Zookenation wrote: I would like to know where Paterno actually was on record saying that Sandusky should not bring Second Mile kids into the PSU locker rooms because of liability concerns?

Zookenation wrote:

Zookenation wrote:
And why did Paterno testify, under oath, that he had no knowledge of the 1998 investigation when  Freeh  found loads of evidence that he not only knew about it, but that Paterno had followed the investigation closely.

Multiple posts in this thread have already discussed the two eyewitness accounts of Sandusky molesting and raping boys in the shower.  One of them, a janitor, Jim Calhoun, who says he saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy, but did not file a report because he was affraid of losing his job.  The other account, Mike McQueary, a grad assistant coach at the time, said he heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" and later testified under oath that he saw Sandusky performing anal sex on a boy.  The janitor's account sickens me, but at least McQueary told Paterno instead of ignoring the whole thing.  Why does Paterno go on to say that McQueary did not tell him the full extent of what was going on in the shower?  Why did the full extent have to matter?  The fact that Paterno was already aware of the 1998 investigation but lied about it was damning enough.   Most people are going to argue that Paterno, whether he knew about this or not, handled the entire situation wrong. 

One thing was obvious.  Paterno thought the incident wasn't important enough to disturb Presdient Graham Spanier until Sunday because he "didn't want to interfere with their weekend" according to Freeh. Even though the University Police didn't find enough information to charge Sandusky with a crime, it was pretty clear that Paterno did know about the investigation, which means he perjured himself in court.  Curley, the AD, notifies Shultz, the Penn State Vice President who later wrote in an an email "Anything new in this department? The Coach is anxious to know where it stands." I can't say after reading the timeline of the Freeh report that it was obvious whether Paterno knew about Sandusky's specific actions in detail and was actively trying to cover them up.  But the way he handled this means that he was affraid of repercussions and that alone is sickening.

OPEN YOUR EYES.  Paterno's legacy is not coming back from this one as it rightfully shouldn't.

iluvrt wrote: If only people like you could be deleted.

SafeHaven wrote:

iluvrt wrote: If only people like you could be deleted.

You mean like in the despicable and outrageous references you chose to make earlier in this thread??

Seems fitting.

indynittany wrote:

Zookenation wrote:

Zookenation wrote:
And why did Paterno testify, under oath, that he had no knowledge of the 1998 investigation when  Freeh  found loads of evidence that he not only knew about it, but that Paterno had followed the investigation closely.

Multiple posts in this thread have already discussed the two eyewitness accounts of Sandusky molesting and raping boys in the shower.  One of them, a janitor, Jim Calhoun, who says he saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy, but did not file a report because he was affraid of losing his job.  The other account, Mike McQueary, a grad assistant coach at the time, said he heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" and later testified under oath that he saw Sandusky performing anal sex on a boy.  The janitor's account sickens me, but at least McQueary told Paterno instead of ignoring the whole thing.  Why does Paterno go on to say that McQueary did not tell him the full extent of what was going on in the shower?  Why did the full extent have to matter?  The fact that Paterno was already aware of the 1998 investigation but lied about it was damning enough.   Most people are going to argue that Paterno, whether he knew about this or not, handled the entire situation wrong. 

One thing was obvious.  Paterno thought the incident wasn't important enough to disturb Presdient Graham Spanier until Sunday because he "didn't want to interfere with their weekend" according to Freeh. Even though the University Police didn't find enough information to charge Sandusky with a crime, it was pretty clear that Paterno did know about the investigation, which means he perjured himself in court.  Curley, the AD, notifies Shultz, the Penn State Vice President who later wrote in an an email "Anything new in this department? The Coach is anxious to know where it stands." I can't say after reading the timeline of the Freeh report that it was obvious whether Paterno knew about Sandusky's specific actions in detail and was actively trying to cover them up.  But the way he handled this means that he was affraid of repercussions and that alone is sickening.

OPEN YOUR EYES.  Paterno's legacy is not coming back from this one as it rightfully shouldn't.

Paterno was not asked if he knew of the '98 investigation.  He was asked if he was aware of any other instances in which Sandusky was involved in inappropriate sexual behavior.  Sandusky was not accused of inappropriate sexual behavior in 1998.  He was investigated, never charged and the conclusion was there was no sexual intent.  The matter was then closed.  Joe's answer was truthful and accurate.

This is patently false.  McQueary has been adamant that he did not see that and he did not say he did, to Joe or anyone else.

Both men testified that Mike did not go into detail with Joe.  On Mike's part, it was too awkward, like talking to your grandfather.  On Joe's part, he saw that Mike was uncomfortable and stopped him.  There was no reason for Joe to know the details.  Sandusky did not work for him.  Joe's only responsibility was to get Mike in front of the right people, which he did.

This is an entirely false premise from the get go and one of the reasons we absolutely hate the job the media has done on this story.  First of all, as mentioned above, Joe did not lie about 1998.  Second, if anything, 1998 told them all that 2001 was just a repeat event...not sexual.  Just Jerry being Jerry and not understanding boundary issues.  Third, the attorney genreral made it a point of saying that, in fact Paterno did exactly the right thing, both according to state law and university policy.

You have your facts wrong again.  Joe called Tim Curley, the athletic director, not Graham Spanier, the president.  And Freeh is no better than you are.  Mike told Joe on Saturday morning.  One hour later, Joe was on a plane to Pittsburgh to be inducted into the Pittsburgh Sports Hall of Fame.  We don't know when he called Tim Curley, but we do know he met with him and possibly Gary Schultz as well, the very next day, Sunday.  Yes Joe said that, but chill out.  The guy was 84 years old and trying to recall a conversation from ten years prior.

Discussed above.

Whether "coach" refers to Joe or Sandusky is not clear.  Tim always called him Joe.  However, you are confusing 1998 and 2001 in this paragraph.  More importantly, there is no record of whether Tim said anything to Joe or not.  He may have said it was just a misunderstanding.  Case closed.  Which is pretty much what happened.  If this was a trial, that email reference wouldn't even be admissable.  It is wrong for you to draw any conclusion from that.  More importantly, it is an abomination for a man like Louis Freeh to do so!

This is complete BS!

SafeHaven wrote:

BZuppke wrote: I'm not defending the janitor or McQueary. They should have gone to the police. The question is why didn't they? The janitor said he was scared for his job and McQueary went to the "coach". You're saying there was some other reason they didn't go to the police?

As for Sandusky's conviction, yes innocent people do get convicted now and then. Are you saying Sandusky is innocent?

Wow, just look at how disingenuous (I'm being kind) you can be when real honest-to-goodness facts get in the way of your quasi-courtroom mindset (or is it agenda??) and you're called out on those little faux pas of yours!!

As for McQueary, yeah, I would think "Why didn't you immediately, without even a hint of hesitation, call the police and wait for their arrival??" is a legitimate question for the defense attorneys ([plural) to ask him while under oath in a bona fide court of law as opposed to your personal quasi-courtroom.

Same applies to both the doctor and the the physician's assistant (McQueary's father) re why they chose not to immediately notify the police and delay notifying any other human being until the following morning, an approximately 12-hour lapse in time of doing absolutely nothing.

BZuppke wrote: "Second, if anything, 1998 told them all that 2001 was just a repeat event...not sexual. Just Jerry being Jerry and not understanding boundary issues."

This statement is what makes me want to tear my hair out.  A grown man was caught showering with a boy - GROWN MAN + BOY NAKED - BAD!

When is this ever ok?  When would any normal person not suspect the guy was a pedophile?

"Just Jerry being Jerry . . ."  Really?  "There goes Jerry getting naked with young boys again!  That crazy, lovable guy.  Just doesn't know it's wrong.  Since we don't know for sure there was anything sexual about it, we'll just let him spend the next 10 years luring young boys to PSU through the glamor of PSU football and the access to PSU facilities and assume there couldn't possibly be anything sexual about it."

indynittany wrote:

BZuppke wrote: "Second, if anything, 1998 told them all that 2001 was just a repeat event...not sexual. Just Jerry being Jerry and not understanding boundary issues."

This statement is what makes me want to tear my hair out.  A grown man was caught showering with a boy - GROWN MAN + BOY NAKED - BAD!

When is this ever ok?  When would any normal person not suspect the guy was a pedophile?

"Just Jerry being Jerry . . ."  Really?  "There goes Jerry getting naked with young boys again!  That crazy, lovable guy.  Just doesn't know it's wrong.  Since we don't know for sure there was anything sexual about it, we'll just let him spend the next 10 years luring young boys to PSU through the glamor of PSU football and the access to PSU facilities and assume there couldn't possibly be anything sexual about it."

First of all, you really need to read the Clemente report.  You have so much to learn about this subject.   The educational value for everyone is incredible.

Second, they had been witness to Jerry being Jerry for decades.  To them, he was a big kid.  He always goofed around with everyone.  This one of the things that drove Paterno nuts.  However, he also helped thousands of troubled kids.  He and the Second Mile were recognized nationally for the good things they did.  His persona as a mentor, a foster parent, an altruist, a player's coach and a pillar of the community was totally ingrained in their heads.  It was inconceiveable to them that he would do anything sexual with a boy.

Finally, why do you omit the fact that they prohibited Jerry from bringing kids to PSU after that incident?

SafeHaven wrote:

Zookenation wrote:

Kathi531 wrote: I don't think dredging this up again is in their best interest....

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nc...o?ncid=webmail1

I would like to see Joe Paterno's legacy occasionally brought up in public on occassion just so it can have a giant piss taken on it over and over again.  Same goes for anyone that defends his legacy.

Sure do hope it wasn't a UIUC education that prompted that little whizbang.

I defend the right to due process for all, even you. Nothing more than that. And if it comforts you, I will defend that right to my dying day. It's one of the things I take great pride in having fought for. From personal experience, be thankful you live in this country.

Zookenation wrote: How is the Freeh report some kind of rear end cover for PSU?  Does this mean that the investigation the Paterno family is impartial to the core?  Did the Paternos hire a commission or investigation if their investigation somehow came to the same conclusions as Freeh did?  Is not the purpose of the Paterno investigation to clear Joe's name?  If so, then all credibility of that investigation would be down the drain.  And Jerry being Jerry?  What are you on.  Did you not see that Sandusky was found guilty of 52 convictions in all and sent to prison for 30-60 years because he molested children?  And you think that was Jerry being Jerry?  I am mortified but slightly curious as to what your personal statue of Joe Paterno looks like in your bedroom.

iluvrt wrote:

indynittany wrote:

BZuppke wrote: "Second, if anything, 1998 told them all that 2001 was just a repeat event...not sexual. Just Jerry being Jerry and not understanding boundary issues."

This statement is what makes me want to tear my hair out.  A grown man was caught showering with a boy - GROWN MAN + BOY NAKED - BAD!

When is this ever ok?  When would any normal person not suspect the guy was a pedophile?

"Just Jerry being Jerry . . ."  Really?  "There goes Jerry getting naked with young boys again!  That crazy, lovable guy.  Just doesn't know it's wrong.  Since we don't know for sure there was anything sexual about it, we'll just let him spend the next 10 years luring young boys to PSU through the glamor of PSU football and the access to PSU facilities and assume there couldn't possibly be anything sexual about it."

First of all, you really need to read the Clemente report.  You have so much to learn about this subject.   The educational value for everyone is incredible.

Second, they had been witness to Jerry being Jerry for decades.  To them, he was a big kid.  He always goofed around with everyone.  This one of the things that drove Paterno nuts.  However, he also helped thousands of troubled kids.  He and the Second Mile were recognized nationally for the good things they did.  His persona as a mentor, a foster parent, an altruist, a player's coach and a pillar of the community was totally ingrained in their heads.  It was inconceiveable to them that he would do anything sexual with a boy.

Finally, why do you omit the fact that they prohibited Jerry from bringing kids to PSU after that incident?

Good god just go away.   Now Sandusky is the pillar of the community to be praised by all.  You pedarseyou clowns have no souls.

indynittany wrote:

Zookenation wrote: How is the Freeh report some kind of rear end cover for PSU?  Does this mean that the investigation the Paterno family is impartial to the core?  Did the Paternos hire a commission or investigation if their investigation somehow came to the same conclusions as Freeh did?  Is not the purpose of the Paterno investigation to clear Joe's name?  If so, then all credibility of that investigation would be down the drain.  And Jerry being Jerry?  What are you on.  Did you not see that Sandusky was found guilty of 52 convictions in all and sent to prison for 30-60 years because he molested children?  And you think that was Jerry being Jerry?  I am mortified but slightly curious as to what your personal statue of Joe Paterno looks like in your bedroom.

Before addressing me in some infantile, derogatory manner, perhaps you should apologize for all the things you had wrong in your last post.  It took a long time to correct that nonsense.

As for the two reports, why don't you read the Paterno report then go ask Freeh to defend the specific things in his report that don't gibe?  He can't and he won't.

Zookenation wrote: You know, in official debates, facts must be met with counterfacts and nothing that seems obvious can be counted on as facts.  This I understand, but if you really think this was Jerry being Jerry then talking to you is like trying to talk to a brick wall.  Two eyewitnesses, 10 victims that we know of, and the jury of his peers would drasticallly disagree with you.  Please tell me that you believe Sandusky molested those other kids and that you only think the 98 incident and the 2001 incident did not happen.  Then your counterfacts to all the evidence presented against you would at least have some ground to stand on albeit weak.

Zookenation wrote: Do you actually believe Sandusky is innocent?  Nevermind what you feel about Paterno.  I would like to know if you believe Jerry Sandusky did not molest those children?

indynittany wrote:

Zookenation wrote: How is the Freeh report some kind of rear end cover for PSU?  Does this mean that the investigation the Paterno family is impartial to the core?  Did the Paternos hire a commission or investigation if their investigation somehow came to the same conclusions as Freeh did?  Is not the purpose of the Paterno investigation to clear Joe's name?  If so, then all credibility of that investigation would be down the drain.  And Jerry being Jerry?  What are you on.  Did you not see that Sandusky was found guilty of 52 convictions in all and sent to prison for 30-60 years because he molested children?  And you think that was Jerry being Jerry?  I am mortified but slightly curious as to what your personal statue of Joe Paterno looks like in your bedroom.

Before addressing me in some infantile, derogatory manner, perhaps you should apologize for all the things you had wrong in your last post.  It took a long time to correct that nonsense.

As for the two reports, why don't you read the Paterno report then go ask Freeh to defend the specific things in his report that don't gibe?  He can't and he won't.

indynittany wrote:

We need to be better than this!

indynittany wrote:

blahblahblahblahblah bunch of horse crap