Watching the Happy Valley film
- Thread starter Spare130
- Start date
It actually sounds like this is happening.. Apparently some of the charges have somewhat quietly been dismissed?
I haven't seen the film, but here's a novel concept: It's likely the absolute truth.
I know facts are irrelevant to you guys, but Sandusky couldn't be fired by Joe at the time of the McQueary incident. Sandusky wasn't coaching and had been retired for 3 or so years. Carry on with your silliness.
In general I agree with you, if only to stem the inevitable troll tide.
But a few things. This is *mostly* a football board. Many here think of psu as the closest thing to a football rival (even if they probably rightfully do not). Other than their team, I would think most boards have similar threads about their perceived and hated rivals.
And, methinks you would get the same amount of psu threads *regardless* of the rapes and their cover up. The fact that it DID happen, just attenuates everything.
Plus, let's be honest, they are the 300lb gorilla on the east coast. We can pretend they aren't there, but they still take up most of the oxygen in the room. So if the gorilla farts, it gets talked about it. And that guy's got a lot of gas.
Yes, NO film maker has ever interjected their own bias, either positive or negative.
That's a silly statement. Wait . . . never mind!
I'm not sure the point of this quote?
Gricar cited lack of evidence for closing his investigation against Jerry in 1998 (along with the Dept of Public Welfare).......what on earth does that have to do with his disappearance 7 years later?....55 miles away from his Belfonte, PA home?
you think Penn State/Paterno had something to do with his disappearance?....and you call me brainwashed?.....my goodness
Oh dear Penn State comrades, you will not gain a thing from responding in this particulat thread unless you intend to agree with the RU fans. there is nothing you could type here to make your points that they are going to listen to. Never have, never will because they hate you.
yes,this is the prosecutor who was FIRST brought the charges regarding Uncle Jerry,you know the pedophile who brought young children on the the Penn State Charter airplanes to bowl games with Joe Pas knowledge,and Gricar decided NOT to prosecute for some unexplained reason,even though the Pennsy State Police claim the entire case was bungled(intent?) and there was enough evidence to prosecute from the start. Maybe Mr Gricar knew too much and was going to name others who knew from the start when Uncle Jerry got arrested? hmmm..Also sound like you know little to nothing about the law and/or criminal investigation procedures and methods Pally.
I said he should have been fired and turned over to the police the first time, but Joe was too concerned about the brand to do the right thing. By the time McQuery was involved the cover up had been in place for several years.
I can completely understand talking football about any of our fellow Big Ten teams. Although I admit that as a fan, for the most part, I feel silly whenever I engage in chest thumping about whose football team is better. I mean, it's not like I'm actually playing or coaching; I just show up to be entertained by the games.
But the obsession with everything else, the non-football stuff, about PSU I don't understand.
You mean the cover up that Fina and a recent court basically said didn't exist? That cover up? Ok. Admit it. You hate Penn State, because you get your arse kicked nearly every time you play them. As someone else in this thread, a Rutgers fan and poster pointed out, you don't really care about child abuse, you're just jealous about what happens on the field when you play Penn State.
oh wow...didn't know I had a live one. are you typing on your phone?...my goodness....this is barely legible.
"Gricar knew too much"?....too much of what?....huh?......what the heck are you talking about? maybe this?...maybe that? why don't you ask ex Governor Corbett about what Gricar knew.....cause, i don't effin know why he closed his investigation (clearly, you don't either)...same goes with the DPW.....apparently it was lack of evidence....which you already quoted. but who knows....maybe he called Paterno and said...hey Joe, what should I do with this case?.....should i just close it?...yeah?...alright, case closed!..........lol
"Also sound like you know little to nothing about the law and/or criminal investigation procedures and methods Pally"..........did you type that?........yyyyeah, I'm thinking you don't know much yourself...lol......on that note, i'm going have to let you go.....I don't mind a good debate, but it clearly won't happen with you......and I don't feel sorry for ya....not even almost;)
Yeah, I said that. But it doesn't help matters when PSU folks, even very reasonable ones, try to make that argument here on the RU board. I'm just saying.
And there ARE legitimate reasons to bash some PSU folks over the Sandusky issues. Because some PSU supporters are in complete denial about what happened. Even Paterno himself said he should've done more. That alone should lead reasonable and ethical people to decide that Paterno was very much on the wrong side of that situation and to stop defending him.
I just don't understand why RU fans obsess over it. It's not our problem. It's PSU's problem.
Oh great, Howie is here. Hopefully, that nutjob Ziegler will show up soon. All that matters is that Sandusky gets a new trial since he was clearly railroaded. This thread will now go down the rabbit hole. It's the same arguments every time. It's boring. Let's cut to the chase and save time. Rutgers poster: Pedd State, Joe knew, enabler, cult, don't care about the children, Joe ran up the score...PSU poster: Janitor saw nothing, don't forget "In hindsight", the e-mails, Joe never had power, Joe didn't crap his pants, McQueary lied, Joe did what was he was supposed to do, Getting the wins back proves nothing happened...etc, etc...
Really? Like I said, I don't perseverate over it, and it would be nice if the infection were to end. But it makes sense on some level. We don't like them. Let's just call it the human condition. It's been happening since the dawn of man when Ugg met Ogg and decided he was a douchbag.
That has to be one of the great misquotes of the past five years. What Paterno actually said was, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Not that he "should have done more" in the context you're using it, which would indeed suggest an admission of guilt.
most people don't understand what "with the benefit of hindsight" means so they just ignore that part completely.
Well we truly won't be successful until we get Zoffinger's son to post in the thread!
Don't ever say I don't care about child abuse. I didn't put a football program ahead of dealing with a pedophile. I didn't give a pedophile "emeritus" status. And yes, Paterno did everything within his power to hide what Sandusky was doing and if you can't see that then you are blind.
He was the head of the program. There is no question as to Paterno's guilt in the matter. The fact that he learned, in hindsight, that he would be found to have allowed what happened to happen does not change the nature of what it means that he wished he had done more. The victims thought he should have done more too.
If Paterno didn't know what was going on in his showers, he should have. More should have been done and much, much sooner. And Paterno should've been leading the effort.
That is a very fine distinction. "The benefit of hindsight" is implied in the second statement.
Hell, choose either one, it at least suggests that Paterno recognized the seriousness of what happened. But, as was said, there are SOME, misguided as they may be, in your fan base that feel that it was all cooked up just to mess with PSU.
We all have some screwed up fans. We are not required to defend them when they are wrong.
I'm not "defending." Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But when those opinions are formulated at least partly on misinformation that continues to get parroted, I think it's important to state the facts for the record.
Once the Grand Jury report was released - despite all of the incorrect statements it contained and the exaggerated claims - I'm sure hundreds of people in and around State College, the PA Department of Welfare, the Second Mile, etc. all wished they had done more, with the benefit of hindsight.
That's ridiculous. You're twisting what Paterno said about hindsight into implying that he didn't have any clue about what was happening. But if he had no clue at all at the time, then why would he wish he had done more? If he said he wishes he knew more back then, so he could've done more, that's a completely different thing.
He knew enough to have done more and he knew it and he said so. And if he didn't know more, then that's a problem too. He should've known more. He was in charge. What happened on his watch was his responsibility.
I'm not calling Paterno evil here. But he could've done more and we are talking about preventing kids from being raped here. But all this word-parsing by those attempting to absolve Paterno of all blame is ridiculous.
I'm not absolving Joe Paterno of blame. He was no saint, but he was also no devil.
I think Paterno's big mistake was trusting the administrators to handle the situation correctly, based on the evidence they gathered and what they were required to do, and he sort of divested himself of the situation because he wasn't a witness to anything and Sandusky no longer reported to him.
Was that the "right" thing to do? Probably not (although it's exactly what coaches are to do now based on new NCAA policies and guidelines). And certainly not once light was shed on Sandusky's actions. So, with the "benefit of hindsight," maybe Paterno felt he should have noticed something wrong with Jerry and his behavior, or should have picked up on some hints over the years. Or in his final moments he wished he had done more to follow up. Unfortunately, we'll never get to hear more from him, and any comments from Curley, Schultz, Spanier and/or McQueary will be met with skepticism, maybe deservedly so.
Again, Paterno's actions won't win him any medals. But they were also a far cry from conspiring to hide child abuse in the name of football, which is what those people who twist the "benefit of hindsight" quote want to believe. And being that the quote was the crux of why I replied initially today, I think it's fair - and necessary - to point out that wishing you had done A instead of B, when you learn things C, D and E years later, isn't necessarily admitting you're "guilty" of something.
A 1998 email from Tim Curley to Gary Schultz said Paterno was “anxious to know” where the investigation stood. A 2001 email from Curley to Schultz said Curley no longer wanted to confront Sandusky about the shower incident McQueary witnessed after “talking it over with Joe (Paterno).”
Yeah, he knew nothing.
Yeah, he knew nothing.
Said the man who worships a football coach who turned a blind eye to kids being sexually abused in his facilities. Did he ever even try to find out what the kid's name was?
Nope.
Only for your continued work at whitewashing the child rape that was covered up by your football program. Otherwise we like you (except for the total a-holes (but everyone has a few of those)).
Saint Joe feeling guilt? Nah, his football team won. Where would the guilt come from? Oh wait, no, they won.
The 1998 incident was reported outside of the university, and Sandusky had yet to retire, so it would make sense for Paterno to be interested in the results. Once no charges were pursued against Sandusky, it's also not unreasonable for Paterno to not automatically assume this same guy who is so active in children's charities is also abusing kids. Again, "with the benefit of hindsight" can come into play here as well. Looking back, a lot of people missed warning signs like the 1998 incident, and I'm sure there were other interactions that people replayed in their minds once Sandusky was charged again and convicted.
The second email is certainly interesting, but there is loads of missing context. Not to mention, whether or not they confronted Sandusky about the accusations is meaningless in the grand scheme of things; in fact, it's probably better they didn't let him know McQueary had brought this to their attention, as it could have impacted any future investigation. But again, people like to twist things in a manner that fits the narrative they want to believe.
It's one of the many, many reasons I look forward to the day the Curley, Spanier and Schultz tell their stories in great detail, whether on the witness stand or off of it.
Agree he couldn't be fired, but Joe the Enabler could have damm well made sure he wouldn't have an office on campus, turned into the athorities and stripped of his honorary title, but didn't because he felt that turning in Sanmdusky after what happend in 1998 would reflect badly on Penn St football and the image Paterno created for himself..
I would also point out that PSU's Coach Emeritus could have been told not to bring children on campus anymore after McQueary caught him molesting a child ( the incident you claim wasn't a firing offense) but one of JoePed's flunkies told the pervert not to bring children on campus anymore, basically saying molest them somewhere else instead of turning him in.
Sandusky was retired after he was accused of molesting a kid 3 years before McQueary caught him.
The molester protectors claim he retired because Pedturno to;ld him he wouldn't be the next Nit HC, but the truth is Sandusky was an embarrassment because he was a suspected pervert and Penn St would protect him from being found out in order to make Nit FB look squeaky clean and honor him with a title and office on campus , but didn't want someone like him as a coach.
Penn St started protecting Sandusky in 1998 and Joe Paterno was a major part of that.
There was some circumstantial evidence that tied JoePed to the cover-up and possibly supervising it, but not enough solid evidence to bring charges against him.
The pervert protector knew, but glad to see some pervert protector protectors starting to admit Paterno made sure he was informed about everything.
Not you should admit he was in charge of protecting Sandusky from the first time Sandusky got caught.
>In his testimony before the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno denied knowing anything about the 1998 incident in which Sandusky was investigated but never charged after police received a report from a woman who claimed Sandusky had showered with her son and touched the boy. And in his interview with Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post shortly before his death, Paterno said, "Nobody knew about it" when asked directly about his knowledge of the 1998 case. The '98 incident, you'll recall, would have happened when Sandusky was still employed as the defensive coordinator on Paterno's staff.<
Look, I get it. You think Joe Paterno is almost as culpable for Sandusky's crimes as Sandusky himself. But you need to get a grip on some things. Paterno did not have the power to revoke emeritus status provided a former university employee by the president of the university. He also couldn't "turn him in" to the authorities; he wasn't the witness of a crime. Could he have relayed what McQueary told him, sure, though I'll defer to my earlier statement that he (mistakenly) left that in the hands of the people he felt responsible for reporting such things.
Paterno was a head football coach, and a very powerful one at that. He absolutely held influence over countless things. But you hurt your own credibility when you suggest he was some sort of all-knowing power who could have single-handedly taken Sandusky off the streets.
Also, your claims of "basically saying molest them somewhere else" and that Sandusky was "retired," show either (a) your lack of knowledge on how things played out, or (b) your twisted mentality that wants so badly to believe kids were intentionally put at risk for the sake of a football program, or (c) both, which is my guess.
This ( from article below) oproves you're just spinning the facts to protect Paterno and I'm far closer to the truth about who was in charge pf protecting Sandusky than you'll admit:
>Fast-forward three years to the 2001 incident that Graduate Assistant Mike McQueary witnessed and reported to Paterno. In a subsequent meeting between Spanier, Schultz, and Curley, it is agreed — according to Schultz’s notes — that they will “Tell chair of Board of Second Mile … Report to Dept. of Welfare. … Tell JS [Sandusky] to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.”
But just two days later the plan is changed. On February 27th, 2001, Curley sent out an e-mail to Schultz and Spanier. He said that he had changed his mind about their agreement “after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe”.<
Of course you'll claim talking it over with Joe means nothing, you and the rest of the JoePed cult members refuse to see or admit the truth about how Paterno protected Sandusky and the power Joe Paterno ( because of the PSU B program) had power over most facets of Penn St University when it came to protecting the Football Program's image and the way Paterno wanted the world to look at him.
Would Joe Paterno Be Facing Criminal Charges? - Onward State
>if there was enough to charge Graham Spanier with multiple felonies, there was almost undoubtedly enough to put Paterno on a docket sheet with him.<
http://onwardstate.com/2012/11/02/would-joe-paterno-be-facing-criminal-charges/
Similar threads
