I stated that I would not say much publicly about Deflate Gate, but I feel very compelled to comment on what I think is a huge misunderstanding about the obligation of Wells and the outcome of the Wells Report.
As it was relayed to me and from reading the Wells report, Wells was employed to investigate whether the New England Patriots had intentionally deflated footballs against NFL policy. Wells, was not required to make a determination as to the punishment or assessment of punishment for anyone within the New England Patriots, but rather, he was to make a determination as to whether, by preponderance of the evidence, the footballs were deliberately deflated against regulations. That is exactly what was done.
Preponderance of the evidence is a much lower burden of proof, than beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence requires demonstrating that a position is more likely true than not true. This means that if you believe that it was 51% more likely than 49% not likely, the burden of preponderance has been met. I repeatedly hear people say, “Where is the smoking gun, or where is the direct evidence supporting this report”, etc… The reality is, no “smoking gun” was necessary and no direct evidence was required to meet that burden. Circumstantial evidence can be used to meet a burden of proof, even as high as beyond a reasonable doubt.