Haha you sir are a funny guy.
Paterno's own testimony reflects the reality that he did not require a declarative statement from McQueary: "I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster..."
Had Paterno not known about 1998, then Paterno would've understandably been surprised. I'd allow some confusion at what one of his staff members told him and as a result, an instinctive presumption of innocence. I could maybe excuse the overwhelmingly poor leadership he displayed in not contacting the "appropriate" legal authorities and simply passing it up the administrative line and then not following it up. That wouldn't be a completely inexplicable response.
However, that is not what happened. Paterno did know about 1998. And as a result, a second allegation that this same man was showering with boys, much less caught in what McQueary, at a minimum, conveyed as inappropriate conduct, should've led Paterno to act decisively and contact the "appropriate" legal authorities.
It is not credible to assert that Paterno did not fully comprehend what was going on after receiving two sexual abuse claims against Sandusky in a 3 year period.
BTW: What is this fixation that some of you have in assuming I am new here? Do the numbers that show up when someone scrolls over your user id confer upon you an Honorary Degree in "Not Being Stupid"? :)
“Years later, Mr. Paterno would explain to a reporter he chose to discuss the event with that he told McQueary, ‘I said you did what you had to do. It’s my job now to figure out what we want to do.”
Are those facts in evidence, or based on inference and supposition?
“”I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster...” “
I don’t think there is any dispute that something happened that led to a coaching team member going to Paterno. “Inappropriate” is an opinion that covers a huge variety of actions. Never the less, Paterno reported it to those in charge.
You’re a n00b. I will help fix your statement...
“In my opinion, as a n00b, it is not credible to assert that Paterno did not fully comprehend what was going on after receiving two second hand sexual abuse claims against Sandusky in a 3 year period - the first of which was investigated and dismissed.”
“BTW: What is this fixation that some of you have in assuming I am new here?”
You are new. That is what n00bs are. It is a reminder to me that your feathers are still damp from your hatching and I should treat you as a fledgling - with understanding, kid gloves, some grace, etc. I am trying to do so, as you make blustery statements of certainty. I suppose I would have known you were a n00b, based on that alone, but I did check to see when you hatched. In either case, I understand.
The fact is, McQueary never told Paterno that he witnessed an actual rape. But the old man was creeped out enough by the possibility that his former assistant coach may have done something "inapproriate" that he did indeed send the matter up the chain of command to people who were supposed to look into it further. Those people failed to do so.
It's scary, all the big-mouth nobodies who love to crucify Paterno because they apparently think it's no big deal to point at a man and accuse him of being a homosexual pedophile. They never consider the ramifications of a mistake. (Obviously, Sandusky actually did turn out to be a homosexual pedophile, we now know.) But imagine if an accusation against a man turned out to be totally false, the result of a complete misunderstanding or even malice? What would they say then? "Oops. Sorry about that, heh heh."?
As far as I'm concerned, you don't make that kind of accusation against a man unless you see it with your own two eyeballs. Paterno did not. McQueary (apparently) did, although even that is by no means clear. (Anyway, I still don't get how McQueary, who was at the time in 2002 a 28-year-old employee of the university, has skated on this thing so far?)
All those years went by and no victim (or victim's guardians) ever came forward (aside from the woman in 1998 whose son came home with a wet head)? How is that possible? Like Paterno said, Sandusky had everybody fooled. Homosexual pedophiles are sneaky that way, by nature. I don't know how the cops investigate accusations of child molestation, but I suspect they do it very quietly and carefully. Actual victims coming forward would certainly propel the case.
Anyway, Sandusky didn't get away with decades of homosexual pedophile rape because Joe Paterno and a couple of other university officials looked the other way - - Sandusky got away with homosexual pedophile rape for decades because a hundred people, including his family and friends, his Second Mile associates, university donors and benefactors, and reporters looked the other way. Hell, even The Creamery made fun of Sandusky's affection for young boys with their "Sandusky Blitz" ice cream dish.
But no - - small people have more fun laying everything at the feet of Paterno.
FRegards,
LH