BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

If you know abuse or assault has transpired and stay quiet then you are complicit in it, and extremely stupid, because when it does escalate you end up like cab did.

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Actually, this does not appear to be what she said.

---

It is according to the victim and her coach

---

Disagree.

---

I will not rule out the possibility of you being correct, but the size and success of the conspiracy to achieve that is remote in my opinion. That would requrie many blatant liars with many more silent witnesses. Possible not probable.

---

That's what it would take for the opposite to be true. But there is really no point in debate. I have yet to see more than a thimble full of people give thoughtful consideration to either fact or hypothesis when it comes to this scandal.

---

So you believe the victim (and / or her attorney) is a liar in her T9 lawsuit against Baylor? Is it just a money grab like the tin foil hat crowd says it is?

You obviously believe Murff, Harper, and Gray are liars, but would there not be around 30 other people in the room that would know they are not telling the truth and all 30 have remained silent.

---

Come on now KS. You know those other ~30 are bound by NDAs in which they're held personally and financially liable in any lawsuits if they snitch.

---

Do you really think NDAs are going to keep such a story from not leaking out when near 40+ people would be involved. That is just not the way the real world works. We may not have someone on the record, but the story would get out, easily.

We also have Briles, Barnes, and McCaw who would know. If Briles truly wants to work again, he would get this out somehow. We all know KWTX has no problems making a headline story out of an anonymous quote.

---

I'm just saying that NDAs are involved and I know for a fact those ~30 were told to stay on the reservation. Call it a threat or whatever, but they were told of the consequences for not being aligned.

I'm not arguing about Briles, Barnes, McCaw, etc. Those guys are gone and all sides need to let it go already.

---

I have no problem believing there are a few rats in the woodpile at the regent level.

I do have a big problem believing the majority of them either don't know the truth and / or choose to go along with willful deception. It is just a ridiculous proposition to buy into.

I agree we all need to let it go, but surly you don't think Briles should let it go if a blatant lie is keeping him from doing what he loves.

---

There's lots of rats in that woodpile. Keeping their collective mouths shut is very small compared to the scumbaggery some have accomplished professionally outside of their regent membership. Perhaps speaking up or out is too high a personal and financial cost after the consequences were laid out not to mention their perceived loss of stature if they no longer are part of that group. All I know is that consequences for going off the reservation were laid out. Briles is on his own; he tried and failed.

---

Sounds kinda like a rumor

---

Nope. It's fact. It happened.

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

If you have reason to believe a student hurt someone -and may hurt someone else if left unchecked- isn't in morally wrong to not report it?

GOOD THING THAT WASN'T HIS CALL.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

If you have reason to believe a student hurt someone -and may hurt someone else if left unchecked- isn't in morally wrong to not report it?

GOOD THING THAT WASN'T HIS CALL.

---

So then, the "victim" and her mother would have also been morally wrong not to report it?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

If you have reason to believe a student hurt someone -and may hurt someone else if left unchecked- isn't in morally wrong to not report it?

GOOD THING THAT WASN'T HIS CALL.

---

So then, the "victim" and her mother would have also been morally wrong not to report it?

---

One could argue, yes. That's a reason many victims report, actually. It's less out of some sort of revenge -and certainly not because it can change what happened. Many MANY victims come forward because they feel they have a moral obligation to report it.

And that's precisely how this went south. They tried to report it and were stymied.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT.

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD. You dispute that?

I reckon the entire world has access to the interwebs too. People sayin they don't know what to do like they're children lost in the produce department at HEB is inexcusable.

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

I agree. You were mistaken about that same sworn statement in regards to Barnes reporting things to JA some time ago.

Here is a statement about that sworn statement found on Baylor.edu

• In a voluntary statement on June 2, 2016 and a sworn affidavit on June 24, 2016, the victim's head coach again detailed his actions after learning of the gang rape allegation. His account was consistent with the account he provided to Baylor in the spring of 2016. In neither of the statements, nor in his interview, did the head coach state that he reported the alleged assault to Judicial Affairs. To the contrary, he expressed his great disappointment and frustration that he could not do more to help the student-athlete despite bringing the report to the attention of his sports administrator, the head football coach, and the Athletic Director.

So victim, regents, Baylor, PH, all liars?

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD. You dispute that?

I reckon the entire world has access to the interwebs too. People sayin they don't know what to do like they're children lost in the produce department at HEB is inexcusable.

---

The bigger point

"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD. You dispute that?

I reckon the entire world has access to the interwebs too. People sayin they don't know what to do like they're children lost in the produce department at HEB is inexcusable.

---

So let me see if I'm following you. It's now the victim's fault they went to someone they trusted with this information looking for help?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD. You dispute that?

I reckon the entire world has access to the interwebs too. People sayin they don't know what to do like they're children lost in the produce department at HEB is inexcusable.

---

So let me see if I'm following you. It's now the victim's fault they went to someone they trusted with this information looking for help?

---

Here's my answer to that. That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD.

This case aint the one you wanna hang yer hat on. Alot of it is highly disputed by more than two parties. And remember that baylor off campus policy was that it wasnt their problem unless somebody pressed charges.

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD. You dispute that?

I reckon the entire world has access to the interwebs too. People sayin they don't know what to do like they're children lost in the produce department at HEB is inexcusable.

---

So let me see if I'm following you. It's now the victim's fault they went to someone they trusted with this information looking for help?

---

Here's my answer to that. That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD.

This case aint the one you wanna hang yer hat on. Alot of it is highly disputed by more than two parties. And remember that baylor off campus policy was that it wasnt their problem unless somebody pressed charges.

---

Chance your missing the main point
Once again you always always always report everything to the head football coach. Everything!!

Keyser Soze said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RioRata said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Inferring that these two particular individuals knew that JA had jurisdiction over sexual assault is not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay, with apparently a previous amorphous call to JA by Barnes and a victim who didn't want to report. The coaches' tweeting last year evidences their understanding of the facts. That this is the banner event for a course of action (including anti Baylor PR) so deeply damaging is just amazing.

---

So, if I understand what you're saying, it was their job to report it, but it wasn't their job to understand reporting.... it was someone else's job to make sure they knew it?

So someone else should have known to answer questions they didn't ask?

---

Quote:

---

not the same thing as inferring that they clearly understood the broad contours of reporting obligations of old hearsay,

---

Think this is what he is saying.

---

Someone said they were raped. You can call it "hearsay" if it helps you distance yourself from it morally.

I don't know, man. A moral person would probably make sure the information got to where it needed to go -especially when your job tells you it's your responsibility to do so.

---

A moral person would also NEVER report ZERO SAs...one would think.

---

It can be a correct Clery report if the SA did not happen on campus. A non-Baylor owned apartment complex would not usually count in those numbers.

---

Legally, you are correct but BRooksBearLives was speaking to morality. He seemed rather clear as to what his opinion of morality is.

---

Morality and proper reporting via Clery are different things. If you don't follow the letter of the law in Clery Reporting, it's $32,000 fine per offense. Morality doesn't play into that. You follow the law.

But that's a red-herring YOU threw into the mix, not me.

I was talking about how Briles didn't do what he was supposed to legally or morally. Some of y'all like to code-switch back and forth when it suits you. Sometimes we argue the letter of the law, sometimes y'all argue realistic expectations and morality. I think Briles failed at both.

---

Is it morally the wrong thing to do if the "victim" and her parent are telling you not to report it, and you do as they ask? Or would that just be against some reporting protocol?

---

FYI - from the victims T9 lawsuit

"Contrary to statements made by those with knowledge of Plaintiff's sexual
assault, neither Plaintiff nor her parents ever indicated that they did not want to report the assault
to Judicial Affairs or the police. Instead, Plaintiff and her parents were told that it was too late for
criminal charges and they begged Plaintiff's head coach and the assistant volleyball coach to tell
them what, if anything, Baylor could do about the sexual assault"

---

You've posted this like 7 times. He refuses to see it. Maybe it's because malbec thinks it's a lie (goes to that particular well a lot) or maybe it's just overlooked. I'm sure the fact that it dismantles part of his conspiracy argument is just a bit of a coincidence.

---

It's a plaintiff's lawsuit pleading Brooks. It carries less weight than the only sworn statement made over this incident. I don't refuse to see it. Why do you think the language in a plaintiff's lawsuit carries the weight of truth? You and Keyser rely on them as if they were.

---

You do refuse to see it. You completely discount it every time.

---

That girl and her parents had the number to judicial affairs and Waco PD. You dispute that?

I reckon the entire world has access to the interwebs too. People sayin they don't know what to do like they're children lost in the produce department at HEB is inexcusable.

---

The bigger point

"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834

---

The bigger bigger point. Nothin happened in the eyes of Baylor OFF CAMPUS if they didn't press charges. Kinda ridiculous you boys dont understand why a bunch of these complaints were "mishandled". I dont wanna file charges. Well then I (every coach at good ol baylor) cant do anything for ya. Here's a telephone number to some people.

And before you mention what was written policy. Well, I reckon there's a reason Baylor is gettin its a$$ sued.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

So let me see if I'm following you. It's now the victim's fault they went to someone they trusted with this information looking for help?

---

She wasn't looking for help. She was breaking the news that she was going to transfer.

Keyser Soze said:

---

I agree. You were mistaken about that same sworn statement in regards to Barnes reporting things to JA some time ago.

Here is a statement about that sworn statement found on Baylor.edu

• In a voluntary statement on June 2, 2016 and a sworn affidavit on June 24, 2016, the victim's head coach again detailed his actions after learning of the gang rape allegation. His account was consistent with the account he provided to Baylor in the spring of 2016. In neither of the statements, nor in his interview, did the head coach state that he reported the alleged assault to Judicial Affairs. To the contrary, he expressed his great disappointment and frustration that he could not do more to help the student-athlete despite bringing the report to the attention of his sports administrator, the head football coach, and the Athletic Director.

So victim, regents, Baylor, PH, all liars?

---

That statement, by Baylor, takes the PH assumption of a "gang rape allegation" that was never alleged by the "victim." It is a phantom. Barnes didn't call it that, and his player didn't call it that when she was explaining to him why she wanted to transfer. And despite the constant "report mania" that you and Brooks trumpet, it sure wasn't hard for PH investigators to find this case, long after the "victim", all of those "implicated," the original "report" recipient were all gone from the campus and it was never reported to anyone. Garbage. Everybody knew of it. Who led the investigators to this incident? It must have been Art Briles, Ian McCaw, Ken Starr and Tom Hill, because Heaven knows they were the only ones left on campus who knew about it and, you say, knew through their extensive training that they had an obligation to report it. If everyone was so trained over Title IX, why in the name of Judge Robert Emmett Bledsoe, didn't that JA officer order Barnes to get his tail over to the office and file a report?

You are mislabeling statements that I made previously about reporting to JA. There is a difference between Barnes discussing the situation with JA (which you admit that he did, based upon a snippet in a hatchet book) and filing a formal report. I NEVER said he did the latter, so characterizing my previous statements as "mistaken" goes completely contrary to your own postings on the matter. The man was desperate to try and keep his player at Baylor, and once he was told by JA that nothing could be done, he wasn't about to waste his time filing worthless reports. He was busy talking to anybody and everybody to come up with something to convince her to stay. None of those people seemed to be able to remember that rigorous training enough to walk over to JA and file a report either.

The player was embarrassed by the incident and the remaining evidence of it, and wanted a fresh start somewhere else. Barnes should have understood enough to simply let her go, but he did what might have been the right thing to do if she told him about it 14 months earlier. It was PH that took advantage of the incident to redefine it, and the BOR that took advantage of it to give it a shady number.

Brooks can discount motivation, but that is what fuels human activity. The volleyball player was motivated by abashment to transfer; Barnes was motivated by concern and devotion to his player to try and keep her at Baylor; the Judicial Affairs officer was motivated by policies of the university and ignorance of mandatory reporting obligations. There was nothing to motivate Briles and Hill to not report other than not knowing they had any obligation to do so. Briles wasn't going to lose a player over it, they were all already gone or were never going to play another game anyway. Hill was so far removed as to be an usher with his back to the stage.

There is no volleyball story
It was created to suit the needs of those who set fire to Baylor

Robemcdo said:

---

There is no volleyball story
It was created to suit the needs of those who set fire to Baylor

---

Desperation is rising in cab land.

Robemcdo said:

---

There is no volleyball story
It was created to suit the needs of those who set fire to Baylor

---

Do you have anything to back up or expand on this bold claim?

There are 2 stories.

Let's face it. The robe was too stupid to handle coaching in college or where adults are supposed to look out for students.
The vast majority of Americans can use common sense but not this group.

All these threads remind us once again how sorry of an athletic director the Canadian was at Baylor. He didn't raise a dime but sure exposed the school because winning would mask how mid major our shxt show was with athletics.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

I agree. You were mistaken about that same sworn statement in regards to Barnes reporting things to JA some time ago.

Here is a statement about that sworn statement found on Baylor.edu

• In a voluntary statement on June 2, 2016 and a sworn affidavit on June 24, 2016, the victim's head coach again detailed his actions after learning of the gang rape allegation. His account was consistent with the account he provided to Baylor in the spring of 2016. In neither of the statements, nor in his interview, did the head coach state that he reported the alleged assault to Judicial Affairs. To the contrary, he expressed his great disappointment and frustration that he could not do more to help the student-athlete despite bringing the report to the attention of his sports administrator, the head football coach, and the Athletic Director.

So victim, regents, Baylor, PH, all liars?

---

That statement, by Baylor, takes the PH assumption of a "gang rape allegation" that was never alleged by the "victim." It is a phantom. Barnes didn't call it that, and his player didn't call it that when she was explaining to him why she wanted to transfer. And despite the constant "report mania" that you and Brooks trumpet, it sure wasn't hard for PH investigators to find this case, long after the "victim", all of those "implicated," the original "report" recipient were all gone from the campus and it was never reported to anyone. Garbage. Everybody knew of it. Who led the investigators to this incident? It must have been Art Briles, Ian McCaw, Ken Starr and Tom Hill, because Heaven knows they were the only ones left on campus who knew about it and, you say, knew through their extensive training that they had an obligation to report it. If everyone was so trained over Title IX, why in the name of Judge Robert Emmett Bledsoe, didn't that JA officer order Barnes to get his tail over to the office and file a report?

You are mislabeling statements that I made previously about reporting to JA. There is a difference between Barnes discussing the situation with JA (which you admit that he did, based upon a snippet in a hatchet book) and filing a formal report. I NEVER said he did the latter, so characterizing my previous statements as "mistaken" goes completely contrary to your own postings on the matter. The man was desperate to try and keep his player at Baylor, and once he was told by JA that nothing could be done, he wasn't about to waste his time filing worthless reports. He was busy talking to anybody and everybody to come up with something to convince her to stay. None of those people seemed to be able to remember that rigorous training enough to walk over to JA and file a report either.

The player was embarrassed by the incident and the remaining evidence of it, and wanted a fresh start somewhere else. Barnes should have understood enough to simply let her go, but he did what might have been the right thing to do if she told him about it 14 months earlier. It was PH that took advantage of the incident to redefine it, and the BOR that took advantage of it to give it a shady number.

Brooks can discount motivation, but that is what fuels human activity. The volleyball player was motivated by abashment to transfer; Barnes was motivated by concern and devotion to his player to try and keep her at Baylor; the Judicial Affairs officer was motivated by policies of the university and ignorance of mandatory reporting obligations. There was nothing to motivate Briles and Hill to not report other than not knowing they had any obligation to do so. Briles wasn't going to lose a player over it, they were all already gone or were never going to play another game anyway. Hill was so far removed as to be an usher with his back to the stage.

---

"That statement, by Baylor, takes the PH assumption of a "gang rape allegation" that was never alleged by the "victim." It is a phantom"


One point at a time.

How do we know that is accurate? All accounts I see say it is not. I understand what a plaintiff's pleadings are, but the girl and / or her lawyer are saying there was an allegation of rape and she definitely wanted to report it. Maybe they are liars, but can't you see how difficult it is for me to accept internet message board over Baylor and the girl herself (or her proxy).

I can understand if you don't want to discuss sources, PM me

I do believe Barnes was very unaware of reporting requirements and McCaw even gave him incorrect information. That makes about 90% of you post agreeable. But we have been told Briles and McCaw knew to call JA and did not.

Edit: From "Violated" and other sources the original story of consensual group sex appears to have been floated and embellished by the players. There was a good deal of harassment of the victim. All accounts of the story indicate there is no possible way for her to have given consent considering the intoxication level.

Keyser, if the girl and her mother "definitely wanted to report it," they certainly would have. They were told where to go, and they declined. It can't be clearer as to the desire to report. Are you trying to say that they wanted to report it, but they wanted Art Briles to report it for them?

Malbec said:

---

Keyser, if the girl and her mother "definitely wanted to report it," they certainly would have. They were told where to go, and they declined. It can't be clearer as to the desire to report. Are you trying to say that they wanted to report it, but they wanted Art Briles to report it for them?

---

Yeah, victims have never been shamed or coerced into silence.

Brooksbear/Keyser/Malbec and all others please read this.
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM BARNES:
The Baylor athletic department policy was to inform the AD about SA and tell the victim to report it to police/JA.
That is what every coach was told to do as a rule and morally responsible to do in 2013. Every coach did this including Briles. So Broosbear plz stop with citing what title 9 says to do NOW. It is beside the point!!!

After Barnes repeatedly asked McCaw what more can be done because she didn't want to report it to the police. McCaw gave Barnes JA's number. When he meet the player and parents a 2nd time before they left to go home he and his staff begged them to call JA. Barnes called JA just before the meeting to see if she should call them or go to the office. They said either way. They choose not to report. The exact words from the mother of the player was "we don't want her to be known as snitch." To which Barnes, although completely disgusted by her remark, begged them to report. They choose not to. The law suit that they have brought forth is lawyer talk and inaccurate in order to win the suit. Also Malbec, the player clearly told Barnes she was raped by 5 players. That's why he was so passionate on reporting this.

Barnes went back to McCaw and told him. McCaw said then there is nothing we can do if she doesn't report. Barnes talked to many people to see what else could be done including calling the police as well. They said they needed her to file a report in order to do anything. I don't think at the time even McCaw knew he had to report this. But later when he found out he was suppose to, tried to hide it. He even denied knowing about it when first asked about it.

Briles was always up front, helpful, and repeatedly stated she should report it. He never hid a thing about this. The player herself wrote him a letter that thanked him for his support. She just wanted to be gone and her name not brought into this.

Briles "bad dudes" statement was mislead by PH. Briles said why was she in that terrible situation with those dudes. PH turned it into "bad dudes". The situation was severely drunk, 2am, off campus with 5 dudes. And warned by her head coach to stay away from this situation. It had been a repeated problem from her.

Barnes was wrongfully terminated. Briles was wrongfully characterized in this situation and it was the lynchpin lie that PH sold to the BOR. A few regents helped setup the Barnes firing to help McCaw cover it up and for Barnes not to meet the new Title 9 director who was hired the same week Barnes was fired. That's why they were only going to suspend McCaw and not fire him. He had that over them. But he decided the heat was to hot, took a good letter of recommendation and resigned.

Baylor admin didn't have the protocol set up. But that was the case with most universities at the time. The PH lawyers saw Baylor as the best situation to exploit it and get this on the front page. It worked.

This is not speculation.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser, if the girl and her mother "definitely wanted to report it," they certainly would have. They were told where to go, and they declined. It can't be clearer as to the desire to report. Are you trying to say that they wanted to report it, but they wanted Art Briles to report it for them?

---

That's not how "mandatory reporting" works.

Briles isn't just there as a coach. He's an agent of the University. As such, he has a responsibility not just to the student in the room, but also to the University.

That is why he is required to report. That's why Ian is required to report.

Whether or not the girl wanted this or that (which is anything but settled -you keep saying she didn't want to- there's significant reason to believe otherwise).

Mandatory reporting requires them to forward the report, whether the girl specifically wanted them to or not. And if they were being honest prevaricators, they would have let her know that the moment she made clear what she to speak about.

Saying "great, thanks for telling you this story and re-living this horrible moment in your life... please tell it again to these people you don't know... byyyyyyyyyyeeeeee!" doesn't play as well as you'd think it does.

That's why you have mandatory reporting.

GG1234 said:

---

Brooksbear/Keyser/Malbec and all others please read this.
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM BARNES:
The Baylor athletic department policy was to inform the AD about SA and tell the victim to report it to police/JA.
That is what every coach was told to do as a rule and morally responsible to do in 2013. Every coach did this including Briles. So Broosbear plz stop with citing what title 9 says to do NOW. It is beside the point!!!

After Barnes repeatedly asked McCaw what more can be done because she didn't want to report it to the police. McCaw gave Barnes JA's number. When he meet the player and parents a 2nd time before they left to go home he and his staff begged them to call JA. Barnes called JA just before the meeting to see if she should call them or go to the office. They said either way. They choose not to report. The exact words from the mother of the player was "we don't want her to be known as snitch." To which Barnes, although completely disgusted by her remark, begged them to report. They choose not to. The law suit that they have brought forth is lawyer talk and inaccurate in order to win the suit. Also Malbec, the player clearly told Barnes she was raped by 5 players. That's why he was so passionate on reporting this.

Barnes went back to McCaw and told him. McCaw said then there is nothing we can do if she doesn't report. Barnes talked to many people to see what else could be done including calling the police as well. They said they needed her to file a report in order to do anything. I don't think at the time even McCaw knew he had to report this. But later when he found out he was suppose to, tried to hide it. He even denied knowing about it when first asked about it.

Briles was always up front, helpful, and repeatedly stated she should report it. He never hid a thing about this. The player herself wrote him a letter that thanked him for his support. She just wanted to be gone and her name not brought into this.

Briles "bad dudes" statement was mislead by PH. Briles said why was she in that terrible situation with those dudes. PH turned it into "bad dudes". The situation was severely drunk, 2am, off campus with 5 dudes. And warned by her head coach to stay away from this situation. It had been a repeated problem from her.

Barnes was wrongfully terminated. Briles was wrongfully characterized in this situation and it was the lynchpin lie that PH sold to the BOR. A few regents helped setup the Barnes firing to help McCaw cover it up and for Barnes not to meet the new Title 9 director who was hired the same week Barnes was fired. That's why they were only going to suspend McCaw and not fire him. He had that over them. But he decided the heat was to hot, took a good letter of recommendation and resigned.

Baylor admin didn't have the protocol set up. But that was the case with most universities at the time. The PH lawyers saw Baylor as the best situation to exploit it and get this on the front page. It worked.

This is not speculation.

---

Where are you getting this?

And in either case, they don't have the ability to just send her to JA. At the VERY LEAST, they have to go to JA to tell them what THEY know, and what SHE TOLD THEM. Then JA can take it from there.

GG1234 said:

---

Brooksbear/Keyser/Malbec and all others please read this.
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM BARNES:
The Baylor athletic department policy was to inform the AD about SA and tell the victim to report it to police/JA.
That is what every coach was told to do as a rule and morally responsible to do in 2013. Every coach did this including Briles. So Broosbear plz stop with citing what title 9 says to do NOW. It is beside the point!!!

After Barnes repeatedly asked McCaw what more can be done because she didn't want to report it to the police. McCaw gave Barnes JA's number. When he meet the player and parents a 2nd time before they left to go home he and his staff begged them to call JA. Barnes called JA just before the meeting to see if she should call them or go to the office. They said either way. They choose not to report. The exact words from the mother of the player was "we don't want her to be known as snitch." To which Barnes, although completely disgusted by her remark, begged them to report. They choose not to. The law suit that they have brought forth is lawyer talk and inaccurate in order to win the suit. Also Malbec, the player clearly told Barnes she was raped by 5 players. That's why he was so passionate on reporting this.

Barnes went back to McCaw and told him. McCaw said then there is nothing we can do if she doesn't report. Barnes talked to many people to see what else could be done including calling the police as well. They said they needed her to file a report in order to do anything. I don't think at the time even McCaw knew he had to report this. But later when he found out he was suppose to, tried to hide it. He even denied knowing about it when first asked about it.

Briles was always up front, helpful, and repeatedly stated she should report it. He never hid a thing about this. The player herself wrote him a letter that thanked him for his support. She just wanted to be gone and her name not brought into this.

Briles "bad dudes" statement was mislead by PH. Briles said why was she in that terrible situation with those dudes. PH turned it into "bad dudes". The situation was severely drunk, 2am, off campus with 5 dudes. And warned by her head coach to stay away from this situation. It had been a repeated problem from her.

Barnes was wrongfully terminated. Briles was wrongfully characterized in this situation and it was the lynchpin lie that PH sold to the BOR. A few regents helped setup the Barnes firing to help McCaw cover it up and for Barnes not to meet the new Title 9 director who was hired the same week Barnes was fired. That's why they were only going to suspend McCaw and not fire him. He had that over them. But he decided the heat was to hot, took a good letter of recommendation and resigned.

Baylor admin didn't have the protocol set up. But that was the case with most universities at the time. The PH lawyers saw Baylor as the best situation to exploit it and get this on the front page. It worked.

This is not speculation.

---

I cant speak to anything but what I heard bout protocol at the time. Falls dead in line with what Ive heard from folks around Waco who dealt with BUs off campus policy then. God forbid we all recognize a disgusting truth about BUs terrible policies.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

GG1234 said:

---

Brooksbear/Keyser/Malbec and all others please read this.
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM BARNES:
The Baylor athletic department policy was to inform the AD about SA and tell the victim to report it to police/JA.
That is what every coach was told to do as a rule and morally responsible to do in 2013. Every coach did this including Briles. So Broosbear plz stop with citing what title 9 says to do NOW. It is beside the point!!!

After Barnes repeatedly asked McCaw what more can be done because she didn't want to report it to the police. McCaw gave Barnes JA's number. When he meet the player and parents a 2nd time before they left to go home he and his staff begged them to call JA. Barnes called JA just before the meeting to see if she should call them or go to the office. They said either way. They choose not to report. The exact words from the mother of the player was "we don't want her to be known as snitch." To which Barnes, although completely disgusted by her remark, begged them to report. They choose not to. The law suit that they have brought forth is lawyer talk and inaccurate in order to win the suit. Also Malbec, the player clearly told Barnes she was raped by 5 players. That's why he was so passionate on reporting this.

Barnes went back to McCaw and told him. McCaw said then there is nothing we can do if she doesn't report. Barnes talked to many people to see what else could be done including calling the police as well. They said they needed her to file a report in order to do anything. I don't think at the time even McCaw knew he had to report this. But later when he found out he was suppose to, tried to hide it. He even denied knowing about it when first asked about it.

Briles was always up front, helpful, and repeatedly stated she should report it. He never hid a thing about this. The player herself wrote him a letter that thanked him for his support. She just wanted to be gone and her name not brought into this.

Briles "bad dudes" statement was mislead by PH. Briles said why was she in that terrible situation with those dudes. PH turned it into "bad dudes". The situation was severely drunk, 2am, off campus with 5 dudes. And warned by her head coach to stay away from this situation. It had been a repeated problem from her.

Barnes was wrongfully terminated. Briles was wrongfully characterized in this situation and it was the lynchpin lie that PH sold to the BOR. A few regents helped setup the Barnes firing to help McCaw cover it up and for Barnes not to meet the new Title 9 director who was hired the same week Barnes was fired. That's why they were only going to suspend McCaw and not fire him. He had that over them. But he decided the heat was to hot, took a good letter of recommendation and resigned.

Baylor admin didn't have the protocol set up. But that was the case with most universities at the time. The PH lawyers saw Baylor as the best situation to exploit it and get this on the front page. It worked.

This is not speculation.

---

Where are you getting this?

And in either case, they don't have the ability to just send her to JA. At the VERY LEAST, they have to go to JA to tell them what THEY know, and what SHE TOLD THEM. Then JA can take it from there.

---

Coaches were clearly told NOT to go to campus. Only the Athletic admin would communicate with campus.
So now do you understand?