Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)
- Thread starter Livinthedream
- Start date
This is where I think that his lawyer's statement about "not going to pay a dime" paints Luke into a corner, as far as eventually settling out of court with a payment.
Putting out the notion that Luke is innocent and he won't pay her a "dime", would kind of throw the cash settlement option out the window, as far as public opinion would go. If the lawyer puts that "won't pay a dime" statement out and then he settles, that would make Luke look guilty in the court of public opinion. If he hadn't said that, he could have a cash settlement without much fanfare.
That is why I think Luke has gone all in on that he is innocent. I can't see a cash settlement with her that would look good for Luke, if his lawyer has already put "not going to pay her a dime" out there.
I also think that his lawyer is very, very shrewd and he put that out there with either full confidence that Luke is innocent or that there is no way he losses the case.
Putting out the notion that Luke is innocent and he won't pay her a "dime", would kind of throw the cash settlement option out the window, as far as public opinion would go. If the lawyer puts that "won't pay a dime" statement out and then he settles, that would make Luke look guilty in the court of public opinion. If he hadn't said that, he could have a cash settlement without much fanfare.
That is why I think Luke has gone all in on that he is innocent. I can't see a cash settlement with her that would look good for Luke, if his lawyer has already put "not going to pay her a dime" out there.
I also think that his lawyer is very, very shrewd and he put that out there with either full confidence that Luke is innocent or that there is no way he losses the case.
Last edited:
I have seen the stats in the article you list before and heard the many fallacies that wentinto it. Unfortunately, it was too long ago for me to remember where (so I can't provide a link). One of things they did was have some former police on who have dealt with this over the years (one had been in charge of those types of crimes in the NYC area. He said that a lot of charges come in that never make it to court for various reasons. He said that women changing their mind or finding out it was false probably happened about 30-40% of the time. No one keeps records and it wouldn't show up in the type of stats that were given. I wish I had the link, but never thought I would need it. Just found it interesting at the time.
No, you’re missing the point. Nobody truly knows how common or uncommon it might be. That’s the point. You’re making a blanket claim that can’t possibly be substatianted. That article you cited to support your claim is a weak pillar.
I’m not at all claiming, unequivocally, that it’s quite common. And I’m not admonishing the alleged victim, as I’ve made clear several times that I’m not 100% convinced either way. So you’re wrong on that point too.
I’m merely challenging your false claim. None of us can really know how often it does or doesn’t occur. In a vast majority of cases, only the parties involved ever know the truth. In my experience when a liar knows that the truth can’t ever be uncovered unless they admit it themselves, it’s typically never revealed.
How many convicted/non-convicted criminals do we see never admit their crimes despite a preponderance of circumstantial evidence? Sometimes even with bombshell evidence such as DNA. W/O direct witnesses or clear video evidence, people believe they can maintain doubt by lying. Exhibit A, OJ Simpson.
The same can be true of those making false accusations. If there are no witnesses or video evidence to contradict their claim, they likely aren’t going to ever admit they lied because of the how it would make them look.
IIRC, Zeke Elliott’s accuser was not only contradicted by direct witnesses in various incidents she described, she was also caught trying to coerce a friend to lie on her behalf. This stuff does happen, people.
Last edited:
The Kings and NBA investigation is going to be the most important investigation here, as far as Luke career is concerned.
If it really takes 4-5 years to go to court, there's a good chance this never reaches the courts. Unless her lawyer is providing his services for free or pro bono, it may not be worth it for her to go 4-5 years having to pay a lawyer. There's a good chance that all parties just goes their separate ways without going to court or admitting guilt.
If it really takes 4-5 years to go to court, there's a good chance this never reaches the courts. Unless her lawyer is providing his services for free or pro bono, it may not be worth it for her to go 4-5 years having to pay a lawyer. There's a good chance that all parties just goes their separate ways without going to court or admitting guilt.
When you say “too many people here jumped to defend luke,” did you mean too many people said let’s not jump to conclusions and wait for the facts before we all demand he’s fired? I don’t remember reading anyone saying for sure he is innocent, maybe innocent until proven guilty which id assume is rational. There was quite a bit of questioning timeline and motives but some of that is to counter the “since she accused him, he must have done it” crowd.
This is a tough one. I agree, given the facts/lack of evidence it would be somewhat of a knee jerk reaction.
They can fire though and in at will employment states it does happen to protect the employers image etc.
Just looking up some guidance from google, "Discharging an employee based on a suspicion of improper behavior is not unlawful, even if the suspicion is not correct. Thus, the law does not prohibit an employer from taking the easy way out of a difficult situation by terminating the accused."
It is murky though, dependent on stipulations agreed to in an employment contract and obviously cant be seen as discriminatory in any way
Should the NBA/Kings joint investigation find anything conclusive you could expect this to be revisited
They can fire though and in at will employment states it does happen to protect the employers image etc.
Just looking up some guidance from google, "Discharging an employee based on a suspicion of improper behavior is not unlawful, even if the suspicion is not correct. Thus, the law does not prohibit an employer from taking the easy way out of a difficult situation by terminating the accused."
It is murky though, dependent on stipulations agreed to in an employment contract and obviously cant be seen as discriminatory in any way
Should the NBA/Kings joint investigation find anything conclusive you could expect this to be revisited
This is also something the organization can establish fairly quickly with one simple question to her attorney asking him on what date did he begin representing her in this matter. He doesn't have to answer but certainly gives up no meaningful information that could be used in court by doing so. It would be a good indicator of when Luke likey became aware there was a potential problem.
I too don't remember anyone saying for sure Luke is innocent however, I failed to see any "crowd" saying "since she accused him, he must have done it". I have read that she appears believable or credible, and suggestions this is not a good look regardless of court outcomes. I also don't see much in the way of people saying he should be fired. I did state perhaps going a different direction might be best for this team.
I may have missed something, this is a very long sensitive discussion/thread. Some of us also might have personal reasons why we feel one way or another, I do. That's why I try to be careful with opinions.
There you go Tetsujin, you asked me to not quit and further the discourse, but now I am officially out.
I may have missed something, this is a very long sensitive discussion/thread. Some of us also might have personal reasons why we feel one way or another, I do. That's why I try to be careful with opinions.
There you go Tetsujin, you asked me to not quit and further the discourse, but now I am officially out.
Last edited:
I know I came at you strong - for that very reason. It didn't even occur to me you might also have personal reasons. I could have said this in a PM but I want you to know publicly that I'm sorry if I caused you any pain. Sometimes it's too easy to forget there are real people behind our screen names.