You can trust the AP, right?
Since when? Just wait until there's an investigation on a project you're associated with and a reporter asks you question. Be sure to tape record because it's unlikely to read the way you responded.
Eh, I don't really get what you're saying here, so I'll leave it alone than try to address a point that maybe you're not making. As an aside, you do know that my moonlighting job is as a journalist, right? I've linked articles/blogs on here before that I've written for Inside Lacrosse, ESPN, etc.. So yes, I understand how stuff works.
Case closed?
Because 3 reporters read the news articles written by others? So much for due process.
How about the School Board that banned Sandusky from their premises but didn't notify authorities?
Parents that called school boards but not the authorities?
McCreary puts the sneakers in a locker and left after having "heard" or "seen" something he though wrong BUT he didn't leave with the kid or call police to come right then?
The Second Mile Foundation that got reports and did nothing?
Investigators/Prosecutors that dropped the case or punted it to another jurisdiction?
The now Governor who was a prosecutor and enjoys pointing finger in any direction but his?
Etc, etc, etc.
See, I think you're missing my point, which is not that "everyone is exactly this much guilty and did exactly XYZ." I mean that it is "case closed" that Jerry Sandusky is guilty. Period. It's that common sense and a preponderance of evidence (not good enough for a court of law, but good enough in my book for now) suggests that Jerry Sandusky is very guilty. As for everyone else, who knows. Because it's cover your butt time now.
The problem with "proof" these days are the CSI shows and the Johnny Cochran defense. CSI shows have made everyone look for a smoking gun (when one rarely exists). This is half of how Casey Anthony got off free. The other half was the Johnny Cochran defense where you obfuscate that core question of guilt or innocence so effectively that jurors/the public/whoever can't make heads or tails of what they're even debating and find the person innocent. OJ got off by the defense not even trying to defend OJ, per se, but instead painting the cops as racists and putting the prosecution on the defensive.
On another note, this case is literally the polar opposite of Duke lacrosse. And if you think otherwise you need to go do some reading on what happened there.
At Duke you had 1 person (a convicted criminal, who was being arrested again at the time she made her claim, and made up a story to try to get herself out of trouble) make a claim that was immediately refuted by her friend that was there as well as every other witness... but a prosecutor went out of his way to try to attack people he knew full well were innocent... and the locals/school presumed guilt and basically lynch mobbed the accused.
At Penn State you have a half dozen plus independent accounts by people with no blemish to their reputation, corroborated in some instances by other witnesses... prosecutors who did not rush to prosecute and, if anything, hedged towards not doing so for a long while... and locals/school that stood up for an accused serial sodomizer and the people who protected him in the face of a preponderance of evidence.
Apples, meet oranges.
