The letter from the ENTIRE team

[jimmyNU]

Has anyone seen or found evidence that this letter actually came from our current players?

I believe Adam Rittenberg shared it on Twitter so I would like to think he had verified it.

To my knowledge, not a single current Northwestern player has publicly said that he signed it or agreed to it being written.

 

[corbi296]

Has anyone seen or found evidence that this letter actually came from our current players?

I believe Adam Rittenberg shared it on Twitter so I would like to think he had verified it.

To my knowledge, not a single current Northwestern player has publicly said that he signed it or agreed to it being written.

That’s a good question that I have been asking myself. As far as Rittenberg validating it, at this point I am skeptical that anything some of these so called journalists post on Twitter is actually verified. They act as if their job is solely to act as vehicle for others to communicate their message without the benefit of any journalistic scrutiny. Sometimes messages that fit their agenda. That’s my impression of what The Daily did in this instance.

 

[villox]

That’s a good question that I have been asking myself. As far as Rittenberg validating it, at this point I am skeptical that anything some of these so called journalists post on Twitter is actually verified. They act as if their job is solely to act as vehicle for others to communicate their message without the benefit of any journalistic scrutiny. Sometimes messages that fit their agenda. That’s my impression of what The Daily did in this instance.

Who the heck is training all these so-called journalists anyway?

 

[corbi296]

Who the heck is training all these so-called journalists anyway?

The training is not the problem. It’s the agendas they bring to the table and the pressure to be first in a social media driven world where it’s better to be wrong and first than right and last.

 

[villox]

The training is not the problem. It’s the agendas they bring to the table and the pressure to be first in a social media driven world where it’s better to be wrong and first than right and last.

FWIW, every journalist friend of mine who I know to be huge fans of NU Sports, and Fitz in particular, think the firing was the right call, and inevitable.

 

[ricko654321]

That’s a good question that I have been asking myself. As far as Rittenberg validating it, at this point I am skeptical that anything some of these so called journalists post on Twitter is actually verified. They act as if their job is solely to act as vehicle for others to communicate their message without the benefit of any journalistic scrutiny. Sometimes messages that fit their agenda. That’s my impression of what The Daily did in this instance.

I would think Rittenberg has a higher standard than the so-called journalists at the daily, but I guess who knows.

My suspicion was that it was sent around internally to the football team, but in the sense of "we wrote this, anyone who disagrees tell us in the next hour before we send it out"... which isn't exactly the best way to create honest consensus. Granted they were on a time constraint. While in one sense I appreciate the support for Fitz, the "ENTIRE" thing sounded a bit weird. And they also called it "exaggerated and twisted" and "lies" but didn't state any details about which parts of it were lies or weren't. No doubt they felt they were prevented from doing so due to privacy reasons, but it added to the frustration of not knowing what it true / what isn't.

 

[corbi296]

FWIW, every journalist friend of mine who I know to be huge fans of NU Sports, and Fitz in particular, think the firing was the right call, and inevitable.

Even if that is the case, it’s pretty clear that The daily published one sided stories without considering other perspectives and without verifying or caring that the original accuser who spoon fed them his version of the story may have had an agenda. The story may have still been written but it should not have been written before they did a thorough job of investigating. Their lack of diligence on the Diaz story is particularly egregious.

 

[ricko654321]

I would think Rittenberg has a higher standard than the so-called journalists at the daily, but I guess who knows.

My suspicion was that it was sent around internally to the football team, but in the sense of "we wrote this, anyone who disagrees tell us in the next hour before we send it out"... which isn't exactly the best way to create honest consensus. Granted they were on a time constraint. While in one sense I appreciate the support for Fitz, the "ENTIRE" thing sounded a bit weird. And they also called it "exaggerated and twisted" and "lies" but didn't state any details about which parts of it were lies or weren't. No doubt they felt they were prevented from doing so due to privacy reasons, but it added to the frustration of not knowing what it true / what isn't.

And one other suspicion - clearly the source was frustrated about a lack of playing time late in the season, which led to the Nov 30 initial complaint. I have very little doubt there were legitimate hazing concerns and issues that led to that and culminated in the complaint when that person felt he was not being given a fair opportunity by Fitz and the coaching staff (rightly or wrongly based on skill level? who knows). The 6-month investigation was commissioned, reached its conclusion with 11 out of ~50 players interviewed agreeing there was hazing that happened (specifics not provided), report provided to Schill etc. Discussion with Fitz + Gragg + Schill + Board and key donors - leads to 2 week suspension.

Then the source (supported by one other corroborating source) goes to the daily. It's worth noting that the 11 players who spoke about hazing to the investigation did not all speak to the Daily. So it is entirely possible that the version that was told to the daily is an exaggerated or twisted version of what actually happened, as designed by the lead source who we know had a recorded and designed agenda + one corroborating source that he potentially provided to the daily himself to support his version of events. Now going against the "exaggerated and twisted" thesis would be that Schill's later statement seemed to acknowledge at least some / most of the events that were described in the daily article. Although is that because the report showed that 11 players backed that up, or because he read the article in the daily and submitted to the media mob that used that to demand Fitz's firing?

I just feel like there is a nuance between what was substantiated by the 11+ sources in the investigative report and broadly acknowledged by players vs. the version that was provided to the daily by one lead source + one corroborating source. And that nuance is sort of being ignored in all this. And that could perhaps (I don't know?) explain the "exaggerated and twisted" comment that the "entire" football team put out.

 

[villox]

And one other suspicion - clearly the source was frustrated about a lack of playing time late in the season, which led to the Nov 30 initial complaint. I have very little doubt there were legitimate hazing concerns and issues that led to that and culminated in the complaint when that person felt he was not being given a fair opportunity by Fitz and the coaching staff (rightly or wrongly based on skill level? who knows). The 6-month investigation was commissioned, reached its conclusion with 11 out of ~50 players interviewed agreeing there was hazing that happened (specifics not provided), report provided to Schill etc. Discussion with Fitz + Gragg + Schill + Board and key donors - leads to 2 week suspension.

Then the source (supported by one other corroborating source) goes to the daily. It's worth noting that the 11 players who spoke about hazing to the investigation did not all speak to the Daily. So it is entirely possible that the version that was told to the daily is an exaggerated or twisted version of what actually happened, as designed by the lead source who we know had a recorded and designed agenda + one corroborating source that he potentially provided to the daily himself to support his version of events. Now going against the "exaggerated and twisted" thesis would be that Schill's later statement seemed to acknowledge at least some / most of the events that were described in the daily article. Although is that because the report showed that 11 players backed that up, or because he read the article in the daily and submitted to the media mob that used that to demand Fitz's firing?

I just feel like there is a nuance between what was substantiated by the 11+ sources in the investigative report and broadly acknowledged by players vs. the version that was provided to the daily by one lead source + one corroborating source. And that nuance is sort of being ignored in all this. And that could perhaps (I don't know?) explain the "exaggerated and twisted" comment that the "entire" football team put out.

Agree with all this and there's a lot of smoke which indicates a fire but we don't really know. I still want to know what the Fitz "shrek clap" was all about and if it was truly tied to what he should have known to be hazing or something more innocent.

 

[ricko654321]

Agree with all this and there's a lot of smoke which indicates a fire but we don't really know. I still want to know what the Fitz "shrek clap" was all about and if it was truly tied to what he should have known to be hazing or something more innocent.

100%.

 

[NUCat320]

It’s “exaggerated and twisted” for perpetrators, who thought it was good clean American fun.

“You felt threatened? Shoot, we were just showing you we cared!”


Rittenberg’s initial article regarding the ENTIRE team note, I am almost certain, mentioned that a former player had rallied multiple current and former players on Zoom to draft the letter. That detail seems to have been removed from his reporting.

And, of course, the letter was written in response to the hazing accusations and, like every single character witness in favor of Fitz in this whole sad saga, it never denied the findings.

Hazing happened, but he’s a good dude. Hazing happened, but he helped me.

They can co-exist, and Fitz was not fired for being a good dude who helped a lot of people. He was fired because hazing happened.

 

[corbi296]

And one other suspicion - clearly the source was frustrated about a lack of playing time late in the season, which led to the Nov 30 initial complaint. I have very little doubt there were legitimate hazing concerns and issues that led to that and culminated in the complaint when that person felt he was not being given a fair opportunity by Fitz and the coaching staff (rightly or wrongly based on skill level? who knows). The 6-month investigation was commissioned, reached its conclusion with 11 out of ~50 players interviewed agreeing there was hazing that happened (specifics not provided), report provided to Schill etc. Discussion with Fitz + Gragg + Schill + Board and key donors - leads to 2 week suspension.

Then the source (supported by one other corroborating source) goes to the daily. It's worth noting that the 11 players who spoke about hazing to the investigation did not all speak to the Daily. So it is entirely possible that the version that was told to the daily is an exaggerated or twisted version of what actually happened, as designed by the lead source who we know had a recorded and designed agenda + one corroborating source that he potentially provided to the daily himself to support his version of events. Now going against the "exaggerated and twisted" thesis would be that Schill's later statement seemed to acknowledge at least some / most of the events that were described in the daily article. Although is that because the report showed that 11 players backed that up, or because he read the article in the daily and submitted to the media mob that used that to demand Fitz's firing?

I just feel like there is a nuance between what was substantiated by the 11+ sources in the investigative report and broadly acknowledged by players vs. the version that was provided to the daily by one lead source + one corroborating source. And that nuance is sort of being ignored in all this. And that could perhaps (I don't know?) explain the "exaggerated and twisted" comment that the "entire" football team put out.

At this point I think it’s also fair to share that the original accuser has been allegedly in the program’s dog house for a while. He was on the cusp of getting kicked off the team at least two times for various transgressions that I will not detail. I think it’s fair to say that is one scholarship offer I think Fitz wishes he had never extended. If you guys recall, the accuser was actually not offered a scholarship until several days after signing day after NU whiffed on several other QB offers. As I have been saying for a while, NU’s major problem has been its inability to land its A list QB since CLayton Thorson. Little did I know that ultimately that issue would lead to Fitz’s demise in this way.

 

[NUCat320]

Why don’t you share your inside info, Corbi? This sounds like a one-sided agenda.

 

[villox]

At this point I think it’s also fair to share that the original accuser has been allegedly in the program’s dog house for a while. He was on the cusp of getting kicked off the team at least two times for various transgressions that I will not detail. I think it’s fair to say that is one scholarship offer I think Fitz wishes he had never extended. If you guys recall, the accuser was actually not offered a scholarship until several days after signing day after NU whiffed on several other QB offers. As I have been saying for a while, NU’s major problem has been its inability to land its A list QB since CLayton Thorson. Little did I know that ultimately that issue would lead to Fitz’s demise in this way.

So what you're saying is that Fitz's loyalty to McCall was ultimately his downfall, which ironically many of us would have predicted for other reasons.

 

[corbi296]

So what you're saying is that Fitz's loyalty to McCall was ultimately his downfall, which ironically many of us would have predicted for other reasons.

No, the accuser was Bajakian’s recruit. If you really want to go down this path, May have never happened if MCCall had not been fired

 

[ricko654321]

It’s “exaggerated and twisted” for perpetrators, who thought it was good clean American fun.

“You felt threatened? Shoot, we were just showing you we cared!”


Rittenberg’s initial article regarding the ENTIRE team note, I am almost certain, mentioned that a former player had rallied multiple current and former players on Zoom to draft the letter. That detail seems to have been removed from his reporting.

And, of course, the letter was written in response to the hazing accusations and, like every single character witness in favor of Fitz in this whole sad saga, it never denied the findings.

Hazing happened, but he’s a good dude. Hazing happened, but he helped me.

They can co-exist, and Fitz was not fired for being a good dude who helped a lot of people. He was fired because hazing happened.

Well in addition to "exaggerated and twisted" they also used the word "lies" which seems to deny at least some of the accusations. They just declined to identify any specific parts that were lies. Which, hard to know how to interpret that. Feeds back into the uncertainty and lack of transparency on the whole situation.

There is no doubt that hazing happened. And in my eyes it's clear that the events described in the daily were unacceptable. How "exaggerated and twisted" was that description, if at all? And did Fitz know about any of this, or willingly look the other way? (Importantly, even the daily article and its source did not outright state that Fitz knew, they just asserted that he might have known) While hazing is bad as a general point, IMO there are gradations of hazing that range from acceptable to completely unacceptable. I still have no real idea what the answer is to the two questions listed above.

 

[villox]

No, the accuser was Bajakian’s recruit. If you really want to go down this path, May have never happened if MCCall had not been fired

But our inability to field a good offense that would attract top caliber QBs extends back awhile.

 

[JournCat]

There is no doubt that hazing happened. And in my eyes it's clear that the events described in the daily were unacceptable. How "exaggerated and twisted" was that description, if at all? And did Fitz know about any of this, or willingly look the other way? (Importantly, even the daily article and its source did not outright state that Fitz knew, they just asserted that he might have known) While hazing is bad as a general point, IMO there are gradations of hazing that range from acceptable to completely unacceptable. I still have no real idea what the answer is to the two questions listed above.

No one will unless NU releases the report. The administration’s bungling created the void for the initial whistleblower to go to the Daily. Every person debating this is relying on their assumptions and rumors being passed around.

 

[corbi296]

But our inability to field a good offense that would attract top caliber QBs extends back awhile.

An inability extended for several years beyond MCCall’s tenure at NU so it’s hard to logically blame him as the root cause.

 

[ashley0623]

So what you're saying is that Fitz's loyalty to McCall was ultimately his downfall, which ironically many of us would have predicted for other reasons.

If Fitz' undying loyalty to McCall led to McCall still being the OC today, Fitz would still be the HC because it was Bajakian's first recruit that took him down.

 

[villox]

If Fitz' undying loyalty to McCall led to McCall still being the OC today, Fitz would still be the HC because it was Bajakian's first recruit that took him down.

This is getting a little too close to victim blaming for my tastes. If what he said was true, it may eventually have come out with one of the other 10 people who admitted to the hazing.

 

[TXnumbCAT]

I do not believe that letter was truly from the ENTIRE team. There has been zero evidence to substantiate that claim.

It seems more likely that a group took it upon themselves to SAY they were speaking for the ENTIRE team.

So speaking of lies and / or exaggerations…

 

[Sheffielder]

It's too easy to get caught up in the fact that the accuser is a generally unsympathetic character here with a very punchable-looking face - it simply does not matter, and doesn't change the merit of the allegations. Even if you throw out the dark room/purge mask dry humping, which I generously believe is probably embellished and overstated (at least I'd like to think so), the other locker room hazing incidents have a long tail and have been substantiated by parties outside the investigation. If you're a longtime fan and you don't think Fitz is culpable for this, I don't think we're on the same planet of reason. (as for the punishment...we could debate that for infinity...and we might)

The fact that "only 11" of those interviewed substantiated the claims just tells me the players weren't well-organized enough out of season to get to everyone, and not every 18-19 year old player interviewed was smart enough to know how to sandbag an experienced investigator. You wouldn't need 11 Alabama players to say something happened before you believed something happened there.

 

[HawkCat]

I do not believe that letter was truly from the ENTIRE team. There has been zero evidence to substantiate that claim.

It seems more likely that a group took it upon themselves to SAY they were speaking for the ENTIRE team.

So speaking of lies and / or exaggerations…

Given the time-related exigency, I strongly suspect that the draft was prepared through Zoom, email, and text participation from a key group, then circulated to the full team with an "estoppel" cover note saying, "We intend to send this by X:XX p.m. If anyone has concerns or wants to be excluded from it, please let me know by X:XX p.m. Otherwise, we will send it as drafted." This happens all the time in large groups or organizations.

 

[Overly_Invested_Cat]

the accuser is a generally unsympathetic character here with a very punchable-looking face

Punchable-looking face? Are you encouraging board members to attack the whistleblower?

All the conspiracy theorizing is ridiculous. All the blaming of Daily journalist is absurd. They're the heroes -- along with the whistleblower--in this who story.

Does it hurt NU Football, yes. Does that make me sad, yes. But I'd rather have a rebuilding project than continue with abusive, sexualized behavior in our locker room. It also makes me sad that so many of you are unwilling to believe the report commissioned by Northwestern is accurate. I thought the members of this board were smarter.

 

[Styre]

I just feel like there is a nuance between what was substantiated by the 11+ sources in the investigative report and broadly acknowledged by players vs. the version that was provided to the daily by one lead source + one corroborating source. And that nuance is sort of being ignored in all this. And that could perhaps (I don't know?) explain the "exaggerated and twisted" comment that the "entire" football team put out.

We don't know what was in the actual report, but Rittenberg/ESPN have the whistleblower's initial complaint filed to NU's compliance director and say it contains similar allegations to what was reported in the Daily:



So it looks like the story has been consistent. Granted, it's possible that both this and the Daily allegations are wildly exaggerated and only the report contains the much more mundane truth, but if that's the case... why wouldn't NU release a redacted version of the report?

 

[ashley0623]

Punchable-looking face? Are you encouraging board members to attack the whistleblower?

All the conspiracy theorizing is ridiculous. All the blaming of Daily journalist is absurd. They're the heroes -- along with the whistleblower--in this who story.

Does it hurt NU Football, yes. Does that make me sad, yes. But I'd rather have a rebuilding project than continue with abusive, sexualized behavior in our locker room. It also makes me sad that so many of you are unwilling to believe the report commissioned by Northwestern is accurate. I thought the members of this board were smarter.

Yeah, the whistleblower - who is on a recording per other players bragging that he would lie and embellish to get someone fired - is the hero.

 

[ricko654321]

We don't know what was in the actual report, but Rittenberg/ESPN have the whistleblower's initial complaint filed to NU's compliance director and say it contains similar allegations to what was reported in the Daily:

View embedded media

So it looks like the story has been consistent. Granted, it's possible that both this and the Daily allegations are wildly exaggerated and only the report contains the much more mundane truth, but if that's the case... why wouldn't NU release a redacted version of the report?

Well it's the same source who is documented as having an agenda to embellish the truth to get Fitz fired. Given it's the same source wouldn't you expect the story to be the same? That's like saying X=X so therefore X is correct. Given the context, my question is what the other ~10 players outside of this source who admitted to hazing have said. Because that would be instructive in terms of getting to what the actual truth is.

As to "why wouldn't NU release a redacted version of the report", that's the question pretty much everyone here is asking... to start because they are clueless in how to manage this situation, maybe because they had some sort of agenda to sweep under the rug at first and then abruptly reversed it, partly because they feel it's too late at this point and releasing it will just make them look worse (either for the original 2 week unpaid vacation, or for the subsequent firing 3 days later - I don't even know which is more likely!).

Part of the reason I hope Fitz sues them for all they're worth is because then maybe we will get some more transparency into what the heck happened. I want to hear his side of the story. But also part of it is that Schill seems incompetent and Gragg a spineless dodger of responsibility so I want them both fired.

 

[Sheffielder]

Not calling him a hero or a villain - those labels are irrelevant.

Equally irrelevant: his motives. Whether he blew the whistle because he felt a duty to report or he only did this because he had an axe to grind is completely irrelevant to the fact that hazing occurred. And I believe that some version of unacceptable hazing occurred - probably not as bad as he presented and probably worse than other players would have us believe...and Fitz either knew about it or was willfully ignorant, which is not acceptable when you present yourself as a beacon of integrity.

Debating the punishment/firing for this offense is a completely different argument altogether.

 

[Overly_Invested_Cat]

Yeah, the whistleblower - who is on a recording per other players bragging that he would lie and embellish to get someone fired - is the hero.

So you'd prefer that the hazing continue?

 

[corbi296]

Well it's the same source who is documented as having an agenda to embellish the truth to get Fitz fired. Given it's the same source wouldn't you expect the story to be the same? That's like saying X=X so therefore X is correct. Given the context, my question is what the other ~10 players outside of this source who admitted to hazing have said. Because that would be instructive in terms of getting to what the actual truth is.

As to "why wouldn't NU release a redacted version of the report", that's the question pretty much everyone here is asking... to start because they are clueless in how to manage this situation, maybe because they had some sort of agenda to sweep under the rug at first and then abruptly reversed it, partly because they feel it's too late at this point and releasing it will just make them look worse (either for the original 2 week unpaid vacation, or for the subsequent firing 3 days later - I don't even know which is more likely!).

Part of the reason I hope Fitz sues them for all they're worth is because then maybe we will get some more transparency into what the heck happened. I want to hear his side of the story. But also part of it is that Schill seems incompetent and Gragg a spineless dodger of responsibility so I want them both fired.

No, I would not. I would expect the report to filter through the embellishment/lies and only report what they could prove.

 

[ricko654321]

Not calling him a hero or a villain - those labels are irrelevant.

Equally irrelevant: his motives. Whether he blew the whistle because he felt a duty to report or he only did this because he had an axe to grind is completely irrelevant to the fact that hazing occurred. And I believe that some version of unacceptable hazing occurred - probably not as bad as he presented and probably worse than other players would have us believe...and Fitz either knew about it or was willfully ignorant, which is not acceptable when you present yourself as a beacon of integrity.

Debating the punishment/firing for this offense is a completely different argument altogether.

What's not irrelevant - the truth.

Yes it's probably somewhere between what the source said and what the other players would have us believe - but (a) we don't even know "what the players would have us believe" side of it because they won't release the investigation results, and (b) there's a huge delta between what he said and the other side of things which has major differences, to me at least.

I don't really buy the "Fitz must have known or else was willfully ignorant". Certainly it's quite possible he knew, or he was willfully ignorant. But I feel like that comment indicates ignorance of how student organizations, and college in general, works. I was in the marching band, on the drumline. I can say for darned sure that the NUMB Director did not know a bit about whatever traditions and things we did at our NUMB or drumline gatherings outside of rehearsal and games. We certainly didn't do hazing in our section and I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything elsewhere in the marching band, but if there was hazing then it very VERY easily could have been hidden from him.

 

[Overly_Invested_Cat]

But Schill made his eventual decision based on the report, not on the Daily's reporting or the interview of just one whistleblower. 11 people validated the culture of hazing.

 

[its_the_sauce]

Even if that is the case, it’s pretty clear that The daily published one sided stories without considering other perspectives and without verifying or caring that the original accuser who spoon fed them his version of the story may have had an agenda. The story may have still been written but it should not have been written before they did a thorough job of investigating. Their lack of diligence on the Diaz story is particularly egregious.

Actually the Daily articles have been one sided but whose fault is that??? The multiple articles indicate they reached out to Fitz and the administration and did not get responses.

I'd bet the farm the Daily reporters would love to have Fitz or Gragg talk to them to give them every opportunity to respond.

 

[ricko654321]

No, I would not. I would expect the report to filter through the embellishment/lies and only report what they could prove.

The point from Styre was comparing (i) the initial complaint from the whistleblower to NU's compliance dept to (ii) the report that the whistleblower gave for the daily article. Seemed to be saying that those were the same so therefore it's credible (apologies if I misinterpreted Styre). That was the "X=X does not make X true" point I was making. The investigative report is something different.

I likewise would like to see the investigative report - what that unearthed / how it sifted through the varying stories / etc. I think that's one thing we are all on the same page about...

 

[NUCat320]

The Daily specifically named the spokesperson who declined comment. It does not specifically state that they requested Fitz/Gragg/Schill, but none of those individuals spoke with media at all during the process. Again, it was designed to be buried.

In retrospect, I’m surprised that ‘sexual’ didn’t appear in the initial release, but I guess that’s why they were able to convince so many hear that nothing happened.

 

[Pulmocat]

What's not irrelevant - the truth.

Yes it's probably somewhere between what the source said and what the other players would have us believe - but (a) we don't even know "what the players would have us believe" side of it because they won't release the investigation results, and (b) there's a huge delta between what he said and the other side of things which has major differences, to me at least.

I don't really buy the "Fitz must have known or else was willfully ignorant". Certainly it's quite possible he knew, or he was willfully ignorant. But I feel like that comment indicates ignorance of how student organizations, and college in general, works. I was in the marching band, on the drumline. I can say for darned sure that the NUMB Director did not know a bit about whatever traditions and things we did at our NUMB or drumline gatherings outside of rehearsal and games. We certainly didn't do hazing in our section and I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything elsewhere in the marching band, but if there was hazing then it very VERY easily could have been hidden from him.

To add to this...I was a swimmer. None of my coaches ever stepped foot in the locker room. Imagine a grown man I'm a locker room with naked 18 yr olds. It's what we used to call pedophilia

 

[NUCat320]

I believe the accuser furthered his accusations and made them "sexual" to the Daily NU reporters because he didn't get the result he wanted with his original complaint.

Then you’re choosing to ignore the University’s official account.

Decision to Relieve Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald of His Duties: Leadership Notes - Northwestern University

This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.

www.northwestern.edu

 

[corbi296]

Actually the Daily articles have been one sided but whose fault is that??? The multiple articles indicate they reached out to Fitz and the administration and did not get responses.

I'd bet the farm the Daily reporters would love to have Fitz or Gragg talk to them to give them every opportunity to respond.

How about talking to other players including those who were close to the accuser? How about doing a cursory review of Diaz’s Twitter account and finding tweets from just a couple of years ago that directly contradicted what he was saying to them. That’s just basic research and diligence that I would expect most journalists interested in making sure they are getting the story right would do.

 

[corbi296]

The point from Styre was comparing (i) the initial complaint from the whistleblower to NU's compliance dept to (ii) the report that the whistleblower gave for the daily article. Seemed to be saying that those were the same so therefore it's credible (apologies if I misinterpreted Styre). That was the "X=X does not make X true" point I was making. The investigative report is something different.

I likewise would like to see the investigative report - what that unearthed / how it sifted through the varying stories / etc. I think that's one thing we are all on the same page about...

Do we know what he said in the original complaint to NU? I would not be surprised if there were inconsistencies between the original complaint and what he told the Daily. Hard to keep your story straight when you are not telling the whole truth.