<p>
</p>
<p>Someone said they could be fired. I wouldn’t know. We could, however, certainly get angry with them, actually angrier since they didn’t even get fired.</p>
<p>What i think causes such ‘hate’ being hoisted upon Paterno from is thread,is he actually isn’t charges with any crime( and maybe doesn’t deserve to be charged),while the other cast of characters ARE criminally charged,so we will let the legal system deal with it…</p>
<p>annasdad- is it possible people at Penn State thought Sandusky was exonerated for the 1998 incident? Remember no charges were ever filed.</p>
<p>To the question of fairness to Paterno: He hasn’t been charged, which to himself and his family and friends must seem the greatest amount of “fairness” they could hope for.</p>
<p>As for due process, people keep tossing around that term like they know what it means. If the U.S. Supreme Court has had difficulty with the definition, I’m not sure posters on CC (and I’m talking about the Paterno supporters here) can do any better.</p>
<p>Governor Tom Corbett: from today’s NYT story he seems like a forthright man with a mission. He says now what he couldn’t say while the Grand Jury process was secret and unknown; the folks at PSU were abysmally lacking in their handling of the alleged crimes. As Attorney General he coordinated a case against a childrens charity that was charitable and humanitarian in name only. Its real purpose was to be a cover for pedophilia. Sound familiar?</p>
<p>Finally, two things in the ongoing reporting of this scandal almost brought me to tears. First, this morning’s interview on ABC TV Good Morning America with the mother of victim no. 1. When she revealed that Sandusky would regularly visit her son’s school and remove him from class [without her knowledge] for his wicked “excursions”, I nearly lost it. Also, a radio commentator here in our area gave his own take on the McQueary incident. To paraphrase: ‘imagine you are that 10-year old boy being hurt by a large man and trappped…then you see another adult, your eyes meet and you begin to feel that you are about to be rescued. Then imagine the horrible despair you feel as your possible rescuer turns away and leaves you to your torturer.’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did Penn State even asked what happened with Sandusky about the 1998 incident? Did they force the police to do nothing to protect the program? Did they force Sandusky out because they knew he did something but this was a plea bargain to save Sandusky and the University? I believe it was nothing more than a back door deal to save the university and Sandusky’s. Only problem is these idiots forgot about the rate of repeat offense.</p>
<p>[Joe</a> Posnanski Posts The End of Paterno](<a href=“Sports Illustrated”>Sports Illustrated)</p>
<p>If you loved him, if you hate him, this is important stuff to read. And yes, let’s not let the posts continue to climb the angry ladder. Why does that happen? Because we’re all angry, and hurt, and bewildered, and angry — but no amount of that can ever help the victims, and we most of all feel helpless.</p>
<p>I feel I have to repeat, again, that the grand jury report is not a definitive finding of facts. It is a set of allegations put together by the prosecutor and signed off by the grand jury. It contains no defensive evidence at all. What it says the witnesses said isn’t even a quotation of their testimony–it’s a paraphrase and a summary, and it has obviously been heavily massaged. And it wasn’t even intended to be released to the public (supposedly). So those of you who are quoting the grand jury report for want Paterno (or anybody else) knew, said, or did, are jumping the gun. This is what these people are alleged to have known, said, and done. If McQueary ever gets on a witness stand (unlikely, in my view), his story will be much expanded–and scrutinized–as compared to what’s in that report. The same will be true for anybody else who testifies.</p>
<p>I’m particularly troubled by those of you who feel that it’s simply unnecessary to hear Joe Paterno’s side of the story–as if, by even suggesting that he may have a side to tell, we don’t care about the children. Well, I care about the children, but I really care about the facts, too. What were they? We don’t know. We have one version of the facts.</p>
<p>momof3 neither you or I know but you are willing to condemn someone without knowing.</p>
<p>Update (w/ Video Clip)</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Scandal: Mother of Victim Says Son Was Afraid to Tell Sandusky ‘No’ - ABC News](<a href=“Penn State Scandal: Mother of Alleged Victim Says Son Was Afraid to Tell Sandusky 'No' - ABC News”>Penn State Scandal: Mother of Alleged Victim Says Son Was Afraid to Tell Sandusky 'No' - ABC News)</p>
<p>LakeWashington,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only way you can say this is because you assume Paterno is guilty of something. We don’t know that. Reading the posts the first impression you get is it’s Paterno who raped these kids not Sandusky.</p>
<p>I’m interested in this question of what Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation. It seems to me that he may have known everything, or he may not have known that much. It depends on how his underlings handled things. Did they tell him everything, or did they protect him from anything unpleasant? There are both kinds of organizations. Both approaches make the top guy culpable for what happens under his watch, but I think it’s a different kind of culpability.</p>
<p>To add: in term’s of Paterno’s legal culpability, unless a lot of new and different facts come out, I don’t see what his criminal liability would be. He satisfied the reporting requirement, and as for perjury, if an 84-year-old guy testifies that he can’t remember exactly what he was told nine years ago when he was 73, it’s going to be pretty hard to show that he’s perjuring himself.</p>
<p>Here’s a thought experiment: how would this have played out if the grand jury report had not been released, but just indictments of Sandusky, Curley, and Schulz?</p>
<p>tom3, I was referring to the post that said that Paterno’s son claimed his father was unaware of the 1998 allegation.</p>
<p>Less than zero credibility.</p>
<p>And I agree with mom3.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Mandated reporting: Mandated reporting is to the Department of Public Welfare, not the police. Telling the police would not have complied with the mandated reporting statute. (And no one told the police here, either. Telling the police’s boss isn’t telling the police.) (And I continue to believe that the 2002 mandated reporting statute didn’t apply here, and is a red herring.)</p></li>
<li><p>Governor Corbett: He wasn’t just “aware” of this, and it isn’t just that this is similar to another case from earlier in his career. He was AG when this grand jury was empaneled. This was his investigation. The long delay in bringing the charges appears to be not due to the fact that the new AG is a woman who took it more seriously, but more due to Corbett not wanting to bring a high-profile case against Penn State administrators (and, effectively, against Joe Paterno) while he was running for governor. It also seems clear now that the Board of Trustees’ brand new backbone regarding Paterno was a function of having their most important funding source and ex oficio member in the room, telling them what he thought they should do.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Corbett had already been seen as hostile to Penn State during the early months of his administration. That makes infinitely more sense this week than it did last week.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I have said this before, and continue to believe it: There is a chance that McQueary really didn’t tell Paterno OR Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed a full-on rape. Everything that has happened makes much more sense if you consider that. It doesn’t excuse or exonerate them (except for the perjury charges), because they all clearly knew enough to know that there was a serious problem they couldn’t ignore. But their actions as a response to a full-on rape are completely heinous, and I somehow doubt that they are completely heinous people.</p></li>
<li><p>All this stuff about Paterno told his boss, Paterno did what he was supposed to. That’s such a joke in the actual context. Paterno comes across as a sweet, humble man (and also as a right-wing religious wingnut sometimes), but he wielded enormous power at Penn State, and didn’t hesitate to throw his weight around. The AD wasn’t his “boss”; the AD was his administrative assistant and liason to the administration. The president wasn’t his “boss”; he was the guy who took care of Penn State’s other missions for Joe, Dmitri Medvedev to Paterno’s Putin. Paterno was #1. That doesn’t mean he knew everything, or that he was actively engaged in controlling everything. But it does mean he (and his supporters) don’t get to claim that he had a limited role three levels down the management ladder. Whether or not he actually knew anything, a major public scandal in Penn State’s football community is his responsibility.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Sparkeye, what’s dumb about the ABC news headline you quote is that almost all kids are afraid to say no to pedophiles. If kids are not afraid to say no, I doubt that we would have many pedophiles. </p>
<p>Another news you quoted earlier from CBS, Paterno contacted a high profile attorney thing. Half down the article, Scott Paterno says it is not so and he doesn’t know where it came from. Is he lying? I am not saying there’s anything wrong if Paterno hires an attorney, just that they have a headline that is not a verified fact.</p>
<p>annasdad- while you and momof3 may be correct at this time you have zero factual information to base that on. Would you like to be judged that way?</p>
<p>@ Iglooo,</p>
<p>“Sparkeye, what’s dumb about the ABC news headline you quote is that almost all kids are afraid to say no to pedophiles. If kids are not afraid to say no, I doubt that we would have many pedophiles.”</p>
<p>It’s both sad and true… </p>
<p>“Another news you quoted earlier this from CBS, Paterno contacted a high profile attorney thing. Half down the article, Scott Paterno says it is not so and he doesn’t know where it came from. Is he lying?”</p>
<p>Yeah… I was wondering the same… And I am afraid that we will not know the truth at this point. Perhaps, it was just a free Pro bono over the phone consultation… who knows?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I think of over and over. That kid, in an instant of having his world forever rocked, looks over and sees the GA. He thinks, “Oh Thank God, someone is here to help me. Wait, what?”</p>
<p>Thinking of that and reading over and over that McQueary did what was required of him, or excuses that McQueary was “confused, shocked, intimidated by Sandusky,” etc., make me literally nauseated. There is no excuse which will cut it for me as to why he didn’t stop that assault that day. He was shocked, confused, intimidated? SO WHAT. That boy needed a rescuer that day, someone to put the child’s welfare over his own fears and self interest. McQueary may have met his legal obligation by turning his back on that child, going over to Dad’s house, and reporting it to Paterno the next day, but he failed miserably as a human being.</p>
<p>I can’t believe some of my Penn State friends – there’s like some sort of brainwashing or something. I can’t fathom how people can possibly view Paterno as blameless in this whole mess. It’s not all about Paterno, either; there is a LOT of blame to go around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes I would like to be judged like that. I have had to discuss the welfare of children at school. As a parent volunteer, I had to have these sensitive conversations. I told a substitute teacher to go to administration about the things a kindergartener was doing and saying that was sexual in nature. I made it clear it was not normal and someone needed to follow up on the matter. I take these things serious. Kids don’t say things about sex unless they have been exposed to it by another older kid or an adult. It should be a red flag.
Unlike these cowards, I would have risked my life to save a young boy like the one in the shower. I would have been scared but I would have done it.</p>
<p>legend- who is holding him blameless. I think what most are saying is until all the information is out we will hold our final opinion. When all the information does finally surface I am sure there will be things that looking back we feel he should have done. He acknowledged that himself. The question is will those things rise to the level of him being evil, covering up or some other heinous act or will they just be things that in retrospect he could and should have done differently.</p>