Date:   4/18/2008 6:37:07 PM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   1,572
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1156581

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

http://kdka.com/sports/Penn.State.Austin.2.703398.html

Just to be clear on this up front, I am not particularly choosing (nor leaning towards) either side in this incident EXCEPT as much as such is required to describe the thoughts and questions running through my mind now that this incident seems - at least legally, over for now.

The headline to this incident first ran early October last year,  a few days before the next Saturday game on the schedule. The story attached to that headline highlighted the situation of Scott having been immediately expelled from the team. As I recall, and I admit my memory may be off a day or two,  this incident occurred during a late Wednesday evening (IE> the wee hours of Thursday morning) and by Friday morning, by way of a press release, Scott was officially kicked off the team. At a minimum, (a 5th year senior) his collegiate football career was over. The printed story included what was said to be bare minimum commentary from head coach Joe Paterno, who was quite deliberate and measured in telling the media that Scott's dismissal from the team was not due to the primary allegations (sex crime) but was because he clearly admitted to a violation of team rules IE> being out after hours (the wee hours) in a bar/tavern, when the team rules for conduct during the season expressly forbade this. This incident revolved around a scene said to have first begun at a campus bar/tavern. Scott admitted to having been there during the wee hours in the company of the woman who (the next day) alleged the sexual assault charges against Scott.

As an aside, as happens so often and routinely these days in our media-driven world, the local media was itself somewhat miffed that Paterno gave only a very brief, very measured comment to the media rather than drawn out commentary and speculation for this incident. One would need to be familiar with the local environment here (the greater surrounding area near PSU) over the past several years to really appreciate what I mean, however, my hunch is that many locales (and people therein) around this country where there are also many other colleges hosting many other college kids  have observed similar phenoms  - the kind that seem to always be itching and oozing to be media-centric phenoms, ya know? - in their own back yards the past many years. Anyway, Joepa's only official remark to the media was limited to that necessary to inform / remind the media that given the circumstances - an alleged crime, that was still a matter in the early going stages of the investigative / legal / court process, it certainly was not his place to be serving up superfluous commentary just to appease the wants of the local media system; Scott was off the team for having violated the team's  curfew rule enforced during the regular season (IE> during the 12-week regular season schedule)

As a second aside, it goes without saying that the way in which Scott was kicked off the team - immediately, when this headline first arose, that no doubt helped plant a seed in the minds of many local people, a seed that may likely have helped those minds to become biased against Scott short of knowing whatever actual facts in the matter there were to be known. Throughout the same season, several other players on the team had been involved in a number of incidents that originally were said to be a matter of "criminal events". There were several of these last season, however, none of these others involved allegations of sex crimes, but instead were alleged to involve actions such as "felonious assault",  "felonious trespass", theft, and the like. While various of the players involved in those incidents were suspended (from participating with the football team) for several weeks, none of them were immediately booted from the team. Eventually, those incidents also followed a similar path as Scott's case has; all charges eventually dropped.

On the one hand, I'm of the mind to say that just because a case is eventually reported to the public as "all charges dropped", to me this does not prove nor guarantee that the people among those originally charged were never involved in guilt. Only the people who were directly involved in these kinds of incidents will ever really know the details, truth, facts and whatever proof there was in such matters. Us people out here who by necessity must be reliant on the media apparatus to be informed on such matters are and will continue to be the least informed and will continue to be among the last, if not THE last people to ever really know much of anything for the actual details involved with this kinds of incidents "news". For all I know, Scott was in some way guilty as charged. For all I know, he wasn't. For all I know the woman who alleged charges against him was lying all along. For all I know, she was telling the truth all along. For all I know there the truth is somewhere to be found in between these extremes. On the other hand, one thing I do know is that even if the average person takes at face value the recently updated news headline to this story, chances are pretty darn good that Scott may never be able to live down the damage done to his reputation by all the news reporting that had occurred  "water under the bridge" the past 6 months leading up to today's "charges dropped" headlines. After the fact, I'm sitting here left to wonder what actual purpose ... what part ... what role, good, malign or indifferent,  has the media helped to contribute to all of this news made out of this now  officially decided situation?

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1156581