Walsh's attorney: Walsh has tapes

[SVN]

a lot of the AP news is wordplay also ..for e.g

"The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won 20-17."


The article says walsh has tapes. No point is there a direct quote from their lawyer.
Regardless of what he has i think whatever he says will be believed by the general media and people because against the pats.if he does have tapes then BB is in serious trouble i think especially because the pats came out and denied it right after this rumor came out.

 

[JDSal45]

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.

Because, as I said above, I can appreciate why Walsh's lawyer would want a general release. Its not as easy as you think to show you're telling the truth. It could be lengthy and time consuming litigation that consumes your life and buries you financially.

So, if I'm Walsh or his attorney, why do I want to even take a chance they'll say I'm not telling the truth? Even if I do tell the truth, if they even say I'm not then I'm embroiled in multi-year litigation with a billion dollar coporation and my life is ruined in terms of time and financially. Why take that chance? Its not as easy as "as long as I tell the truth I'm okay..." You may end up okay....4 years later after back-breaking, emotional litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees poorer.

J D Sal

 

[BradyFTW!]

Because, as I said above, I can appreciate why Walsh's lawyer would want a general release. Its not as easy as you think to show you're telling the truth. It could be lengthy and time consuming litigation that consumes your life and buries you financially.

So, if I'm Walsh or his attorney, why do I want to even take a chance they'll say I'm not telling the truth? Even if I do tell the truth, if they even say I'm not then I'm embroiled in multi-year litigation with a billion dollar coporation and my life is ruined in terms of time and financially. Why take that chance? Its not as easy as "as long as I tell the truth I'm okay..." You may end up okay....4 years later after back-breaking, emotional litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees poorer.

J D Sal

Okay, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, then it looks like this is deadlocked, and Walsh isn't going to get what he wants. I'm fine with that.

 

[chunga]

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

If this comes out as reported than all of what Belichik accomplished in New England and what his players tried to accomplished is diminished. Forever tainted outside of us fans. First thing Kraft would do is save the name of the his franchise and distance himself from Belichik. As much as it would hurt to do. No matter who was doing it or what your opinion is of it, I would be very suprised if Kraft backs him up anymore should this stuff come out as truth. I would be shattered, but this is about the point it's getting too.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If this comes out as reported than all of what Belichik accomplished in New England and what his players tried to accomplished is diminished. Forever tainted outside of us fans. First thing Kraft would do is save the name of the his franchise and distance himself from Belichik. As much as it would hurt to do. No matter who was doing it or what your opinion is of it, I would be very suprised if Kraft backs him up anymore should this stuff come out as truth. I would be shattered, but this is about the point it's getting too.

Even if that's true, I guess that I'm just glad that I don't give a **** what Joe Blow the Coltsfan Hick thinks. They were finding ways to diminish the Pats' accomplishments long before Spygate, but that doesn't mean that we should care what they think.

 

[patriotfan32]

Walsh is not the same as Clemens-McNamee. Mcnamee was compelled to testify or face prosecution. Walsh openly put his name and story without anybody proding him to do so. He knew he had a confidentiality agreement that he was going to have to get around in order to tell his story. So if he had any problem with facing the public scrutiny that would surround him, then he should never have opened his mouth in the first place. Have him tell his story on the the premise he tells the truth or faces legal consequences, or have him shut up. If a person discloses an inflammatory piece of information, that may or may not have damming consequences, does he or she really believe that he or she is just going to go back to living in oblivion? Walsh wanted the spotlight, there is no other reason he would be coming forward if he didn't.

 

[#12]

If this comes out as reported than all of what Belichik accomplished in New England and what his players tried to accomplished is diminished. Forever tainted outside of us fans. First thing Kraft would do is save the name of the his franchise and distance himself from Belichik. As much as it would hurt to do. No matter who was doing it or what your opinion is of it, I would be very suprised if Kraft backs him up anymore should this stuff come out as truth. I would be shattered, but this is about the point it's getting too.

There are so many ifs both ways. You really can't play this game until it all comes out and that's if there is something that needs to get out. Then we can talk how damaging it could. One things for sure, the Pats have the ability to shed light on all teams doing this (Jets, Fins, Cowboys of the championship era, etc. are things we already know that the media doesn't talk about, the Pats will have even more on other teams). Will they do it? IF it comes down to destroying us completely, then i could see them coming out to defend themselves COMPLETELY..AND here i am playing the if game i tried to stay away from...

 

[pao]

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

Excellent post! This is why these boards are so cool. An expert perspective not readily available to us "regular" people. Thanks.

pao

 

[Obidan]

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.

Actually it would have been quite easy if somebody had credentials. Security personnel are trained to notice the color of the credentials hanging around somebody's neck. There are different colors for different purposes, one of which is for cameras and video equipment. I know security around the Superdome was very high on the days leading up to the game. You had to go through a lot to get in, but after that you could do your job.

 

[patsgo]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

Actually it would have been quite easy if somebody had credentials. Security personnel are trained to notice the color of the credentials hanging around somebody's neck. There are different colors for different purposes, one of which is for cameras and video equipment. I know security around the Superdome was very high on the days leading up to the game. You had to go through a lot to get in, but after that you could do your job.

the patriots say we did not authorise this ,walsh is a disgruntal employee,he got fired, kept patriot tapes which is property of the pats, so he is a thief< this all goes away, he will not be credible because kraft is not going to take in on the chin again, and will fight this bastard

 

[upstater1]

If this comes out as reported than all of what Belichik accomplished in New England and what his players tried to accomplished is diminished. Forever tainted outside of us fans. First thing Kraft would do is save the name of the his franchise and distance himself from Belichik. As much as it would hurt to do. No matter who was doing it or what your opinion is of it, I would be very suprised if Kraft backs him up anymore should this stuff come out as truth. I would be shattered, but this is about the point it's getting too.

Kraft would lose so much money by firing Belichick, he wouldn't dare. There would be an enormous backlash within the fanbase. He can't fire the guy.

 

[Disco Volante]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

If Kraft ever fired BB for this I'd honestly consider never supporting this team again, or the NFL in general.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

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.

Hey Mo - Take your head out of your arse on occasion. Its not tantamount to jack sh!t. The tapes the Pats gave Goodell went back much farther than 2006/2007. If you'd paid attention, one of the tapes was of the RAMS in 2001. Also, what they went on record as saying was that the Patriots did NOT authorize a tape of the Rams walk-thru for the SB.

Hell, MO, did you even READ what I said because it doesn't seem like it at all. If Walsh STOLE ANY tapes then its NOT in the possession of the Patriots. Also, MO, if you had read, I said it would be funny if it was the SAME as the one that Goodell destroyed. Meaning that Walsh had illegally copied it.

Also, when Walsh was fired, he was required to turn over any property that was that of the Patriots. That would include ANY video tapes or COPIES that he had. If he didn't, then he's committed theft. The Patriots having him arrested for THEFT would put the tapes into evidence. The tapes could then be viewed by anyone and everyone due to the Freedom of INformation act.

So, Tell me, how is that tantamount to the Patriots admitting to ANYTHING other than Walsh having stolen property?

 

[Bella*chick]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

Hey Mo - Take your head out of your arse on occasion. Its not tantamount to jack sh!t. The tapes the Pats gave Goodell went back much farther than 2006/2007. If you'd paid attention, one of the tapes was of the RAMS in 2001. Also, what they went on record as saying was that the Patriots did NOT authorize a tape of the Rams walk-thru for the SB.

Hell, MO, did you even READ what I said because it doesn't seem like it at all. If Walsh STOLE ANY tapes then its NOT in the possession of the Patriots. Also, MO, if you had read, I said it would be funny if it was the SAME as the one that Goodell destroyed. Meaning that Walsh had illegally copied it.

Also, when Walsh was fired, he was required to turn over any property that was that of the Patriots. That would include ANY video tapes or COPIES that he had. If he didn't, then he's committed theft. The Patriots having him arrested for THEFT would put the tapes into evidence. The tapes could then be viewed by anyone and everyone due to the Freedom of INformation act.

So, Tell me, how is that tantamount to the Patriots admitting to ANYTHING other than Walsh having stolen property?

I never heard that one of the tapes was of the Rams in 2001. Did he say that at his press conference? It's entirely possible I wasn't listening closely enough.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

I never heard that one of the tapes was of the Rams in 2001. Did he say that at his press conference? It's entirely possible I wasn't listening closely enough.

It came out during the press conference that one of the tapes was of the Rams.

That's why its a NON-ISSUE. Hell, its a NON-ISSUE because there was NO CHEATING going on to begin with. That's what the mediots and people like Arlen Specter don't get.

Video Taping games is PERFECTLY LEGAL. The ONLY thing is that you have to TAPE from NFL specified areas.

 

[IcyPatriot]

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

Great info ... so then why not just sell the tapes to the highest bidder? If it's money he is after and if he makes no comment it seems he is in the clear.

 

[Joker]

I've been a Patriot fan for 45 years and I've seen it all. Bill Belichick is the greatest coach in franchise history and one of the most forthright, honest individuals in sports today. The video taping employed by the Patriots is only part of the overall streamlining of this once fractured organization and I, for one , agree wholeheartedly with using whatever modern means are at my team's disposal to aid in the success of my franchise. Not only do I think this whole Spygate crap is pure bull, I think it's an orchestrated effort by others in this league to tear away at and attempt to disrupt this team's efficiency.

I doubt very highly Mr. Kraft is going to dismantle this paradigm and fire its architect...that would be organizational suicide. Considering the jump in price of tickets across the board suggest to this Patriot fan that not only will BB continue on as head coach but that for the forseeable future this team will be in the hands of what I consider the best organizational management team in sports.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: PFT: Walsh does indeed have tapes!

I never heard that one of the tapes was of the Rams in 2001. Did he say that at his press conference? It's entirely possible I wasn't listening closely enough.

No, you were listening but someone else wasn't and has tapes confused with evidence of taping, i.e. there were notes indicating we taped/intercepted defensive signals in the Rams game we lost in 2001. Goodell was clear that only 6 tapes still existed and they were from 2006 and pre season 2007. Spector likely said we taped something because notes on it existed. As Goodell said he destroyed all notes because there was no way for him to determine what was gained through acceptable means and what was gleaned via tape.

And someone also apparently doesn't grasp if Walsh has tape from 2006-2007 we could accuse him of breaking and entering since he was fired on MLK day 2003...

The upside is whatever he thinks he has predates two of the three Lombardi's...'phew. And Goodell already punished us for all prior behavior related to taping signals provided we gave him all we had on it. It's pretty safe to assume we did. If Walsh has old tapes that relate to notes we turned over, he's got jack **** penalty wise...

The only problem he poses for this organization is if he has an actual tape of the Rams walk through and he can somehow substantiate the club having knowledge of it, because we are on record saying we had none. Or if he has other material unrelated to signal taping or the walk through. Or if he has claims of knowledge of other behavior in violation of NFL rules such as jamming communications or circumventing the QB cutoff. But he would need more than recollection of having heard something, he'd need corrobotation in the form of witnesses or documents. Absent that, he'd just be free to spew crap ad nauseum free from repercussions. No way they agree to that - no one would.

 

[MassPats38]

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

JDSal-

Good stuff, with one question. I was not aware the Patriots are involved in this indemnification discussion. Everything I have read indicates it is the NFL, not the team, negotiuating this agreement. If you have read something indicating the team is involved in these discussions, I'd be interested in reading about that. My understanding was the league was granting indemnity to further its investigation and the Pats are the subject of the investigation, not a cooperative entity.

Again, I might have missed that news as indemnification would seem to be irrelevant if the Patriots are in the mix. The Pats would appear to be the only entity that could sign a release (the NFL is indemnification) and if cooperative the three could hammer out the parameters of the agreement as to potential litigation after reviewing the tape(s). I do not know the nuances of the NFL/Patriots relationship, and if the NFL can direct the Patriots in its handling of legal actions outside the CBA. No way do I see the Patriots signing a general release, and no way do I see the NFL authorizing absolute indemnification. Walsh is way too much of a wild card.

So calling upon your experience, do you believe this guy has dirt or do you believe he is just enjoying his 15 minutes of fame? I still believe ESPN would have paid top dollar for these tapes when Easterbrook started his campaign, and given the NFL's inability to control custody of the tapes produced, Walsh could easily have slipped the tapes into the media and enjoyed his payday. It seems undisputed that no other employees have anything meaningful to add.

 

[BradyFTW!]

JDSal-

Good stuff, with one question. I was not aware the Patriots are involved in this indemnification discussion. Everything I have read indicates it is the NFL, not the team, negotiuating this agreement. If you have read something indicating the team is involved in these discussions, I'd be interested in reading about that. My understanding was the league was granting indemnity to further its investigation and the Pats are the subject of the investigation, not a cooperative entity.

Again, I might have missed that news as indemnification would seem to be irrelevant if the Patriots are in the mix. The Pats would appear to be the only entity that could sign a release (the NFL is indemnification) and if cooperative the three could hammer out the parameters of the agreement as to potential litigation after reviewing the tape(s). I do not know the nuances of the NFL/Patriots relationship, and if the NFL can direct the Patriots in its handling of legal actions outside the CBA. No way do I see the Patriots signing a general release, and no way do I see the NFL authorizing absolute indemnification. Walsh is way too much of a wild card.

So calling upon your experience, do you believe this guy has dirt or do you believe he is just enjoying his 15 minutes of fame? I still believe ESPN would have paid top dollar for these tapes when Easterbrook started his campaign, and given the NFL's inability to control custody of the tapes produced, Walsh could easily have slipped the tapes into the media and enjoyed his payday. It seems undisputed that no other employees have anything meaningful to add.

The story that's being reported states that it is the NFL and the Patriots that are both agreeing to offer indemnification. It just doesn't fit the agendas of the news outlets to report that the Pats are willing to grant it too, so that isn't getting headlines. If you go back and read any of the major stories that are reporting it though, you'll find it. Makes me even more confident that the Pats have nothing to hide, as far as Walsh is concerned.