[97fan]

To be charitable to JoePa, perhaps he thought that an exhaustive investigation in 1998 cleared Sandusky completely and unequivocally, and that this other allegation was thus likely to be equally unfounded.

Sorry, I can't be that charitable to Joe.

If you know that an allegation was made, investigated, and no charges were brought, and then a similar allegation surfaces a few years later, the logical conclusion is that you should reexamine what happened a few years ago, and you should take the current allegation even more seriously than you would otherwise.

The alternative you're proposing -- that the decision not to prosecute the first time somehow discredits the second allegation -- just makes no logical sense.

[97fan]

To be charitable to JoePa, perhaps he thought that an exhaustive investigation in 1998 cleared Sandusky completely and unequivocally, and that this other allegation was thus likely to be equally unfounded.

Sorry, I can't be that charitable to Joe.

If you know that an allegation was made, investigated, and no charges were brought, and then a similar allegation surfaces a few years later, the logical conclusion is that you should reexamine what happened a few years ago, and you should take the current allegation even more seriously than you would otherwise.

The alternative you're proposing -- that the decision not to prosecute the first time somehow discredits the second allegation -- just makes no logical sense.