Walsh's attorney: Walsh has tapes

[upstater1]

I really hope this happens. For the good of the league, this practice has to stop. BB is the face of this scandal right now, and he is probably going to take the fall, if there is a fall to take. He should blow everybody and anybody in that he is aware of that does it. This crap has to stop and the NFL has to stop covering it up.

How many times do you have to post your idiocy before you get it though your head that you're a waste of space?

 

[chrisfx811]

BB won't be a fall guy. Especially if the NFL and the Patriots have said that if Walsh was TRUTHFUL then he wouldn't have to worry about any prosecution. Personally, that tells me that the Pats and the NFL know more about the situation than they are telling.

Also, BB won't be made a fall guy. I think he has too much integrity for that. I believe that he'd go out with guns blazing. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if BB has tapes of OTHER TEAMS taping the Patriots sidelines and would release them.

As others have pointed out, the NFL is trying to quell this. Its puppets like Arlen Specter who continue to harp on this. And its ridiculous.

I hope that's the case, because thus far BB & the Pats have been taking it on the chin. I realize that in the present, that has translated into the most watched team in the history of the NFL, but moving forward, it may have long term negative effects if it is allowed to continue to the point of BB & the Pats becoming the equivalent of the Chicago Black Sox.


Here's the thing:
It's understandable that the Pats may have only had 6 tapes.
a. Tapes hold a lot of info.
b. Tapes older than a couple seasons are most likely useless due to personnel changes.
c. BB already admitted to taping since he's been here.

The only thing the Pats can be 'caught' on is taping the Rams walk through, as they have actually denied that in the press.
Unless Walsh produces a Rams SB walk through tape, there's no story here.

 

[DropKick Flutie]

How many times do you have to post your idiocy before you get it though your head that you're a waste of space?

I don't know. I'll just have to keep posting and find out...

 

[PatsFanJess]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

I would buy that expect for the fact that the Patriots would then know that the taping was done (though without their consent) and would not have issued such a strong denial that the taping did not occur at all.

I have a really hard time believing that Kraft and BB would have come out with that strong denial that the taping did not occur if they did. They were fully aware that Matt Walsh said he had "tapes" condemning them. I just dont buy that they would have come out and denied it, if they knew it was true. Dont buy it.

 

[primetime]

I'm glad you can do illegal things and then whine for indemnity. Great country.

 

[upstater1]

I don't know. I'll just have to keep posting and find out...

And with that answer, you're on ignore, and yellow flagged.

 

[PatsFanJess]

I'm glad you can do illegal things and then whine for indemnity. Great country.

Ditto....hes a d!ckwad.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Might enhance the prospects of the lawsuit's success.

No, because then the Rams would be open to even worse trouble if the truth came out.

 

[DropKick Flutie]

How many times do you have to post your idiocy before you get it though your head that you're a waste of space?

And with that answer, you're on ignore, and yellow flagged.

You call me an idiot and a waste of space, clearly a CoC violation, and I'm yellow flagged? OK...

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

I have a really hard time believing that Kraft and BB would have come out with that strong denial that the taping did not occur if they did. They were fully aware that Matt Walsh said he had "tapes" condemning them. I just dont buy that they would have come out and denied it, if they knew it was true. Dont buy it.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Walsh does have this tape. If you read the Herald's story, it does not sound like this guy was acting under orders. Walsh is obviously a sketchy guy and my guess is that he did record this video and did it on his own. That's why there has been such a strong denial from the Pats and the NFL and why they are insisting that he be truthful in the matter.

 

[blackglass3]

And with that answer, you're on ignore, and yellow flagged.

How do we ignore people on here? I can't find it.

I will be happy to not see that ***goty sig pic anymore.

 

[QuiGon]

Last I looked, THEFT and Possession of stolen property are more than just civil issues. They are criminal issues. And that is what Walsh is trying to get out of.

Yeah this is what I am wondering too... I mean, can you really indemnify someone against possession of stolen goods..?

I guess the answer to that question is "yes" since that is precisely what the NFL is offering... But it sure seems to me that, from a legal standpoint, there's a huge difference between allowing someone to violate a confidentiality agreement versus letting them bring in some stolen material that he had absolutely zero right to possess in the first place.

 

[QuiGon]

I'm glad you can do illegal things and then whine for indemnity. Great country.

Putting aside Spygate for a moment, fact is that indeminty (or immunity) is part of our justice system and I daresay it is a good idea. In order to bag the big fish, you usually see immunity granted to a whole bunch of little fish in order to get them to testify.

 

[Obidan]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

Here's a question, though--where could he have possibly stood where he would (A) avoid detection while (B) actually being able to record the walkthrough? I mean, if he was anywhere you could be seen on the field, don't you think someone would have seen him at the time, and recognized that he didn't belong there?

In the Superdome it would be quite easy to go unnoticed and that's where the walk-through was held. For such non-gameday practices, only the field is illuminated. This leaves most of the stadium in darkness and provides many places for a cameraman to hide.

As somebody who has no horse in this race, I was very surprised when Goodell handed down such a severe penalty. I mean three quarters of mill in fines and a first round pick were pretty damned stiff. Considering that both the 49ers and Broncos had been caught cheating against the cap during Super Bowl winning seasons, they only lost third round picks. If Goodell had not admitted destroying everything the Pats submitted, I don't think there would be a problem right now. The first thing I thought when that was made public was , "What's he hiding?". It was a stupid thing for Goodell to do.

 

[NEPatriot]

There will be 2 questions for Walsh to answer and I believe that he will have hard time answering them

1-Why do you wait 7 years to tell us about the tape.?
2-If you want to have protection, why didn't you ask for one in 03 or 04 or 05 or 06 or 07.?

In the end, everybody will know that Walsh is an ahole who simply wants money.

 

[WTE]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

In the Superdome it would be quite easy to go unnoticed and that's where the walk-through was held.

You gotta remember this was the first Super Bowl after 9/11 when security was extremely intense. I find it extremely unlikely someone could film a walkthrough and Security would not notice.

You would think that fat grease ball Tomase would have raised this point.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yeah this is what I am wondering too... I mean, can you really indemnify someone against possession of stolen goods..?

I guess the answer to that question is "yes" since that is precisely what the NFL is offering... But it sure seems to me that, from a legal standpoint, there's a huge difference between allowing someone to violate a confidentiality agreement versus letting them bring in some stolen material that he had absolutely zero right to possess in the first place.

Well, there's civil liability and criminal liability. The NFL is offering indemnity from civil suits, which they can do, but obviously they can't indemnify him from criminal prosecution. OTOH, government attorneys could decline to prosecute, or even grant him immunity as well. Again, though, such immunity would not include immunity from perjury.

 

[MassPats38]

Last I looked, THEFT and Possession of stolen property are more than just civil issues. They are criminal issues. And that is what Walsh is trying to get out of.

As I said, the Patriots should cut him off, NOW, and have him arrested for ownership of said tapes. And if he gave them to his lawyer, his lawyer would, by law, be required to turn them in, or be in violation of the law himself.

I didn't say theft and/or possession of stolen property were not crimes. I said the tapes in and of themselves had little value (depending on whether you compute the value as the physical tape or the information on the tape) and, more importantly, the passage of time may create a statute of limitations problem that would prevent an agency from prosecuting the case if it wanted to in the end.

If Walsh stole tapes from the Pats, and I do not believe he did, the existence of those tapes has not been confirmed to date. If the Pats now contact the Mass. State Police and press criminal charges (if available), those tapes become evidence in a public proceeding and the Pats confirm in an open and public hearing that the organization wants the tapes because the information is valuable. That would be mutually assured destruction, and I would not trade confirmation of cheating for the failed and useless life of Walsh in jail for a few months.

Walsh and his lawyer can claim to have the 7 Ancient Wonders of the World and pictures of all the hot celebrity babes in their birthday suits. There is nothing to stop them from saying that (Ethics of course, but I suspect Walsh is not represented by the cream of the crop. They have tapes? So do I. But I have traded in most of my VHS recordings for the DVD releases when movies went modern format.) In the end, this comes down to the NFL offering to reimburse him for telling the truth and Walsh declining the offer. It's put up or shut up time, and Walsh has suddenly decided not to speak to the mediots. Why? Do the math. He has nothing relevant in his possession, and is enjoying 15 minutes more of fame than he should ever have enjoyed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well, there's civil liability and criminal liability. The NFL is offering indemnity from civil suits, which they can do, but obviously they can't indemnify him from criminal prosecution. OTOH, government attorneys could decline to prosecute, or even grant him immunity as well. Again, though, such immunity would not include immunity from perjury.

Exactly. Nobody is going to indemnify this guy against lying. I think his lawyer is trying to couch this indemnification so that his client can say anything he wants to under the guise of it's true to the best of my knowledge, and if it's not that's not my fault... If this guy is a pathological liar, as I've seen commentary that would hint he might well be, would that very pathology ultimately be a defense against future prosecution because he can't help himself from repeating lies...in fact some will argue that pathology leads one to believe they are telling the truth.

The league wants this guy to tell the truth about what he actually knows, period. Shouldn't be hard for a nearly normal person to do.

I love Florio's latest legal lunatic spin on it. He should be disbarred, not that that would impact his career as a sports related rumor monger at this juncture. No lawyer worth his fee would ever advise his client that in order to facilitate testimony they would be well served to indemnify a witness against them against any future claims that they lied.

I really think the biggest danger spygate poses to the nation is it is turning supposedly edumacated minds to mush.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

If WALSH has the tape, then how would the Patriots be screwed? The Patriots were only told to hand over all the tapes they had in their possession. They did so. The tape in Walsh's possession is out of their control.

What I would find funny is if the tape that Walsh has is the same one that Goodell destroyed. Then Walsh would be screwed. Cause he'd be in possession of stolen property as well as guilty of theft.

Personally, the Patriots should have the cops pick him up on theft and possession of stolen property charges and then lets see him try to bargain his way out of it.

Brilliant. That's tantamount to the team admitting such a tape exists and you authorized him to tape the practice for you. They have gone on record saying the coaches have no knowledge of any taping of the Rams practice.

PS - the tapes we gave Goodell were from 2006-2007. Walsh was fired in January 2003...

Try to make some intelligent points.