ramcat wrote:Harvey Specter wrote:
There is a reason those are not admissible in court.... just sayin'. People with ginormous egos are typically fantastic liars.
Shit, look how many on this board believed so much of the bullshit he spewed from the day his name was announced.
True, but if Guilty really not worth the risk of nail in coffin.
Lawyers seldom advise clients to do these, per what you say. The fact that he did carries weight as lots of downside in light of allegations. Again, didn't independent investigation establish no merit to accusation? So polygraph in line with findings.
If it went down as you said, then it would seem to have some merit. We don't know if he did it independently and then shared the certified results once he knew he had passed, etc.
Again, I'll defer to lawyers on this... but if he is completely innocent, then I would guess that the University could open themselves up to a lawsuit by making mention of the harrassment claims with the announcement he was fired. That seemed very odd to me. That could be spun as "advancing a false narrative that damaged his reputation & limited his future head coaching opportunities", etc.
As for the investigation that was already done, I don't care if it was outside counsel... when the party paying the bills is potentially involved, it is never "independent".
The major allegation released was that RR bothered his admin at all hours of day or night and forced her to help him cover up the affair and lie to his wife. She (rightfully) refused to cooperate with the UA-sponsored investigation... who else would likely have knowledge of that? It's not like it would have been the last item on his agenda at staff meetings.
There are phone & email records, and if she is smart & recorded some conversations now he may look innocent from UA's perspective but he's toast. His admin is the likely person he'd lean on... and that typically would be the type who is very easily controlled & manipulated; doesn't make a lot of money... could have kids and badly need her job, etc.
^^^And if that's right, my guess is her attorney(s) took the case on retainer. If it is a reputable & profitable firm, they don't "need" the business - and the next lawyer I meet who likes to work for free will be the first.