Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Peyton Manning case update


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Nadine said:

 

 

Sure some women abuse this but that does not mean that the issues don't exist.

 

Her cases were resolved, she has filed no new charges.  I understand people feel that she wronged Peyton Manning, but you really don't know what her experience was there. Her case is mentioned in this lawsuit as evidence of longstanding issues at the university.  Time will tell what happens with that case.

 

 

I agree with both of these statements.  I also would bet  that unfortunately, it's probably not "exclusive" to just the Univ. of Tenn.  I would bet some of this type behavior happens a lot at college campuses.   :dunno:

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I understand that most of you find no basis whatsoever in Naughrights two lawsuits but honestly, when I read some of what is posted here, I wonder if similar sorts of things were said about her and other woman at UT.

 

Those are the sorts of things that people say about women when they get 'uppity', when they call men out for actions that are demeaning and hostile to women. When they challenge institutions and the legal system to set things right.

 

Sure some women abuse this but that does not mean that the issues don't exist.

 

Her cases were resolved, she has filed no new charges.  I understand people feel that she wronged Peyton Manning, but you really don't know what her experience was there. Her case is mentioned in this lawsuit as evidence of longstanding issues at the university.  Time will tell what happens with that case.

 

 

We realize there were issues, nobody is denying that. I think the majority of PM fans are cheesed off at the contact allegations and the circumstances they occurred under (having nothing to do w the defamation suit in 03, conflicting w her 96 affidavit, not calling the police about it, seeing her trash everyone on Facebook, UT getting the fbi involved because she won't stop calling, Knoxville newspaper saying she did the same thing she did to UT, suing another famous person and a separate entity for the same "injury", trying to get the whole athletic department in trouble for academic fraud in a pass/fail class when she was 25). 

 

People should be angry that PM mooned her especially since that could have been a loved one of theirs. If she's making 300K off this you can learn to get over a moon. When you look at all the facts it's pretty easy to agree with Peyton that she is crying wolf and just wants to extort him for more pay days by attempting to ruin his reputation which just makes it that much harder for real victims who were actually assaulted to come out and say so. IMO this is a much bigger offense than getting mooned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I can say, yes to the first question.   My son was at UT at the time, and word around campus was,  she was on her way out because of issues between herself and the University when she filed her final claim.  University settled with her to cut ties.   I am just repeating what I heard and read back then.

I understand.  But to me, regardless of how irritating she was or how many false claims she allegedly filed, that doesn't necessarily mean that all her claims were baseless.

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

We realize there were issues, nobody is denying that. I think the majority of PM fans are cheesed off at the contact allegations and the circumstances they occurred under (having nothing to do w the defamation suit in 03, conflicting w her 96 affidavit, not calling the police about it, seeing her trash everyone on Facebook, UT getting the fbi involved because she won't stop calling, Knoxville newspaper saying she did the same thing she did to UT, suing another famous person and a separate entity for the same "injury", trying to get the whole athletic department in trouble for academic fraud in a pass/fail class when she was 25). 

 

People should be angry that PM mooned her especially since that could have been a loved one of theirs. If she's making 300K off this you can learn to get over a moon. When you look at all the facts it's pretty easy to agree with Peyton that she is crying wolf and just wants to extort him for more pay days by attempting to ruin his reputation which just makes it that much harder for real victims who were actually assaulted to come out and say so. IMO this is a much bigger offense than getting mooned.

I know that's how many people see it.

And it's entirely possible that everything she said is baseless and she's just a money grubbing opportunist.  I really have no idea.

I just don't think that people know enough and some are going overboard on personal attacks against her.  

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that some of the comments being  posted are the sort that are standard attacks against claimants whether they are innocent or not.  

Along the lines of 'prostitutes cannot be raped because they had it coming'  From my perspective it's an angry villager kind of situation. 

 

She hasn't filed new charges and doesn't deserve this right now, same as I don't think Peyton Manning has to answer for anything about this right now.

 

The way people are taking sides in this is unwarranted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I agree with both of these statements.  I also would bet  that unfortunately, it's probably not "exclusive" to just the Univ. of Tenn.  I would bet some of this type behavior happens a lot at college campuses.   :dunno:

There is a lot about University Athletics that is questionable imo.

I don't know that sexism is any more rampant there than any where else but, I think that they take advantage of athletes and make a lot of money off of them.

 

 I tend to think that they'd do about anything to maintain everything just as it is now. So, I do have that bias

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I know that's how many people see it.

And it's entirely possible that everything she said is baseless and she's just a money grubbing opportunist.  I really have no idea.

I just don't think that people know enough and some are going overboard on personal attacks against her.  

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that some of the comments being  posted are the sort that are standard attacks against claimants whether they are innocent or not.  

Along the lines of 'prostitutes cannot be raped because they had it coming'  From my perspective it's an angry villager kind of situation. 

 

She hasn't filed new charges and doesn't deserve this right now, same as I don't think Peyton Manning has to answer for anything about this right now.

 

The way people are taking sides in this is unwarranted.

We know she hasn't filed new charges but the additional suit against another famous person that was a joke, her Facebook posts trashing PM and the university, her harassment of UT and Knoxville news paint her in a bad light. Like I said, this makes it harder for real victims to come out which could be seen as a bigger offense than the actual moon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, California said:

Highlights of Manning’s motion for summary judgment in defamation case

 

Posted by Mike Florio on February 20, 2016, 11:13 AM EST

The 74-page document published six days ago by the New York Daily News told only one side of the lawsuit filed by Jamie Naughright against Peyton Manning and others for defamation of character. Naughright’s lawyers crafted the 74-page document to stave off Manning’s “motion for summary judgment,” a common tool in civil litigation aimed at persuading a judge to find that a case can be resolved without putting any factual disputes in front of a jury.

 

Basically, the defendant who files a motion for summary judgment says to the judge, “Assume everything that the plaintiff contends is true. Even then, the plaintiff can’t win this case.”

PFT has now obtained and reviewed the briefs submitted in support of Manning’s effort to obtain summary judgment. Key excerpts of the documents, with explanation when necessary, appear below.

 

In the opening, 52-page brief, the most biting paragraph against Naughright’s case was the first. The full text of it appears below.

 

“This is the story,” Manning’s lawyers wrote, “of a collegiate athletic trainer who parlayed a minor incident with one of the most well-known athletes in the country into a $300,000 settlement with the University of Tennessee and then went on to a small Florida college for collect another settlement check of $65,000 after being properly transferred to another position at the college. She now has filed this baseless libel suit seeking another substantial settlement from the celebrity athlete, his equally well-known father, a noted sportswriter, and a major book publisher based on a few paragraphs in a book that never even identified her by name. By this suit, the libel plaintiff seeks to settle old scores with the famous college athlete and with former colleagues at the University of Tennessee and at Florida Southern College by dragging them through extended discovery while hoping to have yet another financial windfall at the end of the day. This misuse of the legal system must end.”

 

The 52-page brief then went on to summarize the facts of the case from the defendants’ perspective. Less than a full page was devoted to the much-disputed “mooning” incident of 1996. The full text of the defendants’ characterization of that incident is as follows, with citations to the record of the case omitted.

“On February 29, 1996, Plaintiff and Peyton Manning were both in a training room in the athletic facility at UT,” Manning’s lawyers explained. “While the exact details of what occurred in the training room are disputed, the parties are in universal agreement that Peyton Manning dropped his shorts and exposed his rear end and that Plaintiff saw the exposed rear end (the ‘Mooning Incident’). . . . Peyton Manning’s description of the Mooning Incident is set forth in his Affidavit. . . . Significantly, what exactly occurred in the training room is not at issue in this motion. Upon learning, as discussed below, that Plaintiff was upset by the Mooning Incident, Peyton Manning attempted to visit Plaintiff at her office on March 1, placed several calls to Plaintiff’s home, and sent her a card apologizing for his behavior. . . . In addition, Peyton Manning was disciplined by his coach Phillip Fulmer for his behavior by being required to run every morning at 6 a.m. for two weeks. . . . As part of his punishment, Peyton Manning was also banned for a period of time from eating at his usual location, the training table in Gibbs Hall, which caused a severe disruption in his training regimen.”

 

The description of the incident mentioned an affidavit of Peyton Manning, which has been widely circulated on the Internet in recent days. The “Mooning Incident” is described at paragraphs 6 through 19. Manning contended that, while wearing “a pair of shorts and a jock strap,” his foot was being examined by Naughright, and he was talking to Malcolm Saxon, who was sitting a few tables away from Manning.

 

“Once off the table, [Naughright] moved behind me so that she could examine my foot,” Manning said at paragraph 8 of the affidavit. “At that point, Mr. Saxon made a comment to me intended as a joke regarding my then-girlfriend (now my wife), the substance of which I cannot recall. After hearing his comment, I pulled down my shorts for about one second to expose my buttocks to him, or as is colloquially known, to ‘moon’ him.”

 

At paragraphs 9 and 10, Manning said, “I immediately pulled my shorts back up while [Naughright] continued to examine my foot. My shorts were never down farther than exposing my buttocks. I did not pull them down to my ankles. [Naughright] then finished examining my foot, told me to get back up on the table, and said that I should get some ice on my foot. I then iced my foot, during which time [Naughright] stayed in the training room. I iced my foot for fifteen or twenty minutes, the standard time for such a treatment. During this time [Naughright], who remained in the training room, did not seem uncomfortable or upset.”

 

(Saxon would later dispute Manning’s version of the events directly in an affidavit, and indirectly in a December 2002 letter to Peyton Manning. Surprisingly, Saxon never was questioned under oath in the lawsuit.)

 

At paragraph 13 of Manning’s affidavit, he explained that Tennessee head trainer Mike Rollo “came to my apartment around 11 p.m.” and “asked me whether or not anything had happened with [Naughright] earlier in the day, and because I did not believe that she saw my mooning of Mr. Saxon and she never raised any issues with me, I said no. He asked again and I asked him if it had anything to do with my mooning Mr. Saxon, to which he said yes. I was surprised to hear from Mr. Rollo that night she was upset.”

 

At paragraphs 14 through 17, Manning described various efforts to contact Naughright and to apologize to her for whatever it was that happened, culminating in the sending of a card to her on March 14.

 

To summarize, Manning admitted to dropping his pants, claimed that it was a “mooning” meant for Malcolm Saxon (who would later dispute portions of Manning’s story), and believed Naughright didn’t see what had happened. Manning also essentially admitted that, later that night, enough of a stir had been created to result in a late-night visit from the school’s head trainer, followed by repeated efforts by Manning to personally apologize.

 

Next in the 52-page brief, Manning’s lawyer devoted ample space to outlining the specific legal arguments that justified judgment in the defendants’ favor. The first argument arose from a statutory technicality, requiring five days notice to be provided before the filing of certain types of defamation cases in Florida. The second argument centered on the disputed passages from the book on which the lawsuit was based, claiming that the excerpts are “substantially true.” As part of the second argument, the defendants claimed that the statements at issue were expressions of opinion not fact. (An expression of opinion cannot give rise to a claim for defamation.)

 

The third argument contended that Naughright had become a “public figure,” which makes a defamation case harder to prove by requiring clear and convincing proof of actual malice in the publication of false information. The fourth argument focused on the absence of clear and convincing proof of actual malice. The fifth argument claimed that none of the defendants acted with negligence in the publication of the disputed passages in the book.

 

After filing the effort to secure “summary judgment,” Naughright’s lawyers wrote and submitted the much-discussed 74-page document, published a week ago by the Daily News. Manning’s lawyers then had the last word (which is normal protocol), submitting a seven-page “reply memorandum” in support of the motion.

“This case is about whether a reasonable reader of the book Manning could conclude that two discrete passages that refer to, without naming, Plaintiff Jamie Naughright defame Plaintiff,” Manning’s lawyers wrote in the first paragraph of the reply brief. “In her Opposition Papers, Plaintiff goes to great lengths to create the illusion that there is something more at issue here. But Plaintiff’s seventy-four pages of self-serving ‘facts’ and extraordinary one-sided rhetoric are simply a diversion. This Court should concentrate on the contents of the Book itself.”

 

The remainder of the seven-page reply brief contained mostly legal analysis, with a couple of key exceptions. At page 4, Manning’s lawyers wrote that, in her 74-page document, “Plaintiff claims for the first time to have been ‘assaulted’ by Peyton Manning.” At page 5, Manning’s lawyers addressed Naughright’s claim that the Manning book characterized her as litigious: “First, the Passages do not state that Plaintiff is litigious. And, even if they did, by Plaintiff’s own admission, she is litigious! Plaintiff has started administrative proceedings against and/or threatened to sue the only two employers she has ever had in her academic career. And she has sued five separate Defendants in this action, which arises out of precisely the same facts that gave rise to her legal proceedings and threats against UT and Florida Southern College.” (She would later sue fashion designed Donna Karan and others for injuries allegedly inflicted by a physical therapist in Karan’s Manhattan apartment.)

 

The presiding judge denied the motion for summary judgment, putting the case on track for trial. In a separate post, we’ll explain the judge’s decision.

Meanwhile, later today I’ll be recording for the first time a special PFT Live podcast (which makes it, you know, not “live”) aimed at explaining the case to those who have never practiced law, have never gone to law school, and/or have never watched My Cousin Vinny.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/20/highlights-of-mannings-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-defamation-case/

 

Good job by Florio. This should help the uninformed people.

 

Thank you for sharing this.

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

We know she hasn't filed new charges but the additional suit against another famous person that was a joke, her Facebook posts trashing PM and the university, her harassment of UT and Knoxville news paint her in a bad light. Like I said, this makes it harder for real victims to come out which could be seen as a bigger offense than the actual moon. 

I think where money is the motivation, anything is possible and that holds for her as well as Manning and the University.

 

But, what if the UT case reveals something comparable in seriousness and scope to what happened at Penn State with the child sex abuse scandal? Money made the University turn a blind eye there.

 

We'll see what happens with the UT case..  I am not at all sure that University has a system in place that is fair

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/02/12/plaintiffs-ask-court-halt-ut-sex-assault-hearings/80313472/

 

Universities in general tend to gloss over sexual assault statistics on their campuses. I think their motivation to protect their image (and money) is reason enough for suspicion anywhere in the country.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I understand.  But to me, regardless of how irritating she was or how many false claims she allegedly filed, that doesn't necessarily mean that all her claims were baseless.

And I can also take the stance, that no matter how many "issues"  she may or may not have had with the university,  (most of which seem $$ related, which is referenced referring to differences between treatment and pay between male and females in the profession)  is no reason to try to ruin or tarnish one individual.

And to the people out there that are comparing what Peyton did to rape... these are the types of comments that infuriate and  are so disgusting to me.   I still believe it was nothing more than a "mooning".

 

She had a long history of issues with the University.. being treated differently than male counterparts.    

If she'd been treated like one of the guys, she may have had  a problem with that as well. :dunno:

 

I don't personally believe it was about that...  I think it was about Pay.  It always comes down to money.

 

 

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

We know she hasn't filed new charges but the additional suit against another famous person that was a joke, her Facebook posts trashing PM and the university, her harassment of UT and Knoxville news paint her in a bad light. Like I said, this makes it harder for real victims to come out which could be seen as a bigger offense than the actual moon. 

 

Do we know for sure that this is her Facebook page? A new member here posted a status update from what is supposedly the woman's FB page. I have doubts that she is the one writing this. If she in fact is writing these comments, then it shows poor judgment and questionable character. Those comments attributed to her are nonsensical and inappropriate.    

 

I don't know enough facts about the situation; so I have chosen not to comment much in the last week. I have not read most of this thread but some of the comments here on the last two pages are unfortunate.  Some here have gone "bat crazy" and need to look in the mirror.

 

I see things the way Nadine does. I agree with everything she wrote.  I don't think what happened 20 years ago with Peyton is a big deal (based on the little I know). Casting aspersions on him for something that happened when he was 19 is absurd, given his many years of good behavior and charitable works. We all do things that we later regret. Even if he "touched" her as described in some places, that is NOT "sexual assault". Having said that, I also believe that the woman is taking an unnecessary beating. People should take their anger out on the writer King, not the woman. She is not the one who is talking/writing about Peyton (at least from the little I have read about on various publications). 

 

And the women's group only made things worse. They should stay out of this.

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

 

 

I see things the way Nadine does. I agree with everything she wrote.  I don't think what happened 20 years ago with Peyton is a big deal (based on the little I know). Casting aspersions on him for something that happened when he was 19 is absurd, given his many years of good behavior and charitable works. We all do things that we later regret. Even if he "touched" her as described in some places, that is NOT "sexual assault". Having said that, I also believe that the woman is taking an unnecessary beating. People should take their anger out on the writer King, not the woman. She is not the one who is talking/writing about Peyton (at least from the little I have read about on various publications). 

 

And the women's group only made things worse. They should stay out of this.

I am one that has been doing this, I admit it.   I just don't find her credible.   JMO

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

 

Do we know for sure that this is her Facebook page? A new member here posted a status update from what is supposedly the woman's FB page. I have doubts that she is the one writing this. If she in fact is writing these comments, then it shows poor judgment and questionable character. Those comments attributed to her are nonsensical and inappropriate.    

 

 

I believe it was.   If I'm not mistaken, UT referred to some of these posts and comments along with reporting her harassing phone calls to the FBI

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I believe it was.   If I'm not mistaken, UT referred to some of these posts and comments along with reporting her harassing phone calls to the FBI

.

 

Is this a recent event (UT reporting her to the FBI)?  If so, I have to do more reading. Some of those FB comments were outrageous. 

 

17 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I am one that has been doing this, I admit it.   I just don't find her credible.   JMO

 

It seems that it is the writer that got this whole firestorm going. I did not see her say or write anything. Had King not written that article, I don't think we would be talking about this. 

 

As for her credibility, I don't know enough about her or the situation to say anything.  You probably know much more than most of us with your son having been in the school at the time. From what I have read, she got her degree from UT and was respected before this whole incident happened. But I know nothing else. 

 

I think it is unfortunate that we are discussing all this negative stuff when this time calls for celebrating a SB win and a great legacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Is this a recent event (UT reporting her to the FBI)?  If so, I have to do more reading. Some of those FB comments were outrageous. 

 

 

Yes.  This past Fall she was making harassing phone calls to the University and some of it's employees.  Even calling  them at their homes.   Around the same time she was making posts on her fb page stating that she was digging out old transcripts and videos etc. and preparing to share these things with the public.   This was a few months before the Super Bowl and Kings article.   

 

Apparently after the FBI got involved, phone calls stopped and fb page ultimately deleted.   

 

Coincidence..?? :scratch:

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

 

 

As for her credibility, I don't know enough about her or the situation to say anything.  You probably know much more than most of us with your son having been in the school at the time. From what I have read, she got her degree from UT and was respected before this whole incident happened. But I know nothing else. 

 

haha  I wouldn't say I know much more than anyone else.   I only know what I "heard"  and "read" at the time.  I have no first hand inside information. :P

 

I believe she did get her degree from UT.  Also, at the time that all of these claims and allegations were going on, she was married to the son of UT's former Baseball coach.  A man very well loved and admired in the UT community.  

 

Perhaps her connection to this well respected man gave her the benefit of the doubt from some.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

Yes.  This past Fall she was making harassing phone calls to the University and some of it's employees.  Even calling  them at their homes.   Around the same time she was making posts on her fb page stating that she was digging out old transcripts and videos etc. and preparing to share these things with the public.   This was a few months before the Super Bowl and Kings article.   

 

Apparently after the FBI got involved, phone calls stopped and fb page ultimately deleted.   

 

Coincidence..?? :scratch:

 

I had not read that. If she was the one responsible for the phone calls and the FB comments, then she is nuts. It is also possible that someone else could have done that and it stopped when the FBI got involved. I am speculating. Regarding the bolded, it seems that the FB status update that new member California posted is from an active FB account. 

 

40 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I believe she did get her degree from UT.  Also, at the time that all of these claims and allegations were going on, she was married to the son of UT's former Baseball coach.  A man very well loved and admired in the UT community.  

 

Perhaps her connection to this well respected man gave her the benefit of the doubt from some.  

 

 

Yep, the bolded is possible too. I would not be surprised if that was the case.

 

Thanks for all this information. :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

Yes.  This past Fall she was making harassing phone calls to the University and some of it's employees.  Even calling  them at their homes.   Around the same time she was making posts on her fb page stating that she was digging out old transcripts and videos etc. and preparing to share these things with the public.   This was a few months before the Super Bowl and Kings article.   

 

Apparently after the FBI got involved, phone calls stopped and fb page ultimately deleted.   

 

Coincidence..?? :scratch:

I had not heard this....not at all

......It seems Peyton may have 'crossed' the wrong woman and is still paying for it.

   He must have known about this......it explains his 'investigative' reaction to the HGH story

 

He cant speak for himself publicly but I wish someone else would

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

I understand that most of you find no basis whatsoever in Naughrights two lawsuits but honestly, when I read some of what is posted here, I wonder if similar sorts of things were said about her and other woman at UT.

 

Those are the sorts of things that people say about women when they get 'uppity', when they call men out for actions that are demeaning and hostile to women. When they challenge institutions and the legal system to set things right.

 

Sure some women abuse this but that does not mean that the issues don't exist.

 

Her cases were resolved, she has filed no new charges.  I understand people feel that she wronged Peyton Manning, but you really don't know what her experience was there. Her case is mentioned in this lawsuit as evidence of longstanding issues at the university.  Time will tell what happens with that case.

 

 

In reference to your first paragraph, I did issue a disclaimer stating that I had no proof of some of the assumptions I was making. I even used the word "speculation" as well. I did not cast any negative remarks toward any other woman attending the University Of Tennessee either BTW. 

 

Yes, I will admit that I'm not particularly fond of Mrs. Naughright very much & I think her ulterior motives are financially related & a desire to ride a celebrity coattails related. 

 

Anyone is free to disagree with anything I said or my humorous jokes of sarcasm directed at Jamie herself. This is NOT directed at any individual or moderator specifically, all of whom I respect BTW. Just know this about SW1: Guilt trips, implied or intentional, never work on me. I believe what I believe & I make no apologies for what I said. 

 

Again, I am not trying to cause any friction here on the forum, violate any rules, or create an environment where members & moderators feel unable or uncomfortable to express their viewpoints freely without intimidation. I am merely clarifying my own perspective on this topic. That's it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

In reference to your first paragraph, I did issue a disclaimer stating that I had no proof of some of the assumptions I was making. I even used the word "speculation" as well. I did not cast any negative remarks toward any other woman attending the University Of Tennessee either BTW. 

 

Yes, I will admit that I'm not particularly fond of Mrs. Naughright very much & I think her ulterior motives are financially related & a desire to ride a celebrity coattails related. 

 

Anyone is free to disagree with anything I said or my humorous jokes of sarcasm directed at Jamie herself. This is NOT directed at any individual or moderator specifically, all of whom I respect BTW. Just know this about SW1: Guilt trips, implied or intentional, never work on me. I believe what I believe & I make no apologies for what I said. 

 

Again, I am not trying to cause any friction here on the forum, violate any rules, or create an environment where members & moderators feel unable or uncomfortable to express their viewpoints freely without intimidation. I am merely clarifying my own perspective on this topic. That's it. 

Not trying to make anything 'work on you'

I didn't direct anything at anyone either

I don't feel uncomfortable to express my viewpoints

So, there isn't an issue

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

Not trying to make anything 'work on you'

I didn't direct anything at anyone either

I don't feel uncomfortable to express my viewpoints

So, there isn't an issue

Thank you for this post Nadine. I just wanted to clear the air. I misunderstood you. My apologies. 

 

No, that's right. You didn't direct anything at me either. I will admit that I went a little bananas dominating this thread last night & because of that it's not a strange leap I was making or inferring with your post. I was wrong. I know that now. I appreciate your understanding Nadine. We're fine. 

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

I understand.  But to me, regardless of how irritating she was or how many false claims she allegedly filed, that doesn't necessarily mean that all her claims were baseless.

True, but couldn't it be said that once Mrs. Naughright is caught exaggerating the truth later on regarding the 1996 incident, that everything she says after that would be deemed "fruit from a poisonous tree" metaphorically speaking? 

 

Once a person is caught lying or embellishing the true course of events, it's difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore as a trustworthy witness or person. The only exception to that rule is if you are exposed red handed in a lie, fess up immediately, & promise to never exaggerate what really happened here ever again. 

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

I had not heard this....not at all

......It seems Peyton may have 'crossed' the wrong woman and is still paying for it.

   He must have known about this......it explains his 'investigative' reaction to the HGH story

 

He cant speak for himself publicly but I wish someone else would

Only problem with that idea is this: Somebody with clout in the media will falsely assert that Manning is hiding behind a high priced mouth piece doing damage control on his behalf. Manning can't go on the attack either because it creates the misguided image of a man picking on a woman. Utterly preposterous, but it is what it is. 

 

I just don't want either this 96 incident fallout or HGH nonsense to ruin Peyton's retirement celebration festivities & I could so see Jamie & her sympathetic, zombie followers trying to tank & derail Peyton's special day. Elway will do what he can to protect 18 from backlash, but there's only so much he can do. Maybe bump up security procedures & guard personnel that crucial Denver day. I don't know.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

True, but couldn't it be said that once Mrs. Naughright is caught exaggerating the truth later on regarding the 1996 incident, that everything she says after that would be deemed "fruit from a poisonous tree" metaphorically speaking? 

 

Once a person is caught lying or embellishing the true course of events, it's difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore as a trustworthy witness or person. The only exception to that rule is if you are exposed red handed in a lie, fess up immediately, & promise to never exaggerate what really happened here ever again. 

I think she has believability problems certainly with a lot of people who believe they know terrible things about her.

But that doesn't mean everything she says is baseless. Not to me anyway.

I don't see either of these people as 100% honest or 100% truthful. And it doesn't matter because they settled this.  The only thing that is new is that the whole issue is being referenced in a case against the University as evidence of long standing 'issues' and I think there is enough there to warrant that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Only problem with that idea is this: Somebody with clout in the media will falsely assert that Manning is hiding behind a high priced mouth piece doing damage control on his behalf. Manning can't go on the attack either because it creates the misguided image of a man picking on a woman. Utterly preposterous, but it is what it is. 

 

I just don't want either this 96 incident fallout or HGH nonsense to ruin Peyton's retirement celebration festivities.

This is actually what the NYDN did in their "Manning Machine" article

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/modiano-peyton-manning-kill-messenger-tactic-rolls-article-1.2536597

 

Then Florio hit him with a dropkick from the top rope in his article

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/daily-news-circles-wagons-turns-tables/

 

Quote

The most troubling aspect of Modiano’s column comes near the bottom, when he writes these words: “In exactly what sports media universe has a law degree or Ph.D. from Columbia School of Journalism ever been needed for journalists to render an opinion of assumed guilt? . . . ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is a legal standard, not the bar to hold an educated opinion.”

The key word there is “educated.” The people responsible for shaping public opinion shouldn’t adopt their own opinions in the same incomplete, haphazard way that non-journalists do. Journalists are supposed to consider both sides before forming opinions. And while columnists are paid to express their own opinions, those opinions need to be rooted in a fair and knowledgeable consideration of the facts, along with a basic understanding of what is and isn’t proven fact.

As the media continues to change to better meet the demands of the modern consumer, the media can’t adopt the mindset of the modern consumer. Modiano seems to believe that, in the court of public opinion, writers and reporters are fellow members of the jury. If that attitude reflects the culture of the New York Daily News, I finally understand why King handled this situation the way he did.

 

Luckily everyone in this thread at least knows all the facts now that are available, and sees more as we insert them in here. Luckily when posters come up with theories based on incorrect facts we can educate them. I'm glad after the first thread was deleted for being a complete troll job by Viridulant and then the second one that got out of hand after people were just presuming guilty or innocent based on how they feel about PM with only her court docs available that we've finally been able to get everything in one place and using simple logic the questions can answer themselves.

 

Don't recall if I mentioned it here already. I don't know about you guys but I'm looking very forward to NYDN's hit piece on Leo after he wins that elusive oscar next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bababooey said:

According to her Facebook she's been married 3 times and isn't happy w the current husband

It reminds me of that old breakup joke when the partner who wants out of the relationship politely says, "it's not you dear, it's me." 

 

No, actually it is you & now all my friends & family are relived that I finally woke up, saw the light, & had a profound awakening about you & your nonstop compulsive tendencies at least in relationship to Manning anyway. 

 

"Happy Trails" Jamie. [I picture her ex-husbands humming the Van Halen version of this song to themselves & grinning silently to themselves.] They are just jubilant that they are now free like a heavy weight has been lighted from their weary shoulders.

 

Divorce is commonplace nowadays, but if 4 courtships are on the rocks, maybe it's time to take a long, hard, look in the mirror Jamie Naughright. Just an observation...

 

Jamie probably classifies herself on FaceBook as "Challenging, intriguing, & full of adventure too" meaning stubborn, always right, & never wrong. haha Okay, maybe that was a tad bit harsh, but if the shoe fits...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

Do we know for sure that this is her Facebook page? A new member here posted a status update from what is supposedly the woman's FB page. I have doubts that she is the one writing this. If she in fact is writing these comments, then it shows poor judgment and questionable character. Those comments attributed to her are nonsensical and inappropriate.    

 

I don't know enough facts about the situation; so I have chosen not to comment much in the last week. I have not read most of this thread but some of the comments here on the last two pages are unfortunate.  Some here have gone "bat crazy" and need to look in the mirror.

 

I see things the way Nadine does. I agree with everything she wrote.  I don't think what happened 20 years ago with Peyton is a big deal (based on the little I know). Casting aspersions on him for something that happened when he was 19 is absurd, given his many years of good behavior and charitable works. We all do things that we later regret. Even if he "touched" her as described in some places, that is NOT "sexual assault". Having said that, I also believe that the woman is taking an unnecessary beating. People should take their anger out on the writer King, not the woman. She is not the one who is talking/writing about Peyton (at least from the little I have read about on various publications). 

 

And the women's group only made things worse. They should stay out of this.

 

I know the ones I posted first that were in that tweet that were timestamped from last summer are legit as they were taken straight from her page before it was deleted upon the release of King's article. The other one's that Clay Travis posted re: her calling out her coworkers from 20 min ago and then saying she is compiling everything to bring "golden boy" down all said "just now" or "3 min ago" which is why I said I question the validity of those. Knoxville news did confirm she calls him golden boy when she harrasses them so you can use that to draw your own conclusion about the validity of the second wave of facebook posts.

 

All you need to get caught up is basically my initial post and then if you followed along and found about her harrassment of UT (where they called the FBI) and knoxville news, as well as her attempt at age 25 to get the entire university in trouble for academic fraud relating to a pass/fail athlete only orientation class which was 2 years before she filed the suit against the school.

 

Luckily King is taking a beating and rightfully so. If you listened to him on The Herd yesterday he spent little time on his article and most of it bashing the host for criticizing him. From the article I just posted before this post 

Quote

In the absence of any mechanism for resolving the cracked and yellowed he-said/she-said, King opened the door to fair criticism of the manner in which he clumsily set the agenda, misleading those already predisposed to presume Peyton Manning’s guilt. Some (like PFT) opted to explain what the document is and what is isn’t, allowing for a more complete assessment of the situation. As to those who already concluded based on King’s one-sided narrative that Manning “sexually assaulted” Naughright, however, any effort to explain the circumstances in a measured, objective way was viewed as an effort to protect Manning.

 

Then came King’s follow-up article on Monday, in which he defended himself against critics, doubling down with an erroneous explanation of the legal posture of the case by writing that a judge had affirmatively found “clear and convincing evidence” that Peyton and Archie Manning acted with malice toward Naughright. King and his editors failed to realize the fundamental mistake he had made when Monday’s article was published, and they apparently have chosen to do nothing to acknowledge the misstatement or to repair it. (In an interview on CBS Sports Radio, King has conceded that he possibly misunderstood the judge’s words, but King consistently — and somewhat amazingly — has said that he has not read any of the articles criticizing his work. As of this posting, the Monday article still has not been revised to correct King’s obvious mistake.)

This is when NYDN posted their "Manning Machine" article to try to tear down anything that comes to Peyton's defense since he cannot say anything himself. I still am beside myself that the editor of the NYDN literally tweeted "Peyton apologists think putting your (expletive deleted) in a womans face is a locker room prank. Interesting take." and doesn't understand he gave the OK on a malicious effort to twist facts to build a story that was a racist author's opinion. It's why this tabloid is going under and the only people buying it are the unintelligent libtards that love it when they photoshop politicians from a certain party as a clown or the devil on their front page or start with a presumption of guilt (see their Clash of the TAINT-ans) front page before the AFC championship game this year.

 

Thankfully we have rational thinkers in this world and not just emotionally irrational lemmings that walk off the side of the mountain with King. After the dust settled of that bombshell article that ended up not being very truthful and the * like Stephen A and Mad Dog realized they were assuming fact on one half of a he said/she said story as fact, we had smart people like lawyers Michael McCann, Mike Florio, and Clay Travis tearing King to shreds. If Bob Iger hasn't thought about selling ESPN before I bet he is contemplating it now.

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

what do you have against leo?

Sorry, sarcasm doesn't come across good here. I love Leo. I was making a joke that when another successful white person achieves the top achievement of their career field the NYDN will be there to attempt to destroy him a week later with a bogus misrepresentation of facts.

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

This is actually what the NYDN did in their "Manning Machine" article

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/modiano-peyton-manning-kill-messenger-tactic-rolls-article-1.2536597

 

Then Florio hit him with a dropkick from the top rope in his article

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/daily-news-circles-wagons-turns-tables/

 

 

Luckily everyone in this thread at least knows all the facts now that are available, and sees more as we insert them in here. Luckily when posters come up with theories based on incorrect facts we can educate them. I'm glad after the first thread was deleted for being a complete troll job by Viridulant and then the second one that got out of hand after people were just presuming guilty or innocent based on how they feel about PM with only her court docs available that we've finally been able to get everything in one place and using simple logic the questions can answer themselves.

 

Don't recall if I mentioned it here already. I don't know about you guys but I'm looking very forward to NYDN's hit piece on Leo after he wins that elusive oscar next week.

I seen the Revenant last night. I think the Bear gets the nod.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

It reminds me of that old breakup joke when the partner who wants out of the relationship politely says, "it's not you dear, it's me." 

 

No, actually it is you & now all my friends & family are relived that I finally woke up, saw the light, & had a profound awakening about you & your nonstop compulsive tendencies at least in relationship to Manning anyway. 

 

"Happy Trails" Jamie. [I picture her ex-husbands humming the Van Halen version of this song to themselves & grinning silently to themselves.] They are just jubilant that they are now free like a heavy weight has been lighted from their weary shoulders.

 

Divorce is commonplace nowadays, but if 4 courtships are on the rocks, maybe it's time to take a long, hard, look in the mirror Jamie Naughright. Just an observation...

 

Jamie probably classifies herself on FaceBook as "Challenging, intriguing, & full of adventure too" meaning stubborn, always right, & never wrong. haha Okay, maybe that was a tad bit harsh, but if the shoe fits...

No offense but you have some personal problem with this women. Kind of gross to read, especially the length and detail you go to in your posts lol. 

39 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Sorry, sarcasm doesn't come across good here. I love Leo. I was making a joke that when another successful white person achieves the top achievement of their career field the NYDN will be there to attempt to destroy him a week later with a bogus misrepresentation of facts.

Now that's a little messed up and true at the same time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I think she has believability problems certainly with a lot of people who believe they know terrible things about her.

But that doesn't mean everything she says is baseless. Not to me anyway.

I don't see either of these people as 100% honest or 100% truthful. And it doesn't matter because they settled this.  The only thing that is new is that the whole issue is being referenced in a case against the University as evidence of long standing 'issues' and I think there is enough there to warrant that.

It's fair to point out the danger in vilifying Mrs. Naughright's entire character & therefore by mere association veracity & scope of what she alleges Manning did to her back in 1996 Nadine. But, I also think it's reasonable to assume that her credibility is not without scrutiny once Jamie decided to alter her memory of events by say 2003 I believe. I value consistency & once a person keeps adding details to their original account in order to receive a settlement I don't hold this individual in high regard in terms of honesty or accuracy anymore. 

 

Jamie opened this door of doubt herself by changing her story. No one else did that. It's not a question of truthfulness that can be measured or quantified perse to me. No, it's more correct to say that when a person alters their story red flags should always go up like flares because something is extremely fishy here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bababooey said:

According to her Facebook she's been married 3 times and isn't happy w the current husband

 

It least she has been married. haha  

 

Seriously, I have a hard time believing that someone would write on their FB page that they are unhappy in their marriage. That is why I pause before believing everything I read. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

I can say, yes to the first question.   My son was at UT at the time, and word around campus was,  she was on her way out because of issues between herself and the University when she filed her final claim.  University settled with her to cut ties.   I am just repeating what I heard and read back then.

 

I am amazed this issue  is still being regurgitated  , but the media loves a story and guess the trolls here do to, though I know some arent trolls and to those i say, yes he was fooloish and never should of done anything 

 

but its 20 years old already

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

 

It least she has been married. haha  

 

Seriously, I have a hard time believing that someone would write on their FB page that they are unhappy in their marriage. That is why I pause before believing everything I read. 

Common sense isn't so common. Crazy people love airing out dirty laundry on the Internet to their acquaintances 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

It's fair to point out the danger in vilifying Mrs. Naughright's entire character & therefore by mere association veracity & scope of what she alleges Manning did to her back in 1996 Nadine. But, I also think it's reasonable to assume that her credibility is not without scrutiny once Jamie decided to alter her memory of events by say 2003 I believe. I value consistency & once a person keeps adding details to their original account in order to receive a settlement I don't hold this individual in high regard in terms of honesty or accuracy anymore. 

 

Jamie opened this door of doubt herself by changing her story. No one else did that. It's not a question of truthfulness that can be measured or quantified perse to me. No, it's more correct to say that when a person alters their story red flags should always go up like flares because something is extremely fishy here.  

 

once one starts lying its hard to keep things the same , over time the story will keep changing so dont lie to begin 

 

Though ,I am also saying some foolish incident  did occur but dont change your story in what appears to be the pursuit of $

 

anyway I have had enough of this topic - I just want it gone and let Peyton announce his retirement without this crap hanging around, its the Cinderella ending that should be the main story in the media

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.


×
×
  • Create New...