Peyton Manning sex assault allegations

[ColtsSouljah]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

That is directly from kings article.  There is no quote from her former employer about her abilities or reputation 

 

I still don't see what it matters if all this harmed her career. Peyton is allowed to defend himself and that would necessarily mean disagreeing with her. Now, if Peyton lied that's a different narrative, but that needs to be proven first.

[grmasterb]

1 minute ago, ColtsSouljah said:

 

I guess to me it's important to maintain innocent until proven guilty.

If it's proven that Peyton wronged her and lied about it, I'll be the first to say, "He owes her an apology and that won't even begin to cover it."
BUT, no one has even begun to prove that. So, in the meantime, I'm concerned with upholding Peyton's reputation. If he is innocent as he says, then he doesn't deserve to have his reputation damaged like this.

Well, it was a civil case, not a criminal one, so remember we're dealing with a lesser standard of proof.

 

I don't really understand why any fan would feel obligated to "uphold Peyton's reputation." Peyton Manning is a grown man; he can do that himself. Furthermore, as at least one other poster has noted, none of us really knows the man.

[ColtsSouljah]

Just now, grmasterb said:

Well, it was a civil case, not a criminal one, so remember we're dealing with a lesser standard of proof.

 

I don't really understand why any fan would feel obligated to "uphold Peyton's reputation." Peyton Manning is a grown man; he can do that himself. Furthermore, as at least one other poster has noted, none of us really knows the man.

 

I get that, but wouldn't we all rather that people let us be innocent until proven guilty? I know I would. In my line of work, if I was accused of such a thing, it would be the end of my career.

[bababooey]

23 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

And the settlement was from the Mannings to her.      She didn't write them a check.    They wrote her one.

 

Peyton has not been telling the truth.....   that's why he's in the mess he's in right now.

 

Peyton hasn't been telling the truth but she is by changing her story to make it worse?

[Gramz]

2 minutes ago, ColtsSouljah said:

 

I guess to me it's important to maintain innocent until proven guilty.

If it's proven that Peyton wronged her and lied about it, I'll be the first to say, "He owes her an apology and that won't even begin to cover it."
BUT, no one has even begun to prove that. So, in the meantime, I'm concerned with upholding Peyton's reputation. If he is innocent as he says, then he doesn't deserve to have his reputation damaged like this.

Absolutely.

 

In case some can't tell,  I am absolutely LIVID that this Old News,  with a New spin, has come on the heels of his team's latest Super Bowl Win.     It's disgusting, and  it's pathetic.

 

And The timing is suspect.   

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What are you talking about?

 

I've always been a fan of Peyton!      I can't even remember ever saying anything bad about him!

 

You're confusing me with someone else.        I'm a Peyton fan -- always have been.

 

I'm looking foolish?  Oh Yeah To whom?   Pretty much anyone reading your posts . To Peyton Manning fans who see what they want and ignore what they don't like.

 

 

 

 

You can't have it both ways .   You claim to be a Peyton Manning fan & you obviously see what you want to see & ignore what you don't like .

 

If you can read all the available info & still feel the way you do your no fan of 18 & your inability to understand common sense points that have all ready been made at naseum just points out your not interested in the facts only in smearing which is what Trolls do ..

[grmasterb]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

 

 

And The timing is suspect.   

 

You don't need to be suspicious. You can feel absolutely confident that this was started by a group of butthurt Cam Newton fans who are playing a race card. Pats fans are just piling on. Still, people should be careful not to deify Peyton Manning.

[ColtsSouljah]

5 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

Absolutely.

 

In case some can't tell,  I am absolutely LIVID that this Old News,  with a New spin, has come on the heels of his team's latest Super Bowl Win.     It's disgusting, and  it's pathetic.

 

And The timing is suspect.   

 

Regardless of whether Peyton is innocent or guilty, there is no question that this was drug up by a racist fraud who is  trying to make himself famous after he fell from "grace" when it turned out he had made a career out of lying about himself.

[jvan1973]

55 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

When it comes to this incident,  I find the women's credibility far, far greater than Peyton's or his family.

 

I've found another story and I'm cutting and pasting an interesting passage here.....

 

 

The male student that Manning later claimed he had been mooning, track athlete Malcolm Saxon, wrote a letter saying he was not the intended recipient of any mooning and urged Manning to "maintain some dignity and admit to what happened.... Your celebrity doesn't mean you can treat folks this way.... Do the right thing here." The letter was included in the 74-page court filing.

 

 

Naughright also wasn't just some kid trainer caught up in a classmate's antics. As is carefully detailed in the New York Daily News story, she held a B.A., a master's and a doctorate and was the Director of Health and Wellness for the entire men's athletic program at UT. And, perhaps most troubling, the incident didn't end when she accepted a $300,000 settlement from UT and agreed to leave the school to which she had devoted her entire career.

In 2002 Naughright took Manning to court on defamation charges, claiming he misrepresented the 1996 incident in his book "Manning: A Father, His Sons and a Football Legacy," and falsely characterized her, causing her to lose her job at Florida Southern College. They agreed to an out-of-court settlement, part of which was an agreement that neither party would publicly discuss the settlement or each other. But Naughright again took legal action against Manning in 2005, when he spoke about the 1996 incident in an ESPN documentary.

Why do you keep citing kings article and claiming its from a different article? 

[ColtsSouljah]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Why do you keep citing kings article and claiming its from a different article? 

 

Probably for the same reason he keeps saying Peyton did something wrong by citing the accusation.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

This came out 5 hours ago ..

 

 

King incorrectly interprets those words to mean that Judge Kornstein actually and affirmatively found that clear and convincing evidence of malice on the part of the Mannings exists. “Judge Harvey Kornstein did not arrive at his conclusion that ‘clear and convincing’ evidence of malice existed because one woman said it did, but because overwhelming evidence proved such a thing,” King writes. However, that’s NOT what Judge Kornstein found.

Judge Kornstein found that “the evidence of record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of actual malice of the part of the defendants.” In English, this means that Judge Kornstein believed there was enough evidence to permit a jury of reasonable people to find that the Mannings acted with malice toward Naughright, a key ingredient in a defamation case against a public figure (if Naughright were deemed to be a public figure in her defamation case against the Mannings).

This is one of those moments where I remember how inadequate I felt when getting into this business because I had no journalistic training (and it showed), and how I later wondered how inadequate I would feel in this business if I had no legal training. King and his editors either have no legal training, no access to a lawyer, or no sensitivity to when a lawyer needs to be consulted for explanation or elaboration. Judge Kornstein’s words mean only that a jury could have found that the Mannings acted with malice, not that they definitely did. If Judge Kornstein believed the Manning definitely acted with malice and that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise, he would have entered what lawyers call “summary judgment” in Naughright’s favor on that point.

King’s loud insistence that Judge Kornstein actually and affirmatively found “clear and convincing evidence” of malice isn’t surprising, since it props up the flawed assessment of the document that King crafted on Saturday, and on which King has now doubled down. He has taken the criticism directed at him very personally (which is always a mistake), and he is now desperately groping for a silver bullet to prove that anyone who would question his work or his motives should have their own work or motives questioned.

To the trained eye, King’s work and motives should be questioned, and his failure (accidental or deliberate) to understand that key passage from Judge Kornstein’s ruling proves it not just with clear and convincing evidence, but beyond any and all doubt.

As to the rest of the latest article, King continues to erroneously blurs the line between allegation and proven, undeniable fact. Just because something is presented by one party to a lawsuit as factual doesn’t mean it actually happened. All evidence in a disputed case must be vetted through the judicial process, culminating in a jury hearing conflicting evidence and making decisions. That never happened in this case, because the case settled.

Because Naughright and the Mannings chose to settle the case, no one knows what actually happened because a jury never heard the evidence, sorted and sifted through it, and reached a conclusion. The document on which King’s column was based was cobbled together by lawyers with a sworn duty to zealously represent Naughright. They wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t put together something that appeared to be compelling on the surface.

The real question is how those allegations hold up when the surface is scratched by the opposing lawyers and, ultimately, a jury. No one knows what would have happened in this case because the parties eventually decided to wrap up the case and move on with their lives, which the vast majority of litigants in civil cases eventually do.

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

That is directly from kings article.  There is no quote from her former employer about her abilities or reputation 

 

These are the "quotes" from her employer.    Legal documents.    They were in the passage you read....  I'll re-post them.

 

 

She received, according to the court documents, regular raises, outstanding reviews, and was credited for helping grow the program in measurable ways.

In 1998, she served as the head athletic trainer for the U.S. women's track and field program in Beijing. Two years later, she was hired to be the head athletic trainer for the both the men's and women's USA track and field teams in their competition versus Canada.

[ColtsSouljah]

1 minute ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

This came out 5 hours ago ..

 

 

King incorrectly interprets those words to mean that Judge Kornstein actually and affirmatively found that clear and convincing evidence of malice on the part of the Mannings exists. “Judge Harvey Kornstein did not arrive at his conclusion that ‘clear and convincing’ evidence of malice existed because one woman said it did, but because overwhelming evidence proved such a thing,” King writes. However, that’s NOT what Judge Kornstein found.

Judge Kornstein found that “the evidence of record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of actual malice of the part of the defendants.” In English, this means that Judge Kornstein believed there was enough evidence to permit a jury of reasonable people to find that the Mannings acted with malice toward Naughright, a key ingredient in a defamation case against a public figure (if Naughright were deemed to be a public figure in her defamation case against the Mannings).

This is one of those moments where I remember how inadequate I felt when getting into this business because I had no journalistic training (and it showed), and how I later wondered how inadequate I would feel in this business if I had no legal training. King and his editors either have no legal training, no access to a lawyer, or no sensitivity to when a lawyer needs to be consulted for explanation or elaboration. Judge Kornstein’s words mean only that a jury could have found that the Mannings acted with malice, not that they definitely did. If Judge Kornstein believed the Manning definitely acted with malice and that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise, he would have entered what lawyers call “summary judgment” in Naughright’s favor on that point.

King’s loud insistence that Judge Kornstein actually and affirmatively found “clear and convincing evidence” of malice isn’t surprising, since it props up the flawed assessment of the document that King crafted on Saturday, and on which King has now doubled down. He has taken the criticism directed at him very personally (which is always a mistake), and he is now desperately groping for a silver bullet to prove that anyone who would question his work or his motives should have their own work or motives questioned.

To the trained eye, King’s work and motives should be questioned, and his failure (accidental or deliberate) to understand that key passage from Judge Kornstein’s ruling proves it not just with clear and convincing evidence, but beyond any and all doubt.

As to the rest of the latest article, King continues to erroneously blurs the line between allegation and proven, undeniable fact. Just because something is presented by one party to a lawsuit as factual doesn’t mean it actually happened. All evidence in a disputed case must be vetted through the judicial process, culminating in a jury hearing conflicting evidence and making decisions. That never happened in this case, because the case settled.

Because Naughright and the Mannings chose to settle the case, no one knows what actually happened because a jury never heard the evidence, sorted and sifted through it, and reached a conclusion. The document on which King’s column was based was cobbled together by lawyers with a sworn duty to zealously represent Naughright. They wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t put together something that appeared to be compelling on the surface.

The real question is how those allegations hold up when the surface is scratched by the opposing lawyers and, ultimately, a jury. No one knows what would have happened in this case because the parties eventually decided to wrap up the case and move on with their lives, which the vast majority of litigants in civil cases eventually do.

 

Who wrote this?

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

These are the "quotes" from her employer.    Legal documents.    They were in the passage you read....  I'll re-post them.

 

 

She received, according to the court documents, regular raises, outstanding reviews, and was credited for helping grow the program in measurable ways.

In 1998, she served as the head athletic trainer for the U.S. women's track and field program in Beijing. Two years later, she was hired to be the head athletic trainer for the both the men's and women's USA track and field teams in their competition versus Canada.

That is from her legal team.   Not her former employer .  If you want to be a part of this discussion,   don't read the cliffs notes version

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

3 minutes ago, ColtsSouljah said:

 

Who wrote this?

 

Mike Florio 

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/15/shaun-king-doubles-down-in-his-crusade-against-peyton-manning/

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

That is from her legal team.   Not her former employer .  If you want to be a part of this discussion,   don't read the cliffs notes version

 

He does'nt seem interested in the whole story 

Quote

The document on which King’s column was based was cobbled together by lawyers with a sworn duty to zealously represent Naughright. They wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t put together something that appeared to be compelling on the surface.

 

[Gramz]

21 minutes ago, grmasterb said:

 

You don't need to be suspicious. You can feel absolutely confident that this was started by a group of butthurt Cam Newton fans who are playing a race card. Pats fans are just piling on. Still, people should be careful not to deify Peyton Manning.

Because Cam crapped the bed on a National Stage.   That is what is behind this...??   Good Grief.

 

And of course Pats fans are piling on...  Who would expect anything less...??   They've waited for years, not to mention it is a temporary distraction from the upcoming court proceedings for Tom.  

 

Whatever.  

 

And I don't deify Peyton.     I appreciate what he's done on the football field.   I appreciate all that he's done for the City of Indianapolis, and now the city of Denver.    I think he's a good person, with a good heart and it makes me sick that people want to tear him down.

 

I'm not excusing the actions of a teenage boy,  but I think this was long ago settled and those trying to make it more than it was,  it just not right.

[grmasterb]

2 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

Because Cam crapped the bed on a National Stage.   That is what is behind this...??   Good Grief.

 

And of course Pats fans are piling on...  Who would expect anything less...??   They've waited for years, not to mention it is a temporary distraction from the upcoming court proceedings for Tom.  

 

Whatever.  

 

And I don't deify Peyton.     I appreciate what he's done on the football field.   I appreciate all that he's done for the City of Indianapolis, and now the city of Denver.    I think he's a good person, with a good heart and it makes me sick that people want to tear him down.

 

I'm not excusing the actions of a teenage boy,  but I think this was long ago settled and those trying to make it more than it was,  it just not right.

It had more to do with Cam acting pouty in the post-game presser and the national reaction to it.

 

As for Manning, while he was young, he was still of responsible age. Only Peyton, Ms. Naughtright and whoever else was in that locker room know what really happened that day.

[NewColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Why do you keep citing kings article and claiming its from a different article? 

 

When did I ever claim it wasn't a King article.    And I don't care that it is.

 

He may have an agenda about race.....   but the incidents themselves are not about race.     So, all I care about are the facts involved.    And I've seen nothing that says the facts he's posting are wrong or incorrect or even over-inflated.

 

[ColtsSouljah]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

When did I ever claim it wasn't a King article.    And I don't care that it is.

 

What I care about are the facts involved.    

 

The facts are that there was an incident and Peyton says one thing and the trainer says another. The facts are that the trainer changed her story (and therefore lied in one lawsuit or the other or both).

[ColtsSouljah]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

When did I ever claim it wasn't a King article.    And I don't care that it is.

 

He may have an agenda about race.....   but the incidents themselves are not about race.     So, all I care about are the facts involved.    And I've seen nothing that says the facts he's posting are wrong or incorrect or even over-inflated.

 

 

What "facts" has he posted?

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

When did I ever claim it wasn't a King article.    And I don't care that it is.

 

He may have an agenda about race.....   but the incidents themselves are not about race.     So, all I care about are the facts involved.    And I've seen nothing that says the facts he's posting are wrong or incorrect or even over-inflated.

 

He is providing statements from her legal team as facts.   They are not

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, ColtsSouljah said:

 

The facts are that there was an incident and Peyton says one thing and the trainer says another. The facts are that the trainer changed her story (and therefore lied in one lawsuit or the other or both).

 

You know....   you're one of the posters who screams she changed her story.    You're not alone.   Tons of posters here are saying the same thing.

 

So, let me ask you....   all of you....

 

Peyton Manning,  Archie Manning,  they have lawyers.    The University of Tennessee -- which paid her $300,000  has lawyers.      What are the chances that Colts fans here have stumbled on to a legal change of story and all the other lawyers involved missed that?      The chances are zero.

 

So,  I suspect there's a pretty good chance that what people here see as a change of story is not that at all.   It might be legal clarification.    Whatever....    I don't know....

 

I just know that either no one has challenged her on changing the story,  or if they did -- they lost.

 

The level of trashing this woman in defense of Peyton Manning is right up there with Pats fans who defended Tom Brady and Colts fans trashed them.......     Oh, the irony.....

 

[ColtsSouljah]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You know....   you're one of the posters who screams she changed her story.    You're not alone.   Tons of posters here are saying the same thing.

 

So, let me ask you....   all of you....

 

Peyton Manning,  Archie Manning,  they have lawyers.    The University of Tennessee -- which paid her $300,000  has lawyers.      What are the chances that Colts fans here have stumbled on to a legal change of story and all the other lawyers involved missed that?      The chances are zero.

 

So,  I suspect there's a pretty good chance that what people here see as a change of story is not that at all.   It might be legal clarification.    Whatever....    I don't know....

 

I just know that either no one has challenged her on changing the story,  or if they did -- they lost.

 

The level of trashing this woman in defense of Peyton Manning is right up there with Pats fans who defended Tom Brady and Colts fans trashed them.......     Oh, the irony.....

 

 

 

You keep bringing up this "they lost" thing. It's not true. There was a settlement. I have explained this in like 5 posts, but you keep ignoring them. By settling, Peyton admitted he did something wrong (just as he said in his book) but NOT that he did what she said.

[Gramz]

5 minutes ago, grmasterb said:

It had more to do with Cam acting pouty in the post-game presser and the national reaction to it.

 

As for Manning, while he was young, he was still of responsible age. Only Peyton, Ms. Naughtright and whoever else was in that locker room know what really happened that day.

That was still on a National Stage.  And we've had two or three threads on that subject..  some got closed, so I won't get into that, but I see what you're saying.    Last year's SB dark cloud was Deflategate.   Now this year this crap.  What's next?

 

People should know, just because something is posted on the internet, especially by someone with an ax to grind, that doesn't mean it has credibility.

 

 

[Gramz]

[ColtsSouljah]

Just now, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

 

I am getting frustrated with his continuously bringing up the same points but then ignoring the response to them.

[bababooey]

7 hours ago, bababooey said:

When you sue a school you're obviously not going to continue to work there. She made 300K from UT plus jewelry in the form of a bowl watch and a championship ring, plus an undisclosed amount from the Mannings. Losing two jobs over it is a ridiculous claim even coming from you.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316

 

 

Mayber her vulgar facebook posts and living in the past haven't helped her career.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lauralmonroe33/status/698889706315128832

 

Not to mention she changed her story 17 years later from a visual to a physical assault.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee

 

Stick to the Colts forum you at least know some x's and o's I'll give you that.

@NewColtsFan how come you never responded to this from earlier?

 

in addition to: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/15/shaun-king-doubles-down-in-his-crusade-against-peyton-manning/

[Gramz]

http://heavy.com/sports/2016/02/jamie-naughright-whited-peyton-manning-sexual-harassment-accuser-photos-pictures-age-new-jersey-tennessee-shaun-king-donna-karan-lawsuit/

 

According to the article, Naughright’s lawsuit also included several other allegations dating back to 1990. She made 33 claims against athletes, trainers, coaches and administrators, and at least four were confirmed by an investigation by school officials.

 

But the university also claimed Naughright, who was then going by her married name, Jamie Whited, “shared responsibility” in the harassment.

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

That was still on a National Stage.  And we've had two or three threads on that subject..  some got closed, so I won't get into that, but I see what you're saying.    Last year's SB dark cloud was Deflategate.   Now this year this crap.  What's next?

 

People should know, just because something is posted on the internet, especially by someone with an ax to grind, that doesn't mean it has credibility.

 

 

I said I wouldn't Post on this Thread again but I figure I would say after Andrew wins it all next season, some media hack will report he was a really a pimp in college (sarcasm) that's what is next and Pats fans will believe it. SMH

[ColtsSouljah]

@NewColtsFan, since you don't believe me, check this out. Settlement does NOT mean an admission of guilt.

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/video/settlement-not-admission-guilt-peyton-manning

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You know....   you're one of the posters who screams she changed her story.    You're not alone.   Tons of posters here are saying the same thing.

 

So, let me ask you....   all of you....

 

Peyton Manning,  Archie Manning,  they have lawyers.    The University of Tennessee -- which paid her $300,000  has lawyers.      What are the chances that Colts fans here have stumbled on to a legal change of story and all the other lawyers involved missed that?      The chances are zero.

 

So,  I suspect there's a pretty good chance that what people here see as a change of story is not that at all.   It might be legal clarification.    Whatever....    I don't know....

 

I just know that either no one has challenged her on changing the story,  or if they did -- they lost.

 

The level of trashing this woman in defense of Peyton Manning is right up there with Pats fans who defended Tom Brady and Colts fans trashed them.......     Oh, the irony.....

 

 

You have chosen all day to ignore links & info , And the fact that her original statement claimed by her that there was no contact ,

 

And you'v choose to ignore that the women in question has differing accounts as the years have passed .

 

Its obvious you have an agenda & it definetely isn't concern for the women who by all accounts is a blackmailer .

 

 

[ColtsSouljah]

Here's the other thing that makes no sense. Look at what is said in the documents concerning the other athlete. Some of you, including @NewColtsFan, have used this other athlete as proof of Peyton's guilt.


“Peyton, you messed up. I still don’t know why you dropped your drawers,” Saxon wrote in a letter to Manning, which was included in the court documents. “Maybe it was a mistake, maybe not. But it was definitely inappropriate. Please take some personal responsibility here and own up to what you did. I never understood why you didn’t admit to it….”

Peyton DID say he messed up. He reached a settlement and admitted it in his book. In addition, NO WHERE does this student say that Peyton did anything other than "dropped your drawers." Well, the trainer has accused him of much more than that. Whose story does the "drop your drawers" line up with? Certainly not hers....

[bababooey]

10 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

http://heavy.com/sports/2016/02/jamie-naughright-whited-peyton-manning-sexual-harassment-accuser-photos-pictures-age-new-jersey-tennessee-shaun-king-donna-karan-lawsuit/

 

According to the article, Naughright’s lawsuit also included several other allegations dating back to 1990. She made 33 claims against athletes, trainers, coaches and administrators, and at least four were confirmed by an investigation by school officials.

 

But the university also claimed Naughright, who was then going by her married name, Jamie Whited, “shared responsibility” in the harassment.

According to your link In addition she sued someone else in 2010 who she claimed herniated a disc in her back during a massage. She loves to sue apparently. It doesn't say the outcome

[Gramz]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

According to your link In addition she sued someone else in 2010 who she claimed herniated a disc in her back during a massage. She loves to sue apparently. It doesn't say the outcome

yeah, there's a long history of her lawsuits.  I think that is her new profession.

[bababooey]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

yeah, there's a long history of her lawsuits.  I think that is her new profession.

The article you posted was quoting this one 

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/08/20/oth_213271.shtml#.VsKfLEU8KnO

 

literally does not say anything about contact and in fact it was a small part of the story just the straw that broke the camels back seeing as she was apparently ridiculed by everyone when trying to be "one of the guys". Funny how that story changed the next time she tried to tell it

[The Peytonator]

Being a professional victim sure can be profitable, and this woman has it down to a science. Anyone who changes their story to get more money loses credibility immediately. There is nothing else to this. Or maybe she was just sooooo traumatized from seeing his lily a** that she couldn't get her facts straight. It was only after her PTSD flashbacks that she realized the truth, seven years after the fact, so she could get more money.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You know....   you're one of the posters who screams she changed her story.    You're not alone.   Tons of posters here are saying the same thing.

 

So, let me ask you....   all of you....

 

Peyton Manning,  Archie Manning,  they have lawyers.    The University of Tennessee -- which paid her $300,000  has lawyers.      What are the chances that Colts fans here have stumbled on to a legal change of story and all the other lawyers involved missed that?      The chances are zero.

 

So,  I suspect there's a pretty good chance that what people here see as a change of story is not that at all.   It might be legal clarification.    Whatever....    I don't know....

 

I just know that either no one has challenged her on changing the story,  or if they did -- they lost.

 

The level of trashing this woman in defense of Peyton Manning is right up there with Pats fans who defended Tom Brady and Colts fans trashed them.......     Oh, the irony.....

 

 

Irony You mean like a person who posts this ?  

Quote

Posted 1 hour ago · Report post

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What are you talking about?

 

I've always been a fan of Peyton!      I can't even remember ever saying anything bad about him!

 

You're confusing me with someone else.        I'm a Peyton fan -- always have been.

 

I'm looking foolish?  Oh Yeah To whom?   Pretty much anyone reading your posts . To Peyton Manning fans who see what they want and ignore what they don't like.

 

 

[bababooey]

http://imgur.com/a/1M7BT

 

screenshots from her personal Facebook. Warning: VULGAR language

[ColtsSouljah]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

http://imgur.com/a/1M7BT

 

screenshots from her personal Facebook. Warning: VULGAR language

 

So how can we take her seriously when she sued Peyton for saying she was "vulgar"? Clearly, she IS vulgar.