Those who engage in this nonsense, especially the Pennlive tripe need to review the Stories About Paterno above.
Joe, Penn State Lies.
- Thread starter joeaubie21
- Start date
- Status
Joe Paterno and Alfred Dreyfus - THE PENN STATE CULTURE
THE DREYFUS AFFAIR REDUX by Joseph A Cattano Ph.D Penn StateFirst a reminder: The Dreyfus Affair, a political scandal that divided France 1894 until its resolution in 1906, is one of the most striking examples of a miscarriage of justice with a major role by media and public opinion.
THE DREYFUS AFFAIR REDUX
note: Written a few years ago edits made to bring current.
Before sharing my thoughts regarding the tragedy that occurred at Penn State University, I will preface my discussion with the necessary statement that children were the tragic victims of harm and a reckless insensitivity by a sexual predator that will stay with them for years. As a mental health professional who has worked with the victims of sexual abuse, I fully appreciate the scope of emotional issues and he horrid “soul murder” of a child who has experienced sexual abuse.There is no question that those responsible for this tragedy should face both criminal and civil prosecution and be held accountable for their actions.
However, the situation at Penn State has revealed another victim, one quite different in nature but in its own right very troubling; I am referring to the total disregard for due process. Both with the NCAA sanctions and the actions of the Penn State Board of Trustees, we witnessed a blatant dismissal of one of the most sacred pillars of our free and democratic society - access to fair and reasonable judgment only thorough due process. Yes, Jerry Sandusky received his day in court and has been punished accordingly, but Joe Paterno, the alumni, the students including the football team, and those who are economically dependent upon football did not receive the same reasonable and fair due process pertaining to the consequences of serious allegations of wrongdoing by various university officials. Without any possibility for redress of grievances or reasonable rebuttal, the actions of the NCAA and board of trustees have punished each of these and many others as well. They have tolerated those possessing a near lynch mob mentality constantly espousing spurious and hateful insults about the lack of values at their alma mater and even more absurd questions pertaining to the quality of the academic experience at Penn State. It summoned forth the sense of powerlessness and indignation I experienced upon first viewing the classic movie: “The Ox Bow Incident.”
If we look at the structure of societies and states that are ruled through a dictatorship, it becomes immediately evident that there is neither time, nor desire, nor place for reasonable and fair due process. Rather, these societies and countries are tyrannical in nature, with an individual or panel being judge, jury, and executioner. Is this so removed from what has happened at PSU with both the NCAA and the board of trustees?
At Penn State, it seemed there were two distinct polarities contending for recognition. Understandably and correctly, the first pertained to the moral responsibility of both individuals and institutions to protect the welfare of children from sexual predation. Without question, there were failures on the part of certain individuals, including administrators, child welfare workers, a district attorney, and local law enforcement officers - all of whom either could not fully grasp the true nature of that which was transpiring or were not in concert on the appropriate way to proceed. But this is not an unusual situation when individuals, families, and even institutions are faced with this type of behavior. Psychologists and sociologists have long discussed how incredibly skillful predators are in covering up or obscuring the reality of their behavior with children. Familiarity with family members and a high level of regard within the community can be used to cleverly conceal what is actually happening and create a veil of denial on the part of those who could intervene.
It is interesting to note that the grand jury commended Joe Paterno as the only one who did exactly what he was supposed to do by Pennsylvania law, that is to make a report to his immediate superiors, including the administrative head of the University Police. Moreover, he had the presence of mind to direct the actual witness to the alleged assault - Mike McQueary to do the same. We should not lose sight of the fact that Joe Paterno was not a witness. He was the recipient of what is technically hearsay. Does it not open up this question: If Joe Paterno was desirous of a cover-up, why did he report it and tell McQueary to do the same? I would think that expanding the scope of those who knew surely is not consistent with the engineering of a cover-up.
But what has happened is that this noble and necessary notion of protecting the welfare of children has come into conflict with or at least has been the rationale for bypassing due process. When the story was first released, the cry for quick retribution became rampant, clouding the judgment of some good people and leading to some questionable decisions and actions motivated by a strange form of media-generated bloodthirsty hysteria. “Must have known” and “had to have known” became the transfixing rallying cries and slogans that justified proclaiming Joe Paterno “guilty” of complicity in Jerry Sandusky’s sexual crimes and, of course, all this ignored the right to due process. The printed word and airways were filled with indignant, self-righteous voices demanding immediate action, regardless of the individuals that would be drawn into this devastating and devouring media maelstrom. The media became judge, jury, and executioner, all without due process.The basis of this media attention was a “feast” too rich to be passed up - an opportunity to ensnare new listeners, increase sales of printed matter, and boost program ratings. A media generated frenzy was created with few caring to wait for the facts to emerge before throwing the hanging rope over the limb of the nearest tree.
Of course, it does not have to be an “either/or” issue; rational and well-intended individuals are quite capable of satisfying both needs if that is their intent. Actually, protecting the welfare of children and ensuring due process can work in concert if given a chance, but it was not. Why? The answer is one word: Paterno. In fact, the media focused more upon his alleged role in the cover-up than upon the actual crimes of Jerry Sandusky, the real culprit in this American horror story. This situation became an epic of proportions that one would think the work of the ancient Greek tragedians.
But why was Paterno the focus? Simple; a scandal that focuses on Paterno sells print and piques the interest of many a radio shock jock and their audiences. Who wants to hear about Sandusky, Spanier, Curley, or Schultz? Few, but mention Joe Paterno and the needle on the interest meter rockets over the top. Moreover, it is an accepted fact that many members of the media and certain members of the NCAA had contempt for Joe. It was an easy task to put him at the top of their respective hit list. Again, why? The answer: He was a source of embarrassment to many programs and coaches, as he demonstrated that there really was such a creature as a student-athlete and that you could field a top-notch football team and not sacrifice academics. Simply, his success was a statement about what could be if you had the desire, commitment, and courage. Couple this with Joe’s natural irascibility, stubbornness, and disdain for the press and you have a target to relish.
But what about the Freeh Report you might ask? Was that not evidence of a genuine cover-up by PSU officials, including Joe? In my opinion, the answer is NO.
Careful analysis has revealed that this is a questionable report filled with what some feel are assumptions, innuendo, and opinions rather than facts. If one takes the time to read the 267 pages (which the vast majority of radio commentators and editorialists have neither the patience nor sense of professional responsibility to do), I believe you will be left with many questions and a sense that this report is not the source of fact that it purports to be, not by a long stretch. Skilled analysts have reviewed this report and are rather aghast at the conclusions reached, as many are not well grounded in fact. Amazingly, the Freeh report did not interview the principal figures in their fact-finding mission, Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz, Mike McQueary, Tim Curley and of course, Jerry Sandusky. It is interesting to note that Louis Freeh recently completed a report for FIFA, the governing body of the International Soccer Association, which was dismissed by a court only a few months ago because of shallowness and inaccuracies.
Furthermore, strong doubts have been raised pertaining to both the authenticity and interpretation of certain emails that have been considered suggestive of the possibility that Joe may have had knowledge of the investigation of Jerry Sandusky’s activities in 1998. In fact, these emails make reference to the “coach,” which is assumed to be referring to Joe Paterno. But anyone who is familiar with PSU knows that Joe Paterno is always referred to as “Joe,” or more affectionately as “JoePa.” No one addresses him as “coach;” even his players call him Joe. Some who have had access to the emails have posited the notion that the individual referred to as “coach” may have been Jerry Sandusky, not Joe Paterno. Regardless, the upcoming trials in January would have provided clarification of some of these issues. Obviously, some could not wait a few more months for data that could be either damning or exculpatory.All of this generates some questions. First: What was this rush to judgment all about? Why was it necessary to terminate the employment of Joe Paterno as he neared the end of his career? What was accomplished? Well, foremost a distraction, a powerful diversion was surely created. By placing Joe Paterno in the spotlight, the attention was conveniently turned away from the possible culpability of the Board of Trustees, and yes the governor himself, who is a sitting PSU board member and, by the way, a governor who is up for reelection. Moreover, we have learned that prior to his election as governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett was the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. During his tenure as AG, complaints about Jerry Sandusky were brought to his attention, including complaints from the Centre County district attorney, Madeira. In essence, Corbett did not assign adequate manpower to investigate these complaints; accordingly, whatever was done was at best done very slowly.
There are those that feel that with the assignment of reasonable manpower, Sandusky would have been indicted years earlier. Equally interesting, there was a rumor that Joe Paterno would not lend his support to the Corbett campaign for governor. But Jerry Sandusky’s Second Mile organization did support his campaign by donating $664,000 to his election coffers, money, I assume, that could have been better spent on enhanced services to the youths the program was designed to service. And the Second Mile program was a recipient of a multi-million dollar grant from Governor Corbett. Hmmmm, the good old quid pro quo. Might it be that the real cover-up is much higher than PSU? And keep in mind that none less than the governor himself suggested Louis Freeh to the Board of Trustees and President Erickson as the man for the job of investigating the Sandusky situation.
It is also interesting to note that it was President Erickson (in 1998, he was Provost Erickson) who signed a retirement agreement with Sandusky granting him Emeritus status, thereby assuring him access to all Penn State facilities. Joe had nothing to do with this. This agreement was the handiwork of Erickson and the Board of Trustees.
So here are my thoughts on this issue. They are predicated upon what I have learned in closely following the emerging situation at Penn State. Surely, I would have to concede that these are but personal opinions; accordingly, I could be wrong in my assumptions.
I mentioned the Ox-Bow Incident relative to the lack of due process and the presumption of guilt. I will make reference to another travesty of justice and due process, but this incident was not the product of a novelist’s fantasy but a grotesque reality - namely, The Dreyfus Affair.” In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a French army artillery officer, was tried and found guilty of treason by a court martial based upon false and misleading evidence. evidence that was corrupted in order to reach a predetermined, desired outcome.It was later revealed that reports on the treasonous actions of Dreyfus were total fabrications filled with outrageous insinuations and assumptions. However, thanks in part to the efforts of Emile Zola (J’accuse) and a few relentlessly dedicated others, the truth was finally revealed and the conspiracy against Dreyfus was shown for what it really was - anti-Semitism and the corruption of due process by entrenched powers. After spending years banished to the infamous Devil’s Island, he was found innocent and his rank restored.
The parallel with Joe Paterno is disturbing in that when initially found guilty, Dreyfus was paraded in front of a jeering public, stripped of his insignia medals, and his sword broken in half. In his disgraced and torn uniform, he was paraded through the crowd and spat upon. Are the parallels not compelling at best and frightening at worst? Think about it. Joe’s statue being removed, his placards torn down, his record from 1998 through 2011 erased, and his legacy dragged through the media to be spat upon and his name a source of disgrace. All this predicated on assumptions and “must have knowns.” J’accuse the American media of a mass hysteria. J’accuse the media of creating a man of mythical proportions, only then to destroy him. Unlike the omniscient, omnipotent creation of the media, Joe Paterno was a rather modest, generous, and brilliant football coach. He was not a man made for all seasons. He was a man made for the football season.
If I am to accept the rantings of the media, the conclusions of the Freeh report and the actions of the board of trustees, then I must then dismiss what I believe about Joe Paterno. What is being asked is that we accept the notion that Joe Paterno knew that children were being abused and turned his back to that reality. I am being asked to believe that everyday Joe would walk past the Lasch Building and say to himself” “Gee, I wonder who Jerry is abusing in there today?” To me, that notion is totally preposterous and completely inconsistent with the man’s history, the reality of who he was, of all he stood for in the best and worst of times. Moreover, from a practical point of view, Joe and the other administrators involved were all upstanding and very bright men who had to recognize that any cover-up of Jerry’s predation would eventually be revealed, as it almost always is - and the consequences of the cover-up would far transcend any revelation and prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. It just does not make sense. If later evidence proves these thoughts to be wrong, then shame on them and shame on me for believing. But at least, their culpability would be established through due process, not hysteria. Last, if administrators at PSU are charged with being guilty of a cover-up, let it be resolved in a venue appropriate to that task - the courtroom.
Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and now Graham Spanier are set to go on trial for alleged perjury charges stemming from the Grand Jury report. Jerry Sandusky has already had his day in criminal court and now appears will spend the rest of his life in jail. Justice is being served and in the proper manner, through the due process of criminal investigation, trial and verdict. Any punishment should be the result of a trial by jury and a decision by an officer of the court. But there is neither place nor reason for the NCAA to have entered into this situation as their sphere of influence is with the quality and integrity of athletic competition among member institutions.They have wandered far out of their realm and have punished alumni, students, fans, football players, and the economic well-being of individuals and business owners in a large portion of Central Pennsylvania, all of whom are totally innocent in this situation. It is rather ironic to note that he NCAA chastised Penn State for permitting the culture of football to become more important than academics. What? Are they joking? Is the NCAA suffering from delusions? For the past four decades, Penn State has been the absolute model for the student-athlete, with graduation rates for football players annually among the highest in the country and often the highest. The graduation rate for African-American athletes surpasses almost all other institutions. Penn State is noted for producing academic all-Americans at an unprecedented rate; yet, the NCAA warns them about the culture of football, a culture largely created by the NCAA itself, as it has negotiated massive financial contracts with the media for bowl games, play-offs, etc.
J’accuse the NCAA of blatant hypocrisy of pointing a critical figure at Penn State when that finger should be pointed at themselves.
J’accuse our alumni association and those alumni who have sat on the sidelines and not demanded a full and complete revelation of those circumstances that have passively been accepted as fact. Is there something wrong with knowing the truth? It seems that there is.
Joseph A. Cattano, Ph.D., PSU 1971
The Paterno 3 did indeed coverup for Sandusky. A coverup is not a crime, in and of itself. The jury found there was not a conspiracy. A coverup and a conspiracy are two different things.
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."
Coverup, which is not a legal term, is:
"1. an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime."
Spanier, not telling the BOT fully about the 2001 incident, covered up the Paterno 3 lack of action regarding Sandusky. It was not a crime to do so.
"Curley and Schultz, in lengthy colloquies with current case prosecutors Laura Ditka and Patrick Schulte, acknowledged receiving McQueary's report and interfering with or preventing its transmission to police and child welfare officials.
They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011."
Paterno's failure here is not one of law, but of morals and ethics, and given his stature as the face of Penn State, his culpability is indeed quite serious. The police were aware of an incident involving Sandusky as far back as 1998, but the decision to not press charges was the now-dead DA's, not theirs. And we'll never know why that DA did not pursue the case further. But that's not the point.
Tell me: Do you really believe Joe Paterno was not aware of that accusation, especially considering Sandusky had been his top lieutenant for 30 years to that point and then suddenly "retired" a year later even though he was only 55 years old? So Paterno knew about Sandusky's tendencies at least that far back, then four years later McQueary tells him he had just witnessed Sandusky molesting a child, and all you feel Paterno has to do is tell Curley? Paterno then continues to allow Sandusky to bring children to practices as late as 2007, but Paterno is not supposed to wonder what happened to that allegation of child molestation? Paterno is supposed to look the other way even though Sandusky is still hosting overnight camps at branch campuses as late as 2009? If so, why?
What a "stupid" post like this one demonstrates is the outsized role Paterno always felt he had at Penn State. It illustrates his willingness to protect the football program and his legacy even in the face of policies made by people at the university with ostensibly more authority—people who bent to his will when he wished to exert it (e.g. the firing of Vicky Triponey). It doesn't make him Stalin or Hitler or Manson, but it also doesn't make him just some adjunct English professor who's supposed to tell his department chair about an unruly student. And, sorry, every Penn Stater I know wore that "we're not like other big programs because we don't get into trouble" bit as a badge of honor. But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.
Bottom line: The insular culture Paterno created—even as he sold the rest of the world on the notion that Penn State always did the right thing—is precisely why his moral complicity here matters. Whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or did so out of indifference is not the issue. The fact that he knew about Jerry Sandusky and did not see he was stopped from preying on additional victims is. And, yes, it's enough to soil his legacy forever.
INTERVIEW: JOSEPH V. PATERNO
The date is 10/24/11; time 12:17 p.m., interview of coach Joseph Vincent Paterno, 830 North McKee Street, State College, PA. Scott Paterno is here representing his father. Randy Feathers is also present.
SASSANO: Coach are you aware that this statement is being taped and do you give me permission to tape this statement?
J. PATERNO: Yes.
SASSANO: Did Mike McQueary, some years ago, come to you, report to you an incident that he observed in the shower between Jerry Sandusky and another individual most likely a young boy.
J. PATERNO: Yes he did.
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on.
Paterno just described Indecent Assault, which in fact Sandusky was found guilty of.
It is impossible for a grown man to be in a shower with a child and engage in “inappropriate sexual activity” and “touching of privates” and not have it be a crime. Period. End of story.
“It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs. We accept this criticism." Paterno Family Statement July 2012.
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."
Coverup, which is not a legal term, is:
"1. an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime."
Spanier, not telling the BOT fully about the 2001 incident, covered up the Paterno 3 lack of action regarding Sandusky. It was not a crime to do so.
"Curley and Schultz, in lengthy colloquies with current case prosecutors Laura Ditka and Patrick Schulte, acknowledged receiving McQueary's report and interfering with or preventing its transmission to police and child welfare officials.
They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011."
Paterno's failure here is not one of law, but of morals and ethics, and given his stature as the face of Penn State, his culpability is indeed quite serious. The police were aware of an incident involving Sandusky as far back as 1998, but the decision to not press charges was the now-dead DA's, not theirs. And we'll never know why that DA did not pursue the case further. But that's not the point.
Tell me: Do you really believe Joe Paterno was not aware of that accusation, especially considering Sandusky had been his top lieutenant for 30 years to that point and then suddenly "retired" a year later even though he was only 55 years old? So Paterno knew about Sandusky's tendencies at least that far back, then four years later McQueary tells him he had just witnessed Sandusky molesting a child, and all you feel Paterno has to do is tell Curley? Paterno then continues to allow Sandusky to bring children to practices as late as 2007, but Paterno is not supposed to wonder what happened to that allegation of child molestation? Paterno is supposed to look the other way even though Sandusky is still hosting overnight camps at branch campuses as late as 2009? If so, why?
What a "stupid" post like this one demonstrates is the outsized role Paterno always felt he had at Penn State. It illustrates his willingness to protect the football program and his legacy even in the face of policies made by people at the university with ostensibly more authority—people who bent to his will when he wished to exert it (e.g. the firing of Vicky Triponey). It doesn't make him Stalin or Hitler or Manson, but it also doesn't make him just some adjunct English professor who's supposed to tell his department chair about an unruly student. And, sorry, every Penn Stater I know wore that "we're not like other big programs because we don't get into trouble" bit as a badge of honor. But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.
Bottom line: The insular culture Paterno created—even as he sold the rest of the world on the notion that Penn State always did the right thing—is precisely why his moral complicity here matters. Whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or did so out of indifference is not the issue. The fact that he knew about Jerry Sandusky and did not see he was stopped from preying on additional victims is. And, yes, it's enough to soil his legacy forever.
INTERVIEW: JOSEPH V. PATERNO
The date is 10/24/11; time 12:17 p.m., interview of coach Joseph Vincent Paterno, 830 North McKee Street, State College, PA. Scott Paterno is here representing his father. Randy Feathers is also present.
SASSANO: Coach are you aware that this statement is being taped and do you give me permission to tape this statement?
J. PATERNO: Yes.
SASSANO: Did Mike McQueary, some years ago, come to you, report to you an incident that he observed in the shower between Jerry Sandusky and another individual most likely a young boy.
J. PATERNO: Yes he did.
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on.
Paterno just described Indecent Assault, which in fact Sandusky was found guilty of.
It is impossible for a grown man to be in a shower with a child and engage in “inappropriate sexual activity” and “touching of privates” and not have it be a crime. Period. End of story.
“It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs. We accept this criticism." Paterno Family Statement July 2012.
Nole,
A few comments regarding 1998 and the overall McQuery episode.
The criticism regarding 1998 and Joe Paterno whether he knew about it or not is a moot point and doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. It was investigated, and charges weren’t made. Paterno had nothing to do with that.
As for Sandusky’s retirement, his defenses weren‘t very good or under preformed from 1994-1999. With Ganter turning down the MSU job in 1994, the writing was on the wall that Sandusky was not Paterno’s successor. Plus, Sandusky was getting more and more involved with the 2nd Mile at the time.
In regards to the McQueary episode, Dr Dranov is on the record that what McQueary reported to him was NOT a reportable offense. (Dranov is a mandated reporter).
PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on.
I read this that McQueary did not describe there was illegal sexual activity going on to Paterno. Not sure where you got that Paterno described a sexual assault.
Does it make sense that McQueary watered down the story to his dad and Dr Dranov then told the PSU folks a much more graphic story, or, was the story told to PSU officials the same as the one he told Dranov and his Dad? I.e some thing that is kind of creepy but lacking any details.
Also, the boy in the shower had an opportunity to tell his story in the Spanier trial but he “did not recall”.
Paterno was a hearsay witness in all this, and his involvement was no more than Dranov or McQueary’s dad.
A few comments regarding 1998 and the overall McQuery episode.
The criticism regarding 1998 and Joe Paterno whether he knew about it or not is a moot point and doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. It was investigated, and charges weren’t made. Paterno had nothing to do with that.
As for Sandusky’s retirement, his defenses weren‘t very good or under preformed from 1994-1999. With Ganter turning down the MSU job in 1994, the writing was on the wall that Sandusky was not Paterno’s successor. Plus, Sandusky was getting more and more involved with the 2nd Mile at the time.
In regards to the McQueary episode, Dr Dranov is on the record that what McQueary reported to him was NOT a reportable offense. (Dranov is a mandated reporter).
PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on.
I read this that McQueary did not describe there was illegal sexual activity going on to Paterno. Not sure where you got that Paterno described a sexual assault.
Does it make sense that McQueary watered down the story to his dad and Dr Dranov then told the PSU folks a much more graphic story, or, was the story told to PSU officials the same as the one he told Dranov and his Dad? I.e some thing that is kind of creepy but lacking any details.
Also, the boy in the shower had an opportunity to tell his story in the Spanier trial but he “did not recall”.
Paterno was a hearsay witness in all this, and his involvement was no more than Dranov or McQueary’s dad.
Last edited:
And what some of you do not understand or care not to understand is the immense job Franklin has had to sell this place to recruits. The first thought that comes to people’s minds regarding PSU is Sandusky and it will continue to be Sandusky for decades. We are blessed to be where we are now with the football program and university overall considering this all went down relatively recently. Paterno’s name is complete dirt outside of PSU. His legacy is Sandusky, right or wrong.
Nole and people like him can't be reasoned with. They believe Joe should have been like John Rambo and taken justice into his own hands with Sandusky.
I would argue in today's news cycle that simply isn't true. Drew Allar was a 7-year-old when the Sandusky trial happened. His parents would have been aware, but he likely is not. Time moves very fast especially when you are looking at recruiting kids that were born now in 2006.
No, that is the end of your story. Paterno brought it to the attention of head of campus police and athletic director. He did not witness it himself. He can't decide to go Charles Bronson on Sandusky, like the ignorant masses expect in their fantasy. Your problem should be with a 28 year old, grown ass man not calling cops if he witnessed something directly. Instead, McQueary gets off scott free with millions in settlement and people like you blame Joe for not calling police directly on someone's else account day or more later. Ridiculous. How about telling us your thoughts on Bo scandal with Dr Anderson. UM in CFP again, Bo statue still up and no one cares. Tell us his accountability. Bo's son came forth and testified that Bo knew that Anderson raped him. Come back now, ya hear.
However, a licensed PhD psychologist di report to PSU that Sandusky was a likely pedophile and that fact that Joe DID know about it (which he denied later) shows he was aware of the pattern and should have acted in 2001. Charges weren't made because the locally elected DA did not want to take on a local legend with just one incident. Doesn't mean that nothing happened or that Joe and PSU could just dismiss it particularly in light of the Chambers report.
But he knew about it.
I'll stipulate that.
That's true. McQueary was in shock when he saw Dranov with his Dad the night of.
Any sexual activity between a child and an adult is by definition is illegal.
Yes, as he was in shock when he spoke to Dranov and only Paterno could protect him from institutional retribution as Sandusky was a local legend and MM was just a GA who needed a job. It wasn't just WHAT McQueary saw but more importantly WHO he saw doing it. Some random guy off the street and I'm sure MM would have acted differently.
He was not Victim 2. Plus neither side called that guy to trial for Sandusky.
No, Paterno by his own testimony was told more than Dranov or McQueary. He could have and should have done more. Kids paid for that inaction.
I don't believe that for a minute. Players come to PSU for the same reason they come to other schools. They come for:
- Coaches who can get them on track for the NFL
- The opportunity to play in front of one of the best fan bases in the country
- The ability to take advantage of great facilities
- NIL money
- The chance to compete and win at the highest level
And it shows Joe's guilt and blame
Joe participated in the decision NOT to report Sandusky. He shares the blame.
But he was told about it.
Red herring. Nobody asked him to go "Charles Bronson". Just report it to police.
You can blame McQueary if you want but he went to Joe for top cover which he got till Joe was fired. Joe had more power than a GA and instead chose to protect the program instead of the child. The real reason you blame MM was because his telling Joe ended up taking him down later.
Who at UM is defending Bo?
Myers was not Victim 2 in much the same way that Bruce Jenner is not a man.
That neither Sandusky’s defense team used him nor did the Prosecution is telling
OK.
Google Joe Paterno. Hit Images. Google Bo Schembeckler and hit images. Google Woody Hays and hit images.
See the difference?
Is your position that Victim 2's identity really is "known only to God"? And that this Victim 2 just decided to pass on free millions that Penn State was handing out to Sandusky "victims"? And that Myers' and Jerry's claims that Myers was in fact Victim 2 are all just made up? Sounds reasonable!
Trolls who come here and try to spread bullshit need to STFU and GTFO.
The ignorant whackoffnole needs to go back to the panturdliar and play with himself there.
This hearsay going back 15-20 years without a report is, in as much, a coverup. The first thing that should have been done should have been Joe telling McQueary "give me a report of what you witnessed." Then Joe should have forwarded his own report, along with McQueary's to the AD, who then should have forwarded a complete investigation report to the President of PSU. None of that happened.
Imagine an alleged sexual assault occurred in the football locker room (shower) and not a single piece of paper was forwarded in order to document what occurred.
I do not believe any of them in the chain of command wanted a report which makes the incident look like a coverup. They just wanted it to go away. Then 15-20 years later everyone is saying, "I told him, and "then I called and told him, and they I notified him."
Put it on paper immediately and "cover your ass." Everyone on this board is trying to make it looked like PSU got screwed. Well, if there were a paper trail, that would not have been the case.
Imagine an alleged sexual assault occurred in the football locker room (shower) and not a single piece of paper was forwarded in order to document what occurred.
I do not believe any of them in the chain of command wanted a report which makes the incident look like a coverup. They just wanted it to go away. Then 15-20 years later everyone is saying, "I told him, and "then I called and told him, and they I notified him."
Put it on paper immediately and "cover your ass." Everyone on this board is trying to make it looked like PSU got screwed. Well, if there were a paper trail, that would not have been the case.
And Joe was found to have done exactly as he should have.
Good grief to whatever ass wind you're trying to shoot.
you are actually incorrect. The NCAA, after years of research initiated due to the PSU issue, is exactly what Jor Paterno did: report it to his boss (AD Curley) and someone outside of his reporting verticle (Schultz). After that, get out of the way and let them do their jobs. If the coach doesn't get out of the way, it will look like he/she tampered with the case.
Joe was not a witness. Sandusky was not an employee. Joe did exactly as he should have done in 2011 or 2023.
If you accept "hearsay" 15 years later regarding a sexual assault. Then you don't belong conducting any type of investigation if you believe all the bull shit all the people will say to protect this ass/s/
I hope no investigative agency would have to conduct a sexual assault case on a close friend of relative of yours and find out "nothing was done, and no report filed 15-20 years prior."
As long as its not someone you know, you don't give a rats ass. Just don't blame Joe!
That's why PSU paid out Millions upon Millions since they did everything right and No One was found at fault.
Not only are you full of shit, you're extremely stupid as well.
That clown has some weird fixation with Paterno - he's like Pavlov's dog only dumber when you mention Paterno he crawls out of his hole - very strange.
McQuaery was a witness and should have made out a report of what he did and didn't see. Bottom line, they Did Not want anything put on paper. Shouldn't the SC Police have interviewed McQuaery when this incident occurred 20-25 years ago?
PSU got hammered because they buried their heads in the sand when this incident initially occurred.
Don't ever go into police work, you would be lost!
Joe Paterno is and always will be a legend! His reputation is that of a leader of men.
Maybe in your head and in your living room it’s different. That’s your world, that’s your own problem.
As a retired Fed, you're 100% Imbecile. PSU got hammered because of the morons on the BoT and their petty, political agenda.
One thing Wolf did right was give Penn State the "fine" money back plus another 2 million.
Whose dog ass are you sniffing? A relative on the BoT? Whackoffnole?
JjinPhila? Or all of them?
You're a moron and troll.
Yes sir. People also forget that Joe went to law school. He knew exactly what he was required to do by law, which he did. But, you can’t say that out loud amongst all the radical leftist anti-Joe Paterno people.
What's your point? Images look fine except for one that shows him sticking out his lower lip.
I've said all along that the administrators failed miserably. Most organizations with more than 200 employees have whistleblower policies and I suspect Penn State does as well. The whistleblower can remain anonymous to the public but the complaint and response would be documented / memorialized. Then there would be no question about what McQueary said and what the reasoning was for how the university responded.
I do not think that Shultz, Curley, Spanier, or Paterno tried to cover things up to protect football. I don't even think that McQueary told them about sexual assault. PSU officials had similar testimony as Dad & Dranov. It's not credible that Dad and Dranov are telling the truth but PSU officials are lying.
But that doesn't excuse the administrators for failing to document the complaint. My guess is they did this outside the system because it was Jerry and MM's complaint didn't seem that serious. Who knows but no excuse for the poor administrative job.
when I did it, lots of photos of him and Jerry Sandusky plus photos of him and Al Pacino. Bo and Woody? Steely-eyed sideline photos and other pictures of them housing trophies.
That's not what I got. Probably different search engines.
Regardless, I don't think recruits are staying away from PSU because of a 12 year old scandal. I think that's the last thing on their minds.
I agree. I think Curley and Schultz concluded that nothing could be done given a) the delay in the report from McQueary who didn't report it until the next day to Joe. C&S didn't hear anything for at least one more day. b) given that timeline, they couldn't find the kid and all physical evidence was gone c) TSM told them they had no records of what JS was doing and d) McQueary's recounting had no hard evidence and didn't match exactly what he told JoePa.
Having said that, they should have reported it to some kind of law enforcement given the 1998 accusation and investigation. Maybe they thought "here we go again, another baseless time-waster" or maybe they thought the police wouldn't be able to do anything either and let it go. Maybe they thought if this went public, it would be really bad for PSU. Regardless, they didn't do enough but they didn't break any laws. They were charged with several felonies and after being hounded for five years, pleaded guilty to low-level misdemeanors to make it stop (Curly, I know, was ill).
The trial against Spanier was a joke. They brought 5 charges and got a low misdemeanor. The jury foreman said it was Friday afternoon and all of the jurors wanted to acquit but one. To appease her and get home on a Friday, they agreed to find him guilty of the lowest charge possible.
But Joe did nothing wrong. Anyone who claims he did, is just making stuff up.
Outside of PSU, Joe is considered to be an abject failure on the Sandusky topic. This is not debatable.
Don't know who victim 2 is. It is not who the JoeBots claim or Sandusky would have used him in his defense.
My god, the "next day" is never too late to report a crime like this. Many women that were sexual abused wait days or weeks before coming forward. Its not up to the PSU Administration to decide if a an alleged crime like this should be reported.
Feb. 9, 2001, Mike McQueary, a Grad Assist enters a PSY locker room and hears a "rhythmic slapping sounds" that he believes are related to sexual activity. He later says, under oath that he went to the Lasch about 9:30PM. He looked into the shower and saw a naked boy about 10 yo with his hands up against the wall along with Sandusky. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse.
Police never interviewed McQueary until late "2010." No report, no police involvement until 9 years later. No wonder PSU got their asses handed to them.
Feb. 9, 2001, Mike McQueary, a Grad Assist enters a PSY locker room and hears a "rhythmic slapping sounds" that he believes are related to sexual activity. He later says, under oath that he went to the Lasch about 9:30PM. He looked into the shower and saw a naked boy about 10 yo with his hands up against the wall along with Sandusky. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse.
Police never interviewed McQueary until late "2010." No report, no police involvement until 9 years later. No wonder PSU got their asses handed to them.
- Status
