Skip to comments.NCAA imposes stiff penalties on Penn State
Posted on 07/23/2012 8:24:17 AM PDT by Zakeet
click here to read article
He received his 'due process' in the report PSU ACCEPTED as legimate.
Actually he is #2.
Guess he doesn't consider Grambling to be a "Big School."
Sorry -- I copied if from a USA Today article. Unfortunately I am unable to copy segments of the Freeh report -- like the timeline. ww.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-11-10/jerry-sandusky-investigation-victim-1-cover/51160950/1
First off after the 2001 Sandusky engaged in improper conduct with at least two children in the Lash Building. Those assaults may well have been prevented if Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley had taken additional actions to safequard children on Unicersity facilties.
Show me the evidence that Paterno was in the loop with Curley, Schulz, and Spanier, and University Police Chief Harmon, and DA Ray Gricar at any time before the February 2001 McQuery incident???
I don't see it in the report.
Yet I have yet to see one specific fact regarding Paterno that is considered not facual.
They know that Paterno KNEW and did nothing to stop the abuse.
So, like liberal always do, they will nibble around the edges to discredit the report (some date will be wrong).
PSU ACCEPTED the report, which they authorized.
Until the Paterno family comes up with a counter report that shows tha Paterno knew NOTHING about what was going on, the report stands as a lasting condemnation of the selfish coward.
I think the Paterno family has as much intention of doing another report as OJ had in finding the 'real' killer
I suspect PSU accepted it because there is a lot more out there that wasn’t even covered in the report.
<>He received his ‘due process’ in the report PSU ACCEPTED as legimate.<>
You mean the report that the Board of Trustees paid $6 million for. The same Board that approved the Sandusky emeritus status and gave his charity The Second Mile a sweetheart real estate deal in 2001, but was cleared by the report of knowing anything more.
But it is not the last word, and it is subject to cross-examination:
True. Just like domestic violence, date rape, etc (while all horrible crimes), became a tactic used to ‘get back’ at people. There was the Dallas Cowboy player that got creamed before the accuser retracted and countless lesser known victims. This can definitely be used in the future.
Of course, as you said, the evidence here was clear and Paterno should have acted differently. They had first hand evidence...not mere accusations...but next time, who knows...it will be over-reacted to, just to avoid a similar fate.
What more was Paterno supposed to do???
You raise a good question that is applicable to each one. What would you do or not do if you were in the situation? What would I do, or what would anyone else do. We don’t know for sure but we do have some info as to what Paterno did.
Apparently Paterno didn’t persue the matter further and never was concerned about any future events with other children. We don’t know his reasoning but it would have been nice to hear his explaination.
If the DA won’t prosecute, then what can you do. This guy was probably running interference for Sandusky til 2005:
Where are Sharpton and those demonstrations when they are really needed???
I agree with you...
CYA was the name of this Institution...
Nowhere in this decades long episode was there any follow up, ie concern, for the children, By the years in 2000 decade, Sexual child abuse was pretty well known and Paterno surely knew about what the Catholic church was going through...Most high up officials , even middle management DON’T WANT TO KNOW.
Molesting kids was just not a big deal to these guys..but the “image” of the university, the protection of the football team bringing in millions of donations...now THAT was important.
For the 1998 Curley’s email to Schultz and Spanier that he has “touched base with” Paterno. Also days later Curley email to Shultz: “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands” Nothing in the report says what Paterno knew of the 1998 incident.
Plenty of evidence that Paterno was in the loop for the 2001 incident.
The board of trustees did not pony up their own money to pay for the report.
The report is also very harsh towards the board and the university as a whole including its counsel.
The conclusions of the report was that there was no over- sight at the school which allowed incidents to be swept under the rug. The board of directors never even discussed Sandusky until his indictment which was a whole year into the investigation.
“Standard personnel practices were ignored or undermined by the lack of centralized contrl over the human resources functions of various departments - most particularly, the Athletic Department”
Where is that email in the Freeh report??? It doesn't name Paterno, does it???
Also days later Curley email to Shultz: Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands
"Coach" is Sandusky. When referring to Paterno he used the word "Joe". You can better believe that Coach Sandusky would be anxious to know where the prosecution stands.
Nothing in the report says what Paterno knew of the 1998 incident.
Plenty of evidence that Paterno was in the loop for the 2001 incident.
He notified his superior which was standard procedure. Sandusky no longer worked for Paterno or Penn State. It's not like he concealed the matter from those whose job it was to act on the information -- the higher ups.
It was up to Harmon, Schultz, Curley and Spanier to do something -- and the Board of the Second Mile. AND what did DA Ray Gricar know about it and do about it??? He was the real ennabler. Did Freeh discuss his failure to prosecute as part of the ennabling process.???
And how would that have stopped Sandusky since he was no longer working for the University after his retirement in 2000. Most of his victims came while he was working for his charity The Second Mile.
I want to find out about Gricar as well. Harmon, Schultz, Curley and Spanier will have their day in court too. It appears from the report that they reported more to Paterno or at least certainly had no control over him.
As for Paterno, the Freeh report spells out his lack of action. I guess you are right. Paterno didn't do anything.
Where is the evidence for that?? Freeh never interviewed Spanier or Schultz, and he tortured one email to death to get it to change its meaning.
In fact the Clery Act states what Paterno should have done.
That chapter reads: The University's failure to implement the Clery Act -- not Paterno's failure. It wasn't his job to implement it.
As for Paterno, the Freeh report spells out his lack of action.
So which is it -- his action or lack of action. Was he busy running interference or was he not involved. Freeh needs to make up his mind.
As I scan through Freeh's timeline of significant events I see Curley, Spanier, Schultz, Harmon but little or no Paterno. Is he saying that Paterno was in the middle of this or should have insisted on being in the middle of this??? Freeh can't make up his mind. I think he's mad that he couldn't find more Paterno involvement than he did.
And since Spanier, Schultz, Harmon, and Curley knew of the 1998 incident and Paterno didn't, why would they even consult him about going to the authorities. It should have been a slam dunk for them -- unless there is something more going on here as with the DA in that county at the time.
Where in the report does he discuss Ray Gricar??? And if it is not in there don't you find that odd??? If Gricar had just indicted Sandusky back in 1998, he would have been outed and none of this happened. He would never have gotten to the second mile.
It's standard operating procedure in American management to bring up the accusations to the accused, even if obliquely, and give the accused the right of reply. (Part of it is to observe how the accused reacts to the accusations.) That's standard operating procedure period. A player is not an assistant coach, and an assistant coach is not a player. Sandusky was not Paterno's star player, he was Paterno's subordinate.
Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that Paterno brought the matter up to Sandusky. To assume the opposite is just too unreasonable given standard American bossing practice.
That leaves us one of two options:
1. Sandusky was a sociopath who showed the sociopath's notorious skill with conning people, including the boss. In this case, Paterno was one of his victims. It's even less reasonable to expect an athletic director to marshal the alertness and training required of police officers and jail guards, who are specifically trained to see through a sociopath's con maneuvers. If Sandusky's a sociopath, then an innocent man (Paterno) was hung.
2. Sandusky is not a sociopath, but yet another garden-variety (if particularly heinous) criminal. Non-sociopathic criminals exhibit "tells" that an ordinary person can pick up on. If Sandusky is not a sociopath, then Paterno should have spotted enough oddness to warrant a call for an outside investigator. Consequently: if Sandusly is not a sociopath, then Paterno deserved what he got.
Obviously, the sledgehammer of public opinion squares with #2.
With regard to your last question, there are such things as jealous stage-moms.
Anyways, discussing it in the abstract is as far as I want to go. Regardless of whether or not Sandusky is a true sociopath, he's a real monster responsible for some horrifying crimes. As I said, we all know how it turned out.
Yep, that's the safe way to bet. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I can see athletic directors' executive assistants giving their bosses copies of Snakes In Suits - and saying, "You'd better start thinking like a warden."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.