Meyer is getting screwed

[WizardHawk]

Nobody knows any of this, but you are more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt without batting an eye. All I want to know is why he would change his story without hesitation, go so long without noting that he changed it, and not one single time stand by his original story. Facts don't change. If he saw a report that said Smith was arrested, why did he not even one single time stand behind his initial report?

More false bullshit.

1) I'm saying that accusing a man with a very long public record where I haven't seen people accuse him of lying over a story that he is now lying requires proof. You would 10000000% say the same thing about any other situation not involving your school. Period. And you know it. Incredible claims require incredible proof. McMurphy is a hack, but not a known lying hack. So if you want to undo 'nearly 40 years' of his work, prove it.

2) The edit history of his stories are STILL available. The part talking about the checkbox on the original was on that Aug1st first version of the story. So where would you expect additions to be and why? It differed from his story before media day and he fully explained in his Aug1st full article why.

 

[Across The Field]

I can't speak for McMurphy, but my best guess is that he wanted to report what actually happened, and the evidence at which he was looking led him to report something that did not happen.

Then again, as I've been saying, he has been incredibly sloppy and careless in how he's approached this. How accurate could this initial "evidence" have been then? And why did he not actually confirm what he had supposedly seen with the Powell PD before he published his article? Again, sloppy and careless to say the least.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

There's also the part about him initially saying Earle Bruce talked Courtney Smith out of pressing charges in 09, to now for some reason omitting that part after her mom told him no such event occurred.

Again, he has been sloppy as hell for someone with 30+ years. Yes, he may be used to a support staff but that's no excuse. He has an agenda and he's pushing forward with it while trying to keep his errors as unnoticed as possible. At least we both believe he's a hack.

I don't have to show you where he's been questioned. I don't have time to scour the internet for that. I will just keep saying that it's not normal that he just rolled over and changed his story without hesitation even though he supposedly saw an official report that supported his initial story. That reeks of sloppiness and error on his part.

I have a hard time buying the edits and lack of retraction on McMurphys page.The only explanation he gave was on a click bait site. Also strange he changed his header to OSU protestors. Not very professional imo. This isn’t news or reporting....

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

 

[Across The Field]

More false bullshit.

1) I'm saying that accusing a man with a very long public record where I haven't seen people accuse him of lying over a story that he is now lying requires proof. You would 10000000% say the same thing about any other situation not involving your school. Period. And you know it. Incredible claims require incredible proof. McMurphy is a hack, but not a known lying hack. So if you want to undo 'nearly 40 years' of his work, prove it.

2) The edit history of his stories are STILL available. The part talking about the checkbox on the original was on that Aug1st first version of the story. So where would you expect additions to be and why? It differed from his story before media day and he fully explained in his Aug1st full article why.

1. Incorrect. I firmly believe the majority of media today is nothing more than parasitic drones who are desperate to get their moment. If a supposedly respected sports writer with 30+ years under his belt wrote a story that required multiple edits due to inaccuracy within a week of publishing it, I'd call him a careless hack regardless of what the story is about, and it seems you agree.

2. I know the edit history is available. The fact that he has as much editing as he does leads me to believe he was sloppy and careless, which very fairly calls into question the credibility of his report in general. How many more edits is he allowed to have, in your eyes, before you stop calling me a homer and start to realize how shitty of a job he actually has done here?

 

[Across The Field]

I have a hard time buying the edits and lack of retraction on McMurphys page.The only explanation he gave was on a click bait site. Also strange he changed his header to OSU protestors. Not very professional imo. This isn’t news or reporting....

You nailed it when you said he's going for shock and nothing more. Everything he writes has had a slant to it.

 

[nddulac]

No they're not. Some parts of the report have changed - one was pre-investigative, one was post.

Then why are you claiming they are "Two copies of the report"? That's like saying Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are copies of THE SAME BOOK!

On a different note, however, what really disturbs me is that the "post-investigative" report, the crime listed as offense #1 is "Domestic Violence", which carries a mandatory arrest according to Ohio Law. I have yet to see an explanation as to why no arrest occurred. I find that troublesome.

 

[ralphiewvu]

You're dumb enough to not realize there are already two copies of this report publicly available, one from 2015 and one from July? Why is he needing to provide anymore?

Why the heck would he say all reports haven’t been released then? There is literally no reason for him to do that? Or are you going to argue he forgot?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

In actuality, whether McMurphy flat out lied, or has been completely above board is completely irrelevant - especially to the "investigation" at Ohio State. Either Zach Smith committed a firable offense in 2015 and it was covered up, or he didn't and there is nothing to be seen here.

What matters is what happened, not what people have said about what happened.

If we are talking the Smiths maybe... If we are talking what Meyers actually knew there’s no way to form a factual conclusion. Based on McMurphys careless reporting.

Also - it is ridiculous to think that the AD or Head Coach should have any input into this situation. It has nothing to do with athletics.

 

[Across The Field]

Then why are you claiming they are "Two copies of the report"? That's like saying Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are copies of THE SAME BOOK!

On a different note, however, what really disturbs me is that the "post-investigative" report, the crime listed as offense #1 is "Domestic Violence", which carries a mandatory arrest according to Ohio Law. I have yet to see an explanation as to why no arrest occurred. I find that troublesome.

They're two copies of a report detailing the same incident.

Domestic violence was the allegation but no charge was filed. There has to be actual evidence for the police to arrest someone for this charge. However you're right, this is a mandatory arrest charge, it just never happened here.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I already covered that which goes back to double standards. To claim McMurphys story to be true and assume snobbism to be false. Is one of many double standards i listed.....

I see, snooks report is real even though the main source has denounced it and snook has yet to provide proof. But McMurphy is lying because he edited it after what looks to be a police report was changed. I didn’t remember you to be this stupid.

 

[nddulac]

Also - it is ridiculous to think that the AD or Head Coach should have any input into this situation. It has nothing to do with athletics.

I would bet you a dollar right now that Zach Smith's contract had a specific clause in it that if he abused his wife, he would be terminated.

It may have nothing to do with Athletics, but it sure as hell has a lot to do with human resources.

 

[Across The Field]

Why the heck would he say all reports haven’t been released then? There is literally no reason for him to do that? Or are you going to argue he forgot?

Honest question - where does it say there are actually more reports on this incident to be released? Other than anything that would specifically name Zach Smith, which they are not legally allowed to make public.

 

[WizardHawk]

I think I can take a guess here . . probably (as he stated) he was informed that the police report he had seen was not consistent with what had happened.

So in summary: McMurphy's initial report on Facebook was consistent with the evidence he had seen. After publication, that evidence was questioned (specifically as to whether or not Zach Smith had been arrested.) Upon learning that the evidence was not accurate, McMurphy edited his story.

Get it? There are no claims from credible sources that are not 100% consistent with that chain of events - not in what McMurphy has said, not in what the Powell Police Chief has said, and not in anything anyone at Ohio State has said.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You nailed it when you said he's going for shock and nothing more. Everything he writes has had a slant to it.

Thats ow social media works especially Twitter. This is why I said there needs to be more accountability for social media reporters. Or you will see a trend where a journalist looking for work. Will put up a piece going for shock to gain legs.Which is far to easy to do on Twitter etc... And edit later with no repercussions....

 

[Across The Field]

I would bet you a dollar right now that Zach Smith's contract had a specific clause in it that if he abused his wife, he would be terminated.

It may have nothing to do with Athletics, but it sure as hell has a lot to do with human resources.

It wasn't a clause, it was a direct guarantee from Meyer himself. Smith even mentioned it in his interview on August 3rd with ESPN. Meyer told him directly back in 2015 that if he is proven to have laid a hand on her, he was going to be fired without question.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I would bet you a dollar right now that Zach Smith's contract had a specific clause in it that if he abused his wife, he would be terminated.

It may have nothing to do with Athletics, but it sure as hell has a lot to do with human resources.

Irony...

Also - it is ridiculous to think that the AD or Head Coach should have any input into this situation. It has nothing to do with athletics.

Is a direct quote from your views on the Boermeester case last year. Which was actually worse . And held a much bigger impact because it involved student athletes and/or tolerance - Title IX

Where as now you are talking about a member of the coaching staff. And a coach that most likely didnt know all the details.....

 

[ralphiewvu]

Honest question - where does it say there are actually more reports on this incident to be released? Other than anything that would specifically name Zach Smith, which they are not legally allowed to make public.

Your question is cute.

To be released, maybe none. But that certainly doesnt mean there aren’t reports that state Zach was arrested. Mistakenly. Just because they can’t be released to the public doesn’t mean they can’t exist.

 

[nddulac]

There has to be actual evidence for the police to arrest someone for this charge. However you're right, this is a mandatory arrest charge, it just never happened here.

You are confusing an arrest with an indictment. An arrest requires reasonable cause. But an arrest for

Ohio Law is pretty clear. Unless the officer determined that Zach Smith was not the primary aggressor, he should have been arrested. Something happened that prevented the police from arresting him for Domestic Violence and Felonious Assault.

(1) Provisions specifying that, if a peace officer who serves the agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision responds to an alleged incident of the offense of domestic violence, an alleged incident of the offense of violating a protection order, or an alleged incident of any other offense, both of the following apply:

(a) If the officer determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person knowingly caused serious physical harm to another or to another's unborn or knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, then, regardless of whether the victim of the offense was a family or household member of the offender, the officer shall treat the incident as felonious assault, shall consider the offender to have committed and the victim to have been the victim of felonious assault, shall consider the offense that was committed to have been felonious assault in determining the manner in which the offender should be treated, and shall comply with whichever of the following is applicable:

(i) Unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe that, during the incident, the offender who committed the felonious assault and one or more other persons committed offenses against each other, the officer shall arrest the offender who committed the felonious assault pursuant to section 2935.03 of the Revised Code and shall detain that offender pursuant to that section until a warrant can be obtained, and the arrest shall be for felonious assault.

(ii) If the officer has reasonable cause to believe that, during the incident, the offender who committed the felonious assault and one or more other persons committed offenses against each other, the officer shall determine in accordance with division (B)(3)(d) of section 2935.03 of the Revised Code which of those persons is the primary physical aggressor. If the offender who committed the felonious assault is the primary physical aggressor, the officer shall arrest that offender for felonious assault pursuant to section 2935.03 of the Revised Code and shall detain that offender pursuant to that section until a warrant can be obtained, and the officer is not required to arrest but may arrest pursuant to section 2935.03 of the Revised Code any other person who committed an offense but who is not the primary physical aggressor. If the offender who committed the felonious assault is not the primary physical aggressor, the officer is not required to arrest that offender or any other person who committed an offense during the incident but may arrest any of them pursuant to section 2935.03 of the Revised Code and detain them pursuant to that section until a warrant can be obtained.

So - bottom line: One of the two should have been arrested. But no one has suggested it should have been Courtney.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I see, snooks report is real even though the main source has denounced it and snook has yet to provide proof. But McMurphy is lying because he edited it after what looks to be a police report was changed. I didn’t remember you to be this stupid.

Snook was pressured not to investigate further. If yin are talking Herman it was never denounce he refused to comment.... I'm not saying either report is right. But I am saying theres a lot to question in regards to McMurphy. Definitely wouldnt assume he's providing facts