Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)

Even if witnesses emerge and say that Kelli confided in them about this when it happened, that moves it out of straight “he said - she said” territory and makes it important to sever ties with Luke. Hope mods permit my comment
Depends who the confidant is. A drug dealer is much less credible than a doctor.
 
Last edited:
Portraying their client as a wronged innocent is exactly what lawyers get paid to do, I'm not sure what you expected him to say. Most cases start out with combative statements, then 97% settle without going to trial. Settlement needn't include an admission of wrongdoing or any disclosure of terms, and occasionally innocent parties will pay a little to make an annoying lawsuit go away, so learning that litigation's been settled doesn't really tell you anything. I mention this so that people won't get their hearts set on a trial that only has a 3% chance of happening.
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.
 
Last edited:
I think Reuben ended up actually committing domestic abuse after that and was released by the Niners.
But he still wasn’t guilty of what was alleged at that time. Whatever occurred afterward is a different story. It still was a recent example of an admitted false accusation. That was the point.
 
Everyone who keeps referencing the article I posted from statistics to the DOJ that is saying those stats don't apply for XYZ reason are missing the point. It's uncommon to have false allegations made, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Too many people here jumped to defend Luke and admonish the possible victim because of these cherry picked cases like Ruben Foster.

I never said it doesn't happen. As I stated before we don't know what happened, the entire thing is unfortunate, but dismissing her claims is irresponsible and is the heart of the reason most women don't come forward.
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.
 
Everyone who keeps referencing the article I posted from statistics to the DOJ that is saying those stats don't apply for XYZ reason are missing the point. It's uncommon to have false allegations made, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Too many people here jumped to defend Luke and admonish the possible victim because of these cherry picked cases like Ruben Foster.

I never said it doesn't happen. As I stated before we don't know what happened, the entire thing is unfortunate, but dismissing her claims is irresponsible and is the heart of the reason most women don't come forward.

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:
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.
Once she made a public statement at the press conference, it would be verydifficult for him to settle without looking guilty.
 
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.
 
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.
He's billed hourly. It's the same amount of work for the lawyer whether its 1 year or 5.
 
Everyone who keeps referencing the article I posted from statistics to the DOJ that is saying those stats don't apply for XYZ reason are missing the point. It's uncommon to have false allegations made, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Too many people here jumped to defend Luke and admonish the possible victim because of these cherry picked cases like Ruben Foster.

I never said it doesn't happen. As I stated before we don't know what happened, the entire thing is unfortunate, but dismissing her claims is irresponsible and is the heart of the reason most women don't come forward.
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.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
For anyone to have expected the KINGS to uncover this during a background check is ridiculous. Ignorant, irrational, and unrealistic thinking.
I mean, both the Warriors and Lakers were seemingly unaware of the situation as well so it would have required an active paranormal act for the Kings to have somehow learned about the allegations before hiring Luke
 
Kobe didn’t have any and people believed the accuser in that case. So not having another accuser doesn’t mean anything.
Huh? I was responding to a post where someone said the Kings/NBA would be rushing to a quick conclusion (i.e. sweeping this matter under the rug). My point was that they both have too much at stake for that because it could blow up in their faces if any "me too" stories emerge about Walton.
 
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.
He's billed hourly. It's the same amount of work for the lawyer whether its 1 year or 5.
The attorney also could be paid on a contingency basis, meaning that he’s agreed to take some percentage of any final judgment or settlement payment rather than an hourly fee.
 
I mean, both the Warriors and Lakers were seemingly unaware of the situation as well so it would have required an active paranormal act for the Kings to have somehow learned about the allegations before hiring Luke
For me, the more interesting question is whether *Walton* knew the allegations were coming, and whether the Kings asked him to disclose any potential claims against him before they hired him. Typically, filing the complaint is not the first step in this process.
 
2.) Employers can't go firing people because someone accused them of something.
.
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
 
But he still wasn’t guilty of what was alleged at that time. Whatever occurred afterward is a different story. It still was a recent example of an admitted false accusation. That was the point.
I remember not knowing what to think at the time. Especially when I found out about the 2nd one. Made me wonder if made she redacted her original statement out of fear or because they got back together and didn't want to rock the boat. In the end it was just a weird messy situation.
 
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
Yep. CA is an at will employment state. It really comes down to his contract terms.
 
I remember not knowing what to think at the time. Especially when I found out about the 2nd one. Made me wonder if made she redacted her original statement out of fear or because they got back together and didn't want to rock the boat. In the end it was just a weird messy situation.
Agreed.

Like many of these cases, it’s hard not to know what to think. You don’t want to be wrong.
 
For me, the more interesting question is whether *Walton* knew the allegations were coming, and whether the Kings asked him to disclose any potential claims against him before they hired him. Typically, filing the complaint is not the first step in this process.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
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.
No attorney worth a plugged nickel would answer that question, nor could they be required to.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
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 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.