There is just no debating facts when folks get to make up their own story.  Smiles, I hope one day a law enforcement officer doesn't take the same approach with you or your family.  Thank the constitution for keeping thoughts such as yours out of the courts

That's about the size of it Jonvi; some of these folks simply make it up as they go and continue to post things without regards to any benefit of the doubt.  Sandusky is in jail and if Curly, Shultz, Corbett and anyone else part of any cover up will also go to jail.  They do it right up there; they actually have trials and rules of evidence before condemning people.  There are a few idiots on here who are not interested in our constitution and continue to condemn people without regard to their basic rights. 

The man is dead, I personally do not want anything from him.  I do not understand how someone that was not there can say "
No cover up".  I realize that had said as such that mine are opinions and could very well be wrong.   I interpret the evidence in a different way that many others.  But how can those that support Joe say so definitively  that they know there was no cover up or any wrong doing by Joe?  I am not one of those that is going to bad mouth the man and call names but I dont understand others thinking, which is why there are these discussions on boards.  


To me when it comes to childrens welfare, it is more than just a mistake.  

Something that folks seem to be missing is that this is what pedophiles do, especially the "nice guy" pedophiles. They are expert profilers. They watch a group of kids and virtually without fail, pick the kid that they can victimize that is least likely to report it. They have to be able to do this to get away with it for as long as most do.

I guess we on CBS are all potential pedophiles then, because we're all hiding it so well.

buckizzle and ellupo....that's why he wished he had done more.  He admits his guilt for not following up.  I don't know what else you want from the man.  He screwed up, he knows it and that's it.  No cover up.  Just a man who made a mistake. 

That all depends on your definition of "cover up".

Personally I think not going to the police when you have received eye witness account of a 60 year old man alone with a young boy doing something sexual in nature in a facility that you are in charge of is in fact "covering it up".   


There would have been no penalty for Joe Pa for him taking this straight to the police once he found out or once he realized that Curley and Shultz didn't go to the police.  

There really is no point in this debate to continue.  Folks who want Paterno to be cleared of any wrongdoing aren't changing their minds, and folks who think he failed as a 'man of high character' or even particpated in a cover up aren't either.  It seems very unlikely ther is going to be any new factual information that proves he was part of a coverup, just as there will be no factual evidence that proves he wasn't.  

Those on Team Joe will flatly reject that he is 'coach' from the 1998 email, and that he knew anything of the 98 incident.  They will also say he did enough when he passed McQeary's info on to Schultz and Curley, then apparently didn't show the slightest concern regarding the outcome of that incident.  The 'haters' will always have a hard time believing the great Joe Paterno (a coach that battled in-school administration to protect his players eligibility, who took calls peronally from to police when his players got in trouble,  who supposedly said "Nah, I'm good." when PSU officials tried to force him to retire, and who felt his opinion should hold sway in matters regarding the Big Ten Network and a Penn State baseball stadium) could be kept in the dark about one of his assistant coaches being investigated for pedophilia, and then would show minimal interest after reporting that that same coach was witnesed 'fondling' a young boy in something of a 'sexual nature' in the Penn State showers.

It's an impasse that will not be circumvented.   I personally have the belief that, while he wouldn't have been found guilty (or even neessarily charged) in any court of law, he simply should have done more.  The well constructed conspiracy theories regarding the BoT, the kind of frightening letter of the law in PA, and the fact that his superiors also failed to point the police in the direction of  Sandusky does not clear Paterno of blame in my eyes.  But I'm also not ready to condemn a man who has done a lot of good in his life without more solid proof.  It's a difficult situation to reconcile.

I am interested to see where the Curley/Schultz/Spanier trials go.  The Paterno report makes it seem possible that (since the report tried to clear Joe's name by sorta funneling the blame to his superiors) they may not portray Paterno in the most flattering light.  It will be interesting to see how they defend their inaction, or where their fingers end up pointing.  

WFM, your stance is exactly the same as mine and one I've preached for a while.  It's nice to know there are others out there that like to look at things rationally and not jump into that mob mentality that many extremists have taken up.

A shame of it all is that no matter which extremist, they'll call us either a pedophile sympathizer or a facist by not taking their side.  Some people just don't believe in a middle ground.

There really is no point in this debate to continue.  Folks who want Paterno to be cleared of any wrongdoing aren't changing their minds, and folks who think he failed as a 'man of high character' or even particpated in a cover up aren't either.  It seems very unlikely ther is going to be any new factual information that proves he was part of a coverup, just as there will be no factual evidence that proves he wasn't.

Agree.

Those on Team Joe will flatly reject that he is 'coach' from the 1998 email, and that he knew anything of the 98 incident. 

I don't know about "flatly reject", but considering that it was Sandusky, not JoePa who everyone referred to as "coach" and that it was Sandusky, not JoePa who was being investigated, it would seem just as logical that an e-mail saying that "coach is anxious about the investigation" would be every bit as, if not more likely, to refer to Sandusky as to JoePa.

They will also say he did enough when he passed McQeary's info on to Schultz and Curley, then apparently didn't show the slightest concern regarding the outcome of that incident.

This is another assumption that has been made. We don't know if JoePa ever checked back in or not. For all any of us know, he may well have asked about it and was told that it's being handled. Additionally, as someone who merely reported something that was told to him, but that he did not witness, he would not have been privy to the details of an investigation.

It's an impasse that will not be circumvented.   I personally have the belief that, while he wouldn't have been found guilty (or even neessarily charged) in any court of law, he simply should have done more.  The well constructed conspiracy theories regarding the BoT, the kind of frightening letter of the law in PA, and the fact that his superiors also failed to point the police in the direction of  Sandusky does not clear Paterno of blame in my eyes.  But I'm also not ready to condemn a man who has done a lot of good in his life without more solid proof.  It's a difficult situation to reconcile.

The problem is this: there is no solid evidence that he should be blamed for the cover up and no solid evidence to prove that he is blameless. All that we truly know about any of this is the following:

Sandusky molested kids for years. Not just at the PSU campus, but at many other places all over Happy Valley, etc. We know that McQueary saw something, but has given about 3 or 4 different versions of what he saw and what he did. We also know that he did not call the police himself (which as a witness, he should have) and we know that he gave a watered down version of what he saw to JoePa (how watered down it was, we don't know). Whatever he did or did not tell JoePa, it at least concerned JoePa enough that he took to whom he was supposed to take it to according to PSU policy and PA state law. We also know that what he did was more than what anyone else did.

I am interested to see where the Curley/Schultz/Spanier trials go.  The Paterno report makes it seem possible that (since the report tried to clear Joe's name by sorta funneling the blame to his superiors) they may not portray Paterno in the most flattering light.  It will be interesting to see how they defend their inaction, or where their fingers end up pointing.

This will be interesting for sure. Funny thing is, if they ultimately try to just put this all on JoePa, I don't know what good it will do for them in a criminal trial. After all, they were still ultimatley responsible to make sure that this was reported to the proper authorities and they didn't. So even if JoePa masterminded the cover up, they are still the one's who broke the law because they were ultimately responsible to report it.

Blitz,

1.)  your ying-yang avatar is kinda making me dizzy.

2.)  It must get old being called names, etc.  But you really can't take that sort of thing seriously.  (Easy for me to say, I guess.)  

I have a good friend who went to Penn State.  Like, not just went, but was involved.   This person and his family never met Joe Paterno, but conducted business with Jay on several occasions.  Spanier, too.  He worked with the Second Mile and had encounters (though brief) with Sandusky.  He told me that he felt sick.  That he couldn't help but feel a bit 'used' by the Second Mile, even though the intentions of the vast, vast majority of folks involved were sincere.  

He also confessed to me in the days following the news that he could never bring himself to truly dislike Joe Paterno. There is certainly a middle ground (I mean none of this seems completely black and white) but even those who choose to just give Paterno the benefit of doubt can't necessarily be blamed, especially since they likely held the man in such high esteem for a long, long time.  But they need to understand that most folks don't have any great attachment to him,  and not everyone who feels disappointed in PSU and Paterno is a torch-bearing mob member.   
  

Again, this hurts the PSU family and Joe in particular. It meant that the people involved knew how big of a deal this was to PSU and that Joe was "the man" to handle it... 

This is just more dribble that you pick up from ESPN. I'm going to give you three examples of how Joe Paterno did not have the "power" people thought he did.

1.) When the Big Ten announced plans to start the Big Ten Network, every University in the conference had to sign off on the idea. Joe Paterno thought the network was a bad idea because it would create less exposure than being on ESPN or ABC. He made it clear to the president of the University (Spanier) that he did not want PSU to endorse the BTN. Spanier called Joe in his office and told him that the University was going to do it anyway. Paterno later admitted to Spanier that he was wrong about the network.

2.) There is a new baseball stadium next to Beaver Stadium that opened about five or six years ago. Joe Paterno was adamently against the stadium because it took away prime parking spaces for the football games. He went to the University President and complained. He wrote to the state representatives and he called the Governor (Rendell) to try and stop that stadium from being built. Guess what, it was built. 

3.) If Joe Paterno had all the "power" that people like to give him; how was it that he was fired over the phone at 10:30 PM on a Wednesday? How is it that his press conference was canceled by the BoT? How is it that he could not get in touch with any of the trustees before he was fired to try and talk to them about the situation? If he had all the "power," couldn't he have stopped all that? He couldn't.
 

1.) Did Joe kick the President of the university out of his house when he asked him to retire a few years back?

2.) They waited to press charges until Joe passed the all time wins record for college coaches. That alone tells you about his power..

3.) Mike McQuarry and his father decided it was better to go to Joe than  the police and determined whatever Joe wanted to do was good enough....

4.) To counter your #3, any coach in America would have been gone without fan fare and riots like Joe received. Joe lost his power once this came out..

trojanfan12?  Ugh, this guy again?!?
 
I kid.

I don't know about "flatly reject", but considering that it was Sandusky, not JoePa who everyone referred to as "coach" and that it was Sandusky, not JoePa who was being investigated, it would seem just as logical that an e-mail saying that "coach is anxious about the investigation" would be every bit as, if not more likely, to refer to Sandusky as to JoePa.


While there is no guarantee 'Coach' is Paterno, it seems pretty clear 'Coach' is not Sandusky.  For one, he is referred to as Jerry several time in those emails in May and June of 1998.  In fact, the subject of the emails is "Jerry".  Also, if you read the emails, it seems pretty clear that Tim Curley is asking Gary Shultz to be updated on Sandusky's status, with Schultz informing Curley about interviews Sandusky may or may not have given.  Schultz then contacts Tom Harmon from the DoW, who tells Schultz that Sandusky had not yet been interviewed.

There is also this iffy correspondance between Curley and Schultz on May 6, well before the 'Coach is anxious' email:

Subject:  Re: Joe Paterno  

Curley:  I have touched base with the coach.  Keep us posted.  Thanks.

Schultz:  Will do.  Since we talked tonight, I've learned that the public welfare people will interview the individual Thursday.     

Now that does nothing to clarify anything definitively, so interpret as you like.     
     
 This is another assumption that has been made. We don't know if JoePa ever checked back in or not. For all any of us know, he may well have asked about it and was told that it's being handled. Additionally, as someone who merely reported something that was told to him, but that he did not witness, he would not have been privy to the details of an investigation.

This is actually where Jay Paterno said something interesting during an interview on ESPN.  He said the Joe once said he never followed up on it, but that Joe was incorrect about that.  I think Jay then goes on to explain that Joe 'followed up' by asking McQueary if he was 'OK'.  Apparently the most heavily weighted 'Are you OK?" in history.  
 
We know that McQueary saw something, but has given about 3 or 4 different versions of what he saw and what he did. 

Does that make any of his versions not extremely eyebrow raising?  Paterno used the words 'fondling' and 'sexual nature'.  Curley and Schulz can claim they heard 'horsing around', but since we know for a fact they both knew about Sandusky's '98 investigation,  I don't see a situation where 'horsing around' could responsibly be taken lightly.      
   
This will be interesting for sure. Funny thing is, if they ultimately try to just put this all on JoePa, I don't know what good it will do for them in a criminal trial. After all, they were still ultimatley responsible to make sure that this was reported to the proper authorities and they didn't. So even if JoePa masterminded the cover up, they are still the one's who broke the law because they were ultimately responsible to report it.
  
They've had a long time to get their stories straight.  Hopefully some new facts come to light at the very least.  

   


       

Subject:  Re: Joe Paterno  

Curley:  I have touched base with the coach.  Keep us posted.  Thanks.

Schultz:  Will do.  Since we talked tonight, I've learned that the public welfare people will interview the individual Thursday.     

Now that does nothing to clarify anything definitively, so interpret as you like.

Yeah, that's kind of the problem with anyone on either side saying that the e-mails prove anything definitive (other than Curley, Schultz and Spanier discussing what they intended to do) re: whether they refer to Sandusky or Paterno. You can make a logical case for either one.

Does that make any of his versions not extremely eyebrow raising?  Paterno used the words 'fondling' and 'sexual nature'.  Curley and Schulz can claim they heard 'horsing around', but since we know for a fact they both knew about Sandusky's '98 investigation,  I don't see a situation where 'horsing around' could responsibly be taken lightly.

No, it doesn't make any version less eyebrow raising and and JoePa was at least concerned enough to report it to those he was supposed to report it to.

I agree about the "horsing around" etc. terminology that they used as well. Even if they were told it was "horsing around" whether by McQueary or JoePa, given that they knew about '98, that should have been enough for them to handle it the way that they were supposed to, instead of the way that they did. Most telling was the e-mail in which they decided to handle it the way that they ultimately did. In that e-mail, they said something alluding to how bad it would be if they were found out.

The very fact that statement even had to be made, should have let them know that they were in the wrong.

They've had a long time to get their stories straight.  Hopefully some new facts come to light at the very least.

I agree, but I don't see how the e-mails can be explained away. Whether one wants to call what they did a true "cover up" or not, the plain fact is that under Pennsylvania mandated reporting laws and PSU policy, they were required to report it to the authorities and they didn't. I'd like to see some new and definitive evidence come out as well.

We know that McQueary saw something, but has given about 3 or 4 different versions of what he saw and what he did. We also know that he did not call the police himself (which as a witness, he should have) and we know that he gave a watered down version of what he saw to JoePa (how watered down it was, we don't know). Whatever he did or did not tell JoePa, it at least concerned JoePa enough that he took to whom he was supposed to take it to according to PSU policy and PA state law. We also know that what he did was more than what anyone else did.

WRONG !

This is what you have been repeating for months and its just wrong.

First of all, you state McQueary gave 3 or 4 versions of what he SAW.   No he didn't.  He did give different versions of his reaction to what he saw and what he did.  But that was his attempt at saving face for his actions.  McQueary never came forward with any information on his own.  he was a reluctant witness from the start.  All the while he was giving information he was trying to protect JoePa...as in his claim of being "vague" when describing to JoePa what he saw. 

I guess JoePa was too stupid to ask followup questions.  As he would have to be for him not to learn more.

But JoePa knew enough from his own admission under oath.  He said he knew what McQueary was telling him was that Sandusky was seen naked in a shower with a naked boy of about 10 years of age and that Sandusky's actions towards the boy were of a sexual nature.

Isn't that enough for JoePa to understand ?  What part is watered down in that ?

And JoePa didn't  "took to whom he was supposed to take it to according to PSU policy and PA state law".

He didn't take it anywhere.  He sat on that information for a couple of days.  Then he summoned those men to his home...to his kitchen table...where the coverup began.

No police report was ever filed.  No investigation ever conducted.  They never looked for the victim to check on his health.  Remeber, this was a boy of 10 years old that they knew was sexually abused by Sandusky yet none of them ever looked for him or tried to indentify him.   Later Sandusky himself offers to identify the child and they pass on that !!!!

So to summarize:

McQueary...his Dad, Joepa, Curley, Shults and Spanier...all knew Sandusky was molesting a young boy of 10 years old in a shower on campus at PSU and they never did anything to report it, find the child to have a health check or prevent Sandusky the freedom to commit this crime again.

They did nothing for the victim.  They did everthing to prevent the news of a former PSU coach molesting boys on campus from ever being exposed.  That's where their efforts were.  In keeping it all covered up.

here something to consider.    McQueary himself was surprised that no one interviewed him about what it was he saw for several weeks after and so he asked about it...They told him not to worry as they had handled the situation.

He was the only eye witness and they "handled" it without talking to him !

So to say JoePa reported it to the proper people is a cop out.  An excuse.  A lie.  Pure rubbish !
 

i would like to say one thing about Joe Pa, (well it qualifies as one large, comprised of many small things lol) 
NO, Joe Pa raped no one, I think we all agree.
Joe Pa. coached well past his prime and stayed at that position longer than prudent. He was too old for the job of HC!
Joe pa was loved by everyone at PSU and most of Pennnsylvania, not to mention CFB!
Joe Pa did not deliberately ignore what Sandusky did to those children.
Joe Pa would have put Sandusky in jail himself or kicked his butt , if he understood what was REAL in refrence to the incident!

Joe Pa was a decent, god fearing, American that loved children as he did his own.


The man was borderline senile at the time of said incident! The man was definately senile upon his termination and apparently years before as evidenced by all the times he was in the way during practice and ended up with serious injuries.

The fault lies within the state for letting him stay beyond mandatory retirement age!

Think of it as if he was your father , HE COULD BE! L et the man rest, he is no villan here!

Joe pa IS wrong, he is just not THE villan here, Sandusky is!

I wanted to hang him by his GNADS after it 1st happened. He is DEAD now!

Pay the kids, PAY THEM WELL!

But we cant turn back time! 

In 2001 when the shower incident was told to JoePa he was 75 years old and in great health both physically and mentally.

Sandusky is the main villian as you say....we all know that now.  JoePa and others knew it way back then and did nothing to stop him from abusing more victims.  

Imagine if you will had JoePa simply said:

"I heard of a disturbing thing that happened in our shower facilities by an assistant coach.  I am now making myself available to the police for questioning and urge all PSU authorities do the same until we get to the bottom of what happened." 

How many innocent kids may have been spared molestation by Sandusky ? 

You don't get a pass because you are old.   You don't get a pass because you loved your kids.  You don't get a pass because you were the coach for many years and won a bunch of games.

If that had been JoePa's grandkid would he have been more active in the investigation ?  You would hope so right ? ...so how is his grandkids more important than some poor kids from broken homes ?  They weren't throw-aways were they ? 

NO, Joe Pa raped no one, I think we all agree.

Nobody is accusing him of that....he is being accused of knowing someone else was probably doing that and didn't make sure it was properly reported.

Joe Pa. coached well past his prime and stayed at that position longer than prudent. He was too old for the job of HC!

He may have been, but what has this got to do with what happened in 2001 ?

Joe pa was loved by everyone at PSU and most of Pennnsylvania, not to mention CFB!

That is why the coverup happened...doesn't excuse anything.  Just explains why it could have happened.

Joe Pa did not deliberately ignore what Sandusky did to those children.

Yeah he did...for a couple of days to be exact...he said he didn't want to interfere with people's weekend to report the sexual molestation of a 10 year old.  Andy do you know anything about what happened ?

Joe Pa would have put Sandusky in jail himself or kicked his butt , if he understood what was REAL in refrence to the incident!

Ahhh..so he's too old do know anything...but he then knew what was real !  ...and he could be counted on to kick butt too.!  Ok, are you just trying to be funny here Andy ?

Joe Pa was a decent, god fearing, American that loved children as he did his own.

Well let's hope he loved his kids more than that 10 year old boy he heard about in the shower being molested because he never sought that kid out to see if he was ok.  

TD, i am not disagreeing, I feel its just time to let things heal, that is all!

Paterno is dead, the good folks in Happy valley deserve to be happy again, they had nothing to do with it! 

 Did Joe kick the President of the university out of his house when he asked him to retire a few years back?

No. Graham Spanier did an extensive interview with ABC in September about the Freeh Report, the scandal etc. They asked him specifically about that story and he said that after the 2004 season (PSU went 4-7 and all of Happy Valley was calling for Joe's retirement) Joe Paterno contacted him and said that he was strongly considering stepping down and that he was going to call coaches around the country to see if they were interested in taking the job. So a few days later, Spanier and Curley (Athletic Director) went to Paterno's house to discuss the retirement option. It was at that point Paterno said that he had decided not to retire. Spanier and Curley asked him several times if he was sure, and he said yes.. That story about him chasing them out came from a pep rally during the 2005 season (In which PSU went 11-1, won the Big Ten/Orange Bowl and finished #3) The crownd was into it and Paterno loved the fact that he had brought PSU back.

They waited to press charges until Joe passed the all time wins record for college coaches. That alone tells you about his power..

Yeah, ok. That's the dumbest argument about Joe's power I've heard. If they really cared about that, they would have waited until after the season was over (PSU was 8-1 at the time) Besides, the Attorney General at the time (Linda Kelly) went to Pitt, so I highly doubt she gave a crap about Joe Paterno's win record. 

Mike McQuarry and his father decided it was better to go to Joe than  the police and determined whatever Joe wanted to do was good enough....

And then Paterno referred him to Curley and Schultz. McQueary still did nothing after that. 


 

The lesson must go further than just Penn St.  I can understand why PSU fans are defensive, they have much to be defensive about.

The lesson is simple.  When you elevate someone to the level of sainthood and it turns out that they aren't a saint, the fall is a long one.

We all saw the murals of JoePa, and all the other luminaries in Nittany Lion history that got so much internet play as the scandal went down.  And we chuckled to ourselves as one by one, the various apostles and saints had their halos removed and their images whited out.  Finally, the whole picture and the statues as well were quietly removed in the middle of the night.  Kids visiting campus 30 years from now will probably ask, "Joe who?"

I can understand that the family and the university are having second thoughts about the investigation and the subsequent punishments.  But you good people are handling it wrong.  Whining and calling for a replay will only make it worse.  Crying foul will only destroy the tiny chance left that history will be kind to your fallen coach. 

If Joe Paterno had simply and humbly apologized and quietly stepped down, he might have saved most of his legacy.  But focing the university to fire him and then giving that long rambling interview as he was dying destroyed what chances he had.  Once aroused, the press are like circling sharks, never satisfied until every last scrap is consumed.  The trouble is that as one digs into it, it turns out that lots of people were guitly of looking the other way.  And the blood is already in the water.

All the family and the university are doing is guarantee that the sharks will gooble up every drop.

Smiles I agree.   You know for the most part it looked good for PSU going forward.  It seemed that they had accepted the findings and agreed to the sanctions.   That is what happened right ?

Then all of a sudden here come the Paterno's to wipe away all the goodwill that was extended to PSU in this transition under the sanctions.

Why ?  To protect the Paterno brand ?  Kinda self serving at the schools expense if you ask me.

So they pull off the scab that was finally healing...and now the blood as you say is back in the water.


Some said we should not respond to any of this....let the healing take place.   Well weren't we all doing that ?

Who peeled the scab off ?    This very thread was created by a Paterno defender.  If he didn't want others to comment on this subject he should not have created this thread.   Some of us are not willing to let the apologists re-write history.