Jump to content

holygoat

Lions’ Patricia indicted, not tried in ’96 sex assault

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

What bothers me about this story is the assumption that this decades-old allegation - improved and apparently recanted - should still have been a deciding factor in Patricia’s hiring, not only by the Lions, but also the Patriots and every other organization he has been with. 

Yes, the Lions look stupid for not having found out. But what if they had found out during a background check? The assumption of so many in the press is that an unsubstantiated allegation like this should destroy his reputation and career forever. 

in today's day and age?  depends if the lions are strong enough to withstand the wrath of the sjw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally hypothetical. If somehow Patricia was forced to resign who would be interim HC? Jim Bob Cooter? ugh..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jason_R said:

Well, it is currently the top two stories on SI.com. They don’t seem interested in X’s and O’s. 

Edit: SI has dispatched at least six reporters to the story. One quote that caused me to roll my eyes: “In an e-mail to The MMQB, Snell wrote that he ‘ran across the indictment while conducting a routine check of public records that are widely and readily available—even after 22 years.’” Imagine that coincidence.  

There is a greater than zero chance that this story costs Patricia his job. 

Maybe it's a good thing this crap is coming out now instead of during the upcoming season. It appears to be an indictment that never amounted to anything, but in today's media "innocent until proven guilty" means let's speculate the F out of this and drag it through the mud with weeks of nonstop coverage. Hopefully by the time preseason starts everyone will be tired of hearing about it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are still using SI.com as our representation of the spotlight, it takes quite a scroll to find any mention of this story now, and it's the same story that's been up for a couple days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest it was always going to require new evidence to come to light or additional claims of assaults for the story to maintain steam.

Alternately, there was no benefit to the Lions to quickly react to this news.  It is early May.  They could afford to wait to see if anything else came out.  Firing him now versus May 20 in the hypothetical there was more there would not have negatively impacted the team financially.  Very few would have boycotted the Lions 4 months from now because they didn't move quickly enough in May.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article seems to sum up why the Lions missed it:

 

Lions team president Rod Wood told ESPN Saturday the club followed the law in how it handled the hiring of coach Matt Patricia, who was indicted, but not tried, for an alleged sexual assault in 1996.

"We always err on the side of hiring a firm who understands all the laws, follows them, state and federal," Wood told ESPN on Saturday, "so that we don't happen upon something that we're not entitled to have nor would we be able to use."

Patricia was the subject of a standard pre-employment background check, which did not disclose the indictment, the Lions said in a joint statement released last week.

Since the incident occurred 22 years ago, it likely would not have appeared in pre-employment background screening since the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not allow felony arrests that did not result in convictions beyond seven years old to be considered in possible employment.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2018/05/12/lions-rod-wood-team-followed-law-matt-patricia-hire/605445002/

 

Also I'm no legal expert, but couldn't the prosecutor of went ahead with the case even without testimony from the victim? There are reports of up to five witnesses and physical evidence. If it were that strong, I would think you wouldn't need the victim to testify. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 4:31 PM, hail2mich said:

Sure, but I think the point is that it's a bit easier to find the info when you already know it exists.  I think it's pretty weak to call out the Lions saying it only took a 30 second search. It's a little different when you know the end result.

I know it doesn't make the Lions look good, but I think it's a bit silly to say they were completely inept here. It's not like the guys in the front office are the ones combing the web for any skeletons out there, that's ridiculous. They hired a firm to do this exact type of research and it came back clean. How can you fault the team?

Actually no it is not.  A simple search to check a persons profile shows this.  It did not used to, but it does now.  Not sure if that is because of legislative changes since I used it last or simply the service making it easier to see.

It is not weak.  You do not have to 'look for it' it is simply there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

This article seems to sum up why the Lions missed it:

 

 

With regard to your comment about the prosecutor moving forward even without the victim’s participation, you are correct. They could have still tried the case. It’s up to them based on the evidence they have, and witness testimony (all types of witnesses) is one type of evidence. 

However, in this case, the five witnesses they had weren’t going to add much to the case. The witnesses were two cops, two medical professionals, and her roommate. I’m fairly confident that none of those people were in the room when it started. 

Witnesses are frequently used to simply authenticate other documentary evidence. The cops would testify that they filled out the police report. They would testify that they took her to the hospital. They would testify that the dudes weren’t there anymore. They would testify that the found the dudes at their place and arrested them. 

The doctors would testify that they examined her and filled out the medical report that was in evidence. They would testify that she exhibited signs of intercourse. 

The friend was probably going to be used to describe when and where they met the dudes and to add a bunch of other ancillary stuff. 

None of what those “five witnesses” could offer as evidence would describe what happened in the room. The only person that could do it would be the girl. There are any number of reasons that she could have chosen to back out of testifying at trial, but when she made that decision, the case was a loser, because without her testimony the only thing the evidence would show would be that a girl had sex that night and that cops made an arrest of a couple guys that she had met earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFTR I do not think this is a HUGE deal as it pertains to the Lions and the hiring process.  I think maybe where they screwed up is lying about it.  The lying is ALWAYS the problem.

Patricia has been a coach for one of the best franchises in the league for many years.  Our GM KNOWS him and came from the same organization.  IMO you do not even need to run a background check on him.  I do not care if it is a 'multi million dollar business' or not.

If I was in charge I would not have.  There is no point.  MAYBE because of the PC police you run a search and save it to a file or something so you can do it with all the candidates and make sure it does not look like you already have your mind made up on who you are hiring, but there is no real need to even look at it.

This is a non story.  Is there something taking up the 'news' head lines today?  Has this blown over yet with all the 'outrage" in the media?  If not I give it another day or 2 tops before something else tasty comes along for the 'reporters' to latch on to to sell clicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

JFTR I do not think this is a HUGE deal as it pertains to the Lions and the hiring process.  I think maybe where they screwed up is lying about it.  The lying is ALWAYS the problem.

Patricia has been a coach for one of the best franchises in the league for many years.  Our GM KNOWS him and came from the same organization.  IMO you do not even need to run a background check on him.  I do not care if it is a 'multi million dollar business' or not.

If I was in charge I would not have.  There is no point.  MAYBE because of the PC police you run a search and save it to a file or something so you can do it with all the candidates and make sure it does not look like you already have your mind made up on who you are hiring, but there is no real need to even look at it.

This is a non story.  Is there something taking up the 'news' head lines today?  Has this blown over yet with all the 'outrage" in the media?  If not I give it another day or 2 tops before something else tasty comes along for the 'reporters' to latch on to to sell clicks.

Dude, it was definitely newsworthy. 

But I agree with you about the background check thing. As much as people want to act like the NFL is some insane enterprise where every tiny thing must be known, it’s not. I don’t know where this idea came from (maybe from the ridiculousness of the combine questions and probing and all the stuff teams dig up on players).

Whether a coaching candidate had a criminal case dismissed two decades ago just isn’t relevant when it comes to winning games, and that’s what teams care about. They can act like they care about PR, but bad PR doesn’t lose games or cost them money. 

Matt Patricia isn’t running for office. You don’t need to track down his college roomamates and anyone else who used to know him to try to dig up dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

obviously, this is not over. there are going to be long 10,000 word articles on this from NYT, Wash Post, Boston Globe, ESPN, Si, etc. Lions open the season on MNF so it may be the publication comes out just after the last pre-season game. Everyone is trying to get the woman to talk. If anyone can, he'll have to respond and the media cycle will keep spinning. If she goes on camera and calls him a rapist, I'm not sure how he stays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't obvious to me at all.

I mean, is it that plausible that the story goes into relative hibernation for 4 and 1/2 months, and then come back to the fore?

I don't think there will be long articles, and feel confidently enough to state there will be no such articles moving forward unless she decides to come forward or other woman make similar claims.

And even inside of the possibility she comes forward, it depends on what she says and how credible she is.

There is zero chance he is fired if there is nothing more to this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're being naive if you think that the Detroit News story + his denials = end of story.  this is just the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

obviously, this is not over. there are going to be long 10,000 word articles on this from NYT, Wash Post, Boston Globe, ESPN, Si, etc. Lions open the season on MNF so it may be the publication comes out just after the last pre-season game. Everyone is trying to get the woman to talk. If anyone can, he'll have to respond and the media cycle will keep spinning. If she goes on camera and calls him a rapist, I'm not sure how he stays.

This is not obvious at all. Why is the assumption that she is going to go on the record and call him a rapist. The case was dismissed and he deserves the benefit of the doubt here 22 years later. She was the one that killed the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John_Brian_K said:

JFTR I do not think this is a HUGE deal as it pertains to the Lions and the hiring process.  I think maybe where they screwed up is lying about it.  The lying is ALWAYS the problem.

Patricia has been a coach for one of the best franchises in the league for many years.  Our GM KNOWS him and came from the same organization.  IMO you do not even need to run a background check on him.  I do not care if it is a 'multi million dollar business' or not.

If I was in charge I would not have.  There is no point.  MAYBE because of the PC police you run a search and save it to a file or something so you can do it with all the candidates and make sure it does not look like you already have your mind made up on who you are hiring, but there is no real need to even look at it.

This is a non story.  Is there something taking up the 'news' head lines today?  Has this blown over yet with all the 'outrage" in the media?  If not I give it another day or 2 tops before something else tasty comes along for the 'reporters' to latch on to to sell clicks.

Whoa...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:39 PM, Buddha said:

in today's day and age?  depends if the lions are strong enough to withstand the wrath of the sjw.

I am not gonna lose faith in humanity today. I am not gonna lose faith in humanity today. I am not gonna lose faith in humanity today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

you're being naive if you think that the Detroit News story + his denials = end of story.  this is just the start.

Depends on how long it takes for the next 'big scandal' to hit.  If 'Aaron Rodgers accused of beheading goats as a sacrifice to his god' surface today...Patricias worries are gone...too much power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Shelton said:

 

None of what those “five witnesses” could offer as evidence would describe what happened in the room. The only person that could do it would be the girl. There are any number of reasons that she could have chosen to back out of testifying at trial, but when she made that decision, the case was a loser, because without her testimony the only thing the evidence would show would be that a girl had sex that night and that cops made an arrest of a couple guys that she had met earlier. 

Agree 100%... I don't know why she backed out and it's as wrong to assume she backed out because she made it up as it is to assume that the dudes are guilty of the act simply because they were accused.

But without the "star" witness, everything else likely only pointed towards and act happening without any solid proof that the act wasn't consensual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RatkoVarda said:

obviously, this is not over. there are going to be long 10,000 word articles on this from NYT, Wash Post, Boston Globe, ESPN, Si, etc. Lions open the season on MNF so it may be the publication comes out just after the last pre-season game. Everyone is trying to get the woman to talk. If anyone can, he'll have to respond and the media cycle will keep spinning. If she goes on camera and calls him a rapist, I'm not sure how he stays.

I think he stays unless there is more "evidence" out there.  The other key figures ran into trouble because multiple women over an extended period of time were implicating them.

So far, we have one incident from 20 years ago.  She says "They did it."  They say: "We didn't do it."  That's not enough for me to fire a guy.  I don't think the word of one person in a case that never went to trial should be sufficient to damage a person.

Now, if we start having other women coming forward and saying: "Yeah, he attacked me too!" or "The same thing happened to me three years after."  Then things get dicey... if there's a reasonable chance that the others are telling the truth (that is, Patricia was at the party where they said it happened, or that the woman did work with him or whatever...) then the Lions might have to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

You are being naïve.

I tend to think this is a non-story at this point. Unless more comes out in the form other women making credible claims again Patricia or the women decided to speak publicly about it... what else is there to report on?  

There's only so many times you can repeat the same story: "Guys were accused, accuser withdrew... we don't know why, and she won't speak about it now."

There probably will be at least some wacko "stories" from the fringe essentially condemning Patricia without needing the trial, but I don't see that gaining much traction. Probably also some wacko "stories" about the dangers of women making false accusation (without needing proof that the accusation was false) as well.

But as it stand... there's just nothing there to report on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I think he stays unless there is more "evidence" out there.  The other key figures ran into trouble because multiple women over an extended period of time were implicating them.

So far, we have one incident from 20 years ago.  She says "They did it."  They say: "We didn't do it."  That's not enough for me to fire a guy.  I don't think the word of one person in a case that never went to trial should be sufficient to damage a person.

Now, if we start having other women coming forward and saying: "Yeah, he attacked me too!" or "The same thing happened to me three years after."  Then things get dicey... if there's a reasonable chance that the others are telling the truth (that is, Patricia was at the party where they said it happened, or that the woman did work with him or whatever...) then the Lions might have to act.

Just a small nit pick, but she isn’t saying “they did it.” She said that at one point, but when it came down to it, she didn’t maintain that position. Right now, she’s not saying that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Just a small nit pick, but she isn’t saying “they did it.” She said that at one point, but when it came down to it, she didn’t maintain that position. Right now, she’s not saying that. 

I think technically she's not not saying they did it.  I think she's simply saying she doesn't want to testify.

From what I heard/read, she said she can't appear and doesn't know when. She said she was too stressed and therefore can't face the court.  I don't think she's ever recanted what she said.

Now, that might be a fine line, but I do think it's important.  Even today there is still stigma about coming forward and there will be push back on a women coming forward saying a person raped her.  Certainly in 1996 there would be even more stigma about it.  I do think it's reasonable to assume that she may have backed out because of stress and worry about her public image.

And this is part of the whole trouble with it not having every gone to trial.  Without a definitive answer on this and the individuals involved speaking in court under oath, it's all a bunch of "ifs" and "maybes."

Maybe she was from a small conservative town where someone who was raped would have been the talk of the town for years to come and really just didn't want it to be public info.  Maybe she made it all up and freaked out and didn't want to admit she lied so this was her way of getting out of it without ever admitting to lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,081
    • Total Posts
      2,814,965
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×