Syracuse assistant | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Syracuse assistant

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL, you said "we are the only civilized nation on earth blah blah blah"

I point out another country that had the same sensationalist bullshit, and you backpedal and move the goal posts.
By the way, are you sure the Knox case was broadcast inside Italy? It was clearly all over the news in America (who peculiarly releases the names of the accused) but I don't know if it was in Italy or not. I assume that it was, but I actually don't know if thats the case. Your post indicates it was so I look to you for clarity.
 
By the way, are you sure the Knox case was broadcast inside Italy? It was clearly all over the news in America (who peculiarly releases the names of the accused) but I don't know if it was in Italy or not. I assume that it was, but I actually don't know if thats the case. Your post indicates it was so I look to you for clarity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
The murder and subsequent events, especially Knox's arrest and trial, received worldwide press coverage, often in the form of salacious tabloid reporting, particularly in Italy and England. Some observers criticized the media for not describing the case accurately and dispassionately, thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur[not verified in body][3].
 
If this "victim" is lying, throw him in jail. If not, throw Fine and Boeheim in jail.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
The murder and subsequent events, especially Knox's arrest and trial, received worldwide press coverage, often in the form of salacious tabloid reporting, particularly in Italy and England. Some observers criticized the media for not describing the case accurately and dispassionately, thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur[not verified in body][3].
Interestingly,had the crime occured in England, it would have received virtually no press coverage as criminal defendents are protected from the media. Only recently have they even allowed factual information regarding the arrest to be published. Any further pre-trial media is prohibited.[/
 
Interesting approach taken by Boeheim. He must know something about this accuser to speak so definitively. He is 100% putting his reputation on the line in saying that this is "one of a thousand lies" from this kid and if it is found out that the kid was molested, it is going to get realllly ugly for him.

On the other hand, ESPN really went out on a limb with this sketchy seeming case. Fine already been investigated by the school, the local paper, and even ESPN but there was no one to back up the story but now, over 5 years later, the victims relative comes forward and alleges Fine molested him as well. This seems to be flimsy evidence to completely ruin a man's reputation. Either Boeheim or ESPN will end up looking horrible.
 
ESPN will not end up looking bad because they will never admit that they made a mistake. They ruined a guys life based on what exactly? He will never be able to work again.
 
.-.
This is such a misnomer that I see repeated everywhere and it's so wrong.

The innocent until proven guilty applies to courts. Where both Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine (assuming any charges are even brought against him - statute of limitations and all) WILL be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. That is their Constitutional right and you can be assured they will be afforded it.

There is no requirement that the public feel one way or the other. There's no need for your company to wait in putting you on leave or firing you (ask Joe Paterno). If you really think the United States is the only country to do this, and that history of all nations isn't full of such scenarios, I don't know what to tell ya.
Did we have any scintilla that Jerry Sandusky did what he did before it came out in the press?
 
There was an investigation of Bernie Fine in 2005 by the University that found nothing. There were multiple investigations of Jerry Sandusky from 1998 forward that found nothing. OJ Simpson was innocent. Take all those things together mix them up in your mind and then ask in ESPN was right to run the story
 
Interesting approach taken by Boeheim. He must know something about this accuser to speak so definitively. He is 100% putting his reputation on the line in saying that this is "one of a thousand lies" from this kid and if it is found out that the kid was molested, it is going to get realllly ugly for him.

On the other hand, ESPN really went out on a limb with this sketchy seeming case. Fine already been investigated by the school, the local paper, and even ESPN but there was no one to back up the story but now, over 5 years later, the victims relative comes forward and alleges Fine molested him as well. This seems to be flimsy evidence to completely ruin a man's reputation. Either Boeheim or ESPN will end up looking horrible.

The fact that many other potential victims were questioned and denied any bad acts by Fine, but now a relative shows up, is really, really damning of the accuser. As I read more on this, I still think there is a reasonably high probability that Fine and Davis had a relationship of some kind that ended badly and Davis lashed out. I don't get the unsubstantiated accusations that look like lies. Why would he do that? It is possible that Fine's relationship with Davis started early enough to be a crime in and of itself, although there is apparently a statute of limitations problem with it.
 
Now it is a stretch to go jump to molestation but does anyone think it is strange for a 50+ year old man to take a 10 or 11 year old boy to Hawaii twice, the Final Four, Big East Tourney? I can see if it was Fine's kid but apparently there is no dispute that this kid was at these places with him. No father involved in the kid's life either from what I have read. Very strange.
 
People should be very cautious complaining about the U.S. justice system in relation to the rest of the world.
Very careful.
The U.S. system is fraught with problems, no doubt, and I would love to see major changes implemented (no plea bargains, no deals to testify, jury trial if there's any threat of jail, acquitted on hung jury, and many others), but the U.S. criminal justice system compares quite favorably to the system in most other countries.
For example, in Italy, they can arrest you and keep in jail for a year on probable cause alone, without bringing charges or offering you bail. That's what happened to Knox (she did it, IMO).
Also, in many countries in Europe speech of various sorts is criminalized, and you can and will be put in jail for saying certain things (one example is talking about WWII and the crimes of Hitler in a manner that is inconsistent with the official version of history).
There are many other examples . . . don't be too hard on the U.S. system . . .
 
Now it is a stretch to go jump to molestation but does anyone think it is strange for a 50+ year old man to take a 10 or 11 year old boy to Hawaii twice, the Final Four, Big East Tourney? I can see if it was Fine's kid but apparently there is no dispute that this kid was at these places with him. No father involved in the kid's life either from what I have read. Very strange.
It's flat out weird, it's indicative of his potential to be a child rapist, and there is no way that I'd ever let any male more than a year or so older than my young son take him anywhere overnight or out of the eye of the public.
Caesar's wife.
 
.-.
He deserves the benefit of doubt right now. Can you imagine what this guy is going through if he did not do anything- horrible. The trips for with the kid could have been charitable for the love of G-d- the exact opposite of what was stated above. It will be interesting to get all the facts.
If he did it do it- he should be shot. If not ESPN should be shot- heck I want to see ESPN get shot up anyway after helping break up the BE.
 
If this kid stayed in the same room as Fine on all these raod trips alone then there is something seriously wrong with the situation. I guess that needs to be proven. The kid wasn't traveling with his family.
 
The trips for with the kid could have been charitable for the love of G-d- the exact opposite of what was stated above.

Caesar's wife.

Here's the thing. EVEN IF the relationship was entirely platonic, it was stupid and improper of him to have an unrelated boy staying in hotel rooms with him on road trips and such.

Ergo, he brought this on himself.
 
America is a peculiar country. We proclaim "innocent until proven guilty" yet allow ESPN and every other national news outlet to run Bernie Fine's image and basically proclaim him a child molester without one scintilla of evidence. Its relatively shocking that we are one of the only civilized nations in the world that does this. I dont have a clue whether fine is a child rapist or not but it is something to think about.

Excellent point. As we saw in the PSU case Sandusky was tried and convicted in two news cycles. It's simply has to have an effect on the legal process, there is no way to conclude that coverage like this doesn't.
 
Excellent point. As we saw in the PSU case Sandusky was tried and convicted in two news cycles. It's simply has to have an effect on the legal process, there is no way to conclude that coverage like this doesn't.

Well the difference with respect to Sandusky is one of those news cylcles contained a grand jury indictment, so Sandusky has been investigated and then charged and anyone who read that grand jury indictment finds it credible due to its specificity and the patterns repeated and corroborated by multiple witnesses. So the public and the media convicted Sandusky I think justifiably. Paterno similarly although I think the offshoot going after McQueary is piling on, at this point media needs to let the justice system play out and not get competing quotes from McQueary, then police, then McQueary etc...

Fine on the other hand faces no criminal charges currently and the investigations into his conduct have not resulted in charges to date. I haven't seen the espn coverage (so not sure if they are in effect convicting) but I think the public is giving the situation time to play out and any conviction bias is likely attributable to a justifiably over-cautious environment as a result of the Penn State system/admin crimes. HOwever, no doubt though that as Suzy says espn has likely over-stepped and going to make much more of this story in a gross attempt to draw ready eyeballs in light of Penn State.
 
Really hope it's not true, I always have seen Boeheim as one of the "good guys" in college basketball.
 
.-.
There was an investigation of Bernie Fine in 2005 by the University that found nothing. There were multiple investigations of Jerry Sandusky from 1998 forward that found nothing. OJ Simpson was innocent. Take all those things together mix them up in your mind and then ask in ESPN was right to run the story
Not quite accurate. They did discover something on Sandusky. The big question was why the DA did not proceed with the case, why he went missing several years later and why Sandusky "retired" in 1999.
 
Wouldn't it be more wise for Boeheim to keep quiet now even on the slightest chance he is wrong? Don't the two statements below already make Boeheim look silly?

"Boeheim added: "Why wouldn't he come to the police (first this time)? Why would he go to ESPN? What are people looking for here? I believe they are looking for money. I believe they saw what happened at Penn State and they are using ESPN to get money. That is what I believe. You want to put that on the air? Put that on the air.""

Yet, "Kevin Quinn, Syracuse's senior vice president for public affairs, issued a statement on behalf of the school: "In 2005, Syracuse University was contacted by an adult male who told us that he had reported to the Syracuse City Police that he had been subjected to inappropriate contact by an associate men's basketball coach. The alleged activity took place in the 1980's and 1990's. We were informed by the complainant that the Syracuse City Police had declined to pursue the matter because the statute of limitations had expired."
 
Not quite accurate. They did discover something on Sandusky. The big question was why the DA did not proceed with the case, why he went missing several years later and why Sandusky "retired" in 1999.

It all depends on what is meant by "nothing." They found no evidence of molestation against Fine. But do they have evidence of his traveling with Davis. That might have similarity with where the police were in 1998 with Sandusky. In 1998, Sandusky was warned not to shower with children by PA child protection services. That's why they let him go. The difference may be as simple as Sandusky's statement, "I should be dead." That's the only incriminating comment.
 
It all depends on what is meant by "nothing." They found no evidence of molestation against Fine. But do they have evidence of his traveling with Davis. That might have similarity with where the police were in 1998 with Sandusky. In 1998, Sandusky was warned not to shower with children by PA child protection services. That's why they let him go. The difference may be as simple as Sandusky's statement, "I should be dead." That's the only incriminating comment.
he also admitted he did something wrong, and wanted forgiveness.
 
It all depends on what is meant by "nothing." They found no evidence of molestation against Fine. But do they have evidence of his traveling with Davis. That might have similarity with where the police were in 1998 with Sandusky. In 1998, Sandusky was warned not to shower with children by PA child protection services. That's why they let him go. The difference may be as simple as Sandusky's statement, "I should be dead." That's the only incriminating comment.
There will be a lot of guilty people in this world for taking kids somewhere without the child's parent.

Not everyone offering charitable trips for kids can afford to put kids up in their own room. So we are going in the polar opposite direction and incriminating anyone who has done a good, charitable deed as having ulterior predatory motives. It's Salem, Mass. again.

I thought the difference in 98, was a sting operation arranged by the police ( I assume warrants were given) which provided enough evidence to begin a formal investigation. The evidence was an admittance by Sandusky of inappropriate touching followed by the comment "I should be dead." I thought he denied any other activity including taking a shower with the boy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

These cases are hard to prove. Two people were eyewitnesses to Sandusky's acts and those witnesses are a big difference between his situation and Coach Fine's situation. This doesn't mean Fine is innocent or guilty. Just a big difference in the situation regarding current evidence. Until something more substantive develops around Fine we would be better served on reserving judgement and preventing our emotions over Sandusky from bleeding into the Fine situation. There will be an opportunity to place our hatred if more evidence develops implicating Fine. Otherwise we could be victimizing an innocent man.
 
Wouldn't it be more wise for Boeheim to keep quiet now even on the slightest chance he is wrong? Don't the two statements below already make Boeheim look silly?

"Boeheim added: "Why wouldn't he come to the police (first this time)? Why would he go to ESPN? What are people looking for here? I believe they are looking for money. I believe they saw what happened at Penn State and they are using ESPN to get money. That is what I believe. You want to put that on the air? Put that on the air.""

Yet, "Kevin Quinn, Syracuse's senior vice president for public affairs, issued a statement on behalf of the school: "In 2005, Syracuse University was contacted by an adult male who told us that he had reported to the Syracuse City Police that he had been subjected to inappropriate contact by an associate men's basketball coach. The alleged activity took place in the 1980's and 1990's. We were informed by the complainant that the Syracuse City Police had declined to pursue the matter because the statute of limitations had expired."

Legally sure, Boeheim would be better off keeping quiet - although that hasn't done much to help Paterno or McQueary. But also in contrast to that situation, Boeheim seems to be fully aware, acknowledges an investigation and his role in that AND the guy is someone he still has on staff. Silence could be interpreted as sign of guilt or CYA and instead Boeheim goes to bat for his assistant. I think you have to respect that even if it turns out Fine duped everyone all these years (and personally at this point partially BECAUSE of Boeheim's comments I lean towards presuming innocence).
 
.-.
There will be a lot of guilty people in this world for taking kids somewhere without the child's parent.

Not everyone offering charitable trips for kids can afford to put kids up in their own room. So we are going in the polar opposite direction and incriminating anyone who has done a good, charitable deed as having ulterior predatory motives. It's Salem, Mass. again.

I thought the difference in 98, was a sting operation arranged by the police ( I assume warrants were given) which provided enough evidence to begin a formal investigation. The evidence was an admittance by Sandusky of inappropriate touching followed by the comment "I should be dead." I thought he denied any other activity including taking a shower with the boy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

These cases are hard to prove. Two people were eyewitnesses to Sandusky's acts and those witnesses are a big difference between his situation and Coach Fine's situation. This doesn't mean Fine is innocent or guilty. Just a big difference in the situation regarding current evidence. Until something more substantive develops around Fine we would be better served on reserving judgement and preventing our emotions over Sandusky from bleeding into the Fine situation. There will be an opportunity to place our hatred if more evidence develops implicating Fine. Otherwise we could be victimizing an innocent man.

I'm just talking about 1998. Not the other cases. In 1998, there were no witnesses other than the child. Sandusky admitted to being in the shower with the kid and giving him a hug. Obviously, what happened in 2002 goes far far beyond the current claims against Fine.
 
There will be a lot of guilty people in this world for taking kids somewhere without the child's parent.

Also, I wasn't talking about guilt. I wasn't saying that Fine = Sandusky. I was referring to why Sandusky might not have been charged in 1998. They had him in a shower with a child.
 
Also, I wasn't talking about guilt. I wasn't saying that Fine = Sandusky. I was referring to why Sandusky might not have been charged in 1998. They had him in a shower with a child.
On this point I wasn't referring to you, but the board in general. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Not to make lite of the situation in any way nor to presume innocence or guilt or to dismiss the seriousness of the accusations, but it certainly puts into perspective some of the things the NCAA worries about ie: plane tickets and some extra text messages.
 
If this kid stayed in the same room as Fine on all these raod trips alone then there is something seriously wrong with the situation. I guess that needs to be proven. The kid wasn't traveling with his family.

If a ball boy was travelling with the team on a road trip, where would he typically stay? His own room? With the players?
 
This whole thing sickens me and I'm afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg. Think about it. The profession and hobby (unpaid) of coaching children from elementary to even college age, has to be a magnet for sexual predators.

It's one way these sick bastards (say those words like Adam Sandler for full effect :)) can easily gain access to young people. Easy access to naked young people. Easy way to worm their way into unhealthy dependent relationships with those who have some sort of parental void. Easy way to find ways to be along with young people since most people trust these predators. Sometimes the parents/guardians don't even realize their children are alone with them. I wonder how often they think they kids are practicing or with other kids along with the coach.

Now I'm not saying there's a large percentage of pedophiles in the coaching world, but that this world is huge when you consider it runs from volunteers coaching elementary school age children all the way to college. Many who coach young people have a special love for young people. For most it's a healthy love, but for others it crosses over to their sexual desires, need to control and in some cases dominate and abuse.

Hopefully all of us here who are part of the Boneyard community are like me in that it blows my mind that there are people who would even think about taking advantage of a young person. It's so selfish and so evil, that anyone who is caught and convicted should never be let back into the general population.

Sorry to go on again about this topic. I wish it would just go away, but I think it's just going to get worse before it gets better. Hopefully all this attention in the news will help people to be more vigilant for these predators and flush more of them out. It's sad by doing so, the victims have to relive what happened to them, plus the social unease it causes them once those around them know what happened to them. The one silver lining for them is in the eyes of many they are the strong ones and heroes for stepping up and outing these monsters. For those who weren't victims but witnesses or those receiving reports of abuse who chose to brush it under the rug, I have no sympathy whatsoever. With that said, I'm not judging those victims who couldn't and can't bring themselves to reporting what happened to them. I have to admit I'm conflicted about this aspect of the issue. On one hand how can I expect someone to have to relive their pain and the outcome of coming forward. On the other hand, it is the silence of the victims that allows these predators to rack up victim after victim. What could be done to fix this?

Maybe there has been a push for more education on this with parents and maybe even children. It's a slippery slope when you have, say, the public schools warn kids about pedophile predictors, but maybe the problem is big enough to add that to one of their programs if it's not already being discussed. They could send an information package to the parents to inform them on both what they need to know plus sign a waver for those kids who they don't want to be present for that discussion. The problem with having a waver, is kids who are being abused by a parent or guardian could end up being prevented from getting this education. I believe a large percentage of this type of abuse takes place with family members. Also more training in this area for teachers from elementary school through high school. And along with the education some vehicle, may it be anonymous or not, for victims and witnesses to report what had happened. If it's anonymous, further follow-up should be handled internally first with some sort of investigation. Bringing anonymous reports to the police can ruin a person's life who is falsely accused. It's purpose would be to discretely investigate if there is something happening and once facts are disclosed then take it to the authorities. Even when it's not anonymous, false accusations usually ruin or at least have a huge negative impact on the accused.

So how young do you start this type of education and reporting process? IMO, education, awareness and vehicles for reporting will go a long way.

I bet it's a little tougher to get away with this sort of stuff now than it was 10 years ago. After this cycle of news stories ends, I'm sure it will be yet even tougher. Since these are crimes against victims who are often unable to protect themselves, it would seem there is a dire need for more protective measures that should be implemented on a national scale.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,166
Messages
4,555,560
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom