any college as I was raised and live in Australia. I have absolutely no bias in this situation at all. Really? Kid? I'm 42. Simply acting like you've won an argument does not mean that you have actually won it. Unfortunately for you, you are wrong in this argument.....therefore you can't win it. Each time you have tried to add something to support what you have said, you have ended up supporting what I have said. I think your best bet is to just drop it.....you're embarrassing yourself way too much here.

Yet again you show your inability to differentiate between statements showing a belief in the possibility of guilt and statements showing a belief of guilt.

lol

According to the English language, technically a capitol is needed.

For me....all of the "extra" stuff is irrelevant. I honestly don't need to know the facts of every aspect of the situation. Honestly, if it is shown that MT actually had long phone conversations every night leading up to the "death"....what difference does it make as to why he might embellish the situation he was in or why he didn't jump straight in with full disclosure when he "found out". Proof of the long phone conversations(&/or emails etc) easily provides enough doubt in my mind. He could have embellished due to embarrassment of having never met her....or embellished his level of emotional connection to her as an understandable and not horrendous mistake. Deadspin was tipped off by somebody. Maybe hoaxers figured this and irrationally owned up to it to him as a reaction to it....or maybe it was coincidence...etc. If it can be shown that he was duped into being in a "relationship" with somebody to the point of him spending countless hours on the phone etc....what difference do all the minor details make? OMG!!! "MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED" Please explain how that statement has me concluding that he was guilty. (Again you show your inability to differentiate between statements showing a belief in the possibility of guilt and statements showing a belief of guilt).

How did you ever place me as somebody who concluded he was guilty?

What part of "on the phone every night"...."falling asleep while on the phone" don't you get? His phone sex calls would show as such....and would likely only last 3 minutes. Yeah....need to coordinate for 8 hours on the phone every night. lol....yep, that's obviously what I'm doing. Gee Mr. Pack, your arguments were so convincing that I simply had to re-evaluate my position from one of.....MT needs to show some sort of independent evidence.....to where I am at the moment which is.....MT needs to show some sort of independent evidence. Too lazy? I just searched & linked the article above didn't I? Also....I never accused him of being "in on it". I have constantly stated that it seems like a decent possibility that he was in on it. The fact that you see anybody questioning his innocence as stating that they believe he is guilty is an indictment of how dogmatically irrational you have been on this issue. You are so blinded(for whatever reason) by your dogmatic belief that he is innocent that you cannot differentiate between irrelevant information and pertinent information. Had you been able to do so you would have(and should have) highlighted the independent source of the Bishop having spoken to the "girl" several times on MT's phone. All of the other pieces of information that NoSaint listed above are quite irrelevant(unless one of the players mentioned spoke to the girl on MT's phone).

I don't think it relevant if people come out on his side of the story or not. Opinion is not going to prove things one way or the other. Showing that there actually was(or wasn't) a "girlfriend" is pretty much the only thing that will do the job. If it is shown that MT actually had the conversations he had(via phone records)....or if other independent people had conversations with her(like the Bishop)....then it would(should) be extremely difficult to doubt his story.

I have no problem with sports people thanking God for having been blessed with skills and abilities well above the norm. I also have no problem with them thanking God for being in a situation where there personal dreams can be fulfilled(irrelevant to how self serving those dreams are). Both of these to me are similar to thanking God for the food on ones table or the roof over ones head. I do however have a problem with sports people thanking God in such a manner that implies that He has taken a specific interest in the outcome of the sporting event or athlete's success. The mildest view I can take on those athletes is that they are unwise. Less mild views would contain the words "hubris", "attention seeking", "self absorbed" and "misguided".

Remember the days when the Raiders would grab a player purely based upon his speed? 6 of those 10 played for them.

Here is the first piece of news IMO that helps clear MT's name. Somebody who isn't involved in the situation with credibility who claims to have spoken with the "girlfriend". Bishop Jim Carrier. http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/01/22/manti-teo-spiritual-adviser-victim-lennay-kekua-hoax/1855755/

lol...you must be new here.

Though I can't claim to be a skilled analyzer of player skill or abilities.... ....it seems to me that Spiller has astonishing acceleration but his top end speed is merely great. He seems to go from zero to very fast in an instant.....but does not get much faster as he straight-line runs. Do others see validity in my observations.....or am I mistaken?

You think Spiller is fast? Yes I do. What's your point?

I was not being obtuse in any way. You are making the same mistake that Joe6pack made. "Presumption of innocence" is not what you are implying. I will endeavour to explain it in a clearer way for you than I did a few posts back to Joe.... In a system where there is a "presumption of innocence", if somebody is arrested for a crime.....and it cannot be proven that they are guilty....they are presumed innocent and charges are dropped. In a system where there isn't a "presumption of innocence", if somebody is arrested for a crime....and it cannot be proven that they are innocent.....they are presumed guilty and convicted. When the police investigate a suspect to a crime, they thoroughly investigate the suspect(including phone records if necessary) to help determine if there is a case against the person. They do not simply presume the suspect to be innocent & take them at their word and leave it. Here is a hypothetical for you.....and I stipulate in advance that it is a hypothetical situation & is NOT about MT. Person "A" enlists the help of person "B" to lie to and manipulate the media/public in order to raise their media profile....for the purposes of obtaining greater sponsorship deals in the future. The lie is discovered by the media. Person "A" says that he had nothing to do with it and was fooled by person "B". Should the media assume that person "A" is innocent and give up on trying to discover if he is complicit in the hoax?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The "presumption of innocence" does not mean that the accused does not have to defend themselves from the accusation of guilt. It means that they have to be "proven" guilty to be convicted, and if unable, they are then presumed innocent.....not the other way around. In a legal trial, all of the evidence both for and against the accused is put forward to determine innocence/guilt. This however is not a legal trial. If it were, and he is innocent, I have no doubts that he would present evidence such as phone records to show his innocents. By not releasing evidence that would defend him from the accusations, it only makes people wonder if he has that evidence or not......and whether he is guilty or not. Being unconvinced that he is innocent is not the same as believing that he is guilty.

It is amazing that we played the NFC SB rep each year for 7 years. We play one NFC Division each year.....so the odds that a team from that division is going to get to the SB is 1 in 4 For this to happen 7 years in a row mathematically equates to....1 in 4x4x4x4x4x4x4 1 in 16,384 The fact that we actually lost all 7 games is not that important IMO as in each of the 7 cases we have been a bad team playing an eventual SB contender.