Jump to content

Ex-Pats coordinator/Lions HC was indicted in 1996???


Dcat

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

Whether he commited the crime or not he was never tried or found guilty of any crimes.

If the Lions or NFL decide to fire him they will most likely be sued.

I would hope that they can't be that stupid to fire him. Whole thing is a non story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply
29 minutes ago, Dcat said:

most background checks look for convictions, not allegations.  There was no conviction and the charges were dismissed.  Nothing to report.

I'm pretty sure an indictment for a violent crime shows up on a legit background check, even if it never goes to court. Not a lawyer, so I could be wrong but I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I hate that the change in recent years to just call all rape by the generic and weaker-sounding "sexual assault" term, instead of specifying what type of sexual assault it was. The catch-all term they exclusively use now includes rape, but it also includes unwanted touching/fondling (i.e. all rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape). Of course all are gross and horrid, but few would argue the former is typically worse or even close to being as bad.

IMO it kind of somewhat whitewashes when rape occurs, by specifying it by legal degrees and such, when the average person doesn't know the legal distinctions among them, and since those things can differ by state anyway. Everyone knows damn well what rape is, though, without the need to think about what 2nd or 3rd degree sexual assault means.

He was accused of tag-team rape in a hotel room, not squeezing her ass in a bar. 

ffs this. Call it rape. Also, don't call other things rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flgreen said:

The key word here is allegations.  Strange thing about the USA, your innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're not innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the U.S. You're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom. As a matter of statistical fact, the rest of us can be as sure as we have to be that it happened simply because she said it did. The false report rate for rape has always been exactly the same as it has been for index felonies. If a bank says it got robbed, the bank got robbed. The bank didn't get slutty in a hotel room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flgreen said:

No, more then likely like what happened with Winston.  Banged her, didn't kiss her good night, she got offended, and decided to ruin his life.

Would not be the first time a young lady woke up after a less than wonderful sexual experience and decided to call the cops. Let he who has not had a drunken sloppy ambiguous hookup cast the first stone; suspect there won't be many, if any,  stones tossed. Not defending Patricia, but that does happen. In this #metoo world, looks like we are rewriting some basic core values out of the law like proving a case at trial and the presumption of innocence. And to say nothing of trying to repeal biology. 

Don't like that a mere arrest or indictment, rather than conviction, is being used here like it is a conviction. Because anyone can say anything, and you can in fact indict a sandwich. A grand jury is usually 23 very bored or retired people who have so little going on in their lives they can spend a month listening to an assistant district attorney present the basic evidentiary facts of a case in the most limited way possible to get an indictments on criminal cases like sex cases, robberies, serious assaults, gun and drug possession. Spare the rare case a defendant (who isn't required to do so) testifies voluntarily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a good look for Patricia or the Lions. However, he was merely charged and never found guilty.  None of us know what happened and are not in a position to judge.  My hope for all concerned is that the accusations were untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I'm pretty sure an indictment for a violent crime shows up on a legit background check, even if it never goes to court. Not a lawyer, so I could be wrong but I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't.

Dismissed cases are supposed to be sealed. Reality is that in most jurisdictions,that's not a priority. Nobody purges that stuff regularly. There are a lot of people arrested for nonsense that gets dismissed that do not have their arrest photo yanked as it should be because of that laxity. And it has happened more than few times that those photos wound up getting someone arrested for a crime they did not commit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BallinPB said:

These types of allegations pisses me off.  I don't care if he is an ex patriot or not.  No man deserves to have this crap from 1996 brought up now in 2018 especially since the case was thrown out.  If he did it then he deserves to be punished but I'm under the impression that like I said before this was already taken care of decades ago.  

This sounds like a woman who got drunk and let two guys tag team her and woke up in the morning and regretted her decision.  I don't know a decent man that would "violently" take turns raping a woman in a hotel room and Matt Patricia at the very least seems like a decent man.  

Sorry, I have to call BS. While I agree with your sentiment about running someone's reputation without them getting due process, to just assume that there was no wrong doing and that the 'woman' made it up because of regret is equally ridiculous. It is okay to smear her, but not him? She didn't bring this up now; she isn't looking for publicity nor money. To attack her credibility without all of the facts is no better than attacking him. if she did just regret a bad decision she likely wants to forget it. If she was a victim she probably wants to try and move past it.

As far as being a good guy. History has more often confirmed that there are many bad guys whom everyone feels are a good guy because they don't know any secrets. And, IF things happened the way you say (not sure how you would know this either way, but...), two guys having sex with a drunken woman especially if she is too drunk to really consent, aren't exactly up for 'good guy of the year' awards...

In case you haven't been paying attention, powerful men have been falling from grace all over the place for things that they allegedly did 20 years ago. You would think that the team did their do diligence. And whether he was guilty, innocent, or just a stupid decision, some actions follow you forever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Dismissed cases are supposed to be sealed. Reality is that in most jurisdictions,that's not a priority. Nobody purges that stuff regularly. There are a lot of people arrested for nonsense that gets dismissed that do not have their arrest photo yanked as it should be because of that laxity. And it has happened more than few times that those photos wound up getting someone arrested for a crime they did not commit. 

That's not true. Most places you still have to go through the expungement process to get the record of a dismissed case sealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea this is going to go away and that Patricia will go on his merry way as Lions HC, in the post-Weinstein era, is nuts.

The media is going to go ape-sh*t over this. Rest assured they'll dredge up the entire case, talking to the former prosecutors who handled the case, the police officers who responded, people who were employed at the hotel at the time and the victim herself if they can track her down. And guess what? That's what they should do. The victim backing out to avoid public scrutiny is entirely plausible. It's also plausible that the story was fiction. The point is that this news has created a whole lot of questions that no doubt will be pursued by a lot of interested parties.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Let he who has not had a drunken sloppy ambiguous hookup cast the first stone; suspect there won't be many, if any,  stones tossed.

Interestingly, I've done this and still managed never to be accused of rape, and I suspect that's entirely because I've never raped anyone; not because I lucked into drunkenly hooking up only with women of the highest integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this day and age it's not crazy to think that Patricia will ultimately get fired.
There are no time limitations on sexual assault anymore (as was seen in the Cosby
case) so I fully expect the media to run with this story and increase the heat on
DET to act  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KRL said:

In this day and age it's not crazy to think that Patricia will ultimately get fired.
There are no time limitations on sexual assault anymore (as was seen in the Cosby
case) so I fully expect the media to run with this story and increase the heat on
DET to act  

Act in what way? More investigation into the situation or fire him? Firing him now based on this current version of events would be extremely unfair. Unsubstantiated charges that date back 22 years ago? I hate everything Patriots, even ex-Patriot coaches so if he gets canned, I will not be upset.

We've gone from a society that is based on the concept that you are innocent until PROVEN Guilty to a society that suggests that anyone accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent. Don't get me wrong, I think in 90pct of these cases we hear about (Cosby/Schneiderman etc..) the assailants are likely guilty since there are just so many women coming forward, but here we have 1 isolated incident that never even made it to trial. There is also no suggestion that this women was paid off to recant her story.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Interestingly, I've done this and still managed never to be accused of rape, and I suspect that's entirely because I've never raped anyone; not because I lucked into drunkenly hooking up only with women of the highest integrity.

As a person who’s spent the bulk of his adult life in a drunken state and regularly convenes with like-minded drunks, I’ve likewise managed to avoid being so accused nor have any of my sodden cohort been so accused of rape. I believe this is one of those paranoid male fantasies that there exists a legion of women who want to endure the indignities of filing rape charges as a means to punish men, for kicks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

Those money-grubbing RPI hos

Dont be dragging my alma mater through the mud because of this guy.

Actually the women there were intelligent, driven and definitely not money-grubbing ho's and many were attractive as well. At least 7 or 8 pretty ones per class....just kidding, kinda. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Act in what way? More investigation into the situation or fire him? Firing him now based on this current version of events would be extremely unfair. Unsubstantiated charges that date back 22 years ago? I hate everything Patriots, even ex-Patriot coaches so if he gets canned, I will not be upset.

We've gone from a society that is based on the concept that you are innocent until PROVEN Guilty to a society that suggests that anyone accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent. Don't get me wrong, I think in 90pct of these cases we hear about (Cosby/Schneiderman etc..) the assailants are likely guilty since there are just so many women coming forward, but here we have 1 isolated incident that never even made it to trial. There is also no suggestion that this women was paid off to recant her story.  

 

Patricia will probably weather this, but if another woman comes forward it could become really bad for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BroadwayRay said:

The idea this is going to go away and that Patricia will go on his merry way as Lions HC, in the post-Weinstein era, is nuts.

The media is going to go ape-sh*t over this. Rest assured they'll dredge up the entire case, talking to the former prosecutors who handled the case, the police officers who responded, people who were employed at the hotel at the time and the victim herself if they can track her down. And guess what? That's what they should do. The victim backing out to avoid public scrutiny is entirely plausible. It's also plausible that the story was fiction. The point is that this news has created a whole lot of questions that no doubt will be pursued by a lot of interested parties.

 

Patricia needs to sit down and think reeeeeeally hard if there’s anyone else who might come forward to accuse him of a similar crime, and if he’s unsure about the possibility of that happening, he should quit right now and run for the hills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Dont be dragging my alma mater through the mud because of this guy.

Actually the women there were intelligent, driven and definitely not money-grubbing ho's and many were attractive as well. At least 7 or 8 pretty ones per class....just kidding, kinda. 

 

Oh snap. I was kidding about this. I’d assume any woman that goes to RPI ends up making $500k per year anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BallinPB said:

These types of allegations pisses me off.  I don't care if he is an ex patriot or not.  No man deserves to have this crap from 1996 brought up now in 2018 especially since the case was thrown out.  If he did it then he deserves to be punished but I'm under the impression that like I said before this was already taken care of decades ago.  

This sounds like a woman who got drunk and let two guys tag team her and woke up in the morning and regretted her decision.  I don't know a decent man that would "violently" take turns raping a woman in a hotel room and Matt Patricia at the very least seems like a decent man.  

Yet most of us males go through our entire lives without any such allegations. Gotta wonder why? No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoadFan said:

That organization is scum from top to bottom.  From owner to head coach to quarterback. From assistant coaches to equipment managers to fans.

Pure.  Scum.

But seriously how do you REALLY feel ? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Patricia will probably weather this, but if another woman comes forward it could become really bad for him.

Sadly I don't doubt that another woman will come out. There's the smell of blood in the water and there's money to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Yet most of us males go through our entire lives without any such allegations. Gotta wonder why? No?

It is seriously astonishing. Whenever this sh*t comes up people make like there's no middle ground between being parodically PC and asking can I touch you here there etc every time you breathe on one side and ambiguity as to consent on the other. Of course there's a middle ground. It's huge. That's where most of us ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one question that comes to mind is, if a detroit reporter can find this, so could anyone on the patriots.  it's not a stretch that Belichick does background checks on his employees, and if you assume this you'd have to also assume there is a decent chance that 15 years ago BB found this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

one question that comes to mind is, if a detroit reporter can find this, so could anyone on the patriots.  it's not a stretch that Belichick does background checks on his employees, and if you assume this you'd have to also assume there is a decent chance that 15 years ago BB found this.

There is a 100% chance Adams found it. Belichick absolutely knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

There is a 100% chance Adams found it. Belichick absolutely knew.

it's interesting that the lions are getting crap for this yet he was employed by the pats for about 14 years, since 2004.  and it only surfaces after the guy leaves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...