Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (3 Viewers)

[Disco Stu]

F Joe. F the AD. F McQueary. Die Sandusky.

An excerpt from one of Parrothead's first posts in this thread. There has obviously been some defending of Paterno in this thread, but not by Parrothead.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Has this interview with the NCAA head been posted yet?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/what-role-will-ncaa-take-penn-state-scandal

Kai Ryssdal: There are at least two investigations into the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State going on. The criminal case is one. There's another being done by the Department of Education in Washington. A Congressional inquiry has been promised.

And there will eventually be one done by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the governing body for college athletics, both big money and small. Mark Emmert is the president of the NCAA. Welcome to the program.

Mark Emmert: My pleasure.

Ryssdal: I want to start with Penn State, obviously. The NCAA's position so far, your statements, have been that you'll let the law play out and then the NCAA will investigate as appropriate. I wonder, though, whether this isn't another example of big-time sports, big-money sports, driving institutions of higher education.

Emmert: Well clearly if those allegations are true, they're obviously despicable and they point to a culture that is fundamentally awry in which that kind of behavior could occur without being responded to in all the appropriate ways.

Ryssdal: As the body that is charged, in theory, with guaranteeing the safety of student athletes in American colleges and universities, how are you going to do that? What is your role in something like Penn State?

Emmert: Well we have rules and bylaws that -- while they were never written to address anything quite like this of course -- they speak directly to the control that institutions have to maintain over their athletic departments and their programs. And they speak very directly to ethical behavior of people in those programs and we'll apply those bylaws, and if the allegations hold up, then we'll act accordingly.

Ryssdal: Let me make sure I understand you: There is room here for NCAA sanctions against Penn State?

Emmert: We have a very strong interest in making sure that our programs are reflective of the best values of athletics and of universities.

Ryssdal: You were the president of the University of Washington for four of five years before you took the NCAA job, with a big-time college football program. I wonder what your personal experience is with trying to manage an institution, right, while at the same time trying to keep a big-time football program in check. How do you do that?

Emmert: Well the challenges of managing really significant and successful athletic departments are complex to say the least. We as a society hold athletic success in such high esteem that we've managed to, in some cases, create organizational cultures where the programs themselves seem to be above the institution and above social norms.

Ryssdal: So I looked it up, your last year at the University of Washington the football coach made -- plus or minus -- twice what you made. Does that make any sense?

Emmert: Yeah, that's about right. The marketplace for coaches, again, in these high-profile sports -- football and men's basketball especially -- has become very competitive.

Ryssdal: You're not going to tell me that the market for a football coach is tougher than the market for a guy who can run a University of Washington or a Stanford or an Ohio State. I mean, come on. Right?

Emmert: The marketplace would seem to think so.

Ryssdal: Yeah, you'd think. But it does kind of point out that it is a little bit broken.

Emmert: We in society value people who are in any kind of enterprise that attracts a great deal of attention. You look at, gee, is a musician in a pop band inherently more valuable to society than a nurse or a teacher, and you'd probably come up with a conclusion that they're not. But on the other hand, when they're successful, they draw an enormous amount of attention to their enterprise and they seem to get financially rewarded for it, and that sets the marketplace.

Ryssdal: Mark Emmert is the president of the NCAA. Thanks very much for your time, sir.

Emmert: My pleasure.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Another good post from a PSU alum: Penn State fans, 'normal' is never coming back. My latest column on the Sandusky scandal, and what it means: http://t.co/1dlxzpDL

:(

yuck...what a whiny little #####

 

[mad sweeney]

Another good post from a PSU alum: Penn State fans, 'normal' is never coming back. My latest column on the Sandusky scandal, and what it means: http://t.co/1dlxzpDL

Damn. That made me sad. I feel pretty bad for PSU alumni.

Thanks. It is what it is at this point.

There's a lot i disagree with in there. I don't think most people want the PSU football program dead any more than i believe most PSU people think like Franco HarrisI feel sorry for fans and alums of PSU for going through this though they had nothing to do with it

I really do, and have said that and expressed it in this thread

but they are not the victims, nor is paterno, nor is McQueary.

They're not Victims, but they are definitely victims. There's a very large world of difference between the two, but to say that PSU students, and especially the team itself, aren't victims is pretty short sighted.

 

[E-Z Glider]

This thread got kinda weird last night.

In hindsight, this whole thread would have been a much more intelligent discussion if it would have been lead by Aaron and Idiot Boxer and left out all the input from the extremists and apologists (and I will include myself in this group).

 

[culdeus]

has yandek intereviewed sandusky yet?

 

[Sconch]

has yandek intereviewed sandusky yet?

First off, don't touch me.

 

[roadkill1292]

It’s time to stop deifying college coachesBy Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports3 hours, 54 minutes agoMike Krzyzewski became the winningest coach in the history of men’s college basketball Tuesday. It was an accomplishment worthy of fanfare and celebration.Only I couldn’t stop thinking back to the syrupy ESPN special he participated in last summer: “Difference Makers: Life Lessons With Paterno and Krzyzewski.”That would be Joe Paterno, the now fired Penn State coach who is dealing with serious questions about both his personal role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal and the overall culture of his Nittany Lions program.None of this is to suggest we should be waiting for a fall from grace for Krzyzewski. In fact, this entire column really isn’t fair to Krzyzewski, who is linked by a coincidence of timing.Still, the Krzyzewski milestone, coming on the immediate heels of the Paterno firing, should’ve served as a cautionary tale on what is often over-the top, impossible-to-live-up-to adulation for these coaches.Tuesday was the 903rd time Krzyzewski managed to get a group of college kids to score more points in a basketball game than another coach’s group of college kids.That’s it.Very little of the coverage however, particularly during the ESPN broadcast and gushing post mortem, was about his in-game strategy, his scouting ability or his preferred principles of basketball. It was mostly about Mike Krzyzewski, great man, honorable human and principled leader.It was stating as fact Krzyzewski’s emotional connections with people. This is not only impossible to quantify, not to mention verify, but in terms of actually winning games, it is of debatable importance.It also, in the long run, doesn’t really help anyone.“Stop Godding up the players,” Stanley Woodward, the sports editor at the old New York Herald Tribune once told his then columnist, Red Smith.In college sports, it’s not the players who get God’d up. It’s the coach. It’s the “program.” It’s the “culture.” It’s the “values” and “life skills” and who knows what else.It is, well, mostly nonsense and it’s at least one of the reasons I believe college athletics have gotten to this spot, besieged by scandal, rocked by rule breaking and seemingly under assault on a daily basis.Somewhere along the way just being a coach that was capable of drawing up plays and figuring out opponent’s weakness wasn’t enough.Now they’re held up as infallible. In fact, they aren’t even coaches, they’re “teachers.”There is a Cult of the Coach in college athletics that isn’t healthy. I’m as guilty as anyone in the sports media of following this narrative.These guys shouldn’t be categorized as beacons of morality and ethics. They aren’t better people than anyone else. They shouldn’t be expected to show players not simply how to run the spread offense, but how to live their lives as perfect beings. In some sections of the country, they even have to be super Christians.For this to be true you’d have to assume that the 200 or 300 best people on the face of the earth all decided to become major college football and basketball coaches.You’d have to pretend this isn’t a cutthroat business that only the most competitive survive in. You’d have to ignore the hours the job consumes and the likelihood they are lousy fathers, husbands and friends.You’d have to believe they aren’t human, full of the usual frailties.I know a lot of coaches on a personal level. “Human” is exactly what they are. They are no better or worse than any other friend I have. Many are completely uncomfortable with where this has gone, that they have to pretend to be more than they are. They struggle with the balance of work and home, of pressure and perception.So many of them can’t even drink a beer in public any more – what would that suggest? So they build bars in their basements to do it in secret.Many got into the business to coach their sport, not to be some mythical leader.Yet they realize that the NCAA makes its billions off peddling college athletics as a more innocent and nurturing alternative than the professional ranks. A lot of it is reflected in their paycheck. This is the deal they have to make.No one knows what the mindset was at Penn State that allowed Jerry Sandusky to exist all these years, but protecting the pristine brand of Joe “Difference Maker” Paterno is certainly a possibility.The cover up is always worse than the crime, but the crime wasn’t so good either. The headlines in 2002 of a former defensive coordinator allegedly raping a 10-year-old in the locker room showers certainly wouldn’t have just been quickly forgiven.This would have left an indelible stain and brought hard questions, especially for a program coming off consecutive five-win seasons. Some people may have lost their jobs. Other schools certainly would’ve used it against the Nittany Lions. It was Penn State, after all, that loved to tout its perfect compliance record and superior morality to high school prospects and their parents.This is the box the coaches are in. They can’t have scandal, even if it isn’t their fault. (Pro coaches don’t get blamed when their players get arrested. Professors aren’t faulted when their students are in trouble.)Coaches can’t lose a game either, especially in football where under the BCS the margin between playing the championship and not (at the top level the difference between a successful or failed season) can be a single result.Many were stunned when in 2010 Ohio State coach Jim Tressel failed to report that his star quarterback, among others, was involved in a likely NCAA violation for trading memorabilia for tattoos. It’s an almost comical “crime,” certainly little reflection on Tressel.Except Tressel had been lifted up to near high-priest status at his school (and he certainly appeared to play along though the years). Could he deal with another NCAA violation? Could he risk a single loss due to having his best players suspended in a much-anticipated season where anything less than 14-0 wouldn’t be good enough?I don’t know a New England Patriots or New York Jets fan who argues that Bill Belichick or Rex Ryan is the greatest man walking the earth, almost incapable of sin.Yet last March, in the 24-hours after Yahoo! Sports first reported Tressel knew, I was besieged by emails and Twitter responses saying we were wrong because Tressel would never lie.Really? Fans believe their coach would never lie? Never? Ever?They do.After Tressel had lost his job, I spoke to another high-profile college coach, the kind who could also one day earn an ESPN fluff piece about teaching life lessons. He readily admitted that confronted with the same situation as Tressel, he would’ve done the exact same thing and told no one.Why? He said he wouldn’t have wanted to deal with the investigation, the headlines and the potential losses. It would all be such a hassle. The shorter answer: he’s human, no matter how the image-makers have sold him.While both Krzyzewski and Paterno provided valuable mentorship to many of their players, let’s offer reasonable perspective.Both coaches were dealing with young men who were highly motivated and highly skilled both athletically and academically. The players were trying to get better at an activity they already loved and had been celebrated their entire life for doing well. The ultimate goal the coaches were preaching would result in fame, cheering crowds and, quite possibly, professional riches.Getting guys to slap the floor on defense isn’t getting kids at the juvenile detention center to learn calculus.They are exceptional game coaches. They are capable of teaching a great deal to young men. They can be powerful mentors.They aren’t Mother Teresa.From the NCAA publicity machine that profits off this supposed wholesomeness, to the media Godding up the “culture of the program,” to the fans who suspend all reality and buy the impossibility everyone is selling, college athletics will be a better place the sooner it stops pretending it is.

I really liked this column. I hate the way the cameras go to those guys all the time, almost as much as I hate football teams stopping before the snap and looking over at the sidelines for the play change. Stop deifying them and maybe they'll stop trying to act like gods. Let the kids play.

 

[shadyridr]

These Penn St apologists are the absolute worst. Getting into a Facebook fight with a bunch of them now. Just not worth it anymore.

 

[shadyridr]

"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." - Please tell me how you now for a FACT that what he knew then about the allegations and how the situation was handled, resolved, and what he may or may have not been told the resolution was. You can't. No one can at this time. His benefit of hindsight could have came from what came out of the GJ.6 minutes ago · LikeUnlike.

My response:

youre right, he should file a wrongful termination suit

 

[BroadwayG]

"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." - Please tell me how you now for a FACT that what he knew then about the allegations and how the situation was handled, resolved, and what he may or may have not been told the resolution was. You can't. No one can at this time. His benefit of hindsight could have came from what came out of the GJ.6 minutes ago · LikeUnlike.

My response:

youre right, he should file a wrongful termination suit

He probably should.

 

[cstu]

has yandek intereviewed sandusky yet?

First off, don't touch me.

 

[cstu]

Another good post from a PSU alum: Penn State fans, 'normal' is never coming back. My latest column on the Sandusky scandal, and what it means: http://t.co/1dlxzpDL

Damn. That made me sad. I feel pretty bad for PSU alumni.

Thanks. It is what it is at this point.

I think everyone feels bad for the fans and alumni (except haters of course), but I can't understand anyone who has even an iota of respect left for Paterno. No matter what he's done in his life doesn't make up for this.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

These Penn St apologists are the absolute worst. Getting into a Facebook fight with a bunch of them now. Just not worth it anymore.

Good info here.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Another good post from a PSU alum: Penn State fans, 'normal' is never coming back. My latest column on the Sandusky scandal, and what it means: http://t.co/1dlxzpDL

Damn. That made me sad. I feel pretty bad for PSU alumni.

Thanks. It is what it is at this point.

I think everyone feels bad for the fans and alumni (except haters of course), but I can't understand anyone who has even an iota of respect left for Paterno. No matter what he's done in his life doesn't make up for this.

See, I disagree with that based on the facts we know. The facts we know are that MCQueary told him what he saw, he passed it up the chain and he didn't call 911 or the local police. We assume a whole lot more (he knew about 1998, was covering everything up, knew Sandusky was continuing to molest young boys, etc). Maybe all the assumptions are true, in which case I agree with you. But there's certainly a chance that when all the facts come to light in a trial or under oath, his role will be less involved than the current assumptions. Not acquitted, mind you. He'll never be acquitted for not immediately calling the cops in 2002. But based on the facts right now, I still have an iota of respect for everything else he's done. I'm just not that black and white. Sorry. Super busy weekend so I'll get back to this thread and the people invariably calling me all sorts of names when I can.

 

[Mario Kart]

See, I disagree with that based on the facts we know. The facts we know are that MCQueary told him what he saw, he passed it up the chain and he didn't call 911 or the local police. We assume a whole lot more (he knew about 1998, was covering everything up, knew Sandusky was continuing to molest young boys, etc). Maybe all the assumptions are true, in which case I agree with you. But there's certainly a chance that when all the facts come to light in a trial or under oath, his role will be less involved than the current assumptions. Not acquitted, mind you. He'll never be acquitted for not immediately calling the cops in 2002. But based on the facts right now, I still have an iota of respect for everything else he's done. I'm just not that black and white. Sorry. Super busy weekend so I'll get back to this thread and the people invariably calling me all sorts of names when I can.

Lots of assumptions about what the guy knew. Not much fact to back up those assumptions.

 

[Joe Summer]

See, I disagree with that based on the facts we know. The facts we know are that MCQueary told him what he saw, he passed it up the chain and he didn't call 911 or the local police. We assume a whole lot more (he knew about 1998, was covering everything up, knew Sandusky was continuing to molest young boys, etc). Maybe all the assumptions are true, in which case I agree with you. But there's certainly a chance that when all the facts come to light in a trial or under oath, his role will be less involved than the current assumptions. Not acquitted, mind you. He'll never be acquitted for not immediately calling the cops in 2002. But based on the facts right now, I still have an iota of respect for everything else he's done. I'm just not that black and white. Sorry. Super busy weekend so I'll get back to this thread and the people invariably calling me all sorts of names when I can.

Lots of assumptions about what the guy knew. Not much fact to back up those assumptions.

I agree that there are lots of assumptions about what Paterno knew.But there's also a lot of denial about what he DID know. And no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

 

[AmosMoses]

Suggestion: Every 5th or 10th page, the first post should have a quick Cliffs on what was covered, meme style or not.

 

[NYG Endzone]

PSU will not look outside for it's next president.

Big mistake, imo.

I dunnoif it is someone from the academic side who truley was not involved in this it could be fine

let's not assume everyone at the entire institution is tainted

Erickson may not be involved at all, but keeping him just screams further cover-up. Huge mistake. PSU trustees seem to be betting this will simply go away at some point, somehow I doubt that.

Agreed and the fact the new Pres has a PHD in Geography?! I think they need a bit more than that right now.

 

[E-Z Glider]

See, I disagree with that based on the facts we know. The facts we know are that MCQueary told him what he saw, he passed it up the chain and he didn't call 911 or the local police. We assume a whole lot more (he knew about 1998, was covering everything up, knew Sandusky was continuing to molest young boys, etc). Maybe all the assumptions are true, in which case I agree with you. But there's certainly a chance that when all the facts come to light in a trial or under oath, his role will be less involved than the current assumptions. Not acquitted, mind you. He'll never be acquitted for not immediately calling the cops in 2002. But based on the facts right now, I still have an iota of respect for everything else he's done. I'm just not that black and white. Sorry.

Super busy weekend so I'll get back to this thread and the people invariably calling me all sorts of names when I can.

Lots of assumptions about what the guy knew. Not much fact to back up those assumptions.

I agree that there are lots of assumptions about what Paterno knew.But there's also a lot of denial about what he DID know. And no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

This is where the legal system and especially the media have failed.The only thing we currently have to go on is the Grand Jury Presentment, which is limited to facts relevant to the charges brought against Sandusky, Culey, and Shultz. Witnesses (like Paterno and McQ) are required to stay silent to preserve their value. Meanwhile they are publicly tried and prosecuted based on this limited bit of released information.

Just like I said many pages ago... I'll wait until all the facts are revealed and everyone has had a chance to tell their side of the story before passing judgement.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

ESPN might have something shortly. I briefly heard that Todd Blackledge is coming on and he was at Paterno's house this morning.

 

[Don Quixote]

Don't think this has been posted, but apologies if so... NCAA to investigate: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf

 

[roadkill1292]

Don't think this has been posted, but apologies if so... NCAA to investigate: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf

I have a knee-jerk emotional reaction whenever I see the effing NCAA butting in to something like this. I don't even care if it's doing the right thing for the right reasons (which is habitually unlikely), the organization just enrages me whenever it opens its yap.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Suggestion: Every 5th or 10th page, the first post should have a quick Cliffs on what was covered, meme style or not.

ESPN is a bunch of hypocrites

 

[mad sweeney]

See, I disagree with that based on the facts we know. The facts we know are that MCQueary told him what he saw, he passed it up the chain and he didn't call 911 or the local police. We assume a whole lot more (he knew about 1998, was covering everything up, knew Sandusky was continuing to molest young boys, etc). Maybe all the assumptions are true, in which case I agree with you. But there's certainly a chance that when all the facts come to light in a trial or under oath, his role will be less involved than the current assumptions. Not acquitted, mind you. He'll never be acquitted for not immediately calling the cops in 2002. But based on the facts right now, I still have an iota of respect for everything else he's done. I'm just not that black and white. Sorry.

Super busy weekend so I'll get back to this thread and the people invariably calling me all sorts of names when I can.

Lots of assumptions about what the guy knew. Not much fact to back up those assumptions.

I agree that there are lots of assumptions about what Paterno knew.But there's also a lot of denial about what he DID know. And no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

This is where the legal system and especially the media have failed.The only thing we currently have to go on is the Grand Jury Presentment, which is limited to facts relevant to the charges brought against Sandusky, Culey, and Shultz. Witnesses (like Paterno and McQ) are required to stay silent to preserve their value. Meanwhile they are publicly tried and prosecuted based on this limited bit of released information.

Just like I said many pages ago... I'll wait until all the facts are revealed and everyone has had a chance to tell their side of the story before passing judgement.

He's as much as admitted he knew something and there's tons of anecdotal evidence, often being used by Paterno apologists (such as not speaking in 7 years, sudden retirement etc). Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

 

[BroadwayG]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

 

[mad sweeney]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

That Sandusky raped was inappropriate with kids in 2002 and was allowed to continue being in a position to be around them. There's nothing whatsoever to counter that fact and it's also pretty damn clear that he knew something in 1997/8. I don't know where I'd draw the line, but good ol Joe Pa has spent a looooong time on the wrong side of it.

 

[Joe Summer]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

 

[johnnycakes]

Suggestion: Every 5th or 10th page, the first post should have a quick Cliffs on what was covered, meme style or not.

I just check in to see if there's a good fight going on.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point. Its not public record.Why would you be interested in hearing them anyway? Just a minute ago you said...

no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point. Its not public record.Why would you be interested in hearing them anyway? Just a minute ago you said...

no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

That's because it's an established FACT that he knew of Sandusky at least in 2002, if not '97. That alone is enough.

 

[Joe Summer]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point.

Yes I do. I know that he never called the police and I know that he continued his coaching career while Sandusky maintained an office within his facilities. These are undeniable facts.And I can't think of any heretofore-unknown facts that could possibly justify what he did (and didn't) do.

 

[BroadwayG]

That's because it's an established FACT that he knew of Sandusky at least in 2002, if not '97. That alone is enough.

The '97 incident is particularly mysterious.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point. Its not public record.Why would you be interested in hearing them anyway? Just a minute ago you said...

no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

That's because it's an established FACT that he knew of Sandusky at least in 2002, if not '97. That alone is enough.

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

 

[Joe Summer]

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

Oh come on. This thread is 105 pages long, and not once in 105 pages did anyone suggest that it was Paterno's "job" to do any of those things. Your attitude isn't making your points look any stronger.

 

[Doug B]

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.

I wonder if it will come out whether or not McQueary reported this reliably up the chain? IOW, did McQueary make absolutely sure that Paterno knew he meant "rape" and not "inappropriate horseplay" or something like that.Down the road, could Paterno conceivably and credibly say something like "Hey -- I thought it was a problem that Jerry was bringing minors into the facility late at night and showering with them. McQueary even caught them one night, and told me about it. But I thought the issue was having kids out and about so late, and being in the facility alone with them ... frankly, at the time, I was concerned about the appearance of impropriety and acted accordingly. I never countenanced the actual deeds Jerry allegedly commited, and McQueary didn't give me that level of detail."

 

[E-Z Glider]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point.

Yes I do. I know that he never called the police and I know that he continued his coaching career while Sandusky maintained an office within his facilities. These are undeniable facts.And I can't think of any heretofore-unknown facts that could possibly justify what he did (and didn't) do.

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported. I wonder how many other "facts" you are incorrect about?

 

[Doug B]

And I can't think of any heretofore-unknown facts that could possibly justify what he did (and didn't) do.

Something else comes to mind: is it conceivable that Sandusky was careful only to bring kids to the Penn St facilities at times when he was sure Paterno wasn't around? For instance, maybe at times Sandusky would pull in to the lot, sweep around looking for Paterno's car, and then if he saw it he'd "abort the mission" and bring the kid elsewhere.

 

[Doug B]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported. I wonder how many other "facts" you are incorrect about?

First I've heard that this was falsely reported. Thanks for the new information....

Like I posted a few pags back in comparing all this to the Casey Anthony trial: you just can't trust the things "everybody knows".

 

[Joe Summer]

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.

I wonder if it will come out whether or not McQueary reported this reliably up the chain? IOW, did McQueary make absolutely sure that Paterno knew he meant "rape" and not "inappropriate horseplay" or something like that.Down the road, could Paterno conceivably and credibly say something like "Hey -- I thought it was a problem that Jerry was brining minors into the facility late at night and showering with them. McQueary even caught them one night, and told me about it. But I thought the issue was having kids out and about so late, and being in the facility alone with them ... frankly, at the time, I was concerned about the appearance of impropriety and acted accordingly. I never countenanced the actual deeds Jerry allegedly commited, and McQueary didn't give me that level of detail."

Doug,The problem with this theory is that Paterno has already admitted that McQueary told him of "fondling" and "something of a sexual nature".

That's enough detail, wouldn't you agree? There's no reasonable explanation for an adult man to do anything of a "sexual nature" with a young boy, wouldn't you agree?

There's no way to spin that as "horseplay".

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I wonder if it will come out whether or not McQueary reported this reliably up the chain? IOW, did McQueary make absolutely sure that Paterno knew he meant "rape" and not "inappropriate horseplay" or something like that.

Down the road, could Paterno conceivably and credibly say something like "Hey -- I thought it was a problem that Jerry was brining minors into the facility late at night and showering with them. McQueary even caught them one night, and told me about it. But I thought the issue was having kids out and about so late, and being in the facility alone with them ... frankly, at the time, I was concerned about the appearance of impropriety and acted accordingly. I never countenanced the actual deeds Jerry allegedly commited, and McQueary didn't give me that level of detail."

it's not clear (to me anyway) how much detail he shared with Paterno. He does, however, seem adamant that he went into graphic detail during the meeting with Curley and Schultz. The Grand Jury also appears to have taken his word over theirs so I think we can pretty safely assume that he conveyed the seriousness of the crime to them at least.

 

[E-Z Glider]

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

Oh come on. This thread is 105 pages long, and not once in 105 pages did anyone suggest that it was Paterno's "job" to do any of those things. Your attitude isn't making your points look any stronger.

You said he knew about it and therefore was a coward. What was he supposed to do? He reported it to his supervisors. No one knows exactly what happened after that. You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

 

[Joe Summer]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

What was he supposed to do? He reported it to his supervisors. No one knows exactly what happened after that.

There are a few options: Call the police. Do something/anything to protect the kid and any other kids that were being abused. Confront Sandusky about it. Etc.

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

 

[E-Z Glider]

And I can't think of any heretofore-unknown facts that could possibly justify what he did (and didn't) do.

Something else comes to mind: is it conceivable that Sandusky was careful only to bring kids to the Penn St facilities at times when he was sure Paterno wasn't around? For instance, maybe at times Sandusky would pull in to the lot, sweep around looking for Paterno's car, and then if he saw it he'd "abort the mission" and bring the kid elsewhere.

Paterno spends very little time at PSU facilities. He is either at home or at practice. He was in his office maybe 20 times total last year. Obviously I have no way to prove this so dont bother. The idea that he and McQ saw Sandusky parading around the facilities with kids for years is absurd. Sandusky did work out at the gym there. Paterno didnt.

 

[Joe Summer]

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

Oh come on. This thread is 105 pages long, and not once in 105 pages did anyone suggest that it was Paterno's "job" to do any of those things. Your attitude isn't making your points look any stronger.

You said he knew about it and therefore was a coward. What was he supposed to do? He reported it to his supervisors. No one knows exactly what happened after that. You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Paterno would still be head coach of Penn State (and this thread would only be 1 page long) if he had simply picked up the phone and dialed 911.He is a coward for failing to do so.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

 

[E-Z Glider]

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

He was fired because of the media outrage.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

He was fired because of the media outrage.

do you think he did enough?

 

[Joe Summer]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again, and never has any contact with the football program again. If you don't make this happen then I'm calling the cops and holding a press conference to expose the cover-up. Thanks."