[R i]

I guess you don't have any children... Do you? This isn't about him knowing someone stole a computer from a computer lab, this was knowing that the man standing beside you was Anal Rapping children... I guess if you've done your part legally to protect yourself - you can live with it... I can't.

I dont have children. I know and love several young children, lets not make this about how this hits home. Molestation is vile on all levels, children or not.

Joe probably heard several hundred false allegations in his tenure as Penn State head coach. And those allegations probably ranged from skipping class to raping women. While I agree, this should not follow standard procedure, I believe that Joe was possibly so routinely callous to allegations that he followed standard procedure and let the University Investigate. It is possible he then stood by the Universities findings, without further looking into them himself , trusting the proper authorities had done their jobs correctly.

Were there lives ruined? Did a terrible man continue to harm children because of Joes choice to pass this along, YES. I just dont think anyone of us can say it was intentional. I dont think his life should be ruined legacy tarnished because he was not Proactive.

This is all speculation and Joe could be just as sick as the scum that was molesting the boys.

McQueary is more to blame than Joe in my opinion. To Joe it was an allegation. To McQueary it was a reality.

[From the class of 09]

I guess you don't have any children... Do you? This isn't about him knowing someone stole a computer from a computer lab, this was knowing that the man standing beside you was Anal Rapping children... I guess if you've done your part legally to protect yourself - you can live with it... I can't.

I dont have children. I know and love several young children, lets not make this about how this hits home. Molestation is vile on all levels, children or not.

Joe probably heard several hundred false allegations in his tenure as Penn State head coach. And those allegations probably ranged from skipping class to raping women. While I agree, this should not follow standard procedure, I believe that Joe was possibly so routinely callous to allegations that he followed standard procedure and let the University Investigate. It is possible he then stood by the Universities findings, without further looking into them himself , trusting the proper authorities had done their jobs correctly.

Were there lives ruined? Did a terrible man continue to harm children because of Joes choice to pass this along, YES. I just dont think anyone of us can say it was intentional. I dont think his life should be ruined legacy tarnished because he was not Proactive.

This is all speculation and Joe could be just as sick as the scum that was molesting the boys.

McQueary is more to blame than Joe in my opinion. To Joe it was an allegation. To McQueary it was a reality.

I somewhat see what your saying but I disagree because of the source.

One of Joe's coaches is coming to him and saying I saw this. It wasn't someone outside the program that had something to gain. If he can't trust one of his coaches in something as serious as this then why in the world would he have him on his staff? It just doesn't add up. At the end of the day it was Joe's program and he was responsible (at least on that level). We see leaders all the time that have to take blame for things they didn't have a direct hand in. That said I don't know how these other coaches that knew are still on staff. That is more puzzling to me.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Anyone at PSU who truly knew what happened and didn't report it to the police needs to be fired, that includes McQuery. If he isn't fired, whoever the new head coach is (not the interim guy) will very likely just clean house and get rid of everyone who was around from the 2002 alleged crime and prior, if not every single coach on staff.

[NotAJerry]

McQueary should be gone as well.

As far as Paterno dealing with false accusations all the time, if he thought this was false then why did he engage in typical cover-up behavior and continuously promote McQueary to the point that he's the recruiting coordinator at this point?

Paterno knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what he wasn't.

[ATrain]

Headline story on Drudgereport right now:

http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandu ... adden.html

I know nothing about the source Drudge is citing/linking to and Drudge can be very sensationalistic at times, but if everything is true, Jerry Sandusky is one VERY sick individual.

[jbock13]

Drudge is like TMZ for republicans.

[BJWilliams]

As I said before, Im not exactly holding up Mark Madden as a bastion of journalistic integrity and broadcast professionalism...

[Purple Haize]

Proto I don't accept the premise of your argument at all and do not see it being analogous to the situation. The least of which, because you do know me, I have a lot more experience in how to deal with those types of situations then did Paterno. There are several other reasons I don't agree but my plane boards soon
Here is why I am not as critical of Paterno. Sandusky was 'retired' in 1999. Paterno was made aware of one specific incident in 2002. That is 3 years and an allegation about a guy he 'retired'. He had no authority over the guy and went to the proper authorities. Sandusky had Emeritus status at the University. Paterno can't revoke that. Why didn't Penn State treat it like the High School and ban him from the facilities? JoPa can't do that . It does not appear JoPa was asked about the incident by investigators so why is it illogical to assume that he felt the situation had been handled?
It's not a matter of he did th e'legal thing not the right thing' in my opinion. To she did all that he knew to do. Do to the bad blood of the retirement of Sandusky, it appears to me that JoPa felt the allegations should be looked at by someone impartial to decide their veracity.
Finally, looking back on Sandusky's history NOW who wouldn't say they should have done more? Basically to me JoPa is saying if he knew then what he knows now he would have done something more.

[R i]

They were allegations.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Headline story on Drudgereport right now:

http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandu ... adden.html

I know nothing about the source Drudge is citing/linking to and Drudge can be very sensationalistic at times, but if everything is true, Jerry Sandusky is one VERY sick individual.

That's the exact same stuff every other news outlet is saying, so being on Drudge means nothing.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Proto I don't accept the premise of your argument at all and do not see it being analogous to the situation. The least of which, because you do know me, I have a lot more experience in how to deal with those types of situations then did Paterno. There are several other reasons I don't agree but my plane boards soon
Here is why I am not as critical of Paterno. Sandusky was 'retired' in 1999. Paterno was made aware of one specific incident in 2002. That is 3 years and an allegation about a guy he 'retired'. He had no authority over the guy and went to the proper authorities. Sandusky had Emeritus status at the University. Paterno can't revoke that. Why didn't Penn State treat it like the High School and ban him from the facilities? JoPa can't do that . It does not appear JoPa was asked about the incident by investigators so why is it illogical to assume that he felt the situation had been handled?
It's not a matter of he did th e'legal thing not the right thing' in my opinion. To she did all that he knew to do. Do to the bad blood of the retirement of Sandusky, it appears to me that JoPa felt the allegations should be looked at by someone impartial to decide their veracity.
Finally, looking back on Sandusky's history NOW who wouldn't say they should have done more? Basically to me JoPa is saying if he knew then what he knows now he would have done something more.

There was a police investigation on the PSU campus in 1998, when Sandusky was still employed, concerning him and inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor on the PSU campus in football facilities...

[jbock13]

I love how the media isn't attempting to get rid of McQueary.

Oh yeah, they're still busy chasing Paterno's head down the street so they can hatchet it off just a little more.

You think the media cares about justice in this? Ha. Everything is happening EXACTLY the way I said it would.

[Purple Haize]

And he was fired/retired in 1999 and no longer on JoPas staff. At that point, with his Emeritus status Sandusky became the University's problem not Paterno's. While it is not a stretch to think JoPa knew about the 1998 investigation, Sandusky was not charged, which in hindsight may not seem like a big deal, but at the time is it unreasonable to think Paternos mindset was "Sandusky works with at risk kids and since he was not charged, it just goes with the territory.". After all Sandusky wouldn't be the first hog profile person accused of this type of incident. When he was made aware of the second incident he went straight to the Adminstration because THAT IS WHO SANDUSKY WORKED FOR. JoPa couldn't fire someone who didn't work for him.
A cover up is the janitors not coming forward when they had a much more vivid encounter then Paterno.
A cover up would have been the GA seeing and not reporting.
A cover up would be JoPa having the information and not doing anything with it.
I agree there was a cover up but I do not agree it was Paterno who was doing the covering.


Also as an aside, PA does have a very strong and powerful teacher Union which employees of state school are a part. That may or may not have anything to do with it. However, it does mean that they are not At Will e,players like the faculty and staff of a,place like LU. Just food for thought.

[4everfsu]

I love how the media isn't attempting to get rid of McQueary.

Oh yeah, they're still busy chasing Paterno's head down the street so they can hatchet it off just a little more.

You think the media cares about justice in this? Ha. Everything is happening EXACTLY the way I said it would.

I guess you need to get out more often, ESPNU last hour were asking the question how could the Asst coach be retained when the HC was let go.

[jbock13]

I love how the media isn't attempting to get rid of McQueary.

Oh yeah, they're still busy chasing Paterno's head down the street so they can hatchet it off just a little more.

You think the media cares about justice in this? Ha. Everything is happening EXACTLY the way I said it would.

I guess you need to get out more often, ESPNU last hour were asking the question how could the Asst coach be retained when the HC was let go.

Or maybe watching ESPN doesn't define my entire life? btw I do get out often, I just came home from basketball practice coaching the rec league

[lynchburgwildcats]

And he was fired/retired in 1999 and no longer on JoPas staff. At that point, with his Emeritus status Sandusky became the University's problem not Paterno's. While it is not a stretch to think JoPa knew about the 1998 investigation, Sandusky was not charged, which in hindsight may not seem like a big deal, but at the time is it unreasonable to think Paternos mindset was "Sandusky works with at risk kids and since he was not charged, it just goes with the territory.". After all Sandusky wouldn't be the first hog profile person accused of this type of incident. When he was made aware of the second incident he went straight to the Adminstration because THAT IS WHO SANDUSKY WORKED FOR. JoPa couldn't fire someone who didn't work for him.
A cover up is the janitors not coming forward when they had a much more vivid encounter then Paterno.
A cover up would have been the GA seeing and not reporting.
A cover up would be JoPa having the information and not doing anything with it.
I agree there was a cover up but I do not agree it was Paterno who was doing the covering.


Also as an aside, PA does have a very strong and powerful teacher Union which employees of state school are a part. That may or may not have anything to do with it. However, it does mean that they are not At Will e,players like the faculty and staff of a,place like LU. Just food for thought.

Joe Pa himself admitted he should have done more. Yet you think he did enough? What a joke.

He could have saved his job with a simple phone call to the police in 2002, which is the most obvious ethical thing to do when a trusted assistant coach comes to you telling you that there is someone raping a kid in a shower. He failed to do that. He didn't do enough, he admitted it when he said on his front lawn "I wish I had done more." He morally failed. He had a moral obligation to do more, and he admitted to that with what he said. How you continually fail to see that is pathetic.

[Purple Haize]

Lynch. Your anger must be affecting your eye sight. AFTER he read the grand jury indictment he said 'in hindsight I should have done more'. Obviously, when presented the entire sordid details of Sandusky's life, and the fact the administration failed to act appropriately he felt there was more he could have done. But since he did not have this information he felt he made the right decision at the time.
What people fail to see is that Sandusky is the child molester not JoPa. What people fail to see is that JoPa and the GA are the only ones who took appropriate action. What people fail to see is that Sandusky was a University employee who was NOT on Paterno's staff and therefore more their responsibility. I believe that JoPa acted in good faith based on the information he had at the time. I also believe if he knew then what he knows now, he would have acted differently.
Despite what you believe, calling the police is NOT the most obvious thing to do in that situation. What if the allegations turned out to be false. What if the GA didn't see what he thought he saw. The administrators are much better equipped to handle these types of situations and they failed miserably. The GA and Paterno presented the information to those most qualified to handle it and those people not just let down Penn State but failed to protect the kids in question.

[flamehunter]

I would agree with you Haize except that I think in the time since that first incident, wouldn't he have followed up with those he reported it to? Wouldn't he have questioned why Sandusky was still walking around a free man and wouldn't he have wondered why Sandusky was still working with kids and bringing them on campus? I believe he probably turned a blind eye to it to protect the image of his program and school. And that was wrong, big time. And he carried the weight to make something happened if he thought it should have been done.

[Purple Haize]

I would agree with you Haize except that I think in the time since that first incident, wouldn't he have followed up with those he reported it to? Wouldn't he have questioned why Sandusky was still walking around a free man and wouldn't he have wondered why Sandusky was still working with kids and bringing them on campus? I believe he probably turned a blind eye to it to protect the image of his program and school. And that was wrong, big time. And he carried the weight to make something happened if he thought it should have been done.

That is also a possibility. He also could have assumed that since he was walking around and since he was not a member of his staff that things were resolved. Also, these are pretty horrific charges and it is just as easy to believe that he couldn't wrap his arms around it. Seeing him walk around it would be easier to believe that it was all a misunderstanding as opposed to a cover up in his mind.
I will agree that a small percentage of it was motivated by protecting the image of the school but that could also stem from the possibility of the damage to its image if the charges proved false. That is why, IMO, that AFTER reading the whole indictment he said he should have done more.
But he was not the one who molested those children and again IMO he was not the one enabling it to continue. He did what was reasonable to expect anyone to do.

[flamehunter]

I think image preservation was THE motivating factor. And I also can agree that Joe thought he did all he needed to at the time to protect himself and the program. Morally he should have done so much more.

[Purple Haize]

I think image preservation was THE motivating factor. And I also can agree that Joe thought he did all he needed to at the time to protect himself and the program. Morally he should have done so much more.

That's the sticky wicket. Based on the information he had at the time I think he did what was needed and 'moral'. Based on the information he has today I think we can all agree he should have done more. However, we can only operate with the information we have at the present time.
Again, had he not gone to the proper authorities (and by PA law they were the proper authorities) then I would be right in line with those agreeing with the firing.

[Stevewalt]

My problem with the whole Paterno/McQueary part is we are judging them on hindsite. If I saw that and went to my superior (which is the right thing to do) and they told me they will handle the situation then why would I follow up after a internal investigation was done?

I was 100% behind the firing but now not so sure with some more details coming out. I still say more is coming out and maybe just maybe the GJ report is only a summary of the issues and not a word for word detail of what was said and done at the time. hmmmmmm...why would the BOT fire Paterno over this and not McQueary? Was something left out of the summary report that we don't know happened in 2002? My guess is with Paterno hiring a big law firm in DC and public relations firm in NY there is more to this story and it will not go away soon...

[Purple Haize]

My problem with the whole Paterno/McQueary part is we are judging them on hindsite. If I saw that and went to my superior (which is the right thing to do) and they told me they will handle the situation then why would I follow up after a internal investigation was done?

I was 100% behind the firing but now not so sure with some more details coming out. I still say more is coming out and maybe just maybe the GJ report is only a summary of the issues and not a word for word detail of what was said and done at the time. hmmmmmm...why would the BOT fire Paterno over this and not McQueary? Was something left out of the summary report that we don't know happened in 2002? My guess is with Paterno hiring a big law firm in DC and public relations firm in NY there is more to this story and it will not go away soon...

I hate ruin your cred but that was a great first paragraph !
I would say there are a few reasons Paterno was let go not McQuery. For starters he is the biggest name/target involved. As is witnessed by all the talk being about Paterno as opposed to the ACTUAL Child Molester.Second there has been a move a foot for years to get rid of him as coach. Finally, getting rid of the guy who actually witnessed the event and notified proper authorities would make him a sympathetic figure and make more blow back on the University.
Paterno hiring a law firm is a wise move and something any one would do.

[NotAJerry]

McQueary is there because he's still the eyewitness. He's still there because he's likely got more on PSU if he was willing to take promotions and ignore Sandusky bringing kids to PSU practices up until 2007. I'd be willing to bet a huge severance package is being put together for McQueary to keep him from speaking about the issue publicly when he is let go.

Paterno is gone because, as the grand jury testimony says, he was told that something "fondling or of a sexual nature" took place and he did jack squat about it. Considering he's the king of PSU and there is stuff back to at least 1994 about Sandusky, it's reprehensible that Paterno let this guy keep an office on campus and have access to football facilities until last week. It's literally impossible for Paterno to not have known, at least as a concept, what was going on. Paterno deserves to have lost his job and he deserves every bit of disgust that he's being viewed with now.

[jbock13]

Paterno deserves to have lost his job and he deserves every bit of disgust that he's being viewed with now.

Bull.