Posted on 11/10/2011 1:31:44 PM PST by Colofornian
Edited on 11/10/2011 1:42:30 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Folks, this is Joe Paterno's legacy.
E-mails jump into my inbox defending Paterno...
I won't remember what Paterno did, but what he didn't do. What he didn't do is what got him fired...
Firing Joe Paterno doesn't fix everything, but it's a great start.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No. I don't. Early on Monday I posted that the GJ documents are careful not to tell us what McQueary said he told Paterno.
In my profession, I read a document at least twice. Once to see what is in it, and once to see what is missing.
In this case, i noticed that the presentment and the findings are careful never to tell use what McQueary said he told Paterno. The are just as careful never to tell use whether Paterno knew about or so the 1998 'showering" investigation file.
IF this is your first post on hearsay, then please accept my sincere apology. i have you confused with somebody else who keeps saying that Paterno could not report this because it was (in their mind) hearsay. However, they obviously do not understand the definition of hearsay, and they ignore the Pennsylvania Statute requiring the reporting of second-hand reports of child molestation when a teacher or coach had knowledge of a creditable claim.
Again, my apology.
Look, it just takes a little time to even learn the story. I thought all this happened this weekend. The eye witness report to Paterno, who reported it to the VP and athletic director, I thought all that happened very recently, as in like this week. I get it now. This story broke in the middle of the week. We were getting pieces here and there, on the run, and that’s probably why some of us found ourselves on the wrong side of the issue for a time. Heck,
I just learned Paterno has hired a criminal attorney.
I didn’t know that back in January, 2011, Paterno spoke to the Grand Jury. Scoutmaster, thanks for the history on it for me and for others.
That’s great, and I don’t think anyone disagrees that JoePa had serious moral and ethical lapses by letting things continue unchallenged after 2002. Everyone is allowed from here forward to excoriate and write scathing polemics ad infinitum with pious indignation, high pontification, and extreme prejudice till they feel all warm and fuzzy inside and can walk away on the righteous high road.
But that’s not good enough for me dude. JoePa is gone. Fired. Disgraced, his reputation destroyed to the grave as the dirtiest SOB from all of Satan’s spawn. He’s probably open to a lawsuit but his butt is criminally covered. There isn’t more flesh we can really take from him. I’m not interested in moral indignation, I want justice and ALL those involved in this cover up jailed.
Mike Madden said long before his broke that this is a sex ring for the rich and powerful. If that is true the JoePa is a bit player in all this, and if we keep putting the spotlight on him so that we can feel all righteous, then the true evildoers are going to scurry away into the darkness TO CONTINUE THEIR EVIL FILTH.
Everyone needs to quit feeding off their emotions and think about the kids and the fact that they deserve to get the crimes against them avenged, as well as stopping future ones.
Because Paterno did nothing, Sandusky continued to rape, so Paterno is complicit in any more rapes committed by Sandusky.
Plus, until all the truth comes out or at least more of it, there is no knowing how far the homo child rape ring extended.
Two posts on responding to your comments: Post 1 -
Let's see. Where have I heard that accusation of essential self-righteous commentators? Oh, yeah...Scott Ostler -- the very journalist who wrote column upon which this thread is based:
He wrote: To Paterno's supporters, those of us who called for and then praised his firing are a braying mob of self-righteous haters using vague information to ruin a good man. I can live with that.
Glad to know you've joined -- in a strange sort of way -- the chorus of Penn State Paterno defenders hurling invectives of self-righteousness upon critics of the Penn State program.
In fact, thinking about Ostler's column overall...
...May I invite you to re-read that 5th graph from the end...but all of the last 5 graphs?...or perhaps you only looked @ the headline & lead graph...?
Here's the final 4 Ostler graphs after the one cited above:
Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?"
The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered.
But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided.
It's the same deal on the flip side. We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno.
Now why is this all relevant to your post?
Why? Because this columnist pointed out how Penn Staters confused the legal verdict ("due process") with the public verdict on Paterno's character -- and lack of it.
You've kind of done of same thing with your own excoriation of FREEPER posters.
This week on threads, we've largely been addressing the public sentiment. Most of us aren't a bunch of attorneys or legal cheerleaders!
And perhaps you underestimate such public sentiment. Do you or do you NOT recognize that at 46 career-years strong, Paterno had the most solid lock on dictating retirement terms of ANY coach in this country. He was a State College "god." As late as Tuesday, he thought even in the midst of this crisis that he could dictate terms to the Board of Trustees.
Do you know how much pressure had to be brought to bear to remind Paterno that "No, you're not in charge here!??"
As for the legal realities, come on, FV. They roll on ever so slowly. It's taken 3 YEARS of investigation just to get to this point re: Sandusky, Curley & Schultz! And that was after 6 YEARS of uncracked silence just to give them a proper investigative jumpstart!
And you somehow think that your rah-rah post is going to somehow speed along justice & vengeance for these kid-victims?
This is what the author wrote: "Even if McQueary, then a graduate assistant, gave Paterno only a vague description of the shower incident (and why in the world would Paterno not demand details?)..."
This is what I don't like about the article. The Grand Jury transcript says that Paterno reported to Curley that McQueary had seen Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." Why doesn't the author quote what the transcript actually said? The grand jury transcript proves that Paterno knew that a witness identified Sandusky as a molester of a very young minor.
I agree with the author's conclusions about Paterno (....the report should have raised in Paterno a reasonable suspicion that Sandusky was a dangerous criminal.), but he presented his evidence in a ham-fisted way, suggesting that what McQueary's father told Paterno may have been dubious. I had to read the grand jury transcript to find out what really happened.
The more these delusional Paterno fans shill for him, the more I suspect Paterno and his fans of being themselves pederasts.
Western Civilization is a result of the pagan culture of Greece and Rome constrained by Biblical morality. Downplay Biblical morality and you get pederasty such as was common practice in ancient Greece: Mentors were expected to sodomize their students. That’s where we’re going. Guaranteed.
Still...even with my previous critique to your last post...this part does make sense to some degree -- especially the highlighted part.
The Mark Madden route you mentioned provides a route where we hope to get to the bottom of all of this...I posted this thread on that this a.m.:
New Jerry Sandusky Rumor Threatens To Make Penn State Scandal Much Worse
And tried posting this one, too...only to realize someone else beat me to it: Jerry Sandusky Rumored to Have Been 'Pimping Out Young Boys to Rich Donors,' Says Mark Madden
Madden said on the radio Thursday a.m. that a few seasoned journalists were investigating that angle as he spoke. That's what it will take there: Investigative journalism coupled with criminal and civil investigators smoking all that out.
But legal cheerleaders and journalist cheerleaders isn't going to do much more good that what you critiqued us for in this post.
I suppose I could write something to the effect of using your almost-exact words below...changing only the underlined portions:
"Everyone is allowed from here forward to excoriate and write scathing polemics ad infinitum with pious indignation, high pontification, and extreme prejudice that they want 'justice and vengeance for the kids' till they feel all warm and fuzzy inside and can walk away on the righteous high road. But that’s not good enough for me dude...legal indignation about 'justice and veangeance isn't enough...if we keep putting the spotlight on Sandusky we might miss discerning a broader pedophile ring...plus we risk feel[ing] all street righteous once they're in jail and we're not..."
Anyway...my point is that I'm not sure how your posts really speed along the prosecutions -- just like you're not sure how our posts have sped along pressure upon the Board of Trustees to do what's "right" accountability-wise.
But please don't make the same mistake so many Penn State fans & some FREEPER posters make...the mistake I covered in post #101.
Essentially they engage in reverse telescoping by concluding the ONLY communication possible and worth recounting was the one McQueary had with Paterno that first Saturday, March 2002.
Yes, legally, that was the convo to highlight. But too many assume that the goal there was simply to protect Paterno's legal butt.
And what a sorry assumption that is. It totally undermines Free Vulcan's reminder for people to "think about the kids and the fact that they deserve to get the crimes against them avenged, as well as stopping future ones."
The 2002 and 2003 Paterno "goal" as it applied to these kid-victims SHOULD have been to protect those victims from future crimes and get them as much therapeutic help as possible!
Why little wonderment from the Paterno-ville crowd as to why...
...(a) Paterno didn't initiate additional convos with eyewitness McQueary to clarify what he saw that night?
...and (b) more importantly, why no directives from Boss Paterno to McQueary, who at some point became his underling as Wide Receivers coach, to go see authorities once they found out their admins stonewalled any investigation?
Why do I see journalists generically raise these questions, yet Paterno-ville residents/students seem locked in a time-warp going back to that ONE weekend in early March? What? No kids could have been "saved" by December '02? Or Jan 03? Or Feb 03? Or anytime '03?
And I'm afraid the sorry-ass answer to these last questions is because the REAL goal of Paterno's defenders is only to defend Paterno -- and NOT serve as advocates for these boy-victims!
If these boys have no voices, then I'm sure as heaven going to keep raising my voice on their behalf!!!
Apology accepted.
And if he didn't know something in this case, it's because he didn't want to know.
I interpret it that you can not stand up and answer the question like a man. You demean us for saying that Joe should not be coaching but you won't even state your position.
He at least told Joe that there was 'something sexual' going on in Joe's showers with Sandusky and a little boy at 9:30 at night. Are you implying that was 'no big deal' for Joe to be concerned about? Maybe in your world ...
Of course. Joe and the university had the power to keep the on-campus acts quiet!
But the GJ transcript does tell us that Paterno reported to the university that McQueary identified Sandusky as the man he saw committing a monstrous crime against a little boy. It's possible that Paterno knew more than that, but in my view, that in itself morally compelled Paterno to make sure somebody reported it to the police.
Sorry. Indiana DOC SPECIFCALLY lists them as an EXTERNAL agency.
As to your question about Paterno continuing to coach, I believe it would be less manly were I to hurry to answer your question simply because you demand it. You have no standing to ask.
Did you see Barry Switzer's interview? He said that all the coaches at PSU had to know. It was inconcievable that they wouldn't have known. And Barry is an old friend of Joe's.
As to your question about Paterno continuing to coach, I believe it would be less manly were I to hurry to answer your question simply because you demand it. You have no standing to ask.
You have no leg to stand on criticising others for wanting Joe out if you also think he should not be coaching.
You are implying that Paterno was not concerned about it.
It's starting to look like he was. He informed the people who were responsible for Sandusky who you can't quite seem to fathom did not report to Paterno; and it appears he got a report that they investigated and that THEY found it to be no big deal, although they put new restrictions on Sandusky regarding his use of the facilities.
These restrictions do appear to have kept Sandusky from using the facilities for molestation but for some strange reason you keep insisting otherwise.
You are babbling (as you've been for a while)
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.