Threatening truthful witnesses with perjury with evidence you know is false is t cheating?? Misrepresenting that evidence in front of the jury to make the witness not seem credible isn't cheating?? Withholding said evidence from the defendant isnt cheating??? What world do you live In?? Oh yeah the "victims never lie" world lol

The problem with this letter is that it essentially contradicts the smear job of the regents that went to the Wall Street journal.

No idea who is in charge in that place.

They wordsmithed the hell out of that pleading, but it was clear what inferences they wanted drawn from it. And, at the time, it worked.

They also wordsmithed the hell out of this letter. That's what we expect from our leaders, right? Pedantic wordsmithing.

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

Threatening truthful witnesses with perjury with evidence you know is false is t cheating?? Misrepresenting that evidence in front of the jury to make the witness not seem credible isn't cheating?? Withholding said evidence from the defendant isnt cheating??? What world do you live In?? Oh yeah the "victims never lie" world lol

---

I live in a world where law and procedure matter, where allegations need proof. Waddya got this time?

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The problem with this letter is that it essentially contradicts the smear job of the regents that went to the Wall Street journal.

No idea who is in charge in that place.

---

No is doesn't

The statements made to the WSJ said nothing of anyone reporting directly to Briles.

The WSJ said there were allegations from 17 victims involving 19 football players 4 of which were gang rapes. Briles knew of at least one gang rape and did not report this outside of athletics.

Now the letter

"In particular, at this time we are unaware of any situation where you personally had contact with anyone who directly reported to you being the victim of sexual assault or that you directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials. Nor are we aware of any situation where you played a student athlete who had been found responsible for sexual assault.


The letter does contradict many ruthless internet rumors. It is remarkably specific. There is zero contradiction with the F of F, WSJ, or Shillinglaw response.

quash said:

---

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

Threatening truthful witnesses with perjury with evidence you know is false is t cheating?? Misrepresenting that evidence in front of the jury to make the witness not seem credible isn't cheating?? Withholding said evidence from the defendant isnt cheating??? What world do you live In?? Oh yeah the "victims never lie" world lol

---

I live in a world where law and procedure matter, where allegations need proof. Waddya got this time?

---

Back when Baylorfans.com was up, there were some transcripts and articles, I don't recall all the specifics, but it was concerning.

Forest Bueller said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

You guys seem to not understand that there isn't a cure for stupid.

---

Brenda has issues that cannot be resolved even with the retribution tour she is on.

She is mentally ill at some level, and simply is hunting revenge at this stage.

There are legit people who are in her "industry" that deal in reform, forgiveness and reconciliation. Brenda is only about payback, paycheck, unforgiveness, retribution, then blackballing the subjects of her ire.

The saddest part of her shtick is that she seems to dole out forgiveness liberally to the corrupt big boys of football who have taken the time to grease $$$$$$$$ her wheels.



At some point even the SJW crowd will realize she is crazy.

---

This is a real surprise...one of CAB's biggest buddies dating back to Stephensville is bringing BT in on Sept 5. Maybe the AD is bringing her in to talk to the athletics programs rather than Monty specifically bringing her in for the football team.

I do have a problem threatening a witness with perjury when you know the evidence supports his story. However, I do not remember if they knew of the time difference when they threatened him.

I also have a problem with telling the jury in your closing argument that the phone records prove the witness was lying when you know that they don't.

That there should be criminal if it's not.

.

Robert Wilson said:

---

They wordsmithed the hell out of that pleading, but it was clear what inferences they wanted drawn from it. And, at the time, it worked.

They also wordsmithed the hell out of this letter. That's what we expect from our leaders, right? Pedantic wordsmithing.

---

Sinfully doing this for the last two decades.

boognish_bear said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

---

You guys seem to not understand that there isn't a cure for stupid.

---

Brenda has issues that cannot be resolved even with the retribution tour she is on.

She is mentally ill at some level, and simply is hunting revenge at this stage.

There are legit people who are in her "industry" that deal in reform, forgiveness and reconciliation. Brenda is only about payback, paycheck, unforgiveness, retribution, then blackballing the subjects of her ire.

The saddest part of her shtick is that she seems to dole out forgiveness liberally to the corrupt big boys of football who have taken the time to grease $$$$$$$$ her wheels.



At some point even the SJW crowd will realize she is crazy.

---

This is a real surprise...one of CAB's biggest buddies dating back to Stephensville is bringing BT in on Sept 5. Maybe the AD is bringing her in to talk to the athletics programs rather than Monty specifically bringing her in for the football team.

---

That's a lot of paid speaking engagements.

Keyser Soze said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The problem with this letter is that it essentially contradicts the smear job of the regents that went to the Wall Street journal.

No idea who is in charge in that place.

---

No is doesn't

The statements made to the WSJ said nothing of anyone reporting directly to Briles.

The WSJ said there were allegations from 17 victims involving 19 football players 4 of which were gang rapes. Briles knew of at least one gang rape and did not report this outside of athletics.

Now the letter

"In particular, at this time we are unaware of any situation where you personally had contact with anyone who directly reported to you being the victim of sexual assault or that you directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials. Nor are we aware of any situation where you played a student athlete who had been found responsible for sexual assault.


The letter does contradict many ruthless internet rumors. It is remarkably specific. There is zero contradiction with the F of F, WSJ, or Shillinglaw response.

---

You're not getting it and I don't think you're gonna get it.

if he's completely innocent, you can write this letter. But if there is even a slight doubt that he caused liability you don't write this letter at all. You make a legal case in a courtroom. You make a PR case in the press. The average reader doesn't give a damn about the technicalities you're talking about, they want to know if they should be cautious. That served Baylor's interests not ONE bit.

Make sense?

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

The problem with this letter is that it essentially contradicts the smear job of the regents that went to the Wall Street journal.

No idea who is in charge in that place.

---

No is doesn't

The statements made to the WSJ said nothing of anyone reporting directly to Briles.

The WSJ said there were allegations from 17 victims involving 19 football players 4 of which were gang rapes. Briles knew of at least one gang rape and did not report this outside of athletics.

Now the letter

"In particular, at this time we are unaware of any situation where you personally had contact with anyone who directly reported to you being the victim of sexual assault or that you directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials. Nor are we aware of any situation where you played a student athlete who had been found responsible for sexual assault.


The letter does contradict many ruthless internet rumors. It is remarkably specific. There is zero contradiction with the F of F, WSJ, or Shillinglaw response.

---

You're not getting it and I don't think you're gonna get it.

if he's completely innocent, you can write this letter. But if there is even a slight doubt that he caused liability you don't write this letter at all.

Make sense?

---

Now you are changing directions. I addressed your post. It was wrong


You need to reread that letter a few times. It does not say what you think it does. It is about as narrow as it can possibly be.

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

Nope

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

Good grief, no

Read please.

"In particular, at this time we are unaware of any situation where you personally had contact with anyone who directly reported to you being the victim of sexual assault or that you directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials. Nor are we aware of any situation where you played a student athlete who had been found responsible for sexual assault.

The BOI screwed CAB and nuked our program.

I'm going to say this again, so you can grasp the bigger picture.

Give any positive indicator and you're eliminating your own ability to persuasively tell others the reasons why he left the organization. You're logic is out of touch with the people reading the letter than want to know if there was a reason. All that matters is Baylor in this case, we aren't in the business of managing Arts career.

You can say he was innocent. You can say he did nothing. But do that and you can forget saying you had a reason to fire him

You can't have it both ways. There is no middle in this situation that suits Baylor. It would have been wise to not say a thing.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

BU84BEAR said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

---

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !

Things not addressed in the letter:

Football had it's own internal system of justis
17 alleged victims implicating 19 players with 4 of them being gang rapes.
Briles knew of at least one gang rape and didn't report it outside athletics.
Football managed Elliots academic probation when JA should have.
Briles had a system where he was kept in the dark
Shillinglaw fixed things left and right
Assistant coaches met with victims


this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

I'm going to say this again, so you can grasp the bigger picture.

Give any positive indicator and you're eliminating your own ability to persuasively tell others the reasons why he left the organization. You're logic is out of touch with the people reading the letter than want to know if there was a reason. All that matters is Baylor in this case, we aren't in the business of managing Arts career.

You can say he was innocent. You can say he did nothing. But do that and you can forget saying you had a reason to fire him

You can't have it both ways. There is no middle in this situation that suits Baylor. It would have been wise to not say a thing.

---

These regents are the kings of parsing words and having it both ways. When they had Starr, it was an artform. They carefully worded statements against Briles. They carefully worded statement for Briles.

BU84BEAR said:

---

I do have a problem threatening a witness with perjury when you know the evidence supports his story. However, I do not remember if they knew of the time difference when they threatened him.

I also have a problem with telling the jury in your closing argument that the phone records prove the witness was lying when you know that they don't.

That there should be criminal if it's not.

.

---

They knew. Then they lied about it again in an article they wrote after they won the conviction. They're the real criminals of this scandal

Quote:

---

this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

---

NoBSU said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

I'm going to say this again, so you can grasp the bigger picture.

Give any positive indicator and you're eliminating your own ability to persuasively tell others the reasons why he left the organization. You're logic is out of touch with the people reading the letter than want to know if there was a reason. All that matters is Baylor in this case, we aren't in the business of managing Arts career.

You can say he was innocent. You can say he did nothing. But do that and you can forget saying you had a reason to fire him

You can't have it both ways. There is no middle in this situation that suits Baylor. It would have been wise to not say a thing.

---

These regents are the kings of parsing words and having it both ways. When they had Starr, it was an artform. They carefully worded statements against Briles. They carefully worded statement for Briles.

---

Why would you not carefully word something - especially when litigation is flying left and right

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

oh geez this is not good for the narrative

---

Yep.

Also This letter was written after BU blamed him, released text messages and other information that insinuated he did things to cover up sexual assault.

---

Or in other words, after Baylor deliberately deceived the public in the best of cases, and flat-out lied in the worst of cases. Both of said strategies align perfectly with Baylor's Christian mission, of course. Every member of the "lynch Briles" mob that has repeatedly vilified CAB on Baylorfans, and now on this site, have been gleeful, willing accomplices in the lynching. Don't like my use of that term? Tough toenails.

I have known from the beginning that Briles was being deliberately lied about. We all know why. I would suggest that the BOR, in particular, spend some time "groaning and crying out to God," this time repenting of their own misdeeds in smearing his name.

Keyser Soze said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

---

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !

Things not addressed in the letter:

Football had it's own internal system of justis
17 alleged victims implicating 19 players with 4 of them being gang rapes.
Briles knew of at least one gang rape and didn't report it outside athletics.
Football managed Elliots academic probation when JA should have.
Briles had a system where he was kept in the dark
Shillinglaw fixed things left and right
Assistant coaches met with victims


this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

---

What assistant coaches met with victims?
You say this over and over again
Which coaches?????

The letter validates what I thought all along. Can't believe Baylor actually wrote it, actually put it in writing. The debate has been fun guys. Thanks for playing.

Keyser Soze said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

I'm going to say this again, so you can grasp the bigger picture.

Give any positive indicator and you're eliminating your own ability to persuasively tell others the reasons why he left the organization. You're logic is out of touch with the people reading the letter than want to know if there was a reason. All that matters is Baylor in this case, we aren't in the business of managing Arts career.

You can say he was innocent. You can say he did nothing. But do that and you can forget saying you had a reason to fire him

You can't have it both ways. There is no middle in this situation that suits Baylor. It would have been wise to not say a thing.

---

These regents are the kings of parsing words and having it both ways. When they had Starr, it was an artform. They carefully worded statements against Briles. They carefully worded statement for Briles.

---

Why would you not carefully word something - especially when litigation is flying left and right

---

You would, but TMYLM said Baylor can't have it both ways. My point is they actually can have it both ways and a dozen other ways the way they can draft statements.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

Threatening truthful witnesses with perjury with evidence you know is false is t cheating?? Misrepresenting that evidence in front of the jury to make the witness not seem credible isn't cheating?? Withholding said evidence from the defendant isnt cheating??? What world do you live In?? Oh yeah the "victims never lie" world lol

---

I live in a world where law and procedure matter, where allegations need proof. Waddya got this time?

---

Back when Baylorfans.com was up, there were some transcripts and articles, I don't recall all the specifics, but it was concerning.

---

Tbe only one I recall that had any chance of being legit was a Brady violation. We'll see after the appellate ruling. Which won't stop the wild accusations.

REX said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

---

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !

Things not addressed in the letter:

Football had it's own internal system of justis
17 alleged victims implicating 19 players with 4 of them being gang rapes.
Briles knew of at least one gang rape and didn't report it outside athletics.
Football managed Elliots academic probation when JA should have.
Briles had a system where he was kept in the dark
Shillinglaw fixed things left and right
Assistant coaches met with victims


this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

---

What assistant coaches met with victims?
You say this over and over again
Which coaches?????

---

Doris Lozano (domestic assault not sexual assault) met with Lebby. The volleyball player's parents met with 2 assistants one of which was reported as the Strength and Conditioning Coach soon after the rape. Someone sent a Bruin to talk Armstead's victim out of reporting rape to the police. If you can decide the motivation of the BOR based on what is obvious to you, then I can decide who might have sent the Bruin based on what is "obvious" to me.

(I am being facetious, but it is plausible)

REX said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

---

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !

Things not addressed in the letter:

Football had it's own internal system of justis
17 alleged victims implicating 19 players with 4 of them being gang rapes.
Briles knew of at least one gang rape and didn't report it outside athletics.
Football managed Elliots academic probation when JA should have.
Briles had a system where he was kept in the dark
Shillinglaw fixed things left and right
Assistant coaches met with victims


this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

---

What assistant coaches met with victims?
You say this over and over again
Which coaches?????

---

And if the assistants did this--the bor must have known in 5/2016. And if they knew--what part of the Christian mission did it support to retain them when Briles was fired?

That's the problem. bro was right to fired Briles. They were horribly, horribly wrong to not completely clean house: all the coaches, ramsower, davis, T9 office, police, all of it.

There are no good guys here. Only bad guys.

Beaneater said:

---

REX said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

BU84BEAR said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

The letter suggests he did his job but his subordinates didn't and they should have been fired and not him.

What''s the point? Why say a thing? If you want the world to know he did something to get fired, letters like this don't help your case.

---

So, maybe he was terminated for something other than one of the 3 specific things in the letter?

The letter was not addressed to anyone other than Briles. Since Briles did not immediately publish it when received to clear his name, there may have been a reasonable basis to not expect the letter to be made public

---

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !

Things not addressed in the letter:

Football had it's own internal system of justis
17 alleged victims implicating 19 players with 4 of them being gang rapes.
Briles knew of at least one gang rape and didn't report it outside athletics.
Football managed Elliots academic probation when JA should have.
Briles had a system where he was kept in the dark
Shillinglaw fixed things left and right
Assistant coaches met with victims


this thread is filled with people who have no idea what a venn diagram is

---

What assistant coaches met with victims?
You say this over and over again
Which coaches?????

---

And if the assistants did this--the bor must have known in 5/2016. And if they knew--what part of the Christian mission did it support to retain them when Briles was fired?

That's the problem. bro was right to fired Briles. They were horribly, horribly wrong to not completely clean house: all the coaches, ramsower, davis, T9 office, police, all of it.

There are no good guys here. Only bad guys.

---

I think these are valid points, but I suspect it was a lot more complicated than we think. Were the allegations proved? What is "discouragement"? Were they following orders? If we let them go noe, will the media label them as rapists when we don't even know the girl who first reported a year later was actually raped.

Keyser Soze said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

The Liberal Loonies on our BOR wanted Ken Starr gone and seized their opportunity. They also wanted to "protect the brand" and not let the outside world know that Baylor students have premarital sex. Briles and the football program were just collateral damage. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is still shocking to me that not ONE man or woman on our BOR had the integrity or backbone to step up. Not one.

---

This is really stupid

---

Yep. People you disagree with on some things must be responsible for everything you disagree with.

@80sBear.Since when did liberals become ashamed of premarital sex? I think the subscribed talking points you're spouting got garbled when delivered to your fax machine.

NoBSU said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

I'm going to say this again, so you can grasp the bigger picture.

Give any positive indicator and you're eliminating your own ability to persuasively tell others the reasons why he left the organization. You're logic is out of touch with the people reading the letter than want to know if there was a reason. All that matters is Baylor in this case, we aren't in the business of managing Arts career.

You can say he was innocent. You can say he did nothing. But do that and you can forget saying you had a reason to fire him

You can't have it both ways. There is no middle in this situation that suits Baylor. It would have been wise to not say a thing.

---

These regents are the kings of parsing words and having it both ways. When they had Starr, it was an artform. They carefully worded statements against Briles. They carefully worded statement for Briles.

---

Why would you not carefully word something - especially when litigation is flying left and right

---

You would, but TMYLM said Baylor can't have it both ways. My point is they actually can have it both ways and a dozen other ways the way they can draft statements.

---

How is that working out for the Baylor brand in the public's perception about now? We trashed him when we fired him, then are turning around and picking some selective things to put in a letter.
But no, no one at the top other than Briles bears any guilt. Good luck selling that, it doesn't seem to be working.


Btw, I don't need a justification from this to fire him, i was done when he did his back alley routine at UT. I'm talking about defending the Baylor brand. It was abundantly clear a long time ago that Art was given free reign and had no monitoring, oversight, or management from anyone at Baylor university.

People told me, "Ian does a good job because he stays out of Arts way.""

Art ran his own university across the street and no one had the balls to go get involved because they liked the money. That's what happened. Trying to tell people that it isn't run by football is a straight up lie.

Keyser Soze said:

---

chukronos said:

---

So, either the leaders of our university were lying when they made it seem like Briles was at fault, or they are lying in the letter. Either way, they are dirtbags and an embarrassment to our school and , even more so, to Christianity.

---

Nope

---

yep.