Actually, he ordered the cover up: "after speaking with coach...something, something...humane thing to do." I'm sure it wasn't the tennis coach giving the President and AD their matching orders about kiddie rape in the football program.
Yeah - that's one of the things that the cult tries to use as defense: "They keep calling him 'coach'. No one calls him 'coach'. No one. He wanted to be called 'Joe'."
My understanding is that the Freeh report mentions that there's some email conversation going on. Maybe between the VP and the AD. Maybe the president was included. And it says something like, "After speaking with Coach, we've decided the humane thing to do is" and then it goes into sweeping it under the rug. I get that it's vague by referring to some anonymous coach as "coach", but we're left to crack the code, ourselves. The simplest solution is usually the correct solution. Which is simpler: that "Coach" is Joe Paterno, or that "Coach" is the tennis coach or the bowling coach or the cheerleading coach? I'm no lawyer, but if I'm on a jury, I'd say that the burden of proof should be on the one side to prove that "Coach" is NOT Joe Paterno. And I haven't seen anything to convince me of that.
not only did he fail to take meaningful action after being told at least once that we're definitely sure about (some unproven reports that he was also told in the 70s).......he then stood on his doorstep after it was confirmed that the accusations were in fact true, and he said "The kids who were victims or whatever they want to say". If we want to pretend he was only told once, and that he DiD tHe RiGhT tHiNg (he didn't), he still stood there after being told that those kids really were raped, and he couldn't even call them victims. that tells me everything I need to know about what kind of monster that man was.
I think there's another step in between there. Say you have 2 people working for you. Or, maybe 1 of them just retired and he's just hanging around because he's cool and everyone is cool with it. You may have 20 people working for you. But this young guy working for you comes to you and says he saw that older guy who just retired doing these things to kids. "Did you call the police?" "No - I wanted to talk to you, first." Here's where you slap that kid in the back of the head and get him on the phone with the police, right? Oh wait, somehow the "right thing to do" is call your boss? What the fuck? Fine.. call your boss. I hope he slaps both of you in the back of the head for not calling police. But he calls his boss, who calls his boss, who calls his boss. Eventually, there's no more bosses to call and then what?
Eventually, either the police get involved, or they don't. Right? Let's walk down Path A - the police get called. Now, another fork in the road - the police make an arrest, or they don't make an arrest. I'm sure there has to be some investigation before they make the arrest, but let's say they do that. Trial, sentencing, etc. Done, right? Right. Say they do an investigation and don't make an arrest. Don't you have to look those 2 people in the face from time to time to see what's what? They can't both work there, together, right? I mean... I know I'm naïve (see the Notre Dame thread), but that seems crazy.
"Simplest answer", right? Mike McQueary wanted a full time job on Joe Paterno's staff. Joe Paterno didn't want to give him one. Mike McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky doing stuff. McQueary reported to Joe Paterno, who decided that the "humane thing" was to sweep it under the rug. And McQueary got his full time job on Paterno's staff. Sandusky didn't go to jail (yet). Paterno got to keep his team's squeaky clean image. Win-win-win, right? Right, kids?
