Originally Posted by
mph
Paterno's moral culpability primarily hinges on whether the GA told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz that he witnessed the rape of a child or whether he told Paterno, et al that he witnessed "inappropriate" touching while wrestling. If its the latter, then your scenario is plausible. But, if the GA reported the rape of a minor, why would Paterno think it's appropriate for the administration to conduct an internal investigation without notifying the police? If you were the head football coach and the allegations involved a long-time coordinator with an office in your building and access to your facilities, wouldn't you specificity ask your superiors if the police were notified? If the adminstration lied and said the police investigated the allegations and found them to be worthless, wouldn't you suspect deceit when you asked the GA whether he was interviewed by the police or when they never came to interview you or any other member of your staff?
If the GA's story turns out to be true, I have a hard time seeing how Paterno could have been deceived without at least some degree of negligence on his part. I agree that it's inappropriate to judge Paterno until all of the facts are in, but the grand jury explicitly stated that they found the GA's testimony credible, which raises some difficult and necessary questions.