First of all...just...wow.
Here's how I'm seeing things:
* The firm produced a report that we may never see that included interviews/statements by the Daily's anonymous source. So the Daily and the firm are basically working with the same information, but may choose to interpret and report it differently for obvious reasons.
* It is clear the source believes that Fitz knew something was going on. For whatever this is worth, I believe it's possible Fitz may not have known the gory details of what was happening in the showers, but if that is the case there is almost definitely willful ignorance in the most generous sense of that term. The firm could not conclude with *certainty* that he knew (i.e. he wasn't present, never discussed it), and thus, if you can't legally prove it, you legally move forward with that in mind.
* Most of us non-lawyer types are governed more by common sense, and I think even Fitz's fiercest defenders would agree the head coach of a program for nearly 20 years either has control, or he doesn't...so is it better to be an idiot or a liar?
* The existence of the "Runsgiving" whiteboard is pretty damning, but I'd love to hear a sound, logical explanation for it.
* Schill's response here is interesting. I have no reason to believe any new information has come out since he reviewed the report. So he either literally didn't bother reading the report, or he's basically getting caught with his pants down here grossly under-reacting to the report, never expecting the contents to be revealed by some junior Medill students.