Editor's note: This article is written by a Buffalo Rumblings reader that is not a member of the site's editorial staff. It is presented on our front page, in original form (i.e. sans editing), because it is an interesting and unique perspective on The Wells Report. Writer's claims of background have not been verified by the site.

First off I know, this is a Bills site (GO BILLS). Since this will likely impact their second game of the 2015 season and it's been a hot topic of late, hopefully I'm not out of line with this post.



I've seen a lot of back and forth here and elsewhere and felt that this analysis might be a good idea. As I performed internal investigations at work for five years and currently oversee those that do them now I hope my perspective on the report itself might be a fun read for some. Here goes...

The absolute first thing to note about the report is that it's only a summary of the investigation. Considering it broke 100 pages that seems like a ludicrous statement so I'll expand on that. The actual investigation comprises all of the documents they reviewed, all of the testimony they collected (and the resulting statements), etc. etc. The actual investigation might easily be closer to "volumes" for all we know. The report is strictly the conclusion of the investigation with some explanation as to the process and how the conclusion was reached.

This presents with the only flaw (inherent with all investigation reports) that I found with the Wells Report. You have to take the author's word that when they say "Person X said ...." that this is accurate to what that person did say. Now the NFL likely does NOT have this limitation. My assumption is that if they asked to see Person X's statement, that it's available for them. But anyway, this is arguably a "flaw." We need to have some faith in the investigator's honesty.

As an individual who has no access to the full body of evidence the rest of my analysis is based on the assumption of a report that was authored with integrity and honesty.

The first sticking point is what was actually concluded. While I personally feel that there is a decent amount of evidence in the report to support that Tom Brady had a more direct role in the tampering, the conclusion merely asserts he knew it was happening (generally aware). As has been reported to death, the wording of "more probable" than not is a reference to a "preponderance of evidence." This is the burden of proof for civil matters in the USA and therefore if this were brought to court the interpretation of this conclusion would be "legally binding." In other words, this wording is as good as "this is what occurred" (for legal purposes, not necessarily court of public opinion). As a matter of fact, the author could have just written "It is concluded that Tom Brady was aware of the practice of..." Both statements are, for an investigation report, the exact same meaning. The lawyers tailored the language to meet the NFL rulebook standard but don't be confused, the legal weight is the same as "this is the story." The same concept is applied naturally to what McNally and Jastremski did. From a civil legal standard, the wording means "it is concluded they did it."

I've seen the scientific analysis from Exponent and Dr. Marlow questioned. Most recently that their findings were disregarded and that they determined that it was possible to explain the level of deflation of the Pats' footballs and the investigator ignored it. That's almost the opposite of what was determined actually. The study concluded they couldn't find that tampering occurred with "absolute certainty" based on their analysis. They then continue that thought by saying they could not find a set of realistic conditions that replicated the amount of deflation the Pats' gear had. They found a "small window" of factors combining that would explain both sets of balls (Pats and Colts) but based on the realities of that game concluded that the window in question was "unrealistic." I won't go into the amount of testing they conducted, but as a person used to looking into all possible details, even I think they went to ludicrous measures to test all possible variations. Every situation I've seen a sympathist say they "neglected" to account for so far is actually in the report. To briefly summarize how far they went, they did a play by play of the entire first half to their best ability to simulate how the balls were handled with as many factors as they could simulate. Oh, and that Dr. Marlow fella. He's not even affiliated with Exponent, the company that did the testing. They hired an company to test anything and everything they could think of and then asked ANOTHER independent party to review their findings. Both Exponent and Dr. Marlow came to the same conclusion.

I've seen various other things like;

Brady's testimony or "side" wasn't accounted for in the report. While I'm sure it doesn't include his entire statement, there's information provided from him all over the place.

Brady's agent saying he cooperated and answered all questions posed to him. I bet he did. But cooperation also means telling the truth. The report shows multiple instances with pretty clear evidence in which he did not. The phone thing became an issue too. I've had to request phone information before. It gets messy and understandably so. However I've never seen or heard of the amount of concessions offered to Tom Brady to protect private information. Don't get me wrong, I totally get his reluctance to have that reviewed but the investigator seems to have offered everything humanly possibly to mitigate the risk.

Similarly, I've seen some say that the counsel to the Patriots was justified in refusing to allow a final interview with McNally. While an investigator SHOULD do their best to limit the intrusion and interview witnesses as few times as possible, sometimes it just can't happen. Multiple interviews are par for the course. The report even goes so far as to specifically mention which information came to light which prompted their request for another interview. If the report is accurate they even offered to meet any time and any place that was convenient for him. Incidentally, this and a few mentions of ongoing accusations from Patriots reps about the integrity of the investigation (early stages conducted by the NFL) and process are mentioned. Essentially, the team that said they'd cooperate fully, deliberately refused at least one attempt for information and seems to have projected an air of disdain toward the early investigation to the point where it made the report. Here's one such quote "At various points in the investigation, counsel for the Patriots questioned the integrity and objectivity of game officials, various NFL executives and certain NFL Security representatives present at the AFC Championship game or otherwise involved in the investigative process." For the record, this accusation seems to have been looked into during the Wells investigation.

I could go on and on, but in my assessment it's a rock solid investigation summary which addresses every single "failure" critics have thrown at it.

My final thoughts are on how the conclusion is actually formed in something like this. The investigator will always go into a case with a story. In this case, the AFC Championship game balls were tampered with. During the course of the investigation this should be modified only slightly (such as quantity differences etc.). This story is then weighed against what else is reported or any other stories that are brought up or can be imagined. Secondary stories get similar attention ("who orchestrated?" would be a secondary question/story for instance).

This is actually where the report shines. McNally, Jastremski and Brady all are on record in the report asserting certain things that explain what they want to convey happened. In all cases, the report acknowledges the counter story and indicates (with evidence based statements) why it is or is not credible. The evidence is applied to all scenarios put forth and the plausibility of each is assessed. Alternatives brought up by Bill B and elsewhere are all similarly evaluated. The evidence simply doesn't support the alternative explanations.