What do you think Walsh has on the Pats?

[cupofjoe1962]

I think that if he has anything that could hurt the Pats it is an audio tape.

Pioli fired him for taping phone calls.
I think (just a guess) that if he has anything to hurt the Pats, it could be
something against Pioli (taped phone call).

If he taped a phone call, it is against the law in Massachusetts.

The NFL can not give him immunity from breaking a law.
I do not believe Spector could give him immunity for breaking a Mass law.
A federal law, but not a Mass law.

Then again, I am no lawyer.

 

[Rob0729]

My guess is he has tapes from 2000-2003 of videotaping the opposing team's sidelines. Remember when he was shooting his mouth off to reporters, it wasn't public knowledge that the Pats admitted to videotaping opposing team's sidelines since 2000. Actually it was public knowledge, but it was never really understood or reported correctly from the media.

 

[Wildo7]

I think he "has" inside info and word-of-mouth type stuff.

I'm seeing a little bit of discrepency here: If others, like mysef, contend that taping these signals was never really seen as that big of a deal, almost an unspoken part of the game, why would Walsh steal these tapes and hide them for 6 years to eventually use as leverage or something? If this is true it means that he had the foresight to know that the media would turn taping signals into murder in the first, and that these tapes would later be considered a big deal.

 

[TripleOption]

If he taped a phone call, it is against the law in Massachusetts.

What he did to Pioli, if true, is a Felony. Any audio recording without knowledge of the other party is illegal in Massachusetts.

MGL 272 s99 5 years in prison / $10,000 fine

That may be the hangup on the agreement. The NFL would be unable to grant him immunity.

 

[Rob0729]

I think he "has" inside info and word-of-mouth type stuff.

I'm seeing a little bit of discrepency here: If others, like mysef, contend that taping these signals was never really seen as that big of a deal, almost an unspoken part of the game, why would Walsh steal these tapes and hide them for 6 years to eventually use as leverage or something? If this is true it means that he had the foresight to know that the media would turn taping signals into murder in the first, and that these tapes would later be considered a big deal.

Did you see his room from his wedding photos. He seems to collect all things football. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a lot of game tapes (ones that adhere to the NFL rules 100% too) he videotaped including the endzone shot of Vinatieri's winning field goal which is reportedly missing and believed to be in his possession.

People assume that if he has tapes, the only tapes he kept were the questionable ones that he could use later. He could have 100 tapes that he stole from the Patriots and only one or two have him filming opossing sidelines.

 

[miDeuce]

why would Walsh steal these tapes and hide them for 6 years to eventually use as leverage or something?

Per the Globe article today the Pats mentioned they were still missing the end zone camera shot of Vinatieri's game winning kick that Walsh was shooting (along with the Rams defensive signals). Most likely he hung onto that not for the coach's signals but for posterity to prove he was there.

I think most likely it's what he has to say that would be damaging to the Pats, otherwise why would there be so much debate about him getting blanket immunity. If the bad stuff was on tape all he'd have to do is pop it in the VCR and press play. Unless the tapes qualify as stolen property and he wants to make sure he can't get nabbed for that. It's probably a combination of the two but I don't think he's got tapes of anything that will be that earth shattering or should I say franchise-shattering.

 

[Wildo7]

Did you see his room from his wedding photos. He seems to collect all things football. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a lot of game tapes (ones that adhere to the NFL rules 100% too) he videotaped including the endzone shot of Vinatieri's winning field goal which is reportedly missing and believed to be in his possession.

People assume that if he has tapes, the only tapes he kept were the questionable ones that he could use later. He could have 100 tapes that he stole from the Patriots and only one or two have him filming opossing sidelines.

good point. I didn't think of that.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think that if he has anything that could hurt the Pats it is an audio tape.

Pioli fired him for taping phone calls.
I think (just a guess) that if he has anything to hurt the Pats, it could be
something against Pioli (taped phone call).

If he taped a phone call, it is against the law in Massachusetts.

The NFL can not give him immunity from breaking a law.
I do not believe Spector could give him immunity for breaking a Mass law.
A federal law, but not a Mass law.

Then again, I am no lawyer.

Pioli fired Walsh for taping a conversation that Pioli had with Walsh about Walsh's poor job performance. Also, it's against the law to tape another person without asking their permission.

Walsh isn't asking for immunity. He's asking for indemnity. In other words, Walsh wants the LEAGUE to pay for any court costs that may come about from Walsh having broken the law in his taping.

Personally, I think Walsh only has audio tapes. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's modified them. But a good sound analyst would be able to tell. And I don't think Walsh is bright enough to have done a good job. I mean, he's lied on his resume several times.

 

[BRiZ]

they should make senator Specter pay all the friggin bills otherwise he should shut his trap.

 

[upstater1]

My guess is he has tapes from 2000-2003 of videotaping the opposing team's sidelines. Remember when he was shooting his mouth off to reporters, it wasn't public knowledge that the Pats admitted to videotaping opposing team's sidelines since 2000. Actually it was public knowledge, but it was never really understood or reported correctly from the media.

Mortensen reported it in September.

 

[SoxFanNH]

Nothing...

Just a disgruntled former employee who wants some attention.

 

[tombonneau]

I think most likely it's what he has to say that would be damaging to the Pats, otherwise why would there be so much debate about him getting blanket immunity. If the bad stuff was on tape all he'd have to do is pop it in the VCR and press play. Unless the tapes qualify as stolen property and he wants to make sure he can't get nabbed for that. It's probably a combination of the two but I don't think he's got tapes of anything that will be that earth shattering or should I say franchise-shattering.

See, my whole thing is, the one and only smoking gun that the media wants is the Rams walkthrough. Anything other than that and you can file this whole Matt Walsh episode under the Department of Redundancy Department.

But even if he has The Tape and is scared of legal ramifications of turning it over, you'd think with all the leaks spouting all over the place, he would have shown it to someone in some media capacity who could then claim they had seen it.

Since absolutely nothing of this sort has even been hinted at -- and combined with BB and the Pats complete and total denial -- makes me think all he has is more defensive signals.

And now that this has become a media circus, he is sort of having his hand forced to do something about it, even though at this point I'm sure he'd rather it all just go away.

 

[mmasterkillah]

I have no true idea, but I just want this all to end.
We need some clarity.

I doubt he has anything that he should have, and I doubt he has anything magnificent... but until I hear/see that confirmed, I will be a little bit on edge.

I <3 BELICHICK!

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

What he did to Pioli, if true, is a Felony. Any audio recording without knowledge of the other party is illegal in Massachusetts.

MGL 272 s99 5 years in prison / $10,000 fine

That may be the hangup on the agreement. The NFL would be unable to grant him immunity.

What's the statute of limitations on that crime??? After the statute runs, he can't be prosecuted and we may be closing in on a 5 years since the alleged taping......

 

[TripleOption]

What's the statute of limitations on that crime??? After the statute runs, he can't be prosecuted and we may be closing in on a 5 years since the alleged taping......

It's six years, but any time spent out of Massachusetts doesn't count.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The protection that Walsh is seeking is from a "confidentiality" agreement that he has with the Patriots. It calls for ridiculous monetary penalties against him, if he makes any public disclosures about things he learned as a Patriots employee.


And no one can give him protection from that, except Bob Kraft, and I have a funny feeling that he is not oing to give it to him.

 

[reflexblue]

Nothing, why would he have waited SO long, it makes no sense. I'm with Sox Fan NH he's just a disgruntled former employee with Psych issues.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The protection that Walsh is seeking is from a "confidentiality" agreement that he has with the Patriots. It calls for ridiculous monetary penalties against him, if he makes any public disclosures about things he learned as a Patriots employee.

Except that the Patriots have denied that such an agreement exists--and I can't see any logical reason they would do that if they had even a suspicion that he could burn them.

 

[Metaphors]

Except that the Patriots have denied that such an agreement exists--and I can't see any logical reason they would do that if they had even a suspicion that he could burn them.

I don't think this is the whole truth. Consider that Walsh could have cranked out a book call "Sacks, Lies and Videotape...Behind the Camera of the Patriots Dynasty" in about a month, received $100K+ just in advance money and put absolutely nothing in the book that could be considered confidential or proprietary. Just talk about Belichick swearing a lot, the locker room smelling nice and Brady's choice in man-purses. The book would be horrific but would sell just on name value.

Yet Walsh hasn't done anything like this. He obviously wants attention and his name recognition and pop culture relevance will never be higher. But no book.

There has to be some kind of legal jeopardy for him even putting out a fluff collection of his time with the Pats. It may not be a confidentiality agreement per se, but something must exist.

In fact, I believe the delay in testifying is to remove that barrier and allow him to cash in. I can't imagine that lawyers for the NFL or Kraft would allow that to happen...and I can't imagine Walsh's high profile DC lawyer would accept anything less (gotta feed his family).

It is a continual source of frustration with me that people (not you CTPF), don't ask the simplest of questions in this whole affair. People's character almost always guide their actions...and people don't put themselves in uncomfortable situations without a payoff for their particular value system.

Belichick is driven by ego and pride but bounded by a deep respect for the game. I don't know what is driving Walsh into this mess but rest assured he believes there is a payoff at the end of the rainbow. Either one of the previous two statements is ripe for investigative journalism...but sadly it is must easier to regurgitate spying nonsense and unfounded cheating allegations than it is to pursue the truth.

 

[Wildo7]

My fear is that Walsh has basically nothing except a bunch of hearsay rumor type stuff and accusations that he is either making up or exaggerating, but that it won't matter anyway. The press will go nuts with whatever "juicy" crap he slings at the Pats and demand further "investigations" into every one of his comments. If he has a few old tapes of signals, which will be spun as something new, that will drive the media's Pats obsession forever.

In the end, whether it's proven or not, none of it will matter because everyone will talk about it as if it did happen and cite the proof of signal-taping as evidence that the Pats aren't credible in denying anything. Not to draw an analogy between the Pats and Pacman (because they're not equivalent at all) but it's the same way that many are automatically inclined to believe and pile onto the track-record the latest allegation against Pacman the moment it happened. Anyone can come out of the woodwork at this point and say anything at all and everyone will believe it because they want to hate the Pats and the Media has told them they are now justified in doing so for more reasons than just their underlying jealousy.