Matt Patricia: aggravated sexual assault indictment

[RGMCSE]

This allegedly happened in SPI. If that accuser comes out and gives her side this could be the end of Matt’s head coaching career before it even starts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/597127002

[spurraider21]

crofl 1996

he's not in trouble imho

[JMarkJohns]

It’s utter bullshit that a literal non-participation dropped charge is resurfacing 22 years later by media, not the original accuser. Even if it was true, the accuser dropped the charges through non-participation, and it was 22 fucking years ago.

Every reporter is trying to find the next Sandusky or Weinstein right now.

Gotta make that name.

Maybe Matt Patricia is an asshole rapist. It’s the victim and courts responsibility to bring justice.

[Avante]

Simply too much time has past. And his age is a major factor here. Combining those two we have a nothing. Why it was even brought up...???

Not making light of sexual abuse, yep, very serious. But we really don't know the story and a 20 something kid some 20 years ago.....nay~~~

And......the owner of the Lions does need to address this publically and explain why the situation will be treated as being unimportant at this stage of things.

[RGMCSE]

He raped, and time doesn't change that.

[Avante]

He raped, and time doesn't change that.

If you think...

Jumping out of the bushes to pounce on a stranger at 35, is the same thing as this situation, you need help.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

It’s utter bullshit that a literal non-participation dropped charge is resurfacing 22 years later by media, not the original accuser. Even if it was true, the accuser dropped the charges through non-participation, and it was 22 fucking years ago.

Every reporter is trying to find the next Sandusky or Weinstein right now.

Gotta make that name.

Maybe Matt Patricia is an asshole rapist. It’s the victim and courts responsibility to bring justice.

Exactly. 100% Agree. There has to be some sort of statute of limitations, it's only fair to everyone involved in the system.

Double digit years = closed case for anything other than 1st degree/capital murder or kidnapping long-term rape of children cases, I think we all agree this needs to be federal law.

[JMarkJohns]

If the victim brings something forward and follows through, I have zero problem with it even taking 20+ years. Circumstances may not allow for a timely prosecution.

But this isn’t that. This was a dropped case from 20+ years ago, where the “victim” stopped cooperating and didn’t revisit the matter.

For a news entity to do this now is bullshit. If you are charged by the charges dropped or you are found not guilty, that shit should be sealed. Obviously in cases of celebrity it likely would never be sealed just because they were famous at time of arrest, but for instances where a normal life is lived, it prevents bullshit like this from happening.

If you weren’t convicted, or there isn’t a discernible pattern, the past should stay the past.

[RGMCSE]

Exactly. 100% Agree. There has to be some sort of statute of limitations, it's only fair to everyone involved in the system.

Double digit years = closed case for anything other than 1st degree/capital murder or kidnapping long-term rape of children cases, I think we all agree this needs to be federal law.


lol at statute of limitations for Rape. He raped and got away with it. Now he’s acting like a victim for this coming out years down the line. He has the audacity to exclaim “I wasn’t given a chance to prove my innocence” after he had no problem hiding the fact he was indicted on rape charges 20years prior.

[spurraider21]

How do you know he raped? Literally all you know is he was charged and it was dropped

[leemajors]

It’s utter bullshit that a literal non-participation dropped charge is resurfacing 22 years later by media, not the original accuser. Even if it was true, the accuser dropped the charges through non-participation, and it was 22 fucking years ago.

Every reporter is trying to find the next Sandusky or Weinstein right now.

Gotta make that name.

Maybe Matt Patricia is an asshole rapist. It’s the victim and courts responsibility to bring justice.

Shouldn't it have popped up in a simple background check?

[HarlemHeat37]

Shouldn't it have popped up in a simple background check?

Ignoring the obvious possibility of rape, this is the worst part IMO..

The NFL tries to play the ultimate authority on domestic abuse and sexual assault, yet nobody found this dirt on Patricia?:lol such a clown league..

[RGMCSE]

How do you know he raped? Literally all you know is he was charged and it was dropped

He was indicted which shows the prosecution had proof of rape. Problem is the victim was unwilling to go through the process of a trial which many victims claim is a second round of the crime because they often have to face their perpetrated face to face and relive the act of being a rape victim. It’s pretty common actually. Just look at all the victims in the Crosby case. It took one brave person to finally come forward and then the flood gates.

[spurraider21]

He was indicted which shows the prosecution had proof of rape. Problem is the victim was unwilling to go through the process of a trial which many victims claim is a second round of the crime because they often have to face their perpetrated face to face and relive the act of being a rape victim. It’s pretty common actually. Just look at all the victims in the Crosby case. It took one brave person to finally come forward and then the flood gates.
So to you indictments and convictions are basically the same.

Why not stretch that logic to aay anybody who pleads not guilry is innocent

[JMarkJohns]

Yeah, indictments aren’t proof. The burden is very small. Furthermore, what if the only “proof” was her word? What if she lied? Ya know, I’d wager that women lie more than men rape. Further, we keep saying “rape” but there isn’t a charge for that. Not in wording, at least, and there are degrees to what a sexual assault is.

If he did what was claimed, I hope he gets justice.

But this story is a witch hunt begging the original filet to appear and speak her side of a 22-year old case where no evidence could be given to disprove her now claims.

It is irresponsible reporting.

[JMarkJohns]

An indictment only requires reasonable proof, so, a testimony and, maybe, proof of sex.

But guilt in the courts requires the prosecution to remove all reasonable doubts with a burden of proof that is far more difficult to attain, let alone persuade. He would literally have to prove her claims with evidence or corroborating testimony.

If the prosecution had that, even without the victim testifying, the state could still proceed with the case. You don’t need the victim to testify to prosecute. You don’t even need their permission or cooperation. Given the charge died when the victim stopped being helpful, it seems like the state didn’t have enough to even sustain an indictment, let alone prove its case to a trial jury.

So, again, to say the indictment is proof of guilt is laughably wrong.

Here’s a link to a Yahoo article talking about grand hury indictments: https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/ferguson-federal-grand-jury-indictment-statistics-history-134942645.html

Basically it says Grand Jury’s very rarely dismiss or decline to indict. Only 11/160,000 cases. Why? Because all they are told to ask is “is there a reason this should move forward?”

Here’s an article that discusses conviction rates for assault cases being under 50% national: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=403

So, again, indictments super easy, but convictions are reasonably tough.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

lol at statute of limitations for Rape. He raped and got away with it. Now he’s acting like a victim for this coming out years down the line. He has the audacity to exclaim “I wasn’t given a chance to prove my innocence” after he had no problem hiding the fact he was indicted on rape charges 20years prior.
How do you know he raped?

Adult-on-adult rape, vast majority of the time is hard to prove and he-said-she-said and often very subjective. AMERICA was founded on an innocent until proven guilty policy. You don't incriminate someone based on a maybe. There has to be no reasonable doubts. If there is a doubt, he is not guilty even if he really was guilty. That's the way America and any good nation works.

Adult-on-child rape on the other hand is NOT subjective and any sexual contact between an adult male and a child must be punished severely...

[leemajors]

Yeah, indictments aren’t proof. The burden is very small. Furthermore, what if the only “proof” was her word? What if she lied? Ya know, I’d wager that women lie more than men rape. Further, we keep saying “rape” but there isn’t a charge for that. Not in wording, at least, and there are degrees to what a sexual assault is.

If he did what was claimed, I hope he gets justice.

But this story is a witch hunt begging the original filet to appear and speak her side of a 22-year old case where no evidence could be given to disprove her now claims.

It is irresponsible reporting.

Just curious, but why is it irresponsible reporting? The Patriots said they were unaware of it, but anyone can find it on the internet. the ensuing shitstorm is silly, but NFL teams seem to be unable to find things like this out until after someone reports it.

[RGMCSE]

Bunch of Mattlock mother fuckers in here defending a rapist...

[JMarkJohns]

Just curious, but why is it irresponsible reporting? The Patriots said they were unaware of it, but anyone can find it on the internet. the ensuing shitstorm is silly, but NFL teams seem to be unable to find things like this out until after someone reports it.

What was the purpose of reporting it now? He isn’t getting hired now. He’s been hired. The the victim make new statements? Did it only now become public record?

It’s irresponsible because it doesn’t have all the facts, yet within the #MeToo climate, this can easily be sensationalized to the point where public perception views him guilty, as this thread in here evidences.

He’s not a rapist unless proven or evidenced. Not in the eyes of the law, or in perception.

If he crossed the line, there’s processes to find him guilty.

Out of context dirt digging to shame after the fact isn’t one of them.

Literally just this week a “victim” of a indicted and arrested “assaulter” recanted and said she lied the entire time. I’ve personally known two such incidents, one involving a high school acquaintance who “joked” she’d cry date rape if she ever got pregnant, and one involving family where my cousin was falsely accused by a woman claiming coerced inebriated sex.

I’m not saying Patricia is innocent. I’m saying as of now, the guilt isn’t proven, and this reporting suggests he was hiding something needed exposure, when the event had its day in court and the “victim” opted to stop cooperating, and charges were them dropped from a lack of supporting evidence.

[Avante]

Bunch of Mattlock mother fuckers in here defending a rapist...

I once put out a small fire at a neighbors, but somebody had called the fire department. By the time they showed up,I had the fire out. The local paper...Fire department put's out fire at..... Yep, no mention at all about what really happened.

We don't know the real story and since nothing came from it.............forget it.

Like I mentioned above we have deranged fuck jumps out of the bushes rape and then when they know each other rape. That last one can be a bit...??????