#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
amarshal2 said:
He said they were 13.0-13.1.

I agree it's a one-sided report.
I agree it wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
I agree there is far less than definitive proof that Brady knew they were deflating below 12.5.
And I agree the Pats probably intentionally deflated the footballs after the refs approved them.

Given the last one my general reaction is just a lot more muted than yours. I don't want 100% proof to suspend Greg Hardy so I can't ask for it here.
Ok I missed the part about where Anderson gave figures.

With respect to Hardy, we are talking about actual crimes HE committed. In the deflate issue, we are talking about what a couple of low level Pats employees did. So ok fire them and fine the team. But it's clear that Belichick knew nothing about it. And there's no evidence that Brady was really involved.

And if they punish the Pata at all, they damned well need to answer for the Carolina Panthers who were caught on tape tampering with ball inflation on the sideline during a game this year.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,640
steveluck7 said:
My reading of it is that Brady is obviously very particular about the balls being 12.5 and if they felt off during a game, these guys got the brunt of his frustration. As such, they thought they were doign him a favor / saving themselves a headache by making sure the balls were at 12.5, and that might have included letting air out afterwards
 
That's my reading as well.
 
"These balls are 16 PSI?!  The book says they have to be between 12.5 and 13.5.  You guys make sure they are as soft as the rules allow. 12.5.  Got it?"
"Sure Tom."
[next week]
"Guys, these balls seem tight again, what the fuck is going on?  Make the balls 12.5.  Look, here's a copy of the rule you should give to the refs to remind them of the allowable pressure." 
"Jesus, what's up his ass?"
[Next week]
"Shit, I think the balls are still tight.  Tom's gonna tear us a new asshole.  Let's deflate it a bit before the game."
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
bankshot1 said:
 
 
Right now we're dealing in hypotheticals. I assume the PA supports Brady and will work to reduce any penalty handed down.
 
But my main point was Goodell for PR purposes comes out as Wyatt Earp dealing harsh justice to an out of control outlaw organization.


 

 
 
Goodell should be Wyatt Earp for people with off the field actions like Hardy, Rice, Peterson etc. Throwing the book for an onfield rules violation is going alittle bit excessive when the punishment by the book calls for 25K fine.
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,546
crystalline said:
Agreed. Sounds like Brady is going to fight the only place it really matters- the court of public opinion.

The thing I wonder is whether BB and Kraft will back him or whether he will do it himself.
 
 
The problem is that it's almost impossible to win in the court of public opinion. People are just super cynical about athletes using strongly worded self-defense proclamations in the aftermath of Lance Armstrong, Bonds, Braun, Clemens, etc.
 
He'll win in New England, but he already had this area wrapped up before the battle started.
 
Everywhere else he'll smell like a skunk, because that's what happens when you roll around in the mud with one.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
Silverdude2167 said:
Why do you think this? There is absolutely no proof that they did anything wrong and the science in the report has been shown to be flawed, so what makes you think that they probably intentionally deflated balls?
I skimmed the science and it all seemed accurate to me while using reasonable assumptions. I have asked twice in this thread for people to point out specific examples of intellectually dishonest assumptions and nobody has done so. I actively want someone to prove me wrong on this point but I haven't seen it.

Please consider all caveats in my prior post before responding to this one. I know it was one sided. I know it's not 100%. Etc. we're just talking about what probably happened because that's the standard.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Average Reds said:
 
I'm a bit confused, as I think we're agreeing. 
I know. I'm supporting you. I don't know why people continue to bring the libel stuff up.

EDIT.

For the uninitiated.

1. TB is a public figure. Which means in a libel case that TB would essentially have to prove that Wells knowingly or recklessly lied in the report. You can't make that case.

2. You file a libel case, you open your whole life up for examination, almost without constraints, under oath.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,640
Once again, I'm relieved to live in Minnesota for all of this, because the feeling here is that Brady is getting raked over the coals while St. Rogers is left alone purely because he plays for the (fucking) Packers.
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
11,191
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
Driving in this AM, refreshing to hear a very calming voice of reason from Boomer Esiason.  Did include that he's heard only one or two people even mention that Rodgers admitted on national TV that he prefers overinflation.
 
And has anyone grabbed the screen name MoreProbableThanNot yet......?
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,460
Burrillville, RI
amarshal2 said:
Possibly but not probably. Brady probably knew what was going on.
He definitely knew he wanted them to make sure the balls were 12.5. I actually don't think he knew at all that they were possibly deflating after the refs approved them
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,546
amarshal2 said:
I skimmed the science and it all seemed accurate to me while using reasonable assumptions. I have asked twice in this thread for people to point out specific examples of intellectually dishonest assumptions and nobody has done so. I actively want someone to prove me wrong on this point but I haven't seen it.

Please consider all caveats in my prior post before responding to this one. I know it was one sided. I know it's not 100%. Etc. we're just talking about what probably happened because that's the standard.
 
Read better I guess, because there have been many pointed out itt already.
 

dcdrew10

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
1,254
Washington, DC via Worcester
drleather2001 said:
 
That's my reading as well.
 
"These balls are 16 PSI?!  The book says they have to be between 12.5 and 13.5.  You guys make sure they are as soft as the rules allow. 12.5.  Got it?"
"Sure Tom."
[next week]
"Guys, these balls seem tight again, what the fuck is going on?  Make the balls 12.5.  Look, here's a copy of the rule you should give to the refs to remind them of the allowable pressure." 
"Jesus, what's up his ass?"
[Next week]
"Shit, I think the balls are still tight.  Tom's gonna tear us a new asshole.  Let's deflate it a bit before the game."
 
Does anyone think that Brady isn't a complete nut (maybe even an asshole) about things he considers part of "game preparation" especially for a game as big as the AFC Championship? I can imagine him yelling and throwing a fit about the balls the second or third time and getting passive aggressive enough to send the refs a copy of the rule book. I also imagine his fits would put enormous pressure of the ball boys to get it right; this would be like messing with BB's hoodie scissors. The pressure to get it right could lead them to messing with the balls and then Brady looking like he probably knew about it and possibly ordered it.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
jsinger121 said:
 
Two different situations. One is off the field and a criminal case and the other is lets face it a onfield rule violations and nothing more. The cases aren't even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, you know I'm not accusing Brady of beating up Gisele.

The point is that if I'm going to accept that NFL players are punished absent 100% proof in one situation and in other similar situations such as Mike Tomlin probably internationally stepping in the field then I can't ask for a different standard with Brady.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
18,950
Shelterdog said:
 
Accept that Wells isn't supposed to be an advocate, he's purporting to be a neutral factfinder.
 
Except that he was asked to come to a conclusion, too. And that conclusion is, as someone said, 60 in a 55. ("generally aware").  The "fear" that Goodell will swing his dick or the head-shaking over media stupidity is understandable. But as someone said, two reasonable people looking at that report could have come to 2 different conclusions about Brady's "culpability." "He orchestrated the whole damn thing"  would *not* be a reasonable conclusion.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
amarshal2 said:
Yeah, you know I'm not accusing Brady of beating up Gisele.

The point is that if I'm going to accept that NFL players are punished absent 100% proof in one situation and in other similar situations such as Mike Tomlin probably internationally stepping in the field then I can't ask for a different standard with Brady.
 
Mike Tomlin doesn't have the NFLPA going to court for him same as why Sean Payton couldn't do much. Brady has the NFLPA in his corner along with the fact this not being an off the field matter.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,640
scotian1 said:
It does seem very odd that despite being the most important witness in this affair, there is little if any mention of his day long testimony in the report.
 
Right.  It's one of the general flaws in the Report that every presumption goes against the accused (if you will).  
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
Read better I guess, because there have been many pointed out itt already.
Then please point them out to me. I was extremely busy all day yesterday. I skimmed this thread back maybe 10 pages. I skimmed wells from 12-1 am and now I'm going into work where there's no chance I can do the leg work.

All I've seen is a vague reference to a flaw in the assumption of the timing of the Colts balls which to me when I read the full section sounded irrelevant. But perhaps because the explanation was vague and it was 1 am I missed an important detail.

Pretty please.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
jsinger121 said:
 
Mike Tomlin doesn't have the NFLPA going to court for him same as why Sean Payton couldn't do much. Brady has the NFLPA in his corner along with the fact this not being an off the field matter.
Which has what to do with my point?
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
30,654
Southwestern CT
TheoShmeo said:
That simply isn't true.  I came into this wanting to believe Tom, believing Tom, and being as pro-Pats as one could be.  I had not arrived at a conclusion of any sort about Tom's involvement.
 
But to me, the flurry looks what it looks like. 
 
As a related point, I received this very cogent e-mail from a friend that I thought I would share:
 
To repeat:  The fact that Brady contacted Jastremski after the allegations were made public has no meaning without context.  Specifically, what did the two of them talk about? 
 
What's most interesting is that we know with certainty that the NFL understands the context, because they interviewed all of the principals.  But instead of providing it (and you know they would have provided it if it supported their case) they allowed a negative inference to be drawn from the communication itself.  What does that tell you?
 
As it relates to your claim that you came to this thread hoping to believe Brady, I simply don't believe you.  I mean, you're the same guy who famously predicted that Brady would be suspended for the Super Bowl, right?  You can't now claim to be unbiased about the topic of whether he did anything wrong.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
19,690
where I was last at
Goodell as commissioner should be lots of things: fair, impartial, thorough, smart. But he's not. IMO he plays to the larger crowd (who generally hate the Pats, BB ) and comes down hard on the Pats/Brady. I don't think its right, but I think its RG's play. 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Wonder if Rog is smart enough to suspend Brady for four games, hold off on team penalties, and let kraft know that if the suspension is successfully appealed he will strip the next three first rounders or something absurd.

Edit: bb was in line for a Super Bowl suspension like the sharks of vegas nailed the wells report
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
30,654
Southwestern CT
dcmissle said:
I know. I'm supporting you. I don't know why people continue to bring the libel stuff up.

EDIT.

For the uninitiated.

1. TB is a public figure. Which means in a libel case that TB would essentially have to prove that Wells knowingly or recklessly lied in the report. You can't make that case.

2. You file a libel case, you open your whole life up for examination, almost without constraints, under oath.
 
Thanks.  I thought you were responding to my assertion that Brady would not sue. 
 
As I said, confusing...
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,294
Providence, RI
amarshal2 said:
I skimmed the science and it all seemed accurate to me while using reasonable assumptions. I have asked twice in this thread for people to point out specific examples of intellectually dishonest assumptions and nobody has done so. I actively want someone to prove me wrong on this point but I haven't seen it.

Please consider all caveats in my prior post before responding to this one. I know it was one sided. I know it's not 100%. Etc. we're just talking about what probably happened because that's the standard.
 
This has been talked about at length in this thread.  The issue is not that his assumptions are unreasonable, they are.  It's that there are other reasonable assumptions that would have yielded results much more favorable to the Patriots.  Specifically length of time the balls were inside before they were measured (both Pats and Colts) and the temperature assumptions for the room.  
 
They plugged numbers into an equation and got an output.  There are other reasonable assumptions that could have been plugged to get a different output.  It's intellectually dishonest to not present these findings as a range using other reasonable assumptions.  They presented it as a single source of truth and it's simply not.
 

scotian1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
15,136
Kingston, Nova Scotia
Yes and in Brady's interview it was probably asked what did you an JJ talk about the day following the AFC Championship but there is no mention of Brady's testimony in  this regard.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
26,657
Here
Hoya81 said:
Be interesting if Yee releases his notes of the Brady's testimony.
I think you'll get one better in the form of Brady interviews, with a side of Brady you've never seen off the field. Unless they do plan some legal remedy, in which case we get the more boring version.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,843
Brady gets a two game suspension--appeals it just before season starts, plays against Pittsburgh and Buffalo, hearing held, suspension reduced to one game and he sits out the home game against Jacksonville as Jimmy G goes all Matt Flynn against them, getting the Pats a #1 pick in the offseason.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,640
scotian1 said:
Yes and in Brady's interview it was probably asked what did you an JJ talk about the day following the AFC Championship but there is no mention of Brady's testimony in  this regard.
 
Or JJ's, for that matter.  They disregarded their testimony completely and came up with their own version of what happened, but instead of pointing out exactly what that is (which could be refuted), they just implied it.
 
They (the NFL) stated that this would be an impartial report made available to the public.  But what they did was come to a conclusion, released a report that supported that conclusion without listing the opposing viewpoint, and said: "Look, here it is!  Make up your own minds!"
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,546
amarshal2 said:
Then please point them out to me. I was extremely busy all day yesterday. I skimmed this thread back maybe 10 pages. I skimmed wells from 12-1 am and now I'm going into work where there's no chance I can do the leg work.

All I've seen is a vague reference to a flaw in the assumption of the timing of the Colts balls which to me when I read the full section sounded irrelevant. But perhaps because the explanation was vague and it was 1 am I missed an important detail.

Pretty please.
 
 
No, I'm not going to go back and find them for you.
 
But you found the main one. And since you've determined that making up a list of assumptions so that they provide exactly the finding you're looking for is irrelevant, I don't have much faith anything else posted itt would persuade you.
 
I'm going to assume that more likely than not you are biased.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
 
This has been talked about at length in this thread.  The issue is not that his assumptions are unreasonable, they are.  It's that there are other reasonable assumptions that would have yeilded results much more favorable to the Patriots.  Specifically length of time the balls were inside before they were measured (both Pats and Colts) and the temperature assumptions for the room.  
 
They plugged numbers into an equation and got an output.  There are other reasonable assumptions that could have been plugged to get a different output.  It's intellectually dishonest to not present these findings as a range using other reasonable assumptions.  They presented it as a single source of truth and it's simply not.
They presented a range on the timing. It was not favorable to the Patriots.

They didn't present a range on the temperature but I don't understand how that would have addressed the gap. I've looked at the weather on the field that night and their outside temperature estimates are fair and reasonable. The locker room temp doesn't seem to matter that much given it was the same and the gap.

The biggest assumptions I see are the starting pressures in the footballs after Anderson approved them. I'm a little skeptical given the one sided nature of the report but overall it's hard to say I think he's lying or mistaken.
 

danlmac

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2002
629
Los Angeles
Shared Yee's statement with a friend who's been writing about this. His response: "I like the lawyer's statement. But I'm afraid the takeaway will be that nowhere in the statement does he say, "Tom denies the charges," or anything like that. As an attack on the report's methodology, it's pretty eloquent. As a defense of Brady, it doesn't defend him. None if it matters anyway. The verdict is in. Brady needs a major PR campaign to change it."
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
 
No, I'm not going to go back and find them for you.
 
But you found the main one. And since you've determined that making up a list of assumptions so that they provide exactly the finding you're looking for is irrelevant, I don't have much faith anything else posted itt would persuade you.
 
I'm going to assume that more likely than not you are biased.
You suck way more at making assumptions and reading than I do since if you had read my posts you would know how flawed your assumptions are.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
3,099
Amstredam
amarshal2 said:
I skimmed the science and it all seemed accurate to me while using reasonable assumptions. I have asked twice in this thread for people to point out specific examples of intellectually dishonest assumptions and nobody has done so. I actively want someone to prove me wrong on this point but I haven't seen it.

Please consider all caveats in my prior post before responding to this one. I know it was one sided. I know it's not 100%. Etc. we're just talking about what probably happened because that's the standard.
[SIZE=10.5pt]I just don't think they proved anything nefarious happened[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]When the lawyers set the parameters and all you have to do is change the equation slightly to have results that contradict the stated conclusion I find it hard to put faith in the results when the report is one-sided like you said. It is very easy to find the result you are looking for and then create the model to get there.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Additionally, to claim that something must have happened because 4 colts balls did not lose as much PSI and then show that 8 or 11 Pats balls did not fall below the threshold by one reading shows me that the logical conclusion should be nothing happened. Hell, take the lower readings and the Pats still have 4 balls that fell within allowable limits so the control proved nothing as the 7 other Colts balls could have shown lower PSI.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]There is no evidence that anything out of the ordinary happened. It has just been presented that way.[/SIZE]
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
amarshal2 said:
They presented a range on the timing. It was not favorable to the Patriots.

They didn't present a range on the temperature but I don't understand how that would have addressed the gap. I've looked at the weather on the field that night and their outside temperature estimates are fair and reasonable. The locker room temp doesn't seem to matter that much given it was the same and the gap.

The biggest assumptions I see are the starting pressures in the footballs after Anderson approved them. I'm a little skeptical given the one sided nature of the report but overall it's hard to say I think he's lying or mistaken.
If every Colt football was initially measured between 13.0 and 13.1 psi, why is there such a variance in the measurements at halftime? Doesn't this show us that footballs are all affected a little differently by the conditions (due to various physical factors related to each individual ball)? And why can't this explain at least SOME of what we see with the Patriots' balls?
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
danlmac said:
Shared Yee's statement with a friend who's been writing about this. His response: "I like the lawyer's statement. But I'm afraid the takeaway will be that nowhere in the statement does he say, "Tom denies the charges," or anything like that. As an attack on the report's methodology, it's pretty eloquent. As a defense of Brady, it doesn't defend him. None if it matters anyway. The verdict is in. Brady needs a major PR campaign to change it."
Which is a stupid way of looking at things because Brady wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't accused of anything more than probably being aware of this. Yeesh, how do you defend yourself against those claims.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,826
ivanvamp said:
If every Colt football was initially measured between 13.0 and 13.1 psi, why is there such a variance in the measurements at halftime? Doesn't this show us that footballs are all affected a little differently by the conditions (due to various physical factors related to each individual ball)? And why can't this explain at least SOME of what we see with the Patriots' balls?
It does explain some of it. Read the report down around page 200.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,099
Average Reds said:
 
To repeat:  The fact that Brady contacted Jastremski after the allegations were made public has no meaning without context.  Specifically, what did the two of them talk about? 
 
What's most interesting is that we know with certainty that the NFL understands the context, because they interviewed all of the principals.  But instead of providing it (and you know they would have provided it if it supported their case) they allowed a negative inference to be drawn from the communication itself.  What does that tell you?
 
As it relates to your claim that you came to this thread hoping to believe Brady, I simply don't believe you.  I mean, you're the same guy who famously predicted that Brady would be suspended for the Super Bowl, right?  You can't now claim to be unbiased about the topic of whether he did anything wrong.
 
Bolded and enlarged for emphasis.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,323
Why didn't Wells report question this guy and his crewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Leavy. They were the refs for the Jets game 10/16 that was the game where the balls were overinflated.If there was a reason the balls were reinflated by the refs isn't that relevant to the investigation as far as pattern of behavior.
 
More than a little controversy seems to follow Leavy around.
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,546
amarshal2 said:
You suck way more at making assumptions and reading than I do since if you had read my posts you would know how flawed your assumptions are.
 
 
That's obviously what a guilty person would say!
 
(Ok joking... I do believe though that it's pretty easy to see how this entire report was painted in the worst light, and that the chosen assumptions could be tweaked slightly and suddenly they favor the Pats.)
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,099
dcmissle said:
For the uninitiated.

1. TB is a public figure. Which means in a libel case that TB would essentially have to prove that Wells knowingly or recklessly lied in the report. You can't make that case.

2. You file a libel case, you open your whole life up for examination, almost without constraints, under oath.
 
 
re defamation/libel, the Commish says I am punishing the Pats for employee (the equipment guys) misbehavior. They are not public figures, but they've now been labelled guilty of wrongdoing. What happens next?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
danlmac said:
Shared Yee's statement with a friend who's been writing about this. His response: "I like the lawyer's statement. But I'm afraid the takeaway will be that nowhere in the statement does he say, "Tom denies the charges," or anything like that. As an attack on the report's methodology, it's pretty eloquent. As a defense of Brady, it doesn't defend him. None if it matters anyway. The verdict is in. Brady needs a major PR campaign to change it."
You cannot do nuance in a statement like this, and this story is nuanced.

And above all, everyone associated with the Pats has to avoid any statement that would send the two guy rushing off to TMZ for a life-changing payday in exchange for making TB into the next Lance Armstrong. I am not suggesting that they could truthfully do so. I'm suggesting that if they were to do so, truth would be small comfort.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
18,950
LuckyBen said:
Which is a stupid way of looking at things because Brady wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't accused of anything more than probably being aware of this. Yeesh, how do you defend yourself against those claims.
 
I think the reply would be that Yee could have said, "Tom had no general awareness that ball were being improperly deflated" but didn't.
 
 
It's something of a non-denial denial. But this is a PR battle, not a legal one, at this point.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
soxhop411 said:
@woodypaige: Tom Brady should be suspended for the entire season for #DeflateGate. My take on @TheSportsShow http://t.co/heH8A7Alyb
So his "crime" that no one can conclusively prove he did is just as bad as Ray Rice knocking out his wife.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
re defamation/libel, the Commish says I am punishing the Pats for employee (the equipment guys) misbehavior. They are not public figures, but they've now been labelled guilty of wrongdoing. What happens next?
They don't have the financial wherewithal to bring such a case, and anyone who does has the common sense not to fund it.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,967
Pro tip: when the lawyer releases a lengthy statement attacking the accuser and never says "my client did nothing wrong," his client did something wrong.