[djnemo65]

I will not argue that Paterno isn't culpable in this, although I think there's a human element to this story that's being obscured. Let's start with looking at Lavar's comments about his former coach Sandusky in the Washington Post (reprinted in the ESPN.com story):

"I'm perplexed as to how someone who did so much good could end up being accused of something so bad. I have my own kids, and I know how strongly I feel about them and protecting them from hurt, harm and danger. Selfishly I hope that Jerry is innocent, but if he isn't, as a parent my thought is may God show mercy on him ... On one side I want Jerry to be innocent because he was a great man to me, but on the other side, as a responsible parent if he did molest or assault those children, then he needs to be responsible for his actions, as we all have to be."

So while we are painting Sandusky as a monster - fairly - remember that even the most evil man is complex. Never more so than here. People who knew Sandusky loved him, described him as a great person and teacher, and a brilliant football mind. That all but the latter are now coming undone doesn't change the fact that he obviously had very good qualities, which I think Lavar's quote captures. My point not being to humanize someone guilty of the inhuman, but to help us to understand how Paterno would, in what was clearly in retrospect bad judgment, not rush to vigilantism against one of his oldest and most trusted colleagues. He was presented with this information and told the AD. He probably hoped it wasn't true. Jerry couldn't be guilty of that? No way, I know him.

A couple of years ago a friend of mine was accused of a monstrous sex crime. I didn't believe it. How could I? This was someone I knew, had driven across the country with, confessed my deepest thoughts to. I was not in a position to report his behavior to police but I can tell you that I wouldn't have, not because I would have wanted to protect him, but because I couldn't at that time bring myself to believe that someone I knew that well could be guilty of such a crime. Well guilty he was.

We live in a cynical age in which our most trusted leaders and public figures almost always break our hearts. They lie. They cheat. They steal. They fall short, again and again. You see that cynicism here and in other discussions: Paterno knows more than he's letting on goes the charge. Maybe, and if so I won't defend him. But isn't it possible that he didn't believe that this could be true about Jerry? That he did what was legally required of him (no debate there) but no more given the circumstances? And if so, does it really undo five decades of work in which he touched thousands of lives in a positive way?

I don't know. I know people are angry and want retribution. Maybe I am falling into that same trap ... I just can't believe that about Joe.