Walsh's attorney: Walsh has tapes

[QuiGon]

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.

Oh, I highly doubt there will be any criminal prosecution for stealing videotapes (a practically worthless item) over 5 years ago. It's the intellectual property that has value, not the items themselves... but still it's safe to say too much time has passed for any sort of criminal probe.

I actually want to see the dude under oath where it's time to put up or shut up. And I don't mind giving him indemnification because I am not really afraid of what he has to say - IMHO if he had any significant dirt, it would have already come out by now.

 

[upstater1]

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. 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.

Good point. On the other hand, there would be no reason for the Patriots to ever keep around tapes of walkthroughs. Not much can be gained from that.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

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.

Tomasse cannot think for himself ... that's why he's a gossip reporter.

 

[chunga]

You're so wrong on this.

It's not going to happen.

Too much money involved. Kraft is not going to shoot himself in the wallet because of this. Letting Belichick go is worth $100 million to Kraft, if not more. do the math. High ticket prices. Winning team. Helps pay off the huge debt Kraft has racked up. Your team is worth as much as the revenue it brings in, not the profit, because in the future, that revenue will have paid off the debt.

He's not going to risk $100 million or more.

Kraft isn't going to lose any money as long as #12 is in the lineup. This will never go away if there is another tape. Add into the fact the Belichik will face a pretty long suspension if true and I think it is a real possibility.

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

Kraft isn't going to lose any money as long as #12 is in the lineup. This will never go away if there is another tape. Add into the fact the Belichik will face a pretty long suspension if true and I think it is a real possibility.

I can't see a suspension if Belichick wasn't behind the taping.

 

[Jimke]

Whose fingerprints are on the tapes?

 

[PatsFanJess]

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. 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.

uhhh...YEAH. Goodell's a moron who needs to be fired. He can start by revoking our penalty that he only gave us to only to look like a "i take no crap im a hard nose new COWBOY in town" sh!t act, that really has blown up in his face. Good way to start out the job, dbag.

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

uhhh...YEAH. Goodell's a moron who needs to be fired. He can start by revoking our penalty that he only gave us to only to look like a "i take no crap im a hard nose new COWBOY in town" sh!t act, that really has blown up in his face. Good way to start out the job, dbag.

This should have been handled in-house and a warning sent to all teams with specific penalties for violations. Insatead it is a disaster for the NFL.

 

[PatsFanJess]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

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.

THANK YOU! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS THIS! Yes, 4 months or so after 9/11 some unauthorized creepy guy sneaking around the stadium while a team practices, in the stadium where the biggest sporting event of the year is about to take place, with a videocamera goe completely unnoticed...yep.

Tomase would have raised this point but some of 3 or 4 Baconators he was eating that day must have fallen on his notes for it and obviously he was more concerned about licking up any spilled food.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7800144/Specter-'determined'-to-continue-NFL-probe

"Specter said he did not have the factual basis for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee"

Actually, since January Specter has no basis to call for a hearing at all because he no longer chairs the committee, the Judiciary Committee is chaired by Pat Leahy(D) -VT. Leahy decides what the agenda will be and what will be heard in front of that committee.


"But I dont wan't people to think that we're backing off".


There is no 'WE'RE'. It's just Arlen 'Comcast' Specter betting that he can leverage the NFL into getting a better deal for his cable company political benefactors. If Belichick and the Patriots get thrown under the bus in the process he doesn't care. It's about broadcast rights.

 

[sieglo]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

I disagree. If he has tapes and was a Patriots employee, the assumption will be he did it on behalf of the Patriots. I don't care what they say, no one will believe otherwise. He doesn't have to prove ****. Simply producing the tapes, people will believe the Patriots did it.

J D Sal

Unfortunately true.

 

[mgm79]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7800144/Specter-'determined'-to-continue-NFL-probe

"Specter said he did not have the factual basis for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee"

Actually, since January Specter has no basis to call for a hearing at all because he no longer chairs the committee, the Judiciary Committee is chaired by Pat Leahy(D) -VT. Leahy decides what the agenda will be and what will be heard in front of that committee.


"But I dont wan't people to think that we're backing off".


There is no 'WE'RE'. It's just Arlen 'Comcast' Specter betting that he can leverage the NFL into getting a better deal for his cable company political benefactors. If Belichick and the Patriots get thrown under the bus in the process he doesn't care. It's about broadcast rights.

Last I heard Leahy has backed Specter?

 

[vyrago]

Last I heard Leahy has backed Specter?

Sort of, but there's a great deal of gentlemanly horse trading that goes on in the Senate and you almost never hear one senator say of another, he(or she)'s a an ounce or two short of a pound. It's all very nicey-nicey on the surface because Leahy will probably need Specter's cooperation on something of genuine importance in the not-too-distant future, or of importance to him, anyway.

He may very well agree with Specter, but there is more than one way to keep someone or something off the agenda in the congress and those who've been around for some time know every way there is.

 

[upstater1]

Kraft isn't going to lose any money as long as #12 is in the lineup. This will never go away if there is another tape. Add into the fact the Belichik will face a pretty long suspension if true and I think it is a real possibility.

That's a laugh. You diminish how important Belichick is.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788


Leahy never spoke for himself. Specter 'said' he offered his support, which doesn't mean hearings etc.. For all we know Leahy could have offered support for validating Walsh's attorney's parking.

 

[patriotfan32]

Can't the Patriots sue Walsh for stolen property since his lawyer is now on record stating that he has stolen tapes in his possession ? Secondly, I don't know how anybody is deemed as a credible witness if they are are granted indemity without repercussions for lying. The press and sites such as profootball talk are reasoning that this is the right thing to do. If a person has something to say that is that is truthful, and is granted indemity for truthfulness, then there shouldn't be any reason to not testify. Walsh seeked public recognition for his story to be told. Something doesn't add up.

 

[TN Patriot]

Can't the Patriots sue Walsh for stolen property since his lawyer is now on record stating that he has stolen tapes in his possession ? Secondly, I don't know how anybody is deemed as a credible witness if they are are granted indemity without repercussions for lying. The press and sites such as profootball talk are reasoning that this is the right thing to do. If a person has something to say that is that is truthful, and is granted indemity for truthfulness, then there shouldn't be any reason to not testify. Walsh seeked public recognition for his story to be told. Something doesn't add up.

I agree something is fishy here, I can't put my finger on it. First he wanted possible legal fees covered now he want's to be protected if he lies?

 

[blackglass3]

I agree something is fishy here, I can't put my finger on it. First he wanted possible legal fees covered now he want's to be protected if he lies?

I don't get it either...I mean, why would you be worried about lying if you're going to "tell it like it is" about those dirty, bullying, classless, Pats?

This guy doesn't have crap.

 

[JDSal45]

As an attorney, it appears to me that this is the hangup based on what I'm reading.

The Patriots and the NFL are willing to release Walsh from liability for having tapes and releasing them, as well as talking truthfully about his time with the Patriots. In other words, they won't sue him if he has tapes nor if he truthfully talks about anything from his time with the Pats.

Walsh's lawyer wants a general release...i.e. we'll never sue you at all...period.

From Walsh's perspective, I can understand why his attorney would want that. They're afraid if he talks and there is any disagreement on the facts at all, the Patriots will turn around and say "that's not true" and sue him....and even if it turns out it WAS true, he's out $50,000 in legal fees.

From the Patriots/NFL perspective, I can understand why they're saying, look we need to reserve our right to sue this guy if he starts making outlandish claims that aren't true. How can they protect themselves otherwise from slander?

So you have a stalemate to some degree. I think it appears Walsh wants to cash in on this somehow....a book, exclusive interview, something. That is why he wants the release really general in nature. The Patriots for their part don't seem afraid of what he actually knows, they seem afraid of what he'll claim to know and they need to protect themselves if he is a serial exaggerator or outright fiction writer about what he knows.

J D Sal

 

[BradyFTW!]

The NFL has already offered Walsh complete indemnity, provided that he speaks the truth. The only reason why this would be unacceptable to Walsh is if he knows that the Patriots could show, in a civil case, that he was lying. If that is the case, then why does anyone assign any credibility to him whatsoever? His agenda is as transparent as it is false and petty, and I'm surprised that everyone can't see that.