Replies

You have repeatedly and emphatically asserted that Joe absolutely knew the guy was a child rapist and that Joe was actively protecting Sandusky. I’m not talking about negligent inaction and moral cowardice, but actually using his position and power to keep a lid on Sandusky’s activities. To this date, there is no evidence of that. On the once situation we know of where Joe had the opportunity to cover it up, he reported it to his superiors, who declined to investigate. Now if you can prove that Joe KNEW ahead of time that if he kept this ‘in-house’ that nothing would be done, then you got a case. Until you do have something beyond that Joe was a moral coward trying to save his own butt (and could care less about Sandusky), you have speculation. In fact you repeated point out how self-absorbed and tunnel visioned Joe is. That in itself hints that Joe wouldn’t have walked out on a limb to actively protect Sandusky, but rather was just too much of a moral coward to confront it.

I post nothing about Joe and you come back to me with this BS AGAIN! Look in the mirror. If you would quit posting to me, the volume of my posts would drop 90%. Joe knew. Get over it.

Your post #71: "We know that Paterno knew that he was a child molester in 1998.

We know that Paterno knew he was a child rapist in 2002. Did Paterno stop Sandusky. NOPE. He protected him while Sandusky raped for years. If Paterno had stood up like a man countless littles boys would not have been raped. Instead, he let it happen again and again."

You have ZERO proof that Joe knew. ZERO. The grand jury report provides no evidence as such. You have ZERO proof that Joe protected him or covered it up.