I would feel better | Syracusefan.com

I would feel better

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
if the following two questions were answered. FWIW, I believe that Bernie is innocent, but that does not change the following.

1) In 2003 when Davis went to the SPD, why did the SPD just blow him off saying that the SOL had run? When he accuses someone of molestation, especially if that person still has access to kids, the SPD has got to do more than say "go away - SOL expired", they need to investage the claim even if the SOL had run. This is exactly what they are doing now, even though the SOL has run even more now eight years later. SPD looks bad today for doing now what they didn't do before.

2) When SU does its investigation in 2005, why didn't they go to the police. If the answer is that the accuser said he already went and they didn't do anything, that's a crappy reason. Did anyone at SU confirm this with the police? If not, that is wrong. I always independently confirm whatever my clients tell me so that I don't look like a fool later. Someone at BS&K should have advised SU to go to the police before the BS&K investigation started or advised them to give the BS&K report to the police once it was completed. In effect, this is exactly what BS&K and SU did yesterday when they gave Fitzpatrick their 2005 report. SU and BS&K loo bad today for doing now what they didn't do before.
 

Bortukal

All Conference
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
2,196
Like
1,853
1) Well even Fitzpatrick came out on Day 1 and said he couldn't imagine the police investigating an alleged crime where the SOL had already run out. He flip-flopped on Day 2, though.

2) You'd have to think that BS&K advised them not to, again probably because A) the SOL and B) no corroboration to Davis' story.
 

AZOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
17,729
Like
31,653
if the following two questions were answered. FWIW, I believe that Bernie is innocent, but that does not change the following.

1) In 2003 when Davis went to the SPD, why did the SPD just blow him off saying that the SOL had run? When he accuses someone of molestation, especially if that person still has access to kids, the SPD has got to do more than say "go away - SOL expired", they need to investage the claim even if the SOL had run. This is exactly what they are doing now, even though the SOL has run even more now eight years later. SPD looks stupid today for doing now what they didn't do before.

2) When SU does its investigation in 2005, why didn't they go to the police. If the answer is that the accuser said he already went and they didn't do anything, that's a crappy reason. Did anyone at SU confirm this with the police? If not, that is wrong. I always independently confirm whatever my clients tell me so that I don't look like a fool later. Someone at BS&K should have advised SU to go to the police before the BS&K investigation started or advised them to give the BS&K report to the police once it was completed. In effect, this is exactly what BS&K and SU did yesterday when they gave Fitzpatrick their 2005 report. SU and BS&K look stupid today for doing now what they didn't do before.

I am sorry but there is still something missing on (1). has anyone at SPD ever confirmed this guy filed a report or tried to? I mean everything I have seen says that this is what he says, and what he told the University in 2005, but nowhere have I seen SPD confirm this. It seems extremely odd to me that a cop would be so cavalier as to tell him that the SOL had expired without consulting with the DA first.
 

Dick_in_MI

Emeritus Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,421
Like
7,456
if the following two questions were answered. FWIW, I believe that Bernie is innocent, but that does not change the following.

1) In 2003 when Davis went to the SPD, why did the SPD just blow him off saying that the SOL had run?
.

Keep in mind that this is what Davis says happened...we don't know what was really said.

There is a danger in taking bits of allegation and treating them as fact without confirmation.

Maybe that's what happened, maybe not. We simply don't know. Perhaps I have missed it, but I don't recall seeing the SPD's account of the interaction. This is just Davis' account.
 

DeGrozz

All American
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
4,232
Like
8,062
LOL--just got some much needed comic relief. As most of you probably know, you can preview the beginning of the content of a thread without opening it by putting the cursor on top of the subject title. I suggest you try that for this thread.

I came here to post the same exact thing. That was hilarious.
 

DoctorBombay

All American
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,422
Like
16,091
LOL--just got some much needed comic relief. As most of you probably know, you can preview the beginning of the content of a thread without opening it by putting the cursor on top of the subject title. I suggest you try that for this thread.

Well played.
:rolling:
 

MaxwellCuse

All Conference
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
3,193
Like
2,654
If I'm not mistaken two other entities conducted investigations into the allegations in 2003: ESPN and the Syracuse newspapers. So who did their investigators talk to? Did they speak to the SPD or ADs office? Did they speak to anyone at the University? Or did they limit their investigation to the accuser and the four individuals he said would corroborate his account? Just like there are enourmous gaps in the accusers' stories, there are enormous gaps in what we know about past investigations into this matter.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
Keep in mind that this is what Davis says happened...we don't know what was really said.

There is a danger in taking bits of allegation and treating them as fact without confirmation.

Maybe that's what happened, maybe not. We simply don't know. Perhaps I have missed it, but I don't recall seeing the SPD's account of the interaction. This is just Davis' account.
Dick, that's my point. Did SU just rely on what Davis said, "I already told the police - they blew me off", or did someone from SU confirm this by not just taking Davis's story face up and going to the SPD just to make sure. I hope the latter, but we don't know. That is why I posed the question.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
LOL--just got some much needed comic relief. As most of you probably know, you can preview the beginning of the content of a thread without opening it by putting the cursor on top of the subject title. I suggest you try that for this thread.
Really, you have no problem with a person going to the police and alleging sexual abuse as a minor and the police blowing him off saying that the SOL is expired - go away - and then not investigating it. Maybe if the police had investiagted it in 2003, they wouldn't have to investigate it now and Bernie's name could be cleared sooner and easier.
 

Dick_in_MI

Emeritus Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,421
Like
7,456
Dick, that's my point. Did SU just rely on what Davis said, "I already told the police - they blew me off", or did someone from SU confirm this by not just taking Davis's story face up and going to the SPD just to make sure. I hope the latter, but we don't know. That is why I posed the question.

I was responding merely to your point #1

As for point #2, so far all we've heard about SU's investigation is that Davis offered names that would corroborate his story and every one of them denied it. We haven't really heard much of anything else about what went on during SU's internal investigation.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that SU's lawyers don't like repeating work that has already been done. Also, I'm assuming they'd want to know up front where they stand legally. Therefore, I have to feel that one of them checked on the interaction with the SPD. My guess anyway. What they found or what resulted from that is anyone's guess at this point.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
I was responding merely to your point #1

As for point #2, so far all we've heard about SU's investigation is that Davis offered names that would corroborate his story and every one of them denied it. We haven't really heard much of anything else about what went on during SU's internal investigation.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that SU's lawyers don't like repeating work that has already been done. Also, I'm assuming they'd want to know up front where they stand legally. Therefore, I have to feel that one of them checked on the interaction with the SPD. My guess anyway. What they found or what resulted from that is anyone's guess at this point.
That's exactly right on both points. We really don't know if the SPD did an investigation in 2003, but from what I have read, it appears they didn't. At least Fitzpatrick was not made aware of one. If they did, great, I feel better.

Secondly, if the SU lawyers checked on the interaction with the SPD, then great, I feel better.

You are right, I jumped to a conclusion that things didn't happen, when they very well could have. I just hope they did, because the idea of a cover up is all ESPN has now.
 

Upstate

Co 2020 Cali Winner, Rcd/Rcpts/TD Rcpts (5)/TFL
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
7,716
Like
5,269
LOL--just got some much needed comic relief. As most of you probably know, you can preview the beginning of the content of a thread without opening it by putting the cursor on top of the subject title. I suggest you try that for this thread.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 2.png
    Picture 2.png
    82.7 KB · Views: 93

DoctorBombay

All American
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,422
Like
16,091
If Davis said he went to the SPD, I'm sure ESPN and/or the P-S probably verified it, why wouldn't they?
It wasn't until he approached SU w/ his story that SU CHOSE to conduct another investigation- they didn't have to, but did anyway.
If a call was made to SPD during that investigation & the response was "the SOL has expired, so there's no criminal liability for Fine", what's SU supposed to do after that?
If the investigation had turned up NEW information, then yes, you get the cops involved. The legal counsel was obligated, BY LAW, to report any new or potentially criminal findings. But if nothing new was found, do you still call up the cops & say; "Heres a copy of our investigation that found the same thing that you, ESPN, & the P-S found...NOTHING"!
 

NRF527

Walk On
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
64
Like
59
1) Well even Fitzpatrick came out on Day 1 and said he couldn't imagine the police investigating an alleged crime where the SOL had already run out. He flip-flopped on Day 2, though.

2) You'd have to think that BS&K advised them not to, again probably because A) the SOL and B) no corroboration to Davis' story.

1) Publicity hound

2) In my previous life I was a Labor Rep in the Labor Relations world and dealt with BS&K on numerous occasions. I currently sit on a board that is represented by BS&K in a litigation matter. They are far too good a law firm to not dot every i and cross every t. I trust their advice to SU was appropriate relative to the findings of the investigation.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
If Davis said he went to the SPD, I'm sure ESPN and/or the P-S probably verified it, why wouldn't they?
It wasn't until he approached SU w/ his story that SU CHOSE to conduct another investigation- they didn't have to, but did anyway.
If a call was made to SPD during that investigation & the response was "the SOL has expired, so there's no criminal liability for Fine", what's SU supposed to do after that?
If the investigation had turned up NEW information, then yes, you get the cops involved. The legal counsel was obligated, BY LAW, to report any new or potentially criminal findings. But if nothing new was found, do you still call up the cops & say; "Heres a copy of our investigation that found the same thing that you, ESPN, & the P-S found...NOTHING"!
If a call was made to the SPD during that investigation, then my question is answered.
If the SPD did an investigation, like you infer, then my question is answered.
However, as of now, we know of neither of these being true. I just hope they are.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
1) Publicity hound

2) In my previous life I was a Labor Rep in the Labor Relations world and dealt with BS&K on numerous occasions. I currently sit on a board that is represented by BS&K in a litigation matter. They are far too good a law firm to not dot every i and cross every t. I trust their advice to SU was appropriate relative to the findings of the investigation.
I know BS&K also. I hope you are right.
 

orange79

Internet Sleuth
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
37,821
Like
108,253
LOL--just got some much needed comic relief. As most of you probably know, you can preview the beginning of the content of a thread without opening it by putting the cursor on top of the subject title. I suggest you try that for this thread.
lol
 

PoppyHart

All American
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,757
Like
4,530
As I've been thinking more and more, the reasons, or lack thereof, that have been given for the current investigation seem problematic.

Scenario 1: S.O.L. never expired, for whatever reason

Perhaps there's another arcane statute which could apply, or maybe there was a tolling period we don't know about it. Who knows at this point. If so, the D.A., which claims it never knew about the 2003 allegation to the SPD, should attempt to investigate this. And with the presence of two complainants, however credible they may, its more important that they investigate its merit. Ultimately, credibility is an issue for the grand jury and, in a trial, the jury.

Scenario 2: The D.A. just wants to cover all angles

That is, even if the S.O.L. has expired, they felt it necessary in this heightened post-PSU time of concern to fully investigate. The problems with this are manifold, however. First, if they know they can't prosecute, they are draining critical resources, taxpayer dollars etc... on a PR stunt. Second, D.A. offices are not in the business of providing advisory opinions, to either alarm or appease the public, or to further potential civil claims. And without prosecutorial authority due to the SOL, that's what they are relegated to here. Put simply, D.A.s typically don't engage in "what if" analysis.

Scenario 3: There indeed are new accusers and/or evidence of victims who are still covered by under the S.O.L.

That is, perhaps Davis/Lang told the D.A., rightly or wrongly, that they have knowledge of behavior that took place in the recent past between BF and protected minors. Remember, he claims that he "believes" its occurred to other, but only has "proof" of what happened to him.

Given this, its logical for the D.A. to try to verify the ages of said victims and determine if there's any merit to this. However, given their interviews on OTL and extensive discussion with Schwartz, I find it unlikely that they would withhold additional knowledge from the media.

Alternatively, if new accusers have come forward, it is highly likely that they want their privacy maintained, at the very least pending resolution of any investigation. In this scenario, the media and public won't know, as the D.A. will keep mum about the reasons for the investigation.

Imagine the reverse, and that the D.A. said on Thursday/Friday that they were investigating new allegations. Given the way the various 2003-05 investigations by the university, P-S, and ESPN revealed nothing, unless the D.A. feels 100% that whatever info they have is credible, he must be balancing the lack of info he's providing against the public uproar and university turmoil that would occur even if the info was later found without merit.

Summary:
In short, I can only fathom three reasons why the D.A. is investigating. The first is unflattering to the SPD as is paints them as either complicit, ignorant, or incompetent. The second is unflattering to the D.A. office as it portrays them as paid consultants with no regard for community resources. The third is unflattering to BF and the school, at least pending an investigation, as it suggests there's more to the story than what Schwartz and Co. have unturned.

I'd probably lean toward the second justification, and none of this is means that the present investigation will lead anywhere. In the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing other theories for why the D.A. is acting on this now.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
As I've been thinking more and more, the reasons, or lack thereof, that have been given for the current investigation seem problematic.

Scenario 1: S.O.L. never expired, for whatever reason

Perhaps there's another arcane statute which could apply, or maybe there was a tolling period we don't know about it. Who knows at this point. If so, the D.A., which claims it never knew about the 2003 allegation to the SPD, should attempt to investigate this. And with the presence of two complainants, however credible they may, its more important that they investigate its merit. Ultimately, credibility is an issue for the grand jury and, in a trial, the jury.

Scenario 2: The D.A. just wants to cover all angles

That is, even if the S.O.L. has expired, they felt it necessary in this heightened post-PSU time of concern to fully investigate. The problems with this are manifold, however. First, if they know they can't prosecute, they are draining critical resources, taxpayer dollars etc... on a PR stunt. Second, D.A. offices are not in the business of providing advisory opinions, to either alarm or appease the public, or to further potential civil claims. And without prosecutorial authority due to the SOL, that's what they are relegated to here. Put simply, D.A.s typically don't engage in "what if" analysis.

Scenario 3: There indeed are new accusers and/or evidence of victims who are still covered by under the S.O.L.

That is, perhaps Davis/Lang told the D.A., rightly or wrongly, that they have knowledge of behavior that took place in the recent past between BF and protected minors. Remember, he claims that he "believes" its occurred to other, but only has "proof" of what happened to him.

Given this, its logical for the D.A. to try to verify the ages of said victims and determine if there's any merit to this. However, given their interviews on OTL and extensive discussion with Schwartz, I find it unlikely that they would withhold additional knowledge from the media.

Alternatively, if new accusers have come forward, it is highly likely that they want their privacy maintained, at the very least pending resolution of any investigation. In this scenario, the media and public won't know, as the D.A. will keep mum about the reasons for the investigation.

Imagine the reverse, and that the D.A. said on Thursday/Friday that they were investigating new allegations. Given the way the various 2003-05 investigations by the university, P-S, and ESPN revealed nothing, unless the D.A. feels 100% that whatever info they have is credible, he must be balancing the lack of info he's providing against the public uproar and university turmoil that would occur even if the info was later found without merit.

Summary:
In short, I can only fathom three reasons why the D.A. is investigating. The first is unflattering to the SPD as is paints them as either complicit, ignorant, or incompetent. The second is unflattering to the D.A. office as it portrays them as paid consultants with no regard for community resources. The third is unflattering to BF and the school, at least pending an investigation, as it suggests there's more to the story than what Schwartz and Co. have unturned.

I'd probably lean toward the second justification, and none of this is means that the present investigation will lead anywhere. In the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing other theories for why the D.A. is acting on this now.
Is it a waste of taxpayer resources for the D.A. to investigate claims of child molestation against a person where the SOL has expired? IMO "no", especially if that person still has access to kids. I can't believe the people on this thread who actually think it is okay for the police to blow off allegations of sexual abuse, just because the SOL expired, if that is what happened in 2003 with the SPD. If this was the State College Police, these people would be thinking just the opposite.
 

PoppyHart

All American
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,757
Like
4,530
Is it a waste of taxpayer resources for the D.A. to investigate claims of child molestation against a person where the SOL has expired? IMO "no", especially if that person still has access to kids. I can't believe the people on this thread who actually think it is okay for the police to blow off allegations of sexual abuse, just because the SOL expired, if that is what happened in 2003 with the SPD. If this was the State College Police, these people would be thinking just the opposite.

I would think that legislatures, who represent the public, would remove any S.O.L. if the goal was to perpetually protect the public at the expense of individual rights. S.O.L.s serve valid purposes, however. Obviously witnesses die, evidence goes stale, etc... At the same time, the accused does have the right, at some point, to live without fear of prosecution.

What you say about how BF still has "access to kids", is certainly compelling, and I agree that it's disturbing. There's no way, however, this is the first time a sexual abuse allegation has occurred outside the allowable period. If your neighbor allegedly molested someone 35 years ago (in a state with an S.O.L.), I doubt the D.A. would expend significant resources and alert the neighbors/public to the presence. And that individual has just as much access to children.

Lawmakers are aware of the dilemma and they've defined what they believe to be the proper balance. I'm sure many believe they did not go far enough.
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
I would think that legislatures, who represent the public, would remove any S.O.L. if the goal was to perpetually protect the public at the expense of individual rights. S.O.L.s serve valid purposes, however. Obviously witnesses die, evidence goes stale, etc... At the same time, the accused does have the right, at some point, to live without fear of prosecution.

What you say about how BF still has "access to kids", is certainly compelling, and I agree that it's disturbing. There's no way, however, this is the first time a sexual abuse allegation has occurred outside the allowable period. If your neighbor allegedly molested someone 35 years ago (in a state with an S.O.L.), I doubt the D.A. would expend significant resources and alert the neighbors/public to the presence. And that individual has just as much access to children.

Lawmakers are aware of the dilemma and they've defined what they believe to be the proper balance. I'm sure many believe they did not go far enough.
Well said. There is no SOL in NY for murder. It is the public policy of NY that murderers should never have the right, at some point, to live without fear of prosecution. If it were up to me, child molesters would not have that right either.
 

Cusefan95

Starter
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,811
Like
1,983
Is it a waste of taxpayer resources for the D.A. to investigate claims of child molestation against a person where the SOL has expired? IMO "no", especially if that person still has access to kids. I can't believe the people on this thread who actually think it is okay for the police to blow off allegations of sexual abuse, just because the SOL expired, if that is what happened in 2003 with the SPD. If this was the State College Police, these people would be thinking just the opposite.

So let's say they chose to waste taxpayer money on a case they cannot prosecute, and find some evidence that indicates a crime was committed. What do they do then? You can't try him, and there's no way to enact any fair punishment. It sounds like you have a little problem with a presumption of innocence here - they're going to take some form of legal action equivalent to a criminal conviction in the absence of a trial verdict.

I don't think you've thought this through very well, you may want to go back to the drawing board - because right now it sounds like you would have been thrilled to live in the USSR or East Germany.
 

Flacusian

All Conference
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,519
Like
7,787
LOL--just got some much needed comic relief. As most of you probably know, you can preview the beginning of the content of a thread without opening it by putting the cursor on top of the subject title. I suggest you try that for this thread.
You need help man! LOL
 

sabach

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,325
Like
7,345
So let's say they chose to waste taxpayer money on a case they cannot prosecute, and find some evidence that indicates a crime was committed. What do they do then? You can't try him, and there's no way to enact any fair punishment. It sounds like you have a little problem with a presumption of innocence here - they're going to take some form of legal action equivalent to a criminal conviction in the absence of a trial verdict.

I don't think you've thought this through very well, you may want to go back to the drawing board - because right now it sounds like you would have been thrilled to live in the USSR or East Germany.
Punishment has nothing to do with it. You investigate to protect kids now and get this guy away from kids now. You investigate not to punish the past but to protect the present and the future in case he's doing something now. If we know anything about molesters its that if they did something 15 years ago, they are probably doing it now. Remember, that's why Joe Paterno lost his job, because he didn't take it to the police and more kids got abused because of it. I guess you think Joe Pa is a good guy. Maybe you would be thrilled to live in State College PA.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
161,636
Messages
4,409,832
Members
5,670
Latest member
cusenj

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
811
Total visitors
1,027




Top Bottom