Lawyers, I need some explanation...

[t_wingo 1]

Is it not true that the worst kind of evidence you can have is eye witness evidence, particularly from just one eye witness?

I'm fairly certain that there have been studies to show that people change their memories to believe what they want to believe and what is put into their mind by others.  Anyone who knows much about this feel free to chime in.  Thanks

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

Eye witness testimony can be tricky, I would not say it is the best kind of evidence.  What is the best evidence depends on what you are trying to prove.

Rogers is now not a very credible witness since he has told two different stories, the trick now would be determining which is a lie.  This most recent statement is very detailed, and if true should be able to be corroborated with supporting evidence. 

[Guest gkc81]

Until we find $, docs, or recordings that lead to Cecil, all we got is folks connected to MSt. lying and withholding info, and now turning that all out in a way that allegedly protects them and hurts Newton.  I don't think a jury would buy this right now, the NCAA is a different story.

[tiger241345162816 0]

Is it not true that the worst kind of evidence you can have is eye witness evidence, particularly from just one eye witness?

I'm fairly certain that there have been studies to show that people change their memories to believe what they want to believe and what is put into their mind by others.  Anyone who knows much about this feel free to chime in.  Thanks

No, eyewitness evidence is good evidence.  It doesn't matter if the actual memory is reliable or true only that it is believable by the judge, jury, NCAA, general public, etc.  People believe eyewitness evidence unless it is shown to have bias or inconsistencies.  With Kenny Rogers a good attorney could point out his bias and inconsistencies, but to be honest, I believe him. 

[SS 0]

If what Rogers said is true......but no money was given to the Newtons and none was requested of or paid by Auburn......would all be OK with respect to elgibility for Cam at AU???

[87aubie 0]

Eye witness testimony can be tricky, I would not say it is the best kind of evidence.  What is the best evidence depends on what you are trying to prove.

Rogers is now not a very credible witness since he has told two different stories, the trick now would be determining which is a lie.  This most recent statement is very detailed, and if true should be able to be corroborated with supporting evidence.   

Coincidentally, or not, the details are eerily similar to the Joe Schad story.  IMO, that can cut two ways.  One, he's telling the truth.  Two, he's fabricated a new lie to corroborate the claim that was made to Schad.  Given that he originally said he knew nothing about any of this, I tend to lean toward the latter.

[AUPride4Ever 0]

If true, what will happen to Cecil Newton? I know what is going to happen to Cam, but I want to know what type of punishment his father will receive IF he did this.....I'm sorry, but I have a very bad feeling about this too.

[benjazz 0]

I think the issue is not what he saw, but is he telling the truth about what he saw.

[wareagle987 0]

Is it not true that the worst kind of evidence you can have is eye witness evidence, particularly from just one eye witness?

I'm fairly certain that there have been studies to show that people change their memories to believe what they want to believe and what is put into their mind by others.  Anyone who knows much about this feel free to chime in.  Thanks

No, eyewitness evidence is good evidence.  It doesn't matter if the actual memory is reliable or true only that it is believable by the judge, jury, NCAA, general public, etc.  People believe eyewitness evidence unless it is shown to have bias or inconsistencies.  With Kenny Rogers a good attorney could point out his bias and inconsistencies, but to be honest, I believe him. 

Yopu believe a guy who has changed his story four times?

[ercxi 0]

If what Rogers said is true......but no money was given to the Newtons and none was requested of or paid by Auburn......would all be OK with respect to elgibility for Cam at AU???

Espn.com said this:  "In an e-mail to ESPN.com, an NCAA spokeswoman said: "The solicitation of cash or benefits by a prospective student-athlete or another individual on his or her behalf is not allowed under NCAA rules."

So, it depends on if they determine that 1) this is true, and 2) that Cecil Newton was acting on Cam's behalf.  

[kingofhill1 2]

As someone said, and as I have posted, the NCAA  does not work like a court of law. A court of law is to presume innocence. The NCAA, by the time you get a letter, presumes guilt. There is a big difference. As a bammer friend of mine said a few years ago, if they decide to get you, they are going to get you. If they decided that Cecil sought money, they could say that Cam forfeited his elligibility. If that is the case, whether we were involved in a "play for pay" scheme, we could have to "vacate wins."

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

If what Rogers said is true......but no money was given to the Newtons and none was requested of or paid by Auburn......would all be OK with respect to elgibility for Cam at AU???

Espn.com said this:  "In an e-mail to ESPN.com, an NCAA spokeswoman said: "The solicitation of cash or benefits by a prospective student-athlete or another individual on his or her behalf is not allowed under NCAA rules."

So, it depends on if they determine that 1) this is true, and 2) that Cecil Newton was acting on Cam's behalf.  

all violations do not equal the same severity of penalties, so just because it would be a violation, let's not assume that it would result in catastrophic consequences for Cam and AU.

[mejgoau 0]

How slow or fast is the NCAA on sending a letter to a school? Most of this garbage has been out for 10 or 11 months. 

[AU Counsel 64]

Legally speaking, Cecil Newton's issues would be with State or Federal authorities, not the NCAA.  If the NCAA believes Cecil Newton actually solicited money, Cam could be declared ineligible. A question now is to what extent is the information being released consistent with what was given to the NCAA.

Rogers claims he, Cecil, and two MSU coaches met in a hotel room.  If MSU didn't report that, then it probably didn't happen, as the account Rogers tells certainly doesn't implicate MSU for anything I consider inappropriate.  Of course it makes no sense for Cecil to expect Rogers to broker a deal without Rogers getting a "commission" of sorts, unless Rogers was already employed by the Newtons.

This evidence is hearsay, the repeating by one person of what another said.  It is more damning if multiple witnesses confirm the same story.  The NCAA does not operate on the same evidentiary standards as a court of law.  But the NCAA will assess (or has assessed) to what extent the hearsay is supported by other evidence.  The release of bank statements is one way to disprove the allegations.  It isn't conclusive, as the NCAA has no way of knowing the full extent of the Newtons bank account history (ie an account that wasn't disclosed). 

I'mm not pleased to hear the statement attributed to Cecil, but it is somewhat inconsistent with other statements previously released.  Cecil may not break his silence regardless of what he did or didn't do.  He would have to testify and deny much of what is being said to successfully pursue a slander/libel claim.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

I don't believe the solicitation of benefits is enough to be declared ineligible, i think they actually have to receive the benefit.

[AEAugirl 9,644]

What about this....

Cam is not a minor.  He is legally considered an adult.

Given that, IF he had NO KNOWLEDGE that this was going on between his father and MSU (assuming something went on) COULD one argue that Cecil was not acting on behalf of his son, who is legally an adult. 

I am also assuming this would mean Cam having to throw his father under the bus, essentially. 

Do you see where I am going here...????

[around4ever 4,139]

I don't believe the solicitation of benefits is enough to be declared ineligible, i think they actually have to receive the benefit.

This is what Don Jackson alluded to.  But I don't know which is correct.

[Paige65 0]

Not that you really need me to, but as an attorney, I fully agree with AU Counsel's post.

[AU Counsel 64]

Jackson said it isn't in practice generally, but the NCAA has taken a more aggressive stance.  If the solicitation can be proven (which seems doubtful presently), then I expect Cam would be declared ineligible, regardless of him not being a minor.

Again, I do not see any evidence besides the hearsay of one unnamed source and two proven liars which would implicate Mr. Newton.

And thanks, Paige

[joeyb147 0]

I don't believe the solicitation of benefits is enough to be declared ineligible, i think they actually have to receive the benefit.

This is what Don Jackson alluded to.  But I don't know which is correct.

I'm tending to lean towards Jackson (obviously biased).

But, he has handled TONS of eligibility cases over more than a decade.

If anyone knows how the NCAA Enforcement Office works, I think it would be him.  

Not to mention, the head of our compliance office worked in the NCAA Enforcement office for some time.