Originally posted by quackquackHave you bothered to read the Grand Jury indictment?
The member of Paterno's staff did not report it to police either. If it was an obvious rape, wouldn't he have called the police?
The fact the GA should have reported it immediately or killed Sandusky during the attack if he could have does not mitigate or excuse Paterno's failure to report it to police. According to the indictment, Paterno received a first hand, eyewitness report of an anal rape of a child in the Penn State athletic facility. I have no particular reason to disbelieve the indictment or believe Paterno's unlikely version that the GA didn't specifically mention anal rape!
Originally posted by quackquackRumors???
Paterno seemed to know much fewer details than that.
What if the rumors are false? He has to go to the police and have a report filed against a well respected person who nothing. You ruin someones career when Joe Paterno reports that you raped little boys even if you are subsequently 100% cleared. He followed the law and informed the University p ...[text shortened]... m. If they commit a crime and fail in their duty to report I am not blaming the football coacj.
Mccreery told Paterno what he had witnessed first hand. Paterno heard other reports as well. For years thereafter, Sandusky was allowed access to Penn State facilities(!) where he undoubtedly took his victims to soften them up to his advances.
Even Paterno admitted in hindsight he should have done more. I'm not saying Paterno committed a crime. But what he did was morally reprehensible and the school could not afford to let him go out on his own terms.
I don't blame the school for waiting a couple of days while, I'm sure, the lawyers met to determine how to handle this with minimum blowback. But they did the right thing in not allowing him to represent the school again after all this has broken.
Paterno's legacy is dead. His entire career has one enormous asterisk for all time and I don't sympathize with him one iota. He may be a great coach and a good guy in other respects, but his indifference and inaction led to little boys being raped and that's something that is inexcusable.
It gets worse:
Allegations of improper conduct with an underage male first surfaced in 1998, while Sandusky was still employed by Penn State. That incident allegedly occurred in a shower at Penn State's on-campus football facility. No charges were filed.
Sandusky retired the next year, in 1999. He was 55, prime age for a coach. Odd, to say the least - especially with Joe Paterno thought even then to be ready to quit and Sandusky a likely, openly-discussed successor.
It seems logical to ask: What did Paterno know, and when did he know it? What did Penn State's administration know, and when did they know it?
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area
2 edits
Oh, and QQ and dryhump, per No1's suggestion:
http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Read the whole thing and then come back to us and say Paterno shouldn't have said anything.
I didn't have much of an opinion on this case until I read it yesterday. I was outraged at the whole Penn State staff and I can't imagine you won't be.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Sadly, I can. There were students actually rioting in outrage that Paterno was fired!
Oh, and QQ and dryhump, per No1's suggestion:
http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Read the whole thing and then come back to us and say Paterno shouldn't have said anything.
I didn't have much of an opinion on this case until I read it yesterday. I was outraged at the whole Penn State staff and I can't imagine you won't be.
Originally posted by sh76I'd like to see what Paterno knew before I think he should be fired. You and #1 seem to be convinced he knew a lot more than I believe he or anyone in his position would have known. It seems to me that he got a report about an incident but did not witness it. The witness did not report it to police he just reported it to a superior. Paterno took the same tact. How that ruins your legacy is beyond me.
Rumors???
Mccreery told Paterno what he had witnessed first hand. Paterno heard other reports as well. For years thereafter, Sandusky was allowed access to Penn State facilities(!) where he undoubtedly took his victims to soften them up to his advances.
Even Paterno admitted in hindsight he should have done more. I'm not saying Paterno committed a crime. ...[text shortened]... ence and inaction led to little boys being raped and that's something that is inexcusable.
Obviously the facts are important; I think morally (as oposed to legally) Penn State should have made him answer all questions instead of prevented him from having a press conference. At least tehn we could judge what Paterno should have done based on what he said he knew.
Paterno's statement is no way should be looked at as an admission of guilt or an acknowledgement of wrong doing. He simply wishes he could have done more to prevent someone else's criminal activity.
Similarly, the fact that Sandusky retired retired helps not hurts Paterno; it means that Penn State did not want him to lead the program. It does not however mean that they knew he was a rapist and it does not mean that Paterno invited him on campus or had the power to keep him out of a state university
Originally posted by sh76Rarely am I considered a great liberal but it seems to me that someone should point out that prior to conviction many systems of jurisprudnce actually do an investigation and give someone like Paterno an opportunity to be heard.
Oh, and QQ and dryhump, per No1's suggestion:
http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Read the whole thing and then come back to us and say Paterno shouldn't have said anything.
I didn't have much of an opinion on this case until I read it yesterday. I was outraged at the whole Penn State staff and I can't imagine you won't be.
Missing from the grand jury transcript is the testimony of Joe Paterno. To me there are two ways we can handle the situation (1) If you think Paterno violated his duty to report, lets find out what he knew before we fire him or (2) lets just convict him in the public press, fire him and ruin his legacy and never bother to investigate.
Originally posted by sh76How would it hurt his own reputation if he reported it? He would be doing the right thing.
To answer the OP: He probably didn't say anything because he knew that saying something would hurt the school and his own reputation and so he hoped that he could tell Sandusky to stop and sweep the past under the rug.
What was Sandusky's motivation for sweeping it under the rug? Why would he avoid doing the right thing? Why was protecting the school"s reputation so important? Would someone lose their job or a lot of money for doing the right thing? Would the school go bankrupt? What was at stake to go this far?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy don't we eliminate trials and just believe indictments and make decisions based on them?
Have you bothered to read the Grand Jury indictment?
The fact the GA should have reported it immediately or killed Sandusky during the attack if he could have does not mitigate or excuse Paterno's failure to report it to police. According to the indictment, Paterno received a first hand, eyewitness report of an anal rape of a child in ...[text shortened]... ment or believe Paterno's unlikely version that the GA didn't specifically mention anal rape!
Originally posted by sh76I read it yesterday. As I told no1 in another thread what Paterno was told is in dispute. The other incidents involved in the grand jury testimony have nothing to do with Joe Pa. Ted Bundy killed women for years and everybody who knew him thought he was a great guy. Do you think it's barely possible that Sandusky was able to conceal this part of his life?
Oh, and QQ and dryhump, per No1's suggestion:
http://www.wltx.com/news/pdf/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Read the whole thing and then come back to us and say Paterno shouldn't have said anything.
I didn't have much of an opinion on this case until I read it yesterday. I was outraged at the whole Penn State staff and I can't imagine you won't be.
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackListen, those at Penn State have been quietly trying to get the old man to retire for some time now. It was simply a delicate matter because of his "legendary" status. Now the legendary status is worth poo.
Rarely am I considered a great liberal but it seems to me that someone should point out that prior to conviction many systems of jurisprudnce actually do an investigation and give someone like Paterno an opportunity to be heard.
Missing from the grand jury transcript is the testimony of Joe Paterno. To me there are two ways we can handle the situatio ...[text shortened]... t convict him in the public press, fire him and ruin his legacy and never bother to investigate.
Now you are witnessing a PR nightmare for the university. It is now time to come clean and rid themselves of all baggage to try and salvage the program. This includes Joe Pa. Guilt will be determined afterward but if Joe Pa had some great revelation to clear his name he had a very short window to provide it but failed to do so. Now the window has closed forever and now everytime you mention the word Joe Pa the mental picture of the monster Sandusky will be permanently attached to his name.