Sandusky Investigation Findings

[Tim McG]

Oh c'mon.

Mass murdering despots are not even on par with the likes of a Joe Paterno.

[Mike Schwartz]

Missed point being that no purpose served by keeping a likeness of one of the persons responsible for allowing child rape to continue on the grounds of the same football facilities where incidents were witnessed happened.

I'd wager no actual direct comparisons to Lenin or Sadaam were intended other than statues of them were torn down & removed.

I'm just sayin'.....

[Pete C]

No, Mike. My point was that this is probably the tip of the iceberg and we're sure to discover, in time, that Paterno was also a dictator and a mass murderer.

[Mike Schwartz]

No, Mike. My point was that this is probably the tip of the iceberg and we're sure to discover, in time, that Paterno was also a dictator and a mass murderer.

Sorry tp have made that error in judgement

[Tim McG]

Um...Guys?

Sandusky was the pedophile.

Paterno was a part of the cover-up after the authorities dropped charges in 1998. To what degree, will be surely found out in the trials of Curley and Schultz.

Not the same thing as mass murdering scum as Pete alluded.

[Christiern]

"Not the same thing as mass murdering scum as Pete alluded." — GoodSpeak

Scum, nevertheless. The Paterno family's knee-jerk denial brings to mind the lyrics of an old song: "The music stopped, but we went on dancing...."

Either melt down or auction off the damn statue and give the proceeds to a cause that helps the victims of pedophilia.

[Larry Kart]

Um...Guys?

Sandusky was the pedophile.

Paterno was a part of the cover-up after the authorities dropped charges in 1998. To what degree, will be surely found out in the trials of Curley and Schultz.

Not the same thing as mass murdering scum as Pete alluded.

Dipping my toe into poisoned waters again, but Sandusky arguably was nuts to some significant degree, while Paterno and the other enablers didn't have that excuse (if excuse it is). They were -- seemingly cold-bloodly, rationally -- playing the game to their own personal and institutional advantage, probably thinking, "Don't bother me with this s---t, I've got a good thing going here." If I were Dante, they'd be in a lower circle of Hell than Sandusky.

[Dave James]

Apparently, Penn State officials have decided to remove the controversial Paterno statue. Also, the NCAA will rule tomorrow as to what size shoe they will be dropping on the school's football program. Maybe we're finally within hailing distance of closure on the public portion of this despicable episode.

[alankin]

The statue is gone.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/562702/Paterno-statue-removed.html?nav=746

[papsrus]

Goodspeak -- It's safe to say, I think, that Paterno would be tried as an accessory, so although he didn't commit the crimes himself, he is without doubt a party to them, and shares responsibility for them -- legally and morally. As Jim said, Paterno (among others) had the power to stop it all and chose not to.

The NCAA is talking about 'unprecedented sanctions.' Given that the school is hastily removing the Paterno statue today and the sanctions will be announced Monday morning, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the sanctions include stripping Paterno and the program of years worth of their treasured wins. Maybe 14 years worth. That would certainly send a clear message to the all-mighty athletic programs that run college campuses these days and remove what is perhaps most valued by Paterno defenders -- his victories.

It would essentially wipe out his life's work.

Edited July 22, 2012 by papsrus

[Blue Train]

Goodspeak -- It's safe to say, I think, that Paterno would be tried as an accessory, so although he didn't commit the crimes himself, he is without doubt a party to them, and shares responsibility for them -- legally and morally. As Jim said, Paterno (among others) had the power to stop it all and chose not to.

The NCAA is talking about 'unprecedented sanctions.' Given that the school is hastily removing the Paterno statue today and the sanctions will be announced Monday morning, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the sanctions include stripping Paterno and the program of years worth of their treasured wins. Maybe 14 years worth. That would certainly send a clear message to the all-mighty athletic programs that run college campuses these days and remove what is perhaps most valued by Paterno defenders -- his victories.

It would essentially wipe out his life's work.

He would have been looking at perjury, child endangerment and conspiracy at the very least.

It sound like the NCAA is going to lower the hammer in a way that the Death Penalty might have been preferable.

Of course, they're disregarding their own procedure to do it.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-levy-unprecedented-sanctions-penn-state-nittany-lions

[papsrus]

He would have been looking at perjury, child endangerment and conspiracy at the very least.

It sound like the NCAA is going to lower the hammer in a way that the Death Penalty might have been preferable.

Of course, they're disregarding their own procedure to do it.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-levy-unprecedented-sanctions-penn-state-nittany-lions

From the ESPN report:

"Emmert has been given full reign by the pansy presidents [at other universities] to make his own decision," said the (Penn State) trustee. ..."

Nice move. Lets start calling other people pansies. Very helpful. Good work, Mr. anonymous trustee.

[Tim McG]

Um...Guys?

Sandusky was the pedophile.

Paterno was a part of the cover-up after the authorities dropped charges in 1998. To what degree, will be surely found out in the trials of Curley and Schultz.

Not the same thing as mass murdering scum as Pete alluded.

Dipping my toe into poisoned waters again, but Sandusky arguably was nuts to some significant degree, while Paterno and the other enablers didn't have that excuse (if excuse it is). They were -- seemingly cold-bloodly, rationally -- playing the game to their own personal and institutional advantage, probably thinking, "Don't bother me with this s---t, I've got a good thing going here." If I were Dante, they'd be in a lower circle of Hell than Sandusky.

Where I completely understand the disgust with those who chose to turn a blind eye, there is nothing on this or any other planet worse than a Sandusky who victimizes innocent children. The enablers are one thing, but the actual act is far worse and more damaging to a kid who endures it day after endless day.

Hell would be too good a place for the likes of Sandusky.

Edited July 22, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Larry Kart]

Um...Guys?

Sandusky was the pedophile.

Paterno was a part of the cover-up after the authorities dropped charges in 1998. To what degree, will be surely found out in the trials of Curley and Schultz.

Not the same thing as mass murdering scum as Pete alluded.

Dipping my toe into poisoned waters again, but Sandusky arguably was nuts to some significant degree, while Paterno and the other enablers didn't have that excuse (if excuse it is). They were -- seemingly cold-bloodly, rationally -- playing the game to their own personal and institutional advantage, probably thinking, "Don't bother me with this s---t, I've got a good thing going here." If I were Dante, they'd be in a lower circle of Hell than Sandusky.

Where I completely understand the disgust with those who chose to turn a blind eye, there is nothing on this or any other planet worse than a Sandusky who victimizes innocent children. The enablers are one thing, but the actual act is far worse and more damaging to a kid who endures it day after endless day.

Hell would be too good a place for the likes of Sandusky.

I take your point about the direct damage done, but what about my point about the difference between deeds done as a result, arguably, of madness of some sort and deeds done coldbloodedy, in the service of "rational" self-interest? The former deeds, again arguably, the perpetrator could not really check himself because he did not see them as reprehensible but through some cracked lens that either turned black into white or because he took twisted satisfaction in the blackness. The latter deeds, however, could have been checked as readily as, say, a particular investment strategy could be, but the perpertators chose consciously and (so it would seem) coolly not to do that. They knew right from wrong and chose to do wrong, having carefully weighed the consequences (see some of the memos in the Freeh report). The Sanduskys of this world, I think, weigh only means of seduction/assault and means of evading detection; they are as little moral actors as rats would be.

[Tim McG]

Um...Guys?

Sandusky was the pedophile.

Paterno was a part of the cover-up after the authorities dropped charges in 1998. To what degree, will be surely found out in the trials of Curley and Schultz.

Not the same thing as mass murdering scum as Pete alluded.

Dipping my toe into poisoned waters again, but Sandusky arguably was nuts to some significant degree, while Paterno and the other enablers didn't have that excuse (if excuse it is). They were -- seemingly cold-bloodly, rationally -- playing the game to their own personal and institutional advantage, probably thinking, "Don't bother me with this s---t, I've got a good thing going here." If I were Dante, they'd be in a lower circle of Hell than Sandusky.

Where I completely understand the disgust with those who chose to turn a blind eye, there is nothing on this or any other planet worse than a Sandusky who victimizes innocent children. The enablers are one thing, but the actual act is far worse and more damaging to a kid who endures it day after endless day.

Hell would be too good a place for the likes of Sandusky.

I take your point about the direct damage done, but what about my point about the difference between deeds done as a result, arguably, of madness of some sort and deeds done coldbloodedy, in the service of "rational" self-interest? The former deeds, again arguably, the perpetrator could not really check himself because he did not see them as reprehensible but through some cracked lens that either turned black into white or because he took twisted satisfaction in the blackness. The latter deeds, however, could have been checked as readily as, say, a particular investment strategy could be, but the perpertators chose consciously and (so it would seem) coolly not to do that. They knew right from wrong and chose to do wrong, having carefully weighed the consequences (see some of the memos in the Freeh report). The Sanduskys of this world, I think, weigh only means of seduction/assault and means of evading detection; they are as little moral actors as rats would be.

Agreed.

Enablers should most certainly shoulder much of the blame in a child abuse case. However, and this is not meant to excuse that sort of cold, callous inaction, the ultimate decision to abuse a child lies directly at the feet of the perpetrator. Paterno played a role, but I honestly do think people are foisting far too much blame on his head than is realisticaly justified. IMHO, it would be comparable to blaming the gun for a bullet wound; somebody had to pull the trigger, yes? That is the one who should be vilified the most....whether or not they can help themselves is, in fact, open to debate. Sandusky knew right from wrong, too. Why else would he threaten his victims if they ratted him out?

It doesn't excuse enablers, but they are that for a variety of reasons and often, weighing the consequences isn't the controlling factor. More often, as we saw at Penn State, self-preservation is. In families it is even more embedded if not wholly heinous and wicked.

Bottom line is the kid suffers regardless.

Edited July 22, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Mike Schwartz]

I'd love to see the Paterno family go silent.

To me they muck up an already messy scene.

Vowing to make their own independent investigation, or proclaiming all the evidence is not in concerning Joe; reports of how devestated the widow is upon the removal of the statue and that it's removal doesn't benefit the victims.

The Paterno family issued a statement only hours later saying the statue's removal "does not serve the victims of Jerry Sandusky's horrible crimes or help heal the Penn State community."

"We believe the only way to help the victims is to uncover the full truth," said the family, which vowed its own investigation following the release of the Freeh report. The family called the report "the equivalent of an indictment -- a charging document written by a prosecutor -- and an incomplete and unofficial one at that."

ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Edited July 23, 2012 by Mike Schwartz

[Aggie87]

NCAA could fine Penn State as much as $60M as part of Sandusky sanctions

Initial indications are a penalty of $30-$60M!

[Tim McG]

Here is the NCAA final decision:

Penn State penalties

[Tim McG]

TBH, the only problem I have is with this:

"3) All wins from 1998-2011 will be vacated (111 wins). Joe Paterno is no longer major college football’s winningest."

What does that do? Besides punishing the student athletes and further besmirching the image of Paterno, how is this at all reasonable? You simply cannot erase history like that and pretend those 111 wins didn't happen. Totally unrelated to the crimes and, quite frankly, nothing less than just piling on which serves no other purpose than to be arbtrarily punitive.

Edited July 23, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[TedR]

I guess it's supposed to be symbolic but it is pretty ridiculous. Do the teams beaten byPenn State gain wins or are these games considered forfeits?

[Quincy]

By this point surely there have been match ups where both teams have been stripped of wins due to bad behavior. So the only right thing to do is strip the money away from the NCAA and give it back to the people who bought the tickets.

[ejp626]

By this point surely there have been match ups where both teams have been stripped of wins due to bad behavior. So the only right thing to do is strip the money away from the NCAA and give it back to the people who bought the tickets.

Just run an ad featuring this during the bowl season, and the NCAA's problems will be solved:

Paterno who?

Edited July 23, 2012 by ejp626

[GA Russell]

The family called the report "the equivalent of an indictment -- a charging document written by a prosecutor -- and an incomplete and unofficial one at that."

I agree. The evidence against everyone is very damning, but we haven't heard their sides of the story yet.

I would still like to learn more about what the local police knew, and if they failed to act.

[Tim McG]

I guess it's supposed to be symbolic but it is pretty ridiculous. Do the teams beaten byPenn State gain wins or are these games considered forfeits?

Good question.

And will the NCAA be demanding back any Bowl trophies and player rings as well?

It almost appears as if this was an afterthought.

Edited July 23, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Pete C]

Think of those wins as ill-gotten gains garnered while a conspiracy was underway by the officials, and therefore subject to symbolic "reimbursement" as partial punishment for those criminal acts. Since those acts were in contravention of the NCAA code, the wins are fair game, since no action could have been taken at the time of those wins due to lack of information.