<p>ttparent- we do not know that. I think you should wait for the facts. It is dangerous to jump to conclusions and assume someone is not guilty of a crime but it is also dangerous to think it is okay to feel you just need to blame people when a tragedy occurs.</p>
<p>Now I am sorry I hurt you feelings because I do not agree with you and I challenge some of your posts. I will ask nicely again-please lay out the facts so we can see what we are discussing.
My interest is mostly Spanier and Paterno because they will not get a trial- so what are the facts that involve them?</p>
<p>EPTR- I also feel I am keeping an open mind and can see that information will be proven that may show Paterno in a bad light. I understand that. He may be as evil as mini infers. I do not see how Spanier and Paterno can be shown in the same light since I believe Spanier wanted Paterno out so what reason did he have to cover for Sandusky. I also do not see what was so terrible about Spanier’s statement and was told “well if you do not understand I can not help you”. I have no idea what that means.</p>
<p>ttparent- I posted those possible justification. I continually have said that it may come out that they were as evil as mini posted, participated in a cover up or made human errors but at this time we do not know. Why do so many of you assume that means I am arguing that it is certain Paterno is not guilty of anything deserving of scorn. I will say it again he may well be- we just do not know that yet and what does it hurt to wait. Does it help a child if we blame him now and we are wrong? How does that help?</p>
<p>Oh, please, now you’re making up your own facts. Paterno testified to the grand jury that McQueary did not describe what he saw in detail, and Paterno chose not to ask for details because McQueary was very upset. But Paterno himself told the grand jury that it involved Sandusky, a young boy, and “something of a sexual nature.” Here’s the exact quote from the grand jury report:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Paterno admits that he knew it was a sexual act being performed on a young boy by Sandusky because that’s what McQueary told him; to say “all he knew was was some [sic] a little out of the ordinary in the shower with kids” is just flatly contradicted by Paterno himself. So either Paterno failed to relay to Curley and Schultz what McQueary had told him; or he told Curley and Schultz, then washed his hands of the matter, and Curley and Schultz elected to take no action other than taking away Sandusky’s keys to the athletic facilities and told him to stop coming around with young boys. It’s got to be one or the other. The only other possibility is that Paterno lied to the grand jury about what McQueary had told him and what he told Curley, in which case he’s the one who should be up on perjury charges; but that seems extremely unlikely because Paterno’s version of his conversation with McQueary is essentially consistent with McQueary’s account.</p>
<p>Tom, I don’t mind the argument from the other side. If you are willing to mostly issue and present the other side of the argument with scenarios and what if situations, then in my opinion, you should not be telling other people to refrain from judging. You don’t hold higher ground by saying Paterno couldn’t have known because of A, B and C, but I am jumping into conclusion because I think otherwise. Just argue based on the merit of the information and possible motives and actions.</p>
<p>Wanted a scapegoat? University had every rightnto fire paterno. He was barely coaching anyway but still ruled the department from his throne.</p>
<p>He knew Sandusky showered naked with children. At the very minimum that was enough to warrant a full investigation. And as Sandusky boss, he failed. Then he let Sandusky parade little boys sandusly was assaulting to Penn state games, etc. </p>
<p>Paterno is no hero, he is a vain old man who deserves exactly what he is getting. And it’s about time.</p>
<p>You know, when you look at that way, without any other information…it is truly outrageous that it was allowed to continue. That people knew that there was a man showering with children, naked…even with no other facts or evidence, that should have been enough to put the brakes on it. It is inconceivable.</p>
<p>A man and a young boy showering in a bullpen style shower, late at night, with no one else present, seems a little weird to me. Several weeks ago, ESPN asked several college coaches about this aspect of the case, and they all said that when they’re working with younger kids, those kids do not shower at the facilities, ever. They go home. One said, “But if for some reason, the child and I both had to shower, it would be one at a time. We would NOT be in the shower together.”</p>
<p>"Showering in a bullpen type shower with people of all ages is not unusual- having physical contact in the shower with anyone is. "</p>
<p>Not even if it’s just the 2 of them alone late at night at a school that none of them have any clear reason why they should be there? If it is a bunch of people and kids after a legitimate functions then maybe not.</p>
<p>You added a lot more to the situation than showering. Until McQuery saw them do we know who knew and reported that Sandusky was showering with children late at night? If I recall the janitors did not report what they saw. Was it common knowledge and if so who knew?
I realize the 1998 incident was also about showering- who knew what was going on from 1998-2002 on campus late at night? Did Sandusky shower every day with a child on campus? Was the locker room full on people? Have we seen reports how often he showered on campus with kids? Do we think Spanier knew? Curley?</p>
<p>EPTR- is it true that Sandusky and the kid did not work out?</p>
<p>in my book even one naked shower with one boy is completely inappropriate, and cause to at minimum, read the guy the riot act about inappropriate behavior, and tell him he’s being watched. </p>
<p>a 9 yr old was suspended from school for calling his teacher cute, bc the principal thought it was a form of sexual harassment. </p>
<p>the janitor also noted that after he saw the sexual incident Sandusky walked out holding hands with the boy. I have to believe that that wasn’t the only time Sandusky held a boy’s hand like that. This is brazen behavior in and of itself. He knew he could behave this way fairly openly and continue to get away with it. I know I know, you don’t think there’s actual proof. Still my belief based on the huge amount of information we DO have.</p>
<p>Also one of the young men interviewed when this came out, stated we all knew if we got in the car with Jerry he’d have his hand on our thigh. My point being, even if overtly sexual behavior was missed by many, the softer but still inappropriate behaviors were there. If you choose to dismiss those behaviors you will miss the pattern. Just listen to the guy talk, and defend his behavior. He’s got twisted thinking and that didn’t just start when he did his NYT interview.</p>
<p>Tom,
I did read that there were comments made by someone (not sure who, I’d have to check) that someone thought it was odd that S was showering when he had not actually done any exercising. I believe the boys did train or work out but not S.</p>