Why have the trial. This innocent until proven guilty thing is overrated. Oh that's right. We are talking about the "court of public opinion" which I guess means facts be damned. Let's argue from our own conclusions and don't let those pesky facts that might come out in an investigation gum things up.
Who said people didn't want those involved to get a fair trial before punishment?
Oh yes, nobody said that. But you claimed that was the position of people on this thread who (on the basis of the evidence that is known) want serious punishment for all in this sordid affair who can be proven guilty.
Paterno confessed. This is a fact.
He knew. He told Sandusky to retire, and that he was banned from the campus. The latter didn’t happen.
In effect, Paterno told Sandusky, “I know what you are doing, and don’t do it here, feel free to continue, because I won’t be the one to stop you.”
How many other boys were raped in the interim?
Paterno should have done one thing: 911. That simple.
He’s GUILTY ALREADY. No need for a court on that account.
The only matter under investigation now was HOW GUILTY WAS HE? If Sandusky was passing boys around in Happy Valley they way they do down in Hollywood, TO WHOM WERE THEY PASSED? How many in the alumni and booster organizations? Who else was in on the decision to can Sandusky at the time - they knew, right? Maybe JoePa was like Castro and told the gay-activist Chancellor, “Tired of Sandusky, and he’s retiring. Make it so. Oh, and he’s banned from the campus too. Make a note.”
Which is to say that I’d get old JoePa in a room and sweat that confession out of him before the cancer eats him up.
I wonder if that cancer’s as painful as those poor boy’s rectum’s were. You think it is?