Again, there's a lot of room for interpretation here. Per the stupid question, there's no clear explanation of exactly what he was told. "I saw Jerry touching a boy" vs. "I saw Jerry ass-raping a boy" vs "I saw Jerry doing something inappropriate" etc. Are all heinous and unforgivable? Of course. Do they all warrant him doing more than reporting it to the police? No. If someone told me that a former employee was seen doing something wrong in a bathroom at my office, I'd report it to the proper authorities. Would I continually pursue what happens afterward in the investigation? No, not if I trusted those in authority to do the right thing. THAT is what he is guilty of - trusting the wrong people to do what was their job to do...not "covering up a crime to protect his legacy/football"the King wrote:fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be
Again, there's ambiguity in the quote. An 85 year old man can't remember what day he told someone something 5 years or more after the fact, and people just assume the worst.
So I don’t know whether I did it Saturday or did it early the next week.
I’m not sure when, but I did it within the week.
What irks me above everything about the way that Paterno was treated in all of this is that everyone jumped to the absolute worst conclusions without a shred of actual evidence to do so. They saw nothing but the truth they wanted to see in testimony that was ambiguous at best. The man's life of service and citizenship speaks to a high character that was just thrown away in a moment of sensationalistic reporting and lack of verifiable information. He was railroaded out of the job, he has been unfairly denigrated in the national media, and it is hard not to think that all of this helped kill him. He had earned the benefit of the doubt and deserved far more deference.