ctown28
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by ctown28 on May 31, 2017 5:58:12 GMT
And the jury in the OJ double-murder trial was selected by the LA DA's office and paid a stipend by the city of LA. But they were independent and didn't give the government the verdict that the government wanted. Likewise, the fact that Wells didn't give the NFL or Goodell the verdict that they wanted (by clearing Belichick of any wrongdoing) clearly proves that Wells and his investigation team were independent and unbiased. Really? The DA's office picked that entire jury and still Lost? The defense team had no say in the jurors? Well if that's the case, I'm convinced that OJ is really innocent. I won't even comment on what's pointed out to you multiple times that the appeals court only ruled on Godells authority. Hey, how about you answer my question about if Brady will be a first ballot hall of fame Inductee? Do you see it happening? Your silence on the question is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on May 31, 2017 11:04:06 GMT
The NFL assigned Pash to be the co-lead investigator, not the liaison. If he was the liaison, then they would have called him the liaison. See how simple that was? All that writing you did, quickly destroyed by one simple fact.
And since you have already admitted that the NFL was out to get the Patriots, anything they might say on the matter must be viewed with extreme skepticism. Particularly when they refused to provide details of Pashs's role while under oath.
Like another poster pointed out, the NFL eventually gave up on trying to portray Wells as independent. So, not only have you been arguing against youself in this thread, you've also been arguing against the NFL.
Have you FAILED enough, or would you like to go another round?
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 31, 2017 15:09:05 GMT
I see that in addition to not answering my 2 last questions about the Wonder Woman movie, you also didn't answer this question:
The flaw in your argument is that you keep claiming that Wells did what Goodell told him to do, but the fact that Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate completely destroys your weak argument. Are you claiming that Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate?
Either
A. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate
OR
B. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Wells was truly independent and unbiased and objective and wasn't obligated to do what Goodell says
So which was it? A or B?
Re: Thor Who the hell is Patty Jenkins? I had to type that before looking her up... I've seen her 2 eps of The Killing, 1 ep of Arrested Development. And she did Monster which I haven't seen. Can't say I'm a huge fan of hers ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) Why should I care that she left Thor: TDW? She was replaced by Alan Taylor, who has waaay better cred than her with director credits for Game of Thrones, Deadwood, and The Sopranos. So...I guess I'm glad she left T:TDW. You're very mistaken about my opinion on WW. Sure I don't expect it to be great since MoS, BvS, and SS were all disappointing, but I want it to be good. You may be stuck in this 'Marvel v DC' mentality, but I'm not. I like both. I watch Arrow and The Flash and Legends and Gotham and even Supergirl, presently the worst comic book show on TV but I still kind of like it...you think I want WW to fail? Pft. I'll tell you what matters to me about T:TDW, firstly that it was immensely entertaining to me. Secondly it did well enough to get a sequel - which looks awesome. Even my snob of a brother think it's looks great. He's such a snob that he flat out refuses to watch Ant-Man AND the Netflix Marvel shows. Hell he won't even watch BBC's Sherlock because it's 'too modern.' I guess he likes Victorian London more than he likes the character of Sherlock... How in the hell is it a flop? It made more than 4x its net budget. Sure its RT is only 66 is good not great, but it's more than twice BvS's RT score. Not a flop by any metric - but I care more about how much it entertains me than how much it entertains others or how much money it makes. Re: Wonder Woman I don't think making a female-led CBM just for the sake of making a female-led CBM is a good idea. I think rushing a Black Widow (or whoever) movie just to check a box or fill a quota would have gone very badly, and I think Captain Marvel is happening at the right time considering the character, her powers, and the its relation to of Infinity War. Re: Wells/Belichick Since you suck so much at analogies, this is what a good one looks like Wells being out to get Brady but clearing Belichick... it's like when a student cheats on a test but intentionally gets a couple wrong to avoid arousing suspicion. Clearing Belichick proves nothing about his objectivity. He didn't have a credible or even quasi-credible way to implicate Belichick. To sum up; you fail in every possible way.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 15:34:44 GMT
The NFL assigned Pash to be the co-lead investigator Nope. Pash wasn't an investigator on DeflateGate. Pash was the liaison between the independent investigation team and the NFL offices and Pash's role was to make sure the independent investigation team got answers to their questions or got the information they needed to proceed. That's why even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that "The “insights” Pash might have had and the role he might have played in the preparation of the Wells Report were concerns that were collateral to the issues". they refused to provide details of Pashs's role while under oath. Because the Arbitrator already stated that Pash did not "play a substantive role in the investigation". Pash's role as a liaison between the independent investigation and the NFL offices was immaterial to the investigation. That's why even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that "The “insights” Pash might have had and the role he might have played in the preparation of the Wells Report were concerns that were collateral to the issues". Basically, Brady's attorneys tried to throw out a red herring by claiming that they weren't allowed to call Pash as a witness in the arbitration hearing. But Pash wasn't an investigator on DeflateGate and thus his testimony was immaterial to the case. That's why even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Pash's role was immaterial to the case. In a criminal trial, the lawyers don't get to waste the court's time calling witnesses whose testimony would be immaterial to the case. Witnesses can only be called to testify if their testimony is material to the case. In DeflateGate, Pash wasn't an investigator and thus his testimony was immaterial to the case. That's why even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Pash's role was immaterial to the case.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on May 31, 2017 16:08:06 GMT
You've already invalidated anything the Arbitrator (Goodell) might have said on the matter when you admitted that he was out to get the Patriots and wanted Wells to implicate Belichick without any evidence.
... And denying the fact that the NFL appointed Pash as "co-lead investigator" (their words), doesn't help your case one bit.
You lost this argument with your very first post and after hundreds of words and endless hours, you still haven't made any progress.
Are you done FAILING yet?
|
|
ctown28
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by ctown28 on May 31, 2017 16:20:32 GMT
Nope. Pash wasn't an investigator on DeflateGate. Pash was the liaison between the independent investigation team and the NFL offices and Pash's role was to make sure the independent investigation team got answers to their questions or got the information they needed to proceed. That's why even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that "The “insights” Pash might have had and the role he might have played in the preparation of the Wells Report were concerns that were collateral to the issues". Care to explain why, if he wasn't an investigator, he was allowed to edit the Wells Report? Tell us again how he only edited the report to fix a few grammatical errors!
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 31, 2017 16:41:04 GMT
Nope. Pash wasn't an investigator on DeflateGate. Pash was the liaison between the independent investigation team and the NFL offices and Pash's role was to make sure the independent investigation team got answers to their questions or got the information they needed to proceed. That's why even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that "The “insights” Pash might have had and the role he might have played in the preparation of the Wells Report were concerns that were collateral to the issues". Care to explain why, if he wasn't an investigator, he was allowed to edit the Wells Report? Tell us again how he only edited the report to fix a few grammatical errors! Wells is a lawyer with a J.D. from Harvard, shouldn't he be able to fix his own grammar?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 1, 2017 15:00:58 GMT
your analogy is such a fail. Nope, my analogy works. But since you Patriots fans still don't get it, I'll give you an even simpler analogy. You Patriots fans claim that Goodell appointed Wells the independent investigator so Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. The POTUS appoints Supreme Court justices. Is every Supreme Court justice obligated to side with the POTUS who appointed them and give back the ruling that the POTUS who appointed them wants on every Supreme Court decision?
I just completely blew up the claims by you Patriots fans that Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. Bottom line: Brady cheated and got caught cheating and will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history.And I see that you Patriots fans are afraid to answer my question: Either A. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate OR B. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Wells was truly independent and unbiased and objective and wasn't obligated to do what Goodell says So which was it? A or B?
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jun 1, 2017 15:07:24 GMT
your analogy is such a fail. Nope, my analogy works. But since you Patriots fans still don't get it, I'll give you an even simpler analogy. You Patriots fans claim that Goodell appointed Wells the independent investigator so Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. The POTUS appoints Supreme Court justices. Is every Supreme Court justice obligated to side with the POTUS who appointed them and give back the ruling that the POTUS who appointed them wants on every Supreme Court decision?
I just completely blew up the claims by you Patriots fans that Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. Bottom line: Brady cheated and got caught cheating and will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history.And I see that you Patriots fans are afraid to answer my question: Either A. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate OR B. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Wells was truly independent and unbiased and objective and wasn't obligated to do what Goodell says So which was it? A or B? False dilemma fallacy, aka black and whiteAs I said, it's like a student that cheats on a test but gets a couple wrong on purpose to avoid suspicion. No quasi-credible way to implicate Belichick anyway. Your other fallacy is continually acting like Goodell is a goddamn saint.
|
|
ctown28
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by ctown28 on Jun 1, 2017 15:10:39 GMT
your analogy is such a fail. Nope, my analogy works. But since you Patriots fans still don't get it, I'll give you an even simpler analogy. You Patriots fans claim that Goodell appointed Wells the independent investigator so Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. The POTUS appoints Supreme Court justices. Is every Supreme Court justice obligated to side with the POTUS who appointed them and give back the ruling that the POTUS who appointed them wants on every Supreme Court decision?
I just completely blew up the claims by you Patriots fans that Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. Bottom line: Brady cheated and got caught cheating and will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history.And I see that you Patriots fans are afraid to answer my question: Either A. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate OR B. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Wells was truly independent and unbiased and objective and wasn't obligated to do what Goodell says So which was it? A or B? Big surprise, another failed analogy. When POTUS appoints someone to the Supreme Court, does POTUS appoint someone whose beliefs are opposite of their own or the Same? As far as your ridiculous question, the answer is obviously A, which also magnifies how corrupt the commissioner is. If Belichick and the rest of the organization has been cleared and it was only one player and some equipment guys, how do you justify the loss of draft picks? You don't punish an entire organization for the actions of one person.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 1, 2017 15:40:15 GMT
When POTUS appoints someone to the Supreme Court, does POTUS appoint someone whose beliefs are opposite of their own or the Same? The POTUS can never be sure what the Supreme Court nominee believes because a potential nominee to the Supreme Court isn't going to publicly admit that his or her views are significantly different than what the POTUS believes. Supreme Court nominees have been known to switch from left to right or vice versa after they've been appointed to the Supreme Court. It's not what the Supreme Court nominee says he believes that's important. It's how they rule on cases that's important. And you avoided answering the question: Is every Supreme Court justice obligated to side with the POTUS who appointed them and give back the ruling that the POTUS who appointed them wants on every Supreme Court decision?
It's a simple YES or NO question. Are they obligated to side with the person who appointed them and give back the verdict that the person who appointed them wants? Like I said, I just completely blew up the weak claim by you Patriots fans that Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. The fact is Wells didn't side with Goodell and didn't give back the verdict that Goodell wanted (because Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate), which clearly proves that Wells was indeed independent and unbiased and objective and not obligated to side with Goodell or give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. SO bottom line: Brady cheated and got caught cheating and will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NF history.As far as your ridiculous question, the answer is obviously A So now you're claiming that Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate. Well, you've just admitted that Goodell wasn't biased against the Patriots. If anything, Goodell was trying to help his best friend Robert Kraft. Thankfully, Wells had enough integrity to decide based on the evidence. And based on the evidence (which even Judge Denny Chin said on the record in open court "the evidence of ball tampering is compelling"), it was clear and obvious that Brady cheated.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jun 1, 2017 15:58:12 GMT
That's what usually happens when you hire a lawyer, numb-nuts. He is obligated to side with you. The NFL didn't really hire Wells to be an "independent investigator", as was later revealed in court documents ... that they didn't think would be made public.
... who have a history of siding with the Presidents views ... and more often than not, they'll return decisions that the President wants. When they don't it's because the contrary evidence/argument is too much to ignore. ... like trying to implicate Belichick in Deflate-gate, without a whiff of evidence. Wells simply couldn't do it, even if (as you have admitted) Goodell wanted it.
Yes, I believe you just did. Not a good start to the day, cupcake.
The thing that is befuddling you, champ, is your failure to consider an option C ... as stated above, in red. At some point Wells must have reported to his client that he had some circumstantial evidence that he might be able to pin on Brady, but he had absolutely nothing on Belichick. Even though you keep saying that Goodell would have wanted Wells to try to implicate Belichick anyways, It's doubtful that Goodell (or anyone else, for that matter) operates at your special level of stupid.
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on Jun 1, 2017 16:05:49 GMT
This is still going, jesus.
DC loves to fail, I admit watching him fail makes me laugh.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jun 1, 2017 16:25:07 GMT
DC-Fan has ignored my last 3 posts. 3 strikes and you're out. I win. As per ush.
|
|
ctown28
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by ctown28 on Jun 1, 2017 17:08:24 GMT
The POTUS can never be sure what the Supreme Court nominee believes because a potential nominee to the Supreme Court isn't going to publicly admit that his or her views are significantly different than what the POTUS believes. Supreme Court nominees have been known to switch from left to right or vice versa after they've been appointed to the Supreme Court. It's not what the Supreme Court nominee says he believes that's important. It's how they rule on cases that's important. And you avoided answering the question: Is every Supreme Court justice obligated to side with the POTUS who appointed them and give back the ruling that the POTUS who appointed them wants on every Supreme Court decision?
It's a simple YES or NO question. Are they obligated to side with the person who appointed them and give back the verdict that the person who appointed them wants? Like I said, I just completely blew up the weak claim by you Patriots fans that Wells was obligated to side with Goodell and give back the verdict that Goodell wanted. You blew nothing up. When are you going to get it through your thick skull that I am NOT a Patriots fan. One doesn't have to be a fan to respect a great team. As far as your Supreme court analogy, do you honestly think that when POTUS nominates someone, he doesn't actually talk to them and interview them to get a feel for their beliefs? Do you think when Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch he just hoped that the guy would adhere to his beliefs? Why do you keep avoiding this question, if Brady will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history, does this mean the HOF committee will either A. Induct a known cheater and fraud or B not induct him because of his cheating ways? I guarantee you he is a first ballot HOFer Now wait a minute here, if my claim is that A. Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick, how does that show he wasn't biased? It clearly shows that Wells was going to do whatever Goodell told him to do. Try a proper analogy that zoilus gave you, like a student cheating on a test and not getting every answer correct. You also avoid the question that if Belichick and hte rest of the team was unaware and cleared of any wrong doing, why were they fined $1 million and lost draft picks if they were innocent?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 1, 2017 17:56:53 GMT
Only Patriots fans would continuously defend the blatant cheating that Brady and the Patriots repeatedly do. Your "Other teams do it too" excuse is laughable. If you're ticketed for going 95 in a 65 MPH zone and you go to court and tell the judge "Well, other drivers were speeding too", how does that prove that you weren't speeding? As far as your Supreme court analogy, do you honestly think that when POTUS nominates someone, he doesn't actually talk to them and interview them to get a feel for their beliefs? Do you think when Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch he just hoped that the guy would adhere to his beliefs? Do you honestly think that potential nominees to the Supreme Court will be 100% transparent and not conceal information from the POTUS when that information would hurt their chances of being nominated? Do you think that nobody ever exaggerates their skills or accomplishments or conceals information in a job interview? Or do you think that the POTUS has a real Lasso of Truth that he can use to make anyone tell the truth? Now wait a minute here, if my claim is that A. Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick, how does that show he wasn't biased? If Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick, then that proves that Goodell wasn't biased against the Patriots and was trying to help his best friend Robert Kraft, just like he helped Kraft during SpyGate by destroying the videotapes and then giving the Patriots nothing more than a slap on the wrist for 6+ seasons of cheating that resulted in 3 Super Bowl wins during the SpyGate era. if Belichick and hte rest of the team was unaware and cleared of any wrong doing, why were they fined $1 million and lost draft picks if they were innocent? The evidence proved that Brady, Jim "The Deflator" McNally, and Jastremski were part of the scheme to illegally tamper with the footballs and the evidence didn't implicate Belichick. So since Wells was unbiased and objective, he cleared Belichick (based on the evidence) of being part of the scheme to illegally tamper with the footballs. But that doesn't exonerate Belichick (as head coach) and Kraft (as owner) of their failure to supervise. It's no different than a police precinct where the cops routinely beat confessions out of suspects. Even if the commanding officer of the precinct didn't know that his cops were beating confessions out of suspects, he'll usually get re-assigned because he was the commanding officer and it happened under his watch. He might not have known, but he failed to do his job as a commanding officer to keep his officers in line. Similarly, Belichick and Kraft are responsible for fostering an environment where cheating is supported. Because Belichick and Kraft supported the cheating that went on for 6+ seasons during SpyGate, Brady thought that it was OK for him to also break the rules and cheat and expected that he wouldn't get anything more than just a slap on the wrist even if he got caught cheating. That's the reason for the $1 million fine and lost of draft picks - because Belichick and Kraft fostered an environment where cheating is supported.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jun 1, 2017 18:19:34 GMT
The evidence proved that Brady, Jim "The Deflator" McNally, and Jastremski were part of the scheme to illegally tamper with the footballs and the evidence didn't implicate Belichick. So much to reply to but it's tedious to address everything... No, the evidence proved no such thing. There is 0 evidence anyone wanted pressure outside the legal limit. Proof would be a text by Brady saying "I want the pressure at 12.0" There's even a text by Jastremski saying "They supposed to be 13lbs... they were like 16" now THAT proves there's no scheme. There is 0 evidence anyone attempted to set pressure outside the legal limit. Proof would be McNally texting someone "I deflated the balls after inspection." Exponent's science is demonstrably faulty and isn't even definitively against Brady in the first place. Many scientists and firms have done experiments using the reported scenario and parameters and determined the weather was sufficient to decrease the pressure to the observed levels. They also supersede Exponent's science by not being demonstrably faulty.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jun 1, 2017 19:54:53 GMT
If that is the case, the Patriots acquired a whole slew of new fans thanks to Deflate-gate. Basically, the entire scientific community and sports media are now Patriots Fans! Woohoo! Supreme Court nominees have a long paper trail. They can't exaggerate their skills or accomplishments. It's all written down, long before they become nominees. Your desperate attempts to declare Wells independant is a good indicator that the evidence alone is not sufficient to prove anything. It needs the help of an unbiased source, otherwise you wouldn't be putting so much effort into a claim that even the NFL has abandoned. Once again, you have managed to destroy yourself. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/clap.gif) I believe we've driven a stake through this one. Neither Wells nor Goodell would have been stupid enough to implicate Belichick without a shred of evidence. Your inability to comprehend this rather simple point is a good indicator as to why you tend to get every single thing wrong, regardless of the topic. This thread is no exception.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 2, 2017 9:04:12 GMT
Proof would be a text by Brady saying "I want the pressure at 12.0" Proof [would be McNally texting someone "I deflated the balls after inspection." No, that's not needed to prove Brady's guilt. There were no text messages or recordings of Aaron Hernandez saying "I shot and killed Odin Lloyd", but there was plenty of other incriminating evidence to prove Hernandez was guilty of the murder of Odin Lloyd. Similarly, there was plenty of other incriminating evidence to prove that Brady ordered Jim "The Deflator" McNally to deflate the footballs for him to use in games. Even Judge Denny Chin (an unbiased federal appellate court judge whose job is reviewing evidence and making a ruling based on the evidence) said on the record in open court that "the evidence of ball tampering is compelling". Moreover, unlike the charge against Hernandez for the murder of Odin Lloyd, the standard of proof for DeflateGate is preponderance of evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet the preponderance of evidence standard, all the NFL needs to do is prove that Brady had motive and Jim "The Deflator" McNally had opportunity to deflate the footballs. And both motive and opportunity were clearly prove so the preponderance of evidence standard was met. Many scientists and firms have done experiments using the reported scenario and parameters and determined the weather was sufficient to decrease the pressure to the observed levels. None of those scientists and firms analysis or conclusions are valid or legitimate since none of them were willing to come forward and testify for Brady and subject their analysis and conclusions to the scrutiny of cross-examination. It's like if Aaron Hernandez' best friend had told police that Hernandez didn't murder din Lloyd because Hernandez was with him at the time of the murder, but he isn't willing to sit on the witness chair in court and testify to that and answer questions under cross-examination from the D.A., then Hernandez' lawyers can't argue to the jury in court that Hernandez had an alibi for the murder. They also supersede Exponent's science by not being demonstrably faulty. No, they don't. Like I said above, their analysis and conclusions are all invalid and legitimate since non of them were willing to come forward and testify for Brady and subject their analysis and conclusions to the scrutiny of cross-examination. The only valid and legitimate scientific analysis and conclusions that can be admitted in the DeflateGate case are those of Professor Marlow because Professor Marlow was the only scientist who was willing to come forward and testify and answer questions under the scrutiny of cross-examination. And despite the best efforts of Brady's lawyers to try to discredit and poke holes in Professor Marlow's analysis and conclusions during cross-examination, the failed to discredit or poke any holes in Professor Marlow's analysis and conclusions. So bottom line: The scientific evidence proves that Brady cheated.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jun 2, 2017 10:20:21 GMT
Another great big FAIL. Brady wanted the footballs deflated below the legal limit so it would improve his game? Two seasons have passed. Two more World Championships. Brady has been on fire ... with properly inflated footballs. Turns out there was absolutely no motive for Brady to concoct a scheme to deflate footballs below the legal limit ... that only worked for home games.
Lawyers do not determine the validity of science. Never have, never will. This argument is an automatic FAIL, every time you bring it up.
Another bad start to the day for AH/DC fan. But, then again, look on the bright side. At least you didn't shoot yourself in the foot this time with conflicting arguments. That might be considered progress!
|
|