This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The part where this went to trial and was settled to the plaintiffs satisfaction 13 years ago.
The reason it's news now is IMO a) there is a new lawsuit now and b) for whatever reason it has hit a nerve and you're right about c) the King story.moleculo said:
it should be pointed out that manning isn't a party of the lawsuit. The lawsuit has to do with U of Tenn; the Manning issue was cited in the suit as an example where the University failed.
He wasn't a party to the lawsuit but was mentioned in the lawsuit. That's what brought the story back to the news that's what caused King to write about it. That was my only point.
The reason it's news now is because of all the new salacious allegations that were not a part of the original complaint. As far as you can tell???? WTF, you're basing your entire opinion on an attorney attempting to extort money via his litigious client.
Except the player who was asked to corroborate the "mooning" says it happened just like she said it did.
As far as I can tell there were 3 people in the room. Peyton, Nauhright and the track guy. Naughright and the track guy both said it was more than just a mooning.
Oh and did Naughright ever say it was just a mooning? Do you have something written where she said that? I would agree with your scenario if that's the case, but again I can't find it. But I could have missed it.
The original 1996 complaint.
This is what I can't visualize or make sense out of. Was she passed out? If a man Twice my size would drop his drawers and attempt to sit on my face, I'm not going to be kneeling there holding still for him. Even if he was way stronger than me, he couldn't stop me from at least turning my head to the side. There just isn't any way imaginable that he dropped his shorts and was able to drag his D, his nuts, and his butt hole over her face. Nor could I ever in a million years ever imagine him trying that. What makes sense is that he tried putting his junk in her face and maybe even made brief contact. Unless he also drugged her, not much more could have happened. Her story keeps changing to try to make it sound worse and worse. She's made a career out of this three second event.
Oh I'm of the opinion it probably didn't involve contact. I just think there is a middle ground between just a mooning and teabagging her. And I'd think he fell somewhere in that middle ground. Especially since the one witness not suing or being sued said that it was more than a mooning. And I think looking at it through the 2016 lens what he did was worse than just a prank. That's just my opinion of course.
How would that be offensive when his farts smell like honeysuckle blossoms and the gas has an effect like nitrous oxide mixed with crack cocaine smoke?
Do you have the original complaint. Best I can find is this:
I don't think the '96 complaint said "just" a mooning, but it makes no mention of contact.
All you've read is what Naughright and her attorney have put out there... Doesn't it strike your as odd that the resting of genitals and rectum on her face wasn't included in the original complaint? Does't the idea that someone could maneuver their body in a way to rest their genitals and rectum on another persons face against their will seem slightly implausible?
No kidding. She had sex with some other guys so it's okay to assault her. Laughable the excuses people have.
I thought it was more the 'she began her extortion career at an early age' defense.
In fairness, it has been represented that Peyton and Archie fabricated this in their deposition. So some sense of corroboration, however tangential, is potentially important as is the notion she may have herself been a harasser if she exploited her role as a paid adviser to students and did in fact sleep with them.
That Manning exposed himself to her. The statement about there being physical contact was made in 2003.
Is this true? All I can find is where the prosecution's version of the facts of the case refers to Malcolm Saxon's affidavit, saying it "clearly refutes Peyton Manning's version of the incident." (It doesn't quote any of the affidavit, but only refers to the exhibit. Has anyone seen the affidavit itself somewhere online?) This could mean that it backs up the trainer's story, and I'm sure that's what the prosecutors would like one to take away from it. But you would think that if that were the case, they would say that it agreed with her story rather than just refuting Manning's story. So it could simply mean that Saxon said he mooned or otherwise exposed himself to her and he knew it really wasn't meant for him as Manning claimed. Even the letter from Saxon to Manning only really says Manning dropped his drawers.
