Jump to content

Syracuse Horror Story


Kyyle23
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just don't understand how you can buy that...if you listen to the tape, the ENTIRE conversation carries with it a context of Fine molesting this kid. It's not an issue of them talking about the latest sale at the market, and then all the sudden, his wife blurts out "So, is Bernie still trying to molest you?"

 

The entire tape is centered on Fine's fascination with young boys, this boy in particular, and were there to be editing involved, they'd have had to basically fabricated the entire conversation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 04:24 PM)
I just heard on the way home that Laurie Fine was sleeping with players since the 1980's...and the third victim apparently shared a bed with both Laurie and Bernie.

 

Im just waiting for a picture of her back in the 80s so I can say "Ok, that makes sense. She was (cute, hot, milf-ish, semi attractive, worth it, pick your adjective). Because I keep seeing the deadspin picture where she looks like Elizabeth Taylor circa 1999 and thinking "OMG what was wrong with those players?!!?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 10:39 AM)
I just don't understand how you can buy that...if you listen to the tape, the ENTIRE conversation carries with it a context of Fine molesting this kid. It's not an issue of them talking about the latest sale at the market, and then all the sudden, his wife blurts out "So, is Bernie still trying to molest you?"

 

The entire tape is centered on Fine's fascination with young boys, this boy in particular, and were there to be editing involved, they'd have had to basically fabricated the entire conversation.

 

I am agreeing that it is more likely the tape is real, but as SS and I have said, editing the tapes is about as easy a thing as there is today. I'm not a fan of accuser supplied evidence in a format that is so easily altered. Not playing devil's advocate or anything like that. Accuser supplied evidence is always suspect. I hope they have some collaboration or it's basically hinges on this guys testimony and a tape he made talking to someone who benefits from the accused being locked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 08:36 PM)
I am agreeing that it is more likely the tape is real, but as SS and I have said, editing the tapes is about as easy a thing as there is today. I'm not a fan of accuser supplied evidence in a format that is so easily altered. Not playing devil's advocate or anything like that. Accuser supplied evidence is always suspect. I hope they have some collaboration or it's basically hinges on this guys testimony and a tape he made talking to someone who benefits from the accused being locked up.

 

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:44 PM)
You can't edit interruptions that well. And I know...I'm an editor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 10:27 AM)
So you're saying this guy edited this tape in 2003, before he gave it to ESPN?

Is there a reason why this hasn't been addressed? The tape wasn't recorded last month, it's been sitting in a file cabinet in Bristol for 8 years. The capabilities of modern audio editing software is moot, the latest the recording could have been edited was 2003, when it first surfaced.

 

What was the most common method of recording phone calls in 2003? I'm gonna say Bobby Davis probably turned a microcassette over to ESPN as opposed to the digital audio files prevalent today, further increasing the degree of difficulty in fabricating such a conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:03 AM)
All that withstanding, it's a terrible idea to force journalists to report crimes.

I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

Edited by iamshack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 12:13 PM)
I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

Journalists are given exceptions here that other professions should not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:13 AM)
I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

 

I still have a very hard time with sports reporting being considered journalism for the purposes of reporting laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:13 AM)
I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

Especially when they have tied up millions of dollars arguing a case with the ohio and now the federal supreme court suing Ohio State for student's records and emails. I wouldnt expect any less than total hypocrisy from ESPN to be honest, which has been shown to be the case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 07:06 PM)
I still have a very hard time with sports reporting being considered journalism for the purposes of reporting laws.

 

I sort of disagree because this is "sports reporting" only due to the fact that it deals with a basketball coach, but there's no real difference beside that. I don't think espn acted entirely above water...but I worry some self-righteous politician will make a short-sighted law out of this. If espn didn't know about the 2004 investigation, then who knows if they assumed that this tape was given to authorities as well. But I doubt they really didn't follow that investigation (if it was public). But no, I don't think they have a responsibility to give law enforcement that tape. And just keep in mind there are some major differences in this case and paternos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 01:06 PM)
I still have a very hard time with sports reporting being considered journalism for the purposes of reporting laws.

Should business journalists be required to report hints of business-related crimes to the police for investigation? Because these days, sports is pretty much nothing but a giant business. If there's a shield law of any sort, then it's going to apply to sports journalists too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPN isnt even claiming a journalistic privilege. They just chose not to do anything with the tape.

 

Reporters already have laws protecting them, ESPN isnt using any of them as an excuse. I dont think there needs to be a change of the law, but if you are going to be self-righteous about morals, you should maybe practice what you preach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 12:22 PM)
Should business journalists be required to report hints of business-related crimes to the police for investigation? Because these days, sports is pretty much nothing but a giant business. If there's a shield law of any sort, then it's going to apply to sports journalists too.

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 12:22 PM)
Should business journalists be required to report hints of business-related crimes to the police for investigation? Because these days, sports is pretty much nothing but a giant business. If there's a shield law of any sort, then it's going to apply to sports journalists too.

 

it would be interesting if Financial Times had proof of Madoffs ponzi scheme 8 years prior to the scandal breaking and chose to do nothing with it.

 

The bottom line is that peoples lives have been affected, and the self riteous entity that is espn is pointing their fingers at McQueary/Curley/Paterno and at the same time saying "we didnt know what we should have done with it" about the Lauri Fine tape. It is bulls***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...