The suit includes Butch Jones as a defendant and I have seen a number of articles that seem to indicate that Butch Jones has been remiss in this situation, but all of the the players who were accused of these acts have been removed from the team shortly after the accusation. I haven't found it now, but I also remember reading an article, a number of months ago, that Jones had a woman speaker talk to the team about sexual harassment/assault, which included her asking the team what they would think if something of this nature happened to their mother or sister, to convince them to not commit such action. Jones has no authority to investigate such activity, and has no control over students other than as regards their participation on the football team. As one lawyer mentioned on this forum, they can name anyone they want to in a civil suit, and that person has to then show that they did nothing wrong. I don't see how they can prove football players get special preference when they are removed from the team when the accusation becomes known. As far as their student activities and standings are concerned, I guess someone will have to compare football players to all other students charged with sexual assault to see if there is a significant difference in treatment.
I agree if there is a problem at Tennessee, the University needs to address it, but it seems to me that Coach Jones has done everything within his power as regards football players. I also find it interesting to note that there are 6 women involved in this suit, but there were only 2 that pressed charges, one of those was dismissed for lack of evidence and the other, of course, is still pending. If I knew someone who committed a crime against me, I would press charges. Since only two pressed charges, and one was dismissed, under these circumstances this just appears to be a money grab by most of the participants in this suit. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that civil suits are far easier to win than criminal suits as you do not have to prove the defendant guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, just show that there may be some possibility that the act was committed and this often results in the accuser winning the suit. In view of this, the defendant often determines that it is cheaper to settle than fight the case, so this may be the intent. Perhaps the lawyers in the forum can correct me if this is not correct.
