Has the statute of limitations run out for Peyton's sexual assault?

[theknight307]

I've got no dog in the Manning fight.

Roofies are clearly another level of assault, since no consent is even conceivably possible.

But carry on with your sidebar.

Oh, so of course Clintons sexual assaults were acceptable since he did not use roofies?

Did Manning use roofies?

Oh cool. Perfectly acceptable. Please stop me if I am not following your logic.

Cause it sure appears as though in your world clinton simply could do no wrong.

Either way, there certainly appears to be a clear double standard with how clinton is treated as opposed to how Cosby is treated by the types I mentioned.

I am just wondering if anyone knows Shaun kings stance is on that. Considering how this situation is a race thing in his book.

 

[cdumler7]

Then how am I supposed to hear both sides? Hers seems pretty damning.

So the reason you haven't heard Manning's side of the story is his side hasn't actually released their documents from the court case.

 

[Gatorchip]

So the reason you haven't heard Manning's side of the story is his side hasn't actually released their documents from the court case.

So why are people telling us to see both sides of the story if Manning hid his?

I did notice that the court documents had several pages redacted at the request of Manning's defense. Are we to assume that nothing was there that could be further damning?

What about the letter by the witness for the second incident? how could that be her doing?

 

[Davis_Mike]

Just for clarity, nothing the race-hustler published in his articled were proven facts. They were all one sided accusations or assertions.

It was a clear as day hit piece that had zero reason to be published decades after the alleged incident.

Paying off an accuser does not equal guilt.

Agenda driven haters who want to presume guilt based on a 74-page document filed 13 years ago in court and published in full on Saturday, don’t want to hear that the paperwork isn’t a court order or a decision or anything other than a lawyer presenting the facts in a one-sided way aimed at helping the lawyer’s client win the case.

As explained by Michael McCann of SI.com, the defamation lawsuit filed in 2002 by Naughright does not expressly refer to the allegation that Manning placed his “gluteus maximus, the rectum, the testicles, and the area in between the testicles” of Naughright’s face, instead referring generally to the incident as “not merely mooning” and alleging that he had engaged in an additional act “of such an egregious nature as to be beyond the pale.” McCann seems to suggest that the contents of the complaint and the specifics of the allegation provided through testimony are inconsistent. The better explanation is that they’re not inconsistent, especially since most states don’t require details to be provided in the first document outlining a plaintiff’s claims against a defendant.

 

[Gatorchip]

Well because they settled all of this was actually supposed to not be viewed by the public. Those papers that were released if anybody found out who released them that person is looking at some major jail time. It is why she was able to sue Manning when he wrote about the situation in his book and then later take him to court again when he spoke on it during an interview for ESPN. This whole situation has been settled and is supposed to be in the past. Both of them have moved on from the situation.

I won't even pretend to know the law, but I thought court documents were public records. Is that incorrect?

 

[Gatorchip]

Paying off an accuser does not equal guilt.
...

While true, the general public often see it that way. And considering Manning is an entertainer, the public opinion counts.

 

[cdumler7]

So why are people telling us to see both sides of the story if Manning hid his?

I did notice that the court documents had several pages redacted at the request of Manning's defense. Are we to assume that nothing was there that could be further damning?

What about the letter by the witness for the second incident? how could that be her doing?

Again have I said once that Manning didn't do something wrong in this situation? I think he did and he has fully admitted that he did. To the extent of what he did wrong I have no clue though and what all he has done. I don't pretend that players on my team are saints. I know there are plenty of bad guys in the locker room and Manning maybe is one of them. I just understand also that there are 2 sides to the story and so far we are hearing one of them. Also just google this lady and her history. She has a history of suing people any chance she gets so while I do think Manning is guilty I also think she blew this whole thing out of proportion seeing the opportunity to take advantage of a player about to make millions a couple of years plus having a family that had/has a ton of money even before he went to the NFL.

 

[Davis_Mike]

While true, the general public often see it that way. And considering Manning is an entertainer, the public opinion counts.

The general public are morons.

Court costs alone could end up costing more than a settlement.

 

[johnson]

There is no question on this. Even if it had been much more severe crimes, the statute of limitations would have run out a long time ago. That is why the thread title is so ridiculous.

Imagine this:
This "lady" goes into a police station today and says "Peyton Manning pulled down his pants and stuck his cornhole and taint in my face!!!"

Police Officer: "Really?!? Where did this happen?"

"Lady": "U of T! I was giving him a medical examination."

Police Officer: "Hmmmm......ok?? Are you sure you weren't giving him a physical? Or a shot? Or a prostate check?"

"Lady": "No! He sexually assaulted me! I want him arrested!"

Police Officer: "Ummmm.......ok. When did this happen?"

"Lady": 1996!

Police Officer: "20 years ago?!? Jesus!" (Rips paper out of pad, throws it away and stalks off).

The other really, really stupid part of this whole situation is referring to this as a "sexual assault". I really don't have a dog in this fight (ie: I don't really give a shit) but I see no indication whatsoever that Manning behaved in a sexual manner or had any intention of having any sort of sexual interaction with her. He apparently didn't like her at all and he, admitably being an immature moron, pulled down his pants and waved his ass near her. That might be illegal, but I would hardly define it as sexual assault. To top it all off, she was a medical source for the team so she probably saw ALL of the players in the buff at one point or another!!

Shaun King is an ass for even writing this crap. From a purely general point of view at best I think that it is sore grapes from a bitter Cam fan and at worst it is possibly racist ranting.

Well I think you lose on the "sexual assault" semantic argument when you put your unwelcome genitals on a woman's face. I won't pretend to know if Peyton had a sexual motivation for doing it, but if he did this, well, he put the issue on the table for people to talk about and if some people felt there was a sexual element to it...I'm not going to argue with them.

 

[cdumler7]

I won't even pretend to know the law, but I thought court documents were public records. Is that incorrect?

When things are settled out of court they can have things redacted to keep it from the public eye. Usually there is an agreement from both sides that they will refuse to talk about the situation beyond that moment. It is why she was able to sue him twice for talking and writing about it. This is why so many big businesses are willing to settle out of court because it keeps things out of the public eye.

 

[Gatorchip]

Again have I said once that Manning didn't do something wrong in this situation? I think he did and he has fully admitted that he did. To the extent of what he did wrong I have no clue though and what all he has done. I don't pretend that players on my team are saints. I know there are plenty of bad guys in the locker room and Manning maybe is one of them. I just understand also that there are 2 sides to the story and so far we are hearing one of them. Also just google this lady and her history. She has a history of suing people any chance she gets so while I do think Manning is guilty I also think she blew this whole thing out of proportion seeing the opportunity to take advantage of a player about to make millions a couple of years plus having a family that had/has a ton of money even before he went to the NFL.

Yup, I agree. Good post.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

You really do have to wonder how different this could have been if Facebook and Twitter were around just a few years earlier.

 

[Gatorchip]

The general public are morons.

Court costs alone could end up costing more than a settlement.

No argument from me, but it's the public who gives him his paycheck.

 

[Davis_Mike]

The general public are morons.

Court costs alone could end up costing more than a settlement.

Proof A in my assertion is this thread & the OP's love affair with defending this gutter trash that was published.

 

[Davis_Mike]

No argument from me, but it's the public who gives him his paycheck.

Nah, the public doesn't give him his paycheck. Rich people pay him, not the public. And rich people wouldn't have paid had he not been a top echelon QB.

The public isn't clamoring for unproven stories from two decades ago, haters & apologists are.

 

[eaglesnut]

I am just wondering if anyone knows Shaun kings stance is on that. Considering how this situation is a race thing in his book.

Or if Shaun king raped and murdered 17 women and buried them in his back yard.

 

[Mondo Jay]

I looked it up myself. The statue of limitations for any r*pe in Tennessee is 15 years or less. http://www.wsmv.com/story/25228558/tn-legislature-oks-change-in-statute-of-limitations-for-r*pe. So Peyton's in the clear unless (for example) he gets deposed in some related lawsuit and perjures himself.

r*pe? Is that how this is being characterized?

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I wonder what this Shaun kings views are on how Bill Clinton is treated by the mass media and Hollywood types as opposed to how Bill Cosby is treated by those same types

Are we talking about the black Shaun King or the white one? This clown doesn't have an ounce of credibility.

 

[France_Steve]

The other really, really stupid part of this whole situation is referring to this as a "sexual assault". I really don't have a dog in this fight (ie: I don't really give a shit) but I see no indication whatsoever that Manning behaved in a sexual manner or had any intention of having any sort of sexual interaction with her. He apparently didn't like her at all and he, admitably being an immature moron, pulled down his pants and waved his ass near her. That might be illegal, but I would hardly define it as sexual assault. To top it all off, she was a medical source for the team so she probably saw ALL of the players in the buff at one point or another!!
.

Forcing someone to touch your genitals with their face would certainly fall under the category of sexual assault. According to her, he didn't wave his ass around as you said, he intentionally put his ass, taint, and balls in her head/face. Regardless of his sexual intentions this would qualify as sexual assault.

I am pretty surprised at the general consensus of the board that this was no big deal. I am also surprised that it has been pretty common to blame the victim here as if she was blowing something out of proportion. Regardless of the author's intentions and history, what Manning did was a pretty shitty thing to do.

 

[theknight307]

Are we talking about the black Shaun King or the white one? This clown doesn't have an ounce of credibility.

I guess whoever wrote the article and it seems is extremely butthurt over cam Newton being humbled in the SB.

While I think the grand love for Manning by the media has been puke inducing, I do find it funny about the timing of it. I have a funny feeling if cam won and everyone in the espn PC media were singing his praises, this article would not have been written. Then again, who knows? May be me.

I do remember there were some things being said about Manning being a swinger etc. I do remember tiger Woods being his guest on the sidelines during a Monday night game in Miami. That was just a couple weeks before everything came down on Tiger.

Just saying