Well I just think the Briles haters (and I dont mean you NoBSU) should be out in the open and be honest as to why they hate him. It sounds like they are upset he wasnt corrupt or corrupt enough. He allowed the authorities (by authorities I'm talking police and DA etc.) to do their jobs and didnt push the envelope futher and arrange pay offs and bribes etc to make things go away etc. In otherwords, he didnt actually risk real SMU in the 80s kind of stuff down the road or being charged with a crime himself.
Court filing: Top BU officials 'concealed reports of serial sexual assault'
22,805 Views |
140 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Malbec
I think that myself and some others were tired of all the Baylorfans usernames that were spinning for the regents, Elliot, and Briles. I just disagree with many of you as to who the regent spinners are. Loaded can pick out the posters that harassed him that we think are regents. I recognize their style reading their crap for years.PartyBear said:
Well I just think the Briles haters (and I dont mean you NoBSU) should be out in the open and be honest as to why they hate him. It sounds like they are upset he wasnt corrupt or corrupt enough. He allowed the authorities (by authorities I'm talking police and DA etc.) to do their jobs and didnt push the envelope futher and arrange pay offs and bribes etc to make things go away etc. In otherwords, he didnt actually risk real SMU in the 80s kind of stuff down the road or being charged with a crime himself.
By the way, using fixers is a D1 football and basketball fact of life, Their are some things that you should fix and assaults are not on that list. I wouldn't call it corruption.
I am sure he'll be ready when it comes that time. I wouldn't get my hopes up dealing with him. It is not like he doesn't know that Briles Last Resort has him as the number 1 target. I think he has enough leverage by knowing where the bodies are to make those think before they attack (though thinking hasn't been present or effective to this point).PartyBear said:
From a legal jeopardy stand point, the " I was following orders" is not a defense. It may mitigate and help him reach a deal with the other side of a case he is a party to if he cooperates and gives up who was giving him what orders. But in a trial, I was following orders isnt going to be much help on issues of liability/culpability.
It is cool that it is now finally out in the open that RR is the target for revenge. Is there going to be another "reward" for his scalp?
I think more people get buried with RR if he gets scalped.
LOL. Keep riding that white horse, KWTX. Or is it a pale horse?Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
Institutions do have a process. The implication is that it was unreasonable for it to take 21 days for that process to play out from his arrest to finalize expulsion. Would be interesting to know what went on in those 21 days. It would also be interesting to know what the process was in the fall of 2011. It does not seem like athletics was hiding the incident from student life since athletics were informed of something by student life, but a lot is still unknown. If only there had been an investigation and a report to clear up those details and find out what went wrong.
It would be interesting if they would provide background on the referenced file that they had on him during the Fall 2001 meeting. Some of that is known.D. C. Bear said:
Institutions do have a process. The implication is that it was unreasonable for it to take 21 days for that process to play out from his arrest to finalize expulsion. Would be interesting to know what went on in those 21 days. It would also be interesting to know what the process was in the fall of 2011. It does not seem like athletics was hiding the incident from student life since athletics were informed of something by student life, but a lot is still unknown. If only there had been an investigation and a report to clear up those details and find out what went wrong.
Then even after all that he transferred and was accepted at Central Arkansas.Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
Surprised that coach or school hasn't taken a lot of heat over that.
Well they are a small FCS schoolForest Bueller said:Then even after all that he transferred and was accepted at Central Arkansas.Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
Surprised that coach or school hasn't taken a lot of heat over that.
And here is an interesting side note..... the coach at UCA at that time just resigned from SFA last week amid some investigation.
Clint Conque
But yeah somehow he and the school got no heat for bringing in a questionable player who clearly had visible trouble, not rumored problems.
Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
So we've got documentation:
- October 5, 2011 email showing Doak and RR knew TE was "assaulting young women" (note the plural used from report)
- November 7, 2011 email noting that administration (Murdock, McCraw, and Martha Lou) knew of TE's "assaults" (note plural used from report),
- November 2011 football told of "an incident" (note singular used from report-unwanted contact)
- TE allegedly rapes a student on 4/15/12,
- Administration fully notifies football program on 4/25/12,
- Football program suspends Elliott on 4/27/12 the same day they learn Waco PD wants a cheek swab for their investigation.
From dated documents it appears football was never notified of breadth of the situation until 4/25/12. It further appears to me that that the clown show of RR, Doak, Murdock, McCraw, Martha Lou, were the problem. That's 5 senior folks in the administration that knew and did nothing. IMO they need to do time with TE. Fulking shameful!
I realize that documentation may not tell the whole story, but I can't think of a way to make that look good.YoakDaddy said:Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
So we've got documentation:
- October 5, 2011 email showing Doak and RR knew TE was "assaulting young women" (note the plural used from report)
- November 7, 2011 email noting that administration (Murdock, McCraw, and Martha Lou) knew of TE's "assaults" (note plural used from report),
- November 2011 football told of "an incident" (note singular used from report-unwanted contact)
- TE allegedly rapes a student on 4/15/12,
- Administration fully notifies football program on 4/25/12,
- Football program suspends Elliott on 4/27/12 the same day they learn Waco PD wants a cheek swab for their investigation.
From dated documents it appears football was never notified of breadth of the situation until 4/25/12. It further appears to me that that the clown show of RR, Doak, Murdock, McCraw, Martha Lou, were the problem. That's 5 senior folks in the administration that knew and did nothing. IMO they need to do time with TE. Fulking shameful!
D. C. Bear said:I realize that documentation may not tell the whole story, but I can't think of a way to make that look good.YoakDaddy said:Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
So we've got documentation:
- October 5, 2011 email showing Doak and RR knew TE was "assaulting young women" (note the plural used from report)
- November 7, 2011 email noting that administration (Murdock, McCraw, and Martha Lou) knew of TE's "assaults" (note plural used from report),
- November 2011 football told of "an incident" (note singular used from report-unwanted contact)
- TE allegedly rapes a student on 4/15/12,
- Administration fully notifies football program on 4/25/12,
- Football program suspends Elliott on 4/27/12 the same day they learn Waco PD wants a cheek swab for their investigation.
From dated documents it appears football was never notified of breadth of the situation until 4/25/12. It further appears to me that that the clown show of RR, Doak, Murdock, McCraw, Martha Lou, were the problem. That's 5 senior folks in the administration that knew and did nothing. IMO they need to do time with TE. Fulking shameful!
I just put documentation in chronological order as noted in 2 KWTX articles and a recent DMN article. Of course the last few sentences of my last paragraph are my opinion based on the facts detailed in those articles.
I can't either, but that doesn't stop the usual suspects here from trying to apply coat after coat after coat of varnish.D. C. Bear said:I realize that documentation may not tell the whole story, but I can't think of a way to make that look good.YoakDaddy said:Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
So we've got documentation:
- October 5, 2011 email showing Doak and RR knew TE was "assaulting young women" (note the plural used from report)
- November 7, 2011 email noting that administration (Murdock, McCraw, and Martha Lou) knew of TE's "assaults" (note plural used from report),
- November 2011 football told of "an incident" (note singular used from report-unwanted contact)
- TE allegedly rapes a student on 4/15/12,
- Administration fully notifies football program on 4/25/12,
- Football program suspends Elliott on 4/27/12 the same day they learn Waco PD wants a cheek swab for their investigation.
From dated documents it appears football was never notified of breadth of the situation until 4/25/12. It further appears to me that that the clown show of RR, Doak, Murdock, McCraw, Martha Lou, were the problem. That's 5 senior folks in the administration that knew and did nothing. IMO they need to do time with TE. Fulking shameful!
Maybe just maybe the investigations surrounding Tevin Elliott each time pointed at nothing more than consensual sex thus he was not guilty of anything. Anyone remember the recording of Jasmin and Elliott where she was telling him to hurry up and do it? Didn't sound much like she was in distress. Anyone think that maybe if Tevin had not been railroaded that none of this would have ever happened?Booray said:xiledinok said:
CAnyone naive to think all levels didn't know about it and this was all to keep the pass rusher on the field?
Character didn't count at Baylor.
1. There is no evidence of football knowing about Elliot's assaults prior to Hernandez
2. There is plenty of reason to think BU treated reports on Elliott the same as all other reports on sexual assault. Bury it, not because he is football player but because it would be bad for our uber Christian brand.
3. Even if there was evidence of football involvement and the cover-up was about winning, how do we not fire everyone involved?
4. If non-football leadership covered up because it was a football player we have an institutional control problem.
I am a Baylor letterman, a Baylor graduate and I love Baylor.
Read the post between your post and my post. Now try to sell that varnish crap.canoso said:I can't either, but that doesn't stop the usual suspects here from trying to apply coat after coat after coat of varnish.D. C. Bear said:I realize that documentation may not tell the whole story, but I can't think of a way to make that look good.YoakDaddy said:Tiny Elvis said:
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Former--490786321.html
So we've got documentation:
- October 5, 2011 email showing Doak and RR knew TE was "assaulting young women" (note the plural used from report)
- November 7, 2011 email noting that administration (Murdock, McCraw, and Martha Lou) knew of TE's "assaults" (note plural used from report),
- November 2011 football told of "an incident" (note singular used from report-unwanted contact)
- TE allegedly rapes a student on 4/15/12,
- Administration fully notifies football program on 4/25/12,
- Football program suspends Elliott on 4/27/12 the same day they learn Waco PD wants a cheek swab for their investigation.
From dated documents it appears football was never notified of breadth of the situation until 4/25/12. It further appears to me that that the clown show of RR, Doak, Murdock, McCraw, Martha Lou, were the problem. That's 5 senior folks in the administration that knew and did nothing. IMO they need to do time with TE. Fulking shameful!
What does it mean?
Osodecentx said:
What does it mean?
Phil Stewart was a Regent that was on the BOR during PH. Looks like he gave testimony when deposed that would not look good for the PH report.
Is he saying that Patty Crawford was deposed? Also that plaintiff's counsel did not ask about how Title IX was handled for the plauntiffs? Am I reading that right?
How many of the plaintiffs' T9 events occurred while PC was working at Baylor?
DieUniversitaet said:PartyBear said:bularry said:PartyBear said:
The people high up who thought they got away with everything should perhaps start worrying about their freedom. Sounds like obstruction of justice is starting to be revealed.
It actually doesn't sound like that at all
If you put it in the context of other testimony that has come out about Baylor PD burying rape allegations at the request of Bor members and or administrators, those folks may face big problems. Just like if a city council person had the city police chief not refer some cases to the DA to evaluate. It seems the more that comes out, the more problematic it is for some higher ups.
Unfortunately they have run out of football coaches to deflect blame on.
Nice.
Don't know. They may already have her answers.Malbec said:
How many of the plaintiffs' T9 events occurred while PC was working at Baylor?
Drips are becoming a little stream
Interestingboognish_bear said:Osodecentx said:
What does it mean?
Phil Stewart was a Regent that was on the BOR during PH. Looks like he gave testimony when deposed that would not look good for the PH report.
Congratulations on getting some Flomax.REX said:
Drips are becoming a little stream
NoBSU said:Don't know. They may already have her answers.Malbec said:
How many of the plaintiffs' T9 events occurred while PC was working at Baylor?
They may have her answers....I believe she started at Baylor in 2014? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, then only 2 of the 10 Jane assault occurred during her time. Depending on when (if 2014 is correct) it could be 4 and not 2 because 2 occurred in 4/2014.
Crawford communicated (i.e., had contact with) with 8 of the 10 Jane Does while she was the Title IX Coordinator, as we indicated in our statement on Friday. Here is the timeline of the cases in this lawsuit, which was filed with one of our responses with the Court:YoakDaddy said:NoBSU said:Don't know. They may already have her answers.Malbec said:
How many of the plaintiffs' T9 events occurred while PC was working at Baylor?
They may have her answers....I believe she started at Baylor in 2014? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, then only 2 of the 10 Jane assault occurred during her time. Depending on when (if 2014 is correct) it could be 4 and not 2 because 2 occurred in 4/2014.
September 2004 Jane Doe 2 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 76).
November 2005 Jane Doe 5 allegedly was assaulted by a former boyfriend in his dorm room (Dkt. 56, 151-152).
Jane Doe 6 allegedly was assaulted at an off-campus residence after leaving a bar (Dkt. 56, 177-78).
May 2009 Jane Doe 7 allegedly was assaulted in Austin, Texas after a party (Dkt. 56, 192; Dkt. 62, Exh. A).
April 2014 Jane Doe 1 allegedly was assaulted in a university-owned apartment (Dkt. 56, 54).
Jane Doe 3 allegedly was assaulted in a residence hall (Dkt. 56, 105).
Jane Doe 4 allegedly was assaulted (Dkt. 56, 124). The alleged assault was in an off-campus residence not affiliated with Baylor.
November 2014 Jane Doe 9 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 235).
March 2015 Jane Doe 8 allegedly assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 211).
February 2016 Jane Doe 10 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 254).
jason_cook said:Crawford communicated (i.e., had contact with) with 8 of the 10 Jane Does while she was the Title IX Coordinator, as we indicated in our statement on Friday. Here is the timeline of the cases in this lawsuit, which was filed with one of our responses with the Court:YoakDaddy said:NoBSU said:Don't know. They may already have her answers.Malbec said:
How many of the plaintiffs' T9 events occurred while PC was working at Baylor?
They may have her answers....I believe she started at Baylor in 2014? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, then only 2 of the 10 Jane assault occurred during her time. Depending on when (if 2014 is correct) it could be 4 and not 2 because 2 occurred in 4/2014.
September 2004 Jane Doe 2 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 76).
November 2005 Jane Doe 5 allegedly was assaulted by a former boyfriend in his dorm room (Dkt. 56, 151-152).
Jane Doe 6 allegedly was assaulted at an off-campus residence after leaving a bar (Dkt. 56, 177-78).
May 2009 Jane Doe 7 allegedly was assaulted in Austin, Texas after a party (Dkt. 56, 192; Dkt. 62, Exh. A).
April 2014 Jane Doe 1 allegedly was assaulted in a university-owned apartment (Dkt. 56, 54).
Jane Doe 3 allegedly was assaulted in a residence hall (Dkt. 56, 105).
Jane Doe 4 allegedly was assaulted (Dkt. 56, 124). The alleged assault was in an off-campus residence not affiliated with Baylor.
November 2014 Jane Doe 9 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 235).
March 2015 Jane Doe 8 allegedly assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 211).
February 2016 Jane Doe 10 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 254).
Thanks.
November 2014YoakDaddy said:
They may have her answers....I believe she started at Baylor in 2014? ...
jason_cook said:Crawford communicated (i.e., had contact with) with 8 of the 10 Jane Does while she was the Title IX Coordinator, as we indicated in our statement on Friday. Here is the timeline of the cases in this lawsuit, which was filed with one of our responses with the Court:YoakDaddy said:NoBSU said:Don't know. They may already have her answers.Malbec said:
How many of the plaintiffs' T9 events occurred while PC was working at Baylor?
They may have her answers....I believe she started at Baylor in 2014? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, then only 2 of the 10 Jane assault occurred during her time. Depending on when (if 2014 is correct) it could be 4 and not 2 because 2 occurred in 4/2014.
September 2004 Jane Doe 2 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 76).
November 2005 Jane Doe 5 allegedly was assaulted by a former boyfriend in his dorm room (Dkt. 56, 151-152).
Jane Doe 6 allegedly was assaulted at an off-campus residence after leaving a bar (Dkt. 56, 177-78).
May 2009 Jane Doe 7 allegedly was assaulted in Austin, Texas after a party (Dkt. 56, 192; Dkt. 62, Exh. A).
April 2014 Jane Doe 1 allegedly was assaulted in a university-owned apartment (Dkt. 56, 54).
Jane Doe 3 allegedly was assaulted in a residence hall (Dkt. 56, 105).
Jane Doe 4 allegedly was assaulted (Dkt. 56, 124). The alleged assault was in an off-campus residence not affiliated with Baylor.
November 2014 Jane Doe 9 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 235).
March 2015 Jane Doe 8 allegedly assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 211).
February 2016 Jane Doe 10 allegedly was assaulted in an off-campus residence (Dkt. 56, 254).
Thanks for the detail. So if she started in November 2014, it would be 3 that occurred after her start date (Janes 8, 9, and 10). I appreciate the clarification that she'd had contact with 8.
Why would she have contact with at least two women who were allegedly assaulted more than 5 years before she even started at Baylor? Strange.
Malbec said:
Why would she have contact with at least two women who were allegedly assaulted more than 5 years before she even started at Baylor? Strange.
Good question to which there's likely many reasons.
Malbec said:
Why would she have contact with at least two women who were allegedly assaulted more than 5 years before she even started at Baylor? Strange.
A number of possible reasons come to mind. Maybe they reached out to the alleged victims for some reason. The alleged assailants could have still been on campus at that time. The victims might still have been on campus.
Ian's deposition included a reference to PC requesting info or disposition of a complaint from a year before her start. It has been a few weeks since I skimmed this but seemed like the response was that the complaint was open with littke to no action.
I made a note on this when I read it. I will be back in my office later today and will dig out the page number.
I made a note on this when I read it. I will be back in my office later today and will dig out the page number.
Featured Stories
See All
In-Depth Preview: Baylor Is Set To Host the First Official Visits for the 2025 Class
by Grayson Grundhoefer
Program Reset: Post-Spring Attrition, Transfers & Recruiting
by Colt Barber
Jeremy Roach: Scouting Baylor's Next Point Guard
by Kendall Kaut
Emptying the Notebook: Schobel and Brown Decommit, Whatley is a Bear
by Grayson Grundhoefer