mikemac2001 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Some times people panic and destroy hardware but they forget there is software that can retrieve it in other ways There is no point to destroy it but if you are in a mental stay of panic you might believe there is a point to destroy it because it will get rid of information But any mentally sane person knows that doesn't matter in the situation there is no point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 No I don't. There would be no point in destroying it. Help me out here---what's your explanation.? This wasn't directed at me, but I'll play. Destroying the phone would add red tape to any attempt to review its contents, and might take more time to resolve. If Brady wants to stretch this out and retire after the season, this might help. An no, I don't think he destroyed his phone, at least not on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 No I don't. There would be no point in destroying it. Help me out here---what's your explanation.? I still haven't read a reasonable explanation of why the court would allow his phone to be subpoenaed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) So we are calling something from Florio, who by the way was wrong about the owners yesterday, clarification? Florio wrote a substantive piece about Paolantonio's critique of the reports about Bisciotti, but then again Florio also published a piece that said essentially the same based on a source that was independent of what Paolantonio said. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/settlement-talks-have-occurred-in-brady-case/ . So he wasn't just parroting a misinterpreted take on Paolantonio's comments. Edited July 28, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I still haven't read a reasonable explanation of why the court would allow his phone to be subpoenaed. They wouldn't. Some people are always assuming that he would take the case to court to prove his innocence, or to say the Wells report is full of errors, which is not what he is doing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 This wasn't directed at me, but I'll play. Destroying the phone would add red tape to any attempt to review its contents, and might take more time to resolve. If Brady wants to stretch this out and retire after the season, this might help. An no, I don't think he destroyed his phone, at least not on purpose. Red tape? It's all part of discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Look, obviously I am keeping the source I'm mind here on Smith's reporting. But I do absolutely agree that it could have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) They wouldn't. Some people are always assuming that he would take the case to court to prove his innocence, or to say the Wells report is full of errors, which is not what he is doing at all. Brady will not take this to court. One: if he doesn't want his phone looked at, he will have to provide it during court proceedings as part of discovery. Two: if he has since "destroyed" the contents of his phone, the court will draw an adverse inference that whatever was on the phone is damaging to his case. This is a common court sanction for what is known as "spoliation." (you have a duty to preserve evidence when the specter of a court action is reasonable.). I still haven't read a reasonable explanation of why the court would allow his phone to be subpoenaed. Discovery in federal court is very broad. Anything that may lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Clearly any text messages between Brady and "the Deflator" or others with access to the balls would fit that category. Edited July 28, 2015 by RyanC883 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Brady will not take this to court. One: if he doesn't want his phone looked at, he will have to provide it during court proceedings as part of discovery. Two: if he has since "destroyed" the contents of his phone, the court will draw an adverse inference that whatever was on the phone is damaging to his case. This is a common court sanction for what is known as "spoliation." (you have a duty to preserve evidence when the specter of a court action is reasonable.). Discovery in federal court is very broad. Anything that may lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Clearly any text messages between Brady and "the Deflator" or others with access to the balls would fit that category. You should read the SI piece linked to above. The phone isn't relevant to the case he's likely to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Florio wrote a substantive piece about Paolantonio's critique of the reports about Bisciotti, but then again Florio also published a piece that said essentially the same based on a source that was independent of what Paolantonio said. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/settlement-talks-have-occurred-in-brady-case/ . So he wasn't just parroting a misinterpreted take on Paolantonio's comments. Florio headlined his piece that "owner lobbying undermines Goodell's independence in Brady appeal" and then went on to say that Sal P said they were lobbying him, when that is not what Sal said at all. Then Florio said Biscotti denies it, implying that of course he is going to deny it. Florio jumped the gun and was a dick, put words in people's mouths and jumped to scandalous conclusions for click bait, as he has been for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 They wouldn't. Some people are always assuming that he would take the case to court to prove his innocence, or to say the Wells report is full of errors, which is not what he is doing at all. Well, from what I've read it wouldn't come up if they are citing the NFL for being in violation of labor law. The issue is that it becomes the nuclear option, since it would essentially cripple a large part of the collective bargaining agreement and none of the owners want that, which is why I think they're taking their time looking for a settlement. Now, in regards to the "defamation lawsuit" I hear a lot of blowhard Patriot fans going on about, it would definitely be subpoenaed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Well, from what I've read it wouldn't come up if they are citing the NFL for being in violation of labor law. The issue is that it becomes the nuclear option, since it would essentially cripple a large part of the collective bargaining agreement and none of the owners want that, which is why I think they're taking their time looking for a settlement. Now, in regards to the "defamation lawsuit" I hear a lot of blowhard Patriot fans going on about, it would definitely be subpoenaed. Do you really think there is any chance in hell he actually opts for either of the last two possibilities? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Florio headlined his piece that "owner lobbying undermines Goodell's independence in Brady appeal" and then went on to say that Sal P said they were lobbying him, when that is not what Sal said at all. Then Florio said Biscotti denies it, implying that of course he is going to deny it. Florio jumped the gun and was a dick, put words in people's mouths and jumped to scandalous conclusions for click bait, as he has been for quite some time. I'm not denying that his piece on Sal P was inaccurate. I'm saying that he wrote a separate piece based on sourced info he claimed to receive that indicated the same thing. I generally like Florio, although the style of reporting/aggregating that he does is gonna inevitably lead to some doozies because of the lack of real filters. He has his flaws, but NFL coverage has improved overall because of his contributions. Historically, he has been less beholden to the league, which has been a fatal flaw of many of the main reporters who cover it (and also indicative of how dictatorial the league is). I always go back to Alan Schwartz's comments about how every major outlet refused to cover the concussion crisis because of worries about losing access. He wasn't an NFL writer and wrote for the Times to boot, so he didn't give a damn about the league. But of course that's a separate issue. Edited July 28, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Discovery in federal court is very broad. Anything that may lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Clearly any text messages between Brady and "the Deflator" or others with access to the balls would fit that category. It would not be admissible evidence, because there isn't any case that Brady could bring against the NFL that would make them so. The only evidence relevant to any case Brady might bring would be those things that the NFL knew at the time of the investigation, and subsequent suspension. Since the NFL was never given access to his phone, there isn't any relevance. Brady will not be on trial here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 Maybe one of his kids threw the phone in their pool. Could have been destroyed unintentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Do you really think there is any chance in hell he actually opts for either of the last two possibilities? I don't. Definitely not the second, that's just insane fan ranting. But if Brady is feeling his years and is obsessed by his legacy, he might just be crazy enough. But I'd hope Kraft reels him back because the damage to the league could be incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I'm not denying that his piece on Sal P was inaccurate. I'm saying that he wrote a separate piece based on sourced info he claimed to receive that indicated the same thing. I generally like Florio, although the style of reporting/aggregating that he does is gonna inevitably lead to some doozies. He has his flaws, but NFL coverage has improved overall because of his contributions. Historically, he has been less beholden to the league, which has been a fatal flaw of many of the main reporters who cover it (and also indicative of how dictatorial the league is). I always go back to Alan Schwartz's comments about how every major outlet refused to cover the concussion crisis because of worries about losing access. He wasn't an NFL writer and wrote for the Times to boot, so he didn't give a damn about the league. But of course that's a separate issue. I went somewhat of a different route. I have been following him pretty much every day since he came on the scene. His Rumor Mill is a great source of breaking news and links and material. At first, I hated him because he always went for the scandalous and shock value. After a few years he got better and better, and then NBC bought him out, and his site got better. Then people started paying attention to him and IMO it went to his head. Even disregarding anything about the Brady case, he's back being an ass and a rumor monger. Whereas his lawyer background used to be great IMO because he explained things from a different POV, now he acts like a holier than thou know-it-all. He suffers from acute Marrone's Disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 How can they prove that he destroyed it though? CBF the data is stored on the network as well as the phone Is Brady THAT stupid? What would be the point of destroying his phone? stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-tom-brady-destroyed-phone-suspension-to-be-upheld/ar-AAdBouH?ocid=iehp The NFL is going to reject Tom Brady’s appeal and uphold the four-game suspension he is facing for his alleged role in Deflategate, according to one report. Stephen A. Smith said on ESPN’s “First Take” Tuesday morning that a source told him Roger Goodell will not reduce or overturn Brady’s suspension. Perhaps more shocking, Smith cited a separate source who told him Brady actually destroyed his own personal cell phone rather than just refusing to turn it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Wow--if true (and I agree with most here that, considering the source, it's a very big "if"), the destroying the phone thing is a game changer, especially in the court of public opinion. While I agree that in reality it gets you little, I've seen insider trading cases where well-educated Wall Street professionals have tried to cover their tracks by destroying their phones, so that move isn't just for total dumbarses. Here's hoping it works for Brady as well as it worked for those schmucks! actually YES it is. see above Ever hear of the large Data Storage Center in Utah? Edited July 28, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts