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

[juiceman 11]

The Patriots didn't know because they weren't legally required to do so.  Massachusetts state law forbids employers from asking about criminal convictions, arrests, etc. in employment interviews.  Michigan, however, allows employers to ask.  Maybe the Lions did ask & because it didn't result in an actual conviction, there was really no reason to bring it up.  It's possible that Patricia did bring it up in the interview voluntary, the Lions were OK with it & just didn't figure that someone would dig it up a couple of months later.

[Motown Bombers 957]

So Massachusetts doesn't allow employers to do background checks?

Apparently a New Jersey based private investigator was hired to dig into Patricia. Wasn't Patricia the leading candidate supposedly for the Giants? Could someone within the Giants organization be that petty that they hired a private investigator to get dirt on Patricia since he spurned them? Or maybe did the Giants find this out before the Lions hired him as coach in their own background checks and it is just now leaking? Or the Giants have nothing to do with it. I didn't see when the private investigator was actually hired.

[T&P_Fan 386]

10 hours ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

Yeah, I think Patricia old attorney was making it sound like a "he said she said thing", which is code for it was consensual. However, there was a 2nd guy involved, which is gross. For a supposed rocket scientist he sure is bad with ratios 2 dudes and 1 female is not the proper ratio.

Also the article says they were accused of rape. This most likely was alcohol or drug fueled. In any rate Patricia is at the very least a creep.

I knew there would be bad takes, but man. I’m guessing you love church.  

[T&P_Fan 386]

7 hours ago, NYLion said:

Why is it gross and creepy?  If that's considered creepy then there's a bunch of creeps on college campuses.  As long as it's consensual, I don't see what the big deal is and there's no evidence that shows it was non-consensual so it's essentially a non-story.

The question is why were the Lions not aware of this previously?  Who is doing their background checks?

Does anyone here know how background checks go?  Apparently not.  

This wouldn’t come up without the conviction unless you ran a state by state query.  And even then it’s not a given to show up, depends on the county.  

As someone who does a lot of hiring that requires FBI background checks, lots of things never surface that make you scratch your head.  That’s the nature of the beast.  I don’t expect the lions or the NFL to be better at investigating then the FBI.  

[Mr. Bigglesworth 3,208]

On some level, rightly or wrongly, if the guy has been in the league 15 years and a key member of a high profile organization, I can understand how the assumption would be there aren't any skeletons in the closet because they would have come out already.

Not saying that was the assumption, just saying I'm not going to murder the Lions over this.

[Mr. Bigglesworth 3,208]

Also, I would think if they did ask him such a question, it would be if he were convicted of a felony rather than indicted for one.

[Buddha 868]

its not like the lions head coaching job requires major security clearance.  im sure no one asked him about prior criminal indictments or accusations.

[Motown Bombers 957]

I'm more curious who hired the private investigator and for what reason. 

[Buddha 868]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm more curious who hired the private investigator and for what reason. 

probably another nfl team that was looking for information that might embarass them in the future...and lo and behold.  other nfl teams obviously take background checks more seriously than the lions.

i'm wondering who leaked it.  you know the detroit papers dont work that hard.

[Buddha 868]

regardless of how i dont think this matters, if i'm martha ford i am pissed.  it makes them look incompetent.

cue joke about the product on the field and incompetence...

[Kamakzie 44]

29 minutes ago, Buddha said:

regardless of how i dont think this matters, if i'm martha ford i am pissed.  it makes them look incompetent.

cue joke about the product on the field and incompetence...

Well it's not like they haven't hired/employed people with skeletons in the closet. Didn't Jim Bob Cooter have a situation where he ended up climbing in someone's window and getting into their bed after a bender? Also didn't that one guy that was Marinelli's son-in-law who was one of his assistant coaches get arrested for driving throughout Wendy's drive-thru naked? Of course neither one of those were as salacious as a sexual assault allegation.

[T&P_Fan 386]

1 hour ago, Buddha said:

probably another nfl team that was looking for information that might embarass them in the future...and lo and behold.  other nfl teams obviously take background checks more seriously than the lions.

Although a possibility, this is extremely unlikely.   Most likely this came from someone who has known for a long time.

[T&P_Fan 386]

1 hour ago, Buddha said:

regardless of how i dont think this matters, if i'm martha ford i am pissed.  it makes them look incompetent.

Not really man.  Like noted above. This is unlikely to come up in a FBI check.  At least allow some nuance.  Those who think this is incompetent (for the lions, NFL or the patriots) are using fools logic and allowing the headline to grab their attention.   

[Motown Bombers 957]

I'm totally ignorant of background checks but wouldn't you be looking for convictions when it comes to background checks? Are indictments public record somewhere? What was the source of this indictment? 

[Jason_R 165]

3 hours ago, juiceman said:

The Patriots didn't know because they weren't legally required to do so.  Massachusetts state law forbids employers from asking about criminal convictions, arrests, etc. in employment interviews.  Michigan, however, allows employers to ask.  Maybe the Lions did ask & because it didn't result in an actual conviction, there was really no reason to bring it up.  It's possible that Patricia did bring it up in the interview voluntary, the Lions were OK with it & just didn't figure that someone would dig it up a couple of months later.

Very interesting. But I would still think MA employers can do their own criminal background checks on candidates, even if they can’t ask candidates directly. 

That is what makes the Lions look so bad here. You are paying a coach millions of dollars a year, and you are paying a research firm thousands of dollars to investigate him for precisely this kind of thing, and you don’t even search a legal database.

Rod Wood’s star was starting to rise, but this mistake blots it all out. 

Who here thinks Martin Mayhew heard the gossip and gave the tip to the News?

[Shelton 1,372]

2 hours ago, T&P_Fan said:

Does anyone here know how background checks go?  Apparently not.  

This wouldn’t come up without the conviction unless you ran a state by state query.  And even then it’s not a given to show up, depends on the county.  

As someone who does a lot of hiring that requires FBI background checks, lots of things never surface that make you scratch your head.  That’s the nature of the beast.  I don’t expect the lions or the NFL to be better at investigating then the FBI.  

You know there are varying degrees of background checks. 

As for the lions, it’s not like they are the ones doing the checking. They don’t have interns on google trying to dig up dirt. They hired a company to do it. If the company didn’t find it, that isn’t the lions fault. Of course it still looks bad regardless.

[number20 83]

But can he coach NFL players?
A: Yeah

The End

 

 

[Buddha 868]

56 minutes ago, T&P_Fan said:

Not really man.  Like noted above. This is unlikely to come up in a FBI check.  At least allow some nuance.  Those who think this is incompetent (for the lions, NFL or the patriots) are using fools logic and allowing the headline to grab their attention.   

the percentage of the population that knows about the intricacies of background checks is infintesimal.  the press that comes from not knowing about this is damaging and makes them look incompetent.  even if a normal background check would not catch this, the public wont know that and will preceive this as incompetence.

fools logic is assuming everyone else knows what you know.

[Buddha 868]

44 minutes ago, Shelton said:

You know there are varying degrees of background checks. 

As for the lions, it’s not like they are the ones doing the checking. They don’t have interns on google trying to dig up dirt. They hired a company to do it. If the company didn’t find it, that isn’t the lions fault. Of course it still looks bad regardless.

if the lions hired a company to do the check - and i assume they did - they ought never to use that company again.  

they were talking about this all over the place today.  it makes the organization look poor and casts them in a bad light.

if the woman involved in this incident comes forward now and disputes patricia's accounting, he's going to get fired.  no doubt in my mind.  not that he should get fired (in fact, i think he shouldnt), but he will be.

isnt the rumor that the giants PI guy dug this up?

[MichiganCardinal 45]

Just got a chance to fully delve into this story after hearing it yesterday.

I have a serious problem with this quote from the article, "The woman who identified Patricia and Dietrich to police as the perpetrators did not respond to multiple attempts to contact her over several weeks."

That is not #MeToo. That is #YouToo.

The #MeToo movement was and has been fantastic in many, many regards. It was long overdue, and is a great step in the direction of actual empowerment and equality in a country that has been putting on a false façade for over 100 years. But it isn't right for reporters to go knocking on doors and entering the email accounts of women 22 years later. Patricia is in the news. If she wanted her story known, she would tell you.

Is Patricia a creep? The only people who really truly know that are the three people who were in that room. When you have to list six people who have no recollection of an indictment that occurred 22 years ago, you're grasping for straws.

I hope my comments are not misconstrued, because I am behind every woman that comes forward, and I am an ardent supporter of the free press. If a woman came forward with accusations against Patricia, that is something that simply goes beyond football, and I would want the claims investigated, to whatever degree is possible. If Patricia then attempted to silence the reporters who told her story, I would want them to work twice as hard and twice as long towards the truth.

But that's not what's here. What's here is a 22-year old story that is forcibly opening 22-year old scabs for a woman, whether that's in a false accusation, a rape, or anything in between. What's here is a 22-year old story damaging the professional reputation of what otherwise appears to be a standup husband and father.

[Jason_R 165]

1 hour ago, number20 said:

But can he coach NFL players?
A: Yeah

The End

 

 

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. 

[Kamakzie 44]

2 minutes 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. 

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

Yeah, minuscule but not mathematically zero.

[T&P_Fan 386]

39 minutes ago, Buddha said:

the percentage of the population that knows about the intricacies of background checks is infintesimal.  the press that comes from not knowing about this is damaging and makes them look incompetent.  even if a normal background check would not catch this, the public wont know that and will preceive this as incompetence.

fools logic is assuming everyone else knows what you know.

Point conceded.  

[Jason_R 165]

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. 

[Motown Bombers 957]

Plus, if the Lions did know, are they supposed to mention it at his press conference?