Section 101
All-Star
Their knowledge of the allegation.If he didn't do anything wrong then what information would the Lakers have known and withheld?
Their knowledge of the allegation.If he didn't do anything wrong then what information would the Lakers have known and withheld?
Of course it wouldn't, background checks only get public information. If the Kings did a reference check with the Lakers and they knowing withheld the allegation is the issue.According to the Marcos Breton article (interview with Vlade), the Kings did a complete background check on Luke and it didn't come up.
Regardless of guilt or innocence, I really have to commend Vlade and the Kings org for the way they've handled this.
Of course it wouldn't, background checks only get public information. If the Kings did a reference check with the Lakers and they knowing withheld the allegation is the issue.
My personal opinion is that where there is smoke there is fire,
I may have misused the phrase but you took me out of context.No offense to you, as you are entitled to that opinion, and I tend see eye-to-eye with you on many things. but I've never been a fan of that POV. I believe it to be highly dangerous. It's sometimes true, but quite far from reliable.
In my lifetime I've seen instances of people lying and making false accusations towards others for reasons only justifiable to them.
In this particular situation I don't even pretend to know what did or didn't happen. So I prefer to subscribe to an 'always innocent until proven otherwise' approach. I don't know either party. I have no clue how trustworthy, honest or dishonest they may be. Even if I did know one or both parties, it still doesn't make it easy to know who is fabricating.
All I know is words in a he said, she said scenario doesn't qualify as smoke for me. Hell, there are people out there that will lob a similar accusation once someone else already has because they know it is much more likely to be believed. Not saying all instances like that are false, I'm just saying that it does happen. Just like wrongful imprisonments. So even a couple people making similar accusations doesn't do it for me. At some point there needs to be something more concrete than mere opportunity and someone's words.
Again, for me, I need a helluva lot more evidence than an accusation and proof that the two individuals were in the same place at the same time. If that's all it takes, then any of us can be guilty of anything someone wants to accuse us of.
I may have misused the phrase but you took me out of context.
What I was saying is that most abusers leave a long trail - they aren't one time offenders, it's habitual and learned behavior that is repeated.
So what I meant is if there was really any substance to this there wouldn't be one lone accuser with no traction, there'd be a huge fire. Like Weinstein or Cosby (or even Louis CK, who asked permission of the women he was improper with; there were multiple accounts by multiple women). There is no burning forest here.
I think the majority of my posts have made it pretty clear that I'm pretty skeptical of the story, its timeline, and the "I'm not in it for the money, but I'm clearly setting the table to sue everyone in sight" strategy of her legal team. I was not saying that because someone made the accusation it's true. My own experiences in a different but tangentially related matter have certainly colored my views but it's not a discussion for this forum.
LMAO
Well at least one of these is obvious to fact check.Now, Walton is pushing back against many of her claims from her lawsuit ... he says he did NOT write a foreword for her book, says he was NOT her broadcasting mentor and says there was NO sexual assault when she dropped off her book at his hotel.
The weird thing here is that Luke Walton is apparently claiming that he DID NOT write the foreword to her book. That seems pretty odd, because it's common knowledge that he wrote the foreword to her book. In fact, if you go to Amazon, you can see the preview of the book and, sure enough, Luke Walton wrote the foreword.
So why would Walton claim that he didn't write it? Is it possible he didn't?
Well, I read the foreword, and I read the first few pages of the book...and there's no change in voice that I can see. Both Luke and Kelli have a strong tendency to start sentences with the word "but" (Luke 3 times in 2 pages, Kelli 7 times in 7 pages) even when it is more logical to add the "but" clause to the end of the previous sentence. Both write in a very strong first person ("I...I...I...I'm...I..."). Both have a very simple and conversational writing style, decidedly unsophisticated.
I'm not saying that's incontrovertible evidence or anything, but if Walton insists he didn't actually write it...I could be convinced he's telling the truth.
That’s the thing I zeroed in on too. Odd indeed and I can’t imagine him lying about not writing the forward as I would think it would be pretty easy to prove/disprove
That link is to an article by tmz....are we really going to take that as gospel?
There's software that can identify writing styles quite accurately. Even the versions from several years ago outed J.K. Rowling's secret second pen name.
Who is Rowlings secret pen name? Unaware of this development
That one just cites the tmz report for it's info.. Im not saying the info is false, but lets just consider the source.Reputable enough that the mercury news ran the same story/reports
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.me...-accusers-claims-in-new-docs-tmz-reports/amp/
Walton’s court filing said Walton did not write the foreword to her “pamphlet/book.”