<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>I’d love to know who Schultz thought reported the incident to CPS. That is laughable.</p>
<p>^Yeah, like forgetting to feed the dog. Just slipped somebody’s mind.</p>
<p>
I actually think this is some of the most damning evidence against the authorities at Penn State. It seems likely that they know Sandusky had a “problem.”</p>
<p>I will just remind those who are depending on the grand jury report so heavily that the same grand jury believed that Paterno had done nothing indictable.</p>
<p>“I will just remind those who are depending on the grand jury report so heavily that the same grand jury believed that Paterno had done nothing indictable.”</p>
<p>Yes, Paterno the passed the buck to Curly and Schultz. They sat on it and they will have their day in court. But, just because Paterno did nothing indictable doesn’t mean he is off the hook in the court of public opinion.</p>
<p>I agree with that OhioMom. I would like to see if the Freeh report comes to a conclusion of why he did nothing or at least not enough.</p>
<p>Well, I would say that unless Freeh came across a letter or video of Paterno explaining it, I can’t see that being in his report.</p>
<p>Paterno did say he had no idea how to handle it, he didn’t want to go against University policy, so he passed it on to people whose job it was.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html</a></p>
<p>From the above interview:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Discomfort? Really? Interfering? Really? Does the university even have a policy with regard to child assualt? He was in charge. It was his job, comfort level or not. Seems he could be a big bossnwhen he wanted and then appear to be a weak old man the next.</p>
<p>
I dont fault Paterno for his actions after he received the call from McQ. Having McQ come to his house on a Saturday and explain what he had witnessed the evening before, then summoning Curley and Schultz to his home the next day (Sunday) - shows he considered what McQ told him a serious matter. Expecting Curley and/or Schultz to take appropriate action also seems reasonable. What is *not reasonable * is his failure to follow up w/ Curley and Schultz upon seeing Jerry still out and about w/ young boys</p>
<p>From the interview quoted in goingmyway’s post above:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Back in 2005 or so, the president of the university came to Paterno’s house to tell him that he was fired. That encounter ended up with JoePa throwng the president out, and staying on the job for 6 more years. Now The Great Man wants us to think that he was shy about stepping on university toes, or getting involved in university business? Not buying it.</p>
<p>What stood out to me was the portion where he says that he suggested Sandusky take early retirement because he would never be Paterno’s successor as head coach and didn’t have the attention to detail that was required by the position. He then goes on to say that nobody knew about the 1998 etc. That’s some attention to detail. Paterno claims infinite power to name his successor as if it’s monarchy and touts his own attention to detail then turn around and claims no power next to the administrators and ignorance and confusions about policies and procedures.</p>
<p>^^Paterno’s actions speak volumes. Most people can see though them.</p>
<p>Do you think as the heatlamps bear down on Spanier, Schultz and Curley, and the spectre of jail time for them starts to come into focus the JoePa is going to be thrown down the fiery furnace to save themselves?</p>
<p>For example, “We heard stories about Sandusky as early as 1979. We brought them to the attention of Head Football Coach Joe Paterno. Who then informed us no further action was necessary. Mr. Paterno’s word was the final authority at Penn State University on anything and everything.”</p>
<p>Did you know Jerry is still getting paid?
[Jailed</a> Sandusky likely to keep his $59K annual pension from state | TribLIVE](<a href=“/ccpa/”>/ccpa/)</p>
<p>If they go down that road, they will only make themselves look worse for bowing to the will of a football coach.</p>
<p>“I will just remind those who are depending on the grand jury report so heavily that the same grand jury believed that Paterno had done nothing indictable.”</p>
<p>They were investigating SANDUSKY, not Paterno. We’ll see about civil liability.</p>
<p>“Which is when he lapsed into the discussion of . . . his reluctance to be seen as if he was interfering with university procedures on Sandusky’s behalf.”</p>
<p>I read this a little differently. To me it seems Paterno was claiming he wasn’t speaking up or following up on Sandusky because it might have been perceived that he was interfering to protect Sandusky, (on Sandusky’s behalf).</p>
<p>Why would anyone think Paterno speaking up and pushing for action against Sandusky, would be seen as protective of Sandusky. Only if his previous actions were also protective of Sandusky. </p>
<p>author–just clarifying, your post was an imagined statement of Spanier, Curley and Schultz throwing Paterno under the bus, correct?</p>
<p>Myturnnow,
I had the same thought about Paterno’s comment. It occurred to me that he would think that because he may have done that in the past and/or had spoken up to protect others connected to the football program.</p>
<p>The whole idea that any and all of them would claim to think that someone else had followed through is the thing that still bothers me the most. It was a witnessed event, and likely, even before that, there were rumors. If they all thought or assumed that someone else had investigated or called DSS, why would Sandusky still be a free man? If I witnessed a rape and (right or wrong) passed it along to my superiors rather than call the police, I would expect to see consequences of that. And if I didn’t, I would want to know why. All of the abuse that occurred after 2001 is as much at the hands of these individuals as it is on Sandusky’s. More so, IMO.</p>
<p>“Why would anyone think Paterno speaking up and pushing for action against Sandusky, would be seen as protective of Sandusky. Only if his previous actions were also protective of Sandusky.”</p>
<p>And the following ones as well. The ones which allowed Sandusky to continue to use the facilities even after McQ came to him for almost a year… The ones whereby he said nothing about Sandusky to his business associates. The ones where he continued to facilitate Sandusky “meeting up” with young boys by supporting Second Mile, and raised money for him that was likely used to do it. The ones where he said nothing to McQ about the report or Sandusky for a decade. </p>
<p>It wouldn’t be throwing JoePa under the bus. JoePa likely was the bus.</p>
<p>^^^^^
True, true and true.</p>
<p>I agree. </p>
<p>I think it’s obvious that Paterno knew about Sandusky, due to the firing of S, his handling of the death threats of his players, etc. Aside from the obvious, his power at PSU, I think the other part of the difficulty many have in assigning responsibility to Paterno is because he was “old” and is now deceased. And I don’t like to speak ill of the dead. However, in a legal situation affecting so many, it is necessary to reveal the TRUTH.</p>
<p>McQueary should not being exonerated for leaving that little boy with Sandusky after the abuse in the shower because he was “only” 28. In both Paterno and McQueary’s situation my view is that if you hold a position in an organization you have the same level of accountability and responsibility as anyone else would, and you can’t rely on an age excuse when it’s convenient.</p>