Well, look, I hate the lasting smell of “guilt by association”, and always have. The tone of this SF reporter all huffy against only Paterno when no one there, or here, knows for sure that Paterno knew squat about every jot and tittle of campus gossip on Sandusky.
I can back off defending Paterno when I hear the evidence that he actually knew more than he turned in, or covered up for the creep, but there is absolutely none yet. Sheesh. The guy is cannon fodder old and can’t possibly be up to both coaching Penn State, ramroding investigations into a guy who wasn’t even employed there, and orchestrating cover ups. A bridge too far at this early point in the story.
JoePa was obviously still in full control of his facilities and with long experience in the field was likely an expert in figuring out what was going on around him.
That's what I thought at first, because the author did not make it clear what the witness told Paterno.
I am pretty sure that all ANYONE needed to know is that a 60 year old man was in the shower with a 10 year old boy.
This is not a complicated deal here, wrong is wrong, now and then.
Well, as mentioned in posts #77 & 87, the Grand Jury Presentment already includes JoePa's testimony...which IS evidence he knew "enough."
Therefore, it's not even a matter of "guilt by association"; it's dereliction of duty guilt by omission to do the responsible and ethical thing.
Rita, you put the focus on what Paterno knew or didn't know...when he “turned in” the info that Sunday convo (first Sunday of March 2002) he had at home with his superiors.
I find it rather odd that so many people want to reverse telescope it down to what Joe heard one Saturday and what Joe said one Sunday...that Joe somehow “did his duty” once he passed on the info to his superiors that weekend. [Talk about a vomit-inducing "doin' the bare legal minimum required" mentality when kids' lives are @ stake!]
I'm not sure about you but if I was a high school varsity coach...
...and my credible frosh coach came to me one Sat a.m.
...telling me he saw the local sports writer the night before kill someone in the lockerroom showers & then dispose of the evidence, including the body...
...for some reason, I don't think anybody would later be “satisfied” if I told them...
...”Hey, I did my civic duty...I told my superiors about it on Sunday and then forgot about it for the rest of my life.”
Just “fill-in-the-blank” of your own felony parallel on school property if you don't want to think about murder. I'd say child rape is about right up there...especially since Jesus said anyone who offended little ones – it'd be better if a millstone was tied around their neck & then dropped in the sea (Matthew 18).
So your apparent assumptions – and others' assumptions – that Paterno had no ethical responsibility to...
...clarify what McQueary originally told him in ensuing conversations -- IOW to clarify what he witnessed...
...use his considerable influence to ensure the victim or potential other victims be protected.
...are actually pretty sickening and repulsive.
You see, from that point in early March 2002, McQueary advanced under Paterno from grad asst to wide receivers coach and head of recruiting. What? People don't think all the intervening years from that first Saturday in March that Paterno couldn't have "clarified" with McQueary what he saw that night??? [This is part of what I mean by “telescoping” – reducing the ops of communication that Paterno and McQueary had or could have had at either person's initiative]
It's the obvious reality of this consideration alone that makes it so plain that when people deify a personality, they will go to ANY and ALL lengths to deceive, parse, obscure, and justify the unjustifiable inactions of people they place too high on their pedestal!
And the ops for clarifying communication wasn't just from McQueary--->Paterno over the years. It goes the other way, too: Paterno was a “god” figure to so many. If he had said “jump” – people would say “how high?” He could have used his considerable influence to encourage McQueary to go to the authorities once he realized his superiors had stonewalled it.
I find it so interesting that so many relay the Joe Paterno personality cult in State College and say he IS State College (a god, if you will). Yet suddenly...ironically...they portray Joe as this limp-minded guy unable to even faintly pick up a phone and make a phone call...somebody who couldn't even indirectly ensure that the most subtle spark of an investigation was ignited.
Sorry, Penn State perv defenders: You CAN'T have it both ways!
A highly skilled scrambling QB can either run -- or he can't and has to lateral the ball all the time. Here we see so many laud Paterno coaching-wise as comparable to the best-running QB there is ... but lo & behold...he only chose to run the ball once -- and even then pitched it to another...only never to call his own number again.
Shame on you, Joe Paterno. Shame on your cover-up apologists in the public sphere. A god can either use his influence; or he