Mannings mooning incident on ESPN.

#402
#402
I think one of the most disappointing things to me is it would seem Finebaum is getting pleasure from this whole deal. Did I miss something with him, did something happen to him during his time here?
 
#405
#405
Volsfaninva917 said:
I think one of the most disappointing things to me is it would seem Finebaum is getting pleasure from this whole deal. Did I miss something with him, did something happen to him during his time here?
Click to expand...

He likes to make $$$ at everyone else's expense.
 
#407
#407
#408
#408
thebjd said:
This quote sums it up from the article. A serial litigant who has sued seemingly everyone that she has had a working relationship with.
Click to expand...

very revealing..and now we have the motive..she is broke and her house is in foreclosure..I think she is a very unstable woman
 
#409
#409
chargervol said:
I say let the crazy continue to pour out of her.
The more it happens, the more it's revealed with what PM and UT was dealing with.
Doesn't hurt that the lawsuit actually cited the situation either. Backfire.
That girl is psycho .
Click to expand...

She is nuts but the only reason we're reminded of her and the 96 situation is because it was mentioned in the suit.

Had that not been mentioned, the story stays in the past. But here we are.
 
#411
#411
Boca Vol said:
She is nuts but the only reason we're reminded of her and the 96 situation is because it was mentioned in the suit.

Had that not been mentioned, the story stays in the past. But here we are.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, lawyers for UT have filed a motion to have the mentioning of Peyton Manning's name and the 1996 incident removed from the suit stating that it's inclusion was done just to generate negative press coverage and is 'scandalous' among other things. They also cite the fact that none of the plaintiffs involved in the suit were UT students in 1996 and none of the current UT administration members were employed by UT in 1996.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#412
#412
Boca Vol said:
She is nuts but the only reason we're reminded of her and the 96 situation is because it was mentioned in the suit.

Had that not been mentioned, the story stays in the past. But here we are.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The story is a story now because she contacted Shaun King and leaked the documents from the defamation suit. She has been recorded admitting to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#413
#413
Boca Vol said:
She is nuts but the only reason we're reminded of her and the 96 situation is because it was mentioned in the suit.

Had that not been mentioned, the story stays in the past. But here we are.
Click to expand...

Idk, sounds like her and King were determined to breathe life back into this regardless.
This is but a novelty in the suit.
It has a completely separate life in the media.
 
#414
#414
chargervol said:
Idk, sounds like her and King were determined to breathe life back into this regardless.
This is but a novelty in the suit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what it does when her mental status and motives are revealed is (right or wrongly) it hurts the case of the 8 Jane Does..because they depended on a lot of media attention to get a settlement from UT..no chance of that happening after this imo
 
#415
#415
VolnJC said:
Yeah, but what it does when her mental status and motives are revealed is (right or wrongly) it hurts the case of the 8 Jane Does..because they depended on a lot of media attention to get a settlement from UT..no chance of that happening after this imo
Click to expand...

Yeah, I used the term backfire earlier and this was the exact intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#416
#416
BowlBrother85 said:
Fwiw, lawyers for UT have filed a motion to have the mentioning of Peyton Manning's name and the 1996 incident removed from the suit stating that it's inclusion was done just to generate negative press coverage and is 'scandalous' among other things. They also cite the fact that none of the plaintiffs involved in the suit were UT students in 1996 and none of the current UT administration members were employed by UT in 1996.
Click to expand...

As soon as I read the lawsuit I knew why the Manning incident was mentioned... For this very reason. To give it weight.
 
#417
#417
chargervol said:
Idk, sounds like her and King were determined to breathe life back into this regardless.
This is but a novelty in the suit.
It has a completely separate life in the media.
Click to expand...

Do you think they're working together on this? If so, that changes everything and wouldn't that violate the gag order or whatever they agreed to after the settlement?
 
#418
#418
Boca Vol said:
Do you think they're working together on this? If so, that changes everything and wouldn't that violate the gag order or whatever they agreed to after the settlement?
Click to expand...

Not certain but the guy on Clays show that had the recordings, said there was more. Including one of Jamie admitting she supplied king with the affidavit.

Oddly enough, him being mentioned in the UT suit appears to be a coincidence. King was writing his article completely unrelated.
 
#419
#419
chargervol said:
Not certain but the guy on Clays show that had the recordings, said there was more. Including one of Jamie admitting she supplied king with the affidavit.

Oddly enough, him being mentioned in the UT suit appears to be a coincidence. King was writing his article completely unrelated.
Click to expand...

Thanks. :hi:
 
#420
#420
Boca Vol said:
Do you think they're working together on this? If so, that changes everything and wouldn't that violate the gag order or whatever they agreed to after the settlement?
Click to expand...

If there is proof (a recording of her admitting to it) that she leaked the documents, then yes, she would have violated the non-disclosure agreement.

Clay Travis made a good suggestion at the end of his broadcast. He said if he were Manning's lawyer, he would contact her lawyers and tell them Notright can either go on record telling the truth about the situation, admitting she fabricated the contact portion of the mooning incident, or he would take her to court.
 
#421
#421
Kristy* said:
If there is proof (a recording of her admitting to it) that she leaked the documents, then yes, she would have violated the non-disclosure agreement.

Clay Travis made a good suggestion at the end of his broadcast. He said if he were Manning's lawyer, he would contact her lawyers and tell them Notright can either go on record telling the truth about the situation, admitting she fabricated the contact portion of the mooning incident, or he would take her to court.
Click to expand...

Obviously, Manning and his lawyers can do what they want but I would think the better strategy would be to avoid the nutcase and let her keep talking. The more she talks, the less credibility her account becomes.

Same with King. Let media put more pressure on him but don't confront directly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#422
#422
OldandStillaVol said:
Obviously, Manning and his lawyers can do what they want but I would think the better strategy would be to avoid the nutcase and let her keep talking. The more she talks, the less credibility her account becomes.

Same with King. Let media put more pressure on him but don't confront directly.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Their version is the only version people are seeing. Confronting him directly will officially put the realities in the spotlight and save any tarnished legacy. It'll put a foot in the mouth of every network, journalist and pc bro out there that ran with this without vetting. Silence with evidence to take to court is a mild admission that something could be accurate or unknown. If that's the case, let it go. If not, burn her and King.
 
#423
#423
OldandStillaVol said:
Obviously, Manning and his lawyers can do what they want but I would think the better strategy would be to avoid the nutcase and let her keep talking. The more she talks, the less credibility her account becomes.

Same with King. Let media put more pressure on him but don't confront directly.
Click to expand...

I see both sides but tend to agree with you a bit more. Brent Hubbs was asked this morning if Peyton, who's been silent about all of this to date, should make some sort of statement/rebuttal. And he said absolutely not, because as more and more credible sources have dug into the facts and details of this story, and have examined the credibility of Naughright and King, that the narrative has completely shifted and Peyton's image and reputation is being restored.

I wouldn't blame Manning at all for doing what Travis has suggested....it's completely understandable that he might want this in s court of law to some extent to try and put an end to it. But as far as the court of public opinion.....he's winning that without having to say a single word.
 
#424
#424
JMO, but I think all of this is about the fact that Peyton MAY have mooned the Glenn Close character from the movie Fatal Attraction! :dunno:




.
 
#425
#425
KBVol said:
I see both sides but tend to agree with you a bit more. Brent Hubbs was asked this morning if Peyton, who's been silent about all of this to date, should make some sort of statement/rebuttal. And he said absolutely not, because as more and more credible sources have dug into the facts and details of this story, and have examined the credibility of Naughright and King, that the narrative has completely shifted and Peyton's image and reputation is being restored.

I wouldn't blame Manning at all for doing what Travis has suggested....it's completely understandable that he might want this in s court of law to some extent to try and put an end to it. But as far as the court of public opinion.....he's winning that without having to say a single word.
Click to expand...

No he's not. ESPN isn't talking about Naughtwrights mental state. The public outside of Tennessee doesn't know how bat **** crazy she is. Manning taking this to her and lawyers would rectify it fully, if it's all untrue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top