Does that being the first point in his statement suggest objectivity? What's your view of the entire basis of the decision being founded upon the word of someone who was admittedly willing to lie about the situation?
What's your position on the investigation being led by someone with a Giants shrine in her home? And who made a recent DV decision of only 1 game. Is it a conspiracy to believe the fallout from that case impacted the Zeke suspension? Because it was discussed throughout the investigation. And then happened.
Whoa, partner. Are you asking me because you truly want to hear honest, good faith answers or simply using your questions to try and make a point?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, assume the former, and answer.
Yes, I think that two reasonable people acting in good faith can many times look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. I believe that Peter believes what he said, and reached his conclusion based on an honest review of the record. I have a somewhat different opinion. But different results do not necessarily mean that the process to get there was different.
Second, the woman you are referring to was primarily responsible for collecting the facts for the advisory panel (which had no decision making authority) and Goodell (who had that power exclusively). I have not seen anything in the evidence collection process that seems fishy. It seems that the dispute, rather, is over how to WEIGH the evidence, and which facts to give credence to and which not. That was all Goodell at the end of the day.
When the Josh Brown facts came out I wanted him gone immediately, even as a Giants fan. And I think the suspension was too light. I do not believe that that means that the league was wrong for applying the policy "correctly" (assuming Goodell's facts) as it is written now. But I can see where someone might reasonably disagree.
And yes, I believe that public pressure absolutely impacted the whole case. But I don't think that that pressure really matters if there isn't some fire there. I get that someone might think the sentence is unreasonable. But I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that, suspension-worthy or not, Zeke isn't the most upstanding Cowboy (no Witten or Romo, that's for sure) and that his poor judgment when he had full knowledge he was under investigation mattered a lot as well.