Disturbing, unanswered question

[Flacusian]

By now I would assume that everyone on this board knows the basic facts which are available to the general public regarding the situation with Bernie. I'm surprised that this question has not been asked. "Why was no action taken by Bernie on the 2 prior occasions when he was accused by Davis." If someone were to make that type of accusation of me and it was patently false I would respond by filing suit for defamation of character and seek compensatory damages. If we assume that Bernie had no guilt whatsoever with respect to the allegations why would he not initiate litigation against the person who is attempting to slander him? Why would you allow the allegations to lie fallow with the chance of resurfacing at a later date? To me, it just stands to reason that someone would be proactive in going after someone who has made claims of some type of reprehensible and henious behavior. Letting it go unchecked creates the appearance of "letting sleeping dogs lie". This is a disturbing aspect of the case as far as I'm concerned. Making the argument that back when the allegations first surfaced Bernie perhaps didn't want anymore exposure with respect to the situation since even having the allegations out there is damaging in and of itself doesn't hold water in my opinion. It's because of this fact that I have a very uneasy feeling that the claims made by Davis contain some element of truth or there is some facet of the claims that are inherently damaging to Bernie. Ask yourself, " if someone were to accuse me of a crime that is perhaps among the most vile crimes in the perception of the general public and they were completely untrue and they could end my career, ruin my reputation for the balance of my life while also damaging the program which I have devoted most of my adult life for, would I feel compelled to go after the person or persons who made these horrific allegations?

 

[poc44]

Can't sue somebody that has nothing...

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Couple things. Not everyone wants or needs to sue. Could it have eliminated 2011 problems. Probably, but who would have thought that Davis would bring up the same allegations 8 years later. Also, it's not like Bernie would have gotten any money if he won so he figured it's over.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Because
1) He was exonerated, multiple times.
2) It was not made public.
3) It could cost 10's of thousands of dollars to prosecute
4) It would then almost certainly become public
5) The only damages to be received are monetary, and to my knowledge, he no gots, so why pursue it.

civil action was a lose/lose

 

[ljmilman]

By now I would assume that everyone on this board knows the basic facts which are available to the general public regarding the situation with Bernie. I'm surprised that this question has not been asked. "Why was no action taken by Bernie on the 2 prior occasions when he was accused by Davis." If someone were to make that type of accusation of me and it was patently false I would respond by filing suit for defamation of character and seek compensatory damages. If we assume that Bernie had no guilt whatsoever with respect to the allegations why would he not initiate litigation against the person who is attempting to slander him? Why would you allow the allegations to lie fallow with the chance of resurfacing at a later date? To me, it just stands to reason that someone would be proactive in going after someone who has made claims of some type of reprehensible and henious behavior. Letting it go unchecked creates the appearance of "letting sleeping dogs lie". This is a disturbing aspect of the case as far as I'm concerned. Making the argument that back when the allegations first surfaced Bernie perhaps didn't want anymore exposure with respect to the situation since even having the allegations out there is damaging in and of itself doesn't hold water in my opinion. It's because of this fact that I have a very uneasy feeling that the claims made by Davis contain some element of truth or there is some facet of the claims that are inherently damaging to Bernie. Ask yourself, " if someone were to accuse me of a crime that is perhaps among the most vile crimes in the perception of the general public and they were completely untrue and they could end my career, ruin my reputation for the balance of my life while also damaging the program which I have devoted most of my adult life for, would I feel compelled to go after the person or persons who made these horrific allegations?

Considering the investigations in 2005 weren't even reported, could he have claimed defamation of character?

 

[RoysRunts]

Where did their money come from to pay for a lawsuit? More disturbing to me is Where are Jake,Dennis, and Buzz ?

 

[Flacusian]

You could still obtain a court order to prevent any further attempts at defaming. Then non compliance would result in jail time.

 

[themole]

It sounded like the PS never even told BF about the investigation. They said in some article that they were only ever going to approach him if they decided to publish.

Not sure if ESPN told him. Obs he must have known about the SU investigation in 2005. But there was nothing for him to sue over, and why bring attention to the issue?

This part of it doesn't disturb me in the slightest.

 

[EastCoast2]

Because
1) He was exonerated, multiple times.
2) It was not made public.
3) It could cost 10's of thousands of dollars to prosecute
4) It would then almost certainly become public
5) The only damages to be received are monetary, and to my knowledge, he no gots, so why pursue it.

civil action was a lose/lose

+1

 

[DoctorBombay]

If he's exonerated, why go down that road. Its hard to disprove a negative: "Are you still beating your wife"?
After all those years, and even now, the questions might never be answered.

PS- I agree, Roy- just where are Jake & the other "connected insiders"...the silence is deafening.

 

[arbitragegls]

mmm...not so sure about that court order...also, this was kept very quiet...even DA said he was out of the loop on the Syracuse investigation. Also, look at timing realtive to SOL..it would have been in Bernie's interest not to pursue...not saying that is the reason...but it would be a good one not to bring up something that is supposedly dead...and by the way it was dead until Davis claim which he is now making but did not make long ago...this is the game changer insofar as continuing the investigation. Still, Bernie is in clear in NYS...if anything really happened in Louisianna it is still up for grabs...30 yrs after age 18.

 

[cto]

By now I would assume that everyone on this board knows the basic facts which are available to the general public regarding the situation with Bernie. I'm surprised that this question has not been asked. "Why was no action taken by Bernie on the 2 prior occasions when he was accused by Davis." If someone were to make that type of accusation of me and it was patently false I would respond by filing suit for defamation of character and seek compensatory damages. If we assume that Bernie had no guilt whatsoever with respect to the allegations why would he not initiate litigation against the person who is attempting to slander him? Why would you allow the allegations to lie fallow with the chance of resurfacing at a later date? To me, it just stands to reason that someone would be proactive in going after someone who has made claims of some type of reprehensible and henious behavior. Letting it go unchecked creates the appearance of "letting sleeping dogs lie". This is a disturbing aspect of the case as far as I'm concerned. Making the argument that back when the allegations first surfaced Bernie perhaps didn't want anymore exposure with respect to the situation since even having the allegations out there is damaging in and of itself doesn't hold water in my opinion. It's because of this fact that I have a very uneasy feeling that the claims made by Davis contain some element of truth or there is some facet of the claims that are inherently damaging to Bernie. Ask yourself, " if someone were to accuse me of a crime that is perhaps among the most vile crimes in the perception of the general public and they were completely untrue and they could end my career, ruin my reputation for the balance of my life while also damaging the program which I have devoted most of my adult life for, would I feel compelled to go after the person or persons who made these horrific allegations?

Why would he want to bring attention to a matter that had had no public attention? There were no media reports. It would be crazy to bring a suit saying "I'm not a child molester" out of the clear blue.

 

[cto]

If he's exonerated, why go down that road. Its hard to disprove a negative: "Are you still beating your wife"?
After all those years, and even now, the questions might never be answered.

PS- I agree, Roy- just where are Jake & the other "connected insiders"...the silence is deafening.

I think that post is referring to Jake Crouthamel, Buzz Shaw and Dennis Duval. Since they are no longer public figures .. and since at least two of them may be called as witnesses in an investigation, it would be kind of crazy for them to volunteer something before they are asked.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

No you cant

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[moten21]

The original investigations were not public. No one in their right mind is going to want to have their name and "investigated for child sex abuse" appear in public in the same sentence.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I think that post is referring to Jake Crouthamel, Buzz Shaw and Dennis Duval. Since they are no longer public figures .. and since at least two of them may be called as witnesses in an investigation, it would be kind of crazy for them to volunteer something before they are asked.

Got it.

 

[All4SU]

Because
1) He was exonerated, multiple times.
2) It was not made public.
3) It could cost 10's of thousands of dollars to prosecute
4) It would then almost certainly become public
5) The only damages to be received are monetary, and to my knowledge, he no gots, so why pursue it.

civil action was a lose/lose

This.

 

[orangecuse]

Why would he want to bring attention to a matter that had had no public attention? There were no media reports. It would be crazy to bring a suit saying "I'm not a child molester" out of the clear blue.

Bingo! Obviously, the OP has absolutely no clue in regards to what it may be like being a public figure...his proposal would have been a total PR disaster...

 

[rrlbees]

By now I would assume that everyone on this board knows the basic facts which are available to the general public regarding the situation with Bernie. I'm surprised that this question has not been asked. "Why was no action taken by Bernie on the 2 prior occasions when he was accused by Davis." If someone were to make that type of accusation of me and it was patently false I would respond by filing suit for defamation of character and seek compensatory damages. If we assume that Bernie had no guilt whatsoever with respect to the allegations why would he not initiate litigation against the person who is attempting to slander him? Why would you allow the allegations to lie fallow with the chance of resurfacing at a later date? To me, it just stands to reason that someone would be proactive in going after someone who has made claims of some type of reprehensible and henious behavior. Letting it go unchecked creates the appearance of "letting sleeping dogs lie". This is a disturbing aspect of the case as far as I'm concerned. Making the argument that back when the allegations first surfaced Bernie perhaps didn't want anymore exposure with respect to the situation since even having the allegations out there is damaging in and of itself doesn't hold water in my opinion. It's because of this fact that I have a very uneasy feeling that the claims made by Davis contain some element of truth or there is some facet of the claims that are inherently damaging to Bernie. Ask yourself, " if someone were to accuse me of a crime that is perhaps among the most vile crimes in the perception of the general public and they were completely untrue and they could end my career, ruin my reputation for the balance of my life while also damaging the program which I have devoted most of my adult life for, would I feel compelled to go after the person or persons who made these horrific allegations?

I know nobody else here agreed with you, but I do and if anyone ever accused me of a crime like that, I would not only strike back but I would do it in a very public way to make that persons life miserable as hell. I would have gone on TV and announced who this person was and what they had done. I wouldn't catch a bit of flack from anyone either as a public figure and would probably be looked at as an open honest person who was wronged and not afraid to stand up for myself. It would not be a dangerous move at all. I'd probably have kicked the guys ass too.

 

[Flacusian]

Thank you Bees! I'm glad that my point wasn't lost on everyone. If someone accused me of being a child molester it would be like poking a stick into a hornets nest. If I was of clear conscience I would do everything within my power to strike back at those who falsely accused me.

 

[orangecuse]

Thank you Bees! I'm glad that my point wasn't lost on everyone. If someone accused me of being a child molester it would be like poking a stick into a hornets nest. If I was of clear conscience I would do everything within my power to strike back at those who falsely accused me.

I doubt very much you would, especially if you were famous or a public figure. It doesn't matter how much you carry on either, it's still classic he said/she said...this strategy really benefited Roger Clemens... :bat:

 

[Flacusian]

I doubt very much you would, especially if you were famous or a public figure. It doesn't matter how much you carry on either, it's still classic he said/she said...this strategy really benefited Roger Clemens... :bat:

Uh.. last I checked the Rocket was guilty as charged.

 

[rrlbees]

I doubt very much you would, especially if you were famous or a public figure. It doesn't matter how much you carry on either, it's still classic he said/she said...this strategy really benefited Roger Clemens... :bat:

he was a liar. fla was talking as someone with a clear conscious that knew that it was BS. I'd go full guns ablazing after the person.

 

[orangecuse]

Uh.. last I checked the Rocket was guilty as charged.

Indeed...in the end he was. However, he himself opened up the can of worms by taking such an emphatic offensive approach. Most experts concluded that if he hadn't been so aggressive and just let the Mitchell Report alone, he wouldn't have torched himself...a lot of his fans, etc. would have just concluded...maybe...and nowhere near as damning...

Probably a bad analogy in referencing Roger's case, but being extremely aggessive when you're a public figure is a very very slippery slope, especially when the allegations are not public or haven't gone viral...a likely lose/lose scenerio...

 

[AZOrange]

Indeed...in the end he was. However, he himself opened up the can of worms by taking such an emphatic offensive approach. Most experts concluded that if he hadn't been so aggressive and just let the Mitchell Report alone, he wouldn't have torched himself...a lot of his fans, etc. would have just concluded...maybe...and nowhere near as damning...

What is Rocket guilty of?