Archive

Jerry Sandusky

  • bigkahuna
    Little Danny;966330 wrote:Let me get this straight-

    Some of you are arguing that JoePa should be in the clear because he told the AD about what the GA informed him. What I want to know from you JoePa apologists is, don't you think it is highly problematic that Paterno was aware of at least two incidents of inappropriate behavior with children (the 1998 incident and 2002) and yet had no problem with the fact that Sandusky still had an office and access to PSU facilities up until 2008? Wouldn't you think it is odd that no law enforcement agencies ever followed up on these two matters? Wouldn't you expect to be called as a witness in either instance since you were a party who was involved in the chain of reporting the incidents?

    Basically what you all are aruging is that JoePa fulfilled the minimal obligation and therefore should not have lost his job. I'm sorry, when it comes to sodomy of 10-12 year old boys, minimal obligations do not cut it.
    Joe Pa is bigger than the athletic department, I'll agree to that. He is not bigger than the university and the trustees that run it. THEY were the ones who granted him access to facilities. You're giving him too much credit for thinking he is bigger than the trustees that run the university. This is after the 1998 report, "Yea, we know there was a police report filed against you, here's access to the university, Happy Retirement!" If anything Joe Pa tried to remove Sandusky from the program getting rid of him did he not?

    SMH, authorities want to talk to the person that saw the incident, not the person who heard second hand about the incident. Again one of the two people who were informed by McQueary/Joe Pa is head of campus police. It's safe to say that AT THE TIME, he thought they WERE taking care of it because of their position. I guarantee that at the time Joe Pa thought he was doing what was right with what he knew. It's so easy to judge based on hindsight nearly 10 years later.
  • bigkahuna
    Didn't Sandusky get asked banned from brining minors to campus anymore? I believe it said that in the report and went on to say that the higher ups had no way to enforce it.
  • dwccrew
    bigkahuna;966350 wrote:Joe Pa is bigger than the athletic department, I'll agree to that. He is not bigger than the university and the trustees that run it. THEY were the ones who granted him access to facilities. You're giving him too much credit for thinking he is bigger than the trustees that run the university. This is after the 1998 report, "Yea, we know there was a police report filed against you, here's access to the university, Happy Retirement!" If anything Joe Pa tried to remove Sandusky from the program getting rid of him did he not?

    SMH, authorities want to talk to the person that saw the incident, not the person who heard second hand about the incident. Again one of the two people who were informed by McQueary/Joe Pa is head of campus police. It's safe to say that AT THE TIME, he thought they WERE taking care of it because of their position. I guarantee that at the time Joe Pa thought he was doing what was right with what he knew. It's so easy to judge based on hindsight nearly 10 years later.
    While everything you say may be true, why didn't JoePa follow up on this? If he really wanted to get rid of Sandusky (off campus) he could have, however, he didn't do anything more than the minimum. There is no question that JoePa knew there had been past incidents between Sandusky and little boys, yet Sandusky is still allowed access to campus until '08? If JoePa would have been concerned with the welfare of children he would have marched into the BOT and demanded that Sandusky be banned. JoePa does/did carry the clout to do that no matter what the apologists think.

    I am not buying that JoePa is dumb enough to think that those above him were doing what was necessary to protect children since Sandusky was still given access to the campus well after the incident was reported. He was happy with the decision to inform his superior and then forget about it. If that's me, I don't just inform my superior and forget about it, especially after nothing is done. I follow up and make sure this man (who had multiple allegations before this made against him) is no longer allowed on campus.
  • dat dude
    bigkahuna;966350 wrote:Joe Pa is bigger than the athletic department, I'll agree to that. He is not bigger than the university and the trustees that run it. THEY were the ones who granted him access to facilities. You're giving him too much credit for thinking he is bigger than the trustees that run the university. This is after the 1998 report, "Yea, we know there was a police report filed against you, here's access to the university, Happy Retirement!" If anything Joe Pa tried to remove Sandusky from the program getting rid of him did he not?

    SMH, authorities want to talk to the person that saw the incident, not the person who heard second hand about the incident. Again one of the two people who were informed by McQueary/Joe Pa is head of campus police. It's safe to say that AT THE TIME, he thought they WERE taking care of it because of their position. I guarantee that at the time Joe Pa thought he was doing what was right with what he knew. It's so easy to judge based on hindsight nearly 10 years later.
    Wow. Just, wow.

    This is not a $500 handshake. This is the rape and molestation of a defenseless child. You error on the side of caution. After he hears a firsthand account from someone including the words "shower, old man, young boy, naked" you cannot just let that go. No way. It simply blows my mind that some can accept that he "reported it to his superiors and that's all he had to do." That's such BS. If there is no police involvement, he HAS to take matters into his own hands. And make no mistake, Joe Paterno ran that university. There is a reason he is still coaching at the age of 84 and its not his coaching knowledge.
  • bigkahuna
    I'm just hesitant to go that route I guess. You hope/think that the higher ups make the right decision. I/We NEED to know if he did follow up and what he was told. I can't find anywhere if he did actually do that or not.
  • dwccrew
    bigkahuna;966377 wrote:I'm just hesitant to go that route I guess. You hope/think that the higher ups make the right decision. I/We NEED to know if he did follow up and what he was told. I can't find anywhere if he did actually do that or not.
    He didn't. He would have publicly said by now, "When I followed up on the situation I was told that the allegations were unfounded" or something along those lines. The fact that they just (if they in fact did tell him) "it's been handled" means shit. What does "it's been handled" mean? They made payoffs, no truth to the allegations were found, etc.? If I were in JoePa's position I would NEED to know the exact findings, not that "it was handled" and think to myself "ok, that's that".
  • bigkahuna
    dat dude;966370 wrote:Wow. Just, wow.

    This is not a $500 handshake. This is the rape and molestation of a defenseless child. You error on the side of caution. After he hears a firsthand account from someone including the words "shower, old man, young boy, naked" you cannot just let that go. No way. It simply blows my mind that some can accept that he "reported it to his superiors and that's all he had to do." That's such BS. If there is no police involvement, he HAS to take matters into his own hands. And make no mistake, Joe Paterno ran that university. There is a reason he is still coaching at the age of 84 and its not his coaching knowledge.
    You HAVE to follow the chain of command. I accept it because I've been there before. Granted it wasn't "old man, boy, naked, shower," but it was molestation. I was fortunate enough to have a superior to handle the situation as law dictates as well as keep me in the loop.

    Joe Pa didn't run the university, he ran the Athletic Department. He was kept around so long because he was GOOD for the university. It's not too often you'll see a football coach take his earnings and put it back in the university as a whole. $$$$$ is why they kept him around.
  • Skyhook79
    alwaysawarrior;966329 wrote:Your ignorance astounds me. You are completely right, Paterno had absolutely no power at PSU. In fact I'm sure he was never even allowed to give an opinion on his own damn program. He was always completely submissive to the figures "above" him I'm sure.

    Paterno's retirement message shows how arrogant he had become in saying the board should not waste one more second in discussing his employment. That was the treatment he was used to. The BOT made a decision without JoePa for probably the first time in decades last night.

    But again you are right he had no pull at all there.
    Where in my post did I say Paterno had NO power at PSU? I disputed your statement that he had ALL the power, not any.
    Now who is the ignorant one?
  • Skyhook79
    dat dude;966370 wrote:Wow. Just, wow.

    This is not a $500 handshake. This is the rape and molestation of a defenseless child. You error on the side of caution. After he hears a firsthand account from someone including the words "shower, old man, young boy, naked" you cannot just let that go. No way. It simply blows my mind
    2 Police Detectives and an investigator from the Pennsylvania Dept of Public welfare and a victim's Mother did let it go in 1998 and they heard it from Sandusky himself. But I'm sure that doesn't "blow your mind".
  • bigkahuna
    dwccrew;966387 wrote:He didn't. He would have publicly said by now, "When I followed up on the situation I was told that the allegations were unfounded" or something along those lines. The fact that they just (if they in fact did tell him) "it's been handled" means ****. What does "it's been handled" mean? They made payoffs, no truth to the allegations were found, etc.? If I were in JoePa's position I would NEED to know the exact findings, not that "it was handled" and think to myself "ok, that's that".
    Did he want to speak, but the university cancelled that opportunity? I know he can say he wants to talk and every microphone would be in his face, but you've got to prepare for this. Hell, watch him take a presser during media day, he can barely do it.

    I'll wait until he speaks. If he comes out and says "I told them, then went about my business. I didn't bother to ask them again because we had to get ready for OSU," then I will be on board with you.
  • Skyhook79
    dwccrew;966387 wrote:He didn't. He would have publicly said by now, "When I followed up on the situation I was told that the allegations were unfounded" or something along those lines. The fact that they just (if they in fact did tell him) "it's been handled" means shit. What does "it's been handled" mean? They made payoffs, no truth to the allegations were found, etc.? If I were in JoePa's position I would NEED to know the exact findings, not that "it was handled" and think to myself "ok, that's that".

    Isn't telling someone "its been handled" fall under "something along those lines"???
  • alwaysawarrior
    Skyhook79;966390 wrote:Where in my post did I say Paterno had NO power at PSU? I disputed your statement that he had ALL the power, not any.
    Now who is the ignorant one?
    You. I'm so glad we cleared that up. Paterno based on what HE has said himself right now has at least kept quiet about a child rapist. I for one believe he did much more than just keep quiet. I believe he aided, or was solely behind the cover up. But that is obviously my opinion, and probably not provable. You can support him all you want, but the guy(hard to call him a man at this point) who claimed to have so much integrity showed none when it mattered most.
  • dat dude
    Skyhook79;966394 wrote:2 Police Detectives and an investigator from the Pennsylvania Dept of Public welfare and a victim's Mother did let it go in 1998 and they heard it from Sandusky himself. But I'm sure that doesn't "blow your mind".
    You keep alluding to this. I've said those individuals should be fired. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with Paterno's culpability. Start a new thread about the investigators.
  • dwccrew
    Skyhook79;966401 wrote:Isn't telling someone "its been handled" fall under "something along those lines"???
    No, "it's been handled" is very ambiguous and could mean anything. Something along those lines would be whether he did or didn't do it and what is going to be done about it.
  • Little Danny
    Quite frankly, knowing what he knew about Sandusky, one would think he would physcially throw the man out the front door everytime he saw him hanging around campus (or better yet, getting a couple of his players to do this for him). However, that was not the case. On Mike & Mike this morning, they interviewed former linebacker Paul Pozlovsky. He was there from 2003-2007, after the 2002 incident. He told the listening audience that Sandusky was around all the time. In fact, the players were encouraged to interact with Sandusky and the Second Mile Program.
  • killer_ewok
    Little Danny;966330 wrote:Let me get this straight-

    Some of you are arguing that JoePa should be in the clear because he told the AD about what the GA informed him. What I want to know from you JoePa apologists is, don't you think it is highly problematic that Paterno was aware of at least two incidents of inappropriate behavior with children (the 1998 incident and 2002) and yet had no problem with the fact that Sandusky still had an office and access to PSU facilities up until 2008? Wouldn't you think it is odd that no law enforcement agencies ever followed up on these two matters? Wouldn't you expect to be called as a witness in either instance since you were a party who was involved in the chain of reporting the incidents?

    Basically what you all are aruging is that JoePa fulfilled the minimal obligation and therefore should not have lost his job. I'm sorry, when it comes to sodomy of 10-12 year old boys, minimal obligations do not cut it.

    Spot on.
  • Heretic
    Little Danny;966489 wrote:Quite frankly, knowing what he knew about Sandusky, one would think he would physcially throw the man out the front door everytime he saw him hanging around campus (or better yet, getting a couple of his players to do this for him). However, that was not the case. On Mike & Mike this morning, they interviewed former linebacker Paul Pozlovsky. He was there from 2003-2007, after the 2002 incident. He told the listening audience that Sandusky was around all the time. In fact, the players were encouraged to interact with Sandusky and the Second Mile Program.
    Yes. I would imagine things like the final couple sentences here are why people are spending so much time questioning the morality/mindset of Paterno. You hear about Sandusky molesting kids and report it to your supervisor...cool. That same guy winds up, while not a coach with your program, still closely tied to it to the point that players are encouraged to interact with Sandusky. Things do not compute. The BEST CASE scenario (ie: one where he's not a willing enabler of Sandusky or anything sick like that) is that Joe was ignorant of anything amiss because other people were telling him things were cool and since he's ancient and not likely to have the energy to do a bunch of legwork connected to something off the field, that's all he wanted to hear. When that's the best case, it's obvious that he needs to be replaced because that basically says he's incapable of running a major program anymore.