Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

I suppose you are in the one percent who hasn't made up your mind?

---

My mind is not made up about anything regarding the "Scandal" other than what I know to be fact.

---

Well, since you won't say what you know (and how you know it) why are you on this thread?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

I suppose you are in the one percent who hasn't made up your mind?

---

My mind is not made up about anything regarding the "Scandal" other than what I know to be fact.

---

Well, since you won't say what you know (and how you know it) why are you on this thread?

---

Well since you ask, Joe sent me

Malbec said:

---

Found the answers to my questions yet Keyser?

---

Already answered some, the others have answers but we don't know them because that information has never been made public .... but you knew that before you asked the question

Bub4ever said:

---

Answering D.C. Bear, the 19 are not in dispute, and it was widely reported that the alleged victims went to many different people - football coaches, other coaches, counselors, administrators, professors. Nobody disputed this. People did dispute and still do whether much of that was CAB's fault or responsibility, but they were reported along with an unknown additional number.

---

They aren't?!? What??!?! There has been absolutely no evidence or anything at all to corroborate the # 19 as a viable number in any way whatsoever. Just remember that just because a regent says something, it does not make it so, regardless of what Keyser might tell you.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

I suppose you are in the one percent who hasn't made up your mind?

---

My mind is not made up about anything regarding the "Scandal" other than what I know to be fact.

---

Well, since you won't say what you know (and how you know it) why are you on this thread?

---

Well since you ask, Joe sent me

---

You're so smart (that was sarcasm).

ColomboLQ said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

I suppose you are in the one percent who hasn't made up your mind?

---

My mind is not made up about anything regarding the "Scandal" other than what I know to be fact.

---

Well, since you won't say what you know (and how you know it) why are you on this thread?

---

Well since you ask, Joe sent me

---

You're so smart (that was sarcasm).

---

That's very kind of you to notice, but alas, intelligence is a gift and not earned, so I can hardly take credit for it. But I am indeed saddened that you weren't similarly blessed.

Bub4ever said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bub4ever said:

---

Answering D.C. Bear, the 19 are not in dispute, and it was widely reported that the alleged victims went to many different people - football coaches, other coaches, counselors, administrators, professors. Nobody disputed this. People did dispute and still do whether much of that was CAB's fault or responsibility, but they were reported along with an unknown additional number.

---

There were 19 gang rapes?

---

No, 19 reports of assault/sex misconduct

---

And that's where the BOFR's details get sketchy....19 allegations of either domestic assault or sexual assault by 17 athletes with 4 alleged gang rapes. While any allegation is awful, we don't know how these statistics break down. Some of these allegations could be domestic assault; we still don't know. And if Crawford is to be believed, this is only 10% of the university-wide problem. Don't drink the kool-aid before you know what's in it.

Go ask the players
See what number you get

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Found the answers to my questions yet Keyser?

---

Already answered some, the others have answers but we don't know them because that information has never been made public .... but you knew that before you asked the question

---

YOU said: "No idea of the number of test cases they looked at other than the[y] were not all football."

And you know this how? What was the number of non-football cases that the regents reported? Cite ONE case not involving a football player or other athlete that regent spokespersons reported. Even in those legal pleadings that you like to rely on for "facts," what is the number for non-football player allegations used in ANY of them; even in those lawsuits not involving football players?

And, if what you say is true (a statement backed by no evidence whatsoever) that PH investigated cases other than football and "that information has never been made public," as you say; why would the regent spokespersons report PH numbers ONLY for those allegations involving football players? There are only two reasonable answers to that question. Either, 1) PH was not really tasked with determining institutional failure outside of football, and therefor didn't investigate non-football compliance (or not to a similar level outside the football program), or 2) those regents involved in handling the PH liaison purposely and exclusively highlighted cases involving football players as camouflage for failures in compliance and institutional culture throughout the administration, and to cover the pervasiveness of brisk sexual activity among the student body.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Come now, you should be grateful that he has deigned to grace you all with his presence on the non premium side of the site. Where are you manners? Is this how you treat your betters?

Robemcdo said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

There's been enough visions at Baylor this century but if Starr had set up Title IX like every other school, Briles would have suspended Sam and made it public prior to the trial while informing the public what was happening, Starr wouldn't have brought in PH, who had access to everything, and more likely than not Baylor would have been like OU with a bunch of bodies hidden in a closet. Nevertheless, this was a case of no vision.

---

Not necessarily. If McCraw looked at the evidence and said Sam was good to go, then there is no reason an office with a different sign on the door would be any different. Preponderance of proof was not in the accusers. favour. All you had to do was read her phone, which McCraw did. This was a non-story until good ole McLennan County decided to make up their own rules.

---

McCraw had about as much business investigating that case as she would standing on a street corner selling drugs. She didn't know what she was doing. Her experience policing Playboy posing doesn't make her qualified to investigate sexual assault.
The decision to keep the rape charges silent and act like Bennett did at the chicken fry and veggie dinner for fans made us look bad.
No one made up the rules, someone didn't object in court.

Hanging on to the Playboy police doesn't sell well outside the bubble. You would have like to have someone who had law enforcement training but then again Ken Starr didn't do his job (and was rightfully fired).

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Ego has nothing to do with it. I mentioned time, and effort. Reading comprehension is just not your thing, is it?

We've already put a wealth of information on the premium board regarding our work on Sam U's case and others. You want to know more, go over there and read it because I'm not typing it all out again. And if you can't scrape up the 13 bucks, that's not my problem.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Come now, you should be grateful that he has deigned to grace you all with his presence on the non premium side of the site. Where are you manners? Is this how you treat your betters?

---

Just when I was beginning to think you might have a modicum of intelligence, you go and say something stupid like that. Tell me, how often have you seen people's minds changed on here? It doesn't happen, ever.

Wasn't one of the Baylor pay boards saying that Briles was not going to be fired? Not sure how much I trust the inside info. I could get any info I wanted, really, from Chip Brown.

Either way, the people over here are far, far too poor to scrape together $13. The words on the premium side would probably get too big for me to understand, anyway.

LBKBEAR said:

---

I could get any info I wanted, really, from Chip Brown.

---

Fair enough! I feel fine admitting when I'm wrong. I had forgotten he ran with that for a bit. Now that I think about it, it seems like he was throwing a ton of stuff out. Thanks for posting that to correct!

LBKBEAR said:

---

Wasn't one of the Baylor pay boards saying that Briles was not going to be fired? Not sure how much I trust the inside info. I could get any info I wanted, really, from Chip Brown.

Either way, the people over here are far, far too poor to scrape together $13. The words on the premium side would probably get too big for me to understand, anyway.

---

Chip Brown hasn't spent countless hours working directly on these cases

LBKBEAR said:

---

Wasn't one of the Baylor pay boards saying that Briles was not going to be fired? Not sure how much I trust the inside info. I could get any info I wanted, really, from Chip Brown.

Either way, the people over here are far, far too poor to scrape together $13. The words on the premium side would probably get too big for me to understand, anyway.

---

They might need to impose a gag order on pay side because I don't know any of these non payees that is lacking "inside" information.
For those who bag on the "poors" over $13 might need to realize there is a bunch of information shared from the pay board. Not right, but people share information.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Ego has nothing to do with it. I mentioned time, and effort. Reading comprehension is just not your thing, is it?

We've already put a wealth of information on the premium board regarding our work on Sam U's case and others. You want to know more, go over there and read it because I'm not typing it all out again. And if you can't scrape up the 13 bucks, that's not my problem.

---

So I finally understand why you post on the free board. You are here to sell premium subscriptions! Nice job!

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Come now, you should be grateful that he has deigned to grace you all with his presence on the non premium side of the site. Where are you manners? Is this how you treat your betters?

---

Just when I was beginning to think you might have a modicum of intelligence, you go and say something stupid like that. Tell me, how often have you seen people's minds changed on here? It doesn't happen, ever.

---

I suspect you may be taking yourself a bit too seriously.

ColomboLQ said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Ego has nothing to do with it. I mentioned time, and effort. Reading comprehension is just not your thing, is it?

We've already put a wealth of information on the premium board regarding our work on Sam U's case and others. You want to know more, go over there and read it because I'm not typing it all out again. And if you can't scrape up the 13 bucks, that's not my problem.

---

So I finally understand why you post on the free board. You are here to sell premium subscriptions! Nice job!

---

I could care less. For those that desire to know more, I took the time to point out where the information could be found.

Personally, I prefer that nimrods like you not join premium because of the tendency to clutter up threads with mindless, repetitive drivel.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Drunken hookup @ old main said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

The amount of incorrect information in this thread is rather staggering. Regardless, I bet if we keep discussing this it will definitely lead to Art being rehired.

---

While I would not call it "staggering," there is more than enough contradictory information to know a good deal of it is incorrect. If we keep discussing it, depending on who contributes and what they contribute, maybe we'll eventually have an understanding of what went wrong institutionally, since the institution did not seem to believe telling the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.

---

I know plenty, but I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out here. There would be no point in putting forth the time and effort because 99% of the people here already have their minds made up, and the facts be damned.

---

You spent a decent amount of effort on this thread already to tell us about how you know so much, clearly your time and ego aren't the holdup here.

---

Come now, you should be grateful that he has deigned to grace you all with his presence on the non premium side of the site. Where are you manners? Is this how you treat your betters?

---

Just when I was beginning to think you might have a modicum of intelligence, you go and say something stupid like that. Tell me, how often have you seen people's minds changed on here? It doesn't happen, ever.

---

I suspect you may be taking yourself a bit too seriously.

---

Nah, I'm just here because Joe sent me.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Found the answers to my questions yet Keyser?

---

Already answered some, the others have answers but we don't know them because that information has never been made public .... but you knew that before you asked the question

---

YOU said: "No idea of the number of test cases they looked at other than the[y] were not all football."

And you know this how? What was the number of non-football cases that the regents reported? Cite ONE case not involving a football player or other athlete that regent spokespersons reported. Even in those legal pleadings that you like to rely on for "facts," what is the number for non-football player allegations used in ANY of them; even in those lawsuits not involving football players?

And, if what you say is true (a statement backed by no evidence whatsoever) that PH investigated cases other than football and "that information has never been made public," as you say; why would the regent spokespersons report PH numbers ONLY for those allegations involving football players? There are only two reasonable answers to that question. Either, 1) PH was not really tasked with determining institutional failure outside of football, and therefor didn't investigate non-football compliance (or not to a similar level outside the football program), or 2) those regents involved in handling the PH liaison purposely and exclusively highlighted cases involving football players as camouflage for failures in compliance and institutional culture throughout the administration, and to cover the pervasiveness of brisk sexual activity among the student body.

---

The regents spoke specifically about football. They did not speak with the purpose of elaborating about the investigation as a whole or deflection as the more elaborate rumors evolved and stated, they spoke with the purpose of ending the ridiculous scapegoating rumors. It is the "why" they spoke you have wrong - the same crowd that originally have clung to scapegoating, have simply added a layer that all the revelations about football are just deflection from other areas.

The regents were for the most part silent from the announcements in May of 2016 until the WSJ in October 2016. But the scapegoating movement began.

Before the settlement in June 16, Cannon first floats the scapegoat wording in his motion for separate counsel.

In June 16, Big Money donors demand release of details and are denied for legal reasons by Murff, Harper, and Gray. They go on to demand Briles be suspended and later reinstated. Their request is denied.

One of the BMDs is quoted as saying: " "If you mention Baylor's mission one more time, I'm going to throw up. I was promised a national championship." (that mindset permeated the scapegoat crowd)

Gale Galloway offers reward for information on why Briles was fired.

Briles gives quote: "I've been in it (coaching) 38 years and I've lived the right way 60 years of my life, and I've never done anything illegal, immoral or unethical." at NFL camps

A completely false rumor that the BOR will re-vote on Briles begins to circulate like wild fire.

September: Briles goes no ESPN and does one of the worst mea culpas ever.

BLR is formed by the same BMD that demanded Briles be reinstated.

At the same time as this, the unfounded rumors on BF are out of control.

Briles shows up for Rice game.

October 2016, the WSJ article comes out- also keep in mind this was also getting out in front of 60 Minuets Sports which would reveal many of the same things anyway.

We know the rest - Briles and Shillinglaw sue over the WSJ - both drop cases but not before the regents respond and give the scapegoat the head shot it deserves.


PH was aware every formal complaint made to Title IX over the test period-the most prominent non-football case is the Rugby House which was featured in Violated. Formally, the specific test cases examined by PH have never been stated, but the volume of information revealed makes it obvious Sam U, Oakman (assault of GF, not the alleged SA that happened later), and Rugby House are three of them.


In explaining their statements the regents said in Shilinglaw

Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players

And that is still going on today - and at this point it is safe to say the Brile's faithful will never think differently

Bub4ever said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bub4ever said:

---

Answering D.C. Bear, the 19 are not in dispute, and it was widely reported that the alleged victims went to many different people - football coaches, other coaches, counselors, administrators, professors. Nobody disputed this. People did dispute and still do whether much of that was CAB's fault or responsibility, but they were reported along with an unknown additional number.

---

There were 19 gang rapes?

---

No, 19 reports of assault/sex misconduct

---

Pretty sure 19 includes domestic violence. Some of which I think is overblown. In fact I think a huge problem is that whoever decided 19 was the number didn't break it down into individual categories and lumped it together. Big difference between grabbing your girlfriends arm and yelling at her and a gang rape.

Keyser Soze said:

---

In explaining their statements the regents said in Shilinglaw

Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players

And that is still going on today - and at this point it is safe to say the Brile's faithful will never think differently

---

I think there's enough information out there to be skeptical of those particular lawyers and their methodology regardless of which position one takes on the whole boondoggle. The miscommunication in regard to what role they were performing led to a mirky attorney-client privilege relationship and screwed over Baylor. That's unacceptable for some high-priced philly gals.

Chanceux said:

---

I think there's enough information out there to be skeptical of those particular lawyers and their methodology regardless of which position one takes on the whole boondoggle. The miscommunication in regard to what role they were performing led to a mirky attorney-client privilege relationship and screwed over Baylor. That's unacceptable for some high-priced philly gals.

---

And information regarding tactics used by one of the lawyers was out there before they were hired by BU. BU knew (or should have known) who they were hiring.

Chanceux said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

In explaining their statements the regents said in Shilinglaw

Even though Pepper Hamilton did a truly independent and incredibly thorough investigation, supporters of the Briles' regime decided to attack the messenger rather than deal with the tragedy of the message. They demanded details from the Pepper Hamilton investigation and accused the Regents of exaggerating the extent of sexual assaults by football players

And that is still going on today - and at this point it is safe to say the Brile's faithful will never think differently

---

I think there's enough information out there to be skeptical of those particular lawyers and their methodology regardless of which position one takes on the whole boondoggle. The miscommunication in regard to what role they were performing led to a mirky attorney-client privilege relationship and screwed over Baylor. That's unacceptable for some high-priced philly gals.

---

Agree they have flaws - but we all do, there has been no real challenge to what they reported. Likewise, the move to attorney client is to limit liability, not alter their report.

Of the 19/17 I know of the cases of around 16/14 - of that, around 2/3 SA. 1/3 domestic violence

D. C. Bear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bearwitness8223 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Robemcdo said:

---

Bona Fide Bear said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

We all have a vested interest in justice being properly served. SU doesn't change anything that happened under CAB, even if the CABers will turn it into more proof that CAB was actually a really moral man, even though he let allegations stop at his door, regardless of how terrible the protocol was at the University as a whole and he accepted a settlement that keeps him from clearing his name. However, if SU is allowed to go free, then a wrongly accused, determined by the justice system, man will allowed to live a life as a free man.

---

Sam and Elliott form the foundation for this whole mess. Without these two blocks the whole thing comes down

---

Good heavens, I've stayed out of the CAB debate because very few people know all the details, and I became a fan of BU in significant part because of him, but this is preposterous. Formal complaints of assault/sex misconduct, including multiple gang rapes, against 19 players during CAB's tenure and more informal. No, however this case turns out the hole thing does NOT come down.

---

Where are the police reports of the gang rapes? Where is the reporting to the police? I haven't seen a damn thing. The regents who wrote the FOF labeled them "gang rapes" then the women did and chose to sue I guess money is more important than bringing these Assailants to justice.. NEXT!

---

Sadly very few went to the police and instead went to people internally they thought they could trust.

---

How many victims of gang rape went to the police? You said "very few" did, so that would imply more than one. Where are those reports? For those victims of gang rape who talked to someone "internally," to whom did they go "internally," and what is your evidence that they "thought they could trust" those people? Do you have individual level data on this?

---

I have read one. It was posted on Baylorfans. I have long interpreted the "why didn't they contact police" and "why didn't they pursue charges" complaints as I really don't care so next posters throw out the girls only complained to get money."

That is a tired old line with me DC. As KS posted, the point isn't the verdict in JA or Court. The front-end of a title IX complaint is to 1. Take the complaint. 2. Issue a no contact letter. 3. Separate them as best you can with class schedule. 4. Offer basic counseling. 5. Consider temporary housing changes. Even if you think the complaintant is batty as hades, I not sure why the compassion of 1-4 doesn't fit well with a Christian Mission. Not sure why that violates due process. This is all before investigation and adjudication. This step is why Baylor is vulnerable in the lawsuits.

If the purpose of the regents' bean-spilling was to counter complaints that the investigation was football-centric, it makes no sense to comment only on findings within the football program. It would have been the time to say, "As to suggestions that the PH investigation was focused on the football program, it should be known that investigators examined 19 allegations against football players and X allegations against other students."

So what you got from those regents was not a denial, but rather a reinforcement.

Football stuff aside, 339 schools are under federal investigation for messing up Title IX. Maybe it isn't all that straight forward and easy.

Look, let's not get too wrapped around the axle about the details. The Pepper Hamilton law firm provided 105 recommendations based on their investigation into the Baylor football program handling of sexual assaults. These 105 recommendations were mandates for the Baylor Board of Regents. These 105 recommendations were completed and certified by President David Garland and Baylor Regent Board Chairman Ron Murff. 105. End of story.

Malbec said:

---

If the purpose of the regents' bean-spilling was to counter complaints that the investigation was football-centric, it makes no sense to comment only on findings within the football program. It would have been the time to say, "As to suggestions that the PH investigation was focused on the football program, it should be known that investigators examined 19 allegations against football players and X allegations against other students."

So what you got from those regents was not a denial, but rather a reinforcement.

---

That is not the complaint they were addressing.

I said scapegoating. In other words they were addressing the false rumor that the football coach was unjustly removed.

To my knowledge they did not investigate all 19 allegations in football. Found out about would be better verbiage. Their methodology was to select test cases and follow them through the whole process and / or where ever they would go. We don't know the details, but it would only take one football case to start reading all the coaches texts and emails. Ken Starr started looking at a land deal and ended up with Monica Lowenski and perjury.

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Look, let's not get too wrapped around the axle about the details. The Pepper Hamilton law firm provided 105 recommendations based on their investigation into the Baylor football program handling of sexual assaults. These 105 recommendations were mandates for the Baylor Board of Regents. These 105 recommendations were completed and certified by President David Garland and Baylor Regent Board Chairman Ron Murff. 105. End of story.

---

Certified by an interim president being held accountable by a group who refused accountability with its own stakeholders and a guy who bilked the taxpayers out of $3B for wrecking a bank. Mmmmm. Ok.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Tommy_Lou_Ramsower said:

---

Look, let's not get too wrapped around the axle about the details. The Pepper Hamilton law firm provided 105 recommendations based on their investigation into the Baylor football program handling of sexual assaults. These 105 recommendations were mandates for the Baylor Board of Regents. These 105 recommendations were completed and certified by President David Garland and Baylor Regent Board Chairman Ron Murff. 105. End of story.

---

Certified by an interim president being held accountable by a group who refused accountability with its own stakeholders and a guy who bilked the taxpayers out of $3B for wrecking a bank. Mmmmm. Ok.

---

* The Findings of Fact was jointly drafted by the Baylor Board of Regents and the Pepper Hamilton law firm. Surely it was top-notch objective.