Coach-athlete sex, rape and PEDs at Huntington University? Nick Johnson scandal gets grimmer thanks to David Woods expose

Maybe there will be some concrete evidence - hopefully, we’ll see. If the case is settled before going to court, then there is a good chance it would include a confidentiality agreement. As discussed earlier, it would seem that the PED injections aspect would likely have more legs, and maybe with the new plaintiff and defendant, some compelling aspect of Huntington’s negligence will be revealed. I hope so! NO DOUBT, it has been FIRMLY established that Nick is wildly impulsive, immoral, and also insane to somehow think he could manage summertime 2020 YOLO schemes. He criminally treated the youngest (due to her not being of age), and that certainly shades how we view the likely possible further criminality. Perhaps Stoffel will yet provide the ironclad nail in the coffin to support her allegation (that she absolutely had the opportunity to deliver), but it’s unlikely.

The timeline of events and the way the Stoffel affair was first disclosed to police by the Johnsons does not work in her favor. Further, the impromptu forensic analysis performed on Nick’s phone that occurred just days after the most recent Nick and Hannah get together also did not include any indication of what Stoffel alleged. Then, the incident report (for the kidnapping, etc) became public. Stoffel may not have enjoyed learning that she was concubine #4 amongst her good friends in Nick’s very close-knit runner harem. Nick had probably told Stoffel that he loved her and that she was always and forever the one and only for him (who cares about wives, right?!). Besides, they were all friends. But then of course he shared a different perspective in the report. It seems like that would have been awkward, but who am I kidding, they probably had no trouble with it.

So, then sometime later, Stoffel visited the police and district attorney of N Indiana in attempts to make a criminal report, but they refused to pursue it because she did not provide anything that met the burden of proof required for them to do so. That’s unfortunate because it is clear they would have loved to throw the book at Nick. Then, she writes about it all in her journal, and then a bit later she connects with Woods to presumably locate other victims (which is totally valid). Woods says that it’s the very biggest story of his career, and they both suggest that this should be national news a la Nassar. She and Wilson file the civil suit. It does blow up pretty big in running, christian-school circles, and certainly locally, but no other victims alleging sexual assault came forward to help corroborate the rape claims (and the other 3 females in the group all but say it’s bogus).

For someone who seems to think very highly of themselves and their opinions, it's amazing how you continually post replies that seem to believe the perpetrators/cultists accounts over that of the victims.

You say the Johnsons account to the police "does not work in her (Stoffels) favor." Have you read the paragraph in the police report where Lauren stated her husband was "very good at lying" and that he'd "deny everything until the detective showed him the evidence?" Or maybe in that same paragraph where Lauren stated "Nick convinced her it was best they (her husbands victims and athletes under their care) did not know about each other because they would be less likely to come forward about the affairs if they each thought they were the only one." They don't exactly come off, by Lauren's own words/admission, to be the most trustworthy and forthright individuals. What makes you so sure that they told the truth for the parts that fit your rambling hypotheses? Or that they told the truth to the cultists who still believe them?

Frankly, your victim shaming and seemingly belief in people who still associate with a man who in his own police interview showed himself to be an evil manipulator is why victims in these situations are scared to come forward.

This is a good analysis of his posts. He almost never says something truly horrible, but always hinting and "just asking questions"....it's almost worse than blatantly saying what you want.

Fair enough - thank you for the good post.

I admit I disdain social media mob-like behavior in which claims are made that are unsupported by what is known. If a reasonable speculation is being regarded as though it’s an absolute true known fact, then I’m inclined to push back on that garbage. It’s a message board, and everyone has opinions. You’re welcome to yours, too! Thank you!

I bet I have made more critical remarks toward Nick than anyone else in this thread. I’m in agreement with everyone on that front, so it’s pretty much stipulated, isn’t it? Nevertheless, for your reassurance… Nick is a contemptible scumbag. His behavior / decisions with the original victim and going to Oregon and all that were outrageous and obviously criminal. He got off lightly, imo. His concurrent affairs were such an abysmal failure to the team (which you expressed really well) and as a husband. I definitely agree / believe he is exceptionally proficient at lying and manipulating.

All of that doesn’t automatically make him guilty of every accusation, even one’s that may fit his profile.

I appreciate you going to the report to demonstrate the Johnson’s untrustworthyness, and just like you, I don’t put much stock on any specific part of their testimony (same for Victim 1).. For example, according to the first Victim 1 interview, she straight up told the detective that Nick had not been unfaithful to his wife (lol)! Victim 1 had earlier told her HS friend, however, about Nick’s affairs, and the friend told this to the detective. In that case, I believe both Victim 1 and the friend were telling the truth.

Dirr, who as you noted was a “victim” along with Stoffel, but does not agree. She is no longer associated with the Johnsons, was not a friend of Victim 1’s, and I bet she was pressured a good bit to join the suit. I believe she simply finds the suit to be meritless, which she pretty much said in the TV interview (that she went out of her way to do). I also put a lot of weight on the fact that the police declined to charge Nick with Stoffel’s accusations. I believe they personally found Nick repugnant and would have loved to indict him, if they could. They tried to stick him with a lot more on Victim 1’s case, but it was the prosecutor (I’m pretty sure) that knocked down the charges. Before Stoffel came to them, they were very interested in these affairs, and they forensically examined Nick’s phone and correspondence before he came in. They didn’t go after him because they had nothing beyond an allegation. But, that’s just my rambling hypothesis, if you have something, let’s hear it.

If anything substantive comes about that backs up Stoffel’s allegation, I wouldn’t mind personally escorting Nick back to his prison cell myself. But not until then. Prematurely rushing to judgement sux.
In my opinion, a number of you are way behind the curve in regards to “victim shaming”. There used to be such a thing, but it is a complete over-reaction to go so far the other way so that you’re in denial of reality. I mean, given what you know about people, you’re really going to subscribe to the notion that people are either all good with no bad or all bad and no good? Seriously? In your mind, you think there is a class of people who have the authority to simply make an accusation and everybody’s gotta be like “Welp, there you go - it’s been said, so it is.” The mental gymnastics required for that are astounding! You have no rational reasoning for why you’ll give that dispensation to some and not others. It’s pure feelings or partisan nonsense. Second, victims know that there is nothing to be ashamed of, and that the correct (and expected) response is to go to the hospital / police and take direct action immediately. Third, it looks like it may just be me, but imo, marriages should be honored and respected. To screw someone else’s spouse (a “friend’s”, no less!) is indeed shameful. So, just like Nick / LJ lost just about all credibility due to prior actions, others did likewise. A minor can be manipulated (obviously), but a 22-23 year old not understand this? No way. Finally, this is a messageboard of 90% dudes, and I doubt you’re going to be so distraught so that you’re unable to come forward if you’re a victim in the future. Nah, people are not as fragile as you pretend. You know you’re just posturing and saying bs (which is true most of the time someone starts with “Frankly” or “Honestly”). Thanks again!

I can agree with your disdain for social media mob-like behavior. We are still in discovery where all the facts are not yet known so we should be careful jumping to our own conclusions.

Can you then reconcile why you withhold judgment on the Johnsons until all the facts come out but so freely proclaim your judgments about Stoffel?

Over the past few days, you've seemed focused on discrediting Stoffel, using her name as a verb and insinuating that she has some sort of axe to grind without the facts to back up her allegations. What is your rational reasoning for why you’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the Johnsons but not Stoffel?

Victims of sexual assault often don't come forward right away because of the power dynamic between them and the person that assaulted them (typically someone they know) and the feelings of embarrassment or not being believed.
Should our first reaction to sexual assault claims be one of skepticism, compassion or maybe both depending on the situation? The facts have not all been presented in this case, but is it safe to say this allegation may have some merit based upon the current facts we have on the players involved?

And you are correct that I mislabeled Dirr as a victim. She doesn't appear to see it that way and any relationship that was had was consensual (albeit, I'd argue, with a known manipulator). By your definition of marriage being honored and respected that would cause her to lose just about all credibility due to her actions. Putting alot of stock in her interview would seem to require some mental gymnastics then.

She also stated in that same interview that drinking too much coffee was equal to a banned substance (wonder where she got that strongly held belief) and confirmed her participation in what she believes was a USOC-sponsored drug experiment on collegiate athletes that necessitated a non-medically trained coach injecting his athletes under a NDA. Based on the plantiffs use of her statements as evidence in the amended lawsuit, she's been more a liability than an asset to the defense.

This whole thing is messy and the truth is going to be like a needle in a haystack of lies. So even if this message board is 90% dudes (because that matters?), I believe, in subjects as serious as this one, we should all try to avoid stereotyping people based on what we believe and instead focus on what we know of the situation. Maybe my use of the phrase "victim shaming" was a trigger for you but I've seen nothing from Stoffel in her own words, so far, that would characterize her in the way you've seemingly characterized her these past few days.

pacermonitor.com

WILSON et al v. JOHNSON et al (1:22-cv-00336), Indiana Northern District Court

WILSON et al v. JOHNSON et al (1:22-cv-00336), Indiana Northern District Court, Filed: 09/30/2022

Open link

Huntington filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Johnsons and Hines asked for an extension to respond, which was granted, and now they have until February 3rd to respond. I would guess that they’d file a motion to dismiss, too, but we shall see.

RoundRock! Thank you very much for your thoughtful, objective, and informed reply.

Imagine if at the beginning of this thread, you posted (from your post, tweaked very slightly to shorten):

"I personally hold disdain for social media mob-like behavior, and we are still in discovery where all the facts are not yet known, so we should be careful jumping to our own conclusions. This whole thing is messy and the truth is going to be like a needle in a haystack of lies. In subjects as serious as this one, we should all try to avoid stereotyping people based on what we believe and instead focus on what we know of the situation."

I think you would have been met with all kinds of scorn and derision for your supposedly inconceivable perspective. If you continued, the replies would likely be filled with mischaracterizations, intentional fallacies, utterly silly and laughable attempts to shame and "bully" (lol), and so on. You would have been called Nick several times, etc. Eventually, you might reach the point to where you're like, "OK, let's see if anyone fairly acknowledges the possibility of a different viewpoint when it's expressed in a way that's more in line with their style." And, then, voila - someone shows up and finally does! This thread has been frustrating because I have been viewed as participating in bad faith while it seems to me many (most) others have been contributing in bad faith! (lol)

I don't think I have treated the Johnsons and Stoffel much differently. The allegations against Nick (and LJ, though I view Nick more dimly based on what's been shared) are so exceedingly plausible. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, Nick's judgment/actions were extremely awful - Monumentally bad. I agree with how you've depicted him. If Nick were to eventually go to jail, I would absolutely not question it. He's earned it! Imo, I give him the barest of benefit of the doubt, but since we do not know for sure, I believe it's a must (as much for all future people as for him). If he somehow is found to have been able to skate on the thinnest of ice to have not legally raped, it will not make much difference in how I view him. Perhaps the laws around sexual assault / rape can be amended that address various power dynamic situations, etc. I'd be all for it.

Good point that perception of Stoffel has been shaped from sources other than Stoffel. I may have not-quite-appropriately tied her together with Woods as he was the presenter of her side and, according to him, spent a lot of time in communication with her (but still was not her). I took exception to the excited proclaiming that this should be national news (mentioned multiple times, I believe). If it bubbles up and becomes national news, then great, but when a victim or a media representative says it should be, it casts suspicion and doubt. It feels like salesmanship, and on this kind of topic, in particular, I find it very off-putting. If I remember correctly, the lawsuit also makes the Nassar-like comparison (but I could be wrong). I understand trying to search for and empower other victims to come forward, and I get that "national conversations" can be needed and good. But trying to hype it up.. I don't like that. (Of course, it doesn't necessarily make the allegation false.) As for all the other stuff that was said by interviewees, yes it is very hard to know (and certainly can be questioned) what can be believed. For whatever reason, some parts ring true to me and other parts not so much.

"Should our first reaction to sexual assault claims be one of skepticism, compassion or maybe both depending on the situation?" I think it can vary. Anyone in contact with someone alleging sexual assault needs to be extremely compassionate, consoling, understanding, supporting, etc. Victims must be encouraged to come forward right away, and they must know that it outweighs the feelings of embarrassment, potentially not being believed, and/or other hurdles. Outside their immediate circle, I think it can start to change. As you suggest, the situation itself could affect the levels of compassion / skepticism. I also believe the length of time after the assault could affect the levels, the venue/forum where the claims are heard could affect the levels, and also what the reactors themselves bring in terms of their experiences / biases. The further away someone is from the victim and the situation, the more likely they are to view the issue more impersonally, theoretically, etc. This is not a bad thing as truth would more likely be gleaned in a dispassionate manner, imo. Victims should not seek input from distant people who will discuss things in way that may not feel good / safe.

Yes, I have been all over the uneven bars as it relates to Dirr (good one). And, yes, the drug administration aspect has always seemed to me the more easily-proven violation.

I apologize to anyone close to Stoffel for my verbifying of her name (but I don't apologize to any preening signalers out there). Part of it is that she has a cool name that should be a verb of some kind. My intent has not been to hurt or discredit her. I hope the best for her moving forward, and I hope the truth wins out. I believe it will someday. Of course, there is merit to her allegation being true (as far as we know)!

Thanks again, RoundRock, for replyjng in good faith. With that, I will be taking a bit of a time out from this. Not promising forever, though. Before the "good riddance, b@stard" or "Byeeeee, Nick!" or other such posts are made, know that they would only encourage me to get back to it. :)

It's interesting to see. Also follows the expectations I had received from a Lawyer in Indiana a few weeks ago.

The defendants said there was not enough direct detail about who at Huntington actually received complaints from the plaintiffs about the Johnson's wrong doing.

So the plaintiffs resubmitted saying the university COO (correct me if wrong) had direct knowledge.

The judge quickly removed the original motion to dismiss as there is now more detail. I don't know what else is absent to allow for another motion to dismiss. There obviously can be more info for the actual case to convince a jury of guilt. but I don't know how many more times you can submit a motion to dismiss on a "lack of general evidence" at this point. The threshold to say the case can move forward is eventually hit.

Can anyone confirm....I heard Lauren was at the Camel City Invitational with Addy this weekend.

I wonder if Lauren has connections high up that allow her to stay on and affiliated with the program in some capacity. I'm not surprised she's not in jail and that Nick only got 30 days. Who knows, maybe the couple is too powerful in the town they live in.

This has been discussed over and over. Nick and Lauren are like hometown heros in Huntington. They have many connections and personal friends with many high up faculty members at HU. The corruptions goes far beyond just the Johnsons.

My apologies, I'm digging in and reading this. The rabbit hole goes deep. I think they will probably escape this without too much trouble. People forget how important connections are and how bad people can get out of jams because of that.

It depends on the evidence. The plaintiffs have good lawyers that specialize in this. I’ve always found this article about the case interesting:

wishtv.com

Expert: Former Huntington University athletes have to prove complaints in sex abuse case

Jasmine Minor

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — In order for Huntington University to be […]

Open link

Basically the school can only be held responsible if there’s evidence that someone complained or brought it to the schools attention. However, the law professor says the “Johnsons could face charges of things like, emotional distress, assault and battery.”

I know we have several lawyers on the board, but maybe none specialize in this, or they don’t have the time and energy to read everything and break it down so people like me can understand.

Interesting tweet from Huntington’s head track coach/former interim XC coach. Tbf, it could not be related to Woods’ article about HU.