Perhaps. But if IU immediately hires a large law firm to do an independent investigation as they did that indicates there is no effort to cover it up. Good work by IU on this front.Maybe, but if they didn't go public on it and things started leaking out, there would be accusations of a cover-up. Meanwhile, Dr Bomba's name is out there all over the place, but the accuser remains unknown. Prostate exams even for younger people is not uncommon, but I guess an exam can morph into something else, so hopefully the investigation by the law firm can iron things out. I just hope the accuser hasn't intentionally morphed something that is a normal exam into something it was not.
Releasing unverified claims in detail seems odd. If claims are proven false, Bomba is still tarnished. If claims are true, then the first press release can include some independent facts to add context. I chatted with someone who has done investigations for universities and this was their view too. But that’s just one opinion.
Other option was to be more vague in the PR and leave Bomba’s name out until more is known.
That said, if someone thinks the immediate press release is good, that’s fine, I just don’t get it.
Last edited: