ADVERTISEMENT

Paterno had two legacies and his followers need to accept it

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
69,992
50,179
1
http://www.dailylocal.com/sports/20...-legacies-and-his-followers-need-to-accept-it

This was posted earlier but I'm posting again for those who didn't see it. I was particularly disappointed with these two comments:

"The only conceivable reason I can think of for this blatant inaction is that he was trying to protect something. In this case it wasn’t Sandusky he was protecting, it was himself — it was his precious legacy."

"His ousting was completely justified. It wasn’t a rash decision. It was the only decision."


I sent Hundell an e-mail and told him that I thought he was wrong. I told him that he assumed that Joe clearly understood that JS was sexually abusing boys and that was an unfair assumption. I also told him that the BOT's decision was not the only decision. What about allowing Joe to speak in his own defense? What about suspending him pending an investigation?

Hundell responded that I defend Paterno because I loved him. He said "There were emails proving he knew but didn't want to pursue" and that "If your child were one of Sandusky's victims you would be asking the same questions I did". I told him that he must be referring to the Curley e-mail and that there is nothing in there saying that Joe didn't want to pursue. I also told him that I think Jay's kids continued to play at the Sandusky house. Why would Joe allow that if he understood?

Hundell was pleasant and responsive but his mind is made up. He thinks we're all blinded by our loyalty to Joe. And so it goes.
 
Blatant inaction would have been if he did absolutely nothing. Instead, Joe set up a meeting in which McQueary was able to tell someone what he saw or heard. That is what the current NCAA rules say he should have done.
 
http://www.dailylocal.com/sports/20...-legacies-and-his-followers-need-to-accept-it

This was posted earlier but I'm posting again for those who didn't see it. I was particularly disappointed with these two comments:

"The only conceivable reason I can think of for this blatant inaction is that he was trying to protect something. In this case it wasn’t Sandusky he was protecting, it was himself — it was his precious legacy."

"His ousting was completely justified. It wasn’t a rash decision. It was the only decision."


I sent Hundell an e-mail and told him that I thought he was wrong. I told him that he assumed that Joe clearly understood that JS was sexually abusing boys and that was an unfair assumption. I also told him that the BOT's decision was not the only decision. What about allowing Joe to speak in his own defense? What about suspending him pending an investigation?

Hundell responded that I defend Paterno because I loved him. He said "There were emails proving he knew but didn't want to pursue" and that "If your child were one of Sandusky's victims you would be asking the same questions I did". I told him that he must be referring to the Curley e-mail and that there is nothing in there saying that Joe didn't want to pursue. I also told him that I think Jay's kids continued to play at the Sandusky house. Why would Joe allow that if he understood?

Hundell was pleasant and responsive but his mind is made up. He thinks we're all blinded by our loyalty to Joe. And so it goes.
I don't care if he was pleasant or not. Tell him if he has made up his mind, it's a damn sure closed mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu1969a
I live in West Chester and I emailed him as well, inviting him to lunch to discuss the facts. I don't read The Daily Local because, quite frankly - the writing is awful.
But this guy pissed me off. Chester County voted OUT Tom Corbett and voted IN Kathleen Kane BECAUSE we are so angry at what went on. He has not responded to me as of yet.

I am stunned that this guy deigned to drop such an inflammatory, defamatory piece into the laps of the readership in Chester County who happen to be extremely well versed in the story. If this is his way of endearing himself to our community, he just shut the door.
 
Ding Ding Ding - We have a reply:

"Hello Wendy,
You can't rewrite an opinion piece ;)
I would love to sit down and discuss this with you. I also have a few BOT members who are wanting to have a sit down too. So this may be something with some meat on the bones.
I am going on vacation here in the next week, but when I get back we can meet up. I would like to hear your findings.
Thanks,
Lee"
 
Blatant inaction would have been if he did absolutely nothing. Instead, Joe set up a meeting in which McQueary was able to tell someone what he saw or heard. That is what the current NCAA rules say he should have done.
Seriously since when is basic NCAA requirement the moral compass at Penn state?is that how you achieve success with honor? By dragging your feet. Waiting because you didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend? I am sorry but it pathetic the low standards you set for Joe especially when he constantly preached do the right thing. Not due the minimum to just pass NCAA rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grinagrin
The west chester daily local - seriously? Why does anyone care what this clown says?
 
Seriously since when is basic NCAA requirement the moral compass at Penn state?is that how you achieve success with honor? By dragging your feet. Waiting because you didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend? I am sorry but it pathetic the low standards you set for Joe especially when he constantly preached do the right thing. Not due the minimum to just pass NCAA rules.

Quick question on the feet dragging. Joe responded in a day. How does that compare to the OAG's office after they were sent the V1 complaint from Centre County?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
Quick question on the feet dragging. Joe responded in a day. How does that compare to the OAG's office after they were sent the V1 complaint from Centre County?

Or how does that compare to MM deciding to sleep on it and tell Joe the next morning (vs. calling UPPD ASAP) or Corbett/Fina waiting 2 YEARS to: search JS's house, search TSM (no warrant required), subpoena CC CYS, and ask UPPD about prior cases/events re: JS.

Joe treated the incident with the same amount of urgency as the one and only witness himself did....so I'm not sure how people are still trying to use the "he didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend" argument against Joe (also it has been PROVEN that this recollection by Joe was incorrect -- he informed Curley later that day and by Sunday Schultz had already contacted counsel about how to deal with it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
Or how does that compare to MM deciding to sleep on it and tell Joe the next morning (vs. calling UPPD ASAP) or Corbett/Fina waiting 2 YEARS to: search JS's house, search TSM (no warrant required), subpoena CC CYS, and ask UPPD about prior cases/events re: JS.

Joe treated the incident with the same amount of urgency as the one and only witness himself did....so I'm not sure how people are still trying to use the "he didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend" argument against Joe (also it has been PROVEN that this recollection by Joe was incorrect -- he informed Curley later that day and by Sunday Schultz had already contacted counsel about how to deal with it).

It's crazy how the "didn't want to ruin their weekend" statement still has legs --- given the Freeh Report proved a meeting occurred that Sunday AM.

Seriously, I've had a couple people (dumb Buckeye fans) use that weekend line when discussing Paterno/Penn State --- that's one way to confuse them, point out how the Freeh Report itself shows he didn't wait until the weekend was over. And that's one case where the Report has definitive proof of such.
 
Joe had one legacy...doing what he felt was the "right" thing. He said many times that he backed away so as to not influence any decision one way or the other. What many in our society can't accept is that what Joe did was completely reasonable in context. Joe did not witness any act. What he may have heard was 2nd, 3rd, etc person. He passed it on and then moved on. Just as most human beings in his position would have done. Contrary to what the media portrays, Joe was human.

This is why there is such a deafening silence from the overwhelming majority in college athletics when this subject arises. They know it was a raw deal.

We as alumni need to be at peace with Joe's legacy.

Let's steer the conversation to correcting the true problem that lies within the PA and Penn State governments.
 
Or how does that compare to MM deciding to sleep on it and tell Joe the next morning (vs. calling UPPD ASAP) or Corbett/Fina waiting 2 YEARS to: search JS's house, search TSM (no warrant required), subpoena CC CYS, and ask UPPD about prior cases/events re: JS.

Joe treated the incident with the same amount of urgency as the one and only witness himself did....so I'm not sure how people are still trying to use the "he didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend" argument against Joe (also it has been PROVEN that this recollection by Joe was incorrect -- he informed Curley later that day and by Sunday Schultz had already contacted counsel about how to deal with it).
Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
To be fair, did Joe invite some of this "hindsight bias"/"Monday Morning Quarterbacking" when he himself made his infamous hindsight quote?

This is true. But another good example of him being human. Was it the best response in today's media driven society...probably not. But the man was human. What person in this sordid affair handled things perfect? No one.
 
To be fair, did Joe invite some of this "hindsight bias"/"Monday Morning Quarterbacking" when he himself made his infamous hindsight quote?
Joe made a completely human response that has been interpreted incorrectly. He said that if I knew that Sandusky was abusing children, he said that he would have done more to stop the abuse (after the facts were known).

If you knew someone in your family who was drinking with you and then drove their car and killed someone while driving, would you express any regret that you wish you had stopped them from driving?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
I live in West Chester and I emailed him as well, inviting him to lunch to discuss the facts. I don't read The Daily Local because, quite frankly - the writing is awful.

Which facts are those Wendy? Your's or the real ones? Here are some of the real ones to ponder while you wait for your lunch meeting. JVP did not immediately report what McQueary told him explaining he "did not want to interfere with anyones weekend". JVP told Mike "it's now my job to figure out what we want to do." There is no evidence that JVP did made any inquiries into who the child was and if he was OK. After Curley met with JVP on 2/27/01, the plan to report Jerry to Child Services that was agreed upon on 2/26 by C/S/S was abandoned.

Further, there is circumstantial evidence contained in JVP's personal papers that strongly suggests that not only did he know about the 1998 incident, but followed it closely.


But this guy pissed me off. Chester County voted OUT Tom Corbett and voted IN Kathleen Kane BECAUSE we are so angry at what went on. He has not responded to me as of yet.

I am stunned that this guy deigned to drop such an inflammatory, defamatory piece into the laps of the readership in Chester County who happen to be extremely well versed in the story. If this is his way of endearing himself to our community, he just shut the door.
 
...and you Mr. Hudnell have but one legacy. You were too stupid to get into law school where you might have earned the opportunity to actually make money at being a two bit whore. Did you actually get an under graduate degree somewhere? Please tell us it wasn't Penn State.
 

Again, the man was human. Assuming everything you say is true (which is very debatable), none of it proves he conspired to cover up for a known pedophile.
 
Joe made a completely human response that has been interpreted incorrectly. He said that if I knew that Sandusky was abusing children, he said that he would have done more to stop the abuse (after the facts were known).

If you knew someone in your family who was drinking with you and then drove their car and killed someone while driving, would you express any regret that you wish you had stopped them from driving?

I think this is why the answer to the question "did Joe know Jerry had been investigated for child abuse in 1998 in 2001?" is so important.

I think the answer is yes, though admittedly all the "proof" of such is circumstantial.

The analogy isn't perfect --- but I may have mentioned once or twice before here that I lost a wife to a drunk driver in the mid-2000s. Absolutely I feel more now (vs. before) than it is my moral duty to make sure people who I know have been drinking don't start driving. Moral obligation.
 
I think this is why the answer to the question "did Joe know Jerry had been investigated for child abuse in 1998 in 2001?" is so important.

I think the answer is yes, though admittedly all the "proof" of such is circumstantial.

The analogy isn't perfect --- but I lost a wife to a drunk driver 8 years ago. Absolutely I feel more now (vs. before) than it is my moral duty to make sure people who have been drinking don't start driving.

I'm genuinely sorry for the loss of your wife.

I would argue that the Paterno family is doing the same with CSA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
I think this is why the answer to the question "did Joe know Jerry had been investigated for child abuse in 1998 in 2001?" is so important.

I think the answer is yes, though admittedly all the "proof" of such is circumstantial.

The analogy isn't perfect --- but I may have mentioned once or twice before here that I lost a wife to a drunk driver in the mid-2000s. Absolutely I feel more now (vs. before) than it is my moral duty to make sure people who I know have been drinking don't start driving. Moral obligation.


"Child abuse" wasn't the finding in either investigation and why include 2001 where Joe did not deny hearing about something? Using that term is inappropriate, since it was at best only a potential outcome of the inquiry and never materialized. Inappropriate behavior might better describe '98 investigation and it never reached the threshold of illegal, according to the DA. I don't find it that important if Joe had heard and then forgotten about a rumor in 1998, that amounted to nothing, twelve years later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
To be fair, did Joe invite some of this "hindsight bias"/"Monday Morning Quarterbacking" when he himself made his infamous hindsight quote?
Nope. I say that as someone who isn't convinced of his complete innocence regarding knowledge of the 98 incident.

He told his superiors what he was told and left them to handle it. McQeary, although clearly upset, wasn't graphic about what he saw when telling Paterno. His comment was perfectly in line with what anyone would say given the circumstances.

BTW, I have no desire to argue about what he knew or didn't know about 98. We'll never have proof either way, and quite frankly it's a waste of time. I think talking about those currently charged is a far more valid conversation as we (hopefully) can get some answers. JMO.
 
Why do you even post this crap here and give the ignorant writer the free publicity he wants?
 
Seriously, I've had a couple people (dumb Buckeye fans) use that weekend line when discussing Paterno/Penn State --- that's one way to confuse them, point out how the Freeh Report itself shows he didn't wait until the weekend was over. And that's one case where the Report has definitive proof of such.

Of course, that doesn't stop Freeh himself from using the quote to slam Paterno -- even though Freeh himself notes in the very same report that Paterno did not wait until after the weekend was finished. Just one of many reasons where the Freeh Report reveals itself to be utter garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
Ding Ding Ding - We have a reply:

"Hello Wendy,
You can't rewrite an opinion piece ;)
I would love to sit down and discuss this with you. I also have a few BOT members who are wanting to have a sit down too. So this may be something with some meat on the bones.
I am going on vacation here in the next week, but when I get back we can meet up. I would like to hear your findings.
Thanks,
Lee"

I think he should be publicly shunned. I think the Amish are really on to something with shunning and I think it would be the most appropriate response possible for the likes of Hundell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
Seriously since when is basic NCAA requirement the moral compass at Penn state?is that how you achieve success with honor? By dragging your feet. Waiting because you didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend? I am sorry but it pathetic the low standards you set for Joe especially when he constantly preached do the right thing. Not due the minimum to just pass NCAA rules.

You're missing the main point. Joe did what he thought was the right thing. By McQueary's own words, he gave Joe a watered down version of what he witnessed. Joe took that watered down info and did what he thought was the correct thing to do. Notify the administration and put McQueary in contact with the people charged with handling the issue.
 
Further, there is circumstantial evidence contained in JVP's personal papers that strongly suggests that not only did he know about the 1998 incident, but followed it closely.

Oh really?!?!?!??! Joe's biographer, who had free and unfettered access to all of Joe's personal papers, claimed he didn't find even one single note even hinting at the 1998 incident, leave alone suggesting on any level that Joe knew about it and followed it closely. Are you claiming that you've personally had greater access to Joe's personal papers than even Joe Posnanski had; the guy who was charged with writing Joe's story, was fully embedded with the family for nearly a year, and had unfettered access to all of Joe's notes and papers for a time that mostly predated the breaking of the scandal and any hint of Joe's involvement? Or are you simply parroting Freeh's entirely unsupported conclusions on the 1998 incident? Your wording, which is nearly identical to Freeh's, strongly suggests the latter. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you anywa;, have you seen these personal papers of Joe's, excluding Curley's e-mails contained in the Freeh Report, that you reference in the above quote? These are not rhetorical questions. I'm waiting patiently for your answers.
 
Seriously since when is basic NCAA requirement the moral compass at Penn state?is that how you achieve success with honor? By dragging your feet. Waiting because you didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend? I am sorry but it pathetic the low standards you set for Joe especially when he constantly preached do the right thing. Not due the minimum to just pass NCAA rules.

This is yet another example of what is known as the hindsight bias.
 
Carnes and his ilk obviously hate children and want them to die under an utterly horrific child welfare system in PA.

add Seth Meyers, Christine Brennan, Sally Jenkins, Dan Bernstein, Buzz Bissinger, Peetz, Frazier, Erickson, et al to that list.

they hate children and relish in their suffering. there really is no other explanation for their efforts to enable the abuse and deaths of children in PA.
 
The analogy isn't perfect --- but I may have mentioned once or twice before here that I lost a wife to a drunk driver in the mid-2000s. Absolutely I feel more now (vs. before) than it is my moral duty to make sure people who I know have been drinking don't start driving. Moral obligation.

Sorry for your loss, but that really is a bad analogy. The 1998 investigation resulted in the professionals clearing Jerry of all wrong doing. Imagine you get accused of a crime you didn't commit, every time that crime is committed, do you want to be the lead suspect because you were once accused of it?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT