OT: Det News uncovers old, dropped sexual assault indictment against Matt Patricia
The woman in the Patricia case has no interest in pursuing this today; another fact to take into consideration. I find it somewhat compelling that she doesn't want to take the opportunity, as so many victims do when given the chance, to tell her story.
Second, I wondered how this came to the attention of the Detroit News. Answered.
The Lions hired APG Security to conduct the background investigation, which I would assume is a very normal thing to do. The story says that APG did request the indictment and dismissal from Texas. My guess is that they considered it a non-story and neglected to provide it in the investigative report. Hence, the Lions wouldn't know. Since it happened 22 years ago, and has never been brought up since, I can totally see Patricia not mentioning it - indeed, probably having forgot about it.
The only other take is that APG and the Lions colluded to keep it hidden, probably including Patricia. I don't see that as credible because secrets don't stay secrets when so many people are involved, and the fallout for the Lions and NFL is too great a risk. It wasn't covered up...
Personally, I don't know if he actually did anything, or not - like the rest of us. But my thoughts say any DNA evidence collected as part of the medical checkup she recieved would have bene brought forward, and the prosecutors would have gone to trial anyway. At least I hope that would have happened...
WHAT??? They found it and decided unilaterally to not pass it along to their client, the Lions? That is the real fucking story here. The Lions should sue the shit out of them for malpractice.
My bet is they're Lions about what they knew.
The story says an APG spokesperson said they were unaware of anyone requesting the documents. No idea if that's true or not.
Personally, I don't think it's the case that the Lions and APG colluded to keep this information secret. There's no indication that the Patriots knew this about Patricia, either.
I think it's probably far more likely that NFL teams request only enough information from their background searches so that they can avoid any kind of real legal or PR culpability if something comes out. I don't think it's an accident that the Lions only specifically search for convictions, because I'm guessing that just about everyone only searches for convictions.
I'm guessing that most NFL teams do background searches looking only for things that can really hurt them. Which, regardless of how much noise this makes right now, it's likely that it won't have any lasting impact on the team; it'll get some conversation for a couple days and everyone will have forgotten by the time training camp opens.
I have no idea the truth obviously, but I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I got indicted at some point in my life.
Unless you got indicted, like, once a month? Then they'd fade into the past.
The Lions came out in support of Patricia:
http://www.detroitlions.com/news/news-short/article-1/Detroit-Lions-org…
"He was 21 at the time and on spring break in Texas"
I don't really like that quote and that gives me concerns. It seems as if the Lions are going the whole "Boys will be Boys" route, blaming him for being young and stupid.
"Young and stupid" is getting a MIP walking down state street because you puked on a cop. It is not sexually assaulting someone.
Obviously, this does not prove or disprove the allegation, but that statement could've been prepared a much better way.
Taken out of context, it sounds bad. But reading the press release, I took it as them explaining what occurred, not giving the "young and stupid" argument.
Good job, Toby. The dissonance in your comment here is impressive.
Driving through a wendy's butt naked offends you?
interesting.
You mean my tuesday 3pm trip to Wendy's is offensive?
A big "And" here: And, they could've been dropped for a number of reasons that indicate that Patricia WAS innocent. You don't know. I don't know. You're the one jumping to horrible conclusions based on absolutely nothing of fact. I'm the one not jumping to conclusions and taking the story at face value.
You want to punish Matt Patricia for all of the past transgressions of every botched rape case in the history of the planet that had nothing to do with Matt Patricia I want to look at this specific case on its own merits and I conclude that there's absolutely nothing of fact here that changes his criminal history or employability.
Maybe he raped her! And maybe he didn't. You know how you sort that out? In a court room in 1996. Not on the fucking internet in 2018.
I'm orgasming to your posts.
The authorites explicitly stated that the case was dropped because the accuser declined to testify in court.
Bruh. You win the thread. Why did I waste my time typing up thoughtful and sober (rare for me) explanations. +1,000,000
This sucks.
I don't know what to think, but I know I don't feel good.
That's kind of where I stand.
On the one hand, I feel very uncomfortable with a guy who has had an accusation like this, and always in the back of my head will wonder 'Was she coerced into not testifying or going through with the prosecution?
On the other hand, she didn't testify, false accusations do happen, and is it fair to blackball someone for something they were never found guilty of?
Exactly.
And accusers drop charges (or never even come forward) for a lot of other reasons besides coercion or making it up. General fear, or even PTSD about having to be in the same room as their assaulter, etc...
But as you said, he was never convicted.
I think i'm gonna need some time to think on this one...
You are correct.
I should have said accusers recant their allegations or never even come forward. Leaving previous post as is for posterity.
I'm trying to figure out what exactly the issue is here....? Are we upset that the Lions didn't find out about this sooner? I just don't understand the backlash against someone that wasn't even found guilty of something that happened 20 years ago? None of us have the authority or knowledge to know whether or not something did happen. Unless the accuser comes foward and decides to share her story, we have nothing to go off of other than Patricia not being found guilty. It's probably a bad look to not have talked about this ever, but I don't think a guy should get fired for not discussing something that he wasn't found guilty of.
"Fuck him, basically. He very likely did something, and should no longer have the privilege to be a..." that statement could be said about a lot of people who did some very bad things in the past. If its uncovered that he has repeatedly done similar bad things since this one incident, then yes, your statement is true. But come on man, second chances and all that.
Not that its okay but its very likely people you work with every day have done some horrible things in their past, does that mean they don't get the privilege to do anything with their life?
You mean what you just did? Because I'd agree with that.
If I'm reading his brain-farts correctly, you should only lose your job if it's a good job. So if he never made partner, he's fine.