His "history" is last year (that would be 2007). If it is more than that, by all means give examples. Otherwise, try not to embellish and characterize him as generally angry unless you can cite some basis for your conclusion outside of the 3 incidents last year. He has started since 2004. I do not remember the Witten issue (a late hit), but the only egregious and stupid violation on his tab last year was Jacobs. Losman was arguable, and I join the camp that says it was not flagrant.
Most people are not claiming this outcome is an anti-Pats conspiracy. It more sounds like problems with imposing a fine based on "playing angry," not an illegal hit, in a sport based on violent collisions that would create a ridiculous precedent. If that is the case, what is next, a fine for harsh looks or words? How about fines for players not smiling for the camera?
The last suspension for violence I recall was Haynesworth, and he raked his cleats across a helpless opponent's head when pinned on the ground after losing a helmet. Romanowski pulled a teammate's helmet off and punched him in the eye, breaking multiple face bones around the eye socket and ending that player's career. Can you seriously look at these issues and place Wilfork on the extreme scale for which a suspension would be appropriately considered?
At the end of the day, I have no problem in the NFL doing some sort of intervention if it knows something about Wilfork that we do not. I would rather see him regarded as the good player he is, not a dirty player. The strange thing is, I do not recall players calling him out as dirty, and I would view them as the best judge of dirty play.