People who don’t really know what they’re talking about shouldn’t write columns like this.
E.g., they offered to go to whatever convenient location at whatever time to get what would have been for Wells only a second opportunity to interview The Deflator.
Yes.
Re: lame 4th talking point of an "Apologetic for Cheaters": Wells Report Misleadingly Says Pats Shielded Ball Handler from Follow-Up Interview
Even a Boston newspaper notes...:
The Patriots refused to make McNally available for a follow-up interview after the investigators discovered new information, ostensibly the “deflator” comments in McNally’s texts. Their rationale was that McNally already had been interviewed four times, and a fifth time would have been excessive, because he lives in New Hampshire and has a job. Sorry. You make him available on the weekend, or after work. If McNally could exonerate the Patriots, they should have made him available 27 times...
Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]
Where did I read that the Patriots, when told by the investigator they had new info they wanted to run by McNally for a 5th interview, told the NFL they wouldn't even pass it on to McNally.
That's not "shielding?"
('Tis a strange def)