Penn State Sex Scandal: Facts, Not Public Opinion, Should Decide JoePa's Fate

Longtime Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno is a key player in the child sex abuse scandal that has enveloped the football program. But legally, he's in the clear.

We know this because Pennsylvania state police commissioner Frank Noonan said so. Per Marc Levy of the Associated Press, it was determined that Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement when a witness told him in 2002 that he had seen former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky violating a young boy in the Penn State football locker room showers.

According to a grand jury report, Paterno passed on what he had learned to Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and university administrator Gary Schultz. At that point, the situation was pretty much out of JoePa's hands.

Because nothing happened after that, the universal complaint is that Paterno could have done more. And indeed, there are a lot of people who feel this way.

Included among them is none other than Commissioner Noonan, who pointed out that one's legal responsibility is not always the same as one's moral responsibility, especially when it comes to crimes against children.

Said Noonan:

"

I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you’re a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us.

"

Long story short, even the cops think JoePa could have done more than he did back in 2002. Had Paterno actually bothered to report Sandusky to the cops, he could have been behind bars years ago.

What could have happened is going to be a key aspect in this case as long as it remains open. But when it comes to the role that Paterno played in the past, the emphasis should be on what did happen.

Exactly what happened back in 2002 is at best hazy. The grand jury's report claims that Paterno was told that Sandusky had engaged in "sexual activity" with a boy in the showers and that Paterno had passed along the report to his superiors, but Paterno told a different story in a statement he released on Sunday.

Via PennLive.com, part of Paterno's statement stressed that he was not told the "very specific actions" that are detailed in the grand jury's report. After he heard what the witness had to say, all Paterno knew was that "something inappropriate" had occurred.

The testimonies of Curley and Schultz are largely similar. Curley said he got the impression that Sandusky and the boy were merely "horsing around," and Schultz said he thought the situation was "not that serious."

Make no mistake, at some point we are going to find out exactly what happened in 2002. It could be that Paterno truly didn't know the extent of Sandusky's actions, in which case his apparent indifference would at least have an explanation. His decision not to report Sandusky still wouldn't be excused, but it would at least be explained.

The alternative is much more difficult to stomach. It could be that Paterno was told all the grim details, in which case he knew of Sandusky's actions for close to a decade. Legally, he would still be in the clear, but the moral complaints people are already making would be very much justified.

But until then, people have to keep it in mind that there are more questions than there are answers concerning the role Paterno played in this scandal. And remember, one is innocent until proven guilty in this country, and Paterno isn't even on trial.

Right now, what we have are two conflicting stories. As this case proceeds, more and more facts will come to light. When they do, a single definitive story will take shape.

Before judging Paterno and moving on, it would be wise to wait for this story. It's possible that his name can still be cleared.