Penn State would rather football than justice for child rape

[The Yosemite Bear]

well given my long history of auto-diadict abnormal psychology, that your theory goes along with suppression/guilt and dissasociating oneself from your won actions, and Standoffsky's comments go along with the 'normal' tendancies of a deviant to try and "normalize" things in their view.

[Patrick Degan]

Since DXIII is having trouble grasping the full depth of Joe Paterno's moral bankruptcy in this case, it is best to simply consider that the first allegations of sexual molestation against Jerry Sandusky date to 1998 and yet Paterno, four years later when confronted with a statement from one of his own junior assistants that he had walked in on Sandusky actively raping a ten year old, did nothing more than what the university rulebook required of him and, from that point forward, hid behind the letter of the rulebook. He does not insist to either Tim Curley or Gary Schultz that they contact the police —the real police— or he will, he does not follow up on the matter at all, and continues to live with Sandusky's presence on the Penn State campus for another seven years while concentrating on the only issues that mattered to him: the football team and his endless preaching about "success with honour". Something of a sick joke in retrospect. In short, Paterno simply looked the other way and in so doing allowed Sandusky to continue preying on young boys in all that time. And whether DXIII wishes to admit it or not, that is the hallmark of a morally bankrupt coward, no matter how much he tries to split hairs to excuse the old fart. There simply is not a defence for Paterno's conduct.

[Patrick Degan]

confronted with a statement from one of his own junior assistants that he had walked in on Sandusky actively raping a ten year old

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No, assumes testimony in evidence as per the findings of fact of the grand jury:

As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught. The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno ("Paterno"), head football coach of Pemi State. The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Approximately one and a half weeks later, the graduate assistant was called to a meeting with Penn State Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz ("Schultz"). The graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers.

You have no argument.

[Dark Hellion]

Oh sorry, he was told that Sandusky was only sexually molesting a child, not actively raping him. That means its ok.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'm suprised that 4chan hasn't made pics of Paedobear making some line about not even he's supporting Penn State....

[Havok]

The Grand Jury Testimony isn't clear on one issue. What did McQuarry tell Paterno.

We know what he told the GJ THIS YEAR, but it is completely unclear on what he said back in 2002.
Based on Paterno's testimony, which if we are to believe the GJ's finding on who is committing perjury and who is not, (and this board certainly is) in which case, Paterno is being truthful, then based on what Paterno relayed to Curely and Schultz, he clearly didn't have a clear understanding of what Sandusky was allegedly doing.

This leads to the conclusion that McQuarry did not relay the same info to Paterno in 2002 that he did to the GJ in 2011.

You quoted it Degan, "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". That is NOT "hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." The former leaves room for doubt, especially in the context of the situation where everyone involved has known and been close friends with the accused for over 30 years and as I stated, is a man that has been given a medal by congress, and spent 30+ years helping children.

This, along with recent statements by McQuarry, which police are saying are outright lies, brings everything McQuarry says under speculation.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck, and as I have stated, there are still far too many questions to be answered.

I am not defending Sandusky, because I think he did it, but I don't have enough info to condemn the actions of those at Penn State, and certainly am not taking the word of a coward, and now looks like a liar, that at 28, needs his daddy to make decisions for him, like McQuarry until I have all the FACTS.

[weemadando]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html

[Broomstick]

Just to throw another rumor into the mix - CNN is now reporting that the elder Paterno has lung cancer. I'll just point out that transferring assets is a long-standing tactic when someone with assets is faced with potentially crippling medical costs. It is possible that the transference of property might have been done due to cancer, rather than this long-term scandal.

Or it could be a combination of motivations.

[Simon_Jester]

Paterno's been making a good deal of money for a long time- definitely at the very upper edge of "upper middle class," to say the least. I would think he'd have enough socked away to have a pretty good chance of covering all his medical bills.

But then, I might be mistaken. And he still might transfer assets over that.

[Broomstick]

Cancer is one of the medical conditions that can financially break even millionaires. If he has a decent financial adviser he'd be counseled to shield his assets. Of course, a decent legal adviser would make the same suggestion.

[FSTargetDrone]

Just to throw another rumor into the mix - CNN is now reporting that the elder Paterno has lung cancer. I'll just point out that transferring assets is a long-standing tactic when someone with assets is faced with potentially crippling medical costs. It is possible that the transference of property might have been done due to cancer, rather than this long-term scandal.

Or it could be a combination of motivations.

It may be my cynical opinion of the whole situation, but the first thing that came to mind after Jay Paterno announced the specific illness and then promptly asked for privacy was that it was a play for sympathy, given the heat the elder Paterno has received.

[Patrick Degan]

The Grand Jury Testimony isn't clear on one issue. What did McQuarry tell Paterno.

We know what he told the GJ THIS YEAR, but it is completely unclear on what he said back in 2002.
Based on Paterno's testimony, which if we are to believe the GJ's finding on who is committing perjury and who is not, (and this board certainly is) in which case, Paterno is being truthful, then based on what Paterno relayed to Curely and Schultz, he clearly didn't have a clear understanding of what Sandusky was allegedly doing.

This leads to the conclusion that McQuarry did not relay the same info to Paterno in 2002 that he did to the GJ in 2011.

You quoted it Degan, "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". That is NOT "hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." The former leaves room for doubt, especially in the context of the situation where everyone involved has known and been close friends with the accused for over 30 years and as I stated, is a man that has been given a medal by congress, and spent 30+ years helping children.

This, along with recent statements by McQuarry, which police are saying are outright lies, brings everything McQuarry says under speculation.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck, and as I have stated, there are still far too many questions to be answered.

I am not defending Sandusky, because I think he did it, but I don't have enough info to condemn the actions of those at Penn State, and certainly am not taking the word of a coward, and now looks like a liar, that at 28, needs his daddy to make decisions for him, like McQuarry until I have all the FACTS.

"Fondling or something of a sexual nature" is what PATERNO said McQueary told him, not what McQueary said. To give Paterno one slight benefit of the doubt here, it is quite possible that, being the sort of man he was, from the repressive time and society he grew up in, that he could not have brought himself to actually utter words like "anal rape" when he spoke with Curley and Schultz. But that doesn't excuse his inaction after that point any more than anything excuses McQueary's inaction when he walked in on Sandusky and Victim n. 2 in the shower area.

[Patrick Degan]

Are you just not bothering to read ANY of the news articles posted in this thread or anywhere, Patrick Degan?

Try reading what you bolded, lying troll. That's what Paterno told Curley, not what McQueary told Paterno, and it says "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature", not "actively raping".

The most straightforward reading is Paterno was told that watered down version "fondling or something", not "actively raping" (and from a distraught source too) . He promptly passed it on for further investigation.


You have no intelligence.

Clear case of projection, DXIII, in which the subject —in this case, yourself— puts his own defects and bad attributes upon others.

No, you endlessly dishonest little shitstain, the most straightforward reading is that Paterno watered down events in the report he made to Tim Curley, not that Paterno was told a watered-down version of events. As the very passage in question states:

The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Approximately one and a half weeks later, the graduate assistant was called to a meeting with Penn State Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz ("Schultz"). The graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers.

You know, I actually had half-expected you to try to cherry-pick the evidence in this manner and you managed to live down to expectations.

[Havok]

The Grand Jury Testimony isn't clear on one issue. What did McQuarry tell Paterno.

We know what he told the GJ THIS YEAR, but it is completely unclear on what he said back in 2002.
Based on Paterno's testimony, which if we are to believe the GJ's finding on who is committing perjury and who is not, (and this board certainly is) in which case, Paterno is being truthful, then based on what Paterno relayed to Curely and Schultz, he clearly didn't have a clear understanding of what Sandusky was allegedly doing.

This leads to the conclusion that McQuarry did not relay the same info to Paterno in 2002 that he did to the GJ in 2011.

You quoted it Degan, "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". That is NOT "hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." The former leaves room for doubt, especially in the context of the situation where everyone involved has known and been close friends with the accused for over 30 years and as I stated, is a man that has been given a medal by congress, and spent 30+ years helping children.

This, along with recent statements by McQuarry, which police are saying are outright lies, brings everything McQuarry says under speculation.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck, and as I have stated, there are still far too many questions to be answered.

I am not defending Sandusky, because I think he did it, but I don't have enough info to condemn the actions of those at Penn State, and certainly am not taking the word of a coward, and now looks like a liar, that at 28, needs his daddy to make decisions for him, like McQuarry until I have all the FACTS.

"Fondling or something of a sexual nature" is what PATERNO said McQueary told him, not what McQueary said.

No, that is what Paterno said McQuarry told him in 2002. What McQuarry told the GJ in 2011 is what is different, according to both Paterno's account of what he was told and relayed 9 years ago. That is also what Scultz and Curely said McQuarry told them 2 weeks later, and IIRC, it seemed to be even more sanitized. Also, the GJ didn't charge Paterno with perjury. So unless we are going to start disbelieving the GJ and who they say is telling the truth, then we take Paterno at his word, just like we are taking McQuarry at his and not Curely and Schultz.

To give Paterno one slight benefit of the doubt here, it is quite possible that, being the sort of man he was, from the repressive time and society he grew up in, that he could not have brought himself to actually utter words like "anal rape" when he spoke with Curley and Schultz. But that doesn't excuse his inaction after that point any more than anything excuses McQueary's inaction when he walked in on Sandusky and Victim n. 2 in the shower area.

That is a big basket of assumption on your part. I've heard guys in their 70's and 80's talk, they have no problem saying things like that to other men. They would curtail it in the company of women sure, but locker room talk is locker room talk. And even if he couldn't bear to utter the words "anal rape" I'm sure "sex with a 10 year old boy" would suffice.

We STILL don't know what Paterno knew at this point. We do know McQuarry can't make decisions without his dad, and is apparently lying about events and what he did and didn't do.

There is a disconnect somewhere, which I think is McQuarry's father and his influence on his kid. We'll see.

Let me end this by saying I think that Paterno is at fault for not using more of his influence to make sure Sandusky was not allowed at Penn State ever again (something he was most certainly aware of). And IF he knew what Sandusky was doing, then he deserves whatever and every punishment availible. However, as those things are completely unknown at this time, I don't think he is a failure of a man and morally bankrupt as some of you do, but he made a tragic misstep for whatever reason and it is going to tarnish his legacy, whatever that is worth.

[Patrick Degan]

The Grand Jury Testimony isn't clear on one issue. What did McQuarry tell Paterno.

We know what he told the GJ THIS YEAR, but it is completely unclear on what he said back in 2002.
Based on Paterno's testimony, which if we are to believe the GJ's finding on who is committing perjury and who is not, (and this board certainly is) in which case, Paterno is being truthful, then based on what Paterno relayed to Curely and Schultz, he clearly didn't have a clear understanding of what Sandusky was allegedly doing.

This leads to the conclusion that McQuarry did not relay the same info to Paterno in 2002 that he did to the GJ in 2011.

You quoted it Degan, "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". That is NOT "hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." The former leaves room for doubt, especially in the context of the situation where everyone involved has known and been close friends with the accused for over 30 years and as I stated, is a man that has been given a medal by congress, and spent 30+ years helping children.

This, along with recent statements by McQuarry, which police are saying are outright lies, brings everything McQuarry says under speculation.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck, and as I have stated, there are still far too many questions to be answered.

I am not defending Sandusky, because I think he did it, but I don't have enough info to condemn the actions of those at Penn State, and certainly am not taking the word of a coward, and now looks like a liar, that at 28, needs his daddy to make decisions for him, like McQuarry until I have all the FACTS.

"Fondling or something of a sexual nature" is what PATERNO said McQueary told him, not what McQueary said.

No, that is what Paterno said McQuarry told him in 2002. What McQuarry told the GJ in 2011 is what is different, according to both Paterno's account of what he was told and relayed 9 years ago. That is also what Scultz and Curely said McQuarry told them 2 weeks later, and IIRC, it seemed to be even more sanitized. Also, the GJ didn't charge Paterno with perjury. So unless we are going to start disbelieving the GJ and who they say is telling the truth, then we take Paterno at his word, just like we are taking McQuarry at his and not Curely and Schultz.

To give Paterno one slight benefit of the doubt here, it is quite possible that, being the sort of man he was, from the repressive time and society he grew up in, that he could not have brought himself to actually utter words like "anal rape" when he spoke with Curley and Schultz. But that doesn't excuse his inaction after that point any more than anything excuses McQueary's inaction when he walked in on Sandusky and Victim n. 2 in the shower area.

That is a big basket of assumption on your part. I've heard guys in their 70's and 80's talk, they have no problem saying things like that to other men. They would curtail it in the company of women sure, but locker room talk is locker room talk. And even if he couldn't bear to utter the words "anal rape" I'm sure "sex with a 10 year old boy" would suffice.

As I've said, I was giving Paterno some small benefit of the doubt on this one point, which is about all he deserves from this whole sorry affair.

We STILL don't know what Paterno knew at this point. We do know McQuarry can't make decisions without his dad, and is apparently lying about events and what he did and didn't do.

There is a disconnect somewhere, which I think is McQuarry's father and his influence on his kid. We'll see.

Or that McQueary is trying to make himself look better than he does from his own cowardly inaction back in 2002.

Let me end this by saying I think that Paterno is at fault for not using more of his influence to make sure Sandusky was not allowed at Penn State ever again (something he was most certainly aware of). And IF he knew what Sandusky was doing, then he deserves whatever and every punishment availible. However, as those things are completely unknown at this time, I don't think he is a failure of a man and morally bankrupt as some of you do, but he made a tragic misstep for whatever reason and it is going to tarnish his legacy, whatever that is worth.

Oh, he decidedly does deserve to burn for this. Every indication is that Paterno, along with other members of the Penn State administration, knew this man was suspected as a child rapist since 1998 and yet he and they still looked the other way. There isn't any excuse for Paterno just as there isn't any excuse for McQueary, Curley, Scultz or Spannier.

[Lord Zentei]

I guess the Roman Catholic Church made a big mistake in that they don't run popular sporting events. If they did, then presumably a whole bunch of guys would be defending their sorry asses for not having been more vigilant with regards to the rape of children by priests.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty. But that's not to say that an official doesn't bear responsibility for shit that happened on his watch. Paterno failed to protect the students in his charge when they were raped. People have stepped down for less, at least pending an investigation.

[Terralthra]

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty. But that's not to say that an official doesn't bear responsibility for shit that happened on his watch. Paterno failed to protect the students in his charge when they were raped. People have stepped down for less, at least pending an investigation.

...allegedly?

[Akhlut]

In this country, ALL people are innocent until proven guilty.

In the courts, yes. However, even if Paterno is not legally culpable for anything, that doesn't mean he isn't morally culpable, either. The trustees are well within their rights to administer whatever penalties they can exact as they feel are necessary, including firing people they think didn't do an adequate job handling child rape.

[Patrick Degan]

In this country, ALL people are innocent until proven guilty.

I love America. I know some people don't, but I do. And if loving this country and the principles on which it was founded is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

Except we're not talking about whether Paterno failed to observe the law. We're talking about his failures as a human being and his dereliction of moral responsibility, which no amount of flag-waving can erase.

[Havok]

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty. But that's not to say that an official doesn't bear responsibility for shit that happened on his watch. Paterno failed to protect the students in his charge when they were raped. People have stepped down for less, at least pending an investigation.

Ok, I get your sentiment and it is well placed...

But shut the fuck up if you can't even be assed to get the facts straight.

NO students in Paterno's charge were raped.

Sandusky has not been an employee of Penn State since 1999.

Paterno is not an "official", he is the head football coach. Outside of benching players, he has zero control over the students or the faculty or the regulations and rules at Penn State.

He has had immense influence, but despite what people want to believe, his word is not law. In fact in recent years, almost a decade now, his standing with the Board of Trustees has been diminishing because they wanted a new coach for a while now and he has used up what influence he did have to stay on as head coach.

It is interesting, that now, people like Kanastorus are making him into a bigger person that he actually was.

[Lord Zentei]

What, he doesn't bear any moral responsibility for the well-being of students as head coach?

Hell, we're not talking about whether he's guilty under the letter of the law - or at least I'm not. That's not the point.

...allegedly?

See previous line.

[Havok]

What, he doesn't bear any moral responsibility for the well-being of students as head coach?

Hell, we're not talking about whether he's guilty under the letter of the law - or at least I'm not. That's not the point.

You are a fucking idiot.

NO STUDENTS OF PENN STATE ARE INVOLVED IN THIS SCANDAL.


Sandusky was preying on CHILDREN from The Second Mile, which is a organization set up by HIM 30 years ago, with multiple locations in Pennsylvania. He simply used his access to Penn State to molest children there. To put it bluntly, college kids are too old for him.

If Penn State had never known a single thing about what he was doing and he hadn't stepped foot on the campus in 20 years, he would still be molesting children through the infrastructure he set up to facilitate it.

[Patrick Degan]

Except we're not talking about whether Paterno failed to observe the law. We're talking about his failures as a human being and his dereliction of moral responsibility, which no amount of flag-waving can erase.

Do you think it's morally right to punish somebody for something he very possibly didn't do?

Hell, do you think it's morally right to attack something for something he did do if said attack is likely to make outcomes worse, not better, in the future?

"Worse, not better", Gracie? Child rape was already occurring and you think things would have been made worse, not better, if Paterno had actually shown some gumption about following up on an investigation of Jerry Sandusky? Are you really that far gone?

[The Yosemite Bear]

ok, now also see an entire support network of curruption helping sandusky do this over 20 years, including a squashed investigatin in 98.