Paul Swann and Woody Woodrum interviewed the author of the Daily Beast article during the 2nd half of last night's show. Check out the podcast here- 05/07/15 Insider Sportsline Podcast
Paul and Woody interview Daily Beast author
- Thread starter Mike Gwinn
- Start date
Did the guy sound like he had done his homework? I don't have time to listen. What did Woody and Paul think? Anyone's thoughts?
Guy avoid directly answering questions but was polite and articulate. Honestly I thought woody was terrible. He seemed defensive to me. The author said he spoke to he detective for over an hour and has more info but doesn't know if he will use it for an upcoming story
My question is why would a detective as experienced as Sperry speak with a reporter, on the record, for an hour about the details of on ongoing investigation? Could that jeopardize the case against Butler? Would that evidence still be admissible in court?
I find it hard to believe that a local cop just talked on the record with a reporter at a national web-only magazine for an hour.
I agree keep. I think the author may have gotten some info and sherry may have even said the football coaches didn't id them and he ran and turned that into them hindering investigation.
Three huge red flags that I can't overlook:
1) the details and comment about the driver being a potential NFL guy with the draft so soon. That is just too creative and accurate to fabricate for the reporter. The huge link: just a few days ago, a day or two before the arrest, doc had an article written about him. The article centered around doc criticizing the NFL guys about some potential draft prospects getting hammered due to character/off the field issues while other star prospects avoid dropping in the draft. It shows that doc was not only well aware of it, but was the first head coach to call out the NFL for it and was at least extremely consicentious of it. Unless the daily beast writer somehow knew doc's quotes and feelings on that before the other publication did that article, it is a very related topic.
2) why would sperry suddenly have a gag order on him? If his quotes had been completely taken out of context or fabricated, fault would have been placed on the daily beast, not on sperry. It wouldn't have been sperry's fault.
3) if there were fabrications, at minimum, there would be threats of legal action against the daily beast. It wasn't a satire piece, sperry most likely wouldn't be considered an easily identifiable public figure, and damages related to any alleged false statements could very well be damaging to sperry, doc, hamrick, and Marshall. Fabrications and accusations mentioned in the article wouldn't just be ignored without attempts to justify the wrong, if in fact, the writer did something wrong.
4) the gazette reporter, point-blank, asked the chief if sperry had mentioned any of those concerns to him. Instead of simply squashing it and saying "no," he ignored directly answering it and said "that is my story." Why not just simply answer the most direct question about it?
1) the details and comment about the driver being a potential NFL guy with the draft so soon. That is just too creative and accurate to fabricate for the reporter. The huge link: just a few days ago, a day or two before the arrest, doc had an article written about him. The article centered around doc criticizing the NFL guys about some potential draft prospects getting hammered due to character/off the field issues while other star prospects avoid dropping in the draft. It shows that doc was not only well aware of it, but was the first head coach to call out the NFL for it and was at least extremely consicentious of it. Unless the daily beast writer somehow knew doc's quotes and feelings on that before the other publication did that article, it is a very related topic.
2) why would sperry suddenly have a gag order on him? If his quotes had been completely taken out of context or fabricated, fault would have been placed on the daily beast, not on sperry. It wouldn't have been sperry's fault.
3) if there were fabrications, at minimum, there would be threats of legal action against the daily beast. It wasn't a satire piece, sperry most likely wouldn't be considered an easily identifiable public figure, and damages related to any alleged false statements could very well be damaging to sperry, doc, hamrick, and Marshall. Fabrications and accusations mentioned in the article wouldn't just be ignored without attempts to justify the wrong, if in fact, the writer did something wrong.
4) the gazette reporter, point-blank, asked the chief if sperry had mentioned any of those concerns to him. Instead of simply squashing it and saying "no," he ignored directly answering it and said "that is my story." Why not just simply answer the most direct question about it?
As a journalist.. I see #2 happen. An employee gets burned (or believes they were burned or their employer thinks they got burned) by the journalist and then the employer prohibits them from talking to reporters any more. I wouldn't say it's super common but it's not completely out of the ordinary either.
To #3 it would depend on if there was fabrications but it could be that Sperry was in fact quoted 100% accurately but that the quotes were used in such a way that they changed the context or implications of what Sperry said. It would be harder to file legal action for that than if they just flat out made up quotes. I suspect that is something they didn't do or Sperry would most certainly be firing back and with the backing of the HPD if that was the case.
All of the people the blogger, not reporter, claims to have talked to seems far fetched. Couple that with the things those people "said" makes it take a turn toward ridiculous.
The longer this sits out there, the more holes get poked in the story and it looks more and more like witch hunt-sensationalist reporting.
The longer this sits out there, the more holes get poked in the story and it looks more and more like witch hunt-sensationalist reporting.
All law enforcement agencies have a chain of command. Most have an officer in charge of media relations. Usually only that officer and the chief/highest ranking officer speak with the media to prevent statements like the ones attributed to Det. Sperry from occurring. I would assume any gag order would be am attempt by the chief to correct this blunder, as opposed to a cover-up.
