Source: Brady's testimony "not entirely credible"

Deus Irae said:

The argument will/would be that the science doesn't prove that the balls weren't deflated, and the other 'evidence' is s̶u̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶ circumstantial

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

fixed it for you

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

That changes nothing. Most evidence is circumstantial.

Click to expand...

aluminum seats said:

I love the line that Brady "simply" denied doing anything or having knowledge of same. As opposed to what exactly? What more should he do? Dance?

Click to expand...

aluminum seats said:

I love the line that Brady "simply" denied doing anything or having knowledge of same. As opposed to what exactly? What more should he do? Dance?

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

Click to expand...

The Gr8est said:

Look Mr Brady, we know you did something to the balls so this constant denying it is just going to make things tougher on all of us.

Just tell us the degree of your involvement and we can all go home and get on with our lives.

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

you don't seriously believe that, do you?

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

Absolutely and positively, without question.

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

God forbid you ever become a juror at my trial

Click to expand...

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

you don't seriously believe that, do you?

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

God forbid you ever become a juror at my trial

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

The argument will/would be that the science doesn't prove that the balls weren't deflated, and the other 'evidence' is sufficient.

Click to expand...

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

POLICE OFFICER: Sir, the evidence suggests that maybe you did not murder your wife.
YOU: That's great!
POLICE OFFICER: She called us and she is in Disney World with your insurance agent. I guess he's not like a good neighbor.
YOU: Well, that sucks... but I'm free to be released from jail now?
POLICE OFFICER: Not so fast. There is still the matter of those text messages, where you argued with her last year. Those texts suggest that maybe you were generally aware that you would have killed her, if she had in fact been killed. We cannot stand for that.

Click to expand...

Sicilian said:

Aaron Hernandez was just sentenced to life in prison for primarily circumstantial evidence. As I understand it, the only place where circumstantial evidence is completely disregarded is TV shows.

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

"The argument will/would be that the science doesn't prove that the balls weren't deflated, and the other 'evidence' is s̶u̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶ circumstantial"

fixed it for you

Click to expand...

Chiuba E. Obele said:

Actually, it's usually a deciding factor when deciding whether to prosecute a case...but it can still be pretty persuasive to a juror, especially in the case of Hernandez.

The circumstantial evidence being brought against Brady is pretty thin .... and I don't see how it can hold up in court

Click to expand...

rexxar said:

The question then becomes whether the NFL is willing to throw out the entire Wells report based on the flaws in the science (and the science is definitely flawed), or whether the NFL continues to be troubled by the Jastremski-McNally exchanges and Brady’s answers to questions about his interactions with either or both of them.

If the science can't prove guilt then why are we even here?

Click to expand...