Exclusive: The alley owner sets the record straight on the MO Pur issue

[cmb23]

For the people saying that Purify should be kicked off the team read through this article and ask yourself if you were saying the samething about these former outstanding young men that used to play at NU.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...k/phillips.html

 

Huh?

 

What's That?

 

Somebody brought up LP?

 

NO WAY!?!?!?!?!

 

(Mimicks every OU, KSU, CU, MIAMI, FSU, Board in all the land.........)

[TrueHuskerFan]

For the people saying that Purify should be kicked off the team read through this article and ask yourself if you were saying the samething about these former outstanding young men that used to play at NU.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...k/phillips.html

 

Huh?

 

What's That?

 

Somebody brought up LP?

 

NO WAY!?!?!?!?!

 

(Mimicks every OU, KSU, CU, MIAMI, FSU, Board in all the land.........)

I think his point was that if you think it is bad now, remember, back in those days it was much worse. Correct me if I'm wrong Newearth...

[Hunter94]

Too many other witnesses are saying something else. But don't let that stop you. Clearly you have an agenda. You clearly want the affidavit to be true.

 

 

what are the other witnesses saying, Hawkeye?? and i wonder why their comments did not make the police report?

[Hunter94]

AR Husker, i have a quick question for you, if you would please? in these types of incidents, why is it that conflicting accounts from "other" witnesses never gets into the initial report filed by the PD? i assume this is common, but what are the factors that prevent "other witness" statements from not being collected during the initial investigation by the authoritites and then "turn up" later in the case? and how valid are these conflicting reports, generally speaking?

 

thanks for any comments or insights into the validity of other witness comments/reports.

[Pedro Guerrero]

For the people saying that Purify should be kicked off the team read through this article and ask yourself if you were saying the samething about these former outstanding young men that used to play at NU.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...k/phillips.html

 

Huh?

 

What's That?

 

Somebody brought up LP?

 

NO WAY!?!?!?!?!

 

(Mimicks every OU, KSU, CU, MIAMI, FSU, Board in all the land.........)

I think his point was that if you think it is bad now, remember, back in those days it was much worse. Correct me if I'm wrong Newearth...

 

That is exactly what I was trying to show people. I wasn't just pointing out Larry and if I'm not mistake he isn't the only player talked about in the article. I think some folks forgot about the 2 former players being accused of Gun Crimes while they were on the team. Those are a lot worse charges then beating up some bouncer. TO used the "just trying to help the player" card and people bought it and now a lot of those same people are saying that Callahan needs to lay down the law and boot Purify off the team. Also didn't it take Terrell Farley getting arrested for driving drunk and running from the Cops TWO times before he got kicked off the team? Crap I don't believe Christian Peter, Tyrone Williams, or Reggie Baul missed any games because of their troubles. If the Purify case would have happened in 94-97 some people would be saying a totally different thing then they are saying now.

[Bugeater]

AR Husker, i have a quick question for you, if you would please? in these types of incidents, why is it that conflicting accounts from "other" witnesses never gets into the initial report filed by the PD? i assume this is common, but what are the factors that prevent "other witness" statements from not being collected during the initial investigation by the authoritites and then "turn up" later in the case? and how valid are these conflicting reports, generally speaking?

 

thanks for any comments or insights into the validity of other witness comments/reports.

I know you aren't asking me, but I'm answering anyway. Personally, I don't believe there are any "other" witnesses. The people who keep bringing that up are just clinging to the hope that this didn't really happen the way it did.

[Bugeater]

That is exactly what I was trying to show people. I wasn't just pointing out Larry and if I'm not mistake he isn't the only player talked about in the article. I think some folks forgot about the 2 former players being accused of Gun Crimes while they were on the team. Those are a lot worse charges then beating up some bouncer. TO used the "just trying to help the player" card and people bought it and now a lot of those same people are saying that Callahan needs to lay down the law and boot Purify off the team. Also didn't it take Terrell Farley getting arrested for driving drunk and running from the Cops TWO times before he got kicked off the team? Crap I don't believe Christian Peter, Tyrone Williams, or Reggie Baul missed any games because of their troubles. If the Purify case would have happened in 94-97 some people would be saying a totally different thing then they are saying now.

How do you know that? Did you know all the people who are responding to this back in '94-'97?

[Pedro Guerrero]

That is exactly what I was trying to show people. I wasn't just pointing out Larry and if I'm not mistake he isn't the only player talked about in the article. I think some folks forgot about the 2 former players being accused of Gun Crimes while they were on the team. Those are a lot worse charges then beating up some bouncer. TO used the "just trying to help the player" card and people bought it and now a lot of those same people are saying that Callahan needs to lay down the law and boot Purify off the team. Also didn't it take Terrell Farley getting arrested for driving drunk and running from the Cops TWO times before he got kicked off the team? Crap I don't believe Christian Peter, Tyrone Williams, or Reggie Baul missed any games because of their troubles. If the Purify case would have happened in 94-97 some people would be saying a totally different thing then they are saying now.

How do you know that? Did you know all the people who are responding to this back in '94-'97?

 

I know every single one of them and that is how they responded. Not really it was a generalization of the way the Almighty TO handled things and the way a lot of the Husker Nation just accepted it. That is it nothing more nothing less. If I'm not mistaken the only VOCAL folks about the way things were handled were the Media and Womens Groups. At least that is how I remember things going down.

 

There weren't too many if any Internet Message Boards back then either.

[HuskerHank]

I think Al Gore invented the internet in the 80's, but he didn't start all the message boards till he had more spare time after the election.

[Pedro Guerrero]

I think Al Gore invented the internet in the 80's, but he didn't start all the message boards till he had more spare time after the election.

 

That deserves a YO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hunter94]

AR Husker, i have a quick question for you, if you would please? in these types of incidents, why is it that conflicting accounts from "other" witnesses never gets into the initial report filed by the PD? i assume this is common, but what are the factors that prevent "other witness" statements from not being collected during the initial investigation by the authoritites and then "turn up" later in the case? and how valid are these conflicting reports, generally speaking?

 

thanks for any comments or insights into the validity of other witness comments/reports.

I know you aren't asking me, but I'm answering anyway. Personally, I don't believe there are any "other" witnesses. The people who keep bringing that up are just clinging to the hope that this didn't really happen the way it did.

 

 

that's ok, lots of room for discussion. i was just hoping AR could give us some insights on how some of these things might play out. nothing wrong with a little free legal interpretation, when you can get it, purely in the interest in this case as to how things might turn out for Mo.

[AR Husker Fan]

AR Husker, i have a quick question for you, if you would please? in these types of incidents, why is it that conflicting accounts from "other" witnesses never gets into the initial report filed by the PD? i assume this is common, but what are the factors that prevent "other witness" statements from not being collected during the initial investigation by the authoritites and then "turn up" later in the case? and how valid are these conflicting reports, generally speaking?

 

thanks for any comments or insights into the validity of other witness comments/reports.

Actually, BRI might be able to give more insight on that point - it's really up to the way the officer is trained, how he initially perceives the situation, and who is willing to give a statement.

 

When I was a prosecutor our office would give mini-clinics to officers on evidence gathering, obtaining statements, that sort of thing. We stressed - time and again - to get statements from all people who had any knowledge. The trouble is identifying them and getting them to agree to talk. Since the officer wasn't there, he or she can't really know what who saw anything. Our feeling is that we wanted to know everything up front, of course - not just to prepare a case, but to determine whether there was a case.

 

Having said that, any charging instrument should be as balanced as possible - but that's going to depend on the statements taken by the officers. You certainly don't want to slant an indictment or an affidavit - that can cause you no end of problems, as the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case is learning.

 

Ultimately, it depends on the officer and the witnesses - how good is the officer at coaxing people to talk, on record, and how many witnesses will come forward. A lot of people take the "I'm not getting involved" attitude. Just one of the things that must make it frustrating being a police officer.

 

Well, that and having to spend 8 hours a day in a car with BRI...

[Hunter94]

AR Husker, i have a quick question for you, if you would please? in these types of incidents, why is it that conflicting accounts from "other" witnesses never gets into the initial report filed by the PD? i assume this is common, but what are the factors that prevent "other witness" statements from not being collected during the initial investigation by the authoritites and then "turn up" later in the case? and how valid are these conflicting reports, generally speaking?

 

thanks for any comments or insights into the validity of other witness comments/reports.

Actually, BRI might be able to give more insight on that point - it's really up to the way the officer is trained, how he initially perceives the situation, and who is willing to give a statement.

 

When I was a prosecutor our office would give mini-clinics to officers on evidence gathering, obtaining statements, that sort of thing. We stressed - time and again - to get statements from all people who had any knowledge. The trouble is identifying them and getting them to agree to talk. Since the officer wasn't there, he or she can't really know what who saw anything. Our feeling is that we wanted to know everything up front, of course - not just to prepare a case, but to determine whether there was a case.

 

Having said that, any charging instrument should be as balanced as possible - but that's going to depend on the statements taken by the officers. You certainly don't want to slant an indictment or an affidavit - that can cause you no end of problems, as the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case is learning.

 

Ultimately, it depends on the officer and the witnesses - how good is the officer at coaxing people to talk, on record, and how many witnesses will come forward. A lot of people take the "I'm not getting involved" attitude. Just one of the things that must make it frustrating being a police officer.

 

Well, that and having to spend 8 hours a day in a car with BRI...

 

 

ok, thanks again. always nice to be able to understand how this work/investigation/fact finding takes place.

it seems this situation is going to take awhile to "play itself out". you always wonder about the validity of witnesses/claims when a certain amount of time passes and what the motivation for a "new" witness might be for their stepping forward with information regarding an incident.