<p>Paterno does not need to answer anything else, and he may not come out and say anything more because he is not being charged for any wrong doing. I am talking about him not doing enough to prevent further episodes of abuse. From what he has already said, it is clear to me that he knew enough. The fact that he met with his assistant is not in dispute, the only thing he has disputed is the extent of what he knew. You can try to make him as an innocent bystander as you want, but the events from 1998 and 2002 have been plenty for any normal decent person let alone a group of high ranking officials of an institution to question and make some efforts to prevent any further damage.</p>
<p>Why are you concentrating on defending Paterno? Why is he so special? The other two officials are in much deeper problem.</p>
<p>Sandusky is a sick man, who apparently couldn’t control his sick compulsions even when he exercised them at great risk to himself and his family. He should be put away, not because he “deserves” to be put away (we don’t generally speaking lock up “sick” people), but because we want to be sure he can’t visit his sick urges on anyone else.</p>
<p>People who cover for such sick people, however, are EVIL people. They know precisely what they are doing. And I am going to take a lot of convincing before I am assured that JoePa isn’t one of them.</p>
<p>I don’t think Paterno is evil…just a man living in his own bubble, wrapped up in his world of college football(bunch of 20 year olds playing a game).</p>
<p>" People who cover for such sick people, however, are EVIL people. They know precisely what they are doing. And I am going to take a lot of convincing before I am assured that JoePa isn’t one of them. " </p>
<p>Exactly !!</p>
<p>That’s why I am so uneasy with all of the PSU alum and parents who so willingly give a pass to their god, Paterno…and the others who knew and did nothing , either for personal gain or protecting the football program…it sends chills down my spine</p>
<p>I think it’s evil when you know someone is hurting children and you do nothing. And it’s evil when you allow that person to use your campus as bait lure in and impress young boys, it’s evil when confronted you lie toncover your own self.</p>
<p>This may sound off the wall, but I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Sandusky had other men actually involved in the abuse of these poor children.</p>
<p>I am going to repeat what another poster said here or on another of the many threads about this scandal:
IF he indeed did get a pretty sketchy description of the incident in the shower, <strong><em>it was JoPa’s obligation and responsibility to ask more details and get in FULL</em></strong> what McG saw, came to tell him he saw.
It was also his obligation to report to the police any SUSPICIONS of such activity.</p>
<p>Not querying further to determine what happened and also the credibility of the report was in and of itself a serious misdeed.
Then the FACT, (yes another FACT) that he met the next day with his co-bosses leads me to believe that they, too, could have pursued the FULL story.</p>
<p>That he seems satisfied with a vague story is a huge problem for him.
It means:
he is lying and got a full story
he is telling the truth, but even on SUSPICION he must report such an incident by law to the police
he was avoiding facing a situation that he was already covering up (from 1998), and wanted to be as “out of it” as possible
9 years have passed without a police report
morally and ethically he should have asked for a FULL story</p>
<p>There is so much circumstantial evidence even if it is not recorded that he said x and thought y.</p>
<p>If you can stomach reading the grand jury report, you’ll see that McQueary’s response—i.e.,too little, too late—is, sadly, the norm and not the exception. Add up the number of adults who knew about Sandusky, going back years, and you’ll see that it is a very long list indeed. By my count, the report lists 17 adults who had either witnessed abuse, suspected abuse or had been told by others of abuse…and yet they did virtually nothing: Miller, Turchetta, Paterno, McQueary, McQueary, Sr., Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Raykovitz, Sheffler, Gricar, Harmon, Ralston, Lauro, Calhoun, Petrosky, Witherite. Even if McQueary had gone directly to the police, it might not have made any difference. Victim 6’s mother went to the police, but no criminal charges were filed, and the investigation was allegedly resolved as follows: "Detective Shreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said that he would not.” Incredible.</p>
<p>I don’t know which is worse - Penn Staters finding excuses to explain away Paterno and his cohorts & rioting on his behalf, or characterising Sandusky as a “sick man” which makes society morally responsible for trying to cure him and release him back. There are few times I agree with justice middle-eastern style, and Sandusky would be one case where they would have handled it better rather than portraying him as a poor sick victim himself.</p>
<p>“r characterising Sandusky as a “sick man” which makes society morally responsible for trying to cure him and release him back.”</p>
<p>I neither think society is morally responsible to cure him, nor to release him back, and I certainly don’t think he is a victim. so I don’t know what you are talking about.</p>
<p>As for the “evilness” of “sick men”, I’ll leave that to the philosophers. It’s the evil of the so-called healthy ones that I find much more disturbing.</p>
<p>Whether you think Paterno knows all the facts, or knows some of the facts, the fact is he should have followed up with the conversation he had with the AD and VP…He is Penn State, and to just never follow up with those 2 is enough to be fired…My guess is we will never find out the true depths of this scandal,but what does follow will surprise everyone</p>
<p>Joe Paterno has reached out to*a prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer to represent him in the Penn State sex abuse case, a source close to the case told NBC News.
J. Sedgwick Sollers, who once represented President George H.W. Bush in the Iran-Contra affair, was contacted by Paterno’s advisers on Thursday. But Sollers has not yet met with Paterno, and a formal retainer agreement has not been signed.</p>
<p>Let’s not beat around the bush, enough with they do not know. They know plenty and they chose to not do anything much about it. Only indoctrinated Paterno worshipers would try to misdirect and make it an issue of prosecutorial zealousness or legal technicality. What other conversations do you need? What do you think they talked about when the assistant reported what he had seen, and what did they talk about the next day when they quickly convened to discuss this serious event? The only way they did not know would be because they are the most incompetent and ignorant people on the planet.</p>
<p>qdogpa, Why is it not “not good”? Do you seriously think that a person in Paterno’s position should not retain counsel, or should not attempt to retain competent counsel? He’s the big piece of meat that the trustees have thrown to the wolves in order to try to satisfy them, after all. The trustees are clearly hoping that sacrificing Paterno will satisfy the press and others. Of course, they are clearly deluded…</p>
<p>I disagree with part of post # 993. Turchetta did report it to authorities, according to the grand jury report. He also barred Sandusky from the high school. I don’t think he had enough evidence…or power…to do anything else. </p>
<p>So, please don’t include him in the list of adults who acted wrongfully. </p>
<p>And before anyone asks, I don’t know him from Adam. I just don’t think he deserves to be lumped in with people who did nothing.</p>
<p>No, he needs all the counsel he can get…Either he is suffering from dementia,or he is lying, take your pick…He KNOWS more then he is letting on…</p>