Just for clarity

[MadDawg]

The narrative that LL's testimony is "unreliable" or "unbelievable" because he has supposedly changed his story over and over is the Bears version of events, correct? That's their position, one that hasn't been proven. Am I right? Because I keep hearing and seeing people refer to this narrative as if it is 100% fact.

[Tbonewannabe]

The narrative that LL's testimony is "unreliable" or "unbelievable" because he has supposedly changed his story over and over is the Bears version of events, correct? That's their position, one that hasn't been proven. Am I right? Because I keep hearing and seeing people refer to this narrative as if it is 100% fact.

Sounds like they say he is changing his story because he said wad of cash then said bag of cash. Someone already stated that the "wad of cash" was probably in a bag.

[Big4Dawg]

Something about security tags being removed

[fieldcorporal]

key words are not "wad" or "bag" - merely quantifiers meaning "lots"


Key word is "cash".

[TrapGame]

It's the typical lawyer parsing words. It's the oldest legal trick in the book. It's the same as Clinton's the meaning of is.

[blacklistedbully]

Something about security tags being removed

This and other claims. They are claiming Rebel Rags does not and did not use "security tags". But IMO, this could also just be Leo calling the attached "price tag" or the manufacturer tags one often finds on retail clothing a "security tag". He could simply be mistaken, and not lying....even if the UNM claims are true.

They are also claiming he mentions getting the cash from 2 different people in separate stories. Once from "Booster 14", and once from "Booster 14's employee". Again, this could be simply a matter of the employee actually handing him the cash, but Leo referencing it as coming from "Booster 14" because he knows that was who sent it.

Additionally, they are claiming Leo changed his timeline by an hour or two. I think they are claiming he said something about meeting a booster between 4 and 6, but when told by an NCAA investigator that might not match the overall timeline, he said it could have been an hour or two earlier...that what he remembered was it was still daylight.

Again, it is entirely plausible Leo is just guessing at the times, given I doubt he kept a log of everything.

Last week I ate a late lunch because I was busy working. Wife came home ready for dinner, but I told her I wasn't hungry, due to eating a late lunch. She asked what time I ate, and even though it was that same day...I wasn't really sure of the time. Imagine how easy it could be to be off on the time when you're talking about stuff that happened over a year ago.

[starkvegasdawg]

Another thing they're hanging their hat on is Leo said he was told to ask for an employee named Emily and no one worked their by that name at that time. Guess using an alias never crossed their mind as being plausible. What better potential defense than using a fake name for just such an occasion. Why shucks no NCAA, we've never had an Emily work here. But we do have an April that was told to answer to Emily if a well built black kid walks in asking for her.

[BulldogDX55]

Another thing they're hanging their hat on is Leo said he was told to ask for an employee named Emily and no one worked their by that name at that time. Guess using an alias never crossed their mind as being plausible. What better potential defense than using a fake name for just such an occasion. Why shucks no NCAA, we've never had an Emily work here. But we do have an April that was told to answer to Emily if a well built black kid walks in asking for her.

Your last point was my first thought for that point. They likely knew at RR that anyone asking for Emily gets special service. That's actually pretty smart on their part for the purpose of plausible deniability, but that only goes so far when they have a great deal of accusations against both them and the whole AD.

[msujan]

I can't imagine that all employees at RR knew how and when to distribute free clothes to recruits. There were probably 1 or 2 "Emily" employees and the use of the alias was the trigger for the giveaway.

[JoseBrown]

To the OP- I think you are correct. As far as I know the only testimonials given to the NCAA from any student athletes that we have read have been snippets given us by the shitbirds. How much do we not know? How much do we reliably know? All I know from any student athletes spoken to the NCAA in immunity interviews by the NCAA I read in the shitbirds propaganda. I haven't seen any reliable and full transcripts from the immunized collaborative interviews between any student athlete and the NCAA....but I digress...

And do we know if the immunity was given simply to collaborate other evidence or inferences the NCAA may have heard elsewhere? Did the student athletes approach the NCAA with these improprieties or did the NCAA come asking for specific issues?

Personally, I honestly believe there was "paraphernalia" or merch picked up at RebelHags by recruits for which the recruits provided none of their own money. Maybe the coaching staff or boosters gave them gift cards or gift certificates to be used at RebelFags for whatever "paraphanelia" or merch they want. That way RebelHags gets paid and the recruits didn't pay for it themselves. Thereby, both parties could actually be technically correct. Only the shitbirds staff would be the ones with a truth problem...

[RocketDawg]

Sounds like they say he is changing his story because he said wad of cash then said bag of cash. Someone already stated that the "wad of cash" was probably in a bag.

It shouldn't and doesn't matter ... they mean the same thing. Both are just ways of saying a considerable, but unspecified, sum of money.