ADVERTISEMENT

Wetzel: Last-ditch effort to reframe Joe Paterno's legacy fizzles out

Here's the problem in a nutshell. It wasn't anybody's job to refute the allegations. It was the prosecution's job to prove them. The principals have been in a position from the day Joe was fired where their guilt was presumed, rather than their innocence. Penn State proceeded to reinforce that presumption of guilt with each subsequent action it took. After all this time and the incalculable damage done, not one allegation lending any credence to the narrative was proved. Not one!

And some cover-up! Every single coach on JVP's staff willingly gave up their cell phones and computers to be checked....NOT ONE message taking about JS. Because they all were afraid of a 5-10 160lb Italian guy who wore thick lensed glasses. Gimme a break.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jomouli23
The media frames and tells the story, like the rest of us from their POVs ,and as Mika ... (is it MSNBC) said they make the news (what is and what isn't).
2 misdemeanor convictions with 1 pending appeal. Either the defendants did not engage in some massive cover-up (or for that matter any cover-up) or they got away with an enormous amount. I know what I think. And if I recall correctly, some major state attorney noted that Paterno's behavior did not rise to anything indictable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jomouli23
Determining what Coach Paterno's status should be (retiring early/immediately, not coaching for the remaining games) based on the reality of the media/public firestorm could have easily been achieved during an internal review of the Freeh Report's findings before publicly releasing it. Performing such an internal review would have been obvious to a Board with any modicum of competence.

It really seems like some of the OGBOT members had such animosity towards/jealousy of Coach Paterno that they deliberately released the Freeh Report (of which they almost certainly already knew the contents) publicly without review just so they could fire Paterno on the spot.

No. They wanted him to retire with class but he threw them out of his house. Joe made the decision to stick around until a scandal so big hit the fan that no coach at ANY school with any board would have survived.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey Lion
Paterno was fired in November 2011, long before the Freeh Report was produced. That being said, Paterno should never have been fired irregardless of the Freeh Report farce.

The formulation of the idea by the OGBOT members that Paterno would be deemed "responsible" for this "scandal" and needed to be ushered out occurred so far ahead of both the actual firing and the Freeh Report, it's easy to forget that they acted on those "findings" so far ahead of their concocted "independent review".
 
Eh, that's all hindsight, sanctimonious, Monday-morning QB-ing. Personally, given the facts we know I think everyone acted reasonably with the exception of the OAG and possibly TSM.

Regardless, Joe not calling police does not justify the public destruction of his reputation by guys like Wetzel.

Joe had no legal responsibility to call the police. The 2014 ncaa guidelines would not have Joe call the police. Joe was given a vague account 12+ hours after the incident, and mcqueary did not know the identity of the boy.

Once again, Drs. Dranov and McQueary learned of the incident the night it happened, and they didn't call the police. They didn't tell mike to call the police.

Joe acted appropriately.
 
Joe had no legal responsibility to call the police. The 2014 ncaa guidelines would not have Joe call the police. Joe was given a vague account 12+ hours after the incident, and mcqueary did not know the identity of the boy.

Once again, Drs. Dranov and McQueary learned of the incident the night it happened, and they didn't call the police. They didn't tell mike to call the police.

Joe acted appropriately.

Tell that to Jerry's post 2001 victims. If someone is choking on a piece of steak, you have
no legal responsibility to perform the Heimlich Maneuver. And according to you, not doing
so is acting appropriately.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: _fugazi_
Tell that to Jerry's post 2011 victims. If someone is choking on a piece of steak, you have
no legal responsibility to perform the Heimlich Maneuver. And according to you, not doing
so is acting appropriately.

It's not just that - they claim that it would be illegal to perform it since it goes above and beyond the legally mandated response.
 
Why?

Why do people pretend that MM's story has not evolved over time? How is it that not one person Mike told came to the same conclusion you believe is so damn obvious "with the benefit of hindsight"?
Because counsel billing records and Paterno's testimony show that CSS knew of suspected CSA.
 
Dr. Dranov specifically testified that he didn't believe Mike's report warranted a call to police or child services.
He also specifically said that MM referenced sexual sounds and that Sandusky was with a boy alone in a shower at a time when no one else was supposed to be around. He also noted that Mike was too distraught to answer questions fully. Dranov either needs additional training or he lied about what he believed. Any mandatory reporter with proper training would say that such an incident needs to be reported.
 
Seriously? Paterno announced his retirement making it impossible to suspend him.

Spanier's statement of support for Curley and Schultz went too far. Everyone knew there was an incident and they didn't report it to authorities. Calling the charges groundless was a really bad look.

Also remember Spanier's statement was as much about self preservation as anything else.

Did MSU fire the women's gymnastics coach who was told by dozens of team members they were sexually assaulted by Nassar and did nothing?

Here's a third option: the Board accepts Paterno's resignation. No, instead they have to go full "the entire football program cares more about winning and nothing about kids, and everyone who ever attended school or a football game here are pedophile enablers."
 
He also specifically said that MM referenced sexual sounds and that Sandusky was with a boy alone in a shower at a time when no one else was supposed to be around. He also noted that Mike was too distraught to answer questions fully. Dranov either needs additional training or he lied about what he believed. Any mandatory reporter with proper training would say that such an incident needs to be reported.
Which is why Dranov asked Mike three times if he SAW anything sexual.
 
Tell that to Jerry's post 2001 victims. If someone is choking on a piece of steak, you have
no legal responsibility to perform the Heimlich Maneuver. And according to you, not doing
so is acting appropriately.


hqdefault.jpg



c60e29e04b4e811a2c9032790acd572c.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnylion
And he was too distraught to answer. Or, I'm sorry, he kept referring to sexual sounds. Do you not think that is suspected CSA?
As John McQueary Sr stated, the police would have been called if they thought the child was in danger. Everyone was mystified, they didn't know what to make of it. They probably hoped and assumed there was some kind of misunderstanding by Mike, which is why Dranov kept asking Mike to verify what he actually SAW.
 
Joe had no legal responsibility to call the police. The 2014 ncaa guidelines would not have Joe call the police. Joe was given a vague account 12+ hours after the incident, and mcqueary did not know the identity of the boy.

Once again, Drs. Dranov and McQueary learned of the incident the night it happened, and they didn't call the police. They didn't tell mike to call the police.

Joe acted appropriately.

Agree completely.
 
And he was too distraught to answer. Or, I'm sorry, he kept referring to sexual sounds. Do you not think that is suspected CSA?

Too distraught to answer?? Give me a break.

No I do not think it was suspected CSA. He didn't know what he had seen because he did not witness any sexual activity. Not one person who MM spoke to contemporaneously including his Dad, Dr. Dranaov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz thought it merited a call to the police/CYS.

Even the only person who has made a credible claim to being v2 (AM) has stated that it was NOT CSA.
 
That's kind of the point. While you guys obsess over him being fired you ignore the fact he limited BOT's options.

After announcing his retirement suspension is essentially firing him. Here's part of his statement:

"That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can.

"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more. My goals now are to keep my commitments to my players and staff and finish the season with dignity and determination. And then I will spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to help this university."

It wouldn't have changed how people reacted.
Do I understand correctly that you're blaming Paterno for the way he was fired?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royal_Coaster
As John McQueary Sr stated, the police would have been called if they thought the child was in danger. Everyone was mystified, they didn't know what to make of it. They probably hoped and assumed there was some kind of misunderstanding by Mike, which is why Dranov kept asking Mike to verify what he actually SAW.
What do you think Mike was so upset about?
 
Too distraught to answer?? Give me a break.

No I do not think it was suspected CSA. He didn't know what he had seen because he did not witness any sexual activity. Not one person who MM spoke to contemporaneously including his Dad, Dr. Dranaov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz thought it merited a call to the police/CYS.

Even the only person who has made a credible claim to being v2 (AM) has stated that it was NOT CSA.
You are crazy and have proven to not be able to accept reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey Lion
No, you really don't. If you cannot accept that Jerry is a serial pedophile beyond a reasonable doubt as a fact, you are clueless.

You originally said that it was a fact that Sandusky was a serial pedophile without qualifying beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that you have conflated the fact of the results of Sandusky trial with your opinions of Sandusky's behavior.

I accept that the original trial verdicts were that the jury found Sandusky guilty on 45 out of 48 counts. I also believe that the original trial was patently unfair. I don't believe that the results of an unfair trial are reliable.

Do you accept that it is a fact that on ocassion that juries gets it wrong?
 
What do you think Mike was so upset about?
It was a Friday night. He was faced after having been at the bars. Being the degenerate, lying pervert we now know him to be, he thought some football player was banging a cheerleader in the shower. I think he was upset because it was only Jerry and some kid horsing around. He was hoping to get in on the action.
 
You originally said that it was a fact that Sandusky was a serial pedophile without qualifying beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that you have conflated the fact of the results of Sandusky trial with your opinions of Sandusky's behavior.

I accept that the original trial verdicts were that the jury found Sandusky guilty on 45 out of 48 counts. I also believe that the original trial was patently unfair. I don't believe that the results of an unfair trial are reliable.

Do you accept that it is a fact that on ocassion that juries gets it wrong?

We don't need a jury. We don't need a judge. We don't need a prosecutor.

If you admit to being naked with a pre-pubescent boy, alone, in the shower, and find any reason to give him a bear hug or to lift him up to get the soap out of his hair, then you ARE A PEDOPHILE.

Every time. Each time. Without debate and without question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PharmD Blue
You originally said that it was a fact that Sandusky was a serial pedophile without qualifying beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that you have conflated the fact of the results of Sandusky trial with your opinions of Sandusky's behavior.

I accept that the original trial verdicts were that the jury found Sandusky guilty on 45 out of 48 counts. I also believe that the original trial was patently unfair. I don't believe that the results of an unfair trial are reliable.

Do you accept that it is a fact that on ocassion that juries gets it wrong?
Oh, so you admit that your doubt is unreasonable? Ok, sounds good.

Do juries get it wrong 45 out of 48 times? You do know that he only needs to be guilty of one of those counts to be a deviant, right?

Get real, your position is ridiculous.
 
It was a Friday night. He was faced after having been at the bars. Being the degenerate, lying pervert we now know him to be, he thought some football player was banging a cheerleader in the shower. I think he was upset because it was only Jerry and some kid horsing around. He was hoping to get in on the action.
LOL. Look at you making up fantasy stories.
 
Oh, so you admit that your doubt is unreasonable? Ok, sounds good.

Do juries get it wrong 45 out of 48 times? You do know that he only needs to be guilty of one of those counts to be a deviant, right?

Get real, your position is ridiculous.

You only indirectly answered my question, but I take from your response that you agree that sometimes the juries get it wrong. I may be wrong, but I think you may now be understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion.

I didn't say that my doubt was unreasonable, that is what you said. I was just showing how you were trying to move the goalpost from when you first said that it was a fact that Sandusky was a serial pedophile without qualification and now you are stating it is fact that Sandusky is a serial pedophile beyond a reasonable doubt. This is still your opnion and not a fact. I believe that if Sandusky is fortunate to win a new trial that his attorneys will be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt in spades.
 
ADVERTISEMENT