Alright, let’s discuss this latest Joe Paterno news
With Jerry Sandusky getting his appeal process granted, we are bound to revisit and learn all sorts of information related to the Sandusky scandal. This will inevitably bring a lot of stuff back to the surface, including what former head coach Joe Paterno did or did not know as it relates to Sandusky’s vile actions against children. On Thursday, however, information stemming from an insurance claim between Penn State and an insurance coverage provider suggested Paterno was told about Sandusky’s sexual abuse of a child in 1976. The allegation itself is not entirely a new piece of information, but the depth and detail of the situation is now being brought into focus.
Penn State and Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company are disputing whether or not the university has the right to collect insurance money to help cover the sum paid to victims of Sandusky, which reached a reported $59.7 million. The case basically comes down to whether or not Penn State officials like trustees or shareholders were aware of Sandusky’s conduct. Depositions from victims are now being revisited, and one of the revelations is one child allegedly informed Paterno directly of Sandusky’s abuse in 1976. Other instances from 1987 and 1988 were allegedly witnessed by other members of Penn State’s coaching staff, although the names of those coaches are unknown and unconfirmed. A case from 1988 was allegedly referred to Penn State’s athletics director.
“There is no evidence that reports of these incidents ever went further up the chain of command at PSU,” Judge Gary Glazer explained. Glazer, according to PennLive, determined Penn State’s executive officers were not aware of the Sandusky allegations.
Basically, we are coming back to trying to determine what Joe Paterno did or did not know and when he did or did not know it. In a late interview with Sally Jenkins of The Washington Post, Paterno claimed he had “never heard of rape and a man” before Mike McQueary came to his home that night the former quarterback and new assistant coach witnessed Sandusky in the shower with a victim. Allegations like this directly contrast that idea.
The only thing I would have concern with over these latest headlines is how much validity can we take from allegations of what happened 30 and 40 years ago? I would want to know just how accurate those allegations are decades after the fact. The problem is we may never be able to tell if this specific allegation against Paterno is 100 percent accurate or not. As noted by Michael McCann for Sports Illustrated, there are a few reasons why this may be the case. Corroborating or disproving the allegation would mean opening a sealed deposition transcript, which remains unlikely. Also unlikely is the victim providing the information voluntarily, as this victim has apparently signed a confidentiality agreement with the university. And, of course, Paterno is dead so any facts he did or did not know will never be verified one way or the other from him.
McCann also points out this question with regard to the circumstances of the victim informing Paterno of this incident;
Fourth, it’s unclear what circumstances would have led to a child directly telling Paterno about sexual abuse or other inappropriate conduct. It might strike a reader as somewhat unusual that a child would have an opportunity to speak directly with a Division I head football coach and about such a sensitive topic. Although such a scenario is by no means unimaginable, it would be interesting to know if others were present while the victim allegedly spoke with Paterno. It would likewise be revealing if the victim’s claim was ever communicated to law enforcement or if any police investigation took place.
So what we have is an allegation that comes off incredibly damning of Paterno without any way to test its validity. What will end up happening is Paterno supporters will continue to defend him at all costs to defend his legacy while others will simply use this as new ammo for lighting Paterno on fire. I will say this though. It is important to have all of the information possible to determine how much blame should be shouldered on individuals such as Paterno. Knowing what has been reported over the years, I tend to put a decent amount of blame on Paterno while recognizing the true villain remains Sandusky. No matter how much information comes out, I believe that will always be my stance, but I will always be willing to review whatever new information comes out. This allegation is just that, but if true then it is not a good look for Paterno at all.
We still have two sides of the spectrum going on with breaking down Paterno and his legacy. I still fall somewhere in the middle.
Connect: Facebook | Twitter | Google+ | Instagram | YouTube
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
