Posted on 07/23/2012 8:24:17 AM PDT by Zakeet
If that's is how Penn State dealt with reports of sexual misconduct, then no wonder there are so many employees there -- 2500 at last count.
It appears that Penn State had a culture of fear as reported by the janitors employed there, created by Paterno.
Too bad they didn't report it. They too might have gotten raises and new jobs to keep the shower incident in house as well.
Who is saying that the Trustess are not accountable as well for allowing Paterno unlimited power?
So who had the power???
They couldn't even get him to resign.
Did he control the budgets, personnel, curriculum of the different departments -- or just the football program??? He like any football coach ran the only program at the school that made a profit and paid for all the other sports programs. In that respect -- yes.
They couldn't even get him to resign.
If he was so powerful then how did President Spanier think he could force his resignation. He mustn't have thought he was that powerful if he tried to get him to resign.
It appears that Penn State had a culture of fear as reported by the janitors employed there, created by Paterno.
Too bad they didn't report it. They too might have gotten raises and new jobs to keep the shower incident in house as well.
Maybe. But they didn't. Remember McQuery had to meet in a secret location off campus with the investigators. Penn State appears to be a strange place, kind of cult like.
Happy Valley is fairly secluded, especially in winter. The Penn State football program kept a tight control on who they gave press credentials out to, any negative press would result in their press credentials getting pulled. Not many other schools could have exerted that kind of control over the media.
<>This is how Joe Paterno dealt with the problem this one time. That is enough right there.<>
The argument here could go either way.
What would it have said if Paterno had fired him — a week — a month — a year later??? Would that be proof of a cover-up??? Why not use your contacts and get him a coaching job far away in the Pac 10 where the shower and the incident would be a distant memory???
Why would someone interested in a coverup want to keep a witness to this around at all where he would tell of this incident to those he rubbed shoulders with — players, coaches, graduates, janitors??? Why keep him around where investigators would have easy access to him.
Did it ever occur to you that he kept him around so that he would be available to university and law enforcement authorities to interview.
And MM did tell the Grand Jury that no one at the university ever told him to keep his mouth shut. And remember he already told his father.
<>It appears that Penn State had a culture of fear as reported by the janitors employed there, created by Paterno.<>
The janitors did not report to Paterno. They answered to the facilities manager who could assign them to any one of 200 buildings at the university. Had the janitor reported the incident to his superior, the facilities manager, it would have taken a different route to the top altogether and there would have been two eyewitnesses against Sandusky. These janitors failed to follow the same procedure that MM followed. This says more about the janitors than anyone else for failing to report an incident to their superior. Their excuse falls short.
What would it have said if Paterno had fired him — a week — a month — a year later??? Would that be proof of a cover-up??? Why not use your contacts and get him a coaching job far away in the Pac 10 where the shower and the incident would be a distant memory???
Why would someone interested in a coverup want to keep a witness to this around at all where he would tell of this incident to those he rubbed shoulders with — players, coaches, graduates, janitors??? Why keep him around where investigators would have easy access to him.
The janitors did not report to Paterno. They answered to the facilities manager who could assign them to any one of 200 buildings at the university. Had the janitor reported the incident to his superior, the facilities manager, it would have taken a different route to the top altogether and there would have been two eyewitnesses against Sandusky. These janitors failed to follow the same procedure that MM followed. This says more about the janitors than anyone else for failing to report an incident to their superior. Their excuse falls short.
Paterno fired people and got people fired. The janitors should have stopped the attack, reported the incident and called police. There is no excuse for what they did as there is no excuse for McQuerry. There is no excuse for Paterno, Spanier, Curley or Schultz either.
Did you know that the jury acquitted Sandusky of any criminal action in the incident that McQueary reported to Paterno. This incident around which there was supposedly this great coverup was found by the jury to be a non-incident.
http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=215
Is it true that there is a note in the Freeh Report from Paterno to Sandusky telling him not to bring The Second Mile kids to the football facilities anymore???
http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=215
Before writing anymore theories you should read-up on Occam's razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The Freeh Report has this statement written about five times “No record or communication indicates that anyone made any effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child had been harmed.”
No -- the problem for this shower victim's lawyers in the civil trial will be whose testimony to affirm in this incident: Paterno's saying something of a sexual nature did occur according to McQueary which was set aside by the jury or McQueary's doctor saying that he reported that it wasn't sexual which was relied upon by the jury.
That jury decision presents a problem for Freeh's Report that he conveniently avoided. And it will present a problem for any prosecution of Curry, et al because McQueary will get torn apart on the stand.
The Freeh Report has this statement written about five times “No record or communication indicates that anyone made any effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child had been harmed.”
That's not exactly true. Since the boy was from The Second Mile, they notified the Second Mile of the incident. What did the Second Mile do with the information??? Did Freeh follow that trail???
That jury decision presents a problem for Freeh’s Report that he conveniently avoided. And it will present a problem for any prosecution of Curry, et al because McQueary will get torn apart on the stand.
McQueary already testified once, and his testimony wasn't “torn apart”. I hope the shower victim wins and gets everything he deserves. And when he does win the civil trial and even more evidence emerges Penn State will look even worse. These children were mostly all attacked at Penn State. There were two more boys attacked in Penn States showers in 2001, after this incedent was swepped under the rug.
That's not exactly true. Since the boy was from The Second Mile, they notified the Second Mile of the incident. What did the Second Mile do with the information??? Did Freeh follow that trail???
Paterno et al never wanted to know the identity of the child.
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.