JETman Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 One more thing How many other men did JS fuck up and now are afraid to come forward? Why would they be afraid at this point? I would think that they would feel free in every sense after the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 Why would they be afraid at this point? I would think that they would feel free in every sense after the verdict. To try to second guess the feelings of an abused person is rather presumptuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 With all due respect and in acknowledgment to the unspeakable crimes against kids at the hands of Sandusky...it is my humble opinion Joe Paterno has been finally and posthumously vindicated. Maybe now cooler heads will prevail along those lines. Nobody wins in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 IMO Joe Pa had to know something about JS To what degree we will probably never know All this happened on Joe Pa's watch so he has some blame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Johnson Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 With all due respect and in acknowledgment to the unspeakable crimes against kids at the hands of Sandusky...it is my humble opinion Joe Paterno has been finally and posthumously vindicated. With all due respect, that's one of the most delusional comments I've heard about this entire sordid disgusting mess. We are just beginning to see what I expect will become a tidal wave of part monday morning quarterbacking (no pun intended) and part "finally feel able to talk" comments about how "Jerry had a problem with boys" and the like. Vindicated? Really? Try "confirmation of the blood on his hands." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 I don't know - Paterno was, what, like 85 when he died? I doubt he knew how to program his VCR. I don't doubt that he finally realized/was told what was going on, but I can believe that he had a hard time processing, comprehending, and even believing it. Look how hard it was for some of us to believe the charges against Bill Barton last year - and most of us didn't know him personally and over several decades' time. It seems clear that there are several in the university's athletics program who tried to cover things up, but some of you make it sound like old man Paterno was actually enabling Sandusky - which I think is going too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Presumably GS's insane line of thinking is that since the jury acquitted Sandusky of the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge related to Victim 2 (the one McQueary saw), Paterno must have been correct in not going to the authorities about what McQueary saw. The problem with this is that the jury was actually quite sure that Sandusky did SOMETHING wrong to Victim 2, but since McQueary could not remember seeing actual penetration and Victim 2 himself never came forward as a witness, they could not say with certainty that this specific charge was proven. The other acquittals were on an indecent assault charge related to Victim 5, who said Sandusky fondled him in the shower, and an involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge regarding Victim 2, the boy graduate assistant Mike McQueary saw being attacked in a campus shower. That charge resulted in an acquittal because McQueary did not see penetration, Harper said. But, Harper said, McQueary made it apparent he saw something "that was wrong and extremely sexual." "We did not have the evidence that that very first charge happened," Harper said. "... And we were in agreement amongst all the jurors that because of that, we could not convict him of that first count." Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/sandusky-s-accusers-were-credible-juror-says/article_f80bcc86-4eeb-5adf-9c06-0c8b8c404fb6.html#ixzz1ykK2vwDy Also, there's a catch-22 here - if Paterno had immediately gone to the police after McQueary came to him, then the cops likely could have obtained evidence that would have allowed them to immediately find Victim 2, whose testimony would have likely been enough for a guilty charge on this count. IOW, the only reason that Paterno was "vindicated" was that his own negligence or outright coverup attempt managed to prevent an effective investigation of what McQueary saw. Edited June 24, 2012 by Big Wheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) With all due respect and in acknowledgment to the unspeakable crimes against kids at the hands of Sandusky...it is my humble opinion Joe Paterno has been finally and posthumously vindicated. Vindicated?? Seriously, he was informed someone on his staff was sexually abusing children, and essentially did NOTHING. Oh yeah, he reported it to his boss. And then watched as nobody did anything. And went on about his business as if nothing was wrong, knowing what was going on. Knowing Sandusky continued to have free reign of the athletic facilities and continuing to bring small boys around. He should have gone to the police from Day One, screw the "report it to the boss and forget it" mentality. I hope he slept well from that night forward, knowing that nobody was doing anything for those children, and any further potential victims for each day forward until Sandusky was finally arrested. Paterno was not the abuser, but he was effectively a child-rape enabler. I disagree with Ray above, he was an enabler. Nobody wins in this one. Amen. Edited June 24, 2012 by Aggie87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 Just a point of clarification: Sandusky was not on Paterno's staff when McQueery witnessed the shower incident (I'll call it that out of respect for the jury's decision). He had "retired" after the 1998 (99?) incident in which the police investigated his showering with another boy. And, in regards to the discussion before - Sandusky isn't a run of the mill child predator. His celebrity makes him a child predator with a bullseye on him. No one can predict the future but I say the odds are at least 50/50 he dies at the hands of another inmate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValerieB Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 is this the first you guys are realizing that GS IS delusional?!? that's been his M.O. for decades, i'm afraid. you'll just have to get used to it, i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 With all due respect and in acknowledgment to the unspeakable crimes against kids at the hands of Sandusky...it is my humble opinion Joe Paterno has been finally and posthumously vindicated. How? You think Joe Pa couldn't have known/didn't know that something along these lines was going on -- and going on for a good long time, well before he was senile, if in fact he finally was? Further, do you think that Penn State's perniciously isolated, don't mess with anyone or anything that has or has had to do with Joe Pa culture, without which Sandusky could hardly have flourished, was anything but Joe Pa's creation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 Look how hard it was for some of us to believe the charges against Bill Barton last year - and most of us didn't know him personally and over several decades' time. I think the point is that people can be very adept at compartmentalizing and being stealthy and not go around obviously slobbering over potential targets or something like that. I spent some time with Bill, and yes I was shocked that the nice, low-key, sober seeming, gentle person I knew had this particular problem, but I understand that people can live successful double lives and function as "non-monsters" or even exemplary citizens in other contexts, so I never thought "that's impossible." The only online argument I ever remember getting into with Bill was when I called him a Pollyanna for getting so upset by criticisms of artists he loved!Goodspeak has been standing by his man Paterno on several boards from the beginning of this episode. That's his prerogative, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 Just a point of clarification: Sandusky was not on Paterno's staff when McQueery witnessed the shower incident (I'll call it that out of respect for the jury's decision). He had "retired" after the 1998 (99?) incident in which the police investigated his showering with another boy. I'd forgotten Sandusky had been retired by the time of McQueary's witnessing of the shower rape. It doesn't change the fact that it occurred in the athletic facilities that Paterno was ultimately head of, though. And Paterno had a responsibility to do more than just mention it to his boss, especially knowing that Sandusky essentially had free reign of those facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 Just a point of clarification: Sandusky was not on Paterno's staff when McQueery witnessed the shower incident (I'll call it that out of respect for the jury's decision). He had "retired" after the 1998 (99?) incident in which the police investigated his showering with another boy. I'd forgotten Sandusky had been retired by the time of McQueary's witnessing of the shower rape. It doesn't change the fact that it occurred in the athletic facilities that Paterno was ultimately head of, though. And Paterno had a responsibility to do more than just mention it to his boss, especially knowing that Sandusky essentially had free reign of those facilities. The reason for Sandusky's retirement must have been a topic of discussion at the university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlitweiler Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 This evening Jerry Sandusky is in his jail cell wondering how, why his great unselfish love for boys has been so terribly misunderstood. Control freaks have fierce capacities for self-delusion, rationalization, and persuading others that they're virtuous. The man-boy-love types, i.e. pederasts, i.e. molesters, are surely among the worst. More subtle and more worrisome are all the other Penn State and State College folks (excepting the victims) who knew about the crimes and said/did nothing. As various posters here have said, they had plausible reasons for not wanting to be heroes. But in this case heroism was exactly what the situation called for. Just because I'm chicken-hearted doesn't excuse me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 The reason for Sandusky's retirement must have been a topic of discussion at the university. Especially because IIRC, at one point in the not too distant past (again IIRC), he had been regarded as a candidate to become Joe Pa's sucessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 The reason for Sandusky's retirement must have been a topic of discussion at the university. Especially because IIRC, at one point in the not too distant past (again IIRC), he had been regarded as a candidate to become Joe Pa's sucessor. Exactly. That's a big question mark for those who claim that Paterno was an old man and didn't have a clue about Sandusky. While it's plausible that the reason Sandusky was put out to pasture was simply professional disagreement with Paterno or some other boring, typical reason, it's just as plausible that Paterno knew at least that Sandusky was a creep and thought that forcing him into retirement was an acceptable substitute for going to the police and causing a big scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 With all due respect and in acknowledgment to the unspeakable crimes against kids at the hands of Sandusky...it is my humble opinion Joe Paterno has been finally and posthumously vindicated. With all due respect, that's one of the most delusional comments I've heard about this entire sordid disgusting mess. We are just beginning to see what I expect will become a tidal wave of part monday morning quarterbacking (no pun intended) and part "finally feel able to talk" comments about how "Jerry had a problem with boys" and the like. Vindicated? Really? Try "confirmation of the blood on his hands." I think if you had followed the testimony in the trial, Joe Paterno had nothing at all to do with the decades long child abuse perpetrated by Sandusky. Further, to blame Paterno for a pedophile's abhorrent behavior or to even assume the victims he already assaulted would have been protected somehow because of anything Paterno is incorrectly accused of is "one of the most delusional comments I've [ever] heard." Paterno wasn't the problem here. The system failed to confront/arrest/prosecute Sandusky long before the shower incident McCleary reported on and was subsequently ignored by the authorities who ultimately should have stepped in. Joe Paterno was a victim of a media frenzy hell bent for blood ahead of the facts. Plain and simple. History will prove me out on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Look how hard it was for some of us to believe the charges against Bill Barton last year - and most of us didn't know him personally and over several decades' time. I think the point is that people can be very adept at compartmentalizing and being stealthy and not go around obviously slobbering over potential targets or something like that. I spent some time with Bill, and yes I was shocked that the nice, low-key, sober seeming, gentle person I knew had this particular problem, but I understand that people can live successful double lives and function as "non-monsters" or even exemplary citizens in other contexts, so I never thought "that's impossible." The only online argument I ever remember getting into with Bill was when I called him a Pollyanna for getting so upset by criticisms of artists he loved! Goodspeak has been standing by his man Paterno on several boards from the beginning of this episode. That's his prerogative, I suppose. As a legal and required designated reporter of child abuse, I am not so much "standing by" Paterno as I am attempting to educate people on the facts relative to reporting child abuse. People want a simple answer to an extremely complex issue and subsequent prosecution of predators like Sandusky. It isn't easy. Fixing blame, however shortsighted and poorly thought out, is a dime a dozen. Point: If it was easy to nail these dirtballs, there would be no child abuse. Sadly, it is not. Never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I don't know - Paterno was, what, like 85 when he died? I doubt he knew how to program his VCR. I don't doubt that he finally realized/was told what was going on, but I can believe that he had a hard time processing, comprehending, and even believing it. Look how hard it was for some of us to believe the charges against Bill Barton last year - and most of us didn't know him personally and over several decades' time. It seems clear that there are several in the university's athletics program who tried to cover things up, but some of you make it sound like old man Paterno was actually enabling Sandusky - which I think is going too far. Again -- JoePa's crimes go far beyond the specifics of this case. Yes, he was enabled by the Big Time College Sports Machine, but God, he was there for 61 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 This evening Jerry Sandusky is in his jail cell wondering how, why his great unselfish love for boys has been so terribly misunderstood. Control freaks have fierce capacities for self-delusion, rationalization, and persuading others that they're virtuous. The man-boy-love types, i.e. pederasts, i.e. molesters, are surely among the worst. That's what freaked me out so much about Sandusky's responses in the media (the Costas interview for instance). Instead of outright - and immediately! - denying doing anything wrong, he seemed to talk around it and, without exactly saying so, appeared to consider what he did some form of affection. It reminded me of Michael Jackson's denials of similar charges. I'm no psychiatrist. obviously, but I can't help but wonder if JS truly thinks he's innocent of the crimes he's been charged and now convicted of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 He appeared mentally ill in the interview. His lawyers are idiotic narcissists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 His lawyers are idiotic narcissists. I had not really paid attention until I saw a clip of the lead guy the other day. My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) His lawyer also impregnated a 16-year-old when he was 49. She was also his client in her emancipation petition. Not sure if the impregnation happened while he was still her lawyer. He latter married and had a 2nd child with her before divorcing. P.S. Age of consent in PA is 16. Oh yeah, he reported it to his boss. And then watched as nobody did anything. And went on about his business as if nothing was wrong, knowing what was going on. Knowing Sandusky continued to have free reign of the athletic facilities and continuing to bring small boys around. He should have gone to the police from Day One, screw the "report it to the boss and forget it" mentality. I hope he slept well from that night forward, knowing that nobody was doing anything for those children, and any further potential victims for each day forward until Sandusky was finally arrested. Paterno was not the abuser, but he was effectively a child-rape enabler. I disagree with Ray above, he was an enabler. Paterno waited until the next Monday to tell his superiors. He did not want to ruin their weekend. You can't make that up! The same superiors who would later go to his home to get him to retire; he threw them out of his house. Which of them exactly is the superior between the three of them? Paterno thus waited a couple of days later to tell them. Add in McQueary's delay in reporting to Paterno (never mind a 6'4" 230 former football player couldn't do more than close a locker in response to a boy being sodomized by someone in his late 50's.) on top of that. He was 25/26 at time but had to talk to his father before telling Paterno what he saw. A minor being sexually abused was not important enough to report right away for either McQueary or Paterno. Can't ruin anyone's weekend over a kid being allegedly (at that time it was still allegedly.) being sodomized. Sandusky was Paterno's expected replacement before he suddenly resigned. This happened soon after the original reported incident and completely out of the blue. His defense is the reason Penn St. was Penn St. It wasn't known as Linebacker U because of Paterno. Just look at Penn St's. record after he resigns. Does anyone really believe Paterno didn't know about the first incident? His best coach (and if I am not mistaken the longest serving under him. Someone Paterno coached when he played there.) suddenly resigns and he doesn't know why? Edited June 25, 2012 by Blue Train Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Paterno waited until the next Monday to tell his superiors. He did not want to ruin their weekend. You can't make that up! The same superiors who would later go to his home to get him to retire; he threw them out of his house. Which of them exactly is the superior between the three of them? Paterno thus waited a couple of days later to tell them. Add in McQueary's delay in reporting to Paterno (never mind a 6'4" 230 former football player couldn't do more than close a locker in response to a boy being sodomized by someone in his late 50's.) on top of that. He was 25/26 at time but had to talk to his father before telling Paterno what he saw. A minor being sexually abused was not important enough to report right away for either McQueary or Paterno. Can't ruin anyone's weekend over a kid being allegedly (at that time it was still allegedly.) being sodomized. Sandusky was Paterno's expected replacement before he suddenly resigned. This happened soon after the original reported incident and completely out of the blue. His defense is the reason Penn St. was Penn St. It wasn't known as Linebacker U because of Paterno. Just look at Penn St's. record after he resigns. Does anyone really believe Paterno didn't know about the first incident? His best coach (and if I am not mistaken the longest serving under him. Someone Paterno coached when he played there.) suddenly resigns and he doesn't know why? Exactly, and if you take your last paragraph and put that first (where it fits chronologically), you have the Sandusky resignation occurring just a few years before the 2002 incident that McQueary witnessed. Naturally, Paterno already knew what was going on (even if he didn't understand how serious the ramifications were), and the whole PSU braintrust went with a cover-up plan to avoid a scandal. A braintrust led by Joe "I wish I had done more" Paterno, who thought that leading a pep rally on his front lawn amidst the first waves of the media storm was a good idea. Clearly he was the center of authority and power at PSU, but unfortunately, even in 2002, he was old and most probably operating with outdated sensibilities. Listen to how he attempted to refer to Sandusky's victims in this clip (from about 0:50 to 0:55): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JXoXdIJQ7I This, from an article I read back in November, sums it up well, I think: (Following a description of Paterno's unprecedented coaching longevity and great stamina despite his age, the author writes)… "In truth, age failed him off the field. Paterno failed to grasp the import of what graduate assistant Mike McQueary said to him in March 2002. Paterno, like many in his generation, failed to grasp that society no longer handled such indecencies behind closed doors. Society once referred to the crimes of which Sandusky is accused as unspeakable. Nothing goes unspoken any longer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts