[Superman]

No, I don't think I was. I've investigated enough labor grievances to know that asking questions is a good step to perform BEFORE making judgment. I was asking about the facts and noting that Mr. Paterno is fairly renowned for his moral high ground positions.

And quite frankly, after reading through ALL these posts, the most damning actual evidence against Paterno I see here was posted by McLovin:

"But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident."

This falls way short of a flat-footed statement by a first-party witness that Paterno knew the details of what McQueary had seen. Paterno's testimony to the grand jury, according to my understanding, is that he was unaware of the details. Saying this to a grand jury is pretty darned dangerous if it is not true. In my experience, in the light of a full investigation and interview of everyone involved, this kind of lie would likely be uncovered. If there is testimony by someone more than a third-party who claims to have knowlege (this third-party testimony would be hearsay if they did not witness the conversations) that McQueary told "those in authority," and that "those in authority" means Paterno (other persons in authority exist who talked to McQueary), then I'd like to see that.

Having said that, again, it looks to me as though Paterno, at a minimum, knew enough to shake someone by the shoulders and get the facts (if he did not have them). And then, of course, his only reasonably course of action would have been to call the police and the Athletic Director, in that order.

But those facts are not established by the statements made on this forum. I asked questions. Sorry if that seem to you like I was "all over the place." I am not a moral relativist, as many of you appear to be insinuating.