Required Reading: Although I'm sure that most of you caught onto this, but when Texas Tech released their motion to dismiss, you probably noted that there were a handful of Exhibits that were not labeled, but they are mostly affidavits and depositions. For instance, Exhibit "A" is Leach's full deposition. I've only made it halfway through his deposition, but it's required reading if you want a full understanding of the situation. Exhibit "K" is Gerald Myers' deposition, Exhibit "L" is Guy Bailey's deposition, Exhibit "N" is Kent Hance's deposition, Exhibit "Q" is a portion of Craig James' deposition and Exhibit "H" is a portion of Adam James' deposition. I don't have a reason why there are only portions of the James' Family depositions available, but their full depositions will eventually be out.
Long story short, if you want to be fully educated on the matter, then you need to read the depositions.
James Family Responds: NewsChannel 11's James Clark writes that the James family attorney, Scott McLaughlin, says that Mike Leach was hostile to Adam James for having a concussion (and I would remind everyone to READ Leach's deposition):
"We believed all along that Mike Leach was hostile to Adam for having a concussion. The evidence that Texas Tech put in the court record on May 4th demonstrates that he was hostile toward Adam's concussion. He was even hostile to injuries in general or concussions in general," said McLaughlin.
This was response was expected.
Leach Fires Back: LAJ's Matthew Mcgowan, NewsChannel 11's James Clark and Fox34's Wendy Skyler all report essentially the same thing, that Mike Leach attorney Ted Liggett believes that Texas Tech University may have coerced a third version of events from trainer Steve Pinnock, there were some emails from the Board of Regents that may have been inappropriate and a draft of a letter to be sent to Leach from Myers regarding a fine, that was eventually never sent.
There's a ton of interesting things to note, but I won't be able to get to all of them this morning. The draft of a memo from Myers to Leach may indicate what he wanted to do in regards to punishment of Leach rather than the eventual outcome. I thought about this yesterday, but didn't verbalize this, but yes, it seems odd that trainer Pinnock is giving three versions of the events. Liggett mentions Spaeth Communications in the Fox34 story and the Pinnock affidavits:
This email written by regent Turner dated January first 2010 reads if Pincock quote "refuses or is reluctant to sign it should we ask whether he lied to the officials conducting an official investigation?"
He then hints Pat Campbell, Tech attorney could intervene.
"This is clearly, I think, no more than a veiled threat to Mr. pincock that if he didn't change his affidavit and there's some question to believe that the affidavits, subsequent affidavits were actually drafted by Spaeth Communications, a PR firm employed by Craig James."
If you read the Craig James deposition (what little there is), you'll see that he was in full contact with Spaeth and sent an email stating that his side of the story was not being represented on blogs and it sounds like he directed that information be sent to ESPN's Joe Schad.
This was expected as well.
I'll say it again, and PlanoJeff brings up a good point in yesterday's comments, the sovereign immunity defense is a huge hurdle, but it would seem as if there would never be a lawsuit against a university if Texas Tech's claim of sovereign immunity was accurate. Perhaps there is a distinction between what's happened here and other suits, but universities have been sued before.