Here's a question re: Bernie and can he be prosecuted

[SkanSU]

First let me say one thing: Bernie is innocent until proven guilty ... it is the cornerstone of our legal system and as long as he continues to deny the allegations he is innocent.

Second, IMO JB should not be fired, forced to resign, etc. ... he has been a person who has shown great allegiance to a friend of 50 years. It's unfortunate that JB is so outspoken and sometimes speaks with foot in mouth ... but that, to me, is not an offense that requires that the University fire him or force him to resign. Hoaston, to me, is a man looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Should JB make another apology ... sure, why not. But he should not be forced to grovel at the feet of Hoaston and his crew. It really does nothing for the victims of sexual crimes.

OK, now I have made my responses to all of the threads on the board ... easy. On to my questions.

As we know the feds are now on the case ... in fact everybody seems to be jumping on the bandwagon including the US Dept. of Education? How many nvestigations can you have going for Chrissakes! Tax payer money at work. Anyway some people believe that the reason the feds are on board is because of the Adam Walsh Law ... removing the SOL for child abuse. For the lawyers ... my question is can this law be applied retroactively to its passage (2006)? The PS implies that the reason the feds are in is b/c of the Tomaselli accusation and the possibility of transporting across state lines. To me Tomaselli has almost no credability considering his pending child abuse charges and his father adamently stating it ain't so. But given the possibility that the Walsh Law is not retroactive than the state lines thing is the only reason for fed involvement. And what the hell is the US Dept. of Education investigating anyway?

 

[Cusefan95]

Department of Ed has responsibility to investigate under the Clery Act.

 

[SkanSU]

Ahhhh ... looked up the Clery Act. TY 95 ... so they are investigating the Universityto see what they knew and when they knew it.

 

[007]

Not a lawyer. The floodgates are open now, the NCAA wont be far behind. USDE is investigating compliance with the Clery Act (federal statute that requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses.)

My understanding is that Tomaselli's accusation allows for probable cause of a federal criminal offense within federal SOL - because Fine allegedly crossed state lines to sexually abuse him and, secondarily, because Fine used a telephone/cell/email to solicit him.

 

[MooseHaas]

First let me say one thing: Bernie is innocent until proven guilty ... it is the cornerstone of our legal system and as long as he continues to deny the allegations he is innocent.

As we know the feds are now on the case ... in fact everybody seems to be jumping on the bandwagon including the US Dept. of Education? How many nvestigations can you have going for Chrissakes! Tax payer money at work. Anyway some people believe that the reason the feds are on board is because of the Adam Walsh Law ... removing the SOL for child abuse. For the lawyers ... my question is can this law be applied retroactively to its passage (2006)? The PS implies that the reason the feds are in is b/c of the Tomaselli accusation and the possibility of transporting across state lines. To me Tomaselli has almost no credability considering his pending child abuse charges and his father adamently stating it ain't so. But given the possibility that the Walsh Law is not retroactive than the state lines thing is the only reason for fed involvement. And what the hell is the US Dept. of Education investigating anyway?

Bunch of stuff:

1) Bernie is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, exactly. Therefore it is incumbent on prosecutors building a case to convict him, should they bring charges (which is likely why he hasn't been arrested/charged with anything yet). But a message board isn't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion. Do not confuse the two.

2) No prosecutor would touch this case given what we, the public, know. But do you honestly think that the investigations are escalating at such a rapid rate because the SPD, DA, and USSS have NOTHING? Do you honestly think that we, the public, know everything they have? Do we know anything about the number of accusers? Do you think everyone who accuses Fine would want to be under a media spotlight? Do we know anything about the contents of all of the stuff that was taken from Bernie's house? Do we know why they were digging in his backyard and going through the woods?

The entities investigating this are not obligated in any way to provide a real-time public account of evidence obtained. Nor should they be.

3) There is likely another reason that USSS is involved. USSS investigates financial crimes, and crimes committed via computer. They have computer forensics specialists (i.e. guys who can recover deleted files from hard drives). Accusations of P e d o p h I l I a+ computer crimes. Connect the dots.

4) Of course Tomaselli's dad is going to call him a liar. He is being accused of sexual abuse by his son.

5) Establishing credibility of accusers in cases like this is often a slippery slope. You have to understand what molestation does to a person psychologically... it can basically destroy a person. There is a huge amount of data suggesting that people who are molested often (not always, but often) become molesters themselves. There is a strong correlation with alcohol and drug abuse (as a form of self-medication) with victims of molestation. There is also correlation with criminal activity. These events cause such tramma that I don't think it can be expected that a molested individual will lead a 'normal' life. Undoubtedly there are some people who can rise above this, but I expect the numbers are few. I guess what I'm saying is that the bizarre behavior of all of the accusers (to date) could potentially fit into psychological patterns consistent with this sort of abuse, or it could just be the behavior of nutjobs looking to get some facetime in the media and grab some money. Should this come to trial, it will be up to a jury to make those determinations. I'm not sure that I can given the limited amount that we really know about the case.

6) Personally, what I find the most troubling for the university is the Dept of Education involvement. The Clery act is to ensure that sexual abuse crimes are properly reported on college campuses that receive federal financial aid. If they are investigating with respect to the Clery act, that means they may have some indication that crimes were committed on campus, and they want to ascertain if said crimes were reported correctly... but of course the crimes could only be reported if someone KNEW about them... this is the entire cornerstone justification for the firing of Shultz and Curley at Penn State.

Lots of red flags across the board. My suspicion is that this gets worse before it gets better.