Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)
- Thread starter Livinthedream
- Start date
Technically, yes. But he was hired by LA on 04-29-2016 and this alleged incident also occurred in April. So the time frame is really close. If true, I could see a week or two passing by before deciding to say something about the husband of a friend. But by then Luke Walton was either already hired or was very deep into the process. So it still lines up.
Again, not saying it is true or false. But the timing of when it allegedly occurred combined with when he was hired by LA combined with it coming to light 10 days after he left the organization (with 3 years in between) is interesting to say the least.
If true, I just can’t comprehend any other logical reason to wait until now to speak out and file suit.
Again, not saying it is true or false. But the timing of when it allegedly occurred combined with when he was hired by LA combined with it coming to light 10 days after he left the organization (with 3 years in between) is interesting to say the least.
If true, I just can’t comprehend any other logical reason to wait until now to speak out and file suit.
Last edited:
The timing makes perfect sense, then. In a “he said, she said” situation, she loses while he’s coach (or about to be), especially given that there would be no physical evidence in the scenario outlined in the suit. To protect her job and the franchise she covers, she waits for him to be removed from the equation, and sends the only ‘screw you’ she has available to her. Seems like a reasonable play. But now we wait for Luke to respond.
Firstly, if true this is disgusting, but the problem is it can't be proven one way or the other most likely. I wouldn't be surprised if her going to the media on this was the result of him not wanting to settle with her. Until something changes in drastic fashion I don't think there will be any reverberating effects from this.
Yeah, after several hours of thinking on this, this is sorta how I think things went and will go as well. The Kings have already taken the publicity hit from the initial news breaking. Unless more information comes out quick or the Kings get more information on their own, I can see them hanging onto Walton regardless of the optics.
These aren’t *quite* facts. A few clarifications, because there are a lot of misconceptions about these matters.
1. Correct.
2. Testimony is evidence. If I get into a car accident and a bystander saw what color the light was, the bystanders statement is evidence. Of course, you examine the credibility of the witness in deciding how much weight to give to the testimony, but it’s still evidence. We don’t have testimony yet, of course, but presumably the accuser is willing to testify as to what’s been alleged.
3. Yes, and that’s the unfortunate reality of these situations.
4. Yes and no. Yes, the accuser has the burden of proof. But “innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal standard, and as you note this is a civil matter. The standard of proof in a civil matter is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The accuser only needs to prove that the allegations are more likely true than not.
1. Correct.
2. Testimony is evidence. If I get into a car accident and a bystander saw what color the light was, the bystanders statement is evidence. Of course, you examine the credibility of the witness in deciding how much weight to give to the testimony, but it’s still evidence. We don’t have testimony yet, of course, but presumably the accuser is willing to testify as to what’s been alleged.
3. Yes, and that’s the unfortunate reality of these situations.
4. Yes and no. Yes, the accuser has the burden of proof. But “innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal standard, and as you note this is a civil matter. The standard of proof in a civil matter is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The accuser only needs to prove that the allegations are more likely true than not.
From my perspective and hopefully from the organization's perspective this is not about guilt or innocence believing Luke or believing the woman per se. This is about getting the team ready to go next season end of story. If Luke had been the coach of the team and everything was in place and he had been working with them Pratt's coaching for a year or more with them that would be a different story. as is the organization owes Luke Walton bubkis. If he's innocent wish him the best and sign them back up as soon as this is behind him if another coach has not been found. To hesitate at this point is to simply make replacing Luke more difficult should that be necessary in a matter of months. By analogy if you contracted a architect/contractor to build you a house and days after agreeing to terms it was discovered that she had serious charges against her unrelated to her business practice that would make it difficult for her to complete the job on time and to your satisfaction would you cancel the contract before plans were drawn up or simply wait and see how things shaped out? Perhaps my perspective is a bit tainted from my dissatisfaction with the immediacy of his signing and lack of inquiry into of the candidates but at the end of the day I really don't want anymore drama, or distractions for this team. Luke Walton maybe the best available coach he also may be innocent, but he may also be a huge distraction. As I said bare minimum sit down with both Luke and the woman and get a feel for the situation. I would just love one season to go by without my phone going off with alerts about some players father yammering to the press, on ot off court behavior problems, criminal charges, or a coach with personal issues.
At the very least, it points to Luke’s behavior/lifestyle as being questionable, given the woman’s perceived credibility, even if classical assault didn’t occur. It’s a unneeded knock to his reputation to enter the Kings gig perceived as a philandering dude who engages in questionable behavior. Although it’s questionable for her to proceed with this civilly a couple days after his new contract.
I’d void the contract on the Kings behalf if I could
I’d void the contract on the Kings behalf if I could
The timing of the lawsuit is NOT a coincidence. Timed to set off the frenzy we're seeing here. So this whole debate was orchestrated by whoever filed that suit.
Don't you want to find out who you're being a tool for before helping them out? If you wait to find out what actually is going on, you'll miss the opportunity to be the first with the grand pronouncements, but you'll have a much better chance of being right.
Don't you want to find out who you're being a tool for before helping them out? If you wait to find out what actually is going on, you'll miss the opportunity to be the first with the grand pronouncements, but you'll have a much better chance of being right.
Tennant claims she did not initially report Walton’s conduct but was forced to continually interact with him because of her job. She says each time she saw him, Walton would impose himself on her with a big hug or a kiss, even though she thought she made it clear his advances were unwanted.
Per TMZ posted on hoopshype
So If he was hugging and kissing her each time she saw him? My question would be was this behavior witnessed by anyone? I would think she would only see him in public due to her job duties. If people down in LA saw this behavior from Luke, then that would look bad for him and would give her "she said" more credence
Per TMZ posted on hoopshype
So If he was hugging and kissing her each time she saw him? My question would be was this behavior witnessed by anyone? I would think she would only see him in public due to her job duties. If people down in LA saw this behavior from Luke, then that would look bad for him and would give her "she said" more credence
I'll admit I lost sleep about this because these allegations are troubling true or false. I'm going to share with you something very personal and very real. My cousin and fellow purple bleeding kings fan was accused of something similar to this a few years back and after years of fighting extremely hard to clear his name he finally was found not guilty BUT the damage to his reputation was done. I can still his hear his voice when he called me to tell me he had been accused and all the stress it put on the family as well. Even after legally clearing his name he fell into a state of depression and ended up taking his own life. The family crushed and in agony with the finality of it but more importantly the pain he felt day and night living with those false accusation's must of been hell. This is why I demand facts above all else because it's not something to take lightly.
For all the Kings fans who think Luke's contract should be voided over this accusation (alone), I hope you're just being opportunistic and didn't want Luke as the coach to begin with. Because, otherwise, you're just really misguided. An accuser deserves to be heard and taken seriously - even if you find their motives questionable. But you don't fire, damn or stone the accused unless you have corroborating evidence. To void Luke's contract at this point sends what message and enncourages what behavior?
Presumably the Kings asked Walton to disclose any pending or potential claims against him that could impact his ability to perform his coaching duties (if not, they need better lawyers). It has been reported that the Kings did not know about this claim until yesterday, I believe. If Walton knew about the potential claim, even if he denies that the underlying events happened, and did not disclose it when asked, the Kings likely would have grounds to terminate him.
I just saw the CNN story at https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/sport/nba-head-coach-accused-sexual-assault/index.html
If there is enough corroborating evidence then I am sorry, Walton would need to go.
If there is enough corroborating evidence then I am sorry, Walton would need to go.
If he is guilty, he needs to go, and be prosecuted.
However,
My really good buddy’s son recently graduated from St Mary’s. His good friend was falsely accused of crimes against a young woman. These accusations were enough to get him thrown out of school and to this day, these accusations even though false are still following him around. His life has been turned into a living hell. I admit my biases toward the accuser until proven otherwise. In today’s #metoo climate an accusation is enough to ruin your life and it scares the hell out of me.
However,
My really good buddy’s son recently graduated from St Mary’s. His good friend was falsely accused of crimes against a young woman. These accusations were enough to get him thrown out of school and to this day, these accusations even though false are still following him around. His life has been turned into a living hell. I admit my biases toward the accuser until proven otherwise. In today’s #metoo climate an accusation is enough to ruin your life and it scares the hell out of me.
Regarding #2, testimony may be ‘evidence’ to a court in a civil case, but there still isn’t any direct evidence (unless camera footage somehow ever showed up). So reality is that @kb02 is right. It’s one person’s word against another. And it’s clear that one is lying.
Regarding #4, you’ve pointed out differences between criminal and civil cases, but for someone like me and likely many others, standards are very different. For me, the accuser needs to prove it. If I know both parties in a he said she said case, then I can likely be swayed to lean towards believing one over the other w/o really knowing for sure. But in a case where I don’t know the parties involved, I’m definitely an innocent until proven guilty guy.
Not referring to Kelli Tennant, who I’ve come to know on TV for many years covering Dodgers games, but I do feel we live in a day and age of opportunists and people who seek attention — good or bad. So it makes it that much harder to blindly believe everything I hear and read.
Expanding upon that, I’ve read on twitter and other sites that “the accuser has no reason to lie”. I find that POV to be extremely shortsighted and naive. Again, not referring to this Tennant/Walton case specifically, but we simply don’t have a clue about that. Lying occurs every damn day — with good reason or not. We can never know the motivations behind the decisions of others.
Conversely, when news first broke of the Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant and Bill Cosby accusations, my initial, logical reaction was “why would they need to do something like that when they have willing participants waiting for them in every hotel lobby around the world and can get any type of woman they want?”. But that was also an extremely shortsighted and naive POV. Because it in no way means they couldn’t have done it.
People lie, cheat, steal and commit crimes all the time and quite often there’s no rhyme or logical reason for it. Fact is, we can’t ever know what someone is capable of doing or not doing. And emotions can play a huge role in someone doing something completely out of character.
So considering all that, I have a hard time damning someone I don’t have a strong personal connection to w/o hard evidence. But I’m well aware that there are many that disagree.
Regarding #4, you’ve pointed out differences between criminal and civil cases, but for someone like me and likely many others, standards are very different. For me, the accuser needs to prove it. If I know both parties in a he said she said case, then I can likely be swayed to lean towards believing one over the other w/o really knowing for sure. But in a case where I don’t know the parties involved, I’m definitely an innocent until proven guilty guy.
Not referring to Kelli Tennant, who I’ve come to know on TV for many years covering Dodgers games, but I do feel we live in a day and age of opportunists and people who seek attention — good or bad. So it makes it that much harder to blindly believe everything I hear and read.
Expanding upon that, I’ve read on twitter and other sites that “the accuser has no reason to lie”. I find that POV to be extremely shortsighted and naive. Again, not referring to this Tennant/Walton case specifically, but we simply don’t have a clue about that. Lying occurs every damn day — with good reason or not. We can never know the motivations behind the decisions of others.
Conversely, when news first broke of the Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant and Bill Cosby accusations, my initial, logical reaction was “why would they need to do something like that when they have willing participants waiting for them in every hotel lobby around the world and can get any type of woman they want?”. But that was also an extremely shortsighted and naive POV. Because it in no way means they couldn’t have done it.
People lie, cheat, steal and commit crimes all the time and quite often there’s no rhyme or logical reason for it. Fact is, we can’t ever know what someone is capable of doing or not doing. And emotions can play a huge role in someone doing something completely out of character.
So considering all that, I have a hard time damning someone I don’t have a strong personal connection to w/o hard evidence. But I’m well aware that there are many that disagree.