According to a Sports Illustrated report, there is some misinterpreted information recently released Peyton Manning court documents.
We are three days into the social media firestorm set off against former Vol Peyton Manning and all of the controversy stemming from a 1996 incident involving a former UT staffer.
Related Story: Manning a 2-Time Champ and Choke Artist?
Using only court documents from plaintiff Jamie Naughright’s side in a second lawsuit involving Manning, New York Daily News reporter Shaun King set off the frenzy with his recent article on titled, “Peyton Manning’s squeaky-clean image was built on lies.”
The article ascertains that Peyton Manning, while having his foot examined by former Tennessee trainer Jamie Naughright (then Jamie Whited) in 1996, allegedly dropped his pants and placed his naked buttocks, testicles, and area between the testicles on her face.
Although this story has been out there for years, this particular article cited very damning evidence against the superstar quarterback. In combination with this accusation being brought to light in a separate lawsuit against the University of Tennessee for its treatment of sexual assault victims over a period of time, Manning is taking it on all fronts.
More from Peyton Manning
- Tennessee football: Could Peyton Manning have had Randy Moss with Vols?
- Tennessee football: Signs, sights and sounds from College GameDay for Vols vs. Alabama
- Tennessee football: Peyton Manning is GameDay picker; Two skids might end
- Tennessee football: What took so long to name Peyton Manning an SEC legend?
- Peyton Manning a great coach but would struggle coaching; David Cutcliffe reveals why
However, in documents from the original lawsuit in 1996 revealed by Sports Illustrated, there is no mention of Manning placing any of his body parts on Naughright’s face. In fact, here are the exact quotes from her affidavit as provided by SI.
"“He pulled his pants down and exposed himself to me, as I was bent over examining his foot after asking me personal questions. I reported this to my supervisor, who referred to it as ‘merely a prank,’ and no action was taken in regard to this until after I formally complained.”"
There is no mention of physical contact made in this affidavit, which is contrary to what the public is being led to believe.
The documents Shaun King cited were from a following lawsuit that began in 2002, stemming from a book that Manning and his father wrote, along with a ghostwriter, in which he brought up the alleged incident and called his behavior “inappropriate” but, without naming Naughright, proceeded to say she had a “vulgar mouth.”
Naughright sued again, this time against Manning directly for defamation, but according to SI, she again never mentioned him placing his rectum or any body part on her face. Here is an excerpt from King’s article.
"“Instead, Naughright refers more generally to Manning “not merely mooning” and that he undertook an additional act “of such an egregious nature as to be beyond the pale.” In other words, her complaint makes clear that she believes Manning did something in addition to mooning, but she declines to elaborate or state that it involved contact.”"
It was not until 2003, according to the documents, that the specific nature of what Manning is now being accused of doing came to light, seven years after the original affidavit and more than a year into this lawsuit.
More volunteers: Five Most Underrated Recruits in Vols 2016 Class
Everything else involving the case, including the university’s handling of it, what witnesses say happened, and how valid Manning’s initial claims are, can definitely be scrutinized, as they most certainly will be as more details of this case and it’s principals come to light.