Mutts

[Northeast Stinger]

Spitballing time.

In the case of the family lawsuit against uga, for the kind of settlement I think they are going for, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that uga knew about the chronic problem of staff and player trips, excessive speeding as a pattern, and little effort, other than keeping everyone’s record clean, given to solving the problem.

To get this info you would have to get “inside,” who was talking to who, what was discussed, and who signed off on the policy. Our man who just resigned is probably the key to getting inside.

Now bear with me. If the Georgia State House were less ineffective, and more interested in overseeing the public good, a state representative could easily find out what the severance agreement was and whether there were any “legal” conditions on it. This is not private personnel business when it involves a state entity and a possible felony offense. UGA perhaps does not want to go down that path and is trying to separate from the problem.

The challenge is, very few elected officials would want to end their political career by being the official who took down dawg nation. Thus, if uga is lucky, this remains a private personnel issue.

 

[bobongo]

Spitballing time.

In the case of the family lawsuit against uga, for the kind of settlement I think they are going for, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that uga knew about the chronic problem of staff and player trips, excessive speeding as a pattern, and little effort, other than keeping everyone’s record clean, given to solving the problem.

To get this info you would have to get “inside,” who was talking to who, what was discussed, and who signed off on the policy. Our man who just resigned is probably the key to getting inside.

Now bear with me. If the Georgia State House were less ineffective, and more interested in overseeing the public good, a state representative could easily find out what the severance agreement was and whether there were any “legal” conditions on it. This is not private personnel business when it involves a state entity and a possible felony offense. UGA perhaps does not want to go down that path and is trying to separate from the problem.

The challenge is, very few elected officials would want to end their political career by being the official who took down dawg nation. Thus, if uga is lucky, this remains a private personnel issue.

That's the issue - what did they know and when did they know it.
But just to point out, in a civil suit they don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, they just have to show that a preponderance of the evidence backs their charge. That evidence seems to abound already, just from what I read in the papers. And even if Ugag didn't know, the question then becomes, didn't they have a responsibility to find out? Either way, they're in for a rough ride.

 

[TooTall]

Spitballing time.

In the case of the family lawsuit against uga, for the kind of settlement I think they are going for, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that uga knew about the chronic problem of staff and player trips, excessive speeding as a pattern, and little effort, other than keeping everyone’s record clean, given to solving the problem.

To get this info you would have to get “inside,” who was talking to who, what was discussed, and who signed off on the policy. Our man who just resigned is probably the key to getting inside.

Now bear with me. If the Georgia State House were less ineffective, and more interested in overseeing the public good, a state representative could easily find out what the severance agreement was and whether there were any “legal” conditions on it. This is not private personnel business when it involves a state entity and a possible felony offense. UGA perhaps does not want to go down that path and is trying to separate from the problem.

The challenge is, very few elected officials would want to end their political career by being the official who took down dawg nation. Thus, if uga is lucky, this remains a private personnel issue.

Gantt is the main cog. If he is proven to be a rouge employee doing all he has done without direct instructions, then it's easy to fire him. BUT, if you can prove he answers only to Kirby, that's when the house of cards falls down. We already have courtroom documents linking the 2 so grab your popcorn.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

In the case of the family lawsuit against uga, for the kind of settlement I think they are going for, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that uga knew about the chronic problem of staff and player trips, excessive speeding as a pattern, and little effort, other than keeping everyone’s record clean, given to solving the problem.

IIRC, in civil cases the burden of proof is lowered to "preponderance of evidence" vs. "beyond reasonable doubt." That's what it was so much easier to get OJ Simpson convicted in the civil suit vs the criminal court.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That's the issue - what did they know and when did they know it.
But just to point out, in a civil suit they don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, they just have to show that a preponderance of the evidence backs their charge. That evidence seems to abound already, just from what I read in the papers. And even if Ugag didn't know, the question then becomes, didn't they have a responsibility to find out? Either way, they're in for a rough ride.

Should have read down further before I replied to the OP. You nailed it.

 

[forensicbuzz]

IIRC, in civil cases the burden of proof is lowered to "preponderance of evidence" vs. "beyond reasonable doubt." That's what it was so much easier to get OJ Simpson convicted in the civil suit vs the criminal court.

He wasn't convicted in the Nicole Brown Simpson matter, he was found liable. He was convicted of Armed Robbery and Kidnapping later in Las Vegas.

 

[Techfan02]

Yea, as soon as it involves a non-football-program-tied citizen it's gonna be messy.

It's my time to sacrafice for the greater good

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

He wasn't convicted in the Nicole Brown Simpson matter, he was found liable. He was convicted of Armed Robbery and Kidnapping later in Las Vegas.

Semantics. He was on the losing side of the case.

 

[orientalnc]

Semantics. He was on the losing side of the case.

It's not just semantics. He was acquitted of murder in a terrible decision by the jury. Granted, he lost the civil case as well as the other criminal case.

 

[CEB]

It's my time to sacrafice for the greater good

Noble, but no need for martyrdom...We need all the Tech fans we can get!
UGAg’s chickens will come home to roost soon enough. Hopefully it is only at the expense of the athletic department

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It's not just semantics. He was acquitted of murder in a terrible decision by the jury. Granted, he lost the civil case as well as the other criminal case.

It's semantics in that I said a civil court "convicted" him. I should have said that he was found "liable" for the wrongful death, which means that, for all intents and purposes, the court system has judged him to be responsible for the deaths of Brown and Goldman. In the everyday vocabulary of millions of Americans, the word convicted is often used generically to indicate a loss in a court case as the defendant, while sometimes technically wrong, it is readily understood. Semantics.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It's semantics in that I said a civil court "convicted" him. I should have said that he was found "liable" for the wrongful death, which means that, for all intents and purposes, the court system has judged him to be responsible for the deaths of Brown and Goldman. In the everyday vocabulary of millions of Americans, the word convicted is often used generically to indicate a loss in a court case as the defendant, while sometimes technically wrong, it is readily understood. Semantics.

So back to the topic? For uga to be found liable (as opposed to a conviction) will still require evidence “from the inside” that uga knew and willingly allowed practices that led either to manslaughter or wrongful death. Otherwise I think that $40 million gets reduced considerably as uga loses the case but ultimately wins the case “in the court of public opinion.” Just my opinion.

 

[orientalnc]

It's semantics in that I said a civil court "convicted" him. I should have said that he was found "liable" for the wrongful death, which means that, for all intents and purposes, the court system has judged him to be responsible for the deaths of Brown and Goldman. In the everyday vocabulary of millions of Americans, the word convicted is often used generically to indicate a loss in a court case as the defendant, while sometimes technically wrong, it is readily understood. Semantics.

We agree, but incorrect general usage of a word doesn't make it correct. Alternative facts are not facts. As engineers, we can disagree as to the accuracy of data, but the data are whatever the data are.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So back to the topic? For uga to be found liable (as opposed to a conviction) will still require evidence “from the inside” that uga knew and willingly allowed practices that led either to manslaughter or wrongful death. Otherwise I think that $40 million gets reduced considerably as uga loses the case but ultimately wins the case “in the court of public opinion.” Just my opinion.

From what I understand, the texts sent to the drivers are pretty damning. That being said, I would bet we see a settlement where families receive compensation and uga admits no guilt.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It's semantics in that I said a civil court "convicted" him. I should have said that he was found "liable" for the wrongful death, which means that, for all intents and purposes, the court system has judged him to be responsible for the deaths of Brown and Goldman. In the everyday vocabulary of millions of Americans, the word convicted is often used generically to indicate a loss in a court case as the defendant, while sometimes technically wrong, it is readily understood. Semantics.

One is beyond the shadow of a doubt; the other is by a preponderance of evidence. Big difference in the bar the prosecution/plaintiff needs to achieve. Personally, I wouldn't call that semantics.

 

[forensicbuzz]

From what I understand, the texts sent to the drivers are pretty damning. That being said, I would bet we see a settlement where families receive compensation and uga admits no guilt.

I agree with this 100%

 

[slugboy]

UGA’S AA is bringing up evidence that AJC reporter Alan Judd got fired from a previous job 35 years ago for misrepresenting quotes.

Some of the current quotes look like the reporter was in the room when it happened, but for the most part the reporting looks pretty solid.

 

[Golden Tornadoes]

UGA’S AA is bringing up evidence that AJC reporter Alan Judd got fired from a previous job 35 years ago for misrepresenting quotes.

Some of the current quotes look like the reporter was in the room when it happened, but for the most part the reporting looks pretty solid.

Notice the part where the A-CC Deputy Solicitor was mentioned. The article made the tone out to be that she quickly reached out the Gantt like an employee reaching out to their boss to get ahead of the potential backlash. Just a very weird vibe I got from that whole dynamic. Does the A-CC really answer that much to UGA? It seems like to work in Athens-Clarke County, you have to keep an extremely favorable viewpoint of UGA at the forefront and do nothing to jeopardize that. Idk, I could just be really off there...

 

[RonJohn]

UGA’S AA is bringing up evidence that AJC reporter Alan Judd got fired from a previous job 35 years ago for misrepresenting quotes.

Some of the current quotes look like the reporter was in the room when it happened, but for the most part the reporting looks pretty solid.

I didn't look back, but if I remember correctly the article stated that the AJC reviewed bodycam footage of the police interviews. I have been hoping that the AJC would produce a long form story rebutting the mutt's lawyers rebuttal and include links to all of the incriminating evidence. However, I have never seen such a story in the AJC. It takes organizations like the WSJ or NYT to do such things.

In my opinion, Judd is not a very credible journalist. I believe he was part of the lambasting of Pastner. His stories seem to take a lot of information without much vetting. He took Ron Bell's statements and accusations and presented them as facts without including descriptions of Bell's past that would have reduced the credibility of Bell's statements. He then includes language that sensationalizes the stories. His stories seem to try to persuade people instead of inform them, akin to a lawyer advocating for his client.

The article you linked to reads as though it is a statement released from the mutt's athletic association to try to persuade the public. They include comments that were made off-the-record, which is not very journalistic to do. However, those off-the-record comments appear to discredit the story. Judd said that they reached out on his personal phone number, which is known only by a small number of people in the mutt athletic department. Seems to me that it is pretty clear that the athletic department gave the author the information, and gave him Judd's contact information. The athletic department was probably even responsible for the questions that the Rivals site sent to the AJC. With the rest of the reporting, I don't believe that author could possible write such concise and direct questions to the AJC. He would have written a muddled mess of kind-of sort-of questions. This Rivals author is not helping the -- bloggers are journalists -- argument very much.

There was also a story posted yesterday on a fan site that Judd had resigned from the AJC over this article. I understand that 680 repeated that on the air. mutt fans were tweeting it excitedly yesterday. However, it does not appear to be true. The mutt fans are going crazy against Judd and the AJC. The mutt athletic department is attacking the AJC and Judd both in public, and sneakily behind the scenes. Rivals is apparently complicitly in support of the mutt athletic department. If there was actually nothing to this story, then they should have produced a much better rebuttal that contradicted the bulk of the accusations in the article. Instead they said that the article wasn't accurate but only cited a couple of small supposed inaccuracies, such as listing the speed of a speeding ticket inaccurately.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

UGA’S AA is bringing up evidence that AJC reporter Alan Judd got fired from a previous job 35 years ago for misrepresenting quotes.

Some of the current quotes look like the reporter was in the room when it happened, but for the most part the reporting looks pretty solid.

The irony in this is palpable...

uga: Young men at the beginning of their career make mistakes. They're learning from it, nothing to see here...

Also uga: This reporter digging into our alleged misdeeds was forced to resign 35 years ago for a mistake he made so he's not credible...