Replies

Colo, I can look back at many instances in my life - now with perfect hindsight - and wish I had done more. Hindsight works that way. At the time things happen, we usually don’t possess a 360 degree view of all information. Later I simply said that in light of all that came out, with perfect hindsight now, he wished he had done more. He did not say he failed to act.

Thank you for your feedback.

All I'm saying -- and perhaps you might agree to some extent -- is how unfortunate that JoePa suddenly "woke up" in late 2011 to FINALLY publicly declare, "I wish I had done more" with regard to Sandusky and these kids.

The question here is why it took over a decade for Paterno to lament these words...(10 years, 9 months to be exact)

My understanding is that the authorities were investigating Sandusky by 2009...so hey, I guess we might be able to excuse JoePa for part of '09 + all of '10 & all of '11...given that by this time, JoePa's "forthrightness" wasn't going to necessarily be of significant special use to authorities...

On the other end of that continuum, Paterno found out in Feb 2001 about an "inappropriate action" -- what he MUCH LATER told the Grand Jury was a "sexual" act of some sort.

So, even if we assume the benefit of the doubt here and not fault JoePa for his February 2001 reactions...at some point that "wish I had done more" statement actively kicks in...well before November 2011!

At some point...perhaps by 2002, it should have dawned on JoePa that this predator was still at loose with nothing being done. A man of JoePa's stature could have demanded an update at any time.

Even if we draw some grace here and take it another year (2003)...or even into early 2004...at some point, we know JoePa was either interviewing Mike McQueary for a Wide Receiver job (early 2004)...or could have had an active involvement in that interview.

Are we all going to close our eyes and somehow imagine that what McQueary saw in a Penn State shower would somehow be 100% irrelevant to the question of whether McQueary would/should be hired?

I mean, as a "negative" vs. the case for Penn State hiring McQueary, since JoePa knew what McQueary reported, his "eyewitness" role should have gone down as a "no go" disqualifier if for no other reason than to keep him at arm's length from the Penn State program...lest later "revelations" erupt that could taint the program. The fact is, JoePa DID NOT regard McQueary as a "negative" association-wise -- either with hiring him on as a wide receivers coach or later as head of recruiting. So, in this way, it comes across to outsiders as a "reward" of sorts for McQueary's extended silence in not pursuing ultimate protection for the children.

Beyond that, JoePa was the most powerful man on campus. At anytime -- beginning from the 2004 interview he/or his reps had of McQueary -- thruout McQueary's 2004-->2009 employment...JoePa could have queried and discovered EXACTLY how authorities had...or had NOT...followed up with McQueary's report...McQueary could have amply told him: "Nothing has happened since then...No follow-up since I've discussed this with other Penn State admins."

And if JoePa couldn't even ask McQueary a follow-up Q of this nature, then it shows his silence is culpable. And, if he did ask such a Q or two, and got those answers from McQueary, his silence carries even more malice vs. the child-victims.

JoePa was a man of influence who failed to use it on behalf of these children.