The author, a Detroit native, has spent more than 20 years in sports journalism with The Detroit News, New York Daily News and ESPN. He's the editor of The Tribe Sports. This column is republished with permission.
By Michael James
As explanations go, sometimes “I didn’t do anything wrong” simply isn’t enough.
Especially not when you’ve been accused of rape or sexual harassment or assault.
Especially not when you are a public figure like recently hired Detroit Lions head coach Matt Patricia.
No matter how far in the distant past those allegations were made.
And when you do give an explanation, it’s not acceptable to hide behind lawyer-speak and it’s never a good policy to subtly slander the accuser in the process.
Even when leaning on a constitutionally protected presumption of innocence, such an explanation is required to be full and transparent.
Because in the case of Matt Patricia, a college buddy and football teammate, Gregory Dietrich, and the publicly anonymous woman who accused them, for all the various and sundry hurried denials of his involvement in that 1996 rape allegation case, this much is clear:
Something happened.
Matt Patricia (Detroit Lions photo)
If you haven’t heard the details of a recent bombshell Detroit News expose, Patricia and Dietrich, Theta Chau frat brothers and teammates from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in upstate New York, were accused of rape by a woman the pair met on a Texas beach while visiting South Padre Island during spring break in 1996.
Patricia and Dietrich were arrested and charged, even indicted by a grand jury, but the case fell apart five months later when the complainant refused to testify citing stress at the prospect of a public trial.
Patricia and the Detroit Lions – who didn't uncover this potentially damning detail during supposedly in-depth vetting – claim he never got the opportunity to defend himself. (Team executives say it eluded them during a background check that only searched for criminal convictions.)
But the case falling apart due to the reluctance of the woman to testify does not necessarily point to his innocence.
Having not been in the Texas Radisson Hotel room 22 years ago on the evening of March 15, 1996, I have no idea what transpired between Matt Patricia, Gregory Dietrich, and the young woman who accused both of taking turns sexually assaulting her.
What I am sure of, however, is that there is a reason her allegations against the pair were taken seriously enough by authorities for them to have actually been charged with a crime. There is also a reason a grand jury felt there was enough evidence to recommend proceeding to trial.
Now, in 2018, the fact that the trial never happened does not mean that nothing occurred. It does not mean, as Patricia’s lawyer suggests, that it was a false claim. It does not mean the public is not entitled to know more about what actually precipitated the then-21 year old woman to go to police with these allegations.
It’s for this reason, in my estimation, that Patricia owes more of an explanation than the one he gave after The Detroit News’ story unearthed the decades-old claims.
In an era marked by a movement that has led to the downfall of many powerful men in American society, like recently convicted comedian Bill Cosby, former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, actor Kevin Spacey and more, there is a tendency to lump all decades-old sexual assault or harassment claims into the same box.
As the public is becoming desensitized and exhausted by the almost constant stream of outdated sex assault allegations, some extending back as far as forty years, there is a tendency to disbelieve accusers because they did not come forward at the time.
The problem with this line of thinking is that we’ve long known that sexual harassment by people in positions of power existed, but only now because of so many reckonings, we want to equate the fact that these allegations weren’t reported at the time as meaning that they are untrue.
This, despite some studies that reveal one in six American women have experienced some form of sexual abuse during their lifetime.
This, despite the fact we are aware of many reasons why women might not immediately report – if at all – an alleged sexual crime. These reasons include worry over possible job loss, retaliation, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, intimidation, feelings of powerlessness, guilt and more.
Somehow, despite all this knowledge, many display a knee-jerk reaction to shame accusers or intimate that if they didn’t come forward at the time, they shouldn’t be complaining now.
In Patricia’s case, as with many prominent men who have had past sexual assault or harassment allegations come to light during the #MeToo era, there is a rush among colleagues, friends and associates to protect them from allegations only those involved could truly know the details about.
What is known, according to the August 1996 grand jury indictment here – and what has not been mentioned by Patricia, his lawyer or Lions representatives who have rapidly come to the defense of his good name – is that Patricia and Dietrich did have sex with the woman.
The question is whether or not that sex was consensual.
The woman claimed the pair made her participate in sexual acts by force. Patricia and his representatives, while declaring his innocence, did a legal dance around the whole sexual contact aspect of the allegation – which is really at the heart of the whole thing.
Matt Patricia needs to clear this up. Moreover, the Detroit Lions should want him to clear this up.
In a public forum.
Oh, one more detail that separates the allegations against Patricia and Dietrich from those against Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey, Louis C.K., and even more recently, legendary newsman Tom Brokaw:
According to The Detroit News, Patricia and Dietrich’s accuser came forward the same night of the alleged incident. In fact, Patricia and Dietrich were arrested that same night and later released on $20,000 bond apiece.
This is significant because it shows that just because the public is only now hearing about the allegations, 22 years later, this case can’t be lumped in with all those other #MeToo era accusations of sexual impropriety that were only reported for the first time decades later.
When it comes to defending oneself, as Matt Patricia did in no uncertain terms once the story broke, I commend him for that. He called the allegations false and declared his innocence – as any person certain of their own innocence should.
In a statement released soon after the story broke, Patricia said: “As someone who was falsely accused of this very serious charge over 22 years ago, and never given the opportunity to defend myself and clear my name, I find it incredibly unfair, disappointing, and frustrating that this story would resurface now with the only purpose being to damage my character and reputation. I firmly maintain my innocence, as I have always done.
“I would never condone any of the behavior that was alleged and will always respect and protect the rights of anyone who has been harassed or is the victim of violence. My priorities remain the same – to move forward and strive to be the best coach, teacher, and man that I can possibly be.”
Where I take issue with Patricia is in his attacking the reporter for uncovering this part of his past. Is IS a story, no matter from how long ago. And, for the record, most men make it through their entire lives and are never accused of rape, sexual harassment or assault.
When a person is in the public eye, as Patricia indeed is, intense scrutiny is certain, and should be expected. When one’s past includes allegations such as these, it’s no small or frivolous thing.
The Detroit Lions – as well as the New England Patriots, where Matt Patricia played from 2004-18 – should have been aware of this event. In fact, any employer or potential employer should want to be made aware of allegations such as these.
Patricia shooting the messenger and insinuating that his sole purpose is to injure his reputation or family is contemptible.
Secondarily, another issue that should be taken up with Patricia is his allowing his legal representatives and the Detroit Lions management to subtly slander the accuser in his name.
Although initially caught unaware of the allegations when the story first broke, in less than several hours, Detroit Lions team president Rod Wood said he’d learned that the woman recanted the allegations several times – a claim not substantiated by anything anywhere on record.
A more reprehensible tactic was used by Jeff Wilson, one of Patricia’s defense attorneys, who said: “In my opinion, it was a fabrication. I’m telling you it was a ‘he said, she said.’ I don’t know what type of problems the girl was having; I don’t know why she made that allegation. We vehemently denied that he was doing anything wrong or did anything wrong.”
It’s almost criminal to insinuate that the alleged victim “had problems” or that Wilson had any real basis for stating the woman’s claims were fabricated.
John Tasolides, a lawyer who responded to The News’ inquiries about Dietrich, said: “If your complaining witness is not willing to come into court and testify, a case doesn’t get any weaker than that.”
His unspoken inference is that the complainant’s reluctance to testify suggests that her allegations were untrue.
Talsolides added this unsubstantiated gem: “The people who make immediate outcries are false accusers many times.”
This, as you might imagine, has no basis in scientific fact and is a ridiculous statement to make – even in defense of a client.
Lions star receiver Golden Tate, who was not yet 8 years old when Patricia and Dietrich were arrested and charged with rape, called the allegations “crap,” despite admitting he wasn’t fully abreast of the subject.
“I don’t know the full details, but I know inside of our locker room, we support Coach Patricia to the max,” Tate told the Detroit Free Press. “There was nothing — didn’t even go to court, I think it was thrown out, so why is it even a problem? Honestly, I feel for his family, who have to deal with this right now. And I know that this isn’t how we want to start the offseason dealing with this crap, and so it’s going to blow over, obviously, it always does.”
While it’s fine, expected even, for Tate to throw his support behind his new head coach, it’s totally irresponsible and ignorant for him to brand Patricia’s accuser’s allegations false when he admittedly knows nothing about them.
The bottom line is this: it’s a bad look – especially for men, no less – to aggressively and slanderously defend the unknowable actions of another just because that individual may have value to you.
Ditto for legions of sports fans outraged that the report surfaced at all – primarily because they don’t want to have to deal with accusations from years ago.
Just because many years have passed, it does not change what might have transpired back then. A case for you to consider is that of Joseph James DeAngelo, a 72-year-old former California police officer who has lived quietly through the years, becoming a husband, father, grandfather, and by all accounts, a law-abiding citizen.
The trouble with this particular granddad? He turned out to have been the Golden State Killer, a man who murdered at least 12 people, raped at least 50 women, and committed at least 100 burglaries.
His reign of terror began more than 40 years ago, running from 1974 to 1986. I’m sure he has more than a few ex-coworkers and family members who still vociferously protest his innocence – despite the DNA matches proving he’s who the law thinks he is.
None of this is to say that Matt Patricia is a rapist. This is not to say that Matt Patricia is guilty of sexual assault of any kind. It is to say that the slightly slanderous words of lawyers and NFL players in his defense are little more than worthless opinions which should be kept private.
They’re also the same type of opinions that keep women from reporting actual sexual assault today.
With this in mind, it’s not enough for Matt Patricia to merely state that he did nothing wrong and believe this explanation suffices. It’s not enough for Matt Patricia, who kept his former employer and his new one in the dark about these allegations, to say that nothing happened.
Something happened between Patricia, Dietrich and the woman who accused them of rape in a Texas hotel room 22 years ago. And as much as Matt Patricia bravely asserts today that he didn’t get the opportunity to defend his name in a court of law, do you really think he’d want people today poring over his first-person testimony of what actually did occur back then?
I can guarantee you it wasn’t nothing.
As the prosecutor’s hand-written notes on the Patricia Sex Assault Case Dismissal shows, the case was dropped only because the woman was too afraid to testify.
I’d bet you at the time, Matt Patricia and Gregory Dietrich, who now use this detail as a defense, were breathing a huge sigh of relief at being free to carry on with the rest of their lives.
Today, Patricia is head coach of the Detroit Lions, a $1.7 billion-dollar franchise that didn’t know he’d been accused of rape back in 1996. Neither did team general manager Bob Quinn, who worked with Patricia for 12 years in New England, and led the vetting process that didn’t uncover this incident. Ditto for the NFL, which takes pride in knowing almost everything about everyone who works under The Shield.
Hell, did the woman Patricia married in 2009 and shares two children with, even know?
Matt Patricia got a pass back then – primarily because the woman didn’t want to testify. He doesn’t deserve a pass now. In fact, he owes everybody a much, much better explanation than the one he’s given so far.
Related coverage today:
Joe Lapointe: The Matt Patricia Case -- If There's Smoke There's Fire? Or Just Smoke?
