<p>I vaguely remember that Paterno was asked to retire back in 2004. Now I find myself wondering just a bit about who asked him to retire and was it in anyway related to the horror that has unfolded this week?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, he is over $1 million in straight salary alone. Of course, his contract could also call for additional bonuses, but I recall reading that his compensation is actually lower than the market would suggest. He also donates quite a bit of his income to PSU.</p>
<p>He can’t have stock options because PSU is not a corporation. He can’t have a profit sharing plan since the university is a nonprofit entity.</p>
<p>Greta said
</p>
<p>Four people came to his house to ask him to retire. Curley and Spanier were two of them. Paterno told them to “get off my backside.” </p>
<p>Since Curley and Spanier were involved, I doubt the request had to do with the scandal.</p>
<p>College sports is an interesting animal.</p>
<p>Here on the west coast there has been near universal shock and sadness about this awful Penn State case. Enough has been made public that it is very, very bad yet it may get worse according to what I have read and heard in the news media. Public figures and sports media public figures, including out here on the west coast, have spoken out strongly to state Joe Paterno needed to go. </p>
<p>Despite this, I am not entirely surprised to find The Stanford Daily, (Stanford’s student newspaper) which is widely available to the local public, featuring today (Nov. 9) a column by Miles Bennett-Smith on page 3, “Why Joe Paterno deserves to stay at PSU.” We poor locals are subjected to a constant barrage of info about Stanford’s extreme efforts and high budgets to win at sports.</p>
<p>In a world of great need, it has saddened me to observe a prosperous university give such attention to sports. Speaking specifically about college education - many academic institutions just can’t afford to recruit at a certain level or hire super fancy coaches and scouts like I read about locally, have cut sports, or come close to it, such as the fine University of California at Berkeley, for example, which has maintained academics as the priority in a tough economy and such insitutions are NOT deserving of being mocked by wealthy private schools and their students who live in a sports-winning bubble. I think academic institutions of all sizes and scopes deserve attention and respect, not just those who shout they will and must WIN! from the mountaintops all the time. </p>
<p>Consider donating to a smaller or mid-sized academic insitution you like rather than those who proclaim they are “the best” and are “the winners” at college sports while being obsessed with attempts to climb college rankings.</p>
<p>The more I think of Penn State and those who sympathize with their football gods, I realize I am far away and don’t know all the details of the scandal there but I do think of PRIORITIES. Sports programs are fine and can and should be fun. But, no, they aren’t #1" in my world. </p>
<p>Give consideration on a lot of counts as to where you apply to college - really, it is best to put academics and ethical behavior first and it pays to read up on schools to see just where their priorities are…trust me, this applies to more than just Penn State.</p>
<p>I want to address the theme #1 introduced by JHS in post #961</p>
<p>I’m linking to a press conference given by Linda Kelly, the Attorney General in Pennsylvania. (I hope I can do this). I first saw this a couple of days ago and I was troubled by it.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://video.fr.ca.msn.com/watch/video/pa-ag-alleged-penn-st-victims-should-come-forward/1tjhvf6tu]NBC”>http://video.fr.ca.msn.com/watch/video/pa-ag-alleged-penn-st-victims-should-come-forward/1tjhvf6tu]NBC</a> News: Pa. AG: Alleged Penn St. victims should come forward sur MSN Vid</p>
<p>The grand jury report is nauseating. (The link to it is at the bottom of the page for the wikipedia article about McQueary.) The most telling detail to me is that both Sandusky and his wife tried to contact one of the victims after two years of no contact a short time before the victim testified before the grand jury. And there is no reason a grown man would make that # of phone calls to a child. </p>
<p>CLAP!!! CLAP!!! CLAP!!! to the kid who told his mom what Sandusky did and to the mom who did get the police involved. That took courage on the part of both the boy and his mom. </p>
<p>Read the grand jury report.</p>
<p>You know the old saying: a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.</p>
<p>It is remarkable that in Pa. it is legal to release a grand jury report. In most states, leaking grand jury testimony is a felony. For good reason: these are UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS, which are highly prejudicial to the defendant.</p>
<p>You usually don’t see exculpatory evidence in a grand jury report, because it is not the prosecutor’s job to present both sides.</p>
<p>Thanks parent57, I’ve been wondering about that. Could someone educate me? Apparently some states allow grand jury reports to be made public and Pennsylvania is one of them. Is it required in Pennsylvania that a grand jury report be made public?</p>
<p>How does Mike McQueary still have a job? The man walked away from a child being raped and yet McQueary is being treated as if he were a victim himself. I am completely baffled by that part of this terrible case.</p>
<p>JHS most of your post in this thread have been to accuse the prosecutor of some nefarious reason for bringing perjury charges against Curley and Schultz and now you seem to question the clarity of McQuery’s observations in 2002 and the honesty of his testimony to the grand jury. WHY??</p>
<p>In the grand jury report Paterno states he told Curley - “graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers **fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”**A week and a half later Curley and Schultz met with McQuery who states in the grand jury report that he reported to C and S specifc details of what he had seen.
</p>
<p>You seem to suggest McQuery is lying about what he witnessed and/or about what he reported to C and S. In order to believe that C and S truly did not know the extent and seriousness of Sandusky’s interaction with victim 2 you would have to:
1 – believe Paterno lied in his grand jury testiomony when he states he told Curley that “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” occurred.
2 – believe McQuery lied in his grand jury testimony.
3- believe neither C nor S asked McQuery any questions to elicit more specific details.
4- believe that C and S, met with Sandusky, took away his keys, barred him from bringing young boys into PSU’s athletic buildings, reported the incident to Spainer and The Second Mile’s management - ALL because Sandusky was merely “horsing around.”</p>
<p>C and S testimonies are so incredulous – had the prosecutor NOT indicted them for perjury that would have been a crime. JMO</p>
<p>One more thing that is disgusting about this is that the only thing that stops creepy monsters like Sandusky is the chance of being caught. So he gets caught in 1998 and gets off, he gets off because Paterno protects him. In Sandusky’s mind he’s untouchable because he’s got Paterno. He gets off again in 2002 because he’s got Paterno. How many kids did he attack because he thought he was untouchable. By the same token, Paterno believed he could keep this all quiet because he was untouchable. After all he told the President to take a hike when he was asked to leave. Sadly, Paterno still delusionally thinks hes untouchable telling the Board not to spend any time worrying about him. Paterno is pathetic, and now with his unwillingness to own up to what he did and trying to say that he really wasn’t told what Sandusky was doing is plain pathetic.</p>
<p>“So he gets caught in 1998 and gets off, he gets off because Paterno protects him.”</p>
<p>How do you know this?</p>
<p>Here is an excellent summary of the one-sided nature of a grand jury:</p>
<p>“The grand jury operates without providing many fundamental rights common in court hearings and trials. For example, the defendant has neither the right to present evidence to the grand jury or cross-examine the witnesses against him or her. Only the prosecutor may present evidence, and the defendant has no right to counsel, even if required to testify. Even judges generally are excluded, leaving the grand jurors to rely on the prosecutor for all information. One early study indicated that 95% of all cases brought to the grand jury resulted in indictments, raising questions about the value of this review because the grand jury is not able to adequately evaluate the evidence presented only by the district attorney.”</p>
<p>Good grief. The grand jury report spells out what happened. There is no other side when it comes to child abuse that another adult witnessed. It’s absurd that I even have to spell that out.</p>
<p>parent57, are you a Penn State alum or are you just always this outraged when child abusers and their enablers are caught?</p>
<p>JHS - I mean no disrespect, but are you friends with Curley and/or Schultz? Are you part of their defense team?</p>
<p>It seems like you keep posting possible defense scenarios (* prosecutor is a witch, Paterno had the real power, McQuery is confused &/or lying*) as to why C and S should not have been indicted for perjury.</p>
<p>No pugmadkate, I would like to hear from Paterno before judging him. Also, I have seen too many instances of prosecutorial misconduct to rely on their version of the events.</p>
<p>@parent57 – thank you very much for post #977. That was very educational for me about what happens in a grand jury.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, when it comes to pedophiles, the only thing that stops them is locking them away. Sandusky showed he was willing to take great risks with his prey.</p>
<p>Pedophiles are like drunk drivers, often people see it butnturn away, and it’s never the first time when they get busted, its usually that they got away with it much more </p>
<p>And joe said he should have done more, he was in charge when at least three serious accusations where bright to Penn states attention and he did nothing to stop it and in fact allowed an environment that allowed a molester safe haven and respectability</p>
<p>He was either a leader or he wasnt</p>