Mitch Williams Wild thing testimony against MLB network
The defense(MLB Network) cross-examined Mitch Williams Tuesday in an effort to paint him as anything but "trying to create a good atmosphere for kids". Williams coached his son's team the Wild Things against the Titans.
The major thrust of the cross was an attempt, through circumstantial evidence, to prove that Williams had indeed ordered his pitcher to hit the opposing pitcher when the latter batted. The motive was allegedly retaliation for acts done during the game; in other words it was part of the code or unwritten rules of baseball. The defense reminded the jury through his questioning of Williams that the latter had said he had told his own pitcher merely to pitch the child on the inside part of the plate because the opposing pitcher had hit a scorching double the prior at bat. But defense counsel played video of all of the at bats of the opposing pitcher. The prior at bat was a hot grounder to third for an out. That contradicted Williams' version of why he had told his own pitcher to throw inside and jam the batter rather than pitch outside. The defense ridiculed Williams for a faulty memory despite the testimony of Williams on direct that he had "almost a photographic memory of baseball games." Then the defense effort was to paint a portrait of an irate team and their coach Williams because of the play of the opposing pitcher. By playing the video of the game, counsel pointed out that two innings earlier the opposing pitcher had tried to leg out a ground ball and stepped or spiked the first baseman's foot.(A Williams player). The video shows Williams' son the catcher seemingly annoyed at the play and seemingly gesturing while other of his teammates gathered near first base near the opposing player that had either stepped on or spiked their first baseman. At the end of the inning the video shows Williams talking to his son while they walked into the dugout. The next inning Williams' son strikes out on a curve ball and seemingly stares at the pitcher. When the Titans come to bat, video shows Williams talking to his catcher and then his son(catcher) goes to the mound and talks with the pitcher. They look towards the dugout. Then the opposing pitcher comes to bat. He first goes down the third base line and tells his coach something and steps to the plate. It is anticipated the child will say that he told his coach he suspected that they were going to hit him with a pitch. When he is hit, he gestures with outstretched arms as if to say, I told you so.
Williams adamantly denied he was "trying to send a message" by hitting the opposing pitcher. He maintained he would never hurt a child or try to do so. Moreover defense counsel suggested through questioning that Williams called the opposing pitcher a "pussy" in between innings after his son struck out on a curve ball. He suggested it was in retaliation for making his son look bad and for stepping on the foot of the Wild Thing first baseman. Williams again laughed off the suggestion but did say the Titan pitcher should not be throwing curve balls at age ten.
Then a large portion of the day centered around Williams' behavior or innocence regarding his reason for being ejected in the first game on Saturday May 10th. Williams again denied cursing but did admit after some lengthy questioning that he regretted arguing for 7-8 minutes and that he should have left sooner. Still, he denied that he cursed at the umpire and the video does not contradict him. But he did admit telling a parent in the stand that he would find some other job for the umpire in the future. That was the apparent reason for the ejection since the umpire said "are you threatening me?" He then got very close to Williams and the latter said, "what are you going to do, beat me up?" The umpires replied "anytime, anyplace, anywhere." At that point another umpire interceded as did other coaches to break up the argument. Williams alleged that he merely responded to a threat by the umpire.
In a similar vein the defense attempted to show that Williams had an unsuitable temperament to coach ten year old children. Williams admitted replying to an email from one of his player's mother regarding a game in early May. In response to the question, "how did you do in Friday's game?", Williams said, "the asshole umpire called strikes that hit the ground. It was all I could do to keep from hitting him after the game-we lost 3-0." But in his explanation, Williams said he was merely talking to an adult about how he felt but would not act on it.
Similarly, Williams admitted writing another email to a parent I which he said "come fall, another mother's son won't be on the team if his mother doesn't shut up." Williams again explained that he had had a long standing relationship with that mother and that it was not what it seemed to be.
Then the defense asked Williams whether it was true that he had accused a son of Craig Yates of betraying Williams by going with another team after Williams had given the child individual coaching. Williams admitted that was true.
But then the plaintiff(Williams) attorney brought in two witnesses to support Williams' account of the weekend tournament. Corey Ahart, a New Jersey attorney and part-time municipal judge testified that he was an assistant coach for the New Jersey Wild(Williams' team), had known Williams as seriously caring for the safety of the children, and had gone to the aid of opposing team's children when necessary. Ahart coached both games of the tournament. He denied ever hearing Williams curse to the umpire or use the word "pussy". He supported Williams' testimony regarding the ejection as well. On cross, Ahart admitted he wouldn't necessarily have heard what was said near first base since he was in the dugout. He maintained he did not know the reason for the ejection of Williams and didn't know what Williams may have told his son about throwing inside or worse. But he would never believe Williams would do such a thing.
The next witness, a senior VP at Morgan Stanley Craig Yates testified similarly to Ahart. He was also an assistant coach for the Wild, and said he could hear from third base and that Williams at first base had not cursed. He is a good friend of Williams and often played golf with him and John Kruk a former ball player and current color man for the Phillies broadcasts. He said he never heard Williams curse at any game and that if he had heard anyone direct a pitcher to hit a batter, he would have left the field. On cross, Yates admitted that he had loaned Williams $135,000 after his termination on an interest free basis. The defense implied that it was in Yates' interest for Williams to win his trial so that the loan would be paid back, and therefore had a motive in the outcome of the case.
The plaintiff will call another witness tomorrow and the defense will begin.
The major thrust of the cross was an attempt, through circumstantial evidence, to prove that Williams had indeed ordered his pitcher to hit the opposing pitcher when the latter batted. The motive was allegedly retaliation for acts done during the game; in other words it was part of the code or unwritten rules of baseball. The defense reminded the jury through his questioning of Williams that the latter had said he had told his own pitcher merely to pitch the child on the inside part of the plate because the opposing pitcher had hit a scorching double the prior at bat. But defense counsel played video of all of the at bats of the opposing pitcher. The prior at bat was a hot grounder to third for an out. That contradicted Williams' version of why he had told his own pitcher to throw inside and jam the batter rather than pitch outside. The defense ridiculed Williams for a faulty memory despite the testimony of Williams on direct that he had "almost a photographic memory of baseball games." Then the defense effort was to paint a portrait of an irate team and their coach Williams because of the play of the opposing pitcher. By playing the video of the game, counsel pointed out that two innings earlier the opposing pitcher had tried to leg out a ground ball and stepped or spiked the first baseman's foot.(A Williams player). The video shows Williams' son the catcher seemingly annoyed at the play and seemingly gesturing while other of his teammates gathered near first base near the opposing player that had either stepped on or spiked their first baseman. At the end of the inning the video shows Williams talking to his son while they walked into the dugout. The next inning Williams' son strikes out on a curve ball and seemingly stares at the pitcher. When the Titans come to bat, video shows Williams talking to his catcher and then his son(catcher) goes to the mound and talks with the pitcher. They look towards the dugout. Then the opposing pitcher comes to bat. He first goes down the third base line and tells his coach something and steps to the plate. It is anticipated the child will say that he told his coach he suspected that they were going to hit him with a pitch. When he is hit, he gestures with outstretched arms as if to say, I told you so.
Williams adamantly denied he was "trying to send a message" by hitting the opposing pitcher. He maintained he would never hurt a child or try to do so. Moreover defense counsel suggested through questioning that Williams called the opposing pitcher a "pussy" in between innings after his son struck out on a curve ball. He suggested it was in retaliation for making his son look bad and for stepping on the foot of the Wild Thing first baseman. Williams again laughed off the suggestion but did say the Titan pitcher should not be throwing curve balls at age ten.
Then a large portion of the day centered around Williams' behavior or innocence regarding his reason for being ejected in the first game on Saturday May 10th. Williams again denied cursing but did admit after some lengthy questioning that he regretted arguing for 7-8 minutes and that he should have left sooner. Still, he denied that he cursed at the umpire and the video does not contradict him. But he did admit telling a parent in the stand that he would find some other job for the umpire in the future. That was the apparent reason for the ejection since the umpire said "are you threatening me?" He then got very close to Williams and the latter said, "what are you going to do, beat me up?" The umpires replied "anytime, anyplace, anywhere." At that point another umpire interceded as did other coaches to break up the argument. Williams alleged that he merely responded to a threat by the umpire.
In a similar vein the defense attempted to show that Williams had an unsuitable temperament to coach ten year old children. Williams admitted replying to an email from one of his player's mother regarding a game in early May. In response to the question, "how did you do in Friday's game?", Williams said, "the asshole umpire called strikes that hit the ground. It was all I could do to keep from hitting him after the game-we lost 3-0." But in his explanation, Williams said he was merely talking to an adult about how he felt but would not act on it.
Similarly, Williams admitted writing another email to a parent I which he said "come fall, another mother's son won't be on the team if his mother doesn't shut up." Williams again explained that he had had a long standing relationship with that mother and that it was not what it seemed to be.
Then the defense asked Williams whether it was true that he had accused a son of Craig Yates of betraying Williams by going with another team after Williams had given the child individual coaching. Williams admitted that was true.
But then the plaintiff(Williams) attorney brought in two witnesses to support Williams' account of the weekend tournament. Corey Ahart, a New Jersey attorney and part-time municipal judge testified that he was an assistant coach for the New Jersey Wild(Williams' team), had known Williams as seriously caring for the safety of the children, and had gone to the aid of opposing team's children when necessary. Ahart coached both games of the tournament. He denied ever hearing Williams curse to the umpire or use the word "pussy". He supported Williams' testimony regarding the ejection as well. On cross, Ahart admitted he wouldn't necessarily have heard what was said near first base since he was in the dugout. He maintained he did not know the reason for the ejection of Williams and didn't know what Williams may have told his son about throwing inside or worse. But he would never believe Williams would do such a thing.
The next witness, a senior VP at Morgan Stanley Craig Yates testified similarly to Ahart. He was also an assistant coach for the Wild, and said he could hear from third base and that Williams at first base had not cursed. He is a good friend of Williams and often played golf with him and John Kruk a former ball player and current color man for the Phillies broadcasts. He said he never heard Williams curse at any game and that if he had heard anyone direct a pitcher to hit a batter, he would have left the field. On cross, Yates admitted that he had loaned Williams $135,000 after his termination on an interest free basis. The defense implied that it was in Yates' interest for Williams to win his trial so that the loan would be paid back, and therefore had a motive in the outcome of the case.
The plaintiff will call another witness tomorrow and the defense will begin.
No comments have been added yet.
