The story heading is a bit misleading.  OK, a lot misleading.  What the
actual article says is that AN ATTORNEY FOR A DEFENDANT characterized
LaTulippe's testimony as being inconsistent, and only in a limited respect.

"I believe that Mr. LaTulippe acknowledged or admitted during his testimony
that most of the allegations against my client weren't true,'' said Peter
Joslin, the attorney for assistant team captain Adreas Moborg.

There are no facts to back up this characterization, so all you have is the
favorable spin you would expect from someone being paid to put that spin on
it.  Without hearing the facts about those "admissions", I am skeptical.
Indeed, if the attorney could not draw out one little insignificant
inconsistency during the course of three days of depositions he should have
been fired.  What matters most is the significance of the "inconsistencies"
In that regard, the article goes on to say:

However, LaTulippe did not stray from his description of the core incident in
which he and other freshmen were hazed at an initiation party, an incident
acknowledged by the university.

This seems to be the central issue as for UVM and the team.  From this
characterization in the paper, it seems LaTulippe did not alter his
statements.