Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We agree here --- the Wednesday AM statement was 100% a reason to be fired in itself. Using verbology like "not spend a single minute discussing my status" was unnecessarily arrogant. It was basically saying "F U" to the BOT (his bosses) without actually using the 4-letter cuss word.
The more interesting question --- which of Jay and Scott (or perhaps both) actually wrote that? I seriously doubt that was Joe alone.
You've intentionally misrepresented his statement for going on 6 years and I guess you'll continue to do it long into the future. You know he meant "you have bigger things to worry about than me, like the freakin' University crumbling down around us!" Any thinking person knows what he meant, in the context of when he said it. But much like how "with the benefit of hindsight..." is twisted or forgotten to fit an agenda, so is his retirement statement.
And wasn't there a leaked NY Times story from the day before about how they were planning to fire him? So were they clairvoyant and knew what he was going to say the next day (Wednesday) when they had already decided to fire him the day before (Tuesday)?
99.999% of the population would disagree. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is always CSA.
Always.
No "yeah but ..."
No "the intent isn't proven..." -- No! It really really is proven.
Always. In every case. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is CSA.
You've intentionally misrepresented his statement for going on 6 years and I guess you'll continue to do it long into the future. You know he meant "you have bigger things to worry about than me, like the freakin' University crumbling down around us!" Any thinking person knows what he meant, in the context of when he said it. But much like how "with the benefit of hindsight..." is twisted or forgotten to fit an agenda, so is his retirement statement.
And wasn't there a leaked NY Times story from the day before about how they were planning to fire him? So were they clairvoyant and knew what he was going to say the next day (Wednesday) when they had already decided to fire him the day before (Tuesday)?
Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.
If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.
"Not spend a single minute discussing my status" is a DIRECT QUOTE. That's a misrepresentation?!?!?!?
I first heard that statement at about 10 AM that Wednesday on ESPN2, right at the end of Mike and Mike. This isn't revisionist history --- I knew then and there Joe was going to get fired. He said "F U" to his bosses and his bosses called him on it.
Because keeping quiet helped C/S, right?Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.
If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.
Uh, yes. I didn't say misquote, I said misrepresentation. You're representing it as an FU statement by Paterno and I think that's patently absurd.
Paterno's was to report.What were the differences in their legal responsibilities?
Well, I guess we can go round and round because I was following it in real time and I knew exactly what he meant. And again, your second paragraph is at odds with the fact that the BOT had decided to fire him the day BEFORE he made his statement. So maybe watching Netflix and chillin' wouldn't have been the cure all you're suggesting afterall.
Anyone who was following the story in REAL TIME that day would have had the same reaction as me. I cringed. I was a supporter. I knew he had just essentially fired himself.
If he had done almost anything else that day, he would not have been fired. He should have just taken a nap, or had some Netflix & Chill.
TY JWI cringed, too, when I read his statement. But I didn't know at the time that the board had refused to even talk to Paterno in those early days. That NYT times actually came out a half hour after the press conference was cancelled. It seems that Paterno's statement on Wednesday was to address that article. It's crazy to think that Paterno and the board were communicating through the media. That NYT article also had a pretty big mistake in it. I wrote a timeline on the early days of the scandal here: https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/when-the-scandal-broke-revisiting-november-2011/ And here's a brief synopsis:
RecappingEarly November 2011
On Saturday November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly publicly released the Grand Jury Presentment.
The presentment created the false implication that Mike McQueary saw an anal rape and reported that to Joe Paterno.
On Sunday November 6, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement attempting to correct that false implication stating, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”
On Monday November 7, 2011, Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference detailing the charges against Sandusky. She stated that Paterno was a cooperative witness and was not considered a target of the investigation. One reporter asked her about the implication in the presentment that Paterno was told explicitly of an anal rape. This presented her with an opportunity to correct the false implication; however, she chose to say she couldn’t share more than what appears in the presentment.
After Linda Kelly took questions from the media, and the press conference was over, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan went back to where the reporters were gathered. He was asked about Paterno’s responsibility. Rather than stick to what the legal requirements were, Noonan chose to question Paterno’s morality.
On Tuesday November 8, 2011, roughly one hundred members of the media gathered for Paterno’s regularly scheduled press conference. The Penn State Board of Trustees cancelled it.
A half hour later the New York Times published an article citing two sources with information that the Penn State Board of Trustees was planning Paterno’s exit. (A former assistant managing editor at the New York Times was a member of the Penn State board.)
That same article also cites a source that claims Paterno was explicitly told of an anal rape, refuting Paterno’s denial two days prior.
By mid-afternoon Tuesday, ESPN’s coverage of the scandal finally found the right moral outrage, according to independent ombudsman Kelly McBride, one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics. She also wrote that the mob of normally vitriolic web commenters were “right to take up its virtual torches and pitchforks.”
Late Tuesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees issued its first statement on the scandal, and “aligned itself with the anger the public is expressing over this incident.” They committed to forming a committee to conduct a “full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report,” and, “to determine what failures occurred.”
On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement in the morning expressing his sorrow and announcing his retirement effective at the end of the season. A source close to Paterno said it was the coach’s decision to retire and that he has had no contact with the board of trustees.
Late Wednesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees met behind closed doors before holding a press conference where they announced Paterno was fired.
The board fired Joe Paterno without ever speaking to him. When questioned, Vice Chairman John Surma justified the firing “in consideration of all the facts,” which he said amounted to nothing more than what was in the grand jury presentment and whatever the media had written.
I cringed, too, when I read his statement. But I didn't know at the time that the board had refused to even talk to Paterno in those early days. That NYT times actually came out a half hour after the press conference was cancelled. It seems that Paterno's statement on Wednesday was to address that article. It's crazy to think that Paterno and the board were communicating through the media. That NYT article also had a pretty big mistake in it. I wrote a timeline on the early days of the scandal here: https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/when-the-scandal-broke-revisiting-november-2011/ And here's a brief synopsis:
RecappingEarly November 2011
On Saturday November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly publicly released the Grand Jury Presentment.
The presentment created the false implication that Mike McQueary saw an anal rape and reported that to Joe Paterno.
On Sunday November 6, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement attempting to correct that false implication stating, “It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”
On Monday November 7, 2011, Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference detailing the charges against Sandusky. She stated that Paterno was a cooperative witness and was not considered a target of the investigation. One reporter asked her about the implication in the presentment that Paterno was told explicitly of an anal rape. This presented her with an opportunity to correct the false implication; however, she chose to say she couldn’t share more than what appears in the presentment.
After Linda Kelly took questions from the media, and the press conference was over, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan went back to where the reporters were gathered. He was asked about Paterno’s responsibility. Rather than stick to what the legal requirements were, Noonan chose to question Paterno’s morality.
On Tuesday November 8, 2011, roughly one hundred members of the media gathered for Paterno’s regularly scheduled press conference. The Penn State Board of Trustees cancelled it.
A half hour later the New York Times published an article citing two sources with information that the Penn State Board of Trustees was planning Paterno’s exit. (A former assistant managing editor at the New York Times was a member of the Penn State board.)
That same article also cites a source that claims Paterno was explicitly told of an anal rape, refuting Paterno’s denial two days prior.
By mid-afternoon Tuesday, ESPN’s coverage of the scandal finally found the right moral outrage, according to independent ombudsman Kelly McBride, one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics. She also wrote that the mob of normally vitriolic web commenters were “right to take up its virtual torches and pitchforks.”
Late Tuesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees issued its first statement on the scandal, and “aligned itself with the anger the public is expressing over this incident.” They committed to forming a committee to conduct a “full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report,” and, “to determine what failures occurred.”
On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno released a statement in the morning expressing his sorrow and announcing his retirement effective at the end of the season. A source close to Paterno said it was the coach’s decision to retire and that he has had no contact with the board of trustees.
Late Wednesday evening, the Penn State Board of Trustees met behind closed doors before holding a press conference where they announced Paterno was fired.
The board fired Joe Paterno without ever speaking to him. When questioned, Vice Chairman John Surma justified the firing “in consideration of all the facts,” which he said amounted to nothing more than what was in the grand jury presentment and whatever the media had written.
Not to mention that there was nothing forcing Jerry to shower with the boy. If he really, really wanted to shower there and not at home, why did Jerry not let the boy shower first and then he could shower after? Or, why not let the boy shower, take him home and then shower from home? It's because Pedo Jerry couldn't help himself. He just HAD to shower with the boy. He just HAD to stand right up against him.99.999% of the population would disagree. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is always CSA.
Always.
No "yeah but ..."
No "the intent isn't proven..." -- No! It really really is proven.
Always. In every case. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is CSA.
PLEASE. TAKE. THIS. OPPORTUNITY. TO. USE. THE. IGNORE. FEATURE.
Do you remember their argument for not meeting with Joe? There were too many media around for them to meet with him. That any member of the board would have been instantly recognized & swarmed by reporters.TY JW
The fact that this University's governing Board (the BOT) - the folks with ultimate responsibility and duty of governance - at no time, pulled the "interested and relevant" parties (at least all the parties who were employees of the University) together into a room and so much as asked:
"OK, WTF is going on?"
Says all one can say about the utter disengaged cluster-f$ck that has "governed" this University for a long, long time.
That simple, basic, fundamental act - an act that would have been undertaken by even a low-functioning Board - would have, despite all of the other outside influences that were fanning the flames, mitigated the fallout of the last six years by a factor of 99% (fallout that will likely continue to impact the University for a generation or more).
It is truly a stunning level of incompetence / corruption / self-interest / fiduciary failure / and confliction. .
Even more stunning is the fact that the Board is at least as disengaged and "cluster-f$cked" today, as it was 6 years ago.
So how come the County DA didn't seem to understand this? Was he in the .001%?
Of course....they shoulda' / coulda' / woulda' (if they were not the most incompetent / corrupt / self-interested / conflicted / fiduciary failures in the history of governance):Do you remember their argument for not meeting with Joe? There were too many media around for them to meet with him. That any member of the board would have been instantly recognized & swarmed by reporters.
And their solution to this conundrum was to send a little unknown up-&-comer by the name of Fran Ganter to Joe's house (where the media had been camped out since the weekend).
So how come the County DA didn't seem to understand this? Was he in the .001%?
Btw this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm curious what Coveys thoughts are on the 1998 investigation.
Do you remember their argument for not meeting with Joe? There were too many media around for them to meet with him. That any member of the board would have been instantly recognized & swarmed by reporters.
And their solution to this conundrum was to send a little unknown up-&-comer by the name of Fran Ganter to Joe's house (where the media had been camped out since the weekend).
Hmm. Are you saying that Jerry was warned prior to the 1998 investigation? Why don't you share what you know?
How many trustees could you recognize by name prior to December 2011?What's your point? 99% of Penn State football fans (much less the national media, most of them non-sports fans) couldn't pick Fran Ganter out of a police lineup.
You think Gricar hadn't heard about Jerry before? ADA since 1981 I think? DA since 1985. A suggestion police were involved around 1984? I don't think this came out of the blue for him. He was no fool.
How many trustees could you recognize by name prior to December 2011?
Joe had no business contacting the board of trustees until they assumed Spanier's role in November of 2011.Why don't you dial the rage down a notch? Joe knew for sure this was going to blow up. He'd seen the newspaper. He testified himself. He went so far as to sell his family home to his wife, so concerned was he about personal liability. (July 2011). He had months and months to talk to the BoT. He didn't want to.
OK Jockstrap J!! I don't post on 80's criminal law boards. I'm focused on this millennium, Chief.
99.999% of the population would disagree. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is always CSA.
Always.
No "yeah but ..."
No "the intent isn't proven..." -- No! It really really is proven.
Always. In every case. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is CSA.
Btw this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm curious what Coveys thoughts are on the 1998 investigation.
I think they knew he was a pedophile, but believed they could not prove it in a court of law.
That's why I think my course of action was the best - cops/DA had a moral obligation in 1998 to inform C/S/S and Paterno that they had a suspected pedophile on their hands, and to inform them immediately upon any suspect activity by JS. Had they done that, Sandusky would have been stopped in 2001.
99.999% of the population would disagree. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is always CSA.
Always.
No "yeah but ..."
No "the intent isn't proven..." -- No! It really really is proven.
Always. In every case. Showering naked and alone with a boy that isn't your son (and maybe even if he is), when you've been warned not to, is CSA.
zz
You are welcome to your own opinion. I believe you are exaggerating the % of the population that would agree with your percentage. I don't believe that intent has been demonstrated.
It is not clear to me that he was warned not to shower with minors. Sandusky has said that he was told in 1998 only not to shower with v6 any more and after the incident in 1998 he never did. Sandusky was not indicated in 1998, the Centre County DA investigated and Sandusky was cleared and not charged with any offenses. After the v2 incident in 2001, Sandusky was told not to bring Second Mile kids on campus and after the incident he never did.
It was routine for adults to shower with kids in the locker room when I was a kid so I give him a break on that part. My first problem is that TSM allowed him to be 1 on 1 with troubled youth. My second problem is that he continued to do it after 1998. That incident should have scared him to death.
I don't think your command of just exactly what has happened is as clear as you think it is.
If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe some of the things that people have come to believe will be shown to be wrong.
Says the guy who visited Jerry in prison.I don't think your command of just exactly what has happened is as clear as you think it is.
If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe some of the things that people have come to believe will be shown to be wrong.