Saturday, January 04, 2014

John Ziegler still makes sense

Surprisingly, this time he gets a fair hearing

See interview here.

Q: Just recently one of the attorneys on the case in the attorney general’s office asked that, and he said, “Based on the evidence, they said, ‘Did Joe Paterno cover this up?’” and he said, “Absolutely not, and I’m basing that off of the evidence.”

A:Right. Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, said to CBS that Joe Paterno was not involved in a cover up. And I believe he said that because of the very interview that I had with his office that I released in my book where Joe Paterno makes it clear that he was not involved in any sort of cover up. He was not even in the loop of the final decision as to what to do with Sandusky. But what really gets me about this Paterno thing is had no motive to engage in a cover up. In fact he would have been a hero had he been the person who put Jerry Sandusky behind bars. And, by the way, sometimes we miss the most obvious truths in a story this complex: without Joe Paterno’s testimony, not only did Curly and Shultz not get indicted, but I believe that not even Jerry Sandusky gets indicted because no one would be backing up Mike McQueary’s testimony, they would be going up against Jerry Sandusky without any witnesses. So Joe Paterno is a large part of the reason that Jerry Sandusky is in jail today. That’s No. 1. The first article about Joe Paterno by Sara Ganim, who won a Pulitzer Prize, which she didn’t deserve in this case, November 5, 2011, has a headline, “Joe Paterno Praised for His Reaction to Child Sex Abuse Suspicions.” The reality is that Joe Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do.

No comments: