A tidbit from Reiss on M*** W****

[ctpatsfan77]

From this week's mailbag:

It has been pretty quiet on the "videogate" front. What is going on? What is the scuttlebutt?
Joe, Stratham, N.H.

A: Joe, the lawyers apparently continue to talk about reaching an agreement. But after hearing that an agreement might be close about three weeks ago, we're still in the same place as we were back then. Commissioner Roger Goodell said at the NFL annual meeting Monday: "Matt Walsh is free to speak to anybody, but he has asked for some considerations. We have met with over 50 people and he's the only one indicating he has conditions. We are trying to respect that."

As they say, very interesting. . . ., and by interesting, I mean "M*** W**** is teh suck."

 

[BradyManny]

Man, this Matt Walsh guy truly is a douche bag. I really can't think of anything more eloquent to say on the matter. Matt Walsh is a douche. End of story.

 

[patsox23]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extras/askreiss/04_01_08?mode=PF

You're welcome.

 

[JoeSixPat]

As I've been saying for months, regardless of whether Walsh has a confidentiality agreement (and we've known for several weeks he does not) it seems clear to me he's holding out for immunity from civil penalties - i.e. a slander lawsuit if he makes untrue statements.

Walsh sees that the Herald is facing a slander suit for making unsubstantiated statements, and assuming all Walsh has himself are unsubstantiated statements, he knows the same thing will happen to him.

I think the media's only just beginning to come to this same realization, reading the big bold print between the lines of Goodell and Kraft's statements.

Seeing as we're dealing with someone proven to have lied about their own background, the Patriots would have to be crazy to give him such immunity. Why would anyone want to give someone the ability to lie without concern for the consequences?

If he's got proof he doesn't need immunity. So its clear he's got no proof.

 

[JR4]

As I've been saying for months, regardless of whether Walsh has a confidentiality agreement (and we've known for several weeks he does not) it seems clear to me he's holding out for immunity from civil penalties - i.e. a slander lawsuit if he makes untrue statements.

Walsh sees that the Herald is facing a slander suit for making unsubstantiated statements, and assuming all Walsh has himself are unsubstantiated statements, he knows the same thing will happen to him.

I think the media's only just beginning to come to this same realization, reading the big bold print between the lines of Goodell and Kraft's statements.

Seeing as we're dealing with someone proven to have lied about their own background, the Patriots would have to be crazy to give him such immunity. Why would anyone want to give someone the ability to lie without concern for the consequences?

If he's got proof he doesn't need immunity. So its clear he's got no proof.

Right. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. His best protection
is to say nothing and just say he didn't get the legal protection needed to
talk.
But he can still write a book .... and make MILLIONS!

 

[vyrago]

Right. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. His best protection
is to say nothing and just say he didn't get the legal protection needed to
talk.
But he can still write a book .... and make MILLIONS!

Then he will be open to charges of libel. Rock and a hard place indeed.