Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Well, this would limit the idea that she’s out for just money right now.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180829/report-details-allegations-of-longtime-abuse-by-zach-smith?template=ampart&__twitter_impression=true

Funny, what we take from what we read.   That’s what you took from that?
I had read that last night and immediately thought, well now they can prove she lied. She had said nobody from OSU had ever. Ontacted her, and her attorney publicly said the same thing.
But, to her credit, she clarified that by this a.m. that no attorney from OSU had contacted her, and that she never would have said that.
The most telling thing was the chief’s saying they have information that either “ explains or dispels” her claims, as opposed to “ promotes or dispels”. 

She said his morning the officer misunderstood. She never said OSU sent someone to the house, she said someone was sent to the house when she described the 2009 incident to the attorney. That’s a reasonable explanation. 

My point was that she did not bring up the abuse claims right now out of the blue. There’s been growing momentum that she was never abused. From outside the situation, it looks like an abuse victim crying out for help multiple times over the years. It doesn’t mean she’s not crazy, but increasing likelihood that there was unhealthy physical contact many times in their relationship.

Yes I agree.  
My point is- yesterday The Dispatch received an anonymous tip that she had told the police OSU had sent an attorney after the 2015 incident.  
That got published and our rush to judgement society took it as gospel.  
Thankfully she did the right thing and clarified it this morning.  That just makes her more credible in my eyes.

It wasn't an anonymous tip, it was the police incident report, which the chief of police didn't dispute. How is that rushing to judgment?
The police report had the story wrong, which she clarified. It's not that the media reported it wrong. You're attacking the wrong people

Yes I agree.  
My point is- yesterday The Dispatch received an anonymous tip that she had told the police OSU had sent an attorney after the 2015 incident.  
That got published and our rush to judgement society took it as gospel.  
Thankfully she did the right thing and clarified it this morning.  That just makes her more credible in my eyes.

So this gets into something interesting: media outlets tend to believe what the police say. There’s a far more political discussion to be had about it, but for our small corner of the world, it means public police documents are made very public. That’s long been the media way of operating, as public documents are considered safely reportable. 
This was not a document made publicly available, but it was a police document. The paper contacted be department in question, and the department didn’t dispute it was legitimate. So it was not an “anonymous tip,” but rather an anonomously supplied official document that was verified. 
Now the question is, what should see the light of day. If we err on the side of keeping things quiet, we’ll end up with some not great outcomes. Either folks doing something heinous and a history of behavior that doesn’t quite get to the higher standard of being out there, or people involved using those high standards to hide things (they already can to a degree, and that’s sometimes a problem). If we stick with what we have, lots of innuendo, which we feel is very bad. I don’t know if there’s a better way to do it or not. We’re a curious and reactive species by nature. 

It wasn't an anonymous tip, it was the police incident report, which the chief of police didn't dispute. How is that rushing to judgment?
The police report had the story wrong, which she clarified. It's not that the media reported it wrong. You're attacking the wrong people

Lol.   I am not attacking anything or anyone.
So now what the police have to say or not say has bearing of this all of the sudden? It didn’t before when they refused to press charges based on the evidence in front of them. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t continue to believe everything that points to your narrative And disavow  out everything that doesn’t. And that’s what this whole thing has been for you and really the whole national media

Lol.   I am not attacking anything or anyone.
So now what the police have to say or not say has bearing of this all of the sudden? It didn’t before when they refused to press charges based on the evidence in front of them. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t continue to believe everything that points to your narrative And disavow  out everything that doesn’t. And that’s what this whole thing has been for you and really the whole national media

Pot meet kettle. 
Show me where I said what the police say has no bearing? 

I thought the bigger conversation this week wasn't this story but all the outlets and "open records request" lawyers acknowledging that deleting those text messages is definitely illegal and begs for police investigation but that won't realistically happen to Meyer in Ohio.

So you know he did delete texts?  How did you get that info since nobody else can confirm that?

Did you validate that through the same process you used to repeatedly refer to ZS as a serial abuser?    

I suspect so.