madlithuanian Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 The only thing I know for sure is it doesn't make the Lions look good about not doing their homework on him. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have hired him, but it appears they did not know from what I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, madlithuanian said: The only thing I know for sure is it doesn't make the Lions look good about not doing their homework on him. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have hired him, but it appears they did not know from what I've read. According to Belichik they didn’t know about it in NE either. Two avenues of thought here. Court of law and court of public opinion. Due process has been played out with the court of law. I am personally troubled that a Grand Jury originally decided on a true bill of assault back when this started. But apparently due to the victim’s unwillingness to testify the prosecuting attorneys office at the time chose not to go through a trial. From what it sounds the statute of limitations has run its course and any new charges are essentially moot. It should be noted that ‘due process’ would have also allowed Patricia to defend himself against any allegations at the time. But due to their not being any trial, he couldn’t and didn’t have to. Probably why both the Patriots and Lions were not aware; no public record of it for background investigators to ‘discover’. Now that this has resurfaced he will have to answer to it in the court of public opinion. And because of that the Lions will have to make a descion on what they do next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 37 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said: According to Belichik they didn’t know about it in NE either. Two avenues of thought here. Court of law and court of public opinion. Due process has been played out with the court of law. I am personally troubled that a Grand Jury originally decided on a true bill of assault back when this started. But apparently due to the victim’s unwillingness to testify the prosecuting attorneys office at the time chose not to go through a trial. From what it sounds the statute of limitations has run its course and any new charges are essentially moot. It should be noted that ‘due process’ would have also allowed Patricia to defend himself against any allegations at the time. But due to their not being any trial, he couldn’t and didn’t have to. Probably why both the Patriots and Lions were not aware; no public record of it for background investigators to ‘discover’. Now that this has resurfaced he will have to answer to it in the court of public opinion. And because of that the Lions will have to make a descion on what they do next. Agreed on your assessment. I'm just glad it's not us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 11, 2018 Report Share Posted May 11, 2018 Interesting story. Without hard evidence (witness, DNA, video, etc), those are hard to prove, especially when most people are in a drunken stupor. Also, the victim has to endure a lot and just like in this case, decided not to testify. So that tells me "something" happened. I would say the oddest part would be not to disclose something like that to ANY of his employers, especially one like the NFL with so much media attention. I know a lot of major companies ask (since they may already know with a background check) just to see if you will answer truthfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted May 11, 2018 Report Share Posted May 11, 2018 6 hours ago, adam said: Interesting story. Without hard evidence (witness, DNA, video, etc), those are hard to prove, especially when most people are in a drunken stupor. Also, the victim has to endure a lot and just like in this case, decided not to testify. So that tells me "something" happened. I am not defending sexual assault in any way whatsoever. I don't think we can fairly assume any guilt or innocence based on what we know. Assumptions like that are unfair, and that's why we have a trial procedure. Just a point of logic, I have no feelings either way about Patricia, or any opinion on what he did or didn't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 11, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2018 14 hours ago, BearFan NYC said: I am not defending sexual assault in any way whatsoever. I don't think we can fairly assume any guilt or innocence based on what we know. Assumptions like that are unfair, and that's why we have a trial procedure. Just a point of logic, I have no feelings either way about Patricia, or any opinion on what he did or didn't do. My whole thing is it just makes the Lions organization look bad regardless of whether the charges are legit or not. Given their initial response of not knowing anything about it...it makes them look like they did not do any due diligence. And makes the NFL, as a whole, look bad given how many times they've screwed up in the past regarding player behavior including domestic violence and other such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 11, 2018 Report Share Posted May 11, 2018 17 hours ago, BearFan NYC said: I am not defending sexual assault in any way whatsoever. I don't think we can fairly assume any guilt or innocence based on what we know. Assumptions like that are unfair, and that's why we have a trial procedure. Just a point of logic, I have no feelings either way about Patricia, or any opinion on what he did or didn't do. Absolutely, but things like this go unreported more than they go to trial. The fact that it made it to a grand jury is pretty serious. There was enough for them to pursue an indictment, so that tells me something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted May 11, 2018 Report Share Posted May 11, 2018 I guess, but if they DID know, you think that should have destroyed his career? Maybe they did know. But even if they didnt, what would they have done differently if they had known? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted May 11, 2018 Report Share Posted May 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, adam said: Absolutely, but things like this go unreported more than they go to trial. The fact that it made it to a grand jury is pretty serious. There was enough for them to pursue an indictment, so that tells me something. no it doesnt. I have served on a grand jury before. getting indicted means nothing more than that you dont know and should have a trial. there are many innocent people indicted all the time. Hell studies say 10% of people convicted and in prison are innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted May 12, 2018 Report Share Posted May 12, 2018 14 hours ago, BearFan NYC said: no it doesnt. I have served on a grand jury before. getting indicted means nothing more than that you dont know and should have a trial. there are many innocent people indicted all the time. Hell studies say 10% of people convicted and in prison are innocent. I don't want to keep going back and forth on this, but "a grand jury indictment is the product of sworn witness testimony and/or physical evidence". I could care less either way, but saying a grand jury indictment is nothing is silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted May 12, 2018 Report Share Posted May 12, 2018 an indictment is NOT a trial. often the accused isnt even there, with no opportunity to speak, present evidence or question witnesses. The outcome is not a conviction, but simply a recommendation for trial. A judge once famously said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich." He added that they "operate more often as the prosecutor's pawn than the citizen's shield." Having served a month on a grand jury myself, I have first hand experience that this is TRUE. We indicted all sorts of nonsense, and we were very tightly controlled by the district attorney as to what we could ask, and do in ways that I personally think were illegal. The whole thing was basically a rubber stamp, witht he opportunity for fairness being reserved for the trial itself. Being indicted doesnt make you guilty any more than being arrested does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 14, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 NYC & adam, again I don't think the issue is relating to guilt, innocence, etc in a court of law. It's in the court of public opinion. Like it or not. This isn't like you or I applying for a job. We aren't the face of management for a billion dollar enterprise getting paid millions. Hell at my company, we go through extensive background and financial checks and this is for folks earning just $50K and over. This NFL HC role is almost like that of a politician. The question to any candidate shouldn't just be, "have you had any convictions?"...it should be..."is there anything in your history that could potentially come up if someone were to dig hard that could make you or the team look bad?" Anything. From just being an asshole at a movie theater to far worse... If it's not that bad to us, we will either address it up front or simply back you up down the road, if asked, and say "we know and it wasn't an issue." In this example, and only this one, the point is that it makes the Lions look like stupid. If the media seek and find this woman and now she's willing to cooperate and talk...it's a distraction at minimum. Hell, it's a distraction now. I can easily imagine him walking into any stadium...chants of rapist will fly, right or wrong. This isn't about what should occur in civilized society, but what will happen in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted May 16, 2018 Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 Sure, but would you really avoid a coach you thought could win for you over this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 9 hours ago, BearFan NYC said: Sure, but would you really avoid a coach you thought could win for you over this? It's an unfair question. If I were the GM, I'd have done the Lexus/Nexus search and would have asked him about it. If I were convinced he was innocent, I'd be OK with it. Having not talked to the man personally or formally interviewed him (including references and maybe some of the people involved in that incident)...I can't answer the question. But, if there were 2 guys that were about equal on my list (and the other guy had no blemishes on his record), I'd go with the other guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.