Weeks later, as more facts come out, you are still a major apologist for Joe Paterno. Paterno knew it in 2002. He testified before the Grand Jury that he knew it. He submitted a written supplemental statement two days after the Grand Jury presentment was made public. He elected not to report it to the police or to child welfare. You say I don't know that he knew this? Paterno says he knew it.
As for the 1998 investigation, we don't know who the University Police, the State College Police, and child welfare interviewed. I'd be surprised if they didn't interview a man who knew Sandusky since 1964; the man to whom Sandusky reported as defensive coordinator and had for years; the man who spent so much time with Sandusky; the man who was on the Board of Trustee of Sandusky's charity; and the man who ultimately 'owned' the showers being used by Sandusky.
Even if they didn't, they produced a report for Penn State. I'd be stunned (anybody who knows anything about Penn State would be stunned) if Joe Paterno didn't see the report about his defensive coordinator and his football showers.
We don't know when the 'long' 1998 investigation was completed, but in May 1999 Paterno told his heir apparent, Sandusky, that he would be JoePa's successor; Sandusky subsequently. Even JoePa's apologists say this was JoePa dealing with the findings of the 1998 investigation. If you believe this timing was circumstantial, you've taken JoePa apologetics to another level.
As the investigators say, nothing happened involving Penn State coaches and Penn State that Joe Paterno didn't know about. Do you really believe after the janitor who saw Sandusky orally sodomize a boy in the football showers in 2000, and told the other janitors and his supervisor, that information didn't find its way to Paterno? Paterno knew when his players cut class. Paterno knew when a player missed curfew, even if the player was twenty mile away. Paterno was a known micromanager.
The only reason Paterno wasn't charged with perjury in the first Presentment was because of his status at Penn State and because he's 84. You'll notice that one detail is conspicuously missing from the Presentment. Although the Presentment details each conversation and tells in detail what Party A claims to have told Party B, and what Party B claims to have been told - even if three people were in a meeting - there's a huge, noticeable hole in the Presentment.
It never states in detail what McQueary told Paterno. It only says what Paterno said he heard (fondling and maybe something disturbing of a sexual nature).
I've read enough of these documents in my profession that I know what that means. McQueary's detailed testimony is left out because it contradicts Paterno's. We're led to believe that McQueary used the term "anal rape" in discussing what he saw with every other party - except the first Penn State representative he told, his boss, his former coach, the person he met with the next morning. McQueary only met with Curley and Schultz after they contacted him a week and a half later. In multiple meetings with them, he told them 'anal rape.'
They were charged with perjury for saying they weren't told 'anal rape.' Paterno wasn't. Paterno benefitted from his stature and home cooking, and a Presentment that carefully tiptoes around what McQueary told Paterno.
So . . . yeah, I know that he knew some of it, because Paterno says he knew about 2002 I know that he knew about 1998 because of Paterno's actions against Sandusky in 1999. And as the investigators say, Joe Paterno was god. Nothing took place that Paterno didn't know about. The idea that the 2000 oral sodomy incident was known to so many people but not Paterno is laughable.
Weeks later as more rumors are spread you still want to hang the guy without a trial (or charges).
Paterno knew it in 2002. He testified before the Grand Jury that he knew it
No, he testified before the Grand Jury that he was told it. I thought you said you were some kind of lawyer.
The only reason Paterno wasn't charged with perjury in the first Presentment was because of his status at Penn State and because he's 84.
And you know this just like you think Paterno knew everything.
Regarding the '98 investigation, of which btw I'm inclined to think he was aware, why would you claim that Paterno "knew" Sandusky was sexually molesting kids when the D.A. declined to bring charges?
One more thing -- pointing out that the claims certain people are making against Paterno are based on supposition is not the same as making a definitive proclamation as to his innocence. If, as the trial unfolds, it turns out that Paterno passed to Curley McQueary's report with a wink and a nod, or that, perhaps, as some seem to have implied, that he ordered a hit on Gricar, I'm more than willing to hang him.
As far as those who want to hang him based on the Grand Jury report, or claims that he sought to control the discipline of his players, I can't say they are the brightest lot, you know.