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