<p>^^
I’ll bet the people at Penn State can at least type!</p>
<p>Let the facts come out. I’d hate for you to be completely wrong…</p>
<p>The cover article on this in Sports Illustrated was interesting, a fairly thorough summary.</p>
<p>It was written declaratively, with no ifs or doubts that S was a pedophile and did these acts.</p>
<p>It referred to a few anonymous sources.</p>
<p>A named local source was quoted as saying that there had been rumors of S having issues with young boys for a while.</p>
<p>There was some color on JoPa, and also a depiction of him as the true head of PSU, so how could he NOT know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And these sources should be considered worthless. Unfortunately the media and society eat these up!</p>
<p>Hops, please, explain why an adult man would call a child that many times</p>
<p>Again, 100 plus calls with only 4 return calls</p>
<p>Pretend all you want that’s not normal, there was no family relationship, and why was sanduskys wife calllng?</p>
<p>If you read the article, you will see that the use of anonymous sources is minimal and inconsequential; the substance of the article was publicly known info.
Perhaps, putting the story on the cover was a ploy to sell more magazines. Perhaps the tone was a bit sensationalist, and the interpretation somewhat literal.
However, for SI to be anti-football and anti-Joe Paterno, anti-Sandusky may not have been the easy choice…</p>
<p>Journalism is not the court-room, obviously. Bt SI had to think carefully about the tone and whether even to take a stand or express belief or non-belief in the charges, as their readers will hold their feet to the fire if they are on the wrong side, which is not in their best interest, selling future magazines. SI is not just a blog or an on-line rehash of sound bites, or a twitter- its pieces do have …some… permanence and respect. It is worth reading these things, albeit with a degree of media literacy, and also a skeptical eye.</p>
<p>hops_scout. When the facts come out it will most likely be worse than it is right now. A ninth victim has now gone to the DA with testimony. Penn State’s football program has had its reputation permanently shattered. It was used by a charity set up to provide victims for a serial molester. The rest of the country is viewing this as one of the most vile scandals in sports history. They are being investigated by both the state and federal authorities, and by the NCAA. Your former defensive coach is a pedophile, and the rest of those in the program looked the other way. Penn State is being ridiculed and castigated in almost a unanimous chorus demanding to know what the hell were they thinking. Joe Paterno, on the other hand, lawyered up, and is refusing to talk, even after promising to do so. </p>
<p>I certainly hope the people at Penn State can type, because they are going to spend an awful lot of time typing up checks to victims of their football program</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I can see that freezing in the moment could be human nature. I also see that freezing for the ensuing 9 years is moral failure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those “reports” consist of a self-serving email McQueary sent, which contradicts his sworn testimony. Do you believe he lied to the grand jury? If so, why in the world would he have made up a story which makes him look so bad? It doesn’t even make sense.</p>
<p>“Penn State is being ridiculed and castigated in almost a unanimous chorus”</p>
<p>True - but that also happened in the Duke lacrosse case and we all know what happened there. If the facts turn out to be different from the speculation and suppositions many have bought into, will those people apologize to Paterno, McQueary and the university for their libelous comments. I have yet to hear any apologies from Nancy Grace or Wendy Murphy for their outrageous remarks toward the Duke players.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that this is a football program. I think it has everything to do with the fact that it is a popular, insular, successful institution, which was so beloved by its adherents and so convinced of its own virtue that it could not accept the fact that something so horrific was going on. This could happen at any organization which has those characteristics.</p>
<p>@LasMa,</p>
<p>“Yes, I can see that freezing in the moment could be human nature. I also see that freezing for the ensuing 9 years is moral failure.”</p>
<p>Don’t forget McQueary also participated at Sandusky’s golf charity event a couple of years afterwards, and shook Sandusky’s hand. Definitely a moral failure.</p>
<p>^^ GMT, given what he had witnessed, McQueary’s being able to shake Sandusky’s hand means he’s not only morally bankrupt, but he has a much stronger stomach than I do. Can you imagine? Gross.</p>
<p>Definitely yuck</p>
<p>It seems like such a clear argument that we should all wait for the trial before making judgement. That sounds very responsible and absolutely the right thing to do.</p>
<p>But I think people, myself included, are so outraged that this man was able to get away with abusing little boys for so long that they feel a need to vent, and forums like this are a way to do it.</p>
<p>I saw the mother of his son Matt on TV talking about how her son would hide and ask her to say he wasn’t home when S came to get him. She spoke of all the expensive gifts S gave her son. She spoke of how her son went from being excited to see him, to being frightened. She spoke of how powerless she was to do anything about it. I saw another mother being interviewed talking about how S abused her son. We read the GJR, where McCreary testifies on what he saw.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s an argument that all this is a lie, and the outrage is understandable, and the need to vent it is real.</p>
<p>No where on this thread have I defended Sandusky or what he did. What I have said again and again is that we do not know the full story on what Joe Paterno did or did not do, know or did not know. </p>
<p>So for any of you who ask me why Sandusky did something and think that has been what I am discussing you have reading comprehension issues. Seahorse are you now saying Paterno knew Sandusky called some kid 100 times?</p>
<p>Parent57: Both cases are vastly different. The Sandusky case is a product of an investigation that went back more than two years out of the limelight. There were no demonstrations demanding justice and arrests. The facts leading up to arrest was not subject to outside pressure. There are more than one victim that will be be testifying at the trial</p>
<p>And as for what did Paterno know, here is quote from him after the arrest.</p>
<p>“It was obvious the witness (McQueary) was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at the time, I referred the matter to university administrators.”</p>
<p>So in 2002 JoePa knew something “inappropriate” happened between a minor and Sandusky in the shower, and he did legal minimum. Doing the bare minimum when there is a child involved is why people are outraged</p>
<p>kumit- he did what he was instructed and required to do. Do you know for sure that he was not told more was done. The GJ report has Schultz saying the matter was referred to CPS. How do you know Paterno was not told that was done. If he was told that then he would have felt the proper reporting was done. So you are faulting him because others may not have done their job but told him they did? The same goes for Spanier what was he told?</p>
<p>You do not know he did the minimum you think he did the minimum. Why can’t you let the entire process unfold before you tar people?</p>
<p>In 1998/9 when S was dismissed from Penn State, wasn’t it because his evil had been uncovered, or at the very least suspected? So then, when you hear about it again in 2002 do you cover your ears, do you assume that someone else will stop him, do you even believe it if you are told that? And then you keep on seeing Sandusky on campus, with young boys, all the time, but you just believe that something was done?</p>
<p>Paterno claims not to have known about the 1998 incident. Many here do not believe that but no one has come forward and said he did know. He may have known- again when the full story and all the available information comes out we will have a better grasp of who can be faulted. What does the rush to judgment help?</p>
<p>Also how do you know this-and then you keep on seeing Sandusky on campus, with young boys, all the time, but you just believe that something was done?</p>
<p>With the news that JoePa has lung cancer, I’m wondering if that was the reason he sold the house to his wife for $1.</p>