pmoehrin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 All three victims?Two of them are brothers so I'm counting that as one and we don't know much about the third.1/3 of a 1/3 is 11% so odds alone say its reasonable.I don't know, man. You're forgetting the fact that those "odds" are stacked by the number of abuse cases that are faked or influenced as part of a family custody battle. What percentage of accusations against unrelated adults are demonstrated to be false?To me, quoting the odds is a little like complaining that the victim wasn't sufficiently distraught in the phone call. At best, it's insensitive. At worst, deeply offensive.Honestly I don't know what happened, but I'm not regarding this as a slam dunk case until I see more evidence.As far as what I said about the phone, that is no different from what any defense lawyer would say about it either. Anything like that relies entirely on the crediblity of the people involved. If they're not credible you have nothing. And considering what's been said about both of these people if this case were to ever go to trial which to ever go to trial, which it can't but lets just say it was, I don't that would be allowed to be presented as evidence. I don't think it would be all that difficult to get it tossed out as hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Victim testimony is not "hearsay". It's evidence. Besides, that's not how statistics work... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Victim testimony is not "hearsay". It's evidence.There's nothing in that tape being said that couldn't give as seperate testimony and saying you suspect is very different from saying you saw something. That's the part that makes it hearsay.You also can't come back ten years later and further explain what you meant by that either, becuase the first question is going to be why did you wait so long if you felt so strongly? If she were to ever to go before a witness stand I'd bet any amount of money she would get crossedp which by default means any testimony she were to give has to be tossed because she's an unreliable witness. Not to mention the fact that you have questionable parties on both ends of the phone line. In a courtroom its nothing, and if that's all you have you don't have a case. Something else has to come up for this to go anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I'm not sure who you are talking about. His wife? Even leaving her out of it, the victims could testify about the abuse. That isn't "hearsay," it's evidence. It's not like there are no accusations without the tape.It's my understanding that the statute of limitations has expired on the two earlier cases, which is why the police investigations didn't go anywhere. Not that the police didn't think it happened, but because they could no longer prosecute. So the tape is irrelevant. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I'm not sure who you are talking about. His wife? Even leaving her out of it, the victims could testify about the abuse. That isn't "hearsay," it's evidence. It's not like there are no accusations without the tape.It's my understanding that the statute of limitations has expired on the two earlier cases, which is why the police investigations didn't go anywhere. Not that the police didn't think it happened, but because they could no longer prosecute. So the tape is irrelevant.The reason it would deemed hearsay is because of what the wife said. At the very least pretty much anything she said would have to completely be censored because you can't say things like I suspect or I think and then never clarify on it on a tape. So all you would be left with would be this 90 second segment that is nothing different then the witness just taking the stand himself, so there's nothing the new the tape would present. Its not evidence in the sense that you could present it in a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's immaterial, since the statute of limitations has expired, but I'm not sure that's so. As long as she's not making a statement of fact, it's not heresy. My understanding is that her opinion could in fact be admitted as nothing more than an expression of her opinion at the time, introduced not for its factual value but as an example of how people close to Fine saw him at the time. Again, this is my understanding of the law. I'm not a lawyer - are you? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's immaterial, since the statute of limitations has expired, but I'm not sure that's so. As long as she's not making a statement of fact, it's not heresy. My understanding is that her opinion could in fact be admitted as nothing more than an expression of her opinion at the time, introduced not for its factual value but as an example of how people close to Fine saw him at the time.The problem with that is you'd be relying on her as a character witness which considering her history with her husband won't get you very far either.There's just no way you can present her as a reliable source. Just too many skeletons in the closet to allow that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Why would you be relying on her as a character witness? That's simething completely different. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Why would you be relying on her as a character witness? That's simething completely different.No its not. Your asking her for her opinion on Bernie Fine as it relates to this. That's a character witness. Unless she actually saw something or has physical evidence that Bernie Fine did something you are relying on her as a character witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Fine will not be indicted due to the statute of limitations running out on both cases.Bobby Davis and Mike Lang, former Syracuse men's basketball team ball boys, are credible with their allegations of child sexual abuse against fired Syracuse associate coach Bernie Fine, Onondaga County (N.Y.) District Attorney William J. Fitzpatrick said Wednesday.However, it appears no state charges can be filed against Fine because the statute of limitations have long expired.Allegations of by Zach Tomaselli, 23, of Lewiston, Maine, that he was molested by Fine nearly 10 years ago in Pittsburgh are still being investigated by federal authorities.There was speculation about a fourth victim, but Fitzpatrick said that after a review, "there is no victim No. 4." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Good thing ESPN sat on that evidence for eight years. On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Well at least one part of the story was much to do about nothing.http://tracking.si.c...ction=si_latestThere's also a halfway decent article on Deadpsin which rips into Mark Schwarz. I would consider the source because Deadspin has always been selective with which writers they defend (Selena Roberts) and which ones they go after (Jason Whitlock) but I think the criticsms of Schwarz are pretty justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.