Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Peyton Manning case update


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bababooey said:

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?? 

Completely agree with this statement & it makes me sick that Jamie, Mr. King, & some misguided feminist organizations are trying to crucify Manning over a minor incident that doesn't rise to the level of depravity that these foolish accusers think that it does. 

 

I applaud you sir for having the you know what to say this out loud. Don't get me started on how Stephen A. Smith & Skip Bayless are lapping up this nonsense like it's ironclad evidence, which it isn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/19/peyton-manning-affidavit-sexual-assault-allegations-jamie-naughright

 

Significance of contradicting accounts from Manning, Naughright

 

Quote

In a light most supportive of Manning, he briefly mooned another University of Tennessee football player, Malcolm Saxon, while Naughright examined his foot for a possible injury. In a light most supportive of Naughright, Manning intentionally and without Naughright’s consent placed his rectum and genitals on her face and then laughed about it. As discussed earlier this week, Naughright’s account appeared to worsen (or, she might argue, increased in detail) over the years.

 

Saxon—the player whom Manning says he mooned—has altered his account of the incident, which raises questions about which version ought to be believed. While court records indicate that Saxon supported Manning’s depiction for several years, he appeared to have a change of heart by Dec. 10, 2002. On that date he wrote Manning a letter saying that he no longer agreed with Manning’s portrayal of the incident.

Sounds like Saxon's story changed after he left the school in a not-so-graceful manner. I guess that other "testimony" is a fact too, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another thing that I don't get. Let's say for the sake for the argument that I bought Jamie's version of events back in 1996 that Manning was sexually aggressive showing his private parts in front of her inside the Tennessee  university facility as she examined Peyton's injured foot. I don't BTW, but just play along. 

 

Has Peyton Manning in his 20 yr. career ever had another athletic trainer allege that he was somehow inappropriate toward them in either INDY or Denver? Go ahead & ask around. I'll wait. Nothing huh. That's what I thought.

 

It's difficult to claim that Peyton's a predator when he has no history of treading over the line as a Colt or a Bronco isn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Can I get a link to those testinonies?  

I'll be patiently waiting those

You may not have looked at the letter that Malcolm Saxon wrote to Peyton.  He urged Peyton to finally admit what he did and correct the story he had told in his book. "own up to what you did (and what was said in your book!)"-Saxon.

 

zbd1uyes0glr7in7xmsb.jpg

 

These are the questions asked of Peyton based off  a sworn affidavit from the track athlete Malcolm Saxon.  Malcolm gave his version of the incident and said that Peyton Manning did not moon him.  Saxon said the trainer was behind him, sounds like on the floor,and Saxon was in front of Peyton.  Saxon said he was not mooned.   http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14805927/in-deposition-peyton-manning-denied-allegations-malcolm-saxon-training-room

Peyton is being asked the questions below about the lone witness (Malcolm Saxon) said to the event.    Saxon stated that Peyton's pants were below his knees over Jamie Whited for a period of five to ten seconds.  Peyton said in his book that Saxon made an off color remark.  Saxon denies making an off color remark.

 

i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2016%2F0218%2FMANNING_D

I was not there. But the words of this lone witness do not help Peyton's credibility. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

You may not have looked at the letter that Malcolm Saxon wrote to Peyton.  He urged Peyton to finally admit what he did and correct the story he had told in his book. "own up to what you did (and what was said in your book!)"-Saxon.

 

zbd1uyes0glr7in7xmsb.jpg

 

These are the questions asked of Peyton based off  a sworn affidavit from the track athlete Malcolm Saxon.  Malcolm gave his version of the incident and said that Peyton Manning did not moon him.  Saxon said the trainer was behind him, sounds like on the floor,and Saxon was in front of Peyton.  Saxon said he was not mooned.   http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14805927/in-deposition-peyton-manning-denied-allegations-malcolm-saxon-training-room

Peyton is being asked the questions below about the lone witness (Malcolm Saxon) said to the event.    Saxon stated that Peyton's pants were below his knees over Jamie Whited for a period of five to ten seconds.  Peyton said in his book that Saxon made an off color remark.  Saxon denies making an off color remark.

 

i?img=%2Fphoto%2F2016%2F0218%2FMANNING_D

I was not there. But the words of this lone witness do not help Peyton's credibility. 

 

 

 

 

Please see my post above or read the article I attached. Saxon changing his story damages his credibility, not Peyton's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You remember when Peyton Manning blew the owner of Papa John's pizza a kiss after the SB? 

 

Did Shaun King see that moment of brief euphoria &  say to himself "That smug SOB is showboating right there just like Cam Newton the reigning regular season MVP did after scoring touchdowns." Why's 18 get a pass on celebrating? What can I do to make Manning life a living hades? I've got it! Screw with his endorsements!" 

 

Hey there Genius, & I use the term loosely, it's called putting a bow on a glorious career & basking in the Championship moonlight. 

 

Here's a question for Mr. King: If Cam had won the SB, would you even be making this outlandish allegation? No, so basically you're acting like a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum. You're dark motives are as clear as day to me Mr. King. Maybe I should send you a box of diapers since you are acting like such a baby. Better yet a pacifier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CR91 said:

I wonder if everyone in this forum would treat this differently if it was someone other then peyton

Let's see...An outdated 20 yr old case that was settled & the wounded party got 300 G's for pain & suffering surrounding an overblown incident....Just put a new name on lawsuit...No, I gotta say CR91. My reaction would be exactly the same. 

 

Okay, if I being honest, if a famous Cowboys player was accused of misconduct initially, I might at 1st blush being inclined to believe it, but eventually as more facts came to light; I'd be fair in the end. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

Can you post what he said?

Gladly

From the article I posted above (speaking about the day he changed his story 7 years later):

Quote

On that date he wrote Manning a letter saying that he no longer agreed with Manning’s portrayal of the incident. In the letter, Saxon insisted that it was “definitely inappropriate” for Manning to have “dropped [his] drawers.” 

 

Further, Saxon opined that Manning had “messed up” and urged Manning to “take some personal responsibility.” Saxon, however, did not clarify which aspects of Manning’s portrayal he no longer supported. Saxon also did not say or imply that Manning had made physical contact with Naughright. If anything, Saxon’s letter seemed factually consistent with Manning’s accounts—some sort of “mooning” occurred—although Saxon was more critical of Manning than Manning himself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Swagger said:

The problem is that we don't have Saxon saying it.  We just have an author saying that Saxon changed his word.

 

 

You...you're serious? The author, a lawyer, compared his words in the court docs to his words in his own letter 7 years later and found where he deviated and neither account mentions physical contact, only disputes the direction of the moon. He is more consistent with Manning's side than he is with Naughright's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bababooey said:

You...you're serious? The author, a lawyer, compared his words in the court docs to his words in his own letter 7 years later and found where he deviated and neither account mentions physical contact, only disputes the direction of the moon. He is more consistent with Manning's side than he is with Naughright's.

Where did he deviate?

 

And yes I agree with you, Saxon made no reference to Peyton making physical contact.  He just said Peyton's shorts were below the knee for 5-10 seconds with Naughright behind him checking out his foot.  I don't claim this was a sexual assault case.  It was a sexual harassment and indecent exposure case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

Where did he deviate?

 

And yes I agree with you, Saxon made no reference to Peyton making physical contact.  He just said Peyton's shorts were below the knee for 5-10 seconds with Naughright behind him checking out his foot.

For the nth time, he no longer went with Manning was mooning him, now he says he wasn't mooning him. 7 years later. This alone kills his credibility. Please show me where he mentioned how many seconds it was. All he said was Peyton dropped his drawers.

 

Good to have you back AM, hope you enjoyed the superbowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bababooey said:

For the nth time, he no longer went with Manning was mooning him, now he says he wasn't mooning him. 7 years later. Please show me where he mentioned how many seconds it was. All he said was Peyton dropped his drawers.

I never saw anything where Saxon said he was being mooned by Peyton? 

 

Saxon said it in a sworn affidavit.  the long one I just posted above.  The questions to Manning have his statement of that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

I never saw anything where Saxon said he was being mooned by Peyton? 

 

Saxon said it in a sworn affidavit.  the long one I just posted above.  The questions to Manning have his statement of that. 

Please see the SI article I literally just posted. His credibility is the same as Naughright's after changing it. Felt like he got wronged after he lost his red shirt status and then changed his tune. Either way it's a gnat on an elephant's you know what because he never said physical contact. We all agree there was a moon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bababooey said:

Please see the SI article I literally just posted. His credibility is the same as Naughright's. Felt like he got wronged after he lost his red shirt status and then changed his tune.

That's just some author saying it.  I would need to see something better than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

That's just some author saying it.  I would need to see something better than that.

He's the same lawyer who teaches a course that debunks deflategate what more do you want? Suit yourself by going through all the documents yourself, it was nice of him to compile the information in an easy to read manner showing how Naughright's and Saxon's stories changed.

 

edit: I find it very odd that you question actual legal analysis provided by an attorney writing on behalf of sports illustrated but take everything King wrot as fact as you displayed earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bayone said:

 

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

Ok, I see now that Peyton says he tried to apologize in 1996.  He should have apologized to her in his book in 2001.  Instead he complained about her having a vulgar mouth and made light of his supposed "mooning".  Which is more vulgar?  Exposing yourself to a female or cussing?  That part comes off really bad on Peyton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Swagger said:

Ok, I see now that Peyton says he tried to apologize in 1996.  He should have apologized to her in his book in 2001.  Instead he complained about her having a vulgar mouth and made light of his supposed "mooning".  Which is more vulgar?  Exposing yourself to a female or cussing?  That part comes off really bad on Peyton.

Yes that is exactly what everyone agrees he did wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bababooey said:

He's the same lawyer who teaches a course that debunks deflategate what more do you want? Suit yourself by going through all the documents yourself, it was nice of him to compile the information in an easy to read manner showing how Naughright's and Saxon's stories changed.

 

edit: I find it very odd that you question actual legal analysis provided by an attorney writing on behalf of sports illustrated but not Shaun King at all.

I don't care about Shaun King. The man has issues.  I just think Peyton should have apologized in his book instead of mocking the situation as a prank.  And I find Malcolm Saxon believable and  Peyton Mannings version not so believable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Yes that is exactly what everyone agrees he did wrong.

And that's probably what open minded people think across the country.  It's not good.  Somehow Peyton needs to address it with an apology or something because  it's not good.  It would cost him some money again, but it might restore some of his once good reputation.

 

People forgive the athletes that fess up and apologize.  They don't look kindly on the athletes that cover things up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

I don't care about Shaun King. The man has issues.  I just think Peyton should have apologized in his book instead of mocking the situation as a prank.  And I find Malcolm Saxon believable and  Peyton Mannings version not so believable. 

I am not saying you care I'm saying you question Michael McCann at every turn but not Shaun King once we've said so many times he literally cannot speak on this matter and doesn't owe anyone an apology. You're allowed to find his side believable over Mannings despite it changed 7 years later after he felt he got burned by the school. I just wanted to put all the facts out here lest people start assuming those who change their stories are more credible than those who do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bababooey said:

I am not saying you care I'm saying you question Michael McCann at every turn but not Shaun King once we've said so many times he literally cannot speak on this matter and doesn't owe anyone an apology. You're allowed to find his side believable over Mannings despite it changed 7 years later after he felt he got burned by the school. I just wanted to put all the facts out here lest people start assuming thise who change their stories are more credible than those who do not.

Yeah I would need to see some evidence that Saxon changed his story.  In Saxon's letter he made mention that the athletic dept was telling people that Saxon was on Peyton's side.  And Saxon reiterates that he was on nobody's side and that he had stuck to the same story throughout.  Now maybe UT was spreading lies about Saxon's position?  And trying to leverage that for a cover up?  Or to intimidate Naughright?  That is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.

 

 

He is not legally allowed to discuss the case anymore

That burned him back in 2003.

He cannot say ANYTHING

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

Ok, I see now that Peyton says he tried to apologize in 1996.  He should have apologized to her in his book in 2001.  Instead he complained about her having a vulgar mouth and made light of his supposed "mooning".  Which is more vulgar?  Exposing yourself to a female or cussing?  That part comes off really bad on Peyton.

Its locker room behavior......Its wrong but not uncommon. I wonder why she took it so far as to sue.

She was an athletic trainer...it was nothing she hadn't seen or heard.

What else happened?

I guess we'll never know

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CR91 said:

I wonder if everyone in this forum would treat this differently if it was someone other then peyton

Of course....that's what the whole issue is

His two decades in the public eye....have to make you question what really happened..

I wonder if the original suit have been filed if his last name wasn't manning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Blue Swagger said:

And that's probably what open minded people think across the country.  It's not good.  Somehow Peyton needs to address it with an apology or something because  it's not good.  It would cost him some money again, but it might restore some of his once good reputation.

 

People forgive the athletes that fess up and apologize.  They don't look kindly on the athletes that cover things up.

There was no cover up..This case was a big deal in Tennessee..

..and, again,. there can be no further comment from either party.....That's what cost Peyton in 2003

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Its locker room behavior......Its wrong but not uncommon. I wonder why she took it so far as to sue.

She was an athletic trainer...it was nothing she hadn't seen or heard.

What else happened?

I guess we'll never know

Well you just can't drop your pants on a female like that.  And as Nadine said, she was mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

There was no cover up..This case was a big deal in Tennessee..

..and, again,. there can be no further comment from either party.....That's what cost Peyton in 2003

It would cost him money to apologize, but it might be the only thing that could save his reputation.  Cause I bet you this week that there aren't as many mom's letting their kids' wear #18 to school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Swagger said:

It would cost him money to apologize, but it might be the only thing that could save his reputation.  Cause I bet you this week that there aren't as many mom's letting their kids' wear #18 to school.

Oh give me a break.

 

The only ones having an issue with him right now are the ones that have been hating on him all along.

 

btw... I saw several #18 jerseys out and about this week, both young and old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

There was no cover up..This case was a big deal in Tennessee..

..and, again,. there can be no further comment from either party.....That's what cost Peyton in 2003

Yes, Mark.  My son was at UT during this time.   I remember it well.  It was all over the news in Knoxville and surrounding areas in TN.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nadine locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Lawrence, Wilson and then Jones. That is the order of the 1st 3 picks. I believe the team that wants Lance is Washington. I do not believe they want to move up to #4. That is way to rich for hm. Denver may also move up. Lance is physically gifted, but not a lot of tape on him.
    • Did just a quick 4 rounder since I really don't know a lot of the lower round players.     I think we would all take this    21. Kwity Paye EDGE Michigan 54. Teven Jenkins OT Oklahoma State 127. Paulson Adebo CB Stanford
    • We are talking past each other.  Let me explain to you what you're missing.   JJ Watt has an opinion about Easterby and the Org in general apparently, and because of that opinion, he supports Watson's desire to leave the Org.   Why would Watt's opinion about why Watson should leave matter to an owner who is going to potentially trade for Watson?   I would think the owner would care about knowing Watson's opinion as to why he wants a trade, not everybody else's opinion about why.  Watson has expressed that clearly.  The articles say nothing bout Easterby.  And in a September news release, Watson specifically mentioned JE and McNair in a thank you tweet.  Very classy.   So why bring up other peoples opinion about why Watson should seek a trade? Its not relevant to Watson's reasons.   I'm sincerely confused.   The only thing I can think of, is that you are looking at offhand comments made in the past, and based on those comment, you are concluding that HOU didn't interview EB because he is black.  Thereby choosing to ignore 15 years of data showing compliance with the Rooney Rule.  If you believe that Watson is talking about race, then you would have to believe that he made the same conclusion about why HOU did not interview EB, because he is black.   Do you know there could be other reasons, right?  
    • I was exited about this draft.  PFF not so much.  Quality over quantity with this one.  
    • There IS another possibility. Let’s say your scenario plays out just as suggested:  the Colts draft a LT who isn’t quite ready ( 2nd rounder ); Tevi opens the season as the starter; BUT, Tevi proves to be a turnstile. What to do? Big Q to the rescue. In a pinch, why not? You do it until your rookie is ready for the full time job and fill in at LG with one of the backups like Pinter. The opposition to moving Q to LT is far less convincing if Plan A has bombed. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...