TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Nov 28, 2011 15:11:50 GMT -5
The initial investigation of Fine was in 2003. It was conducted by the Syracuse police chief, Dennis Duval. Duval was a former Syracuse basketball player under Boeheim. And yet Boeheim knew nothing till Nov, 2011. Shocked I tell you, says an incredulous Boeheim. Do you even follow these cases? Boeheim knew about the case in 2005 and clearly says he knew about it. It was investigated. There wasn't enough evidence. It was dropped. Fine was cleared. No witnesses - he said, he said, the other victims that Davis said would support him didn't, and the statute of limitations had already ran out. Meanwhile at Penn State, you have an incident that produces 100 pages of report by the campus police in 1998, and Joe Paterno has no knowledge that that incident ever happened even though Jerry Sandusky mysteriously retires the same year and is never offered a head coaching position elsewhere. So yeah, I kind of side with you - if an allegation like this produces an investigation, I believe the head coach of the team would know about it and if they claim otherwise, they are probably lying like Paterno did. Why am I even arguing this? You clearly believe the real victims are Penn State fans.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 28, 2011 15:30:47 GMT -5
The initial investigation of Fine was in 2003. It was conducted by the Syracuse police chief, Dennis Duval. Duval was a former Syracuse basketball player under Boeheim. And yet Boeheim knew nothing till Nov, 2011. Shocked I tell you, says an incredulous Boeheim. Do you even follow these cases? Boeheim knew about the case in 2005 and clearly says he knew about it. It was investigated. There wasn't enough evidence. It was dropped. Fine was cleared. No witnesses - he said, he said, the other victims that Davis said would support him didn't, and the statute of limitations had already ran out. Meanwhile at Penn State, you have an incident that produces 100 pages of report by the campus police in 1998, and Joe Paterno has no knowledge that that incident ever happened even though Jerry Sandusky mysteriously retires the same year and is never offered a head coaching position elsewhere. So yeah, I kind of side with you - if an allegation like this produces an investigation, I believe the head coach of the team would know about it and if they claim otherwise, they are probably lying like Paterno did. Why am I even arguing this? You clearly believe the real victims are Penn State fans. Ok, I'm not a Penn State fan. I still don't believe that Boeheim didn't know about what Fine was doing (or at least that there was something wrong going on that needed further investigation) unless he was actively trying not to know. You don't become "Jim Boeheim" without knowing everything that is going on in your program, including the fact that the ball boys are going on trips with your top assistant and staying in his hotel room.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 28, 2011 15:36:44 GMT -5
I agree that Boeheim's knowledge should be investigated thoroughly, but in the absence of something more, I think people are entitled to rely upon or put faith in the outcomes of police investigations. This is not to say he should keep his job only to say that the earlier investigation and related facts would not be at the heart of my thinking on that front (again, without more).
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Nov 28, 2011 15:49:56 GMT -5
And yet when Paterno said he didn't know, the internet mob was outraged. How could he not know when he knew Sandusky for over 40 years they cried. And then they beat the 80 year old Paterno on the internet and media and now he has cancer. The initial investigation of Fine was in 2003. It was conducted by the Syracuse police chief, Dennis Duval. Duval was a former Syracuse basketball player under Boeheim. And yet Boeheim knew nothing till Nov, 2011. Shocked I tell you, says an incredulous Boeheim. As we learn more facts about whatever was previously known in 2003 this may be true. But I am responding to the bare assertion that simply being in close proximity to someone makes you aware of what's going on. It doesn't. Boeheim is accountable for more than just what he actually saw or knew, I think; not knowing of the crime doesn't exculpate him. For me the question is what should he have known, if he were paying attention and genuinely concerned for the well-being of those involved in the program. If the molestation of the boy had happened in the last, say, 10 years, I'd say he should have known something. But the 80s? It was a more naive time; 'normal' people -- i.e., people who appeared caring and nice and well adjusted on the outside -- just didn't do things like molest kids. Even if he did know that Bernie was sharing a hotel room with a minor, I'm not sure if it's fair to expect that the alarm bells should have gone off. Maybe, I'm just not sure yet. The NYTimes had a great OpEd by D. Brooks on moral blind spots. www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinion/brooks-lets-all-feel-superior.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 28, 2011 15:50:36 GMT -5
The initial investigation of Fine was in 2003. It was conducted by the Syracuse police chief, Dennis Duval. Duval was a former Syracuse basketball player under Boeheim. And yet Boeheim knew nothing till Nov, 2011. Shocked I tell you, says an incredulous Boeheim. Do you even follow these cases? Boeheim knew about the case in 2005 and clearly says he knew about it. It was investigated. There wasn't enough evidence. It was dropped. Fine was cleared. No witnesses - he said, he said, the other victims that Davis said would support him didn't, and the statute of limitations had already ran out. Meanwhile at Penn State, you have an incident that produces 100 pages of report by the campus police in 1998, and Joe Paterno has no knowledge that that incident ever happened even though Jerry Sandusky mysteriously retires the same year and is never offered a head coaching position elsewhere. So yeah, I kind of side with you - if an allegation like this produces an investigation, I believe the head coach of the team would know about it and if they claim otherwise, they are probably lying like Paterno did. Why am I even arguing this? You clearly believe the real victims are Penn State fans. Actually, I've always disliked Penn State and Paterno. They also have boring uniforms and helmets. But the mob mentality that railroaded Paterno and the Penn State program is disgusting IMO. Having said that if we've established that that kind of witchhunt is okay then there has to be consistency. We cannot have one standard for Penn State (guilty until proven innocent) and one standard for Syracuse. (innocent till proven guilty). The Penn State program has been destroyed, Syracuse's program must also be destroyed (And then handed over to the ACC).
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 28, 2011 16:02:50 GMT -5
As we learn more facts about whatever was previously known in 2003 this may be true. But I am responding to the bare assertion that simply being in close proximity to someone makes you aware of what's going on. It doesn't. Boeheim is accountable for more than just what he actually saw or knew, I think; not knowing of the crime doesn't exculpate him. For me the question is what should he have known, if he were paying attention and genuinely concerned for the well-being of those involved in the program. If the molestation of the boy had happened in the last, say, 10 years, I'd say he should have known something. But the 80s? It was a more naive time; 'normal' people -- i.e., people who appeared caring and nice and well adjusted on the outside -- just didn't do things like molest kids. Even if he did know that Bernie was sharing a hotel room with a minor, I'm not sure if it's fair to expect that the alarm bells should have gone off. Maybe, I'm just not sure yet. The NYTimes had a great OpEd by D. Brooks on moral blind spots. www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinion/brooks-lets-all-feel-superior.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Yes, also agree that there's a moral obligation (if not a legal one) to make sure you know your house is clean and not turn a blind eye or claim "plausible deniability." I'm just also pointing out that sometimes people can keep really good secrets. Not sure it is clear that Fine did that here -- and Sandusky certainly did not -- but you can't know that until you know the facts. And sadly, of course, we can't always expect to get those facts . . . but we shouldn't jump to conclusions based solely on association. That's all.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 28, 2011 16:20:38 GMT -5
Do you even follow these cases? Boeheim knew about the case in 2005 and clearly says he knew about it. It was investigated. There wasn't enough evidence. It was dropped. Fine was cleared. No witnesses - he said, he said, the other victims that Davis said would support him didn't, and the statute of limitations had already ran out. Meanwhile at Penn State, you have an incident that produces 100 pages of report by the campus police in 1998, and Joe Paterno has no knowledge that that incident ever happened even though Jerry Sandusky mysteriously retires the same year and is never offered a head coaching position elsewhere. So yeah, I kind of side with you - if an allegation like this produces an investigation, I believe the head coach of the team would know about it and if they claim otherwise, they are probably lying like Paterno did. Why am I even arguing this? You clearly believe the real victims are Penn State fans. Ok, I'm not a Penn State fan. I still don't believe that Boeheim didn't know about what Fine was doing (or at least that there was something wrong going on that needed further investigation) unless he was actively trying not to know. You don't become "Jim Boeheim" without knowing everything that is going on in your program, including the fact that the ball boys are going on trips with your top assistant and staying in his hotel room. I am indifferent to Penn State. 1. It's not a question - Paterno knew almost ten years ago and did the bare legal minimum. One of his assistants told him that he saw a naked Sandusky thrusting up against a naked ten-year-old in the shower. Paterno didn't report the incident to the police, and didn't take any steps to break off Sandusky from the Penn State family. 2. Same wasn't true for Boeheim. He was told, if I recall correctly, that an investigation into Fine hadn't yielded anything. As for the "he had to know", many coaches are infamous for being focused on basketball like a laser and being unaware or uncaring of things like spouses and children of assistant coaches. There's always a line, and, especially after the fact, it's tempting to say "he should have known". But knowing people is hard - the world is full of coworkers who didn't know that the person who was arrested was as strange as the affidavit alleges. Connecting the dots afterward is much easier than connecting them beforehand.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,782
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 28, 2011 16:36:10 GMT -5
I strongly disagree with this statement as well as the "guilt by association" assertion. You could be close with someone, spend time with them, go on road trips with them, and still never have any idea about what goes on. This is true. this could occur. But I will ask: what is more likely to have occurred. I'm not saying Boeheim is definitively guilty; I'm saying he is more likely than not. There's a chance he knew everything and looked the other way. There's a chance he influenced the press and the PD not to investigate. I know people will say that's unlikely, but that's BS. Boeheim is no saint, and people with the ability to do these things often do these things. And nothing Boeheim says now means anything -- there is zero incentive for him to tell the truth if he did any of this. At least until he's subpoenaed. I will say again: you don't know anything about him. There's a chance he saw and heard things that should have triggered an investigation. When there was no tape; no third accuser; no corroboration at all you could buy the pack of lies excuse Boeheim threw out there. But now there is a tape; now there is a third accuser; now those message board insiders who said there was always smoke seem to be more likely to be honest and Boeheim the liar, no? And one of those accusers said that Boeheim knew he was in Fine's bedroom late at night on those trips. And there were enough rumors around for people to comment on it. And there was an investigation previously. You telling me there's no smoke? Would I convict Boeheim on this? No. But do I think he tried to quash evidence? Possible. No idea of the percent. Do I think he have explicit knowledge? Very possible, but no idea of the percent. Do I think he saw questionable things, heard questionable things and didn't want to know -- even to the point of consciously not trying to know? Very, very possible and definitely with a chance of higher than 50%. People with power abuse it. People don't want to think their friends can be horrible people with horrible problems. People don't want the shroud of scandal to ruin what they've built. I don't know Jim Boeheim, but I see a lot of reasons why he should have or could have known something and I simply think it is more likely he did than didn't. Does it make him definitively guilty? No. Would I convict him, spit in his face, heckle him in public (more than I normally would)? No. But my court of personal opinion weighs in with a different standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or definitive yeses and nos.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 28, 2011 16:44:23 GMT -5
I am indifferent to Penn State. 1. It's not a question - Paterno knew almost ten years ago and did the bare legal minimum. One of his assistants told him that he saw a naked Sandusky thrusting up against a naked ten-year-old in the shower. Paterno didn't report the incident to the police, and didn't take any steps to break off Sandusky from the Penn State family. 2. Same wasn't true for Boeheim. He was told, if I recall correctly, that an investigation into Fine hadn't yielded anything. As for the "he had to know", many coaches are infamous for being focused on basketball like a laser and being unaware or uncaring of things like spouses and children of assistant coaches. There's always a line, and, especially after the fact, it's tempting to say "he should have known". But knowing people is hard - the world is full of coworkers who didn't know that the person who was arrested was as strange as the affidavit alleges. Connecting the dots afterward is much easier than connecting them beforehand. This is incorrect. The initial report against Sandusky was sent to the police in 1998 and the Pennsylvania police, District Attorney (who mysteriously disappeared in 2005) and Pennsylvania Child Welfare Services dismissed the investigation against Sandusky because "there was nothing there". Then in McQueary shower scene investigation, Paterno went to his superiors and reported it. The superiors said there was nothing there and then banned Sandusky from the Penn State family (although this didn't seem to be enforced by the University for some odd reason). So you could also make a case that Paterno was told, like Boehiem that the investigation hadn't yielded anything. As far as your second reasoning you could also say that Paterno like many coaches are infamous for being focused on football like a laser and being unaware or uncaring of things like spouses and children of assistant coaches. As much as people try, when you objectively look at the situations they are very similar. The difference is that the Penn State program is destroyed now, and Syracuse's program is still going strong. IMO thanks to Syracuse's control of the sports media and internet. If Syracuse falls alot of people have alot to lose. (ACC, ESPN who lobbied to get Syracuse to leave the Big East for the ACC, all those Syracuse grads at ESPN).
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,669
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 28, 2011 17:19:28 GMT -5
one thing we do know - there could not have been any sort of real investigation ever by anyone without a long, detailed and possibly sworn to conversation with his immediate supervisor in the organization. there was no change in Fine's public role on the squad after 2003 or 2005, which seems to indicate that the program chose to back him despite several investigations into the most heinous crime that can be alleged against those who take children into their care. i mean cops aren't supposed to walk in and say "hey Jimmy, how's Bern-dog doing?" and then take his word for it. Often, they ask for travel records, for statements from potential witnesses like the players who had traveled with the team at the pertinent times, maybe they even sit down with the the suspect. Nothing like that appears to have triggered any doubt in the Head coach's head despite the fact that the man's wife seemed certain it was true.
anyone who thinks the Head coach didn't have a pretty clear idea what was going on back in 2003 is essentially either saying both 'Cuse PD and ESPN did sham investigations by not checking with the guy who is responsible for the employee, or alternately that the Head coach somehow didn't understand the nature of the allegations despite (no doubt) doing his all to assist the investigators. there is no "willful ignorance" option here, much less actual ignorance.
if there was even a shadow of a hint of a doubt in his mind he should have restricted Fine after 2003 in some way and he did nothing, zero risk management of any kind. I don't know about you, maybe I am cynical, but I don't believe anything 100% that firmly about anyone and if the cops and reporters called me and interviewed me for hours about an employee of mine, his movements and associations with minors, telling me they had reason to believe he may have done heinous things, well I think there would have at least been a shadow of a hint of a doubt in my mind after that
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,669
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 28, 2011 17:26:42 GMT -5
and another thing, do you have 3 filing cabinets and a computer full of stuff in your house that is not patently legitimate in an investigation like this? they don't roll in hand trucks and cart off filing cabinets full of your old gas company bills and bank statements when the allegation is molestation. they also don't call in the secret service if you have a 3 filing cabinets full of your kid's school projects. consider the very real possibility that there are hundreds if not thousands of very bad things being sorted through as we type
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Nov 28, 2011 17:56:33 GMT -5
This is incorrect. The initial report against Sandusky was sent to the police in 1998 and the Pennsylvania police, District Attorney (who mysteriously disappeared in 2005) and Pennsylvania Child Welfare Services dismissed the investigation against Sandusky because "there was nothing there". I would love to see where you are quoting "there was nothing there" from, because they had multiple victims, Sandusky confessing to showering with children, and the boy's mother's taped conversation with Sandusky. I'm going to guess you just made that up.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 28, 2011 18:18:21 GMT -5
and another thing, do you have 3 filing cabinets and a computer full of stuff in your house that is not patently legitimate in an investigation like this? they don't roll in hand trucks and cart off filing cabinets full of your old gas company bills and bank statements when the allegation is molestation. they also don't call in the secret service if you have a 3 filing cabinets full of your kid's school projects. consider the very real possibility that there are hundreds if not thousands of very bad things being sorted through as we type Not so sure that's accurate Seaweed. If the police were simply trying to track Fine's travel over multiple years, why wouldn't you want to take his files? Doesn't mean there's dirty photos in there, just info on hotel stays, Credit card receipts, phone records, etc. Bank statements just MIGHT be relevant too. As for the computer -- isn't that standard practice in any investigation at all these days?
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 28, 2011 18:27:51 GMT -5
This is incorrect. The initial report against Sandusky was sent to the police in 1998 and the Pennsylvania police, District Attorney (who mysteriously disappeared in 2005) and Pennsylvania Child Welfare Services dismissed the investigation against Sandusky because "there was nothing there". I would love to see where you are quoting "there was nothing there" from, because they had multiple victims, Sandusky confessing to showering with children, and the boy's mother's taped conversation with Sandusky. I'm going to guess you just made that up. The Exorcist said, ". Same wasn't true for Boeheim. He was told, if I recall correctly, that an investigation into Fine hadn't yielded anything"." In other words that there was nothing there (in Boeheim's eyse) even though there obviously was Davis' accusations and phone conversations with Fine's wife. Of course that is speculation on Exorcist's part or in your words Exorcist "Made it up". The 1998 investigation of Sandusky by the police was closed by the DA, Ray Gricar and no criminal chargers were filed. Paterno could have found nothing there, just like Boeheim since the Pennsylvania police, DA and Pennyslvania Child Welfare services concluded that there was no problem with Sandusky and the boy.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,669
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Nov 28, 2011 19:00:58 GMT -5
and another thing, do you have 3 filing cabinets and a computer full of stuff in your house that is not patently legitimate in an investigation like this? they don't roll in hand trucks and cart off filing cabinets full of your old gas company bills and bank statements when the allegation is molestation. they also don't call in the secret service if you have a 3 filing cabinets full of your kid's school projects. consider the very real possibility that there are hundreds if not thousands of very bad things being sorted through as we type Not so sure that's accurate Seaweed. If the police were simply trying to track Fine's travel over multiple years, why wouldn't you want to take his files? Doesn't mean there's dirty photos in there, just info on hotel stays, Credit card receipts, phone records, etc. Bank statements just MIGHT be relevant too. As for the computer -- isn't that standard practice in any investigation at all these days? I would think the majority of his travel records would be held by the university but anything is possible until we hear more. computer searches are getting interesting as there is a 2nd Cir case from 2010 (State v. Rosa maybe) that says you can't poke around computers aimlessly looking just like you can't aimlessly grab things from homes. That being said, whatever poking you can do is still going to occur at the police lab so yeah, chances are a well crafted warrant in this kind of case would include authority to grab the computer unless it was patently obvious there was nothing even possibly relevant there. the odds of nothing incriminating go down with the volume of evidence seized though since these are carefully focused searches (generally, maybe not in 'Scuse PD). It can also take cops months to put together the pieces. If, and there is reason to believe this is a possibility, there are multiple images of multiple victims etc, it can take months to ID all parties, notify them etc. Worse case scenario, say if there was sharing of images, then you move into charging other parties, inter-jurisdictional coordination, prioritizing prosecutions - f'getaboutit
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Nov 28, 2011 19:36:05 GMT -5
The Exorcist said, ". Same wasn't true for Boeheim. He was told, if I recall correctly, that an investigation into Fine hadn't yielded anything"." In other words that there was nothing there (in Boeheim's eyse) even though there obviously was Davis' accusations and phone conversations with Fine's wife. OK, so you did make it up. Why was there obviously the phone conversations with Fine's wife? What I've seen reported so far was that ESPN had those tapes. I haven't seen anything that suggests that Syracuse had access or knowledge of those tapes. If you've read that, I'd love to see a link, but much like that quote, I bet you just made that up too. "On hearing of the allegations in 2005, the University immediately launched its own comprehensive investigation through its legal counsel. That nearly four-month long investigation included a number of interviews with people the complainant said would support his claims. All of those identified by the complainant denied any knowledge of wrongful conduct by the associate coach. The associate coach also vehemently denied the allegations." espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7248184/syracuse-police-investigating-bernie-fine-molesting-boy-1980s
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 28, 2011 21:01:48 GMT -5
The Exorcist said, ". Same wasn't true for Boeheim. He was told, if I recall correctly, that an investigation into Fine hadn't yielded anything"." In other words that there was nothing there (in Boeheim's eyse) even though there obviously was Davis' accusations and phone conversations with Fine's wife. OK, so you did make it up. Why was there obviously the phone conversations with Fine's wife? What I've seen reported so far was that ESPN had those tapes. I haven't seen anything that suggests that Syracuse had access or knowledge of those tapes. If you've read that, I'd love to see a link, but much like that quote, I bet you just made that up too. "On hearing of the allegations in 2005, the University immediately launched its own comprehensive investigation through its legal counsel. That nearly four-month long investigation included a number of interviews with people the complainant said would support his claims. All of those identified by the complainant denied any knowledge of wrongful conduct by the associate coach. The associate coach also vehemently denied the allegations." espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7248184/syracuse-police-investigating-bernie-fine-molesting-boy-1980sThe point was there was "something there". Something that existed. Did something happen in the shower between Sandusky and the boy. All we have is what McQueary said he saw. Which is countered by Sandusky saying it was "just horseplay" and whipping towels at each other. Now Paterno took that information to his superiors at Penn State. But the superiors found "nothing there". You really can't separate Boeheim's actions or inactions from those of Paterno as much as you would like too. If you make excuses for Boeheim, those same excuses can be made for Paterno. If you blame Paterno, then Boeheim is equally as culpable.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 28, 2011 21:20:12 GMT -5
The point was there was "something there". Something that existed. Did something happen in the shower between Sandusky and the boy. All we have is what McQueary said he saw. Which is countered by Sandusky saying it was "just horseplay" and whipping towels at each other. Now Paterno took that information to his superiors at Penn State. But the superiors found "nothing there". You really can't separate Boeheim's actions or inactions from those of Paterno as much as you would like too. If you make excuses for Boeheim, those same excuses can be made for Paterno. If you blame Paterno, then Boeheim is equally as culpable. Once again, completely disagree with you Professor. The invetigation of Fine, Cuse et al is just now getting underway. We can all speculate all we want about what they may or may not find. But in regards to PSU, a legitimate, 3 year investigation has been COMPLETED. And that 27 page Grand Jury report was quite explicit. One investigation just getting underway, the other completed and a Grand Jury report issued. You can spin it all you want, but that is an enormous difference.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Nov 28, 2011 21:33:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Nov 28, 2011 22:15:12 GMT -5
|
|