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

[cdumler7]

Difference Between an Affidavit in Civil and Criminal Cases | eHow is just ehow, so it's not the most sterling of sources. Still, would you agree with the last bit? I mean:

It is still a signed sworn document that can be presented as evidence. She has signed that piece of paper under oath. I'm guessing you have not done much court wise as it doesn't seem like you understand how this all works. This would have been used in court if they had actually gone to court. They did not go to court so this affidavit was not needed. It was presented as part of the evidence though along with her other complaints towards the school in the first lawsuit and why the figured it was easier and better for the school to settle. Now in the 74-page document is where we first see her talk about how his genitals were actually on her. This is a huge detail to leave out and would have been thrown out if they had actually gone to trial. Since it was not in her sworn statement back in 1996 (they would have used that over anything she said in 2003) they would not find it credible especially since she has no witnesses to back up such a claim other than herself. So no we cannot make any claim that Manning actually did put his genitals on her. At this point what we have is her telling a story of hearing laughter in the hallway looking up and seeing Manning's rear end and her pushing him away. That is the only story that both sides truly agree on happened when this first came out. Anything added beyond that time in the court of law is thrown out.

 

[redseat]

It is still a signed sworn document that can be presented as evidence. She has signed that piece of paper under oath. I'm guessing you have not done much court wise as it doesn't seem like you understand how this all works. This would have been used in court if they had actually gone to court. They did not go to court so this affidavit was not needed. It was presented as part of the evidence though along with her other complaints towards the school in the first lawsuit and why the figured it was easier and better for the school to settle. Now in the 74-page document is where we first see her talk about how his genitals were actually on her. This is a huge detail to leave out and would have been thrown out if they had actually gone to trial. Since it was not in her sworn statement back in 1996 (they would have used that over anything she said in 2003) they would not find it credible especially since she has no witnesses to back up such a claim other than herself. So no we cannot make any claim that Manning actually did put his genitals on her. At this point what we have is her telling a story of hearing laughter in the hallway looking up and seeing Manning's rear end and her pushing him away. That is the only story that both sides truly agree on happened when this first came out. Anything added beyond that time in the court of law is thrown out.

Seems to me like she is a little back tracking Biotch who is just trying to gain her 15 minutes of fame and try to get some money out of Manning. I get the fact that back in 96 she might have been scared to say what happened or too "embarassed/whatever" so it wasn't in her report but she had plenty of time to change her story and "changing it now" is too late imo.

 

[Gooch1034]

Anyone who claims they give a shit about some lady getting teabagged 20 years ago are as full of shit as the idiots who claimed they cared that Ray Rice's wife got KO'ed. You just use the situation to trash these guys and act as if you really care about the "victims".

 

[Money]

Anyone who claims they give a shit about some lady getting teabagged 20 years ago are as full of shit as the idiots who claimed they cared that Ray Rice's wife got KO'ed. You just use the situation to trash these guys and act as if you really care about the "victims".

Well...that's half the people. The other half trash the "victims" because they want to defend the players they root for.

 

[Broncos6482]

Your big error in that quote is the word "exactly" and your use for it as a rough synonym for "completely".

So what are you suggesting? That in the affidavit that she signed, under penalty of perjury, that she just happened to leave out the most egregious thing that he did? Because I think any reasonable person would look at Manning mooning her, or even exposing himself, and say yeah, that was pretty stupid, and he shouldn't have done it, but it doesn't make him a monster. But then you tell that same person ot only did he expose himself, he rubbed his genitals and rectum all over her head, and that person suddenly views Manning as a criminal.

So if that's what actually happened, why in the world would she leave it out? She says she called him an ass, she said she pushed him away, why in the world leave out the fact that rubbed his nuts all over her? It just seems a little suspicious to me that she doesn't mention that little fact until Manning's a multi-millionaire football player.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Seems to me like she is a little back tracking Biotch who is just trying to gain her 15 minutes of fame and try to get some money out of Manning. I get the fact that back in 96 she might have been scared to say what happened or too "embarassed/whatever" so it wasn't in her report but she had plenty of time to change her story and "changing it now" is too late imo.

I think that is exactly what some people don't understand.

The initial accusation was settled. Then because the Mannings couldn't let it go, she sued for defamation. Trying to make the Peyton look bad, hoping to make them settle, she amended or altered her version of the incident in the new affidavit. The part she amended or changed, was already settled & had no baring on the defamation case. The judge ruled only that he believed there was enough evidence to permit a jury of reasonable people to find that the Mannings acted with malice toward Naughright. This covered the defamation case & nothing else.

Anyone claiming the judge ruled that there was evidence to support that Manning "sexually assualted" Naughright, is ignorantly wrong.

 

[gohusk]

Seems to me like she is a little back tracking Biotch who is just trying to gain her 15 minutes of fame and try to get some money out of Manning. I get the fact that back in 96 she might have been scared to say what happened or too "embarassed/whatever" so it wasn't in her report but she had plenty of time to change her story and "changing it now" is too late imo.

Seems to me like you have no idea as to what's going on. This isn't her suing Peyton. They brought up this incident in a Title IX suit because of a lot of other more recent crap going on. This one was in the books but the lawyers suing obviously want to show that there's a long history of misconduct at Tennessee.

 

[Gooch1034]

Well...that's half the people. The other half trash the "victims" because they want to defend the players they root for.

Good point! Defend at all costs is just as annoying.

 

[gohusk]

Here's what this is all about:

Sweeping sex assault suit filed against University of Tennessee

It's amazing how some of you people are so quick to say "My hero is absolutely incapable of behaving badly because he throws a football really good and is in a lot of commercials! She's just looking for money!"

Here's a newsflash, he already paid her twice and they moved on. It's a new sweeping lawsuit that the train wreck of a Tennessee program that brought this crap up again.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Seems to me like you have no idea as to what's going on. This isn't her suing Peyton. They brought up this incident in a Title IX suit because of a lot of other more recent crap going on. This one was in the books but the lawyers suing obviously want to show that there's a long history of misconduct at Tennessee.

He knows exactly what is going on. He is speaking directly to the 2003 defamation case in which she sued the Mannings for defamation.

The title IX against Tennessee just brought the 2003 case to the forefront for scum like Mr. King.

 

[Fencer]

It is still a signed sworn document that can be presented as evidence. She has signed that piece of paper under oath. I'm guessing you have not done much court wise as it doesn't seem like you understand how this all works. This would have been used in court if they had actually gone to court. They did not go to court so this affidavit was not needed. It was presented as part of the evidence though along with her other complaints towards the school in the first lawsuit and why the figured it was easier and better for the school to settle. Now in the 74-page document is where we first see her talk about how his genitals were actually on her. This is a huge detail to leave out and would have been thrown out if they had actually gone to trial. Since it was not in her sworn statement back in 1996 (they would have used that over anything she said in 2003) they would not find it credible especially since she has no witnesses to back up such a claim other than herself. So no we cannot make any claim that Manning actually did put his genitals on her. At this point what we have is her telling a story of hearing laughter in the hallway looking up and seeing Manning's rear end and her pushing him away. That is the only story that both sides truly agree on happened when this first came out. Anything added beyond that time in the court of law is thrown out.

Oh, come on. You're still pretending that she didn't give a deposition IN THE ORIGINAL CASE. Given that, I really have no interest in what you say as to the matter of anybody's credibility.

 

[Fencer]

So what are you suggesting?

That the details she provided in her deposition in the original case were accurate.

It's natural for a deposition to have more details than an affidavit.

 

[Broncos6482]

That the details she provided in her deposition in the original case were accurate.

It's natural for a deposition to have more details than an affidavit.

And those details were?

 

[Davis_Mike]

Here's what this is all about:

Sweeping sex assault suit filed against University of Tennessee

It's amazing how some of you people are so quick to say "My hero is absolutely incapable of behaving badly because he throws a football really good and is in a lot of commercials! She's just looking for money!"

Here's a newsflash, he already paid her twice and they moved on. It's a new sweeping lawsuit that the train wreck of a Tennessee program that brought this crap up again.

You are the one that seems to not know what is going on. This discussion is separate from the Title IX lawsuit. In the Title IX suit, there are definitely serious accusations & crimes that took place. The 96 Manning case was just added on to bolster their case, but in no way can it be looked at in the same spectrum as the other cases cited in the Title IX lawsuit.

 

[gohusk]

He knows exactly what is going on. He is speaking directly to the 2003 defamation case in which she sued the Mannings for defamation.

The title IX against Tennessee just brought the 2003 case to the forefront for scum like Mr. King.

They mentioned it in the new case. Do you think they should not report it?

 

[NEhomer]

I'm still laughing here...pages and pages of defense for Peyton.

How far we've come in a year.

 

[Davis_Mike]

They mentioned it in the new case. Do you think they should not report it?

Not in the same context as the other incidents. If it hadn't been a high profile person involved, this incident likely wouldn't have been included.

Again, this conversation isn't about Title IX. This about a cretin who is using this settle case to justify himself thrashing a player to defend another player.

 

[Broncos6482]

Here's what this is all about:

Sweeping sex assault suit filed against University of Tennessee

It's amazing how some of you people are so quick to say "My hero is absolutely incapable of behaving badly because he throws a football really good and is in a lot of commercials! She's just looking for money!"

Here's a newsflash, he already paid her twice and they moved on. It's a new sweeping lawsuit that the train wreck of a Tennessee program that brought this crap up again.

No one is saying that. I'm sure Manning has his skeletons just like everyone else.

However, the King story was utter crap and deserves to be treated as such.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Also, said cretin is justifiably being torn apart by most of the media & just about everyone else who is not white knighting it for their cause.

 

[HammerDown]

Have we not moved past the point where calling someone gay is an insult?

No.

We haven't.

I guess we're just not "progressive" like you.

Not to mention homosexual.