some woman law professor tries to put the schneid on joe paterno for not having done more when then graduate assistant coach mcquery saw sandusky doing things to what appeared to be a 10 year old boy in a shower, ... , to wit, anal intercourse.
in the same discussion, the learned professor intones that mcquery may have "whistle blower" protection and so the university cannot touch him. just upon whom did he "blow the whistle"? at the time he witnessed sandusky's conduct, sandusky was not an employee of the university. so, he couldn't have blown the whistle on sandusky. the ten year old boy?
little matter.
next, the learned professor piously intones that paterno deserves no sympathy in this, because at the time "he was a very powerful man," and could obviously have rectified the whole situation, presumably by wielding such power.
well, this rather begs the issue of whether he owed a legal duty to do so, and, to whom, and what he could have related about the incident since he did not witness it. (it also rather hypocritically ignores the issue that paterno did report the incident, and recommended to mcquery that he do so as well. see the perfected grand jury presentment.)
but, leaving those issues aside, and turning again to the learned professor's assertion.--
one is moved to ask, in the face of such a learned conclusion, a little one word question.
how? (needless to say, the learned professor ventured no opinion as to "how" joe paterno might have done this, except to observe, that he "... was a very powerful man at the time." so, o.k., how do powerful men bring someone down upon the uncorroborated assertion of another person?)
how does a person like joe paterno bring a retired & tenured figure like sandusky down on the uncorroborated assertion of another person? without knowing the name or the identity of the victim? how does he learn the name of the victim?
law professors who have never practiced law, and i will bet you dime to donuts that this one did not (or, if she did, she was an assistant a.g. in some little "hot house" area of practice) should not comment on such things.
a person who believes that simple public accusation solves these sorts of things simply does not understand the complexities involved. you can be assured that the lawyers who advised the university officials to secure sandusky's "retirement" in 1999, after agreeing to extend him every privilege imaginable including tenure and the like, understood the complexities of a situation in which his proclivities were probably well understood, and for which he was investigated, but for which he was never charged because the assistant prosecuting attorney in charge of the case was loathe to perfect charges given that he believed he had an unprovable case.
the university had ample legal cause not to make untenable accusations at that time, ... , as did joe paterno on this occasion, for which he has received an amateur and idiotic burning at the stake.
i suspect it burns the same, even though all his accusers i have come across so far speak from ignorance, though ample conviction. sometimes not knowing what you are talking about makes you more enthusiastic, but your words burn others as deeply. you listening, schlabach, maisel, your little dung beetles?
i know barack obama is a homosexual. but, you don't hear me shouting it from the rooftops, now, do you? that's the problem when shooting your mouth off, ... , when you cannot prove something, nor have the resources to divine and publish the truth. it does not stop the lady law professors, and the likes of schlabach and maisel, though, does it.
and a good man is sacrificed on the alter of public idiocy, and naked ambition.
john jay @ 11.11.2011
p.s. if you are sufficiently caught up in all this clamor for joe paterno's head not to pay heed to my cautionary notes, then think of something, if you will, and if you are capable.--
it has been some years since the acts which have brought joe paterno low occurred. in other words, it has taken the public authorities, ... , who have police, prosecutors, child services investigators and counselors, and people who are clinically trained to obtain untainted histories from child victims and whose version of events are not confabulated, e.g., clinical psychologists with experience, ... , to gather and marshal the evidence that was taken before a grand jury who issued the perfected indictment.
and, some idiot lady law professor thinks that joe paterno, who after all, "... was a very powerful man at the time ..." should have been able to accomplish all this on his own. without benefit of subpoena and compulsory attendance.
goodness, we live in a guileless age.
Comments