Source: Brady's testimony "not entirely credible"

1960Pats · Jun 24, 2015

signbabybrady said:
Maybe you had sex with animals. We don't have any evidence to prove you didn't.

Maybe?

PatsFanSince74 · Jun 24, 2015

I'm assuming that the facts as most of us see them are irrelevant and that Goodell is not going to exonerate Brady because he can't possibly acknowledge that he wasted $5 million on the Wells Report, because he won't throw Vincent and others in the League Office under the bus and because he won't disappoint the owners who are screaming for Brady's head.

I've now ended up firmly in the camp of those who believe that the "truth" has nothing to do with any of this anymore. As a result, I think that Goodell will either leave the Suspension at four games or reduce it to one or two games, thereby penalizing Brady for his imagined complicity in a "crime" that never occurred, based on the science. But, whatever he does will stop short of exonerating TB.

The Conventional Wisdom on this Board and among many members of the media is that Brady will go to Court if he is not fully exonerated. Therefore, I'm assuming that he is going to court.

So, could someone who knows more about this than I do help me understand the grounds on which he would be going to Court? I'm not a Lawyer, but as far as I can see, this would be viewed by the courts as a labor dispute.

A. Would he argue that the evidence against him was flawed and that there were no grounds for the League's findings against him? If so, would he then be asking the Court to pass judgment on the science in the Wells report? On the significance of the texts and other communication between and with Jastremski and McNally? Why is that a matter that a court would even hear, since it has been adjudicated according to the incredibly weak terms of the CBA to which the NFLPA agreed (or capitulated)?

B. Or, would he argue that the League's process in his case was so badly flawed that it amounted to a violation of his civil rights and that the degree of that violation is significant enough to supersede the CBA and make it a matter of concern to the Court? If so, how would a Court determine whether to hear the matter?

C. Would he argue that the penalty was disproportionate to the wrongdoing of which he was found guilty? If so, how would that enable him to be "exonerated?"

D. Would he argue that the penalty was disproportionate in comparison to penalties imposed on other players? If so, how would that enable him to be "exonerated?"

E. Some other grounds?

Deus Irae · Jun 24, 2015

1960Pats said:
What evidence of anything do they have on Brady?

I'm not going through that nonsense again. If you think there's no evidence, you have no business ever discussing law. There's a difference between existence and sufficiency/strength.

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence

Evidence in a broad sense refers to something that furnishes proof of a matter. In the legal context, it is something legally submitted in court or other decision-making body to ascertain the truth of a matter.

Click to expand...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/evidence/

RobertWeathers · Jun 24, 2015

YOUGOTMOSSED said:
Stuff like this really tests your faith in humanity.

Scary, isn't it?

signbabybrady · Jun 24, 2015

1960Pats said:
Maybe?

Haha the guy did say he was from cow country.

1960Pats · Jun 24, 2015

Deus Irae said:
I'm not going through that nonsense again. If you think there's no evidence, you have no business ever discussing law. There's a difference between existence and sufficiency/strength.

You brought up the fact that evidence is circumstantial. The nonsense tag goes to you since you don't want to talk about the evidence in Brady's case, even though it's a thread about Brady's testimony about that evidence.

You never seemed to have a problem speaking your mind before. Why now? Don't give me a definition of the word evidence, tell me what evidence YOU have, circumstantial or not, that goes against Brady now.

That 's a very simple question even for you.

1960Pats · Jun 24, 2015

Fawn Lebowitz said:
Why would I go to that ****hole? I'm a Colts fan.

My condolences Fawn. I can't imagine what it must have been like to have to root for a gagpipe like Peyton.

I think Luck will turn out to be better, especially since he won't have Brady around much longer. It's too bad that they cheated to get Luck though. I bet he would have done great with a real coach and team.

Bad Company · Jun 24, 2015

Goodell has 3 options. Vacate the penalty for deflation, vacate the penalty for not cooperating, or vacate it all. I don't think he vacates the entire penalty or the part related to deflation. In the letter to Brady it was implied that this was ongoing. Not having transcripts of McNally of Jastremski makes it hard to know the facts. Although if there was something there it would likely be known.

So any reduction would be based on not cooperating now that Goodell has heard from Brady.

Even that is questionable. So we'll see it in court.

Ring 6 · Jun 24, 2015

PatsFanSince74 said:
I'm assuming that the facts as most of us see them are irrelevant and that Goodell is not going to exonerate Brady because he can't possibly acknowledge that he wasted $5 million on the Wells Report, because he won't throw Vincent and others in the League Office under the bus and because he won't disappoint the owners who are screaming for Brady's head.

I've now ended up firmly in the camp of those who believe that the "truth" has nothing to do with any of this anymore. As a result, I think that Goodell will either leave the Suspension at four games or reduce it to one or two games, thereby penalizing Brady for his imagined complicity in a "crime" that never occurred, based on the science. But, whatever he does will stop short of exonerating TB.

The Conventional Wisdom on this Board and among many members of the media is that Brady will go to Court if he is not fully exonerated. Therefore, I'm assuming that he is going to court.

So, could someone who knows more about this than I do help me understand the grounds on which he would be going to Court? I'm not a Lawyer, but as far as I can see, this would be viewed by the courts as a labor dispute.

A. Would he argue that the evidence against him was flawed and that there were no grounds for the League's findings against him? If so, would he then be asking the Court to pass judgment on the science in the Wells report? On the significance of the texts and other communication between and with Jastremski and McNally? Why is that a matter that a court would even hear, since it has been adjudicated according to the incredibly weak terms of the CBA to which the NFLPA agreed (or capitulated)?

B. Or, would he argue that the League's process in his case was so badly flawed that it amounted to a violation of his civil rights and that the degree of that violation is significant enough to supersede the CBA and make it a matter of concern to the Court? If so, how would a Court determine whether to hear the matter?

C. Would he argue that the penalty was disproportionate to the wrongdoing of which he was found guilty? If so, how would that enable him to be "exonerated?"

D. Would he argue that the penalty was disproportionate in comparison to penalties imposed on other players? If so, how would that enable him to be "exonerated?"

E. Some other grounds?

Why would it be a waste of $5,000,000 if the investigation resulted in proving the Patriots did nothing wrong? $5mill was spent to investigate not to create charges.
Why would it justify spending $5,000,000 to accept a bad conclusion and incorrectly suspend the face of your league?

It's backwards. The money is well spend if it clears the GOAT, and a waste if it finds him guilty of something he did not do.

Deus Irae · Jun 24, 2015

1960Pats said:
You brought up the fact that evidence is circumstantial. The nonsense tag goes to you since you don't want to talk about the evidence in Brady's case, even though it's a thread about Brady's testimony about that evidence.

You never seemed to have a problem speaking your mind before. Why now? Don't give me a definition of the word evidence, tell me what evidence YOU have, circumstantial or not, that goes against Brady now.

That 's a very simple question even for you.

I've spent multiple threads discussing the evidence, including one where someone was being stupid enough to argue that there was no evidence. And the definition of evidence is more than enough for a person who's not brain damaged to understand what some of the evidence is in this case.

Deus Irae · Jun 24, 2015

1960Pats said:
You brought up the fact that evidence is circumstantial.

No, I didn't.

1960Pats said:
The nonsense tag goes to you since you don't want to talk about the evidence in Brady's case, even though it's a thread about Brady's testimony about that evidence.

I don't think you understand what "nonsense" means, if this is the road you're going down.

1960Pats said:
You never seemed to have a problem speaking your mind before. Why now?

I have hundreds of posts on this subject, and the related subjects. I shouldn't have to repeat things that everyone already knows on top of everything else I've tried to do for the site on this (and related) subject(s).

1960Pats said:
Don't give me a definition of the word evidence, tell me what evidence YOU have, circumstantial or not, that goes against Brady now.

That 's a very simple question even for you.

I've given you the definition. Simply by grasping that, you can figure out at least some of what is considered evidence in this case.

BelichickFan · Jun 24, 2015

If you're convinced someone's guilty and he denies it, obviously you'll find him not credible. It's an impossible situation unfortunately. Off to court we go.

Marko · Jun 24, 2015

Fawn Lebowitz said:
Why would I go to that ****hole? I'm a Colts fan.

Isn't that pretty much a Jets fan in a dress?

libra957 · Jun 24, 2015

Not entirely credible, more likely than not.The NFL continues to be flimsy with every statement.

Zuma · Jun 24, 2015

Goodell Not Entirely Credible

Danger Zone · Jun 24, 2015

"not entirely credible" = denying the charges

Hoodie · Jun 24, 2015

Fawn Lebowitz said:
Maybe he did tell the deflators to lower the psi in the game balls. We don't have any evidence to prove he didn't.

nor evidence to prove that he did.

Fencer · Jun 24, 2015

1960Pats said:
You brought up the fact that evidence is circumstantial. The nonsense tag goes to you since you don't want to talk about the evidence in Brady's case, even though it's a thread about Brady's testimony about that evidence.

You never seemed to have a problem speaking your mind before. Why now? Don't give me a definition of the word evidence, tell me what evidence YOU have, circumstantial or not, that goes against Brady now.

That 's a very simple question even for you.

Unaccustomed as I am to sticking up for Deus, I'll jump in to say that the text messages and phone calls are circumstantial evidence against Brady. The NFL and the hating public gave much, much, much too much weight to that highly flimsy evidence. But technically, they are indeed evidence.

Hoodie · Jun 24, 2015

BelichickFan said:
If you're convinced someone's guilty and he denies it, obviously you'll find him not credible. It's an impossible situation unfortunately. Off to court we go.

And the sooner Goodell's decision is announced, the sooner we can file.

RayClay · Jun 25, 2015

BradyFTW! said:
Aaron Hernandez was convicted using entirely circumstantial evidence. Most evidence is circumstantial.

So, to use that as an analogy, no one was actually murdered, but there was circumstantial evidence that Hernandez did it.

Source: Brady's testimony "not entirely credible"

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rookie

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Hall of Fame Benchwarmer

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Hall of Fame Poster

Similar threads