What is the purpose of Paragraphs 4 and 5?
I like the fainting couch tone of para 21. Such unladylike cussing!What is the purpose of Paragraphs 4 and 5?
No. As a practical matter, no one gets dinged for civil perjury unless it can be construed as an active attempt to obstruct justice in a broad (civil or criminal) sense.So if any part of this is proven to be untrue, Pey-Pey has a legal problem, right?
Maybe they don't spoon feed at the regular dining halls.Paragraph 18 is so pathetic. What lawyer thought that was a good idea? Poor Peyton lost weight - what a victim.
Couldn't she revive her suit if new evidence shows that PM probably lied in this affidavit, on the theory that her agreement to the settlement was obtained fraudulently?No. As a practical matter, no one gets dinged for civil perjury unless it can be construed as an active attempt to obstruct justice in a broad (civil or criminal) sense.
Since this case settled, nothing was pursued. And it would be virtually (if not actually) impossible to do so now.
Peyton's image may continue to slide. That's about it.
Been awhile since I've done this, but settlement agreements are really hard to open back up. The fraud usually has to go to the actually agreement itself, and not any of the underlying facts. Here, she would've known if he lied in the affidavit because she was present during the incident, so his dishonest testimony wouldn't undo the SA.Couldn't she revive her suit if new evidence shows that PM probably lied in this affidavit, on the theory that her agreement to the settlement was obtained fraudulently?
I agree that criminal charges won't happen, but I could see him being placed in a position where he had little choice but to cut her another check (again) for her continued silence.
If the affidavit is part of the process that led to the settlement, I can't imagine that she'd be able to do so. (She would have been aware of what he says during the negotiations leading up to the settlement.)Couldn't she revive her suit if new evidence shows that PM probably lied in this affidavit, on the theory that her agreement to the settlement was obtained fraudulently?
I agree that criminal charges won't happen, but I could see him being placed in a position where he had little choice but to cut her another check (again) for her continued silence.
Reading that paragraph I couldn't even make sense of what they were claiming. I'm not sure what the "Training Table" was in the dining hall. If it was an official name, wouldn't it be capitalized?Paragraph 18 is so pathetic. What lawyer thought that was a good idea? Poor Peyton lost weight - what a victim.
Training Table is the term for the Athlete-only dining facility.Reading that paragraph I couldn't even make sense of what they were claiming. I'm not sure what the "Training Table" was in the dining hall. If it was an official name, wouldn't it be capitalized?
Was it a little table with "RESERVED TRAINING TABLE-ATHLETES ONLY" on it? Was it a nickname for a table? Were there high chairs they had to sit in?
Was he just so upset he couldn't sit with the cool kids he sat the next table over and sulked and threw up his food?
I'm assuming that at the dining hall you could go get your food yourself and weren't waited on? Maybe he didn't have the strength to get up and walk to the "College Grill" or the "Italian Specials" section of the dining hall?
Facility? The language used makes it sound like it was a table (or some sort of section) within a dining hall - not a dining hall itself. I was picturing something like my university, where I'd see football athletes in my dining hall, sitting together at the same table with trainers and coaches and overhear them imparting nutrition advice from time to time.Training Table is the term for the Athlete-only dining facility.
This is bordering on Manchurian Candidate territory."Peyton has the brains of a lawyer, the heart of a warrior and the soul of a gentleman,” Tegano said.
Florio, if you don't want to write about a story, don't write about it.Mike Florio is mad and stuff
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/daily-news-circles-wagons-turns-tables/
I'll take Motives for $200 Alex.WaPo posits that the mysterious 1994 incident may have been an alleged cheating scandal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/02/19/the-mysterious-1994-incident-between-peyton-manning-and-a-tennessee-trainer/?postshare=9151455926670736&tid=ss_tw
TN associate athletic director in that affidavit:
This is bordering on Manchurian Candidate territory.
Whited, Manning and the friend, track athlete Malcolm Saxon, concurred that Whited was squatting behind Manning and examining his foot when Manning dropped his shorts.
The DRES [UT's office of Diversity Resources and Educational Services] investigation provided differing accounts of what followed.
"(Whited) stated that she was working on (Manning's) foot when she heard laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end,'' UT's report said. She was 18 to 30 inches from his buttocks, according to one account.
Manning told investigators the mooning lasted 1 to 11/2 seconds, it was directed at Saxon, and he didn't think Whited saw it at the time.
Saxon, who didn't return a phone call, told investigators Manning exposed his "full buttocks'' after Saxon gave Manning a hard time about Manning's girlfriend. "This was done within a few (5-10) seconds,'' the report states. Saxon said Whited appeared "flustered'' before continuing to examine Manning's foot.
Whited told co-worker Benson that after looking up and seeing Manning, she asked, "What are you trying to do, be an a------?'' Whited told Benson that Manning pulled up his shorts and she tried to continue working.
Whited had gone to Benson's home after the incident, and Benson said Whited began crying upon describing it. Benson called Rollo. He came to Benson's home, as did Whited's husband, John Whited III, son of the former UT baseball coach.
"Ms. Whited was very distraught and crying,'' Rollo's report to investigators stated. "Ms. Whited clearly was extremely offended by this occurrence, and she referred to it as an 'assault.' ''
Rollo said Whited had seen at least two other "moonings'' without seeming offended. "The difference in this situation must be her close proximity to the `mooning,' '' the Rollo report stated.
Rollo said Whited was upset about other matters, too, including a student-athlete being acquitted of rape charges and an incident in which another student-athlete said her massages sexually aroused him. She and her husband expressed "extreme concern'' about Whited's safety, Rollo said.
Whited called the Sexual Assault Crisis Center, according to Benson's report. "Rollo also said at one point that he did not think that the police or the press should be contacted with regard to this incident,'' Benson told investigators.
Rollo went to Manning's apartment around 11 p.m. that night. Manning said he was "surprised to hear that she had seen him pull down his pants and was surprised to hear that she was upset.''
Manning tried to call Whited that night and afterward but never got through. He was disciplined with early morning runs and removal of dining privileges, and wrote a certified letter to Whited after a coach instructed him to do so.
Manning "made it clear in the letter to Whited that he was apologizing for the `misunderstanding,' '' investigators reported. "He said he considered the incident to be a foolish prank that was between he and (another student) and was not aimed at Ms. Whited. He was sorry that she saw the act and was sorry that she was offended.''
Whited didn't think the apology was sufficient, documents indicate. In fact, according to documents, she asked the university in May 1996 for a media release clarifying "what actually took place.'' No such release was forthcoming.
Man those 3 will be mad when he uses their body parts to make his own Frankenstein's monster.Peyton has the brains of a lawyer, the heart of a warrior and the soul of a gentleman,” Tegano said.
Not at all sorry for what he actually did, but rather sorry she saw it, and sorry it offended her. What a douchebag.
OK, thought so. Thanks Leather.She says, first hand, that he put his ass and balls on her face in an affidavit.
It's an understandable point of confusion. I think that the early stories call it a mere ass-display because they are talking to sources close to the University.OK, thought so. Thanks Leather.
Outstanding.On a side note, my new suggestion for a thread name is ": SCROTAL RECALL"
Kravitz is cute here. Yes, holding a grudge is his biggest fault. Not his sexual assaulting, and not so subtle a black guy did it and she asked for it because she loves sleeping with black men racist piece of shit-ness.Kravitz said in an interview this week that Manning's biggest fault is he holds grudges. The puzzle pieces are starting to fit together.
On a side note, my new suggestion for a thread name is ": SCROTAL RECALL"
This sums it up for me.Whatever happened in the original event, isn't the main issue what the Manning camp has done after the fact?
Even if what she states is true, if the PM paid the settlement, never brought it up in the book and never smeared her then this would be written off as a "youthful indiscretion".
http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/from-the-archives-news-sentinel-coverage-of-allegations-against-peyton-manning-369121051.html?d=mobile14. Allegation: July 24, 1995, Whited wrote letter to her boss about sexual harassment and discrimination. Someone left a note on her door at work that said "She doesn't respect how things are done. Men should be head of all things.'' Also a Barbie doll and plastic car were left.
Finding/analysis: Cartoons and paraphernalia not uncommon in office; no gender bias.
Along those lines, I noticed this quote in the articles, as well:This sums it up for me.
Even if we accept the most benign explanation of his initial behavior, Manning's inability to refrain from continuously slandering this woman (notwithstanding a legal agreement requiring him to refrain) is proof of his true character.
Oops...He added, "Peyton's name was mentioned in every media outlet in the country, but there's nothing I can do about it." Archie Manning acknowledged that "I guess it bothers me, but I'm not going to stir anything up."
Yeah, that "according to one account" bit was dubious. Was that Rollo's account?It's an understandable point of confusion. I think that the early stories call it a mere ass-display because they are talking to sources close to the University.
My take is that to this point, only one side's pleadings had been aired. Florio's point, if he had one, is that perceptions can change, or at least move back to the middle, when the other side's version of events is presented. This column excerpted the main points made my Manning, which underscores, to me, that reading one side in isolation is rarely sufficient.So basically, Florio is airing Manning's side of this story – which is that Naughright is a litigious gold digger. In not sure if it's his basic sense of fairness that's been tripped on or what. But it seems like his sensibilities as a lawyer are offended by this. Any SoSH legal minds care to expand?
So Manning's book wasn't his side?My take is that to this point, only one side's pleadings had been aired. Florio's point, if he had one, is that perceptions can change, or at least move back to the middle, when the other side's version of events is presented.
Of course it was. But Manning's book is not in the easily digestible form of a column, and it wasn't cut from the same litigation cloth as many of the excerpts that dotted Shaun King's article and other articles following that one.So Manning's book wasn't his side?
Again, this framing ignores that many of the facts in this case are not in dispute.Of course it was. But Manning's book is not in the easily digestible form of a column, and it wasn't cut from the same litigation cloth as many of the excerpts that dotted Shaun King's article and other articles following that one.
I'm not saying that Florio doesn't have a pro Manning agenda. Maybe he does. I don't know and my point was that his column doesn't tell me that he does, without question. That was the first thing I've read in article form that was an apples to apples type response to the recent things we've read.
As a lawyer, I note that when you read one side's brief, you often find yourself nodding and getting persuaded...until you read the other side's response.
There's already been a recent article or two out there where Saxon had refused to talk at all.When does some journalist find Malcolm Saxon, get him on camera, and ask "Did Mr. Manning moon you or teabag her?" He is the only eyewitness, I am surprised this hasn't happened yet. It will have a much more dramatic impact than his decades-old affadavit and letter or whatever.
Not sure what you are referring to or even talking about. Or what the "again" means.Again, this framing ignores that many of the facts in this case are not in dispute.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14826436/documents-reveal-peyton-manning-accuser-called-sexual-assault-crisis-center-report-1996-incidentAn allegation by a former University of Tennessee trainer who accused NFL star Peyton Manning of pressing his buttocks and genitals against her face while she examined his ankle was cataloged in 1996 by a sexual assault crisis center worker as "sexual assault/abuse," according to documents reviewed by Outside the Lines.
Less than three hours after the Feb. 29, 1996, training room incident, then-trainer Jaime Naughright called a Knoxville sexual assault crisis center hotline and said she had been victimized that evening by a "very well-known public figure ... an athlete at UT" and that she had already reported the incident to her supervisor.
According to the document, Naughright did not name Manning and did not want to discuss details of the assault over the phone because she "feared for her job, worried and feared for her life." Notes written by the crisis center worker quote Naughright as saying, "I can't believe this ... sense there will be a cover-up."
Manning was never the subject of a criminal investigation in the incident. But in a 1996 complaint against the University of Tennessee, Naughright accused Manning of assaulting her while she examined his ankle. Manning has denied that he assaulted her, saying instead that he was "mooning" another athlete. But that athlete, cross-country runner Malcolm Saxon, disputed Manning's account in an affidavit and said both he and Naughright were shocked by the incident at the time. Naughright agreed to leave the university as part of a $300,000 settlement.