First Penn State, now Syracuse Nov 28, 2011 22:30:22 GMT -5
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 28, 2011 22:30:22 GMT -5
"Insufficient evidence, on balance, to secure a conviction in the DA's estimation" is not the same thing as "nothing there." The conviction standard is quite high, especially when the "he said" being accused is a highly prominent and respected member of the local community.
Clearly, however, Paterno could not "have found nothing there," since he promptly told Sandusky that he would not be his successor. The exact circumstances surrounding Sandusky's (forced?) retirement have yet to be divulged, but it is inconceivable that Paterno would not have been deeply involved in such a major personnel matter.
A couple more corrections:
1. It was Penn State University police, not Pennsylvania police, who investigated in 1998 and produced a very lengthy report (again, not the same thing as "found nothing there"). The investigation was ultimately concluded on the orders of Thomas Harmon, then-chief of PSU police.
2. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare interviewed Sandusky, and he admitted to showing with and at that time "hugging" Victim 6 and that it was wrong and promised that he would not shower with children again. Because Victim 6's mother was the one who called the PSU cops, and she would not be allowing Sandusky access to her child again, there was no threat of additional harm to that particular Victim. Since the criminal authorities were investigating as well, DPW's interest in the case was at an end. Not the same as "concluded that there was no problem with Sandusky and the boy."
How much of this Paterno knew is unclear, but it is highly improbable that he did not know any of it, especially since he informed Sandusky that he was no longer his heir apparent soon thereafter.