Mannings mooning incident on ESPN.

#301
#301
KBVol said:
First off, from reading your last paragraph, I'd say you've already passed judgment.

Second, he was bound by a nondisclosure agreement from the 1996-97 lawsuit Naughright brought against the University. He broke that nondisclosure agreement when he wrote his book a few years. I haven't read the book but from what I heard yesterday, he didn't actually mention her name when briefly recounting what happened. Just said what happened from his perspective and said the trainer had a filthy mouth. So a quick question....if it was more than what he said, was actually what she later changed her story to, had already been settled and done with, why in the world would he dredge the story back up which would ultimately only cause him and his reputation harm? Doesn't make sense. If he felt like he got off easy or gotten away with something because what was a much more serious incident was only written off as a mooning, why in the world would he bring it back up and risk that the real truth get out and cause him serious damage? IMHO, no one would do that, hence, why I think his story is more credible and hers is not, especially since her story changed.

Third, if I'm a rich dude with millions in the bank, and something like this happens and I'm advised that I can essentially part with some pocket change to make something go away that's gonna hurt my reputation, I'd very likely part with the cash to make it go away as quickly and painlessly as possible, rather than spend time in court and the national media's headlines.

Finally, in Naughright's original lawsuit, she listed 32 instances of "sexual harassment"....THIRTY-TWO.....including saying that Phil Fulmer had come onto her and that Gus Mannning had "inappropriate communication" with her. Geez, that sounds legit. I casually knew Jamie when I was a student at UT in the late 80s when she lived in Humes and I lived in Reese Hall in presidential courtyard. She was acquaintances with my girlfriend and I actually helped coach an intramural flag football team she played on (before she hurt her knee, tore an ACL iirc). She was a skinny, unattractive Jersey girl....long stringy bleach blonde hair, big ass nose, walked like a dude, just not very attractive at all. A large rack was about all she had going for her. Perhaps that has something to do with all this....perhaps a little insecurity and a thirst for large sums of "easy money" from people and institutions with deep pockets? Probably helps explain her other lawsuit(s) vs Donna Karan as well.
Click to expand...

I have not made up my mind just trying to have an informed opinion. I think that some of her allegations, the original 27 and the investigative report that happened after shine a negative light on several adults in positions of power and if they spoke to/treated her as alleged in front of the players, it would be easy for them to follow suit.

I find the letter that Saxon wrote to Manning at least persuasive.

There's still a lot we don't know, lots of sealed info.

Besides I don't see how posing the question, why did Manning write about it in his book at all, can be construed as having my mind made up...Based on what I've read/heard, lots of people are asking the same question.
 
#302
#302
Originally Posted by wesleydmartin View Post
my statement was a direct answer to what steelerVol stated......

maybe i am wrong for thinking more happened, maybe you are wrong for thinking nothing did, regardless my statement was a direct response to that...we cant make blanket statements like you can expect this or that because there may be naked bodies around in your workplace....

even if that is just mooning, if the mooning is unwanted.....fair or no?

KBVol said:
I never said "nothing" happened, clearly something did. All I'm doing is looking at the full story and timeline of what she said happened ..... and it's clearly documented that she changed her story, from him "exposing himself"/mooning her, to something much more graphic and involved seven years later when she directly sued him for damages due to defamation. And since she's had another case(s) where she's sued for damages, she's been referred to as a "serial litigant"....to me that's relevant to whether or not she was being honest about what happened.

Here....this is an excerpt from an article by Clay Travis that pieces together what likely happened based on her original affidavit....


The trainer signed an affidavit that mentioned no physical contact from Peyton Manning in 1996.

She also didn't mention any contact in the interview with Tennessee, which was conducted after her sexual harassment claim. Here is a link to that document. And here's what she said then.


"She (the trainer) was working on (redacted, but it's Peyton Manning's) foot when she heard laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end. She stated that she then pushed (Peyton Manning) and said, "You're an ass."
So this woman is on record under penalty of perjury saying that Manning never touched her back in 1996. Isn't that kind of an important detail to include in any story about this incident? She suddenly changes her story in 2003 after having made statements that don't mention him touching her seven years ago. The law generally favors the most contemporary version of events possible since it's the one least likely to be altered by memory. So it's important to note that in this trainer's original statement to the University of Tennessee as part of her sexual harassment investigation she made no mention of Manning touching her.

Who's more believable, the person telling the same story for twenty years or the person who abruptly changes her story seven years later?


Let's talk the physics of this mooning.

If Manning isn't facing her and drops his pants, wouldn't she, since she's working on his foot, have seen his pants around his ankles? I don't know about you, but when I drop my pants or shorts they end up around my ankles. She says she noticed his actions because she heard "laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end" from others in the training room, not because his pants appeared around his ankles. That means Manning didn't even drop his pants, he just pulled them down. Which is, you know, exactly what you do when you moon someone. You just pull down your pants in the back.

It also makes it harder to see how Manning's scrotal region could ever come in contact with her -- as she has claimed since 2003 -- unless he has superhuman clinching ability, it's hard to see how Manning could keep his pants from falling down once his pants and underwear passed his ass. (Yes, this is why i went to law school, to analyze the physics of mooning.)
Click to expand...



there was no need to extrapolate so much on this response, i am married to a Attorney however so im fairly used to it, i asked fair or not, after you responded to a post of mine to someone else stating seeing naked people in the work place or something.....point is, its fair on both sides to think someone is lying, i however just believe an opposite side of the spectrum then you, that is all, it my personal choice to not believe Peyton or his family when it comes to this matter and how it has been handled...

(sorry for the delay in response, i dont check this at home to often in the off season, that is what down time at work is good for :))
 
Last edited:
#306
#306
RobsPics said:
People that aren't trying to hide statements don't have the records sealed.
Click to expand...
Pretty definitive statement when there very well may be a host of other reasons as to why someone wants records sealed.
 
#309
#309
Boca Vol said:
Again, Manning isn't on trial. You people are acting like this a current legal matter. It isn't.

What does a Twitter post from 2016 have to do with an incident from 1996?
Click to expand...

Not to be rude but I have no idea what the hell you are rambling on about.

This is the "mooning incident" thread.
She was his accuser in the incident and is still bringing accusations against others from UT.
The post is completely related. If you don't like it, don't read it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#310
#310
chargervol said:
Not to be rude but I have no idea what the hell you are rambling on about.

This is the "mooning incident" thread.
She was his accuser in the incident and is still bringing accusations against others from UT.
The post is completely related. If you don't like it, don't read it!
Click to expand...

Where is she "still" bringing accusations against others from UT?
 
#311
#311
chargervol said:
His accuser is....
Well, just take a quick look.

https://twitter.com/claytravis/status/700005803290394624
Click to expand...
Wow ... just wow ... this is why chick fights are the best ... there are literally no rules ... guys at least stay away from the man beans ... chicks ... it's just another point of attack .... I do agree with one person on twitter ... based on my own personal experiences ... the crazier the chica the greater the bang .. this twitter string has some batxxxt craziness going on ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#313
#313
chargervol said:
Huh?

Did you actually click the link?
Click to expand...

Did that sound "real" to you?

The only reason her name has even been brought up is because some "writer" for the NY Daily News thought he struck gold with a 20 year old story because the episode was mentioned in the Title IX lawsuit.

The story has been there the entire time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#314
#314
Boca Vol said:
Did that sound "real" to you?

The only reason her name has even been brought up is because some "writer" for the NY Daily News thought he struck gold with a 20 year old story because the episode was mentioned in the Title IX lawsuit.

The story has been there the entire time.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing your point.
Definitely not seeing why you felt the need to "correct" me on posting what I did.

Look at our interaction one more time. I never said anything about Manning being legally involved in any current case. YOU are the only one that used any phrase regarding that, and apparently did so for the sole purpose of acting like you understand something others don't.

We have been discussing the incident with full knowledge of when it happened.

Heck, just correct me on who produces the most chocolate. It doesn't seem to matter if I actually said anything about that, just pretend I did.. Again
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#316
#316
FLVOL_79 said:
A lot of this Manning stuff was drug up by Shaun King. Credibility nonexistent.
Click to expand...

The stupid thing is...Shaun King, by writing his hit piece on Manning, is bringing what I am sure is a lot of unwanted attention on Jamie Naughright.

Do you think she's happy to have herself exposed to the public? The more one reads about her, the less credible she becomes, and if the worst Manning said about her was "she had a vulgar mouth" then he should be lauded as being a lot more polite than many of us would have been in describing her. She comes across as a despicable person on twitter and facebook, and if one follows her frivolous lawsuits, she is a confirmed liar.

What Shaun King successfully did is make it harder for REAL victims to be seen as credibly by shining the spotlight on a 20 year old case where the alleged victim, through the lens of history, has basically confirmed that she manufactured these allegations in what would become a repeated attempt to cash in on frivolous lawsuits.

Manning will be exonerated, King likely sued for libel, and Naughright now has exactly the kind of attention she claims earlier destroyed her career. (Although I find it much more likely that people just finally got tired of her attitude.)

And, once again, real victims will have their credibility questioned even more, because of stories like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#318
#318
chargervol said:
I'm not seeing your point.
Definitely not seeing why you felt the need to "correct" me on posting what I did.

Look at our interaction one more time. I never said anything about Manning being legally involved in any current case. YOU are the only one that used any phrase regarding that, and apparently did so for the sole purpose of acting like you understand something others don't.

We have been discussing the incident with full knowledge of when it happened.

Heck, just correct me on who produces the most chocolate. It doesn't seem to matter if I actually said anything about that, just pretend I did.. Again
Click to expand...

See Thundarr's response. He states it pretty well. Jamie Naughright didn't write the story. The case she had with Manning/UT was settled.

What does analyzing every aspect of this woman's life regarding something that happened 20 years ago accomplish?

This subject takes beating a dead horse to a whole new level.
 
#319
#319
Whew...anyone else here old enough to be thankful that this electronic age wasn't around when we were in our 20's?

This whole situation is beyond ridiculous. So Peyton showed his willie to a female...TWENTY YEARS AGO...BIG WHOOP....I STILL stand by a statement I've made more than once. If you look up Integrity in the dictionary, you will find a picture of Peyton.

:rock:
GBO!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#320
#320
Boca Vol said:
See Thundarr's response. He states it pretty well. Jamie Naughright didn't write the story. The case she had with Manning/UT was settled.

What does analyzing every aspect of this woman's life regarding something that happened 20 years ago accomplish?

This subject takes beating a dead horse to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

So you originally accused me of believing that Peyton was involved in a current legal battle.
When you couldn't point to one single thing that I said or posted to show that I believed that in any way, you just completely change what your point was.

Just stop.
Best case scenario - maybe you misunderstood
But as the old saying goes, "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#321
#321
Boca Vol said:
See Thundarr's response. He states it pretty well. Jamie Naughright didn't write the story. The case she had with Manning/UT was settled.

What does analyzing every aspect of this woman's life regarding something that happened 20 years ago accomplish?

This subject takes beating a dead horse to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

She didn't write the story. But neither did any of us in the discussion. But when the story came out, there were a lot of people saying he sexually assaulted her and saying that he's not the good ol' boy we all thought, etc. So, the ones of us that not only exercise our freedom of speech but also our freedom of thought jumped to his defense by blowing a million holes in the story. And what Charger said, if you don't want to talk about Manning's mooning, don't participate in a thread titled "Manning's mooning."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#324
#324
Kristy* said:
She didn't write the story. But neither did any of us in the discussion. But when the story came out, there were a lot of people saying he sexually assaulted her and saying that he's not the good ol' boy we all thought, etc. So, the ones of us that not only exercise our freedom of speech but also our freedom of thought jumped to his defense by blowing a million holes in the story. And what Charger said, if you don't want to talk about Manning's mooning, don't participate in a thread titled "Manning's mooning."
Click to expand...

I said last week that Manning and Butch were listed in the lawsuit to add weight to it. The Manning incident was 20 years ago! It has been settled.

I still don't understand why Charger felt the need to post a social media post (that looked fake BTW) from Jamie Naughright.

As of last Saturday there probably weren't 20 people on this board that were familiar with the story. The national media buzz this has created is really sad. Again, it's a 20 year old story...that was settled!

As I said before, this whole story is taking beating a dead horse to a whole new level. And there was a similar article written a year or 2 ago during the Jameis Winston saga. The main difference is the Title IX lawsuit and this adding more spotlight on UT.
 
#325
#325
Boca Vol said:
. . .

As I said before, this whole story is taking beating a dead horse to a whole new level. And there was a similar article written a year or 2 ago during the Jameis Winston saga. The main difference is the Title IX lawsuit and this adding more spotlight on UT.
Click to expand...

But we wouldn't be beating the dead horse if all the idiots on here weren't claiming the horse is now a zebra simply because of a prejudicial wannabe reporter's one-sided article about a lady with serious character flaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top