Luke Heimlich - A Possible Way To Approach

  • I gave this some thought. Interested in opinions on this. Here’s how I might approach it.

    1. Meet with Heimlich. Ask him directly whether any abuse occurred. If he says yes, go to #5.

    2. If he says says “no”, then require him to take a polygraph.

    3. If he passes the polygraph, go to to #6.

    4. If he fails the polygraph, end of discussions. Don’t sign him.

    5. From #1, if he says “yes”, abuse occurred, then I would a) Require Heimlich to make a public acknowledgment of responsibility, b ) he would agree to donate 20% of his major league salary up to $1 million to a trust fund for the victim over his career, c) The Royals would start a trust fund the girl of $100,000 as a down payment, to pay for her college, to be paid back by Heimlich as part of the deal, d) He would then take 4 months and focus on himself personally, counseling, therapy, etc. e) After that, he would find a charity, etc., to work for, for another 4 months, related to sex abuse. Something to put him in the position of facing the victims. f) Then he plays baseball.

    6. From #3, he passes the polygraph. Make it public that he passed the polygraph. Then donate $100,000 to a trust for the girl to pay for the college. State that this reduced his signing bonus. Acknowledge that polygraphs are not perfect, and the $100,000 is meant to help everyone heal, take pressure off her family, and hopefully everyone can move on.

    Of course, I don’t know if a polygraph is prohibited under the collective bargaining agreement. If so, perhaps Heimlich’s reps could “offer” it.

    Anyway, nothing is perfect. But this might be a reasonable way to address the issue.

  • I read he passed poly. 🤷♀

  • Yes. He has already passed a polygraph test.

  • @Crimsonorblue22 @Woodrow @HighEliteMajor

    Luke actually passed 4 polygraphs, but none of these asked a direct question about whether he abused his niece. The Portland Tribune (before the season) had the most complete article I have seen on the entire process his case went through. It also focuses a lot on the fact that he made the decision to plead guilty with his parents, who were concerned about the impact of a trial on not only the niece, but on Luke’s brother’s custody situation and the parents’ ability to ever see the niece again.

    Here is the section on the pre-plea polygraph:

    In May 2012, Luke’s sexual history was obtained via clinical interview and a sexual history polygraph conducted by Rick Minnich, chief examiner of Minnich Polygraph Services of Burien, Washington.

    Minnich was prohibited from asking any question directly related to Luke’s niece.

    From the report:

    "It was the opinion of Mr. Minnich that Luke was truthful when he answered ‘no’ to the following questions: ‘Not to include (the niece), have you engaged in sexual conduct with any member of your family?’ And, ‘Not to include (the niece), have you engaged in sexual contact with anyone else more than two years younger than you?’"

    Polygraph tests often are used to determine the veracity of suspects or witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Luke and his parents would have welcomed the opportunity for a polygraph asking questions directly related to his niece, but their attorney said polygraph results are inadmissible in Washington court, and he advised against asking Luke specific questions."

    Three polygraphs were administered during his probation, but they were limited to questions about his complying with the terms of his probation.

    Here is the article. Anyone interested in this should read it for an insightful look into the considerations facing all the people involved.

  • @mayjay Great info. I didn’t know he’d taken one. But perhaps asking him the direct question might lead to the solution. I do think one way to forgiveness, if he did it, is admission. But if he didn’t do it, the polygraph could give Moore his path to signing him.

  • Not to poke a hole in the bonus being given to the victim. I just don’t think he would get one and his contract would be the minimum which is like $25k a year.

    If he is signed, he has a long road to the pros and won’t make hardly any money along the way. Most people have some argument saying he doesn’t deserve to make millions, but the only way he would ever do that is from actually make it to the MLB level. A long shot on its own. Which is a main reason that he isn’t worth signing from a business perspective. On the other hand, he would only ever make that kind of money if he earned it from a playing standpoint. And that would be years from now.

  • @HighEliteMajor

    With some basic coaching most people can pass a polygraph test and the test is notorious for generating false positive and false negative results and, because of this inherent unreliability, they are not accepted in a court of law. Available literature appears to indicate that psychopaths and sociopaths have an easier time passing a polygraph than average.

  • @JayHawkFanToo how old was he then?

  • JayHawkFanToo said:


    Available literature appears to indicate that psychopaths and sociopaths have an easier time passing a polygraph than average.

    Have you thus been able to pass a polygraph? 🤔 But you’re right on your main point. However, companies use them regularly as does the government in areas where secrecy is necessary. Not perfect though.

    @Kcmatt7 I have understood he would have been at least a second round pick but for this issue.

  • @HighEliteMajor

    For some of the work I did for the DoD I had to go through background checks but it never got to the level of taking a polygraph so no, I have not personally taken one but I know people that have. Of course, the FBI and DoD have a lot more advanced equipment and technology than commonly available so the tests they administer are likely more reliable than those available to the public at large.

  • I had many clients take polygraphs administered by Army CID and FBI. If it showed he lied in denying guilt, the prosecutors did everything they could to ram the results down the defendant’s throat. If it showed his denial was not lying, the prosecutors talked about how unreliable polygraphs are, and how sociopathic criminals (like, say, an 18 year old accused of taking a swipe at another soldier in a melee–you know, the die hard criminal mastermind) can fool them, so they prosecuted anyway.

    I finally concluded that opinions on reliability of polygraphs are directly proportional to who benefits from the results.

  • @HighEliteMajor he would have. But he isn’t worth more than the minimum salary based on demand at this point.