Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="rrlbees, post: 313642, member: 96"]
You've moved the bar a bit. Here is parts of your first post on the subject.
 
[I]It was [B]John Seasock[/B] who concluded in 1998 that there was no evidence that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile. It was [B]John Seasock [/B]who basically eliminated the possibility of prosecution by concluding that there was no indication that the young boy was being "groomed for sexual victimization" even though Sandusky had showered with the kid, had bear hugged the kid in the shower, had kissed the kid on the head, had uttered "I love you" in the shower and had thereafter pursued the kid in a very unusual manner for an adult male.[/I]

[I]In my opinion [B]John Seasock[/B] is the guy who bears much of the blame because he seemingly derailed what other intelligent and insightful people were trying to do.[/I]
Seasock didn't prevent anyone from going forward and prosecutuing. The prosecution chose on their own to use his report as their justification. They could have just as easily used the report of Chambers and the internal police report. Seasock did not prevent anything. He didn't derail anything.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?