Isn't this a major inconsistency?

[OttoinGrotto]

From the ESPN article -

Davis said he reported the abuse to Syracuse police in 2003, but that a detective told him the statute of limitations had run out. Davis said the detective told him that if he knew of boys being molested by Fine at the time, that Syracuse police would investigate those allegations. Davis said he told the detective that he thought other boys were being molested, but that he had only direct knowledge of Fine molesting him.

From the PS Roach article which is entitled "Syracuse authorities did nothing in 2002..."-

Davis spoke to a Syracuse police detective over the phone for no more than five minutes about the allegations in mid-2002, Davis told The Post-Standard then.

Roach told police this week that she contacted Syracuse police detective Doug Fox in the abused persons unit in 2002 and told him that Fine had sexually abused her friend for years. She’d gotten the detective’s name from a lawyer she knew, David Savlov.​

Davis told The Post-Standard in 2002 that later in 2002 he talked over the phone to Fox about the alleged abuse. The phone call lasted three to five minutes, Davis said. He told Fox he’d been sexually abused by someone who worked at Syracuse University, Davis said.​

“He said, ‘When did this happen to you?’” Davis recalled in a 2002 interview. “I said, ‘A long time ago.’ (Fox) said, ‘We really can’t do anything for you...you’re too old now.’”​

This seems like a Billy Fuccillo 'UGE inconsistency to me. When in fact did Davis contact the SPD?​

 

[ClamOtto]

Also, if I'm doing the math right, Davis was 30 in 2002 and the abuse allegedly went on until he was 28. So that wouldn't have been "a long time ago" at that point.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Also, if I'm doing the math right, Davis was 30 in 2002 and the abuse allegedly went on until he was 28. So that wouldn't have been "a long time ago" at that point.

Good catch. SOL of 5 years, right?

 

[AZOrange]

Also, if I'm doing the math right, Davis was 30 in 2002 and the abuse allegedly went on until he was 28. So that wouldn't have been "a long time ago" at that point.

You know...thats a pretty good catch.

 

[maxxyz]

Good catch. SOL of 5 years, right?

5 years from when he was 18 years old.

After that it was either consensual or assault. He hasn't accused anyone of assault.

 

[xc84]

Good catch. SOL of 5 years, right?

SOL starts at age 18...so it's well past that. But "a long time ago" does not match other statements ...that was a good catch.

 

[shandeezy7]

Yeah if it was really happening until he was 26 or 27 or whatever, then he would not have said "a long time ago" when it was really only 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[rrlbees]

Also, if I'm doing the math right, Davis was 30 in 2002 and the abuse allegedly went on until he was 28. So that wouldn't have been "a long time ago" at that point.

He may have been referring to a long time ago being when he was abused as a child. Trying to piece together statements in different articles is tough until there is sworn testimony. Dates could also be a misprint or a misunderstanding.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Good catch. Possible explaination why Davis may have justade up the part about it going on into adulthood, trying to beat SOL, nit not understanding how it works. Doesnt mean underage is true PR not, nut it hurts hos credability

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[liljoe]

I think all these inconsistencies are exactly why Davis and Roach were being investigated by police together. Get them in a situation where they can't be wishy washy. If Davis remembers something one way, and Roach remembers it another, make them discuss it out together. If they are truly having vague memories, they should be able to reach some sort of compromise. If they are making things up, it will be difficult to come together in explaining inconsistencies.

 

[AZOrange]

I think all these inconsistencies are exactly why Davis and Roach were being investigated by police together. Get them in a situation where they can't be wishy washy. If Davis remembers something one way, and Roach remembers it another, make them discuss it out together. If they are truly having vague memories, they should be able to reach some sort of compromise. If they are making things up, it will be difficult to come together in explaining inconsistencies.

You think interviewing them together makes this more likely? I would think separating them makes it more likely to have inconsistencies.

 

[liljoe]

You think interviewing them together makes this more likely? I would think separating them makes it more likely to have inconsistencies.

I figured there would be some confusion over that part of my comments.

The point I am trying to make is, if they are discussing something that never happened, it will be very difficult to explain inconsistencies together with the police. I'll try to give a simple example.

Let's say Bobby says in an interview with just him that they made calls from his house to police. Roach on the other hand says they made the calls to police from her house. If you keep them in individual interviews, they can both cover up the inconsistencies by saying their memory is a little foggy.

Now, if you bring them together, in police presence, and say figure out which it was, they're going to have a difficult time working it out if it is something that never even happened.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

Also, according to Bud & The Man Child, in today's paper there's an article that states Roach had a friend who said Roach only called the DA office twice, and both times was very vague (never mentioned anyone by name), and only once left a contact number. I can't find that on Syracuse.com. Does anyone have the paper and can verify that? They said it was on page A6, top of the 3rd column of the story. If anyone has that could they post what was said in that article about it?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So SOL runs out. The detective doesn't probe to see if any more abuse has been more recent to discover if an assault charge is at all possible?

 

[AZOrange]

So SOL runs out. The detective doesn't probe to see if any more abuse has been more recent to discover if an assault charge is at all possible?

IMO, the guys I want to hear most from right now are this Detective Fox and DA Trunfio.

 

[armory]

IMO, the guys I want to hear most from right now are this Detective Fox and DA Trunfio.

Exactly... and why did the P-S not even attempt to get a comment from either of these people before running the story? Aren't you supposed follow up with any/every source?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Just seems to like it's a big deal to be an entire year off from when Davis told ESPN that he contacted the police to when he had spoken to the PS in 2002.

 

[AZOrange]

Exactly... and why did the P-S not even attempt to get a comment from either of these people before running the story? Aren't you supposed follow up with any/every source?

it feels like everyone is so in a hurry to "break news" that they forget to do their jobs. i wonder what someone like CTO thinks about the reporting being done here.