Of the 3 accusers in the SafeSport investigation, am I remembering correctly that the first was an adult at the time of the alleged abuse?
If Manly is representing 3 women who were minors, then a fourth victim has stepped forward.
But wait a minute. What are we talking about exactly please? An adult came forward and made an allegation against Coughlin. That then precipitated a third party to come forward on behalf of two individuals the third party said were minors at the time of alleged abuses (which would have occurred some 15 years ago). Therefore, John himself would have been around 18 at the time of the alleged abuses the third party said took place against two minors, who were not little girls at the time, but young teenagers. The article appears to be conflating all three claims, and calling the victims "little girls." Can we please be accurate and specific, and stop hurling accusations!
Unless we are talking about something that happened more currently against minors when John was actually in a position of prominence as an older adult, then what exactly is going on here? Have any of the students John coached ever made any allegations against him? This definitely needs to be fully and thoroughly clarified, otherwise it continues to be based on speculation, innuendo, invidious suspicion, supposition, opportunism by Manly, and digging up dirt to throw in order to see what might viably stick against a dead person.
If John was really a threat as has been claimed, then the threat is now removed. So please come forward with straightforward and fearless veracity, credibility and details that are substantial, specific, and solid. Dates, details, eyewitnesses and actual proof please, not just claims attempting to associate John Coughlin with the long-term, heinous crimes of a medical doctor who preyed on young girls who were competitive gymnasts.
The public needs to know exactly what happened, not what we imagine might have happened or assume must have happened because Coughlin was accused and suspended, and he committed suicide. If someone has the real information and evidence, let it be known please. I find Brennan leading with that opening sentence to be highly exploitative and indicative of an attempt to over-sensationalize the Coughlin case by associating it with the Nasser case. I find it reprehensible and irresponsible for Brennan to indulge in that kind of opportunistic journalism. All I want are the actual facts please. No one involved is going to be able to heal or get to the bottom of what really happened, with this mudslinging match going on in the media that Brennan is smack in the middle of.
It is a fact that the lawyer now representing three of the complainants against Coughlin also represented complainants against Nassar. That fact is relevant because both cases involve allegations that athletes were abused. Reporting that fact is not "exploitative" or "over-sensationalizing".
According to the KC article, the first allegation (which involved an adult in her later teens) was made by a third party. The source of the second and third allegations (which involved minors) has not been made public at this time.
The facts are pretty clear to me.
It is a fact that the lawyer now representing three of the complainants against Coughlin also represented complainants against Nassar. That fact is relevant because both cases involve allegations that athletes were abused. Reporting that fact is not "exploitative" or "over-sensationalizing".
Maybe that's because US Figure Skating President Anne Cammett referred to the allegations as abuse. https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2019...rge-full-investigation-in-john-coughlin-case/When SafeSport first posted information about the complaint against Coughlin, it was 'alleged sexual misconduct,' and now it's being referenced by Brennan as 'alleged sexual abuse.'
“John was well liked by many, from kids in his home rink in Kansas City, all the way to the leadership at ISU in Lausanne, Switzerland, and we were disheartened by the abuse allegations against him,” Cammett said.
This story should not die. There were 3 reports involved. But from this latest article it appears there are at least 3 separate victims. That by itself is a big thing. You have to remember that most of the time people never even come forward. If multiple people do, it could be a disturbing possibility that there were more who didn't.
Not to mention that representing the Nassar survivors is basically what Manly is known for by now. It’s a situation where people will see the name and go “why do I know that name?” Adding that context is basically “this is why he’s famous.” It’s not saying the two cases necessarily have anything to do with each other. It’s explaining who Manly is. When the first articles came out about Nassar, Manly was described as a lawyer who had taken on the Catholic Church because that was his previous claim to fame. Now it’s the Nassar case.
You've only stated factual chronology about a series of events. Nothing specific and detailed about the allegations has yet been officially released. There has been a lot of conflicting and confusing information being bandied about piecemeal, along with OTT speculation and gossip.
if you eliminate all of the speculation and gossip, what i posted are the facts right now.
... I really don't understand how you see this as one sided. Perhaps the victims do not want the details public right now. It is really none of your or anyone's business. The facts do not go in John's favor at this time, but that is not one sided reporting. He killed himself so there is no option for him to tell his side anymore.
As just one example, without unnamed sources we may never have gotten to the bottom of Watergate.Unnamed sources are just a step above gossip. Until Christine finds someone willing to go on the record, her reporting is worthless.
No. False. USA Today had one of its highest profile writers in its history get fired for making stuff up in his articles. USA Today is not legitimate. It doesn’t care. It has no standards.As just one example, without unnamed sources we may never have gotten to the bottom of Watergate.
Perhaps you're not aware that there are actually journalistic standards related to the use of unnamed sources. You may not like Brennan, but she works for USA Today, which is a reputable paper and her editors would not allow her to publish an article without solid sourcing.
@okokok777, you are bringing out information that is different from details previously bandied about. So once again, it's adding to the confusion. Clarity and consistency are needed, not mudslinging, speculation, OTT statements, and hearsay.
An adult came forward and made an allegation against Coughlin. That then precipitated a third party to come forward on behalf of two individuals the third party said were minors at the time of alleged abuses (which would have occurred some 15 years ago).
No. False. USA Today had one of its highest profile writers in its history get fired for making stuff up in his articles. USA Today is not legitimate. It doesn’t care. It has no standards.
Many others have said there are 3 accusers. That's not new information.Lol she’s never winning a Pulitzer!! She’s never going to be Ronan farrow
I have no reason to believe manly. That there are three accusers! None. Lawyers lie all the time!!!!
No reason for them not to be public if it’s true. There is still the third party complaining for people. It’s not three. It’s one and a third party.Many others have said there are 3 accusers. That's not new information.
No reason for them not to be public if it’s true. There is still the third party complaining for people. It’s not three. It’s one and a third party.
That's partly what I already said. But keep in mind that you listed no confirmed facts about the allegations. In any case, there's no reason for you to repeat back to me what I already said.
I didn't say anything about this is one-sided. I said that objective reporting is needed with journalists not taking any sides. We have seen the Coughlin family's 'side' being taken in the local Kansas City reporting, and in the national reporting we've seen a lot of different sides being taken.
If you think the facts of the case are 'none of anyone's business,' then why are you even in this thread posting about any of this? The facts of the case are not fully known, but that hasn't kept too many people from speculating, guess-tulating, pontificating, conflating with other cases of known abuse where perpetrators have been convicted, making judgment calls, gossiping, arguing, wondering, etc.
No reason for them not to be public if it’s true. There is still the third party complaining for people. It’s not three. It’s one and a third party.
Sexual abuse is serious and prevalent. Whatever you (or anyone else) think of Christine Brennan, she is reporting on this story as it develops, not sensationalizing anything.Christine Brennan is not a reliable reporter. She has various agendas and reports only what supports her latest cause. Lately, it is sexual abuse. With the gymnastics scandal concluded with Nasser’s conviction, she is looking for other scandals to report on. Yes, sexual abuse is serious, but that doesn’t necessarily make it prevalent.