Update to allegations from last year

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Why am I not surprised?

 

It's why you wait the result of an objective investigation, and don't fire people or close companies without proof. It's "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason.

  

8 hours ago, Lurking said:

Wait, there never were any charges? What was this then about?

The court of public opinions doesn't have a due process.

[GoStormPlays]

9 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Sure they admitted their mistake... after it was practically dragged out of them by all the negative social media bombardment.

Does that mean that they haven’t learned their lesson? Plus, they didn’t deny these claims after Madison reported this. They said they were going to investigate.

[NadiaMayer]

As someone whos dealt with years of bullying trauma and abuse from peers and talk and work with people who deal the same or worst stuff.

 I was very skeptical of whole ordeal. as i said LTT did the right thing hiring a third party audit if this was MS or googgle we would never heard it.

she came out this very lucky seeing that she could has massive lawsuit on this and LTT went to step back i do thing ltt should sue as ive seen this stuff happen over and over where people use their gender, cultural, ancestry or sexual preferences attack others this is words from a trans fem bi disabled furry here btw.

Also if you are feeling worried that LTT paid off people sign a yes he gave the name of the investigatiors so you can back check them right now if they has record of taken bribes it will be the internet footprint.

i hate the internet some days -_-
 

[Dracarris]

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

Like it's funny how Americans seem to get so many jury notices that they are trying to dodge them twice a year, meanwhile I only ever received one Jury duty notice in my entire lifetime here in BC. And it was filled before they even got to my name.

And then there's countries where life-changing decisions for fellow citizens are not heavily influenced/done by laymen but only properly educated experts at law. Crazy, right?

[Lurking]

41 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

And then there's countries where life-changing decisions for fellow citizens are not heavily influenced/done by laymen but only properly educated experts at law. Crazy, right?

You must not be from the US. Being tried by jury of your peers is a constitutional RIGHT the defendant has. The defendant always can choose to be tried by a judge. But a defendant has a better chance to to make at least one out of 12 jurors have reasonable doubt. A professional judge may not have that doubt. 

 

The Police is paid by the government, so is the district attorney and the judge. The jury is (for better or worse) a random selection of regular people that have no stake in your case or need to fulfill conviction quotas. With a jury it would be much harder to set up a kangaroo court where the verdict already is decided beforehand..

 

This isn't a perfect system. Several totalitarian systems have (and still) show that a court system without independent jury easily can be abused by the people in power. 

 

A professional judge doesn't help you if their career or life depends on you being convicted because you offended someone in a high position. All people that went into the Gulag system were officially tried by an official court and professional judge.

[Gege-Brazorf]

5 hours ago, saintlouisbagels said:

They likely received a giant stack of papers written in very dry legalese.

No one's going to read that and everyone is just going to rely on other people's summaries and misinterpretations of results.

But you agree that a summary by someone that isn’t the firm, isn’t objective .As you say we are relying on their interpretation of the data. I would have preferred if the the law firm published something, instead to trust the interpretation from one of the side involved. 

[AAVVIronAlex]

Looks fine to me, though I would also like to see the private investigator's thoughts on this and also I would like to see Madison's thought on this.

14 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

An investigation paid for by the accused?

If you value your reputation as an investigator you should insure that you make the right decisions and it is not like money can even be a reason for them falsely stating anything, the more clean investigations you do the more money you get as a company for such investigations.

[Absentia13]

LTT should post snippets of the report itself, not a summary by the LTT Twitter. Tell people you aren't going to release the entire thing but use screenshots with page numbers and labels to identify where it actually came from. The way I read this is a summary by Linus, or Linus and a lawyer, of what the report said. Considering the lack of transparency of that (filtered through the LTT lens) and the public facing nature of a Youtube creator, this seems odd to me. 

[AAVVIronAlex]

I think they should just leave it as is for now, then if Madison has any disagreement with the statement they should continue taking measures to improve the situation.

[NapsterBaaaad]

My personal feelings on the post: I think the publication of an actual report and/or findings would do a lot to put some weight behind this 1st party summary by LMG themselves.

The entire paragraph dedicated to making a threat, at the conclusion of the investigation led by a corporate law firm, hired by the company, also feels a bit out of place, in the context of a public statement aimed at appeasing the public at large, too...

[nether1234]

15 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

What's stopping her from filling a lawsuit?

Nothing. Except she said in her tweets last year she had no plan to do so.

[Lurking]

30 minutes ago, Gege-Brazorf said:

But you agree that a summary by someone that isn’t the firm, isn’t objective .As you say we are relying on their interpretation of the data. I would have preferred if the the law firm published something, instead to trust the interpretation from one of the side involved. 

What makes you think they owe us that? First, it would be full of private information (like who was accused of having made jokes). And second, can you go to any of your local businesses and as a stranger just demand all their internal HR reports? Probably not.

 

From all we know there may not have been any harassment in the legal sense. And Police or any officials weren't involved. So this all is a big nothing at this point (at least based on paper). I bet most larger companies have stacks of complaints by disgruntled employees that lead to not much (at least no legal action). 

 

And while I don't know the details, I always wonder that if such harassment goes on for a long time, why do people stay with the company? And if there is a legally substantiated case, why are no charges applied? The Police have much better legal means to investigate and can compell witnesses to make a true statement. And since making a false police report is a crime, the victim also should be considered to be more believable since they really are tied to the truth (unlike in private investigations). 

 

And if the whole thing doesn't rise to the level of a criminal case, then it is just ordinary HR issue that goes on every day in all companies. Not saying the accused behaved correctly, but it all can be a situation of one person interpreting things wrong. Like at my workplace some older male would touch someone else's shoulder as a sign of "job done well" or similar. Or if a new employee shows up you would ask them about family, if they have children etc. But now everyone can be offended and go to HR for any reason (and the verdict is based on how the "victim" felt) you are better off to have absolutely no private conversation at all. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

[Alex T88]

An interesting read about one of the founding partners of the law firm that conducted the investigation. Probably, the most important question that one can ask after reading this: Does this affect the credibility of the law firm and the chances of a fair investigation? 

 

https://rallyforjustice.com/

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

15 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

At this point, I want to hear from Madison. 

 

Given the "we could sue, but we won't... yet" kind of veiled threat at the end, I wouldn't expect additional comments from her side.

 

15 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

if you hire an outside source, then no.

A source is not "outside" if hired by one of the interested parties (just watch any trial where both parties hire experts).

 

The point of hiring someone else is that they have less at stake and more concern about their general reputation outside the case, so that they will have more restraint than you when it comes to fact-bending. But while a firm that's more zealous than the hiring party will quickly be discredited, a firm that always find a lout of serious, liability-inducing problems in the hiring party will also quickly go out of business. This is true even if there's nothing to be found to begin with, it's an agency problem, similar to rating agencies being hired by the issuers of the financial securities being rated. It doesn't mean either those firms or LMG can do much more than to hire them,

 

In any case, we all knew the most honest of sources would have a hard time finding evidence of alleged in-person misconducts (of course, even harder if made-up). It is different for the part of the allegations that should have generated some form of "paper trail", the lack of which would be a failure of procedure in itself (it will still not confirm or debunk the allegations themselves).

 

1 hour ago, denco101 said:

My personal feelings on the post: I think the publication of an actual report and/or findings would do a lot to put some weight behind this 1st party summary by LMG themselves.
 

There may be confidentiality issues with that. If the report was meant for internal LMG use only, it may contain direct references to individuals involved or allegedly involved in the events investigated, which can be problematic regardless of the outcome.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

You must not be from the US.

LMG isn't either.

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

Being tried by jury of your peers is a constitutional RIGHT the defendant has.

That's criminal law. A civil lawsuit (simplifying, when you are after $$$ rather than jail time) is a different story.

[LAwLz]

I would like to see the actual report, not how the accused interprets the report and says that the allegations were "largely unfounded" (so not all of them were unfounded?). 

 

 

 

Also, just because a report made several years after doesn't find evidence for things doesn't mean it didn't happen. There were still plenty of red flags based on the things we saw. The leaked meeting about sexual allegations during which James made a joke about strippers. That it was Linus' wife that was HR for some time. The statement Linus made about how people should just talk it out between each other if someone had an issue. Stuff like that. 

 

 

Not a fan of the threat Linus added to the tweet either. Saying you have a very strong case to sue someone but you won't doesn't make you seem like the bigger man in my eyes. It makes you seem like a bully because the statement was made to create fear. 

 

 

 

Edit: I have now read some of the comments here and would like to add something. 

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. 

Just because they couldn't find evidence for any wrongdoing doesn't mean no wrongdoing occurred. 

 

Let's say someone at LMG asked Madison if she wanted to suck their dick. Let's say they did that a few times. If no one was around to hear it (or they didn't think it was a big deal, or if the one who who heard disliked Madison), it would just be word against word. Just because there is no evidence of it happening doesn't mean it never happened. 

 

 

Just to be perfectly clear, this is not LMG releasing the report. This is not evidence of anything really, since we don't know what the report says. We just know what LMG decided to tell us. We don't know what they didn't tell us, we don't know if their retelling is accurate, nor do we know if they are even telling the truth. These are just words that hold as much water, in my opinion, as the statements made before the investigation was made. Don't interpret this tweet as evidence of anything, because it isn't. It's just words. 

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

I don't think they will release anything more on this. It's still private company. They have no obligations towards general public. Only their own employees, government officials and maybe other third parties that have made official complaints. The law firm will not release anything. Releasing something would break customer confidentiality.

 

Without going into speculation, if any current employee of LMG thinks investigation was botched or the findings crossed the line, they will resign on their own. Like said, the general public has mostly made their mind and nothing LMG does will change that. It's the core of cancel culture.

While I do agree that there isn't an obligation, it creates an issue in the people who are expecting "We are committed to publishing the findings".

 

A summary of a summary, especially one where it appears some of the companies opinions have made it into the summary portion.  Original wordings of findings is very important as words have great meaning when it comes to what was found.

 

Specifically lines like this, it makes me wonder whether this is just pure opinion on LMG's part or whether it was part of the actual summary

Quote

The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

 

A semi-local example of why a public report can be important.  Toronto with Chad Kelly, when it came to the bits that were unsubstantiated/no evidence, the summary indicated the justification was that the witness to the event refused to provide testimony.  Now, not saying that this is the case, but it is why LTT's "We are committed to publishing the findings" would be important to actually publish the findings.  We do not know to what extent the investigator was given access to (which would be in a summary) or the wording on the conclusion of the "false".

 

5 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Just accusations on twitter. LMG took it seriously and did an investigation to be sure through a reputation third party. They found nothing substantial. If she keeps making these accusations without bringing anything new to the table other than "believe me!", they would sue her for defamation. Though I doubt Linus would go that far since he has said in the past he would rather not go that far. Even after getting scammed by a manufacturer on their screwdrivers

Honestly, the whole talk about defamation in the tweet sort of soured it even more for me.

 

Again, without the actual summary, even if it's redacted, or verification via the third party that the statement is correct we cannot actually assess the thoroughness or even the efficacy of it.  As "unsubstantiated" and "no evidence" can be drastically different based just based on what is mentioned in the report.

 

1 hour ago, AAVVIronAlex said:

Looks fine to me, though I would also like to see the private investigator's thoughts on this and also I would like to see Madison's thought on this.

And this is why the mention of defamation and the continued assessment of it doesn't sit well with me.  It feels very much to me that anyone who might step forward with comments on this would have to think twice.

 

54 minutes ago, Lurking said:

What makes you think they owe us that? First, it would be full of private information (like who was accused of having made jokes). And second, can you go to any of your local businesses and as a stranger just demand all their internal HR reports? Probably not.

The earlier statement by LMG "We are committed to publishing the findings".  The summary can be redacted to take out identifying information.

 

Are they legally required to?  Nope.  Do they owe use? Nope...but there was a statement commitment to it; so people will feel that stepping back from that by issuing a summary of a summary is a bit of a betrayal of trust.

 

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

And while I don't know the details, I always wonder that if such harassment goes on for a long time, why do people stay with the company? And if there is a legally substantiated case, why are no charges applied? The Police have much better legal means to investigate and can compell witnesses to make a true statement. And since making a false police report is a crime, the victim also should be considered to be more believable since they really are tied to the truth (unlike in private investigations). 

Lots of people can feel like they have no choice; especially if it's your first real job.  Harassment cases can be also crazily tough to actually prove, which is why I feel a lot of them don't go through.  It's just "I didn't realize" or "they misinterpreted my actions"...enough of a grey area that unless there are actual papertrails [like harassment in emails] there isn't enough grounds to pursue them legally.  Afterall, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt [and here in BC there was a guy caught on camera spray painting and he wasn't charged because they felt the case wouldn't hold up in court]

 

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

But now everyone can be offended and go to HR for any reason (and the verdict is based on how the "victim" felt) you are better off to have absolutely no private conversation at all. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

iirc correctly, the leaked handbook didn't contain the information to the 3rd party HR.  Could be wrong, but that's what I remember when all this stuff hit the fan and people were bringing up the HR book and the leaked meeting.

[AAVVIronAlex]

30 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And this is why the mention of defamation and the continued assessment of it doesn't sit well with me.  It feels very much to me that anyone who might step forward with comments on this would have to think twice.

On the other hand if they had the courage to post something like this they must have been thinking forward before doing so. There is no way someone in their right mind will get ahead of themselves to post anything as serious as this when they know they misinterpreted something. Anyway, as I always said I am ready to see positive results I hope everyone gets a win in this situation and hell with those trolls spamming nonsense under the Tweet and Madison's latest tweet.

[LogicalDrm]

24 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The earlier statement by LMG "We are committed to publishing the findings".  The summary can be redacted to take out identifying information.

Which they did... But seems like its not enough. You, and some other louder critics, are proving my point. My thought about making that "promise" was/is that it was stupid and too lightly thought statement to be given. The investigator might have advised them not to go public with details. It is law firm, thats what they do for living.

 

The statement made is actually way better than what would have happened year ago. Its made for public. Not Linus ranting at the camera, acting condescending with "you don't know how its like" and "you don't know what happens when cameras aren't rolling" or "don't read into jokes too much". Which means they are learning. To become proper company. 

 

Personal thoughts on that statement, pretty much equals to my own interpretation of the case and public details about it. Mistakes were made, but the more flashy ones probably weren't completely or at all true. It always sells better to claim harassment than just unfair work treatment.

[Lurking]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's criminal law. A civil lawsuit (simplifying, when you are after $$$ rather than jail time) is a different story.

If this doesn't go to the level of a criminal case, I don't think it is worth of a news story. At this point it looks like either party has not pursued a civil lawsuit. So at this point this is settled and both parties officially pursue no further action. At some point you either sue and present your case to a court, or you don't. but if you don't, you can't run around and still make the same accusation. 

 

Obviously this can become an actual case if either party decides to actually sue the other party. 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While I do agree that there isn't an obligation, it creates an issue in the people who are expecting "We are committed to publishing the findings".

 

A summary of a summary, especially one where it appears some of the companies opinions have made it into the summary portion.  Original wordings of findings is very important as words have great meaning when it comes to what was found.

 

Lots of people can feel like they have no choice; especially if it's your first real job.  Harassment cases can be also crazily tough to actually prove, which is why I feel a lot of them don't go through.  It's just "I didn't realize" or "they misinterpreted my actions"...enough of a grey area that unless there are actual papertrails [like harassment in emails] there isn't enough grounds to pursue them legally.  Afterall, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt [and here in BC there was a guy caught on camera spray painting and he wasn't charged because they felt the case wouldn't hold up in court]

They published the findings in summary. I doubt the full report says the opposite of the summary. I suspect the victim got the full report and can decide what to do with it and if it is worth to either go to court, or be done with it. Everyone else on this internet is not part of this and is owed nothing. by publishing the full report they also could violate the victim's privacy rights. Like if I was the victim, I would object to my former employer publishing data that may reveal information about my part, or things that make me look bad or give other information I don't want in public.

 

I don't know how long she worked there and all that went on. But if this is many months, you have to see that one always has a choice. If it was unbearable to work at LTT, one always can work at the local Walmart, or so. 

 

We have to go through harassment training every few years. And we basically learn anyone always can be offended by anything and they will win the case. For example, if you ask a new employee if they have children, this can be construed of you hitting on them, or you not approving of them being gay, or you forcing your family ideals on others and so on. And it doesn't matter how you mean it, it is all based how the "victim" felt. If they feel offended, you are wrong and will be punished. Years ago when I started work, the older office ladies would ask a lot of questions just because, you know, they are older ladies and like to chat. Like in the South they call everyone "honey". But since recent HR initiatives, this stopped because everyone is afraid to get in trouble. Unless the new employee volunteers any information, you could work next to someone for 20 years and know nothing about them because any private question can bring trouble. I understand bad things happened many years ago, but I feel this went to the opposite extreme now that no one can say anything. 

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Which they did... But seems like its not enough.

But they didn't publish the findings... They posted their interpretation of the findings.

Those are two very different things. 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

You, and some other louder critics, are proving my point. My thought about making that "promise" was/is that it was stupid and too lightly thought statement to be given.

If you are referring to me as one of the "louder critics" then I am fairly sure you, wanderingfool and I all made the same point. Making the promise to begin with was stupid.

But since they made the promise they should actually follow through with it. What they have delivered now is not what they promised.

[Absentia13]

8 minutes ago, Lurking said:

If this doesn't go to the level of a criminal case, I don't think it is worth of a news story.

Are you forgetting that this is a youtube channel and has more facing with the public and direct interaction than any other large company aside from like, sports franchises? They have to worry about a lot more than it being a news story, they have to worry about how "fans" or viewers of their content will receive it. They can be a private company and keep things private, but that in itself has a look to it that some people might not appreciate. 

 

As to the rest of your points in this thread, you seem to already have a warped perception of how people should act in different situations. Saying that oh, someone can just get a job at Walmart, is a ridiculous thing to say. People have to pay rent, electric, car payments, feed their pets, kids, etc. You don't go from a good paying job to a job that would make you lose your possessions simply out of principle, unless you have help from someone else or a ton of savings. You need a soft landing spot to maintain your (probably) normal (read: not rich) lifestyle. 

 

On the "honey" thing. Point taken on that, I know things can go overboard sometimes, but put yourself in someone else's shoes that doesn't appreciate that kind of talk. Should you be forced to tell someone, "hey please don't call me honey, I have a name, use it". No, that's uncomfortable and weird. Work is work, not everyone is friends, act like it. 

 

Taking a company's word for it never got anyone anywhere. Linus is not your friend. He's a now rich guy in Canada acting in videos for a living and paying others to make them. Giving LTT too much credit makes no sense to me. 

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Which they did... But seems like its not enough. You, and some other louder critics, are proving my point. My thought about making that "promise" was/is that it was stupid and too lightly thought statement to be given. The investigator might have advised them not to go public with details. It is law firm, thats what they do for living.

Quite frankly, no they didn't publish it; and in fact issued a threat of action basically if Madison were to try lets say she disagrees with their statement.

 

They published THEIR statement on the summary of a summary.  There is no way to validate what was said was actually what the third party said.  That is very different from publishing the findings; as I've stated wording is massively key in regards to reading the summaries.

 

Like I said, wording when it comes to reports like these are HIGHLY important.

 

In my example of the CFL and Chad Kelly.  As noted, the "unsubstantiated" or "no evidence" in the CFL cases were all essentially held up with legal asterisks to so speak by stating certain parties involved didn't participate.  Had Kelly not texted, and had he had his outbursts with fewer witnesses available all the allegations would have also been technically "unsubstantiated".

 

That's the issue, we cannot know the accuracy of the investigation based on a LMG statement.  We don't even know if former employees, those who quit/left prior to the investigation were even questioned as part of it

 

16 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Mistakes were made, but the more flashy ones probably weren't completely or at all true. It always sells better to claim harassment than just unfair work treatment.

But you are making that assessment based on what though, the statement that LMG made.  The issue is we don't know the wording of the summary of the investigation so we are exactly back to where we were years ago the whole "trust me bro"; we summarized the summary fairly.

 

Even specifically their statement doesn't even say that the sexual harassment didn't happen.  Look at the way LMG worded it.

Quote

Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

At best the wording is that it wasn't substantiated [which effectively can mean it's a he said vs she said argument]

 

So no, a statement by LMG on the summary IS NOT publishing the results.  For all we know the whole "not addressed" could have been followed by the line, that it was addressed but insufficiently.  Which again is WHY it's important to actually publish the findings...not summarize the summary.

 

Again as well, there is a similar case that happened in the CFL...not only did the investigation take less than half the time, the summary was accessed by outlets to see themselves.

 

2 minutes ago, Lurking said:

They published the findings in summary. I doubt the full report says the opposite of the summary. I suspect the victim got the full report and can decide what to do with it and if it is worth to either go to court, or be done with it. Everyone else on this internet is not part of this and is owed nothing. 

But they didn't publish the findings; they published their interpretation of the summary.  Again, wording in these kinds of things is VERY key.

 

I bring the CFL situation up again because I think it's relevant.  One of the claims was listed as unsubstantiated in that case, BUT the summary itself made clear that the reason it was left unsubstantiated was because the witness refused to make a statement.  That changes things drastically, the difference between "the statement was unsubstantiated" vs "the statement was unsubstantiated because the witness refused to talk".

 

8 minutes ago, Lurking said:

I don't know how long she worked there and all that went on. But if this is many months, you have to see that one always has a choice. If it was unbearable to work at LTT, one always can work at the local Walmart, or so. 

iirc, she moved here on a work visa...that greatly limits finding other employment and quitting doesn't really look good if it's the first job as well [unless you have one that is literally lined up] and it gets even worse when all these events happen during covid times.

 

37 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

The statement made is actually way better than what would have happened year ago. Its made for public. Not Linus ranting at the camera, acting condescending with "you don't know how its like" and "you don't know what happens when cameras aren't rolling" or "don't read into jokes too much". Which means they are learning. To become proper company. 

Except he still made those types of comments as late as April...and after their "reflection" they released a video with incorrectly cited information [and came to an invalid conclusion] when it's a video that they were supposed to have vetted better...and on top of that they still made a mistake with what I still claim to be a sponsor segment in listing the wrong product and it literally took like a year to get them to correct it [and effectively having them look into it a second time].

 

As a company, I don't think they are learning.

 

 

[Lurking]

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

iirc, she moved here on a work visa...that greatly limits finding other employment and quitting doesn't really look good if it's the first job as well [unless you have one that is literally lined up] and it gets even worse when all these events happen during covid times.

That actually limited her choices a lot and puts it in a different perspective. 

 

So we basically need less government for people to have more choice where they work.

[dogwitch]

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

Which they did... But seems like its not enough. You, and some other louder critics, are proving my point. My thought about making that "promise" was/is that it was stupid and too lightly thought statement to be given. The investigator might have advised them not to go public with details. It is law firm, thats what they do for living.

 

The statement made is actually way better than what would have happened year ago. Its made for public. Not Linus ranting at the camera, acting condescending with "you don't know how its like" and "you don't know what happens when cameras aren't rolling" or "don't read into jokes too much". Which means they are learning. To become proper company. 

 

Personal thoughts on that statement, pretty much equals to my own interpretation of the case and public details about it. Mistakes were made, but the more flashy ones probably weren't completely or at all true. It always sells better to claim harassment than just unfair work treatment.

your not wrong.

 

[LogicalDrm]

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They published THEIR statement on the summary of a summary.  There is no way to validate what was said was actually what the third party said.  That is very different from publishing the findings; as I've stated wording is massively key in regards to reading the summaries.

I'm pretty sure the law firm that conducted it is large enough to issue takedown notice on that statement if they think its not correctly representing the summary. 

 

You (all) are entitled on your opinion and can interpret statement and any wording anyway you like. I'm interpreting this as all we are going to ever get, unless this goes to court and whether that court is the type where evidence will be published openly. I'm also assuming strongly that this is what the investigators recommended as statement if one was promised and had to be made. Otherwise they could have done the classic press release of "independent investigation has concluded and found no clear fault".

 

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

In my example of the CFL and Chad Kelly.  As noted, the "unsubstantiated" or "no evidence" in the CFL cases were all essentially held up with legal asterisks to so speak by stating certain parties involved didn't participate.  Had Kelly not texted, and had he had his outbursts with fewer witnesses available all the allegations would have also been technically "unsubstantiated".

I really wish you would not compare this to that. According to this article, investigation was made after lawsuit. Not other way around. Here, independent investigation was made without legal reason to do so. But from public pressure. And unless one of the parties decides to take this on further, thats all. Its still better than doing internal investigation.

 

I don't know if you have seen/read HR survey reports. But statement given is pretty much how those are. Very vague, concentrating on big lines over details. But I'm guessing it doesn't matter. Some of you will only be happy if you see the stamped front page with same bulletin points written and blacked with different wording. And for some, only the full report will be enough. Because "that was promised".