Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: OT: Matt Patricia and his sexual assault allegation

  1. #41
    Hall of Famer

    User Info Menu

    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.
    Last edited by Ghost; 05-14-2018 at 11:38 AM.

  2. #42
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    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...
    Actually, my post was NOT about you...but, if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that &!+Ä# up and wear it.

  3. #43
    Pro Bowler

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •