<sigh>
I agree. There’s something more viscerally satisfying about going after somebody with a dull axe.
I agree with the last of these. As James Carville once said (in reference to Paula Jones) “that’s what happens when you drag a $10 bill through a trailor park”.
Penn State is giving out millions and millions of dollars to victims and alleged victims, and claimants have every incentive to try and tie the abuse to PSU to the greatest extent possible. Meanwhile, there’s very little risk of being contradicted in a claim that something happened 40 years ago involving a person who is now dead.
I agree with the last of these. As James Carville once said (in reference to Paula Jones) “that’s what happens when you drag a $10 bill through a trailor park”.
Penn State is giving out millions and millions of dollars to victims and alleged victims, and claimants have every incentive to try and tie the abuse to PSU to the greatest extent possible. Meanwhile, there’s very little risk of being contradicted in a claim that something happened 40 years ago involving a person who is now dead.
Penn State’s insurance company wouldn’t claim in a court document that Paterno knew about the abuse in 1976 if they weren’t completely sure of that fact.
It’s the insurance company making the claim in the court papers, not the accuser (whoever that is). The insurance company wouldn’t admit this if they didn’t have to.
ETA: Damn this thread and the people still saying “wait and see” about Paterno.
You have it backwards.
The insurance company is claiming that because it’s in their interests to claim that. If they can show that PSU knew about it and didn’t do anything, then that gets them out of paying.
Yes they would, if they were arguing the university had knowledge of this for decades. If that’s true, the insurance companies might escape liability for the costs of all the lawsuits and settlements.
Oh, I see. So it’s the insurance company claiming that Paterno knew about Sandusky’s behavior, therefore they don’t have to pay. Presumably the insurance company wouldn’t make this claim in court if they didn’t believe it to be true.
Still, it’s the insurance company making the claim, not the accuser. Characterizing that this is a spurious charge by an accuser looking for a pay day doesn’t hold up.
Do you really believe that anything any insurance company claims is likely to be true by virtue of them claiming it? Obviously they’re going to introduce any sort of evidence that they can, if it helps their case.
Nonsense. The insurance company doesn’t have any independent knowledge about what happened with Joe Paterno in 1976. They found out that some victim claimed that this had happened and brought up that guy’s claim in court because it helped their case. Therefore, the fact that the original guy who made the claim had every reason to make it up and no reason to fear being contradicted is highly relevant.
Wait… you’re saying that you have no idea who made the claim, but you KNOW he made it up?
And are you saying you know the reason he made it up? What is “every reason”? So there’s no possibility that “The Reason” is that this person was telling the truth?
It sounds like you really want Paterno and Sandusky to be found blameless.
This makes me suspicious of everything else you say on the subject.
I pit you for bringing this thread back again. And everyone else still replying other than if like me they’re pitting people keeping this going. At this rate cockroaches will be extinct before this fucking thread.
Ya know, I don’t think he said either of those things.
I gather what he did say is something along the lines of if the insurance company brought it up, the must have done so for financial reasons and… somehow that affects the credibility of the claim itself.
That last part is a bit of a reach. I’d be prepared to ignore the claim if it couldn’t be corroborated in any way, but I wouldn’t presume falsehood just because truth cannot be established.
I took it to mean could have instead must have. I admit, I could be mistaken.
But I could see it. Insurance companies aren’t really known for moral stances, especially when money is on the line. But you are right. We shouldn’t presume falsehood any more than we should presume truth.
I’m saying that an insurance company, which deals with insurance claims everyday and has undoubtedly been to court multiple times, and who, moreover, probably has an entire law firm working exclusively just for them, wouldn’t deliberately commit perjury in their court fillings, if only because they will undoubtedly have other court appearances and they don’t want to annoy a judge.
I’m saying that the insurance company wouldn’t just make up a story about a kid telling Paterno about Sandusky’s abuse 40 years ago if they were going to rely on it in court.
And since Paterno’s dead, and Sandusky wouldn’t admit it, I assume they’re hearing this from the kid. There’s no one else they could rely on for this claim.
Oh, so it’s the kid who was abused that Fotheringay-Phipps is referring to? But how would F-P know whether the kid “made it up” or not?
ANNNNND just when you though it couldn’t get any worse, Joe Paterno was not only covering up but BULLYING sex abuse victims as far back as 1971:
At this point, if you went to Penn State, when don’t you just do the honorable thing and return your degree out of shame?
Why don’t you do the honorable thing and just stop saying moronic things like this? I’m not saying Penn State didn’t fuck up royally. But a number of my family went to and are currently attending Penn State. They certainly have nothing to be ashamed of.
Sure they do. The entire foundation of your family’s University is based on the football program, a program built on the backs of countless molested children.
Wow. That’s somewhere beyond hyperbole. Hyper-hyperbole, perhaps.