Saturday, November 19

New Facts Support Paterno by Btd121


Many of us have said over and over we wanted more facts before judging Paterno a horrible person like many here already have. It is my contention we got a lot of those facts today. Not all. Certainly not the smoking gun. But there was some real positive testimony that came to light today. Not that the media will report any of it. I know most of you seemed to think no one came out looking better, but I think in hindsight that isn't true.
Many of these points have been brought up by others as well as myself, so I am not trying to steal anyone's ideas. I do not write this an attempt to start another debate (although I’m sure it will as I'm guilty of adding my two cents), but rather to gather pertinent facts regarding Paterno's actions for those actually wanting to make an informed decision.
So here is some of the testimony I feel was very important in determining Paterno's alleged moral failure. I will characterize the testimony as best I can based on the tweet summaries we all read today.
1. According to MM, Paterno was not told about the graphic nature of what MM allegedly saw in the bathroom. MM testified he purposely did not go into graphic detail. No anal rape, sodomy or the like. I believe this matches Paterno's characterization of what he heard.
2. MM believed Schultz was the cops, going as far as to say he thought he was basically talking to the DA. MM testified he saw Schultz organizing the police during prior riots. This certainly makes the likelihood that Paterno brought in Schultz for his connection to the police and ultimate ability to start an investigation extremely likely. Why else would he be there?
3. The chief of police in 2002 testified his boss was Schultz. He said he met with Schultz weekly and reported anything of a serious nature to Schultz. (paraphrasing, obviously) I believe he said he reported the 1998 incident to Schultz. This again goes to Paterno thinking he was involving the police in some manner when he involved Schultz.
4. Paterno was the one who brought Schultz into the picture. Both Curley and Schultz testified Schultz was included at Paterno's request.
5. MM was not told by anyone to refrain from talking about the incident to others. Not Paterno, not Curley, not Schultz. If they wanted to cover this thing up, a good start would have been to silence MM.
6. Paterno followed up with MM about how he was feeling on several occasions. While this doesn't answer the question so many are asking about whether or not Paterno followed up, in my opinion it makes it more likely he did. If he followed up with MM, he likely followed up with the others. It also shows that following up was not included in the Grand Jury Presentment. Shocker.
7. While not a positive piece of testimony, one of the "juciest" pieces that certain people on here jumped all over was Paterno's testimony that he probably didn't call Curley over the weekend because he didn't want to ruin his weekend his plans. In fact, Paterno did call Curley the very next day. So this is basically meaningless. It seems Paterno could not remember the exact timeline of when he acted so he offered this as an excuse. Albeit a dumb one. In fact, Paterno couldn't remember the year of the incident and was likely embarrassed. Remember he was 84 (I think) at the time he testified about events 9 years prior.
Well those are my initial impressions. I hope this clears up some of the ambiguity. I'm sure I have convinced no one on the other side of anything, but I hope I at least provided those looking for additional facts, or those who didn’t have an opportunity to follow the testimony, a clearer picture of the new facts relating to Paterno.
Blast away.

No comments:

Post a Comment