This isn’t like Duke lacrosse, where Duke destroyed people based only on the vehemently disputed word of a crazy woman - whom they chose to credit just because she was a minority.
This is exactly like Duke where they are making knee jerk decisions. Joe did the right thing at the time with what was given to him. A grad student went to him about a possible situation and he went to the Athletic Director who went to the school who investigated and found NOTHING to it. How do we know that this is all a lie and the parents are trying to get money from the school.
I agree there are many questions about just what was obliged of Paterno (as well as others), whether he fulfilled it, etc.
However, I think perhaps when you hear of something so disgusting directly from the witness himself, morally you might want to keep looking into it. I know I’d be damned curious.
As for comments on the truth of the whole accusations? What about this grand jury? 1998 accusations? (Excuse me, but I haven’t read a good article sorting all this out, and either way, often reporting is wrong initially anyway.)
As for “families” - isn’t this “disadvantaged” kids? Why is everyone assuming they have families? (Again, no info on Second Mile.) What if they were orphans, or had to be fostered because their relatives were half dead and half messed-up? Which, BTW, is EXACTLY why they would be PERFECT TARGETS for abuse - not boys with good existent families.
“This is exactly like Duke where they are making knee jerk decisions. Joe did the right thing at the time with what was given to him. A grad student went to him about a possible situation and he went to the Athletic Director who went to the school who investigated and found NOTHING to it. How do we know that this is all a lie and the parents are trying to get money from the school.”
Bull. With PSU, a three year investigation culminated in sworn, consistent grand jury testimony from multiple witnesses, resulting in an indictment. The witnesses, including Paterno, admit that in 2002, McQueary - who had no motive to lie - reported the rape incident to them. According to you, they “did the right thing”: None of them called police, but left Sandusky with access to the facilities for another 9 years.
With Duke, there was no corroboration; no consistent story; and no admissions.
There WERE: alibis; an illegal photo array made up only of Duke players; and an elected prosecutor going before the media and lying about the evidence, when he knew there was no DNA match to anyone on the team. The players vigorously denied the charges and offered to take lie detector tests, but the police refused. The accuser was bipolar; had taken anti-psychotic meds; and had a history of bringing similar, unsubstantiated charges.
So how are the cases exactly alike? Because they both involve Division 1 college sports teams with blue and white uniforms?