Paterno goes.....(photo)

[freedom fighter jh]

43. He was tried and convicted . . .

and therefore any further discussion of his guilt or innocence is not valid?

All I said was:

1) There is no sense in deriding someone just for questioning his guilt; and

2) There is reason to suspect that the most compelling evidence was invalid, because it was coached.

And I'm told, "Don't even start talking about Sandusky not being guilty!" and "That is the standard of proof in this country. If you can come up with a better one, let's hear about it," meaning, what, that I'm not supposed to question Paterno's guilt or innocence unless I come up with a system that is better than our current jury system?

What is DU supposed to be, a discussion board or an echo chamber?

I've gone back to the link. Perhaps I put too much credence into this, because I heard it from Mike Malloy, and he often turns out to be right. But at the link there is no real evidence, just assertions.

Even so, it strikes me as insular behavior to cut off discussion of the possibility that Sandusky might not be guilty just because he's been convicted.