Just my analysis of Spygate
by Brian J Kelly
Ok not that it matters much but I did go to Law School and I think the debate should surround THIS at this point.
INTENT- As in criminal law, there are differing degrees of liability depending on the intent of the offender.
So in my world, if the offense is a guy on the Patriots tape recording the signs of the other team FROM THE PATRIOTS sideline, and Bill's story concerning a misinterpretation of the rule is PLAUSIBLE... then that is fine.
However, if it involves "Inaccessible" areas, such as a person impersonating a free lance photographer... or a stadium employee ... or whoever... and gaining a vantage point that would not have been available to the Patriots ... this is a WHOLE Different story because it absolutely destroys Belicheck's claim of 'mitigating" circumstances.
It would show he knew it was illegal and he did it with INTENT to affect the integrity of the game.
Same goes for instructing a videographer to FILM A closed Walk Through... There is absolutely no room for wiggle when it comes to something like this... So new Evidence would be very serious indeed.
I think to DATE the penalty has been too lenient but this all depends on a couple of things.
DEPOSE MANGINI.. it's the first thing to do in a whistleblower case and that's what this is.. it's a whistleblower case....
Then we'll go from there.
Click here to post comments
Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to College Sports Discussion.
By Mo Johnson
, Copyright © 2006-2016 SECSportsFan.com
Top of this Page