Red Sox suspend clubhouse attendant accused of sexual assualt of a minor

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,996
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Red Sox suspend clubhouse attendant after learning of sexual assault allegations

One of two men charged with repeatedly raping a teenage boy at New Hampshire's youth detention center in the late 1990s went on to work as a clubhouse attendant for the Boston Red Sox, who suspended him when the club learned of the allegations, the team told The Associated Press on Monday.

Stephen Murphy, of Danvers, Massachusetts, was charged in July with 26 counts of aggravated felonious assault. He and Jeffrey Buskey, of Boston, are accused of sexually assaulting and beating the boy at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester, where they worked as youth counselors.

"When we learned of the allegations against Stephen Murphy involving events that occurred prior to his Red Sox employment, he was suspended without pay from his position. We will have no further comment going forward," spokesman Kevin Gregg said in a statement to the AP.
Interesting, nothing about this in the Red Sox-owned Boston Globe so far.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
983
Something in the Globe today about it. The question it raised with me is why it took from July to now to suspend the guy, especially given that was during the season (my assumption is that any kids in the employ of the Sox are let go October 1; if there was a delay after that it would not matter very much).

Hiring him, given there were no charges filed previously, is a lot more understandable.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,026
Can you check if the Globe story today is merely a reprint of an AP one? Did a staffer from the Globe write it?
Today's Globe has a reprint of the AP story.

From the story, it appears that the timeline is that the team hired Murphy in 2007. The team's statement implies that he was suspended when the team learned of the allegations. Not sure if that means July when the charges were filed, or some time after. The team released the statement yesterday, but did not specify the date of Murphy's suspension.

To be fair, the charges were filed in NH, and it's unlikely that the team regularly checks court dockets across New England to see if any of their employees have had charges filed. So I can understand how there could be a delay between the charges being filed and the team finding out about the incident.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,586
Something in the Globe today about it. The question it raised with me is why it took from July to now to suspend the guy, especially given that was during the season (my assumption is that any kids in the employ of the Sox are let go October 1; if there was a delay after that it would not matter very much).

Hiring him, given there were no charges filed previously, is a lot more understandable.
The first story said, "when we learned about it." It's quite possible that the guy got charged, appeared and made bail (if there was any) without anyone from the Sox knowing about it.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Something in the Globe today about it. The question it raised with me is why it took from July to now to suspend the guy, especially given that was during the season (my assumption is that any kids in the employ of the Sox are let go October 1; if there was a delay after that it would not matter very much).

Hiring him, given there were no charges filed previously, is a lot more understandable.
Background checks obviously can't pick anything up if nothing is there so you can't fault the Sox for hiring the pedophile. But the fact they're suspending him without pay and not terminating him sucks. Especially given the teams history back in the 90s. I get its technically the same thing but he's still an employee of the team. Just not being paid.
 

Earthbound64

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Interesting, nothing about this in the Red Sox-owned Boston Globe so far.
14 minutes later...
Something in the Globe today about it.

And,

Can you check if the Globe story today is merely a reprint of an AP one?
That's all that was in the place that you linked too.

I mean, I hate the Globe as much as anyone - haven't read them in probably 20 years, and yet they still manage to fester - but there's more than enough to dump on them without guessing on something where it ends up that they did what the other place (ESPN, another place I haven't gone to in around 15 years, due to their association with a particular Globe writer) did.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,657
Row 14
14 minutes later...



And,



That's all that was in the place that you linked too.

I mean, I hate the Globe as much as anyone - haven't read them in probably 20 years, and yet they still manage to fester - but there's more than enough to dump on them without guessing on something where it ends up that they did what the other place (ESPN, another place I haven't gone to in around 15 years, due to their association with a particular Globe writer) did.
What did Jackie MacMullan do to you?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,996
Deep inside Muppet Labs
14 minutes later...



And,



That's all that was in the place that you linked too.

I mean, I hate the Globe as much as anyone - haven't read them in probably 20 years, and yet they still manage to fester - but there's more than enough to dump on them without guessing on something where it ends up that they did what the other place (ESPN, another place I haven't gone to in around 15 years, due to their association with a particular Globe writer) did.
What?

I didn't see anything in the Globe today. I don't have electronic access to it. And then when someone mentioned it was in their edition, I asked if it was the AP story. Given that Henry owns the Globe it's an important point.

I am very interested to see if any Globe staff actually write about this story.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,026
The ESPN report echoing the AP story came out at 7pm Eastern time. Given that the Red Sox are not playing right now, the paper doesn't exactly have staff on hand after hours to write about it. Shank is too busy trashing the Pats. Abraham probably wrote his column in the AM and then was done for the day. The later editions of the paper obviously inserted the AP story, as it was in my edition, along with the score of the Celtics game (ugh!).

Given the nature of the story, I think we would prefer that any local media types take the time to properly research it before adding their own takes. It's not the story for uninformed speculation.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,996
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The ESPN report echoing the AP story came out at 7pm Eastern time. Given that the Red Sox are not playing right now, the paper doesn't exactly have staff on hand after hours to write about it. Shank is too busy trashing the Pats. Abraham probably wrote his column in the AM and then was done for the day. The later editions of the paper obviously inserted the AP story, as it was in my edition, along with the score of the Celtics game (ugh!).

Given the nature of the story, I think we would prefer that any local media types take the time to properly research it before adding their own takes. It's not the story for uninformed speculation.
Fair enough, but if they really don't have anyone on hand to write a major story about a major scandal about a major local team as the story breaks, they're in worse shape than I thought.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,026
Fair enough, but if they really don't have anyone on hand to write a major story about a major scandal about a major local team as the story breaks, they're in worse shape than I thought.
Such is the state of newspapers these days. The local staff is bare bones.

Again, I'm not convinced the team did anything wrong. They said the employee was suspended once they learned of the charges.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,467
ct
14 minutes later...



And,



That's all that was in the place that you linked too.

I mean, I hate the Globe as much as anyone - haven't read them in probably 20 years, and yet they still manage to fester - but there's more than enough to dump on them without guessing on something where it ends up that they did what the other place (ESPN, another place I haven't gone to in around 15 years, due to their association with a particular Globe writer) did.
You hate ESPN because they employ Jackie MacMullen? Bob Ryan? I happen to find both of them two of the finest writers in the nation. If you're referring to CHB, I can honestly say I have not seen him appear regularly on any ESPN programming.
 

Earthbound64

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
If you're referring to CHB, I can honestly say I have not seen him appear regularly on any ESPN programming.
He seemed to be the regular go-to any time they needed some quotes or "opinions" from "Red Sox writers" circa 2000-2010, at which point I decided I didn't want to be subjected to any more of that from any source, and stopped watching them / reading their website / etc.

If they've gotten better over the past decade, that's good. But they gave him far too much of an additional means of spreading his bile during a time when everyone who didn't already know should have been ignoring him.
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
5,305
I'm going home
You hate ESPN because they employ Jackie MacMullen? Bob Ryan? I happen to find both of them two of the finest writers in the nation. If you're referring to CHB, I can honestly say I have not seen him appear regularly on any ESPN programming.
Borges? He did say it was quite a long time...

Just saw the response, must say I never really associated CHB with ESPN.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
983
Ryan, McMullan and Gammons are the Globies I associate most w/ESPN.

Shank not so much except in the realm of 30-for-30 type stuff.
 

Earthbound64

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I don't mean to derail a thread on a horrible issue - although I'd argue it was kind of derailed from the opening post of questioning on whether the Globe reported on the story or not.

But, yeah, certainly Gammons (obviously) and Ryan were on there far more. But any of him was too much.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
I don't mean to derail a thread on a horrible issue - although I'd argue it was kind of derailed from the opening post of questioning on whether the Globe reported on the story or not.

But, yeah, certainly Gammons (obviously) and Ryan were on there far more. But any of him was too much.
Are you unaware of how often major media outlets do that?

Serious question and I mean it in completely non-patronizing fashion; I’ve only recently come to realize how many reports I read are reprinted AP/Reuters news feeds that they repurpose and I have a doctorate in this area, sorta. I honestly had no idea how bad it was until to started some covering some current events closely.

Because, like, if this is just a matter of people not in agreement on an empirical fact, e.g. the frequency with which outlets such as the globe put out non-original content (probably for economic reasons, but that’s a larger issue, obviously, yeah?), maybe it’s easier to figure out what’s going on here, yeah? It might even just be a misunderstanding. Not sure, but I see that as a definite possibility here.