I totally agree. Would it not be even less satisfying for everyone concerned if only one side of the story could be told.
This is going to be very controversial. But I believe that if the accusers feel strongly about telling their side of the story, they should do it. Perhaps they can speak to People or whoever, anonymously or openly. Yes, John can't defend himself. Nor could he really defend himself when he was alive - once his name was attached to complaints involving minors, it was tarnished regardless of the outcome of the investigation. Him giving an interview trying to dispute the accusers' accounts would not accomplish anything. If the victims want to speak up, they should. If children were hurt in any way, or young adults, why should they be afraid to speak just because the accused committed suicide?
In at least some jurisdictions, only the aggrieved person himself can bring a defamation action, and when he dies, the claim dies with him. Regardless, even if the family could file suit, they would have to prove that the allegations were not just false, but lies. And how would they do that, without John Coughlin's testimony?
Any word from any police officials into their rape investigations?! If there are any! Probably not as this whole thing was about getting Pulitzer’s!
I don't think it suggests that. It would depend on if all 3 had complained to a mandatory reporter or the behavior had been seen by a mandatory reporter who didn't report. We don't know one way or another if that happened but SafeSport closing the case suggests it didn't.
I agree with this. It might also shake open the pockets of the organizations funding SafeSport, if SafeSport is choosing to decline full investigations because they don't have enough resources.[/QUOTE
If there is a report made to SafeSport about sexual misconduct, local authorities are also immediately notify of it. I believe, might be wrong so correct me if I am, that local authorities are conducting an investigation to evaluate if criminal charges can be made based on the evidences they're collecting. SafeSport can only restrict or prohibit an individual from interacting in the sport environment to protect the alleged victims while local authorities are conducting their investigation.My personal feelings have very little to do with this.
If, in most states, a criminal investigation is halted with the death of the primary or only suspect, I have no idea why Safe Sport would be held to another standard. The purpose of the Safe Sport organization, as far as I can tell, is investigation of complaints.
If clubs, organizations, etc. failed to report, failed to forward complaints, then investigations should be started of those entities. Those investigations are not completed by continuing an investigation of another entity or person.
As far as I can tell, we have no idea, based on our own review of social media, Christine Brennan (see below) or anyone's conclusions, whether there were cover ups, failures to report, failures in the system. There may be, may not be. That would take an investigation. *Of the entity* not of a deceased respondent.
An investigation or a legal proceding does not provide "closure". I would screen witnesses that way; if they were looking for "closure", if I could at all help it, I wouldn't call them. They would, IME, be sorely disappointed.
Brennan's reporting has me, at the very least, scratching my head. She knows there is a criminal investigation exactly how? Complaints could indeed have been forwarded to the police by Safe Sport. The police could have reviewed those complaints, determined on their face that no violation of the state law existed, and never opened an investigation.
Or did I miss a quote from the KC police in that article?
But why were they even in the Coughlin thread? Can you explain that at all?
