Twitter and Big East Films | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Twitter and Big East Films

61cygni said:
I don't see it remotely pitch rumor as fact, didn't every single person shown explicitly say it was rumor/hearsay? Even the "Hitler" guy said he believes it, but also said it was his opinion based on his personality and things he's heard from other people, not that he knows for sure.
Expand ...
I’d have to go back and watch it. There’s definitely a chance they slipped in those good ole “allegedly”s in there. Lol
 
HuskyWarrior611 said:
The people in the documentary pitch it as the reason he had to leave Providence.

I would think that all he would have to do is have his wife say that’s untrue and unless whatever women he supposedly had an affair with steps forward, that’s all the court would need.

The onus would be more on the person who said it to prove it’s true. Would a woman really want to put herself out there like that as a homewrecker?
Expand ...

I'm not remotely a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure a defamation case would need more than that, especially since she could benefit financially from not being truthful.
 
HuskyWarrior611 said:
The people in the documentary pitch it as the reason he had to leave Providence.

I would think that all he would have to do is have his wife say that’s untrue and unless whatever women he supposedly had an affair with steps forward, that’s all the court would need.

The onus would be more on the person who said it to prove it’s true. Would a woman really want to put herself out there like that as a homewrecker?
Expand ...
LOL, yep it’s all that simple.
 
.-.
FriarJ said:
He can sue all he wants. He would have to prove they were lies and slander. He can’t do that. End of story. That’s why he has his sycophants (again) doing his dirty work by threatening this 20 year old DePaul student.
Expand ...
He can definitely sue and win, not because he'll prove the slander but because he has a lot more financial resources than the 20 year old DePaul student. That's how most defamation lawsuits end up.
 
Rico444 said:
I'm not remotely a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure a defamation case would need more than that, especially since she could benefit financially from not being truthful.
Expand ...
Yeah the case would pretty much come down to the person involved.

How would she financially benefit from taking the side that’s not the millionaire and one that would be being sued?

I took one business law class in school so I’m not remotely one either. Just a thought. If Cooley was still doing post game interviews with Fanta afterwards I’m not sure how much this bothered him then.
 
.-.
87Xfer said:
What made you think it was a child? Because someone said "kid"?
Expand ...
If someone turned to you and said "Goodman is harassing kids" would you think they meant adults? Like I said, I asked for clarification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caw
BigErnMcCracken said:
Yeah I don't think he wants to do that.

I gotta be honest, I didn't want to sit through the whole video but now I'm going to watch it.
Expand ...
If you’re just curious about that part, it starts about an hour in. After going to look at it again there’s really only one fan who goes overboard saying he believes it’s 100% true because of what he heard and “he just seems like he’s that type of guy”.

Everyone else except the old man at the end says they have no idea and doubt it without more evidence.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the Leblanc guy was @FriarJ tbh lol
 
CL82 said:
He's not wrong. He ran right up to the line of what's permissible on that fake documentary. It's certainly possible to make the argument that he crossed it.
Expand ...
What makes a documentary fake? It could just be a bad documentary…especially if it was done by a college kid
 
Leebo said:
If he's an adult, I don't see the reason to say "kid" just to make it sound like we should sympathize with him based on his age.
Expand ...
Are you serious? When you watch a college basketball game do you list the players' birth dates to know which ones you call kids vs the ones you call men when you root for them.

I'm sure you're a blast at dinner parties.
 
HuskyWarrior611 said:
Yeah the case would pretty much come down to the person involved.

How would she financially benefit from taking the side that’s not the millionaire and one that would be being sued?

I took one business law class in school so I’m not remotely one either. Just a thought. If Cooley was still doing post game interviews with Fanta afterwards I’m not sure how much this bothered him then.
Expand ...

I don't get what you're saying. He's going to pay her to say it wasn't her? And when she gets subpoenaed for deposition and has to lie under oath, what happens then? Defamation of a public figure is a hard case to make. But even if it weren't only people whose closets are completely devoid of skeletons want to go down that road.

But if someone actually pulled the trigger on a lawsuit I would bet that kid (child? semi-man?) would have a line of lawyers outside his door willing to take that case. Hell, some bored PC alum would probably do it for free.
 
.-.
HuskyWarrior611 said:
The people in the documentary pitch it as the reason he had to leave Providence.

I would think that all he would have to do is have his wife say that’s untrue and unless whatever women he supposedly had an affair with steps forward, that’s all the court would need.

The onus would be more on the person who said it to prove it’s true. Would a woman really want to put herself out there like that as a homewrecker?
Expand ...
I don’t know where you went to law school but the plaintiff needs to prove the facts they allege. And truth is an absolute defense. I didn’t watch it but if they talked about Cooley having an affair I doubt he wants his cell phone records subpoenaed.
 
87Xfer said:
Are you serious? When you watch a college basketball game do you list the players' birth dates to know which ones you call kids vs the ones you call men when you root for them.

I'm sure you're a blast at dinner parties.
Expand ...
The discussion has a legal angle to it, so I don't see how it's irrelevant or obtuseness, but it appears I'm in the minority. Not intending to drag it out though.
 
HuskyWarrior611 said:
If you’re just curious about that part, it starts about an hour in. After going to look at it again there’s really only one fan who goes overboard saying he believes it’s 100% true because of what he heard and “he just seems like he’s that type of guy”.

Everyone else except the old man at the end says they have no idea and doubt it without more evidence.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the Leblanc guy was @FriarJ tbh lol
Expand ...
If that’s true the speaker might be guilty of defamation…but only if it’s not true
 
NJHusky said:
I don’t know where you went to law school but the plaintiff needs to prove the facts they allege. And truth is an absolute defense. I didn’t watch it but if they talked about Cooley having an affair I doubt he wants his cell phone records subpoenaed.
Expand ...
Didn’t go to law school. Took one business law class as a part of business school. One of the hardest classes (but interesting) I ever took. Lol

The allegation here is that Cooley took the Georgetown job because he had an affair.

Cooley can easily prove there are many other reasons that I don’t even have to get into that he took that job and can also get into the affair if need be. But yeah if cell phone records are going to be involved (and it’s true of course) then I’m not sure he wants to go down that route of the affair. Didn’t think about that.
 
Leebo said:
The discussion has a legal angle to it, so I don't see how it's irrelevant or obtuseness, but it appears I'm in the minority. Not intending to drag it out though.
Expand ...
Edit: nevermind
 
Last edited:
.-.
NJHusky said:
If that’s true the speaker might be guilty of defamation…but only if it’s not true
Expand ...
Would the person in charge of the production also be involved since they featured it in their doc? Genuine question.

It’s like if you sue someone on the job for a company the company takes a hit (unless the person was not acting out of negligence). But of course this is not the same dynamic here.
 
Hoophound said:
Companies don’t like their employees doing that kind of stuff. However, it seems like they probably wanted to fire him anyway and this just accelerated it.
Expand ...
He wasn’t fired tho.
 
Everyone said they "believe", or "heard somewhere", or "think".

Even if they said they "100% believe", that's still a "believe". "I believe he did this" is different than "he did this".
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,321
Messages
4,563,455
Members
10,458
Latest member
SeanElAmin


Top Bottom