Not So Fast My Friend: The Problem with ESPN

[OrangeHeel]

When the PSU story broke, it was after the grand jury had already concluded its investigation. Here, the story comes before the investigation. Even if we assume new information came to light which was available in 2003 or 2005, it still seems the appropriate way to handle it would be to refer to the police for investigation which they would do with input from the DA.

Having done lots and lots of investigations, the only fair way is to keep the investigative process secret. On many occasions, serious allegations I've looked into having proven to be false or unprovable. If the investigation was properly done, the allegations never become public and a person's reputation is not recklessly damaged.

Also, keeping it secret means that the suspect often doesn't know you're coming and is more likely to confess. Think anyone reading about an accusation against them published first in the paper isn't going to "lawyer-up"? Unless you retain Mr. Sandusky's lawyer, you will and you won't talk to the police which ends up hindering the investigation.

So, putting aside the sever statute of limitation problems here, if the ESPN guy really thought he had new info he would hold on the story and give it first to the police to investigate. (And I assume that SPD is really looking into this under the theory that abusers don't stop abusing so their investigation could lead to a victim for whom the statute of limitations did not run.)

But, who cares what's the right way to do things anymore. (And mind you, I'm always a member of the camp that says no quarter to abusers if it can be proven.)

 

[syr02esq]

The media doesn't wait for the conclusion of an investigation before reporting.

 

[OrangeHeel]

The media doesn't wait for the conclusion of an investigation before reporting.

In today's world, you're right. Such was not always the case and shoudn't have been in this instance. This is especially true after seeing the accusers. Seems a little more caution was in order.

 

[kingottoiii]

PSU stuff was reported locally in April. ESPN never looked into. Now ESPN creates this story before it has gone to cops. Hugh difference.

 

[PeteCalvin]

In today's world, you're right. Such was not always the case and shoudn't have been in this instance. This is especially true after seeing the accusers. Seems a little more caution was in order.

Heel, in your honest opinion, do you think that the legal eagles in employ at ESPN are starting to plan for damage control? Could they have overstepped themselves on this?

 

[OrangeHeel]

Heel, in your honest opinion, do you think that the legal eagles in employ at ESPN are starting to plan for damage control? Could they have overstepped themselves on this?

I'm thinking Schwartz wasn't a beacon of journalistic integrity, but I'm also thinking BF qualifies as a "public figure" under the ridiculously high standard for libel/slander suits under the first amendment even if the allegations prove false. While I wouldn't be thrilled if I was an ESPN attorney, I bet they're not losing any sleep.

Having said that, if I was them I would be interested in knowing what really changed from 2003. I'm guessing step-brother dearest was one of the corroboraters from 2003 who when contacted denied. Adding to my interest is my opinion that neither accuser was, shall we say, at their best on tv.

So, even if they're not losing sleep, they'll have a busy few days at the office particularly if SPD shakes either accuser off their story. (Police are generally excellent at smelling a rat and getting a false accuser to confess if that is the case here.)