I guess I have some difficulty with how this situation is evolving and what people are making of the decision not to proceed. I think it would be decent to keep in mind that Joe Paterno was Sue Paterno's husband and the father of their children. As his wife, I am willing to suggest that she was most likely very intimate with Joe's knowledge of and role in the Sandusky debacle. I am of the opinion that she would not have continued as far as she did had she not been resolute in her belief that Joe acted properly and would not ever permit the endangerment of a child. I also am of the opinion that resources probably were strained, coupled with the inability to get certain sealed documents released - making further actions futile.
The Sandusky situation casts a long shadow over the University and the Paterno legacy - no doubt. But I do not believe that they necessarily are forever linked - only in the minds of those who want that to be their reality and position. Personally, after all I have read, I believe Joe acted in a manner that he thought was proper, handing over the information to those trained to deal with these types of issues. That those parties might not have done that which should have been accomplished might well be the case: surely, that is what the recent litigation suggests. But this seems to be "a play within a play." There are many convolutions to this situation that have yet to be revealed, I believe. That aside, I still find it hard to accept that Joe covered up the situation when he reported it to Schultz, Curley and ultimately to Spanier. Moreover, he directed McQueary to do the same and followed up a week little to see if his request was honored - and it was. That does not sound like a coverup; rather, it sounds like a man untrained in these situations handing responsibility to those trained in these issues.
It is always a good idea to read and remember the Dreyfus Affair. It is amazing how those who have an agenda and power and construct outlandish scenarios and story lines.
The Sandusky situation casts a long shadow over the University and the Paterno legacy - no doubt. But I do not believe that they necessarily are forever linked - only in the minds of those who want that to be their reality and position. Personally, after all I have read, I believe Joe acted in a manner that he thought was proper, handing over the information to those trained to deal with these types of issues. That those parties might not have done that which should have been accomplished might well be the case: surely, that is what the recent litigation suggests. But this seems to be "a play within a play." There are many convolutions to this situation that have yet to be revealed, I believe. That aside, I still find it hard to accept that Joe covered up the situation when he reported it to Schultz, Curley and ultimately to Spanier. Moreover, he directed McQueary to do the same and followed up a week little to see if his request was honored - and it was. That does not sound like a coverup; rather, it sounds like a man untrained in these situations handing responsibility to those trained in these issues.
It is always a good idea to read and remember the Dreyfus Affair. It is amazing how those who have an agenda and power and construct outlandish scenarios and story lines.
