Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
LOL Paterno. Just stop talking dude. In fact that goes for everyone. Like not one person who was in a position of authority does anything other than make it worse every single time they open their mouth.
I mean he really said, in effect, 'I did nothing because I didn't know men could rape each other.' Waaaat. Also amusing: 'Lay off me, it was my first time dealing with a child rapist! I'll do better next time mmkay?'
Riverman (and Karak):
My first thought as I began reading the Washington Post article was "I can't believe Paterno's high priced Washington, D.C. lawyer is allowing his client to talk to the press! JoePa must have decided to ignore his attorney's advice and vent his spleen - possibly at the urging of his wife and family." Then I reached the third page of the article where Sally Jenkins noted that Paterno's attorney was "monitoring" the interview.
All of this is speculation, but I wonder if Paterno's attorney (as well as JoePa) are anticipating being named in yet-to-be-filed civil suits? It's fairly obvious that during Jerry Sandusky's upcoming criminal trial, Mike McQueary's testimony as to precisely what he conveyed to Joe Paterno is going to be at some variance to what Paterno recalls.
Paterno can't admit the terrible truth, the terrible truth being: "I knew what Jerry Sandusky was doing to those boys, but I (along with everybody else in authority at Penn State) chose to ignore it and look the other way. I was hoping this nightmare would never see the light of day - or at least not until long after I had been laid to rest." That's the terrible truth Joe Paterno can't admit.
The unfortunate thing (for JoePa) about putting Sandusky on trial is that what comes out in court is going to make Paterno look terrible - and the testimony and revelations which emerge during the criminal trial can be used [against Paterno] in a civil case. So the only "defense" Paterno has against the threat of the civil suits (to his assets and his wealth) is to adopt the "I'm a confused old man who had no idea what was going on. Honest." That's the line he's trying to sell to any future jury he might have to face.
Joe Paterno knows Mike McQueary's testimony is going to be devastating. By taking this "I'm confused and I had no idea what Jerry Sandusky was doing to those boys," plus "Mike McQueary was vague when he came to see me" line, Paterno is trying to sidestep his own personal failing. If he's forced to get on the stand and testify about all this, the jury is surely going to wonder why he did so little to stop Jerry Sandusky. (Stating in the interview that his relationship with Sandusky was "professional and not personal" is tantamount to throwing his former defensive coordinator under the bus.) In the legal business using those kind of words is called trying to distance yourself from potential liability. His lawyer, the savvy Mr. Sollers, almost certainly advised his client to make sure he got that jab in during his chat with the reporter. There wasn't a word that came out of JoePa's mouth that hadn't been carefully rehearsed and discussed in advance before he agreed to have his chat with Ms. Jenkins. (Joe Paterno certainly has top flight legal representation - as opposed to that moron Amendola that Sandusky has retained.)
By taking this tack, Joe Paterno deftly sidesteps having to admit the terrible truth, plus he might even garner sympathy from some jurors - if they fall for this line of malarkey. The key to this defense strategy is that Joe Paterno is attempting to protect his assets against possible civil suits. In football terms, he's playing defense. He already accepts that his reputation is shot. Now it's a matter of trying to protect his money and his possessions from those greedy bastards (excuse me, I meant "lawyers"), representing Sandusky's victims.
Former DJ