He got railroaded at Cal. The reporter lied. She willingly participated in flirtation over 900 texts, and his attorney provided the text history to prove it.
Sure, I shouldn't have mentioned his side, I should have instead just let everyone pile on that he is a scumbag and molester that was fired from Cal for his crimes (Didn't happen here, but this forum seems to have fallen back asleep. Check the MWCBoard thread to see whatI mean). The truth is somewhere between those extremes, and I don't feel a bit bad for presenting his side of the story.I don’t know whether he was “railroaded” or not, but from your response, I’d have to say, neither do you.
You’re quoting, word-for-word, his lawyers response. There must be another side to the story, but we’re not getting it, as his accuser has remained anonymous. But there was apparently enough for the university to have been prepared to terminate his contract, had he not resigned just as it was about to be made official.
I’m not taking her side. I’m just not taking his either, without all of the facts…
Sure, I shouldn't have mentioned his side
As to his proof of innocence, I have a question. If, as she says, these texts exonerate her client, why are they only being brought up at this late date, after a seven-month probe, when the coach was about to be fired? If they are so damning to the plaintiff, wouldn’t they be the very first thing introduced, thus shutting down the inquiry before it even started?
Tark - seems to me that you have already joined the witch hunt that says he is guilty because someone said he is who is not even willing to come forward. I bet all of those Duke players from the lacrosse team would have been happy if you were around for them also.
Just suppose, for one second, that what she claims is true. Do you think it’s fair that she continue to be victimized over and over again? Would you really want it to be so public were it your sister/wife/mother…?