Ohio State wrestler who accused Jordan of knowing about sex abuse now recants
Source: Columbus Dispatch
WASHINGTON One of the wrestlers who accused Rep. Jim Jordan of knowing about accusations that a doctor at Ohio State University was sexually abusing members of the OSU wrestling team now says Jordan didnt know of the abuse.
Former Assistant Wrestling Coach Mark Coleman, in a statement put out through the conservative public relations firm hired by Jordans campaign to defend him against the allegations, said Thursday he never said that Jordan knew about the abuse more than two decades ago.
At no time did I ever say or have any direct knowledge that Jim Jordan knew of Dr. Richard Strausss inappropriate behavior, said Coleman. I have nothing but respect for Jim Jordan as I have known him for more than 30 years and know him to be of impeccable character.
Those comments stand in contrast to comments he made to the Wall Street Journal in July, when he said, Theres no way unless hes got dementia or something that hes got no recollection of what was going on at Ohio State. I have nothing but respect for this man, I love this man, but he knew as far as Im concerned.
Read more: http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180809/ohio-state-wrestler-who-accused-jordan-of-knowing-about-sex-abuse-now-recants
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Trying to get them to recant. This guy was bribed. Shame on him.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)to say money doesn't buy happiness etc. I'd like to have money and be able to make my own decision on that.
One things for sure..it buys damage control. Until the next one comes up. Remember Hastert? Some uber rich guy or the gop slush fund just made a 5 million dollar donation to Coach Colemans Trust Fund.
The Genie is out of the bag for the subset of caveman who hung around gym locker rooms toe tapping and whatever else they intended to do in the toilet stalls. Good grief.
still_one
(92,187 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)LandOfHopeAndDreams
(872 posts)He never actually said that he knew for a fact, just that Jordan would have had to essentially be brain dead to not know.
But he got paid, no doubt about that.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)His initial statement - based on no fact whatsoever - that Jordan must have known, could be looked at two ways. Either it was an opinion or it was a defamatory statement of fact.
He could spend a good chunk of change defending himself in a lawsuit to find out, or he could clarify that he had no factual basis in the first place.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)He had actual knowledge that Jordan had knowledge, he said 'there's no way he wouldn't have known', which is different. It is inherently a 'guess' by it's nature.
So, not going to get him on the 'false statement' I'm afraid.
This isn't even a 'recanting', it's actually a 'clarification' ... ergo, the headline is false.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Thank you for pointing this out.
DoctorJoJo
(1,134 posts)TeamPooka
(24,223 posts)House of Roberts
(5,168 posts)then say it was a coach? Different perspectives for different roles in the scandal. This coach could be covering for the school too.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)This is just another rat coach.
yonder
(9,664 posts)a kennedy
(29,655 posts)JI7
(89,248 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,526 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That if you accuse a well known person of having knowledge of child sexual abuse, when you have no factual evidence of said knowledge, that the threat of being sued for defamation is a credible one.
Response to jberryhill (Reply #20)
kcr This message was self-deleted by its author.
kcr
(15,315 posts)and assume you simply have no knowledge of the story.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Quite obviously this guy was contacted by lawyers for Jordan who gave him a choice between (a) clarify that he had no factual basis for the statement of Jordan's state of mind, or (b) be sued for defamation.
Quite obviously, this guy chose (a).
Did Jordan know? Yeah, probably. But you can't go around saying that about people without clearly stating it as your opinion, unless you have a factual basis of some kind to do so.
Kaleva
(36,296 posts)It's more of a clarification then a recant. The comments Coleman made earlier to the Wall Street Journal were just speculation.
And this part of the article is wrong:
" ...now says Jordan didnt know of the abuse."
What Mark Coleman did say was that he himself has no direct knowledge or ever say Jim Jordan actually knew of the abuse. But he did not say that Jim Jordan didn't know of the abuse. How could Coleman say such a thing with certainty?
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)republicans and truth just don't mix
kcr
(15,315 posts)Here is a CNN article where he says he's clarifying his remarks. He seems to regret his remarks because they're being misconstrued.
He explicitly says he's not changing what he said. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/us/coleman-interview-jim-jordan-ohio-state-abuse/index.html
'Coleman told CNN he no longer stands by his statement.'
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)Got to this guy .....