<p>Leaving aside how he could possibly not have known about the 1998 incident, he admits to knowing about the McQueary incident.</p>
<p>[Excerpts</a> from Joe Paterno’s first interview since the Penn State-Sandusky scandal - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/paterno-interview/index.html#]Excerpts”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/paterno-interview/index.html#)</p>
<p>better link to Washington post interview</p>
<p>going my way. no one disputes Paterno knew about McQueary incident do they?</p>
<p>I don’t know what that means, “Paterno didn’t realize that the behavior McQueary described was illegal”? seriously? would he have known if it was a little girl in the shower?</p>
<p>if it was his child or grandchild he would have surely known that. He was 74, and I have not seen anywhere that his cognitive faculties were faltering. In his day, he may have not been familiar with reporting to the authorities, however he most certainly would have taken immediate action to remedy such an act if it had affected his own family. Probably with a baseball bat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can go around and around and around about who knew what when but, really, the above statement says it all. They knew that at least one incident occurred in the shower that was extremely sexual in nature. Paterno knew that it was a an act that was bad enough that he regretted that McQ had to see it. McQ, himself, saw it with his own eyes and had no doubt that it was a sexual act between a man and a child. For them to know this and then go along their merry way, seeing Sandusky on campus, seeing him in the company of children, knowing that he had easy access to children…</p>
<p>That, in and of itself, is enough reason for contempt of every person involved in the neglect that resulted in the continued abuse of innocent boys.</p>
<p>That paternomdidnt know sex or sexual looking behavior with a naked child was wrong how odd is that. As stated if that was his grandson he would know it was wrong.</p>
<p>To use his age and generation as a defense is laughable and pathetic. </p>
<p>These were children. Little boys. And these were grown men who knew absolutelymit was wrong and illegal. To pretend otherwise is naive at best. And in fact feeds into the very mindset that allows men to abuse children.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I thought you were. I thought you were saying Paterno didn’t understand that Sandusky was sexually abusing a young boy.</p>
<p>If the best defense that anyone can find for JoePa is that he was an idiot-child, that would be enough reason to get rid of football at PSU, I would think. </p>
<p>But maybe McQ’s statement that he “made sure that he (JoePa) knew it was sexual and knew that it was wrong” qualifies him for idiot-child status, too. Maybe we should include the grand jury that found that McQ saw anal sex and told JoePa what he saw.</p>
<p>And perhaps Sandusky’s claim of innocence is looking better all the time…</p>
<p>Hunt in answer to post 5134 I believe I read in the testimony that Schultz stated he thought the incident was reported to Child Protective Services. If he told that to anyone else I do not know.</p>
<p>In post 5092 sax linked testimony the Schultz testimony concerning CPS is on page 212 and 213</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I call BS on this. There is a reason that Sandusky was the defensive coordinator on two national championship teams but NEVER became a head coach elsewhere, like almost every other successful coordinator. Schools hungry for a winner search out offensive and defensive coordinators like him. Why did he never get a coaching job and only one interview in all that time? Likely because the grapevine/“word on the street” was that his predilections were known but kept hushed up. A school doing due diligence might have heard tumors and decided ti wasn’t worth the risk.
Secondly Penn state was nothing before Joe Paterno got there and that school’s success is based on its football program. Joe Pa ran Penn State and his word was law. Nothing happened to his players or coaches without him knowing, like many other major college programs. There was a police investigation and interviews in a small ‘company town’ and we are supposed to believed that the guy in charge didn’t know? Only it was willful ignorance…</p>
<p>It’s just another part of the “idiot-child” defense.</p>
<p>Paterno knew there was sexual abuse
Paterno was in a position to change the situation
Paterno chose not to do something meaningful</p>
<p>PS: another defender has surfaced</p>
<p>So let me get this straight you are a defender if you say wait until all the facts are out?</p>
<p>Aren’t the facts that are out enough to say that Paterno was not the saint that the defenders thought?</p>
<p>“So let me get this straight you are a defender if you say wait until all the facts are out?”</p>
<p>We are awash in facts. Now all that awaits is the big civil suit(s) and the assignment of responsibility.</p>
<p>Never thought he was a saint. I also don’t think he’s a monster.</p>
<p>There are several scenarios that are plausible. You are correct that the majority of them will show Paterno in a poor light. It could be as bad as mini is posting. But what if facts come out that Paterno was not covering up but was mislead.
I will wait until I can read the Freeh report before I decide.</p>
<p>If Paterno was mislead, he was an idiot.</p>
<p>Actually, if you read my earlier posts, I was putting the best face on JoePa. (I have scenarios that are much, much worse, and do hope that someday someone will actually go through his (and his closest associate’s) finances.)</p>
<p>At any rate, assignment of civil liability needs a basis in fact, but is not based "in fact’, but in responsibility.</p>
<p>I think he is a monster. He put football above little kids who were being abused. That’s a monster, someone who just cares about themselves and doesn’t do anything for those being hurt, while using certain relationships, like sand sky and second mile to look altruistic. </p>
<p>When yu have they kind of power and control paterno did, it is your responsibility to do the right thing. And do it to the nth degree</p>