During much of the legal impasse between the NFL and Matt Walsh, the sticking point was whether Walsh would be required to “tell the truth” in order to achieve and maintain protection against possible civil claims from the Patriots or any third party.
Walsh’s lawyer, Michael Levy, wisely pointed out that truth is in the eye of the beholder. If the Patriots were to disagree with the substance of Walsh’s account regarding, for example, whether the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI was videotaped or otherwise spied upon, the Pats could claim that he’s lying, and that he therefore isn’t entitled to any protections.
But Walsh could both be wrong and truthful. Indeed, ten people can witness a car accident, and then give ten different versions of what occurred. Each would be technically telling the truth, and yet each could be wrong about some aspect of what they remember seeing or hearing.
On this specific point, Walsh has prevailed; still, it was very prudent for the NFL to yield. The league’s prior position was unrealistic, and put Walsh unnecessarily at risk for a game of “gotcha.”
In paragraph 2 of the agreement, Walsh is required ”to provide the NFL full, complete and accurate information, in good faith and to the best of his knowledge.”
The indemnification commitment Walsh receives in paragraph 3(a) applies even if there is “alleged untruthfulness” in Walsh’s disclosures to the NFL, unless there is “intentional untruthfulness.”
In other words, Walsh is not exposed to a claim that he’s being untruthful merely if he happens to be factually wrong. Basically, then, it’s not a lie if Walsh genuinely believes that any factual inaccuracies he discloses are the truth.
Though it sounds Costanza-esque, this dynamic accounts for many of the disputes in witness testimony that arise every day in courts throughout the country. Sure, some of the witnesses are committing perjury. More often than not, however, the witnesses who provide incorrect testimony think they’re telling the truth, but simply are misinformed about what the truth really is.
_2.gif)





April 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
How can Walsh be “minsinformed” when it’s what he did that were’re talking about? Is he going to “misremember” like Hillary? He said he had evidence, so hand it over. If he has no evidence, then he’s not “misinformed”, he’s lying.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Very good article. People usually jump to the conclusion that there is simply “the truth” and either he tells it or he’s a liar, when in fact lots of people will remember things differently. Obviously, if he has a tape, the tape won’t lie, but I don’t think he’s ever said he had a tape, though people have assumed he has one. Bottom line, it would’ve been malpractice if his attorney did not insist on that provision.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Sounds like the right language was finally hammered, and all those who kept saying “if Walsh had nothing to hide he’d just tell the truth” really didn’t know what they were talking about.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
He should receive no protection if he is anything short of truthful. I understand the whole point of view thing. but the way it normally would work is if he were to lie, and the patriots were to take legal action against him, the NFL would not have to cover costs if he were to lose that legal action (or they would agree to front the costs, but once a decision came down saying he was lying, the NFL could take action against walsh to recover the money). walsh clearly has a very talented lawyer (i wonder how that happened), and this lawyer will be able to craft answers that can be outright lies, but able to fit within the broad terms of the agreement, and provide protection to walsh. at this point, it is clear he can say anything, and people hate the pats enough to believe it. i fear that unless there is clear video proof, nothing will be resolved on may 13.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
So if he’s proven wrong ….Then he was just mistaken in his mind?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
this could make a good episode of Seinfeld…at the end of the episode Walsh comes to the hearings carrying just a blank VHS tape and tells arbitrator Vandelay that all the evidence anyone could ask for is right here….everyone waits with bated breath, Gene Upshaw, Jackie Childs, Bill Belichick…. finally Walsh pops it into the VCR and inevitably Kramer has taped over it with a video of Elaine dancing in Jerry’s living room to the theme music of Melrose Place, which he is sitting on the couch watching so intently!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“Constanza-esque” great line.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
How ironic that people are talking about whether or not Walsh is telling the truth. To date, the only things that’s been PROVEN is that Belichick and the Pats are cheaters. And while cheating isn’t tantamount to perjury, a perjurer’s word is suspect from the start, so what does that really say in this situation? You want to stand on ceremony and question Walsh’s motives and integrity, while on the other side of the equation you have a proven cheater? Interesting set of values, to say the least.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I don’t blame his lawyer from getting this provision in his agreement, but it does give Walsh a license to lie. Unless he is dumb enough to tell outlandish lies that any reasonable person would know isn’t true or he trips himself up in a lie, he cannot be sued for what he tells Goodell even if he lies his butt off.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Kafka-esque seems more fitting. This thing is like an Ionesco Theatre Of The Absurd play.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
skaybaltimore,
So if the Pats have proof that Matt Walsh is a felon, who has more credibility. The Pats have accused Walsh as being a felon twice (audiotaping Pioli without his knowledge). I haven’t seen Walsh file a suit against them for defamation yet. I doubt they would say that unless they had proof. Otherwise, Walsh will get potentially millions from the Patriots in a defamation lawsuit. Companies cannot accuse former employees of committing felonies without proof and not open themselves up to lawsuits.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
The Pats/Belichick have never once denied any of the other taping, did it in full view of everyone, in the away stadium, against a coach who knew full well they were doing it, and then when asked about it, admitted to doing it not only then, but for his entire career as a head coach (even though the evidence the league had at the time was only for that one game).
Proof of a walk-through tape would be altogether different, and for the first time make them liars, not just folks who thought they had found a loophole in a rule.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Robo — I’m not saying Walsh is a choir boy. After all, he worked for the Cheatriots. What I’m saying is that, to date, the only PROVEN sucm is Belichick.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Vern, please show your source that the Belichick admitted or never denied videotaping for his whole career.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Henry…get a life, man. No need to keep reinventing the wheel just because you’re living in some altered reality, ok? Move on.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 24th, 2008 at 3:53 am
i asked Vern for a link is all, so unless you have a link, please keep your distractive comments to yourself, skaybaltimore.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated