Chuckroast said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

Remember when the handful of regents being sued threw out the "50" number (of sexual assaults) in the lawsuit filed by CAB? Up until that point, the narrative was bad enough but not nearly at that level. The BOR had already destroyed CAB, his coaching staff, and a few other select individuals. These new charges basically challenged the character of the football team at large.

While that handful of regents shouldn't taint the entire BOR per se, it should be clear that a select group of the regents will employ any tactic to save themselves regardless of what it does to the reputation of the school, the team, and anyone else. I think they looked upon the rumors running rampant (that they helped to create) as very fortunate for themselves.

The BOR as a whole apparently ceded control of the message to a handful of regents that botched it up royally. Some BOR went on record as dissenters to this whole fiasco . . . I feel bad for them.

---

I don't feel bad for any Regent. If A Regent doesn't want to do his or her job (including being a voice as to "the message" and hands their duties to other one's by proxie, they are responsible for the actions of who they handed their duties to even if they ended up being corrupt. Of course now some will claim they didn't agree. But when it counted I heard of no Regents raising hell saying wait hold on this is idiotic.

Keyser Soze said:

---

There is a real chicken / egg argument here

Would any of that have ever been released without the "Bring Briles Back" movement, Briles saying "I don't know why I was fired", Cannon calling him a scapegoat, #CAB shirts being sold at home games?

Then the move to sue the people you knew had the goods on you.

---

Then maybe they should have told Briles and his lawyer why he was fired?

NoBSU said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ashley Hodge said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

Remember when the handful of regents being sued threw out the "50" number (of sexual assaults) in the lawsuit filed by CAB? Up until that point, the narrative was bad enough but not nearly at that level. The BOR had already destroyed CAB, his coaching staff, and a few other select individuals. These new charges basically challenged the character of the football team at large.

While that handful of regents shouldn't taint the entire BOR per se, it should be clear that a select group of the regents will employ any tactic to save themselves regardless of what it does to the reputation of the school, the team, and anyone else. I think they looked upon the rumors running rampant (that they helped to create) as very fortunate for themselves.

The BOR as a whole apparently ceded control of the message to a handful of regents that botched it up royally. Some BOR went on record as dissenters to this whole fiasco . . . I feel bad for them.

---

it is easy to confuse accusations with so many numbers being thrown around. But in the sake of accuracy, the board of regents claimed 19 sexual assaults involving 17 players.

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/ac/bacc361a-e9b5-11e6-ad87-5fd2d6e674d8/5893e6dfbdcf3.pdf.pdf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 50 number came from the plaintiff lawsuit and for all we know that number was pulled out of thin air to grab headlines. No factual information has ever been given to substantiate that number.

---

Unfortunately....that lofty number is the one the general public was left with as being gospel.

Has that case already been settled?

---

How can we expect the general public to get it right when our own alumni and supporters can't get straight?

As Ashley posted, "The 50 number came from the plaintiff lawsuit and for all we know that number was pulled out of thin air to grab headlines. No factual information has ever been given to substantiate that number."

I realize that you get it now, ChuckRoast, but to Mike and the others:

THE 50 NUMBER DID NOT COME FROM REGENTS!!!

---

If I'm not mistaken though, I believe the 19/17/4 were new revelations that didn't come from the PH findings of fact. I got those numbers confused with the bigger number later, but the point remains that these select regents were willing to throw out some very large numbers that disparaged the University and the team to protect themselves.

PartyBear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Timbear said:

---

That's what I'll never understand. Our brave BOR Never stood up for the vast majority of players who were good citizens, thereby standing up for Baylor. Why couldn't they say "every basket has a few bad apples, but by and large our players are fine young men, and while we want to get to the truth about these very serious allegations, we will defend vigorously the reputation and character of our young men".

---

Let's not forget that they wouldn't stand up for the ladies as well when allegations were made about the group that ushers recruits around.

---

Remember when the handful of regents being sued threw out the "50" number (of sexual assaults) in the lawsuit filed by CAB? Up until that point, the narrative was bad enough but not nearly at that level. The BOR had already destroyed CAB, his coaching staff, and a few other select individuals. These new charges basically challenged the character of the football team at large.

While that handful of regents shouldn't taint the entire BOR per se, it should be clear that a select group of the regents will employ any tactic to save themselves regardless of what it does to the reputation of the school, the team, and anyone else. I think they looked upon the rumors running rampant (that they helped to create) as very fortunate for themselves.

The BOR as a whole apparently ceded control of the message to a handful of regents that botched it up royally. Some BOR went on record as dissenters to this whole fiasco . . . I feel bad for them.

---

I don't feel bad for any Regent. If A Regent doesn't want to do his or her job (including being a voice as to "the message" and hands their duties to other one's by proxie, they are responsible for the actions of who they handed their duties to even if they ended up being corrupt. Of course now some will claim they didn't agree. But when it counted I heard of no Regents raising hell saying wait hold on this is idiotic.

---

I probably need to clarify I do not feel bad for the regents that ceded control and passively went along with the decisions and narrative created by the few.

I feel bad for the regents that voted against the decisions that were made and that were simply outvoted.

Ashley Hodge said:

---

The WSJ article was a PR firm advised ploy to "steal Patty Crawford's thunder". She was going on 60 minutes to throw out the 19/17 numbers. The powers that be felt it wise to put those numbers out there first. Maybe that led 60 minutes to put it on 60 minutes on showtime versus 60 minutes where the audience is at least 10 times larger.

---

It only worked to further protect the BOR. The WSJ has an immense following, so they clearly wanted to eliminate Crawford's surprise if that was in fact their motive.

Still, the underlying purpose would be the same - it was to protect themselves. They were basically saying . . . it was the thug football players and their enabling coaching staff, of which we had no direct oversight, that are responsible for this University scandal, and we are just here to clean it up.

Chuckroast said:

---

Ashley Hodge said:

---

The WSJ article was a PR firm advised ploy to "steal Patty Crawford's thunder". She was going on 60 minutes to throw out the 19/17 numbers. The powers that be felt it wise to put those numbers out there first. Maybe that led 60 minutes to put it on 60 minutes on showtime versus 60 minutes where the audience is at least 10 times larger.

---

It only worked to further protect the BOR. The WSJ has an immense following, so they clearly wanted to eliminate Crawford's surprise if that was in fact their motive.

Still, the underlying purpose would be the same it was to protect themselves. They were basically saying it was the thug football players and their enabling coaching staff of which we had no direct oversight that are responsible for this University scandal, and we are just here to clean it up.

---

That's what they say to the WSJ .
Anyone can say anything to a reporter.
Depositions under oath will be another matter
TDL

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

REX said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Ashley Hodge said:

---

The WSJ article was a PR firm advised ploy to "steal Patty Crawford's thunder". She was going on 60 minutes to throw out the 19/17 numbers. The powers that be felt it wise to put those numbers out there first. Maybe that led 60 minutes to put it on 60 minutes on showtime versus 60 minutes where the audience is at least 10 times larger.

---

It only worked to further protect the BOR. The WSJ has an immense following, so they clearly wanted to eliminate Crawford's surprise if that was in fact their motive.

Still, the underlying purpose would be the same it was to protect themselves. They were basically saying it was the thug football players and their enabling coaching staff of which we had no direct oversight that are responsible for this University scandal, and we are just here to clean it up.

---

That's what they say to the WSJ .
Anyone can say anything to a reporter.
Depositions under oath will be another matter
TDL

---

Very true. Statements made under oath should trump any spin that has been put out on these issues.

Ashley Hodge said:

---

The WSJ article was a PR firm advised ploy to "steal Patty Crawford's thunder". She was going on 60 minutes to throw out the 19/17 numbers. The powers that be felt it wise to put those numbers out there first. Maybe that led 60 minutes to put it on 60 minutes on showtime versus 60 minutes where the audience is at least 10 times larger.

---

Whatever became of Patty Crawford? Didn't she sue Baylor?

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

Chuckroast said:

---

REX said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Ashley Hodge said:

---

The WSJ article was a PR firm advised ploy to "steal Patty Crawford's thunder". She was going on 60 minutes to throw out the 19/17 numbers. The powers that be felt it wise to put those numbers out there first. Maybe that led 60 minutes to put it on 60 minutes on showtime versus 60 minutes where the audience is at least 10 times larger.

---

It only worked to further protect the BOR. The WSJ has an immense following, so they clearly wanted to eliminate Crawford's surprise if that was in fact their motive.

Still, the underlying purpose would be the same it was to protect themselves. They were basically saying it was the thug football players and their enabling coaching staff of which we had no direct oversight that are responsible for this University scandal, and we are just here to clean it up.

---

That's what they say to the WSJ .
Anyone can say anything to a reporter.
Depositions under oath will be another matter
TDL

---

Very true. Statements made under oath should trump any spin that has been put out on these issues.

---

Agreed!

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

Armstead Chatman are the same girl -I believe that one is settled

This is extremely drunk girl - (or another one)

Keyser Soze said:

---

Armstead Chatman are the same girl -I believe that one is settled

This is extremely drunk girl - (or another one)

---

Just trying to count up....so then some of the Janes were not athletics related or not sexual assault but domestic assault
TE 3
SU 1
Volleyball 1
Locked closet 1

Autry/Faulk girl is one of the Jane Doe plaintiffs.
One other Jane Doe plaintiff alleges a SA by a football player.

All the other SA cases have settled.

I can just about get there, but a few of the cases are not very high profile and since they are allegations I see no need to discuss names unless already widely known already.

Keyser Soze said:

---

I can just about get there, but a few of the cases are not very high profile and since they are allegations I see no need to discuss names unless already widely known already.

---

I think we're way off on the count and athletics involvement based on the names we know...I'll read the suit in more detail later, but Does 5 and 6 were assaulted in 2005 and 2007, respectively, with Doe 7 assaulted in 2009 by 2 students....according to my cursory reading of the suit.

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Thanks for the information. I'm just trying to get a sense of what's outstanding, some of the dates, etc. Doing some analytical assessment (I know; not my strong suit.) I know that Hernandez settled, but that include the T9 issues?

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Thanks for the information. I'm just trying to get a sense of what's outstanding, some of the dates, etc. Doing some analytical assessment (I know; not my strong suit.) I know that Hernandez settled, but that include the T9 issues?

---

Yes, Hernandez's settlement included her Title IX claims.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Thanks for the information. I'm just trying to get a sense of what's outstanding, some of the dates, etc. Doing some analytical assessment (I know; not my strong suit.) I know that Hernandez settled, but that include the T9 issues?

---

I think it is safe to assume that if Baylor settled with a plaintiff, then it cleared all outstanding and known potential liabilities.

Yep - this is likely why Briles was dropped from the suit just before Baylor settled with Hernandez

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Thanks for the information. I'm just trying to get a sense of what's outstanding, some of the dates, etc. Doing some analytical assessment (I know; not my strong suit.) I know that Hernandez settled, but that include the T9 issues?

---

I think it is safe to assume that if Baylor settled with a plaintiff, then it cleared all outstanding and known potential liabilities.

---

I figured. I just didn't want to assume anything. I had to ask.

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Is this accurate? Actually seeing things in a table format may help others, like me, to analyze and process.

Jane Doe# Enroll Month/Yr Assault Month/Yr
Jane Doe 1 1/14 4/14 (alleges football player)
Jane Doe 2 8/04 9/04
Jane Doe 3 8/12 8/13 (female says sexually harassed and assaulted by dorm RA - does not say sexually assaulted;only assaulted)
Jane Doe 4 8/11 4/14
Jane Doe 5 8/05 11/05
Jane Doe 6 8/05 2007? (Drugged)
Jane Doe 7 8/08 5/09 (2 alleged assaulters)
Jane Doe 8 8/12 3/15
Jane Doe 9 1/14 11/14 (alcohol)
Jane Doe 10 8/13 2/16

Baylor claimed no SAs from 2008-2011.

Jane Doe 11 2014 4/17 (alcohol involved, T9 office involved, appears he said-she said, no action resulted -suit appears to be she didn't like the result)

Only Jane Doe 1 (in this suit) alleges a football player.

I'll get to the Jane Does 12-15 suits perhaps today.

So my question(s)....What were T9 laws around 2005 timeframe such that those were included? Understanding that DOE guidance wasn't given until 2011, was the law any different in 2005?

Jane Doe #3 appears to be girl-on-girl due to language in the document, dorm, residence advisor, etc. Plus, Doe 3 says "sexual harassed and assaulted" whereas in other parts of the document the term "sexual assault" is very clear. Since Doe 3's alleges actions over the course of 2 years, was that just sexual harassment and not a series of physical sexual assaults?

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Is this accurate? Actually seeing things in a table format may help others, like me, to analyze and process.

Jane Doe# Enroll Month/Yr Assault Month/Yr
Jane Doe 1 1/14 4/14 (alleges football player)
Jane Doe 2 8/04 9/04
Jane Doe 3 8/12 8/13 (female says sexually harassed and assaulted by dorm RA - does not say sexually assaulted;only assaulted)
Jane Doe 4 8/11 4/14
Jane Doe 5 8/05 11/05
Jane Doe 6 8/05 2007? (Drugged)
Jane Doe 7 8/08 5/09 (2 alleged assaulters)
Jane Doe 8 8/12 3/15
Jane Doe 9 1/14 11/14 (alcohol)
Jane Doe 10 8/13 2/16

Baylor claimed no SAs from 2008-2011.

Jane Doe 11 2014 4/17 (alcohol involved, T9 office involved, appears he said-she said, no action resulted -suit appears to be she didn't like the result)

Only Jane Doe 1 (in this suit) alleges a football player.

I'll get to the Jane Does 12-15 suits perhaps today.

So my question(s)....What were T9 laws around 2005 timeframe such that those were included? Understanding that DOE guidance wasn't given until 2011, was the law any different in 2005?

Jane Doe #3 appears to be girl-on-girl due to language in the document, dorm, residence advisor, etc. Plus, Doe 3 says "sexual harassed and assaulted" whereas in other parts of the document the term "sexual assault" is very clear. Since Doe 3's alleges actions over the course of 2 years, was that just sexual harassment and not a series of physical sexual assaults?

---

This is not correct. The Clery report said none - this would be none on the physical campus. It would not include anything that occurred off campus. No idea if Clery reports are accurate, but very common to report zero on Clery then. Better awareness and Title IX infrastructure are making Clery reports go up - not intuitive, but this is good and in the right direction.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Is this accurate? Actually seeing things in a table format may help others, like me, to analyze and process.

Jane Doe# Enroll Month/Yr Assault Month/Yr
Jane Doe 1 1/14 4/14 (alleges football player)
Jane Doe 2 8/04 9/04
Jane Doe 3 8/12 8/13 (female says sexually harassed and assaulted by dorm RA - does not say sexually assaulted;only assaulted)
Jane Doe 4 8/11 4/14
Jane Doe 5 8/05 11/05
Jane Doe 6 8/05 2007? (Drugged)
Jane Doe 7 8/08 5/09 (2 alleged assaulters)
Jane Doe 8 8/12 3/15
Jane Doe 9 1/14 11/14 (alcohol)
Jane Doe 10 8/13 2/16

Baylor claimed no SAs from 2008-2011.

Jane Doe 11 2014 4/17 (alcohol involved, T9 office involved, appears he said-she said, no action resulted -suit appears to be she didn't like the result)

Only Jane Doe 1 (in this suit) alleges a football player.

I'll get to the Jane Does 12-15 suits perhaps today.

So my question(s)....What were T9 laws around 2005 timeframe such that those were included? Understanding that DOE guidance wasn't given until 2011, was the law any different in 2005?

Jane Doe #3 appears to be girl-on-girl due to language in the document, dorm, residence advisor, etc. Plus, Doe 3 says "sexual harassed and assaulted" whereas in other parts of the document the term "sexual assault" is very clear. Since Doe 3's alleges actions over the course of 2 years, was that just sexual harassment and not a series of physical sexual assaults?

---

#3 doesn't automatically have to be a girl on girl. If she lived in one of the residential communities like the honors college, north village, or others (this was before east village) there are both sexes living right next to each other in the "apartments" and the RA could be a different sex then the resident.

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Is this accurate? Actually seeing things in a table format may help others, like me, to analyze and process.

Jane Doe# Enroll Month/Yr Assault Month/Yr
Jane Doe 1 1/14 4/14 (alleges football player)
Jane Doe 2 8/04 9/04
Jane Doe 3 8/12 8/13 (female says sexually harassed and assaulted by dorm RA - does not say sexually assaulted;only assaulted)
Jane Doe 4 8/11 4/14
Jane Doe 5 8/05 11/05
Jane Doe 6 8/05 2007? (Drugged)
Jane Doe 7 8/08 5/09 (2 alleged assaulters)
Jane Doe 8 8/12 3/15
Jane Doe 9 1/14 11/14 (alcohol)
Jane Doe 10 8/13 2/16

Baylor claimed no SAs from 2008-2011.

Jane Doe 11 2014 4/17 (alcohol involved, T9 office involved, appears he said-she said, no action resulted -suit appears to be she didn't like the result)

Only Jane Doe 1 (in this suit) alleges a football player.

I'll get to the Jane Does 12-15 suits perhaps today.

So my question(s)....What were T9 laws around 2005 timeframe such that those were included? Understanding that DOE guidance wasn't given until 2011, was the law any different in 2005?

Jane Doe #3 appears to be girl-on-girl due to language in the document, dorm, residence advisor, etc. Plus, Doe 3 says "sexual harassed and assaulted" whereas in other parts of the document the term "sexual assault" is very clear. Since Doe 3's alleges actions over the course of 2 years, was that just sexual harassment and not a series of physical sexual assaults?

---

This is not correct. The Clery report said none - this would be none on the physical campus. It would not include anything that occurred off campus. No idea if Clery reports are accurate, but very common to report zero on Clery then. Better awareness and Title IX infrastructure are making Clery reports go up - not intuitive, but this is good and in the right direction.

---

The suit cites a Waco Trib article as to the source of the zero report. I haven't verified that link as of yet. Only Does 1, 3, and 5 claim their assaults occurred on campus. The other Does either specify off campus or do not specify. So yeah, the zero claim for 2008-2011 could be correct based on 1, 3, and 5's dates being outside of those years and the other Does being off campus.

Like I said, no idea that Clery is correct. People have looked at those zeros as some sort of smoking gun, but reporting zero was more the norm that the exception for all Universities.

I read on a different case that plaintiffs were making a T9 claim based on lack of notification by the school. If you have been to Baylor in the last few years there are T9 posters in the rest rooms all over campus informing people of their rights. I can not imagine the Pandora's box that would be open if those who never reported anything to anyone have a case.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Like I said, no idea that Clery is correct. People have looked at those zeros as some sort of smoking gun, but reporting zero was more the norm that the exception for all Universities.

I read on a different case that plaintiffs were making a T9 claim based on lack of notification by the school. If you have been to Baylor in the last few years there are T9 posters in the rest rooms all over campus informing people of their rights. I can not imagine the Pandora's box that would be open if those who never reported anything to anyone have a case.

---

Even the opposite also...it appears that Doe 11, who in her suit stated she knew of Baylor's T9 improvements, was a he said-she said case (with alcohol involved) in which the plaintiff just didn't like the T9 investigation result. Not having all the sordid details of that case, that appears to be so.

Keyser Soze said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Franko said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

57Bear said:

---

"The sexual-violence scandal at Baylor University that cost its celebrated football coach his job involved 17 women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 players, including four alleged gang rapes, since 2011, according to Baylor regents.
Baylor fired coach Art Briles in May for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad, but provided only a vague description of the alleged improprieties at the time. Legions of fans and donors rallied to his cause."

"By Brad Reagan, The Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 28, 2016 3:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

The 19/17/4 released by the bor cleverly lumped domestic assaults in with sexual assaults to yield a bigger number. The story quickly morphed into sexual assaults.

The bor also provided information which led the WSJ to state that Briles was fired for failing to deal with sexual-violence allegations involving his squad.

---

And that is a question the BOFR stills fails in responding....how many of those alleged assaults were sexual assaults vs. domestic assaults?

---

I am not a regent but from the timeline of that release:
Elliot: 4
SU: 1
TA: 1g
Volleyball: 1g
Extremely drunk girl in the locked apartment bedroom with friends that called the cops 1g
Subtotal 8
I am missing a gr
Subtotal 9
Am I missing some other solos?

Important point though that maybe six girls were simply beaten and not raped.

---

1 of Elliot's 4 was Hernandez; she's already settled up. Was Chatman the other?

---

I thought we were accounting for the 17 not the Dunnam count or settlement count?

TA/Chatmon were the extremely drunk girl in locked BR that I posted. Some that is a double count.

---

No. I'm trying to gauge for the suit of the 10 Jane Does since that one appears to be the remaining lawsuit. From my cursory read of it this afternoon, some of them were pre-Briles so may not be athletics related.

---

There are 3 remaining Jane Doe lawsuits. Jane Does 1-10, Jane Doe 11, and Jane Does 12-15. Jane Does 1 and 14 allege sexual assaults by football players. But they don't allege any wrong doing by anyone in the athletic department.

---

Is this accurate? Actually seeing things in a table format may help others, like me, to analyze and process.

Jane Doe# Enroll Month/Yr Assault Month/Yr
Jane Doe 1 1/14 4/14 (alleges football player)
Jane Doe 2 8/04 9/04
Jane Doe 3 8/12 8/13 (female says sexually harassed and assaulted by dorm RA - does not say sexually assaulted;only assaulted)
Jane Doe 4 8/11 4/14
Jane Doe 5 8/05 11/05
Jane Doe 6 8/05 2007? (Drugged)
Jane Doe 7 8/08 5/09 (2 alleged assaulters)
Jane Doe 8 8/12 3/15
Jane Doe 9 1/14 11/14 (alcohol)
Jane Doe 10 8/13 2/16

Baylor claimed no SAs from 2008-2011.

Jane Doe 11 2014 4/17 (alcohol involved, T9 office involved, appears he said-she said, no action resulted -suit appears to be she didn't like the result)

Only Jane Doe 1 (in this suit) alleges a football player.

I'll get to the Jane Does 12-15 suits perhaps today.

So my question(s)....What were T9 laws around 2005 timeframe such that those were included? Understanding that DOE guidance wasn't given until 2011, was the law any different in 2005?

Jane Doe #3 appears to be girl-on-girl due to language in the document, dorm, residence advisor, etc. Plus, Doe 3 says "sexual harassed and assaulted" whereas in other parts of the document the term "sexual assault" is very clear. Since Doe 3's alleges actions over the course of 2 years, was that just sexual harassment and not a series of physical sexual assaults?

---

This is not correct. The Clery report said none - this would be none on the physical campus. It would not include anything that occurred off campus. No idea if Clery reports are accurate, but very common to report zero on Clery then. Better awareness and Title IX infrastructure are making Clery reports go up - not intuitive, but this is good and in the right direction.

---

Each school sets its Clery reporting geography. Supposed to cover school property (campus, offices, plus I would think Baylor owned apartments, etc.) and official school events away from campus (some think a sanctioned frat party applies).

T9 is continuing the right to education. So if something happened with another student off-campus, then the complaint and protection is for the possible future interaction on campus. My made-up grouping for this is for the front end of T9. Intake of complaint, separate schedules, possibly counseling, and possible temporary housing solution. Kansas State is fighting this I believe. They were denying the T9 process if the assault happened off their campus.

This bump is for you, Mr. Hodge!