Keyser Soze said:

---

So it's a conspiracy .... OK

---

If you have to bring in a PR firm because simply telling the truth makes you look bad, aren't you conspiring to condition a message? Isn't everything done by 30 people and their minions to selectively control the message necessarily a "conspiracy?"

jumpinjoe said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

I don't know how stating a fact (that the 105 recommendations have been materially implemented) can be called bragging. You certainly could not get that from the context in which I posted it.

---

The BOR wants everyone to think that by adopting these 105 recommendations, they are protecting the students. That is a huge smoke screen, because the reality of these recommendations is that they protect the administration and BOR, and have very little to do with protecting students.

They want you to focus on what these recommendations do, and not what they don't do.

The few recommendations affecting the students are after the assault has occurred. Increasing compliance staff is for the purpose of managing a large volume of complaints and the follow up the administration is to do. Increasing the police staff is to investigate the complaint after the assault. None of these recommendations will decrease complaints which mean coeds are as vulnerable today as they were in 2000.

The BOR wants us, the general public, to lose sight of the one huge fact...which is they will not tell the truth. No, don't try to redirect this argument to name the lies they committed, for I do not claim they lie. What I am claiming is that they hide the whole truth and tell only what they want to release. That is the most compelling piece of evidence that makes the BOR look guilty.

---

Best post on this thread.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

The evidence was the words "interracial, pre-marital sex." Those words made the Baylor Board of Regents cry out to God.

End of story.

---

you forgot a few words

running a train
too drunk to give consent
bruised hymen
date rape drug
no
had to drop out of school
was crying
tampon pushed up into cervix
lost scholarship
please stop
you're hurting me
was a virgin

---

They are just words . Meant to persuade . Truth is another story

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

---

Truth!

And the firings with no real explanation only made it worse. It simply chummed the waters and, without telling the whole story, just confirmed the worst suspicions that anyone could imagine. Not only we do no PR, we ended up actively campaigning against ourselves. And in the process waived a bunch of privilege on the work product we were hiding.

The competing regent leaks to chip brown types in the run up and Jeremy Faulk type panics in the aftermath only made it look worse. But it all underscores an environment of lack of preparedness and panic.

This is not a theory of a "conspiracy." Is a theory of bad group decision making.

Robemcdo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

The evidence was the words "interracial, pre-marital sex." Those words made the Baylor Board of Regents cry out to God.

End of story.

---

you forgot a few words

running a train
too drunk to give consent
bruised hymen
date rape drug
no
had to drop out of school
was crying
tampon pushed up into cervix
lost scholarship
please stop
you're hurting me
was a virgin

---

They are just words . Meant to persuade . Truth is another story

---

We are still waiting on all that truth to come out .... when is that going to happen? (crickets chirping)

Robert Wilson said:

---

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

---

Here is the summary

Here is the detail behind that summary


It is right there, but you don't really care to know. You are as insincere as can be. You are arguing your entrenched position. You will attack the messenger and ignore the message

Keyser Soze said:

---

We are still waiting on all that truth to come out .... when is that going to happen? (crickets chirping)

---

Check with Baylor PD, Waco PD and the Texas Rangers. They have supposedly investigated this for well over a year now. Charges should surely be forthcoming.

Just because Art and Jerry Sandusky have something really big in common doesn't mean Art hide evidence of rape.
Art should have not started a PR war and undermined an academic institution that was part of the NCAA, the business organization made up of academic institutions.
Those good ole boys and their lawyers acted like they were taking on generally clueless and stupid school boards in Texas. Those good ole boys hadn't faced tradition anywhere they had been coaching. They played PR with an endowment and got their low wattage social media asses killed.



Cowboywr, your rugged political mind is coming off making you look like Dan Quail on this thread.

xiledinok said:

---

Just because Art and Jerry Sandusky have something really big in common doesn't mean Art hide evidence of rape.
Art should have not started a PR war and undermined an academic institution that was part of the NCAA, the business organization made up of academic institutions.
Those good ole boys and their lawyers acted like they were taking on generally clueless and stupid school boards in Texas. Those good ole boys hadn't faced tradition anywhere they had been coaching. They played PR with an endowment and got their low wattage social media asses killed.



Cowboywr, your rugged political mind is coming off making you look like Dan Quail on this thread.

---

When someone tells you that letter exonerates Briles that is all you need to know.

Keyser Soze said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Just because Art and Jerry Sandusky have something really big in common doesn't mean Art hide evidence of rape.
Art should have not started a PR war and undermined an academic institution that was part of the NCAA, the business organization made up of academic institutions.
Those good ole boys and their lawyers acted like they were taking on generally clueless and stupid school boards in Texas. Those good ole boys hadn't faced tradition anywhere they had been coaching. They played PR with an endowment and got their low wattage social media asses killed.



Cowboywr, your rugged political mind is coming off making you look like Dan Quail on this thread.

---

When someone tells you that letter exonerates Briles that is all you need to know.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Just because Art and Jerry Sandusky have something really big in common doesn't mean Art hide evidence of rape.
Art should have not started a PR war and undermined an academic institution that was part of the NCAA, the business organization made up of academic institutions.
Those good ole boys and their lawyers acted like they were taking on generally clueless and stupid school boards in Texas. Those good ole boys hadn't faced tradition anywhere they had been coaching. They played PR with an endowment and got their low wattage social media asses killed.



Cowboywr, your rugged political mind is coming off making you look like Dan Quail on this thread.

---

When someone tells you that letter exonerates Briles that is all you need to know.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

The letter was what he asked for in his settlement. If you ask for a letter, don't turn around and run a protest and raise hell against the letter writer.
Good job shooting up the letter writer. It damaged their credibility nationally. Now, Art and Co. lost their PR game and need the letter to help them coach again.

xiledinok said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Just because Art and Jerry Sandusky have something really big in common doesn't mean Art hide evidence of rape.
Art should have not started a PR war and undermined an academic institution that was part of the NCAA, the business organization made up of academic institutions.
Those good ole boys and their lawyers acted like they were taking on generally clueless and stupid school boards in Texas. Those good ole boys hadn't faced tradition anywhere they had been coaching. They played PR with an endowment and got their low wattage social media asses killed.



Cowboywr, your rugged political mind is coming off making you look like Dan Quail on this thread.

---

When someone tells you that letter exonerates Briles that is all you need to know.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

The letter was what he asked for in his settlement. If you ask for a letter, don't turn around and run a protest and raise hell against the letter writer. Good job shooting up the letter writer. It damaged their credibility nationally. Now, Art lost their PR game and need the letter to help them coach again.

---

You have seen the settlement agreement?

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Just because Art and Jerry Sandusky have something really big in common doesn't mean Art hide evidence of rape.
Art should have not started a PR war and undermined an academic institution that was part of the NCAA, the business organization made up of academic institutions.
Those good ole boys and their lawyers acted like they were taking on generally clueless and stupid school boards in Texas. Those good ole boys hadn't faced tradition anywhere they had been coaching. They played PR with an endowment and got their low wattage social media asses killed.



Cowboywr, your rugged political mind is coming off making you look like Dan Quail on this thread.

---

When someone tells you that letter exonerates Briles that is all you need to know.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

No it doesn't - It says no victim that reported directly to Briles was turned away or discouraged from reporting. Did not play anyone found responsible for sexual assault.

Can we play spot the minority male on the Baylor Board of Regents? There are 30+ Regents, right? Surely there is a considerable amount of minority males on the Baylor Board of Regents considering the 37% minority enrollment for this year's freshmen class.

Keyser Soze said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

No it doesn't - It says no victim that reported directly to Briles was turned away or discouraged from reporting. Did not play anyone found responsible for sexual assault.

---

Again, in plain language sure, but it counters the innuendo that Briles was a callous monster who cheered his players nefarious actions. It is a unique item to send out to a dismissed employee, and further counters an argument of dismissal for cause. It is not something the school had to write, so why write it?

If, as X says, this was part of the settlement with Briles, ok fine, but in that case the letter sucks from Baylor's standpoint because it does not reference the settlement agreement or lawsuit. Either way, Baylor's GC office is acting outside of what I would consider prudent with that letter.

I obviously don't know the whole story, but that is the view I have of the letter. Again, those claiming it is an exoneration are overstating it. But claiming the letter says nothing is an equal understatement.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

The evidence was the words "interracial, pre-marital sex." Those words made the Baylor Board of Regents cry out to God.

End of story.

---

you forgot a few words

running a train
too drunk to give consent
bruised hymen
date rape drug
no
had to drop out of school
was crying
tampon pushed up into cervix
lost scholarship
please stop
you're hurting me
was a virgin

---

They are just words . Meant to persuade . Truth is another story

---

We are still waiting on all that truth to come out .... when is that going to happen? (crickets chirping)

---

the way I read it, you are asking for someone's innocence to be proven. Please demonstrate to me where I am wrong in my interpretation.

As far left as we have moved , we are still innocent till proven guilty

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

No it doesn't - It says no victim that reported directly to Briles was turned away or discouraged from reporting. Did not play anyone found responsible for sexual assault.

---

Again, in plain language sure, but it counters the innuendo that Briles was a callous monster who cheered his players nefarious actions. It is a unique item to send out to a dismissed employee, and further counters an argument of dismissal for cause. It is not something the school had to write, so why write it?

If, as X says, this was part of the settlement with Briles, ok fine, but in that case the letter sucks from Baylor's standpoint because it does not reference the settlement agreement or lawsuit. Either way, Baylor's GC office is acting outside of what I would consider prudent with that letter.

I obviously don't know the whole story, but that is the view I have of the letter. Again, those claiming it is an exoneration are overstating it. But claiming the letter says nothing is an equal understatement.

---

FWIW - the "monster" narrative has never been said by Baylor or the Regents.

Agree the "why" is a mystery. Certainly part of his settlement is possible, but it came around 10 months after that settlement.

Pure speculation: Several big money donors were firmly in Briles corner. Threats to withhold financial pledges were made if transparency did not improve. I believe this may have been in response to those donors. Few know for sure.

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

No it doesn't - It says no victim that reported directly to Briles was turned away or discouraged from reporting. Did not play anyone found responsible for sexual assault.

---

Again, in plain language sure, but it counters the innuendo that Briles was a callous monster who cheered his players nefarious actions. It is a unique item to send out to a dismissed employee, and further counters an argument of dismissal for cause. It is not something the school had to write, so why write it?

If, as X says, this was part of the settlement with Briles, ok fine, but in that case the letter sucks from Baylor's standpoint because it does not reference the settlement agreement or lawsuit. Either way, Baylor's GC office is acting outside of what I would consider prudent with that letter.

I obviously don't know the whole story, but that is the view I have of the letter. Again, those claiming it is an exoneration are overstating it. But claiming the letter says nothing is an equal understatement.

---

It would make sense it was part of the settlement.
Poor Art shot up Baylor's credibility prior to the school rebounding with their own PR campaign.
Art had a UHF channel PR while Baylor worldwide media conglomerate exposure.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

The evidence was the words "interracial, pre-marital sex." Those words made the Baylor Board of Regents cry out to God.

End of story.

---

you forgot a few words

running a train
too drunk to give consent
bruised hymen
date rape drug
no
had to drop out of school
was crying
tampon pushed up into cervix
lost scholarship
please stop
you're hurting me
was a virgin

---

They are just words . Meant to persuade . Truth is another story

---

We are still waiting on all that truth to come out .... when is that going to happen? (crickets chirping)

---

the way I read it, you are asking for someone's innocence to be proven. Please demonstrate to me where I am wrong in my interpretation.

As far left as we have moved , we are still innocent till proven guilty

---

You read it wrong

I was replying to one of the few people on this planet that thinks a locked up serial rapist is a wrongfully convicted person.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

---

Here is the summary

Here is the detail behind that summary


It is right there, but you don't really care to know. You are as insincere as can be. You are arguing your entrenched position. You will attack the messenger and ignore the message

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

We are still waiting on all that truth to come out .... when is that going to happen? (crickets chirping)


You're a dumbass

---

Check with Baylor PD, Waco PD and the Texas Rangers. They have supposedly investigated this for well over a year now. Charges should surely be forthcoming.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Clearly Art Briles' fault, right?

This is where we argue back to the question that started the thread. There is no evidence that Briles covered up sexual assault. There's damn sure no evidence he participated in it. So what's the causal link?

Your post of shocking words is a great example of what happened. Regents got shocked by something that happens to be a longstanding national epidemic, so under PR pressure they panicked and fired 3 high profile people in a flurry of self righteous grandstanding. All while still not being forthcoming. Let's scapegoat a few people as ostensible rape accessories and hope that satisfies Texas monthly and Twitter.

---

Here is the summary

Here is the detail behind that summary


It is right there, but you don't really care to know. You are as insincere as can be. You are arguing your entrenched position. You will attack the messenger and ignore the message

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

---

Are you about knowing or arguing? I suspect arguing.

Point out what is wrong with what they say and less complaining about who and where it is being said.

xiledinok said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

The letter does not exonerate Briles, but it is unique. Not once that I know of has a school, or any employer for that matter written such a letter after a scandal / firing.

The letter is carefully worded lawyer-speak, but it says far more than you seem to think it does. It also walks back much of the innuendo which has been leveled at Briles in the last 18 months.

Exoneration, of course not, but the fact that it was written at all is significant.

---

No it doesn't - It says no victim that reported directly to Briles was turned away or discouraged from reporting. Did not play anyone found responsible for sexual assault.

---

Again, in plain language sure, but it counters the innuendo that Briles was a callous monster who cheered his players nefarious actions. It is a unique item to send out to a dismissed employee, and further counters an argument of dismissal for cause. It is not something the school had to write, so why write it?

If, as X says, this was part of the settlement with Briles, ok fine, but in that case the letter sucks from Baylor's standpoint because it does not reference the settlement agreement or lawsuit. Either way, Baylor's GC office is acting outside of what I would consider prudent with that letter.

I obviously don't know the whole story, but that is the view I have of the letter. Again, those claiming it is an exoneration are overstating it. But claiming the letter says nothing is an equal understatement.

---

It would make sense it was part of the settlement.
Poor Art shot up Baylor's credibility prior to the school rebounding with their own PR campaign.
Art had a UHF channel PR while Baylor worldwide media conglomerate exposure.

---

If it was part of a settlement, it would have referenced a settlement agreement. It did not, so I seriously doubt it was part of any settlement.

Or Baylor's GC office is bad a writing simple letters. Which, really would not sock me either.

Keyser Soze said:

---

FWIW - the "monster" narrative has never been said by Baylor or the Regents.

Agree the "why" is a mystery. Certainly part of his settlement is possible, but it came around 10 months after that settlement.

Pure speculation: Several big money donors were firmly in Briles corner. Threats to withhold financial pledges were made if transparency did not improve. I believe this may have been in response to those donors. Few know for sure.

---

Agree to disagree on the source of the narrative. It was never wholly clear where any info was coming from, and there was little effort on the part of the University to dispel any statement, accusation or innuendo that the whole campus was rife with predatory men and defiled (formerly) virgin church girls. Baylor did not control any narrative that was out there.

The letter is a parting gift for a fired employee in this kind of situation. The reasoning, if we ever are privy to it, will be most interesting to many people.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

---

Are you about knowing or arguing? I suspect arguing.

Point out what is wrong with what they say and less complaining about who and where it is being said.

---

Every indictment handed down by a grand jury is perfect, until the defense gets the opportunity to examine the evidence.
When we ask for evidence, we are given the indictment (PH, regent interviews in Bapt Standard, etc). Slanders repeated 100 times doesn't make them true.

Imagine the prosecution saying the following to a judge: What Defendant did was horrible, look at the indictment and my interviews.

I don't think it is unreasonable to see evidence. All we get and what you posted are summaries of the indictment

A letter that says nothing, because of the way it was written. But, a "Findings of Fact" that says everything, because of the way it was written.

Reagan Ramsower to Patty Crawford: I don't want anything I say in writing.

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

---

Are you about knowing or arguing? I suspect arguing.

Point out what is wrong with what they say and less complaining about who and where it is being said.

---

Every indictment handed down by a grand jury is perfect, until the defense gets the opportunity to examine the evidence.
When we ask for evidence, we are given the indictment (PH, regent interviews in Bapt Standard, etc). Slanders repeated 100 times doesn't make them true.

Imagine the prosecution saying the following to a judge: What Defendant did was horrible, look at the indictment and my interviews.

I don't think it is unreasonable to see evidence. All we get and what you posted are summaries of the indictment

---

In this case, the defense saw the reply and quit. Briles and Shillinglaw ran away when this information was made known.

We are all here at the cyber bar talking about this. So go ahead a cross it. Tell us what is wrong. Briles' attorney was not up to the fight maybe you are.

People cried about no details behind the findings of fact. This is where they gave the details and all we see is more crying.

Do you have any reason to think those text messages attributed to Briles are false?

How about when Shillinglaw was given the police report on Oakman by the victim's mother and did not report it to Judicial Affair. Did that happen or not?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

---

Are you about knowing or arguing? I suspect arguing.

Point out what is wrong with what they say and less complaining about who and where it is being said.

---

Every indictment handed down by a grand jury is perfect, until the defense gets the opportunity to examine the evidence.
When we ask for evidence, we are given the indictment (PH, regent interviews in Bapt Standard, etc). Slanders repeated 100 times doesn't make them true.

Imagine the prosecution saying the following to a judge: What Defendant did was horrible, look at the indictment and my interviews.

I don't think it is unreasonable to see evidence. All we get and what you posted are summaries of the indictment

---

In this case, the defense saw the reply and quit. Briles and Shillinglaw ran away when this information was made known.

We are all here at the cyber bar talking about this. So go ahead a cross it. Tell us what is wrong. Briles' attorney was not up to the fight maybe you are.

People cried about no details behind the findings of fact. This is where they gave the details and all we see is more crying.

Do you have any reason to think those text messages attributed to Briles are false?

How about when Shillinglaw was given the police report on Oakman by the victim's mother and did not report it to Judicial Affair. Did that happen or not?

---

I don't think the Baylor family should have to sue to find out the truth. Apparently that is the only way we'll find out. That's a shame

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

---

Are you about knowing or arguing? I suspect arguing.

Point out what is wrong with what they say and less complaining about who and where it is being said.

---

Every indictment handed down by a grand jury is perfect, until the defense gets the opportunity to examine the evidence.
When we ask for evidence, we are given the indictment (PH, regent interviews in Bapt Standard, etc). Slanders repeated 100 times doesn't make them true.

Imagine the prosecution saying the following to a judge: What Defendant did was horrible, look at the indictment and my interviews.

I don't think it is unreasonable to see evidence. All we get and what you posted are summaries of the indictment

---

In this case, the defense saw the reply and quit. Briles and Shillinglaw ran away when this information was made known.

We are all here at the cyber bar talking about this. So go ahead a cross it. Tell us what is wrong. Briles' attorney was not up to the fight maybe you are.

People cried about no details behind the findings of fact. This is where they gave the details and all we see is more crying.

Do you have any reason to think those text messages attributed to Briles are false?

How about when Shillinglaw was given the police report on Oakman by the victim's mother and did not report it to Judicial Affair. Did that happen or not?

---

I don't think the Baylor family should have to sue to find out the truth. Apparently that is the only way we'll find out. That's a shame.

---

Malbec said:

---

A letter that says nothing, because of the way it was written. But, a "Findings of Fact" that says everything, because of the way it was written.

---

And not even written by the fact finders

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

When will we get the opportunity to cross examine the authors? Regents?

---

Are you about knowing or arguing? I suspect arguing.

Point out what is wrong with what they say and less complaining about who and where it is being said.

---

Every indictment handed down by a grand jury is perfect, until the defense gets the opportunity to examine the evidence.
When we ask for evidence, we are given the indictment (PH, regent interviews in Bapt Standard, etc). Slanders repeated 100 times doesn't make them true.

Imagine the prosecution saying the following to a judge: What Defendant did was horrible, look at the indictment and my interviews.

I don't think it is unreasonable to see evidence. All we get and what you posted are summaries of the indictment

---

In this case, the defense saw the reply and quit. Briles and Shillinglaw ran away when this information was made known.

We are all here at the cyber bar talking about this. So go ahead a cross it. Tell us what is wrong. Briles' attorney was not up to the fight maybe you are.

People cried about no details behind the findings of fact. This is where they gave the details and all we see is more crying.

Do you have any reason to think those text messages attributed to Briles are false?

How about when Shillinglaw was given the police report on Oakman by the victim's mother and did not report it to Judicial Affair. Did that happen or not?

---

I don't think the Baylor family should have to sue to find out the truth. Apparently that is the only way we'll find out. That's a shame

---

You were told the truth from the get go - you just didn't like what it said

Malbec said:

---

A letter that says nothing, because of the way it was written. But, a "Findings of Fact" that says everything, because of the way it was written.

---

Our leaders have been parsing words with the best of them.

Some parsing we should believe.

Some we shouldn't.

It's hard to keep up.

If you expect anyone to show you anything you haven't already seen you'll be waiting a long time.