I'm about 30 minutes in (to the main podcast where they discuss Miller, not the agent interview) and they've already blatantly misstated the facts of two major points related to the case based on 'people are telling me.' They refer to the fact that you can find the police report out there yet it is painfully obvious that they didn't read it. Incredibly, they are off on the year of the incident by 2 years. It happened in 2016 despite them advertising the podcast as "what really happened in 2014." Off to a great start.
First and foremost, the insinuation that it wasn't racially motivated is straight up nonsense. When a white kid is telling a black kid, "no one wants your n**** lips on his slushie" and telling him to "go pick some cotton" it is pretty f***ing obviously racially motivated. The victim and two witnesses told police that Miller called him a n***** during the incident that day with one of those witnesses saying Miller uses the word all the time. Acting like race wasn't a factor here is a complete fiction.
As importantly, Strickland is parroting the same story that Miller told police that they offered the urinal push pop to numerous students. There is video of the interaction that was reviewed by police and their conclusion was that "the video clearly discredits this statement. Their were no other kids in the immediate areas when Isaiah approached and they were not offering the push pop to anyone until they offered it to Isaiah."
This take that "the media" is only telling one side of a story that has two sides is bullshit. It's the narrative Miller and his family started pushing as soon as the started talking to police. Multiple witnesses and a video of the incident discredit it. This bullshit is exactly why this guy shouldn't be in the NHL. He has attempted to minimize his own conduct and deny what happened since 2016. And now his agent is doing a media tour on platforms that want to push a cancel culture narrative in order to keep lying about the facts and create sympathy for his client.
The magistrate who handled his case lectured him about not showing actual remorse beyond being upset that he was facing consequences. A pretty thorough investigation clearly demonstrates that his version of events isn't true and his camp continues to deny that. It is ludicrous to paint this as a 'both side' narrative.
Read the police report.
Strickland should be ashamed of this piss poor excuse for journalism. He begins with the premise that the only side told so far is from Isaiah's family, completely ignores all of the actual investigation that has been reported on and then 'does his research' by talking to Miller's agent and unnamed people who 'know what really happened.' Absolutely embarrassing.
Edit: oh cool, they moved on to sarcastically saying no one has the video and implying that the victim lied about what happened since they can't see the video. Despite the reality that it was collected by police, described in the police report and relied on in the judicial determination that Miller did in fact assault the victim. Jesus Christ this is a joke. For anyone with the limited knowledge of the justice system that Strickland is pretending to have, defendants are entitled to all of the evidence against them. Miller and his family were entitled to the video. If they got rid of it, the case was recent enough that their attorney would still have a copy for them to obtain. If the MIller's agent wanted his interview host to have the video, that host would have the video.
Edit #2 after listening to the interview with the agent. The agent repeats the exact story that Miller didn't target Isaiah because he offered it to other kids first. Again, this is in direct contradiction to the officer's determination that the video directly discredits the claim. It is also in direct contradiction to the co-defendant's statement that "they were planning to give it to Isaiah." When asked about Miller's use of racial slurs, the explanation is that the two of them had a dysfunctional friendship, Isaiah used the n word, and that Miller started to use it as a term of endearment toward Isaiah. The claim is that any usage of the word would have been with an 'a' on the end and not as a slur. Again, the reported statements made were "no one wants your n**** lips on his slushie" and a suggestion that Isaiah go pick cotton. The physical assault following the 'non-targeted, non-racially motivated' push pop portion of the incident is not discussed. It's a parade of "I want to clear up the misconceptions" by offering half-truths and misrepresentations about some of the uglier portions and completely ignoring other portions.