Quote:
Originally Posted by Dids
That said- the skepticism we've seen so far suffers from being uninformed. I was there myself earlier in this thread. Basically Paterno's actions (and the other three as well) become just really hard to understand if you accept that they knew exactly what was going on. Sandusky almost makes more sense, he's a damn sociopath. The other guys in a sense seem "normal".
I'm willing to have a discussion with a person holding the "I just can't see how a non-sociopath like JoePa or Spainer could hide this" because I do think the fact that they did is very tough to comprehend, but at the end of that talk, if they don't agree with the facts as stated (JoePa did that ****), they're probably a PSU Alum/Bdidds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karak
Lou Holtz said on ESPN last week he thinks Paterno felt like he "owed" Sandusky, because a lot of Paterno's success as a coach was due to the work of Sandusky on defense. He said Paterno was probably just fiercely loyal to his friend... to an absolute fault. Lou was quick to point out he wasn't offering this as an excuse for Paterno (he slammed him pretty hard overall), but just a possible explanation.
You can take that as a starting point from the initial allegations, and then as things start to get more serious it just snowballed into a huge cover up that then kept him from reporting it.
It's this or Sandusky leveraged the situation ("You all hid it for years, if I go down, we all go down"). The problem I have with that is I really don't think Sandusky ever thought of what he was doing as wrong so I don't see him taking that line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyeinstein
I mean I'm not surprised that people are coming forward with earlier allegations against Sandusky. The Seasock guy who was pretty much the sole dissenting voice in the Sandusky=pedophile allegations from the '98 incident was right that people don't just become pedophiles at the age of 50. (Coincidentally, this was the sole piece of evidence which led to a non-charge in '98 if the Freeh report is to be trusted, even though he was the only one saying it). Seasock was just wrong in assuming that this meant Sandusky was not a pedophile, rather than the correct assumption that it meant Sandusky had been raping boys for a long time.
Have to be careful with all these. Seems perfectly likely Jurrah did some raping back in the day, but it's also a non-zero chance that people are seeing dollar signs in this whole thing.