Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87
Wow, I give you props for that response; must be a slow day at the office.
Yes, I read it. I have way too much free time at work. The general gist I was making, that you more probable than not, that I more probable than not didnt explain as well as I should have, is that the entire "More probable than not" stance, is completely based on Wells interpretation of the report. A report that he was paid, by the NFL, to prove that ball deflating occurred. If you read through the report through unbiased eyes, you can see that you can interpret the "findings" in many different ways. One being that sure, maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved, one being something against the rules happened and Brady wasnt involved, another being nothing against the rules happened, and so on. If this was a criminal trial, and this was the evidence brought forth, everyone would have been acquitted. It is all purely circumstantial with no actual facts or evidence.
There have also been numerous scientific studies showing that the balls would have lost pressure due to the conditions. But of course Wells didnt use any of those studies.
|
But it wasn't a criminal trial. Why do the same standards and burdens of proof need to exist? Even in court cases, there are differing burdens of proof for civil vs. criminal actions.
All the best.