It's more "he said/she said, and an independent eyewitness swore an affidavit supporting her story." At this point, only the willfully blind or tremendously stupid can think that Manning was actually mooning Saxon.
And a series of subsequent lies, which should be unnecessary if nothing happened.
Not really; think about it this way. What incentive did Naughright have to report the assault? Essentially none, and there were plenty of disincentives, too.
"Again" means that I have had this conversation before in the thread.
I don't fancy myself as a defender of Mike Florio. And if you are right about him or his motivations, that's fine with me. But I don't see what you are concluding from the fact that he quoted the pleadings on Manning's side of the case or what he otherwise wrote in the article. Maybe there is more to the story and maybe I missed something in the article.
But didn't Saxon speak by way of a letter to manning that somehow became public?
Yes. It's willful ignorance on Florio's part.
Saxon has a letter that, although it never explicitly says what Peyton did, basically says that Peyton's version of the story is bullshit and that he has "shown no mercy or grace to this woman".
I'm not excusing Florio in his reaction here. But it seems more likely that he simply didn't want to rush to judgment.
That article doesn't paint Naughright in the best light.
The pertinent part of that "story" is that Stokes, who claims the recording is of Naughright, isn't coming from an objective point of view:
The second part is legit, but it could be the Mannings so screwed with her life that she now has a victimization syndrome.
First thing I thought when I heard about the more recent string of unrelated lawsuits is that it could be a reverse-boy who cried wolf thing. Way too much smoke surrounding Tennessee not to believe she was working in a hostile environment even without Peyton contributing his own brand of manly justice.
It could be legit. It could also be that she fucked herself up by slipping, then it got re-fucked up during a massage/physical therapy, so she sued both parties because her physical health is necessary for her to do her job. The fact that she waited 4 years to sue one party was probably a bad strategic idea, but I think it actually works against the notion that she just files frivolous lawsuits for the fuck of it. And 3 lawsuits does not a "serial litigant" make. I have personally interacted with folks that have a dozen open cases and a dozen that have been dismissed or settled or whatever. People that sue their neighbors for having their leaves blow in their yard, or a bus company for "almost running them over". Shit like that.
I think 4 years 'looks' suspicious, but I don't think it actually is.
Let's be clear: if the recording turns out to be of Naughright, she is destroyed. At least for the purposes of what we're discussing here, which is the public perception of Manning.
She may not be a serial litigant, but from a bayesian perspective, I've updated my priors accordingly. It definitely makes me less confident in her.
No facts have changed, but the other lawsuits were unknown to me. And they seem very much like nuisance suits. She was injured from a massage? And is suing a store for slipping on a puddle that was on the sidewalk outside? Possibly they are legit, but if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to pick a side, I'd say she's an ambulance chaser.
Ok. Again: how does any of this impact the known facts of the Manning case? Why is any of this, even taken as true, probative, when she has a letter from a witness more or less confirming her own side of the story? How is it material to analyzing Manning's smear campaign against her prior to 2006, when the lawsuits were filed?
We don't know for certain what happened that day. At this point I think Malcolm Saxon needs to come out and make a public statement about exactly what he witnessed.
You don't think the affidavit he signed confirming Naughtright's story is enough?
I was thinking in my head "DD is crazy...it's probably just your typical Internet comments shit talking," but then I saw what you're talking about. That is...really weird. If you look at the user names, it's really just the same handful of users commenting nonsense across multiple threads, as if someone was looking for an easy way to post in volume.
It depends. I agree that the story that Manning was mooning Saxon doesn't fly. But what I want to know is whether we can believe Naughright that Manning placed his naked butt and rectum on her face.
It's Jacoby Ellsbury on the Yankees. I was happy that the Yankees took on that contract and not the Sox. I thought that was obvious?
Sure, but wouldn't you make it less obvious and comment on topic instead of spouting jibberish? Even better, it's an opportunity to get your angle out there. This seems like a sad attempt.
The affidavit says he stood over her, and then squatted. Then says Naughtright pushed Manning's ass "up and out of her face". He says several times that it "was not a mooning". Not just that Manning wasn't mooning him, but that it wasn't a mooning at all. Read the affidavit.
Point 2 simply states: "I observed Peyton Manning dropping his pants below his knees for a period of 5-10 seconds". Nothing about squatting. And when it describes Naughright standing, it says (point 5) that "Jamie Whited pushed Peyton Manning up and out of her face". Not specifically his ass. It does say that what happened was not a mooning, but it doesn't say enough to support the "naked butt and rectum" comment.
No, point 2 does not state that.
Thanks - maybe I'm not too crazy! The comments are pretty strange and the only time they actually engaged in the topic (way, way down the thread - a job well done?) they're attempting to de-bunk posts that criticize Manning. If you google "paid trolls," it seems they do exist in the corporate and governmental realms. No surprise there, but a situation like Manning's? If true, that'd be a surprise - seems like too big a risk if that info became public.
"Up and out of her face" is a literal quote from the affadavit - section 5. Did you read section 5?
