brett mcmurphy

[Triple B]

- it woudl be a story about how a coach lost complete control of his football team to the point they framed him.

LOL ... You're joking, right?? ... the WHOLE team framed him?   :

I don't know about the whole team, but there certainly haven't been many people who where in the locker room standing up saying Leavitt was just asking the kid if he was alright.  So far no one is terribly upset about the rail road job done on Leavitt to the extent they have left the program.

Even those things being mostly true, it still is a far cry from corroborating evidence that the whole team framed him ...

If the number of sources obtained before publishing this report doesn't rise to the level of credibility for you then I am not sure what would.

I'm still looking for the 5 witnesses that saw Leavitt STRIKE Miller ...

[2000bull]

- it woudl be a story about how a coach lost complete control of his football team to the point they framed him.

LOL ... You're joking, right?? ... the WHOLE team framed him?   :

I don't know about the whole team, but there certainly haven't been many people who where in the locker room standing up saying Leavitt was just asking the kid if he was alright.  So far no one is terribly upset about the rail road job done on Leavitt to the extent they have left the program.

Even those things being mostly true, it still is a far cry from corroborating evidence that the whole team framed him ...

If the number of sources obtained before publishing this report doesn't rise to the level of credibility for you then I am not sure what would.

I'm still looking for the 5 witnesses that saw Leavitt STRIKE Miller ...

I'm still looking for ANY witness that saw leavitt get on one knee to CONSOLE him.... :

[Triple B]

That isn't the point.  He just wrote an article on Famous that was wrong.  He wrote an article on Gilchrist that was wrong.  He's written many articles over the years on info that was plain wrong.  Not slightly misinterpreted, but completely wrong.  He gets one story right and all of a sudden people should give him credit?  If one out of every five of your work assignments was done right, and the rest you got wrong, how long would you have a job?

Then I think you should bash him on topics about those articles.  The fact that he was bashed so hard on this, and then turned out he was right, certainly makes him look the victim.

The victim?  Of what?  A little criticism?  He's a grown up reporter for crying out loud.  The original report was still shaky.  For that matter, the whole incident with Miller is still questionable.  The fact that Leavitt got fired doesn't change that. 

And it certainly appears that Leavitt got fired for retailation, not the original "incident".  So, no, I don't see McMurphy as a victim at all.

LOL .... If there is ONE person in this whole mess that cannot be called a victim by any stretch of the imagination, it's the BM ...

[Triple B]

- it woudl be a story about how a coach lost complete control of his football team to the point they framed him.

LOL ... You're joking, right?? ... the WHOLE team framed him?   :

I don't know about the whole team, but there certainly haven't been many people who where in the locker room standing up saying Leavitt was just asking the kid if he was alright.  So far no one is terribly upset about the rail road job done on Leavitt to the extent they have left the program.

Even those things being mostly true, it still is a far cry from corroborating evidence that the whole team framed him ...

If the number of sources obtained before publishing this report doesn't rise to the level of credibility for you then I am not sure what would.

I'm still looking for the 5 witnesses that saw Leavitt STRIKE Miller ...

I'm still looking for ANY witness that saw leavitt get on one knee to CONSOLE him.... :

Even I'm not buying that one ..... the truth is somewhere in between.

[cmhatter]

if leavitt never hit miller

wouldn't there be something about wrongful termination in the lawsuit?

[Triple B]

if leavitt never hit miller

wouldn't there be something about wrongful termination in the lawsuit?

Haven't seen all the legalese of the contract, wouldn't understand it anyway, but the use of the wording "hearsay allegations" indicates, to me, that they're questioning the validity of the initial charges ... maybe I'm interpreting that wrong.

In a statement released Monday by Wil Florin, Leavitt’s attorney, the suit claims that USF "illegally fired Coach Leavitt through a termination process ignited by hearsay allegations"

 

[USF_Grouper]

Even I'm not buying that one ..... the truth is somewhere in between.

I think that is almost certainly true - at least somewhere in the middle of the extremes people have been discussing.  Still, if the truth is somewhere in the middle, you are reasonably certain that your head football coach is not beign 100% honest with you, and you have an independent investigation that has concluded he did strike the player I don't think you have many options. 

We go down these crazy fox holes (not you) of "it was all just to get a new coach" or "USF just wanted out and not to have to pay" - that is plain crazy.

[2000bull]

Also, if I remember correctly, in his termination letter, didn't they actually give three reasons of why he was fired and they were all with cause, so wouldn't he have to disprove all of them? or is he just going on the premise that since he didn't get his full 10 days and then have a pre-termination meeting?

[Bull-by-Marriage]

if leavitt never hit miller

wouldn't there be something about wrongful termination in the lawsuit?

Haven't seen all the legalese of the contract, wouldn't understand it anyway, but the use of the wording "hearsay allegations" indicates, to me, that they're questioning the validity of the initial charges ... maybe I'm interpreting that wrong.

In a statement released Monday by Wil Florin, Leavitt’s attorney, the suit claims that USF "illegally fired Coach Leavitt through a termination process ignited by hearsay allegations"

 

I've said all along that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. IMO the key word that you highlighted is IGNITED, the attorney knows that the end result was justified or he would say that it all was based on falsehoods. His statement itself states that Through a termination process , again not that the allegations themselves were untrue, or that he was fired unjustly due to the allegations, just the termination process. Of course I'm not an attorney, but anyone can see that his attorney is parsing words. They will say just enough to get to the proverbial line without crossing it.

[macphisto]

I've said all along that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. IMO the key word that you highlighted is IGNITED, the attorney knows that the end result was justified or he would say that it all was based on falsehoods. His statement itself states that Through a termination process , again not that the allegations themselves were untrue, or that he was fired unjustly due to the allegations, just the termination process. Of course I'm not an attorney, but anyone can see that his attorney is parsing words. They will say just enough to get to the proverbial line without crossing it.

You don't say it is all based on falsehoods or you open the door to defamation suits from witnesses who say that you just called them a liar.  The proper way is to say that there was a bunch of hearsay evidence.  On a witness stand you can try to get after motivations, etc but you don't accuse someone of lying without proof of it.

That's also where USF is in a bit of a bind with Leavitt.  While no one confirms his story, other witnesses have a lot of contradicting testimony that don't confirm other witnesses' stories.  How do you know which ones to elevate to truth or give you the impression that Leavitt is lying.  The argument would be that they all must be ling in some way, this all witnesses should be subject to dismissal by USF if USF is capable of doing so - whether as a student or a coach. 

They may also be able to allege a conspiracy against Leavitt, but they need to get evidence before doing so.  You don't make that accusation until discovery.