PDA

View Full Version : Sex Abuse Allegation at Syracuse Basketball



Indoor66
11-17-2011, 08:06 PM
A breaking story (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7248184/syracuse-police-investigating-bernie-fine-molesting-boy-1980s) about sex abuse issues revolving around Bernie Fine - a Basketball assistant for more than thirty-five years.

DevilOfATime
11-17-2011, 08:10 PM
I was about ready to post the same thing.

SMO
11-17-2011, 08:13 PM
I was about ready to post the same thing.

Fire Boeheim. Too bad, I was looking forward to having him in the ACC.

pfrduke
11-17-2011, 08:17 PM
Fire Boeheim. Too bad, I was looking forward to having him in the ACC.

This is an admittedly preliminary reaction based on a single article, but this doesn't seem to be a "fire Boeheim" situation. Notably, the part of the article saying that when these issues were brought to Syracuse, the university launched a 4-month investigation in which every person offered as a corroborating witness denied awareness of any wrongdoing.

DevilOfATime
11-17-2011, 08:22 PM
This is an admittedly preliminary reaction based on a single article, but this doesn't seem to be a "fire Boeheim" situation. Notably, the part of the article saying that when these issues were brought to Syracuse, the university launched a 4-month investigation in which every person offered as a corroborating witness denied awareness of any wrongdoing.

I agree, I would like to hear more of this story first!!!!!

JasonEvans
11-17-2011, 08:29 PM
This is an admittedly preliminary reaction based on a single article, but this doesn't seem to be a "fire Boeheim" situation. Notably, the part of the article saying that when these issues were brought to Syracuse, the university launched a 4-month investigation in which every person offered as a corroborating witness denied awareness of any wrongdoing.

Syracuse's reaction seems the exact opposite of Penn State's. They launched an extensive investigation and sought to go even further than the police did. They spoke to as many witnesses as they could and none of them could corroborate anything. ESPN even investigated it in 2003 and chose not to report anything at that time.

Maybe more will come up here, but right now it looks like Syracuse handled it quite well.

As for Fine, it sounds like he had an father-like relationship with this fatherless kid for more than a decade... either a case of a man giving tremendously of himself and having it thrown in his face or a case of a man grossly abusing his power over a defenseless child. Either way, this is ugly.

-Jason "not sure we will ever know the full truth here" Evans

SMO
11-17-2011, 08:39 PM
This is an admittedly preliminary reaction based on a single article, but this doesn't seem to be a "fire Boeheim" situation. Notably, the part of the article saying that when these issues were brought to Syracuse, the university launched a 4-month investigation in which every person offered as a corroborating witness denied awareness of any wrongdoing.

My tongue-in-cheek-ometer was spiking as I wrote that.

roywhite
11-17-2011, 09:26 PM
Syracuse's reaction seems the exact opposite of Penn State's. They launched an extensive investigation and sought to go even further than the police did. They spoke to as many witnesses as they could and none of them could corroborate anything. ESPN even investigated it in 2003 and chose not to report anything at that time.

Maybe more will come up here, but right now it looks like Syracuse handled it quite well.
As for Fine, it sounds like he had an father-like relationship with this fatherless kid for more than a decade... either a case of a man giving tremendously of himself and having it thrown in his face or a case of a man grossly abusing his power over a defenseless child. Either way, this is ugly.

-Jason "not sure we will ever know the full truth here" Evans

A little quick on conclusions here, Jason.

Now reports of a second person coming forward to indicate abuse from this coach.
The University has now put the coach on administrative leave.

Did Syracuse contact local police in 2005?

Did Boeheim have a pedophile working for him and not know it?


He said that Boeheim knew he was traveling on the road and sleeping in Fine's room.

"Boeheim saw me with Bernie all the time in the hotel rooms, on road trips," Davis said. "He'd come in, and see me laying in the bed, kind of glance at me like, 'What are you doing here?' But he wouldn't say that. He'd just scowl. And I would look at him like, I'd be nervous. I felt embarrassed 'cause I felt stupid that I'm there. I'm not supposed to be here. I know it, and Boeheim's not stupid."



So this is a possible abuse case and you're lauding Syracuse for their handling??

basket1544
11-17-2011, 09:42 PM
If this is true, the world may be crumbling apart once again. If a coach brings a neighbor boy with him on the road (which is probably not a good idea), wouldn't it make sense that they would stay in the same hotel room? I've been accused of being naive before, but you wouldn't put a 10-12 year old boy in his own room without a chaperone. I guess we'll all know more soon.
I hope that the Penn State scandal helps others that have faced abuse come forward and know that they can face their accusers, but I also hope it doesn't create a backlash effect.

Scorp4me
11-17-2011, 10:03 PM
A little quick on conclusions here, Jason.

Now reports of a second person coming forward to indicate abuse from this coach.
The University has now put the coach on administrative leave.

Did Syracuse contact local police in 2005?

Did Boeheim have a pedophile working for him and not know it?

So this is a possible abuse case and you're lauding Syracuse for their handling??

From the article I read on yahoo (which I must say was very even handed) it says Davis contacted the police and was told they could do nothing. Despite the police doing nothing Syracuse conducted the investigation when Davis contacted them. Hence the above and beyond comment from Jason.

The reports of a second person are from a relative of Davis. Not saying that makes it false, but something to consider.

Syracuse has placed the assistant on leave due to the police opening the case. The case is being reopened due to the second person.

It also says Boeheim did not know anything of the allegations.

So based on this it does sound like Syracuse has handled it as best they can.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Ex-ball-boy-alleges-Syracuse-assistant-molested-?urn=ncaab-wp6278

roywhite
11-17-2011, 10:08 PM
From the article I read on yahoo (which I must say was very even handed) it says Davis contacted the police and was told they could do nothing. Despite the police doing nothing Syracuse conducted the investigation when Davis contacted them. Hence the above and beyond comment from Jason.

The reports of a second person are from a relative of Davis. Not saying that makes it false, but something to consider.

Syracuse has placed the assistant on leave due to the police opening the case. The case is being reopened due to the second person.

It also says Boeheim did not know anything of the allegations.

So based on this it does sound like Syracuse has handled it as best they can.http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Ex-ball-boy-alleges-Syracuse-assistant-molested-?urn=ncaab-wp6278

Or they missed ongoing sexual abuse, protected their coaches, and moved on.

A teen-aged boy, not a relative, travelling with the assistant coach??
Does that seem like a good idea?

Hopefully we learn the truth.

-jk
11-17-2011, 10:08 PM
A little quick on conclusions here, Jason.

Now reports of a second person coming forward to indicate abuse from this coach.
The University has now put the coach on administrative leave.

Did Syracuse contact local police in 2005?

Did Boeheim have a pedophile working for him and not know it?



So this is a possible abuse case and you're lauding Syracuse for their handling??

Regrettably, evil people abound in all walks of life. And they look just like the rest of us.

We can only do so much. One of our country's founding principles is the presumption of innocence.

A single report was made. A reportedly thorough investigation followed which found nothing to corroborate it.

How did the 'Cuse fail? Do we shoot first and ask questions later? How is that more just?

This is a problem dating as far back as the Salem witch trials. Where do we draw the line between the truly evil person and the false accusation? To whom do we lend credence?

Our best hope is for an honest, ethical due process, knowing that even when honest and ethical it's never perfect. We can only do our best - however flawed that may be.

-jk

BD80
11-17-2011, 10:34 PM
Regrettably, evil people abound in all walks of life. And they look just like the rest of us.

We can only do so much. One of our country's founding principles is the presumption of innocence.

A single report was made. A reportedly thorough investigation followed which found nothing to corroborate it.

How did the 'Cuse fail? Do we shoot first and ask questions later? How is that more just?

This is a problem dating as far back as the Salem witch trials. Where do we draw the line between the truly evil person and the false accusation? To whom do we lend credence?

Our best hope is for an honest, ethical due process, knowing that even when honest and ethical it's never perfect. We can only do our best - however flawed that may be.

-jk

It is just so easy, if the accused weighs the same as a duck, he must burn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTdDN_MRe64

I do recommend people watch the video, there is something familiar about the rush to judgment.

loran16
11-17-2011, 11:30 PM
The police never did anything because by the time it was reported, it was beyond the statute of limitations. Despite this, Cuse launched an investigation, and an INDEPENDENT AGENT (ESPN's Outside the Lines) launched their own, and found no corroboration.

Totally possible that this is indeed another sad case of molestation. But the school did nothing wrong.

dcdevil2009
11-18-2011, 12:19 AM
Wait, so now a university is competent to investigate accusations? I'm not drawing any conclusions about either the PSU or Syracuse claims, just pointing out that it's inconsistent to give Syracuse the benefit of the doubt but attack Paterno if Schultz/Curley had lied to him about the results of their investigation.

loran16
11-18-2011, 12:48 AM
Wait, so now a university is competent to investigate accusations? I'm not drawing any conclusions about either the PSU or Syracuse claims, just pointing out that it's inconsistent to give Syracuse the benefit of the doubt but attack Paterno if Schultz/Curley had lied to him about the results of their investigation.

DCDevil, the point is that it's not JUST the university that investigated the claim in 2003. Both ESPN Outside the Lines and the Syracuse Post-Standard had the story in 2003, investigated it, and found nothing to corroborate the claim (See http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/assistant_syracuse_university.html).

Des Esseintes
11-18-2011, 12:55 AM
Wait, so now a university is competent to investigate accusations? I'm not drawing any conclusions about either the PSU or Syracuse claims, just pointing out that it's inconsistent to give Syracuse the benefit of the doubt but attack Paterno if Schultz/Curley had lied to him about the results of their investigation.

No, man. That is not what anyone is saying. When the Syracuse complaint was made to the authorities, the statute of limitations had run out, so the police could not act. Syracuse, additionally, on top of the efforts of the law, conducted its own investigation. Four months. Penn State, near as we can tell, "conducted an investigation" by having a couple of conversations behind closed doors and neglecting to phone the police.

burnspbesq
11-18-2011, 12:58 AM
From the article I read on yahoo (which I must say was very even handed) it says Davis contacted the police and was told they could do nothing. ... The case is being reopened due to the second person.

Something is missing here.

Syracuse.com is reporting that the reason the Syracuse PD didn't investigate in 2003 is that the statute of limitations had expired. New York has a very short statute (five years). The second accuser is 45 years old. If only conduct after 2006 can be prosecuted ... the arithmetic here has me scratching my head.

BD80
11-18-2011, 01:30 AM
Something is missing here.

Syracuse.com is reporting that the reason the Syracuse PD didn't investigate in 2003 is that the statute of limitations had expired. New York has a very short statute (five years). The second accuser is 45 years old. If only conduct after 2006 can be prosecuted ... the arithmetic here has me scratching my head.

I think you need to add a $ or two in your calculations.

-bdbd
11-18-2011, 02:30 AM
A little quick on conclusions here, Jason.

Now reports of a second person coming forward to indicate abuse from this coach.
The University has now put the coach on administrative leave.

Did Syracuse contact local police in 2005?

Did Boeheim have a pedophile working for him and not know it?



So this is a possible abuse case and you're lauding Syracuse for their handling??

Are you implying that any school which has an employee accused of child abuse is, ipso facto, unlaudable of their handling??? And what if the charges proove to be uncorroborated or unsubstantiated, or an ulterior motive manifests itself?? It is waaay too early to make judgements here.

According to ESPN's Sports Center there are, indeed, two accusers now. They showed footage of an interview with (the original) accuser. It does appear that this case WAS handled quite differently than the way PSU handled theirs. Syracuse apparently conducted a full and open investigation, interviewing all of the supposed witnesses the kid identified would support his story, and NONE of them confirmed his accusations. Also, they brought in the police. PSU apparently did none of these things.

Another data point is that Boeheim has issued a rather forceful statement defending his assistant and directly accusing the kid of lying. That tells me a lot, b/c JB is clearly putting his neck on the line in defense of his assistant, which you don't do at all casually.

BD- "Let's see what unfolds in the coming days/weeks and what the second accuser says before judging" -BD

roywhite
11-18-2011, 07:17 AM
Are you implying that any school which has an employee accused of child abuse is, ipso facto, unlaudable of their handling??? And what if the charges proove to be uncorroborated or unsubstantiated, or an ulterior motive manifests itself?? It is waaay too early to make judgements here.

According to ESPN's Sports Center there are, indeed, two accusers now. They showed footage of an interview with (the original) accuser. It does appear that this case WAS handled quite differently than the way PSU handled theirs. Syracuse apparently conducted a full and open investigation, interviewing all of the supposed witnesses the kid identified would support his story, and NONE of them confirmed his accusations. Also, they brought in the police. PSU apparently did none of these things.

Another data point is that Boeheim has issued a rather forceful statement defending his assistant and directly accusing the kid of lying. That tells me a lot, b/c JB is clearly putting his neck on the line in defense of his assistant, which you don't do at all casually.

BD- "Let's see what unfolds in the coming days/weeks and what the second accuser says before judging" -BD

I'm fine with your conclusion. Totally agree.

Also think the Penn State case has a lot of unanswered questions and public perceptions may turn out wrong.
Check the link I recently posted in the PSU thread; well said IMO.

JMarley50
11-18-2011, 09:46 AM
This is a sad situation... Regardless of guilt or innocence damage has already been done. People are already judging Fine and comparing him to Sandusky. I think its way too early to make a judgement on this one.

Here is something Jason Whitlock just tweeted that I found interesting:

WhitlockJason (http://twitter.com/#!/WhitlockJason) Jason Whitlock

RT @CoachLiz25 (http://twitter.com/#!/CoachLiz25): Syr Post-Std reporting ESPN reached out to Davis again in the wake of the PSU scandal. Then step-bro corroborates. Hmm...

ChillinDuke
11-18-2011, 10:00 AM
This whole Syracuse issue looks very different from Penn St.

I am going to reserve judgment until more information comes to light. But the fact that Syracuse apparently talked to multiple people identified by the accuser as people who would corroborate, and none of them corroborated, to the point that even ESPN didn't think it was newsworthy, all of this with police knowledge of the accusation, that seems pretty strong defense of Syracuse at this juncture. At least to me.

Obviously, this could all change. But for now, in my view, I don't have much reason to be questioning Syracuse on this. Just a revisited allegation that had no substance when investigated the first time around.

$0.02

- Chillin (Tab: $0.04)

MulletMan
11-18-2011, 10:52 AM
This whole Syracuse issue looks very different from Penn St.

I am going to reserve judgment until more information comes to light. But the fact that Syracuse apparently talked to multiple people identified by the accuser as people who would corroborate, and none of them corroborated, to the point that even ESPN didn't think it was newsworthy, all of this with police knowledge of the accusation, that seems pretty strong defense of Syracuse at this juncture. At least to me.

Obviously, this could all change. But for now, in my view, I don't have much reason to be questioning Syracuse on this. Just a revisited allegation that had no substance when investigated the first time around.

$0.02

- Chillin (Tab: $0.04)

So... I had Mike and Mike on this AM on the brief drive to work and they were speaking with the lead reporter who they were calling Mark (I presume that to be Mark Fainaru-Wada who does all the investigative reporting for ESPN and wrote Game of Shadows) and the clear message from the interview was that when the alleged victim and the reporter contacted witnesses and other alleged victims, they were met with scorn and disdain due to the taboo surrounding male on male sexual assault in 2003. His implication was that these other alleged victims are now feeling empowered by what has come out re: Penn State and will be coming forward with their stories.

I don't know that I believe that, but its what was said/implied.

NovaScotian
11-18-2011, 11:05 AM
i take issue with one point from the post on the home page:

"Finally, Davis suggests that he was molested from the seventh grade until he was 28. With all due respect, even if a young boy is manipulated, at some point he is old enough and big enough to put an end to things. Is it possible that he allowed this to continue to the age of 28?"

this seems a little insensitive to me. i understand the point the writer is trying to make, but victims of sexual abuse often hold on to the secret for their entire lives, out of shame or even guilt. it is wrong to assume or even offer that these accusers are making it up because it has been such a long time.

sagegrouse
11-18-2011, 11:27 AM
I don't see what this has to do with Syracuse basketball. An assistant coach faces an accusation. It is hard to understand the University's involvement except that an employee has been accused. Doesn't there seem to be a lot more Penn-State texture to the Sandusky story?

sagegrouse

COYS
11-18-2011, 11:54 AM
i take issue with one point from the post on the home page:

"Finally, Davis suggests that he was molested from the seventh grade until he was 28. With all due respect, even if a young boy is manipulated, at some point he is old enough and big enough to put an end to things. Is it possible that he allowed this to continue to the age of 28?"

this seems a little insensitive to me. i understand the point the writer is trying to make, but victims of sexual abuse often hold on to the secret for their entire lives, out of shame or even guilt. it is wrong to assume or even offer that these accusers are making it up because it has been such a long time.

I agree with this comment. Like NovaScotian, I understand why the facts might produce some serious questions as to the validity of the claims of sexual abuse, but at the same time, it is at best pure speculation to hypothesize that Davis should have been able to "put things to an end" at a certain point. At worst, it's incredibly insensitive to someone who may have been the victim of sexual abuse for years upon years. I think the issue of credibility could have been framed in a way that did not put the victim's truthfulness on trial (i.e. however, without eyewitness testimony to supplement Davis' claims, it will be difficult to prove such claims). There are many instances of sexual abuse between a male adult and a male child in which a relationship of some nature lasts well into adulthood for the victim. The psychological scars are deep and complex and it is oversimplification to suggest that the victim would be able to "put things to an end" at a certain point. The other issue is that sexual abuse, if conducted discretely enough and if it occurred far enough in the past, is incredibly difficult to prove. Obviously we should presume innocence, but at the same time just because some of the facts from the alleged victims cannot be corroborated by third party witnesses doesn't prove that the victims are lying, either.

I definitely do not lump the Syracuse situation with the PSU situation. They seem to be vastly different on many levels. It may turn out that Fine and all the other parties at Syracuse are completely innocent. But at this point it seems premature to question Davis' claims based on the fact that it seems strange to outsiders that molestation could continue into adulthood.

Indoor66
11-18-2011, 12:20 PM
I don't see what this has to do with Syracuse basketball. An assistant coach faces an accusation. It is hard to understand the University's involvement except that an employee has been accused. Doesn't there seem to be a lot more Penn-State texture to the Sandusky story?

sagegrouse

Allegedly the assistant coach took the young man on road trips, including the final four and they shared a room. (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/assistant_syracuse_university.html) That was seen by others, including Boeheim.

A-Tex Devil
11-18-2011, 01:47 PM
Allegedly the assistant coach took the young man on road trips, including the final four and they shared a room. (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/assistant_syracuse_university.html) That was seen by others, including Boeheim.

Boeheim denied this last time around and again yesterday.

This is cut from a whole different cloth from Penn State. The Penn State situation involved an multi-year investigation and a grand jury indictment, with people testifying under oath.

This is an accusation that was investigated several years ago, and was unable to be corroborated. From the facts that we have, there is no evidence that Syracuse covered anything up or didn't act appropriately (unlike Penn State). The fact that ESPN passed on the story the first time around is very telling as well.

Now that Sandusky exists, maybe there will be more people coming out against Fine (and potentially others) that add more credence to this story. But from what I've read, the original accuser gave up 4 different people, including Boeheim, that could corroborate his stories, and not a one of them corroborated what the accuser claimed. This doesn't mean the accuser is lying (which is always the lesser of two evils in these situations), but from what I can tell, there is no evidence of eye-witnesses or failure to report like there was in the PSU situation.

ThePublisher
11-18-2011, 03:53 PM
Welcome to the ACC..... I guess

dcdevil2009
11-18-2011, 04:04 PM
No, man. That is not what anyone is saying. When the Syracuse complaint was made to the authorities, the statute of limitations had run out, so the police could not act. Syracuse, additionally, on top of the efforts of the law, conducted its own investigation. Four months. Penn State, near as we can tell, "conducted an investigation" by having a couple of conversations behind closed doors and neglecting to phone the police.

I appologize. I had only heard what they were saying on sportscenter and was under the impression that Syracuse didn't know that Davis had gone to police first. I thought that Syracuse conducted its own internal investigation before deciding whether to go to police, which is apparently not what happened. Additionally, it was the alleged victim making a complaint and not a witness, so he had a more vested interest in the results of the university investigation. Had the police not been involved from the start, I stand by my initial position that Syracuse was competent to investigate and determine that nothing happened before deciding whether to notify police, especially when it was the alleged victim who came forward.

brevity
11-18-2011, 06:13 PM
I don't see what this has to do with Syracuse basketball. An assistant coach faces an accusation. It is hard to understand the University's involvement except that an employee has been accused. Doesn't there seem to be a lot more Penn-State texture to the Sandusky story?

sagegrouse

I haven't had a lot to say on these matters because I like focusing on the more untraveled perspectives, and right now no one else is inclined to do the same (because they're in a natural reactive mode). That's not much of a conversation. But I'll try again.

In one or two ways, the Syracuse situation is worse. What it comes down to is the circumstances by which minors are involved in a university setting. If you think about it, college is a place for adults. College is built and protected using adult standards, which are more relaxed than all-age standards. For example, if I'm a university lawyer/official selecting a bus design for campus transportation, I'm looking generally at adult access, with special consideration for (1) disabled adults and (2) drunk adults. Quite frankly, kids are an afterthought. Should we all protect children from dangers? Sure, but you don't think about it as much if you're in an all-adult environment.

Under what circumstances can minors be found on campus? Visitors in public accommodations and libraries, presumably with direct adult supervision. Sports event attendees, presumably with direct adult supervision. Patients at hospitals. The list is short, and generally does not make minors PART of the university. But the Syracuse situation is interesting: ballboys are part of an institution's athletic program. Here the University has direct responsibility for the placement of both the perpetrator and the victim. And that would be the case at any college that uses ballboys.

By comparison, the Penn State situation is far less common, and much harder to duplicate. Jerry Sandusky basically had to build an entire charity outreach program in a college setting just to get isolated access to kids. How often does that happen? So it's difficult for me to conclude that colleges can be a haven for pedophile activity. From the criminal's point of view, campuses are not exactly teeming with those opportunities.

loran16
11-18-2011, 09:53 PM
I haven't had a lot to say on these matters because I like focusing on the more untraveled perspectives, and right now no one else is inclined to do the same (because they're in a natural reactive mode). That's not much of a conversation. But I'll try again.

In one or two ways, the Syracuse situation is worse. What it comes down to is the circumstances by which minors are involved in a university setting. If you think about it, college is a place for adults. College is built and protected using adult standards, which are more relaxed than all-age standards. For example, if I'm a university lawyer/official selecting a bus design for campus transportation, I'm looking generally at adult access, with special consideration for (1) disabled adults and (2) drunk adults. Quite frankly, kids are an afterthought. Should we all protect children from dangers? Sure, but you don't think about it as much if you're in an all-adult environment.

Under what circumstances can minors be found on campus? Visitors in public accommodations and libraries, presumably with direct adult supervision. Sports event attendees, presumably with direct adult supervision. Patients at hospitals. The list is short, and generally does not make minors PART of the university. But the Syracuse situation is interesting: ballboys are part of an institution's athletic program. Here the University has direct responsibility for the placement of both the perpetrator and the victim. And that would be the case at any college that uses ballboys.

By comparison, the Penn State situation is far less common, and much harder to duplicate. Jerry Sandusky basically had to build an entire charity outreach program in a college setting just to get isolated access to kids. How often does that happen? So it's difficult for me to conclude that colleges can be a haven for pedophile activity. From the criminal's point of view, campuses are not exactly teeming with those opportunities.

In a sense, you're correct. But there are clear differences here:
First, as clearly noted, there's a lot greater chance of this being a false report than the Sandusky one.
Second, it's certainly an issue with ball-boys. But the University has a direct responsibility....and when informed, met it's responsibility. The University cannot keep watch over its employees at all times and thus cannot 100% prevent things like this, if it did occur. It did all it could.

dukebluelemur
11-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Under what circumstances can minors be found on campus? Visitors in public accommodations and libraries, presumably with direct adult supervision. Sports event attendees, presumably with direct adult supervision. Patients at hospitals. The list is short, and generally does not make minors PART of the university. But the Syracuse situation is interesting: ballboys are part of an institution's athletic program. Here the University has direct responsibility for the placement of both the perpetrator and the victim. And that would be the case at any college that uses ballboys.



There are some major reasons a minor might be on a college campus. For a fan of the school with the nationally recognized TIP program, your list seems particularly shortsighted.

brevity
11-20-2011, 03:48 AM
There are some major reasons a minor might be on a college campus. For a fan of the school with the nationally recognized TIP program, your list seems particularly shortsighted.

Harsh, but fair enough. There are summer programs at college campuses for high schoolers and occasionally junior high schoolers. It's not really the same thing -- there are fewer adults on an underfunctioning summer campus to put those minors in corrupting situations, like underage drinking -- but yes, there are adults and minors in a live-in dorm environment, and the potential for abuse is certainly there.

The greater point (at least to university administrations) is taking the lessons learned from Penn State and Syracuse and applying them to their universities to essentially isolate and target the most likely situations in which adults would have access to kids, both in academic and athletic contexts. It's a matter of administrators seriously reconsidering a crime -- child sexual abuse -- that they probably thought didn't apply to them. It will be interesting to see how activists and officials respond on their own campuses.

I remain skeptical, though, in thinking that there are many places in colleges to find such situations. I think Jerry Sandusky is a statistical anomaly: a university athletic department employee that was able to target kids on campus. If you're really trying to fight that particular criminal element in athletic programs, I imagine you're much more likely to find it at the pre-college levels: varsity, junior varsity, Little League, and so on. Also, some adults in those environments work on a volunteer basis, which creates fewer barriers to criminal entry.

NovaScotian
11-20-2011, 10:46 PM
i take issue with one point from the post on the home page:

"Finally, Davis suggests that he was molested from the seventh grade until he was 28. With all due respect, even if a young boy is manipulated, at some point he is old enough and big enough to put an end to things. Is it possible that he allowed this to continue to the age of 28?"

this seems a little insensitive to me. i understand the point the writer is trying to make, but victims of sexual abuse often hold on to the secret for their entire lives, out of shame or even guilt. it is wrong to assume or even offer that these accusers are making it up because it has been such a long time.

I was disappointed to read yet another insensitive comment on the homepage:

"People have all kinds of reasons for doing all kinds of things, but it’s hard to understand why he would deck his house in Orange memorabilia if the defining event of his life was being molested by a Syracuse basketball coach."

The writer is correct - its hard to understand the motivations of victims of sexual abuse when their actions don't seem reasonable that's why it's not wise, and actually quite offensive to speculate as to why they do certain things. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the accusations, however it is not ot of the ordinary for victims to defend and admire their abusers in cases like these.

Jim3k
11-21-2011, 02:33 AM
Under what circumstances can minors be found on campus?


Although for me, it goes back into 1948-51 time frame when I was little, it still remains a positive experience. In those days I lived in a college town where the university licensed a recreation-style summertime children's day camp to use its athletic facilities. It was manned by college students and PE department personnel, though they were paid by the Day Camp, not the university. To my knowledge the day camp operated that way until the founder died; since then it has moved off the campus into its own facilities.

But the point is that many universities encourage town-gown programs covering a variety of interests. Allowing licensees (usually non-profits) to rent the gym and pool for such a purpose seems to be a positive thing. Clearly having young children on campus is something to be encouraged, not scotched, so long as it provides a mutual benefit to the college and the families. In any event, a day camp is closely supervised by lots of vetted adults, so the child abuse issue is pretty much nonexistent while the university's risk is extremely low.

It would not surprise me if many colleges/universities even now are connected to childrens programs of a similar nature: art, music, dance as well as athletic programs.

bob blue devil
11-27-2011, 10:28 AM
can't find the old thread (sorry to dup it)

at any rate, with the recorded phone call of Bernie's wife seemingly acknowledging the veracity of allegations against Bernie, is anybody nervous for Boeheim's future as head coach of syracuse? he was pretty outspoken about the allegations:


"I know this kid (Davis), but I never saw him in any rooms or anything. It is a bunch of a thousand lies that he has told. You don't think it is a little funny that his (relative) is coming forward? He supplied four names to the university that would corroborate his story. None of them did…there is only one side to this story. He is lying."

Boeheim did a modest backtrack on these comments, so maybe people would give him a free pass, but we're at a point in society that doesn't tolerate ill will directed at the victims of sex crimes. i leaned towards believing Boeheim ahead of the facts because of his roll in the community, as well as the public confidence he made them with and the amount he risked by making them (i hesitate to make a Nifong analogy, but there it is - in all other areas the analogy fails of course).

i'm not passing judgment on the truth of any of this, but i'm a Boeheim fan and am beginning to get nervous he won't be around to join the ACC.

JasonEvans
11-27-2011, 11:05 AM
The case against Fine just got a lot more compelling with the taped phone conversation (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7286347/otl-audio-tape-syracuse-orange-assistant-bernie-fine-wife-admits-worries-abuse) between the accuser and Fine's wife. She admits she knew about the sexual abuse going on but was powerless to stop it. It sure sounds like corroboration of at least some of the allegations made against Fine.

Boeheim needs to really dance back from his earlier support of Fine, I think.

By the way the accuser apparently also had a sexual relationship with Bernie Fine's wife when he was in his late teens. This is like some bizzaro soap opera!

-Jason "still does not feel like the kind of coverup we saw at Penn State, but it is getting closer" Evans

sagegrouse
11-27-2011, 11:12 AM
can't find the old thread (sorry to dup it)

at any rate, with the recorded phone call of Bernie's wife seemingly acknowledging the veracity of allegations against Bernie, is anybody nervous for Boeheim's future as head coach of syracuse? he was pretty outspoken about the allegations:



Boeheim did a modest backtrack on these comments, so maybe people would give him a free pass, but we're at a point in society that doesn't tolerate ill will directed at the victims of sex crimes. i leaned towards believing Boeheim ahead of the facts because of his roll in the community, as well as the public confidence he made them with and the amount he risked by making them (i hesitate to make a Nifong analogy, but there it is - in all other areas the analogy fails of course).

i'm not passing judgment on the truth of any of this, but i'm a Boeheim fan and am beginning to get nervous he won't be around to join the ACC.

I don't think anyone can say that Boeheim WON'T be swept out in the aftermath, but there are substantial differences between the Syracuse case and the Penn State allegations.

At Syracuse, when the allegations first surfaced a few years ago (and many years after the alleged crimes), the University promptly launched an inquiry and could not find corroborating evidence. Boeheim's statements rely on these findings. Syracuse has already started another investigation based on an expansion of the original charges (and I assume that Jim B. is keeping his mouth shut for now).

Penn State senior officials apparently received substantial eyewitness testimony from a staff member immediately after the incident and never called the police. In fact, Paterno was the initial recipient of the report. The case came to light only when another supposed victim went to the police and then the back history was revealed. Coverups are bad -- not worse than these horrible crimes -- but bad nonetheless in that they leave a predator on the loose.

sagegrouse

wiscodevil
11-27-2011, 11:56 AM
At Syracuse, when the allegations first surfaced a few years ago (and many years after the alleged crimes), the University promptly launched an inquiry and could not find corroborating evidence.

sagegrouse

here is what i don't get. as early as 2002 (3) both espn and syracuse were alerted to the potential that bernie fine had abused kids.

Davis first gave the tape to ESPN in 2003. At the time, ESPN did not report Davis' accusations, or report the contents of the tape, because no one else would corroborate his story... ESPN hired a voice-recognition expert who said the voice on the tape matches the voice of Laurie Fine. The call was made and received in states that don't require both parties to consent to a call being recorded.

wouldn't a taped phone call with fine's wife constitute corroborating evidence?

isn't this aspect similar to the psu case where there were people (syracuse, espn, police, etc.) who had an idea that person A might be a sexual predator, but chose to look the other way?

Acymetric
11-27-2011, 12:18 PM
here is what i don't get. as early as 2002 (3) both espn and syracuse were alerted to the potential that bernie fine had abused kids.

Davis first gave the tape to ESPN in 2003. At the time, ESPN did not report Davis' accusations, or report the contents of the tape, because no one else would corroborate his story... ESPN hired a voice-recognition expert who said the voice on the tape matches the voice of Laurie Fine. The call was made and received in states that don't require both parties to consent to a call being recorded.

wouldn't a taped phone call with fine's wife constitute corroborating evidence?

isn't this aspect similar to the psu case where there were people (syracuse, espn, police, etc.) who had an idea that person A might be a sexual predator, but chose to look the other way?

I think something that sort of muddles things is that Davis also claims he had a relationship with Laurie his senior year of high school. Maybe they felt they needed corroboration from someone who wasn't also said to have been intimate with Davis.

Duke79UNLV77
11-27-2011, 03:26 PM
I think the DBR headline has a couple of big omissions: (1) Fine's wife admittedly had sex with Davis when Davis was a teenager and (2) the new accuser, besides being called a liar by his dad, himself is facing child molestation charges.

Also, the recorded conversation suggests that Davis and Fine never had oral sex and that Fine didn't get to "do" Davis when he made a $5,000 payment for him. I haven't followed all of the accusations closely, but hasn't Davis suggested a very large number of actual sexual encounters over many years?

I'm not saying that Fine is innocent or guilty. It doesn't seem as clear-cut as the case against Sandusky or the innocence of the Duke LAX team. Probably will have to let the legal process play out before making any judgment.

roywhite
11-27-2011, 03:55 PM
I think the DBR headline has a couple of big omissions: (1) Fine's wife admittedly had sex with Davis when Davis was a teenager and (2) the new accuser, besides being called a liar by his dad, himself is facing child molestation charges.

Also, the recorded conversation suggests that Davis and Fine never had oral sex and that Fine didn't get to "do" Davis when he made a $5,000 payment for him. I haven't followed all of the accusations closely, but hasn't Davis suggested a very large number of actual sexual encounters over many years?

I'm not saying that Fine is innocent or guilty. It doesn't seem as clear-cut as the case against Sandusky or the innocence of the Duke LAX team. Probably will have to let the legal process play out before making any judgment.

Yes, hopefully it does get sorted through investigation and the legal process.

Remember, though, that the innocence of the Duke LAX team was not "clear-cut" for quite a while to many, including some Duke faculty members.

cspan37421
11-27-2011, 04:32 PM
Quote from DBR front page summary: "Assuming that all of this is true, Laurie Fine is just as horrible a person as Davis says her husband is."

Does anyone else find this to be an overstatement, even if all allegations are true? I do not see the (im)moral equivalence, considering the differences in Davis' age at which the incidents are alleged to have taken place. And as for her not speaking up, well, it's terrible she didn't (for whatever reasons - e.g., fear), but I don't see how that is in any way equivalent to committing the crime (assuming one took place).

duke96
11-27-2011, 06:33 PM
Quote from DBR front page summary: "Assuming that all of this is true, Laurie Fine is just as horrible a person as Davis says her husband is."

Does anyone else find this to be an overstatement, even if all allegations are true? I do not see the (im)moral equivalence, considering the differences in Davis' age at which the incidents are alleged to have taken place. And as for her not speaking up, well, it's terrible she didn't (for whatever reasons - e.g., fear), but I don't see how that is in any way equivalent to committing the crime (assuming one took place).

As for not reporting Bernie's (alleged) actions, I agree it would be hard to argue that Laurie's being aware of the crime and failing to stop it is equally immoral to committing the crime herself. If it came out (comes out) that Davis was in fact under the age of consent when Laurie Fine was (allegedly) having sex with him, however, then that does not seem to be far from what Bernie (allegedly) did from a legal standpoint. From a moral standpoint, if Davis was in fact much older and consenting at the time that he was with Laurie, then I personally agree with you.

In any case -- presuming this tape is accurate as ESPN has stated -- it seems that both Bernie and Laurie fine are deeply flawed people, and she acted with extreme negligence at a minimum, if not criminally. I believe the PSU case shed light on a law that requires disclosure to the police if one is aware of child molestation. Don't know if this law applies in New York (or whether there is some exemption if you are married to the perpetrator), but seems like Laurie could be prosecuted as well. I think in any case, you can argue what she allegedly did is worse than what, say, Joe Paterno did since she failed to report a crime that she personally observed, while Paterno from what I have seen failed to properly explore what from his standpoint was a possible crime.

As for Sage's question -- I can't imagine why this would not have been considered corroborating evidence in the original investigation. I suspect we'll learn a lot more about all of this soon, but like Jason said this seems like it is going to be a real soap opera. I agree with others that we'll see Boeheim backtracking soon. He said he would support Fine until he had a reason not to -- this tape seems like an excellent reason...

dukedoc
11-27-2011, 07:55 PM
Fine terminated

Link (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7288286/bernie-fine-fired-syracuse-amidst-molestation-allegations)

Oriole Way
11-27-2011, 08:27 PM
Anyone care to speculate what the chances are that Boeheim loses his job if Fine winds up being convicted over any of these accusations?

dukedoc
11-27-2011, 08:57 PM
Anyone care to speculate what the chances are that Boeheim loses his job if Fine winds up being convicted over any of these accusations?

Why, because of his statements in defense of Fine?

superdave
11-27-2011, 09:00 PM
Anyone care to speculate what the chances are that Boeheim loses his job if Fine winds up being convicted over any of these accusations?

Did he know about Fine's actions? To what extent and in what detail? What was the timing of Boeheim's knowledge? Did he cover anything up or sweep it up under the rug?

My guess is Boeheim will have a sworn affidavit soon. That will shed a lot of light. I've not really tuned in to this issue much so some of these questions may already be answered.

Super "What the heee-y-ellll is going on this world!" Dave

tieguy
11-27-2011, 09:05 PM
Why, because of his statements in defense of Fine?

Presumably because it's hard (though definitely not impossible!) to imagine a scenario where (1) the university actually conducted a thorough investigation the last time the allegations were raised and (2) the university did not know about the tapes released yesterday. If they knew about the tape and ignored it, or did not do a thorough enough investigation to uncover the tape, then in either case some heads other than Fines will have to roll unless there is a pretty ironclad story that explains the situation. Will Boeheim's head be one of the ones that rolls? Impossible to know without more information, but you have to think it is a distinct possibility now in a way it wasn't 72 hours ago.

[And to be clear, I'm not saying his head should roll, I'm just saying that (1) the university must provide more information on why their first investigation was not good enough and (2) since we can't yet rule out the possibility that Boeheim will be part of the explanation for #1, we can't yet rule out that he'll be out.]

burnspbesq
11-27-2011, 09:35 PM
Anyone care to speculate what the chances are that Boeheim loses his job if Fine winds up being convicted over any of these accusations?

As of right now, the probability of Fine being convicted of anything appears to be approximately zero. I have yet to see any allegations of conduct for which the statute of limitation hasn't run. So you question isn't ripe yet.

roywhite
11-27-2011, 11:00 PM
Here's the evolution of Boeheim's statements (this from another message board, but I believe the quotes are accurate)

Nov. 17:

"This is alleged to have occurred ... what? Twenty years ago? Am I in the right neighborhood? It might be 26 years ago? So, we are supposed to what? Stop the presses 26 years later? For a false allegation? For what I absolutely believe is a false allegation? I know he's lying about me seeing him in his hotel room. That's a lie. If he's going to tell one lie, I'm sure there's a few more of them.”

Nov. 18:

"“What? I can’t support a friend of 50 years? I hope that’s not the case. Some people have said that if these allegations are true, I should be fired. Why? Because Bernie Fine is my friend and I support him? I don’t have any reason not to.

I’m not Joe Paterno. Somebody didn’t come and tell me Bernie Fine did something and I’m hiding it. I know nothing. If I saw some reason not to support Bernie, I would not support him. If somebody showed me a reason, proved that reason, I would not support him. But until then, I’ll support him until the day I die.

People will say, Those words might come back to haunt you. But I have no reason not to believe that Bernie Fine is anything other than a good person who’s done nothing but help others. If somebody can show me that’s not true, I’ll take it under advisement.”

Nov. 27:

"The allegations that have come forth today are disturbing and deeply troubling. I am personally very shocked because I have never witnessed any of the activities that have been alleged. I believe the university took the appropriate step tonight. What is most important is that this matter be fully investigated and that anyone with information be supported to come forward so that the truth can be found. I deeply regret any statements I made that might have inhibited that from occurring or been insensitive to victims of abuse."

ChrisP
11-27-2011, 11:22 PM
As of right now, the probability of Fine being convicted of anything appears to be approximately zero. I have yet to see any allegations of conduct for which the statute of limitation hasn't run. So you question isn't ripe yet.

Forgive my ignorance but...there's a statute of limitations on adults molesting kids? WTH? I find that shocking.

g-money
11-28-2011, 01:53 AM
can't find the old thread (sorry to dup it)

at any rate, with the recorded phone call of Bernie's wife seemingly acknowledging the veracity of allegations against Bernie, is anybody nervous for Boeheim's future as head coach of syracuse? he was pretty outspoken about the allegations:



Boeheim did a modest backtrack on these comments, so maybe people would give him a free pass, but we're at a point in society that doesn't tolerate ill will directed at the victims of sex crimes. i leaned towards believing Boeheim ahead of the facts because of his roll in the community, as well as the public confidence he made them with and the amount he risked by making them (i hesitate to make a Nifong analogy, but there it is - in all other areas the analogy fails of course).

i'm not passing judgment on the truth of any of this, but i'm a Boeheim fan and am beginning to get nervous he won't be around to join the ACC.


I sure hope the people at SU are able to get out ahead of this rapidly-brewing media firestorm better than the folks at PSU did. Otherwise, we could once again find ourselves in a situation where accusations, as damning and heinous as they might be, are by themselves enough to irreparably damage the lives of the accused forever - without a single sworn statement being made in their defense.

PS No, I'm not in the ACLU in case you were wondering...though maybe I should be! :)

Dukefan1.0
11-28-2011, 04:37 AM
In my opinion Espn has not upheld its morale obligation, that they crucified Joe Paterno for also not upholding. I say this because from what I've read they've had the tapes from the alleged victim since 2003 and just sat on them. The action they took upon receiving the tapes was not reporting the accusations because it did not have enough information to back up Davis’ allegations. Which is no better morale behavior than what they claim Paterno failed to do.

cspan37421
11-28-2011, 06:39 AM
In my opinion Espn has not upheld its morale obligation, that they crucified Joe Paterno for also not upholding. I say this because from what I've read they've had the tapes from the alleged victim since 2003 and just sat on them. The action they took upon receiving the tapes was not reporting the accusations because it did not have enough information to back up Davis’ allegations. Which is no better morale behavior than what they claim Paterno failed to do.

I try to avoid pedantry here, despite the many opportunities afforded by postings to this board, but there's an important difference between moral and morale. I think you mean moral obligation here.

I think it's typical of news organizations to not report stories without two independent sources. As for a duty to report, the law in the particular state would apply, and I don't know the law. I would also point out differences in the timing of the alleged incidents; in the case of Penn State it was what, the day before? It was also a direct report by an eyewitness to a supervisor. In the case of Syracuse it was years later and it was not a direct report, nor was it to a supervisor - it was a taped phone call. They seem quite different to me.

roywhite
11-28-2011, 10:26 AM
I try to avoid pedantry here, despite the many opportunities afforded by postings to this board, but there's an important difference between moral and morale. I think you mean moral obligation here.

I think it's typical of news organizations to not report stories without two independent sources. As for a duty to report, the law in the particular state would apply, and I don't know the law. I would also point out differences in the timing of the alleged incidents; in the case of Penn State it was what, the day before? It was also a direct report by an eyewitness to a supervisor. In the case of Syracuse it was years later and it was not a direct report, nor was it to a supervisor - it was a taped phone call. They seem quite different to me.

Here's one opinion that ESPN is guilty of hypocrisy in not reporting abuse back in 2003.

ESPN roasting Paterno for not reporting abuse; meanwhile they had tapes confirming Bernie Fine abusing kids but didn't report it (http://blahbethany.com/tag/bernie-fine/)


The line “ESPN did not report Davis’ accusations, or report the contents of the tape, because no one else would corroborate his story” is troubling. There is NO new information today than there was in 2003, so why is ESPN OK reporting on this story now? Oh, right, now they have the voice recognition expert saying Laurie Fine was 100% the person on that audio. But the problem is THEY’VE HAD THAT AUDIO SINCE 2003 AND COULD’VE HIRED AN EXPERT TO EXAMINE IT THEN. So this really isn’t new information. It’s information they should’ve had in 2003. And should’ve reported back then

duke96
11-28-2011, 11:37 AM
Here's one opinion that ESPN is guilty of hypocrisy in not reporting abuse back in 2003.

ESPN roasting Paterno for not reporting abuse; meanwhile they had tapes confirming Bernie Fine abusing kids but didn't report it (http://blahbethany.com/tag/bernie-fine/)

Isn't the fact that that Mike Lang also came forward to corroborate the story important new information?

It's surprising to me that ESPN didn't try and validate the tape at the time, after what appears to have been an earnest attempt to investigate the story. But from what I have seen (i) nobody else would corroborate the story at the time and (ii) Laurie Fine specifically said in the original investigation that Davis "was a liar" and the accusations were a "joke", so one can imagine why ESPN would have dropped the story. To me, this is much different than Paterno failing to earnestly investigate an assault reported by a trusted third party eyewitness -- especially one who has no incentive (and significant disincentive) to raise the issue.

Indoor66
11-28-2011, 12:41 PM
Isn't the fact that that Mike Lang also came forward to corroborate the story important new information?

It's surprising to me that ESPN didn't try and validate the tape at the time, after what appears to have been an earnest attempt to investigate the story. But from what I have seen (i) nobody else would corroborate the story at the time and (ii) Laurie Fine specifically said in the original investigation that Davis "was a liar" and the accusations were a "joke", so one can imagine why ESPN would have dropped the story. To me, this is much different than Paterno failing to earnestly investigate an assault reported by a trusted third party eyewitness -- especially one who has no incentive (and significant disincentive) to raise the issue.

Why would ESPN have done anything that hurt the image of the Big East - especially in 2003? The BE is the conference that was the heart and soul of ESPN from the beginning. Their self interest was served by suppressing the story.

feldspar
11-28-2011, 03:19 PM
I hate agreeing with Greg Doyel, but I agree with Greg Doyel. I think Boeheim's gotta go.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/16264070/boeheims-statements-go-too-far-and-it-should-cost-him-his-job

You just can't completely throw a possible sex abuse victim under the bus like he did, especially one that was involved in his program, and keep your job. He should have just kept his mouth shut and said we need to wait for the facts come out. Because now that there are some pretty damning facts out, Boeheim's on the wrong end of the deal.

CameronBornAndBred
11-28-2011, 03:48 PM
Here's one opinion that ESPN is guilty of hypocrisy in not reporting abuse back in 2003.

ESPN roasting Paterno for not reporting abuse; meanwhile they had tapes confirming Bernie Fine abusing kids but didn't report it (http://blahbethany.com/tag/bernie-fine/)

Well, to be fair...they had tapes that suggested it, not confirmed it. Fine's wife is saying the tapes were tampered with.

"She'll even say that's her voice," nephew Matt Govendo said, but that the sections of the tape -- excerpts of which were made public Sunday by the Syracuse-based Post-Standard newspaper and ESPN -- "are all tampered with."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/27/justice/syracuse-coach-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

duke96
11-28-2011, 04:07 PM
Why would ESPN have done anything that hurt the image of the Big East - especially in 2003? The BE is the conference that was the heart and soul of ESPN from the beginning. Their self interest was served by suppressing the story.

Perhaps -- although breaking a story like this would have been a motivating factor for ESPN to pursue it. In any case, I was referring not to ESPN but to PSU, where McCreary had if anything a disincentive to report the story (since he must have known its potential ramifications to the football program, among other things) -- which in turn should have suggested to Paterno that his claims were likely to be valid.

roywhite
11-28-2011, 04:13 PM
Perhaps -- although breaking a story like this would have been a motivating factor for ESPN to pursue it. In any case, I was referring not to ESPN but to PSU, where McCreary had if anything a disincentive to report the story (since he must have known its potential ramifications to the football program, among other things) -- which in turn should have suggested to Paterno that his claims were likely to be valid.

Well, I hope we hear from Paterno and McQueary at some point to explain what was said between the two of them, and what exactly McQueary reported to the Athletic Director and other Administration officials.

Remember that apparently the Grand Jury felt that both McQueary and Paterno met their legal requirements in reporting the inicdent within their organization.

JasonEvans
11-28-2011, 04:23 PM
I hate agreeing with Greg Doyel, but I agree with Greg Doyel. I think Boeheim's gotta go.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/16264070/boeheims-statements-go-too-far-and-it-should-cost-him-his-job

You just can't completely throw a possible sex abuse victim under the bus like he did, especially one that was involved in his program, and keep your job. He should have just kept his mouth shut and said we need to wait for the facts come out. Because now that there are some pretty damning facts out, Boeheim's on the wrong end of the deal.

Doyle's column is so full of "I'm smarter than you and you have never considered this argument" statements that I am shocked he was able to see beyond his sanctimonious smile far enough to write a cogent sentence or two.

Doyle is disgusting and only seeks to inflame passions and get hits. He is the worst kind of "gotcha" journalist. His statement: "You care more about a famous coach than you do about innocent kids" is just unfair and disgusting. He presents this as an either/or proposition... as if it is impossible for someone to support the victims in the case and also think Jim Boeheim is a decent guy who did nothing to deserve losing his job here. It is a sign of a weak argument when someone needs to paint a stark decision like this as the best way to make their argument. He might as well have asked, "Do you admit or deny that you worship Satan?"

While I could see Syracuse deciding to fire Boehiem, based on what I know of the case right now I think that would be an overreaction. I think the question that must be asked here is simply-- Did Jim Boeheim, through action or knowing inaction, allow Bernie Fine to continue to harm innocent victims or did Boehiem cause harm to the investigation?

The first part of the question is fairly simple to answer with a resounding NO! We have thus far seen nothing to indicate that JB had any knowledge of Fine's alleged actions with regard to these young boys. I know the accuser has stated that he thinks Boeheim had to know what was going on, but we've seen zero in terms of direct evidence to support that. This is one area where the Syracuse situation differs dramatically from what happened at Penn State.

The second part of the question is a little bit tougher. There is no indication from police or investigators that Beoheim has been less than forthcoming. Doyle makes the argument that Boeheim's statements of support in the past week could have served to silence other potential Fine victims from coming forward. I suppose that is possible, but there seems to be a leap there that may simply not be true. Certainly the strong public support toward victims of sexual abuse has been made abundantly clear in the wake of the Penn State mess. Could Boehiem's strong comments have dissuaded one of Fine's victims as Doyle suggests? If someone comes forward, now that Fine has been removed by Syracuse and appears to be thoroughly shamed, and says they were afraid to go against Boeheim then Doyle will have proved his point. But, I think he may have made assumptions that are simply not true. I would think that once a couple people came forward with the initial Fine allegations a week or two ago, other potential victims would have felt pretty confident about making themselves known and being regarded as truthful.

To me, Jimmy Boeheim placed his trust in what appears to be the wrong hands. He went out on a limb for a long-time friend and it now looks like that friend had deceived him. The moment that became clear, Boeheim pulled back from his earlier comments. Unlike Paterno and Penn State, who ignored evidence and covered up obvious crimes, Boeheim seems to have chosen the path of strong loyalty to his friend/assistant. While his loyalty was misplaced, I do not see how he harmed anyone. To say that his actions should lead to the termination of his long career is going too far in punishment. I actually think this is a great example of "natural consequences." The person who looks the most foolish right now is Jim Boeheim. His legacy appears to be permanently tarnished, at least a little bit. Perhaps it will teach him and others to be a bit more circumspect in picking sides in a case like this. Let more evidence come forward before going out on a limb with someone.

But, does he deserve to be fired? I certainly do not think so.

-Jason "I reserve the right to change my view if new evidence comes to light" Evans

feldspar
11-28-2011, 04:54 PM
Doyle's column is so full of "I'm smarter than you and you have never considered this argument" statements that I am shocked he was able to see beyond his sanctimonious smile far enough to write a cogent sentence or two.

Doyle is disgusting and only seeks to inflame passions and get hits. He is the worst kind of "gotcha" journalist. His statement: "You care more about a famous coach than you do about innocent kids" is just unfair and disgusting. He presents this as an either/or proposition... as if it is impossible for someone to support the victims in the case and also think Jim Boeheim is a decent guy who did nothing to deserve losing his job here. It is a sign of a weak argument when someone needs to paint a stark decision like this as the best way to make their argument. He might as well have asked, "Do you admit or deny that you worship Satan?"

While I could see Syracuse deciding to fire Boehiem, based on what I know of the case right now I think that would be an overreaction. I think the question that must be asked here is simply-- Did Jim Boeheim, through action or knowing inaction, allow Bernie Fine to continue to harm innocent victims or did Boehiem cause harm to the investigation?

The first part of the question is fairly simple to answer with a resounding NO! We have thus far seen nothing to indicate that JB had any knowledge of Fine's alleged actions with regard to these young boys. I know the accuser has stated that he thinks Boeheim had to know what was going on, but we've seen zero in terms of direct evidence to support that. This is one area where the Syracuse situation differs dramatically from what happened at Penn State.

The second part of the question is a little bit tougher. There is no indication from police or investigators that Beoheim has been less than forthcoming. Doyle makes the argument that Boeheim's statements of support in the past week could have served to silence other potential Fine victims from coming forward. I suppose that is possible, but there seems to be a leap there that may simply not be true. Certainly the strong public support toward victims of sexual abuse has been made abundantly clear in the wake of the Penn State mess. Could Boehiem's strong comments have dissuaded one of Fine's victims as Doyle suggests? If someone comes forward, now that Fine has been removed by Syracuse and appears to be thoroughly shamed, and says they were afraid to go against Boeheim then Doyle will have proved his point. But, I think he may have made assumptions that are simply not true. I would think that once a couple people came forward with the initial Fine allegations a week or two ago, other potential victims would have felt pretty confident about making themselves known and being regarded as truthful.

To me, Jimmy Boeheim placed his trust in what appears to be the wrong hands. He went out on a limb for a long-time friend and it now looks like that friend had deceived him. The moment that became clear, Boeheim pulled back from his earlier comments. Unlike Paterno and Penn State, who ignored evidence and covered up obvious crimes, Boeheim seems to have chosen the path of strong loyalty to his friend/assistant. While his loyalty was misplaced, I do not see how he harmed anyone. To say that his actions should lead to the termination of his long career is going too far in punishment. I actually think this is a great example of "natural consequences." The person who looks the most foolish right now is Jim Boeheim. His legacy appears to be permanently tarnished, at least a little bit. Perhaps it will teach him and others to be a bit more circumspect in picking sides in a case like this. Let more evidence come forward before going out on a limb with someone.

But, does he deserve to be fired? I certainly do not think so.

-Jason "I reserve the right to change my view if new evidence comes to light" Evans

#1 - I don't think a discussion needs to be had about whether or not Doyel is a tool and if his writing is inflammatory or not. That much is clear.

#2 - Jim Boeheim did more than just go out on a limb for an old friend. He disparaged an alleged sexual abuse victim. Called him a liar and a money-grubber. He made a statement with his words that he's gonna support his program and his people, even though not all of the facts had come to light. I don't think that, as a leader, you get to do that and keep your job. Jim Boeheim, with his words, created an environment that discourages sexual abuse victims from coming forward. Who knows how many more are out there? You think they want to come forward when Jim Boeheim, one of the most powerful college basketball coaches in the country, is going to call them a liar and a money-grubber? No way.

All I know is, if I were living in/near Syracuse and was thinking about sending my boy to Boeheim's basketball camp next summer, you better believe I'm shopping around for a different camp, because no way under God's green earth am I sending him into that environment. No way. And that is a direct reflection on Boeheim.

Indoor66
11-28-2011, 04:56 PM
Doyle's column is so full of "I'm smarter than you and you have never considered this argument" statements that I am shocked he was able to see beyond his sanctimonious smile far enough to write a cogent sentence or two.

Doyle is disgusting and only seeks to inflame passions and get hits. He is the worst kind of "gotcha" journalist. His statement: "You care more about a famous coach than you do about innocent kids" is just unfair and disgusting. He presents this as an either/or proposition... as if it is impossible for someone to support the victims in the case and also think Jim Boeheim is a decent guy who did nothing to deserve losing his job here. It is a sign of a weak argument when someone needs to paint a stark decision like this as the best way to make their argument. He might as well have asked, "Do you admit or deny that you worship Satan?"

While I could see Syracuse deciding to fire Boehiem, based on what I know of the case right now I think that would be an overreaction. I think the question that must be asked here is simply-- Did Jim Boeheim, through action or knowing inaction, allow Bernie Fine to continue to harm innocent victims or did Boehiem cause harm to the investigation?

The first part of the question is fairly simple to answer with a resounding NO! We have thus far seen nothing to indicate that JB had any knowledge of Fine's alleged actions with regard to these young boys. I know the accuser has stated that he thinks Boeheim had to know what was going on, but we've seen zero in terms of direct evidence to support that. This is one area where the Syracuse situation differs dramatically from what happened at Penn State.

The second part of the question is a little bit tougher. There is no indication from police or investigators that Beoheim has been less than forthcoming. Doyle makes the argument that Boeheim's statements of support in the past week could have served to silence other potential Fine victims from coming forward. I suppose that is possible, but there seems to be a leap there that may simply not be true. Certainly the strong public support toward victims of sexual abuse has been made abundantly clear in the wake of the Penn State mess. Could Boehiem's strong comments have dissuaded one of Fine's victims as Doyle suggests? If someone comes forward, now that Fine has been removed by Syracuse and appears to be thoroughly shamed, and says they were afraid to go against Boeheim then Doyle will have proved his point. But, I think he may have made assumptions that are simply not true. I would think that once a couple people came forward with the initial Fine allegations a week or two ago, other potential victims would have felt pretty confident about making themselves known and being regarded as truthful.

To me, Jimmy Boeheim placed his trust in what appears to be the wrong hands. He went out on a limb for a long-time friend and it now looks like that friend had deceived him. The moment that became clear, Boeheim pulled back from his earlier comments. Unlike Paterno and Penn State, who ignored evidence and covered up obvious crimes, Boeheim seems to have chosen the path of strong loyalty to his friend/assistant. While his loyalty was misplaced, I do not see how he harmed anyone. To say that his actions should lead to the termination of his long career is going too far in punishment. I actually think this is a great example of "natural consequences." The person who looks the most foolish right now is Jim Boeheim. His legacy appears to be permanently tarnished, at least a little bit. Perhaps it will teach him and others to be a bit more circumspect in picking sides in a case like this. Let more evidence come forward before going out on a limb with someone.

But, does he deserve to be fired? I certainly do not think so.

-Jason "I reserve the right to change my view if new evidence comes to light" Evans

And I think the exact same reasoning applies to Paterno and he did not deserve firing. Boeheim is a "guilty" as JoPa. Both exhibited misplaced loyalty and trust. If JoPa has to go, so does Boeheim.

Jarhead
11-28-2011, 05:19 PM
If JoPa has to go, so does Boeheim.

Simple questions. Why? When did two mistakes come to the top?

SoCalDukeFan
11-28-2011, 05:20 PM
I think everyone needs to wait until most or all of the facts are out before taking decisive action.

IMHO

Mike Pressler should not have been fired.

JoePa was fired prematurely.

B Fine was fired prematurely.

SoCal

tommy
11-28-2011, 05:22 PM
here is what i don't get. as early as 2002 (3) both espn and syracuse were alerted to the potential that bernie fine had abused kids.

Davis first gave the tape to ESPN in 2003. At the time, ESPN did not report Davis' accusations, or report the contents of the tape, because no one else would corroborate his story... ESPN hired a voice-recognition expert who said the voice on the tape matches the voice of Laurie Fine. The call was made and received in states that don't require both parties to consent to a call being recorded.

wouldn't a taped phone call with fine's wife constitute corroborating evidence?

Not really. Legally speaking, that's pretty thin. The suspect is not a party to the conversation. All it really is is his wife, who clearly does not think much of him, agreeing with the complaining witness, though she did not witness anything and is only going on what he is telling her happened and offering vague hearsay and speculation about other matters. The fact that the two of them have had an intimate relationship would certainly be important in weighing the impact of her statements in any event.

I think the important thing, though, is that ESPN shouldn't have taken it upon itself to conduct that weighing process, to determine if sufficient corroboration of the allegations existed, and the like. Those are legal matters. That was for law enforcement and prosecutors to determine at the time. Their job, not ESPN's. ESPN should have turned over what it had, and let the police and prosecutors complete their investigation, including following up on the tape, and if something came of it, fine, and if not, fine too. For ESPN to make the decision unilaterally that it was not sufficient, without involving the legal authorities, was wrong. Not their call to make.

Oriole Way
11-28-2011, 05:37 PM
To me, Jimmy Boeheim placed his trust in what appears to be the wrong hands. He went out on a limb for a long-time friend and it now looks like that friend had deceived him. The moment that became clear, Boeheim pulled back from his earlier comments. Unlike Paterno and Penn State, who ignored evidence and covered up obvious crimes, Boeheim seems to have chosen the path of strong loyalty to his friend/assistant. While his loyalty was misplaced, I do not see how he harmed anyone. To say that his actions should lead to the termination of his long career is going too far in punishment. I actually think this is a great example of "natural consequences." The person who looks the most foolish right now is Jim Boeheim. His legacy appears to be permanently tarnished, at least a little bit. Perhaps it will teach him and others to be a bit more circumspect in picking sides in a case like this. Let more evidence come forward before going out on a limb with someone.

But, does he deserve to be fired? I certainly do not think so.

-Jason "I reserve the right to change my view if new evidence comes to light" Evans

It cases such as this, whether Boeheim "deserves to be fired" doesn't necessarily reflect whether he will be fired. And at this point, I believe Boeheim will be fired.

As a poster above just mentioned, Mike Pressler absolutely did not deserve to get fired, but he was. And that was a situation in which he and the accused lacrosse players were 100% innocent of all charges brought against them. However, that situation was a prominent example which indicates that a school will fire head coaches in circumstances of scandal, negative public perception (perhaps the most influential factor in all of these kinds of situations), and the chance - however remote or unlikely - of a crime having been committed.

Boeheim hired Fine, and he vehemently defended him while denigrating the character of the accuser. There are also rumors and allegations that Boeheim witnessed one of the accusers in Fine's bed on a road trip. I think it will be unlikely that Syracuse will allow Boeheim to continue coaching while this scandal develops. Best case scenario for Beoheim, I think he could be put on leave for the rest of the season while the university and the legal system investigates the allegations. But I think the chances of Boeheim keeping his job are slim at this point.

bob blue devil
11-28-2011, 05:37 PM
just for kicks, can i interject butch davis in this discussion? all he did was misplace trust in an old friend,... and a tutor, and some student athletes, and a police officer, and a car dealer (oh wait, he didn't know him). :rolleyes:
sorry, couldn't resist.

back to the issue at hand - it's hard for me to give a strong opinion on what should be done with boeheim (assuming everything is true, but he didn't know anything - trying not to put the cart before the horse on all of this, but it's more interesting to do so...). the question is how high is the bar you hold him to. he was an idiot for opening his mouth. he tried to back track it and now has rescinded it and acknowledges why it was stupid. perhaps he's earned the benefit of the doubt and can turn a negative into a positive by contributing to the advancement of victims rights, etc. i think it's a matter of opinion - not cut and dry as of yet.

roywhite
11-28-2011, 05:51 PM
I think the important thing, though, is that ESPN shouldn't have taken it upon itself to conduct that weighing process, to determine if sufficient corroboration of the allegations existed, and the like. Those are legal matters. That was for law enforcement and prosecutors to determine at the time. Their job, not ESPN's. ESPN should have turned over what it had, and let the police and prosecutors complete their investigation, including following up on the tape, and if something came of it, fine, and if not, fine too. For ESPN to make the decision unilaterally that it was not sufficient, without involving the legal authorities, was wrong. Not their call to make.

I agree with that position. I have a problem with the ESPN position on this, as expressed in this interview with ESPN's Sr. VP Vince Doria.

espns-doria-on-syracuse-coverage/ (http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2011/11/espns-doria-on-syracuse-coverage/)


What is the role of a journalist relative to an investigation like this and involvement with authorities?

Doria: From a professional standpoint our role as a journalist is to seek out information and vet that information and when we’re satisfied with the credibility of that information to report it to the public. It’s what journalists do. It’s not necessarily the journalist’s role to go to the police with potential evidence that at the time we didn’t believe was strong enough to report ourselves.

Indoor66
11-28-2011, 06:27 PM
Simple questions. Why? When did two mistakes come to the top?

Note the "If". (I am still quite angry about the way JoPa was, effectively, railroaded out of his job.)

g-money
11-28-2011, 11:35 PM
It cases such as this, whether Boeheim "deserves to be fired" doesn't necessarily reflect whether he will be fired. And at this point, I believe Boeheim will be fired.

As a poster above just mentioned, Mike Pressler absolutely did not deserve to get fired, but he was. And that was a situation in which he and the accused lacrosse players were 100% innocent of all charges brought against them. However, that situation was a prominent example which indicates that a school will fire head coaches in circumstances of scandal, negative public perception (perhaps the most influential factor in all of these kinds of situations), and the chance - however remote or unlikely - of a crime having been committed.

Boeheim hired Fine, and he vehemently defended him while denigrating the character of the accuser. There are also rumors and allegations that Boeheim witnessed one of the accusers in Fine's bed on a road trip. I think it will be unlikely that Syracuse will allow Boeheim to continue coaching while this scandal develops. Best case scenario for Beoheim, I think he could be put on leave for the rest of the season while the university and the legal system investigates the allegations. But I think the chances of Boeheim keeping his job are slim at this point.

I think this analysis is spot on, and while I hate to sound like a broken record, it drives me crazy that the world works this way. University administrators need to grow some stones and strive to do the right thing in the face of media pressure, not just fold like a house of cards. The Duke lacrosse case was a great example of how the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is not only unjust, it's also potentially costly to a university (to the tune of $M in court settlements).

feldspar
11-29-2011, 01:16 AM
Does no one else think Boeheim's comments about Davis were incredibly inappropriate and have a chilling effect on victims being able to speak out?

JasonEvans
11-29-2011, 08:12 AM
Does no one else think Boeheim's comments about Davis were incredibly inappropriate and have a chilling effect on victims being able to speak out?

Gregg Doyle shares your view... so you got him on your side ;)

I agree about the inappropriate part, Jimmy B went too far... though no far enough to make firing him a reasonable response, IMO. I don't see the "chilling effect" argument nearly as clearly as you and Doyle do.

-Jason "I'll say this, Jimmy B probably feels pretty awful right about now and really regrets what he said... not so sure I ever sensed that same feeling from the Penn State folks" Evans

roywhite
11-29-2011, 08:31 AM
Gregg Doyle shares your view... so you got him on your side ;)

I agree about the inappropriate part, Jimmy B went too far... though no far enough to make firing him a reasonable response, IMO. I don't see the "chilling effect" argument nearly as clearly as you and Doyle do.

-Jason "I'll say this, Jimmy B probably feels pretty awful right about now and really regrets what he said... not so sure I ever sensed that same feeling from the Penn State folks" Evans


Well, that was a gratuitous swipe.

What did you mean there? or could you be specific?

bundabergdevil
11-29-2011, 12:49 PM
Gregg Doyle shares your view... so you got him on your side ;)


I won't parse Doyle's article because elements were unfair but I certainly agree with Feldspar and Doyle's main point, which is that Boeheim's initial comments were wildly inappropriate and potentially incredibly harmful to victim's struggling with whether or not they would be believed if they came forward. I would also add that these sentiments are shared by countless victim's rights organizations that have come forward and condemned Boeheim's comments. Not just a few seeking publicity...but a huge number that share agreement that Boeheim's words were just despicable for a man in his position. His words were the exact manifestation of what many victims fear will happen if they come forward. Precisely when their abuser is a person of prominence in the community.

Listen, regardless of Fine's guilt or innocence, Boeheim, as a leader, should NOT have undermined the credibility of the accuser (and potential victim) by suggesting an ulterior motive. You can make statement's of loyalty for a man you've known 30+ years without attacking a potential victim of child sex abuse. I mean, that much should be obvious. Fire him for it, I don't know. Condemn him for it, absolutely.

JasonEvans
11-29-2011, 02:16 PM
You can make statement's of loyalty for a man you've known 30+ years without attacking a potential victim of child sex abuse. I mean, that much should be obvious. Fire him for it, I don't know. Condemn him for it, absolutely.

I think the above sums up my view fairly well. Jimmy B was wrong and should be shamed for his comments... but I don't know if it goes to the level of job termination.

Also, regarding my earlier comparison of Penn St and Syracuse, it may have just been my perception but it felt to me like the folks at the center of the Penn State scandal, the people who essentially covered up Sanduski's predatory actions, did not seem all that sorry and ashamed of their actions. I sense that Boeheim and Syracuse acted much quicker and showed more contrition when faced with evidence that seemed to indicate Fine's guilt.

I dunno.... it was a throwaway comment and was likely inappropriate.

-Jason "is there any doubt of Fine's guilt? I think his wife is saying the taped phone call was faked" Evans

feldspar
11-29-2011, 03:51 PM
Well, either way, if Syracuse was thinking about giving Boeheim the axe, they would have done it by now, as the 'Cuse are playing tonight. Looks like, at least for now, his job is safe.

Double DD
11-29-2011, 03:51 PM
Not really. Legally speaking, that's pretty thin. The suspect is not a party to the conversation. All it really is is his wife, who clearly does not think much of him, agreeing with the complaining witness, though she did not witness anything and is only going on what he is telling her happened and offering vague hearsay and speculation about other matters. The fact that the two of them have had an intimate relationship would certainly be important in weighing the impact of her statements in any event.

I think the important thing, though, is that ESPN shouldn't have taken it upon itself to conduct that weighing process, to determine if sufficient corroboration of the allegations existed, and the like. Those are legal matters. That was for law enforcement and prosecutors to determine at the time. Their job, not ESPN's. ESPN should have turned over what it had, and let the police and prosecutors complete their investigation, including following up on the tape, and if something came of it, fine, and if not, fine too. For ESPN to make the decision unilaterally that it was not sufficient, without involving the legal authorities, was wrong. Not their call to make.

Except that Davis was the one who made the tape and had informed ESPN of going to the police previously. I'm not sure what their thinking was but I'll speculate that they assumed he would have turned over evidence of the recording to the police first before supplying it to them.

JasonEvans
11-29-2011, 05:22 PM
Well, either way, if Syracuse was thinking about giving Boeheim the axe, they would have done it by now, as the 'Cuse are playing tonight. Looks like, at least for now, his job is safe.

I really think they have to be certain of the facts here. With Sandusky, a thorough police and grand jury investigation was done and there was a mountain of evidence including numerous eye witnesses. That is not even close to the case with Fine. It may be a tad early to be firing their coach of 30+ years until Syracuse knows a bit more about the proven facts of the case.

Question for everyone-- if it turns out that Davis faked the taped phone conversation in some way, does that change your view on the entire thing?

-Jason

ForkFondler
11-29-2011, 06:23 PM
I really think they have to be certain of the facts here. With Sandusky, a thorough police and grand jury investigation was done and there was a mountain of evidence including numerous eye witnesses. That is not even close to the case with Fine. It may be a tad early to be firing their coach of 30+ years until Syracuse knows a bit more about the proven facts of the case.

Question for everyone-- if it turns out that Davis faked the taped phone conversation in some way, does that change your view on the entire thing?

-Jason

There's always the old "whatever they did is bad enough" argument to fall back on.

sagegrouse
11-29-2011, 06:31 PM
I really think they have to be certain of the facts here. With Sandusky, a thorough police and grand jury investigation was done and there was a mountain of evidence including numerous eye witnesses. That is not even close to the case with Fine. It may be a tad early to be firing their coach of 30+ years until Syracuse knows a bit more about the proven facts of the case.

Question for everyone-- if it turns out that Davis faked the taped phone conversation in some way, does that change your view on the entire thing?

-Jason

Boeheim may or may not survive. It was fairly clear at Penn State that there was evidence of a huge coverup that left a predator on the loose. Syracuse did an investigation immediately upon hearing the charges -- we will find out soon enough how thorough it was. Aside from improper public remarks, I can't figure out what Jim Boeheim has done wrong.

At Penn State I also wonder whether the Board thought it was surely time for JoePa to go. He was showing his age, and he was vociferous about staying.

sage

bundabergdevil
11-29-2011, 06:46 PM
Question for everyone-- if it turns out that Davis faked the taped phone conversation in some way, does that change your view on the entire thing?


It depends on how exactly he might have faked it. The transcript of the conversation is pretty incriminating. Assuming it's Fine's wife making the statements, I'm not sure how he could have edited the recording to make it any more damning short of splicing together bits and pieces of speech to form the answers he wanted. That seems preposterous to me and something that would be easily identified. Maybe he edited the overall flow of the conversation but still, some of Fine's wife's statements are just so incriminating. Obviously if it's not Fine's wife on the phone, that would change my thought process.

The conclusion I just keep arriving at is that something is rotten in (the state of) Syracuse. It is being reported that Davis also lost his virginity to Fine's wife as an inebriated high school junior. Fine's wife niece says its her on the tape. There's the implication that Fine's wife knew her husband was a pedophile. There's Davis seeking money from Fine later in life. There's the fact that Davis reportedly went to the police, to the University, to the local newspaper, and then to ESPN in the early 2000s and nothing came of it because nobody would corroborate his story and because the statue of limitations is over. Now, because of the Sandusky stuff, Davis decides to make the accusations again. There's Boeheim's callous statements about the whole ordeal.

Honestly, it's hard to sort through everything but I tend to believe that people cry "child molestation" even more infrequently than people cry "rape." Obviously it happens (LAX and such). But, three victims, the tape...I dunno.

On a side note, has anyone seen the story about the University of Utah professor watching child pornography on a plane. I know the "to catch a predator" shows really illuminated just how embedded in our society pedophiles are but it sure seems like there have been a spate of stories about it. Sadly, it shouldn't be surprising --- I dated a girl for many years who was very involved in missing children cases/child victim services and was shocked about the stories she told me. If anyone has seen the movie "Taken"...along those lines, in America, with much younger children. It's disgusting but there is truly a market for everything.

moonpie23
11-29-2011, 07:15 PM
Question for everyone-- if it turns out that Davis faked the taped phone conversation in some way, does that change your view on the entire thing?

I'm not sure how he could have edited the recording to make it any more damning short of splicing together bits and pieces of speech to form the answers he wanted. That seems preposterous to me and something that would be easily identified.

TOTALLY possible...i do it all the time.....pro tools is an amazing software and you can make anyone say about anything if you have enough material to work with....

bundabergdevil
11-29-2011, 08:23 PM
TOTALLY possible...i do it all the time.....pro tools is an amazing software and you can make anyone say about anything if you have enough material to work with....

Thanks for the info. I guess that shows how up to date I am on such things. Three questions - would that software have been around in the early 2000s when the tape was allegedly made? Say Davis recorded Fine's wife saying completely innocuous things. Would he have then been able to use the software to manufacture her saying words that she had not actually said? I'm thinking of some of the "gay boys", "D**ks", and such that is in the alleged transcript. And, finally, I imagine that sort of thing, if said software is readily available, would be easy to identify by experts as a fake. Is that your sense?

I guess I haven't seen anywhere what format the recording is in...digital, the old cassette tape standby, etc.

throatybeard
11-29-2011, 08:49 PM
1) Mike Pressler is not relevant to this subject in any way, and it's simply inflammatory to be bringing the Duke Lacrosse mess up at all.

2) This isn't particularly relevant either, but I didn't know where else to put it; I just thought it was an interesting factoid. Boeheim has a record 33 twenty-win seasons. That's really amazing. I wondered where Mike Krzyzewski was and I think I count 27. One at Army and 26 here. So Boeheim would have to get canned this year and Coach K would have to get though his age-70 season just to catch him on that one, and that's assuming all six seasons (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) would be twenty-win seasons.

3) This certainly isn't relevant, but it's also interesting. Billy Donovan just won #400. And he's at roughly the same age as Coach K was, 46-47. After his psychy-mo hire with the Orlando Magic, you wonder if he is or is not a lifer.

Apologies for the sidebar--thought it was interesting.

moonpie23
11-29-2011, 09:03 PM
Thanks for the info. I guess that shows how up to date I am on such things. Three questions - would that software have been around in the early 2000s when the tape was allegedly made? Say Davis recorded Fine's wife saying completely innocuous things. Would he have then been able to use the software to manufacture her saying words that she had not actually said? I'm thinking of some of the "gay boys", "D**ks", and such that is in the alleged transcript. And, finally, I imagine that sort of thing, if said software is readily available, would be easy to identify by experts as a fake. Is that your sense?

I guess I haven't seen anywhere what format the recording is in...digital, the old cassette tape standby, etc.

that software called "sound tools" came out in 89......not quite as intricate or as many bells and whistles, but definitely capable.... It's not easy to manufacture words, but it's not impossible. i can cut and paste any syllable as well as detune or pitch up for emphasis and closure......now if you have the person saying all the words you want them to say, just not in order, or context, you've prolly got enough to manipulate just about any conversation you want...

depending on how much voodoo you had to use to manufacture a passage, or edit, or phrase, an expert may or may not be able to tell. I'd like to think that i could, but i've fooled other "experts" as well.....simply because the software is that good...(and the pilot :)

also, it doesn't matter what format the original is in.......dumped into a computer, edited and then put BACK onto any format you want to...

JasonEvans
11-30-2011, 11:07 AM
My bet is that Laurie Fine is going to claim the conversation was edited and that many of her comments were taken out of context. She may also say she was agreeing with this guy on the phone because she was afraid of him and afraid of what he might say about her husband in public. Heck, she will probably say she was worried about him outing her sexual relationship with him, which could end her marriage and possibly (depending on his age at the time of the affair) end up with her in jail. She will say she only went along with the conversation in an effort to appease a man that she thought might be dangerous and crazy.

Whether that is the truth or not, we may never know, but that is at least a somewhat plausible story on her part to explain the phone call.

-Jason "this whole thing is uuuuugly" Evans

roywhite
11-30-2011, 11:14 AM
Did ESPN Drop the Syracuse ball? (http://news.yahoo.com/did-espn-drop-syracuse-ball-094500351.html)

This is an article on yahoo.com. Dan Patrick over the last 2 days has been hitting ESPN hard on this, also. Quotes from the article by Allen Berra:


The sports media have been quick to tell us that the Syracuse sex-abuse scandal is not the same as the Penn State sex-abuse scandal. That is, Penn State head football coach and college football icon Joe Paterno knew of the allegations concerning his friend and former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for years and did nothing, while his basketball counterpart at Syracuse, head coach Jim Boeheim, does not seem to have known about the allegations concerning his friend and longtime assistant coach Bernie Fine until recently. So, for the moment at least, there appears to be no cover-up by the boss.

What the sports media are not telling us is that the big difference between the Penn State scandal and the one that has just exploded at Syracuse is this: it is the media that did the covering up. Well, perhaps not entirely. It probably will be a couple of more weeks before we know which local authorities knew what and when they knew it......

In a statement riddled with tortuous double talk, ESPN reporter Mark Schwarz tried to explain ESPN’s position. “We did not go to the authorities with the tape. The authorities did speak to Bobby Davis before the tape was made in 2002. He spoke to a Syracuse police detective, who he says spent five minutes on the phone with him and didn’t even do a detective report ... [The detective] told him the statute of limitations had come and gone, and that was why Bobby Davis says he recorded the tape to try to at least corroborate his story this way.”

roywhite
12-02-2011, 10:50 AM
ESPN should have pressed Fine allegations
(http://espn.go.com/blog/poynterreview/post/_/id/187/espn-should-have-pressed-fine-allegations)


There's a lot of outrage right now over ESPN's failure to report in 2003 that there were sexual abuse allegations against Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine.

We're hearing it from fans through the Poynter Review Project mailbag. And a handful of critics have called out the network via blogs and Twitter, suggesting that if ESPN was not confident enough to publish, it should have at least gone to law enforcement with its information.




We do not believe ESPN acted with gross negligence, but rather a lack of persistence. And we don't believe ESPN was responsible for leaving other children vulnerable; that's on the Syracuse PD.

roywhite
12-02-2011, 10:38 PM
#2 - Jim Boeheim did more than just go out on a limb for an old friend. He disparaged an alleged sexual abuse victim. Called him a liar and a money-grubber. He made a statement with his words that he's gonna support his program and his people, even though not all of the facts had come to light. I don't think that, as a leader, you get to do that and keep your job. Jim Boeheim, with his words, created an environment that discourages sexual abuse victims from coming forward. Who knows how many more are out there? You think they want to come forward when Jim Boeheim, one of the most powerful college basketball coaches in the country, is going to call them a liar and a money-grubber? No way.

All I know is, if I were living in/near Syracuse and was thinking about sending my boy to Boeheim's basketball camp next summer, you better believe I'm shopping around for a different camp, because no way under God's green earth am I sending him into that environment. No way. And that is a direct reflection on Boeheim.

A couple weeks later, he sounds a lot different. This is about as apologetic a scene as you see from a public figure.

Boeheim sorry for questioning accusers (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7308747/syracuse-orange-coach-jim-boeheim-sorry-questioning-bernie-fine-accusers)

duke96
12-03-2011, 11:26 AM
A couple weeks later, he sounds a lot different. This is about as apologetic a scene as you see from a public figure.

Boeheim sorry for questioning accusers (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7308747/syracuse-orange-coach-jim-boeheim-sorry-questioning-bernie-fine-accusers)

He nailed that. Pitch perfect apology. After a pretty bad initial screwup, he has really done the right thing since the Lori Fine tape came out. I think he keeps his job with some sort of minor wrist slap from the school. Would be the right outcome, and hope it happens. He's one of the good guys.

tommy
12-03-2011, 08:37 PM
The conclusion I just keep arriving at is that something is rotten in (the state of) Syracuse. It is being reported that Davis also lost his virginity to Fine's wife as an inebriated high school junior. Fine's wife niece says its her on the tape. There's the implication that Fine's wife knew her husband was a pedophile. There's Davis seeking money from Fine later in life. There's the fact that Davis reportedly went to the police, to the University, to the local newspaper, and then to ESPN in the early 2000s and nothing came of it because nobody would corroborate his story and because the statue of limitations is over. Now, because of the Sandusky stuff, Davis decides to make the accusations again. There's Boeheim's callous statements about the whole ordeal.

With the possible exception of Davis seeking money from Fine -- which can be spun different ways -- none of the rest of that is likely to be admissible in court.

anon
12-04-2011, 12:28 AM
A bit off topic, but the ESPN article linked above pointed out that Gerry McNamara—he of 2006 Big East Tournament fame—is now an assistant coach at Syracuse. Cool! Good for him.

blueduke59
12-04-2011, 10:40 AM
My bet is that Laurie Fine is going to claim the conversation was edited and that many of her comments were taken out of context. She may also say she was agreeing with this guy on the phone because she was afraid of him and afraid of what he might say about her husband in public. Heck, she will probably say she was worried about him outing her sexual relationship with him, which could end her marriage and possibly (depending on his age at the time of the affair) end up with her in jail. She will say she only went along with the conversation in an effort to appease a man that she thought might be dangerous and crazy.

Whether that is the truth or not, we may never know, but that is at least a somewhat plausible story on her part to explain the phone call.

-Jason "this whole thing is uuuuugly" Evans

Maybe they're both dangerous and crazy? Did that lady sound stable to anyone in that conversation?

94duke
12-07-2011, 11:15 AM
statute of limitations has passed
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/basketball/ncaa/12/07/Syracuse.Bernie.Fine.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp