RIFan said:
Tedy Bruschi said on ESPN that when McNally's name came up he didn't know who that was. Someone then told him that McNally was "Bird". He only knew him as Bird so McNally didn't register as someone he knew. Unless Bruschi is part of the grand conspiracy to cover Tom's ass, it's plausible that Brady also only knew him as Bird.
It goes back to something I said a few days ago (I didn't invent this idea, of course). Everything - and I mean, EVERYTHING - is explainable according to whichever narrative you choose.
If you start with the assumption (the narrative, as it were) that the Patriots are cheaters and probably did (and do) something wrong, then everything can easily be seen in light of that. The texts, Brady's comments about McNally, the trip to the bathroom, the ball measurements, etc. All of it fits the "Patriots cheated" narrative and I can see how anyone who starts with that assumption can see the nefarious nature of all these things.
But if you start with the assumption that the Patriots didn't do anything wrong here, then everything can easily be seen in light of that. The pseudo-science of the Wells report, the faulty memory of Walt Anderson, the 16psi from the Jets' game, the texts (which become humorous instead of nefarious), even Brady's not knowing McNally (as you describe above) - all of that fits the "Patriots didn't do anything wrong here" narrative.
Unfortunately, there is nothing definitive on either side. I don't see how it's "more probable than not" that the Patriots did something wrong. I think it's quite possible either way. Clearly, if this was a court case, there's zero chance Brady or the Pats would have been found guilty. But it's not a court case. It's a tyrannical commissioner on a witch hunt, feeding public opinion, and in turn making decisions based on that public opinion.