Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 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. Not if he was innocent, and knew nothing whatsoever about this and didn't know McNally or even his name.
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 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!!! I agree he should have turned over what he easily could have assumed Wells already had--the other dudes' texts. Then he would had satisfied this "cooperation" issue, even of he really gave them nothing. It's a bizarre request by Wells to say send me everything relevant to this investigation but then say...."I'll even let you choose what to reveal I and will be satisfied that that's all there there is." And is a player obligated to incriminate himself in an investigation?
NoSaint Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I agree he should have turned over what he easily could have assumed Wells already had--the other dudes' texts. Then he would had satisfied this "cooperation" issue, even of he really gave them nothing. It's a bizarre request by Wells to say send me everything relevant to this investigation but then say...."I'll even let you choose what to reveal I and will be satisfied that that's all there there is." And is a player obligated to incriminate himself in an investigation? Drug suspensions are actually 2 games for assaulting the integrity of the game, and 2 games for not calling the league while you were getting high to admit to the offense.
K-9 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I agree he should have turned over what he easily could have assumed Wells already had--the other dudes' texts. Then he would had satisfied this "cooperation" issue, even of he really gave them nothing. It's a bizarre request by Wells to say send me everything relevant to this investigation but then say...."I'll even let you choose what to reveal I and will be satisfied that that's all there there is." And is a player obligated to incriminate himself in an investigation? It's not a bizarre request at all by Wells. The texts between Jastremski and McNally referenced Brady. They led Wells directly to Brady. Common sense suggests Wells would pursue Brady's own phone records for additional information. GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 It's not a bizarre request at all by Wells. The texts between Jastremski and McNally referenced Brady. They led Wells directly to Brady. Common sense suggests Wells would pursue Brady's own phone records for additional information. GO BILLS!!! Then why allow him to censor what he will submit? Common sense suggests he's not going to give extra information, so why penalize him when he doesn't? Drug suspensions are actually 2 games for assaulting the integrity of the game, and 2 games for not calling the league while you were getting high to admit to the offense. Many here would have us believe that.
MattM Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 I agree he should have turned over what he easily could have assumed Wells already had--the other dudes' texts. Then he would had satisfied this "cooperation" issue, even of he really gave them nothing. It's a bizarre request by Wells to say send me everything relevant to this investigation but then say...."I'll even let you choose what to reveal I and will be satisfied that that's all there there is." And is a player obligated to incriminate himself in an investigation? I think this part is being somewhat misconstrued--what I'm sure they said was Brady and his lawyers could do the search and turn over what they find rather than turn the phone over to the League for the League to search it. That doesn't mean they can send what they want--they are still obligated to search properly (perhaps using agreed upon search terns) and turn over their findings and the lawyers may even need the certify what they did (which long ago I suspected may have been the sticking points, a law firm not wanting to lie for Brady). This is SOP for discovery in normal civil litigation. No criminal right to not incriminate one's self in a non-legal case like this (remember, that was simply internal League discipline, much less a criminal case).
Doc Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 Talk about poorly thought-out positions and flip-flops.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) I think this part is being somewhat misconstrued--what I'm sure they said was Brady and his lawyers could do the search and turn over what they find rather than turn the phone over to the League for the League to search it. That doesn't mean they can send what they want--they are still obligated to search properly (perhaps using agreed upon search terns) and turn over their findings and the lawyers may even need the certify what they did (which long ago I suspected may have been the sticking points, a law firm not wanting to lie for Brady). This is SOP for discovery in normal civil litigation. No criminal right to not incriminate one's self in a non-legal case like this (remember, that was simply internal League discipline, much less a criminal case). I don't think it's being misconstrued. Here are Wells's own words: "And I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agents, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said, "I don't want to see any private information." I said, "Keep the phone. You and the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you have given me what's responsive." And they still refused." And I understand this is not a criminal case, but nor is it a civil case. I was just asking if it is reasonable for a person to be compelled to incriminate himself. Edited July 22, 2015 by Mr. WEO
MattM Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 I don't think it's being misconstrued. Here are Wells's own words: "And I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agents, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said, "I don't want to see any private information." I said, "Keep the phone. You and the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you have given me what's responsive." And they still refused."[/size] And I understand this is not a criminal case, but nor is it a civil case. I was just asking if it is reasonable for a person to be compelled to incriminate himself. Right--he basically said what I did above. Just like in civil litigation, the respondent conducts their own search pursuant to the rules of discovery and any agreement with the other side and turns over what they find, often certifying it. That's all he's saying here colloquially for a general audience (and you're just being intentionally dense to try to make some kind of point).
Go Kiko go Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) It's a bizarre request by Wells to say send me everything relevant to this investigation but then say...."I'll even let you choose what to reveal I and will be satisfied that that's all there there is." And is a player obligated to incriminate himself in an investigation? This is literally trial practice 101. This is how discovery in every civil case in the United States functions. Both sides are obliged to turn over information to each other that may have relevance to the matter, even if that information is damaging. If they don't, and it comes out later that they withheld information, they get sanctioned. The league's investigation, of course, was not a judicial proceeding, but the CBA and league policies have effectively created a process that mimics how discovery works in a civil trial. Then why allow him to censor what he will submit? Common sense suggests he's not going to give extra information, so why penalize him when he doesn't? He doesn't get to "censor" what he submits. He gets to review all the information he has that is relevant to the investigation, and then is permitted to redact information that is not relevant to the investigation. But for each bit of information he redacts, he would have to describe what the information was and explain why he redacted it (e.g., not relevant to the investigation, involved privileged communication with his attorneys, etc.). It looks like Wells may have even been willing to relax Brady's obligation to explain the basis for his redactions (see your quote below that Wells was willing to "take [his] word that [he gave] what's responsive"). You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you have given me what's responsive." And they still refused." And I understand this is not a criminal case, but nor is it a civil case. I was just asking if it is reasonable for a person to be compelled to incriminate himself. "Responsive" is a legal term of art that encapsulates the process I described above. Basically, he has to search through all his communications, identify those that are relevant to the league's investigation (even if they reflect negatively upon him), and then provide them to the league, subject to his ability to redact information contained in those communications that is not relevant to the investigation (for example, an email discussing the condition of footballs may also contain discussions about the Patriots' strategy for a particular opponent. He could redact the strategy portion, and then provide the email in its redacted form.) Edited July 22, 2015 by Go Kiko go
l< j Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 And I understand this is not a criminal case, but nor is it a civil case. I was just asking if it is reasonable for a person to be compelled to incriminate himself. So if he were suspected of being a drug user (instead of a serial cheater), would it be reasonable for his employer to expect him to pee in a cup? With him knowing that it would return a positive and result in him incriminating himself? kj
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 Right--he basically said what I did above. Just like in civil litigation, the respondent conducts their own search pursuant to the rules of discovery and any agreement with the other side and turns over what they find, often certifying it. That's all he's saying here colloquially for a general audience (and you're just being intentionally dense to try to make some kind of point). The point is that he was allowed to leave out incriminating evidence. As I said, this isn't a civil case either.....I don't assume the same rules of discovery apply In fact, Wells certainly seems to be taking pains to explain to the world on his conference call that he wasn't being colloquial about what he was allowing of Brady and his agent. He clearly is implying that given how reasonable he was being Brady still wouldn't comply.
Go Kiko go Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 The point is that he was allowed to leave out incriminating evidence. He absolutely was not. He was allowed to omit information that was "not responsive" which means "not relevant to the investigation." See my example above about an email that discussed both the condition of the footballs and opponent strategy.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) The point is that he was allowed to leave out incriminating evidence. As I said, this isn't a civil case either.....I don't assume the same rules of discovery apply In fact, Wells certainly seems to be taking pains to explain to the world on his conference call that he wasn't being colloquial about what he was allowing of Brady and his agent. He clearly is implying that given how reasonable he was being Brady still wouldn't comply. But what Wells said still perfectly fits into what MattM and Go Kiko Go described above, and is much more likely what he did and meant than your version. You make it sound like Brady could just print out two emails that show him saying "Let's get a hotdog" to Jastremski and say, "Yep! That's all of 'em" and Wells would say, "Okay thanks for cooperating, Tom! Edited July 22, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) He absolutely was not. He was allowed to omit information that was "not responsive" which means "not relevant to the investigation." See my example above about an email that discussed both the condition of the footballs and opponent strategy. Let me phrase that in a better way. The proposition Wells describes allows (or does not prevent) for Brady and his agent to edit out incriminating evidence. Wells clearly says he would accept what they provided as responsive. How does it not invite that abuse by Brady and his agent? But what Wells said still perfectly fits into what MattM and Go Kiko Go described above, and is much more likely what he did and meant than your version. You make it sound like Brady could just print out two emails that show him saying "Let's get a hotdog" to Jastremski and say, "Yep! That's all of 'em" and Wells would say, "Okay thanks for cooperating, Tom! Or he could have just reproduced the same texts to/from the two ball boys and say "here is is..." Edited July 22, 2015 by Mr. WEO
Kelly the Dog Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 Let me phrase that in a better way. The proposition Wells describes allows (or does not prevent) for Brady and his agent to edit out incriminating evidence. Wells clearly says he would accept what they provided as responsive. Or he could have just reproduced the same texts to/from the two ball boys and say "here is is..." He very likely didn't know which ones they showed him. That's the point of asking for his.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 He very likely didn't know which ones they showed him. That's the point of asking for his. You don't think Brady talked to these two and asked what they gave up? Come on...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 You don't think Brady talked to these two and asked what they gave up? Come on... They are not known as Needledee and Needledumb for nothin.' Did you actually read all of the texts that Wells put in the report? And I'm sure he had dozens more.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 Then why didn't he? A great question doc. I don't know. I think he doesn't want to participate in any self-incrimination. He's already staked himself to absolute innocence, so he's not changing course.
Recommended Posts