Peyton Manning case update

[bababooey 81]

Warning: Long

 

Before you read this just know that what I am about to write will do nothing to change your opinion based on your current world views and existing like/dislike of Peyton Manning. However, it is imperative to get all the available information in one place not for the sake of our debate here but so everyone has the ability to educate those who are on the fence/misinformed/uneducated as to the situation and point out the hypocrisy in how we view our sports figures. Luckily there are a lot of people in this country who aren't sheep and think for themselves instead of joining the hive mind, bandwagon, misinformed group that believe everything they read on the internet.

 

Shaun King & NYDN: Polian is getting criticism for calling it a smear campaign, which is exactly what it is. Yes, something bad happened, which on the surface is a he said/she said from 20 years ago that was widely reported, but the many journalists covering the case did not wait for twitter to be invented to break the story. Consider the source of where the the NYDN story originated from: a white guy who claims to be biracial despite 2 white parents on his birth certificate, was kicked out of BLM because he accepted funds that went to his charities that were found out to not exist, and claimed to be the victim of a hate crime when he threatened a girl and got beat up by her bf (all of these are easily found on Google). He clearly doesn't like white people based on the color of their skin.

 

He wrote the story portraying her lawyer's side as facts in an effort to deflect the criticism Cam Newton received for his post SB press conference and tell us that one of the most successful players, spokesman, and philanthropic figures of the last two decades had his whole career and image built on lies because he is white and came from money by painting his worst moment in the worst light possible.I know PM can't sue him for defamation because he is a public figure, but the negligence or gross indifference for truth while acting with malice. Nowadays everybody wants to be "first" instead of correct, and sacrifice journalistic integrity for clicks and page views. The "shoot" first, ask questions later is what causes false allegations to stick, especially in a 20 year old he-said, she-said case.

 

Even more wild is the editor-in chief, Jim Rich (@jimrichNYDN) doubling down and saying that "Peyton apologists think putting your (expletive deleted) in a woman's face against her will, is a locker room prank. Interesting take." which is interesting in itself when you point out the irony in being an editor in chief of a national newspaper who posts one side's assertions and builds a story propping it up as fact and then doubles down on it. I know this isn't the pulitzer prize winning Spotlight team from the Boston Globe but at least try to decrease that gap a little bit and maintain some journalistic integrity. Their front page today depicts a presidential candidate as the "ANTICHRIST" so these are the type of people we are dealing with.

 

1996 Affadavit: As pointed out by other posters this week, her sworn affadavit from 1996 fails to mention contact of any time 

One would think if she were building a 33 claim case against the university (4 of which were verified including this one), she would be sure to mention the contact. You'd also think she would go to the authorities and not make a complaint to her superior as she was building her case that went back years before this incident. I know the PC people say she didn't want to get blacklisted from her profession by bringing a lawsuit against the Mannings for such a heinous act, but when you are already bringing a lawsuit against the University and naming him in it there's no reason not to mention the act, especially when you would stand to gain substantially more money than the $300K she received. 

 

This would have been the difference between maybe no money and a lot of money so there's no reason not to include contact seeing as it is the most important detail. If your mindset is that you would be blacklisted by asserting a more heinous allegation what do you think is going to happen naming him in the suit anyway with the exposure with no contact? I get asked to join lawsuits every year against my employer because they don't pay overtime but I never do because I would rather work here than get a small settlement and be out of a job after. By suing your employer you are banking on not returning to your position.

 

2003: This is where things begin to change. We all know the Mannings wrote a book which mentions the incident, she ends up suing for defamation and the NYDN claims this small passage in a book that wasn't very successful, which does not mention her name or appearance, meant she could no longer due her job 7 years later. Below is the excerpt:

Upon reading this she decides to sue for defamation. The way this draft was delivered to her based on her side sounds pretty bad, but again that is a he said she said. Her side also includes the witness, Malcolm Saxon, who doesn't say there was any touching, just refutes who the moon was aimed at. On his side he said he tried to call the house several times and wrote her a handwritten letter apologizing for the incident. It should be noted under penalty of perjury she is on the record in 96 stating Manning never touched her, then in 03 when he is a 3x pro bowler/multi millionaire she decides to include more information on that incident that does not have one bit to do with the defamation case. She was suing him over her claim that she had a vulgar mouth. Anything she had against Manning relating to the actual incident has long expired. It was a legal hail mary to try to convince a judge to bring it to court, and to embarrass Manning enough to settle before he takes a hit to his reputation. As a hundred millionaire, throwing pocket change at a problem to make it go away, especially in the middle of a division race, is done all the time.

 

From http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/on-peyton-manning-and-dumb-people-online-021616

"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." There is no reason to not mention the contact she claims in 2003 in her 1996 affadavit and 33 count suit against the school, and, again, no reason not to go to the authorities about it.

 

Her claim of physical contact against Manning never appeared until Manning filed summary judgement (tried to get lawsuit thrown out) and she filed a motion to oppose it. It is important to remember these new allegations that conflict with her affadavit she signed under oath have nothing to do with the current defamation lawsuit. This is where King starts portraying her motion as fact in which he's negligent or plain stupid, which is on the rest of the publication for not getting Manning's side or an in house legal side to discuss what legally was happening in the court system. Instead they portrayed it as a fact.

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

 

The lawsuit was a defamation an NDA-violation suit because she is mad he mentioned she had a vulgar mouth when vaguely bringing up the incident he tried to apologize for. She claimed because of this she could no longer do her current job. According to the book (pages posted above) she was not mentioned by name nor physically described, and the only way for her co workers at UCF to know about it would be if she brought it up, which is exactly what she did by filing the suit against the NFL star QB. The physical contact allegations have nothing to do with the actual lawsuit. Again, she's already been paid out for the actual incident so this has nothing to do with it. King and the NYDN claim her career was destroyed and it cost her the job here as well.

 

Manning should not have written about the issue and should have just kept it in the past. It was reported on as a mooning but reported as part of a 33 count (http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/08/20/oth_213271.shtml#.VsdGwPkrKUk) in 1997 and that would have been it. Yes he violated the NDA but he was trying to apologize for his own behavior. The defamation part of it about saying she was vulgar was not incorrect as judging by her facebook posts which was deleted shortly after King released his story.

There are more but the time stamp on them make them more suspicious than the ones above:

 

 

After settling for an undisclosed amount this story was covered by many people, and has been mentioned on this forum. It was pretty big at the time but there wasn't the same outlet nor audience for every person with a cell phone to interact with. What was not mentioned in King's article was when she tried to sue a famous fashion designer in 2010 for an injury received. This suit was thrown out of court by the judge who cited:  "(1) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whet r it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicat lawsuits; (2) the litigant's mot pursuing the litigation, e.g., does t litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the Iitigant is resented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant s caused needless expense to other parties or s * an unnecessary burden on the courts and ir sonnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would adequate to protect the courts and other rt s."(https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--10-cv-08451/Naghright_v._Karan__Weiss_et_al/114/)

 

The judge essentially calls her a serial litigator when you start thinking rationally/legally and not emotionally. With the information from this lawsuit of Donna Karran, plus her facebook posts that still talk about her time at UT and verbally assaulting people from there, and her legal hail mary of throwing in new allegations on a 7 year old settlement to help get her weak defamation case to court was designed to extort money from Manning by getting him to settle, as it happens all the time with famous people. I can't reiterate how much easier it is for Peyton to settle again and make the problem go away again than have her allegations hit the national media and damage his reputation.

 

Unfortunately, that's what a vindictive failed activist turned journalist tried to do in his smear of Manning when he found her side in the comment section on his facebook page. This case is bigger than where your sports allegiances lie, it was veiled as a race issue. Just like the Al Jazeera report (which is a bigger story) is an American issue in their attempt to discredit so many prominent American athletes including Clay Mathews, Ryan Howard, and Derek Jeter before running out of money and going out of business. NYDN is essentially doing the same thing. Manning will survive this, but think of the Duke Lax case and how many lives were ruined there (subsequently the false accuser's college as paid for by Jesse Jackson and is now in jail for murder) or Brendan Dassey from MaM. 

 

Aftermath: According to most of the sheep who believe everything they read (this includes Stephen A. Smith and Chris Mad Dog Russo) it's easier to believe PM is a priveleged kid protected by his rich father and would actually do something as heinous as this AND cover it up despite it being widely reported at the time and considering everything we know about him for the last two decades vs. believing that a woman can make up accusations against famous people to get money despite her subsequent lawsuits and facebook posts showing the opposite picture that the NYDN pictured. Unfortunately for Peyton, a time that should be enjoyed with his family, with a SB win and great career, was all destroyed over one racist's attempt to stick up for a black quarterback who fairly took criticism for his SB actions, and nobody dug up his college issues which were much more recent in an attempt to dismantle his image of a guy who cares about kids (which we know he absolutely does).

 

Unfortunately Peyton can't even speak for himself due to the settlement and has to live with the allegations that are literally a he said she said painted as a he did what she said. There is a reason there is a very high burden of proof in these cases. One side can say well he settled so it wouldn't go to court means he did something. The other side says this crazy chick won't go away unless you throw a little more change at her. The people that choose the former are the ones calling him a rapist and a sexual assaulter despite living his life in the spotlight for two decades and acting the exact opposite of that.

 

The hive-mind, PC police, and sheep get easily offended over one thing at a time every day in this country, as shown by ESPN and these women's organizations who are targeting him by trying to discredit his entire career and legacy. The hypocrisy is rampant and almost hilarious. How little we forget that we are cheering for Brett Favre as he was inducted into the HoF a few weeks ago, despite many of us seeing a picture of his junk. We are cheering for Big Ben who has faced even worse allegations. Disney is employing Ray Lewis, who may have murdered two people and may have obstructed justice and paid the families of the deceased. Mike Tyson has his own comedy special, his own cartoon, and several hilarious cameos in movies despite being convicted of rape and going to prison for it. Tony Dungy was mad at Rex Ryan for his language on Hard Knocks but backed Mike Vick after killing dogs, and then went on to Philly and led them to the playoffs and gave him a second career with more teams after that. People in this country want Peyton's life to be ruined and are calling him a rapist over a possible moon or moon with contact 20 years ago when he was 19?? 

 

Right now we are cheering as a country for Kobe Bryant, who is finishing up his storied career and received chants of his name at his final all star game. He had overwhelming evidence of him raping a woman and avoided jail time by giving the accuser a large settlement, and made up with his wife by giving her a large ring. Funny how nobody including King even mentions that, just gives him praise for what did on the court. I'm in no way saying PM didn't do anything wrong, but even the worst thing he did doesn't compare to these guys who have done worse and are not vilified for it like PM is now.

 

Yes a lot of my sources are from http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/on-peyton-manning-and-dumb-people-online-021616 but only he, Jason Whitlock, Jason Mcintyre, Mike Florio, Michael McCann, and Jemele Hill, all with relatively smaller audiences are actually looking at things rationally and not emotionally.

 

Materials:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/any-given-sunday-0?page=0 96 allegation

https://mgtvwate.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/peytonmanningaffidavit.pdf Manning 2003 court doc

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2712091/Factsofthecase.pdf Naughright 2003 court doc and new allegations conflicting with her affadavit from 96

See above for her 96 affadavit

 

Please add more documents or information that I may have forgotten about.

[The Peytonator 455]

Unfortunately so many people have made up their minds on this issue, and won't actually look at any of the facts. I don't understand how people can think this woman has credibility when she changed her story 7 years after the fact. Either she lied under oath in 1996 when she was suing UT, or she was lying in 2003.

[csmopar 7,176]

I just have one question for those that think he placed his junk on her face...

 

 

she says she was examining his ankle for a possible injury when he dropped his pants and put his junk on her face.....

 

now, coming from someone who busted in ankle twice in highschool and who's sister is a professional trainer for a college football, albiet a Div III school, there's only 3 ways I've ever seen an athlete examined for an ankle injury

 

#1: Laying on his/her back, either on a table, the field/court, gurney, cart etc:

 

#2: Sitting upright on a chair,table, stool, cart, field/court, etc

 

#3: Standing straight up

 

Now, since the injury was his ankle, we can assume logically that she would be focused on that area, that said, her face is not going to be near his junk, it's gonna be in a totally opposite direction. and in the positions above, her face wouldnt even be that close to his ankle.

 

So either Manning has some really long and saggy equipment or he grabbed her head and shoved it between his legs, or he is extremely flexible and flexed his body in an unnatural way to get them to her face............... or She's lying.  My money is on the latter

 

Now, im gonna throw out another possibility......completely hypothetical.

 

Lets say he was standing up, she yanks his shorts down and offers sexual favors in exchange for money,fame etc, and he refused. she now files allegations in revenge. wouldnt be the first time this has happened.

 

thoughts

[Blue Swagger 0]

 

 

At minimum, Peyton needs to apologize for taking down his pants when the trainer was looking at his foot.  The track athlete also says that Peyton is not telling the truth in his book when he said Peyton needs to come clean and own up to what he did and said in the book.  I wish we knew what he was referring to but it gives the impression that Peyton was  not honest in his book.   And if that's the case, he should probably come out and do some kind of public apology, say he's sorry for what he did and for any untrue statements in the book.

 

 

[bababooey 81]

8 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

 

 

At minimum, Peyton needs to apologize for taking down his pants when the trainer was looking at his foot.  The track athlete also says that Peyton is not telling the truth in his book when he said Peyton needs to come clean and own up to what he did and said in the book.  I wish we knew what he was referring to but it gives the impression that Peyton was  not honest in his book.   And if that's the case, he should probably come out and do some kind of public apology, say he's sorry for what he did and for any untrue statements in the book.

 

 

There is no at minimum here as I mentioned above. He cannot say anything if he doesn't want to open himself up to more litigation by breaching the settlement agreement. I also mentioned above that nobody else who witnessed said he made contact including the accuser herself, only dispute the direction of the moon as to who it was meant for.

 

If Peyton was not trying to be honest he wouldn't have put it in his book. A public apology and saying he made false statements is literally a violation of the settlement agreement and opens himself up to perjury. Please go back and re-read where I said he literally can do nothing here.

 

The entire point of what I wrote above was to educate the people who don't understand or know all the details.

[Blue Swagger 0]

Just now, bababooey said:

There is no at minimum here as I mentioned above. He cannot say anything if he doesn't want to open himself up to more litigation by breaching the settlement agreement. I also mentioned above that nobody else who witnessed said he made contact including the accuser herself, only in the direction of the moon.

 

If Peyton was not trying to be honest he wouldn't have put it in his book. A public apology and saying he made false statements is literally a violation of the settlement agreement and opens himself up to perjury. Please go back and re-read where I said he literally can do nothing here.

Well he needs to address what I said somehow.  The public hasn't seen him apologize for it in his book or anywhere.  And you've got testimonies that Peyton is lying.  One from the track athlete, and then some other athletes saying that Peyton didn't take them to Virginia.  It's not looking good for Peyton and an apology is the only thing that can stop what some of the analysts are saying on ESPN or wherever.

[bababooey 81]

6 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

Well he needs to address what I said somehow.  The public hasn't seen him apologize for it in his book or anywhere.  And you've got testimonies that Peyton is lying.  One from the track athlete, and then some other athletes saying that Peyton didn't take them to Virginia.  It's not looking good for Peyton and an apology is the only thing that can stop what some of the analysts are saying on ESPN or wherever.

No, he in fact does not. Addressing it in anyway directly violates the settlement agreement. That's why I said he can't win and tried to explain to people like you who don't understand why it's been radio silence from his camp. He acknowledged his mistake in the book (seriously, did you even read above?). These "testimonies" are on her side and were not subject to cross examination, again a he-said she-said. Do you believe she wasn't vulgar too? Because that was in her statement of facts from testimonies saying she never used bad language and her own facebook that she deleted contradicts it. Gotta use your mind my friend.

[bababooey 81]

17 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I just have one question for those that think he placed his junk on her face...

 

 

she says she was examining his ankle for a possible injury when he dropped his pants and put his junk on her face.....

 

now, coming from someone who busted in ankle twice in highschool and who's sister is a professional trainer for a college football, albiet a Div III school, there's only 3 ways I've ever seen an athlete examined for an ankle injury

 

 

#3: Standing straight up

 

 

thoughts

He was standing up straight according to his affadavit.

 

"She (the trainer) was working on 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 butt." - from her statement of facts.

 

His affadavit said it was a moon. Her "statement of facts" says she didn't notice his exposure until someone laughed and she looked up and saw. She would see the pants around the ankles first if it was as much exposure including more than the butt, not because someone laughed and she looked up.

[csmopar 7,176]

7 minutes ago, bababooey said:

He was standing up straight according to his affadavit.

 

"She (the trainer) was working on 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 butt." - from her statement of facts.

 

His affadavit said it was a moon. Her "statement of facts" says she didn't notice his exposure until someone laughed and she looked up and saw. She would see the pants around the ankles first if it was as much exposure including more than the butt, not because someone laughed and she looked up.

so if it was a mooning, which it sounds like, how the freak does that equate to sexual assault.  At the absolute most, it'd be indecent exposure and that'd be a stretch based on that statement.  And that's coming from a trained investigator(me)

[bababooey 81]

Just now, csmopar said:

so if it was a mooning, which it sounds like, how the freak does that equate to sexual assault.  At the absolute most, it'd be indecent exposure and that'd be a stretch based on that statement.  And that's coming from a trained investigator(me)

It doesn't. That's why she changed her story to make it sounds worse once he was a NFL rich and famous athlete and he gave her the opening with the book mention. The tort against him for the exposure expired long before that new claim. She added the new allegation about contact to try to get the judge to not throw out the case which was what PM tried to do. By adding that extra contact into her statement of facts it would embarrass him into wanting to settle before it went to court. The contact she asserted 7 years later that contradicts with her affadavit from 96 had absolutely nothing to do with lawsuit against him that she was pursuing (it was for defamation and breach of NDA from the first settlement). It was a legal hail mary to stop the judge from throwing out the suit and embarrass him into giving her money to go away so the case wouldn't go to trial and the allegations would hurt his reputation. He being a multi millionaire and in the middle of a season threw a small amount of money at the problem to make her go away forever. So he cannot speak about it now despite being smeared by the liberal media and the hive mind that don't understand facts and can't do research that go along with every story they read because they are emotional and not rational thinkers.

[Blue Swagger 0]

25 minutes ago, bababooey said:

No, he in fact does not. Addressing it in anyway directly violates the settlement agreement. That's why I said he can't win and tried to explain to people like you who don't understand why it's been radio silence from his camp. He acknowledged his mistake in the book (seriously, did you even read above?). These "testimonies" are on her side and were not subject to cross examination, again a he-said she-said. Do you believe she wasn't vulgar too? Because that was in her statement of facts from testimonies saying she never used bad language and her own facebook that she deleted contradicts it. Gotta use your mind my friend.

She may have used vulgar language.  I don't know.  But it's irrelevant.  We have seen Peyton swear all the time on the field.  And I'm not sure why her vulgar mouth is a problem for Peyton when he thought it was  ok to drop his pants with a female trainer looking at his foot injury.

 

I'm saying that a public apology would help restore his name.  The guys on First Take and other sports shows would respect him for saying he was sorry.  If he's gotta have his lawyers make a deal with her lawyers to do it, that might be the only way to restore his name.  Cause right now, it's not a good look knowing what he did and that he's not looking honest in all that he's said here.  And sometimes an apology and saying you are sorry fixes a lot of things.

[Blue Swagger 0]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

so if it was a mooning, which it sounds like, how the freak does that equate to sexual assault.  At the absolute most, it'd be indecent exposure and that'd be a stretch based on that statement.  And that's coming from a trained investigator(me)

If he didn't touch her, it's not assualt.  It might be harassment or indecent exposure though.

[bababooey 81]

2 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

If he didn't touch her, it's not assualt.  It might be harassment or indecent exposure though.

And he admitted to this, and he paid for this. He also tried to apologize according to his court docs for his side also mentioned he tried several times to apologize including phone message and hand written letter after her husband told him she didn't want to speak to him. Funny how everyone can analyze every bit of her 74 pages but not 14 of his.

[csmopar 7,176]

6 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

If he didn't touch her, it's not assualt.  It might be harassment or indecent exposure though.

isn't that what I just said in the very post you quoted of mine?

 

 

[bababooey 81]

20 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

She may have used vulgar language.  I don't know.  But it's irrelevant.  We have seen Peyton swear all the time on the field.  And I'm not sure why her vulgar mouth is a problem for Peyton when he thought it was  ok to drop his pants with a female trainer looking at his foot injury.

 

I'm saying that a public apology would help restore his name.  The guys on First Take and other sports shows would respect him for saying he was sorry.  If he's gotta have his lawyers make a deal with her lawyers to do it, that might be the only way to restore his name.  Cause right now, it's not a good look knowing what he did and that he's not looking honest in all that he's said here.

Actually we do know according to her. The entire case relied on whether or not she was vulgar since she claimed she wasn't and that he tried to defame her by saying she was which is true according to her own facebook post so, yes, that in fact makes it very relevant. Again, he literally cannot say anything about this without bringing on more litigation.

 

According to his side, he tried to apologize to her, there is nobody else in this country that he owes an apology to. If anything he is owed an apology for the way he is being portrayed by the liberal media and being called a rapist and getting death threats wished on him by ex NFL players over a 20 year old settled incident. The same people vilifying him are cheering for someone else who did way worse way more recently is the entire point of my post. 

 

I see nothing else will change your opinion since you aren't comprehending the situation which is what I've tried to rectify with my long winded post.

[Gramz 2,172]

He doesn't owe anyone an apology.  He tried to apologize once before and it backfired.

 

If anything he's the one who is owed an apology from several.

[bababooey 81]

Shoot, I knew I forgot something else.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/tennessee-associate-ad-contacted-fbi-about-manning-accuser-harassment-021716

Quote

Tennessee Associate AD Contacted FBI About Manning Accuser Harassment In 2015

 

During the first call in September of 2015, which Tegano described to Outkick as "rambling, threatening and incoherent," Tegano said "I didn't know who was on the other line at first because the caller would not identify herself. She just kept saying, 'You know who this is.' Eventually she said it was her (Jamie Naughright). I can't recall the last time I had talked to her prior to this call, at least ten years ago. After three or four minutes I hung up on her." 

 

A few weeks later another call arrived at the house. After a short, incoherent conversation Tegano said he hung up on her again. The third time Naughright called the house in the fall of 2015, "My wife answered and she said something very rude to her (my wife) and I hung up on her again."

 

The next time Naughright called, it came from a blocked phone number Tegano said. "There was no sound on the other end of the line, just breathing. After a minute or so of breathing, Jamie identified herself and started making rambling threats again. I hung up again."

 

Tegano discussed the calls with others at the university and found he was not the only person receiving calls from Naughright during this time frame

Again this is more he-said but we can't be only listening to the side that makes the she-said look good and ignore anything supporting the he-said side.

[California 0]

Why does Peyton needs to apologize something that happened 20 years ago? There was a settlement and he probably did. 

 

 

[bababooey 81]

9 minutes ago, California said:

Why does Peyton needs to apologize something that happened 20 years ago? There was a settlement and he probably did. 

 

 

Only stupid people that don't know him personally think they are owed an apology by him.

[Blue Swagger 0]

21 minutes ago, California said:

Why does Peyton needs to apologize something that happened 20 years ago? There was a settlement and he probably did. 

 

 

Did he ever say he was sorry?  I never saw it anywhere.

[Blue Swagger 0]

16 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Only stupid people that don't know him personally think they are owed an apology by him.

He doesn't owe me one but the fans would feel better if they saw him do it.  So would the analysts talking about it on tv.  I realize that is tougher now.

[bayone 118]

1 hour ago, Blue Swagger said:

 

 

At minimum, Peyton needs to apologize for taking down his pants when the trainer was looking at his foot.  The track athlete also says that Peyton is not telling the truth in his book when he said Peyton needs to come clean and own up to what he did and said in the book.  I wish we knew what he was referring to but it gives the impression that Peyton was  not honest in his book.   And if that's the case, he should probably come out and do some kind of public apology, say he's sorry for what he did and for any untrue statements in the book.

 

 

 

If u read the 2003 affidavit Peyton called to apologioze and was hung up on, couldnt find her at her office  ,left phone messages  then finally wrote her if remember right

 

here it is again, I poosted it earlier today in another thread and its in the start of this but with many other links so u may have missed it

 

7 easy pages , as PDF says 14 but repeated 2x

 

Read starting paragraph 14 for sequence of attempts to apologize then, both b y phone & in person, , one time left a message as no one would ever pick up the phone again ,  finally wrote a note & explained all, apologized and even lwrote his phone # In New Orleans as was spring break  & asked her to please call him

 

Read before that for incident description

 

https://mgtvwate.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/peytonmanningaffidavit.pdf

[jvan1973 5,318]

1 hour ago, Blue Swagger said:

Well he needs to address what I said somehow.  The public hasn't seen him apologize for it in his book or anywhere.  And you've got testimonies that Peyton is lying.  One from the track athlete, and then some other athletes saying that Peyton didn't take them to Virginia.  It's not looking good for Peyton and an apology is the only thing that can stop what some of the analysts are saying on ESPN or wherever.

Can I get a link to those testinonies?  

I'll be patiently waiting those

[bababooey 81]

12 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

He doesn't owe me one but the fans would feel better if they saw him do it.  So would the analysts talking about it on tv.  I realize that is tougher now.

I know but unfortunately he simply cannot due to the nature of the settlement. That's why the fans need to be educated as to why he hasn't addressed it. That's why it's important to expose the hypocrisy of those criticizing him and thinking he owes them something when they realize the actual facts and rationale behind these suits rather than thinking emotionally about it.

 

He can't do anything so it's up to people to do their own research/due diligence to not go along with the hive mind and social media sheep. Luckily there are members of the media, both black and white, brave enough to call out King's shoddy "journalism" and question the authenticity of the woman's claims rather than assume all women who cry foul are telling the truth and that the guy we've known for 20 years and has never done anything really wrong is a liar and a cover up just because he comes from money.

[California 0]

19 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

Did he ever say he was sorry?  I never saw it anywhere.

Look it up. You do your own research. 

[bababooey 81]

20 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

Did he ever say he was sorry?  I never saw it anywhere.

You only read her side, if you look up his which I inserted the link and mentioned above you'd know he tried several times, including a phone message and a letter.

[California 0]

19 minutes ago, bayone said:

 

If u read the 2003 affidavit Peyton called to apologioze and was hung up on, then not aloued in her home , then finally wrote her if remember right

 

here it is again, I poosted it earlier today in another thread and its in the start of this but with many other links so u may have missed it

 

7 easy pages , as PDF says 14 but repeated 2x

 

Read starting paragraph 14 for sequence of attempts to apologize then, both b y phone & in person, , one time left a message as no one would ever pick up the phone again ,  finally wrote a note & explained all, apologized and even lwrote his phone # In New Orleans as was spring break  & asked her to please call him

 

Read before that for incident description

 

https://mgtvwate.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/peytonmanningaffidavit.pdf

 

Nice of Bayone to research it for lazy people.

[Nadine 6,412]

For what it's worth.  I can easily see why that book passage was a problem.  I think it's intended to paint her in a poor light....not to mention makes him appear sexist

Most all of you will likely not see it that way.  I sure do

[bayone 118]

Just now, Nadine said:

For what it's worth.  I can easily see why that book passage was a problem.  I think it's intended to paint her in a poor light....not to mention makes him appear sexist

Most all of you will likely not see it that way.  I sure do

 

 

I believe if just never wrote about it in the book then that 74 page crap never would of been filed in response and King wouldn't of wrote about it and it never would of been brought to light

 

 

[bababooey 81]

Just now, Nadine said:

For what it's worth.  I can easily see why that book passage was a problem.  I think it's intended to paint her in a poor light....not to mention makes him appear sexist

Most all of you will likely not see it that way.  I sure do

I definitely agree it was dumb for him to include, that is his big mistake after the incident itself. It was his way of saying he's made mistakes in life that he regrets but at the same time beneath the fact he mentioned she brought a 33 count suit against the school tried to diminish his wrongdoing by making it sounds like without saying she would have found something to complain about him anyway if that incident didn't occur.

 

I don't believe her case was strong enough to make it to court, however. I cited this as the reason for her decision to include new allegations designed to embarrass him into settlement/get his motion to have the case dropped thrown out and therefore move to trial.

[Gramz 2,172]

Yes, @Nadine. He was wrong and She won that lawsuit. 

 

He no longer owes anyone an apology IMO.

[Nadine 6,412]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

I definitely agree it was dumb for him to include, that is his big mistake after the incident itself. It was his way of saying he's made mistakes in life that he regrets but at the same time beneath the fact he mentioned she brought a 33 count suit against the school tried to diminish his wrongdoing by making it sounds like without saying she would have found something to complain about him anyway if that incident didn't occur.

 

I don't believe her case was strong enough to make it to court, however. I cited this as the reason for her decision to include new allegations designed to embarrass him into settlement/get his motion to have the case dropped thrown out and therefore move to trial.

he * her off.  Would have * me off too.  I don't know the extent to which this woman enduring sexism as UT.  I'm guessing a lot..  Maybe she just thinks that she can hold him accountable for all she endured.

 

 

[bababooey 81]

3 minutes ago, bayone said:

 

 

I believe if just never wrote about it in the book then that 74 page crap never would of been filed in response and King wouldn't of wrote about it and it never would of been brought to light

 

 

Yep, he brought that on himself by not leaving the past in the past and carrying that grudge against her. He probably thought it would come out one day and tried to get ahead of it by admitting he did something bad but it backfired completely.

[bababooey 81]

2 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

Yes, @Nadine. He was wrong and She won that lawsuit. 

 

He no longer owes anyone an apology IMO.

Technically they settled. She could have won at the time esp for breach of NDA (if UT made him sign one) but doubtful for defamation because everyone curses. Her case would have been dead on the floor if facebook existed back then.

[Restored 264]

Manning could realistically sue King/NYDaily for defamation. He won't because he's a class act but he has a pretty plausible case after all of this..

[bababooey 81]

Just now, Restored said:

Manning could realistically sue King/NYDaily for defamation. He won't because he's a class act but he has a pretty plausible case after all of this..

He's a public figure so it would be tough. Also probably not worth his time. However there is a willful indifference to the truth and the author is clearly acting maliciously so he may have a case.

[southwest1 2,092]

Great detailed write up Bababooey. This line about Mr. King in your original post makes my blood boil: 

 

"He wrote the story portraying her lawyer's side as facts in an effort to deflect the criticism Cam Newton received for his post SB press conference." 

 

So, let me get this straight, Mr. King is so angry that the Panthers lost the SB in February that he pulled an obsolete story regarding Peyton Manning out of thin air simply because Cam Newton came up short & he [King] pulled a bait & switch distraction ploy to take heat off of Newton's post press conference immaturity. Unbelievable. SMH. 

 

I don't really care about violating non disclosure agreements in a book. What I do care about is attempting to destroy a HOF QB's reputation simply because Mr. King was miffed that the wrong field general won a ring in his estimation. What a piece of _________.

[Restored 264]

25 minutes ago, bababooey said:

He's a public figure so it would be tough. Also probably not worth his time. However there is a willful indifference to the truth and the author is clearly acting maliciously so he may have a case.

 

That's my point. The journalistic process was in large part ignored in order to push this piece to the forefront.

[Gramz 2,172]

45 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Technically they settled. She could have won at the time esp for breach of NDA (if UT made him sign one) but doubtful for defamation because everyone curses. Her case would have been dead on the floor if facebook existed back then.

Yes, mis-spoke.  That's what I meant.

[bababooey 81]

Just now, Restored said:

 

That's my point. The journalistic process was in large part ignored in order to push this piece to the forefront.

Absolutely. Not contacting his side for comment and not attempting to get his side's documents is shoddy, one sided journalism. Not running her side's documents by an outside or an in house legal expert is grossly negligent. Doing that would have lessened the damage sustained to his reputation with the hive mind and PC community but that's who they are trying to appeal to. The intentional malice is clear.