Media questions and Bob Quinn’s answers on Matt Patricia sexual assault allegation

Getty Images

When Lions General Manager Bob Quinn did his end-of-year media session today, he faced some questions about the process of hiring head coach Matt Patricia last year, and specifically the fact that Patricia had been indicted for aggravated sexual assault in 1996 — which didn’t surface publicly until a Detroit News article on May 9, three months after the Lions hired Patricia.

We posted a key quote from Quinn’s answer, and the Lions responded by tweeting a link to the video of Quinn’s press conference, and suggesting that some context was missing from our quote of Quinn.

We’re happy to provide the complete context. The media questions and Quinn’s answers about the Patricia hiring begin at 11:22 of this video. Full questions and full answers are transcribed below:

Reporter: “Bob, when did you know about Matt Patricia’s sexual assault allegations? When did you know?”
Quinn: “I didn’t — I first found out about it a couple days before the article came out. Matt had got wind that the article was going to come out and he came and told me. So we had extensive conversations with myself, ownership, Rod, about everything, and then we put out that statement back in May about our support for Matt, and that’s kind of how it went down.”

Reporter: “If you knew beforehand would he still be your head coach today?’
Quinn: “Yeah, I’m not going to deal in hypotheticals. I didn’t know at the time and going forward we’re just going to stand by our statement.”

Reporter: “Does it bother you that you didn’t know before? That he didn’t reveal that to you?”
Quinn: “No, that’s — listen, we do our standard — for a high-level position we do an extensive background check on everybody and nothing came up so that’s kind of how we do those processes.”

Reporter: “How could it not come out if somebody else found it quickly when they were searching his name?”
Quinn: “Well, that’s — listen, I’m not paid to do extensive background checks. I’m here to select the head coach. I’m very comfortable with Matt Patricia as our head coach.”

As the full context makes clear, there was nothing out of context about our initial report.

43 responses to “Media questions and Bob Quinn’s answers on Matt Patricia sexual assault allegation

  1. Something to keep in Quinn’s back pocket till he really needs it. Then, out of the blue, more information will come forward and Quinn can lower the boom based on that.

    Convenient, isn’t it?

  2. As the case was dismissed there’d be nothing for a candidate background search to find, nor should there be really, and nor should Patricia bring it up as a football coach candidate.

  3. If “somebody found it quickly while searching his name”, why has it taken so long to surface? Patricia has held a position in the NFL since 2004. Crazy how the media operates.

  4. The Lions conducted a background check. And it was obviously deficient.

    That’s not to say Patricia shouldn’t have been hired. That’s up to the Lions to decide. But, even if you’re adamant that the indictment alone should not have precluded Patricia from a head coaching position, this information should have come up in the course of the background check. Even if only to allow your comms and PR staff get out in front of an indictment that never resulted in a conviction.

  5. I think we all know he did something he’s not very proud of now. Of course for the fans it doesn’t ever matter.

  6. It was out of context. I’m sure the Human Resources department is responsible for the extensive background check, clowns

  7. 23 years ago and I remember it was brought up before the Lions hired him on at least a couple sports websites. The reporter who asked the question should of been punched in the face. He wasn’t found guilty of anything.

  8. Just because someone didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. I guess you idiots think oj is innocent because he wasn’t convicted.

  9. Standard background checks for most employers go back 7 years and show convictions. This incident is from 22+ years ago and it’s not even a conviction.

  10. redandgoldhitman52 says:

    Just because someone didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. I guess you idiots think oj is innocent because he wasn’t convicted.
    —————————–
    If it was a real serious matter he would have been convicted no matter what. The fact that he wasn’t convicted tells the tale of how an infraction never took place. Or are you placing judgment on the guy with no evidence?

  11. redandgoldhitman52 says:
    January 4, 2019 at 1:21 pm
    Just because someone didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. I guess you idiots think oj is innocent because he wasn’t convicted.

    ——————-
    If they are such idiots for thinking he is innocent on what basis were they to be able to be so sure he was guilty?

  12. redlikethepig says:
    January 4, 2019 at 12:57 pm
    I think we all know he did something he’s not very proud of now. Of course for the fans it doesn’t ever matter.

    ———————
    And how exactly do we know that?

  13. “Matt had got wind that the article was going to come out and he came and told me.”

    Wow. So Patricia came and told his boss only once he knew it was going to hit the press. And his boss was OK with that?

    If anything, the additional information makes it a worse look for Patricia and the Lions.

  14. Basic rule of hiring someone. Now he’s defensive about a coach that has turned out to be not very successful. As Eddie deBartolo said about Marc Trestman a long time ago, “He’s gone”!

  15. Ridiculous. A completely bogus arrest and indictment based solely on the alleged victim’s word. Then, it was dismissed at the prosecutor’s request because the alleged victim didn’t want to be part of a trial. There is no record that she ever sued him, nor that he offered her a civil settlement. He has maintained his innocence since Day 1. Who in their right mind would bring that up in a job interview? I’ll wait.

  16. So if he wasn’t convicted, how would it show up in a background check. Technically on an application, it lists have you ever been convicted, it doesn’t ask you if you have ever been indicted. Patricia not mentioning this was well within his obligation toward the background check. Even if he said no, the Lions couldn’t use that as a reason to not hire him had they known because he was never convicted and technically Patricia didn’t lie on the application. As for the assumption that he did it but wasn’t punished, understand that the burden of proof is on the accuser in this country, not the accused. You have to be proven guilty which is a lot different from proving innocence.

  17. A standard criminal background check wouldn’t bring up accusations. It isn’t like any team hires private detectives to investigate someone’s background. It isn’t like he is being vetted for the Supreme Court. Are the standards higher for NFL head coaches?

  18. Lots of employers have written employment applications that ask not only about prior convictions but about prior arrests, or criminal charges, as well.

    I guess part of the issue is, What specifically was Patricia asked by the Lions (or by the Patriots, for that matter)? If he wasn’t asked about prior arrests/charges — whether they led to convictions or not — then why should he answer?

    Is there a standardized written questionnaire that all NFL teams submit to potential coaches as part of the hiring process? If so, and it doesn’t ask about prior arrests/charges — in addition to prior criminal convictions — then maybe there should be one.

  19. “Why are they even asking about this…again?”
    ______________

    Because the team looked terrible most of the year. If they were headed to the playoffs this never would have come up again.

  20. redandgoldhitman52 says:
    January 4, 2019 at 1:21 pm

    Just because someone didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. I guess you idiots think oj is innocent because he wasn’t convicted.
    _____________________
    Yours is an example of the worst kind of stupid. Here is a better spin: Innocent UNLESS proven guilty. People make up allegations for personal or professional or financial gain all the time.

  21. He was indicted on sexual assault charges is a very misleading statement.
    It really holds no weight what so ever, it amounts to a “She said , he said ” 12 Grand Jurors hear only what the victim is claiming and nothing from the accused….so was Patricia in that Hotel ..yes …could it have happened based on what the victim claims ….yes.
    You get indicted . It means nothing in regards to guilt or proof of guilt . The woman refused to testify and the case was asked to be dismissed by the victim never being compensated in anyway . So in legal terms and in real life he has nothing to report or fess up to, as far as the Law is concerned … nothing happened but an unsubstantiated claim.
    A smear campaign that should never have been brought to the pu

  22. rockytop78 says:
    January 4, 2019 at 2:56 pm
    Lots of employers have written employment applications that ask not only about prior convictions but about prior arrests, or criminal charges, as well.
    ———————————-
    Most of those are illegal. It certainly is in Michigan. In fact in most states the question cannot be asked.

  23. Those calling this a “he said, she said” need to read the stories about this. Patricia was indicted and the case was scheduled for months to go to trial. The alleged victim decided at the 11th hour that she could not testify.

    Not saying he is guilty, but he was not exonerated either.

  24. redandgoldhitman52 says:
    January 4, 2019 at 1:21 pm

    Just because someone didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. I guess you idiots think oj is innocent because he wasn’t convicted.

    And just because your convicted doesn’t mean you’re guilty. Innocent and not guilty are not exactly the same thing but I’ll go with out justice system. It the worst, except for all the others. And no, I don’t think OJ is innocent, but he was found not guilty.

  25. Innocent, guilt, it no longer matters. John Tomase wrote a story about taing a walkthrough and everyone outside NE bought it hook, line and sinker, even after he admitted it wasn’t true. People believe want they want despite evidence to the contrary.

    One thing is for certain, every single misspoken word or minor transgression is sure to come back to bite you. Wonderful times in which we live. Reminds me of Salem Massachusetts, a couple hundred years ago.

  26. Patricia’s arrest wasn’t bogus.

    The victim picked Patricia and his frat brother/teammate out of a police lineup. A grand jury indicted them both. The victim checked into a hospital immediately after the assault and the hospital staff were going to testify for the prosecution. Ten months later, when the case was going to trial, the victim decided she didn’t want to go back to Texas and relive the incident. However, the prosecution was confident they were going to convict Patricia and his friend.

    In a rape trial, the defense strategy is to put the victim on trial. The goal is to make her regret filing charges and appearing in court. Statistically, the odds of a rape charge being false are very slim. Statistically, the idea that jails are filled with men falsely accused of rape is absolutely ridiculous. Also, according to US Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about one-third of rapes are even reported.

    When the story broke in the Detroit newspaper, Patricia’s attorney questioned the victim’s mental health and suggested she invented the entire story. The fact that the hospital staff were willing to testify for the prosecution demonstrates that Patricia’s attorney was full of it. Also, after the story broke, Patricia stated that he’d been “vindicated.” That’s not true – legal jeopardy is still attached in this case. He wasn’t “vindicated.” It’s more accurate to say that he, “got off the hook.”

    Patricia’s response to the story’s publication was full of bluster. He expressed intense anger towards the reporter and said the story was part of an effort to “damage my career.” He showed no concern or empathy towards the victim. His focus was entirely on himself. He didn’t want anyone to think about her.

    I empathize with the victim’s concerns about being assaulted again, in court, by Patricia’s attorney. I also empathize with her desire to just put it all behind her. That’s how most rape victims feel. The 13 year old who was sexually assaulted by film director Roman Polanski opposes extraditing him so he can face criminal charges – she just wants to put it behind her. However, I really wish that this rape victim would have prosecuted Patricia instead of letting him walk.

    It is not unreasonable to believe that Quinn knew all about Patricia’s rape charges and just didn’t care. When a corporation is going to pay a 7-figure salary to an executive, they want to know more than the information provided in the basic background check. The reporter did a simple Lexis search. The idea that an NFL team wouldn’t perform that type of basic search on someone who will be a face of the franchise, the head coach, seems absurd. Also, Michigan law doesn’t prohibit employers from using criminal charges as part of a hiring decision.

    What’s more likely is that this is a case of grown men concluding that “boys will be boys” and looking the other way. It’s unfortunate that our society rarely believes sexual assault victims, even though they’re rarely lying.

  27. whatjusthapped says:
    January 4, 2019 at 12:26 pm
    Something to keep in Quinn’s back pocket till he really needs it. Then, out of the blue, more information will come forward and Quinn can lower the boom based on that.

    Convenient, isn’t it?

    Yes. Because there was speculation Patricia might have not liked Black Monday. Quinn definitely needs a chip in the back pocket. Yes.

    (Dripping with sarcasm)

  28. itsalwaysabout says:
    January 4, 2019 at 4:23 pm
    Innocent, guilt, it no longer matters. John Tomase wrote a story about taing a walkthrough and everyone outside NE bought it hook, line and sinker, even after he admitted it wasn’t true. People believe want they want despite evidence to the contrary.

    No offense homer but the guy was *indicted*. Has nothing to do about a book. It has to do with sexual assualt, the law, and criminal procedure. I could give a rat’s behind about where he came from, and outside of NE most other people don’t either. Only reason it wasn’t tried is because the accuser didn’t want to go through the stress of a trial. And before you say it homer, that is unfortunately not unusual in a world where the victim is often treated like the criminal.

    I know you think no one can do anything wrong in paradise but before you go there? Remember a Guy names Aaron Hernandez?

    SMH. Delusion is delusion.And indictments are indictments.

  29. itsalwaysabout says:
    And no, I don’t think OJ is innocent, but he was found not guilty.
    ————————-
    I’ll go one further. OJ isn’t innocent, but based on the evidence presented at trial the jury’s not guilty verdict was the correct verdict. LAPD and the prosecution made a whole lotta mistakes enabling a guilty man to go free. Luckily the parents of his victims went after him in a civil case and got something that vaguely resembles justice.

  30. rockytop78 says:
    January 4, 2019 at 2:56 pm
    Lots of employers have written employment applications that ask not only about prior convictions but about prior arrests, or criminal charges, as well.
    ———————————-
    Most of those are illegal. It certainly is in Michigan. In fact in most states the question cannot be asked.

    Sorry buddy, you are incorrect. It may be illegal to ask about misdemeanors but it is definitely within the purvey of the law for a company to ask about felony convictions or even arrests for which one is not convicted. What is true is that it is against the law everywhere (Title VIII, I think of the USCRA) to deny employment as a general rule for having a criminal past.

    To quote “There are no legal prohibitions against requesting or considering past criminal charges for employment in Michigan, although federal civil rights guidance discourages holding an unsubstantiated charge against an applicant.”

    I am pretty sure this would have been a felony.

  31. So if someone claims something and that person isn’t prosecuted your supposed to tell perspective employers? Lets face it the whole me 2 thing got crapped all over because of the Kavanaugh debacle. It’s too bad because there are scum bags who do deserve to be prosecuted for sexual assault.

  32. Quinn and Patricia worked together during Patricia’s 14 years in the league. These accusations were neither brought up by his former team or the media prior to him being a head coach. Why would Quinn suddenly think to ask about that which wasn’t already known? Just another journalist trying to make a name for themselves.

  33. Forget about this sexual assault allegation, how about the fact that he’s another in the long line of complete failures that are from the Belichick coaching tree

  34. objectivefbfan says:
    January 4, 2019 at 5:19 pm
    rockytop78 says:
    January 4, 2019 at 2:56 pm
    Lots of employers have written employment applications that ask not only about prior convictions but about prior arrests, or criminal charges, as well.
    ———————————-
    Most of those are illegal. It certainly is in Michigan. In fact in most states the question cannot be asked.

    Sorry buddy, you are incorrect. It may be illegal to ask about misdemeanors but it is definitely within the purvey of the law for a company to ask about felony convictions or even arrests for which one is not convicted. What is true is that it is against the law everywhere (Title VIII, I think of the USCRA) to deny employment as a general rule for having a criminal past.
    ——————–
    I guess you conveniently ignored the part where in most states the question cannot be asked. Massachusetts (his former state of employment) is one of them. California (most populated state) is another. So no I’m NOT wrong.

  35. Anybody that tolerated Bill Clinton, I don’t want to hear from on this. And defines most of the media.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!