Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall
- Thread starter GeorgeCostanza
- Start date
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.
Two questions:
1. in Paragraph 24...is he implying his brother Cooper is some kind of psychopath or something. "Let's just say Cooper had some anger management issues" (or is it the other way and Cooper is so boring that he would never teabag a trainer moon a colleague?)
2. In paragraph 18, is that normal that big time college athletes can't eat right if they're not at a specific dining hall table?
1. in Paragraph 24...is he implying his brother Cooper is some kind of psychopath or something. "Let's just say Cooper had some anger management issues" (or is it the other way and Cooper is so boring that he would never
2. In paragraph 18, is that normal that big time college athletes can't eat right if they're not at a specific dining hall table?
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.
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.
Plus, the settlement agreement may very well (and should if the defendant's lawyer was doing his/her job) contain terms that neither side is relying on any representations made by the other in deciding to accept it.
That said, given the events of the last couple of weeks, it's certainly possible there could be litigation about breaches of confidentiality provisions in the settlement -- from there it's a bit of a tortured path but you could see a slight possibility of the agreement getting blown up or of representations in the case becoming material again. Even so, it doesn't matter. Reds is right. The percentage of time people lie in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment is a very high number, and prosecutors have about as much interest in following up as they do trying to prosecute Nigerian lottery winner e-mail scams.
That said, given the events of the last couple of weeks, it's certainly possible there could be litigation about breaches of confidentiality provisions in the settlement -- from there it's a bit of a tortured path but you could see a slight possibility of the agreement getting blown up or of representations in the case becoming material again. Even so, it doesn't matter. Reds is right. The percentage of time people lie in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment is a very high number, and prosecutors have about as much interest in following up as they do trying to prosecute Nigerian lottery winner e-mail scams.
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.)
If he signs the settlement and then continues repeating the lies, she can absolutely sue him again. My understanding is that this is what has happened in this case.
Mike Florio is mad and stuff
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/daily-news-circles-wagons-turns-tables/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/daily-news-circles-wagons-turns-tables/
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.
But it's so silly to think that his diet faltered just because he couldn't sit with them for a while. That means he either has a terrible memory and doesn't absorb anything the trainers teach him, or he has no willpower and needs people constantly watching over him.
Eh, maybe. It takes a ton of calories to bulk up while playing a sport and it can be damn hard to eat and eat and eat. Especially on your own. I can dig it.
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
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.
Florio, if you don't want to write about a story, don't write about it.
T.J. Quinn at ESPN has an article up about Peyton denying in 2003 witness Saxon's affidavit here.
What's funny is that you can easily read that as three insults. And they coincide with with what Peyton detractors have been saying for years.
Man those 3 will be mad when he uses their body parts to make his own Frankenstein's monster.
Not at all sorry for what he actually did, but rather sorry she saw it, and sorry it offended her. What a douchebag.
Wait what? Now we find out that he mooned her from 2 feet away? While it is immature behavior I don't see how we went from there to teabagging and sexual assault. I swear I've read in this thread that he grabbed her head and pulled it between his ass and balls which to me is clearly sexual assault. If all that happened is that she saw his ass 20+ years ago, I can't get that worked up about it.
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".
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".
The original event is the motivation for the tea bagging. Looks like Manning cheated in a class, she called him out, UT covered it up, and he tea bagged her in retaliation. She made an issue of it and part of the settlement was redacting the evidence of the cheating event from the court records so they could push forward his version as a harmless prank gone wrong. Which no one would believe if the they knew about the cheating issue. Manning tea bags her as an enabled athlete would. He had just skated on the academic issue and its not a stretch to believe he would feel he could get away with some scrotal retaliation.
If this thing breaks 20 years ago as trainer turns Manning in for cheating and a week later he goes full frontal on her face, its a different public relations issue.
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"
If this thing breaks 20 years ago as trainer turns Manning in for cheating and a week later he goes full frontal on her face, its a different public relations issue.
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"
Last edited:
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.
Gotcha. The story Hooper linked to from 1997 read like she saw his ass/he mooned her as the extent of it. Not good behavior but also not sexual assault IMO.
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.
And yes thread title must be changed to scrotall recall.
This is a good piece from Deadspin in Wednesday going a bit deeper into the Tennessee athletic program, Naughright's role and career there, and the culture around it all as expressed in the affidavits:
http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-head-trainer-took-control-of-the-allega-1759575420#_ga=1.86160088.1591104144.1447114682
http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-head-trainer-took-control-of-the-allega-1759575420#_ga=1.86160088.1591104144.1447114682
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.
The findings of UT's investigators on Whited's 33 alleged incidents is really something. Here's a snippet:
http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/from-the-archives-news-sentinel-coverage-of-allegations-against-peyton-manning-369121051.html?d=mobile
Yeah, that "according to one account" bit was dubious. Was that Rollo's account?
Florio: Peyton Manning ... Victim
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/20/highlights-of-mannings-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-defamation-case/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/20/highlights-of-mannings-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-defamation-case/
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?
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.
To me, it was more about reminding us all that there are indeed two sides of this story, and saying that "Manning's is as follows." But that may not be much different than what you are suggesting.
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.
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.
Again, this framing ignores that many of the facts in this case are not in dispute.
There's already been a recent article or two out there where Saxon had refused to talk at all.
Not sure what you are referring to or even talking about. Or what the "again" means.
My framing is quite narrow: King and others quoted court pleadings on one side; Florio quoted court pleadings on the other. No more, no less.
I did not comment in any way on which pleadings are more persuasive or what facts are not in dispute. The most I would offer is that in most cases, the pleadings on one side, in isolation, usually do not tell the whole story.
My own view is that Peyton Manning is a steaming pile of shit.
That seems like a big piece of information, that she pretty much immediately reported the incident to the crisis center. Once again, it's circumstantial and she-said, he-said, but it's another element consistent with her version of events.