i disagree dewiecox, i think this is the perfect place to expose paterno.
Joe Paterno aided and abetted the rape and moslestation of vulnerable children.
Should he RIP?
Remember, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
i disagree dewiecox, i think this is the perfect place to expose paterno.
Joe Paterno aided and abetted the rape and moslestation of vulnerable children.
Should he RIP?
Remember, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
This is ridiculous...never mind the homophobia, never mind the harboring of a rapist, he donated a few bucks to a library, coached a few kids some mediocre football, and we love the hell out of him. Why not try learning from both his shortcomings and good deeds rather than focus only on the good deeds and dismiss the bad stuff?
This is ridiculous...never mind the homophobia, never mind the harboring of a rapist, he donated a few bucks to a library, coached a few kids some mediocre football, and we love the hell out of him. Why not try learning from both his shortcomings and good deeds rather than focus only on the good deeds and dismiss the bad stuff?
I think everyone here that supports him and loves him feels that way. We love what he did for 99% of his career but are not happy with how he handled the Sandusky situation. There's really only one person here who see this as a black or white issue.
This is ridiculous...never mind the homophobia, never mind the harboring of a rapist, he donated a few bucks to a library, coached a few kids some mediocre football, and we love the hell out of him. Why not try learning from both his shortcomings and good deeds rather than focus only on the good deeds and dismiss the bad stuff?
I think everyone here that supports him and loves him feels that way. We love what he did for 99% of his career but are not happy with how he handled the Sandusky situation. There's really only one person here who see this as a black or white issue.
I disagree Cliffy you gotta see the twin thread on AMT...people are actually defending him all the way down to the Sandusky stuff. Also why is everyone ignoring the Rene Portland shit (http://www.trainingrules.com/)? He was already screwing up publicly before Sandusky.
i wonder how the victims and their families see it?
That's a good question. I am not going to assume to know something I don't. I'm interested to hear what interaction you have had with these families though. I am sure they are more angry than I am, but the only family that has said anything, that I am aware of, wasn't very supportive of how the board handled the Paterno firing.
For many of them, including the kid who's school allowed Sandusky to take him out of class AFTER the kid reported it to his parents and the guidance counsler, I would imagine are less worried with Paterno than some of the others who were, you know, directly responsible for the childrens well being. Your anger towards Paterno is understandable, but incredibly misguided. You have never mentioned the names Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, Spanier or the the kids school I mentioned above, yet you won't shut the fuck up about Paterno. We get your point and you're not going to change anyones mind. Quite frankly, you just sound like an annoying troll at this point.
I said yesterday that I am done with you and I really am this time.
Also why is everyone ignoring the Rene Portland shit (http://www.trainingrules.com/)? He was already screwing up publicly before Sandusky.
What does a controversy involving the women's basketball team have to do with Joe Paterno? Looks to me like that whole thing is on Rene Portland, or the AD. What is the Paterno connection?
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Joe Paterno defended her and her coaching beliefs. He even defended her when she kicked a lesbian off her team in 2005 for being a lesbian...some beacon of education.
This is ridiculous...never mind the homophobia, never mind the harboring of a rapist, he donated a few bucks to a library, coached a few kids some mediocre football, and we love the hell out of him. Why not try learning from both his shortcomings and good deeds rather than focus only on the good deeds and dismiss the bad stuff?
I think everyone here that supports him and loves him feels that way. We love what he did for 99% of his career but are not happy with how he handled the Sandusky situation. There's really only one person here who see this as a black or white issue.
I disagree Cliffy you gotta see the twin thread on AMT...people are actually defending him all the way down to the Sandusky stuff. Also why is everyone ignoring the Rene Portland shit (http://www.trainingrules.com/)? He was already screwing up publicly before Sandusky.
I try to stay away from there. I love Paterno and come from a big Penn State family. I am not happy with how he handled this situation but love him for everything else he did for the school and so many. I am not terribly familiar with the role he played in the Rene Portland situation. I'll have to read up on it but am not sure what he had to do with womens basketball. I'll look into it. I have yet to meet a man that doesn't make mistakes, some bigger than others, but in my opinion what he did for so many kids and that school can't be forgotten.
So there will be tears, now. Many will come from under-informed students, willfully-ignorant alums, and Pennsylvania residents raised to worship a fraud. There will be grandiose, sanitized eulogies from every media corner. A Disney Requiem.
there is a right time, and a wrong time to kick a man....this is the wrong time.
:roll:
Like you said there's a right and wrong time to bring out whatever it is that you object to about JP. You could post ALL THAT DISLIKE in PSU scandal thread. This coming from my view that he could have done more to save other children based on what he was told then follow up on what he told to his superiors.
I do believe he did many good things and a major misstep but just post the negativity that what you want elsewhere.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
its kind of silly for people to expect others to discuss paterno without discussing what happened. for better or worse, they are forever linked. this case will be discussed and looked into for decades to come. i would assume penn state and the football program and how abuse is reported, and how each person, and staff member is to treat is will no doubt be discussed and debated. im sure there will also be a demand for greater transperancy on the part of the administration of penn state and elsewhere, so there is less chance of a cover up occuring.
its like michael jackson. when he died, people were immediately couching what they said, by what defined the last 20 years of his life, allegations and scandals. people are still unable to seperate that aspect, and its been 2 almost 3 years. with michae there was more speculation, and no evidence. with paterno and penn state we have eyewitness reports from 3rd parties, and i dont really think theres any doubt sandusky did what he did and mcqueary, the ad, paterno and the president all did what they did. its fact. we know what sandusky did, and we know what everyone else did and in this case didnt do.
and in this case i think penn state and those involved in this, and that includes everyone who knew about it, and didnt do anything, or covered it up, and sandusky as well, but i think these people were just like the cardinals and whatnot in the catholic church. everyone looked the other way. its not my problem, im not going to deal with it. all the while kids continued to be abused for years and years, even after people had the power to expose it and put a stop to it. i mean where was the integrity of all these people at penn state? their moral codes and compasses? what makes it okay in someones mind to go about their day and not report what was going on? oh im going to go get some lunch, im not going to report what i saw, that can wait until i finish my lunch. and in this case it was more like, im going to spend 7 or 8 years with the knowledge my campus had a known abuser on campus, interacting with kids, and im going to stay silent, because if i speak up, i may lose my job, or my reputation, or money, or status. that to me is inexcusable
So there will be tears, now. Many will come from under-informed students, willfully-ignorant alums, and Pennsylvania residents raised to worship a fraud. There will be grandiose, sanitized eulogies from every media corner. A Disney Requiem.
there is a right time, and a wrong time to kick a man....this is the wrong time.
:roll:
Like you said there's a right and wrong time to bring out whatever it is that you object to about JP. You could post ALL THAT DISLIKE in PSU scandal thread. This coming from my view that he could have done more to save other children based on what he was told then follow up on what he told to his superiors.
I do believe he did many good things and a major misstep but just post the negativity that what you want elsewhere.
Peace
i dont really consider what you say about paterno to be a point of view or an opinion or a belief. paterno and every single person involved who knew, point blank, matter of factly could have done more. it isnt they maybe could have done more. they could have done more. period.
its kind of silly for people to expect others to discuss paterno without discussing what happened. for better or worse, they are forever linked. this case will be discussed and looked into for decades to come. i would assume penn state and the football program and how abuse is reported, and how each person, and staff member is to treat is will no doubt be discussed and debated. im sure there will also be a demand for greater transperancy on the part of the administration of penn state and elsewhere, so there is less chance of a cover up occuring.
its like michael jackson. when he died, people were immediately couching what they said, by what defined the last 20 years of his life, allegations and scandals. people are still unable to seperate that aspect, and its been 2 almost 3 years. with michae there was more speculation, and no evidence. with paterno and penn state we have eyewitness reports from 3rd parties, and i dont really think theres any doubt sandusky did what he did and mcqueary, the ad, paterno and the president all did what they did. its fact. we know what sandusky did, and we know what everyone else did and in this case didnt do.
and in this case i think penn state and those involved in this, and that includes everyone who knew about it, and didnt do anything, or covered it up, and sandusky as well, but i think these people were just like the cardinals and whatnot in the catholic church. everyone looked the other way. its not my problem, im not going to deal with it. all the while kids continued to be abused for years and years, even after people had the power to expose it and put a stop to it. i mean where was the integrity of all these people at penn state? their moral codes and compasses? what makes it okay in someones mind to go about their day and not report what was going on? oh im going to go get some lunch, im not going to report what i saw, that can wait until i finish my lunch. and in this case it was more like, im going to spend 7 or 8 years with the knowledge my campus had a known abuser on campus, interacting with kids, and im going to stay silent, because if i speak up, i may lose my job, or my reputation, or money, or status. that to me is inexcusable
apparently when a cardinal or Joe Pa dies it's not the right time to bring it up, because, well because I don't quite get it. I guess I don't get the worship of anyone or anything either so that could just be my thing.
i wonder how the victims and their families see it?
as in the every single case like this, abuse, school shootings, whatever, the people that never have their voice heard or recognized are the victims and their families. picking up from what you said, id quote marilyn manson from bowling for columbine, "i wouldnt say one word to the victims and their families, i'd let them speak and i'd listen and thats exactly what no one has done"
musicismylife, the difference between Michael Jackson and Joe Paterno is that Michael Jackson was the one actually accused of doing the abuse, Paterno heard about abuse committed by somebody else second-hand.
If I were Paterno, I would like to think I would have taken more action, but I also try to remember that he did not actually witness anything. He was told by McQueary, who in all fairness has given conflicting reports about what exactly he witnessed. In some accounts he saw full-on intercourse going on, in others he heard something but didn't see it. I'm fairly sure Sandusky is guilty (though technically he is innocent until proven guilty) but from Paterno's standpoint he was hearing this from a somewhat unreliable witness. He then fulfilled his legal obligation, but many people believe (as do I) that he probably should have done more.
Having not been in this position though, I can't beat my chest and talk about what I WOULD have done. Plus we are looking at this from the standpoint of a completed investigation (that took years to conduct) and with a perspective that no single person had at the time. We can read all the testimony and see the full scope, but at the time none of these people had that. Paterno was only involved with the accusations involving one victim. And sure, one is enough, but you're judging him based on the scope of the entire investigation.
At the end of the day though, Paterno heard a rumor. Looking at the graph/flow chart of all the witnesses gives us the big picture. Had all these people been together in a single room it would have been one thing, but they weren't. Paterno, a custodian, a high school wrestling coach, the director of Second Mile, campus police, child welfare, and the county District Attorney didn't get together for a beer and see the entire scope of this scandal. It was all very fragmented, and the only person who knew the full scope of this scandal was likely Jerry Sandusky. Paterno's scope of the scandal went as far as one person telling him something, and he told it to his superior.
Paterno is dead. And even if he were alive he wasn't being charged with anything. I think the focus of the investigation should be on Sandusky, and then Schultz/Curley, and then finding out what the hell happened to Ray Gricar. There are many people over the course of this scandal that heard rumors. The principal of Clinton County High School, Child Welfare Services, the custodian's supervisors, the people who ran Second Mile, various police officers. But a rumor is just a rumor.
People aren't going to agree on whether or not Paterno is a monster. Some people think he did enough. Some people don't think he did enough, but wasn't criminally negligent. Others are just irate, and I can understand that. But I think a lot of it is just knee-jerk reaction to the fact that kids were abused (which is understandable, it is horrifying) and not really thinking the whole thing through. Paterno was just one small part of this giant fucked up scandal, a part of the scandal that had no direct knowledge, yet the whole thing is falling on him.
And if Paterno should have done more, gone to the cops himself or whatever. Take a good look at who all knew. Lots of cops and welfare people knew, and still nothing happened. Hell, the Attorney General knew. There was SO much more wrong here than "Paterno should have done more".
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
musicismylife, the difference between Michael Jackson and Joe Paterno is that Michael Jackson was the one actually accused of doing the abuse, Paterno heard about abuse committed by somebody else second-hand.
If I were Paterno, I would like to think I would have taken more action, but I also try to remember that he did not actually witness anything. He was told by McQueary, who in all fairness has given conflicting reports about what exactly he witnessed. In some accounts he saw full-on intercourse going on, in others he heard something but didn't see it. I'm fairly sure Sandusky is guilty (though technically he is innocent until proven guilty) but from Paterno's standpoint he was hearing this from a somewhat unreliable witness. He then fulfilled his legal obligation, but many people believe (as do I) that he probably should have done more.
Having not been in this position though, I can't beat my chest and talk about what I WOULD have done. Plus we are looking at this from the standpoint of a completed investigation (that took years to conduct) and with a perspective that no single person had at the time. We can read all the testimony and see the full scope, but at the time none of these people had that. Paterno was only involved with the accusations involving one victim. And sure, one is enough, but you're judging him based on the scope of the entire investigation.
At the end of the day though, Paterno heard a rumor. Looking at the graph/flow chart of all the witnesses gives us the big picture. Had all these people been together in a single room it would have been one thing, but they weren't. Paterno, a custodian, a high school wrestling coach, the director of Second Mile, campus police, child welfare, and the county District Attorney didn't get together for a beer and see the entire scope of this scandal. It was all very fragmented, and the only person who knew the full scope of this scandal was likely Jerry Sandusky. Paterno's scope of the scandal went as far as one person telling him something, and he told it to his superior.
Paterno is dead. And even if he were alive he wasn't being charged with anything. I think the focus of the investigation should be on Sandusky, and then Schultz/Curley, and then finding out what the hell happened to Ray Gricar. There are many people over the course of this scandal that heard rumors. The principal of Clinton County High School, Child Welfare Services, the custodian's supervisors, the people who ran Second Mile, various police officers. But a rumor is just a rumor.
People aren't going to agree on whether or not Paterno is a monster. Some people think he did enough. Some people don't think he did enough, but wasn't criminally negligent. Others are just irate, and I can understand that. But I think a lot of it is just knee-jerk reaction to the fact that kids were abused (which is understandable, it is horrifying) and not really thinking the whole thing through. Paterno was just one small part of this giant fucked up scandal, a part of the scandal that had no direct knowledge, yet the whole thing is falling on him.
And if Paterno should have done more, gone to the cops himself or whatever. Take a good look at who all knew. Lots of cops and welfare people knew, and still nothing happened. Hell, the Attorney General knew. There was SO much more wrong here than "Paterno should have done more".
Well said and well done. Like you said many others knew and many others could have also stepped forward but apparently didn't. JP was powerful on that university campus and yes could have done more but he did DO at the very least report it to his superiors.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
musicismylife, the difference between Michael Jackson and Joe Paterno is that Michael Jackson was the one actually accused of doing the abuse, Paterno heard about abuse committed by somebody else second-hand.
If I were Paterno, I would like to think I would have taken more action, but I also try to remember that he did not actually witness anything. He was told by McQueary, who in all fairness has given conflicting reports about what exactly he witnessed. In some accounts he saw full-on intercourse going on, in others he heard something but didn't see it. I'm fairly sure Sandusky is guilty (though technically he is innocent until proven guilty) but from Paterno's standpoint he was hearing this from a somewhat unreliable witness. He then fulfilled his legal obligation, but many people believe (as do I) that he probably should have done more.
Having not been in this position though, I can't beat my chest and talk about what I WOULD have done. Plus we are looking at this from the standpoint of a completed investigation (that took years to conduct) and with a perspective that no single person had at the time. We can read all the testimony and see the full scope, but at the time none of these people had that. Paterno was only involved with the accusations involving one victim. And sure, one is enough, but you're judging him based on the scope of the entire investigation.
At the end of the day though, Paterno heard a rumor. Looking at the graph/flow chart of all the witnesses gives us the big picture. Had all these people been together in a single room it would have been one thing, but they weren't. Paterno, a custodian, a high school wrestling coach, the director of Second Mile, campus police, child welfare, and the county District Attorney didn't get together for a beer and see the entire scope of this scandal. It was all very fragmented, and the only person who knew the full scope of this scandal was likely Jerry Sandusky. Paterno's scope of the scandal went as far as one person telling him something, and he told it to his superior.
Paterno is dead. And even if he were alive he wasn't being charged with anything. I think the focus of the investigation should be on Sandusky, and then Schultz/Curley, and then finding out what the hell happened to Ray Gricar. There are many people over the course of this scandal that heard rumors. The principal of Clinton County High School, Child Welfare Services, the custodian's supervisors, the people who ran Second Mile, various police officers. But a rumor is just a rumor.
People aren't going to agree on whether or not Paterno is a monster. Some people think he did enough. Some people don't think he did enough, but wasn't criminally negligent. Others are just irate, and I can understand that. But I think a lot of it is just knee-jerk reaction to the fact that kids were abused (which is understandable, it is horrifying) and not really thinking the whole thing through. Paterno was just one small part of this giant fucked up scandal, a part of the scandal that had no direct knowledge, yet the whole thing is falling on him.
And if Paterno should have done more, gone to the cops himself or whatever. Take a good look at who all knew. Lots of cops and welfare people knew, and still nothing happened. Hell, the Attorney General knew. There was SO much more wrong here than "Paterno should have done more".
Well said and well done. Like you said many others knew and many others could have also stepped forward but apparently didn't. JP was powerful on that university campus and yes could have done more but he did DO at the very least report it to his superiors.
Peace
mcqueary has stayed consistent. he obviously was freaked out by what he saw because he called his dad. his dad said to talk to paterno. mcqueary felt it was serious enough, obviously, to speak to paterno about it face to face at paternos house. i dont think mcqueary belittled, or minimized or lessened what he saw when he relayed the information to paterno. i dont think they talked about the weather for 45 minutes then mcqueary said he saw what he saw. I have no doubt in both mcquearys phone call to his dad, and the face to face talk with paterno, he conveyed his eyewitness account in the manner any of us would, in serious, grave, scared, worried tones and mannerisms. i dont think there was any doubt when mcqueary hung up the phone with his dad, or when he left paternos that night that both his dad and paterno knew this was serious, not a joke, and something that involved human beings, children being abused by someone who had access to facilities and kids on campus.
\if you think im only faulting one person you clearly arent reading correctly. ive maintained from day 1, anyone responsible who knew, covered up, took part either physically in the abuse or who knew about it and did nothing, are all responsible and share equal amounts of blame. The coverup resulted in the continued abuse of countless kids, an explicit approval, maybe unknowningly, of abuse of kids. Did the cardinals who moved priests from parish to parish and not alerting anyone of the abuse, physically abuse alterboys? no, but they are as guilty and shameful as the priests who actually committed the crimes
im not sure why people keep saying he probably, or maybe could have done more. every single person involved shares equal blame, and could have and should have done more. Every single person. every single person who knew or covered it up. and thats alot of people as you say. it involved paterno but it also involved the Attorney general and the president of the university among many others. i dont think its wrong to make this what it is, an absolutist issue. paterno and everyone else could and have and should have done more, i dont understand the qualifiers of maybe, or probably.
you fail to admit or discuss or see the plain and simple facts. mcqueary clearly was disturbed and disgusted and sickened by what he saw. why else call his dad and speak to paterno at his home? Also the coverup by everyone also suggests everyone knew the gravity of the situation. if they let it known what was going on, paterno and sandusky and everyone involved would have lost their jobs, reputations and their livelihoods. I think its naive to say no one knew the gravity of what was going on.
Paterno and the staff of the university, the president, the AD, mcqueary, all is troubling because, maybe they thought it was one incident. you are right. but sandusky and alot of these guys were friends. If someone came up to me and said my good friend was seen abusing kids, i'd maybe laugh it off, but if the person telling me didnt break a smile, and acted the way i assume mcqueary did when he told paterno, then i'd first thing either call or more likely go to see my friend and call him out and figure out just what the hell was going on. All indications suggest not one single person involved did this. paterno nor mcqueary didnt walk up to sandusky and ask him to justify or explain what mcqueary saw or thought he saw. Yes, maybe paterno thought it was a rumor. But to not confront sandusky? i dont get that. the refusal to speak or confront him on it seems to me tacit approval or acknowledgement that he knew sandusky did it.
thats where the disturbing aspect comes in. its not just they could have done more. its the fact, paterno and everyone else went about their normal lives and buisness, on campus, interacting with, and acting friendly with sandusky. There is no indication as i said, mcquery or paterno confronted sandusky after both were brought up to speed about what mcqueary witnessed. they went on with their lives for 7 or 8 years after mcqueary let it be known what he had seen. How many times did paterno and sandusky interact, or say hi in the hallway, or see outside class, or go to a meeting in those 7 or 8 years? how many times did the president see sandusky or meet with him, talk with him in those 7 or 8 years? how many times did paterno see the president on campus in those 8 years where he could have asked him, what happened to the kid, and why sandusky wasnt barred from campus? these are simple common sense actions and questions.
so the Ad, mcqueary, paterno and the president interacted with, saw in the halls, had meetings with, maye even socially interacted with outside work-sandusky, all the while every single person knowing he had abused at least one kid. i dont think its overstretching people to think after someone becomes aware of abuse, rumor or not, to investigate it, to confront the person, and to go to superiors.
everyone failed the kids in this case. from mcqueary on up to the attorney general. Everyone in between as well. They all dropped the ball. They all put their own interests ahead of what clearly should have been their focus. Rumors are rumors. Mcqueary said he saw abuse. I dont think the Attorney General, or President of penn state, or anyone else had any doubts about what was going on. Why cover it up if it was pure rumor? It wasnt rumor and to suggest it was, or was viewed that way shows a fundamental ignorance of what occured and why people did what they did.
I dont think mcqueary calls his dad up for a rumor. nor do i think he makes the effort to visit paterno at his house for a rumor. everyone else involved should have taken that simple cue, and mcquearys account as what it was, fact, and run from there.
seperating any part or person in this is silly. the abuse and the coverup were ongoing and continued because it involved so many people, and so many people were involved. thats the whole thing about it. The abuse didnt just occur because of sanduskys obvious heinous actions, they also continued because those who had the power to expose and stop sandusky, refused to do anything, and in fact allowed it to continue. How is the president covering it up, and allowing the continued abuse of kids any different than any other player in this case, paterno, mcqueary, the ad, the AG? all of them share equal blame. just like the cardinals share equal blame for their role in the abuse of kids in the catholic church
obviously the bare minimum, or the legally obligated thing to do, and the moral and ethical thing to do, werent the same thing in this case, and i dont think they ever are.
every single person in this case discussed this thing with their superior. yet, not a single person followed up. how much effort does it take for paterno to talk to the president, or mcqueary to talk to the president, or for either of them to go to the police, and figure out, what happened to the boy, did mcqueary not see what he said he saw, why was sandusky still on campus. seems like such a natural thing to do. mcqueary freaks out and tells paterno, then the next day and for 7 or 8 years continuing neither is curious enough to talk to the president or police to figure out why sandusky was still on campus. to me THATS the bare minimum! Not anything else.
Mcqueary just like everyone else deserves his fair share of blame. this is the guy who actually witnessed the abuse . yet never does or says anything to anyone for the next 8 years and is content to coexist in an institution with someone he saw abusing a young boy. That is bizaare.
i think its clear ultimately why no one acted. paterno didnt want to be known for this scandal. i have no doubt, as much as he was i assume, as people on here have said, a grandfatherly, nice, kind, genuine guy. i think he also knew how he was portrayed in his hometown and the country. He knew how he was viewed by people. He knew how Penn State was viewed by people. And paterno, the AD, mcqueary, the president all acted according to that knowledge. Imagine, what if the police had been called that day. if mcqueary called the police instead of his dad, or if paterno had. This case would have been alot less of a scandal. but i think they knew, it was possible, anyone of them could lose their jobs, that the university would lose money and boosters, that admissions may decline, that they all could be sued, and that they would be tainted.
i think everyone acted in what they viewed as sane and clearheaded manner. they protected their own. sandusky''s action was going to tarnish, and blemish, and harm, and possible cause major problems for paterno and the president and mcqueary, so the thing to do, was to cover it up. there wasnt some "oh gee maybe its a rumor, or maybe i harm sandusky by saying he did something he didnt do". mcqueary saw what he saw. period
obviously the bare minimum, or the legally obligated thing to do, and the moral and ethical thing to do, werent the same thing in this case, and i dont think they ever are.
every single person in this case discussed this thing with their superior. yet, not a single person followed up. how much effort does it take for paterno to talk to the president, or mcqueary to talk to the president, or for either of them to go to the police, and figure out, what happened to the boy, did mcqueary not see what he said he saw, why was sandusky still on campus. seems like such a natural thing to do. mcqueary freaks out and tells paterno, then the next day and for 7 or 8 years continuing neither is curious enough to talk to the president or police to figure out why sandusky was still on campus. to me THATS the bare minimum! Not anything else.
Mcqueary just like everyone else deserves his fair share of blame. this is the guy who actually witnessed the abuse . yet never does or says anything to anyone for the next 8 years and is content to coexist in an institution with someone he saw abusing a young boy. That is bizaare.
i think its clear ultimately why no one acted. paterno didnt want to be known for this scandal. i have no doubt, as much as he was i assume, as people on here have said, a grandfatherly, nice, kind, genuine guy. i think he also knew how he was portrayed in his hometown and the country. He knew how he was viewed by people. He knew how Penn State was viewed by people. And paterno, the AD, mcqueary, the president all acted according to that knowledge. Imagine, what if the police had been called that day. if mcqueary called the police instead of his dad, or if paterno had. This case would have been alot less of a scandal. but i think they knew, it was possible, anyone of them could lose their jobs, that the university would lose money and boosters, that admissions may decline, that they all could be sued, and that they would be tainted.
i think everyone acted in what they viewed as sane and clearheaded manner. they protected their own. sandusky''s action was going to tarnish, and blemish, and harm, and possible cause major problems for paterno and the president and mcqueary, so the thing to do, was to cover it up. there wasnt some "oh gee maybe its a rumor, or maybe i harm sandusky by saying he did something he didnt do". mcqueary saw what he saw. period
But the police DID know. McQueary (depending on which of his conflicting reports you believe) supposedly contacted the police, but even if he hadn't, the police were notified on various occasions. The problem was there was very little evidence. You can't arrest somebody on a rumor, or had Paterno gone to the cops, on third-party news. Several of the victims are still unknown, and have not come forward. Last I heard "Victim #2", the one that Paterno heard about, is still unknown. McQueary himself said he probably couldn't identify the kid if he saw him again. It wasn't until recently that victims started coming forward. Just like you can't have a murder trial without a body, it's hard to bring Sandusky up on charges when the victim is unknown, and the witness says he can't identify him.
I don't doubt that this stuff happened, but if you look at it from a police perspective, there wasn't a whole lot they could legally do. And there were a couple of different investigations going on into different incidents that really didn't hold any water until you start seeing them together and a big picture starts to emerge. Until the victims began to come forward the entire thing really only boiled down to 2 witnesses, one of whom never filed an actual report, the other gave conflicting reports.
Another terrible thing is that McQueary's conflicting reports (I'm not saying they're conflicting because he's lying, they just conflict for whatever reason) are the basis of the Schultz/Curley perjury charges, and it's looking like they probably have a decent case to get off. I don't doubt McQueary saw or heard something, but he can't get his story straight, and that's going to hurt the case. And the fact that he has contradicted himself several times might have something to do with why he wasn't taken as seriously as he probably should have been.
The whole case is very complicated. And because it was so fragmented (not everything happened at Penn State, and it wasn't the same people investigating all the different complaints) nobody involved could really see the forest for the trees until the big picture started to emerge later. I don't think it's as simple as a "cover-up", because people did look into it. You had campus police looking into the Penn State allegation, you had county police looking into the high school incident, you had city cops and CPS looking into another. But nobody really had an airtight case at the time. In '09 a victim contacted the PA Attorney General, and that's when the real investigation got underway that would eventually snowball, use the findings/allegations from the other investigations, and put the pieces together.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
this thread turned into exactly what you guys didn't want it to turn into.
i admit, i made a rude comment on the first page, it was what i was feeling at the time and made a gut reaction post, and then left it at peace and walked away.
can't agree with those trying to run this man into the ground. cliffy and others are right, there is another thread for that.
i watched my grandmother die in november after a long long battle with lung cancer. it was a terrible experience, and i am sure paterno's family is going through the same experience.
regardless of what he did for the school, positives and negatives, the man had a family, and they are going through plenty of pain as it is, and throw the media circus into the mix... unbelievable.
thats crazy. cops can obviously and do and have arrested and jailed people on suspicion or rumors of abuse. and plus this wasnt rumors of abuse. this was eyewitness account reported abuse.
if you accused a coworker tomorrow of abusing kids, and told your boss, or maybe told some friends, or better yet told police, and it was just a rumor obviously, the cops would damn sure be over at your friends house and work pronto. any coverup in this case was because of the status and beloved nature of all those involved and the beloved status attached to the school and football program. the inaction of police is twofold. an excuse people involved and fans of those involved are using to say "they told police and police didnt do it", and of course shows the police were involved in what is obviously a coverup of nearly watergate proportions. the police, the university president, the Attorney general and on and on and on.
people didnt act, covering up, and not act, refusing to tell others because they thought it wouldnt be believed or because they felt it was a rumor. i think thats absolutely mental to suggest anyone involved thought for a second the idea that sandusky was abusing kids was somehow a lie, or a misinterpretation. I mean, how many interpretations of the shower incident could there be? from the way its described it would be hard to say it was anything but what was suggested i think mcqueary's actions suggest he immediately knew it was wrong. he acted from his gut, and his gut was right.
to say it wasnt an airtight case is yet again, giving leeway and the benefit of the doubt to the actors involved in this case. The fact is sandusky was abusing kids and doing it openly and publicly. Public enough that janitors and staff knew about it. That to me doesnt seem like a hard case. doesnt matter if the whole town knew or just one person. i think its impossible to look at any person involved and say they did everything they could do, everything in their power, or even anything at all to prevent abuse. is looking the other way really an acceptable method of dealing with this?
thats crazy. cops can obviously and do and have arrested and jailed people on suspicion or rumors of abuse. and plus this wasnt rumors of abuse. this was eyewitness account reported abuse.
if you accused a coworker tomorrow of abusing kids, and told your boss, or maybe told some friends, or better yet told police, and it was just a rumor obviously, the cops would damn sure be over at your friends house and work pronto. any coverup in this case was because of the status and beloved nature of all those involved and the beloved status attached to the school and football program. the inaction of police is twofold. an excuse people involved and fans of those involved are using to say "they told police and police didnt do it", and of course shows the police were involved in what is obviously a coverup of nearly watergate proportions. the police, the university president, the Attorney general and on and on and on.
people didnt act, covering up, and not act, refusing to tell others because they thought it wouldnt be believed or because they felt it was a rumor. i think thats absolutely mental to suggest anyone involved thought for a second the idea that sandusky was abusing kids was somehow a lie, or a misinterpretation. I mean, how many interpretations of the shower incident could there be? from the way its described it would be hard to say it was anything but what was suggested i think mcqueary's actions suggest he immediately knew it was wrong. he acted from his gut, and his gut was right.
to say it wasnt an airtight case is yet again, giving leeway and the benefit of the doubt to the actors involved in this case. The fact is sandusky was abusing kids and doing it openly and publicly. Public enough that janitors and staff knew about it. That to me doesnt seem like a hard case. doesnt matter if the whole town knew or just one person. i think its impossible to look at any person involved and say they did everything they could do, everything in their power, or even anything at all to prevent abuse. is looking the other way really an acceptable method of dealing with this?
You have to have evidence to back up those allegations though, otherwise it is one person's word against another. And the key thing is, you have to have a victim. The only people who even know who "Victim #2" is are Sandusky and the victim, wherever he may be. It's hard to conduct an investigation on a crime when you don't even know who the victim is, and he isn't coming forward. At least not yet, hopefully he will though. Sure the cops could have arrested him, but they couldn't have held him.
As for how many interpretations there are of the shower incident? Ask McQueary. So far he has stated he saw full on intercourse, and in another he just heard "sex sounds" then saw a kid peak around a corner to be pulled back by a male arm only for Sandusky to emerge later. I think the reason McQueary's story has so many holes is because he probably did witness something, but he didn't act the way he should have. How he responded/intervened is another part of the story that changes. But regardless, you have a witness who is turning out to be less than reliable.
And I'm not giving leeway or benefit of the doubt by saying the case wasn't airtight, it wasn't. They didn't have any victims come forward until 2009. By "case" I mean actual evidence, actual victims. Cops don't make it a point to arrest people and take them to trial based on what co-workers said. They have to have something to back it up.
I'm not saying there was no wrong-doing, but that it's just not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Things are seldom black and white.
Rights are a hell of a thing. They can be good or bad. It keeps us from going to prison just because somebody accuses us of something, but it can also keep a sick individual out on the street until the powers that be can make a case.
Anyways, I'm tired of talking about this. I agree with what rival said about his family and what-not. And regardless of whether or not Joe took enough action, I didn't wish the guy dead, or the pain on his family.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
musicismylife, the difference between Michael Jackson and Joe Paterno is that Michael Jackson was the one actually accused of doing the abuse, Paterno heard about abuse committed by somebody else second-hand.
The other difference between MJ actually doing the abusing for years while we watched patiently and Joe Pa hearing second hand of abuse is that after MJ died, Los Angeles spent $1.4 millions dollars hosting his funeral at the Staples Center ... and they released a movie that made $261,183,588 at the box office and who knows what in DVD Blu Ray ... and a video game that has sold over 3 million copies ... and ....
musicismylife, the difference between Michael Jackson and Joe Paterno is that Michael Jackson was the one actually accused of doing the abuse, Paterno heard about abuse committed by somebody else second-hand.
The other difference between MJ actually doing the abusing for years while we watched patiently and Joe Pa hearing second hand of abuse is that after MJ died, Los Angeles spent $1.4 millions dollars hosting his funeral at the Staples Center ... and they released a movie that made $261,183,588 at the box office and who knows what in DVD Blu Ray ... and a video game that has sold over 3 million copies ... and ....
:think:
you lose all credibility in my book when you come on here and condemn joepa for not doing more to stop someone else....yet defend the likes of michael jackson.
"i don't get our society's glorification of......... musicians"
musicismylife, the difference between Michael Jackson and Joe Paterno is that Michael Jackson was the one actually accused of doing the abuse, Paterno heard about abuse committed by somebody else second-hand.
The other difference between MJ actually doing the abusing for years while we watched patiently and Joe Pa hearing second hand of abuse is that after MJ died, Los Angeles spent $1.4 millions dollars hosting his funeral at the Staples Center ... and they released a movie that made $261,183,588 at the box office and who knows what in DVD Blu Ray ... and a video game that has sold over 3 million copies ... and ....
:think:
you lose all credibility in my book when you come on here and condemn joepa for not doing more to stop someone else....yet defend the likes of michael jackson.
"i don't get our society's glorification of......... musicians"
I don't think anybody in this thread (at least not that I saw) defended Michael Jackson. musicismylife was just drawing a comparison to the fact that when somebody dies who was part of a scandal, a thread about them is likely going to be heavy on discussion of the scandal.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Comments
damnit, Yoda has a point here.
I think everyone here that supports him and loves him feels that way. We love what he did for 99% of his career but are not happy with how he handled the Sandusky situation. There's really only one person here who see this as a black or white issue.
That's a good question. I am not going to assume to know something I don't. I'm interested to hear what interaction you have had with these families though. I am sure they are more angry than I am, but the only family that has said anything, that I am aware of, wasn't very supportive of how the board handled the Paterno firing.
For many of them, including the kid who's school allowed Sandusky to take him out of class AFTER the kid reported it to his parents and the guidance counsler, I would imagine are less worried with Paterno than some of the others who were, you know, directly responsible for the childrens well being. Your anger towards Paterno is understandable, but incredibly misguided. You have never mentioned the names Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, Spanier or the the kids school I mentioned above, yet you won't shut the fuck up about Paterno. We get your point and you're not going to change anyones mind. Quite frankly, you just sound like an annoying troll at this point.
I said yesterday that I am done with you and I really am this time.
What does a controversy involving the women's basketball team have to do with Joe Paterno? Looks to me like that whole thing is on Rene Portland, or the AD. What is the Paterno connection?
I try to stay away from there. I love Paterno and come from a big Penn State family. I am not happy with how he handled this situation but love him for everything else he did for the school and so many. I am not terribly familiar with the role he played in the Rene Portland situation. I'll have to read up on it but am not sure what he had to do with womens basketball. I'll look into it. I have yet to meet a man that doesn't make mistakes, some bigger than others, but in my opinion what he did for so many kids and that school can't be forgotten.
How sad that after such a wonderful career, he had to go out on a low note.
Like you said there's a right and wrong time to bring out whatever it is that you object to about JP. You could post ALL THAT DISLIKE in PSU scandal thread. This coming from my view that he could have done more to save other children based on what he was told then follow up on what he told to his superiors.
I do believe he did many good things and a major misstep but just post the negativity that what you want elsewhere.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
its like michael jackson. when he died, people were immediately couching what they said, by what defined the last 20 years of his life, allegations and scandals. people are still unable to seperate that aspect, and its been 2 almost 3 years. with michae there was more speculation, and no evidence. with paterno and penn state we have eyewitness reports from 3rd parties, and i dont really think theres any doubt sandusky did what he did and mcqueary, the ad, paterno and the president all did what they did. its fact. we know what sandusky did, and we know what everyone else did and in this case didnt do.
and in this case i think penn state and those involved in this, and that includes everyone who knew about it, and didnt do anything, or covered it up, and sandusky as well, but i think these people were just like the cardinals and whatnot in the catholic church. everyone looked the other way. its not my problem, im not going to deal with it. all the while kids continued to be abused for years and years, even after people had the power to expose it and put a stop to it. i mean where was the integrity of all these people at penn state? their moral codes and compasses? what makes it okay in someones mind to go about their day and not report what was going on? oh im going to go get some lunch, im not going to report what i saw, that can wait until i finish my lunch. and in this case it was more like, im going to spend 7 or 8 years with the knowledge my campus had a known abuser on campus, interacting with kids, and im going to stay silent, because if i speak up, i may lose my job, or my reputation, or money, or status. that to me is inexcusable
i dont really consider what you say about paterno to be a point of view or an opinion or a belief. paterno and every single person involved who knew, point blank, matter of factly could have done more. it isnt they maybe could have done more. they could have done more. period.
as in the every single case like this, abuse, school shootings, whatever, the people that never have their voice heard or recognized are the victims and their families. picking up from what you said, id quote marilyn manson from bowling for columbine, "i wouldnt say one word to the victims and their families, i'd let them speak and i'd listen and thats exactly what no one has done"
If I were Paterno, I would like to think I would have taken more action, but I also try to remember that he did not actually witness anything. He was told by McQueary, who in all fairness has given conflicting reports about what exactly he witnessed. In some accounts he saw full-on intercourse going on, in others he heard something but didn't see it. I'm fairly sure Sandusky is guilty (though technically he is innocent until proven guilty) but from Paterno's standpoint he was hearing this from a somewhat unreliable witness. He then fulfilled his legal obligation, but many people believe (as do I) that he probably should have done more.
Having not been in this position though, I can't beat my chest and talk about what I WOULD have done. Plus we are looking at this from the standpoint of a completed investigation (that took years to conduct) and with a perspective that no single person had at the time. We can read all the testimony and see the full scope, but at the time none of these people had that. Paterno was only involved with the accusations involving one victim. And sure, one is enough, but you're judging him based on the scope of the entire investigation.
At the end of the day though, Paterno heard a rumor. Looking at the graph/flow chart of all the witnesses gives us the big picture. Had all these people been together in a single room it would have been one thing, but they weren't. Paterno, a custodian, a high school wrestling coach, the director of Second Mile, campus police, child welfare, and the county District Attorney didn't get together for a beer and see the entire scope of this scandal. It was all very fragmented, and the only person who knew the full scope of this scandal was likely Jerry Sandusky. Paterno's scope of the scandal went as far as one person telling him something, and he told it to his superior.
Paterno is dead. And even if he were alive he wasn't being charged with anything. I think the focus of the investigation should be on Sandusky, and then Schultz/Curley, and then finding out what the hell happened to Ray Gricar. There are many people over the course of this scandal that heard rumors. The principal of Clinton County High School, Child Welfare Services, the custodian's supervisors, the people who ran Second Mile, various police officers. But a rumor is just a rumor.
People aren't going to agree on whether or not Paterno is a monster. Some people think he did enough. Some people don't think he did enough, but wasn't criminally negligent. Others are just irate, and I can understand that. But I think a lot of it is just knee-jerk reaction to the fact that kids were abused (which is understandable, it is horrifying) and not really thinking the whole thing through. Paterno was just one small part of this giant fucked up scandal, a part of the scandal that had no direct knowledge, yet the whole thing is falling on him.
And if Paterno should have done more, gone to the cops himself or whatever. Take a good look at who all knew. Lots of cops and welfare people knew, and still nothing happened. Hell, the Attorney General knew. There was SO much more wrong here than "Paterno should have done more".
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
mcqueary has stayed consistent. he obviously was freaked out by what he saw because he called his dad. his dad said to talk to paterno. mcqueary felt it was serious enough, obviously, to speak to paterno about it face to face at paternos house. i dont think mcqueary belittled, or minimized or lessened what he saw when he relayed the information to paterno. i dont think they talked about the weather for 45 minutes then mcqueary said he saw what he saw. I have no doubt in both mcquearys phone call to his dad, and the face to face talk with paterno, he conveyed his eyewitness account in the manner any of us would, in serious, grave, scared, worried tones and mannerisms. i dont think there was any doubt when mcqueary hung up the phone with his dad, or when he left paternos that night that both his dad and paterno knew this was serious, not a joke, and something that involved human beings, children being abused by someone who had access to facilities and kids on campus.
\if you think im only faulting one person you clearly arent reading correctly. ive maintained from day 1, anyone responsible who knew, covered up, took part either physically in the abuse or who knew about it and did nothing, are all responsible and share equal amounts of blame. The coverup resulted in the continued abuse of countless kids, an explicit approval, maybe unknowningly, of abuse of kids. Did the cardinals who moved priests from parish to parish and not alerting anyone of the abuse, physically abuse alterboys? no, but they are as guilty and shameful as the priests who actually committed the crimes
im not sure why people keep saying he probably, or maybe could have done more. every single person involved shares equal blame, and could have and should have done more. Every single person. every single person who knew or covered it up. and thats alot of people as you say. it involved paterno but it also involved the Attorney general and the president of the university among many others. i dont think its wrong to make this what it is, an absolutist issue. paterno and everyone else could and have and should have done more, i dont understand the qualifiers of maybe, or probably.
you fail to admit or discuss or see the plain and simple facts. mcqueary clearly was disturbed and disgusted and sickened by what he saw. why else call his dad and speak to paterno at his home? Also the coverup by everyone also suggests everyone knew the gravity of the situation. if they let it known what was going on, paterno and sandusky and everyone involved would have lost their jobs, reputations and their livelihoods. I think its naive to say no one knew the gravity of what was going on.
Paterno and the staff of the university, the president, the AD, mcqueary, all is troubling because, maybe they thought it was one incident. you are right. but sandusky and alot of these guys were friends. If someone came up to me and said my good friend was seen abusing kids, i'd maybe laugh it off, but if the person telling me didnt break a smile, and acted the way i assume mcqueary did when he told paterno, then i'd first thing either call or more likely go to see my friend and call him out and figure out just what the hell was going on. All indications suggest not one single person involved did this. paterno nor mcqueary didnt walk up to sandusky and ask him to justify or explain what mcqueary saw or thought he saw. Yes, maybe paterno thought it was a rumor. But to not confront sandusky? i dont get that. the refusal to speak or confront him on it seems to me tacit approval or acknowledgement that he knew sandusky did it.
thats where the disturbing aspect comes in. its not just they could have done more. its the fact, paterno and everyone else went about their normal lives and buisness, on campus, interacting with, and acting friendly with sandusky. There is no indication as i said, mcquery or paterno confronted sandusky after both were brought up to speed about what mcqueary witnessed. they went on with their lives for 7 or 8 years after mcqueary let it be known what he had seen. How many times did paterno and sandusky interact, or say hi in the hallway, or see outside class, or go to a meeting in those 7 or 8 years? how many times did the president see sandusky or meet with him, talk with him in those 7 or 8 years? how many times did paterno see the president on campus in those 8 years where he could have asked him, what happened to the kid, and why sandusky wasnt barred from campus? these are simple common sense actions and questions.
so the Ad, mcqueary, paterno and the president interacted with, saw in the halls, had meetings with, maye even socially interacted with outside work-sandusky, all the while every single person knowing he had abused at least one kid. i dont think its overstretching people to think after someone becomes aware of abuse, rumor or not, to investigate it, to confront the person, and to go to superiors.
everyone failed the kids in this case. from mcqueary on up to the attorney general. Everyone in between as well. They all dropped the ball. They all put their own interests ahead of what clearly should have been their focus. Rumors are rumors. Mcqueary said he saw abuse. I dont think the Attorney General, or President of penn state, or anyone else had any doubts about what was going on. Why cover it up if it was pure rumor? It wasnt rumor and to suggest it was, or was viewed that way shows a fundamental ignorance of what occured and why people did what they did.
I dont think mcqueary calls his dad up for a rumor. nor do i think he makes the effort to visit paterno at his house for a rumor. everyone else involved should have taken that simple cue, and mcquearys account as what it was, fact, and run from there.
seperating any part or person in this is silly. the abuse and the coverup were ongoing and continued because it involved so many people, and so many people were involved. thats the whole thing about it. The abuse didnt just occur because of sanduskys obvious heinous actions, they also continued because those who had the power to expose and stop sandusky, refused to do anything, and in fact allowed it to continue. How is the president covering it up, and allowing the continued abuse of kids any different than any other player in this case, paterno, mcqueary, the ad, the AG? all of them share equal blame. just like the cardinals share equal blame for their role in the abuse of kids in the catholic church
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
every single person in this case discussed this thing with their superior. yet, not a single person followed up. how much effort does it take for paterno to talk to the president, or mcqueary to talk to the president, or for either of them to go to the police, and figure out, what happened to the boy, did mcqueary not see what he said he saw, why was sandusky still on campus. seems like such a natural thing to do. mcqueary freaks out and tells paterno, then the next day and for 7 or 8 years continuing neither is curious enough to talk to the president or police to figure out why sandusky was still on campus. to me THATS the bare minimum! Not anything else.
Mcqueary just like everyone else deserves his fair share of blame. this is the guy who actually witnessed the abuse . yet never does or says anything to anyone for the next 8 years and is content to coexist in an institution with someone he saw abusing a young boy. That is bizaare.
i think its clear ultimately why no one acted. paterno didnt want to be known for this scandal. i have no doubt, as much as he was i assume, as people on here have said, a grandfatherly, nice, kind, genuine guy. i think he also knew how he was portrayed in his hometown and the country. He knew how he was viewed by people. He knew how Penn State was viewed by people. And paterno, the AD, mcqueary, the president all acted according to that knowledge. Imagine, what if the police had been called that day. if mcqueary called the police instead of his dad, or if paterno had. This case would have been alot less of a scandal. but i think they knew, it was possible, anyone of them could lose their jobs, that the university would lose money and boosters, that admissions may decline, that they all could be sued, and that they would be tainted.
i think everyone acted in what they viewed as sane and clearheaded manner. they protected their own. sandusky''s action was going to tarnish, and blemish, and harm, and possible cause major problems for paterno and the president and mcqueary, so the thing to do, was to cover it up. there wasnt some "oh gee maybe its a rumor, or maybe i harm sandusky by saying he did something he didnt do". mcqueary saw what he saw. period
But the police DID know. McQueary (depending on which of his conflicting reports you believe) supposedly contacted the police, but even if he hadn't, the police were notified on various occasions. The problem was there was very little evidence. You can't arrest somebody on a rumor, or had Paterno gone to the cops, on third-party news. Several of the victims are still unknown, and have not come forward. Last I heard "Victim #2", the one that Paterno heard about, is still unknown. McQueary himself said he probably couldn't identify the kid if he saw him again. It wasn't until recently that victims started coming forward. Just like you can't have a murder trial without a body, it's hard to bring Sandusky up on charges when the victim is unknown, and the witness says he can't identify him.
I don't doubt that this stuff happened, but if you look at it from a police perspective, there wasn't a whole lot they could legally do. And there were a couple of different investigations going on into different incidents that really didn't hold any water until you start seeing them together and a big picture starts to emerge. Until the victims began to come forward the entire thing really only boiled down to 2 witnesses, one of whom never filed an actual report, the other gave conflicting reports.
Another terrible thing is that McQueary's conflicting reports (I'm not saying they're conflicting because he's lying, they just conflict for whatever reason) are the basis of the Schultz/Curley perjury charges, and it's looking like they probably have a decent case to get off. I don't doubt McQueary saw or heard something, but he can't get his story straight, and that's going to hurt the case. And the fact that he has contradicted himself several times might have something to do with why he wasn't taken as seriously as he probably should have been.
The whole case is very complicated. And because it was so fragmented (not everything happened at Penn State, and it wasn't the same people investigating all the different complaints) nobody involved could really see the forest for the trees until the big picture started to emerge later. I don't think it's as simple as a "cover-up", because people did look into it. You had campus police looking into the Penn State allegation, you had county police looking into the high school incident, you had city cops and CPS looking into another. But nobody really had an airtight case at the time. In '09 a victim contacted the PA Attorney General, and that's when the real investigation got underway that would eventually snowball, use the findings/allegations from the other investigations, and put the pieces together.
i admit, i made a rude comment on the first page, it was what i was feeling at the time and made a gut reaction post, and then left it at peace and walked away.
can't agree with those trying to run this man into the ground. cliffy and others are right, there is another thread for that.
i watched my grandmother die in november after a long long battle with lung cancer. it was a terrible experience, and i am sure paterno's family is going through the same experience.
regardless of what he did for the school, positives and negatives, the man had a family, and they are going through plenty of pain as it is, and throw the media circus into the mix... unbelievable.
if you accused a coworker tomorrow of abusing kids, and told your boss, or maybe told some friends, or better yet told police, and it was just a rumor obviously, the cops would damn sure be over at your friends house and work pronto. any coverup in this case was because of the status and beloved nature of all those involved and the beloved status attached to the school and football program. the inaction of police is twofold. an excuse people involved and fans of those involved are using to say "they told police and police didnt do it", and of course shows the police were involved in what is obviously a coverup of nearly watergate proportions. the police, the university president, the Attorney general and on and on and on.
people didnt act, covering up, and not act, refusing to tell others because they thought it wouldnt be believed or because they felt it was a rumor. i think thats absolutely mental to suggest anyone involved thought for a second the idea that sandusky was abusing kids was somehow a lie, or a misinterpretation. I mean, how many interpretations of the shower incident could there be? from the way its described it would be hard to say it was anything but what was suggested i think mcqueary's actions suggest he immediately knew it was wrong. he acted from his gut, and his gut was right.
to say it wasnt an airtight case is yet again, giving leeway and the benefit of the doubt to the actors involved in this case. The fact is sandusky was abusing kids and doing it openly and publicly. Public enough that janitors and staff knew about it. That to me doesnt seem like a hard case. doesnt matter if the whole town knew or just one person. i think its impossible to look at any person involved and say they did everything they could do, everything in their power, or even anything at all to prevent abuse. is looking the other way really an acceptable method of dealing with this?
You have to have evidence to back up those allegations though, otherwise it is one person's word against another. And the key thing is, you have to have a victim. The only people who even know who "Victim #2" is are Sandusky and the victim, wherever he may be. It's hard to conduct an investigation on a crime when you don't even know who the victim is, and he isn't coming forward. At least not yet, hopefully he will though. Sure the cops could have arrested him, but they couldn't have held him.
As for how many interpretations there are of the shower incident? Ask McQueary. So far he has stated he saw full on intercourse, and in another he just heard "sex sounds" then saw a kid peak around a corner to be pulled back by a male arm only for Sandusky to emerge later. I think the reason McQueary's story has so many holes is because he probably did witness something, but he didn't act the way he should have. How he responded/intervened is another part of the story that changes. But regardless, you have a witness who is turning out to be less than reliable.
And I'm not giving leeway or benefit of the doubt by saying the case wasn't airtight, it wasn't. They didn't have any victims come forward until 2009. By "case" I mean actual evidence, actual victims. Cops don't make it a point to arrest people and take them to trial based on what co-workers said. They have to have something to back it up.
I'm not saying there was no wrong-doing, but that it's just not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Things are seldom black and white.
Rights are a hell of a thing. They can be good or bad. It keeps us from going to prison just because somebody accuses us of something, but it can also keep a sick individual out on the street until the powers that be can make a case.
Anyways, I'm tired of talking about this. I agree with what rival said about his family and what-not. And regardless of whether or not Joe took enough action, I didn't wish the guy dead, or the pain on his family.
:think:
you lose all credibility in my book when you come on here and condemn joepa for not doing more to stop someone else....yet defend the likes of michael jackson.
"i don't get our society's glorification of......... musicians"
I don't think anybody in this thread (at least not that I saw) defended Michael Jackson. musicismylife was just drawing a comparison to the fact that when somebody dies who was part of a scandal, a thread about them is likely going to be heavy on discussion of the scandal.