Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment

Peyton Manning sexually assaulted a woman in college.

<< < (5/6) > >>

Chamillitary Click:
Criminal.

Shallow:

--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on February 16, 2016, 02:28:37 PM ---Criminal.

--- End quote ---

Read that and dispute it.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/on-peyton-manning-and-dumb-people-online-021616


I don't care if it's Fox. Just read it and tell me where gets out of line.

M Dogg™:

--- Quote from: Shallow on February 16, 2016, 01:54:17 PM ---I'm not hero worshipping shit. Fuck Manning. This is about you and people like you that want to believe one side over the other. I refuse to believe this woman was fired from a University because of one paragraph in one book where she went unnamed. And I refuse to take a Plaintiff's allegation sheet as a judgment or ruling on the case. Maybe she is right because if someone accused me of sitting on her face with my balls and I didn't I'd be taking heads off in court.

But that doesn't mean he's guilty. Her complaint in 2001 was different than 96. None of her witnesses were cross examined by the defense. It's perfectly logical to think given the time in Manning's career it was better to avoid a public trial and settle. Whatever our guts tell us don't mean shit. The law is the law. You follow it or not. But you can't convict if you ignore it.

And as for asking for it. Yes Peyton was asking for it when he put anything about it in his book after the settlement. But now it's in the open. I'm not sure what he can do now legally but I'd take action against  King and the paper if I were innocent.

--- End quote ---

This explains why you don't read my post. I said, in a university setting, you don't have to prove as much as a criminal trail. All you have to prove is that it likely happened, which this likely happened. In a criminal case, you better have the video evidence before you lock someone away. That's your disconnect with what I'm saying. I'm admitting there is no 100% way of knowing what really happened. But everything I've read on this, and even stuff you post points to more than likely Manning really messed up and put his junk on her face. That's assault. Interviews with the witnesses looks like it could have had enough eye witnesses to bring him to trail, but his dad helped him settle out of court.

And her being fired, even if there's more, this was what put everything over the edge and now she lost her job. And that's wrong. She had every right to sue the UofT and get the money she got. It has nothing to do with gold digging and everything to do with Manning costing her her livelihood. Everything played out the way it should have based on the evidence. So why is it being brought up? Because Robert Silverman brought it up before Shaun King, and used this old case to prove Manning isn't an innocent person.... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/01/peyton-s-manning-s-forgotten-sex-scandal.html

This will not put Manning in jail, you can't be charged twice for the same crime. But this will expose the real Manning to the people. You maybe one of these men who would think it's okay to assault women. I'm not  sure.

Shallow:
He wasnt charged the first time with assault. What charged two times? And I hope they do charge so that all these witnesses can testify and see if anyone actually says he touched with his ass and balls. I hope they put her on the stand and ask her why she signed a sworn testimony in 96 making no mention of any touching then changed the story in 03 yo include touching.

If he did it he should be criminally punished but he should be socially punished based on one sided advocacy.

M Dogg™:

--- Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2016, 04:36:56 AM ---He wasnt charged the first time with assault. What charged two times? And I hope they do charge so that all these witnesses can testify and see if anyone actually says he touched with his ass and balls. I hope they put her on the stand and ask her why she signed a sworn testimony in 96 making no mention of any touching then changed the story in 03 yo include touching.

If he did it he should be criminally punished but he should be socially punished based on one sided advocacy.

--- End quote ---

A lot it's sealed. We know what we know from what people have reported. Who knows what was reported in 1996. But the law is the law, and you can't go to trail twice for the same crime or allegation. Most of 1996 seems to focus on more than Manning, that's not changing the story. In 2003 the focus was on Manning because he broke the agreement with his book, therefore the focus of that case was more on the Manning incident. Big difference.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page