Wells interrogated Jim McNally for SEVEN HOURS

[Deus Irae]

I understand that but Wells only did one. Do we even know when the other 3 took place and what they went over?

It is not usual to sit through four interviews/depositions, never mind five.

 

[VectorPrime]

If all 4 interviews were 7 hours long I agree. But how long were the other 3 interviews? Because if they were just short Q/As then they can't be compared.

 

[Deus Irae]

If all 4 interviews were 7 hours long I agree. But how long were the other 3 interviews? Because if they were just short Q/As then they can't be compared.

Yes, they can be. Also, this stuff is all publicly available:

Based on this understanding, the Patriots asked Mr. McNally, a game day only employee with whom the team had no ongoing employment relationship, to leave his full-time, out-of-state job in order to be available for an interview at the stadium. Prior to the interview, the Patriots prevailed upon Mr. McNally to allow his personal phone to be checked for any relevant information, all of which was provided to the Wells investigators before the interview. The investigators therefore had all of Mr. Jastremski’s texts (which were provided three weeks before Mr. McNally was interviewed) as well as Mr. McNally’s phone records. The Wells investigators brought four lawyers to the McNally interview. They spent the entire day with him. He gave over seven hours of testimony. He answered every question. Among other things, the Wells investigators inquired at length about texts with Mr. Jastremski. Having taken a day off work, he was willing to stay as long as it took to finish. The interview did not end until the investigation team exhausted every topic and question they had.

Thus, when subsequently asked for what would have been a fifth interview of Mr. McNally, Patriots counsel wanted to understand what unanticipated circumstances warranted this, including whether the interview would be limited to matters that were simply not available to the investigators during Mr. McNally’s prior interview. The Patriots advised the investigators of their reluctance to have Mr. McNally back yet again, particularly given the media harassment he and his family had suffered as a result of prior leaks of Mr. McNally’s name and hometown. The distress to him and his family caused by the ensuing media attention was described in detail to the investigators. With this background, there was a high hurdle before the Patriots would ask Mr. McNally to appear yet again for what would be his fifth interview, and a particular desire to be sure that the standard for another interview — unanticipated circumstances — was met.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/Patriots-explain-why-McNally-wasnt-made-available

Continued in next post:

 

[Deus Irae]

Continuing:

EMAIL EXCERPTS
Excerpt from email dated 2/5/15 @ 3:53 p.m. from Daniel L. Goldberg to Ted
Wells and Lorin Reisner:
“Scheduling of witness interviews: You have requested new
interviews of those already interviewed, as well as interviews of a
number of other individuals. We will work to accommodate all
those interviews. The interviews will be arranged so that, barring
unanticipated circumstances, there will not be future multiple
interviews of the same person.”

Excerpt from email dated 3/9/15 @ 4:47 p.m. from Dan Goldberg to Ted Wells
and Lorin Reisner:
“As to Jim McNally
…
No time limits were put on his prior interviews, three by League
Security and one, full day interview, by you. Among the reasons
for my disinclination to ask that he come for yet another interview
are:
…
We had an agreement from the outset that, barring extraordinary
or unexpected circumstances, each person would be subjected to
only one interview by you.
…
if you want some added information from Jim McNally, let me
know what it is and I will consider the best way to get relevant
information to you.

2 Excerpt from email dated 3/17/15 @ 10:35 a.m. from Dan Goldberg to
Ted Wells and Lorin Reisner:
“For the various reasons previously identified, coupled with what
you have now seen on video, I remain disinclined to ask him to
appear again.”
…
(I have also pointed out to you that the “new” areas explored in the
fourth Jastremski interview that you requested did not address issues
that could not have been covered in an earlier interview.
…
For all these reasons, I remain disinclined to ask him to return
again. If there are truly unanticipated fact areas that you believe
are relevant to whether there was tampering with the balls at the
AFC Game for which you need his input, let me know what they
are and I will see how best to get you that information. Certainly
were we in litigation you would not get the relief you now seek
without disclosing specifically what it is that has triggered the
request for a fifth deposition of the same witness and what it is
you plan to cover. I do not feel I am asking you for anything out of
the ordinary by making this request.”


Excerpt from email dated 3/17/15 @ 4:59 p.m. from Dan Goldberg to Lorin
Reisner and Ted Wells:
“We will certainly let you know if the position changes. And
please let us know if we can assist you in getting any information
you believe you are in need of in some other fashion -- whether in
the nature of interrogatories or the like.”

 

[Deus Irae]

As an aside, I'd love to get further clarification of:

(I have also pointed out to you that the “new” areas explored in the
fourth Jastremski interview that you requested did not address issues
that could not have been covered in an earlier interview.

It could be nothing, but it also could be Goldberg's way of saying "Bite me. You lied about just this sort of thing when you asked for, and got, a second/fourth interview with Jastremski."

 

[mihap]

Well when you think about it 50-yard-line, McNally didn't need a pump or a gauge to spend 1 minute and 40 seconds blindly deflating balls in a bathroom minutes before the AFC Championship game for Tom fanatical about his footballs Brady.
Naaaaah, McNally just pulled each ball out of the bag and counted "One Mississippi.......Two Mississippi........" with the sound of hissing psi vanishing into thin air...........


It SHOCKS me that smart peeps in the media have never questioned the validity of the 'he did it in the bathroom' scenario.
McNally is in that bathroom for 5 minutes....you've got my attention.
McNally is in that bathroom for 10 minutes.... the Patriots are in deep trouble.

McNally was in that bathroom for *1 minute and 40 seconds*.

Have never bought this scenario. Next to the science this is the weakest part of this story and yet
no one in the media questions it.

Amazing!!!

i want to see videos of all previous games and if mcnally always takes balls in the bathroom then there might some **** going on.

 

[VectorPrime]

i want to see videos of all previous games and if mcnally always takes balls in the bathroom then there might some **** going on.

Apparently the surveillance tapes are on a 10 day loop which means the footage for older games no longer exists. I suppose it could mean there is footage for the Divisional game since that was only 8 days earlier but that is cutting it close. I know, I was extremely disappointed to hear about this too. But based on the fact that the officials specifically said how odd it was that McNally went into the bathroom and that it was something they had never seen in their years on the job I think we can assume that he hadn't been doing it before. The question then is where do the investigators claim he was able to deflate the balls in the past if not in the bathroom? Do they address this?

 

[hwc]

If all 4 interviews were 7 hours long I agree. But how long were the other 3 interviews? Because if they were just short Q/As then they can't be compared.

I take it that you have not read the Patriots response to the Wells report?

You can find the relevant section here:

http://wellsreportcontext.com/#mcnallyfive

 

[Sfpat]

It appears that after 4 interviews Wells was unable to find any inconsistencies in Mcnally s testamony. Maybe he's telling the truth.

 

[Deus Irae]

It appears that after 4 interviews Wells was unable to find any inconsistencies in Mcnally s testamony. Maybe he's telling the truth.

"But 7 months before the AFC championship game, McNally pointed to ESPN and also used the word 'deflator' in a pair of texts. That's absolute proof that he's guilty of about 1000 crimes against the NFL."
- Mr. Wells

 

[1960Pats]

Oh and btw we're supposed to believe Tom Brady is fanatical, absolutely anal about the condition of the footballs he uses.......and at the same time we're supposed to believe Jim McNally took a bulky, heavy bag of footballs into a bathroom and deflated them to Tom Brady's liking and did all this in 1 minute and 40 seconds.
ANYONE who believes McNally deflated those balls in that bathroom is an absolute fool.

And one of those fools responded to your post. They're everywhere.

 

[ScottMac]

So time to talk brash...Hope that fellow Pats fans don't have a problem or that Wells has a problem (if he's paying attention...probably is).

Are you kidding? What interview/statement takes more than a couple of hours or less? Geez, if you really had to go beyond you'd run surveillance just to justify the hours. I always did! Meetings, conversations in restaurants are always big. Grilling in interviews is near-worthless unless you are using poly or voice-stress. (And I'd bet that they used voice-stress. I did!)

 

[ScottMac]

Wells claimed that he had "direct evidence", but we've yet to see it. I'd bet voice-stress, but he can't reveal for obvious reasons. Sorry, but not only can it not be used for evidence, the results are easily manipulated and not admissible in any court. Geez, I was part of a trial program years ago, gave it a try and wrote a newspaper column about the experience. As I was a political columnist, the result was a complete clamming up of local politicians. It took me months to regain trust, months to prove that I only used the software once in a trial period. (They didn't want to talk with me. )Fact is, it worked great, but very easy to manipulate to gain the results you wanted. I'm placing a heavy bet that they used the software and that that is the so-called "direct evidence" Wells claims.

 

[Froob]

It appears that after 4 interviews Wells was unable to find any inconsistencies in Mcnally s testamony. Maybe he's telling the truth.

Impossible. Ted Wells says he's guilty based on Walt Anderson's second best recollection of the events that day.

 

[mgteich]

That wasn't a trial
That wasn't a stand in a court of law
It's unusual to get 3 interviews/depositions and then get another one for 7+ hours with the same person.

I'm confused as to the "why" behind some of the points you seem to be trying to make regarding this case.

I guess all that matter is that we vent. There should be no reasoned discussion of what might or might no happen. I bow to your superior experience. I'm sure that you have participated in many more depositions and formal questioning that I have. NOT

The why is that there MIGHT be some who might want to try to understand, rather than just vent. But perhaps, not.

And why don't we make believe that the Wells folks interviewed him 10 or 12 times. He was interviewed by them once, apparently for 7 hours. The league had previously interviewed him. The interviewers compared their notes, and decided that they had followup questions. The patriots decided that enough was enough.

 

[mgteich]

It wasn't about a second interview. It was about a 5th.

Yup this a "winner". Please document anywhere other than here that says that the Wells folks interviewed McNally more than once.

 

[Triumph]

 

[ScottMac]

I guess all that matter is that we vent. There should be no reasoned discussion of what might or might no happen. I bow to your superior experience. I'm sure that you have participated in many more depositions and formal questioning that I have. NOT

The why is that there MIGHT be some who might want to try to understand, rather than just vent. But perhaps, not.

And why don't we make believe that the Wells folks interviewed him 10 or 12 times. He was interviewed by them once, apparently for 7 hours. The league had previously interviewed him. The interviewers compared their notes, and decided that they had followup questions. The patriots decided that enough was enough.

And this is much of the frustration we experience due to the leaks, media & fan opinions. I've worked many high-profile cases over the years and can state that it is unusual to have unlimited interview sessions. If you, the investigator, made mistakes, forgot to ask critical questions, well, your mistake and you don't get to harass with unlimited time. If I had had that option, I'm pretty certain that I could have buried a few more.

 

[JMC00]

Yup this a "winner". Please document anywhere other than here that says that the Wells folks interviewed McNally more than once.

Please document here where there wasn't an agreement that Wells would get only 1 interview with McNally baring any unforeseen circumstances. Not doing a proper search is not an unforeseen circumstance it's just shoddy work.

It's not the Patriots or McNally's fault that Goodell sent NFL security stooges 3 times before Wells. But let's not act like the NFL didn't hand over everything they got those 3 times to Wells before Wells sat down to interview McNally

But if anyone thinks Wells really wanted the 2nd interview is naive. That was just a ploy to make the Patriots look uncooperative yet Patriots legal counsel said he could do a phone interview and shocker Wells declined it. Why would he do that if he really needed to interview him again? Fact is Wells never wanted to ask McNally about those texts from May because he would get an answer that he would have to put in the report. His case looks a lot better when he paints the Patriots as uncooperative and McNally doesn't put his own context to the text messages.

 

[supafly]

"But 7 months before the AFC championship game, McNally pointed to ESPN and also used the word 'deflator' in a pair of texts. That's absolute proof that he's guilty of about 1000 crimes against the NFL."
- Mr. Wells

Deus-- is that really a direct, word for word quote where Wells actually suggests "1,000 crimes against the NFL?" If so, that's beyond insane.