And once again you are talking of an assumption of guilt and not proving guilt. You are actually saying that Brady has to somehow prove he is not guilty rather than showing everyone evidence that he is. When asked in judge Berman's court it there was any actual evidence of guilt Jeff Pash acknowledged there is none. The NFL wrongly assumed from the start that the only possible explanation for the lower air pressure was that someone tampered with the balls, and admitted that when Vincent admitted they didn't know what the IGL was. So physics explain the loss of air pressure and there is no evidence at all that Brady told anyone to tamper with game balls. If you want to side with the league and demand that Brady somehow prove he didn't do something then you are asking the impossible because it cannot be proven. It's a ridiculous standard where he is assumed to be guilty and has to somehow prove innocence. So let's try it this way, you go ahead and present your evidence of guilt and we can all rule on it.
There is no assumption of guilt. Let's go step by step on how I think about this.
1. NFL counsel said there was no "direct" evidence, not that there was "no evidence." There is some circumstantial evidence in this case (which is generally more reliable than direct evidence). Namely, the text messages, and the Exponent Report. Now, most of this circumstantial evidence is weak, but some of it is fairly compelling, at least to non-Patsfans (for example, the text about fat boy being "stressed" to "get them done." or Brady's failure to turn over texts from the most relevant time period)
2. Patsfans says: "The texts are not really great evidence, but nevertheless they could potentially be evidence of deflation, yet they should be COMPLETELY IGNORED because it is IMPOSSIBLE that air was taken out of the balls because "'SCIENCE." (i.e., the IGL).
3. But the IGL is a law not a solution; it is of no use if you don't know the data points to input into it.
4. It is true that "Science" explains the entire pressure loss under a certain set of assumptions. Obviously, Patsfans has taken the view that these assumptions are the correct ones.
5. Under other assumptions, however, the entire pressure loss is not explained and patsfans resorts to conjecture to explain the gap (e.g., "the balls were wet and that results in x% loss, because I say so; the balls were squashed by giant men and that results in x% loss, because I say so, etc.")
6.Since nobody on Earth or in Heaven, not even Patsfans, knows which assumptions should be used (i.e., which data points should be input into the IGL), "Science" cannot conclusively implicate or exculpate the Patriots.
7. Since "science" does not provide a conclusive answer, the texts and adverse inference that might be drawn from the loss of Brady's phone become relevant again.
8. When the texts and potentially adverse inference become relevant again, reasonable minds can differ on their evidentiary value.
9. In my opinion, their evidentiary value is insufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. But that is my opinion.
10. 1-9 is important to the merits of the case, but pales in importance to the big picture: The real injustice here is how the NFL (in brilliantly devilish ways, btw) turned AT THE VERY MOST a minor equipment violation into the greatest breach of "INTEGRITY" the world has ever known, using it as a basis for draconian team and player punishments, and character assassination of arguably the greatest player on the greatest team in the history of the league.
