Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 You're missing a gigantic piece of the communication puzzle: are we to also assume that Brady did not discuss the issue/case with anyone other than Jastremski via electronic communication? Not his family, coach, owner, etc.? I didn't miss that. You missed the part where Wells was leaving it up to Brady and his lawyer as to what texts they would supply. I think it's safe to say that Brady would not have given Wells those, don't you think?
YoloinOhio Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 Wells had the texts between Brady and the deflators. Since Wells was allowing Brady to chose what to turn over, and Brady and his lawyer knew that Wells already had the texts, and we can assume that Brady would never hand over any more than Wells already had....can Brady be punished for not providing to Wells evidence that Wells already had in hand? i thought Wells requested specific information/texts from Brady's phone that he didn't already have, based on information/texts that he did have from the two fired employees. And brady/yee refused to provide it.
Tuco Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 since when did the league actually suspend players for not telling the truth? realistically, you see some slippery slope there, no? Not telling the truth in one interview is only part of the whole. I never said they suspended him for the singular act of lying in his lone interview. They suspended him for several things, part of which was failing to answer follow up questions once the original answers were found to be false. That constitutes failure to cooperate, which is one of the reasons given for suspension.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 that feels like a stretch to me... but regardless, "pissing off wells" shouldnt really have an effect here. I think the NFL made it very clear that not cooperating in a league investigation is a very serious offense. Wells being pissed off was because of the direct non-cooperation by Brady and by the Patriots, like not being able to ask McNally about the Deflator nickname, and Brady answering every question with "I don't know" when he clearly knew something.
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 i thought Wells requested specific information/texts from Brady's phone that he didn't already have, based on information/texts that he did have from the two fired employees. And brady/yee refused to provide it. Wells said in his radio call in that he was being very accommodating in allowing Brady to choose what to submit regarding any material relevant to the investigation. He was miffed that Brady still refused. I think the NFL made it very clear that not cooperating in a league investigation is a very serious offense. Wells being pissed off was because of the direct non-cooperation by Brady and by the Patriots, like not being able to ask McNally about the Deflator nickname, and Brady answering every question with "I don't know" when he clearly knew something. Wells blew it on the "deflator" text and interview process. NE wasn't going to let him have another bite at that apple. NE can claim they made everyone available for an interview and therefore were cooperative.
Rocky Landing Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Wells had the texts between Brady and the deflators. Since Wells was allowing Brady to chose what to turn over, and Brady and his lawyer knew that Wells already had the texts, and we can assume that Brady would never hand over any more than Wells already had....can Brady be punished for not providing to Wells evidence that Wells already had in hand? I don't believe that is at issue.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Wells said in his radio call in that he was being very accommodating in allowing Brady to choose what to submit regarding any material relevant to the investigation. He was miffed that Brady still refused. I doubt that Wells had all of the texts between Brady and Jastremski, as well as Jastremski and McNally. I know myself I delete a lot of single texts on my phone between myself and various people and keep the vast majority of them. He also wanted to see if Brady had any calls or emails to anyone in the entire ordeal at opportune times that may have warranted a question even if it turned out to be totally innocent or unrelated. It's just assinine IMO to assume Wells had everything already and everything he needed, especially because there were gaping holes in all kinds of testimony. It's just plain stupid to assume that.
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I don't believe that is at issue. I though it was the issue---"failure to cooperate". I doubt that Wells had all of the texts between Brady and Jastremski, as well as Jastremski and McNally. I know myself I delete a lot of single texts on my phone between myself and various people and keep the vast majority of them. He also wanted to see if Brady had any calls or emails to anyone in the entire ordeal at opportune times that may have warranted a question even if it turned out to be totally innocent or unrelated. It's just assinine IMO to assume Wells had everything already and everything he needed, especially because there were gaping holes in all kinds of testimony. It's just plain stupid to assume that. Brady didn't have to give him those if he didn't want to.
NoSaint Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I doubt that Wells had all of the texts between Brady and Jastremski, as well as Jastremski and McNally. I know myself I delete a lot of single texts on my phone between myself and various people and keep the vast majority of them. He also wanted to see if Brady had any calls or emails to anyone in the entire ordeal at opportune times that may have warranted a question even if it turned out to be totally innocent or unrelated. It's just assinine IMO to assume Wells had everything already and everything he needed, especially because there were gaping holes in all kinds of testimony. It's just plain stupid to assume that. I think where your two posts diverge is you saying everything he needed vs Weo implying everything he should reasonably expect. You could talk past each other all day if that difference doesn't get acknowledged
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I think where your two posts diverge is you saying everything he needed vs Weo implying everything he should reasonably expect. You could talk past each other all day if that difference doesn't get acknowledged Brady can assume that Wells has his texts to these 2 guys. Wells issued his report of (essentially) guilt based on these texts. Brady giving the same texts or refusing to give them made no difference in the finding of guilt. Wells had everything he needed to conclude what he concluded. He was able to tack on the "noncooperative" part somewhat gratuitously, as BRady's refusal had little to no impact on the outcome of Well's investigation.
K-9 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I doubt that Wells had all of the texts between Brady and Jastremski, as well as Jastremski and McNally. I know myself I delete a lot of single texts on my phone between myself and various people and keep the vast majority of them. He also wanted to see if Brady had any calls or emails to anyone in the entire ordeal at opportune times that may have warranted a question even if it turned out to be totally innocent or unrelated. It's just assinine IMO to assume Wells had everything already and everything he needed, especially because there were gaping holes in all kinds of testimony. It's just plain stupid to assume that. Of course Wells didn't have all the texts he suspected were there. That's why he asked for additional information. I love this concept of "if you don't get what you need the first time, don't bother coming back and asking for more information later." On what planet is an investigator NOT allowed to go back and ask for additional information as many times as he sees fit? On what planet are those asked for the additional information considered "cooperative" when denying access to that information? Mind boggling. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I though it was the issue---"failure to cooperate". Brady didn't have to give him those if he didn't want to. But Brady didn't know what Wells had. If there were holes in what he provided, for example, Wells would know that he was keeping something from him.
K-9 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Brady can assume that Wells has his texts to these 2 guys. Wells issued his report of (essentially) guilt based on these texts. Brady giving the same texts or refusing to give them made no difference in the finding of guilt. Wells had everything he needed to conclude what he concluded. He was able to tack on the "noncooperative" part somewhat gratuitously, as BRady's refusal had little to no impact on the outcome of Well's investigation. Total conjecture. You have no idea WHAT Brady's phone records would have revealed and how that revelation would have informed the investigation. Gratuitously tacked on "noncooperation?" Brady and the Pats* were the very essence of noncooperative. Kraft wised up and realized that. GO BILLS!!!
Go Kiko go Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Brady can assume that Wells has his texts to these 2 guys. Wells issued his report of (essentially) guilt based on these texts. Brady giving the same texts or refusing to give them made no difference in the finding of guilt. Wells had everything he needed to conclude what he concluded. He was able to tack on the "noncooperative" part somewhat gratuitously, as BRady's refusal had little to no impact on the outcome of Well's investigation. Presumably, the league's request to Brady was something to the effect of, "all correspondence, regardless of form, relating to the preparation of footballs, whether for use in practice environments or game play, specifically but not limited to the air pressure levels of those footballs, as well as any correspondence relating to this investigation or the subject matter thereof." Brady, according to the statements of Wells and others, refused to turn over any communications that were responsive to such a request; he did not merely fail to turn over "the same texts" the NFL had obtained from other parties. This is the basis of a finding that he failed to cooperate. Edited July 21, 2015 by Go Kiko go
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I think where your two posts diverge is you saying everything he needed vs Weo implying everything he should reasonably expect. You could talk past each other all day if that difference doesn't get acknowledged He's an investigator. He reasonably expects a person that has repeatedly said I did NOTHING wrong, I know NOTHING, I have NO IDEA why anything happened, to show his innocence. When he knows Brady is avoiding questions, and flat lying to him, it doesn't matter one bit what he may or may not expect to get from him. It's obstruction, it's lying, it the total opposite of a completely innocent person, it's pissed-off-and-suspension-worthy
thebandit27 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I didn't miss that. You missed the part where Wells was leaving it up to Brady and his lawyer as to what texts they would supply. I think it's safe to say that Brady would not have given Wells those, don't you think? No, I didn't miss that at all. My point is quite simple: if Brady has full control over what messages he turns over, and he turns over none, then he looks like he has something to hide (and subjects him to discipline per NFL policy). If he turns over only those that Wells already had, it gives his case credibility.
Matt in KC Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I'm shocked that the initial incriminating texts were turned over to Wells. I am guessing that some or all of them were turned over accidentally. The texts seem to indicate that Jastremski and McNally text each other quite a bit. I suspect Wells wanted Tom to turn over his communications without knowing everything Wells already had, which might document that Brady didn't disclose everything that was asked. Devil's Advocate (Brady's Advocate): Wells said turn over only the relevant texts and Brady relpied "I did nothing wrong; there are no texts to turn over." If Wells has any texts involving Brady then this is documented non-compliance, but if not, it is not.
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Total conjecture. You have no idea WHAT Brady's phone records would have revealed and how that revelation would have informed the investigation. Gratuitously tacked on "noncooperation?" Brady and the Pats* were the very essence of noncooperative. Kraft wised up and realized that. GO BILLS!!! Brady knew. That's why he never would have given those texts/records. Why do you think he would have turned them over if he was allowed to choose what to give? Presumably, the league's request to Brady was something to the effect of, "all correspondence, regardless of form, relating to the preparation of footballs, whether for use in practice environments or game play, specifically but not limited to the air pressure levels of those footballs, as well as any correspondence relating to this investigation or the subject matter thereof." Brady, according to the statements of Wells and others, refused to turn over any communications that were responsive to such a request; he did not merely fail to turn over "the same texts" the NFL had obtained from other parties. This is the basis of a finding that he failed to cooperate. I'm sure it was language to that effect, but Wells was clear that he was going to let Brady and his lawyer ultimately decide what to hand over. Brady clearly wasn't going to incriminate himself if he could avoid that.
K-9 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Brady knew. That's why he never would have given those texts/records. Why do you think he would have turned them over if he was allowed to choose what to give? He wouldn't have turned them over. That's not the point here. The point is that by NOT turning them over, he was non-cooperative in a league investigation that compels him to cooperate. No small thing there. And far from gratuitous as you suggested earlier. GO BILLS!!!
What a Tuel Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) I'm shocked that the initial incriminating texts were turned over to Wells. I am guessing that some or all of them were turned over accidentally. The texts seem to indicate that Jastremski and McNally text each other quite a bit. I suspect Wells wanted Tom to turn over his communications without knowing everything Wells already had, which might document that Brady didn't disclose everything that was asked. Devil's Advocate (Brady's Advocate): Wells said turn over only the relevant texts and Brady relpied "I did nothing wrong; there are no texts to turn over." If Wells has any texts involving Brady then this is documented non-compliance, but if not, it is not. Very good points. Sometimes I fall into the theory that Well's had all of Jastremski and McNally's text and therefore any to Brady. However if Well's didn't disclose what he had from the two equipment guys, then that would be a very good reason for Brady to not comply because it may indict himself. Edited July 21, 2015 by What a Tuel
Recommended Posts