Now who do I disbelieve here?

....in the case where Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has been accused of turning away from his responsibility for reporting sexual misconduct by a doctor serving athletes at The Ohio State University?  On one side, the seven accusers are, as far as I can tell, not saying they pulled Jordan aside to report the abuse, but are simply saying "he must have known", which is far less compelling.  On the flip side, Jordan is attacking them personally, which is generally a bad sign for the accused. 


On the other side, The Ohio State University (not just any old Ohio State U.!) has hired Perkins Coie, a law firm well known for its involvement in liberal causes, to investigate allegations that may embroil a top conservative lawmaker.  Moreover, at least two of the accusers have had "adverse involvement" with the criminal justice system themselves, and are hence not exactly brilliant witnesses for the "prosecution".   And in Jordan's defense, at least six coaches have spoken up in his defense, though it's unclear what proximity they had to Jordan and/or the alleged victims. 


All in all, it seems that "he shoulda known" is a fairly weak accusation, and lends itself to the defense "I didn't catch that" or "I thought he was joking", so I tend to want to believe Jordan there.


What can I not debate?  Well, if indeed non-team members were allowed to shower with the wrestling team, then OSU had a serious problem.  Yes, coaches go in the locker room, but team doctors hanging out there?  That's one warning sign that I can fault Jordan, who had a locker in that locker room, for missing. 
And one final thought is that if you get harassed or groped or worse, it appears you really ought to speak with someone specifically about the matter.  You can't just count on them overhearing it and expect them to take action.