Sweeping Sexual Assault Suit Filed Against UT

[AM64]

Just received an email from Vincent Carilli with the following message and links:



First Update

Second Update

We should all absolutely hate reports such as these - that they ridiculously inflate numbers by lumping together issues regardless of significance. "Sexual harassment" to those who've had endless corporate and military training sessions can mean an overheard off color joke having absolutely nothing to do with the person who is offended. Yet the report fails to distinguish between those events and a forceable rape. This kind of stupidity does nothing positive because it fails in the broadest sense to convey any useful information, but it is inflammatory in the hands of anyone with malicious intent toward the school. Simple incompetence and political correctness at it's best. If the university is going to participate in public self-flagellation, then it's going to be so much more difficult to claim innocence.

 

[Volnukem]

We should all absolutely hate reports such as these - that they ridiculously inflate numbers by lumping together issues regardless of significance. "Sexual harassment" to those who've had endless corporate and military training sessions can mean an overheard off color joke having absolutely nothing to do with the person who is offended. Yet the report fails to distinguish between those events and a forceable rape. This kind of stupidity does nothing positive because it fails in the broadest sense to convey any useful information, but it is inflammatory in the hands of anyone with malicious intent toward the school. Simple incompetence and political correctness at it's best. If the university is going to participate in public self-flagellation, then it's going to be so much more difficult to claim innocence.

I think you are the first person to click the links and look at the numbers on this. Of the 38 cases last year, only 17 respondents were identified. 17 of the 21 that were not identified was by the complainant's choice. Of the 17 that were identified, the complainant requested the University not pursue. That leaves 9 actual hearings, where 5 were found responsible, 3 exonerated based on lack of evidence, and 1 still under way.

 

[State of the Vols]

Link?

Read the Tennessean article - right there in black and white. In fact, Ryan Robinson, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Communications is quoted as essentially saying that Butch didn't mean to say what he actually did say. You know - the old semantics thing, kinda like the meaning of "is". Not saying any of this has anything to do with the allegations of the lawsuit, but I stuck by Pearl until he made fools out of us all and I intend to be a bit more cautious this time until it all comes out in the wash.

 

[ntxVOL]

Read the Tennessean article - right there in black and white. In fact, Ryan Robinson, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Communications is quoted as essentially saying that Butch didn't mean to say what he actually did say. You know - the old semantics thing, kinda like the meaning of "is". Not saying any of this has anything to do with the allegations of the lawsuit, but I stuck by Pearl until he made fools out of us all and I intend to be a bit more cautious this time until it all comes out in the wash.

Stopped reading there.

 

[AM64]

Eight days after the start of the investigation, Butch stated publicly that he had "no dialogue at all" with either Johnson or Williams regarding the matter. His phone records show otherwise. You question whose honesty??? :ermm:

The Tennessean has acted as a spokesman for the plaintiffs in the Title IX lawsuit, but it has never openly disclosed the extent of the cooperation with the plaintiffs lawyers, and it has never stated who initiates the "news bulletins" that they print. The stories treat the plaintiffs charges a fact, and anything favoring the university as fraudulent or at best questionable. That in itself poses the question of journalistic integrity. Further, the Tennessean serves as a conduit to other "news" organizations so that the stories are more widely distributed.

One favorite of news organizations in biasing stories is that of context - printing part of a response without qualifiers. Most of us here have little confidence that "no dialogue at all" doesn't have a qualifier like "regarding ...". The simple fact is that the press have privileges that we don't because they are supposed to report accurately - accurately means completely - not favoring one side of a controversy - doing that as clearly stated opinion is fine. They have access because a source cannot possibly answer to thousands or millions asking for information. If they abuse that right, then there is no good reason to have or to offer protections to the press.

 

[AM64]

I think you are the first person to click the links and look at the numbers on this. Of the 38 cases last year, only 17 respondents were identified. 17 of the 21 that were not identified was by the complainant's choice. Of the 17 that were identified, the complainant requested the University not pursue. That leaves 9 actual hearings, where 5 were found responsible, 3 exonerated based on lack of evidence, and 1 still under way.

It does make a difference when you look at the numbers; I suppose as an engineer, I'm kinda funny about that. When the accusers report but basically protect 17 of the 38, it sure makes it look like the real number to report should be a lot closer to 21 than 38 right off the bat.

The bigger problem with this kind of report is that of political correctness - as people become more easily offended, the numbers can continue to rise without a corresponding increase in "bad" behavior. Apparently "If mommy is a commie, you got to turn her in" is back again with a vengeance.

 

[Volsfaninva917]

Read the Tennessean article - right there in black and white. In fact, Ryan Robinson, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Communications is quoted as essentially saying that Butch didn't mean to say what he actually did say. You know - the old semantics thing, kinda like the meaning of "is". Not saying any of this has anything to do with the allegations of the lawsuit, but I stuck by Pearl until he made fools out of us all and I intend to be a bit more cautious this time until it all comes out in the wash.

Are you the same guy that called basilio today saying they had recorded video of jones calling bowles? And yes thats what the guy really said

 

[volfan102455]

Eight days after the start of the investigation, Butch stated publicly that he had "no dialogue at all" with either Johnson or Williams regarding the matter. His phone records show otherwise. You question whose honesty??? :ermm:

You do realize that reporters sometimes change words and take things out of context to present the story they want to present? He did not say he had "no dialogue at all" with them at all but that he had not maintained a dialogue with them. You have to put the question he was asked with the answer he gave. Obviously that did not fit the agenda the reporter wanted so the reporter took the reply out of context of the question because if they did otherwise - there would be nothing to tell.

 

[Boca Vol]

Isn't she? I mean, the plaintiffs are generally not named, but I assumed from the inclusion of the 1996 incident that she is one of the women rounded up by this lawyer.

Don't believe she is. That was the general consensus around here but the incident was simply brought up to show this "culture of rape" has been going on.

 

[Kristy*]

Read the Tennessean article - right there in black and white. In fact, Ryan Robinson, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Communications is quoted as essentially saying that Butch didn't mean to say what he actually did say. You know - the old semantics thing, kinda like the meaning of "is". Not saying any of this has anything to do with the allegations of the lawsuit, but I stuck by Pearl until he made fools out of us all and I intend to be a bit more cautious this time until it all comes out in the wash.

The Tennessean has an agenda. They are trying to paint Jones and the University in the worst possible light. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they are getting money under the table for their slanderous, biased BS. Otherwise, I just can't fathom a reason they are so anti-UT and why they can't print facts without innuendo.

Jones was asked if he had maintained any communication with Johnson and Williams. They didn't ask when that communication was cut off. At that time - more than a week later - Jones said he was not in contact. Did the Tennessean dispute that statement with phone records? - No. They just suggested he lied by misleading quotes without providing the actual question and with throwing in some false information by adding, "about the investigation."

It would be awesome if UT were busy making a case to sue the Tennessean. Wishful thinking. . .

 

[bigdaddy]

Stopped reading there.

It's also in today's News Sent

 

[Volsfaninva917]

It's also in today's News Sent

Just linking the Tennessean story is all I could find

 

[bigdaddy]

Just linking the Tennessean story is all I could find

I've got the actual paper and its front page, but yes it appears to be the Tennessean story.

 

[BigorangeBoy]

Remember, the KNS was recently sold to the parent company that also owns the Tennessean, AND perhaps the Comical Appeal

 

[Remy]

The Tennessean has acted as a spokesman for the plaintiffs in the Title IX lawsuit, but it has never openly disclosed the extent of the cooperation with the plaintiffs lawyers, and it has never stated who initiates the "news bulletins" that they print. The stories treat the plaintiffs charges a fact, and anything favoring the university as fraudulent or at best questionable. That in itself poses the question of journalistic integrity. Further, the Tennessean serves as a conduit to other "news" organizations so that the stories are more widely distributed.

One favorite of news organizations in biasing stories is that of context - printing part of a response without qualifiers. Most of us here have little confidence that "no dialogue at all" doesn't have a qualifier like "regarding ...". The simple fact is that the press have privileges that we don't because they are supposed to report accurately - accurately means completely - not favoring one side of a controversy - doing that as clearly stated opinion is fine. They have access because a source cannot possibly answer to thousands or millions asking for information. If they abuse that right, then there is no good reason to have or to offer protections to the press.

Agreed, The Tennessean's recent articles are now reduced to the coulda shoulda woulda variety, pure speculation. The unverified supposed conversation between KPD and CBJ is reported as "could be a violation of the law" in a paper not on their editorial page. A newspaper supposedly reporting facts in their news stories. Could a pig fly? Of course, strap a jet engine on a pig's axx and it will at least fly across your backyard if not further. This is the sort of speculative wonderment Wadwhani and her editors need you to conclude with them.

 

[Gandalf]

Agreed, The Tennessean's recent articles are now reduced to the coulda shoulda woulda variety, pure speculation. The unverified supposed conversation between KPD and CBJ is reported as "could be a violation of the law" in a paper not on their editorial page. A newspaper supposedly reporting facts in their news stories. Could a pig fly? Of course, strap a jet engine on a pig's axx and it will at least fly across your backyard if not further. This is the sort of speculative wonderment Wadwhani and her editors need you to conclude with them.

Wonder if that pig's name is Wadwhani? :thumbsup:

 

[AM64]

Agreed, The Tennessean's recent articles are now reduced to the coulda shoulda woulda variety, pure speculation. The unverified supposed conversation between KPD and CBJ is reported as "could be a violation of the law" in a paper not on their editorial page. A newspaper supposedly reporting facts in their news stories. Could a pig fly? Of course, strap a jet engine on a pig's axx and it will at least fly across your backyard if not further. This is the sort of speculative wonderment Wadwhani and her editors need you to conclude with them.

You fueled my thoughts! Anita + jet engine ... :naughty:

 

[bigdaddy]

Ok so the article states Butch told Johnson 4 hrs before the police showed up at the scene. I can see how this practice could interfere with an investigation. But this is a police issue, not Butch Jones. Unless he was told not to tell his players. So what's the big deal again?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I agree.

The accused has the same responsibility of conducting themselves in a certain way.

If the plan is get them drunk so they will have sex, the person that makes that plan is a scum bag.

Yeah, ima scumbag.

 

[UT-Rex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM64 View Post
I question the Tennessean's honesty. No doubts about the motives.

Eight days after the start of the investigation, Butch stated publicly that he had "no dialogue at all" with either Johnson or Williams regarding the matter. His phone records show otherwise. You question whose honesty??? :ermm:

State of -- as I recall, early that morning/ at about 8:20a, the pol dept called the HC/ Jones as a matter of long-standing courtesy, to inform HC about certain events. While the phone records also show HC then called the accused player(s, 1 or 2) to check on him (as part of HC responsibility), the conversation was not recorded that I know of and the time of day that the call was made (the record) in no way tells you that HC spoke about things (ie, the investigation) that he was instructed/ prohibited from speaking about (but, tbd I suppose, as you think this is something big).

Remember, that the plaintiff + key witness were required by the Courts to do something that they did not/could not fulfill, which was to maintain their own phone record evidence, which they eventually lost or sold (even after the State implied it would assist in maintaining this evidence).

Also remember, that in its recent Mar 6 2016 article (and without really clarifying), the tennenessean confirmed/reported 2 seemingly conflicting accounts about another key plaintiff witness:

1) "(when another Player/not the accused approached and saw her crying in the parking lot) the female student told (Player) she had just been (assaulted) by two of his (player's) teammates. (Player then) drove her home...."

as compared to this,

2) "(same Player as above also) told the Knoxville News Sentinel in February 2015 that he gave the woman a ride home on the night of the alleged incident, but that she did not mention she had been (assaulted)."

Also, the tennenessean also confirmed "he (the Player) denied that he had been assaulted (ie, denied he was punched in the lunchroom, whereas he made another conflicted statement claiming he HAD been punched).

Let me know where I'm mistaken about these reports.

 

[Iam4utalways]

Yeah, ima scumbag.

At least your proud of it.

 

[I40flyer]

I agree.

The accused has the same responsibility of conducting themselves in a certain way.

If the plan is get them drunk so they will have sex, the person that makes that plan is a scum bag.

In the Recent Vandy Rape case (guilty) based on the I had a drink and blacked out, it sounds as if there may have been some "knock out drugs involved", if so, this demonstrates a clear intention to rape. Had to obtain the drugs before the party etc., in short, it was pre-planned.

 

[Remy]

Ok so the article states Butch told Johnson 4 hrs before the police showed up at the scene. I can see how this practice could interfere with an investigation. But this is a police issue, not Butch Jones. Unless he was told not to tell his players. So what's the big deal again?

EXACTLY! They are painting the picture CBJ was somehow wrong or in violation of the law for simply answering
his phone.

 

[onevol74]

That's a pretty ridiculous idea


:lol: good grief you guys are going a little over the top tonight

Judgmental and biased.

 

[VolsRule]

When this case gets cleared up, butch needs to sue the Tennessean for big money!