In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 49
Online now 87 Record: 1921 (4/30/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
These emails you refer to never says, "Joe told me(or advised me) to cover this issue up. Curley's email says,"after talking with coach, I decided" the key word being I. His email never said Joe talked me out of turning in Sandusky. In fact, soon after the emails, Curley reported Sandusky to the Chairman of the Second Mile who was the one organization that 1) Sandusky was affilated with at that time, and 2) was in the best position to find out who the boy in the shower was. Curely reporting this incident to the Chairman of the Second Mile means this isn't a coverup in my opinion. It ultimately may not have been the best way to proceed but that is a far cry from "an active attempt to supress evidence of child molestation".
Kijana. Just a few thoughts.
Joe "actively" tried to keep discipline out of the University and local authority's hands....why should we think this would be any different?
As to "that weekend". I have heard this week with the Paterno Report that both JayPa and Franco steadfastedly deny repeatedly, that Joe had no knowledge of these incidents and couldn't have known. This goes against his own testimony to the GJ. The lies and coverup going on by Paterno's lackeys even today indicate that there was this culture up there.
Hey, I love how Penn State feel people from the outside just can't get it, that we don't understand. Yes the Freeh Report which hence means the NCAA relied on alot of circumstantial evidence and connecting some dots, but the only real underlying tenet that you guys from State College are really banking on is that Joe Paterno, was well Joe Paterno. And that ain't good enough. Because...the Joe you knew, is not the Joe who turned his back on those kids because it was just too ugly and messy to deal with.
Your comparison to Joe wanting to handle discipline problems for his players(versus the University or police) is irrelevant. In 2001, Sandusky was not a coach nor an employee of the University. Sure, Joe liked to control his own fiefdom(the football team) but I don't think he is a meanie because he thought the best step would be for MM to tell his story to Curley and Schultz(who ultimately reported this to the Second Mile). Joe was not a doctor nor a psychologist nor was his Sandusky's boss(or even co-worker). I can see his thinking that this situation should be sent to the people best equipt to handle something like this. One would think reporting this to the Chairmen of the Second Mile would have been enough to get the ball rolling on an investigation but as it turned out it wasn't.
Of course. Sandusky screwing a boy in the Penn State Football Showers was an issue for the Second Mile to handle. They dropped the ball, not Joe and PSU.
So, if you willingly let some guy hang out in your house, and he starts molesting kids in your shower, you're going to tell his boss (who has nothing to do with you or your house) and wash your hands of it. Makes sense for a bunch of kooks.
Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself.
Except, MM did not say to anyone that Sandusky was "screwing" a boy in the shower. Sure, MM witnessed something that wasn't right but it was not anal rape according to his testimony. Plus, after the 2001 incident, they told Sandusky not to bring kids on the PSU campus any longer. Obviously this wasn't enough to stop Sandusky from doing what he was doing but it's a far cry from saying Paterno was involved in a conspiracy to conceal.
Good lord it's truly amazing.
........but it wasn't anal rape. Did you seriously just type that. Whats next... those kids should man up! Just a little fondling. Oh, wait, it was just horseplay right?
So Penn State told him not bring kids around anymore. Why?
Again, you allow a guy to hang out in your house, with little boys, and then he molests them in your shower. You tell his boss right?
Sandusky wasn't in Joe's house, he was in a football locker room. I could turn around and ask you this: if one of your underlings comes to you and says he saw one of your former emplyees at XYZ Company(you still work at XYZ) in an inappopriate situation with an underage boy on the premises of XYZ Company, then what would you do? I doubt you would confront the person about what your underling saw. I think in this example it's appropriate to say "hey, i think we should kick this up to the President of the company and see what he thinks we should do". You are not the one that witnessed anything so I don't see why reporting this to your boss(or, even a company attorney or HR Manager) is seen by you as a bad thing. Joe told MM to tell Curley and Shultz what he just told him. There is no testimony or proof of any kind that Paterno tried to convince MM to stay quiet or pretend he did not see anything. Ultimately, this incident was reported to the Chairmen of the Second Mile who one would assume would have the personnel on staff to handle these situations and be in the best position to 1) find out who the boy in the shower was and 2) force JS to resign from the SM, and 3) get the police involved if necessary. There is no evidence that Joe tried to supress Curley from informing the SM nor is there any evidence that Paterno tried to sway the SM into sweeping this under the rug. Just because the situation was not handled in the best way possible doesn't mean there was a conspirascy to conceal nor does it mean Paterno had any disregard for the children,
Your first point is true, which is exactly why I phrased my original post the way I did. That's why many things in terms of formality of claims come down to what Curley knows and is willing to say. That said, it's a more plausible story that Joe said something that persuaded Curley (whether actively or inactively)---I mean, it's not like Curley said "after eating an ice cream cone, I decided...." Other stories have helped demonstrate the Joe didn't mind trying to keep things in-house---which is only a suggestive point, but it's still pretty suggestive. And given the nature of the institutions in place, it's not such a far cry to refer to the folks that Curley DID talk to as in-house folks.
Regardless, the question isn't whether there was "an active attempt to supress [sic] evidence of child molestation," which is a very strong claim that would be very difficult (though not impossible) to back up. The question isn't whether they did the worst possible thing. The question is: did they do the right thing? Because this is the kind of issue where failing to do good is doing bad, regardless of whether it was intentional or otherwise. There is no excuse not to do the right thing, and the only right thing is to go to the proper governmental authorities. They even had that idea in mind, and then the conversation with Joe happened, and either Curley listened to Joe's persuasiveness or changed his mind without conditioning on anything Joe said (which might as well be eating an ice cream cone in this narrative), and then they failed to do the right thing. That's bad enough.
I hope you'll see that I'm trying to be reasonable here. Many of my colleagues here don't appreciate that about me. So, whatever decorum you can muster is appreciated, yeah?
Amazing isnt it? It clearly wasnt Anal Rape so Joe and company were right in dismissing this incident and not reporting child molestation to authorities. After all, it wasnt anal rape. And you koooks wonder why people are disgusted with cult members like yourself.
Also let me point out that Curly didnt exactly disclose all the facts to the second mile.
On March 19, Curley met with Jack Raykovitz.
Raykovitz would not speak with Freeh's investigators, but an attorney for the Second Mile did.
He also told counsel that during the executive director's meeting with Curley that Curley related that an unidentified person saw Sandusky in the locker room shower on campus with a boy and felt uncomfortable with the situation and that Curley had discussed the issue with Sandusky and concluded that nothing inappropriate occurred. According to Counsel for the Second Mile, Curley told the executive director, that "to avoid publicity issues," the University would not permit Sandusky to bring kids on campus.
Raykovitz told two Second Mile trustees, and they concluded that they were dealing with a "non-incident" and "there was no need to do anything further." Raykovitz spoke with Sandusky about not bringing Second Mile kids on campus, but Sandusky quickly pointed out that the prohibition only extended to the showers.
The cover of the Second Mile's 2003 annual report featured a photo of a child playing in the pool with Jerry Sandusky.
Spanier told Freeh's investigators Curley told him he had spoken with Raykovitz, "that those discussions had gone well and our directive accepted, and that the matter was closed."
Yeah they told Ole Jerr he wasnt permited to shower with boys.....................again.............Just like they told him in 1998.
Its amazing the depths you clowns go to to explain away the admins crimes
So let me ask this one more time.
Why would the BOT accept the NCAA penalties and roll over and play dead and pay the vicitms 100's of millions of dollars if there were not criminal negligence on the part of PSU admins?
Seems to me your leaders know excatly what went on and want to put this behind the University as quickly and as cheaply as possible for the sake of the institution Unfortunately the CUlt of Kooks are more interested in protecting the image of their False GOd in JOE P and could care less about the greater institution.
A "Real PITT MAN"............get off my porch!
Umm, no. I certainly confront him, no doubt in my mind pal. Stop with second mile. This happened in Penn State's locker room. Second Mile is irrelevant.
Also, when it's my house, and yes the football locker room is certainly Joe's house, and when I am the man in charge, it's up to me to make sure something gets done.
The fact that you keep using statements like "not handled in the best way possible" is truly disturbing. Dude, it was a cluster of massive proportions. A huge freaking scandal people are going to jail over.
Joe's lucky he's dead. If his family had an ounce of sense they would shut their traps and crawl into a hole.
Let me try to explain what Kijana is trying to say...
In my best caveman voice: "Freeh report bad, Paterno Family report good"
Uh, the Second Mile is most certainly relevant. They are the agency that had the most day to day contact with Sandusky(in 2001). They are the organization that knew which boys JS was spending time with. The SM was the organization that had licensed Psychologists on staff that had the training/experience to deal with these issues(much more so than a football coach who was in his early 70s). Joe is not the villian in this ordeal. He did not conceal the information that was presented to him. You just hate Paterno because he owned Pitt during his career so you just want to pin the blame on him. Plus, it's not like you guys give a crap about the Sandusky vicitims. All youc are about is bad thinsg happening to PSU/Paterno legacy. Pathetic.
You just proved my point: there was no conspiracy to hide the truth with regards to what MM saw. Bring this whole matter to the Second Mile folks is the exact opposite of what a conspiracy is. The Second Mile people concluded on their own that this was a non-incident- this coming from a staff of licensed Psychologists who have the experience and training in these situations. I've seen no evidence, testimony, or anything that suggests Paterno/Curley/Spanier persuded the SM not to bring this matter to the police. Why did the policer and DPW let JS off the hook in 1998? You guys want to make this all Paterno's fault when I can think of about a dozen other people and/or organizations that are more to blame than Paterno.
That wasn't a meteor that hit Russia. It is god reigning down on humankind for persecuting Joe.
Why haven't the Paterno's sued the NCAA, PSU, Freeh, etc etc etc?
You'd think that if they "knew" for a fact that Joe was completely innocent they would have a multi-million dollar lawsuit against those folks for defamation among other things...
Second Mile has zero to do with Penn State and their ineptitude. Zero. Ignore everything else as usual.
Joe Paterno was a piece of crap. I disown him as a fellow Italian American.
On this point I agree with you. But who cares what Stephen A Smith thinks? He's just another overpaid talking head.
I read the Paterno commissioned report and I agree with kijana that it made a lot of points that completely made me rethink my position on Paterno's role in the Jerry Sandusky pedophilia cover up. Now, I'm not so sure that Paterno had anything to do with anything wrong and a good man has likely been falsely impugned.
However, for the record I should also point out that when I read the BP commissioned report on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico I learned that oil is actually good for pelicans' feathers and that the BP people couldn't possibly be held accountable for what most others were calling their negligence.
And in reading the AIG commissioned report on the banking crisis, I learned that they too should be absolved from any blame. As it turns out it was the greedy poor people taking advantage of helpless lending institutions that cased that whole mess.
Finally, I just got through with the NRA's report on Sandy Hook and I learned there that everyone EXCEPT the gun industry is to blame for that tragedy. The real culprits are politicians who refuse to apply existing laws, violent video game makers, and lax producers or television and film which also glorify violence. But the gun makers, they are completely innocent in all of this - just like Paterno was when he was allowing his DC and later ex-DC to feast on children all in the name of preserving the good name of his football program.
When you look at UPS as a whole, lies, deception and cover ups are simply part of the fabric of the University.
Lets take a look at Thon. Its promoted as a fund raiser to help kids and their families defray the cost of cancer treatment. For sure almost all of the money raised by THON goes to the Four Diamonds Fund. But when you dig deeper, only 2 percent goes directly to the families and kids with cancer.
Over 74 percent of the funding goes to the UPS experimental Therapeutics fund. In other words the truth is that UPS is using the fund to prop up its Cancer Research Center. Yet when you look at their annual report much of it is devoted to perpetuating the belief that the fund DIRECTLY helps defray the cost of treatment for kids and their familys. IM sorry but that is incredibly deceptive and dishonest.
If they marketed the fund as one to help fund UPS Cancer Research Efforts, you have to wonder how that would impact fund raising.
Now before the NIT WITS go crazy, Im not saying that research to cure cancer is not a worthy cause. It clearly is. However its more than a bit selve serving and misleading to market the fund as one that DIRECTLY Helps kids with cancer and their families afford the cost of treatment when in fact the money goes direclty to help UPS build up its repuation as a Cancer Research Center.
Kijana- Wasn't there a "slapping sound" described in the shower incident? That you and many of your PSU brethren are still in a state of denial is quite troublesome. Without coming clean on the matter, the chances for other PSU atrocities being ignored increases dramatically. Talk to anyone in the corrections industry. Felons who continue to deny and blame the victims are at a greatly increased risk for recidivism.
Are you a Holocaust denier? Are you a Japanese WWII textbook writer who denies atrocities committed on the Chinese and the Phiiipinos? How about the Turks and the Armenians?
Holocaust denier, Iran, seeks to destroy Israel. Japanese denial has brought the Chinese to be ready to go to war with the Japanese over disputed islands at the same time the Chinese build their navy to the teeth. The Turks eat Kurds for dinner.
This is the price of denial.
Kijana: Search your soul and ask yourself why you come on a Pitt site making the arguments you have. You won't find vindication or validation here.
i think i have an idea that would satisfy all involved: let each of the victims have their turn with sue pattern and be done with it.
Just a question from a neutral party... hypothetically if Spanier/Curley/Schultz get on the stand and say that Paterno had no knowledge of the 1998 investigation and that he in no way influenced them to not go the authorities in 2001 and then they are found not guilty will people on this board admit that there was no cover-up?
This post was edited by DuqLaw7 14 months ago
well, they're guys who covered up a pedophile; so for me, i'd be skeptical if they said the sky is blue.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports