Report: Matt Patricia indicted but not tried for sexual assault in 1996

[tonyballs]

He's innocent simply because he was never proven guilty? It doesn't matter what happened?

I person isn't innocent just because they weren't convicted of something.

You're fucking right he's innocent. He's not in your eyes? Lol

 

[tomdalton22]

You're fucking right he's innocent. He's not in your eyes? Lol

I didn't say that. I don't know if he's innocent or not. We'll never know.

 

[inkfreq]

He's innocent simply because he was never proven guilty? It doesn't matter what happened?

I person isn't innocent just because they weren't convicted of something.

Yes, because we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[tomdalton22]

Yes, because we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a court of law. OJ was proven not guilty but I have no doubt he killed those two people.

 

[turok]

To be fair, we don't know that there aren't other unreported assaults. This one didn't come to light for 22 years. There could have been one last year that won't come to light for another 22 years.

But I stand by the statement that he's not guilty in a court of law, because he was never adjudicated, and we shouldn't by any standard treat him as thnotough he s a criminal if he never even got the chance to defend himself.

Now that the proverbial "cat" is out of the bag, then it is possible that another woman or women who may or may not have had an unwanted sexual encounter with Patricia will come foward sooner or later with their own allegatons.

But many guys have done some things, especially in their youth which they are not proud of or regret, and/or would rather not become widely known. I am not going to be a hypocrite and condemn him for what he may or may not have done, when my own past sexual history isn't exactly squeaky clean. I used many women to satisfy sowing my wild oats w/o any intention of turning them into long term relationships from the get-go, like most of them had wanted or expected. I don't feel that I had ever forced any of them into doing it, but a few may have felt otherwise, since I soon stopped calling and dating them after the first time that the deeds were done.

I can relate to this song that came out ~a year prior to Patricia's alleged rape:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awY1MRlMKMc

 

[tonyballs]

I didn't say that. I don't know if he's innocent or not. We'll never know.

Innocent til proven guilty.

 

[tonyballs]

In a court of law. OJ was proven not guilty but I have no doubt he killed those two people.

What a joke of a comparison. Give your fkn head a shake. You have already labeled our HC a rapist I guess. Why am I not surprised?? Lol.

 

[tomdalton22]

What a joke of a comparison. Give your fkn head a shake. You have already labeled our HC a rapist I guess. Why am I not surprised?? Lol.

I was just pointing out that just because someone isn't convicted of a crime doesn't mean they didn't do it.

As far as labeling him a rapist...not at all. Sexual assault can be rape or something significantly less egregious like grabbing a girls ass. I have said this several times...I don't know if he did or didn't do it.

As far as Patricia and the Lions are concerned, I don't know how this never came up before, or how it didn't come up in the background check the Lions did. Our clients demand background checks on an annual basis. Every one I fill out asks if I have ever been arrested or been convicted of a crime. I would assume that the Lions, or the service they used, would ask similar questions. If they did, he lied. If they didn't, they aren't doing a good enough job vetting their high profile employees.

 

[adam86107]

He's innocent simply because he was never proven guilty? It doesn't matter what happened?

I person isn't innocent just because they weren't convicted of something.

A person is innocent until they are proven guilty. We can't just gather our pitchforks and start burning everyone that had allegations against them. That's some Salem shit right there.

 

[tomdalton22]

A person is innocent until they are proven guilty. We can't just gather our pitchforks and start burning everyone that had allegations against them. That's some Salem shit right there.

that's only in the American criminal justice system.

here is an excerpt from an article I found. It was written about some of these guys that have been accused of sexual harassment.



But what we have been dealing with has not been courts of law. It?s been the court of public opinion, and ?innocent until proven guilty? is not applicable there. Neither is it applicable in the employment context (with some exceptions, mostly dealing with state and federal employees who have been contractually afforded ?property rights? in their positions, such as a tenured professor at a state university). Importantly, it?s also not applicable to the political arena.

Roy Moore will almost certainly never be convicted of a crime. Not only does a statute of limitation apply, but even if it didn?t, the prosecutorial burden is too high. It?s a he said/she said situation, and without additional evidence, that?s not enough to overcome the burden.

But in the court of public opinion, we can choose to believe the women. We should believe the women. It should be the default. Likewise, an employer doesn?t need to satisfy a prosecutorial burden before firing someone for sexual harassment or assault. That?s not to say that an employer should not weigh the evidence before arriving at a decision to fire someone. You can do some independent investigation. You can look to additional evidence. You can weigh the credibility of the accuser and the accused. But as we have seen time and time and time again, most cases of assault or harassment or just general creepiness are not isolated incidences. They fit a pattern. If one woman levels an allegation, there?s probably five or six or dozens more.

 

[kalinecountry]

If one woman levels an allegation, there?s probably five or six or dozens more.

There haven't been any others who have come out...yet. If none come out, it would sound as if this was an angry woman trying to ruin a good man's reputation. if more women come out and say he did similar to them,
well were there's smoke there's fire, but as of this point in time imo, he is not guilty, unless more women come out.

 

[detrisin]

....Every one I fill out asks if I have ever been arrested or been convicted of a crime...

I think the interview/employment process is a bit different in this case. It's not like they handed him a clipboard with an attached form and he checked the appropriate boxes.

 

[Mitchrapp]

There haven't been any others who have come out...yet. If none come out, it would sound as if this was an angry woman trying to ruin a good man's reputation. if more women come out and say he did similar to them,
well were there's smoke there's fire, but as of this point in time imo, he is not guilty, unless more women come out.

Innocent until proven guilty - America's way. But I don't believe more women have to come out. If none do, and the woman who made the accusation stays quiet then he's innocent by the courts. But that's doesn't mean he's done nothing.. Doesn't mean he has either.



As it was said before it sucks all around. Men who get accused but not found guilty have to live with a stigma forever. Some people will just assume he did it.

 

[tomdalton22]

I think the interview/employment process is a bit different in this case. It's not like they handed him a clipboard with an attached form and he checked the appropriate boxes.

well, shame on the Lions if they didn't do a thorough background check on the face of the franchise. I'm sure they do one on every single potential draft pick or free agent.

 

[Mitchrapp]

well, shame on the Lions if they didn't do a thorough background check on the face of the franchise. I'm sure they do one on every single potential draft pick or free agent.

I doubt any NFL team does. If they did Patricia wouldn't have had so many interviews. They might start but they don't do currently.

 

[tomdalton22]

I doubt any NFL team does. If they did Patricia wouldn't have had so many interviews. They might start but they don't do currently.

I guess they do a background check but it's limited

According to the Lions Presidend

Wood, the Lions? president, told the Detroit News: ?Our background check was limited to employment matters only and does not disclose any criminal matters that don?t result in a conviction or a plea agreement.?

 

[inkfreq]

I understand where tomdalton22 is coming from. Obviously there are cases in this world where someone is found not guilty in court, but they were really guilty in reality.

Medgar Evers was murdered in 1963 by Byron De La Beckwith for the crime of fornication with a white woman. He failed to be convicted of the crime until 1991 after two trials resulted in hung juries... because after all "he was black.. and she was white".

Jury's are not immune the the wrong-doings of society.

However, I consider the OJ case a really bad comparison, because OJ got his day in court, and the entire world got to see a large chunk of the evidence. Everyone is educated enough on that evidence to come to their own conclusion.

In the case of Matt Patricia, we don't even know what was alleged to have happened. He will never have his day in court. Any opinion formed counter to his basic right to be presumed innocent is formed ignorant of any facts what so ever.

If zero facts exist to say a man may be guilty, then we should aways presume his innocence. In OJ's case, there were many facts that said he was guilty (and many that said he wasn't) but there are NO facts at all in Patricia's case.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I guess they do a background check but it's limited

According to the Lions Presidend

Wood, the Lions? president, told the Detroit News: ?Our background check was limited to employment matters only and does not disclose any criminal matters that don?t result in a conviction or a plea agreement.?

That's what I meant. They don't go beyond what they can see. I'm not sure about one thing so if you were indicted but not tried or convicted does it show up when doing a criminal search? Is it in the database?

 

[Mitchrapp]

And who discovered all this? Why now?

 

[tomdalton22]

I understand where tomdalton22 is coming from. Obviously there are cases in this world where someone is found not guilty in court, but they were really guilty in reality.

Medgar Evers was murdered in 1963 by Byron De La Beckwith for the crime of fornication with a white woman. He failed to be convicted of the crime until 1991 after two trials resulted in hung juries... because after all "he was black.. and she was white".

Jury's are not immune the the wrong-doings of society.

However, I consider the OJ case a really bad comparison, because OJ got his day in court, and the entire world got to see a large chunk of the evidence. Everyone is educated enough on that evidence to come to their own conclusion.

In the case of Matt Patricia, we don't even know what was alleged to have happened. He will never have his day in court. Any opinion formed counter to his basic right to be presumed innocent is formed ignorant of any facts what so ever.

If zero facts exist to say a man may be guilty, then we should aways presume his innocence. In OJ's case, there were many facts that said he was guilty (and many that said he wasn't) but there are NO facts at all in Patricia's case.

true about the OJ case.

But in a he said she said case....there may never be any facts or evidence. That's what makes these things so difficult to prosecute and probably why many women that get assaulted don't even come forward.