WebFire;1728754 wrote:Even circumstantial evidence has to lead to a conclusion. LOL

What's your point? Ted Wells came to a conclusion in his report from the circumstantial evidence. Think of this as statement #1

Ted Wells came to the conclusion that Tom Brady probably directed the employees. Think of this as statement #2

Roger Goodell used the Wells report to suspend Brady. Think of this as statement #3

To deny statement #1 is to deny the entire concept of circumstantial evidence. This is the huge problem I have with your recent posts on the topic.

You can acknowledge statement #1 while still disagreeing with statements #2 and #3. Those speak to the tenuousness, or alternatively the strength, of the circumstantial evidence. Disagreeing with #2 and #3 is wholly separate from denying the existence of circumstantial evidence; it's clear that you think the circumstantial evidence is much too tenuous to punish Brady.

Maybe I should have made it this simple at the start, but I didn't think you'd struggle so much with the concept of circumstantial evidence.

sleeper;1728757 wrote:And the NFL better hope these alleged texts are more than just "Hey I like my balls a little less inflated" because anything short of "Please, equipment guy, break the rules by under-inflating the balls for this game and in return I will sign some stuff for you" will be laughed at. I hope Brady sues them and wins $500M in punitive damages.

More likely, if the judge finds for Brady, he would point out that the trial was mostly of his doing, and award him $1.

lhslep134;1728758 wrote:What's your point? Ted Wells came to a conclusion in his report from the circumstantial evidence. Think of this as statement #1

Ted Wells came to the conclusion that Tom Brady probably directed the employees. Think of this as statement #2

Roger Goodell used the Wells report to suspend Brady. Think of this as statement #3

To deny statement #1 is to deny the entire concept of circumstantial evidence. This is the huge problem I have with your recent posts on the topic.

You can acknowledge statement #1 while still disagreeing with statements #2 and #3. Those speak to the tenuousness, or alternatively the strength, of the circumstantial evidence; disagreeing with #2 and #3 =/= denying statement #1.

Maybe I should have made it this simple at the start, but I didn't think you'd struggle so much with the concept of circumstantial evidence.

Can you cut the shit? It's clear Webbie doesn't care about legal terms like "Circumstantial evidence" and is simply stating that the "evidence" is weak as hell.

I agree with Webbie. The evidence, call it what you want because no one outside of law schools gives a fuck, is terrible at best. I don't even like Brady or the Patriots but the NFL fucked up big here.

queencitybuckeye;1728759 wrote:More likely, if the judge finds for Brady, he would point out that the trial was mostly of his doing, and award him $1.

LOL

sleeper;1728760 wrote:Can you cut the shit? .

What, me trying to further someone's education about a concept they're misusing? Not gonna happen. Everyone in the country can benefit from more education on topics they're not grasping properly (I mean everyone; including myself).

It's not unlike you bitching about people who misuse the concept of the First Amendment

lhslep134;1728758 wrote:What's your point? Ted Wells came to a conclusion in his report from the circumstantial evidence. Think of this as statement #1

Ted Wells came to the conclusion that Tom Brady probably directed the employees. Think of this as statement #2

Roger Goodell used the Wells report to suspend Brady. Think of this as statement #3

To deny statement #1 is to deny the entire concept of circumstantial evidence. This is the huge problem I have with your recent posts on the topic.

You can acknowledge statement #1 while still disagreeing with statements #2 and #3. Those speak to the tenuousness, or alternatively the strength, of the circumstantial evidence. Disagreeing with #2 and #3 is wholly separate from denying the existence of circumstantial evidence; it's clear that you think the circumstantial evidence is much too tenuous to punish Brady.

Maybe I should have made it this simple at the start, but I didn't think you'd struggle so much with the concept of circumstantial evidence.

So you're saying that because Wells came up with a conclusion (no matter if right or wrong), that makes the texts circumstantial evidence.

Excuse me while I go LOL.

My conclusion is that Brady is innocent because the rock on the corner of Smith St. Doe Ave. is painted red. Therefore, the rock is circumstantial evidence.

lhslep134;1728763 wrote:What, me trying to further someone's education about a concept they're misusing? Not gonna happen. Everyone in the country can benefit from more education on topics they're not grasping properly (I mean everyone; including myself).

It's not unlike you bitching about people who misuse the concept of the First Amendment

No one cares honestly. If I want legal advice, there's plenty of attorneys who have passed the bar working at McDonalds that would be glad to help me out in a rut.

WebFire;1728764 wrote:So you're saying that because Wells came up with a conclusion (no matter if right or wrong), that makes the texts circumstantial evidence.
.

You think the evidence is weak yet you acknowledged evidence is binary. So if you think the evidence is weak, it necessarily has to exist. Because it necessarily exists, it has to be direct or circumstantial. No one is suggesting it is direct evidence, therefore it is circumstantial.

You really are completely ignorant as to the whole concept of evidence aren't you?

You keep on speaking to the veracity of the evidence and not it's existence (to simplify this for you: you're arguing that the evidence is weak not that it doesn't exist). Your absolute failure to appreciate the difference is so mind-numbing that I can't keep trying to find new ways to try and explain it to you.

And if your argument is that the texts aren't circumstantial evidence at all, then you REALLY have no idea how concept of evidence works, whether inside or outside the legal system.

sleeper;1728766 wrote:No one cares honestly. If I want legal advice, there's plenty of attorneys who have passed the bar working at McDonalds that would be glad to help me out in a rut.

LOL'd

lhslep134;1728767 wrote:You think the evidence is weak yet you acknowledged evidence is binary. So if you think the evidence is weak, it necessarily has to exist. Because it necessarily exists, it has to be direct or circumstantial. No one is suggesting it is direct evidence, therefore it is circumstantial.

You really are completely ignorant as to the whole concept of evidence aren't you?

I don't think there is weak evidence. I think there is no evidence. The texts lead to nothing indicating any rules were broken. Pretty certain I've said that all along.

queencitybuckeye;1728726 wrote:There's no question the staffers did it.

There's no reason for them to do it unless it benefits someone.

It benefits exactly one player.

The one player it benefits refuses to cooperate with the investigation.

The conclusion just isn't that hard.

It looks like a horse.
It has black and white stripes.
It is "probably" a zebra.

Exactly right...the conclusion is not that hard.

lhslep134;1728768 wrote:And if your argument is that the texts aren't circumstantial evidence at all, then you REALLY have no idea how concept of evidence works, whether inside or outside the legal system.

Whatever man. Only you can be right. Go Chelsea!

sleeper;1728766 wrote:No one cares honestly.

That's awfully contradictory from someone who cared enough to respond.

If Goodell really cares about the integrity of all this, there will be rules changed or implemented.

WebFire;1728773 wrote:Whatever man. Only you can be right. Go Chelsea!

Just because you're dead wrong doesn't mean only I can be right. Seems there's a ton of people on this thread who understand the concept of circumstantial evidence even if they don't agree with the conclusion.

Only you are staring at an objective and factual conclusion in the face, that circumstantial evidence exists regardless of how strong or weak you interpret it to be, and completely denying its existence.

WebFire;1728775 wrote:If Goodell really cares about the integrity of all this, there will be rules changed or implemented.

This, because that's the basis for this punishment.

WebFire;1728775 wrote:If Goodell really cares about the integrity of all this, there will be rules changed or implemented.

I would think this would be the case. The league should either supply the balls all with a standard pressure or get rid of the rule and let them play with balls anywhere from flat to ready to burst.

lhslep134;1728776 wrote:Just because you're dead wrong doesn't mean only I can be right. Seems there's a ton of people on this thread who understand the concept of circumstantial evidence even if they don't agree with the conclusion.

Only you are staring at an objective and factual conclusion in the face, that circumstantial evidence exists regardless of how strong or weak you interpret it to be, and completely denying its existence.

The rock is red.

lhslep134;1728776 wrote:Just because you're dead wrong doesn't mean only I can be right. Seems there's a ton of people on this thread who understand the concept of circumstantial evidence even if they don't agree with the conclusion.

Only you are staring at an objective and factual conclusion in the face, that circumstantial evidence exists regardless of how strong or weak you interpret it to be, and completely denying its existence.

Even if I agree that it is circumstantial evidence, it doesn't change a damn thing because then I just think the conclusion is wrong. So WGAF?

WebFire;1728781 wrote:Even if I agree that it is circumstantial evidence, it doesn't change a damn thing because then I just think the conclusion is wrong.

Sure it does. Then you don't look dumb for denying the existence of an obvious fact.

I agree it doesn't matter though because you already denied the existence of circumstantial evidence even if you change your tune now.

lhslep134;1728782 wrote:Sure it does. Then you don't look dumb for denying the existence of an obvious fact.

I agree it doesn't matter though because you already denied the existence of circumstantial evidence even if you change your tune now.

I'm not changing my tune.

How does someone say that the text messages and testimony are not circumstantial evidence?

It may be weak as hell, but it's there.

I have WebFire on ignore, and it sounds like I'm not missing out on anything remotely intelligent.