<p>^agreed</p>
<p>and the plan that they laid out they also neglected to follow through on.</p>
<p>Why do you say “neglected” rather than “refused” or “decided not to” or “reconsidered” or “ultimately rejected in favor of protecting and enabling the pedophile”?</p>
<p>relax mini. I was simply pointing out that the “supposed course of action” they actually agreed to in the emails was in fact not followed. If they thought they could defend this alternative plan (in place of actually reporting the witnessed abuse/assault) then they would have at minimum had to actually follow it through. I think they are cooked, certainly hope so.</p>
<p>They did implement a plan. Unfortunately the plan was not designed to stop Sandusky but to protect PSUs FB program. McQ needs to forget what he saw ---- plan= make him an assist coach. Dr Dranov needs to forget what he heard McQ say ---- plan= award him PSU Renaissance Fund Honoree.</p>
<p>Fine, but I’ve heard too much about PSU, JoePa, etc. “not doing enough”. And I don’t think that’s the case - they made decisions, real decisions, all the way down the line - to do the wrong things - to protect a pedophile, to continue to provide him with opportunity, to provide him with money. This doesn’t sound like “neglect” to me.</p>
<p>mini–guess you haven’t read all of my previous posts…</p>
<p>No blame to you. It wasn’t meant for you, except that I object to the word “neglected” applied to any aspect of this case. </p>
<p>These look like criminal enablers to me.</p>
<p>I think I get what you’re saying, mini. These guys didn’t just sit around hoping it would go away. They were quite active in making it go away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that not causing them any problems is precisely what it meant. Spanier seems to confirm this when he refers to possible legal liability, which “can be assessed down the road.” What would cause legal liability? A victim, a parent, or a witness going to the authorities or to the press. So the main thing was to keep it off everyone’s radar. For 10 years after, Jerry’s little problem never landed in Spanier’s in-box again, so Spanier would have thought everything was peachy keen.</p>
<p>I think it is very telling that Spanier and Paterno were fired. There was no wait to let it play out in a court of law. Paterno would have voluntarily retired before it even got to court, yet they fired him anyway. And very coldly, if you believe the reports.</p>
<p>A lot must have come to light during the investigation, before any official charges were made. The Board of Trustees at PSU must have KNOWN who knew what and when.</p>
<p>
I don’t think so. That was just damage control, just another way of protecting PSU.</p>
<p>The BOT knew. And what they didn’t know they could guess. Everything thus far has been spot on for those of us that believe every single person in their football leadership knew and hid what was going on, chapter and verse. Not a shred of evidence is pointing the other way. Bottom line is they asked Sandusky to politely and “humanely” take his predilections for young boys elsewhere, instead of stopping him. Everyone blames McQueery. They already knew about Sandusky in 98, which is why he suddenly “retired”. There is no excuse for what PSU did. Death penalty plus bankruptcy is what they deserve.</p>
<p>^ Exactly.</p>
<p>“They did implement a plan. Unfortunately the plan was not designed to stop Sandusky but to protect PSU’s FB program. McQ needs to forget what he saw ---- plan= make him an assist coach. Dr Dranov needs to forget what he heard McQ say ---- plan= award him PSU Renaissance Fund Honoree.” </p>
<p>And</p>
<p>“Fine, but I’ve heard too much about PSU, JoePa, etc. “not doing enough”. And I don’t think that’s the case - they made decisions, real decisions, all the way down the line - to do the wrong things - to protect a pedophile, to continue to provide him with opportunity, to provide him with money. This doesn’t sound like “neglect” to me.”</p>
<p>I totally agree!</p>
<p>“What would cause legal liability?” </p>
<p>Not reporting, which I think is what he was referring to in the email.</p>
<p>^^ Right. But failure to report would become a problem ONLY if it came to light that they should have reported. And that would happen only if someone talked. The “arrangement” was designed to keep everyone quiet. Seems ridiculous now, but it worked for almost 20 years. They obviously thought they had this little problem solved. </p>
<p>The one thing they didn’t take into account when they hatched this plan was that the victims might talk. Not surprising – victims had been successfully silenced in 94 and 98. Also not surprising in that they NEVER thought about the victims.</p>
<p>
If it had just been Spanier, I’d agree with you, maybe. But firing Paterno was huge.</p>
<p>Paterno’s statement to the press demonstrated insubordination and was deserving of dismissal. BOT took a stand and let Paterno know he as not calling the shots any longer.</p>
<p>Paterno is a disgrace and goes down in infamy…what a travesty.</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking about the language used in the emails where Sandusky’s victims were referred to as “guests.” Not only is such a euphemism sickening, but in light of what Hunt and others have posted about the legal requirements for reporting, I wonder if this is what the lawyers told them on that Sunday night. That as long as the victims were “guests” of Sandusky, and not students (for whom they might all hold certain legal obligations of reporting), then they had their loophole.</p>
<p>Just more than a little troubled by their wording… and ultimate grasping defense.</p>
<p>I posted the same sickening feeling about the choice of the word “guest”, and you do make a good point madbean. </p>
<p>I’ve also wondered about OSHA reporting, I know in my workplace when we have an incidence of violence, like a relatively minor assault, (a wife of an engineer came in and smacked his coworker/mistress in the face) this had to be reported to OSHA.</p>
<p>I don’t think an attorney would suggest calling them “guests”. Referring to them as “guests” would not change the fact that they were minors. It’s just another example of their poor and misguided judgment, imo.</p>