<p>Paterno stated the mcqueary told him something sexual was going on in that shower. And even if nothing legal happened, for whatever warped reason, paterno did nothing more. He and his cohorts went, phew, dodged that bullet, and seems it didn’t phase them to see creepy behavior for the next decade from someone they were told molested a boy. So disgusting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the article I linked above:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also can’t get over that his autobiography was titled “Touched” :eek:</p>
<p>Seahorse- you do not know that this statement from your last post is true -paterno did nothing more.</p>
<p>What Paterno did after reporting to Curley has never been aired. You are making assumptions. Paterno did say that in hindsight he wishes he did more. He may have meant that even with the follow up he did do he wishes he did additional follow up. </p>
<p>I will repeat for everyone you may all be correct but you also may be wrong. You are assuming things that you have no real information to support. I really wonder if it is for some reason you hate sports and see evil in all involved in them and see this as an opportunity to tear down someone who was thought highly off in an area which you have a strong distaste.
That is why I can not understand how easily you can all condemn Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz until everything is known. Sandusky admitted to at best questionable behavior and at worst being a pedophile. But these others why don’t they deserve a hearing of all the information? I would not be surprised if all the charges are dropped as early as this week on the perjury charges.
As Secretary of Labor Donovan stated when cleared of all charges- where do I go to get my reputation back?</p>
<p>tom1944, the tough thing for Curley and Schultz is that they won’t be cleared of the perjury charges–the charges will just be dropped. The prosecutor probably won’t say that there was no perjury–only that there wasn’t enough evidence to secure a conviction.</p>
<p>I saw in a TV news report that there was some type of retirement dinner for Sandusky at the time and Paterno was there only very briefly. People thought it odd at the time.</p>
<p>There have been reports that Paterno was not a fan of Sandusky’s for a very long time. Many here have them being the best of friends for years.</p>
<p>If paterno had done something, then Sandusky would not have been allowed on that campus and allowed to use the Penn state reputation. Period. Paterno did have that power. Whatever the college system was, paterno worked it well, and if he wanted Sandusky out, he would have been out. Instead, he was allowed use Penn stat a facilities.</p>
<p>If a man admitted to me he horse around with naked boys in a shower, and it was reported to me a sexual event very likely was happening with a child just down the hall, then, gee, I might have gone, dudes, we to make sure Sandusky stops. </p>
<p>So no, I don’t believe they did anything, and yes I believe they all knew something, and knew for years and let pedophile go. While legally they need to be proven guilty, morally, they are as guilty as sin.</p>
<p>At the present time you have no facts on your side. Carry on with your rant.</p>
<p>Paterno wishes he had done more - after the whole sordid mess became public knowledge. </p>
<p>Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using CC App</p>
<p>Tom, do you think Sandusky is guilty of child molestation?</p>
<p>Paterno could have and should have done more than passing on a message in Chinese whispers. Paterno was not a fan of Sandusky, and he obviously was powerful enough to get him off the PSU team before the next incident became public; but Paterno was such a HUGE FAN of himself and his team that he did not care that Sandusky continued to abuse elsewhere, just not as a staff member. If that was Paterno’s son or grandson in the shower with Sandusky, then I suppose Paterno would have gone beyond.</p>
<p>Paterno stated he wished he had done more. He stated this after learning about the contents of the grand jury report. No one knows exactly what Paterno knew before the grand jury report…except for Paterno. He will not comment and I do not blame him one bit.</p>
<p>This thread is an interesting history of the rush to judgement without facts and the destruction of mens lifetime achievements by the media and others who feel free to fill in the missing information with their own storyline. I find it fascinating and frightening at the same time.</p>
<p>Seahorse- I have stated many times -yes. But it does not offend me that he attempts to defend himself. </p>
<p>My issue on this thread is not Sandusky- he will have the opportunity for a trial. My issue is more with Spanier and Paterno two people who have been deemed evil by many without all the facts. They may never have an opportunity to clear their names.
I really feel that it says a lot about people who can so easily demonize people without all the information.</p>
<p>sax~ I respect your feelings, I suspect many things and agree, we don’t know all the facts. however, along with that logic, you state, “Paterno stated he wished he had done more. He stated this after learning about the contents of the grand jury report.”</p>
<p>it seems you may be assuming he said this because of the contents of the grand jury report, (timeline may be correct but one cannot assume that was the cause of his statement) and not because he on his own recognized he could have done more. simply pointing out that there are many assumptions being made.</p>
<p>I did assume he read the grand jury report. I did assume he was shaken by its contents. The fact is he made this statement after the grand jury report became public.</p>
<p>Even if Paterno did all that he thought was appropriate at the time, I’ll bet he does wish he had done more. I don’t read that as an admission that he thinks he did something wrong.</p>
<p>it’s impossible to know if the Grand jury report influenced him, likely he read it of course. He could have made the statement because he recognized others perceived he should have. Maybe it was true remorse.</p>
<p>Whatever Spanier did or did not know prior to the airing of the matter, tom, the statement he made after the indictments shows he is utterly unfit to be a university president.</p>
<p>From the piece which audiophile linked in post #3444. This is Vicky Triponey, Penn State’s standards and conduct officer speaking:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The program has always had that squeaky-clean image. Now I have to wonder whether that was really due to honor and integrity – or to a systematic policy of sweeping crimes and infractions under the rug?</p>
<p>Or maybe it is one individual that has an axe to grind and is taking their best shot now that she sees a weakness.
LasMa - most likely nothing is as good as it appears during the best of times nor as bad as it appears during the worst of times.
Most people are neither perfect nor evil. Most of us fall somewhere in between. We are prone to mistakes and some of those mistakes we come to regret.</p>