Also, all those Paterno Patriots from when this first came out, are really looking like the fricking fools that they are. Seriously, how do you defend this: quote: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved,"
The Devil's Advocate response:
That tells you absolutely nothing about what Joe Pa's stance on the question was-- just how the individual writing that email felt after talking to him. Indeed, 'having trouble with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble going to everyone but the person involved' is more indicative that the consensus had been (of which Joe Pa had been at least a part [even if you assume a dissenting part]) that they should go to the authorities and accused, rather than directly to the victim themselves.
For all that we can prove, Joe may have said 'Sandusky has always been a weird SOB. I have known him for decades, but this shite isn't kosher. I'm ready to string him up', taking his conversation partner aback-- and he just as easily could have said 'Whew. We should just cover this up, c'mon man, it could cost us millions.'
The key is what the assumption is that you make about the content of the Paterno conversation was. Without that context, no, you can't string up Paterno nor can you vindicate him-- its simply not possible to tell, without an assumption of significant proportions.
This post was edited on 6/30 at 4:10 pm