Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OrangePA, post: 313017, member: 204"] You really don't get it. The point of the post - and a crucial notation in the report itself - did you read the actual report? - is that in 1998 when the DA and the police were prepared to prosecute, Seasock issued an incredibly stupid report that would deep six any prosecutorial effort. Seasock was the supposed professional who concluded that nothing in May, 1998 was sexual, that there was no evidence that Sandusky was "grooming" the kid and no evidence that he was a pedophile. The DA had no choice at that point. He could not prosecute. And the school, without the benefit of hindsight, which you have clearly embraced with great enthusiasim - had the cover it so clearly wanted to have. Since the professional had concluded that nothing inappropriate had occurred, the school could feel comfortable doing essentially nothing. Now, what happened after 1998 was obviously foreshadowed by what happened in May, 1998. Had Seasock read the situation correctly Sandusky would likely have been prosecuted - the situation would have become very public and the school would have had no choice at that point but to face up to the situation - in 1998. Obviously Seasock is not responsible for what the school did or did not do three or four yeas later in 2001 when McQueery reported what he saw to Paterno. And nobody is suggesting otherwise. What the post concludes is that by not doing his job properly, Seasock allowed the DA to forego prosecution in 1998 and gave the school cover in 1998. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Suppose you had been the DA in 1998. Would you, in the context of the report issued by the YSC expert, had gone ahead with a prosecution? And supposed you had been a University administrator in 1998. What action would you have taken in the context of the YSC report indicating that nothing sexual had occurred and that Sandusky was not a pedophile? Just curious. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?