Posted on 02/05/2013 6:24:16 PM PST by FlJoePa
There are no excuses for the reprehensible conduct of the most powerful people at PSU. Why do you defend them?
I wanna know what mm told Joe. According to Franco (who asked MM), it was so watered down he might as well not even tell him.
Years later, MM gets confronted and changes his tune.
Joe didn’t know about any sexual abuse - ask Posnanski who basically lived with him the last 1.5 years of his life. Even Posnanski couldn’t call out Joe. He tried, but realized - and wrote in his book - that if Joe knew anything like that was going on, he’d have walked to the police station without question.
IMHO, Curely was Paterno's immediate superior in the same manner a Second Lieutenant outranks a Sergeant Major. There are wire diagram organization charts, and then there is reality.
Missing from what?
http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/sports/bob-smiziks-blog/33662-freeh-report-condemns-paterno
A special investigator today condemned Penn State University leadership for what he called "the total disregard for the safety and welfare" of children who were sexually abused by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
"The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized," investigator Louis Freeh said in remarks prepared for a 10 a.m. news conference.
In his 267-page report, he named names.
"Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University -- President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno -- failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade," according to the report. "These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001.
To claim he didn't know anything takes a lot of looking away. A lot. At best he was too busy to follow up, too incurious to stop at a time he should have to think about what was going on. That's at best.
I love your new coach, I love what your team did this year, I cheered for them every time I saw what they were doing. It was grace under pressure, the best that sport brings.
I'm afraid I can't say that about Joe, Occam's Razor is just too sharp and obvious concerning what he did and didn't do.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for being civil.
That’s unfair Joe. JVP was once the AD for a few years and didn’t much like it. He had to cut funding to non-rev sports and had to raise ticket prices for everything - this was in the early 80’s.
He couldn’t get out of there fast enough.
People don’t seem to realize that while he was a lot of things to a lot of people - to himself he was a football coach. That’s where his focus was.
How many times have you heard people say, “I just don’t want to get involved.”
Is it possible that Paterno was one of these types of people?
I know several people like this. You mention a problem to them and they don’t want to deal with it or they ignore it. There is something in their human nature that makes them like this. They don’t even see the problem. It doesn’t even register. Plus they have the ability to move on to other things as though the problem doesn’t exist. In Paterno’s case you’re dealing with an elderly man who’s got the whole football program on his shoulders. I think he knew Sandusky was a problem, but he was incapable of dealing with it.
Let’s see what the Letterman’s suit, then Sue’s katie interview, then the family lawsuit, then hopefully the spanier/schultz/curley trial preliminaries (if they happen) bring.
Also there is the new (D) AG Kane investigating the current (R) Gov Corbett on his handling of this. Then there is the movie - which they should hold off on because I firmly believe we haven’t reached halftime of this sad story.
Curley may have clearly been the organizational superior, but in terms of raw horsepower, when it came to alumni activities, community relations, fundraising, etc. Joe was clearly the BMOC.
I'm not one to say Joe was actively in on any cover-up; I don't think there's any solid evidence to support that. And while from a technical and legal standpoint, he may have checked the blocks he needed to cover himself, I would contend that morally and ethically, he was negligent.
If your the big kahuna, and one of your assistants comes to your house on a weekend, it's got to be something serious. I can't imagine one of my subordinates coming to my house on a weekend and himming and hawing with some soft, non-specific allegations. If it's something that, "might kind of sort of look like it could possibly be suspicious," then that could probably wait 'til Monday. If it was worth disrupting Joe on a weekend (outside of football season), then I would think McQueary had some very serious concerns, and would hope Joe would have had the presence of mind to press McQueary until he got some specifics as to what McQueary thought was important enough to disrupt Joe's Sunday. As I asked at the time, suppose McQueary had been working late and thought he heard what might have been somebody vandalizing Joe's office; do you think he'd have scampered off, called his dad, and met with Joe the next day to discuss what he might have thought was going on? I would think in that hypothetical, McQueary would have called the campus police immediately, and if he hadn't, Joe would have been pretty pissed at him for not having done so.
Finally, I would think somebody in Joe's position, with his years of experience would understand that an action passed is not an action complete. For years I'm sure he expected his placekickers to charge downfield with the rest of the team after a kickoff, and not just kick the ball and walk to the sidelines saying, "I did what I'm supposed to."
I wanna know what mm told Joe. Maybe Sue can shed some light on that.
Schultz wasn't the head of the campus police. Thomas Harmon was the head of the campus police.
Schultz was the Senior Vice President of Business & Finance. The head of campus police, Thomas Harmon, reported to Schultz on a org chart, as did the heads of seven other departments, such as facilities, human resources, and internal audit. Harmon and the Campus police were never informed of the 2001 incident by Schultz, Curley, McQueary, or Paterno.
That seems legit.
Instead, let’s give the “alleged” boogerer a seat at the head table next to his cabana boy during the team dinner and let them share a room at the the bowl hotel.
There are no excuses for the reprehensible conduct of the most powerful people in Pennsylvania state government, the Department of Public Safety, and the 2nd Mile Charity. Why don’t you accuse them?
You forgot pass/fail. No wonder you don't want to take the test.
Mindless Paterno haters exhibit the liberal mindset that Limbaugh mocks daily: It's the seriousness of the charge that makes him guilty -- the absence of facts to make that charge be damned.
So then what are you doing about Sandy Hook??? Are you beating the door of the police department, the news media, the FBI??? Hmmmmm???
Knee jerk defensiveness to a coach's actions, one you obviously admire, particularly in this case don't help.
Not at all.
I wasn't going to get into this, but you might want to listen: What if he did let this slide for the good of the program as the Freeh report implies? What if he did participate in trying to bury this? Quite frankly, that's the probability, not your knee jerk reactions. Have you even considered that as a possibility?
Obviously not. Because....YOU ARE........PENN STATE!!!
What a waste of boosterism.
Looking for reasons to absolve Paterno for (minimally) an obvious lack of judgment at a critical time in his life doesn't seem like the best way to approach this.
Best of luck, if some amazing fact comes in to absolve him, that would be great for Penn State. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
It's quite appropriate in light of your inability to present any facts for your charge -- oh that's right. Your charge is so serious that no evidence need to be presented.
Knee jerk defensiveness to a coach's actions, one you obviously admire
and you would be wrong.
What if he did let this slide for the good of the program as the Freeh report implies?
Is Freeh a mind reader??? Since when??? and how is reporting it to his superiors the following day "letting it slide" and then that followed up with action by his superiors.
Have you even read the Freeh report to see how shallow it is/was???
YOU ARE........PENN STATE!!!
And you would be wrong again.
Your problem is as Rush Limbaugh says all the time. Because of the seriousness of the charge, he's automatically guilty of the charge -- the evidence to the contrary be damned.
Nonsense.
Best of luck in the defense of the indefensible. Fwiw, you're not even very good at it.
Oh, and Jim Tressel, Pete Carroll, John Calipari and others were entirely clean according to their boosters as well........
Best of luck, get a life.
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.