Leo Lewis $10,000 story is jacked up

quote:

---

B. Allegation No. 16-(c) – $10,000 Payment Allegation

No. 16- (c) is perhaps the most “headline - worthy” claim that [Student-Athlete 39] raised during this investigation – and it is the allegation that is the most refuted or undermined by objective evidence. [Student-Athlete 39] has provided two very different accounts of what supposedly occurred on February 3, 2015, the day he claims to have received $10,000 from [Booster 14], and suggested two different timelines for this event. Both timelines are contradicted in several important ways. As a result, the factual record indicates that [Student-Athlete 39] did not tell the truth about that afternoon.

A major concern with this allegation is [Student-Athlete 39’s]inconsistent recollection of the events. In [Student-Athlete 39’s]first interview, he discussed in general terms the $10,000 payment he supposedly received from [Booster 14], alleging that [Booster 14] reached out to him, they met the day before signing day, and [Booster 14] provided him a wad of $100 bills. FI No. 232 at 23-26, [Student-Athlete 39] 8/10/16 transcript. In his second interview, however, [Student-Athlete 39] suggested that he reached out to [Booster 14] the day before the payment and specifically asked for $10,000. FI No. 265 at 98, [Student-Athlete 39] 11/18/16 transcript. [Student-Athlete 39] also said that he and [Booster 14] met in a [Third Party Business 1]

parking lot soon after he was let out of school and, contrary to his prior description of their interaction, [Booster 14] handed him a bag full of money.

These internal inconsistencies involving who initiated the contact and the form in which the money was paid cast doubt on [Student-Athlete 39’s]
story. That story is undermined by changes to his basic description of events. Although [Student-Athlete 39] initially denied having communicated with [Booster 14] at any time following the payment, he later changed his story when the enforcement staff showed him a text message from [Booster 14] to Farrar (not a text to or from [Student-Athlete 39]) dated February 3, 2015, at approximately 4:00 p.m. When presented with the text by the staff, [Student-Athlete 39] claimed to have received the same text message
about “an hour or two”
after meeting with [Booster 14] and receiving the $10,000.

---

Basically he had no idea when the meeting took place. The times don't add up. The booster has email sent from his work computer that are time stamped and adding the distant there is no way they could have happened in the way that Lewis is stating.

Not to mention he has 2 completely different stories.


There are 2 more pages but the formatting is impossible to quote. Look on pages 54-58 to read it for yourself.

BTW it also mentions he admitted to getting 10K from another school...

It also states that OM did not find out about the immunity interviews until after the 3rd interview with LL had happened. OM requested to be in the 4th interview and was denied. This is against NCAA policy that the member institution gets to be in the interview and cross question.

OM response to NOA