so how good was the Universities investigation?

[orangenauburn]

according to Schwarz, Davis only gave them three names of people who might know what happened to him. Obviously Laurie was one, and she lied as was his step brother who now claims he too was molested by BF. Who was the other? Was it Jim Boeheim?

If those are the only three people, then how good was the universities investigation?

 

[themole]

I dunno, but it took four months, so . . .

 

[goodroc]

We hired outside council. Respected law firm. If they fckd up is that universities fault??

 

[Etancuse]

the thing that bothers me is that I am sure SU's investigators at some point talked to Davis, why wouldn't he mention the tape?

 

[dash-30-dash]

he hadn't finished tamporing with it.

 

[pearl31]

We hired outside council. Respected law firm. If they fckd up is that universities fault??

If their findings/recommendations weren't utilized/followed it's the university's fault.
Also, someone else (I believe it was Airbat) brought up the possibility that—not unlike the evaluation of firms and their assets on Wall Street—the firm working for SU could have just reported what SU wanted to hear.

Would be useful (perhaps not pleasant) to see the report, that's for sure.

 

[Noexcuse]

Yeah, I'm not sure what Schwarz was trying to say about the University's investigation. He seemed to imply that Davis gave them a list of names as opposed to actually telling the University the names like he did to ESPN. Is he trying to say the University would not have taken a written list seriously?

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

Two quick points:

1. I would not consider BS&K to be "outside counsel" in the traditional sense. I believe the firm has a long-standing relationship with the University and I believe handles labor, education and athletic compliance issues.

2. Saying the investigation "took four months" likely does not mean the firm had attorneys working on the matter 40 hours a week for four months. The way these things usually work is you interview the accuser. Then you try to interview people he claims would corroborate. Then you interview the accused. Then you follow-up on issues presented by the accused. Generally it takes time to set up the interviews, especially with anyone your client doesnt control (non-SU employees). Once the interviews are concluded a report of findings and recommendations is drafted. Then the report would be shared with important University Administrators, and ultimately with the Board of Trustees. The process likely took four months to conclude.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

If their findings/recommendations weren't utilized/followed it's the university's fault.
Also, someone else (I believe it was Airbat) brought up the possibility that—not unlike the evaluation of firms and their assets on Wall Street—the firm working for SU could have just reported what SU wanted to hear.

Based upon my experience, I would wager that it is more likely that the former is true than the latter (though I would like to think and hope that neither are true here). BS&K's role as legal counsel to the University is to limit the University's and its agents' liability and exposure. Simply telling the University what it wanted to hear would be in opposite to the reason the firm was retained to investigate in the first place.

 

[RF2044]

according to Schwarz, Davis only gave them three names of people who might know what happened to him. Obviously Laurie was one, and she lied as was his step brother who now claims he too was molested by BF. Who was the other? Was it Jim Boeheim?

If those are the only three people, then how good was the universities investigation?

That's the million dollar question. That the University hired outside counsel to conduct the investigation, reviewed all evidence available at the time, and issued formal findings is a good thing. Organizations / people in power who want to cover things up don't hire independent outside counsel to come in and scrutinize.

At the end of the day, any concerns about liability / exposure risk for the University are going to come down to whether or not they can look in the mirror and know that they did everything that they could and should have done, given the serious nature of these accusations. If they can, then despite the sensationalist media dust up today, they have nothing to worry about.

If not, they're in trouble and exposed to even more bad publicity, potential NCAA sanctions, and lawsuits.

 

[rrlbees]

Yeah, I'm not sure what Schwarz was trying to say about the University's investigation. He seemed to imply that Davis gave them a list of names as opposed to actually telling the University the names like he did to ESPN. Is he trying to say the University would not have taken a written list seriously?

The way I understood it, and I may be wrong, was that he did not supply names to SU of others that were abused, but gave them names of people who could substantiate his story. Don't know what that would get him unless someone witnessed it. Maybe Laura Fine was one of the names.

 

[Noexcuse]

The way I understood it, and I may be wrong, was that he did not supply names to SU of others that were abused, but gave them names of people who could substantiate his story. Don't know what that would get him unless someone witnessed it. Maybe Laura Fine was one of the names.

That might be it. And now that you mention it, I seem to remember someone saying that she did provide testimony during the SU investigation.

 

[bevosu]

Why wouldn't his ex-girlfriend Danielle Roach be the other name? Am I missing something?

 

[orangecuse]

Two quick points:

1. I would not consider BS&K to be "outside counsel" in the traditional sense. I believe the firm has a long-standing relationship with the University and I believe handles labor, education and athletic compliance issues.

2. Saying the investigation "took four months" likely does not mean the firm had attorneys working on the matter 40 hours a week for four months. The way these things usually work is you interview the accuser. Then you try to interview people he claims would corroborate. Then you interview the accused. Then you follow-up on issues presented by the accused. Generally it takes time to set up the interviews, especially with anyone your client doesnt control (non-SU employees). Once the interviews are concluded a report of findings and recommendations is drafted. Then the report would be shared with important University Administrators, and ultimately with the Board of Trustees. The process likely took four months to conclude.

BS&K is an independent outside firm/counsel in every sense of the word...they're not house/staff counsel...separate TIN's, etc. The fact that SU retains them for many of their legal issues has no bearing whatsoever...many corporations follow this same practice. If you're suggesting a conflict of interest exists because of this...well that's a complete stretch and totally unfounded...