It's completely frivolous, and a crying shame that Hancock's name should have to be brought back up in this manner; this will probably be his lasting legacy, which is even worse.
I'm hoping that it's simply some misguided sense of desiring revenge, assigning blame, or somehow "honoring" Josh and putting him to rest in his father and family's mind, rather than greed and anger and a refusal to believe that his son made a mistake(and may have had a problem, given his accident that occurred just a few days earlier near E. St. Louis very early in the morning that made him late to that day's game). Unless he assigns blame to something else, he has to reconcile the fact that his son apparently wasn't perfect and, if he knew he had a problem, he was not able to help Josh before it was too late.
Comments 1
I'm hoping that it's simply some misguided sense of desiring revenge, assigning blame, or somehow "honoring" Josh and putting him to rest in his father and family's mind, rather than greed and anger and a refusal to believe that his son made a mistake(and may have had a problem, given his accident that occurred just a few days earlier near E. St. Louis very early in the morning that made him late to that day's game). Unless he assigns blame to something else, he has to reconcile the fact that his son apparently wasn't perfect and, if he knew he had a problem, he was not able to help Josh before it was too late.
Reply
Leave a comment