<p>“My point is if Paterno is not at fault we are destroying a man who may have led a exemplary life…”</p>
<p>tom, this is a discussion board. Each one of us takes in all the outstanding evidences and make our own judgement on the people involved. Paterno is not being destroyed or harm in anyway by us making our own mind about his and others culpability. While you think Paterno throughout the decade plus of years never had full knowledge or definitive ideas of Sandusky heinous acts and possibly were mislead and lied to, many of us find that unbelievable and far fetched given what has been documented in the grand jury report and as one of the most powerful figure in the school. Can we leave it as that and move on? Again, why the need to exonerate Paterno right here and right now?</p>
<p>mini, do you not see the not so appropriate pun in the quote?</p>
<p>Paterno admitted that Mcqueary came to his house and told him what happened in the shower. (mcQ and his father say he said anal rape, paterno says, "something of a sexual nature).</p>
<p>Paterno did not call the police. He called his bosses.</p>
<p>To me, that’s all I need to know. He chose to bury his head in the sand, at the very least.</p>
<p>Given that no charges are being brought against Paterno of a legal nature, I don’t know what innocent until proven guilty means, since that is a “legal” standard and not an ethical or moral standard.</p>
<p>We aren’t discussing legal culpability but ethical behavior in the face of criminal sexual abuse of children. I’m sure the Bishops who transfered the priests to other diocese believed they were not legally responsible, either. But, ethically? Morally? If adults don’t protect the children from predatory adults, regardless of the letter of the law? Who will? The reputation for integrity and honor? He destroyed that himself. Not me.</p>
<p>Another thing that I can’t get around is the fact that McQ talked to Paterno and then Paterno talked to the AD and VP, then 10 days later, McQ talked to AD and the VP. After all these meetings, AD and the VP got the right picture and understand the extent of the act but Paterno did not? Legally, Paterno satisfied the statue, but how can anyone be so sure that he does not at all get the right idea of what happened? And why would he not care at all to come to know what really happened? It is not credible argument to me that he was misled and told a lie about what happened? Why would McQ and the rest conpspired to hide this from Paterno? Would McQ even dare to lie to Paterno on this kind of subject matter? Again, we are talking about moral obligation, not legal obligation.</p>
<p>No worries, poetrl. I’ll be at a conference. So I guess posters will just have to go back to mudslinging here again. </p>
<p>The situation is not in the east bit funny. It is a tragedy. But sometimes in the face of a travesty, finding a way to lighten up, even briefly, is a good thing.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand why in 1998 the top PSU admins (Curley, Schultz & Spanier) didn’t insist ALL PSU ties w/ Sandusky be severed. Just because the DA failed to charge Sandusky - Schultz knew the details of the investigation (Sandusky’s showering with victim 6 and his confession to the child’s mother). That alone was MORE than enough.</p>
<p>No Tom, that was not directed at you at all. It was just directed at the entire conversation. I respect you standing up for how you feel about this. You have been completely consistent since day 1. I can’t even say that about myself. I find myself arguing both sides on any given day. I am sorry if you thought I was disparaging you. It just came to mind during that particular back and forth.</p>
<p>Ah, Jym, but we will miss you. A little black humor now and then is the only thing that keeps us sane.</p>
<p>MOWC-- thanks for bringing that up, I saw that, too. I saw he sent emails even BEFORE the whole backlash thing to his friends saying he didn’t just walk away.</p>
<p>To be honest, so far, he really does seem to be the only one who didn’t walk away. Maybe it’s generational. I wouldn’t say he was a hero who went to the police, but I will say he seems to have been the most responsible of all involved.</p>
<p>Oh my jym - I’m a little dense. I just caught on to your comment about my post. I was trying to figure out what everyone was talking about. I’m batting 1000 on saying things I didn’t mean.</p>
<p>I’m back- Sandusky has given a TV interview on NBC at 10pm tonight. Here is something from the news article-Though he was not particularly close with Paterno, he remained a familiar sight around the Penn State football complex. He was given an office in the East Area Locker building, across the street from the football building, as part of his retirement package, and would bring Second Mile kids around the football facilities.</p>
<p>By the way I am not sure I can say Paterno is not deserving of what many accuse him of. What I am saying is it is to soon to say for certain. I also believe many here are using certain information that is not proven but they think is true to bolster their argument. I am just saying there is no reason not to wait.</p>
<p>Agree that it is all too easy to rush to judgement with what information has been released thus far. It will be interesting to hear what it means that he “made sure it stopped”. I have a momentary fantasy of suggesting they hire Lorena Bobbitt to makes sure it stops.</p>
<p>I haven’t checked more than the most recent few pages, so I apologize if this is duplicative, but I see that Sandusky has now spoken publicly, in a telephone interview with Bob Costas, and denies doing anything more than engaging in innocent horseplay.</p>
<p>I wonder how many people will believe him. His lawyer has already intimated that the victims who have come forward were all “troubled” youths who are essentially making things up. And I suppose he’ll claim that McQueary misinterpreted what he heard and saw.</p>
<p>Thanks for taking it in stride, cartera. This thread has been wound a bit too tight at times.</p>
<p>Not sure where else you might have said soemthing you didnt mean, but thanks again for allowing me to have a little fun with your turn of a phrase. You are a good sport.</p>
<p>I can’t recall where at this point, but I seem to recall that somewhere it was stated that when McQ went to Paterno to report what he had seen, Paterno stopped him at some point before he had told all and told him that he needed to report this to the AD.</p>
<p>IMHO, this would seem to support the speculation that Paterno was, shall we say, “generationally” unwilling/unable to deal with McQ’s information.</p>
<p>Not an excuse, but certainly an explanation.</p>
<p>qdogpa- as the facts come out, I suspect the public will know more. But as for “making it stop”(your 2149) I think this is info different from what here have known or believed so far, for many days and many pages. You see, most here had the impression McQ merely saw them and slipped away, without being noticed; not so much as a “Stop!”, let alone a punch. Some here even believed McQ’s eyes met Sandus, but then McQ slipped away, and the rape continued.
So, while stopping because one is caught isn’t the same as being shot in the act with an arrow(Deliverance) but nevertheless it is still stopping. And that, at least, is some degree of good news.</p>