Pennsylvania governor orders flags to be flown at half staff - agree or disagree

[Wadecool]

...and another excuse for Joe.

Not the last one by a long shot either...

 

[luvmy3]

Do you think like that? Honestly? How about, where there's smoke, there's fire. I understand you don't want to pass judgement before the facts come out and the trial is over but you seriously don't have any doubts that Joe and PSU knew after two previous investigations and his resignation in the same year he was voted Assistant Coach of the Year? Can't you see how suspicious it looks? I absolutely believe it was a cover up. I don't know if any money exchanged hands per se but I think there was a reason McQueary kept his mouth shut and got promoted up the ranks as far as he did. I hope McQueary is ruined and gets charged. He is a despicable human being.

Every last one of them involved in this is. Sickening that some of them get excused for their part

 

[WebmasterAlex]

You just have excuse after excuse for Paterno.


I was getting that from Joe's testimony where he stated...
So I don’t know whether I did it Saturday or did it early the next week.
I’m not sure when, but I did it within the week.

I just checked out the report you referred me to where the grand jury determined that he contacted Tim Curley the next day. Whether he waited one, two or three days is not the point. As another poster stated, a normal human being would have done something right away.
If you refer back to that same page 7 that you referred me to, you'd see that McQuery contacted Paterno the next morning after he witnessed the shower incident. But how many days he waited or not, again is not the point. The police should have been contacted immediately.


Once again, if you refer back to page 7 of the report that you referred me to... Paterno stated what he had been told by McQuery...
"the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

That would be graphic enough for me to contact law enforcement immediately. This was not an anonymous tip or third hand information. This was information direct from an assistant of mine who had seen this with his own eyes.

When asked by the grand jury if he knew of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys, Joe Paterno was not definitive with his answer...
I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.
You did mention — I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody.
I don’t know.
I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.


http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf
Grand Jury Report

Once again all you see is black and white. There is all the difference in the world between considering a complicated situation over night and waiting 3 days. Things are so clear in rear view mirror
You can't admit that it's even possible we don't know exactly what Joe knew and how he viewed it.

 

[joviroxx]

Once again all you see is black and white. There is all the difference in the world between considering a complicated situation over night and waiting 3 days. Things are so clear in rear view mirror
You can't admit that it's even possible we don't know exactly what Joe knew and how he viewed it.

For the sake argument, let's go with the "we don't know exactly what Joe knew". Even with this, I think it is a slap in the face and completely disrespectful to the victim's and their families. They are struggling with something most of us cannot even imagine, knowing that this "Fine PSU" institution could have done something to stop it. With that in mind, I would think that those that want to honor Joe Paterno could have some kind of sensitivity and realize that flying a flag half-mast for someone with all of this hanging overhead is really showing disregard for these folks.

You can't say for sure that Joe Paterno DIDN'T know anything. With this in mind, celebration as a hero should be put on the backburner.

 

[Wadecool]

Once again all you see is black and white. There is all the difference in the world between considering a complicated situation over night and waiting 3 days. Things are so clear in rear view mirror
You can't admit that it's even possible we don't know exactly what Joe knew and how he viewed it.

We know that when he was told about kids being abused, Joe decided to wait to report it because "he didn't want to interfere with anyone's weekends." That much is clear and says a lot about how seriously Joe took the situation.

 

[luvmy3]

Once again all you see is black and white. There is all the difference in the world between considering a complicated situation over night and waiting 3 days. Things are so clear in rear view mirror
You can't admit that it's even possible we don't know exactly what Joe knew and how he viewed it.

He testified what he was told, it doesn't matter what he "knew" or how he "viewed it", he was told that a man was fondling a boy in the shower. IT IS black and white, there is no grey area here.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

He testified what he was told, it doesn't matter what he "knew" or how he "viewed it", he was told that a man was fondling a boy in the shower. IT IS black and white, there is no grey area here.

ITA.

What, exactly, is grey about the fact that he was told that Sandusky was sexually molesting a child in the shower? Paterno flat out says he was told that. Where's the grey? His responsibility at that point was to make sure it was stopped. He didn't do that. No grey there either.

The only grey is the wash Paternlovers try to paint over it.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

More spin...more spin....more spin

I'm amazed that certain people on here aren't suffering from motion sickness...they're doing more spinning than the teaups on fast forward!

When someone comes to me and says he saw a boy being molested by a man in the showers of my locker room? For a normal human being, yes! lol

Am I living on a different planet or something?

I think Pennsylvania is the different planet to be honest! I have no affiliation to any american College and live in the UK and I just cannot believe how anyone can make excuses for any of the protagonists in this sorry affair. I work with at risk kids and many of them just wanted someone to beleive them and do something about it...Paterno is as culpable as any of the other people in this. I don't give a rats patootie if he built the damn school personally brick by brick, he did not do enough to help those poor kids and under no circumstances should he be given any accolades!

Once again, if you refer back to page 7 of the report that you referred me to... Paterno stated what he had been told by McQuery...
"the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

That would be graphic enough for me to contact law enforcement immediately. This was not an anonymous tip or third hand information. This was information direct from an assistant of mine who had seen this with his own eyes.



http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf
Grand Jury Report

Spot on...In Paterno's OWN WORDS he was told someone had been fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy
A normal human being with a concience would ring the police...straight away, not a few days later and would not rest until the perpetrator was brought to justice. SEVEN years later it all comes out and he admits he knew about it...I hope the boys who suffered abuse by Sandusky between 2002 and 2009 do a demo outsided Paterno's funeral!!!

He testified what he was told, it doesn't matter what he "knew" or how he "viewed it", he was told that a man was fondling a boy in the shower. IT IS black and white, there is no grey area here.

Exactly...what shades of grey are there? He knew about it and did not follow up why Sandusky was still using the facilities and working with young boys...what shades of grey? Seriously?!!!!

 

[WebmasterAlex]

The part nobody is ever going to agree on is summed up nicely by the only reporter to interview Joe after he was fired:

That's the crucial question -- do you believe Paterno when he says he had no experience with the topic of child molestation and didn't handle it well because of shock, or distaste? Or do you say, nobody is that naive? Paterno is 85, and he was 75 at the time that Mike McQueary came to him and said he saw Jerry Sandusky doing something to a boy a shower. McQueary has testifed that he was purposefully vague with Paterno, out of deference to his age and generation. He said, "You don't talk about those things with Joe Paterno." That leaves open the question of whether Paterno understood the seriousness of what he heard and after his reported it to his superuors, simply turned a blind eye as a form of coverup, or didn't follow up because he was uncertain of his ground and didn't want to be seen as interfering. I don't think the story solved that one. Paterno insists on the latter interpretation.

and

That's not my understanding. Paterno is adamant that he had no knowledge of any previous report concerning Sandusky. He claims total ignorance of a 1998 police investigation of another shower incident that resulted in the local prosecutor decling to bring charges. I asked Paterno, "You never heard anything about that?" He said he had "no inkling" of it. I then followed up and pressed him on it, and asked how could he not have heard "a whisper," or a "rumor?" He said, "everybody thinks it was all over the (football) building. It wasn't. Nobody knew." As for the 2002 report from McQueary, my understanding is that if Paterno didn't have information, it's because he simply never asked. Which obviously many people interpret to mean he didn't WANT to know.

and

This to me was the most provocative quote in the whole piece, and how you feel about it determines your view of Paterno. If there is one questi0n I wish I had followed up better, it's that one. Your feeling on his reply goes one of two ways: you either buy it or you don't. You either accept his portrait of himself as an old-world gentleman who couldn't cope with the issue, because he couldn't envision or address man-boy sexual assault, or you say, 'No one is that naive, no matter what generation they are from.'" I've gotten hundreds of responses from readers and they are split right down the middle on this one. Some find it totally plausible, others don't. I bought it in the instant when he said it, as his tone when he said it was actually agitated and seemed sincere. I have a father Paterno's age who is pretty profane, and he recoils from this subject too. But when I listened to the transcript latter, I certainly wished I had followed up. Instead I was focused on all the other questions I needed to ask him, too focused on my list instead of on what he was actually saying.

and

I agree that Paterno didn't say anything that broke news or was explosive in the interview. I was disappointed that his answers to the hard questions lacked...edge. However I do think he said some revealing things, if you look at his answers to the most important questions. "I backed away," is a pretty powerful admission. And of course the notion that he somehow didn't understand what McQueary was telling him because he is too quaintly old world is a highly controversial claim that has generated a lot of discussion. So I think the interview was worthwhile. And then there is the simple fact that Paterno hadn't spoken prior to this. On whether he's lying: the grand jury didn't indict him for perjury as it did Curley and Schultz. And there has been nothing from the Attorney General's office to indicate they think Paterno has been anything but forthcoming and cooperative with them. So journalistically, you have to respect those two things. As for my own feeling, I found Paterno's responses to some questions very persuasive and genuine, at other times he seem sort of rote. I think the readers can discern those for themselves, which is why I quoted him so liberally.


All of that came from a q and a here:
http://live.washingtonpost.com/joe-paterno-speaks-to-sally-jenkins.html

 

[mvazul]

http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/2011/11/strong-defense-of-joe-paterno-why.html

And for those who don't want to click on the link...


"In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback."

 

[Wadecool]

Paterno is adamant that he had no knowledge of any previous report concerning Sandusky. He claims total ignorance of a 1998 police investigation of another shower incident that resulted in the local prosecutor decling to bring charges. I asked Paterno, "You never heard anything about that?" He said he had "no inkling" of it. I then followed up and pressed him on it, and asked how could he not have heard "a whisper," or a "rumor?" He said, "everybody thinks it was all over the (football) building. It wasn't. Nobody knew." As for the 2002 report from McQueary, my understanding is that if Paterno didn't have information, it's because he simply never asked. Which obviously many people interpret to mean he didn't WANT to know.

So, we should believe that the man who was at Penn State for 61 years, the man who had his finger on every single detail having to do with that football program, had "no inkling" of something going on with Sandusky? Give me a break. I can understand how the JoePa faithful desperately need to believe that to keep their universe from imploding, but it is naive to say the least.

 

[Geoff_M]

The part nobody is ever going to agree on is summed up nicely by the only reporter to interview Joe after he was fired:

I agree that that pretty much sums it up. I (and I sense you too) entered this fray not because I'm a "Paternlover" (as one DISer so nicely put it) but because of the many highly inflammatory comments that lack foundation being thrown around here. These comments include that Paterno was "a man that condoned child rape", someone who "turn(ed) a blind eye to boys being raped", was a "a pathetic old man with no moral values and character", was "a despicable human", and was being "excused." The problem, as you've attempted to point out, is that in order to make many of these claims you have to able to assign motive to Paterno's actions (and subsequent inactions). The problem is that outside of the limited insight offered in Paterno's testimony, there's a lot of questions left unanswered... but many people have no problems projecting their own suspicions as "fact"... but that doesn't make them so, nor does it mean that when people call those projections into question that it's "spinning".

It's also worth noting that in re-reading this thread, I can find at most two people that thinks that Paterno's response to the report brought to him and lack of curiosity after the fact was completely appropriate. As I previously pointed out, even Paterno agreed that he didn't do enough. And while I am saddened and bewildered that he morally failed to take actions that would have prevented future acts of Sandusky, I'm not trying to pretend to understand all that was going through both Paterno's head and heart.

 

[Geoff_M]

So, we should believe that the man who was at Penn State for 61 years, the man who had his finger on every single detail having to do with that football program, had "no inkling" of something going on with Sandusky? Give me a break. I can understand how the JoePa faithful desperately need to believe that to keep their universe from imploding, but it is naive to say the least.

Setting aside the fact that Sandusky wasn't associated with the football program at the time, I think your assumption of an "all-knowing" coach may be a bit off. From the NYT piece I posted on page 6:

Paterno was not perfect. His players, especially for a stretch in the last decade, had too many brushes with the law. E-mails emerged in the wake of the Sandusky scandal that showed how Paterno attempted to bully and manipulate administrators. He had a short temper, cursed frequently and remained the team’s coach for far too long. In his final few years, he had little effect on the day-to-day machinations of the program. Paterno did not work nearly as hard at recruiting as many of his competitors, especially in his later years, but Penn State administrators, knowing what he had accomplished and built, swallowed hard and settled for having a living icon on the sideline.

 

[Wadecool]

I'm amazed that certain people on here aren't suffering from motion sickness...they're doing more spinning than the teaups on fast forward!



I think Pennsylvania is the different planet to be honest! I have no affiliation to any american College and live in the UK and I just cannot believe how anyone can make excuses for any of the protagonists in this sorry affair. I work with at risk kids and many of them just wanted someone to beleive them and do something about it...Paterno is as culpable as any of the other people in this. I don't give a rats patootie if he built the damn school personally brick by brick, he did not do enough to help those poor kids and under no circumstances should he be given any accolades!



Spot on...In Paterno's OWN WORDS he was told someone had been fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy
A normal human being with a concience would ring the police...straight away, not a few days later and would not rest until the perpetrator was brought to justice. SEVEN years later it all comes out and he admits he knew about it...I hope the boys who suffered abuse by Sandusky between 2002 and 2009 do a demo outsided Paterno's funeral!!!

But, we aren't talking about a normal human being here. According to some, he was a saint, not someone who looked the other way while children were being abused under his nose.

 

[declansdad]

http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/2011/11/strong-defense-of-joe-paterno-why.html

That is an excellent arguement to show that Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation but moral obligations, not even close. As for the fear of a libel lawsuit, it isn't lible if it is true.

 

[Geoff_M]

That is an excellent arguement to show that Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation but moral obligations, not even close. As for the fear of a libel lawsuit, it isn't lible if it is true.

The lawyer's argument also presupposes that the superiors do their jobs and not "sit" on the information as the Grand Jury concluded.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

I'm sorry, which was he "Joe Paterno the Wonderful Leader" or "Joe Paterno 75 year old Feeb that can't stomache the disgusting thought that one of his guys is raping children in the showers so he pretends it isn't happening"?

Old world gentleman, holy smokes, can you hear yourselves? What a load.

Either way, he dropped the ball, he fumbled, heck he walked off the field in the middle of a play and let the other team score a touchdown, or twenty.

It doesn't take a Monday Morning Quarterback to see that he put blinders on and let the other team run the game.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

What the lawyer and the reporter's quotes both show it that reasonable intelligent people can and will disagree on this. Trying to bully the other side with bombastic pronouncement usually makes the poster feel good but doesn't really accomplish anything.
I mean seriously? You have a person who sat down with the man and interviewed him and a professor of law and yet somehow you know better!

 

[Wadecool]

I'm sorry, which was he "Joe Paterno the Wonderful Leader" or "Joe Paterno 75 year old Feeb that can't stomache the disgusting thought that one of his guys is raping children in the showers so he pretends it isn't happening"?

Old world gentleman, holy smokes, can you hear yourselves? What a load.

The answer to your question seems to be evolving, doesn't it?

 

[luvmy3]

As a mother of two sons I am disheartened that people, including JP, knew that a boy was being molested and not one of them went above and beyond "their legal responsibility" to do something to make sure it never happened again, or to anyone else. Nobody cared about that boy enough. They passed the buck of responsibilty and then washed their hands of it like it never happened. Sandusky didn't disappear after that, and he still had contact with kids, which was done in public. They knew he fondled at the very least one boy, and they continued to sit around and watch as he spent more time with other kid, like when he brought one of his victims to pre-season Penn State football practices in 2007.

As a sexual abuse victim I am sickened that JP's inaction is excused, because he was an old man and may not have understood what was happening, or because he told the VP of Finance and Business. I don't care what generation you are from, when you are told a boy is being molested by a grown man, you know its wrong, period. You tell the PROPER authorities, the ones with the badges. When you see the monster spending time with 11/12 year old boys, you start asking questions to the VP of Finance and Business because you thought he was going to take care of it when you told him back in 2002.
How can anyone that knew what Sandusky did not even try to make sure the same thing wasn't still going on?

As a human I am appauled that he is regarded as a hero or a great man. Regardless of what he did for Penn State and its students, when being a hero or a great man didn't benefit him, he didn't bother to try to be one, just passing that buck onto someone else.

I don't really have anything to else to say except, AFAIC, all the men who knew something was going on and didn't do anything other than discuss it among themselves, are despicable human beings. JP doesn't get a pass because he was old, or lower on the chain of command. He doesn't get a pass because he was a great FB coach, donated money and had libraries built.
When it really counted, he showed himself to be a coward, and a man without moral character, and I hope that when he met his maker, that is exactly what he was judged on.