NoSaint Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 This. A million times this. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence means. "Circumstantial evidence," which simply refers to evidence that that is not direct evidence of a fact in question, is not inherently less "valuable" than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very valuable evidence: if a person walks into a room covered with drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that's pretty strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that it's raining. As the courts say, "the law makes no distinction in the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence." The only question is whether all the evidence, taken together, establishes that it's more likely than not that some event transpired. And as the Wells Report repeats again and again, the evidence here showed that it is more likely than not that these events occurred. Does that rant run contrary to eisen tweeting in sub 140 characters that there was not proof but a lot of damning circumstantial evidence here?
Mickey Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 As the report concludes, Brady's story is just not plausible. He told the NFL he didn't know who McNally was, yet the guy has been working for the Pats for 32 years, his nick name is "the deflator" and Brady gave him lots of swag. He also told the NFL he wasn't familiar with the rule regarding footballs yet he was part of the group that lobbied for the rule change to let teams prepare their own balls, has been a QB in this league forever and admittedly requested that his footballs be inflated at the lowest allowable pressure. Further, the notion that a couple of locker room yahoos would, entirely on their own, decide to mess with the tools of St. Tom's trade is ludicrous. No way in hell they do this on their own. The reason they deflated the balls was because someone wanted them to deflate the balls. And who could that someone be? The one person for whom inflation of the balls matters most, the QB.
GG Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Wonder how the Patsie* fans feel about their demigod having a NYC phone number?
Lurker Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Does that rant run contrary to eisen tweeting in sub 140 characters that there was not proof but a lot of damning circumstantial evidence here? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence "Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in acriminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused'spresence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct ofthe accused."
timtebow15 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 The only reason they can't prove it 100% is because the Pats wouldn't provide access including Brady and his phone records. I hate Brady - he is a cheat and a liar. The Saints owner better not let Goodell go easy on this. Payton was suspended a full year when it wasn't proven he knew anything. If there aren't meaningful penalties than every team should begin looking for ways to cheat.
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Does that rant run contrary to eisen tweeting in sub 140 characters that there was not proof but a lot of damning circumstantial evidence here? You found my post to be a rant? Have you read some of the posts in the previous twenty-six pages? He's using the word "proof" imprecisely--he's using it to mean that there is no "direct evidence" of the events in question. But "proof" is a conclusion, not a type of evidence. According to the Wells Report, the evidence here "proved" that these events occurred. If the circumstantial evidence is "damning," that would seem to mean that the circumstantial evidence "proved" that the events occurred. His only reservation seems to be that there is no "direct" evidence--no witness who could testify that the witness saw a Patriots employee deflate a football below the level mandated by the rules. But as I explained above, the mere fact that there is no direct evidence of that occurring does not affect the conclusion in the Report that the evidence that does exist "proved" that this event occurred. Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go
Doc Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 As the report concludes, Brady's story is just not plausible. He told the NFL he didn't know who McNally was, yet the guy has been working for the Pats for 32 years, his nick name is "the deflator" and Brady gave him lots of swag. He also told the NFL he wasn't familiar with the rule regarding footballs yet he was part of the group that lobbied for the rule change to let teams prepare their own balls, has been a QB in this league forever and admittedly requested that his footballs be inflated at the lowest allowable pressure. Further, the notion that a couple of locker room yahoos would, entirely on their own, decide to mess with the tools of St. Tom's trade is ludicrous. No way in hell they do this on their own. The reason they deflated the balls was because someone wanted them to deflate the balls. And who could that someone be? The one person for whom inflation of the balls matters most, the QB. It can be no one other than Brady. A HS QB can tell the difference between a properly- and under-inflated football. Brady would have felt the difference and had the attendants fix it if he didn't like it.
Rob's House Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence "Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in acriminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused'spresence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct ofthe accused." In a criminal trial, to secure a conviction based upon purely circumstantial evidence there can be no reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.
Lurker Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 In a criminal trial, to secure a conviction based upon purely circumstantial evidence there can be no reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt. Good thing this is more of a civil proceeding then....
Big Turk Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 circumstantial evidence can't be proof? okay This isn't a criminal investigation, circumstantial evidence can and IS plenty enough to win a civil trial where the proof only needs to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" like in a criminal trial...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 This. A million times this. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence means. "Circumstantial evidence," which simply refers to evidence that that is not direct evidence of a fact in question, is not inherently less "valuable" than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very valuable evidence: if a person walks into a room covered with drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that's pretty strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that it's raining. As the courts say, "the law makes no distinction in the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence." The only question is whether all the evidence, taken together, establishes that it's more likely than not that some event transpired. And as the Wells Report repeats again and again, the evidence here showed that it is more likely than not that these events occurred. What if the guy with the umbrella just walked through a sprinkler? "Circumstantial evidence" isn't "proof." It's merely suggestive. That does not mean, however, that it can't be highly suggestive. If someone says "I'm messing with these footballs," then has the footballs in his care, then the footballs end up being messed with...well, then, that's pretty damned good evidence, albeit not "proof."
Lurker Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Bob Glauber: http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/bob-glauber/tom-brady-needs-to-be-suspended-after-wells-report-takes-air-out-of-his-legacy-1.10399064 Mike Lupica: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/lupica-goodell-evidence-suspend-tom-brady-article-1.2213198 Dave Hyde: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/fl-hyde-patriots-deflategate-0508-20150506-column.html Rick Gosselin: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/rick-gosselin/20150506-gosselin-nfl-can-t-just-slap-tom-brady-on-wrist-with-league-integrity-at-stake.ece Tim Cowlishaw: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/tim-cowlishaw/20150506-cowlishaw-tom-brady-s-punishment-should-be-long-enough-to-put-patriots-at-disadvantage.ece Ron Borges: http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/ron_borges/2015/05/borges_smoking_gun_its_all_in_the_texts Edited May 7, 2015 by Lurker
YoloinOhio Posted May 7, 2015 Author Posted May 7, 2015 Clearly inaccurate then @ProFootballWire: #NFL Wells Report reflects well on Walt Anderson, crew, officiating supervisors http://t.co/7BnZlTrHAk
Doc Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Clearly inaccurate then @ProFootballWire: #NFL Wells Report reflects well on Walt Anderson, crew, officiating supervisors http://t.co/7BnZlTrHAk Walt Coleman is the moron ref.
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Nails it, basically: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/sports/football/tom-bradys-legacy-as-one-of-the-best-takes-a-hit.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
plenzmd1 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 What is up with your "group think" pleadings? What are you afraid of? I must be striking a nerve with the truth, for you to plead with other posters like this, over and over. I will respond to this one post, and only one post. You are a classic troll that adds zero to the conversation on this board. Your only objective is too get people irritated , and for that i give you high marks . As Beerball also stated, as soon as we all quit responding to you, is when you will leave. It is well established between this and the Eichel thread, you are only trolling .. I was silly enough to fall it, and I am embarrassed I ever chose to get worked up about your drivel. Live and learn as they say. You do not see me have this reaction to Weo or JohnC...it's only you. Have a different opinion is great....have one only to get a rise is out of the terms of service on this board. Why you are not banned banned yet is beyond me, but I am fairly certain with no responses you will leave ASAP.
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 What if the guy with the umbrella just walked through a sprinkler? "Circumstantial evidence" isn't "proof." It's merely suggestive. That does not mean, however, that it can't be highly suggestive. If someone says "I'm messing with these footballs," then has the footballs in his care, then the footballs end up being messed with...well, then, that's pretty damned good evidence, albeit not "proof." As I mentioned in my other post, "proof" isn't a type of evidence, it's a conclusion. You seem to be using the word "proof" in the same way as that tweet from a few pages back, to refer to what the law calls "direct evidence"--evidence that shows, without the need for any inferences, that some fact exists. But the question--the only question that matters--is whether the evidence that the Wells Report gathered "proves" that these events transpired. Put another way: if the Patriots, or Tom Brady, or these equipment room lackeys were "on trial" and you were on the jury, you would be asked whether, from all the evidence you heard, it is more likely than not that these events occurred. You are not asked whether there was "direct evidence"--"proof", as you used the term--that the events occurred. Here's how a judge would explain this to you if you were sitting on a jury: "There are two types of evidence that you may use in reaching your verdict. One type of evidence is called “direct evidence.” An example of "direct evidence" is when a witness testifies about something that the witness knows through his own senses — something the witness has seen, felt, touched or heard or did. If a witness testified that he saw it raining outside, and you believed him, that would be direct evidence that it was raining. Another form of direct evidence is an exhibit where the fact to be proved is its existence or current condition. The other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence" is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. If someone walked into the courtroom wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that would be circumstantial evidence from which you could conclude that it was raining. You should consider both kinds of evidence that are presented to you. The law makes no distinction in the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. You are to decide how much weight to give any evidence."
IBleedredandblue Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Lets start a league wide chant of "Soft Balls" every time Brady is under center on the road this year
Numark3 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 In a criminal trial, to secure a conviction based upon purely circumstantial evidence there can be no reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt. Which can be done This isn't a criminal investigation, circumstantial evidence can and IS plenty enough to win a civil trial where the proof only needs to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" like in a criminal trial... Yea my post was sarcastic. Circumstantial evidence here is more than enough, is proof, and is convincing.
ET1062 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I'd like to see Bills season ticket holders file a class action law suit against the NFL for the monies we paid to see Bills/Patriots games.
Recommended Posts