Syracuse fires Fine

[upstater]

More funkiness:

How much faith can we put in Fowler's statement when it conflicts with the Post-Standard? Fowler says the PS contacted police about Fine in 2003. A PS article dates the conversation with police to 2002. It's not a big deal, but between the whitewash of whether they followed proper procedures under Duval and the basic disregard for details, this statement does not give me great faith that they cared about Davis's allegations or worse, that university connected police officials decided to sweep things under the rug. They had a whole month between the first and second phone call to decide how to handle things. The DA even says they did not follow proper procedure in dealing with sex abuse allegations.

Something is very very rotten here.

Here's the kicker: the police detective told him that he needed to meet in person with a list of names if they were to open an investigation.

The accuser lived in Utah!!!!!!!!!!! The police knew this because his friend called prior to that and told them the accuser lived in Utah.

 

[Scalito]

Francesa just had a guy on from the Post-Dispatch. He said that both the P-D and ESPN sat on the tape is because they had no corroboration and if they went with the tape it would have exposed them to a lawsuit. Evidently, since Laurie Fine never witnessed any abuse, anything she said would have been classified as hearsay. If Lang had corroborated Davis story, they could have run with the tape but Davis denied it up until Penn State broke.

I would hope that your summary is missing some additional points because that explanation is bullshit. First off, newspapers generally cannot be held liable for accurately reporting third party accusations. Remember all of those successful lawsuits against media corporations that reported false accusations against the Duke lacrosee team members? Me neither. The media is allowed to report accusations of sexual abuse.

Secondly, hearsay is a rule of evidence that has no effect outside the courtroom. Newspapers and ordinary human beings rely on hearsay---meaning an out-of-court statement offered at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted---all of the time. As they should. Hell, even juries are allowed to consider hearsay statements: there is a whole host of rules governing when hearsay can and cannot be offered into evidence at trial.

The it-was-only-hearsay defense is bullshit, and impressive only to those who understandably don't know what the legal term "hearsay" conotes.

 

[Ricky1Moore]

All Cuse fans are desperately trying to force the attention onto the media right now... Which I guess I can understand... Though it's not going to work... media outlets are never going to pay the price that an individual will pay... And even if ESPN was negligent in some form (legal or non-legal), the story here is still the potential negligence of the Syracuse basketball team and administration...

 

[ctchamps]

I agree, for the most part. However, one thing has changed. Because of the Sandusky scandal, Lang recanted his denials and had now corroborated Davis accusations. Supposedly, that corroboration gave ESPN enough to release the tape. I'm no lawyer but it still doesn't smell right to me. You still have an accuser and the accused's wife discussing the accusations. How did ESPN know that Laurie Fine never witnessed the abuse, making any comment of hers hearsay? Also the conversation also reveals that Davis and Laurie Fine had a sexual relationship. That fact alone makes the tape newsworthy. Couldn't they have just released those bits of the tape? Wouldn't that have forced national attention and thus, a more thorough investigation?

ESPN handled this pretty timidly, IMO. I can see why the lack of corroboration would have made them hesitate but I still think they should have found a way to make this tape public when they first received it.

They held onto the tape eight years because they knew it was important. Why didn't they turn it over to the Feds?

 

[Scalito]

All Cuse fans are desperately trying to force the attention onto the media right now... Which I guess I can understand... Though it's not going to work... media outlets are never going to pay the price that an individual will pay... And even if ESPN was negligent in some form (legal or non-legal), the story here is still the potential negligence of the Syracuse basketball team and administration...

I am extremely sympathetic to the Cuse fans' position here. With the major caveat that more might come out that will change my opinion, I find ESPN's actions much worse than Jim Boeheim's. Boeheim defended a friend against accusations that previously had been investigated and found wanting. ESPN withheld evidence that may have altered the results of that previous investigation. Which conduct was worse? I know how I feel.

 

[upstater]

They held onto the tape eight years because they knew it was important. Why didn't they turn it over to the Feds?

The Feds? Why the Feds? You turn it over to local police. If you turned it over to the Feds, they'd tell you to contact the locals.

Since the locals didn't follow protocols when Davis first sought them out, one could argue that ESPN should have aired the tape.

Who knows why they didn't. We'll probably never really know. I wonder how many Cuse grads at ESPN knew about it.

If this was a tape of, say, a UConn assistant's wife, would there be any doubt that ESPN would play it?

 

[ctchamps]

I am extremely sympathetic to the Cuse fans' position here. With the major caveat that more might come out that will change my opinion, I find ESPN's actions much worse than Jim Boeheim's. Boeheim defended a friend against accusations that previously had been investigated and found wanting. ESPN withheld evidence that may have altered the results of that previous investigation. Which conduct was worse? I know how I feel.

At this moment of time, with the information we have available, I echo your position. If upstater is correct, then the university, the Syracuse police department, the DA's office and even JB may be proven just as much at fault. But ESPN had the tape, kept it for eight years, and didn't think it was important to turn over the tape to the Feds. There was no law suit involved in that action. It was the appropriate action which ESPN failed to take.

 

[upstater]

I am extremely sympathetic to the Cuse fans' position here. With the major caveat that more might come out that will change my opinion, I find ESPN's actions much worse than Jim Boeheim's. Boeheim defended a friend against accusations that previously had been investigated and found wanting. ESPN withheld evidence that may have altered the results of that previous investigation. Which conduct was worse? I know how I feel.

Previously investigated by whom? The university? I can't figure out how you blame ESPN when Boeheim never even went to Bernie Fine and asked him about the allegations. That shows me that he had less than any interest in finding out the truth. At a minimum, Boeheim should have asked Fine about it. Now there's a claim in the news of a 4th victim who is very concerned about being branded a liar if he comes forward. He's already in touch with police. This is why people who work for institutions should not come out and slam accusers.

Put it this way. If this were an elementary school teacher defending a teaching assistant by calling an alleged victim a liar, that teacher would be fired. In fact, such a thing happened in Buffalo just two years ago.

 

[upstater]

At this moment of time, with the information we have available, I echo your position. If upstater is correct, then the university, the Syracuse police department, the DA's office and even JB may be proven just as much at fault. But ESPN had the tape, kept it for eight years, and didn't think it was important to turn over the tape to the Feds. There was no law suit involved in that action. It was the appropriate action which ESPN failed to take.

ESPN didn't need to turn the tape over. They just needed to air it.

 

[ctchamps]

The Feds? Why the Feds? You turn it over to local police. If you turned it over to the Feds, they'd tell you to contact the locals.

Since the locals didn't follow protocols when Davis first sought them out, one could argue that ESPN should have aired the tape.

Who knows why they didn't. We'll probably never really know. I wonder how many Cuse grads at ESPN knew about it.

If this was a tape of, say, a UConn assistant's wife, would there be any doubt that ESPN would play it?

They could have turned it over to the local police and the Feds. They were aware of Davis being taken out of state and some of the abuse crossed state lines. So they should have given it to the local police and the Feds.

 

[ctchamps]

ESPN didn't need to turn the tape over. They just needed to air it.

They are arguing they couldn't air it without corroboration for fear of a law suit. I don't buy that any more than you do, but even if they were afraid of a lawsuit, what moral platform do they have for not turning over potential evidence to the law?

 

[upstater]

They could have turned it over to the local police and the Feds. They were aware of Davis being taken out of state and some of the abuse crossed state lines. So they should have given it to the local police and the Feds.

First, it's not clear what Davis revealed about state lines, because so far we only know that he told police and SPD about the abuse in Fine's basement. But I don't blame ESPN for not contacting local police since they knew that local police had already given Davis the SOL brush-off. To me, that absolves ESPN from turning the tape over to police. It's a police problem at that point. But it doesn't absolve ESPN from airing the tape.

 

[upstater]

They are arguing they couldn't air it without corroboration for fear of a law suit. I don't buy that any more than you do, but even if they were afraid of a lawsuit, what moral platform do they have for not turning over potential evidence to the law?

The law said there would be no investigation because of statutes of limitation. Nor does the actual tape prove anything other than that Fine's wife thinks he's a child molester, and that's OK with her, as long as she gets some action too!

 

[ctchamps]

First, it's not clear what Davis revealed about state lines, because so far we only know that he told police and SPD about the abuse in Fine's basement. But I don't blame ESPN for not contacting local police since they knew that local police had already given Davis the SOL brush-off. To me, that absolves ESPN from turning the tape over to police. It's a police problem at that point. But it doesn't absolve ESPN from airing the tape.

We're quibbling in that we both feel ESPN handled this wrong. But I was under the impression that ESPN had knowledge that Davis was taken to Hawaii as a ball boy and that information was available to them in 2003. And given ESPN knew the tape was important to hang onto it for eight years, and given that ESPN could not trust the local police's handling of the situation, because they were aware of that as well, they should have either aired the story or given the tape to the Feds or both.

 

[upstater]

We're quibbling in that we both feel ESPN handled this wrong. But I was under the impression that ESPN had knowledge that Davis was taken to Hawaii as a ball boy and that information was available to them in 2003. And given ESPN knew the tape was important to hang onto it for eight years, and given that ESPN could not trust the local police's handling of the situation, because they were aware of that as well, they should have either aired the story or given the tape to the Feds or both.

Everything I've seen so far about the 2002 and 2003 claims mentions only that Davis was molested in the basement. But you could be right about the rest.

 

[Scalito]

Previously investigated by whom? The university? I can't figure out how you blame ESPN when Boeheim never even went to Bernie Fine and asked him about the allegations. That shows me that he had less than any interest in finding out the truth. At a minimum, Boeheim should have asked Fine about it.

How do you know what Boeheim asked Fine back in 2002 when the University investigated the incident? The fact is, unlike Penn State, Syracuse hired an outside investigator to look into allegations that the local police refused to investigate. That investigation might have been helped by ESPN airing the tape that the alleged victim provided them. ESPN failed in its moral obligation, and a potential predator may have harmed others as a result.

 

[upstater]

How do you know what Boeheim asked Fine back in 2002 when the University investigated the incident? The fact is, unlike Penn State, Syracuse hired an outside investigator to look into allegations that the local police refused to investigate. That investigation might have been helped by ESPN airing the tape that the alleged victim provided them. ESPN failed in its moral obligation, and a potential predator may have harmed others as a result.

How do I know? Because Boeheim said it.

Outside investigator, eh? Paid for by SU. You're sure they didn't sweep anything under the rug, right?

 

[Scalito]

How do I know? Because Boeheim said it.

Outside investigator, eh? Paid for by SU. You're sure they didn't sweep anything under the rug, right?

Please provide a link for your assertion. As for your jibe at the outside investigator, how the duck else do you think an institution gets someone to conduct an investigation but to pay them? The police refused to look into it. What else could the school do, but conduct the investigation in house, which people like you would find even more suspect? Must be easy to sit in the bleachers and cynically accuse everyone of being corrupt with no real information.

 

[The Funster]

I would hope that your summary is missing some additional points because that explanation is bullshit. First off, newspapers generally cannot be held liable for accurately reporting third party accusations. Remember all of those successful lawsuits against media corporations that reported false accusations against the Duke lacrosee team members? Me neither. The media is allowed to report accusations of sexual abuse.

Secondly, hearsay is a rule of evidence that has no effect outside the courtroom. Newspapers and ordinary human beings rely on hearsay---meaning an out-of-court statement offered at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted---all of the time. As they should. Hell, even juries are allowed to consider hearsay statements: there is a whole host of rules governing when hearsay can and cannot be offered into evidence at trial.

The it-was-only-hearsay defense is bullshit, and impressive only to those who understandably don't know what the legal term "hearsay" conotes.

I don't think I missed any points. The whole segment is probably available on WFAN's website if anyone wants to lsiten for themselves. I don't buy the idea that lack of corroboration is a valid reason for not making the tape public and have said so right along.

 

[The Funster]

ESPN didn't need to turn the tape over. They just needed to air it.

The Post-Dispatch had the tape as well. They sat on it as well. According the guy that was on Francesa's show (who works for the P-D) his opinion was that neither the P-D nor ESPN made the tape public because there was no corroboration. Even Davis' stepbrother denied there was abuse when the tape was made. Lang didn't admit the abuse was real until the Sandusky case broke.

I don't buy the corroboration or the hearsay defenses either. However, the fact remains that at that point in time Davis was all alone in his accusation.

 

[ctchamps]

The Post-Dispatch had the tape as well. They sat on it as well. According the guy that was on Francesa's show (who works for the P-D) his opinion was that neither the P-D nor ESPN made the tape public because there was no corroboration. Even Davis' stepbrother denied there was abuse when the tape was made. Lang didn't admit the abuse was real until the Sandusky case broke.

I don't buy the corroboration or the hearsay defenses either. However, the fact remains that at that point in time Davis was all alone in his accusation.

And that is the issue. No one took the extra step.

 

[upstater]

Please provide a link for your assertion. As for your jibe at the outside investigator, how the duck else do you think an institution gets someone to conduct an investigation but to pay them? The police refused to look into it. What else could the school do, but conduct the investigation in house, which people like you would find even more suspect? Must be easy to sit in the bleachers and cynically accuse everyone of being corrupt with no real information.

We've seen these outside investigators before and how they work. Go to the Cuse board if you want to learn more about the thoroughness (the lack thereof) and what they have totally missed so far. These outside investigators are in constant CYA mode, that's what they are paid for. If they don't back the interests of their customer, then why the heck hire them? Whatever can be swept under the rug, will be swept under the rug. They are looking for plausible deniability. That's how it works. Don't be naive.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/katz-on-jbs-future.9519/

Andy Katz said that about Boeheim.

You say I'm sitting in the bleachers but it sounds like you stuck your head in the sand.

 

[Scalito]

We've seen these outside investigators before and how they work. Go to the Cuse board if you want to learn more about the thoroughness (the lack thereof) and what they have totally missed so far. These outside investigators are in constant CYA mode, that's what they are paid for. If they don't back the interests of their customer, then why the heck hire them? Whatever can be swept under the rug, will be swept under the rug. They are looking for plausible deniability. That's how it works. Don't be naive.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/katz-on-jbs-future.9519/

Andy Katz said that about Boeheim.

You say I'm sitting in the bleachers but it sounds like you stuck your head in the sand.

To clarify, notwithstanding your assurances, there is no quote from Boeheim stating that he never asked Bernie Fine about the allegations. Only the paraphrase of a paraphrase you found on a message borad. And your confidence that Syracuse swept this thing under the rug is based on nothing but your worldly knowledge that that's just how things are done.

Alas, I cannot accept that outside investigators operate as you assure me that they do because I have participated in them and know from first hand experience that your sweeping statement is ludicrously overbroad.

 

[upstater]

To clarify, notwithstanding your assurances, there is no quote from Boeheim stating that he never asked Bernie Fine about the allegations. Only the paraphrase of a paraphrase you found on a message borad. And your confidence that Syracuse swept this thing under the rug is based on nothing but your worldly knowledge that that's just how things are done.

Alas, I cannot accept that outside investigators operate as you assure me that they do because I have participated in them and know from first hand experience that your sweeping statement is ludicrously overbroad.

I didn't say they swept it under the rug. Not definitely. But you can be sure they are not there to conduct an investigation that turns up criminality. They are there to limit liability for the university. That's their role. That's what they get paid for. They are not a law enforcement substitute. In fact, where they can, they act as a buffer limiting the school's klnowledge to establish plausible deniability. And if they determine there may be funky things afoot that will NEVER be proven in a court of law and that therefore there is no liability, then they will sweep it under the rug.

We already know that they interviewed Laurie Fine about the allegations after Davis named her as a witness. Let's see the report and whether they found her credible.

http://extreme.mobile.msn.com/sports/CBK/article/1116144

You act as though the Katz quotes aren't being recounted everywhere.

 

[Scalito]

I didn't say they swept it under the rug. Not definitely. But you can be sure they are not there to conduct an investigation that turns up criminality. They are there to limit liability for the university. That's their role. That's what they get paid for. They are not a law enforcement substitute. In fact, where they can, they act as a buffer limiting the school's klnowledge to establish plausible deniability. And if they determine there may be funky things afoot that will NEVER be proven in a court of law and that therefore there is no liability, then they will sweep it under the rug.

I don't think your perception of how things operate in these situations is at all accurate. There are two types of scenarios where you bring in an outside investigator. The first is where a scandal has already broken and you hire someone to provide you with cover in the press. You may be right that under those circumstances an "outside investigator" will minimize the amount of past wrongs.

The second is where you are confronted with a potential problem and you hire an investigator to look into it. Under those circumstances, the best way to limit an institution's liability is to conduct a thorough examination and nip any problems in the bud. That sometimes results in self-reporting civil violations and even crimes to the authorities. And if the outside investigator is worth his salt, I guarantee you that it would include a recommendation to an educational institution to fire a potential child abuser.

http://extreme.mobile.msn.com/sports/CBK/article/1116144

You act as though the Katz quotes aren't being recounted everywhere.

Sorry, but your Katz "quote" doesn't say nearly as much as you think it does. If you are going to assert that Boeheim never asked Fine about the allegations, I am going to demand a quote that clearly states as much. It is too significant for me to infer from vague reports that could be interpreted a hundred different ways.

 

[upstater]

Sorry, but your Katz "quote" doesn't say nearly as much as you think it does. If you are going to assert that Boeheim never asked Fine about the allegations, I am going to demand a quote that clearly states as much. It is too significant for me to infer from vague reports that could be interpreted a hundred different ways.

Go on defending until the very end.

He clearly says these things are beyond his responsibilities as a coach. He created a buffer between himself and the Fine mess. Says so right in the quotes. It's unbelievable that you would deny that.

 

[upstater]

The second is where you are confronted with a potential problem and you hire an investigator to look into it. Under those circumstances, the best way to limit an institution's liability is to conduct a thorough examination and nip any problems in the bud. That sometimes results in self-reporting civil violations and even crimes to the authorities. And if the outside investigator is worth his salt, I guarantee you that it would include a recommendation to an educational institution to fire a potential child abuser.

There's no smoking gun even now, so why fire a potential child abuser? We've seen them kept on everywhere to protect their rights. The investigator will only test the limits of liability and not go beyond.

Anyone who asked Laurie Fine why Davis would name her as a witness on his behalf would have made some immediate realizations about the nature of the case, had they been law enforcement. And even a little light scratching of the surface would have revealed what tens of posters on the Cuse board have said from being around the team. This is about to explode. From Bernie hustling to pimping his wife out to players, lots of posters there seem to know these things. Yet Boeheim didn't. not his responsibility. And the investigators uncovered none of this. And the ex-Cuse chief of police got wind of it too but sadly statutes of limitations had passed--even as the DA claims that's not proper protocol for the sex abuse unit established a decade before the initial allegations. Uh-huh.

 

[Ricky1Moore]

I hope Boeheim survives, I really do, he's class... and right now it appears that all he is guilty of is being overzealous in defending a friend who he obviously thought was innocent (otherwise he NEVER would have been outspoken in his defense).

But I do think that in the end we will find a massive cover up took place (one that didn't include Boeheim)... The Syracuse police chief was a former bball player... and the whole community is very very very VERY supportive of the bball program... My guess is a lot of people will fry for knowingly covering up improprieties in the program... But it won't be Boeheim.... If he had known anything he wouldn't have defended Fine publicly.

 

[Scalito]

Go on defending until the very end.

He clearly says these things are beyond his responsibilities as a coach. He created a buffer between himself and the Fine mess. Says so right in the quotes. It's unbelievable that you would deny that.

So would you be happy if Boeheim had said, "Bernie, did you do this?" and then accepted a "no" answer in reply? I am going to guess not, which is fair enough. But then what else should he do? Fire an assistant based on a mere accusation or allow an outside investigator to do the job the police refuse to do?

I don't know exactly what, if anything, Boeheim asked Bernie Fine and you don't either because the quote you love so much doesn't tell us. So, unless and until more information comes out, I will defend Boeheim against premature condemnations.

 

[Deadrody]

http://extreme.mobile.msn.com/sports/CBK/article/1116144

You act as though the Katz quotes aren't being recounted everywhere.

Sorry, but your Katz "quote" doesn't say nearly as much as you think it does. If you are going to assert that Boeheim never asked Fine about the allegations, I am going to demand a quote that clearly states as much. It is too significant for me to infer from vague reports that could be interpreted a hundred different ways.

One of the things that bugs me about both this case and the Sandusky case is people like Katz - and almost everyone else for that matter - stating matter-of-factly that in this situation they would be absolutely certain to do X, Y, and Z. Katz says he would asbolutely know every detail about the investigations into a guy sitting next to him for 35 years.

Sure, in an objective, devil's advocate way, that might be true.

But that ignores human nature AND the dynamics of human relationships. Boeheim and Fine are supposedly very close friends. First of all, when that kind of allegation comes up, your first inclination is to deny it, to assume it is false. And if your university is going to do their own investigation, great, leave it at that. And when that investigation concludes Fine did nothing wrong, why on Earth would you then need to know every detail of an investigation into allegations you didn't believe in the first place, that ultimately exonerated your friend ? In the real world of dynamic human relationships - YOU DON'T. Its that simple.

Its the same for people who say if they had been McQueary, they are absolutely certain they would have attacked Sandusky and pulled him off that kid. And I say, you simply do not know that. Finding two people engaged in that kind of intimate behavior is immediately disconcerting, no matter WHO it is. You are never supposed to just walk in on something like that. And then you are faced with the fact that what you are seeing is disturbing. Do you even believe what you are seeing ? To say you KNOW exactly how you would react is simply not true. You may think you know, you may HOPE you know, but until you are faced with it, you don't know.