Tate: Paterno's role in scandal remains unclear

Tate: Paterno's role in scandal remains unclear

If a university's reputation becomes its brand, everything must be done to protect it.

Thus, in response to a national demand for justice, Penn State's board of trustees had no alternative but to dump Joe Paterno. He was the face of the franchise, his name more tightly linked to the school than any name at any school. It was through him that the Penn State brand blossomed in a positive manner.

Once that is tainted, and even if that sin was one of omission, the wagons must be circled and the blot removed.

It would have been far too awkward to see him on the field Saturday welcoming seniors for their final home game. He has become too polarizing, too radioactive, too much of a distraction.

So let's all agree that more is demanded of one so famous, of one so respected. It is now his misfortune, in the realm of public opinion, to be defined for what many consider his lowest moment. His brand is soiled.

As for Penn State itself, it's all about the cover-up. One sexual deviate can't destroy a school's reputation. If that predator is apprehended quickly, the smudge soon will disappear. It is only when high administrators fail to act that the school suffers. One ESPN critic went so far as to describe them as a "collection of cowards."

Chiming in, columnist Bill Plaschke wrote that "football's most in-control coach did nothing." And there was universal agreement.

It is here that I have a different take. I'm not sure Paterno fully understood what happened when Mike McQueary reported the incident involving Jerry Sandusky in the shower with a 10-year-old in 2002.

Mixed signals

If we are to believe Paterno, who met with an upset McQueary the next day, the coach understood McQueary to be referring vaguely to "fondling" or "touching" or "horsing around." Paterno knew it was serious enough to report to his superior, but he apparently didn't understand it to be sodomy. He said as much.

So Paterno kicked it upstairs with the assumption it would be properly handled, and he wasn't in attendance when athletic director Tim Curley and administrator Gary Schultz sat down with McQueary 10 days later. There again, Curley said he didn't understand the actions to be sodomy. Curley twice stated a firm "No!" when queried by the grand jury.

We know that McQueary made it clear when he testified in front of that body, but we may never know the exact words that McQueary, then a 28-year-old graduate assistant, used in his sitdowns with first Paterno and then Curley and Schultz. And as the story got relayed up the ladder, who knows what the president heard?

In light of what happened after 2002, in nearly a decade of Sandusky's disgraceful activity, it becomes a sordid tale that reflects horribly on Penn State administrators. They could have stopped it, couldn't they? Why didn't they?

Paterno gets it now. But earlier this week, we're told the aging and somewhat-isolated Paterno had a hard time comprehending what was contained in the allegations. And there is the real possibility that Paterno was shielded from the rumors that surrounded Sandusky in recent years.

Clear thinkers agree Paterno should not coach Saturday. But I'm also not certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that he fully comprehended what McQueary was trying to relay in 2002. Furthermore, until there is evidence to the contrary, there is nothing to indicate Paterno had any awareness in recent years of what was ultimately related in the grand jury inquiry.

There's a game Saturday

Has there ever been an Illinois-Michigan game so swallowed up by surrounding events?

And yet, as we say too often, this game could be a turning point in determining the future of Illini football.

A victory would upgrade the UI in the bowl merry-go-round and alter the perception of Ron Zook's program.

A loss Saturday would extend the losing streak to four and multiply concerns about when it will end.

In a sold-out showdown, Michigan's advantage lies in its offensive line. With two exceptions — losses at Michigan State, 28-14, and at Iowa, 24-16 — the Wolverines have been dominant on attack. They scored 35 vs. Notre Dame, 58 vs. Minnesota, 42 at Northwestern and 36 vs. Purdue.

UI defensive boss Vic Koenning calls them "explosive at every position, with some of the nation's best players at the skill positions ... but the offensive line is probably their best. We had a pretty good defensive ranking until we played them last year (Michigan's 67-65 triple-overtime win)."

Countering this, the Illini conducted competition this week between redshirt freshman Alex Hill and junior Tyler Sands to possibly replace injured guard Hugh Thornton, up to now the team's best offensive lineman. At tackle, redshirts Michael Heitz and Simon Cvijanovic will continue to alternate. Fingers pointed toward the O-line as the Illini running game slipped of late, most notably limited to 82 yards rushing against Northwestern, 116 vs. Ohio State, 121 at Purdue and, showing improvement, 192 at Penn State.

These trends can change in a hurry. We just saw the Chicago Bears, who couldn't protect Jay Cutler earlier, beat Philadelphia without giving up a sack. We saw Northwestern hammer Nebraska for 25 first downs and 468 total yards. Illinois needs that kind of turnaround to keep pace with Michigan.

Loren Tate writes for The News-Gazette. He can be reached at ltate@news-gazette.com.

Categories (3):Illini Sports, Football, Sports

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

jonezjayson wrote on November 11, 2011 at 4:11 am

Ask yourself: if it was one of your grandchildren who was seen in the shower with Sandusky, would you allow him to keep an office on campus for the next 12 years?  Would you go to the police with the information, particularly after nothing came about from your superiors?  Those are two questions I would like to hear, because that would certainly "clarify" what he knew.  Blaming his age or lucidity for this is beyond shameful.

heyoka99 wrote on November 11, 2011 at 7:11 am

Penn State police and the Department of Public Welfare investigated Sandusky in 1998. Then Sandusky "retired" in 1999. It's not like the 2002 incident came out of the blue. Also, the grand jury determined that Curley was not believable and he's been charged with perjury, so using his testimony to vindicate Paterno is not credible. I see nothing here that inspires me to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt.

Salt Life wrote on November 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
Profile Picture

Get your facts straight News-Gazette: Joe Paterno testified to the grand jury that he told his supervisor, AD Tim Curley that the graduate assistant (McQueary) had seen Jerry Sandusky in the (PSU) Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy. Paterno never used the words or characterized the attack as touching or horsing around. Paterno said fondling and something of a sexual nature with a young boy which obviously is a felony sexual assault and is NOT ambiguous. The graduate assistant testified that he told Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers. The horsing around characterization is what Curley used in his own testimony and which the Grand Jury found to be a materially false statement. Based on Paterno's own testimony under oath to the Grand Jury, Joe Paterno knew that a sexual assault had taken place.

Read the 23-page Grand Jury report at:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-P...

rexland wrote on November 11, 2011 at 9:11 am

Is this the same Paterno who famously kicked the AD and President out of his house about 10 years ago when they came to ask him to step down as coach? You cannot take away all of their authority over your program and then use their authority as cover in an issue this big. If Paterno did not know enough about Sandusky's continuing role in Penn State football it is because he chose not to know for whatever reason. Based on grand jury testimony, he knew all he needed to know to make it right at the moment he was aware of the allegation. Just wondering why Loren isn't sure? Because of his age? Probably not, as Loren knows all about that issue and would never use it as an excuse. Because of his mental capacity? Again, I can't see that as an excuse we could accept. Because he didn't dig into the allegation enough? Not an excuse at all as any leader of a program has responsibility for what goes on, and you cannot plausibly kick this one anywhere else. So why,Loren, are you not sure? 

Zentrails wrote on November 11, 2011 at 10:11 am

Paterno fires his defensive coordinator in 1998, one of the best in the country, and doesn't know the reason why?

Jeez, Tate, do a little research before you write crap like this.

bookworm24 wrote on November 11, 2011 at 11:11 am

Unbelievable.  Is a writer for the News-Gazette seriously trying to come up wth some sort of defense for Paterno?  Even if the only words Paterno heard about the 2002 incident were "Sandusky", "ten-year old boy" and 'shower", that should have been enough to trigger a serious response from Paterno and the PSU administration.  Paterno should have no excuses and no apologists.   

Chi-Illini wrote on November 11, 2011 at 11:11 am

Lauren,


I agree with you that "[c]lear thinkers agree that Paterno shoud not coach Saturday."  But I do not agree with the tone of your article, which seems to downplay Paterno's responsibility as a man in a leadership capacity over young men.  There is no question that Paterno knew that a sexual assault took place.  You should be more careful with the facts - it was already pointed out by another commenter already pointed out that your article misrepresents Paterno's testimony according to the Grand Jury Report.  Here is the section of the report that describes Paterno's testimony to what he reported: 


"Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sundusky in the Laxch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."


The "horesplay" language was what the superiors tried to describe it as when they were speaking, its not what Paterno said according to the report's description of Paterno's testimony.  I think it is reasonable to believe that the report's description is an accurate depiction of Paterno's testimony.  Thus, he knew by his own admission that:  1) Sandusky was alone in the shower with a young boy, 2) that Sandusky fondled or did something of a sexual nature to this young boy.  That is sexual assault.  Furthermore, even assuming, as your article does, that he had characterized his reporting of the incident as "horseing around" and "touching" a young boy in the shower, that is still enough information for an adult man who is tasked with an important leadership position to take some pro-active steps.  He never even bothered to ask Sandusky about it (according to a media source I heard, not the Grand Jury Report so this has a little less credibility, but seems likely), much less try to identify the child.  And, he testified that McQuery  was "very upset" when describing the incident to Paterno.  


Grown man alone in shower with young boy + Eye witness report of man fondling young boy &/or engaging in sexual contact with young boy = The person who has this information has the basic moral responsibilty to ensure the proper authorities are notified.  I might add that this responsibility is even greater when the person with this information has a lot of power and can easily follow up to make sure that basic steps are taken. Coach Paterno failed to act as a moral person should.  He failed to protect those who could not protect themselves.  For this monumental lapse in judgment he deserves to be fired and he deserves to be criticized.


It must also be added, that Coach Paterno was involved with Sandusky's Second Mile charity.  It is my understanding that Paterno was on the board from a news report I saw.  I have not independently verified this and it wasn't in the Grand Jury Report.  Lauren, you are a professional journalist.  Can you investigate whether Paterno was on the board of directors after 2002?  I think he was.  Anyway, assuming he was on the board, Paterno presumably knewthat Sandusky continued to be very active with young, disadvantaged boys for years after Paterno had been told by an eye witness of a sexual assault of a young boy.  This issue could not have been something that he only thought about once in 2002 and never again.  He walked away from his moral responsibility for years.


I worked with the victims of sexual abuse for a children's home in champaign county.  I know how much these things affect the victims.  I've been there at 2:30 a.m. when they can't sleep, are afraid to turn off the lights, and have nightmares.  


The only silver lining in this torrid, horrific affair is that this very real problem is getting attention.  People have to realize that if they have information about possible sexual abuse, they should report it to the police.  You do not need to have to be 100% sure before reporting reasonable suspicions.  We have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  


The fact that I believe Paterno failed miserably and that many young children were sexually molested by Paterno's friend for years after Paterno should have acted, does not mean I think Paterno has not accomplished any good feats in his life.  He has.  But the issue is whether somebody with the knowledge of a reported sexual assault and the authority and power to protect young people from a horrible abuse and chooses not to do so deserves to maintain his position as a moral leader of young men.  No.  He does not.

Chi-Illini wrote on November 11, 2011 at 3:11 pm

I want to make one thing clear.  I am not a Lauren Tate hater.  I tend to, not always, but usually, agree with Mr. Tate's opinions.  Even when I disagree I can usually see/understand his point of view.


Not here.  I can't fathom writing an article entitled "Paterno's Role in Scandal Remains Unclear."  I suppose technically that's correct.  We don't have every single piece of information about what he knew/did/did not do.  Maybe its unclear whether Paterno knew about the sodomy, but he still knew about an eye witnessed sexual assault on a young boy.  As I pointed out in my first post, and as others have pointed out in other posts, it is absolutely clear from his own testimony that he knew about an alleged sexual assault on a minor.


I sincerly want to know what information you need to clear this up for you.  Are you of the opinion that he only made a mistake if he was told about the sodomy and then did nothing?  Are you of the opinion that only being told of the fondling a young boy and/or the performance of sexual acts is not enough information to notify competent authorities? 


Lauren, is it unclear to you whether Paterno knew enough to prevent the suffering of God knows how many children?  Who cares about Paterno's "brand."  This isn't a game.  And I don't think you believe it is a game either.  That is why it disappoints me so much that you seem to be using your notoriety to protect Paterno's reputation instead of denouncing him for his actions.  People who turn a blind eye to the abuse of children deserve to be called out.  Being honest about his failure here doesn't mean you have to stop respecting some of his accomplishments.  Honesty, however, seems to require an admission that there is enough clarity in this situation to know that Paterno failed.  If you disagree, I'd like to know why.

PeterE wrote on November 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm

This article is pure garbage. The facts presented are sorely wrong and the author (Tate) clearly represents more of the same kind of problem that exists in State College, PA. Students there are rioting because they also aren't sure that their beloved Joe Paterno is responsible of any misconduct. They prefer to believe Paterno is infallible and that he has accomplished so much for Penn State that he should be given a pass for not doing the right thing, for not acting in a morally responsible manner and protecting the innocent children of State College and for being complicit in the cover up of Sandusky's child molestation and rapes. That is a FACT. It is a fact as pointed out by two commenters that Paterno admitted in his grand jury testimony that it was reported to him that Sandusky had fondled and commited something of a sexual nature with a young boy on campus in Joe's lockeroom. Yet, despite the reported sexual assault of a minor, Joe knew that Sandusky wasn't reported to the police, wasn't arrested, wasn't taken off the streets and wasn't prevented from molesting and raping still more young boys. And Joe Paterno did nothing, he kept quiet, he watched Sandusky bring more boys to games and practices, he allowed Sandusky to get away with felony child abuse, rape, sexual assault and molestation. Joe went along with the cover up with Curley, Schultz, McQueary and Spanier and was as complicit and morally bankrupt as they were. Penn State officials chose to protect their reputations and their football progams over the safety and innocence of the town's children. Unforgivable, inexcusable, the worst possible offense in the country and whole world. Paterno and his other despicable cronies deserve our contempt and deserve to be punished severely.

floridaturbo wrote on November 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Paterno will be lucky to stay out of jail, as will anyone else involved.  This is a criminal conspiracy to cover up felonies.  And can you imagine the civil lawsuits that will come out of this?  Every top notch lawyer in the country will be filing zillion dollar lawsuits against Paterno, Sandusky, every coach they can tie to it, as well as the university, which will be on the hook big time.  These trials will drag out over years.  TV will be all over it, as it will be the best free programming they ever got.  The only alternative will be out of court settlements that will bankrupt them all.  The taxpayers of PA will pay dearly for this one.

illinibadger wrote on November 11, 2011 at 7:11 pm

Loren the portion of this article about Paterno indicates a lack of understanding concerning what happened at Penn State, apparently repeated episodes, and equally mind numbing is the cover up intentionally made by the university administration to protect their football brand instead of trying to help the victims.

afan wrote on November 11, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Everybody seems to think they know what happened 9 years ago because they've read a grand jury report.  Tate merely points out the obvious fact that we don't have all the facts yet, and everyone starts using the "if it's your child" analogies and quoting testimony.  I'm not saying Paterno will be vindicated.  He could easily end up even more deeply implicated in this, but Tate is entitled to speculate either way just like the rest of you are.  People calling this article "crap" and "garbage" are probably smelling something a little closer to home.  Trying to maintain an open mind about Paterno's involvement hardly equates to support of child abuse as some have implied.  Take a deep breath and try to find some ballance on this.  

Dan Bloeme wrote on November 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Profile Picture

You are obviously suffering from a lack of reading comprehension same as Tate. Seems many of the people who have commented object to Tate having his facts wrong. Tate misqouted what Paterno told the grand jury when he was under oath. Paterno wasn't the one using more inocuous terms like horsing around or even touching; those terms were the watered down terms used by Curley and Schultz, not Paterno. Paterno clearly said fondling and of a sexual nature to the grand jury under sworn testimony. That is why people were quoting the grand jury investigation report. So rather than attacking other posters for quoting the facts, why don't you quit slinging your garbage into serious and factual discussion. Yes everyone has an opinion and a hole, but the other poster's opinion was based on fact. Yours and Tate's on fallacy.

MSTauteur wrote on November 12, 2011 at 10:11 pm

It is true that we don't have "all the facts".  Very true.  But we do have Paterno's own words and the transcripts from the grand jury.   Even if Paterno is telling the truth, he might not have broken the letter of the law as it is written in Pennsylvania, but he has certainly shown himself to be a man utterly lacking in integrity and the desire to protect the defenseless.  And that is what it comes down to.  I love for UI to win in sports.  It is a nice diversion and it provides an education for some and a living (very good for some) for others........... But who is going to do something more than the absolute minimum to help those that are vulnerable.  Obvously not Paterno and his hundreds of wins mean nothing when compared to his complete failure here and his moral complicity in the slaughter of the innocents that happend later. 

Mr. Tate is a good writer and I am not a "Tate-hater".  I have enjoyed him since my years there in the 1970s and, I know this is weird, but I used to treck down to a Chicago library branch on Michigan Ave (I think it was just north of the river) in the 80s while in graduate school about once a month to catch up on the NG.  Having said that, his article, while saying nothing false.....misses everything that is really important.  

We were talking after the game today and it was said that in our country today we still expect teachers and nurses and policemen and shoe salesmen and just about anyone else to have some kind of decency left in them...............but when it comes to our "leaders", be they political or business or religious or, I guess, in sports----our expectations are so low that if they can just keep from egregiously breaking the law, then we are very fortunate and they have done all that is expected of them.  But I digress.

Anyway, it is sad to see a writer nearing the end of a great career have such a technically correct but clouded view of the issues here, issues which are of infinite importance. 

With respect to Joe Paterno, to Hannah Arendt's The Banality Of Evil we can now add The Banality And Legality Of Evil.  And the beat goes on.

Respectfully submitted,

MSTauteur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-Illini wrote on November 13, 2011 at 2:11 pm

I completely agree with MSTauter. 


I must admit that when I first heard of this scandal one of my initial reactions was relief that Paterno wasn't being prosecuted - and thus - may not have done anything wrong.  Once I took the time to see what he testified to, I came to, what in my opinion is the only legitimate conclusion:  he did not fulfill a basic responsibility.  This much is appears abundantly clear. 


The only reason I didn't write things about Mr. Tate's article being garbage for its mischaracterization of the known record is that I was so surprised that he would behave as though not enough is known to make a reasoned conclusion about what Coach Paterno did. 


I lived in Champaign for 17 years, and I'm proud of where I grew up.  But I grew up believing that most of us had the courage to point out that looking the other way when you have very strong evidence of sexual abuse of young children is deplorable - even if you've won lots of games and have made charitable contributions.


I'm ashamed for my hometown to have its most famous sports writer waste an opportunity to do some good on what is, in my opinion, the most important sports-related story of the year.  Rather than focusing on the victims - rather than encouraging people to report suspected child abuse (even if it's "only" an eye-witness to fondling and sexual contact to a young boy). 


Can you imagine an article read by thousands of people that says - Joe Paterno has done lots of good, but he did bad here.  He abdicated his basic responsibility and Penn St. did the right thing by holding him accountable for it.  The article could then encourage people to be brave and to stand up for the rights of children.  Instead, we have an article that seems to indicate that PSU's dismissal of Paterno wasn't principled, but rather, was somewhat cowardly and an attempt to save its "brand." 


It is my sincere hope that you, Mr. Tate, either have information that directly contradicts Mr. Paterno's own testimony or that you misunderstood the grand jury report.  If you have more information that calls into questoin the veracity of the grand jury report, please share it.  If you misunderstood whatn Mr. Paterno said, please, please, please admit it and use you influence to make a posititve contribution to our community. 


If you, Mr. Tate, correctly understood that Mr. Paterno testified to knowing about an eye witness who saw him "fondling" and behaving sexual acts toward a young boy and still think things are "unclear," I don't know what to say to you.  If that is true, I have lost respect for you as a moral actor.  If that is true, I'd suggest you consider the serious real-life implications sexual abuse has children.  I encourage you to read FBI reports that suggest the average sexual predator of children molest between 75-150 children.  I suggest that you consider whether being armed with the knowledge to save what almost assuredly will turn out to be dozens of extra post-2002 victims (we will never know the true count given the low percentage of victims who come forward, and that, tragically, those who are put through sexual abuse as a child are more likely to commit suicide). 


Imagine the story Mr. Tate could have written (still related to sports) about the victim who came forward to the police that finally lead to the invesigation and arrest of Mr. Sandusky.  Imagine the story written with easily obtainable facts about child abuse - and one that encourage victims to have the courage to speak up - not only so their attacker can suffer for his sins against the first victim, but so he cannot create dozens and dozens of more victims.  How I wish I had the platform to make what would most likely be a meaningful comment.  A comment that just might, might, give some victim reader - and yes, Mr. Tate, you certainly have many child abuse victim readers, feel less alone.  Feel more respected.  Feel more courageous.


Please, Mr. Tate, use your power (not as large as mr. paterno's, but not completely insignfificant) to make the world, and your community a better place.  Or at least don't make it a worse place by rationalizing that what Mr. Paterno did may not have been that bad.

Chi-Illini wrote on November 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Afan,


I sinecerly thank you, and all of the commentators, for joining this very important discussion. 


I do, however, emplore you to read my posts and let me know where you think I have erred in my evaluation of the known record.  I would recommend you read the grand jury report to see what mr. paterno, himself said.


I have layed out the facts in the best light possible for mr. paterno - using only his own admission under oath as evidence about what he knew.  I have concluded that:


naked old man + naked young boy + eye witness report of fondling/sexual conduct + absolute knowledge that the police were never contacted + absolute knowledge that the young boy was never identified + absolute knowledge that the alleged perpatrator went out of his way to associate himself with young, at-risk boys = a moral obligation to report incident to compotent authorities.


I have taken umbradge with mr. tate's article because it muddled the record.  It is clear to me that your post was trying to be fair minded and to do the whole innocent until proven guilty approach.  I agree with that approach in almost all cases.  But it may not have been clear to you, due to Mr. Tate's poorly written article, what Mr. Paterno testified to.  If we only had the eye witness's testimony saying he told paterno, and not paterno's own words, I would support a more wait-and-see attitude. 


But I do not think a wait and see attitude is needed to make sure that Mr. paterno knew specifically about the witnessed sodomy.  He knew specifically about fondling and sexual contact - that is enough.  If you think that is not enough, then please share your logic.  I think you will agree that it is enough, however.  If you think eye witnessed fondling is not enough to contact authorties for an investigation I would a) disagree with you and b) encourage you to educate yourself about the harms of sexual abuse to children.  I would also encourage you to educate yourself to common techniques that sexual predators use, this may help you appreciate the seriousness of this conduct. 


I would also propose to you that if you believe that only sodomy is serious enough to lead to an investigation, that if you have an eye witness to fondling there is high probablity that sodomy took place/is taking place when no witness is there.  Certainly the probablity is high enough to ensure that an investigation occurs.


I also want to point out that innocent until proven guilty is the standard for taking sombody's liberty away and imprisoning them.  It is not the standard for taking somebody's $2,000,000 job away.  Gross negligence and/or willing blindness to horrible atrocities committed on children is, in my humble opinion, enough reason to take that person out of a leadership position.  It is also enough to give that person, who enjoyed the public trust, scrutiny. 


It is unclear to me whether Mr. Tate had taken the time to analyze what we know (from mr. paterno's own words) and thus, I have resisted calling mr. Tate morally bankrupt and would like to see him respond.  I'm just pointing out absolute facts based on what mr. paterno himself said.  I will admit to being mistaken if Mr. Tate, you, or any other poster shows me credible evidence that mr. paterno did not know about an eye witness report of fondling. 


Until presented with such evidence I will continue to make my stand on the side of the line that says we should not allow eye witnessed molestation of young boys go uninvestigated for 9 years.  I will also say that people who know about such allegations and do not ensure that an investigation occurs are open to, and deserving of, public discussion of their cowardly inaction.  I will also say that Mr. Paterno's knowledge of Mr. Sandusky's continued action with young boys makes his inaction even more reprehensible.


Fnally, I agree that the "imagine if it was your kid" argument can be weak.  It is particularly weak if we do not have sworn testimony from an individual saying that they were told of an eye witness to sexual assault.  In other words, it is weak to prove the knowledge an individual (mr. paterno here) had about an action. 


However, given that mr. paterno did swear that he was told about that, it does become relevant to do the "imagine if" scenario when making a determination on if what he admitted to hearing about was serious enough to require action. 


Thus, I invite you to imagine if a rich and powerful person knew that one of his best friends (a friend and collegue of 32 years) naked w/ your young child fondling and touching your young child.  Would you be upset if that person never alterted the police.  Even though he knew for a fact that the police were not aware.  If you would not be upset about this, then you simply have different morals than I do.  Maybe you do, but my guess is you think fondling (which means touching the genitalia) of young boy is bad and should be investigated.

DaisyJ wrote on November 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Understand something, if , and I say if old JoPa had absolutely nothing to do with the cover up his butt would be on camera, in front of a MIcophone lickey split spilling his guts as to


him being framed and falsehoods being said  about him. ....BUT, as you see, he has clammed up and that is very telling, VERY TELLING.