Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Oil Guy
How is this even relevant?
It tells me that the university doesn't act in haste. There was no reason to cover it up. The man had not been formally accused nor arrested by the police/district attorney.
Additionally, when was the mural painted? How big of a figure did Sandusky play in the mural? Did the University Administration have to be reminded that he was on the mural?
Do you know the answers? cause I don't. What it does tell me, is that as soon as he was formally arrested and this portion of the mural was brought to the appropriate administrations attention, it was rectified.
|
Are you freaking kidding me? They had visual confirmation of what this SOB did. He admitted earlier in 1998 that he had touched boys inappropriately. What more do they need? They had every reason to sever ties with him, but yet they did not. This is not a he said/he said case which would have been a totally different situation. The GA saw what he did.