I'm not talking about the beard in general, I'm talking about its state in that picture. Bad dye job and so scraggly that it looks like he hasn't showered in days.
Schefter: Patricia to become new Lions HC
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I tend to doubt that the woman in question would have motive to plant a totally false accusation. Matt Patricia was an engineering student playing Division 3 football at the time. So, it seems highly likely that "something" happened.
It is reasonable to question what that "something" is, however. It seems likely that the 2 guys were drunk, broke into the hotel room, and at least made the woman feel threatened or uncomfortable. Exactly what happened is unknowable, however. It is certainly likely that they may have done something, that while wrong and illegal, was far less odious than "aggravated sexual assault". Maybe they acted like idiots and ripped the covers off her bed while she was in it and danced around the room like drunken fools. And while such an act would be stupid and not defensible, it may hardly rise to something that should disqualify Patricia from coaching football 20 years later. The bar for getting the grand jury indictment is not very high, and she may have been rightly pissed off, and so issued a statement to the police that perhaps embellished a bit the actions. And that statement would have been enough to get an indictment. It's also possible that there could have been a case of mistaken identity.
Or perhaps it was something far worse. But, since we don't know, and since the prosecution dropped the case and did not comment on it when contacted by the press, to some extent the Lions and the NFL do have to give Patricia the benefit of the doubt. Unless asked, it's not something Patricia would even be obligated to bring up if it was truly minor (which is possible). Obviously, we can each make our own judgment about Patricia as a person and whether he should be coaching. But I don't think there is any way for the NFL or the Lions to do anything further barring new information coming to light, which seems unlikely.
It is reasonable to question what that "something" is, however. It seems likely that the 2 guys were drunk, broke into the hotel room, and at least made the woman feel threatened or uncomfortable. Exactly what happened is unknowable, however. It is certainly likely that they may have done something, that while wrong and illegal, was far less odious than "aggravated sexual assault". Maybe they acted like idiots and ripped the covers off her bed while she was in it and danced around the room like drunken fools. And while such an act would be stupid and not defensible, it may hardly rise to something that should disqualify Patricia from coaching football 20 years later. The bar for getting the grand jury indictment is not very high, and she may have been rightly pissed off, and so issued a statement to the police that perhaps embellished a bit the actions. And that statement would have been enough to get an indictment. It's also possible that there could have been a case of mistaken identity.
Or perhaps it was something far worse. But, since we don't know, and since the prosecution dropped the case and did not comment on it when contacted by the press, to some extent the Lions and the NFL do have to give Patricia the benefit of the doubt. Unless asked, it's not something Patricia would even be obligated to bring up if it was truly minor (which is possible). Obviously, we can each make our own judgment about Patricia as a person and whether he should be coaching. But I don't think there is any way for the NFL or the Lions to do anything further barring new information coming to light, which seems unlikely.
Somebody knew something and dropped a dime on MP to the Detroit News.
I just heard a little of his press conference, and while maintaining that charges were dropped and he was innocent, my impression was that something happened on that night many years ago. Matty P did not seem fully transparent.
But in the absence of any further news or evidence, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Given the current climate of hang first, trial to follow, where charged individuals are fired, forced to resign, shunned or condemned on allegations, some care should be provided for the rights of the party charged.
I've never sexually harassed a woman, but I have a vindictive ex-wife, who for no other reason, than to fuck up my life, put false statements into divorce related motions, just because she could.
I just heard a little of his press conference, and while maintaining that charges were dropped and he was innocent, my impression was that something happened on that night many years ago. Matty P did not seem fully transparent.
But in the absence of any further news or evidence, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Given the current climate of hang first, trial to follow, where charged individuals are fired, forced to resign, shunned or condemned on allegations, some care should be provided for the rights of the party charged.
I've never sexually harassed a woman, but I have a vindictive ex-wife, who for no other reason, than to fuck up my life, put false statements into divorce related motions, just because she could.
Whether you think he did it or not, his response sucks. Crying about "mental torture" and how this is all a big unfair attempt to take him down is tone deaf at best and cold-blooded at worst.
When the question is about depriving him of life, liberty or property, I'm all about beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, jury-trial, etc etc. I haven't seen anyone say they should send Matty off to PMITA prison.
When the question is "hey, there was this incident that is at least plausibly a case of a privileged public figure sexually assaulting someone", the value of each of those cases towards the general attitude towards sexual assault, as well as our experiences as to the real odds of it having occurred, suggest that we ought to believe accusers implicitly until given reason otherwise. Doesn't mean we're not willing to listen to other sides of the story (and in this case, we haven't even heard the accuser's side, right?), but the stakes at question are whether he loses something in his reputation and/or career arc, which might amount to him making a few less millions during his coaching career (but still 8 figures, definitely). My sympathy for him is limited because his personal downside is quite limited, relative to the other side of the dispute.
Can you tell us what you saw that makes you think what you saw was him not seeming "fully transparent" versus some other emotion like disbelief or anger or, to be fair, guilt?
Remember when some watched Brady's deflategate PC they thought he looked guilty.
These are 20 year old accusations, Patricia was a student. Is your theory that it was this woman's plan was to fake a sexual assault accusation just in case Patricia ended up being rich some day?
I don't think MP lied, or is guilty, but the way he answered a follow-up question about what happened on the evening in question, or a question (IIRC) about what was it that the Grand Jury found, struck me a less than transparent. He stuck to, "I'm innocent and didn't do anything" which is fine, but it struck me as less than a complete answer to the questions asked.
Again, in the absence of any further evidence, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
You don't have to think back that far -- I mentioned it about 10 posts before you.
As for the first part of your question, here's how Deadspin reported the PC:
https://deadspin.com/matt-patricia-sexual-assault-indictment-was-mental-to-1825923946
He refused to provide any details about the situation, answer whether it was consensual and dodged whether it came up in his Lions interview. You be the judge.
bankshot1, I'm sorry to hear that about your ex-wife. One thing Patricia said in his PC is this:
Given the nature of these charges, do you think Patricia has an obligation to say who he thinks is doing this to him?
I am saying that knowing what happened 20+ years ago it tough to know.
If you want Conjecture:
She may have had a personal agenda back then (Regret? Bad Breakup?) Or Matty P might have been a disgusting pig who did something wrong. Her intention back then may have been to hurt Patricia or his reputation. As "just a college student" it didnt gain much traction. Her intention now might be to cash in.
Thats the whole point its conjecture. We dont know who is telling the truth of if there is a 3rd story.
But jumping to conclusions that the Male is ALWAYS guilty is just as silly.
If you want Conjecture:
She may have had a personal agenda back then (Regret? Bad Breakup?) Or Matty P might have been a disgusting pig who did something wrong. Her intention back then may have been to hurt Patricia or his reputation. As "just a college student" it didnt gain much traction. Her intention now might be to cash in.
Thats the whole point its conjecture. We dont know who is telling the truth of if there is a 3rd story.
But jumping to conclusions that the Male is ALWAYS guilty is just as silly.
As silly as the idea that an anonymous accuser from 20 years ago is somehow (seriously, I want to know how) trying to cash in right now?
I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure if I were I’d tell him to answer questions but there’s no reason to add details.
If he said it was consensual then we’d believe him?
You want him to name someone that feels that they are a victim of sexual assault? You want Patricia to do that?
She's not the one that raised this. An investigative reporter for the Detroit News found it. The accuser is, as far as I know, still unidentified.
Jumping to conclusions, indeed.
don't
I don't know what happened back then any more than you do. Seems that there's probably only three people that definitively know. So that said, yeah, I believe it the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, and I think that should be the standard in and out of the courtroom UNLESS there's some serious circumstantial evidence to the contrary. As in 30+ women all saying that Bill Cosby raped them in the same manner, etc. Van Everyman had Patricia tried and convicted BEFORE this apparently terrible press conference for goodness sake. WTF?
Put yourself in the shoes of a person who was wrongly accused. Of an innocent man. Would you be concerned about being tone-deaf to the person lying about you and putting you in this shitty situation? Would you feel indebted to this person to conduct yourself in some particular manner?
I don't know what happened back then any more than you do. Seems that there's probably only three people that definitively know. So that said, yeah, I believe it the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, and I think that should be the standard in and out of the courtroom UNLESS there's some serious circumstantial evidence to the contrary. As in 30+ women all saying that Bill Cosby raped them in the same manner, etc. Van Everyman had Patricia tried and convicted BEFORE this apparently terrible press conference for goodness sake. WTF?
We don’t have to accept anything. There’s been a ton of research on this. But let’s neglect all that in favor of your pet theories on human nature.
Yes. In that one case. The aforementioned research shows what an outlier that case is.
Is this the one you guys are talking about? Because this isn't UVA.
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Police-Football-players-falsely-accused-of-rape-10950934.php
I'm sure you're not talking about this one though:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Student-Who-Falsely-Reports-Sex-Assault-Charged-170731146.html
Or this one:
https://nypost.com/2018/03/02/college-student-charged-with-falsely-reporting-sexual-assault/
(I don't know the motive in the last two situations...the first one sounds like the one you guys are discussing though)
This whole situation sucks. And it sucks that ANYONE gets sexually assaulted. And it sucks that sometimes people get falsely accused of sexual assault. ("sucks" is not remotely a strong enough word)
It's not hard to not sexually assault someone and put them through so much pain. And frankly, it's not hard to not make stuff up about someone that you know will cause damage to their lives. Yet people do these things and it's so discouraging and infuriating.
Last edited:
Yet they’re done in vastly disproportionate amounts, and it’s odd that a bunch of dudes are rushing to say “but what if he’s innocent!” We all recognize the possibility he might be innocent. Odds are against it, but it’s certainly possible. Beyond that, unless I missed it, I find his inability to put forward at least the outline of a plausible explanation or alternative narrative makes me doubt his claims of innocence.
NFL will now review the dismissed case. Uh oh. Revenge of the Clown shirt?
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl-review-matt-patricias-dismissed-1996-sexual-assault-case-175010366.html
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl-review-matt-patricias-dismissed-1996-sexual-assault-case-175010366.html
Have any of these men involved in all of this considered how the alleged victim might feel about all this coming up now?
I have a huge issue with any study on any of this, because I simply do not believe there is a reliable measure to determine the rate at which women lie to others about sexual assault. You are asking liars to tell the truth and, oftentimes, to admit to committing a crime. I simply do not believe it is possible to construct an accurate study, no matter how hard one might try.
I also think saying “odds are against it” is entirely unfair to anyone accused, particularly before we have any actual evidence. If we heard there was a random murder somewhere, would be say “it was most likely a black guy?” I find framing it in this way almost unAmerican, even if there was a way to objectively prove your assertion was true.
It will be hard to fit in there with all the dudes from this thread.
I find it only slightly ironic that posters on a message board that was founded by a bunch of sabremetricians are now resorting to “Forget the data! The data can be manipulated!” to reassure ourselves that a favorite coach of ours didn’t break into a bedroom with his fraternity brother and teammate to take turns raping a woman they met on spring break. Because ... laundry.
Honest question - what do you mean by evidence? Because there was enough for an indictment and for a DA to take it to trial. And on the other hand, there’s MP’s indignation. So, even disregarding your resistance to studies, if I were a betting man I’d say Matt did something wrong here. I’m not firing him. I’m not voting to convict him.
And, look, you have a point about the “odds” thing, but, again, when the alternative is “well one woman lied about it once according to this story I’ve heard”, I’ll continue citing the story.
To reiterate, I don’t know the guy. I have no control over his life. My initial thoughts are that he did something wrong. If I did have the ability to levy civil or criminal penalties, of course I wouldn’t act yet.
I believe this would be the case for almost every single sexual assault allegation. All you need for an indictment is the accusation itself, really. Now if there was a rape kit (did they even have them then) or more evidence beyond an accusation, sure, but I don’t believe we have anything beyond the accusation? Past that, it’s always going to be up to the DA whether he/she thinks getting a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. I imagine it’s difficult for them, as well, on numerous levels. I’m not sure there are many more difficult issues in society than how to handle these accusations. I know I have no great answer.
I don’t know man. Talk to people who have reported rapes to police and see how difficult it can be to get to a DA, much less to trial. And that’s nowadays, not twenty years ago.
Shit, last year my friend’s roommate was gang raped walking home from the train and the cops basically laughed at her and asked how she could prove she didn’t want it.
Not saying it’s the same in all instances in all places, but if a prosecutor is taking a case to trial, there’s been a weighing of the evidence by someone qualified to do so.
My objection was to one point of Van Everyman's logic in that he is willing to believe MP was guilty basically because she had no obvious reason to lie. Forget for a moment that the woman is anonymous and that none of us have any insight into her life at the time or what may or may not have been motivating her.
My objection is to the very idea that people only lie when they have something to gain from the lie.
Every single human being has lied and has exaggerated stories about themselves for no other motivation than to make themselves look better.
Furthermore, people self-sabotage and do stupid things all the time. We all do - men and women.
I'm not saying that I don't believe this woman's account.
I just find Van Everyman's logic flawed.
And yet, all the evidence we have suggests that when the thing people are lying about is sexual assault, it’s the men who are lying, not the women.
And that wasn't the point you made. Your point was that the accusation has more weight because there was 'no upside' to her being dishonest. Taking that logic further would suggest that a woman who has accused a celebrity of assault and is looking at a big payday as a result would be less trustworthy.
On the other hand, I guess I question the need to argue over these points. I think people know this and have set this forward for decades. I won’t speak for him, but I imagine part of VE’s frustration is that discussion of this topic - between men - still seem to focus on making sure that everyone understands MP could be innocent, or is going through a tough time, or that women can/do file false claims. I don’t think the pendulum has too swing too far in the other/right direction, but let’s maybe have a more serious and new and focused discussion.
It was in part – women tend not to lie about this and part of the reason is that there’s no upside to it if they do.
Listen, I don’t want to believe Matty P is guilty any more than anyone here. I loved this guy’s story – it seemed, as Belichick said in his statement, that he was a smart rocket scientist family man with a big heart and sense of humor (operative word: “seemed” – I don’t see Belichick’s statement as going to bat for Patricia – while the tone of it is warm, it is also very clear that he said he had to reason to believe otherwise).
That said, I feel like I’ve been exposed to too much of this to put much stock in things like “The case was dismissed.” There’s just way too much institutional bias slanted against women in these cases. For the innocent it sucks but it is what it is.
And to be clear: I’m not saying I’d convict him in a court of law if this was all I’d have to run on. But I’d be very uncomfortable hiring him unless I knew a lot more (which maybe the Lions do). And I wouldn’t be taking my Pats-loving 10-year old daughter (or son if I had one) to meet him or get his autograph.
This is a selection of lines that... concerned me, let's call it that. They're on both sides of the issue, but, to my mind, they take a decidedly wrong--albeit natural--approach to the problem.
I don't know how much experience each, any, or all of you have in this area, but there are answers to these questions and they are most assuredly not obvious.
Sex crimes are... radical. They exist at the nexus of power, sex, control, love, lust, abuse, guilt, trauma, upbringing, shame... they are intense. Trying to conjecture the motivations of the participants involved in an allegation is at best a fool's errand, and most likely it ends up obscuring a more honest and thorough psychological inquiry.
Think about it. Once there's an allegation, either two things are "technically"m true: Someone commit a crime that most of us like to believe decent people have trouble wrapping their heads around, or someone is falsely accusing that person of same. Both options are unspeakably horrible.
This is not a great area to apply common sense and how you think you might feel.
For example, the weirdest case I've ever been a party to, was what was revealed to be a false accusation inspired by the complaining woman's adoration and idolization of another woman who was bringing charges against a man for rape and her desire to emulate and be like her.
And by no means am I claiming that is the norm. I'm just claiming that you can't figure this shit out the way I think a lot of people want to approach it--frankly, we even as we get used to the issue, we should be reticent to normalize it precisely because I believe it's important we see this as an area of social life that is not adequately dealt with by our legal system--it has a square peg-round hole relationship with it, if you will--so we should move to investigate how to reconfigure parts of our legal system to address the problem as it is, not as we would make it to be.
I have no great love for Megyn Kelly, but she was right that the key is in the existence of institutions that allow people avenues by which to complain safely in ways that bring about repercussions.
I agree with you that it's unlikely a case like this went as far as it did without overcoming the traditionally reticent institutional actors, so yes, statistically, it's not good for him.
As per above, though, I have a lot of concerns about how some people on all sides of this approach it. I know from experience that it's a huge practical problem in guilt adjudication--a room full of people imagining what went down during that 15 minute time span and coming up with... all kinds of crazy scenarios. But I think it also inhibits our ability to address the fact that we should rebuild that whole area of criminal law--sorta like how people are starting to do with family courts, drug courts, etc. and other areas where we've found the existing apparatus to be insufficient to our contemporary understanding of human life, dignity, and flourishing.
Lord no. That could potentially even be dangerous to the person he has in mind, whether he's right or wrong.
Again, I understand, respect, and admire the passion people have for this issue. But that's also a reason to recognize how much is at stake with it which is why a modicum of discipline is needed in attending to these energies--I mean, sexual violence has traditionally been considered highly energetic, yes?
I didn't want to quote your entire post but the dialogue and discussion here, especially what you just wrote, is why I love this place.
Just as an example--no hard feelings; I do admire and support the importance you place on this issue.
You didn't mean to, and obviously you take this issue seriously, but you've just artificially separated men into groups of good ones who don't hurt women and bad ones who do.
The reality is that there are smart rocket scientist family men with big hearts and senses of humor who have attacked women. And continue to do so.
Basically, the dismissal should be seen as not evidence. How far it got is the data.
And Lord knows what the NFL's "real" standards are now. But I also assume the job interview was more involved than: "Have you ever hurt anyone?" Also, there are good legal reasons MarcSullivan brought up as to why these things don't often come up.
If we want to critique the institution of the Lions, however (which of course I do) we can pose this: They either care(d) or don't(didn't) (They probably do now...
) and they either tried to find out or they didn't. Almost no solution to that twy by two outcome plot makes them not look like shitheads. Probably because it must mean they are shitheads, we just don't know which of the four outcomes is the reason why.
Tend, sure? No upside? You have no idea what the reason might be. As per above: this is a nexus of heady stuff and if there was an allegation, then that energy is in play, somehow--we know that for a fact.
These are not mutually exclusive.
You didn't mean to, and obviously you take this issue seriously, but you've just artificially separated men into groups of good ones who don't hurt women and bad ones who do.
The reality is that there are smart rocket scientist family men with big hearts and senses of humor who have attacked women. And continue to do so.
Yeah, the case was dismissed means just that. As Marciano said, the real understanding would lie in how far it got and how and why. But by the same token, the opposite of an idea is not necessarily true just because the hypothesis failed.
Basically, the dismissal should be seen as not evidence. How far it got is the data.
Well, sure.
And Lord knows what the NFL's "real" standards are now. But I also assume the job interview was more involved than: "Have you ever hurt anyone?" Also, there are good legal reasons MarcSullivan brought up as to why these things don't often come up.
If we want to critique the institution of the Lions, however (which of course I do) we can pose this: They either care(d) or don't(didn't) (They probably do now...
) and they either tried to find out or they didn't. Almost no solution to that twy by two outcome plot makes them not look like shitheads. Probably because it must mean they are shitheads, we just don't know which of the four outcomes is the reason why.
Speaking only for myself, my response was more about bakahump clearly not reading the article or bothering to understand this particular situation. Considering his comments, I can only assume he’s operating from the assumption that this story is news now because the alleged victim is looking to get paid, which as I understand it is not the case. Whatever happened 20+ years ago I think we can safely assume that her motivation was not enrichment because Matt Patricia was going to someday be paid millions of dollars to coach an NFL team.
Word.
My larger point, which is why included your post, though, was to not even refute his claim as you did.
Like, it's not that we need to show that a specific conjectural claim doesn't make sense, we need to shut down the entire conjecture approach to trying to understand the problem altogether because it doesn't speak to how the phenomena in question actually operates in real life.
So it's like, refuting a fantasy by bringing up the logical inconsistency of the fantasy, rather than just telling the person to knock it off.
Edit: tl;dr version: Don't follow the rabbit down that hole.
So knowing what we know now were fabricated accusations against them, you would have been perfectly fine with the Duke lacrosse players going to jail because oh well, millions of men did commit rape so if a few innocents go to jail that's the price to pay. I find your attitude completely shocking and unreal. Have you ever heard of the presumption of innocence? If I was a defense attorney, I would definitely try to kick you off any jury since your attitude seems to be towards a presumption of guilt.
I'd still like to know who tipped off the Detroit reporter and what their motives are. That seems pretty relevant to this whole conversation.
He clarified his position in a subsequent post.
Agree or disagree, but I think this subject matter warrants reading the whole thread before impulsively posting a knee-jerk response.
Yes, but not "good" ones.
Listen, "this is a nexus of heady stuff"/"This is not a great area to apply common sense and how you think you might feel"/"trying to conjecture the motivations of the participants" are fine sentiments that are hard to disagree with. And there are always exceptions to everything.
But there is a bright line of right and wrong when it comes to attacking women. Honestly, I think a lot of men are really struggling to understand that in this environment -- not because we are all rapists but, in part, because our own sense of power and place (and masculinity) is derived in part from how we assert ourselves sexually. After centuries of women having their reputations questioned and destroyed, in a very rapid succession it is now men who are experiencing this in full force, having their reputations questioned and destroyed. And a lot of us are--perhaps understandably--unhappy about it.
All of which is to say, I understand the need not to jump to conclusions about guilt or innocence. But let's cut the shit here -- our culture and our institutions have been assigning innocence to men and guilt to women when it comes to sexual assault along gender lines for a very, very long time (for example, let's look at those rape kits mentioned upthread). Two wrongs don't make a right -- and I know men are fucking terrified that there is going to be this rush of false accusations in light of #MeToo. But if we've learned anything these past 30 months it's that whataboutism or throwing your hands up in the air isn't any better.
I appreciate your desire to add thoughtfulness to this issue, BTW. And I hope you don't see what I'm saying as rash or purely emotional. But I have to admit that I do honestly wonder where the desire on many people's part to frame the false accusation issue as a matter of "justice" were when women had no avenue to seek it whatsoever.
I'm not even sure why the Lions should share any blame....
And Lord knows what the NFL's "real" standards are now. But I also assume the job interview was more involved than: "Have you ever hurt anyone?" Also, there are good legal reasons MarcSullivan brought up as to why these things don't often come up.
If we want to critique the institution of the Lions, however (which of course I do) we can pose this: They either care(d) or don't(didn't) (They probably do now...
They likely ran a standard background check that came back clean. Not sure we can expect them to do much else before the hiring. And, even if they did find out about the indictment, it was still a 20 year old case that was dropped without any further explanation. They had absolutely nothing to go on beyond the fact that he was indicted, and the article explicitly mentions that the indictment was a pretty low bar. At some point, an organization has to ask itself if the 20 year old actions of a 21 year old college student really deserve that much additional scrutiny, when such additional scrutiny is highly unlikely to provide any additional clarity, is actually worth the time and effort.
Did something happen that evening? Probably. Did something happen that amounted to rape? Right now, that's impossible to answer, and given the little information we do have, I'm still not convinced we can come close to concluding that.
Back in 1992 or 93, I cant remember exactly, I lived in an all boys dorm at Stonehill College. My girlfriend then and now my wife often stayed over with me. She was/is never a party animal and one night after a dinner, movie, and hanging out a bit we went to bed around midnight. Of course everyone else was still up. Around 2 am, I heard a ton of yelling, got up and looked out the dorm room door into the hallway. There were some guys and girls I knew jawing with three girls who were seniors. What the hell they were doing in a freshman/sophomore dorm seemed weird but I didnt know what was going on. They were being heckled as they walked down the hall toward the exit of the building, bringing them right by my door. One of the girls looked right at me and said "What the fuck are you looking at?" and I said "Get the fuck out of here and dont let the door hit you on the way out." I shut the door as they kept jawing, went to bed, and thought nothing of it. I went to bed and was surprised Monday morning when the resident director asked to see me. I couldnt think of why, but was concerned when I heard the Dean of Students was going to be there. I had a couple drinking violations, but nothing to merit that kind of meeting. Anyway, I went to the meeting and it was there I told I was being investigated for punching and slapping a woman in the face. I said what? It seemed like a joke. No one laughed and they were certain I had done it. I had no idea what to say and in hindsight I should have asked for a lawyer or representation, because I was surely in trouble. I spent the next week collecting people willing to speak for me (surprisingly less than I thought), to show proof I had been out for the night w my gf (receipts etc) and so on. I didnt get the sense anyone in that office had my back or even took me seriously. I was dreading calling my mom. I was then summoned to a short notice meeting with the Dean and told the allegation had been withdrawn and the investigation was over, but that I should avoid speaking to any of those girls. I was then basically hustled out of the office.
I heard later that one of the girls was pissed in general and wanted to stick it to the guys on my floor. I guess she remembered my room number from when they walked by. I also heard that it was one of her friends who went to the Dean and said that the girl who made the allegation was lying. As far as I know, no one was ever punished but no one ever apologized to me.
Ever since then when I hear these stories, I dont really know what to say to people. It is impossible for any of us to know what happened there, but people do lie about doing stuff, having stuff done to them, and whether they are being honest all the time.
I heard later that one of the girls was pissed in general and wanted to stick it to the guys on my floor. I guess she remembered my room number from when they walked by. I also heard that it was one of her friends who went to the Dean and said that the girl who made the allegation was lying. As far as I know, no one was ever punished but no one ever apologized to me.
Ever since then when I hear these stories, I dont really know what to say to people. It is impossible for any of us to know what happened there, but people do lie about doing stuff, having stuff done to them, and whether they are being honest all the time.
Can the league penalize a coach for behavior (however abhorrent) that took place 22 years ago when he was 21? No problem with the Lions firing him for failing to disclose or whatever, but totally not comfortable with Goodell having the power to punish players and coaches for anything bad they’ve been accused of... EVER.