Don't ask me why, but I'm going to take a different approach.
Forget What Would Paterno Do (WWPD), the question is What Would You Do?
Consider that he'd known the guy for years and years. Consider that you don't know what he was told. For all you know the GA only told him that he saw something weird with Sandusky.
Consider that maybe Joe went to talk to the guy and he pooh-poohed it, saying he was doing nothing of the sort, he was just helping the kid or disciplining the kid or whatever. That what the GA thought he saw was not what he really saw.
Remember he's known the guy half his life. What's he going to do? He reported it. He told others that something was reported to him. It was their responsibility to investigate, to inform.
When nothing came back, when Paterno heard nada from them is it not rational and reasonable to assume that he could have taken that as a declaration of innocence or mistaken identity?
I'm not for child rape, don't get me wrong. But a shitload more people knew Michael Jackson was banging little boys than knew about Sandusky and nothing was done there. Mikey was even exonerated by a stupid jury.
I think it's wrong to crucify Joe and make him the sacrificial lamb here.
What happens if after a ton of investigation they find out there's really nothing to the claims about Sandusky? What if they find out it is a mass hysteria? It's only accusation.
Haven't we learned our lesson about executing people based only on what's reported versus what's true?
I kind of feel the same way.
I mean, as of now we don't really know all the facts. Angry mob mentality prevails.
What I
DO know, is that if someone told me they witnessed somebody raping little boys, I'd definitely think it was fucked up. I'd probably even encourage whoever claimed to have witnessed it to notify the proper authorities. Not sure I'd go all media circus "HEY EVERYBODY, THIS SOMEBODY TOLD ME THIS GUY IS A KIDDIE DIDDLER!!!"
What went down is horrible. Whatever the worst possible thing that can happen to Sandusky will not be just enough for him. But damn, you guys know Joe didn't diddle these kids, right?
I guess I'm kind of torn on it. Sucks for a man's 60+ year long career to go down in flames like this, and to be associated with this horrendous crime, when at worst he just was one of many that was made aware of it, and didn't act. I also get that he had a moral obligation to not let this dude go on diddling little kids. Just not sure with what we know at this very moment, that we can crucify him to the degree he's being crucified. Now it may come out that he absolutely knew all along, and said, "You know I disapprove of the kid fucking, but if you gotta, make it quick, I'll be waiting outside." At that point, I'll be ready to condemn him as scum.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I get what you're saying, K.