Keep in mind, this story is 100% based upon a plaintiff's allegations in a lawsuit, as written by her attorney.
The thing we know for sure is that Manning exposed his buttocks to a female interviewer. The rest is just lawyer speak.
There was a witness, another student athlete, who has spoken out about it. Manning told a number of stories that were refuted by his own teammates.
That doesn't change the fact that the lawyer-written "facts" that article are in no way a neutral account of what happened. If the NYDN tabloid wants to bring up a 20 year old story, perhaps they could interview those eyewitnesses, rather than citing allegations in a lawsuit as fact.
They cited direct quotes from the witnesses.
We're the witnesses cross-examined? Were their statements 100% in context?
Peyton settled with her out of court, but statements were definitely in context. Read the article.
I did. I also know what it's 100% sourced from.
There were other eyewitnesses who saw different things. The "witness" doesn't even describe what he thinks happened in detail, and he had an axe to grind with the football program. (Ask yourself, how did a private letter between the witness and Manning become public in the first place? Maybe we'd know with cross-examination). And, this woman alleged years of misconduct by UT before Manning got there.
But, maybe she hired the first Plaintiff's lawyer in the history of the judicial system who doesn't advocate for their client in a statement of "facts".
