Gee, another Penn State post on a story that has nothing to do with Penn State. What a novel concept on the Lair.
Its a burden of proof issue, something the PSU Cult never understood. The burden of proof varies by venue.
In a criminal court, the burden is strong -- the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense attorney doesn't have to prove anything, just create doubt.
Outside of a criminal court, the burden drops significantly.
In the OJ case, he was found "not guilty" in criminal court. Months later, he lost in civil court for the same crime. Then, in the court of public opinion, he was overwhelmingly held to be guilty, and the criminal outcome had no impact on public opinion.
The cult always demands "proof" in the Sandusky case, but that only applies in criminal court. Outside of it, we all believe what is most believable. Is it believable that a man who is told about an episode of a man alone with a boy engaged in something sexual by the very upset witness could not know that a sexual crime had been committed? No, its not, so we believe it.
Is it believable that a concert violinist could play an out of tune violin and not know it? No. Is it possible that Brady didn't know could play a whole game not knowing that the balls had been deflated? No, and Trent Dilfer said so, that the football is a QB's instrument, that every QB is acutely aware of the state of the footballs he's throwing. And someone as competitive and detailed as Brady not knowing? Ridiculous.
The NFL can minimize the punishment if they want due to not having an absolute smoking gun, but everyone knows that Brady is a liar. That when he said he just goes out and throws whatever ball is in front of him, that he was lying, and was laughing at the public when he said that.
