Just my humble opinion...

[Jake]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

 

[moqui]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

as I wrote in another thread, I think that, broadly speaking, there are three logical possibilities for the BSK report:

• essentially cleared Bernie
• largely cleared him, but left a few lingering doubts
• corroborated key parts of Davis' account

I think there is close to 0% chance of the third possibility. BSK would have advised swift & severe response and SU certainly would have agreed.

I think the first possibility is by far the most likely. Administrators and inside counsel would have breathed a sigh of relief, informed JB that all was clear, and it would have been largely forgotten in the subsequent years.

Only a slight possibility for the second option. If there were lingering doubts, the administration would have placed the ball directly into JB's hands to decide what to do about Bernie. And, if that had been the case, he would have reflected those doubts in response to the current episode. Unless he is as stupid and stubborn as his most fervent detractors have always claimed and, frankly, I find that harder to believe than that Bernie is a pedophile.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

If BS&K turned up anything in 2005, wouldn't Bernie have retired?

 

[goodroc]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

i cant imagine the university would hire BSK and not follow its recommendations --- CORRECT?? i am not concerned with the DA and SPD -- im very concerned bernie is guilty and if so Coach B is probably done based on him calling the alleged victims liars-- the more time that goes by the better chance he has to distance himself from those comments

He can spin it that BSK told him it was a lie and he never was in bernies room ext... --- but he would have a fight on his hands imo

 

[Cheriehoop]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

Exactly what I've been thinking all through this. Bond, Schoeneck and King are a national reputable law firm that handles many of the NCAA investigations. I can't imagine them leaving themselves or SU vulnerable with doing a shoddy investigation.

It's so ironic that it's the only investigation that isn't being discussed. The only possible negative I could see from their investigation would be the unlikely possibility of SU ignoring one of their recommendations but I really doubt they'd ever do that.

 

[arbitragegls]

there is a 4th probabililty that goes with cleared but lingering doubts. There was only one person claiming abuse at that time. The four witnesses given did not provide further facts that would result in Bernie being thought guilty. It was one person against one person...no video, no tapes etc. So Bernie gets benefit of doubt...as stated, Lang coming forward potentially changes the result--two now not only one accusing. But what is interesting, Lang has not said anything against Bernie until recently...so I doubt his word.

JB in most recent interviews still supports Bernie but now says if new facts come out that will have to be re-evaluated...that is a much softer statement than initially. And the initial reaction can be defended as frustration (case already investigated three times) and shock.

More importantly, does anyone know what was in the Bond, Schoeneck and King report--that would be worthwhile to know.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

More importantly, does anyone know what was in the Bond, Schoeneck and King report--that would be worthwhile to know.

Syracuse University knows, and as of last Friday, the DA knows as well.

And SU took no action against Bernie in 2005.

 

[Jeepers]

I'm 100% with Moqui.

I think they just concluded that Davis is a nutter and could do nothing about it but wave it off. If it ever had to go to court (which BF wouldn't want), BF (or his team) would have a LOT to say I bet. And we'd all be very enlightened.

 

[NRF527]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

Agree 100%. As I indicated in a previous thread (having come from the labor side of industrial relations) I grudgingly respect B,S & K as one of the finest lawfirms around. There is no doubt in my mind that their 4 month investigation was thorough and complete. They do excellent work. I'd be shocked if their outcome suggested the University take action against Bernie Fine.

IMHO, BF (not Bernie) acted a fool today.

 

[arbitragegls]

Syracuse University knows, and as of last Friday, the DA knows as well.

And SU took no action against Bernie in 2005.

thank you

 

[moqui]

More importantly, does anyone know what was in the Bond, Schoeneck and King report--that would be worthwhile to know.

I don't have a source at the University or at BSK, but I have spoken with someone who is familiar with that firm and their work, and he is certain (or, as certain as an outsider can be) that their investigation would have been very thorough, and that they would have gone beyond the information that Davis provided. They did not spend four months talking just to Davis and his four named sources - for example,they probably would have interviewed other people around Bernie and the program (including as many ball boys as they could while still being discreet).

I am not saying that I know this is exactly how the report was handled and precisely what is in it, but it was an example given to me by my acquaintance, based on his experience with BSK.

 

[mountaincuse]

The only possible negative I could see from their investigation would be the unlikely possibility of SU ignoring one of their recommendations but I really doubt they'd ever do that.

i would highly doubt it as well considering Nancy was in charge at that time - I would be less certain if Buzz was still calling the shots.

 

[arbitragegls]

Agree 100%. As I indicated in a previous thread (having come from the labor side of industrial relations) I grudgingly respect B,S & K as one of the finest lawfirms around. There is no doubt in my mind that their 4 month investigation was thorough and complete. They do excellent work. I'd be shocked if their outcome suggested the University take action against Bernie Fine.

IMHO, BF (not Bernie) acted a fool today.

...more importantly if outside legal team indicated that action be taken against Bernie and it was not, Syracuse Univ would have been in a very bad position relative to law suit...so findings must have been clean

 

[Jeepers]

i would highly doubt it as well considering Nancy was in charge at that time - I would be less certain if Buzz was still calling the shots.

Very good point. I'd imagine that lady doesn't mess around with that kind of thing, and isn't even a big fan of the sports program.

 

[rrlbees]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

I can see that to an extent from an SU basketball viewpoint but not Bernie.

 

[dash-30-dash]

If there was a through investigation back in 2005, and Syracuse was advised that Fine was clean, it would apply to him. to add to jake's post, if there are no new credible accusers, the rest is white noise.

 

[orangefan13]

Would Bernie have sued by now if hes guilty?
Would Bernie have sued by now if hes not guilty?
Just for the name disrespecting.

Thoughts anyone?
Bernie has enough to be vice president of ESPN. He can hang em up for that .

 

[dash-30-dash]

Just to add to that, I could make up a person's name. Put it on the front page of the P.O.. and have a real scandal behind the story. And people on the street would have rumors about what went on with that made up person. Very few people really know the truth right now. But a lot of people think they do. and to answer the question above me, he would not file suit, no matter what. A deposition opens up a lot of bad possibilities.

 

[JOC44]

Individuals filing a defamation suit almost always regret it later. Even if they were totally blameless.

 

[jsshap]

as I wrote in another thread, I think that, broadly speaking, there are three logical possibilities for the BSK report:

• essentially cleared Bernie
• largely cleared him, but left a few lingering doubts
• corroborated key parts of Davis' account

I think there is close to 0% chance of the third possibility. BSK would have advised swift & severe response and SU certainly would have agreed.

I think the first possibility is by far the most likely. Administrators and inside counsel would have breathed a sigh of relief, informed JB that all was clear, and it would have been largely forgotten in the subsequent years.

Only a slight possibility for the second option. If there were lingering doubts, the administration would have placed the ball directly into JB's hands to decide what to do about Bernie. And, if that had been the case, he would have reflected those doubts in response to the current episode. Unless he is as stupid and stubborn as his most fervent detractors have always claimed and, frankly, I find that harder to believe than that Bernie is a pedophile.

I agree with Jake's comment that everything but the report is white noise. The report is important for two reasons -- (1) to show what SU and JB knew and see if actions taken were consistent with that, and (2), to see the most complete summary of who said what (likely including some credibility determinations from the investigators) so people can more clearly assess what they believe the truth is (as everyone has been trying to do now with far less info).

Legally, the first issue is the far more important and there is no doubt that the report will help the school here. I saw a comment on this board to the effect that lets hope the school followed the report's recommendations. There is no chance that that did not happen. Your first paragraph above is correct Moqui. Not only would SU have agreed with a recommendation for severe action (ie termination), but the report is not going to include a recommendation that SU is not going to follow.

There is a lot of gray between the first two possibilities. "Essentially cleared" is almost certainly too strong. The foundation of the report would have been accuser says this and accused says that. Then based on determinations of their credibility and information from other witnesses, an assessment is made as to what likely happened, whether policies were violated, etc. But its often not susceptible to an all or nothing conclusion, ie. "we find the allegations to be founded or unfounded". Sometimes in these gray areas there is enough to find that the accused exercised poor judgment or was in violation of company policy, even if there is not enough to ultimately find the harassment, assault, etc. occurred. In those situations counseling or some lesser discipline usually follows, with the matter documented and future occurrences being looked at with increased scrutiny. So it is possible that Bernie was reprimanded for some poor judgment, even if the underlying allegations were not sufficiently corroborated or credible, but given the nature of these charges (and the fact that the allegations do not include things like showering with boys. etc. that could conceivably be incredibly inappropriate but not criminal), that seems unlikely. So if no action was taken against Bernie in 2005, it is pretty clear that the investigation concluded that based on all the information made and the credibility assessments of the witnesses there was not sufficient reason to believe abuse may have occurred.

Of course that does not mean abuse did not occur. This report would help people see who said what and make their own assessment, but obviously the investigator only talked to those he/she knew to. If others have come forward that changes things. It changes nothing as to judging the actions of SU and JB, but its a whole different ball game in assessing the ultimate question. Thats why the whole notion that SU and JB are in big trouble if Fine is guilty does not make sense to me. I get that it will make JB look bad because he was so vocal in is defense, but absent those statements -- say for example he had simply said "I have no reason to believe Bernie ever did anything like this but lets allow the process to play out" -- there would be no reason to think Fine's guilt would or could should indict SU or JB. And I cannot believe his statements alone change that. If they do, than PSU's effect on this entirely different situation is really unfortunate. I still find it hard to believe that will happen, if it turns out there is more credibility to these accusations now then there was 6 years ago.

Lastly, Moqui, I disagree w/your last paragraph. I do not see any situation where there were lingering doubts so the school told JB to decide what to do. The school would not conduct an extensive investigation, find that there was at least some real concern that this may have possibly happened, and then simply hand the decision to JB to decide whether to take any action.

 

[orangeion]

the DA and the SPD can go back and forth on this forever. What Syracuse University Basketball fans need to be most interested in, is what is contained in the Bond, Schoeneck & King report that was performed back in 2005(?). The rest is white noise.

Just spoke with someone from BS&K (full disclosure-family member who just arrived for turkey). To my surprise, the report, although of high quality, may not have been that extensive. After the initial interviews there was no support found for the claims made by Davis. Apparently it would be considered damaging to the reputation of the accused to interview large number of potential victims (i.e. ask dozens of kids if Fine had sexual interactions with them), such that once it appears that the accusations were false the investigation was curtailed. This is in contrast to a police hotline that can ask the general public to call in regardless of the damage this action would have on the accused.

 

[arbitragegls]

excellent analysis...hopefully some day that report is made public...and then we will all know the background instead of making reasonable judgement.

 

[rrlbees]

Just spoke with someone from BS&K (full disclosure-family member who just arrived for turkey). To my surprise, the report, although of high quality, may not have been that extensive. After the initial interviews there was no support found for the claims made by Davis. Apparently it would be considered damaging to the reputation of the accused to interview large number of potential victims (i.e. ask dozens of kids if Fine had sexual interactions with them), such that once it appears that the accusations were false the investigation was curtailed. This is in contrast to a police hotline that can ask the general public to call in regardless of the damage this action would have on the accused.

that makes complete sense. they probably only talked to davis, maybe lang and probably the 4 people that davis gave them who at that time wouldn't admit anything. so it may be that the report is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things and only got the results that others got. didn't think of it that it would be unfair to bernie if bsk were just reaching out to people who may have had no idea about anything. then it no longer becomes a private or inside investigation. the only thing it could do for us is to show su did due diligence.

 

[jr4750]

that makes complete sense. they probably only talked to davis, maybe lang and probably the 4 people that davis gave them who at that time wouldn't admit anything. so it may be that the report is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things and only got the results that others got. didn't think of it that it would be unfair to bernie if bsk were just reaching out to people who may have had no idea about anything. then it no longer becomes a private or inside investigation. the only thing it could do for us is to show su did due diligence.

That's a good point about maintaining Bernie's privacy while still investigating the case. A very fine line, and if true what was said, I think articulates that BSK did the right thing. You interview those who have been named, and unless there is speculation that it is bigger than anticipated, stick to the smallest group possible.

 

[upperdeck]

would that take 4 months? even multiple interviews it would only be weeks to talk for 5-10 people.