Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) So ESPN and the Post Standard were both given the taped phone call in 2003, yet both chose not to report the tape to the authorities because of no corraborating witnesses. And who won the National Championship in 2003? Just sayin Ok, not the 2nd part, but the first part seems very, very odd. Especially the failure to report on the part of the national press organization...you can't tell me that they're in the pocket of "Big Orange" and expect me to believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) Ok, not the 2nd part, but the first part seems very, very odd. Especially the failure to report on the part of the national press organization...you can't tell me that they're in the pocket of "Big Orange" and expect me to believe that. You cant tell me that the State Attorney knew about Jerry Sandusky raping children and covered it up so he could run for Governer and expect me to believe that. Oh wait, yes you can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Balta, Once again, the grand jury "report" was based on testimony, but the report itself was hearsay. As I said in the Paterno thread, the lesson is to never admit to anything. No matter how sincere a statement "I should have done more" it will always be turned against you, because at the end of the day, those out to destroy you will turn it into an admission of guilt (any human who hears that someone has been raped or molested will have wanted to do more, regardless of how feasible it is). The best thing to do is what Boeheim will inevitably do, never admit to anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) Balta, Once again, the grand jury "report" was based on testimony, but the report itself was hearsay. As I said in the Paterno thread, the lesson is to never admit to anything. No matter how sincere a statement "I should have done more" it will always be turned against you, because at the end of the day, those out to destroy you will turn it into an admission of guilt (any human who hears that someone has been raped or molested will have wanted to do more, regardless of how feasible it is). The best thing to do is what Boeheim will inevitably do, never admit to anything. Actually, the lesson should be that you shouldn't cover up a guy on your staff who is raping young boys in your program's showers, because that cover up is where the problems for that coach really hit. Which may also be why Boeheim could be in trouble here, if he had any knowledge of this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The cover up was years ago. And there is still no evidence Paterno was involved in a "cover up". Remember, all he did was fail to call the police, he did notify the powers that be at PSU. In a true "cover up", Paterno would have told McQueary to go home and that he saw nothing, and that if McQueary ever said another word he was fired and Paterno would make sure he never was hired again. That is a cover up. Paterno's actions fall more into the "didnt do as much as he could have possibly done" category, which is quite different. Well see what happens, but I doubt that Syracuse fires Boeheim in the next week. Here is a link to the statement by Boeheim, Ill just take out one sentence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-...ESG5N_blog.html I am personally very shocked because I have never witnessed any of the activities that have been alleged. Notice the phrasing, I have never "witnessed" (same as Paterno), so the question is, did Boeheim know anything? Should be interesting to see how it plays out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) So ESPN and the Post Standard were both given the taped phone call in 2003, yet both chose not to report the tape to the authorities because of no corraborating witnesses. And who won the National Championship in 2003? Just sayin So out of curiosity, do they have any legal obligation to report the incident because the tape they received? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) So out of curiosity, do they have any legal obligation to report the incident because the tape they received? No. News agencies are not mandatory reporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) So out of curiosity, do they have any legal obligation to report the incident because the tape they received? I think we are all learning the obcene hard way that reporting these things is nobodies responsibility but the victim. And everyone else gets to stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes and repeat "nope, didnt see it. didnt hear about it. nope" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/27/justice/syra....html?hpt=hp_t3 Fine's wife apparently will challenge the tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/27/justice/syra....html?hpt=hp_t3 Fine's wife apparently will challenge the tape Is the quality of the recording already released good enough that independent audio experts are likely going through it to see if they can be the one to announce it's a fraud? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 01:28 PM) Is the quality of the recording already released good enough that independent audio experts are likely going through it to see if they can be the one to announce it's a fraud? I dont know, but in the original articles it was stated that a person was hired to verify the authenticity of the voice on the recording and it was confirmed to be Laurie Fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 My guess is they are going to argue that its taken out of context. (Ie Parts of the conversation were erased and therefore it gives a different impression.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 07:28 PM) Is the quality of the recording already released good enough that independent audio experts are likely going through it to see if they can be the one to announce it's a fraud? fwiw on ESPN last night before their report they said they had audio experts already independently verify it was the wife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) No. News agencies are not mandatory reporters. Is ESPN really considered a "news agency" in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) Is ESPN really considered a "news agency" in this case? For the purpose of the law, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) For the purpose of the law, yes. Out of curiousity, how far does that go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) My guess is they are going to argue that its taken out of context. (Ie Parts of the conversation were erased and therefore it gives a different impression.) Erasure is something that can be tested as well by an audio expert, so if the voice has already been tested, unless there is something that can be removed from the end or beginning of the conversation, this isn't a useful excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 May or may not be useful, Im no expert. I simply answered what their argument is going to be against the recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 03:23 PM) Out of curiousity, how far does that go? The mandatory reporters are stated in the law for each state. News agencies are not included in NY and I imagine due to the number of phony stories they get, no state requires them to do anything. Stated another way, if they acted as an independent news agency with no other motive than to report properly vetted news stories, they are immune. Or course, if they don't act independently, then there is a problem. The suspicion here might be that ESPN had the tape and sat on it because they knew it would be better for them and Syracuse financially not to report the story. However, until the facts reach the point of establishing a conspiracy to cover up the criminal act, ESPN is not going to be liable under any theory that I can think of off the top of my head. For that to happen, ESPN would need actual knowledge that the crime occurred and act in an effort to cover it up. I can't imagine those facts exist. Edited November 28, 2011 by G&T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Really, Boeheim? This is what you want to say? "I do my job. What happened on my watch, we will see. When the investigation is done, we will find out what happened on my watch." (emphasis added) I'm not sure if I could come up with a greater combination of snark, pomposity and arrogance if I tried for a thousand years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Boeheim is a f***ing idiot, I've pretty much lost all respect for him. Tonight just put it over the top. I also don't doubt he knew some of this s*** was going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Nov 30, 2011 -> 12:07 AM) Boeheim is a f***ing idiot, I've pretty much lost all respect for him. Tonight just put it over the top. I also don't doubt he knew some of this s*** was going on. If he knew it was going on I don't think he would of made the public statement backing his assistant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 QUOTE (farmteam @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 09:13 PM) Really, Boeheim? This is what you want to say? "I do my job. What happened on my watch, we will see. When the investigation is done, we will find out what happened on my watch." (emphasis added) I'm not sure if I could come up with a greater combination of snark, pomposity and arrogance if I tried for a thousand years. I didn't see it, I am only reading this excerpt. It sounds like he is saying he doesn't know of any, but realizes an investigation might show what happened while he was in charge. And investigating people that work under you is probably not his omost people's jobs. I keep thinking about people that I supervised and would I have known what they do in their off time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 "I never worried about my job status in 36 years," Boeheim said Tuesday night at his first postgame news conference since Fine was fired Sunday. "I do my job. What happened on my watch, we will see. When the investigation is done, we will find out what happened on my watch." That quote is awful. That's basically like saying he's above the law as long as he wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.