First, I don't think this is going to come back on Briles. I think at best he was willfully ignorant, but he's too insulated to be touched. But I do think objectively, there are some suspicious loose ends.
1) If there was no cover up going on, in the football program or within the greater university, then why was there such a scramble to come up with a defense, piece by piece? Obviously they knew about the trial. Unless they were anticipating it never making the news (and it almost made it), why wouldn't they have their self defense pieces--the BSU paperwork, a statement from the coach and AD, etc--well thought out and ready to go? This is a point that no one seems to have noticed yet.
2) A lawyer representing the university was in the audience at the trial, and tried (from the audience!) to object to a prosecutor's question. I don't know what to make of this; but it certainly shows that he is at the very least, a homer, hoping for a not-guilty verdict. Rather suspicious given his role with the university.
3) Bennett's quote from earlier this summer indicating his intention to play the player. There's no way this was just Bennett going rogue....That sort of thing had to have been the general consensus within the program, and I don't know what they actually thought was going to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean they were guilty of anything, but it just seems to indicate some sort of ill-intentioned thought process behind the scenes.
1) If there was no cover up going on, in the football program or within the greater university, then why was there such a scramble to come up with a defense, piece by piece? Obviously they knew about the trial. Unless they were anticipating it never making the news (and it almost made it), why wouldn't they have their self defense pieces--the BSU paperwork, a statement from the coach and AD, etc--well thought out and ready to go? This is a point that no one seems to have noticed yet.
2) A lawyer representing the university was in the audience at the trial, and tried (from the audience!) to object to a prosecutor's question. I don't know what to make of this; but it certainly shows that he is at the very least, a homer, hoping for a not-guilty verdict. Rather suspicious given his role with the university.
3) Bennett's quote from earlier this summer indicating his intention to play the player. There's no way this was just Bennett going rogue....That sort of thing had to have been the general consensus within the program, and I don't know what they actually thought was going to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean they were guilty of anything, but it just seems to indicate some sort of ill-intentioned thought process behind the scenes.
