That's a pretty weak deflection.

The most logical conclusion here is that Baylor had not provided adequate training, at least not to the level of performance required by the board on a rearview mirror basis.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yes, this is the one where Art was supposed to go to judicial affairs with an old allegation known to many other Baylor people who also didn't go to judicial affairs. So much so that we had to fire him.

---

Everyone that knew and did not report this is gone.

Briles
Ian
Shillinglaw
Hill
Barnes
Barnes' Assisant
Baylor Chaplin

---

You didn't get them all.

But your theory, even at that, requires a conspiracy of inaction by a lot of good people.

It would be more honest to fess up and call this an institutional failing.

---

"No True Scotsman"

Robert Wilson said:

---

That's a pretty weak deflection.

The most logical conclusion here is that Baylor had not provided adequate training, at least not to the level of performance required by the board on a rearview mirror basis.

---

Is that more logical than defending a fired coach because of a conspiracy theory about the Board of Regents trying to kill its golden goose for "reasons"?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yes, this is the one where Art was supposed to go to judicial affairs with an old allegation known to many other Baylor people who also didn't go to judicial affairs. So much so that we had to fire him.

---

Everyone that knew and did not report this is gone.

Briles
Ian
Shillinglaw
Hill
Barnes
Barnes' Assisant
Baylor Chaplin

---

There were a whole lot more people that knew about this than those you listed. In fact, there were lots of people who knew about it way before Barnes knew and before he told everybody in the AD.

JXL said:

---

BearackObama said:

---

A quick google search reveals that those words were not said on a text message. Keep it up sheep, your honorable and noble regents thank you.

---

The exact quote was "Those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" Not said in a text message, but to an assistant coach.

---

That was the exact quote? You and the lawyers were there when CAB was actually speaking to that assistant?

Far greater chance that there has been more covered up in the last 3 weeks than Art's entire career at Baylor

Serious question. Where did the university get the names of the "perverted little tarts" in order to **** shame them? Judicial Affairs?

RioRata said:

---

Serious question. Where did the university get the names of the "perverted little tarts" in order to **** shame them? Judicial Affairs?

---

Thought I heard it was a Facebook or other social media post which contained a picture that was forwarded on.

I am remembering that the "perverted little tarts" tirade came after said post was made. The picture was from an engagement party and showed only people over the age of 21 enjoying wine/drinks.

Someone please correct me if I am misremembering.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yes, this is the one where Art was supposed to go to judicial affairs with an old allegation known to many other Baylor people who also didn't go to judicial affairs. So much so that we had to fire him.

---

Everyone that knew and did not report this is gone.

Briles
Ian
Shillinglaw
Hill
Barnes
Barnes' Assisant
Baylor Chaplin

---

There were a whole lot more people that knew about this than those you listed. In fact, there were lots of people who knew about it way before Barnes knew and before he told everybody in the AD.

---

Yep.

So either everyone was nefarious, or they were not sufficiently trained to know they all had separate obligations to go to JA with old allegations that were already known to many people. It's pretty easy to deduce which is the case. The problem is that the most likely conclusion (insufficient training) falls on admin and the university at large. It's easier to just line up and execute a few good people.

303Bear said:

---

RioRata said:

---

Serious question. Where did the university get the names of the "perverted little tarts" in order to **** shame them? Judicial Affairs?

---

Thought I heard it was a Facebook or other social media post which contained a picture that was forwarded on.

I am remembering that the "perverted little tarts" tirade came after said post was made. The picture was from an engagement party and showed only people over the age of 21 enjoying wine/drinks.

Someone please correct me if I am misremembering.

---

Thanks for responding. I'm more interested in the **** shaming that has gone on for decades, though. They had to get the names from somewhere.

It is exciting to near 1,000 posts on this thread.

That is all

57Bear said:

---

It is exciting to near 1,000 posts on this thread.

That is all

---

Glad I could accommodate you in my own little way. Seeking knowledge is fun...huh?

57Bear said:

---

It is exciting to near 1,000 posts on this thread.

That is all

---

It was not an easy question to answer. Make of that what you will.

BearackObama said:

---

JXL said:

---

BearackObama said:

---

A quick google search reveals that those words were not said on a text message. Keep it up sheep, your honorable and noble regents thank you.

---

The exact quote was "Those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" Not said in a text message, but to an assistant coach.

---

That was the exact quote? You and the lawyers were there when CAB was actually speaking to that assistant?

---

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/baylor/2017/02/02/ex-baylor-coach-art-briles-officials-tried-hide-misconduct-football-players-court-record-shows

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2017/05/24/5-biggest-recent-revelations-baylors-sexual-assault-scandal

29 pages and nothing better than hearsay on why Briles was fired. It seems that there are many that have convicted 1 of our own without a single piece of credible information against him. What is even worse is the evidence they do claim as fact comes from ut and espn who are financially bound. It still seems like a lot of good people where kicked to the curb for other peoples wrong doing.

JXL said: ...

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2017/05/24/5-biggest-recent-revelations-baylors-sexual-assault-scandal

"Those are some bad dudes," Briles reportedly said ,,,"

Reportedly?

For those scoring at home, perverted little tarts was discovered elsewhere by legitimate sources.
It was not involving athletics and had nothing to do with the fired individuals' course of actions.

xiledinok said:

---

For those scoring at home, perverted little tarts was discovered elsewhere by legitimate sources.
It was not involving athletics and had nothing to do with the fired individuals' course of actions.

---

It is truly amazing how some people will willingy twist themselves around an axel just to keep from looking out the windshield.

These texts are just some of the texts that were found. Just some.

Keep twisting yourselves up, *******s. I'm done with the CAB'ers lot.

57Bear said:

---

JXL said: ...

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2017/05/24/5-biggest-recent-revelations-baylors-sexual-assault-scandal

"Those are some bad dudes," Briles reportedly said ,,,"

Reportedly?

---

Thanks. Simply amazing how some people choose to make themselves look stupid.

xiledinok said:

---

For those scoring at home, perverted little tarts was discovered elsewhere by legitimate sources.
It was not involving athletics and had nothing to do with the fired individuals' course of actions.

---

Perverted little tarts was Buddy Jones referring to certain Kappas.

I'm really not sure what the 'tarts' statement has to do with anything? I've seen no evidence that any female at Baylor was denied due process. Even those who had their accusation shuttled downtown to keep them off the Baylor books would have had their cases heard.

All that tart statement means is that there is a certain generation of people of think that young ladies shouldn't be out all night drinking and carrying on. I'm not sure that is news to anyone. You can likely include my mother amongst those people.

Robert Wilson said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

For those scoring at home, perverted little tarts was discovered elsewhere by legitimate sources.
It was not involving athletics and had nothing to do with the fired individuals' course of actions.

---

Perverted little tarts was Buddy Jones referring to certain Kappas.

---

It was a family affair for Mr. Jones. It was not acquired through some gotcha by the lawyers for the former regime.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yes, this is the one where Art was supposed to go to judicial affairs with an old allegation known to many other Baylor people who also didn't go to judicial affairs. So much so that we had to fire him.

---

Everyone that knew and did not report this is gone.

Briles
Ian
Shillinglaw
Hill
Barnes
Barnes' Assisant
Baylor Chaplin

---

There were a whole lot more people that knew about this than those you listed. In fact, there were lots of people who knew about it way before Barnes knew and before he told everybody in the AD.

---

Yep.

So either everyone was nefarious, or they were not sufficiently trained to know they all had separate obligations to go to JA with old allegations that were already known to many people. It's pretty easy to deduce which is the case. The problem is that the most likely conclusion (insufficient training) falls on admin and the university at large. It's easier to just line up and execute a few good people.

---

So the bottom line seems to be, there was poor implementation, crap training, lot's of decent folks got fired who may or may not have known exactly what they were supposed to do about a year old incident that everybody already knew about, but the BOR was unscathed.

Kinda seems like the line the Fonz gave in the Kevin James wresting movie, "mistakes were made".

Seems like best case scenario, would be to admit there had been screw ups and try to correct the ship, put a bunch of folks on intense training and a probationary period to make sure reported methods were implemented, and move forward as a University.

So has anyone convinced anyone else to change their mind on this topic yet?

Nick Nolte said:

---

So has anyone convinced anyone else to change their mind on this topic yet?

---

I have a lower opinion of FB now because he uses a movie reference but can't remember the title is Here Comes the Boom. What's next? A vague reference to this thread being like that movie about a bowler who had an old rug that really tied the room together? We have loose ends because the facts are buried behind settlements. Every poster "claiming victory" had to know that was going to happen. They should have been able to post it 28 pages ago. This thread is like the frat boy with the ladder who new it was over before the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

NoBSU said:

---

Nick Nolte said:

---

So has anyone convinced anyone else to change their mind on this topic yet?

---

I have a lower opinion of FB now because he uses a movie reference but can't remember the title is Here Comes the Boom. What's next? A vague reference to this thread being like that movie about a bowler who had an old rug that really tied the room together? We have loose ends because the facts are buried behind settlements. Every poster "claiming victory" had to know that was going to happen. They should have been able to post it 28 pages ago. This thread is like the frat boy with the ladder who new it was over before the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

---

Thank you, "Here comes the boom". I should have googled it. Still......

Mistakes were made.

Nick Nolte said:

---

So has anyone convinced anyone else to change their mind on this topic yet?

---

Well with the way things were handled and presented Briles had to go.

The problem was how things were handled.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Nick Nolte said:

---

So has anyone convinced anyone else to change their mind on this topic yet?

---

Well with the way things were handled and presented Briles had to go.

The problem was how things were handled.

---

This is kind of where I am...

If you wanted him out, you would go about just like the board did.... they insulated themselves and made the coach look as bad as possible... they made him the face of rape...

if they had wanted to keep him they could have done that as well.... obviously that would mean a different strategy, but it could have been done.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Yes, this is the one where Art was supposed to go to judicial affairs with an old allegation known to many other Baylor people who also didn't go to judicial affairs. So much so that we had to fire him.

---

Everyone that knew and did not report this is gone.

Briles
Ian
Shillinglaw
Hill
Barnes
Barnes' Assisant
Baylor Chaplin

---

There were a whole lot more people that knew about this than those you listed. In fact, there were lots of people who knew about it way before Barnes knew and before he told everybody in the AD.

---

Sorry worded that poorly. Should have said everyone who had a duty to report that knew.

Everyone on that list had a first hand account from the victim or victim's coach. I have no idea what the rules on rumors and obligations of others are. I doubt you do either. I think the questions are fair, it's just not an excuse for others that knew and should have reported.



You know this, but for other's sake

Barnes was given misinformation from McCaw about reporting to JA.

Hill seems the best definition of collateral damage as he was simply spoke to Barnes briefly about this when Barnes was on his way to tell McCaw & Briles.

PH concluded Briles definitely knew of the obligation to report to JA as there was other case(s) of alleged SA being handled by them.

Also, the football players harassed the victim and floated false stories of her willing participation. Two even broke into her apartment. No telling what all the other people knew.

This is simply not true

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sorry worded that poorly. Should have said everyone who had a duty to report that knew.

Everyone on that list had a first hand account from the victim or victim's coach.
...
Barnes was given misinformation from McCraw about reporting to JA.

Hill seems the best definition of collateral damage as he was simply spoke to Barnes briefly about this when Barnes was on his way to tell McCaw & Briles.

PH concluded Briles definitely knew of the obligation to report to JA as there was other case(s) of alleged SA being handled by them.

---

Sorry, but this is just weak as can be on so many levels.

1. Other people knew firsthand from her, including some well placed Baylor employees. They didn't know where/how to report. They were not fired as part of this mess. They shouldn't have been, as there really wasn't any good guidance out there.
2. A "first hand account from the victim or the victim's coach"? How is an account from the victim's coach first hand? Did we really train people that certain second hand information was really first hand information and that they should then report the first hand second hand information? What sources turn second hand information into first hand information? Who had the first hand first hand information, and who had the second hand first hand information? And where was all of this explained to them?
3. PH cannot honestly conclude from the fact that Briles knew JA handled sexual assault obligations that Briles also knew he had an obligation to report dated and secondhand information. Or first hand second hand information, whatever that is.
4. This all ignores the fact that the coaching staff alleges to have had a good faith belief that JA had gotten a report. There's no reason to disbelieve that, unless you're just inclined to call people liars.

This whole thing does not hold together in a remotely compelling way. It requires too large of a weird conspiracy of silence from too many good people, and it requires an assumed explanation of rules and procedures that we all realistically know had not happened. I really hope you and your BOR buddies had something better. Truly, I do.

how did the VP in charge of campus security not ever hear about this heinous crime?

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sorry worded that poorly. Should have said everyone who had a duty to report that knew.

Everyone on that list had a first hand account from the victim or victim's coach.
...
Barnes was given misinformation from McCraw about reporting to JA.

Hill seems the best definition of collateral damage as he was simply spoke to Barnes briefly about this when Barnes was on his way to tell McCaw & Briles.

PH concluded Briles definitely knew of the obligation to report to JA as there was other case(s) of alleged SA being handled by them.

---

Sorry, but this is just weak as can be on so many levels.

1. Other people knew firsthand from her, including some well placed Baylor employees. They didn't know where/how to report. They were not fired as part of this mess. They shouldn't have been, as there really wasn't any good guidance out there.

There are no accounts of this I know of, but any Baylor employee she told would have an obligation to report.


2. A "first hand account from the victim or the victim's coach"? How is an account from the victim's coach first hand? Did we really train people that certain second hand information was really first hand information and that they should then report the first hand second hand information? What sources turn second hand information into first hand information? Who had the first hand first hand information, and who had the second hand first hand information? And where was all of this explained to them?

This is serious dumb. The victim told her coach football players raped her. The victims coach then went to the AD & HFC and your have a problem with that?

3. PH cannot honestly conclude from the fact that Briles knew JA handled sexual assault obligations that Briles also knew he had an obligation to report dated and secondhand information. Or first hand second hand information, whatever that is.

Yet Briles tweeted "just keep him away from Judicial Affairs" from an other issue - is there nothing you will not excuse

4. This all ignores the fact that the coaching staff alleges to have had a good faith belief that JA had gotten a report. There's no reason to disbelieve that, unless you're just inclined to call people liars.

I think calling people liars implies deliberately telling something false. I don't think that happened because they believed it. It was however an incorrect statement. Barnes said he never reported the incident to JA.

This whole thing does not hold together in a remotely compelling way. It requires too large of a weird conspiracy of silence from too many good people, and it requires an assumed explanation of rules and procedures that we all realistically know had not happened. I really hope you and your BOR buddies had something better. Truly, I do.

The conspiracy of silence was Briles & McCraw - PH uncovered it. Barnes had left the school.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sorry worded that poorly. Should have said everyone who had a duty to report that knew.

Everyone on that list had a first hand account from the victim or victim's coach.
...
Barnes was given misinformation from McCraw about reporting to JA.

Hill seems the best definition of collateral damage as he was simply spoke to Barnes briefly about this when Barnes was on his way to tell McCaw & Briles.

PH concluded Briles definitely knew of the obligation to report to JA as there was other case(s) of alleged SA being handled by them.

---

Sorry, but this is just weak as can be on so many levels.

1. Other people knew firsthand from her, including some well placed Baylor employees. They didn't know where/how to report. They were not fired as part of this mess. They shouldn't have been, as there really wasn't any good guidance out there.

There are no accounts of this I know of, but any Baylor employee she told would have an obligation to report.

It's irrelevant that you don't know of them (whether that is true or not). They are out there, and they evidence the fact that people were not trained to the extent you want to pretend they were.

2. A "first hand account from the victim or the victim's coach"? How is an account from the victim's coach first hand? Did we really train people that certain second hand information was really first hand information and that they should then report the first hand second hand information? What sources turn second hand information into first hand information? Who had the first hand first hand information, and who had the second hand first hand information? And where was all of this explained to them?

This is serious dumb. The victim told her coach football players raped her. The victims coach then went to the AD & HFC and your have a problem with that?

That's called second hand information. You called it first hand information. You've completely muddled which is which and acted like people have reporting obligations for both or should somehow divine when second hand information is deemed to be first hand information. It's ridiculous, and you haven't un-muddled it at all, I suspect because doing so hurts your point. Half the athletic department knew of this as second hand information. And apparently no one had clarity on the reporting obligations.

3. PH cannot honestly conclude from the fact that Briles knew JA handled sexual assault obligations that Briles also knew he had an obligation to report dated and secondhand information. Or first hand second hand information, whatever that is.

Yet Briles tweeted "just keep him away from Judicial Affairs" from an other issue - is there nothing you will not excuse

I doubt Briles tweeted that, but that's funny. In any event, it was regarding a complete different event. You're mixing pot smoking and rape because it is convenient for you. But it is dishonest. The point about what can and cannot be taken from PH's evidence stands untouched. There's nothing in the PH evidence that shows any clarity on reporting dated second hand information. If there is, you just haven't bothered to give it to us yet. But given how selective and tortured your facts have become, I'll take it with a grain of salt if you do finally produce it after all this.

4. This all ignores the fact that the coaching staff alleges to have had a good faith belief that JA had gotten a report. There's no reason to disbelieve that, unless you're just inclined to call people liars.

I think calling people liars implies deliberately telling something false. I don't think that happened because they believed it. It was however an incorrect statement. Barnes said he never reported the incident to JA.

In an environment this muddled, their good faith belief ought to be worth more than mere dismissal.

This whole thing does not hold together in a remotely compelling way. It requires too large of a weird conspiracy of silence from too many good people, and it requires an assumed explanation of rules and procedures that we all realistically know had not happened. I really hope you and your BOR buddies had something better. Truly, I do.

The conspiracy of silence was Briles & McCraw - PH uncovered it. Barnes had left the school.

So the conspiracy was the two guys that got the second hand information, not any of the people who had the actual first hand information? How about all the other people who had the second hand information? Were they also all in on this conspiracy? The far simpler answer is that they all didn't really know what they were supposed to do.

---

---

Responses interlineated in italics.

You and your boys need to develop new talking points. This thing is muddled and inconsistent.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Sorry worded that poorly. Should have said everyone who had a duty to report that knew.

Everyone on that list had a first hand account from the victim or victim's coach.
...
Barnes was given misinformation from McCraw about reporting to JA.

Hill seems the best definition of collateral damage as he was simply spoke to Barnes briefly about this when Barnes was on his way to tell McCaw & Briles.

PH concluded Briles definitely knew of the obligation to report to JA as there was other case(s) of alleged SA being handled by them.

---

Sorry, but this is just weak as can be on so many levels.

1. Other people knew firsthand from her, including some well placed Baylor employees. They didn't know where/how to report. They were not fired as part of this mess. They shouldn't have been, as there really wasn't any good guidance out there.
2. A "first hand account from the victim or the victim's coach"? How is an account from the victim's coach first hand? Did we really train people that certain second hand information was really first hand information and that they should then report the first hand second hand information? What sources turn second hand information into first hand information? Who had the first hand first hand information, and who had the second hand first hand information? And where was all of this explained to them?
3. PH cannot honestly conclude from the fact that Briles knew JA handled sexual assault obligations that Briles also knew he had an obligation to report dated and secondhand information. Or first hand second hand information, whatever that is.
4. This all ignores the fact that the coaching staff alleges to have had a good faith belief that JA had gotten a report. There's no reason to disbelieve that, unless you're just inclined to call people liars.

This whole thing does not hold together in a remotely compelling way. It requires too large of a weird conspiracy of silence from too many good people, and it requires an assumed explanation of rules and procedures that we all realistically know had not happened. I really hope you and your BOR buddies had something better. Truly, I do.

---

They don't. If they did, you can be sure they would've made sure we knew about it.