Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno FIRED *SuperMerge*

[Yakuza Rich]

If Paterno did anything wrong or participate in a cover up of abuse, why on Earth would he have exposed the alleged cover up to the grand jury?

He's under oath and he knew that legally he was already cleared.

Schultz and Curley were under oath and determined to be deceitful by the grand jury and were arrested for perjury (and failing to report).

Plus, according to the Grand Jury report, McQuery told Paterno that the boys were fondled and that he felt uncomfortable watching it. Yes...it's 'watered down', but fondling boys is an atrocious felony.







YR

 

[casmith07]

Really? Fear of losing a janitorial job does not come close to vindicating someone in this situation in my book. That's an awful excuse for keeping quiet.

But you have to imagine the second and third order effects of that. If an old man that sweeps the floors and takes out the trash is that afraid he might lose his job...that's not good.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Maybe that's all Paterno had as well. Circumstantial evidence. And if you think abut it. Why would Sandusky leave a meeting that Paterno had just told him he wouldn't be the HC (assuming it was for this reason) and then go hang out with one of his victims and do the very thing that he won't be getting the HC job for? That doesn't even make sense. And we don't know why he told him that. Could have been a football decision as well. Unless we know, we are just speculating.

I've been told it was a football decision. Google some of Paterno's comments about Sandusky from 96-99. At one point when asked about the defensive coordinator, Paterno replied "there was no coordination".

Others on the staff were putting in hours while Sandusky was barely there, spending time with the Second Mile instead.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You forgot the most crucial element...HE WAS NOT PROSECUTED. Wouldn't that lead a rational person to assume he was falsely accused at the time?

You forget the most crucial element. If he was 'falsely accused', why would Paterno and company force him out of his D-Coordinator position?

Funny how the school compeltely supports Schultz, Curley and Paterno now...but back in '98 when a supposedly rational person could conclude that Sandusky was supposedly falsely accused...they couldn't bare to support him then.







YR

 

[RoyTheHammer]

You forgot the most crucial element...HE WAS NOT PROSECUTED. Wouldn't that lead a rational person to assume he was falsely accused at the time?

I think some are going about this the wrong way. You arn't falsely accused when you admit it. Im betting Joe knew about the incident, and that's why he told him he'd never be the head coach there. Even if the man wasn't found guilty, Joe didn't want him there hurting the reputation of the program or the university.

Also, something being lost is that from all accounts, Jerry Sandusky was always an outstanding human being and a guy who everyone liked and always was willing to help out. So when Joe came out with his initial statement that if "this was true, he had us all fooled" that's why im inclined to believe what the guy says. Everyone seemed to have nothing but the greatest respect for Sandusky, and that's probably why he was able to pull the wool over so many people, including one of his best friend's for years. Everyone that thought they knew him is in complete shock right now.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

He's under oath and he knew that legally he was already cleared.

Schultz and Curley were under oath and determined to be deceitful by the grand jury and were arrested for perjury (and failing to report).

Plus, according to the Grand Jury report, McQuery told Paterno that the boys were fondled and that he felt uncomfortable watching it. Yes...it's 'watered down', but fondling boys is an atrocious felony.









YR

He wasn't under oath when he told the investigators to speak to McQueary and Curley as it was long before his testimony.

Do you not understand how the grand jury process works?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Funny how the school compeltely supports Schultz, Curley and Paterno now...but back in '98 when a supposedly rational person could conclude that Sandusky was supposedly falsely accused...they couldn't bare to support him then.

YR

The school doesn't completely support those men right now.

 

[03EBZ06]

I think Paterno should resign immediately rather than end of the season. He will bring nothing but media circus until he leaves the Penn State.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

It may be fair.

If one cannot extrapolate situations, we would have a hard time convicting a lot of people.

Here's what we had in '98:

1. Sandusky was accused of being in a shower with two 10-year old boys and bear hugging one of them.

2. The DA and police do an investigation and Sandusky more or less admits to it.

3. One of the victims (who seem like the only honest people in this entire thing) says that Sandusky was in a meeting with Paterno where he was told he would never be HC at Penn State, shortly after that incident.

4. Sandusky retires.

Could Paterno not have possibly known?

Sure, it's *possible.* But, it's not *likely.*







YR

Alright after reading this thread, I found this the easiest post to go with what I'm wanting to ask here.

Now note right away that I'm making no assumption or claim of innocence or guilt on what Joe did or didn't do in his time there or any of that other stuff that is being flung around in here.


Just going by the timeline you've set out here neatly, and seems to go along with what everyone else is discussing, you say the police knew in 1998, did an investigation, and pretty much nothing happened.


So my question is this...if Joe reported it, the police knew about it, and they didn't do anything what more did people want Joe to do? Make the police do their job?

I'm afraid it doesn't work quite that way.


I know I must be missing a bunch of crucial information to this situation, as any situation like this would be missing crucial situation by people arguing and leaving things out to fit their own views or outrage.

But from what everyone here has shown as their evidence it seems pretty clear that people are agreeing the cops knew, they were informed, and they basically did nothing.

So, again, what exactly was he going to do? Hold the cops hands till they did their job?


This is a disgusting event, regardless of what blame is put on who or whatever, but i'm not going to get into the finger pointing part of it as I just don't know what was known or not known or any of that.

I just wanted to see the opinions of those in the thread on that particular question because it's what came to mind as I was reading this.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Also this "he should have done more" argument (and again maybe he should have, maybe he did, I don't know as I said) reminds me of this poster I saw not to long ago.

It wasn't about child molesting but it's another terrible act (at least in my eyes) about women being beaten by men.


Anyway the poster was a black and white of a woman cowering near a stove and a man flailing his arms over her, screaming and such.


The caption on the side said: "If the sound you heard next door was the music playing to loudly you'd call the police."


Basically saying why would something like music bothering you make you call for something to be done but knowing it's a man beating on a woman makes people turn their head and pretend it's not going on?


This situation reminded me of that.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

He's under oath and he knew that legally he was already cleared.

Schultz and Curley were under oath and determined to be deceitful by the grand jury and were arrested for perjury (and failing to report).

Plus, according to the Grand Jury report, McQuery told Paterno that the boys were fondled and that he felt uncomfortable watching it. Yes...it's 'watered down', but fondling boys is an atrocious felony.







YR

Let's be factually correct here. That is not what the indictment says. It says ONE boy. Not several. And this was after Sandusky had already retired.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Let's be factually correct here. That is not what the indictment says. It says ONE boy. Not several. And this was after Sandusky had already retired.

That's correct. Although IIRC, the '98 incident there were 2 boys, but they could only identify the one and have yet to identify the other boy.

Sorry for the confusion.









YR

 

[Cajuncowboy]

That's correct. Although IIRC, the '98 incident there were 2 boys, but they could only identify the one and have yet to identify the other boy.

Sorry for the confusion.









YR

But the incident that McQueary told Paterno about was only one boy. The 1998 incident had nothing to do with what Paterno knew in 2002. There is no evidence that Paterno knew about that.

If he did know, and there is no proof he did, and the cops did nothing and Paterno told him he wouldn't be coach here, that would seem to me that Paterno did all he could do within his power to punish Sandusky.

 

[Hoofbite]

Here's the thing. if paterno knew that this was going on and he did nothing after the 2002 incident then I would agree with you. The only thing he knew was what McQeary told him and it was a very vanilla account. Not what you are reading in the indictment. HE then told Sandusky that he wouldn't become the HC. Here's the problem with all of this.

The 1998 incident was dropped by the cops. The 2002 incident was reported by Paterno to the school officials. Paterno then told Sandusky he wouldn't be the HC and then Sandusky retired.

This is 2011. Nearly a decade has gone by and the cops are just now thinking there is something wrong? Where were the cops in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010?

Is there any reports of an incident past 2002? There may have been but I haven't seen it. If so and Paterno knew about them and he still maintained a relationship with Sandusky, then I will apologize to you and agree that he should be held to a much higher degree of culpability.

But as far as I know, He only knew about the 2002 incident.

You keep bringing the cops into the situation like it's relevant. It's not. Even if it could be proven the cops intentionally did nothing (good luck), the shortcomings of one person or a group of people don't just gloss over the shortcomings of another person.

Secondly, why do you think they dropped it? Simply saying they dropped it means nothing because we know that cops are restricted in their ability to act and in all likelihood they didn't have enough to act upon. Maybe if someone with a little bit of concern had gone to them they could have taken the issue further. Maybe not. Nobody really knows.

One thing is for sure, using the inactions of the cops as a means of deflecting blame from Paterno is just cheesy.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

So my question is this...if Joe reported it, the police knew about it, and they didn't do anything what more did people want Joe to do? Make the police do their job?

That's not the point at all.

1. There are people, including Paterno....who claim Paterno never knew about the '98 incident. I'm not sure what you believe or not. But I find that incredibly difficult to believe that Joe knew nothing of the '98 incident.


2. Despite that, Sandusky was given AN OFFICE on campus, professor emeritus status, unlimited access to the facilities and still allowed to run the 2nd Mile program (which Paterno is a member of the 2nd Mile board).


3. When this incident is reported in 2002, Paterno is claiming that it was 'watered down' so he didn't know how bad the incident was.


4. Accoridng to the grand jury report, McQuery told Paterno that he saw him fondling a boy in the show and he was uncomfortable with that.


5. Paterno says point blank, that McQuery was 'visibly shakened' when he reported it to Paterno.


Nobody expects Paterno to be judge, jury and executioner. But, to act like what McQuery told him in '02 was so watered down that he didn't think it was that big of deal and to allow Sandusky to stay on campus and with the 2nd Mile program is incredible.











YR

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You keep bringing the cops into the situation like it's relevant. It's not. Even if it could be proven the cops intentionally did nothing (good luck), the shortcomings of one person or a group of people don't just gloss over the shortcomings of another person.

Secondly, why do you think they dropped it? Simply saying they dropped it means nothing because we know that cops are restricted in their ability to act and in all likelihood they didn't have enough to act upon. Maybe if someone with a little bit of concern had gone to them they could have taken the issue further. Maybe not. Nobody really knows.

One thing is for sure, using the inactions of the cops as a means of deflecting blame from Paterno is just cheesy.

We are talking about the 1998 incident, not the McQueary one. There is nothing to suggest Paterno knew of the 1998 indecent before the cops did.

He may have known after that and if he did let Sandusky know about it and that was why he wouldn't be coach (Still no proof of that either) then it would seem that Paterno did the most he could with what authority he had at the time.

 

[Hoofbite]

Maybe that's all Paterno had as well. Circumstantial evidence. And if you think abut it. Why would Sandusky leave a meeting that Paterno had just told him he wouldn't be the HC (assuming it was for this reason) and then go hang out with one of his victims and do the very thing that he won't be getting the HC job for? That doesn't even make sense. And we don't know why he told him that. Could have been a football decision as well. Unless we know, we are just speculating.

For the same reason an alcoholic or heroine fiend leaves an intervention meeting with his family and goes to get hammered.

He's an addict. He cannot control himself. The end of any sense being made in the situation arrives when he starts raping little boys. Anything beyond that is just the course of events.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

That's not the point at all.

1. There are people, including Paterno....who claim Paterno never knew about the '98 incident. I'm not sure what you believe or not. But I find that incredibly difficult to believe that Joe knew nothing of the '98 incident.


2. Despite that, Sandusky was given AN OFFICE on campus, professor emeritus status, unlimited access to the facilities and still allowed to run the 2nd Mile program (which Paterno is a member of the 2nd Mile board).


3. When this incident is reported in 2002, Paterno is claiming that it was 'watered down' so he didn't know how bad the incident was.


4. Accoridng to the grand jury report, McQuery told Paterno that he saw him fondling a boy in the show and he was uncomfortable with that.


5. Paterno says point blank, that McQuery was 'visibly shakened' when he reported it to Paterno.


Nobody expects Paterno to be judge, jury and executioner. But, to act like what McQuery told him in '02 was so watered down that he didn't think it was that big of deal and to allow Sandusky to stay on campus and with the 2nd Mile program is incredible.


YR

Who said Paterno didn't think it was a big deal? He took it to his superiors immediately as he was supposed to do. If he didn't think it wasn't a big deal, would he do that?

 

[Hoofbite]

We are talking about the 1998 incident, not the McQueary one. There is nothing to suggest Paterno knew of the 1998 indecent before the cops did.

He may have known after that and if he did let Sandusky know about it and that was why he wouldn't be coach (Still no proof of that either) then it would seem that Paterno did the most he could with what authority he had at the time.

Then why do we keep having to hear about the cops?

And action within his authority? I have none, I would have produced better results and I hope that you in your state of ZERO authority in the matter would have produced better results as well.

 

[tecolote]

I just read that Sandusky was seen working out in the Penn State gym as recently as one week ago. Obviously Paterno knew about this.

At best this makes Paterno look like a very stupid man.

There is no excuse for at the minimum cutting all ties with that dog of a man.