ESPN liability?

[midloviking]

According to ESPN, "Davis first gave the tape to ESPN in 2003. At the time, ESPN did not report Davis' accusations, or report the contents of the tape, because no one else would corroborate his story."

If ESPN wasn't able to report at the time, why did they not provide a copy of the tape to authorities for investigation to prevent any future abuse by BF? If even 1 other child was abused by BF and ESPN withheld evidence that could have prevented the abuse then ESPN has some exposure in these crimes. Apparently, ESPN was/is more interested in the profit from the story than helping to protect children from an alleged sex offender?

ESPN sat on this tape while other children came and went as ball boys and even the other coaches children were around BF.

Isn't withholding information relating to a crime for your own benefit considered complicity?

If my child was molested by BF anytime after ESPN came into possession of this tape I would be occupying Bristol right now!

 

[EastCoast2]

#occupybristol

 

[JOC44]

As a general matter, the law doesn't impose a duty to warn or a duty to inform the police of a crime absent a special relationship with the victim. So ESPN almost certainly doesn't face legal liability, though might be due a fair amount of moral indignation.

 

[midloviking]

JoePa sure took a lot of heat for not morally doing as much as he could to prevent future crimes.

 

[kingottoiii]

Morally ESPN should have went to the authorities. The fact that they didn't is very weird and luckily should help prevent people from bashing SU for not doing the same (assuming we knew of the tape).

 

[midloviking]

If JB new of the tape, how on earth would he let BF anywhere near his kids and why on earth would he keep him on staff? He lives across the street...wouldn't he at the very least move away to keep his kids out of the Fine's house??? Clearly the Fine's have some issues.