Originally Posted by
cspan37421
Have you read the Grand Jury Presentment, especially page 7 ? Paterno himself testified* that "... the graduate student had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
Do you really need more specific than that? Is that really too vague, ambiguous, and subject to interpretation?
* - the paragraph has 3 sentences. The first starts with "Joseph V. Paterno testified ..." and the second begins "Paterno testified ..." - but the third does not. I strongly think it is implied. If the GA was as vague as you appear to think he was, why did Paterno call his AD the next day? Why didn't it just end there, maybe with JoePa saying, "well, I'll look into it, don't worry." Why did the AD meet with the GA? Why was the president of the university notified? All these subsequent events seem very implausible - very unlikely to have occurred at all - if the GA was as vague as you imply. I don't find that perspective credible at all.
What is the vaguest part of the whole deal? Why didn't the GA go directly to the police to report an obviously vile felony? HE was the eyewitness. I'm just having trouble seeing how Paterno seems to be the evil one even though Spanier, Schultz, and the GA are more culpable. I would liken the GA's inaction to being a hit-and-run driver who later returned to the scene, just a bit late to be of help to the victim.
Man, if your Mom made you wear that color when you were a baby, and you're still wearing it, it's time to grow up!