Robert Wilson said:
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.
Wasn't even pot... I'm pretty sure that was a freshman in his first week on campus who had an open container of alcohol...
So obviously Briles covered up rape
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."
Mahatma Gandhi
