Posted on 05/05/2016 5:35:10 PM PDT by dead
Joe Paterno was told as early as 1976 that former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had sexually molested young boys according to a new report.
A child apparently reported to Paterno that he was sexually abused by Sandusky in 1976. This came to light via a court order during a related insurance coverage case involving Penn State. The line in the court order says the following:
“in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”
The court order also cites references to incidents in 1987 and 1988 in which former assistant coaches observed “inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children” and another 1988 incident that was reported to Penn State’s athletic director at the time. All of the incidents are reportedly described in victims’ depositions that are currently under seal.
Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Co. is arguing that it should not have to reimburse Penn State for the more than $60 million it has made in Sandusky-related settlements.
Paterno and Penn State apologists have argued for years that the school and the coach knew nothing of Sandusky’s activities and that the community as a whole was deceived. But it is getting harder and harder to defend the coach and the school as more allegations come to light. There seem to have been dozens of chances along the way to stop Sandusky’s horrific actions if they had just been followed up on.
Paterno family attorney Wick Sollers responded to the latest news:
“Over the past four-and-a-half years Joe Paterno’s conduct has been scrutinized by an endless list of investigators and attorneys.
“Through all of this review there has never been any evidence of inappropriate conduct by Coach Paterno. To the contrary, the evidence clearly shows he shared information with his superiors as appropriate.
“An allegation now about an alleged event 40 years ago, as represented by a single line in a court document regarding an insurance issue, with no corroborating evidence, does not change the facts. Joe Paterno did not, at any time, cover up conduct by Jerry Sandusky.”
Penn State’s own hired independent investigator, Louis Freeh, found that Paterno and former Penn State president Graham Spanier were aware of the complaints against Sandusky starting in at least 1998. Spanier and two of his former aides have a criminal case pending in which they are accused of failing to report an allegation of abuse by Sandusky in 2001.
Lawrence Lokman, a spokesman for Penn State, claims the university is aware of the latest allegation and that the school will not respond to specific circumstances related to ongoing cases.
I thought they restored his win/loss record and he had no part in it?
The NCAA did restore his records. But evidence continues to mount that he covered up what was known about Sandusky to protect his football program.
Paterno not only enabled a child molester, he protected and procured boys for a child molester.
Paterno was scum.
But he told a security guard so that was enough. /s
FTR, I have nothing to do with the site or anything on it. I have nothing to do with Penn State, save once attending a football game there as a partisan of the visiting team.
ML/NJ
Terrible accusations. Provide proof or admit they're only your desired opinions.
Ray Gricar.
Just sayin’....
Ah yeah, sure, it's just a coincidence. Probably a made up thing. No relationship at all to what happened 20+ years later. Uh huh... (/sarcasm)
I used to look up to Paterno because my father-in-law used to play street ball with him when they were kids. So I paid close attention to the Sandusky scandal. I discovered an article, can’t remember which source at the moment, of someone who went over JoePa’s schedule with a fine tooth comb. JoePa never changed his schedule, and I mean very rarely. In the year that one of those kid’s mom’s accused Sandusky, JoePa stayed back from his family vacation. He missed a couple of days with his family. I may be wrong in the dates, but I think it was in 1998 or whenever it was that Sandusky was being investigated. This finding, about the change in JoePa’s schedule was not widely reported. I am convinced that JoePa knew what was going on, and did nothing to help those boys. He couldn’t risk the attention to his program, to his fame and fortune. He lost me as a supporter.
Penn St. alum here....nothing happened in the locker room without JoePa knowing about it. It requires the suspension of disbelief to think that Paterno didn't know what Sandusky was involved in.
Just sayin’....
Just saying what?
Nonsense.
Was Joe Pa also attracted to little boys and had no problems with Sandusky “lifestyle”??
At best he was an enabler.
At worst he was also an abuser.
Its reasonable that he’d not go on vacation while his coach was being investigated. He may have even been asked to stick around for questioning. In the end, the DA didn’t prosecute anyway. What was Paterno supposed to do, announce all that? And get the University sued for defamation?
No, at best it was done behind his back by someone he trusted and knew his regular schedule.
At worst, he was an axe murderer and bank robber and helped finance Muslim terrorism.
Jeez, let's just all fantasize, shall we?
A one-term Pennsylvania Governor deliberately stalled the investigation until he was safely in the Governor’s mansion.
He also “couldn’t risk the attention to his program, to his fame and fortune.”
How many boys were literally screwed up for life during those two years.
Do you know the meaning of the word "procured"?
Are you? Does anyone on this thread even comprehend what slander is? Paterno was a moral idol for decades and helped thousands of students. Why be so anxious to ignore that? There should rightly be a very high bar, requiring actual evidence, before that moral stature is rejected.
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.