Is the press really this shortsighted and stupid?

[liljoe]

New York law experts have told USA TODAY that Davis and the other accuser, Mike Lang, 45, appear to have no grounds for a criminal case or civil recourse to sue. Civil lawsuits must be filed within a year of the alleged offense or a within a year of the victim 18th's birthday. The statute of limitations for criminal charges is five years from the victim's 18th birthday.

"There's no case here," New York University law professor Martin Guggenheim said Friday.

That seems to debunk Boeheim's theory that the accusers are out for money.

No, it doesn't debunk Boeheim's theory in any way shape or for. In the majority of false accusations, they aren't looking for a court ordered payout. They're looking for hush money. As this case illustrates, the damage is done well before a proper investigation takes place. It's not the threat of legal action that causes people to settle these types of allegations. It's the threat of going public...



http://content.usatoday.com/communi...onds-to-jim-boeheims-defense-of-bernie-fine/1

 

[goodroc]

But he went public. Although better argument would be did the accusers know the law regarding lawsuits. Not sure if their attorney mr shwartz made them Aware of that

 

[jgeorge322]

thats wrong. the SoL in New York is three years and if your a minor, the SoL starts running from his 18th birthday.

I am unaware if there is any exception with molestation cases. HOWEVER, one way that a clever lawyer may get around it is to say the effects of the molestation didn't manifest itself until now...

 

[kingottoiii]

No, it doesn't debunk Boeheim's theory in any way shape or for. In the majority of false accusations, they aren't looking for a court ordered payout. They're looking for hush money. As this case illustrates, the damage is done well before a proper investigation takes place. It's not the threat of legal action that causes people to settle these types of allegations. It's the threat of going public...

But he already went public in the early 2000s. Did he think this time Fine would pay?

Also you have to take into account fame. Davis said he dreamed of being a BBall star. This could be his 15 mins of fame.

Then you have the abandonment revenge factor.

There are plenty of potential motives for Davis to lie. That being said he fits the MO of the type of kid an abuser would target. So he could be telling the truth.

 

[SoBristol]

Civil suits -- normally 3 years from the time damages occurred. Not one year. But the rest is correct about minors having another year after they reach legal age, or a year after discovery in certain situations. There are some other circumstances that might toll the SOL (lack of capacity), but I don't see any in this situation.

 

[DoctorBombay]

The book deal...the talk-show circuit...reality TV...tabloids...interviews w/ Dr. Drew... yeah, this "debunks Boeheim's theory they're out for money"!

With that said, I also don't think the motive is just money- I believe its something else.
What that is we have yet to find out.

 

[javadoc]

There are plenty of potential motives for Davis to lie. That being said he fits the MO of the type of kid an abuser would target. So he could be telling the truth.

I would check their finances to see if they have already been paid, or might be. Make accusations that have already been made, no way to prove or disprove, still there is damage. How far does it knock the program down? Who might have a motive to do so? Hm.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Intentional torts are one year in NY. Statute is tolled until 21 if you were a minor

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[Toga]

But he went public. Although better argument would be did the accusers know the law regarding lawsuits. Not sure if their attorney mr shwartz made them Aware of that

That's what I wonder as well. Do one or both of the accusers currently have an attorney?

 

[DoctorBombay]

"I just don't want it to happen anymore. He's hurting people still. I just want him to stop. I want him to get help".

That's an interesting first-person, present-tense quote from the article. Maybe its just me, but it doesn't seem to read well.
I hate to mind-read, but does anyone else see these words as odd? Not quite sure why I feel this way...
What am I missing here?

 

[Niastri]

So, these guys are looking for hush money from the University, from JB, from Fine, from anybody who would be hurt by the accusation. They have been talking about it for a long time. Seems very plausible they were out for money.

 

[AZOrange]

"I just don't want it to happen anymore. He's hurting people still. I just want him to stop. I want him to get help".

That's an interesting first-person, present-tense quote from the article. Maybe its just me, but it doesn't seem to read well.
I hate to mind-read, but does anyone else see these words as odd? Not quite sure why I feel this way...
What am I missing here?

It makes it seem like he is aware that others are being molested currently which implies that he is somehow involved.

 

[Mareiniss]

So, these guys are looking for hush money from the University, from JB, from Fine, from anybody who would be hurt by the accusation. They have been talking about it for a long time. Seems very plausible they were out for money.

According to the article I'm linking to in this post, ESPN's parent company, ABC, is known to pay interview subjects, e.g., $200,000 for Casey Anthony. I'd be curious to see whether anyone at ESPN paid anything to Davis or Lang. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/business/media/13payments.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

 

[jekelish]

According to the article I'm linking to in this post, ESPN's parent company, ABC, is known to pay interview subjects, e.g., $200,000 for Casey Anthony. I'd be curious to see whether anyone at ESPN paid anything to Davis or Lang. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/business/media/13payments.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Considering there are rumors that ESPN contacted Davis first, that would be interesting to find out.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Whats the SOL in other states like Louisiana since he apparently was in NO? He said he was molested there too.

 

[DoctorBombay]

It makes it seem like he is aware that others are being molested currently which implies that he is somehow involved.

It kinda reads too much like script for my taste.
Now, I'm no mental health expert, & Im not dismissing this guy's pain or claims if true, but couple these words w/ the tears seemingly on-cue, & it just seems odd.
That's the worst part about this whole thing: If he's telling the truth, you feel horrible for being skeptical. If he's lying, then you grow more cynical about human nature.
Oh Lord

 

[jgeorge322]

sobristol and capt tuttle are misinformed slightly. the sol is 3 years from the date of occurrence. doesn't matter intentional torts as this is a personal injury claim. the claimant would have 3 years from the occurrence or three years after he turns 18 because he is a minor.

new orleans is not a state. but La is a VERY unique jurisidiction. it is the only state in the country that doesn't follow the uniform commercial codes in regards to products liability claims. i have no idea what the statute is. it is different for most states but typical time frame is 2 or 3 years. some are much longer.

however, i am telling you that if he says his "injury" aka psychological issues didn't manifest itself until recently, he may get some leniency from the courts on this issue. think of it as a asbestos case. the exposure could have been 30 years ago but the cancer does not manifest itself until later on in life.

 

[kingottoiii]

The book deal...the talk-show circuit...reality TV...tabloids...interviews w/ Dr. Drew... yeah, this "debunks Boeheim's theory they're out for money"!

With that said, I also don't think the motive is just money- I believe its something else.
What that is we have yet to find out.

Interesting theory he could be trying to be a reality star. A book then celeb rehab with Dr Drew.

 

[PoppyHart]

sobristol and capt tuttle are misinformed slightly. the sol is 3 years from the date of occurrence. doesn't matter intentional torts as this is a personal injury claim. the claimant would have 3 years from the occurrence or three years after he turns 18 because he is a minor.

new orleans is not a state. but La is a VERY unique jurisidiction. it is the only state in the country that doesn't follow the uniform commercial codes in regards to products liability claims. i have no idea what the statute is. it is different for most states but typical time frame is 2 or 3 years. some are much longer.

however, i am telling you that if he says his "injury" aka psychological issues didn't manifest itself until recently, he may get some leniency from the courts on this issue. think of it as a asbestos case. the exposure could have been 30 years ago but the cancer does not manifest itself until later on in life.

And if he truly did bring it to the SPD in 2003, he'd surely be grandfathered in to that timeframe.

 

[JOC44]

And if he truly did bring it to the SPD in 2003, he'd surely be grandfathered in to that timeframe.

I guess I missed that part of law school.

 

[PoppyHart]

I guess I missed that part of law school.

Maybe you're right. I'd guess that prosecutorial error and/or misconduct would be a legitimate exception. But it could also harm the rights of the accused. Maybe, in that case, Davis and Lang's best course of action is to sue the city.

 

[JOC44]

If you'd guess that that would be an exception to the statue of limitations, you'd be wrong. Exceptions to the statute of limitations are very limited. Most states allow the statute of limitations period to be tolled (that it, not to run) for minors or if the plaintiff could not learn of his injury (like if your accountant steals your money and conceals it for many years). If anything the police stuff from 2003 undermines any attempt to apply the discovery rule because it proves that the accuser was aware of the alleged tortious conduct many years ago but didn't sue.

 

[SoBristol]

If you'd guess that that would be an exception to the statue of limitations, you'd be wrong. Exceptions to the statute of limitations are very limited. Most states allow the statute of limitations period to be tolled (that it, not to run) for minors or if the plaintiff could not learn of his injury (like if your accountant steals your money and conceals it for many years). If anything the police stuff from 2003 undermines any attempt to apply the discovery rule because it proves that the accuser was aware of the alleged tortious conduct many years ago but didn't sue.

Of course -- the accuser happened to be present! He continued with Fine (allegedly) for 6 years after he turned 21 -- apparently even while going away to college. He asked for a loan in 1998; got upset when Fine asked for repayment. He talked to the papers in October 2002. There won't be any civil suit by Davis.

Why else is he doing this? His gf mentioned some attempt to get "closure" with his past. Maybe to vindicate his earlier effort to get something published. Maybe he is being led around by a reporter paying his "expenses."

 

[orangecuse]

sobristol and capt tuttle are misinformed slightly. the sol is 3 years from the date of occurrence. doesn't matter intentional torts as this is a personal injury claim. the claimant would have 3 years from the occurrence or three years after he turns 18 because he is a minor.

new orleans is not a state. but La is a VERY unique jurisidiction. it is the only state in the country that doesn't follow the uniform commercial codes in regards to products liability claims. i have no idea what the statute is. it is different for most states but typical time frame is 2 or 3 years. some are much longer.

however, i am telling you that if he says his "injury" aka psychological issues didn't manifest itself until recently, he may get some leniency from the courts on this issue. think of it as a asbestos case. the exposure could have been 30 years ago but the cancer does not manifest itself until later on in life.

Latency type claims as your asbestos reference indeed trigger from when the damage rears its ugly face, due to its incubation period, etc, however, it does not usually apply (at least in most jurisdictions I'm aware of) in typical alleged garden variety psychological claims.

If it did, could you just imagine the plethora of problems this would create. Poor little Johnny who tripped and fell over the parking bumper at the local Dairy Queen and fractured his wrist (no settlement/general release signed, etc.). Now, years later, wants to sue for the psychological damages it has caused him because he can't effectively spank his monkey...

 

[AZOrange]

I guess I missed that part of law school.

Lol...well criminal law was so boring...I might have fallen asleep and missed it.