I admire your tenacity, JP.
However you might as well talk to this
You will have an easier time convincing the brick wall.
Big Ten votes to award Penn State full 2014-15 bowl revenue share
- Thread starter DT Hawxhurst
- Start date
I admire your tenacity, JP.
However you might as well talk to this
You will have an easier time convincing the brick wall.
The problem I have with that position is that Paterno didn't witness the crime. It's not his responsibility to investigate nor is it his responsibility to keep tabs on status of the "case" (for lack of a better term). Mike McQueary was not specific with Paterno on what happened (per his testimony and Paterno's). What if Paterno went out and started making a stink of the whole situation and it turned out that Sandusky didn't molest that child? McQueary testified that he heard sounds and saw a boy and Sandusky's head pop out of a shower. What if he was wrong? (Again, this is a hypothetical, I'm not saying nothing happened because that is just stupid based on what we know). Then he would be falsely accusing a pillar of a community of something horrific.
If Paterno witnessed the situation, I would be right there with you, but he didn't. So what is his culpability? He did what he was required to do and that SHOULD have resulted in an arrest. You are using Joe's celebrity status as a means for him stepping beyond his authority. Again, I think that is unfair and we should instead be focusing on the people who ultimately dropped the ball/covered this up.
If Joe did the minimum, then he did enough. It seems that he did the minimum. You can not like the guy (again, that is understandable), but it should probably stop there.
Again, that's just MO.
He was a football coach with no affiliation to Sandusky at that time and sent the information to upper management. If it was today, he would have been required to do more per the newly revised University policy and law, so perhaps he would have.
After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps (ignoring you). So, NOW, the next steps are calling you a goofball.
You...are a goofball.
First, you've been very cordial and respectful in the dialogue here, so that's appreciated.
I tend to agree with a lot of what JP is saying in this thread. Lots of blame to go around, and we'll probably never really know exactly who knew what and when. But the part I quoted is where I have the biggest issue with PSU fans. This was the same Paterno that was put up on a pedestal for years for the whole "success with honor," "grand experiment," "the right way" stuff. For any of that legacy to have been true, he needed to handle this situation differently. So did many other people. But statues weren't going up for Curley, Spanier or Schultz. The continued deification of Paterno is what gets under my skin, when in retrospect he clearly did not do what a man should morally.
I'll agree that, with what is known today, that were he still alive, Paterno should not be on trial.
I agree 100%. Paterno always preached about doing the right thing, grand experiment, success with honor ect. Doing the minimum required by law is not uphold those standards he preached about.
Well look, you are talking to someone who had a more realistic view of what Paterno was than other fans pre-2011. He was arrogant, selfish, self serving, egotistical... he also was someone who did put academics above football and who cared more about the careers that his players would have after football rather than what they would do on the field. I think it is reasonable to assume that he felt that he wasn't a part of the Sandsuky situation and wanted nothing to do with it. Was that uncaring? Yes. Absolutely. But was it "wrong"? I don't know if it was wrong.... he did nothing to get into that situation and he didn't witness it. He had a his own responsibilities and if he wasn't a legend, no one would give a crap about his actions once he gave the information to his superiors. They just wouldn't.
We spend far too much time debating Paterno in this whole thing, IMO. Hell, no one is even complaining (outside of some PSU fans) that the Curley, Spanier and Schultz trials have no date set and we are over 3.5 years when this story broke. How ridiculous is that?? Instead, it's about a meaningless statue and a proverbial middle man that gets all the focus. If one viewed this situation 1000 years from now, they would find that remarkable. I find it remarkable.
If Curley, Spanier and Schultz wanted to go to trial they would have gone to trial by now. It is their motions that are holding the case up.
The focus on Joe is because he was the famous one of the four stooges involved. Of course he going to get the most attention. 99.99% of the population have no clue who the other people are before the scandal broke. It continue to get debated because Joe bots who think he is some kind of infallible deity continue argue that he should keep his sainthood. You have an attention whore in Zeigler who eggs them on. When he stopped getting the attention he moved on to the Sandusky innocent band wagon and many of the sheep followed him. They use NAMBLA like excuses and conspiracy theories to defend the university and their deity.
I'm not saying that C/S/S aren't to blame for their trial just that it is ridiculous that we are now 3.5 years out and still don't seem close to a trial date. And of course I agree with the circus surrounding Paterno (and Zeigler with his band of idiots), I still find it remarkable though. For me, it's tough to follow because I don't land on either side of the "debate".
I admire your tenacity, JP.
However you might as well talk to this
You will have an easier time convincing the brick wall.
Patrick, thank you, that made me laugh.
I realize you're using Curley's quote to be humorous but the problem with your partial quote is it falsely characterizes what Curley actually said: "... After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble going to everyone, but the person involved... " pg. 179 Freeh report. (it doesn't say anyone, my emphasis added)
This continues to be construed to mean that Joe wanted Curley to handle it house and only talk to Sandusky, however, what it actually means is the change in the plan was to include Sandusky and get him help.
The debate in that email string, was whether or not to include DPW in the reporting sequence which admittedly, with hindsight, would have been the right thing to do. Reporting it to 2nd Mile in 2001 was, by the letter of the law, enough to fulfill their reporting requirements. Again, they should have just reported it to Child Services/DPW but PSU gets hammered for the in house handling, protect the football program, and cover up, when clearly that's not what happened.
Their actions here are of people who think they are dealing with someone that doesn't know what is acceptable behavior around kids, but not of someone they think is molesting boys. Again, they were wrong so they are at fault for that but it's just not this conspiracy of silence that Freeh and the media made it out to be.
Now you have lost all your credibility. Jopa didn't see the Crime and did the minimum legally so therefore he has 100% no responsibility for the abuse continuing. Seriously?
Jopa was aware there was a very strong likelihood that Sandusky was a pedophile, and could have stopped years of further abuse had he insisted it be brought out in the open when others failed to act and be properly investigated. For whatever reason, a legendary coach with a lot of power chose not to do so.
Forget the legal aspect of whether Jopa did something criminal. Our discussion is way past that. Its about whether Jopa should have done something to prevent years of abuse. That's the issue, not whether he would have gone to jail or not.
Again, reasonable people can understand that Jopa is not solely responsible for abuse continuing, but some of you are so uncompromising and recalcitrant that you will never acknowledge any responsibility for Jopa whatsoever.
Please understand, you can love Penn State, Happy Valley, Your Football program, and the Legacy of Jopa as a coach. You can still do all of this and be proud. You should be. Many of you view Criticism of Jopa's judgement and decisions he made as an all out assault on your School, your program, your traditions, and your accomplishments. It is not. It's almost like if you don't defend him 100%, all is lost.
THis is not the case, you can hold Jopa accountable and still be a Proud Penn State alum.
Last edited:
That's your read on JoePa but I disagree he was aware that Sandusky was a pedophile; see comment from earlier.
I think Paterno holds about 1% of the blame. It's a very low amount in my mind. If the people above him did their job, Sandusky would have been arrested. If MM kicked his ass and then called police, Sandusky would have been arrested. If this happened to any other coach in the nation, he would have been given a pass. You yourself said that you are holding joe to a higher standard becaue of his legacy.
No matter what the excuse is, this statement proves Paterno didn't want to do anything about Sandusky
Joe Paterno, in his own words, on why he waited until the following day to call anyone after hearing what McQueary had told him about seeing Sandusky with a boy in a campus shower in 2002:
"I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't want to interfere with their weekends."
As for the JoePa wasn't the most or one of the most powerful people on campus and had to go by what his bosses told him:
( can't prove it BUT ) I'll call BS every time some Nit comes on this board saying that.
The man was the face of Nit FB and if he wanted to do something, he would have, no matter what his so called bosses told him.
Joe Paterno, in his own words, on why he waited until the following day to call anyone after hearing what McQueary had told him about seeing Sandusky with a boy in a campus shower in 2002:
"I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't want to interfere with their weekends."
As for the JoePa wasn't the most or one of the most powerful people on campus and had to go by what his bosses told him:
( can't prove it BUT ) I'll call BS every time some Nit comes on this board saying that.
The man was the face of Nit FB and if he wanted to do something, he would have, no matter what his so called bosses told him.
That was his quote in 2011/12, I think at one point he even said he waited a week to tell Curley but in reality, Curley was not in town Saturday and Joe met with him Sunday. So he did in fact interrupt Curley's weekend. You can still argue that he should have called him immediately and waiting a day proves Joe didn't want to do anything. I'll come back to that is another example of the actions of someone that doesn't think Sandusky is molesting boys.
No doubt JoePa was the most recognizable person on campus. But Joe didn't want the baseball stadium where it was built right next to the football stadium because it displaced tailgaters. Guess where the stadium was built. Exactly where Joe didn't want it. You would think the most power person at the university could have prevented that? Especially because it relates to the Athletic Department. Ok but even let's just assume this story is false or some Penn State lore because I'm having trouble finding a citation on the interwebs and I don't have all night to keep looking. I'm not clear how being more powerful that Curley or Spanier changes anything. Are you saying that Joe didn't want it reported so they didn't report it? I've already shown that was misconstruing what Curley actually said. Or are you saying that after Paterno reported it to Curley and Sandusky wasn't off the street he should have done more then? Which I might agree with but I don't think that has anything to do with his level of power as it relates to Curley/Spanier.
What's more plausible: Joe and Curley talked the night before and Curley was like Joe, bottomline, do you think Sandusky was abusing kids. Joe was like nah, Jerry's a goofball, spends too much time around them, but I can't see him hurting them, he runs an organization for helping troubled kids for Christ's sake. So then Curley goes back to Shultz and Spanier (S/S) with we should tell Jerry what's been reported to us, we're repoting it to 2nd Mile, and let's get him some help so he can learn what proper adult/child boundaries are, but let's hold off reporting to DPW. OR Joe and Curley talked the night before and Curley was like we need to report this and Joe was like F-that, this could ruin the football team, and since I'm the HMFIC you're not reporting this to DPW. So Curly goes back to S/S and say well we're still going to report to 2nd Mile but I want to tell Jerry also and get him some help but let's hold off going to DPW.
One of those scenarios is consistent with all their other actions of thinking Sandusky is wrong for showering with kids but not molesting them.
66, I know what your position is from your time over on BWI and I am just going to disagree with the severity of culpability that Paterno had. I understand the moral argument but I do not believe it was Paterno's responsibility to play detective in this case. The fact remains that what he did should have been good enough to result in Sandusky being arrested.S/C/S had the legal responsibility to report the incident and they failed. Their burden is much higher than Paterno's due to their position at penn state.
"Or are you saying that after Paterno reported it to Curley and Sandusky wasn't off the street he should have done more then?"
Yes, I am saying this. He saw after weeks and months that nothing was happening. He had plenty enough stain to walk into anybody's office at Penn State and demand it be investigated properly now!
Was he worried about losing his job? Was he not financially secure enough? Come on. You think being fired crossed his mind? These were not issues, we all know it. Was afraid he could be wrong? Yes, I am sure this crossed his mind. But most reasonable people in his position weighing the evidence and the possible consequences of being wrong would err on the side of caution when it came to the possibility of abuse continuing. Jopa acted like he was some low level employee, told his boss, then forgot about it. Seriously. Joe Paterno. just another Penn State Employee? Please.
The excuses for Jopa just never end.
He did the minimum and broke no laws.
He didn't witness the crime.
He was afraid he might be wrong.
Too senile to understand what a pedophile is.
No Understanding of anal sex.
To old to understand the difference between horse play and possible rape with a 50 something man and and a kid alone naked in a shower making slapping noises.
Was confused by what McQueary told him.
All this justifies zero culpability for Jopa? I get The other 3 are culpable, but so far I have seen one person on here say Jopa was 1% culpable and the other three 99%.
Will anybody here defending Jopa step up to the plate and concede more than 1% culpability for the abuse continuing? Again, admitting this doesn't mean you are letting your school down.
Last edited:
What about the police and DA in 1998? What about CYS who didn't like that Sandusky was labeled a pedophile by a psychiatrist, so they got another shrink who was unlicensed and determined that Sandusky merely had boundary issues? What about the 2nd mile brass who supposedly were notified of the 2001 incident? What about Mrs. Sandusky? What about MM's father and his friend? What about ex governor and attorney general Corbett who drug his feet on the case?
There are a great number of people responsible for allowing this to continue, yet not one is scruitinized. I have a major issue with that.
Is it possible you have a major issue with that because Joe Paterno brings happy memories for you and it would be difficult to accept that "success with honor" was a sham?
Everyone concedes that there is blame to go around. But you're getting to the point where you make excuses for Paterno because you want to. It's everybody's fault but his. This is the issue people have with Paterno defenders. Anything to deflect blame away from the great man who could do no wrong.
I've said Joe got the reporting wrong, should have just gone to Child Services, and I said I might agree with this. We don't know that Joe didn't follow up with Curley, et al. This is one thing I hope comes out in the C/S/S trials. I think it's easy to assume he didn't since Jerry was out on the streets. But what if he did and was told they reported it to 2nd Mile and it was being investigated. BTW, the NCAA guideline released about a year ago on how to handle these situations is exactly the procedure Joe followed. Now PSU policy is to go directly to child line, and 911 if a kid is still in danger. So we are even more streamlined than the NCAA guideline.
I don't think anyone has ever insinuated Joe was afraid to take more action because he was afraid of losing his job, or not financially secure enough so I'm not sure what to do with that.
I think I said in my original response to you that P/C/S/S erred on the side of trusting Sandusky when we now know they should have erred on the side of protecting kids.
I'll agree excuses are just that, excuses, but some things your saying are just false. Specifically that Joe was told about anal sex or rape. Anal sex was adding by the prosecution in the grand jury presentment. McQueary testified he never used those words with Joe.
You're still coming from a position of everyone knew Sandusky was molesting kids when they made their decisions on how to report this. I'll keeping coming back to the actions of all 4, and just about everyone really, are of people that think Sandusky doesn't know what acceptable behavior around kids is anymore. In 2001 people assume Sandusky is still a do-good-er helping all these troubled/underprivileged kids.
As to your 1% culpability comment. If by rough count we have 20 people that share culpability for Sandusky being able to continue abusing kids, if everyone one had equal culpability, that would be 5%. Where does Joe rank on the scale of having more or less than the average? I'll say he's right about average, so I'll say 5%. But really, discussing the percentage seems silly. Shouldn't culpability be a binary. Either you share culpability or you don't.
EDIT: By the way I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that everything was peachy and that the big 4 did no wrong. But the narrative that our football culture enabled this, that we are a bunch of cult following, zombie, JoePa defenders is at least up for debate. And to keep an open mind that the actions of the big 4 might not have been as nefarious as it first seemed.
Last edited:
Hey, I wanted paterno out of there 11 years before he was fired. I really do not care about him outside of the fact that he followed the rules and still gets slammed for it. Meanwhile, those who did not follow the rules or made there own up get zero blame. All those people that I had listed above are more culpable than Paterno in allowing this to go on (outside of MM's father and friend). That is why I say that his culpability is very low.
