re: Roy King is suing LSU

quote:

---

Interesting read.

---

It is an interesting read. However, it has hallmarks of being slanted. (not to mention trumped up).

Just one obvious example regarding the missing cash from the Administrative Coordinator's desk: "She offered no explanation for what happened to the remaining money."

OK, so say you are asked, 'Do you know what happened to the remaining money?' and you answer, 'No. I don't know what happened to the remaining money' (presumably because you weren't actually present to see what happened).

In this case, where you have answered absolutely truthfully, you also have technically offered "no explanation".

And how could you? If you were actually present when what ever happened to the "remaining money", you would be compelled to testify eye-witness evidence; anything else would be speculative hear-say.

Throwing the "offered no explanation" phraseology into a report such as this with no underlying meaning is, I think, meant to confer some kind of guilt upon the subject by inference -and that's slanted.

Slanted can = malicious intent. And where malicious intent resides, so does endangerment of truth.