|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Jun 6, 2017 16:51:42 GMT -5
It must be a gift to see things so easily as being black and white... Not really. I'm a gray, see both sides, scales type of gal. I wasn't trying to tar and feather JoePa and I know there are a ton of layers there. But under the ever evolving sexual predator paradigm he may have come under more scrutiny if he was still alive. All 3 of his bosses were just sentenced to some jail time. Why is it so out of bounds to speculate that he may have received a greater degree of scrutiny based on the part he played?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 17:39:17 GMT -5
It must be a gift to see things so easily as being black and white... Not really. I'm a gray, see both sides, scales type of gal. I wasn't trying to tar and feather JoePa and I know there are a ton of layers there. But under the ever evolving sexual predator paradigm he may have come under more scrutiny if he was still alive. All 3 of his bosses were just sentenced to some jail time. Why is it so out of bounds to speculate that he may have received a greater degree of scrutiny based on the part he played? Why? Because JoePa hated Sandusky and his backstabbing and had asked for him to be removed from campus and not allowed back many times? After Sandusky found out that Joe was never going to let him take over and he was done, things deteriorated and Joe wanted him off campus permanently. Administrators are the ones that stopped that. When McQueary reported the incident to Joe, Mike did not feel comfortable telling Joe explicitly what he saw. Instead, he presented it in a number of nuanced ways that Mike thought made it clear, but many who know both do not think it was clear at all to Joe. Regardless, Joe went to his superior (which is what he is required to do and insisted they do something). Joe was not allowed to be part of the decision (and it was well recorded that Joe had asked for Sandusky to be not allowed access to the school facilities) They brought McQueary in and Mike told them EVERYTHING. That is why those guys are prosecuted. There is a lot of grey in this terrible story but many people feel strongly that Joe had bad feelings about Jerry but did not know about the molestations. If you had spent more than a day with him, you would fall into this camp as well. There is no way JoePa would cover for Jerry (nor anyone else) but most especially Jerry Sandusky.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 6, 2017 17:47:27 GMT -5
The Joe Paterno story has way too many layers for this kind of implication. He wasn't a Saint (no person is) - but this characterization isn't very accurate. Death saved this man from jail.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 6, 2017 18:16:37 GMT -5
Not really. I'm a gray, see both sides, scales type of gal. I wasn't trying to tar and feather JoePa and I know there are a ton of layers there. But under the ever evolving sexual predator paradigm he may have come under more scrutiny if he was still alive. All 3 of his bosses were just sentenced to some jail time. Why is it so out of bounds to speculate that he may have received a greater degree of scrutiny based on the part he played? Why? Because JoePa hated Sandusky and his backstabbing and had asked for him to be removed from campus and not allowed back many times? After Sandusky found out that Joe was never going to let him take over and he was done, things deteriorated and Joe wanted him off campus permanently. Administrators are the ones that stopped that. When McQueary reported the incident to Joe, Mike did not feel comfortable telling Joe explicitly what he saw. Instead, he presented it in a number of nuanced ways that Mike thought made it clear, but many who know both do not think it was clear at all to Joe. Regardless, Joe went to his superior (which is what he is required to do and insisted they do something). Joe was not allowed to be part of the decision (and it was well recorded that Joe had asked for Sandusky to be not allowed access to the school facilities) They brought McQueary in and Mike told them EVERYTHING. That is why those guys are prosecuted. There is a lot of grey in this terrible story but many people feel strongly that Joe had bad feelings about Jerry but did not know about the molestations. If you had spent more than a day with him, you would fall into this camp as well. There is no way JoePa would cover for Jerry (nor anyone else) but most especially Jerry Sandusky. Kind of sounds like rewriting history here, particularly if you don't provide sources for your claims.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Jun 6, 2017 19:17:30 GMT -5
Not really. I'm a gray, see both sides, scales type of gal. I wasn't trying to tar and feather JoePa and I know there are a ton of layers there. But under the ever evolving sexual predator paradigm he may have come under more scrutiny if he was still alive. All 3 of his bosses were just sentenced to some jail time. Why is it so out of bounds to speculate that he may have received a greater degree of scrutiny based on the part he played? Why? Because JoePa hated Sandusky and his backstabbing and had asked for him to be removed from campus and not allowed back many times? After Sandusky found out that Joe was never going to let him take over and he was done, things deteriorated and Joe wanted him off campus permanently. Administrators are the ones that stopped that. When McQueary reported the incident to Joe, Mike did not feel comfortable telling Joe explicitly what he saw. Instead, he presented it in a number of nuanced ways that Mike thought made it clear, but many who know both do not think it was clear at all to Joe. Regardless, Joe went to his superior (which is what he is required to do and insisted they do something). Joe was not allowed to be part of the decision (and it was well recorded that Joe had asked for Sandusky to be not allowed access to the school facilities) They brought McQueary in and Mike told them EVERYTHING. That is why those guys are prosecuted. There is a lot of grey in this terrible story but many people feel strongly that Joe had bad feelings about Jerry but did not know about the molestations. If you had spent more than a day with him, you would fall into this camp as well. There is no way JoePa would cover for Jerry (nor anyone else) but most especially Jerry Sandusky. Complete revisionist BS! Even if a fraction of this was true there is one incredible omission that can't be rewritten: JoePa was the most powerful guy in the State and could have turned in anyone!
|
|
|
Post by dlflick on Jun 6, 2017 20:04:54 GMT -5
Nobody has ever explained how the "most powerful guy in the State" was fired 4 days after the Sandusky scandal became public, and he was praised for co-opeating with the investigation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 20:41:02 GMT -5
@dumas My quote function is well, malfunctioning. Is there proof of what you are claiming? Transcripts or something from sworn testimony or FOIA request. I have a hard time with your post. JoePa was the most powerful person in Happy Valley when it came to personnel on his team. If he wanted a guy gone, he was gone. None of those dudes in admin say no to him. None.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 6, 2017 21:19:01 GMT -5
Why? Because JoePa hated Sandusky and his backstabbing and had asked for him to be removed from campus and not allowed back many times? After Sandusky found out that Joe was never going to let him take over and he was done, things deteriorated and Joe wanted him off campus permanently. Administrators are the ones that stopped that. When McQueary reported the incident to Joe, Mike did not feel comfortable telling Joe explicitly what he saw. Instead, he presented it in a number of nuanced ways that Mike thought made it clear, but many who know both do not think it was clear at all to Joe. Regardless, Joe went to his superior (which is what he is required to do and insisted they do something). Joe was not allowed to be part of the decision (and it was well recorded that Joe had asked for Sandusky to be not allowed access to the school facilities) They brought McQueary in and Mike told them EVERYTHING. That is why those guys are prosecuted. There is a lot of grey in this terrible story but many people feel strongly that Joe had bad feelings about Jerry but did not know about the molestations. If you had spent more than a day with him, you would fall into this camp as well. There is no way JoePa would cover for Jerry (nor anyone else) but most especially Jerry Sandusky. Kind of sounds like rewriting history here, particularly if you don't provide sources for your claims. Essentially in the Biography written by Joe Posnanski. From what I know of Joe P. - I trust what he wrote. What dumas wrote is substantially what was in the book - however with a more positive slant towards Paterno. Ultimately, Posnanski doesn't let Paterno off free of any (moral) guilt - but reading the book you get a sense of what was going on with Paterno. The basic facts from the book: 1) Paterno could not stand Sandusky going back years before the assault. 2) Sandusky was no longer working for Paterno at the time of the assault (If my memory is correct - I am not 100% on this). 3) Paterno reported the incident to his administrators (bosses) either the same day or the Monday following him hearing about it from McQueary. 4) It is unclear if Paterno understood what McQueary told him or even as a 92 year old guy that lived the life he did could comprehend the sexual acts that occurred. 5) No one had an inclination that Sandusky was a predator - he is the type of predator that is most difficult to suspect. 5) Paterno never followed up on the 'investigation' - for which was his error and ultimately he had to take to his dying day. There is no way Paterno was going to jail. His firing was ugly - but probably/possibly appropriate. I understand the Paterno should have done more - but he essentially followed policy - this wasn't his employee, it wasn't his investigation to run. But given the stature of Paterno - I think we all wish he had done more.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 6, 2017 21:33:19 GMT -5
4) It is unclear if ... as a 92 year old guy that lived the life he did could comprehend the sexual acts that occurred. Dude. Not buying this one. At all. Suggest you leave it out next time, because including something so unbelievable on the list weakens the credibility of the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 6, 2017 21:49:31 GMT -5
4) It is unclear if ... as a 92 year old guy that lived the life he did could comprehend the sexual acts that occurred. Dude. Not buying this one. At all. Suggest you leave it out next time, because including something so unbelievable on the list weakens the credibility of the rest of it. bluepenquin does not like to challenged..........remember who this poster is......
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 6, 2017 22:23:49 GMT -5
4) It is unclear if ... as a 92 year old guy that lived the life he did could comprehend the sexual acts that occurred. Dude. Not buying this one. At all. Suggest you leave it out next time, because including something so unbelievable on the list weakens the credibility of the rest of it. Yeah - kind of putting two thoughts into one. 1) Specifically, it is unclear from McQueary talking to Paterno as to what he told him. It was private conversation for which McQueary claims he was vague and unsure in describing what he saw. Who really knows the truth. 2) Posnanski painted a picture of Paterno where he was old and out of step with many things going on outside of football. This was probably a big part of the problem. My dad is 87 - I am pretty sure he has no idea what a pedophile does. Doesn't really matter - Posnanski's 'facts' could be in error or I am misinterpreting them. Reading the book - there is a lot more grey than Paterno was withholding information or was part of a cover-up to protect a sexual predator. And to consider what he did as just one step removed from Sandusky or what has been said about Butler doesn't ring right with me.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Jun 6, 2017 22:38:27 GMT -5
Dude. Not buying this one. At all. Suggest you leave it out next time, because including something so unbelievable on the list weakens the credibility of the rest of it. Yeah - kind of putting two thoughts into one. 1) Specifically, it is unclear from McQueary talking to Paterno as to what he told him. It was private conversation for which McQueary claims he was vague and unsure in describing what he saw. Who really knows the truth. 2) Posnanski painted a picture of Paterno where he was old and out of step with many things going on outside of football. This was probably a big part of the problem. My dad is 87 - I am pretty sure he has no idea what a pedophile does. Doesn't really matter - Posnanski's 'facts' could be in error or I am misinterpreting them. Reading the book - there is a lot more grey than Paterno was withholding information or was part of a cover-up to protect a sexual predator. And to consider what he did as just one step removed from Sandusky or what has been said about Butler doesn't ring right with me. Wow. Talk about putting words in people's mouth. We said that in the new paradigm admins or bosses that cover up or don't do their jobs protecting children will be held accountable and spend time in jail. That doesn't infer that the cover ups are equal or one step removed on the crime scale as the perpetrators of the original crimes. Just that they should pay some price for their crime which is the cover up. And btw, this one is laughably inaccurate: 2) Sandusky was no longer working for Paterno at the time of the assault (If my memory is correct - I am not 100% on this). www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE85M02720120623He was Asst Coach of the Year the year after he was investigated the first time by the "Happy" Valley PD and told not to shower with young boys anymore. Again, all I said to set you off on your JoePa love fest was he "may" have faced additional scrutiny for his inaction in the newer paradigm. The real facts (and the eventual $100's of millions in settlements paid by PSU) would dictate that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Jun 6, 2017 23:13:26 GMT -5
As a football fan, I loved JoePa, loved staying at one school for 40+ years, and all that. With that said,
JoePa could pick up the phone call and have anyone in the state of Pennsylvania fired the next day. If JoePa couldn't stand Sandusky in 2000, he would of fired him. I can't imagine a protest to save Sandusky's job if JoePa fired him. Being old is not an excuse for not knowing/comprehending what sexual assault of a minor is. It's hard to forget to follow up on a sexual assault of a minor case within your team. You don't "follow policy" when it's a sexual assault that isn't being taken seriously. When the building is on fire and the fire alarm is going off, I don't follow policy and calmly walk out of the burning building, I run and scream...
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,398
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 7, 2017 6:41:16 GMT -5
Yeah - kind of putting two thoughts into one. 1) Specifically, it is unclear from McQueary talking to Paterno as to what he told him. It was private conversation for which McQueary claims he was vague and unsure in describing what he saw. Who really knows the truth. 2) Posnanski painted a picture of Paterno where he was old and out of step with many things going on outside of football. This was probably a big part of the problem. My dad is 87 - I am pretty sure he has no idea what a pedophile does. Doesn't really matter - Posnanski's 'facts' could be in error or I am misinterpreting them. Reading the book - there is a lot more grey than Paterno was withholding information or was part of a cover-up to protect a sexual predator. And to consider what he did as just one step removed from Sandusky or what has been said about Butler doesn't ring right with me. Wow. Talk about putting words in people's mouth. We said that in the new paradigm admins or bosses that cover up or don't do their jobs protecting children will be held accountable and spend time in jail. That doesn't infer that the cover ups are equal or one step removed on the crime scale as the perpetrators of the original crimes. Just that they should pay some price for their crime which is the cover up. And btw, this one is laughably inaccurate: 2) Sandusky was no longer working for Paterno at the time of the assault (If my memory is correct - I am not 100% on this). www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE85M02720120623He was Asst Coach of the Year the year after he was investigated the first time by the "Happy" Valley PD and told not to shower with young boys anymore. Again, all I said to set you off on your JoePa love fest was he "may" have faced additional scrutiny for his inaction in the newer paradigm. The real facts (and the eventual $100's of millions in settlements paid by PSU) would dictate that conclusion. Per the attached fact sheet: Sandusky retires as coach in 1999. February, 2001 - Asst. Coach M. McQueary reports to Paterno what he saw. Paterno meets with AD the next day to discuss what McQueary told him. Paterno first hears about this potential crime 2 years after Sandusky retires and while he is no longer working for him. Laugh as you may, perfectly consistent with what I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPlum on Jun 7, 2017 7:48:11 GMT -5
Your #5 might be the most absurd www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Sports/testimony-documents-allege-joe-paterno-knew-child-abuse/story%3Fid%3D41808614While "under oath" statements seem to point to lots of people knowing and JoePa "maybe hearing a rumor", it's pretty obvious that many people suspected Sandusky was worth watching. The "no one suspected anything" defense is Trumpesque. Sandusky was a wack job and everyone knew it. You are trying to paint JoePa as innocent of all wrong doing. This entire thread is about admins and authority figures covering up and not doing their jobs. Penn St was the worst example of this in sports history!!!! JoePa was by far the most powerful leader of that organization and the entire state. The notion that he "may" have come under considerable more scrutiny for his actions and lack of actions is not only legit but undeniable. Death saved him from that.
|
|