But a crime he heard was commited. And a very serious crime. It was his duty to urge the person who saw it to report it to the police, else report it himself. Sorry, he just wanted to wash his hands of it, and go on leading a nice cozy little life as a hothot coach or whatever his job was, with no paedophilia scandal or anything at his workplace. What did he care that a 10-year-old boy was being raped? He deserved what he got.

How do you know that he didn't urge the person who reported it to him to go to the police? How do you know that when he reported the incident to the Athletic director he wasn't told by him that he would inform the police?

While I admit that he should have probably contacted the police, I can understand how someone could make that mistake. On top of that, while you can debate whether he should have done more, it is quite clear that the Coach who abused the boys, Coach who witnessed the abuse, the Athletic Director, and the President are much more to blame (because of their actions or inactions) and yet people are fixated on Joe Paterno.

It may be entirely justified to fire Joe Paterno, but there is no justification for keeping the Athletic director and witness coach employed while letting Paterno go ...

If the police had been informed, you can be sure that he would've seen them, he would've been questioned, and it would've been in the media. Sorry, he was knowingly playing dumb (unless he actualyl is extremely dumb, as in that blonde girl from Glee dumb). He got what he deserved.

What I don't understand is why the hell was Sandusky still even allowed on campus (and allowed around young boys) if there was an incident before the one in 2002 with the 10 year old. He retired in 1999, but still had access to all of the facilities at the university. Is it Paterno's job to make sure to revoke his privileges or is it the university president's job to do that?

Why would he be interviewed? He is not a witness, or a suspect, and there is no reason to believe he had any knowledge of the crime outside of what he was told ...

What you don't seem to get is that Joe Paterno was (probably) fired for the same reason you're upset with this case in general; he was let go to protect the football program. He is an old man who was about to retire at the end of the season (6 weeks away), the college has already lined-up a replacement, and letting him go would be the quickest way to generate a resolution which took this story out of the news. He was (most likely) given a massive severance to keep quiet and, due to his age, it is likely that he won't be around long enough to testify in trial about his part in this ...

Without his side of the story the athletic director can say (pretty much) whatever he wants about what and when he was informed of the incident and probably avoid any consequences for covering it up; and the witness coach can remain on staff, and the coaching line-up will remain exactly how it would for next season.

He'd get interviewed because (I'm quite sure) they'd interview several people working there to find out if anyone else new/saw anything. And even if he wouldn't have been, had the police lauched an investigation, you can be sure they would've been quite visible on campus, a lot of noise would've been made, and it would've been all in the media. My point about him playing dumb still stands.

Anyways, the person who saw the guy in the shower with a 10-year-old was a graduate assistant, not a coach. And he's testifyign in court against the paedo. The athletic director and the president are already under investigation, and things aren't looking very rosy for them, sicne they had been clearly covering this up for quite some time. This guy should've been under investigation too, and it's a shame that he isn't.

It would also be nice if people boycotted the team, and possibly the entire university, instead of this stupid protest.

You are a funny man.