Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)

According to the Marcos Breton article (interview with Vlade), the Kings did a complete background check on Luke and it didn't come up.
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.
 
Regardless of guilt or innocence, I really have to commend Vlade and the Kings org for the way they've handled this.

My personal opinion is that where there is smoke there is fire, and with genuine abusers, they are not one time offenders. It's a pattern of bad behavior and they leave a trail of multiple victims. So every day with no news is good news. But we need to listen, investigate and do due diligence and it is clear the Kings and the league are doing so and not just sweeping this under the rug. Quite a contrast to some of our other leagues in this country.

Also I love the comments from Fox.
 
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.
I don't see any reasonable scenario where the Lakers knew of the allegation and Walton did not. It would be much more troubling to me if Walton knew of the allegation and did not disclose it to the Kings when the team was doing its due diligence before hiring him.

But we're getting pretty far into the weeds of hypotheticals here.
 
My personal opinion is that where there is smoke there is fire,
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Understood.

Forgive me for missing context. I hadn’t visited this thread for a while and only read the more recent posts, so I’ll go back and re-read.

Thanks for the clarification.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
REMINDER: We aren't allowing discussion of the allegations, the concept of true v. false accusations, etc. As tempting as it might be, discussion of those kinds of issues (as we learned the hard way) dissolves inevitably into heated rhetoric that spills over into our sports talks. Thanks for understanding.
 
LMAO
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.
Well at least one of these is obvious to fact check.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article229723059.html
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
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.
 
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 foreword as I would think it would be pretty easy to prove/disprove
 
Last edited:

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
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
Agreed. And if he didn't write it, had he said anything to anyone about not writing it even if he is credited in the book? Or did he have a verbal conversation with her (say, on the phone) and she wrote the forward from her notes or something? Maybe he didn't "write" it but she attributed the story to him?

Just....strange.
 
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.
 
Do we know what is the source for the report? To me it sounds like Walton’s “answer,” which is a formal legal response to the allegations in the complaint against him. In certain instances, a defendant like Walton would need to respond line by line and either admit or deny each allegation against him. It could be that Walton’s answer simply “denies” the allegation in the complaint regarding his writing the foreword of the book.
 
The Bee appears to be summarizing the same legal filing as TMZ. It’s a shame none of these outlets (ESPN included) could be bothered to post the document itself.
 
The excitement, on this site and around town, for the Kings is great.
Unfortunately, there is a Gorilla in the room that could possibly derail the entire season.
Nobody knows how the legal case will unfold. One end; continuing questions from the press will be a distraction. The other end; additional women come forward and support her case with their own experiences. And everything in between.
In any case, there is some chance that this accusation could turn into a severe headache for LW and a miserable PR experience for the Kings FO. I hope they have a HC contingency plan because there is an ongoing investigation. What happens if he settles or the lawsuit just keeps going?
I am concerned
 
If there were other women to come forward they probably would’ve done so by now. Another one, let alone multiple coming out when the story has almost slipped completely out of the news would be very out of the ordinary for cases like this.

I also think that was the only way this was going to turn out bad for Luke because this story or the NBA investigation is unlikely to produce any new evidence for such an old claim and one that has been stated from the get go as he said she said. Walton also isn’t going to settle so he’s not going to allow others to frame him as somebody who bought himself out of trouble(although settlements are often juice not being worth the squeeze but in this climate it’s good not to let others frame you)

I hate to call it while it’s still open, but at this point I view it as more of a dog turd in the middle of the living room carpet that drawn out bureaucracy won’t allow to be picked up for awhile rather than a full blown elephant that might bring the house down in the near future.