<p>
</p>
<p>My point was to prevent the exchange where you would have pretended not to know what plan Curley was referring to, or twist yourself into pretzels to come up with a far-fetched explanation of why the plan wasn’t what it clearly was.</p>
<p>OhioMom, what gives you confidence that the statue will be removed?</p>
<p>This has been known by the university for a number of years prior to the first documented incident. On a FB group I belong to, a friend discussed going to a party at PSU in the 80’s, and GF of one of the FB players commenting that her BF would not go to the locker rooms alone because one of the coaches liked the boys…</p>
<p>That is PURE hearsay. And points to nothing specific. Sandusky was not named specifically. I understand all of those things. But it is not the only time I have heard those comments. I have a feeling more info similar to that will come out, with more specifics. And more witnesses will come forward with information.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??you copied a sentence out of one of my many posts out of context and if this refers to me I’m not sure what you are talking about. If you were “talking” to me and want a response, will you please clarify what you are saying and I can respond.</p>
<p>This article suggests to me that Sandusky’s emeritus status has been revoked, but it doesn’t say so. Certainly the perks connected with being emeritus have been removed:
[Sandusky’s</a> retirement package revoked - The Daily Collegian Online](<a href=“http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/07/17/sandusky_retirement_package_revoked.aspx]Sandusky’s”>http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/07/17/sandusky_retirement_package_revoked.aspx)</p>
<p>Ohiomom I have the same response you did to the post you quoted. It wasnt out of context. It was actually the context of the post.</p>
<p>The oh we need hear exactly eht they said to each other at all times to prove to me they were complacent is like saying, I didn’t see them rob the bank, but they were leaving the bank, they had masks on and they have the money, but since I didn’t see it or here them plan it I will reserve judgement.</p>
<p>For those reserving judgement, would you want your little boy in a camp by Sandusky if you knew that twice he was accused and witnessed abusing little boys? Ornwould younreserve judgement. And say you sent your kid to that camp and found out the camp leaders bosses knew he molested little boys would you be oh let’s wait and see with regards to the leaders?</p>
<p>momof3boys - I believe you were the one who said, re the email in which Curley said “after talking to Joe, we’re changing our plan,” that maybe they were referring to installing new turf or something unrelated. And you said that this email had better be part of a chain so it wasn’t taken out of context. What this says is that you haven’t looked at the Freeh Report. The emails are ALL there, in a chain. They show clearly that Curley wasn’t referring to changing some innocuous, unrelated plan after talking with Joe Paterno. They show *clearly * that Curley / Schultz knew what had transpired with Sandusky, that they had made a plan that included going to the authorities and informing Second Mile, and that after discussing said plan with Joe Paterno, they decided not to do so and “only” confront Sandusky and tell him to knock it off, and that when they informed Spanier, he concurred with the decision to keep quiet.</p>
<p>May I respectfully suggest that you read the Freeh Report and the emails documented in it before speculating that “nothing is clear” or that it’s all hearsay.</p>
<p>Why did PSU want to keep him around? Were they afraid that if he went to another school and continued to abuse (which he absolutely would have) that the new place might not turn the blind eye and he would be found out? Any resulting investigation would lead back to PSU. Did they want him where they had a chance to contain the damage?</p>
<p>I think (and of course this is just speculation) it was simply out of sight, out of mind. If we don’t think too deeply about it, maybe this is just a slight flaw in someone we can overlook - the way that someone might, oh, I don’t know, litter – I don’t like it, but he’s valuable enough we can overcome that little peccadillo. I just think none of them really thought about the seriousness of the allegations here. </p>
<p>Imagine you had a male employee who was known to ask out the female employees and make slightly off-color conversation. That would fall under - I don’t like it, but it’s not so big of a deal that it’s necessarily a firing offense, and if he’s super valuable, I might turn a blind eye or just tell him to knock it off and hope he does. Now imagine, instead, this male employee actively puts female employees in settings alone with him, and gropes them, and tells them if they don’t play along, they will be fired. That’s clearly a firable offense where immediate, strong action is needed. It appears to me that Curley/Schultz/Spanier thought of the situation more like the first one, when it was more like the second.</p>
<p>
Again, you make this insulting argument. Please note that nobody is reserving judgement on Sandusky–he’s been convicted. The point people have tried to make is that the exact legal culpability of some of the other people is not so clear–and even their degree of moral culpability depends, in part, on facts that haven’t been revealed and may never be revealed. To use your rhetorical approach, how would you feel if it were your father who was being dragged off by the lynch mob before there was a trial?</p>
<p>Dear Hunt, please if you are going to quote, do not leave out key sentences, such as “And say you sent your kid to that camp and found out the camp leaders bosses knew he molested little boys would you be oh let’s wait and see with regards to the leaders”</p>
<p>That is the crux of this – that some very important people knew and did nothing.</p>
<p>All I’m pointing out is that it’s a cheesy ad hominem argument to keep saying, “What if it was your kid…” It’s insulting.</p>
<p>If my kid were the victim of a crime, would I still want the accused perpetrator to get a fair trial? I hope I would, but perhaps my emotions would make me feel differently. Does that mean that fair trials are worthless?</p>
<p>It still all boils down to who knew what, and when.</p>
<p>We know that 4 people at PSU knew at far back as 1998, but there have been references to reputations from earlier - and now accusations dating back to the 70’s.</p>
<p>Someone needs to look back farther, to see if those accusations are true, who knew about it, and what they did. Perhaps Joe Paterno really didn’t know of anything before 1998, but if faculty members accused him of doing anything to win in 1986, and if football players avoided the locker room, I would think Paterno must have known something.</p>
<p>The men under indictment hid what happened for some reason - comic is right, there must have been some sort of personal incentive. With new accusations from alleged victims in the 70’s, it is possible these was already the possibility in 1998 or a reaction like we’re seeing now. If they reported Sandusky to authorities in 1998, there would be an investigation. What would that investigation have uncovered? What would the cost have been to PUS, and to these men, even then?</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what these men come up with in their defense. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them throw JoePa under the bus, but who else? They seem to imply that there is further evidence, which will come out at trial. Will it implicate people even higher up than them?</p>
<p>What exactly did JoePa tell them - the McQueary incident flowed first through him, then to them. Did they in fact report it to someone within state government, and was it brushed under the rug at that level? Did JoePa know that would happen, and tell them as much? JoePa stated on his deathbed that he wished he had done more - what exactly did he wish he had done?</p>
<p>This could just be a Jerry Sandusky thing, that might have been stopped by Joe Paterno and PSU, or it might have been something even bigger, and maybe he wasn’t really in a position to stop it. Maybe the BOT were picked because they would look the other way - maybe they didn’t lack institutional control, but in fact controlled very tightly? Maybe Paterno wasn’t as powerful as we all think, and instead was powerless to do anything about the sexual abuse, but did everything he could to give the school something to balance it, and to be proud of. </p>
<p>Right now all we know about involves Sandusky and PSU. As suck, that must be dealt with. However high it goes, PSU and their football program were involved, and will suffer the consequences. Hopefully someday we will all know the full truth of what happened.</p>
<p>
There was an investigation in 1998, and the prosecutor decided not to proceed.</p>
<p>I am sure he felt no local pressure.</p>
<p>"Maybe Paterno wasn’t as powerful as we all think, and instead was powerless to do anything about the sexual abuse, but did everything he could to give the school something to balance it, and to be proud of. "</p>
<p>Even if you knew nothing about PSU football, if you read the Freeh report, you would realize how laughable this is.</p>
<p>We’ll get a better idea “in a few days” of how the BOT going to handle this going forward. That’s the timeframe Erickson has promised to respond to the NCCA:</p>
<p>[Joe</a> Paterno statue: No decision yet (+video) - CSMonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0717/Joe-Paterno-statue-No-decision-yet-video]Joe”>Joe Paterno statue: No decision yet - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>As for the statue, a decision in 7-10 days, according to a newscrawl I just saw.</p>
<p>So maybe all the trustees have had time to read through the whole Freeh report now. The Board itself came in for a lot of criticism.</p>
<p>“That is the crux of this – that some very important people knew and did nothing.”</p>
<p>No, they did LOTS. We need to stop saying - EVER - that they did nothing.</p>
<p>Professor Emeritus Sandusky’s academic title was NOT revoked. The spokesman for the University named precisely what was revoked:</p>
<p>“He said the following portions of Sandusky’s retirement package have been revoked: four free football season tickets for the rest of his life and the opportunity to purchase four more within the 35-yardlines; two men’s and women’s basketball season tickets for the rest of his life; lifetime use of a locker, weight rooms, fitness facilities and training room in the East Area locker room; a five-year agreement, subject to renewal, between Sandusky and Penn State to work collaboratively in community outreach programs such as The Second Mile that “provide positive visibility to the University’s Intercollegiate Athletics Program,” as well as a 10-year agreement, subject to renewal, giving him an office and telephone in the East Area locker room.”</p>
<p>The only things revoked were items that the Professor Emeritus couldn’t take advantage of from the State Pen, except that it is possible that, while in prison, he could “provide positive visibility to the University’s Intercollegiate Athletics Program.”</p>
<p>Also explicitly NOT revoked was the $168,000 payment they made to the Professor.</p>
<p>As for the “legal situation”, well I don’t think it boils down to legal culpability (other than perhaps the perjury charges, or if some quid pro quo is found with the dead District Attorney and former Attorney General now Governor.) And the reason for that is this: unless the feds decide to charge the Professor Emeritus was a Mann Act violation, there would be no grounds to file a case for either accessories to child sex trafficking or for a criminal conspiracy. And unless the feds wanted explicitly to go after the co-conspirators, why would they want to spend time and money going after a guy who could be getting a sentence as great as 442 years? Findings of legal culpability have to do with a lot more than findings of guilt or innocence - there would have to be a reason for a trial.</p>
<p>The legal system often doesn’t get us very far - just as it usually doesn’t in dealing with child molesters. Estimates I’ve seen suggest that for every child molester convicted, serving time, and released, there are about 100 more in every community (which is why, in aggregate, releasing convicted child molesters from prison does not increase community risk.) From a prevention perspective, we might do better going after enablers.</p>
<p>I am not a supporter of Paterno, PSU, the BOT etc. I believe that the cover up was evil beyond belief.</p>
<p>All that being said, my first impression on reading the email string was that Paterno wanted Sandusky to be told that PSU was going to report him to the police/Second Mile/Child Services. Not to not report, but tell Sandusky what they were going to do. I could, of course, be wrong. But that was my gut reaction. It is possible that is the same reaction of others.</p>
<p>Of course, that still leaves the questions of why Sandusky was allowed on campus, on road trips, etc. It does not remove moral responsibilty of follow up. It might remove legal issues. Or it might not. But clearly the overwhelming body of information is that these men knowing covered for a child abuser to protect Penn State football. And there should be repercussions in all possible areas for the failure to protect childern. Civil suits, NCAA, FBI, Clery Act whatever. The CHILDREN who are the victims deserve nothing less.</p>