<p>They were worried about themselves being the victims; the football program being the victim; the school being the victim. There was never any consideration of the real victims. They likely just hoped that Sandusky chose the children well - ones without much family support who were not likely to ever tell.</p>
<p>mini, I haven’t been paying all that much attention to the money aspect of this. If we follow the money, what do you think we’ll find?</p>
<p>I think freeh was smart enough to have a chain of emails and to think they were talking about anything but sAnduaky is laughable.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Oh, I’m pretty sure that if Penn State’s football program gets abolished prevention will definitely ensue. It will be very unlikely that anyone will in future choose to put the interests of a non-existent program above that of children. No football = no chance for another football scandal where children get raped.</p>
<p>And once football is gone I think it’s very unlikely that a community-wide obsession with another sport would any time soon arise to take football’s place in warping everybody’s good judgment. I can’t imagine Penn State officials and coaches putting the cross country program or water polo team above the plight of raped children.</p>
<p>But right now the status quo is Penn State = Football and Joe Paterno = a god. And since Penn State people have so far shown pretty stiff resistance to all but the very mildest of changes to the status quo, it’s clear they are unwilling to remove the conditions, atmosphere, and collective values that made such horrible choices by their leaders even thinkable in the first place. Which is why it’s probably going to need to be imposed upon them from the outside.</p>
<p>“Hopefully that e-mail is part of a chain. If not a good lawyer would rip it to shreds. They could have been talking about investing in new turf for the football field. I’m not a joe lover, just observing the backs and forths of what is being released to the public and playing devil’s advocate. It will all get court tested no doubt.”</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, it will not be court tested. Paterno is dead, he is not on trial. The question is, do you really believe that they were talking about turf field and Paterno did not know anything or talk with anyone after his initial meeting with these people as he has testified? How about the fact that he said in no uncertain term that he did not know about 1998 incident when there are notes that he was involved in the discussion.</p>
<p>
Sure have. Repeatedly.</p>
<p>
My interpretation is that it is too vague to be sure either way. It is probably Curley conspiring with Paterno, but it could also have been Curley trying to feel out Paterno without letting him in on the problem.</p>
<p>“After giving it more thought and talking to Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps”</p>
<p>Interpretation 1: I talked to Joe, and he does NOT want this going public, but I am the AD and I really don’t want to put in writing that my nominal subordinate is calling the shots. Per Joe, we are NOT, I repeat NOT calling the police, we are going to keep this in house. Someone go talk to Sandusky, tell him to keep his pants on and stay quiet - we’ll take care of him.</p>
<p>Interpretation 2: I talked to Joe and he’s not buying that Sandusky could be doing this sort of thing - he thinks its either extortion or someone not understanding what they saw. I’m afraid that if I push this, right or wrong, Paterno will be ****ed that I challenged him on it, and I’m gonna get pushed out the door. So let’s bury this and hope that Jerry can take the hint that he was almost busted, and keep it in his pants from now on.</p>
<p>Interpretation 3: I talked to Joe, kept it nonspecific and hypothetical, he thinks a child molestor in house would be terrible for us, hopes it never happens. I think he’s right, it would be terrible, and I am not sure who would go in the aftermath - how long was he doing it, who is going to think we’re ALREADY covering it up? Let’s keep all this quiet, and make sure we stick with it because now is bad, but later will be worse if this is real.</p>
<p>Interpretation 4: I talked to Joe, and he doesn’t think Jerry could do this sort of thing, so he really wants us to be sure before we go the police and make it public. We’ll keep it internal until we decide where it needs to go, and if there are not going to be charges then we should probably just tell Joe that we investigated and it was all a false alarm - I don’t want this lingering as an issue.</p>
<p>Interpretation 5: I didn’t talk to Joe, but you bastards told me to talk to him and get his opinion even though I’m suppsoed to be the boss. So I’m going to tell you I talked to him, and none of you are going to check because none of you want to have that talk. None of this is good for me, I think we keep it on the down-low. Besides, if it goes south, Paterno will be the one who hangs for it anyway.</p>
<h1>1: Joe is the mastermind and/or fully involved</h1>
<h1>2: Joe is not directly involved, but has too much power and the cover up is a direct result.</h1>
<h1>3: Joe is only peripherally involved, but they are trying to gauge the results of Sandusky’s crimes goign public.</h1>
<h1>4: Joe is involved but trying to do the right thing.</h1>
<h1>5: Joe isn’t involved at all.</h1>
<p>You get one sentence in each of two emails to decide which of these possibilities (or countless others) it could be. Do I think Paterno was 100% innocent? No, I do not. Do I know whether he was willfully ignorant or a full conspirator? No, I do not.</p>
<p>If you CAN… prove it. Freeh couldn’t, even though he offered his opinion as fact in some parts of that report.</p>
<p>I speculate that at a minimum, we’ll find lots of “connected contributions” to Gricar’s re-election campaign, and then, later to Corbett’s campaign for Attorney General around the time of the later investigation. I think we might find that Penn State paid for child sex trafficking across state lines (hotels and transportation). I think we might find some unusual contributions from JoePa’s business partners to Second Mile in 2001. I think we might find some “unusual” contributions to Second Mile around golf events.</p>
<p>I think we might begin to find unusual payments to Professor Emeritus Sandusky as early as the late 1970s or early 1980s. How they arrived to him would have to be found out. </p>
<p>This is just the beginning of a list.</p>
<p>I think it would take a really good forensic accountant to follow-up -JoePa was not a stupid man, just one caught in a web. </p>
<p>Freeh noted that he hadn’t followed the money, but suggested that someone might want to follow up.</p>
<p>Cosmicfish:</p>
<p>Interpretation 6: they were referring to Joe the plumber</p>
<p>
No - they mention “Coach”, never “Joe” or “Paterno”. It is remotely possible that they were talking about someone else each time, but the first email seems to be NOT referring to Sandusky and there is little or no reason for any other coach to be involved, and the second email could refer to Sandusky but it would be inconsistent to refer to him by that title at that stage in the conversation. Plus, “Coach” without modifiers would seem to indicate the top guy.</p>
<p>So I think Joe the plumber is a long shot. Not only for this conversation, but also for office, and even more of a long shot if you are looking for “aspiring politicians with a chance to positively influence the world.”</p>
<p>For #1-#4, in all those cases, Paterno lied and perjured himself in the grand jury testimony. In any cases, even with #5 and with the knowledge of 1998, they were all obligated to shut Sandusky down. I just passed the buck does not cut it for me.</p>
<p>
In #3 Joe would not have willfully perjured himself - if Curley did not mention “this really happened” and “It was Jerry Sandusky” then he didn’t know. Might have suspected, might not.</p>
<p>
I was only referring to the 1998 emails - 2001 is a separate matter. The presumed guilt of Paterno largely hinges on his knowledge of 1998, because without knowledge of 1998 Paterno was legal (if socially unacceptable) in everything he did.</p>
<p>“In #3 Joe would not have willfully perjured himself - if Curley did not mention “this really happened” and “It was Jerry Sandusky” then he didn’t know. Might have suspected, might not.”</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean, Paterno testified that he did not at any time discussed with anyone again after the initial meeting.</p>
<p>Bottom line is there were notes that said Paterno was involved in some discussion about 1998. He is never going to be on trial for the obvious reason, but to me, it is clear that he lied and perjured himself about that very fact. I don’t see how anyone can defend him after this, he knew and could have stopped the whole thing over a decade before it came out. Again playing dumb and passing the buck is untenable to me.</p>
<p>
OMG, there must be something in the Happy Valley water!!</p>
<p>
Here is what he said:</p>
<p>
If someone had asked him about child abuse without mentioning Sandusky’s name, it would not be perjury. You are presuming that “talked to Joe” means “told Joe that Sandusky molested a kid” and not “asked him his opinon on Sandusky as a moral person” or “asked him about the impact of a staff member being accused of a sex crime” or anything else, because only in that first case is it perjury.</p>
<p>And I don’t even know that I disagree with your interpretation. I just know that all I have to go with is my gut, and badmouthing a dead man based on my gut and a couple of vague second-hand emails written by a guy already ON perjury charges … feels wrong. I’m not going to praise the man, but I’m not ready to burn him in effigy just yet. Because I still have doubts that we have heard even 10% of the whole story, and I don’t want to walk back anything I say.</p>
<p>
Could be. I’ll be back there around the holidays, I’ll let you know then.</p>
<p>Although this does serve as an interesting example of the ambiguity of short sections of written text. When I said “remotely possible”, I meant “remotely possible”, as in - “I’m 99% sure that it means Paterno but I’m going to leave a little hedge because I have only this little bit to go by and it only says ‘Coach’ which could, however unlikely, refer to someone else”. Nonetheless, from the sarcastic response it appears to have been interpreted by the first respondant as “I know it’s not Joe and you can’t prove that it IS Joe because it doesn’t use his name!!! (WE LOVE YOU JOE!!!)”.</p>
<p>Go figure.</p>
<p>^This is after his own quote in his own post using the word “Joe” which is the exact quote in the Freeh report. Where does he get some of these ideas and thoughts is beyond me?</p>
<p>
Ah, you are correct there - the first email DOES say “RE: Joe Paterno” in the subject line. So move the first email to “definitely Joe” if that makes you happy. I have no problem with that, and apologize for the error - I was looking at the text itself and forgot the subject line.</p>
<p>
I don’t know. I am still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Tim Curley told Paterno at their meeting, since the condemnation of Paterno is dependent on that. And, to reiterate my earlier point, I am well aware that he is probably guilty, but since so many people are skipping the “probably” part I am hoping that they are doing so with actual evidence.</p>
<p>But you already conceited that Joe knew about 1998 and he lied if not to the grand jury, at least to the public. He will never be on trial, so Tim Curley will probably never have to clarify that point in the email. Knowing about 1998 and lied about it and never acted against Sandusky with that fact should be enough to judge him.</p>
<p>cosmicfish, I’m not sure what you’re looking at, but Curley’s email says: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Joe</a> Paterno’s legacy called further into question - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8124100/joe-paterno-legacy-called-further-question]Joe”>Joe Paterno's legacy called further into question - ESPN)</p>
<p>The plain meaning is that JOE changed the plan which his purported bosses had decided upon.</p>
<p>The “next steps” which Curley refers to are 1) reporting Sandusky to Second Mile, and 2) reporting Sandusky to the Department of Welfare. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up.</p>
<p>Denial ain’t a river in Egypt. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
When did I say this? There have been many posts…</p>