<p>
</p>
<p>Or perhaps in some cases, deliberately obtuse.</p>
<p>It just seems so unbelievable that none of these guys were aware that Sandusky was abusing boys in Penn State showers, especially when you have one coach swearing under oath he told them. For them to say they weren’t told how serious it was sounds just so self-serving, so despicably covering their own asses, that you wish you could beat the living daylights out of all of them.</p>
<p>Paterno has admitted to being told it was sexual in nature. Are we to believe it stopped there, and from that point on the story changed to innocent “horseplay”? </p>
<p>For them to STILL be trying to sweep this under the rug, STILL be avoiding what really happened, STILL be doing what they can do to subvert this investigation, is nothing short of vile.</p>
<p>Yu have a big man and a small boy. The man very likely had built up to the assualt. A hand here on the knee, a hug, etc. Most molesters build up the “relationship” anD a very smart at picking victims. Like any criminal, they very likely have done the assualt dozens of times before they get caught, and they get braver and stupider each time.</p>
<p>It would be nice to have all the information, but as they are lying, covering, fudging, blaming, and not taking responsibility. If they had been truthful in 1998 we wouldn’t be here, if they had been truthful in 2002 we wouldn’t be here.</p>
<p>The wanting all the facts is a dream, these men will never be honest. It’s not in their nature.</p>
<p>All of them. It seems unusual that every person of authority would be a liar. Sure it is possible. Do we think that Spanier was given the same information as Paterno? </p>
<p>barrons I agree in retrospect Spanier should have asked a follow up question- is the reason he did not an error or part of a cover up?</p>
<p>^^^
I think he didn’t want to hear the answer</p>
<p>That is very possible.</p>
<p>If all of this information is so clear could the DA make a conspiracy charge stick? If not why not?</p>
<p>Unusual? That is a very naive statement. The other side of the coin is that they all would be lying if they did something wrong. That is the norm for any defendant in a big case these days. Nobody especially a person of authority with deep pocket admits to any wrong doings right out the bat in a big case. So it is not unusual either way whether they are guilty or not.</p>
<p>Spanier was not just some guy dealing with some awkward shower situation, he was the University President. He is the ultimate in authority. Hearing that Sandusky was in the shower with a 10 year old child, and McQueary was uncomfortable and upset by it, how could you think he would not be required to ask, what happened? what was S doing? did you actually observe???</p>
<p>and frankly Tom, if upon hearing a child and a 56 year old man were naked in a shower together and you heard the word horseplay used to describe the behavior you would immediately think the kid was sliding around something is wrong there. What is a child doing in a shower naked with an adult man??? maybe this is the crux of your criticism of many posters here.</p>
<p>"If all of this information is so clear could the DA make a conspiracy charge stick? If not why not? "</p>
<p>There is no conspiracy charges, there is perjury and not reporting the incident charges. Do you think the DA is wasting their time?</p>
<p>Was he told they were naked in the shower? Is that in the testimony. I agree if he was told that he should have asked more questions.</p>
<p>I will have to go back and read what Schultz told him - that is the one correct? Curley and Paterno did nit talk to him about it as far as I recall.</p>
<p>I just re-read it and Curley and Schultz both reported to Spanier.</p>
<p>If Spanier really was told “horseplay” and never asked for clarification…just accepted that it was innocent…why would he feel compelled to ban S from campus? Why would he go talk to the people at Second Mile? If it was “horseplay” he would have had a conversation with S and told him to stop the shower sliding, towel slapping fun! Lol! Sorry but it is so ridiculous it is actually a little funny!</p>
<p>Thats exactly it. If it was so innocent I’m the powers that were minds, they wouldn’t have taken away his shower access. But they are trying to play it both ways, see we banned him, but we rally didn’t think it was anything.</p>
<p>Um, you really believe people shower with their clothes on?</p>
<p>^^^^^^^
Huh?</p>
<p>EPTR: “Was he told they were naked in the shower?”</p>
<p>Did we hear that correctly? “Was he told they were naked in the shower?”</p>
<p>tom, you also said this, about Spanier:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The PUBLIC got Spanier fired, not PSU looking to squash any further outrage, not the decent people at PSU cleaning house, but the PUBLIC’s fault that a good man might have been treated unfairly.</p>
<p>Not sure I completely believe the last part of goingmyway’s post 3817.
Any losing sports coach might get fired even if he is putting in a Herculean effort. An A.D. might get fired for a losing team, yet he wasn’t on the field. It is just the nature of his position. Similarly, A.D.s, presidents, and many others are in a position that can be affected by public sentiment. Given that, I say a firing due to such sentiment can just be a part that goes with that job, and I would not assess “fault” based on public sentiment. I’d say that just goes with the job.</p>
<p>My point is Spanier was fired for a real reason, not just public sentiment. Is PSU not accountable for anything here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According the GJ report, Spanier, as the president of PSU, was a mandated reporter; since he did not report, he was in violation of PA law. </p>
<p>That it and of itself is grounds for dismissal.</p>