Ignorant to the statute in molestation cases...

[The General]

But if police failed to investigate in '03 due to statute of limitations expiring, if the second victim was allegedly molested years earlier, how is the case being investigated now? What charges could be pressed?

Can a civil suit still be filed? Anyone have legal knowledge? Why investigate a case that by a statute can't be prosecuted?

 

[PeteCalvin]

But if police failed to investigate in '03 due to statute of limitations expiring, if the second victim was allegedly molested years earlier, how is the case being investigated now? What charges could be pressed?

Can a civil suit still be filed? Anyone have legal knowledge? Why investigate a case that by a statute can't be prosecuted?

Why even come back with a second accuser who was there at the same time? To try and get a quick payout? :noidea:

 

[pearl31]

Good question, hopefully someone with legal expertise can clear this up for us.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Maybe this will help.

Civil Lawsuits​

Unlike most states, New York does not have a specific statute of limitations (SOL) for sexual abuse, instead relying on the type of claim filed to determine what the SOL would be.
​

• If the abuse is treated as an intentional act of the abuser, the SOL is only a single year.
• If it is an action against an institution (like a church or school) for hiring or supervising the abuser, then the SOL extends to three years.
• Any suit based on negligence is also three years.

However, New York is like most other jurisdictions in that it doesn't begin enforcing statutes of limitation until after you become an adult (over 18 years old). This means that if one wanted to directly sue the abuser for abuse suffered as a child, you would have one year from your 18th birthday to do it. If you wanted to sue a church for hiring a abusive clergyman, you would have three years from your 18th birthday.​

Concurrently, should an abuser or institution be convicted of criminal offenses, the victim (of those crimes) has 7 - 10 years (depending on the crime) to sue them (starting from the date of the crime), regardless of whether the other SOL has already passed. This is a bit confusing, but it basically provides another way to sue an abuser if the normal SOL has already run out.

The unwieldiness of this system is perhaps why there are currently many efforts in the state legislature to change the rules, and even calls from the Governor for the SOL to be removed from child-sex crimes all together. This law is likely to shift drastically in the future, so your best bet is to contact an attorney familiar with any recent changes in the law in your jurisdiction.​

 

[The General]

Ok. But from a criminal perspective, if the police didn't need to bother investigating in '03 due to statute of limitations then why are they investigating in 2011? New evidence, new accuser, would appear irrelevant if the statute on these charges has expired.

What charges can be brought? Any?

The ESPN ticker says "police investigating charges that..." If the statute has expired, what would be the goal of the DA's office if you can't actually prosecute Bernie for the alleged crimes? What's the point from the police/DA perspective? How is this a criminal case if the statute has expired?

Am I a ruhtard? For what purpose are they investigating if you can't prosecute? To see if he has been doing it to others recently maybe?

 

[pearl31]

For what purpose are they investigating if you can't prosecute? To see if he has been doing it to others recently maybe?

Based on the available info so far, that would seem to be the only thing they could be investigating.
I think?

 

[The General]

Based on the available info so far, that would seem to be the only thing they could be investigating.
I think?

If that is the case, hasn't the entire investigation been corrupted by ESPN?

I guess my only other question is, was this step-brother interviewed in '05? Did he say nothing happened? Cause honestly, if he was in his 30's and he said nothing happened and then at 45, after a scandal breaks, he changes his story, his credibility is out the window.

 

[pearl31]

Yeah I don't know if it's been confirmed or not yet whether the step-brother was one of the people interviewed in '03/'05 - or if he is just coming out now. If he was interviewed and didn't corroborate anything then, but all of a sudden is now, he has zero credibility.

but yeah, I really want to know what the Syracuse PD could actually be investigating now. Doesn't seem like it could be the Davis or Lang cases due to the SOL. But, like you say, it would seem that any new investigation to try and find more-recent victims would be completely corrupted now by ESPN.

My head is starting to hurt.

 

[OrangeHeel]

I would put the primary motivation of SPD to see if any more recent (within the statute of limitations) victims are out there. The theory being that abusers don't stop abusing.

The secondary motivation is to ensure themselves that their past look at the case wasn't improperly handled. The whole "looking the other way because it's a prominent figure" angle. They would want to be sure that didn't happen then & isn't happening now.

Finally, the results of their investigation might help clear BF's name (to the extent possible) or lend credence to the allegations. I see this as being an effect of the first two motivations. SPD is well aware of the statute of limitations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk