Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="leftytg, post: 2398625, member: 2651"] As to your first paragraph: I bolded and responded to a particular quote of yours. You wrote, "Sandusky's crimes have probably been looked at by law enforcement, private investigators, and investigative journalists more than any sports story in history". You wrote this as support for your position that this matter has been exhaustively investigated and, given that despite this deep and widespread investigation by so many, the lack of evidence against Schiano beyond a hearsay statement points to the unreliability of the statement. I will say again, the notion that Sandusky's crimes have been investigated more than any other sports story is objectively categorically false. I tried to illustrate this to you, but you ignored the question. The absolute most basic level, for Sandusky's crimes to be as deeply investigated they have to be known. So I ask again - how many victims were there? Who was the first? Who was the last? I'll save the suspense - you don't know. Nobody knows, outside of Sandusky himself. It is beyond dispute that this crime and cover up were huge stories back in 2011. That doesn't mean they were well investigated, and when I say they weren't well investigated I don't mean incompetence. They weren't well investigated because there was a limited scope. If memory serves, in the sum total of all indictments against Sandusky there were 10 victims listed. Statistically, the average pedophile molests approximately 260 children in a lifetime. Given the fact that Sandusky (with Penn State's blessing) established A FREAKING CHARITY FOR TROUBLED YOUTH (i.e. perfect grooming targets), I'd wager anything his number is much, much, much higher. This isn't even considering the fact that he adopted 6 children, fostered more, and one of his adopted sons accused Sandusky of sexual molesting him (this charge has not been investigated). The state investigation was limited in scope to ten known victims. The federal investigation was even more limited, as their jurisdiction is limited to bowl games and other activities that might have crossed state lines. To my knowledge there have been no federal charges and it doesn't appear that many federal resources were given to the investigation, as it was mostly a state law matter. The Freeh investigation had no subpoena power and there is no penalty for lying to non law enforcement entities. The report is of limited value. Beyond that, there are other reasons why this case is hard to investigate. For one, the investigation began by the Pennsylvania AG's office in 2008. Sandusky stated The Second Mile in 1977. One victim alleged he told Paterno about an incident in the bathroom in 1971. The indictment covered particular allegations again a victim starting in 1994. It is hard to investigate old crimes. Beyond that, child sex crimes are among the hardest to get victims to speak up. This is especially true in the sick cellpool known as State College, where the cult of Penn State Football makes speaking out against anyone associated with the program dangerous (look up what happened to the first kid who spoke up - he got driven out of his high school.) The victims were disproportionately underprivileged and vulnerable and were violated by a powerful man in a confusing time, and violated in such a way that many blame themselves, or question their own sexuality, and feel great guilt and shame and over time come to deeply bury what happened. The vast majority of these people stay quiet, for reasons that are entirely understandable. I applaud the ones that do speak up and come forward. So I reiterate - the notion that somehow as a result of a state, federal, and Freeh investigation that Sandusky's crimes have been looked at more than any other in sports history is absurd. I'd argue almost the exact opposite - that despite the best efforts of numerous investigators and journalists, because of the scope and breadth of Sandusky's crimes and the dynamics of child sex abuse, Sandusky's crimes are still poorly known and understood. As to your second paragraph - I have no quarrel with that. It is a perfectly reasonable take. I disagree with it for various reasons related to the particulars of this case, but I respect it. [/QUOTE]

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