Answers to Allegations Against Paterno

The answers provided below are accurate as far as I know to this point. If anyone has any additional evidence either pro or con please pass them on to me.

 

1. Accusation – Paterno knew that Sandusky had anal sex with a 10 year old boy in the locker room.

Answer – Paterno was not an eyewitness to the incident. He took the information he was told and relayed it to the authorities. He had no first hand knowledge of the incident, therefore did not know for sure what had transpired.

2. Accusation – Joe Paterno covered up the Sandusky scandal.

Answer – Paterno turned Sandusky in. How can the person who turned him in be covering for him?

3. Accusation – Paterno never called the police.

Answer – The day after being informed of the allegations Paterno called into his home, Tim Curley, who was the Athletic Director, and Gary Schultz who oversaw the University Police.  The University Police are the only ones who have legal jurisdiction over Penn State. By calling in Schultz Paterno was calling in the police. In addition, Pa. law states that if a staff member is told of sexual misconduct he has the legal obligation to tell his superiors. They then have the legal obligation to call the police. So by turning the allegation over to the administration he was by extension turning Sandusky in to the police.

4. Accusation – Paterno should have done more. He should have followed up.

Answer – To this point no-one knows what Paterno did after he turned in Sandusky. Allegations that he did nothing are baseless.

5. Accusation – Joe Paterno knew of the 1998 allegation against Sandusky.

Answer – To this point there is no evidence to back up that charge. As far as I know, investigations such as this are kept confidential, and are not relayed to people not directly involved in them.

6. Accusation – Paterno should have gone public with the allegation.

Answer – Accusing someone of child abuse is a very serious charge which if untrue can ruin a person’s life. With no first hand knowledge of the incident it would not have been right to go public with the allegation.

7. Accusation – Paterno knew of Sandusky’s alleged criminal activities all along.

Answer – To this point no evidence has come forth to back up that accusation; not even from the Grand Jury. In fact, no evidence has come forth that Sandusky’s wife or children knew of his alleged crimes. If his own wife did not know, how is everyone so sure that Paterno knew?

8. Accusation – Paterno continued to allow Sandusky unfettered access to all athletic facilities after gaining knowledge of the incident.

Answer – Sandusky had emeritus status at the unversity. It was this status that allowed him access to the facilities. Paterno did not give him the status nor could he take it away.

9. Accusation – Paterno should have stopped all contact with Sandusky after the incident.

Answer – I personally do not know if he had any contact with Sandusky or not, but without being an eyewitness, once he was told no criminal charges were being filed, (and I assume he was told that McQueary was mistaken) he could have had no true knowledge that Sandusky was guilty of that which McQueary had accused him.

Accusing a man of covering for a child rapist is a very serious charge. It should not be done without overwhelming evidence. As far as I can tell there is not one shred of evidence that Paterno did such a thing. Why then is his life being destroyed?

Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Comments are closed.