(yawn)
Funny how you never say what Joe should have done. Maybe he should have slapped the cuffs on Sandusky and taken him off to jail? What, exactly, should Paterno have done, big mouth? Nevermind... You won't have an answer that is realistic or makes any sense, just like you and the rest of the shallow little circle-jerkers never have an answer to anything that clears Paterno of culpability.
No. It's all about going after the big guy, because that's what shallow little circle-jerkers do, like little yip-yip dogs who skitter back and forth at people's ankles.
Careful about your absolute "NEVERs" ... way too easy to pick off as either badly mistaken or an outright lie. (I will assume the former in your case)
We had this discussion in May when I put up this thread then: Penn State trustees: ‘We’re trying to get where we need to be’ [PSU alumni still on attack]
Post #11 of that thread:
Let me get this straight: You're one of the head Boy Scout leaders on an outing. A reliable adult on the trip reports seeing a former Scout leader raping a kid in the shower [or at least sexually abusing him] Of course, you do the "Paterno" thing. You report it to "your supervising" Scout leader above you a rank. You wait a month. A year. Two years. You've either never heard anything more...about the victim...or the alleged perp...or you don't query around to see what's happened -- just to ensure that the authorities were, after all, notified. Then...about three years after the "incident," the eyewitness applies for a job @ your place of business. You either delegate the hiring process (or participate yourself). Either way, you talk to this "eyewitness" before hiring him. You what? You don't at least ask him -- yes or no -- "Have the authorities ever come talk to you about that minor kid rape victim?" ??? If you DO ask the interviewee for the job that Q, and finds out, "No." What? You don't start backtracking w/your fellow Boy Scout leaders to find out what happened to that report? If you DON'T ask the interviewee for the job that Q, or after he's hired and works closely with you, you don't ask that Q for year after year after year after year after year after year ... until FINALLY, you hear thru the grapevine that the authorities are indeed on the trail of the alleged perp...???? Really? FACT: The eyewitness -- McQueary -- got hired 3 years AFTER reporting what he did to Paterno...and then got a promo to head of recruiting several years after that... Paterno had the influence to ANY time during that time find out from McQueary if the authorities had followed up with him. If he did talk with McQueary about it, then Paterno ALSO became part of the cover-up. If he didn't talk with McQueary about it, then it looks like (a) Paterno not only exhibited ZERO "care" about the alleged victim, but (b) it also gives the impression that Paterno hired/promoted McQueary to silence his eyewitness knowledge & protect the program. Paterno around the time of his firing issued a statement of regret in saying he wish he had done more. That was his mea culpa, even if it ne'er went far enough.
************
Then post #28 of that same thread: I didn't say JoePa had to go interview law enforcement reps. JoePa didn't even need to get a full accounting from his underling. All it took was a simple Yes-No question: "Have authorities talked with you about what you saw?" How is getting a "yes" or "no" from an eyewitness "leaking details of an investigation?"
Bottom-line there is that JoePa had a LOT of influence. He chose to use NONE of it on behalf of these vic-kids.
*******************
Finally, that same thread...post #31:
•Victim 2 [per Grand Jury presentment] – Abused PSU shower 2001 - witnessed by McQueary – reported by PSU officials, who reported it to Second Mile. And all-powerful JoePa supposedly ne'er inquired of his "supervisors" where they reported this crime??? Even if he didn't care a dime for the kids, did JoePa at least have a heart for an old coaching buddy??? (To find out if he was "going down"???) Either JoePa had a heart of steel... ...to never inquire further of men -- men, btw, in which he carried much more power than they... ...or he did inquire to enough degree to know that this was all still out of the radar of the authorities... In which case, if the latter, he tossed the victims and potential future victims under the bus of protecting the image of the program.
**************************
#1: How much JoePa effort would it have been over the course of YEARS to have a simple short convo or two with an underling coach about what he saw Sandusky to-- and what has become of it (or NOT become of it)...???
#2: If JoePa had absolutely no heart for a Sandusky victim, why not at least his ole coaching buddy?
#3: And if JoePa had no heart for EITHER a Sandusky victim or Sandusky, himself...then what? No wonderment from JoePa as to where this potential image-inflicting investigation stood? An investigation that would bring plenty of harm to the entire Penn State name & JoePa legacy?
Sorry...but to declare JoePa as 100% disinterested in ALL of the above doesn't pass the straight face test.