<p>My issue has been the same from the beginning let all the facts come out before we condemn people. That is my stance for every accusation someone faces not just sports or legendary coaches but for everyone in every field.</p>
<p>Well, yes, you’re right…at heart of any coverup is everyone’s personal interests.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the McMartin DayCare child abuse trial? It was in the early 80’s, and I remember the sensationalism of that whole case. The people involved were judged in the press (no Internet back then). I remember thinking what horrific people they were, and I, along with most of the country, was incredulous when every one of them was acquitted. </p>
<p>Years later, I read an account of what actually happened (as gleaned from the trial, not the newspapers) and it turned out all the charges were initiated by an alcoholic, mentally disturbed mother whose boyfriend was abusing her son, but she accused a school worker. Things just snowballed from there. That accused guy was in jail for 5 years and never convicted of anything. It’s an interesting read, it can be googled.</p>
<p>I’m glad that McQueary now is saying that he <em>did</em> put a stop to the ongoing child rape. I hope he’s telling the truth. Still, if all he means is that he shouted or whatever, and made sure that Sandusky stopped what he was doing before he (McQueary) left to call his father, it’s still inexplicable to me that he would have left the child there with Sandusky, rather than removing the child from the situation. How did he know that Sandusky wouldn’t simply start right up again after he left?</p>
<p>When I hear the word cover-up, I think of collusion. I’m inclined to believe that there wasn’t a cover-up (I’m also willing to believe there may have been!) so much as there was an unspoken feeling among all the parties that Penn State must be protected at all costs and so doing the bare minimum, looking the other way, not asking the tough questions are all part of the greater desire to keep these crimes from seeing the light of day.</p>
<p>I never really bought the McMartin accusations, or the similar cases, including the notorious case against a preschool teacher in New Jersey. None of it ever seemed plausible to me, given how out in the open all of the alleged abuse supposedly was, given how obviously coached a lot of the children were, given the hysteria at the time about Satanism and the thousands of missing children and babies who supposedly were the victims of human sacrifice, and given that at least in the New Jersey case, many of the allegations from the children involved things like the teacher flying around the room, turning children into animals and back again, etc.</p>
<p>This seems fundamentally different to me, given the number of separate adult witnesses to inappropriate and/or illegal behavior, and given the fact that there’s a big difference in reliability when people testify about what happened when they were 10-15 as opposed to when they were 3-5.</p>
<p>I think that Joe Paterno transferring the house to his wife for a dollar shows that by this summer, he knew or thought it most probably, this scandal would be coming out and he had liability issues. Since he was already a joint owner with his legal wife, there was no reason for estate planning to do this. There also was no reason for future medical costs either since they are married. The one thing this move would do is protect the family home from being seized in a judgement.</p>
<p>Re the McMartin case, I never remember reading about any of the obvious BS until afterwards. It was a long time ago, and my memory isn’t what it used to be, but I have a definite memory of the newspapers painting a picture of child abuse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Plus, that child likely needed medical care, a referral for counseling, and evidence should have been collected which could have put this guy away, thus sparing numerous future victims. Not to mention that his parents had a right to know what had happened to their child. I realize that these kids were “at risk,” but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t have parents who loved them and who would have wanted intervention.</p>
<p>Over $500,000 annual pension.</p>
<p>Nice pension - most places don’t pay you 100% of your salary no matter how long you work there:</p>
<p>[Paterno</a> in line for six-figure annual pension ? USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-15/joe-paterno-pension/51223854/1]Paterno”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-11-15/joe-paterno-pension/51223854/1)</p>
<p>tom,</p>
<p>I respect your view. But I also respect the view of those who ask questions, demand answers, and form views and opinions based on currently available information. The questions asked relate to public malfeasance of the absolute highest order. In my view, a skeptical public is a good thing.</p>
<p>I remember both the McMartin case and the NJ one, and at the time I thought both stunk to high heaven–I recall articles in Atlantic Monthly and Villag voice which showed how very young children were horribly manipulated, and as Donna said, the ridiculousness of how these things could have been going on in populated, open buildings defied belief. I was appalled how easily we fell into that witchhunt mentality–the whole Satanic ritual paranoia of the 80s.</p>
<p>That being said, I tend to think that nothing about this case parallels that–no one went looking for sexual abuse; if anything, case after case was swept under the rug. And peripheral individuals are not being dragged into charges of abuse–the case is about Sandusky’s actions, and the possible covering up of them. There is much less (I would say no) possibility that nothing happened. </p>
<p>It’s a question in each case of evidence and credibility–the day care cases had none, bu this case, arguably, has both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One cannot definitively assess such a statement, but College Board does have the SAT scores for entering classes. </p>
<p>Pitt:
CR: 570 - 680
Math: 600 - 690 </p>
<p>Penn State:
CR: 530 - 630
Math: 560 - 670</p>
<p>These numbers show a statistically significant difference. Of course, there could be selection issues, and the SAT scores tell us nothing about HS GPA and ECs.</p>
<p>There was never a chance that we would make it through this scandal without a comprehensive analysis of yield rates.</p>
<p>Stats21, LOL.</p>
<p>LOLOLOL :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is correct. I’m no estate planning expert, but the lawyer who drafted our wills says the IRS counts half the value of jointly owned property toward the decedent’s taxable estate (even though it automatically becomes the property of the surviving joint tenant). So if JoePa’s individual assets are larger than his wife’s and are anywhere near the level subject to estate taxation (which I believe is now $5 million) it would be a perfectly logical and rational thing to sign the house over to his wife in order that less estate tax would be owed at his death. I’m not saying that’s why he did it, just saying there’s a reasonable explanation for it, other than to avoid judgment creditors.</p>
<p>Garland, I vividly remember that Village Voice article about the New Jersey case. What a horrendous miscarriage of justice that was.</p>
<p>@post #2572 PSU is probably much larger. If the average scores include everyone in satelite campuses, it makes no comparison. At my kid’s school, practically everyone who applies to Pitt gets accepted. If they get cross-admitted to PSU main campus, it is my understanding that most would choose PSU.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree if it stayed at just being skeptical. I think we’ve gone beyond that. We presume the worst case scenario based on tidbits of GJ infomation that mainly reflects prosecutor’s point of view. Actually, we don’t even believe the way GJ reports of Paterno. We think/know he has done worse. He is actively implicated in the coverup. He is certainly not allowed to have a moment of poor judgement. Since he is a superman, he must have intended it. Nothing short of that is possible according to this thread. That is a high ideal to live up to. I don’t know if God himself can manage that. </p>
<p>All that what for? Would it help the victims if they thought/knew Paterno actively harmed them? If in the end it is the case, we bite and deal with it. But why do we rush to that non-true or yet-to-be true when it won’t help anyone, certainly not the abuse victims?</p>
<p>bclintonk, asset left to a spouse after death can be exempt from tax by using marital deduction. Yes, it is counted towards the decendent’s estate but there is no tax until the surviving spouse also dies. So transferring the ownership of the house does not apply to your scenario, I think.</p>
<p>As for why Paterno transferred his house–I don’t think this would be effective against judgment creditors in the first place. Perhaps he’s used up his life-time gift exemption, and she hasn’t, and she’ll give the house to somebody else eventually.</p>