YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,189
But that's not right. People convicted on circumstantial evidence probably shouldn't have been. The judge was right in his ruling. You can't assume he cheated just because he destroyed a phone. Further, as noted earlier, the judge also pointed out that the league didn't follow on precedent in matters like this. The league warned the Vikes and Panthers when they were tampering with balls during a game last year. You can't then turn around and throw this punishment at the Pats and Brady and expect it would hold up.
There are people wrongfully convicted. That is not the intent of ruling based on circumstantial evidence. There are times when the circumstantial evidence is strong enough that it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". The dude destroyed his cell phone when the NFL asked to see it. That's pretty freaking hard to dispute.