Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OrangeHeel, post: 79507, member: 152"]
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.)
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?