Deflation-gate

Then it is a mystery to me why you are you quoting statements were I talk specifically about the standard of evidence. My impression is exactly as you say, but the impression comes from you.Look if the evidence is insufficient, which is what our debate is primarily about, then Brady shouldn't be found guilty and shouldn't be punished. If the evidence is sufficient, then he will be found guilty and he may be punished in some way. I think there is sufficient evidence, so I don't have any problem with him being punished. You may feel that you've provided enough argument to be convincing that there is insufficient evidence but I don't agree with that.Now how you get from that to my refusing to 'let the punishment fit the evidence' is something only you understand so far. It appears that you actually mean something like 'let the verdict fit the evidence' which is of course something I agree entirely with. And since there does not seem to be any issue about the preponderance of the evidence standard, perhaps you can better explain what your beef is. I'm not sure I get it even after reading your last two posts.It appears to me that we disagree about a couple of things including the role of evidence other than ball pressure. I'll admit that I find your stance on that particular issue strange, and it is likely that we will never agree on that. Okay... You seem to be adding in yet another issue on top of the evidence issue. Since what I am doing here is responding to a completely different accusation from you, I'll leave the part about whether or not the NFL really cares about ball pressure tampering to another day. Again, the quality of the evidence is something we disagree on, and not, apparently, the standard of evidence.ABE:I took another look at your post. Brady's punishment is too harsh by any measure, but IMO primarily by the punishments others have gotten for beating their kids and wives and for other criminal matters. Yes we do scale civil awards, but generally based on culpability rather than on the standard of proof, and we really haven't even discussed what the punishment should be. It still seems that you are arguing about the verdict rather than the punishment.I noted that your opinion was your opinion and according to you I did not even respond the next time you brought the point up. What's your complaint? That I'm not convinced?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Culpability is about things other than mere liability. Culpability is about the level of guilt assigned to Brady. In addition, other factors can go into the punishment including cooperation or non-cooperation with the investigation, lying to investigators or otherwise impeding the investigation. It is unlikely that ball pressure data is going to be indicative of any of those things. Those things would be determined by other means. In civil matters there is no fifth amendment and even silence can be used to infer guilt and the level of punishment.But the ball pressure measurements are going to have next to nothing to say about culpability.But given that we really haven't talked about any range of punishments, I simply don't even see the relevance here. The evidence is used to determine what happened to the required degree of certainty. Based on the which issues are and are not found by the required level of proof, which in this case is "more probable than not", and of course the scale on which they've punished others, punishment is assigned. That is the way I expect things to be done. And what I am suggesting to you is that you appear to be wishing for a standard that nobody uses. (As best as I currently understand) If what you are saying is that we cannot impose a four game suspension using a preponderance of the evidence standard then you are engaged in wishing. If instead you merely mean that there is insufficient evidence to assign blame, then you and I are simply disagreeing about the evidence.

Inadequate, yes. But in adequate for what purpose? I don't think the NFL is taking the position that the current rules are adequate to prevent tampering since they are arguing that such a thing did happen.I agree that an argument can be made that the procedures were improved because the previous ones were inadequate to conclusively detect tampering after the fact, But it is an argument that is easily rebutted. Also there do not seem to be any theories that an outsider tampered with the balls. If the NFL is actually ignorant about these things, they are going to learn very quickly.If we want to have more fun speculating, how about some theories that the change in procedures is a tip to how the appeal is going to go or when the appeal results will be announced? My guess is that this is the first step in dropping the punishment to zero.The NFL may take the position that the current evidence lacks a legal strength chain of custody and is thus inadequate to survive a court appeal despite being otherwise sufficient. That stance might allow them to either cave now, or to cave if Brady files an appeal in court. The NFL would then preserve the right to say that they were letting Tom off on a technicality.

I assume that you were posting these things in order to show that I inappropriate held black and white opinions on something that was grey. I wonder how my not responding, or my suggesting that your standard was not the one generally used goes to show that.

Even if I am wrong, when I say "I don't think it matters" that means I am describing the standard approach, so why would I waffle about that? It is also the case that I am just fine with the standard approach. I think it has been vetted over serious civil and administrative matters and that it's just fine for deciding whether Brady is going to start the first game of the season.Are there limits to the punishments I think are appropriate for a preponderance of the evidence standard. Yes. Criminal penalties that include time in jail or inappropriate. But for fining OJ millions of dollars? Preponderance of the evidence is just fine. No sliding scale based on the amount of exceeding the preponderance is necessary.You feel differently, then that's your opinion.

Whatever punishment Brady gets is just fine for the next person who does the same thing. What if the next person does the same thing Brady was found to have done, but does a great job of covering his tracks, but is ultimately caught? Does the difficulty in finding evidence in such a case mean a lighter suspension? I certainly don't buy that.And then there are the factors surrounding the investigation which might be similar to aggravating factors. Are they the same?Let's forget the standard of evidence for just a second. And let's try to forget the players involved.Hypothetical Quarterback A (Bart Star) knows that the equipment dudes are tampering with the balls but says nothing. Quarterback B (Dan Fouts) lets the air out of the balls himself on the sidelines. If those two acts are distinguishable, then different punishments can result. I'm fine with that. Now what penalty should quarterback A get? That's a different, a quite complicated issue.Now let's reintroduce Brady and the particular findings made for Brady generally knowing that the balls were being deflated. Whose suspension can we use for a direct comparison Brady's suspension? Isn't the answer nobody? We don't know what the penalty is for a QB found to be deflating balls on the sidelines. So if 4 games is too many, then IMO, it is because of the lack of any general standard for punishment in the NFL. About some future guy who might do something worse? How can we make that comparison?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Kickers may be unhappy. But wasn't the idea behind moving the ball to the 35 yard line to get more exciting run backs? Maybe that will happen.

I heard on the radio this afternoon that the appeal verdict had been upheld. There was some supposedly new evidence that Brady had destroyed the phone that was allegedly used to communicate with the equipment folks.That sounds kind like a smoke screen to me, but it may be an effective one to raise in a court appeal.Also, the NFL has filed a suit in federal court seeking to have their decision confirmed. I did not expect that...Roger Goodell upholds Tom Brady suspension

I cannot answer many of the questions. I do have some old phones sitting around. I would imagine that the erasure does not immediately make text messages unrecoverable via forensic examination until the memory is reused.

During civil litigation, usually the first shot across the bow are orders to preserve evidence. If Brady's phone had exculpatory evidence or damning evidence and the action had kicked off with a legal suit, destroying that evidence would be inexcusable and would likely result in sanctions. But that is not what happened here. Still, it seems the issue is now going to court and that it is likely that Brady's phone would be subpoenaed if it still existed.Yeah, Brady could have coincidentally gotten a new phone.

Very interesting. Any comments?ABE:A couple of Tom's denials appear to be very carefully worded. Perhaps I am nit picking too closely.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

By the police, yes. But can the NFL obtain such messages without having a court issue a subpoena? If there was any reason to look at Brady's phone, not allowing access and/or destroying the phone would effectively stymie the NFL. What does Tom Brady's message say about this? Tom says he contacted the phone company about trying to retrieve the messages from his old phone. It sounds like the attempt was unsuccessful, but tell me what you think.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Direct evidence - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

​

For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.

---

Now admittedly the article may have more to say about the quality of the circumstantial evidence, but the claim here is that "the headline...says it all."Generally speaking, circumstantial evidence is just fine. We tell creationists that quite often.

According to the article, the Judge's actual question was whether there was evidence 'directly linking' Brady to tampering. IMO, that is a different question that asking about 'direct evidence'. The NFL's response appears to be to discuss circumstantial evidence and evidence related to Brady's credibility. I don't see any statements from the judge in response to the NFL's proffer, but maybe I missed it.In any event, what's happening is that the sides are being asked to actively seek settlement, and reminders about the evidence are in order in that context. I cannot disagree with that. I don't believe either sides initial offers represent serious attempts to settle the case, but the NFLs position is clearly not a good faith offer. The positions are instead positions from which some movement might happen. What I head on the radio today was that talks were 'productive'.Edited by NoNukes, :

I did not follow bounty gate very closely, but weren't there coaches and players who admitted to the scheme? I thought def. coordinator Williams fessed up.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.