OT FC Does this make sense, 'someone beat the crap out of me, so I told the RB coach'

[sluggo72]

about it?
Does that make sense at all why someone who had the shiat knocked out of them goes to the RB coach instead of the police? Takes the time to take pictures of herself, but does not go beyond that? (at least according to the article)
At the risk of being victim blamer, it sounds like a set up to me, unless other facts come to light.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ting-her-says-art-briles-and-jeff-lebby-knew/

 

[simons96]

I just posted Chafin's response on my Baylor thread. This whole story seems weird.

but that shouldn't stop people from losing their jobs and their reputations just because the media is outraged #Sarcasm

 

[sluggo72]

I just posted Chafin's response on my Baylor thread. This whole story seems weird.

but that shouldn't stop people from losing their jobs and their reputations just because the media is outraged #Sarcasm

thanks, unfortunately I cant read it, its blocked at work.

 

[simons96]

True friends copy and paste for you:


BREAKING: Former Baylor RB Devin Chafin responds to Dolores Lozano's claims. Says he never choked or kicked her. And Briles didn't know. MORE...

Joe Schad
Former Baylor running back Devin Chafin admits he "grabbed" Dolores Lozano "because she was fighting me" but claims he "never threw her to the ground, kicked her or choked her."
Chafin told me: "The story has been falsely constructed. No one knows the entire story. This girl is not who she claims to be."
Chafin said he never discussed the situation with former head coach Art Briles, but did with current assistant Jeff Lebby.
Lebby is Briles' son-in-law, but Chafin said he has no knowledge of Lebby sharing their conversation.
Chafin said Lozano did have direct contact with Lebby, who today declined immediate comment.
"Coach Lebby told me to calm down," Chafin said. "I was emotional. I was crying. I needed to talk to somebody."
Chafin said a specific, personal event affecting he and Lozano's relationship led to a dramatic conversation that preceded the altercation.
"I was never interviewed by Waco Police," Chafin said. "She would not leave my house. I honestly don't know what bruising I caused. But there were no criminal charges for a reason."
Chafin claims Lozano e-mailed Lebby for help getting a job in 2015 and that she has repeatedly continued to contact her.
Chafin says Lozano is motivated by "her desire to be in the spotlight - a part of the story. And, maybe to get back at me for ignoring her at times."
Chafin said he believes he was finally dismissed by Baylor not because of a marijuana charge, but because of these allegations.
"Right now, they want to clear their names of anything related to assault," Chafin said. "People are looking at me like I abuse women and I don't. It's hard."
Chafin said it hurts to see what has happened at Baylor, with the President, Athletics Director and Head Coach all gone.
"The President and the football coach are not the people to be contacting in cases of serious assault," Chafin said. "Contact the police, not coaches. Go to the police."
Chafin said he plans to play at the FCS level this season.
"I feel I have not done anything wrong," Chafin said. "My hopes of the NFL are hurt severely right now but hopefully not gone."

 

[sluggo72]

True friends copy and paste for you:


BREAKING: Former Baylor RB Devin Chafin responds to Dolores Lozano's claims. Says he never choked or kicked her. And Briles didn't know. MORE...

Joe Schad
Former Baylor running back Devin Chafin admits he "grabbed" Dolores Lozano "because she was fighting me" but claims he "never threw her to the ground, kicked her or choked her."
Chafin told me: "The story has been falsely constructed. No one knows the entire story. This girl is not who she claims to be."
Chafin said he never discussed the situation with former head coach Art Briles, but did with current assistant Jeff Lebby.
Lebby is Briles' son-in-law, but Chafin said he has no knowledge of Lebby sharing their conversation.
Chafin said Lozano did have direct contact with Lebby, who today declined immediate comment.
"Coach Lebby told me to calm down," Chafin said. "I was emotional. I was crying. I needed to talk to somebody."
Chafin said a specific, personal event affecting he and Lozano's relationship led to a dramatic conversation that preceded the altercation.
"I was never interviewed by Waco Police," Chafin said. "She would not leave my house. I honestly don't know what bruising I caused. But there were no criminal charges for a reason."
Chafin claims Lozano e-mailed Lebby for help getting a job in 2015 and that she has repeatedly continued to contact her.
Chafin says Lozano is motivated by "her desire to be in the spotlight - a part of the story. And, maybe to get back at me for ignoring her at times."
Chafin said he believes he was finally dismissed by Baylor not because of a marijuana charge, but because of these allegations.
"Right now, they want to clear their names of anything related to assault," Chafin said. "People are looking at me like I abuse women and I don't. It's hard."
Chafin said it hurts to see what has happened at Baylor, with the President, Athletics Director and Head Coach all gone.
"The President and the football coach are not the people to be contacting in cases of serious assault," Chafin said. "Contact the police, not coaches. Go to the police."
Chafin said he plans to play at the FCS level this season.
"I feel I have not done anything wrong," Chafin said. "My hopes of the NFL are hurt severely right now but hopefully not gone."

thanks, the one thing that is not clear, were the police ever contacted? He says he wasn't even interviewed by the police, so did they even have a report?

 

[simons96]

thanks, the one thing that is not clear, were the police ever contacted? He says he wasn't even interviewed by the police, so did they even have a report?

Lozano says she notified the Waco PD in April 2014.

 

[BobPSU92]

According to nbc's tom winters, 18 former assistant coaches under briles knew about this. winters will be naming names any day now.

(I hope I haven't offended mr. winters. )

 

[simons96]

According to nbc's tom winters, 18 former assistant coaches under briles knew about this. winters will be naming names any day now.

(I hope I haven't offended mr. winters. )

you clearly don't understand his michnitpittiot use of the word "soon"

which means "as soon as I can make up some more BS"

 

[miketd1]

According to nbc's tom winters, 18 former assistant coaches under briles knew about this. winters will be naming names any day now.

(I hope I haven't offended mr. winters. )

Winters is coming.

 

[zwick99]

about it?
Does that make sense at all why someone who had the shiat knocked out of them goes to the RB coach instead of the police? Takes the time to take pictures of herself, but does not go beyond that? (at least according to the article)
At the risk of being victim blamer, it sounds like a set up to me, unless other facts come to light.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ting-her-says-art-briles-and-jeff-lebby-knew/

About as much sense as Joe saying he did not know but he reported everything to his superiors. I guess he told them everything he did not know. It is a flawed defense.

 

[sluggo72]

About as much sense as Joe saying he did not know but he reported everything to his superiors. I guess he told them everything he did not know. It is a flawed defense.

Was Joe given a report by a victim?

 

[royboy]

About as much sense as Joe saying he did not know but he reported everything to his superiors. I guess he told them everything he did not know. It is a flawed defense.

what a pathetic attempt at twisting

Joe told his superiors what he was told....how's that?

 

[LionFan87b]

It has always seemed like a no-brainer to me that if you witness a crime (or what appears to be a crime), you report it to the police. I don't see how any employer can legally prohibit that, but I would love to hear a lawyer weigh in on this.

 

[Obliviax]

It has always seemed like a no-brainer to me that if you witness a crime (or what appears to be a crime), you report it to the police. I don't see how any employer can legally prohibit that, but I would love to hear a lawyer weigh in on this.

Totally agree....and this is what happens when entities other than the justice system get involved. This is why policy is that you report it to your boss, document it, and leave it to the authorities. If she reported the beating to his position coach, what is the coach supposed to do? As soon as he gets involved, he is then going to be accused of tampering.

If you read the Pepper Hamilton report, they accuse the coaching staff of a) getting involved and then b) not getting involved.

So, as you say, if you feel you've been assaulted, call the police. If someone calls the coach, the first and only questions should be "did you call the police?" If no, call the police. If yes, get off the phone and contact the police.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Totally agree....and this is what happens when entities other than the justice system get involved. This is why policy is that you report it to your boss, document it, and leave it to the authorities. If she reported the beating to his position coach, what is the coach supposed to do? As soon as he gets involved, he is then going to be accused of tampering.

If you read the Pepper Hamilton report, they accuse the coaching staff of a) getting involved and then b) not getting involved.

So, as you say, if you feel you've been assaulted, call the police. If someone calls the coach, the first and only questions should be "did you call the police?" If no, call the police. If yes, get off the phone and contact the police.

Yup. This is the Alpha and Omega of the entire McQueary issue.

 

[Obliviax]

Yup. This is the Alpha and Omega of the entire McQueary issue.

TMZ's report:

Maria Sharapova was just hit with a TWO YEAR BAN by the International Tennis Federation for doping ... but she claims it's "unfair" and vows to appeal.

The ITF just issued a statement saying Sharapova's urine tested positive for meldonium -- a metabolic modulator that's prohibited in the sport.

The ITF says it cut Sharapova a break when it comes to the punishment because she "promptly admitted" to the offense. Instead of starting the 2-year ban today, they willbackdate the suspension to January 26 -- the date of the sample collection.

The ITF also ruled that her results at the 2016 Australian Open should be disqualified -- and she must forfeit her ranking points and prize money that she won at that event.

For her part, Sharapova says she did NOT intentionally use the substance -- and wants her fans to know she should not be considered a cheater.

"The ITF spent tremendous amounts of time and resources trying to prove I intentionally violated the anti-doping rules and the tribunal concluded I did not," Sharapova said in a statement.

"You need to know that the ITF asked the tribunal to suspend me for four years – the required suspension for an intentional violation -- and the tribunal rejected the ITF’s position."

Sharapova says she will fight the decision -- "I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension ... I will immediately appeal the suspension."

"I intend to stand for what I believe is right and that’s why I will fight to be back on the tennis court as soon as possible."

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

TMZ's report:

Maria Sharapova was just hit with a TWO YEAR BAN by the International Tennis Federation for doping ... but she claims it's "unfair" and vows to appeal.

The ITF just issued a statement saying Sharapova's urine tested positive for meldonium -- a metabolic modulator that's prohibited in the sport.

The ITF says it cut Sharapova a break when it comes to the punishment because she "promptly admitted" to the offense. Instead of starting the 2-year ban today, they willbackdate the suspension to January 26 -- the date of the sample collection.

The ITF also ruled that her results at the 2016 Australian Open should be disqualified -- and she must forfeit her ranking points and prize money that she won at that event.

For her part, Sharapova says she did NOT intentionally use the substance -- and wants her fans to know she should not be considered a cheater.

"The ITF spent tremendous amounts of time and resources trying to prove I intentionally violated the anti-doping rules and the tribunal concluded I did not," Sharapova said in a statement.

"You need to know that the ITF asked the tribunal to suspend me for four years – the required suspension for an intentional violation -- and the tribunal rejected the ITF’s position."

Sharapova says she will fight the decision -- "I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension ... I will immediately appeal the suspension."

"I intend to stand for what I believe is right and that’s why I will fight to be back on the tennis court as soon as possible."

Think this was meant for the other thread... . And good for her.

 

[Michael.Felli]

Totally agree....and this is what happens when entities other than the justice system get involved. This is why policy is that you report it to your boss, document it, and leave it to the authorities. If she reported the beating to his position coach, what is the coach supposed to do? As soon as he gets involved, he is then going to be accused of tampering.

If you read the Pepper Hamilton report, they accuse the coaching staff of a) getting involved and then b) not getting involved.

So, as you say, if you feel you've been assaulted, call the police. If someone calls the coach, the first and only questions should be "did you call the police?" If no, call the police. If yes, get off the phone and contact the police.

But, we had some 17 y/o raped by Sandusky. IIRC, he told his parents. They decided to call Joe. Then, over the course of 40 years, no one in their family (keep in mind, everyone in their family now knows he says he was raped by Sandusky, btw - you can't keep something like that a secret) says anything to any authority. Nada. Nothing. Not a peep. You'd think at least one person would say something over the course of 40 years.

It goes against convention that a male would even admit to being raped. Then, with everyone now knowing THEN he remains silent.

 

[Obliviax]

But, we had some 17 y/o raped by Sandusky. IIRC, he told his parents. They decided to call Joe. Then, over the course of 40 years, no one in their family (keep in mind, everyone in their family now knows he says he was raped by Sandusky, btw - you can't keep something like that a secret) says anything to any authority. Nada. Nothing. Not a peep. You'd think at least one person would say something over the course of 40 years.

It goes against convention that a male would even admit to being raped. Then, with everyone now knowing THEN he remains silent.

totally agree....if you don't file a police report, it didn't happen. Employers simply can't go around ruining people's lives based on rumors.

 

[sluggo72]

FWIW- Baylor's follow up, including the Pepper saying, "joe you shouldn't be a junior FBI agent', as he is criticized for not doing enough

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...-statement-in-response-to-latest-allegations/

 

[ACMEPizza]

I just posted Chafin's response on my Baylor thread. This whole story seems weird.

but that shouldn't stop people from losing their jobs and their reputations just because the media is outraged #Sarcasm

Add another twist...... http://www.espn975.com/manning-allegations-timed-for-maximum-publicity/

Notice the author's name

 

[zwick99]

It has always seemed like a no-brainer to me that if you witness a crime (or what appears to be a crime), you report it to the police. I don't see how any employer can legally prohibit that, but I would love to hear a lawyer weigh in on this.

Agreed. Any witness or victim should go to the police. In the Sandusky case many did not go to the police. Some claim they went to Joe. JP never should have been in the loop but once he was then he needed to tell them to go to the police.

One flaw with the JP defense is he followed PSU policy and went to his superiors. It is a weak defense. It implies he was told and he knew. The other defense is he was not told. If he was not told then he would have never went to his superiors. When the story broke JP's lawyer or spokesman should have said Joe has always urged any victim or witness to go to the police. Nobody could deny it.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Agreed. Any witness or victim should go to the police. In the Sandusky case many did not go to the police. Some claim they went to Joe. JP never should have been in the loop but once he was then he needed to tell them to go to the police.

The flaw with the JP defense is he followed PSU policy and went to superior. It is a weak defense. It implies he was told and he knew. When the story broke JP's lawyer or spokesman should have said Joe has always urged any victim or witness to go to the police. Nobody could deny it. The lame defense that JP went to his superiors makes him and PSU look stupid.

Pretty sure Joe was aware that Mike went to his father and the family doctor friend first, right? If so, and *they* didn't tell Mike to call the police, why should Joe? Saying it is a weak defense to follow policy is pretty dumb IMO, especially if what Mike told Joe is ambiguous at best. If what Mike saw was so heinous, it should have taken all of five seconds for his father to sit him down and have him call the cops. Done and done.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

about it?
Does that make sense at all why someone who had the shiat knocked out of them goes to the RB coach instead of the police? Takes the time to take pictures of herself, but does not go beyond that? (at least according to the article)
At the risk of being victim blamer, it sounds like a set up to me, unless other facts come to light.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ting-her-says-art-briles-and-jeff-lebby-knew/

When was JVP a Running Backs Coach? Boy, he sure got a shitload of calls...

 

[zwick99]

Pretty sure Joe was aware that Mike went to his father and the family doctor friend first, right? If so, and *they* didn't tell Mike to call the police, why should Joe? Saying it is a weak defense to follow policy is pretty dumb IMO, especially if what Mike told Joe is ambiguous at best. If what Mike saw was so heinous, it should have taken all of five seconds for his father to sit him down and have him call the cops. Done and done.

It does not float with me. MM would not call his dad and consult with the family doctor then set up a meeting with JP to tell him about somd ambiguous horseplay. Joe would not then follow it up and contact his superiors to discuss ambiguous horseplay. GTFO. If Joe did nothing I could buy in. Your defense is JP basically set up a meeting to discuss nothing.

The policy by itself was incomplete. THe policy has since changed. The policy of passing info on to your superior is fine but when the info is a potential crime it can't just stop with your superior. There comes a point where someone needed to go to the police which did not happen. Another contradiction in the JP defense is he went to his superior who was oversaw the PSU police so JP actually did go to the police. Did they file a report or do an investigation into the shower incident? Did they at least interview the kid? MM was a witness. JP and company should have told him to go to the police. If MM then said he was not sure then JP would have been in the clear.

If MM went to the police and the police did nothing then EVERYONE at PSU should have been in the clear.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

It does not float with me. MM would not call his dad and consult with the family doctor then set up a meeting with JP to tell him about somd ambiguous horseplay. Joe would not then follow it up and contact his superiors to discuss ambiguous horseplay. GTFO. If Joe did nothing I could buy in. Your defense is JP basically set up a meeting to discuss nothing.

The policy by itself was incomplete. THe policy has since changed. The policy of passing info on to your superior is fine but when the info is a potential crime it can't just stop with your superior. There comes a point where someone needed to go to the police which did not happen. Another contradiction in the JP defense is he went to his superior who was oversaw the PSU police so JP actually did go to the police. Did they file a report or do an investigation into the shower incident? Did they at least interview the kid? MM was a witness. JP and company should have told him to go to the police. If MM then said he was not sure then JP would have been in the clear.

If MM went to the police and the police did nothing then EVERYONE at PSU should have been in the clear.

So, Mike's dad and the family doctor get a pass? They can't call the police? So Joe, the fourth person aware of the incident including Mike (the only eyewitness), is on the hook for going to the cops? Got it - your agenda is crystal clear....

 

[TheBigUglies]

Add another twist...... http://www.espn975.com/manning-allegations-timed-for-maximum-publicity/

Notice the author's name

Must have been taken down already. 404 error

 

[royboy]

It does not float with me. MM would not call his dad and consult with the family doctor then set up a meeting with JP to tell him about somd ambiguous horseplay. Joe would not then follow it up and contact his superiors to discuss ambiguous horseplay. GTFO. If Joe did nothing I could buy in. Your defense is JP basically set up a meeting to discuss nothing.

The policy by itself was incomplete. THe policy has since changed. The policy of passing info on to your superior is fine but when the info is a potential crime it can't just stop with your superior. There comes a point where someone needed to go to the police which did not happen. Another contradiction in the JP defense is he went to his superior who was oversaw the PSU police so JP actually did go to the police. Did they file a report or do an investigation into the shower incident? Did they at least interview the kid? MM was a witness. JP and company should have told him to go to the police. If MM then said he was not sure then JP would have been in the clear.

If MM went to the police and the police did nothing then EVERYONE at PSU should have been in the clear.

Ah, hindsight.

I'd say you were dumb (to reason) and blind (to anything but your own agenda) but you clearly have keen hindsight.

 

[zwick99]

So, Mike's dad and the family doctor get a pass? They can't call the police? So Joe, the fourth person aware of the incident including Mike (the only eyewitness), is on the hook for going to the cops? Got it - your agenda is crystal clear....

Who is giving them a pass? They are idiots. MM was fired and nobody will hire him. How is he getting a pass? Maybe the media is giving him a pass becuase he was not a big name so they have not focused on him.

I am not giving any of them a pass. EVERYONE who was in the loop should have gone to the police. The VICTIMS, their FAMILIES, and MM should have gone to the police. Once MM goes to JOE then Joe should have gone to the police. He screwed up. Once JOe goes to Curley, Shultz and Spanier they should have gone to the police and they did not. At the very least Joe, Curley, Shultz and Spanier should have had the police go talk to the kid. If the kid says nothing happened then I would put them ALL in the clear. Did they ever send someone to talk to the kid? If not then they are idiots. Most likely the kid would be embarrassed and say nothing happened. THat said they needed to have him say it.

IF PSU had simply gone one step further then they would all be in the clear.

 

[zwick99]

Ah, hindsight.

We do have hindsight. That said you won't admit any mistakes were made.

If the same thing happened today would you want PSU to make the same decisions? That would be pretty stupid.

 

[marshall23]

The only thing one needs to know.....The MSM Vultures are circling over Baylor. I read the article and I don't buy this young ladies story. Sorry, but if there is a serious problem you file a report with police or a campus organization that deals with such complaints. Going to a coach because your boyfriend shoved you or slapped you makes no sense. It even makes me suspicious that the motivation could be to hurt a players status out of spite (after an argument or a break up etc.} Where are the parents? What would you advise your daughter to do if she called you from college and said her boyfriend laid hands on her? One, I would insist she file a report. Two, I would tell her that I never want her to have anything to do with him again. 3. If she refuses to file a report, I would be on the phone to the college/university to seek action.
What parent would advise their daughter to call a coach? Is the whole world that gullible?
I saw a headline a couple of days ago that claimed a victim was seeking the death penalty for Baylor Football. I was astonished to find that the woman quoted in the article wasn't even a Baylor Coed. Rather the story alleged that she had been raped by Oregon players years ago. I'm trying to understand what dropping football would do to end sexual assaults.
It makes as much sense as saying access to the Lasch Building made Sandusky a child molester. There are a lot of people who don't like sports and athletes. They come out of the woodwork when stuff like this happens. It makes it difficult to judge how widespread and serious a problem is.
ESPN won't let this story go until they have a better one to plug in. That's how these assholes operate.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Who is giving them a pass? They are idiots. MM was fired and nobody will hire him. How is he getting a pass? Maybe the media is giving him a pass becuase he was not a big name so they have not focused on him.

I am not giving any of them a pass. EVERYONE who was in the loop should have gone to the police. The VICTIMS, their FAMILIES, and MM should have gone to the police. Once MM goes to JOE then Joe should have gone to the police. He screwed up. Once JOe goes to Curley, Shultz and Spanier they should have gone to the police and they did not. At the very least Joe, Curley, Shultz and Spanier should have had the police go talk to the kid. If the kid says nothing happened then I would put them ALL in the clear. Did they ever send someone to talk to the kid? If not then they are idiots. Most likely the kid would be embarrassed and say nothing happened. THat said they needed to have him say it.

IF PSU had simply gone one step further then they would all be in the clear.

Ok, agreed. But, there is no 'kid' to interview if Mike doesn't call the cops RIGHT AWAY. By the time he gets around to Joe, JS and said kid are long, long gone. If JP goes to the cops immediately, and they go to JS's house, what then? 'We have an eye witness that puts you in a shower last night with an unknown youth doing inappropriate things. Do you happen to have some clothes with DNA tissue from you and him we can examine?' - this only works if MM or his father calls the cops ASAP; not the next day when MM went to Joe.

 

[zwick99]

Ok, agreed. But, there is no 'kid' to interview if Mike doesn't call the cops RIGHT AWAY. By the time he gets around to Joe, JS and said kid are long, long gone. If JP goes to the cops immediately, and they go to JS's house, what then? 'We have an eye witness that puts you in a shower last night with an unknown youth doing inappropriate things. Do you happen to have some clothes with DNA tissue from you and him we can examine?' - this only works if MM or his father calls the cops ASAP; not the next day when MM went to Joe.

Agreed somewhat. If JP goes to the police and the police investigate and they can't find the kid then so be it. Joe would be in the clear. That did not happen.

I am not trying to rip Joe. I think he got a raw deal becuase he made an honest mistake but it was a mistake. If a couple of very minor policy changes were in place I think everyone at PSU would have been in the clear and there never would have been sanctions. I think the same thing could have happened at any school. Almost every school has since made those policy changes.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Agreed somewhat. If JP goes to the police and the police investigate and they can't find the kid then so be it. Joe would be in the clear. That did not happen.

I am not trying to rip Joe. I think he got a raw deal becuase he made an honest mistake but it was a mistake. If a couple of very minor policy changes were in place I think everyone at PSU would have been in the clear and there never would have been sanctions. I think the same thing could have happened at any school. Almost every school has since made those policy changes.

That, or the police bungle this like CYS did in '98 and nothing drastic happens.

 

[zwick99]

That, or the police bungle this like CYS did in '98 and nothing drastic happens.

The police might have bungled it and I doubt the kid would even press charges. I doubt the outcome would be any different for the victims but if the police were notified then I think PSU would have been totally in the clear.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The police might have bungled it and I doubt the kid would even press charges. I doubt the outcome would be any different for the victims but if the police were notified then I think PSU would have been totally in the clear.

Sadly, we'll never know.

 

[Obliviax]

Agreed somewhat. If JP goes to the police and the police investigate and they can't find the kid then so be it. Joe would be in the clear. That did not happen.

I am not trying to rip Joe. I think he got a raw deal becuase he made an honest mistake but it was a mistake. If a couple of very minor policy changes were in place I think everyone at PSU would have been in the clear and there never would have been sanctions. I think the same thing could have happened at any school. Almost every school has since made those policy changes.

Agree...but I also think it is reasonable to expect that TSM mandated JS keep records as to what he was doing with what kids. This is, IMHO, a MINIMAL expectation and goes to the fact that the STATE of PA dropped the ball on this as well. There is no reason why that kid wasn't or isn't IDed. In fact, he probably has been IDed but was considered not credible, speaks volumes.

 

[ACMEPizza]

Must have been taken down already. 404 error

It was an article written by the accuser on the subject of Peyton Manning's sexual harassment at TN. As you can see by the title, the article was about how the allegations against Peyton were timed to maximize the impact. The other twist is that she is apparently doing work for ESPN and the person who broke this story left ESPN on Monday.

 

[L.T. Young]

It does not float with me. MM would not call his dad and consult with the family doctor then set up a meeting with JP to tell him about somd ambiguous horseplay. Joe would not then follow it up and contact his superiors to discuss ambiguous horseplay. GTFO. If Joe did nothing I could buy in. Your defense is JP basically set up a meeting to discuss nothing.

The policy by itself was incomplete. THe policy has since changed. The policy of passing info on to your superior is fine but when the info is a potential crime it can't just stop with your superior. There comes a point where someone needed to go to the police which did not happen. Another contradiction in the JP defense is he went to his superior who was oversaw the PSU police so JP actually did go to the police. Did they file a report or do an investigation into the shower incident? Did they at least interview the kid? MM was a witness. JP and company should have told him to go to the police. If MM then said he was not sure then JP would have been in the clear.

If MM went to the police and the police did nothing then EVERYONE at PSU should have been in the clear.

I have no idea what this has to do with the OP?