PDA

View Full Version : OT: Matt Patricia and his sexual assault allegation



feltdizz
05-11-2018, 04:18 PM
It didnít go to court. He wasnít charged.

But how does the GM of the Lions AND the Pats org claim they had no idea?

These organizations and the NFL have all types of investigators for draft picks but donít use google for background checks for coaches?

NorthCoast
05-11-2018, 06:40 PM
It didnít go to court. He wasnít charged.

But how does the GM of the Lions AND the Pats org claim they had no idea?

These organizations and the NFL have all types of investigators for draft picks but donít use google for background checks for coaches?meh... allegations are just that, allegations.... ask Roethlisberger....

Slapstick
05-11-2018, 09:30 PM
meh... allegations are just that, allegations.... ask Roethlisberger....

Eh, this situation is way different...

Roethlisberger was never arrested, charged, or even interviewed by police...

Patricia was indicted by a grand jury and arrested...the only reason he was not prosecuted further was because the victim refused to continue with the case...

Indictment and arrest is way more serious than mere allegations...there had to be evidence...

Steel Maniac
05-11-2018, 11:32 PM
If the Lions knew, would it have made a difference in their choice? Really? The case was looked at and he wasn’t charged. End of story. This isn’t like most “ #metoo” stories.. this was looked at.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
05-12-2018, 12:13 AM
If the Lions knew, would it have made a difference in their choice? Really? The case was looked at and he wasn’t charged. End of story. This isn’t like most “ #metoo” stories.. this was looked at.

You're correct in that, in the sense that most of the #metoo males have just been accused in the media, but not had legal proceedings against them - Patricia on the other hand was arrested, and then indicted/charged by a grand jury and ordered to stand trial (as I understand this article ... is there a lawyer in the house?).
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2018/05/10/matt-patricia-sexual-assault-allegations-what-we-know/598133002/

The only reason it didn't go farther is because the female refused to testify in court. That part at least sounds like some of the #metoo stuff, in terms those females often getting paid off to not press charges.

So yes, "end of story", but not quite in the way you are painting it, IMO.

(What is the statute of limitations for these things ... it happened 22 years ago).

(+/- OT - I wonder what ol' Captain Lipton Teabags is thinking about all this stuff, wondering about what went down at U of Tennessee all those years ago ...!)

Steel Maniac
05-12-2018, 06:08 PM
after 22 years, the statute of limitations ran out a looooooooong time ago. So she decided not to testify. Over something that was eons ago. Either she was paid or she thought better of it. Regardless, she didn't testify. So what do that want from him now? Blood?

Slapstick
05-12-2018, 06:27 PM
I don’t want anything from him. I’m just glad he’s not our HC...

squidkid
05-12-2018, 06:38 PM
I don’t want anything from him. I’m just glad he’s not our HC...


lol..........but if he was you would make up some stuff to defend him

NorthCoast
05-12-2018, 06:40 PM
I am curious how he will fare being away from Belichick and Brady. Was he really that good?

The Man of Steel
05-12-2018, 06:44 PM
This isn’t like most “ #metoo” stories...
#metoo = pound me too?

Steel Maniac
05-12-2018, 07:55 PM
lol..........but if he was you would make up some stuff to defend him

lmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Zaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buzz
05-12-2018, 11:17 PM
I am curious how he will fare being away from Belichick and Brady. Was he really that good?

How will he fare being away from Ernie Adams, with his photographic memory and "system," to help call the plays?

SanAntonioSteelerFan
05-13-2018, 12:18 AM
How will he fare being away from Ernie Adams, with his photographic memory and "system," to help call the plays?

With his iPhone recorder and bicycle pump deflator, he might stand a chance of doing just fine.

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 01:23 AM
lol..........but if he was you would make up some stuff to defend him

Between the two of us, youíre the one who makes stuff up...and everybody knows it.

feltdizz
05-13-2018, 09:24 AM
lol..........but if he was you would make up some stuff to defend him
Didnít we just hire a coach who was on staff during the Sandusky incident at PSU?

I didnt hear anyone defending him on here.

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 10:44 AM
Didn’t we just hire a coach who was on staff during the Sandusky incident at PSU?

I didnt hear anyone defending him on here.

Defending him why? For what someone else did?

Was he indicted? Arrested?

Nope...

Patricia was, however...

feltdizz
05-13-2018, 12:32 PM
Defending him why? For what someone else did?

Was he indicted? Arrested?

Nope...

Patricia was, however...

maybe it was because he may have known and didn't make noise?

I think a lot of PSU folks back then knew and kept it o the hush for obvious reasons.

Eddie Spaghetti
05-13-2018, 01:26 PM
i think bradley is a scumbag and mcquearys sworn testimony backs that up

why haven't schiano or bradley sued to clear their names if mcquearys accusations are false?

SanAntonioSteelerFan
05-13-2018, 01:59 PM
i think bradley is a scumbag and mcquearys sworn testimony backs that up

why haven't schiano or bradley sued to clear their names if mcquearys accusations are false?

Link please, to anything supporting your assertions?

Thanks!

Eddie Spaghetti
05-13-2018, 02:07 PM
all you have to do is Google tom bradley psu scandal. Washington post article

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 03:15 PM
maybe it was because he may have known and didn't make noise?

I think a lot of PSU folks back then knew and kept it o the hush for obvious reasons.

It’s very easy to assume that people know more than they actually do about a co-worker. If a teacher has an inappropriate relationship with a student, do we hold the entire teaching staff accountable because they all must have known? If the principal DID know and covered it up, are all of the teachers to blame?

Because working under conditions where you are responsible for someone else’s wrong doing because you “must have known” is a $#!++• outlook...

Eddie Spaghetti
05-13-2018, 03:30 PM
they have mcquearys sworn testimony

looks like squid was right about you defending anybody the steelers hire

SanAntonioSteelerFan
05-13-2018, 03:42 PM
It’s very easy to assume that people know more than they actually do about a co-worker. If a teacher has an inappropriate relationship with a student, do we hold the entire teaching staff accountable because they all must have known? If the principal DID know and covered it up, are all of the teachers to blame?

Because working under conditions where you are responsible for someone else’s wrong doing because you “must have known” is a $#!++• outlook...




Take a look at this link

https://deadspin.com/mike-mcqueary-claims-greg-schiano-and-tom-bradley-knew-1783514641
, it's not the same situation as what you are describing. McQueary **testified** that Bradley said he knew, it's not someone painting everyone at Penn State with the same broad brush just because they were on the coaching staff.

Bradley denies all that McQueary reported, so there's no proof that he knew ... it's word against word.

Eddie Spaghetti brings up a good point ... why doesn't Bradley take McQueary to court for slander? I guess the answer is that it is unprovable either way ... no witnesses to the conversation, etc.

I see possible really bad badness down the road in terms of #metoo issues here, this is a potential huge PR timebomb waiting to explode. The FO is not stupid, they know all this back story ... I guess they think Bradley is going to be the 2nd coming of defensive backs coaches who will lead us to the promised land of Lombardi #7, because if I were advising them I'd say that would be the only reason to risk the PR disaster ... if even that.

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 03:49 PM
they have mcquearys sworn testimony

looks like squid was right about you defending anybody the steelers hire

He needs defending?

If he had been indicted, like Patricia, then you might have a point...

Right now, you don’t...

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 03:55 PM
Take a look at this link

https://deadspin.com/mike-mcqueary-claims-greg-schiano-and-tom-bradley-knew-1783514641
, it's not the same situation as what you are describing. McQueary **testified** that Bradley said he knew, it's not someone painting everyone at Penn State with the same broad brush just because they were on the coaching staff.

Bradley denies all that McQueary reported, so there's no proof that he knew ... it's word against word.

Eddie Spaghetti brings up a good point ... why doesn't Bradley take McQueary to court for slander? I guess the answer is that it is unprovable either way ... no witnesses to the conversation, etc.

I see possible really bad badness down the road in terms of #metoo issues here, this is a potential huge PR timebomb waiting to explode. The FO is not stupid, they know all this back story ... I guess they think Bradley is going to be the 2nd coming of defensive backs coaches who will lead us to the promised land of Lombardi #7, because if I were advising them I'd say that would be the only reason to risk the PR disaster ... if even that.

Well, I can at least tell you why I think Bradley didn’t take McQueary to court for slander or defamation:

I’m pretty sure that you have to prove that you were damaged by the accusation...

Bradley resigned from Penn State to work in television for two years before coming back to coaching as WVU’s Assistant Head Coach...he has been employed ever since...

It doesn’t seem like he was damaged very much by the accusations...nor did the accusations stop people from hiring him...

Eddie Spaghetti
05-13-2018, 04:01 PM
do Greg schiano next

I guess bradley is just fine with mcQueary swearing under oath that he protected a child molester since he continued to get jobs

you are thick as a brick

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 04:04 PM
do Greg schiano next

I guess bradley is just fine with mcQueary swearing under oath that he protected a child molester since he continued to get jobs

you are thick as a brick

And you are clueless about how the legal system works....

Is he okay with it? I would imagine he isn’t....

Can he prove that the accusations were damaging to him? How was he damaged, other than hurt feelings? People on the internet talking $#!+ about him?

One of us is thick, but it isn’t me...

SanAntonioSteelerFan
05-13-2018, 04:14 PM
I wonder if the fact that it was sworn testimony offered only because he was forced to answer questions by the law means it's protected, in the sense that it can't also be slander?

Eddie Spaghetti
05-13-2018, 04:14 PM
or more likely he isn't suing because he doesn't want to get deposed and be put under oath

schiano was certainly damaged as it cost him the Tenn job and still no lawsuit for defamation

I wonder why

SanAntonioSteelerFan
05-13-2018, 04:19 PM
Raises the question why law enforcement didn't go after Bradley and Schiano for covering up a crime, etc. I'd guess if they thought McQueary could be proved to be telling the truth they would have. Maybe we can infer they thought he *wasn't* telling the truth?

I'm still surprised the Steeler FO "went there".

BTW - one thing I read said that the person accused by the slanderer didn't have to prove damage if the slander were related to sexual misconduct ... it was presumed per se defamatory.

Yeah, under those circumstances, gotta wonder why they didn't go after McQueary for slander. Again though, it was one guy's word against another, probably unprovable, and therefore a waste of time ... the headlines would say, "Bradley loses ... McQueary's accusations stand". I could see wanting to avoid that.

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 04:24 PM
or more likely he isn't suing because he doesn't want to get deposed and be put under oath

schiano was certainly damaged as it cost him the Tenn job and still no lawsuit for defamation

I wonder why

THAT is a good question...

Eddie Spaghetti
05-13-2018, 04:28 PM
and the obvious answer is both schiano and bradley know mcQueary was telling the truth

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 04:31 PM
I wonder if the fact that it was sworn testimony offered only because he was forced to answer questions by the law means it's protected, in the sense that it can't also be slander?

I looked it up and this seems to be the case. Testimony is considered ďprivilegedĒ and immune to prosecution for slander or defamation...

That also explains why Schiano just had to take it when UT dumped him...

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 04:32 PM
and the obvious answer is both schiano and bradley know mcQueary was telling the truth

OR, the fact that he was giving testimony protected him against such claims...

feltdizz
05-13-2018, 06:02 PM
I’m all out of energy when it comes to this topic. Personally I wouldn’t hire anyone for PR purposes and I would prefer to stay as far away as possible from that incident.

I think anytime a school or company has a scandal anyone involved who may have known and didn’t act is definitely part of the problem.

Steel Maniac
05-13-2018, 06:34 PM
they have mcquearys sworn testimony

looks like squid was right about you defending anybody the steelers hire

Boom......

squidkid
05-13-2018, 08:11 PM
Between the two of us, youíre the one who makes stuff up...and everybody knows it.

didnt i just prove you lied and made up stuff the other day...............yup.
you must get taken advantage of your whole life as guilible and naive as you are.
you truly must be stupid.

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 08:30 PM
didnt i just prove you lied and made up stuff the other day...............yup.
you must get taken advantage of your whole life as guilible and naive as you are.
you truly must be stupid.

And you are delusional...always talking about stuff that never happened...

squidkid
05-13-2018, 08:42 PM
And you are delusional...always talking about stuff that never happened...


lol................just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

Slapstick
05-13-2018, 09:01 PM
lol................just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

Just because you keep saying stuff it doesn’t make it real...

Ghost
05-14-2018, 09:30 AM
Back to the original topic -

Grand juries are totally different than facing a trial by jury (and possible conviction). A grand jury does not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They only need a reasonable belief (probable cause). And only 9 out of 12 are needed for an indictment. Neither the defendant (Patricia in this case) nor his lawyer were even at the hearing (they couldn’t be). Being indicted by a grand jury does not prove guilt in any way.

Really, only Patricia, his buddy, and the girl know what actually happened that night. Maybe he’s telling the truth and the Grand Jury indictment was based on her statements which she later decided not to follow up on because she knew they were not true. At the time of the dismissal the accuser had the right to re-file at any time. She never did. She also never sued him and there’s no record of a financial settlement with her.

For me, there’s simply not enough evidence to declare him as some sort of sleazy guy who got away with something. For all we know, he’s proclaiming his innocence because it’s exactly what he is – innocent.

Slapstick
05-14-2018, 11:42 AM
Back to the original topic -

Grand juries are totally different than facing a trial by jury (and possible conviction). A grand jury does not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They only need a reasonable belief (probable cause). And only 9 out of 12 are needed for an indictment. Neither the defendant (Patricia in this case) nor his lawyer were even at the hearing (they couldn’t be). Being indicted by a grand jury does not prove guilt in any way.

Really, only Patricia, his buddy, and the girl know what actually happened that night. Maybe he’s telling the truth and the Grand Jury indictment was based on her statements which she later decided not to follow up on because she knew they were not true. At the time of the dismissal the accuser had the right to re-file at any time. She never did. She also never sued him and there’s no record of a financial settlement with her.

For me, there’s simply not enough evidence to declare him as some sort of sleazy guy who got away with something. For all we know, he’s proclaiming his innocence because it’s exactly what he is – innocent.

I agree with you. When I referenced the grand jury indictment, I was trying to highlight the differences between Patricia’s situation and what happened with Ben Roethlisberger.

In any case, I’m glad that he isn’t a coach here...not because I don’t believe in his innocence, but because we have enough potential distractions...

Steel Maniac
05-14-2018, 02:35 PM
Back to the original topic -

Grand juries are totally different than facing a trial by jury (and possible conviction). A grand jury does not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They only need a reasonable belief (probable cause). And only 9 out of 12 are needed for an indictment. Neither the defendant (Patricia in this case) nor his lawyer were even at the hearing (they couldnít be). Being indicted by a grand jury does not prove guilt in any way.

Really, only Patricia, his buddy, and the girl know what actually happened that night. Maybe heís telling the truth and the Grand Jury indictment was based on her statements which she later decided not to follow up on because she knew they were not true. At the time of the dismissal the accuser had the right to re-file at any time. She never did. She also never sued him and thereís no record of a financial settlement with her.

For me, thereís simply not enough evidence to declare him as some sort of sleazy guy who got away with something. For all we know, heís proclaiming his innocence because itís exactly what he is Ė innocent.

This is where i stand also. The case was looked at; girl didnít testify; case over. You canít keep going after someone once the case has moved on; unless financial restitution was involved.