<p>you’re right tom; thanks.</p>
<p>there may not have been any type of cover-up, but the fact that so much was hidden, then some of this came out in 1998, then got lost until 2002, the DA disappeared, convenient retirements, “I didn’t do enough”-isms, etc., how can one not think there has been some sort of a cover-up? And yes, all this will hopefully come out in the Freeh investigation.</p>
<p>Some more details on Victim 4’s lawsuit against Second Mile:</p>
<p>[Lawyers</a> seek to keep Sandusky charity solvent to allow lawsuits - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com](<a href=“http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16237773/lawyers-seek-to-keep-sandusky-charity-solvent-to-allow-lawsuits]Lawyers”>http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16237773/lawyers-seek-to-keep-sandusky-charity-solvent-to-allow-lawsuits)</p>
<p>One of the claims is that Second Mile didn’t help the victim with the injuries from the assaults.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“At least one report said that Sandusky preferred white boys. I guess sometimes it could be an advantage when someone is prejudiced.”</p>
<p>We’ll see about that in time. But you did see the link about Paterno and the school’s failure (actually refusal) to attempt to protect Black students (and athletes). (Of course, it could be that they choose to protect NOBODY, as a matter of principle…)</p>
<p>Back in high school I used to have a black friend, that only wanted to date white girls. Why, how, what he thought, is all irrelevant here. But when he asked a white girl out, if she said “No” then he knowingly pulled the obvious race card, the good old “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”. This put a naive girl in the position of thinking she either had to go out with him to show she wasn’t prejudiced, or she felt she had to defend herself against an accusation of racial bigotry. He knew then what many know now, that injecting a race issue where there really isn’t one can sometimes be an effective tool against naive people.</p>
<p>As a side note, one time when he used this tactic in a busy lunchroom, a quick witted girl answered back: “No! It’s because you’re an a$$hole!” Many people burst out laughing, and privately he and I laughed about that for years. Despite that setback, his tactic worked pretty well.</p>
<p>By the Freeh Report we mean, of course, the Penn State Report. We shall see, without subpoena power, if Louis can get the Paterno to cooperate. And if Joe doesn’t cooperate, then we will never know, with a moral certainty, what he knew and when he knew it. At that point we will be duty bound to interpret facts in the most favorable light to Joe (by the way, if I was Joe’s lawyer I would be introducing the Vincent “The Chin” Gigante robe). Furthermore, Penn State investigated these claims contemporaneously. No need to plow the same field 8 years later. </p>
<p>I am convinced, it’s time to move on. And by move on, I mean bring Joe back.</p>
<p>So Stats everyone is guilty because you made up your mind. There is nothing that matters but your opinion with incomplete knowledge. By the way I am not is saying bring Paterno back. The situation that developed made it impossible for him to continue coaching but just because he should not continue to coach does not mean we should not get a full picture of what went on here. As I said if Paterno and others deserve criticism then I will say so. Apparently you have made up your mind and will find a reason that any information contrary to your set opinion does not matter.</p>
<p>Stats is your motto don’t bother me with facts I already made up my mind.</p>
<p>Tom,</p>
<p>At what point is it ethical to have an opinion? Will Penn State to sound the all clear, or should we await your signal? </p>
<p>We are still on Joe’s lawn. Will he be coming out to speak soon? It’s getting chilly.</p>
<p>Seahorses/younghoss - You folks both have both posted your guesses about what mini might mean by introducing the racial angle into this discussion. They’re interesting thoughts, to be sure, and thank you for that.</p>
<p>But I want to hear from mini why he feels that racism and/or racial aspects are a relevant issue here. He’s posted a few times about racism, but he hasn’t really connected it to this case at Penn State. I’m trying to understand what the connection might be, according to his worldview.</p>
<p>I understand that mini views race in an entirely different way than I do, e.g., I’ve seen his posts in many threads, where he lists various ethnic subcategories for certain ethnic backgrounds. But he never says why - and that’s what I’m trying to figure out. Because to me, this seems to be completely irrelevant for this topic. But for some reason, to mini race is the essential aspect of this situation.</p>
<p>I just want to understand.</p>
<p>Stats you can have an opinion anytime you should just acknowledge that your opinion is based on incomplete information and conjecture. It seems that you are prepared to discount any information that may not play into your opinion. You have posted twice in a way that shows you have already dismissed the Freeh investigation before it even started.</p>
<p>Regarding the Freeh investigation: It will be very interesting to see how Penn State treats the 2002 campus police report, the one which PSU claims governs all of their non-reporting to outside agencies. If they have to be subpoeaned to produce it, or if they fight its public release – or if they fight the release of the Freeh report itself – I think that will tell us whether they really believe their own statements that “We did everything we could have” and “We did what we thought was right.” If it ever is released, it will also be interesting to see just how thorough the PSU police investigation really was.</p>
<p>Mr K… agree. Mini, please enlighten us as to why you think race plays a role in this case. Does it change anything if Sandusky preferred young black boys or young white boys?</p>
<p>tom, we’re all entitled to our opinions, of course. Unfortunately, we never will know all of the facts, even after Sandusky’s trial. But at this time, the facts we DO know seem to point overwhelmingly to several things: Sandusky abused multiple children. And the abuse went on for years, despite Penn State officials knowing about it. </p>
<p>Is there a set of facts that indicates otherwise?</p>
<p>What I find questionable is that Penn State is investigating itself, to find out if it covered anything up. What’s wrong with this picture? Is PSU paying Freeh?</p>
<p>Which Penn State officials knew he abused children and when did they know it? What did they do when they were told? What were the various officials told if anything about the findings of any investigations?</p>
<p>Tom1944-At least by 2002 Paterno, Schultz and Curley were told of the shower incident. </p>
<p>Stats21: Right now this scandal is under State and Federal investigations. Also, the program is directly under NCAA investigation for a lack of institutional control of the intercollegiate athletic programs. In other words the football program. Paterno was in charge during this period, he has to take responsibility for this massive failure. For Penn State to reinstate him would send the message that Football is more important than anything or anyone else on campus. Do not think they are irresponsible enough to do that</p>
<p>kumit- we all agree. What is not definitive is what they were told, what each did with the information they were given and what they told others they did with the information. For example I do not believe we have any solid information yet what Spanier was told about the incident.</p>
<p>There’s an interesting piece about Penn State in this week’s New Yorker, which mentions several other student “riots,” notably one in 2008 after a football game. Puts student reaction in a somewhat different perspective, to me, although it certainly does not elevate my opinion of the school and its “traditions.”</p>
<p>I think they were all told enough to realize that they had a middle aged man who like to horse play naked in the shower with little boys</p>
<p>At the very minimum, it was huge safety issue, and most adult men i know would with that information keep a very watchful eye on Jerry</p>
<p>But I think they knew as does most of the world</p>
<p>Tom,</p>
<p>I am asking you at what point sifficient information will be in to form a sound opinion. Louis Freeh is a great man, but he has been hired by Penn State and hasn’t subpoena power. If you are keeping score the count is 0-2.</p>
<p>If we choose to form an opiniion, it is always based on incomplete information. If I hear new information, I will certainly change my mind I do it all the time. It is illogical to ignore relevant information. When GWB said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, i thought that true, without having seen the weapons on my own eyes.<br>
As I was unlikely to suffer the expense and personal risk tpo check it out, I had to form my opinion based on my assessment of Bush’s assessment. I thought he probably hag reliable intel. When I realized he didn;t I changed my mind.</p>
<p>But we never have complete info, correct? We could learn, 5 years hence, that Iraq did actually have WMDs expertly stashed to avoid detection. I will change my mind again - as information and logic dictate.</p>
<p>But people rightly form and state opinions, all the time on all topics. On this very topic, i believe you sugested that you felt that Sanduslky was likely guilty (sorry if I am incorrect on thet but 190 pages is a lot to ask). As information becomes available, people make judgments. There is no playing out the clock in this one. If Joe takes it to his grave, te story will follow him and his legend.</p>
<p>I am not sitting on a jury judging Joe’s actions. He is not innocent until proven guity, because he has not, and undoubdetly will not be charged with a crime. I am suggesting that it seems he acted dishonorably, and there is no rebuttable presumption of innocence, just our best use of logic, common sense and good judgment,</p>
<p>Based on the information I now know I stand by Joe’s statements that he could have and should done more. I agree with him that it should be his greatest sorrow. You hope that evidence proves otherwise and I truly, and I mean that, hope you are correct. </p>
<p>I don’t think that will happen. I’ll be hope it does, but i strongly suspect otherwise</p>
<p>Actually Stats I have no dog in this fight. I am not hoping it turns out one way or the other. If they covered this up to protect the football program I want that exposed. If they made human errors I would like to know that. If certain individuals acted and deceived others let that come out.</p>