Quote:
Since there is no legal liability, you mind explaining why Houston took a pass? You think maybe they knew too much?
Precisely what an honorable man at an adequate age for early retirement with enough funds for the same would do if his former employer threatened to drag his kid's reputation through the mud.Keyser Soze said:
The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.
He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.
My question is how do you know what he even got paid? There has been nothing but rumor about this, the high end rumor would be close to the PV of his contract, but I really doubt he received that.303Bear said:Children aside (and ignoring your needles ad hom - though I will say, it makes you sound a bit petulant), how did he take less money? Present value curves are a real thing, as is avoiding litigation costs.BrooksBearLives said:Robemcdo said:BrooksBearLives said:
The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.
If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.
When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make
Okay. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I'd love to see the mental acrobatics you've guys managed to put together to explain why ol' never say quit Art Briles would take less money and forfeit the ability to defend himself and tell "his" side of the story... for his kids.
I can't tell you anything about his children except that one is married to a fat coach and that Art Briles, their father, can't get a job because he's been disgraced.
Of course you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that, pure CAB apologeticsBoatshoes said:Precisely what an honorable man at an adequate age for early retirement with enough funds for the same would do if his former employer threatened to drag his kid's reputation through the mud.Keyser Soze said:
The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.
He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.
ok... so what? If the amount paid was undisclosed, he might have gotten 50 million, if we really don't know then it is a non-argument to say he "would take less money" as BrooksBear and certain others have?Keyser Soze said:My question is how do you know what he even got paid? There has been nothing but rumor about this, the high end rumor would be close to the PV of his contract, but I really doubt he received that.303Bear said:Children aside (and ignoring your needles ad hom - though I will say, it makes you sound a bit petulant), how did he take less money? Present value curves are a real thing, as is avoiding litigation costs.BrooksBearLives said:Robemcdo said:BrooksBearLives said:
The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.
If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.
When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make
Okay. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I'd love to see the mental acrobatics you've guys managed to put together to explain why ol' never say quit Art Briles would take less money and forfeit the ability to defend himself and tell "his" side of the story... for his kids.
I can't tell you anything about his children except that one is married to a fat coach and that Art Briles, their father, can't get a job because he's been disgraced.
What evidence do you have that the alleged text messages exist? I assume more than the 59 gang rapes alleged by other T9 lawsuits? There's so much lying going on by those who defend the board's actions that trying to sort out one from the other gets to be a bit difficult.Keyser Soze said:Of course you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that, pure CAB apologeticsBoatshoes said:Precisely what an honorable man at an adequate age for early retirement with enough funds for the same would do if his former employer threatened to drag his kid's reputation through the mud.Keyser Soze said:
The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.
He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.
KB's do you like white girls comment came out from one to the T9 lawsuits not from the regents. KB and no assistants were mentioned in the Shillinglaw response.
BrooksBearLives said:YoakDaddy said:BrooksBearLives said:
You call me a cuck while refusing to even address The proof of Briles hiding things from Judicial Affairs.
****ing coward.
Don't have to. I already stated in a previous response to you that there's much blame to go around, Briles included. Adios.
But you've all said there's no evidence. Did your source not explain this to you?
You clearly have no desire for adult conversation.Boatshoes said:What evidence do you have that the alleged text messages exist? I assume more than the 59 gang rapes alleged by other T9 lawsuits? There's so much lying going on by those who defend the board's actions that trying to sort out one from the other gets to be a bit difficult.Keyser Soze said:Of course you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that, pure CAB apologeticsBoatshoes said:Precisely what an honorable man at an adequate age for early retirement with enough funds for the same would do if his former employer threatened to drag his kid's reputation through the mud.Keyser Soze said:
The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.
He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.
KB's do you like white girls comment came out from one to the T9 lawsuits not from the regents. KB and no assistants were mentioned in the Shillinglaw response.
Speaking of which, did you ever deal with that matter regarding the hotel room in vegas and the dead hooker?
Keyser Soze said:
The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.
He filed a lawsuit against the regents that spoke to the WSJ right as the fall season ended BEFORE the assistants secured new employment. It could not be possible for this timing to be worse. But this lawsuit was an opening to tell his side of the story and he took it despite Gray warning Cannon this will not end well for your client and the horrible timing.
He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.
You should keep posting. You make a lot of sense on this board.303Bear said:ok... so what? If the amount paid was undisclosed, he might have gotten 50 million, if we really don't know then it is a non-argument to say he "would take less money" as BrooksBear and certain others have?Keyser Soze said:My question is how do you know what he even got paid? There has been nothing but rumor about this, the high end rumor would be close to the PV of his contract, but I really doubt he received that.303Bear said:Children aside (and ignoring your needles ad hom - though I will say, it makes you sound a bit petulant), how did he take less money? Present value curves are a real thing, as is avoiding litigation costs.BrooksBearLives said:Robemcdo said:BrooksBearLives said:
The entire argument that Briles is completely innocent fell apart when he took MUCH less money than he was owed to go away and sign a NDA.
If you're innocent, you would never take less money than you're owed and give up your ability to defend yourself.
When your situation affect your children and your other coaches you are forced to make decisions you might not normally make
Okay. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I'd love to see the mental acrobatics you've guys managed to put together to explain why ol' never say quit Art Briles would take less money and forfeit the ability to defend himself and tell "his" side of the story... for his kids.
I can't tell you anything about his children except that one is married to a fat coach and that Art Briles, their father, can't get a job because he's been disgraced.
You say you "doubt he received that" but again, so what? What you or I think or doubt does not matter. The calculation of what someone will take as a settlement is highly subjective, and if there had been litigation, it might have taken 5+ years to reach a final judgment.
If we don't know the amount, we don't know. If we don't know then it is not really support for either "side" of the argument, is it?
Does that mean you didn't deal with it?Keyser Soze said:You clearly have no desire for adult conversation.Boatshoes said:What evidence do you have that the alleged text messages exist? I assume more than the 59 gang rapes alleged by other T9 lawsuits? There's so much lying going on by those who defend the board's actions that trying to sort out one from the other gets to be a bit difficult.Keyser Soze said:Of course you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that, pure CAB apologeticsBoatshoes said:Precisely what an honorable man at an adequate age for early retirement with enough funds for the same would do if his former employer threatened to drag his kid's reputation through the mud.Keyser Soze said:
The "for his kids and assistant coaches" is such a load of BS.
He dropped the lawsuit AFTER KB and many others had gained employment.
KB's do you like white girls comment came out from one to the T9 lawsuits not from the regents. KB and no assistants were mentioned in the Shillinglaw response.
Speaking of which, did you ever deal with that matter regarding the hotel room in vegas and the dead hooker?
Human beings are far too eager to hang the innocent if it makes them feel better.mmodine said:
Here is the evidence against CAB.
Yogi said:Human beings are far too eager to hang the innocent if it makes them feel better.mmodine said:
Here is the evidence against CAB.
You see this prevalent throughout the course of human history, and we have yet to evolve out of the behavior.
It's what makes us human and what separates us from God.
All of what you said certainly could be true. The issue most rational people have is that we do not know what is or is not true. We have no sworn testimony, no discovery, no actual documents or records produced.Aberzombie1892 said:
Why can't it all be true?
It is completely understandable to feel that way, however, that being said, the only way to have ensured that details were released was if Briles had followed through with his suit as none of the sexual assault cases against the university were/are going to make it past the preliminary stages of trial regardless of what happened. Him not doing so not only prevented those details from coming out, but it also cast a long shadow on any arguments that he was an innocent bystander. Further, his signing of a confidentiality agreement and taking a settlement without a publicly released statement from the BOR would support an argument that he at least believes that he had done something wrong, as, if he had not done anything wrong, he would have confidently had his day in court and either won or secured a settlement that included an publicly released official statement by the BOR that he did nothing wrong and not the private statement that he did receive that says he did not do 3 things.303Bear said:All of what you said certainly could be true. The issue most rational people have is that we do not know what is or is not true. We have no sworn testimony, no discovery, no actual documents or records produced.Aberzombie1892 said:
Why can't it all be true?
All we have is a "Findings of Fact" written by an interested party, an Oral Presentation from a law firm and various allegations in law suits, all of which have been dismissed, settled or otherwise non-suited. Thus we have no "facts" as any court would define them, other than one conviction, one pending re-trial (the initial trial of which should cost the prosecutor their law license) and several other complaints which do not appear to be moving toward a trial.
In addition, we fired a well liked and successful coach, a less well liked president of arguable success and an athletic director who oversaw the best years of Baylor sports ever. What has not happened is any real accounting of what campus systems are being tried/implemented to reduce the number of assaults (good luck with this, I feel the number is quite low on campus, and off campus acts are not really the University's preview).
I do not think I am alone in being a bit miffed by the university's handling of the whole ordeal.
Given the totality of the circumstances, I think it is disingenuous to put any burden for production on Briles. His suit was a defamation action, which he was unlikely to be successful in pursuing due to the nature of his employment and the fact that he is legally a "public figure". His suit was undoubtedly a way to ensure his payout and possibly a way to try and short circuit any future statements by the BOR. However, we do not know the terms of the settlement, so everything else is based speculation. Settlement agreements are almost NEVER public, so the fact that terms were not released are nothing significant. The true irony is that given everything you said, it is equally as likely that Briles took his money and kept quiet to spare the university and football program any more distraction or embarrassment. I have NO IDEA if that was his reason, but, because we have no idea what was actually stipulated / settled, it is possible.Aberzombie1892 said:It is completely understandable to feel that way, however, that being said, the only way to have ensured that details were released was if Briles had followed through with his suit as none of the sexual assault cases against the university were/are going to make it past the preliminary stages of trial regardless of what happened. Him not doing so not only prevented those details from coming out, but it also cast a long shadow on any arguments that he was an innocent bystander. Further, his signing of a confidentiality agreement and taking a settlement without a publicly released statement from the BOR would support an argument that he at least believes that he had done something wrong, as, if he had not done anything wrong, he would have confidently had his day in court and either won or secured a settlement that included an publicly released official statement by the BOR that he did nothing wrong and not the private statement that he did receive that says he did not do 3 things.303Bear said:All of what you said certainly could be true. The issue most rational people have is that we do not know what is or is not true. We have no sworn testimony, no discovery, no actual documents or records produced.Aberzombie1892 said:
Why can't it all be true?
All we have is a "Findings of Fact" written by an interested party, an Oral Presentation from a law firm and various allegations in law suits, all of which have been dismissed, settled or otherwise non-suited. Thus we have no "facts" as any court would define them, other than one conviction, one pending re-trial (the initial trial of which should cost the prosecutor their law license) and several other complaints which do not appear to be moving toward a trial.
In addition, we fired a well liked and successful coach, a less well liked president of arguable success and an athletic director who oversaw the best years of Baylor sports ever. What has not happened is any real accounting of what campus systems are being tried/implemented to reduce the number of assaults (good luck with this, I feel the number is quite low on campus, and off campus acts are not really the University's preview).
I do not think I am alone in being a bit miffed by the university's handling of the whole ordeal.
In regard to the bolded, what would be sufficient in that regard? Would a sworn statement from a staff member stating that they told Briles about an alleged sexual assault and a sworn statement from compliance/Title IX stating that Briles never told them about the alleged sexual assault be enough? Given the nature of what allegedly happened, there is not much else to get beyond sworn testimony.
I disagree, we don't know how much exists or what it says. We know what the BOR interpreted the Pepper Hamilton interpretation of what they said to be. We know what certain litigants and their lawyers have interpreted items to say.Keyser Soze said:
Agree
So where does that leave us?
Now there is plenty of evidence, emails, text, sworn affidavits, police reports. We just don't have access to it. We have even been told what many of those documents say.
Now if you say "there is no proof" since this is not first hand info I will not disagree, but if you say do we know they story - I think we do.
That's a valid position to take.303Bear said:Given the totality of the circumstances, I think it is disingenuous to put any burden for production on Briles. His suit was a defamation action, which he was unlikely to be successful in pursuing due to the nature of his employment and the fact that he is legally a "public figure". His suit was undoubtedly a way to ensure his payout and possibly a way to try and short circuit any future statements by the BOR. However, we do not know the terms of the settlement, so everything else is based speculation. Settlement agreements are almost NEVER public, so the fact that terms were not released are nothing significant. The true irony is that given everything you said, it is equally as likely that Briles took his money and kept quiet to spare the university and football program any more distraction or embarrassment. I have NO IDEA if that was his reason, but, because we have no idea what was actually stipulated / settled, it is possible.Aberzombie1892 said:It is completely understandable to feel that way, however, that being said, the only way to have ensured that details were released was if Briles had followed through with his suit as none of the sexual assault cases against the university were/are going to make it past the preliminary stages of trial regardless of what happened. Him not doing so not only prevented those details from coming out, but it also cast a long shadow on any arguments that he was an innocent bystander. Further, his signing of a confidentiality agreement and taking a settlement without a publicly released statement from the BOR would support an argument that he at least believes that he had done something wrong, as, if he had not done anything wrong, he would have confidently had his day in court and either won or secured a settlement that included an publicly released official statement by the BOR that he did nothing wrong and not the private statement that he did receive that says he did not do 3 things.303Bear said:All of what you said certainly could be true. The issue most rational people have is that we do not know what is or is not true. We have no sworn testimony, no discovery, no actual documents or records produced.Aberzombie1892 said:
Why can't it all be true?
All we have is a "Findings of Fact" written by an interested party, an Oral Presentation from a law firm and various allegations in law suits, all of which have been dismissed, settled or otherwise non-suited. Thus we have no "facts" as any court would define them, other than one conviction, one pending re-trial (the initial trial of which should cost the prosecutor their law license) and several other complaints which do not appear to be moving toward a trial.
In addition, we fired a well liked and successful coach, a less well liked president of arguable success and an athletic director who oversaw the best years of Baylor sports ever. What has not happened is any real accounting of what campus systems are being tried/implemented to reduce the number of assaults (good luck with this, I feel the number is quite low on campus, and off campus acts are not really the University's preview).
I do not think I am alone in being a bit miffed by the university's handling of the whole ordeal.
In regard to the bolded, what would be sufficient in that regard? Would a sworn statement from a staff member stating that they told Briles about an alleged sexual assault and a sworn statement from compliance/Title IX stating that Briles never told them about the alleged sexual assault be enough? Given the nature of what allegedly happened, there is not much else to get beyond sworn testimony.
As to the bolded in response to the bolded (bolded-caption?): yes. If testimony to that effect is ever properly tendered at a trial, whether at trial or properly admitted from deposition testimony, that would be evidence. As it stands we have nothing but hearsay (multi-layered in many cases), speculation and accusations.
I think this is a fair outlook, even if I do not necessary agree with it entirely. I appreciate the rational discussion as well.Aberzombie1892 said:
That's a valid position to take.
Can it least be agreed that Briles' lawsuit was the only realistic way for those that want more information to get it, and that, for whatever reason, he decided to settle without public exoneration, and, that out of all of the publicly information currently available from either side of the issue, none of it conflicts? Given that that is true, shouldn't all of the Pro/Anti CABer's all on the same page since we are never going to get more information?
As for evidence, there is certainly items available in the custody of others, but none of it is public information, hence the need for Briles' lawsuit.
My guess is probably not. Because more information is not/will not be available, there will always be two sides to this. Based on the relative little hearsay we know, whether Briles could have been fired and whether Briles should have been fired. Some will say we know enough to have him fired, others will disagree. And if we never know more than what we know today, there will never be agreement whether Briles actually should have been fired or not. Just my opinion.Aberzombie1892 said:That's a valid position to take.303Bear said:Given the totality of the circumstances, I think it is disingenuous to put any burden for production on Briles. His suit was a defamation action, which he was unlikely to be successful in pursuing due to the nature of his employment and the fact that he is legally a "public figure". His suit was undoubtedly a way to ensure his payout and possibly a way to try and short circuit any future statements by the BOR. However, we do not know the terms of the settlement, so everything else is based speculation. Settlement agreements are almost NEVER public, so the fact that terms were not released are nothing significant. The true irony is that given everything you said, it is equally as likely that Briles took his money and kept quiet to spare the university and football program any more distraction or embarrassment. I have NO IDEA if that was his reason, but, because we have no idea what was actually stipulated / settled, it is possible.Aberzombie1892 said:It is completely understandable to feel that way, however, that being said, the only way to have ensured that details were released was if Briles had followed through with his suit as none of the sexual assault cases against the university were/are going to make it past the preliminary stages of trial regardless of what happened. Him not doing so not only prevented those details from coming out, but it also cast a long shadow on any arguments that he was an innocent bystander. Further, his signing of a confidentiality agreement and taking a settlement without a publicly released statement from the BOR would support an argument that he at least believes that he had done something wrong, as, if he had not done anything wrong, he would have confidently had his day in court and either won or secured a settlement that included an publicly released official statement by the BOR that he did nothing wrong and not the private statement that he did receive that says he did not do 3 things.303Bear said:All of what you said certainly could be true. The issue most rational people have is that we do not know what is or is not true. We have no sworn testimony, no discovery, no actual documents or records produced.Aberzombie1892 said:
Why can't it all be true?
All we have is a "Findings of Fact" written by an interested party, an Oral Presentation from a law firm and various allegations in law suits, all of which have been dismissed, settled or otherwise non-suited. Thus we have no "facts" as any court would define them, other than one conviction, one pending re-trial (the initial trial of which should cost the prosecutor their law license) and several other complaints which do not appear to be moving toward a trial.
In addition, we fired a well liked and successful coach, a less well liked president of arguable success and an athletic director who oversaw the best years of Baylor sports ever. What has not happened is any real accounting of what campus systems are being tried/implemented to reduce the number of assaults (good luck with this, I feel the number is quite low on campus, and off campus acts are not really the University's preview).
I do not think I am alone in being a bit miffed by the university's handling of the whole ordeal.
In regard to the bolded, what would be sufficient in that regard? Would a sworn statement from a staff member stating that they told Briles about an alleged sexual assault and a sworn statement from compliance/Title IX stating that Briles never told them about the alleged sexual assault be enough? Given the nature of what allegedly happened, there is not much else to get beyond sworn testimony.
As to the bolded in response to the bolded (bolded-caption?): yes. If testimony to that effect is ever properly tendered at a trial, whether at trial or properly admitted from deposition testimony, that would be evidence. As it stands we have nothing but hearsay (multi-layered in many cases), speculation and accusations.
Can it least be agreed that Briles' lawsuit was the only realistic way for those that want more information to get it, and that, for whatever reason, he decided to settle without public exoneration, and, that out of all of the publicly information currently available from either side of the issue, none of it conflicts? Given that that is true, shouldn't all of the Pro/Anti CABer's all on the same page since we are never going to get more information?
As for evidence, there is certainly items available in the custody of others, but none of it is public information, hence the need for Briles' lawsuit.
To answer your questions, to my knowledge, no there isn't. But isn't the burden of proof first on them to prove what is stated in those things to be true (which to my knowledge hasn't been shown either)?Keyser Soze said:
Again, I agree with you (and that is both refreshing and rare on many of these threads)
Now for a second, let me flip a coin over.
Is there any proof out there that the:
Findings of Fact
Regents comments to the WSJ
Regents response in Shillinglaw
have material errors ?
I can't imagine it will happen either. But would you not agree that the burden of proof is actually on the FoF, regent comments, etc to be shown as true (yes I know that it's not going to happen, just for discussions sake)?Keyser Soze said:
Unless there is a court actions to compel them I can not imagine it will happen.
When you say this, are you talking about the case with Barnes and his player?Keyser Soze said:
That is fair
I have agreed with the OP that there is not evidence he covered up rape. I might add that has never been said by Baylor or the regents.
Now word differences are subtle, but the differences in meaning are large, Briles failed to notify Judicial Affairs of an alleged rape (as did several others). There is also a long list, and a clear pattern, of not reporting things to Judicial Affairs. It is that pattern that is the main cause of his termination. As the regents have clearly stated, there is no one thing.
But when challenged, some supporters just double down, and do things like question if the text are even real. At best they are being obtuse.
This just doesn't make sense, and it is another place where the "he didn't report" argument falls flat. Why would he have a duty to make a report second-hand to Judicial Affairs. It should be obvious that the staff member who took the complaint directly would have that duty under Title IX. Now, if you want to say that under the previous system, a staffer under Briles had a duty to report to his superior, who then had a duty to report to his superior, and ultimately the head of the athletics department had a duty to inform Judicial Affairs, who then has the ultimate responsibility of the report under the policy?Aberzombie1892 said:It is completely understandable to feel that way, however, that being said, the only way to have ensured that details were released was if Briles had followed through with his suit as none of the sexual assault cases against the university were/are going to make it past the preliminary stages of trial regardless of what happened. Him not doing so not only prevented those details from coming out, but it also cast a long shadow on any arguments that he was an innocent bystander. Further, his signing of a confidentiality agreement and taking a settlement without a publicly released statement from the BOR would support an argument that he at least believes that he had done something wrong, as, if he had not done anything wrong, he would have confidently had his day in court and either won or secured a settlement that included an publicly released official statement by the BOR that he did nothing wrong and not the private statement that he did receive that says he did not do 3 things.303Bear said:All of what you said certainly could be true. The issue most rational people have is that we do not know what is or is not true. We have no sworn testimony, no discovery, no actual documents or records produced.Aberzombie1892 said:
Why can't it all be true?
All we have is a "Findings of Fact" written by an interested party, an Oral Presentation from a law firm and various allegations in law suits, all of which have been dismissed, settled or otherwise non-suited. Thus we have no "facts" as any court would define them, other than one conviction, one pending re-trial (the initial trial of which should cost the prosecutor their law license) and several other complaints which do not appear to be moving toward a trial.
In addition, we fired a well liked and successful coach, a less well liked president of arguable success and an athletic director who oversaw the best years of Baylor sports ever. What has not happened is any real accounting of what campus systems are being tried/implemented to reduce the number of assaults (good luck with this, I feel the number is quite low on campus, and off campus acts are not really the University's preview).
I do not think I am alone in being a bit miffed by the university's handling of the whole ordeal.
In regard to the bolded, what would be sufficient in that regard? Would a sworn statement from a staff member stating that they told Briles about an alleged sexual assault and a sworn statement from compliance/Title IX stating that Briles never told them about the alleged sexual assault be enough? Given the nature of what allegedly happened, there is not much else to get beyond sworn testimony.
You know I am.Malbec said:When you say this, are you talking about the case with Barnes and his player?Keyser Soze said:
That is fair
I have agreed with the OP that there is not evidence he covered up rape. I might add that has never been said by Baylor or the regents.
Now word differences are subtle, but the differences in meaning are large, Briles failed to notify Judicial Affairs of an alleged rape (as did several others). There is also a long list, and a clear pattern, of not reporting things to Judicial Affairs. It is that pattern that is the main cause of his termination. As the regents have clearly stated, there is no one thing.
But when challenged, some supporters just double down, and do things like question if the text are even real. At best they are being obtuse.
Remember that Briles' lawsuit did not involve Baylor University. It was limited to a few regents personally for comments that he felt were detrimental to his obtaining future employment. As such, the scope was very narrow, and the reasons for dropping the suit cannot be assumed. It is quite doubtful that, given the nature of the suit, that details necessary to answer those questions to which you allude would ever be revealed in the trial.Aberzombie1892 said:
That's a valid position to take.
Can it least be agreed that Briles' lawsuit was the only realistic way for those that want more information to get it, and that, for whatever reason, he decided to settle without public exoneration, and, that out of all of the publicly information currently available from either side of the issue, none of it conflicts? Given that that is true, shouldn't all of the Pro/Anti CABer's all on the same page since we are never going to get more information?
As for evidence, there is certainly items available in the custody of others, but none of it is public information, hence the need for Briles' lawsuit.
So then. You are stating that Briles had a duty to report the incident even though he was not Barnes' direct supervisor, did not receive the report first-hand but was rather told of the incident by an employee of the university who did get the report first-hand, and was told by Barnes that he had already contacted JA about the incident, and the report had already been made to Briles' direct supervisor who was also Barnes' supervisor?Keyser Soze said:You know I am.Malbec said:When you say this, are you talking about the case with Barnes and his player?Keyser Soze said:
That is fair
I have agreed with the OP that there is not evidence he covered up rape. I might add that has never been said by Baylor or the regents.
Now word differences are subtle, but the differences in meaning are large, Briles failed to notify Judicial Affairs of an alleged rape (as did several others). There is also a long list, and a clear pattern, of not reporting things to Judicial Affairs. It is that pattern that is the main cause of his termination. As the regents have clearly stated, there is no one thing.
But when challenged, some supporters just double down, and do things like question if the text are even real. At best they are being obtuse.
FYI - I just recently finished reading "Violated" . The book does say Barnes called JA but did not give the girl's name or any details. Only asked an unknown person a few questions. In short, Barnes phone call did happen, but does not contradict any earlier accounts of things not reported. The girl also said she made clear allegations of rape.
