Vikings Message Board.Com

what is the pats gunna do when matt is forced to turn over those tapes to the grand jury??? how will it effect the pats as a whole??will goodall loose his job for destroying the other tapes...and why did he do it in the first place..hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

They've already stated publicly that they had nothing to do with it, and he did it of his own accord. I doubt Goodell will trust their word for it.

Grand jury? Investigating what exactly? No crime was committed here.

Apparently they've run out of murders and robberies to look into so they decided pro football was a good use of their time.

glg wrote:Grand jury? Investigating what exactly? No crime was committed here.

I agree no crime. Since when is bending the rules of the NFL constitute a federal grand jury? Seems to me our Government has bigger fish to fry.

That was all on the thread starter...there is no grand jury...

The latest....

Patriots Defense-C- Patriots Mar. 10 - 10:01 am et

The Patriots are expected to claim that former video assistant Matt Walsh videotaped other teams' signals "on his own."

That is, if Walsh has copies of videotaped walkthroughs and/or signals. The Boston Globe reports Walsh has embellished his online biography and was kicked off the Springfield College golf team in 1995 for playing a "dangerous prank" on a woman. The smear campaign has officially begun.
Source: Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/p ... ideotaper/

Boston Globe wrote:The smear campaign has officially begun.

Uh, it began a couple weeks ago, geniuses.

Can one "smear" someone else with things that they actually did?

M Webster wrote: Main Entry: smear
Pronunciation: \ˈsmir\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English smere, from Old English smeoru; akin to Old High German smero grease and probably to Old Irish smiur marrow
Date: before 12th century
1 a: a viscous or sticky substance b: a spot made by or as if by an unctuous or adhesive substance
2: material smeared on a surface (as of a microscopic slide); also : a preparation made by smearing material on a surface <a vaginal smear>
3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively <a smear campaign><a smear job>

Seems to me the Pats are well within their rights to provide accurate information about Matt Walsh and the public can then use that information with which to evaluate his credibility, or they can chose to ignore that information and follow their own bias about the guilt or innocence of the New England Patriots as it relates to (cough) Spygate I and Spygate II (cough). I'm sure Spygate III is only weeks if not days away.

If the information the Pats are providing about Matt Walsh should prove to be inaccurate information then it would rise to the level of a "smear campaign" and would provide an opening for Walsh and his attorney to seek damages from the Patriots.

I find the allegation that Walsh was secretly recording telephone calls with the team's general manager Scott Pioli which led to his dismissal to be highly relevant to Walsh's character and motives in this affair. If that information is inaccurate the Pats have opened themselves up for a big fat lawsuit from Walsh's high-priced lawyers. The Pats lawyers are not that dumb. I wonder who is paying for Walsh's legal fees?

Boston Globe wrote: Shortly after the Patriots added Spygate to the American lexicon last September by violating NFL rules against videotaping an opponent's signals, Walsh, a video assistant dismissed by the team in 2003, reached out to one of the few former coworkers who would take his call. He left little doubt about his intentions.

"He sounded like a loose cannon," said the coworker, who asked not to be identified to avoid entangling his new employer in the controversy. "He was very bitter about how things ended with the Patriots and he seemed like he was keen on using whatever he had to get back at them by going public and really trying to damage the team."
Link

Some of you seem to have ruled out the possibility that Walsh did in fact tape the Rams walk-through on his own and without instructions to do so by Belichick or the Pats. If Walsh produces a tape of that walk-through it doesn't necessarily mean that he gave it to the coaching staff. He could have just as easily made it and kept it for his own memorabilia.

If he did make that tape for the Pats coaching staff, then it seems to me there are multiple people within the Pats organization that would have seen it or have known about it. All of those individuals will more than likely have to give a deposition under oath about those events. Let's see what happens then ... and then let's let the chips fall where they may. And no, I do not think it very likely that everyone involved will lie under oath about the tapes that Walsh produces (if he even has these tapes) to protect either Belichick or the Pats.

Mr. X wrote:Can one "smear" someone else with things that they actually did?
Seems to me the Pats are well within their rights to provide accurate information about Matt Walsh and the public can then use that information with which to evaluate his credibility, or they can chose to ignore that information and follow their own bias about the guilt or innocence of the New England Patriots as it relates to (cough) Spygate I and Spygate II (cough). I'm sure Spygate III is only weeks if not days away.

If the information the Pats are providing about Matt Walsh should prove to be inaccurate information then it would rise to the level of a "smear campaign" and would provide an opening for Walsh and his attorney to seek damages from the Patriots.

I find the allegation that Walsh was secretly recording telephone calls with the team's general manager Scott Pioli which led to his dismissal to be highly relevant to Walsh's character and motives in this affair. If that information is inaccurate the Pats have opened themselves up for a big fat lawsuit from Walsh's high-priced lawyers. The Pats lawyers are not that dumb. I wonder who is paying for Walsh's legal fees?
Some of you seem to have ruled out the possibility that Walsh did in fact tape the Rams walk-through on his own and without instructions to do so by Belichick or the Pats. If Walsh produces a tape of that walk-through it doesn't necessarily mean that he gave it to the coaching staff. He could have just as easily made it and kept it for his own memorabilia.

If he did make that tape for the Pats coaching staff, then it seems to me there are multiple people within the Pats organization that would have seen it or have known about it. All of those individuals will more than likely have to give a deposition under oath about those events. Let's see what happens then ... and then let's let the chips fall where they may. And no, I do not think it very likely that everyone involved will lie under oath about the tapes that Walsh produces (if he even has these tapes) to protect either Belichick or the Pats.

It might not be a "Smear" campaign in the most strict sense of the word but I hardly think a prank he played on somebody 13 years ago is relevant to this issue.

Maybe he cheated on his girlfriend his senior year in high school too ...

To me, when you're looking to smear someone it goes beyond simply what's true or false. There's also a question of what's relevant and what's not. Most everybody has done things they're not proud of ... those things don't necessarily define you as a person.

I'd think an organization like the Patriots does a pretty thorough background search on people it hires. It certainly is showing it has the capabilities to do said search.

To me, it speaks more about the Patriots front office that they hired somebody with such a "checkered" past.

TeamChaplain wrote: I agree no crime. Since when is bending the rules of the NFL constitute a federal grand jury? Seems to me our Government has bigger fish to fry.

It is a crime to destroy evidence of any wrongdoing.

me4get wrote: It is a crime to destroy evidence of any wrongdoing.

Right and wrong is not synonymous with legal and illegal.

For a crime to occur a law must be violated. If this taping of the Rams walk through occurred it violated NFL rules which is quite different than a criminal statute.

To me, when you're looking to smear someone it goes beyond simply what's true or false. There's also a question of what's relevant and what's not. Most everybody has done things they're not proud of ... those things don't necessarily define you as a person.

I'd think an organization like the Patriots does a pretty thorough background search on people it hires. It certainly is showing it has the capabilities to do said search.

To me, it speaks more about the Patriots front office that they hired somebody with such a "checkered" past.

Oh please Cliff. He was a video guy. Lowest totem on the pole. He'd pick people up from the airport, mix videos.

I think the most damning thing about Walsh is that he secretly taped conversations between him and Pioli. You do that with your boss? Is that youthful indiscretion??

I have a very low opinion of Walsh based strictly on his actions since this story emerged. He said "no comment" while specifically hinting that there was something big, right before the Super Bowl. He somehow has a high priced DC lawyer working for him (hired by Specter?). He stole property from the Patriots before leaving (as evidenced by photos from his wedding day). He makes several outrageous claims on his resume that would even make Fran Foley blush. I'm pretty good at reading people, and this guy is a grade A turd (until evidence shows me otherwise).

I also think Spygate was largely overblown, as every team plays those minor spy v. spy games, and the defensive signal stealing has gone back like 30 something years. Bill Parcells didn't promise Sparano the job while the Cowboys were still in the playoffs? They didn't tamper when they signed somebody 20 minutes into FA a few weeks ago?

Now, if the Patriots really did tape walk throughs, that IS a different story, but several reporters (including Czarnecki) who were in the dome during the Rams' walk through said they didn't see anything, and I don't believe the Pats would so blatantly cheat anyway. That level of cheating could give you no sense of satisfaction for a win.

We'll find out, but the Pats hating makes me really think less of people...the people who can't stop complaining about it. Get some perspective.

Colinito wrote: Oh please Cliff. He was a video guy. Lowest totem on the pole. He'd pick people up from the airport, mix videos.

Alright ... so he was just a peon doing what he was told. Still doesn't bode well for NE.

I think the most #### thing about Walsh is that he secretly taped conversations between him and Pioli. You do that with your boss? Is that youthful indiscretion??

I get what you're saying and I agree. But why not just leave it at that? Why bring up these things from his past that don't matter when you've got things in recent history that DO matter? NE is trying too hard and that makes me suspicious.

I have a very low opinion of Walsh based strictly on his actions since this story emerged. He said "no comment" while specifically hinting that there was something big, right before the Super Bowl. He somehow has a high priced DC lawyer working for him (hired by Specter?). He stole property from the Patriots before leaving (as evidenced by photos from his wedding day). He makes several outrageous claims on his resume that would even make Fran Foley blush. I'm pretty good at reading people, and this guy is a grade A turd (until evidence shows me otherwise).

I don't know. Neither party in this situation looks "clean" to me.

I also think Spygate was largely overblown, as every team plays those minor spy v. spy games, and the defensive signal stealing has gone back like 30 something years. Bill Parcells didn't promise Sparano the job while the Cowboys were still in the playoffs? They didn't tamper when they signed somebody 20 minutes into FA a few weeks ago?

I would also say it's blown out of proportion, certainly.

Now, if the Patriots really did tape walk throughs, that IS a different story, but several reporters (including Czarnecki) who were in the dome during the Rams' walk through said they didn't see anything, and I don't believe the Pats would so blatantly cheat anyway. That level of cheating could give you no sense of satisfaction for a win.

Just because they didn't see something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Certainly if he was there videotaping everything he would have been discrete about it.

We'll find out, but the Pats hating makes me really think less of people...the people who can't stop complaining about it. Get some perspective.

I don't hate the Pats, but them going so far out of their way to paint this guy as a bad person makes one suspicious. I mean ... bringing up a 13 year old incident that has nothing to do with the situation? ... really?

Alright ... so he was just a peon doing what he was told. Still doesn't bode well for NE.

When I said that, I was referring to your assertion that the Pats were wrong for hiring someone with a "checkered" past. He was a low level employee, not too far off from the guy who washes the jock straps Sunday night. Nothing that demands a huge investigation.

I get what you're saying and I agree. But why not just leave it at that? Why bring up these things from his past that don't matter when you've got things in recent history that DO matter? NE is trying too hard and that makes me suspicious.

If I had consensual sex with a woman and she later claimed rape, bringing shame to my name and causing me limitless headaches, I would certainly defend myself. Part of my defense would be bringing up stuff like, the fact that she's accused 2 other guys of raping her, she wrote bad checks in a different state a few years ago, etc. Character is important in the law's eyes, especially when two parties are essentially calling the other a liar.

Just because they didn't see something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Certainly if he was there videotaping everything he would have been discrete about it.

It is my understanding that the stadium is fairly empty at this point. A guy sitting in the stands, even if he was "Death Blow/Cry Cry Again" discrete, would probably arouse suspicion from the typically paranoid NFL coaching staff.

I don't hate the Pats, but them going so far out of their way to paint this guy as a bad person makes one suspicious.

Sounds to me that this guy is a bad person, and it's important to their case that the world understands things through their eyes.