It’s a shame that former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno passed away and not just because he was a beloved football coach to many thousands of Penn State loyalists.
Paterno, some say, knew a lot more about the activities of Jerry Sandusky than he let on. Sandusky faces 52 criminal counts for alleged abuse of 10 boys over 15 years, allegations he denies. Jury selection is scheduled to begin in a central Pennsylvania courthouse on Tuesday.
A Pennsylvania appeals court turned down Sandusky’s latest request for a delay. Sandusky’s lawyer wanted more time to review material from the prosecution and has argued a delay was also warranted so that defense experts and potential witnesses could be available at trial.
That delay isn’t happening so it’s on with the case.
Now there are plenty of people who wanted to see Paterno charged with helping Sandusky commit his alleged sex crimes. Obviously that can’t happen. But would it have happened?
I suppose the point of this argument is that if there are those ready to get Paterno charged and convicted for allowing Sandusky to allegedly continue his evil ways, how is that different than the case involving Monsignor William Lynn?
Right now a jury is deliberating Lynn’s fate. He is the first U.S. church official charged with endangering children by keeping predator-priests in ministry.
According to an Associated Press story, jurors have heard from more than dozen alleged victims. They include a nun, a former priest and young adults with drug and alcohol problems. Lynn says he tried to get the Philadelphia archdiocese to address the problem, only to be rebuffed by the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.
But prosecutors say Lynn could have quit or called police.
In the Paterno case involving Sandusky, the former coach told officials that he had gone up the chain of command and no one did anything about the problem. It seems like Lynn says the same.
So how about it? If we have Lynn on trial would we have put Paterno on the same hook?
— Andy Hachadorian