Benny Perez and the Investigation

[2000bull]

Yeah, but (insert nonsense here)....

The university wouldnt stick to their guns like they have, if they didn't think they were correct by firing Leavitt. There are too many contradicting stories to really know every detail of what happened. The bottom line is that Leavitt struck Miller, in some fashion. To what extent....ehhhh...it's all kinda gray. If Leavitt can somehow prove that he didn't strike him, he'll have some money coming his way. If not, he wont.

"Strike" being the key word there and how that's defined ... Like you said, there was obviously some contact but I'd think it would have had to have been of the assault and battery type to have triggered his dismissal without any compensation.

I think he's also going to have to prove he didn't interfere w/ the investigation...when they fired him, didn't they say something to the effect that that was more serious transgression?

[Triple B]

Yeah, but (insert nonsense here)....

The university wouldnt stick to their guns like they have, if they didn't think they were correct by firing Leavitt. There are too many contradicting stories to really know every detail of what happened. The bottom line is that Leavitt struck Miller, in some fashion. To what extent....ehhhh...it's all kinda gray. If Leavitt can somehow prove that he didn't strike him, he'll have some money coming his way. If not, he wont.

"Strike" being the key word there and how that's defined ... Like you said, there was obviously some contact but I'd think it would have had to have been of the assault and battery type to have triggered his dismissal without any compensation.

I think he's also going to have to prove he didn't interfere w/ the investigation...when they fired him, didn't they say something to the effect that that was more serious transgression?

There's seem to be confusion there ..... I heard, at the q&a session after the presser the day of his firing, that the incident was egregious enough on its' own to warrant the dismissal ... but who knows.

[thebouncer1898]

Yeah, but (insert nonsense here)....

The university wouldnt stick to their guns like they have, if they didn't think they were correct by firing Leavitt. There are too many contradicting stories to really know every detail of what happened. The bottom line is that Leavitt struck Miller, in some fashion. To what extent....ehhhh...it's all kinda gray. If Leavitt can somehow prove that he didn't strike him, he'll have some money coming his way. If not, he wont.

"Strike" being the key word there and how that's defined ... Like you said, there was obviously some contact but I'd think it would have had to have been of the assault and battery type to have triggered his dismissal without any compensation.

I think he's also going to have to prove he didn't interfere w/ the investigation...when they fired him, didn't they say something to the effect that that was more serious transgression?

There's seem to be confusion there ..... I heard, at the q&a session after the presser the day of his firing, that the incident was egregious enough on its' own to warrant the dismissal ... but who knows.

Mizzou does...Just ask'em! 

[2000bull]

Yeah, but (insert nonsense here)....

The university wouldnt stick to their guns like they have, if they didn't think they were correct by firing Leavitt. There are too many contradicting stories to really know every detail of what happened. The bottom line is that Leavitt struck Miller, in some fashion. To what extent....ehhhh...it's all kinda gray. If Leavitt can somehow prove that he didn't strike him, he'll have some money coming his way. If not, he wont.

"Strike" being the key word there and how that's defined ... Like you said, there was obviously some contact but I'd think it would have had to have been of the assault and battery type to have triggered his dismissal without any compensation.

I think he's also going to have to prove he didn't interfere w/ the investigation...when they fired him, didn't they say something to the effect that that was more serious transgression?

There's seem to be confusion there ..... I heard, at the q&a session after the presser the day of his firing, that the incident was egregious enough on its' own to warrant the dismissal ... but who knows.

so I just looked at his termination letter again and it looks like they gave him 3 reasons for being fired, so wouldn't he have to prove all three didn't occur?

http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/fanhouse/Leavitt_letter.pdf

the three reasons being:

1. the slap/choke

2. the contact w/ material witness during investigation

3. retaliation against student athlete.

[Triple B]

Yeah, but (insert nonsense here)....

The university wouldnt stick to their guns like they have, if they didn't think they were correct by firing Leavitt. There are too many contradicting stories to really know every detail of what happened. The bottom line is that Leavitt struck Miller, in some fashion. To what extent....ehhhh...it's all kinda gray. If Leavitt can somehow prove that he didn't strike him, he'll have some money coming his way. If not, he wont.

"Strike" being the key word there and how that's defined ... Like you said, there was obviously some contact but I'd think it would have had to have been of the assault and battery type to have triggered his dismissal without any compensation.

I think he's also going to have to prove he didn't interfere w/ the investigation...when they fired him, didn't they say something to the effect that that was more serious transgression?

There's seem to be confusion there ..... I heard, at the q&a session after the presser the day of his firing, that the incident was egregious enough on its' own to warrant the dismissal ... but who knows.

so I just looked at his termination letter again and it looks like they gave him 3 reasons for being fired, so wouldn't he have to prove all three didn't occur?

http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/fanhouse/Leavitt_letter.pdf

the three reasons being:

1. the slap/choke

2. the contact w/ material witness during investigation

3. retaliation against student athlete.

Yep, you're right .... reading that, any one of those 3 could stand alone as grounds for dismissal, according to them... which sickens my stomach knowing that the incident with the weasel Erskin, alone, has grounds for dismissal.

[Who'sYourData?]

Where are we getting the idea that he wasn't involved in the investigation?

We're not  ..... from the Dodd article:

Leavitt attorney Will Florin says the document contains information that was "suppressed" by South Florida officials after they interviewed the trooper during an investigation into Leavitt's conduct.

Did you just skip over that part?

Again, this is irrelevant.  The report was for the consumption of reporters.  Leavitt and his attorneys' were provided the full transcripts of all interviews.  

It is the full transcripts which would be brought up in court.  This whole "supression" crap is just that.  There were lots and lots of details that were not included in the report.  You can bet that Genshaft and Woolard had all the details.

The whole "supression" thing has absolutely no bearing on legal basis for termination.  The only purpose is serves is for the future marketing of Jim Leavitt's hireability.

[Who'sYourData?]

Yep, you're right .... reading that, any one of those 3 could stand alone as grounds for dismissal, according to them... which sickens my stomach knowing that the incident with the weasel Erskin, alone, has grounds for dismissal.

Weasel or not, I continue to suspect there is a lot more to that part of the story.  I remain convinced that Leavitt would not have been fired if incident #3 had not occurred. 

[Triple B]

Where are we getting the idea that he wasn't involved in the investigation?

We're not  ..... from the Dodd article:

Leavitt attorney Will Florin says the document contains information that was "suppressed" by South Florida officials after they interviewed the trooper during an investigation into Leavitt's conduct.

Did you just skip over that part?

Again, this is irrelevant.

I don't care .... hatter just made an erroneous statement about Leavitt's lawyer saying/implying that Perez was not involved in USF's investigation and Florin said no such thing and I was just setting THAT record straight.

[Who'sYourData?]

Where are we getting the idea that he wasn't involved in the investigation?

We're not  ..... from the Dodd article:

Leavitt attorney Will Florin says the document contains information that was "suppressed" by South Florida officials after they interviewed the trooper during an investigation into Leavitt's conduct.

Did you just skip over that part?

Again, this is irrelevant.

I don't care .... hatter just made an erroneous statement about Leavitt's lawyer saying/implying that Perez was not involved in USF's investigation and Florin said no such thing and I was just setting THAT record straight.

Sorry, it appeared you were making the argument that suppression had occurred.

[cmhatter]

Where are we getting the idea that he wasn't involved in the investigation?

We're not  ..... from the Dodd article:

Leavitt attorney Will Florin says the document contains information that was "suppressed" by South Florida officials after they interviewed the trooper during an investigation into Leavitt's conduct.

Did you just skip over that part?

Again, this is irrelevant.

I don't care .... hatter just made an erroneous statement about Leavitt's lawyer saying/implying that Perez was not involved in USF's investigation and Florin said no such thing and I was just setting THAT record straight.

of course...

but i don't see any suppression either... he had the opportunity to say WHATEVER he wanted in the interview.