What evidence is there that Treliving didn't ask about whether Peters' had any previous acts of abuse? Because he hired him?
It is pretty common nowadays in the corporate world for companies to not provide any negative feedback when asked to provide a reference for an ex-employee for fear of legal repercussions. And, as we have heard, there is a culture of hiding or covering up abuse in the sports world. Just because people knew of Peters' past abuses doesn't guarantee they would have offered it up if asked.
I'm not trying to defend Treliving because I know he did his due diligence but those who are categorically saying he is either complicit because he found out about the abuses or never asked, recognize that you can only be speculating.
|