So.. You want me to believe that after Sandusky took all those little boys on trips to bowls games and stuff (lodged them in hos own hotel rooms)....
And reportedly “fondled” a boy in the showers...
And Paterno was told about the fondling by an (arguably) upset young assistant coach...
That Paterno continued going to work each day while the “fondler” Sandusky had free rein around the campus.
And that Paterno, one of the most powerful men in the history of the entire school, just carried on - business as usual.
And that is just A-OK?
For instance...
Let’s assume there just wasn’t enough evidence or whatver to charge/try/convinct Sandusky at the time...
based upon what he knew, Paterno could have said something like this:
“That sick SOB Sandusky who takes little boys on trips to bowl games and shares his room with them has been seen by one of our asst. coaches fondling a little boy in the showrs. And now, sopme ten years later, he is still walking around! Either do something about it or I QUIT!”
“Oh.. wait!!! I can’t quit!!! Otherwise, Bobby Bowden will have more wins than me or something”
You should be asking those questions of the CYS case workers, child psychologists, detectives, DPW investigators, administrators, district attorneys, and the CEO and Dr of child psychology of TSM, who had 10 times the evidence of child abuse in 1998 and still couldn't charge him, versus the 2001 incident witnessed for 2 seconds by McQueary whose description the jury in the Sandusky trial found to be less than indictable and thus acquitted him of it.