If you were interested in the truth, you'd get a real investigator to do a real investigation and that would take some time. You wouldn't just assume you can tell whether people are telling the truth by looking into their eyes. And you'd want to see if there is any evidence. If the truth is what I was after I'd start by making sure I had a pretty solid understanding of what the Do Your Job program was, who was involved, how its structure is aligned with the team, what documents or manuals it uses, and how it creates its product. Then I'd talk to whomever there is at the Club that is in charge and that interfaces with DYJ. Then I'd look at tape. Not just the tape in question, but whatever tape I could get my hands on from DYJ. I'd want to see both the finished product and any b-roll or cutting room footage from prior episodes. I'd start with a year and then decide if I needed more.
At this point I would probably have a list of of additional people I'd want to talk to about DYJ and its relationship to the Patriots, and I'd probably have other areas of follow up too. I'd track down those leads. If I had questions about the footage that I saw or any documents I saw that could only be answered by DYJ folks who were not on site or involved in the Browns/Bengals game, I'd talk to them. I'd sit with a video machine if I had to and ask any questions that presented themselves. Then I would talk to the team's operations people. I would start with the HC and the coordinators. Then I'd decide if I need to talk to anyone else. Maybe a player or two. Definitely the scout. Only then would I interview the people involved in the Browns/Bengals game and incident. I'd find out everything I could. I'd ask specific questions, including any particular questions that the footage raised. Then I would loop back to anyone I needed to close any loose ends.
This is what a real investigation would look like. And I'd do it all even if after 10 minutes I thought I was fairly convinced of what the answer was.
If I wanted to be able to write a report that said that the Patriots got no operational advantage and were unaware of the taping, I would do the investigation much more quickly. Same if I wanted to show that the Patriots knew or should have known, or somehow otherwise were responsible for, the crew. And I'd do what Ted Wells did. I would start from the beginning making my investigation technique match the conclusion I wanted to draw.
I don't think the NFL actually knows how to do investigations. Maybe they are getting a little better on sexual misconduct investigations by hiring real professionals. But, the bottom line is that the NFL has to make a choice here. Either it must simply decide that it doesn't really care what the full facts are and that the basic facts are enough to do what they are going to do. (Highly likely. Probably not bad for the Patriots, given how the wind is blowing but who the fuck knows.) Or they should do it correctly. Doing it correctly takes time,. On the facts as we know them, doing it correctly seems like it would be good for the Patriots if the league avoids Ted Wellsing it up.