ADVERTISEMENT

Paterno thread (merged)

jmc11201 said:
It is time we Rutgers fans start to educate ourselves.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/

"While this site began as a defense of Paterno, after investigating the case for two years and interviewing Sandusky twice in prison, it became obvious that Sandusky himself has also been done a colossal injustice. While this revelation will be shocking to people who have not followed the case closely, if you look at the evidence here with an open mind, there is little doubt that you will come to the same conclusion."
Click to expand...

Oh come we're "slandering" them, Joe was "intelligent" and didn't you know he donated to libraries?
 
jmc11201 said:
It is time we Rutgers fans start to educate ourselves.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/

"While this site began as a defense of Paterno, after investigating the case for two years and interviewing Sandusky twice in prison, it became obvious that Sandusky himself has also been done a colossal injustice. While this revelation will be shocking to people who have not followed the case closely, if you look at the evidence here with an open mind, there is little doubt that you will come to the same conclusion."
Click to expand...
"This website is dedicated to compiling and analyzing the evidence that an out-of-control news media created a false narrative in the Jerry Sandusky story..."
Great, but your site doesn't seem very credible when 95% of the linked articles are written by the same guy (Zeigler, if anyone cares).
 
The evidence is so circumstantial.

Has anyone considered that after a week of telling Spanier et al, that Dear Old Joe tried to call 911 but the phone company cut the cord after he couldn't pay his bill because his entire salary was donated to charity?

Has anyone considered that "Coach" from the Freeh report was actually Jackie Sherill?

Has anyone considered that emails about "Joe" were actually Curley talking it over with Joe Stalin and that this whole thing was a Communist plot to subvert the American way?

WELL HAVE YOU!!?!?!? STOP THE SLANDER!!!!
 
DNA22 said:
What new allegations were made against Paterno in the 70's? That hasn't happened at all. All that came out was PSU was paying a victim from 1971, THAT'S IT. NO WHERE does it say anything about Paterno in reference to the new reports.

You just took it upon yourself there to assume that Joe was somehow involved when the truth is that couldn't be further from the truth. PSU is currently paying settlements to 32 victims of Sandusky, of which exactly ONE had any involvement at all with Joe (the Mike Mcqueary report). EVERY OTHER VICTIM had zero involvement with Joe Paterno and now your lumping all of them in together? That's so dumb, like ridiculously dumb, like I'm embarrassed they let you cheer for Rutgers because clearly you don't have a college degree dumb
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about. The reports that just came out said one of the victims claimed he talked to Paterno in 1971.So cut the BS out that there's no reference to your hero Joe the Enabler in any of the new reports .
Here's what you're lying ( not denying, but lying )about:
Sandusky victim: Joe Paterno told me to drop abuse accusation - CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state/
 
DNA22 said:
Um again, show me where joe admitted he knew boys were being raped? We aren't going to agree on this so why are you trying?
Click to expand...

I said molestation. You said prove it. By anyone's definition on the planet "fondling" and doing "something sexual" to a naked child in a shower is "molestation."
Now I am calling you out as a man. You said you would leave and were very emphatic about it. Please be a man of your word. Or is that not important to you?
 
DNA22 said:
Um again, show me where joe admitted he knew boys were being raped? We aren't going to agree on this so why are you trying?
Click to expand...
So Paterno testifying to the Grand Jury when asked what he was told by McQueary :>"It was of sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike ... because he was obviously very upset"< shouldn't be considered rape of a child in your book.
Now I see why it's so easy for you to defend someone who covers up for a child molester and never once tried to protect children from that monster.
Your idea of rape of a child is not the same as mine.
My definition is: any child ( under the age of consent) being used for sexual gratification by an adult .
You obviously don't see it that way.
 
By the defense that dna22 aka Reppin jerk is mounting, it's sounds like he's ok with "fondling and something sexual" with foster kids, kind of sad since Joe Pa was also ok with it.

When you read the reports joe even stated he needed his son to define what " sodomy" meant. JP being raised Italian Catholic ( church/ bible readings) and attended Brown University ( ivy leaguer) doesn't know the meaning of sodomy? Between the bible and the core curriculum at Brown I'm pretty sure he read one of the many books, scriptures (dante's inferno) etc. discuss this in English literature. He's a liar and he cried over his name, because that all he cares about.

Reppin jerk, you are an amazing clown
 
PSU_Nut said:
If you look he allowed the camp but said no to brining second mile kids into the facility. He was ok with Sandusky using them but not with kids.
Click to expand...

LOL oh because any contact with kids would be okay, just not the ones you might be abusing...

I feel VERY sorry for the good people of Pennsylvania and PSU. You all do NOT deserve this.

I just believe there is unbelievable corruption and abuse of power around Joe Paterno and the success with honor was a lie.

I hope that PSU can stand up to the things Joe wanted, but realize he did not practice what he preached.

4560110.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight177lb and Doctor Worm
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/p...test-jerry-sandusky-revelation-212824533.html
Penn State president digs deeper hole in Jerry Sandusky saga
Dan Wetzel,Yahoo Sports 23 hours ago
Last week, the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal was back in the news, bringing Penn State and its late football coach Joe Paterno with it. The stories were ugly: four separate accusations that Paterno and/or assistant coaches/administrators allegedly knew of Sandusky’s acts as early as 1976. It all stemmed from a paragraph in a court order in a civil suit between Penn State and one of its insurers.

Four-and-a-half years after Sandusky was first arrested, Paterno was fired and Penn State was rocked, here was an another reverberation, proof that just as it is for victims of sexual abuse, this stuff doesn’t ever conveniently end.

Rather than focusing on the administration's role in not just the original events but in igniting this specific media frenzy, university president Eric Barron instead pathetically tried to shift the blame while lamenting that the poor, poor school and its old coach were being dragged though the mud.
 
MADHAT1 said:
Thank you for finding the original article and posting it once you found it had information that was left out , instead of ignoring it and letting the abridged version stand.
Click to expand...

The FOX story only covered the assistant coaches. The full story also referenced the incident from the CNN story, which would have been better served in the National Enquirer.
 
Last edited:
Cheesesteak Vegas said:
The FOX story only covered the assistant coaches. The full story also referenced incident from the CNN story, which would have better served in the National Enquirer.
Click to expand...
But that article also shows how the Penn St coaches were used to Sandusky showering with children and didn't give it a second thought.
So who really can say if it the real story is Penn St's reaction to the way Sandusky acted with children helped him molest children easier because the children seen other adults at Penn St act like everything Sandusky was doing was what every adult does around children.
Taking showers with someone's else child is not normal in my book , even if you bring them into the football locker-room showers to do it.
Finding evidence about a molestation in an atmosphere like Penn St seems to allowed to go on , would be mighty hard to do and that's why it would belong in National Enquire.
It is hard to believe Sandusky would be able to bring in any kid he wanted for a shower and Penn St coaches thought nothing of it.
That's National Enquire material.
 
Last edited:
MADHAT1 said:
But that article also shows how the Penn St coaches were used to Sandusky showering with children and didn't give it a second thought.
So who really can say if it the real story is Penn St's reaction to the way Sandusky acted with children helped him molest children easier because the children seen other adults at Penn St act like everything Sandusky was doing was what every adult does around children.
Taking showers with someone's else child is not normal in my book , even if you bring them into the football locker-room showers to do it.
Finding evidence about a molestation in an atmosphere like Penn St seems to allowed to go on , would be mighty hard to do and that's why it would belong in National Enquire.
It is hard to believe Sandusky would be able to bring in any kid he wanted for a shower and Penn St coaches thought nothing of it.
That's National Enquire material.
Click to expand...

But I'm not talking about what is considered normal and abnormal behavior here. I agree with you, grown men showering with children is not normal. Maybe it is to some people. Maybe it was in the YMCA days 20, 30 years ago. It isn't to me. But that's irrelevant.

My National Enquirer comment was based on the fact that CNN ran a story, which it deemed not credible enough to run for six months, finally did so because it felt one line in a court doc from an insurance case gave them the cover to do so. That story was loaded with ambiguity, the victim's story (true or not) is stuff made of movies - hitchiking, drugs and alcohol, he spoke to "Jim and Joe" and he somehow knew Joe was Paterno, didn't tell anyone else, no hospital records when he'd surely have physical injuries after the type of attack he described - and the only corroboration came from Bernie McCue, a known loon who has been harassing the Paterno family for years and recently sent out tweets in direct conflict to Ganim's story, and an unnamed state trooper, who apparently didn't find it necessary to refer his friend's accusations to police despite his role in law enforcement.

You might think Joe Paterno covered up for Sandusky. You might not. Either way, from a journalistic standard, that story, as well as the NBC story about the assistant coaches, simply don't hold up very well when held to the fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNA22
MADHAT1 said:
So Paterno testifying to the Grand Jury when asked what he was told by McQueary :>"It was of sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike ... because he was obviously very upset"< shouldn't be considered rape of a child in your book.
Now I see why it's so easy for you to defend someone who covers up for a child molester and never once tried to protect children from that monster.
Your idea of rape of a child is not the same as mine.
My definition is: any child ( under the age of consent) being used for sexual gratification by an adult .
You obviously don't see it that way.
Click to expand...


What were you saying? Something negative about penn state again? Madhat you should just change ur user name to "troll penn state" bc there can't be a psu thread on this board without u commenting. I've read this board for years without commenting and legitamately every psu thread you are either leading the charge or somehow involved. Look I know you don't like PSU, got it. That's cool bud, u don't need to prove how much you don't like them with posts above (which I will honestly say I didn't read past the first line nor do I have any intention to bc I already know what you're going to say since you've been making the SAME arguments for the last 5 years)
 
So DNA's response now is to attack the poster instead of refuting what he says. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikershoein
Man there are some morons in this thread.




(when I say "some" I mean, well, 2 in particular....)
 
If there were an isolated accusation which was a definitive anomaly to all other actions, one should take a moment to question the accusations. The preponderance of evidence, be it circumstantial or otherwise, warrants serious consideration and definite doubt to the character and substance of the man. I truly believe JoePa was a good man, but good men make mistakes too. Sometime when good men make mistakes, they loose site of absolute right and wrong. They become overwhelmed with self importance, especially to the good they may actually do. I believe JoePa did know. I believe he tried to help his friend. I believe he did not understand the sickness and evil that was Sandusky until JoePa was in too deep and he then had to entrench his enabling position which he justified due to image and the positive impact he did have on many people.

I think this started as a 'white lie' which grew to the horrible and disgusting reality which becomes difficult for some to accept because they are too invested in the image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJIT_1990, ScarletRunner and redking
Cheesesteak Vegas said:
But I'm not talking about what is considered normal and abnormal behavior here. I agree with you, grown men showering with children is not normal. Maybe it is to some people. Maybe it was in the YMCA days 20, 30 years ago. It isn't to me. But that's irrelevant.

My National Enquirer comment was based on the fact that CNN ran a story, which it deemed not credible enough to run for six months, finally did so because it felt one line in a court doc from an insurance case gave them the cover to do so. That story was loaded with ambiguity, the victim's story (true or not) is stuff made of movies - hitchiking, drugs and alcohol, he spoke to "Jim and Joe" and he somehow knew Joe was Paterno, didn't tell anyone else, no hospital records when he'd surely have physical injuries after the type of attack he described - and the only corroboration came from Bernie McCue, a known loon who has been harassing the Paterno family for years and recently sent out tweets in direct conflict to Ganim's story, and an unnamed state trooper, who apparently didn't find it necessary to refer his friend's accusations to police despite his role in law enforcement.

You might think Joe Paterno covered up for Sandusky. You might not. Either way, from a journalistic standard, that story, as well as the NBC story about the assistant coaches, simply don't hold up very well when held to the fire.
Click to expand...

You know who didn't think the 1971 story was made up?

Your alma mater's legal department, who paid the victim a settlement based on that incident after the expiry of the statute of limitations.

If they thought it was fair game to play, it's fair game to report.

It would certainly be interesting if the 1971 and 1976 stories were outliers, because the FACT is Joe stated under oath that he was aware of activity of a sexual nature and that he did nothing other than tell his boss after the weekend while Sandusky strolled campus for a over a decade.

I mean maybe Casey Anthony just googled how to poison a child because she was drafting a screenplay...those darn media!
 
DNA22 said:
What were you saying? Something negative about penn state again? Madhat you should just change ur user name to "troll penn state" bc there can't be a psu thread on this board without u commenting. I've read this board for years without commenting and legitamately every psu thread you are either leading the charge or somehow involved. Look I know you don't like PSU, got it. That's cool bud, u don't need to prove how much you don't like them with posts above (which I will honestly say I didn't read past the first line nor do I have any intention to bc I already know what you're going to say since you've DANbeen making the SAME arguments for the last 5 years)
Click to expand...

DNA you said you were leaving when it was proved Paterno knew all about the molestation. It was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Paterno freely admitted he knew this in a court of law. You said you would leave and you are still here. Obviously you are not an honest person and want to keep lying. How very Penn State of you.
 
Knight Shift said:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/p...test-jerry-sandusky-revelation-212824533.html
Penn State president digs deeper hole in Jerry Sandusky saga
Dan Wetzel,Yahoo Sports 23 hours ago
Last week, the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal was back in the news, bringing Penn State and its late football coach Joe Paterno with it. The stories were ugly: four separate accusations that Paterno and/or assistant coaches/administrators allegedly knew of Sandusky’s acts as early as 1976. It all stemmed from a paragraph in a court order in a civil suit between Penn State and one of its insurers.

Four-and-a-half years after Sandusky was first arrested, Paterno was fired and Penn State was rocked, here was an another reverberation, proof that just as it is for victims of sexual abuse, this stuff doesn’t ever conveniently end.

Rather than focusing on the administration's role in not just the original events but in igniting this specific media frenzy, university president Eric Barron instead pathetically tried to shift the blame while lamenting that the poor, poor school and its old coach were being dragged though the mud.
Click to expand...
Nailed-It-Baby-Meme-06.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikershoein and miker183
When DNA22 leaves, Reppin jerk returns. Kind of like Superman and Clark Kent, except it's Superputz and Clark Kunt
 
  • Like
Reactions: yesrutgers01
DNA22 said:
I've brought more facts to this thread than anyone else, just read back at what I wrote. I'm not going to re type what I've already posted. And for the record I've made it clear that I don't know one way or another what happened, none of us do, but I will say that I will never subscribe to the court of public opinion that most of this board does and declare people guilty until proven innocent which is exactly what most of you are doing in reference to Paterno in spite of the FACT that Paterno has never been and never will be accused of any legal wrongdoing in this case
Click to expand...
I am late to this party, but let me extend an olive branch and agree with you as much as possible.

I agree that Paterno has never been and never will be accused of any legal wrongdoing in this case. His death has made that a certainty. It is therefore equally certain that he will never stand trial and none of us will sit on his jury.

Which means that none of us owe him a presumption of innocence.

I further agree that none of us know exactly to what degree Paterno was involved in this mess. We are left to draw conclusions from imperfect information. We humans do have that ability, and often that responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17Q66 and ScarletRunner
nevets72 said:
If there were an isolated accusation which was a definitive anomaly to all other actions, one should take a moment to question the accusations. The preponderance of evidence, be it circumstantial or otherwise, warrants serious consideration and definite doubt to the character and substance of the man. I truly believe JoePa was a good man, but good men make mistakes too. Sometime when good men make mistakes, they loose site of absolute right and wrong. They become overwhelmed with self importance, especially to the good they may actually do. I believe JoePa did know. I believe he tried to help his friend. I believe he did not understand the sickness and evil that was Sandusky until JoePa was in too deep and he then had to entrench his enabling position which he justified due to image and the positive impact he did have on many people.

I think this started as a 'white lie' which grew to the horrible and disgusting reality which becomes difficult for some to accept because they are too invested in the image.
Click to expand...
Good post.

I don't think believing Paterno to be completely innocent is a reasonable position given the preponderance of evidence. I don't see anyone other than Penn State fans taking that position.

But clearly he had a lot of good in him and did great things for Penn State and the State College community. The idea that he got in too deep with Sandusky and turned a blind eye to preserve what he saw as the "greater good" is a very reasonable potential scenario, and one that I have heard put forward by other folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17Q66, miketd1, jmc11201 and 1 other person
ScarletRunner said:
Good post.

I don't think believing Paterno to be completely innocent is a reasonable position given the preponderance of evidence. I don't see anyone other than Penn State fans taking that position.

But clearly he had a lot of good in him and did great things for Penn State and the State College community. The idea that he got in too deep with Sandusky and turned a blind eye to preserve what he saw as the "greater good" is a very reasonable potential scenario, and one that I have heard put forward by other folks.
Click to expand...

These are fairly measured responses. One of the hardest issues when discussing this is to be able to actual discussion because no one wants to even appear they are in the least bit ok with child molestation/abuse. And while I concede turning a blind eye for the greater good is a plausible scenario, I don't think that's what happened. I think they really thought they were handling the report the correct way. If you go back and read Curley's after talking it over with Joe email, there is (misplaced) concern for Sandusky. That was obviously wrong but I don't think they were evil, trying to protect the brand, trade kids lives in for football prowess, etc. There was no mention of football or lack of concern for children. I do realize I might be completely wrong about these four individuals. And if the allegations around the '71 and '76 claims are true then establishing and protecting the brand is more of a possibility. But if Joe really knew about the '71 victim and told him to keep quiet, why would he not have skipped town and taken the Patriots Job in '73 or kicked his 2nd year coach (Sandusky) to the curb? Why in 2001 does he even take McQuery's report up the food chain? Or not lose his mind when Sandusky starts TSM one year after the '76 victims report. Why do kids ('71 and '76) molested by an unknown coach feel comfortable reporting the incident to the head football coach and not the police? The news that these accusations as they relate to PSU's involvement were based on 2nd and 3rd degree hearsay combined with a hard to find congruent line of thinking to answer the above questions makes me think Barron's statement was correct.

Another point is what I've heard about these type of settlements where a bunch of people are suing a bunch of people is that the defendant with the biggest pockets, i.e. PSU settles all the claims and the insurance companies of the individual parties battle it out later. This is done to expedite payments to the individuals that deserve them. This is why PSU paid the '71 claim and the '76 claim even though Barron has come out and said there's no evidence those are PSU incidents. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer so I have no idea if that's true but figured I'd put it out there for any of the corporate lawyer types to discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheesesteak Vegas and 17Q66
jason21psu said:
These are fairly measured responses. One of the hardest issues when discussing this is to be able to actual discussion because no one wants to even appear they are in the least bit ok with child molestation/abuse. And while I concede turning a blind eye for the greater good is a plausible scenario, I don't think that's what happened. I think they really thought they were handling the report the correct way. If you go back and read Curley's after talking it over with Joe email, there is (misplaced) concern for Sandusky. That was obviously wrong but I don't think they were evil, trying to protect the brand, trade kids lives in for football prowess, etc. There was no mention of football or lack of concern for children. I do realize I might be completely wrong about these four individuals. And if the allegations around the '71 and '76 claims are true then establishing and protecting the brand is more of a possibility. But if Joe really knew about the '71 victim and told him to keep quiet, why would he not have skipped town and taken the Patriots Job in '73 or kicked his 2nd year coach (Sandusky) to the curb? Why in 2001 does he even take McQuery's report up the food chain? Or not lose his mind when Sandusky starts TSM one year after the '76 victims report. Why do kids ('71 and '76) molested by an unknown coach feel comfortable reporting the incident to the head football coach and not the police? The news that these accusations as they relate to PSU's involvement were based on 2nd and 3rd degree hearsay combined with a hard to find congruent line of thinking to answer the above questions makes me think Barron's statement was correct.

Another point is what I've heard about these type of settlements where a bunch of people are suing a bunch of people is that the defendant with the biggest pockets, i.e. PSU settles all the claims and the insurance companies of the individual parties battle it out later. This is done to expedite payments to the individuals that deserve them. This is why PSU paid the '71 claim and the '76 claim even though Barron has come out and said there's no evidence those are PSU incidents. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer so I have no idea if that's true but figured I'd put it out there for any of the corporate lawyer types to discuss.
Click to expand...

OK, @jason21psu: what about the 1987 and 1988 (two in that year, one of which went to the psu AD)? Note that @DNA22 above would not engage on these.
 
jason21psu said:
These are fairly measured responses. One of the hardest issues when discussing this is to be able to actual discussion because no one wants to even appear they are in the least bit ok with child molestation/abuse. And while I concede turning a blind eye for the greater good is a plausible scenario, I don't think that's what happened. I think they really thought they were handling the report the correct way. If you go back and read Curley's after talking it over with Joe email, there is (misplaced) concern for Sandusky. That was obviously wrong but I don't think they were evil, trying to protect the brand, trade kids lives in for football prowess, etc. There was no mention of football or lack of concern for children. I do realize I might be completely wrong about these four individuals. And if the allegations around the '71 and '76 claims are true then establishing and protecting the brand is more of a possibility. But if Joe really knew about the '71 victim and told him to keep quiet, why would he not have skipped town and taken the Patriots Job in '73 or kicked his 2nd year coach (Sandusky) to the curb? Why in 2001 does he even take McQuery's report up the food chain? Or not lose his mind when Sandusky starts TSM one year after the '76 victims report. Why do kids ('71 and '76) molested by an unknown coach feel comfortable reporting the incident to the head football coach and not the police? The news that these accusations as they relate to PSU's involvement were based on 2nd and 3rd degree hearsay combined with a hard to find congruent line of thinking to answer the above questions makes me think Barron's statement was correct.

Another point is what I've heard about these type of settlements where a bunch of people are suing a bunch of people is that the defendant with the biggest pockets, i.e. PSU settles all the claims and the insurance companies of the individual parties battle it out later. This is done to expedite payments to the individuals that deserve them. This is why PSU paid the '71 claim and the '76 claim even though Barron has come out and said there's no evidence those are PSU incidents. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer so I have no idea if that's true but figured I'd put it out there for any of the corporate lawyer types to discuss.
Click to expand...
Reasonable and rational post. If only everyone could engage in the conversation this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17Q66
jason21psu said:
These are fairly measured responses. One of the hardest issues when discussing this is to be able to actual discussion because no one wants to even appear they are in the least bit ok with child molestation/abuse. And while I concede turning a blind eye for the greater good is a plausible scenario, I don't think that's what happened. I think they really thought they were handling the report the correct way. If you go back and read Curley's after talking it over with Joe email, there is (misplaced) concern for Sandusky. That was obviously wrong but I don't think they were evil, trying to protect the brand, trade kids lives in for football prowess, etc. There was no mention of football or lack of concern for children. I do realize I might be completely wrong about these four individuals. And if the allegations around the '71 and '76 claims are true then establishing and protecting the brand is more of a possibility. But if Joe really knew about the '71 victim and told him to keep quiet, why would he not have skipped town and taken the Patriots Job in '73 or kicked his 2nd year coach (Sandusky) to the curb? Why in 2001 does he even take McQuery's report up the food chain? Or not lose his mind when Sandusky starts TSM one year after the '76 victims report. Why do kids ('71 and '76) molested by an unknown coach feel comfortable reporting the incident to the head football coach and not the police? The news that these accusations as they relate to PSU's involvement were based on 2nd and 3rd degree hearsay combined with a hard to find congruent line of thinking to answer the above questions makes me think Barron's statement was correct.

Another point is what I've heard about these type of settlements where a bunch of people are suing a bunch of people is that the defendant with the biggest pockets, i.e. PSU settles all the claims and the insurance companies of the individual parties battle it out later. This is done to expedite payments to the individuals that deserve them. This is why PSU paid the '71 claim and the '76 claim even though Barron has come out and said there's no evidence those are PSU incidents. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer so I have no idea if that's true but figured I'd put it out there for any of the corporate lawyer types to discuss.
Click to expand...
Jason, this is a very reasonable post and fair take. I certainly don't for the most part agree, but you bring up some worthy points, and they're refreshing to hear after the ravings of DNA22.

The most recent allegations (dating back to the 70's) certainly could be fabrications, and it's fair to say that Penn State's settlement of a claim does not necessarily validate the underlying allegation. It's also reasonable to posit that an insurance company may throw whatever they can get their hands on - including unsubstantiated allegations - at the wall in an attempt to avoid payment of a claim.

Unlike a lot of Penn State fans, you seem willing to accept that the "Joe" in Curley's email is Paterno... But you seem to grant Paterno some degree of clemency because his concern for Sandusky (in a mental health kind of way...?) perhaps obscured his ability to see Sandusky for the monster he was, and also got in the way of first guaranteeing the safety of the children/potential victims... Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your explanation.

And that's where we would seem to disagree, at least in terms of Paterno's level of culpability. In the above scenario, in my very strong opinion Paterno (along with the other three) is guilty of a gross, reckless negligence that put future victims in harms way. If a pre-meditated coverup is the equivalent of murder, this would be tantamount to manslaughter, and would be nearly as damaging to Paterno's legacy as a more deliberate coverup. At the end of the day, he's still electing not to go to the authorities and he's still squashing further investigation (granted, motivated by concerns for a colleague/friend) in a situation related to the safety and welfare of children.
 
thegock said:
OK, @jason21psu: what about the 1987 and 1988 (two in that year, one of which went to the psu AD)? Note that @DNA22 above would not engage on these.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by what about them? Why were those claims paid? I'll need to look at those closer to see what the details around the accusations are. When the news first broke those were the accusations that seemed more troublesome to me but everyone was focused on '71 and the story of Joe telling the kid to pound sand that I don't think as much has been discussed about late 80's accusations. What articles were you reading about them?
 
ScarletRunner said:
Jason, this is a very reasonable post and fair take. I certainly don't for the most part agree, but you bring up some worthy points, and they're refreshing to hear after the ravings of DNA22.

The most recent allegations (dating back to the 70's) certainly could be fabrications, and it's fair to say that Penn State's settlement of a claim does not necessarily validate the underlying allegation. It's also reasonable to posit that an insurance company may throw whatever they can get their hands on - including unsubstantiated allegations - at the wall in an attempt to avoid payment of a claim.

Unlike a lot of Penn State fans, you seem willing to accept that the "Joe" in Curley's email is Paterno... But you seem to grant Paterno some degree of clemency because his concern for Sandusky (in a mental health kind of way...?) perhaps obscured his ability to see Sandusky for the monster he was, and also got in the way of first guaranteeing the safety of the children/potential victims... Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your explanation.

And that's where we would seem to disagree, at least in terms of Paterno's level of culpability. In the above scenario, in my very strong opinion Paterno (along with the other three) is guilty of a gross, reckless negligence that put future victims in harms way. If a pre-meditated coverup is the equivalent of murder, this would be tantamount to manslaughter, and would be nearly as damaging to Paterno's legacy as a more deliberate coverup. At the end of the day, he's still electing not to go to the authorities and he's still squashing further investigation (granted, motivated by concerns for a colleague/friend) in a situation related to the safety and welfare of children.
Click to expand...

I need to go to bed, 4:30 is right around the corner but...

Are there really PSU fans saying Joe in Curley's email wasn't Paterno? I've only heard that the email referring to coach with Paterno as the subject wasn't referring to Paterno. Regardless, the concern for Sandusky seems like it is coming from Curley more than anyone. Shultz was definitive in saying they were informing TSM and Spanier seemed like he was just agreeing with Curley. The only mention of Paterno is Curley said after talking it over with Joe. What was discussed in complete speculation on either of our parts. Curley's concern could have led him to ask Joe the simple question: Joe, bottom line is Jerry hurting kids? And Joes response could have been Jerry spends too much time with kids but he started TSM to help kids so no way is he hurting them. Or it could have been way more devious and Curley and Joe really could have have a stragegy session detailing how they could avoid reporting. I think on the scale it much closer to the former scenario but again it's pure speculation.

I can see you murder-manslaughter analogy in that we know there were victims after 2001 however reporting the incident to TSM should have initiated further investigation not squash it. Now TSM seems like they sure dropped the ball with that so the decision to report to them over DPW was wrong but not wholly unreasonable at the time.
 
The way these latest accusations just popped up does seem fishy. In my mind, Paterno currently sits at 5 or 10 percent blame. Bo Schembechler seemed to like the guy. So I am taking Joe at his word that he didn't want to deal with it, and pushed it off his plate to someone else.


He had a team to coach as he said.


Now if we could get more than hear-say proof, I would be more than willing to say he set up a conspiracy. Short of that, I just think this was more on the 3 they let go. By saying 5 to 10%, that means no trophy named after him, statue, beer, or whatever accolades they wish to heap on him. He fugged up badly. I just take his word, for now, that it wasn't in malice.


There is so much corruption in Pa, I think there is tons of blame to go around. For all the hoopla of the Freeh report, why did we only get like 2 messages. They couldn't find more proof than that? Lastly, BWI is the worst msg board on Rivals or scout IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutino
jason21psu said:
I'm not sure what you mean by what about them? Why were those claims paid? I'll need to look at those closer to see what the details around the accusations are. When the news first broke those were the accusations that seemed more troublesome to me but everyone was focused on '71 and the story of Joe telling the kid to pound sand that I don't think as much has been discussed about late 80's accusations. What articles were you reading about them?
Click to expand...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...id-6-penn-state-coaches-witness-abuse-n569526

That is one of the links above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MADHAT1

Police report: Paterno /Sandusky

Replies
25
Views
2K
Rutgers Football
DJ Spanky
DJ Spanky
RedSpartan

CNN: 2nd Sandusky victim told Paterno in 1971

Replies
14
Views
1K
Rutgers Football
vkj91
vkj91
newell138

Joe Paterno (merged threads)

Replies
104
Views
7K
Rutgers Football
DJ Spanky
DJ Spanky
RUinPinehurst

OT: UNC Scandal Update... SI Article

Replies
28
Views
2K
Rutgers Football
e5fdny
e5fdny
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back