Unfortunately, it often seems the Paternos and their supporters are interested only in writing and talking and tweeting about Paterno’s mistreatment; about the N.C.A.A.’s overreach in its investigation; about how Paterno’s statue should return to its former home outside Beaver Stadium.No, the NY Times is keeping this in the news, repeating false accusations, and blaming everyone else.
It’s yet another tragedy that the victims have to keep hearing all this. For them, this case already will live on and on, in their minds and memories, for the remainder of their lives.
So, no, they can’t rest either.
The article claims:
Who can know for sure? Joe Paterno can’t tell us. What we do know is that Sandusky did terrible things to children, and even after hearing that Sandusky was discovered in the shower with a boy of about 10, Paterno didn’t call the police. He didn’t seek to have Sandusky barred from Penn State’s athletic facilities, or apparently even question his assistant about what he had been told, even though the two men had been colleagues for decades.No, all of that is false. There is no proof that anyone ever told Paterno that Sandusky did terrible things to children, but just an allegation of one guy who changed his story several times and is using the allegation to sue for $4M.
The experts in child abuse nearly all agree that it would have been completely inappropriate for someone like Paterno to conduct his own investigation. They say that the responsibility is with the witnesses to report first-hand knowledge to the police or CPS. By all accounts, Paterno never witnessed anything, and never discouraged witnesses to report what they saw.
This whole story was a phony as the Duke lacrosse scandal. The publicity about both were almost entirely political and non-factual.
The NY Times now claims that Paterno might have heard a bad rumor about Sandusky back in 1976. Are you kidding? These NY Times editors and reporters are really sick. I agree with Trump's suggestion to bring back the Paterno statue.