Goodell "Thinks" The DeflateGate Investigation Is Nearing the End

BringBackThatOleTimeBoys said:
Initially, the Hatriots bothered me - now I get great satisfaction over no findings and a SB victory driving some of you to rant endlessly - Pats are your daddy.
Click to expand...
It really is pretty funny the ridiculous things some of these people are saying. Things like telling us that a 13 week (and counting) independent investigation with an expected 150-page report is "sweeping it under the rug" - but a 24 hour investigation run by the league office would have been just fine. Hilarious!!
 
Rogah said:
ya that's definitely where this investigation is focused.

I have to think Goodell won't be happy that an underling of his did what he did all behind his back.
Click to expand...

You think Mr Krafty has Goodell that much under control that King Roger would throw his own people under the bus to keep Krafty happy? I suspect for $44 million he would.
 
WPBCowboysFan said:
You think Mr Krafty has Goodell that much under control that King Roger would throw his own people under the bus to keep Krafty happy? I suspect for $44 million he would.
Click to expand...
What I think is that Goodell is pissed that someone in the league office was contact prior to the AFCCG without his knowledge.

Grigson said he contacted the league office prior to the AFCCG. Goodell said he did not personally know about any of this prior to the game. That means that unless one of them is lying (which I doubt because they each made these public statements after the investigation began so they knew they would never be able to get away with lying) then Grigson spoke to someone who works for Goodell. I imagine Goodell, with his tremendous ego, is not going to be terribly happy that someone who works for him in his office found out about these allegations before the AFCCG and did not pass that information up the chain of command.

This issue literally dominated national headlines for 2 weeks (the most important 2 weeks of the league year, no less) because of the incompetence of someone in the league office who knew about this and acted without informing his boss. So yeah, I think that person's job may be in jeopardy.
 
Last edited:
Since you are so committed to the investigative process, here is some knowledge for you. Statement analysis is something that I have done for a long time and it works, I am a believer in it as it is a great investigative tool. Granted, you won't get convictions off statement analysis alone, but it helps you zero in. Here is a link to a statement analysis done on Tom Brady's comments. Interesting what it comes up with.....I am sure you will discount it though as it doesn't fit with your narrative.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/deflategate/
 
sacase said:
Since you are so committed to the investigative process, here is some knowledge for you. Statement analysis is something that I have done for a long time and it works, I am a believer in it as it is a great investigative tool. Granted, you won't get convictions off statement analysis alone, but it helps you zero in. Here is a link to a statement analysis done on Tom Brady's comments. Interesting what it comes up with.....I am sure you will discount it though as it doesn't fit with your narrative.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/deflategate/
Click to expand...

the first response I heard Brady give was the next morning on the radio and he started laughing and said he'd heard it all now. I don't see that in this article.
 
sacase said:
Since you are so committed to the investigative process, here is some knowledge for you. Statement analysis is something that I have done for a long time and it works, I am a believer in it as it is a great investigative tool. Granted, you won't get convictions off statement analysis alone, but it helps you zero in. Here is a link to a statement analysis done on Tom Brady's comments. Interesting what it comes up with.....I am sure you will discount it though as it doesn't fit with your narrative.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/deflategate/
Click to expand...
I'll take hard facts turned up by Ted Wells before I worry about some psycho-babble, thank you very much.

According to that guy's analysis, someone like George Costanza would be considered as honest a man that ever existed.
 
jimmy40 said:
the first response I heard Brady give was the next morning on the radio and he started laughing and said he'd heard it all now. I don't see that in this article.
Click to expand...
All I see is a guy that took 2 quotes from a 40 minute press conference that he watched on TV and seems to think he can draw legit conclusions based on the amount of "uhs" and "ums" in those 2 quotes.

Like I said, I'll stick to actual facts presented in the Wells Report.
 
In a few days, I'll ask you if you checked with Reality ... He can easily find IPs and sock puppets and ban them

I already know the answer
 
sacase said:
Since you are so committed to the investigative process, here is some knowledge for you. Statement analysis is something that I have done for a long time and it works, I am a believer in it as it is a great investigative tool. Granted, you won't get convictions off statement analysis alone, but it helps you zero in. Here is a link to a statement analysis done on Tom Brady's comments. Interesting what it comes up with.....I am sure you will discount it though as it doesn't fit with your narrative.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/deflategate/
Click to expand...
why stop there? so which direction were his eyes looking, was he remembering or making stuff up? Was he using the podium to cover up because he was lying? Did he wear a certain color shirt to seem more believable?
 
Rogah said:
I'll take hard facts turned up by Ted Wells before I worry about some psycho-babble, thank you very much.

According to that guy's analysis, someone like George Costanza would be considered as honest a man that ever existed.
Click to expand...

Like I said I knew you would dismiss it as it didn't fit your narrative. These techniques are taught to Federal law enforcement because they work. So you are willing to take the word of a league paid lawyer, but not trust a technique used by Federal and Local law enforcement, that has been proven to work. I will take the word of a 20+ year Federal Investigator vs. a defense attorney who is adept and lying to get criminals off.
 
jimmy40 said:
why stop there? so which direction were his eyes looking, was he remembering or making stuff up? Was he using the podium to cover up because he was lying? Did he wear a certain color shirt to seem more believable?
Click to expand...

Yeah that eyes thing is not accurate at all. I don't know anyone that uses that technique. It was mentioned to us when I came through the school house but never received any training on it. I think it is more of a myth than a accurate technique.
 
sacase said:
Like I said I knew you would dismiss it as it didn't fit your narrative. These techniques are taught to Federal law enforcement because they work. So you are willing to take the word of a league paid lawyer, but not trust a technique used by Federal and Local law enforcement, that has been proven to work. I will take the word of a 20+ year Federal Investigator vs. a defense attorney who is adept and lying to get criminals off.
Click to expand...
Yes, I will take the word of a guy who (along with his team of investigators) has spent 13 weeks (and counting) looking into the facts of the case, personally interviewed witnesses, personally interviewed the participants, watched hundreds of hours of videotape, examined the evidence, spoke to university physicists, and prepared an estimated 150 page report on the matter over the word of a guy who sat at home and took 2 quotes from a 40 minute press conference, wrote about it on his blog, and thinks he just solved the whole thing right then and there.

Quite honestly, your whole claim that some guy sitting at home calling "liar liar pants on fire" knows more about the situation than the professional investigator who has spent 3 months looking into the whole thing is pretty darn hilarious if you think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 20 more.
Total: 1,091 (members: 120, guests: 971)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,738
Messages
13,894,751
Members
23,792
Latest member
Irvin_truther
Back
Top