Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

Views:      
 
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 1:10 pm
I'm wondering what McQueary's reason was to wait then.


Whatever it was it was wrong and I dont hear anyone defending McQueary.    
ellupo
SinceJun 30, 2009
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 1:52 pm
Whatever it was it was wrong and I dont hear anyone defending McQueary
I don't hear anyone mobbing him either.
Blitzylvania
SinceNov 3, 2006
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 2:21 pm
Whatever it was it was wrong and I dont hear anyone defending McQueary
I don't hear anyone mobbing him either.
Everyone mobs him too, just nobody defends him..

McQueary rides a far distance behind Sandusky, but he's one of the first in the long line of people I question as to what was he thinking then and for the next few years. He KNEW what happened and let it slide.  
gobucks!
SinceAug 15, 2006
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 2:36 pm
Whatever it was it was wrong and I dont hear anyone defending McQueary
I don't hear anyone mobbing him either.


Because everyone said he was wrong and nobody was creating thread after thread defending him.  See pointing at someone else does not make the one you are defending right.  Saying well he was wrong too, still makes your guy wrong. So using McQueary to try and show Joe was not wrong makes no sense and does not work.  
ellupo
SinceJun 30, 2009
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 3:52 pm
So using McQueary to try and show Joe was not wrong makes no sense and does not work.  
I don't think I ever did that. 
Blitzylvania
SinceNov 3, 2006
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 3:54 pm
Though are far as we know, Paterno at least went to someone with police authority.  What he did afterwards, or didn't do, is a different story.

Can't say that about McQueary. 
Blitzylvania
SinceNov 3, 2006
-

Louis Freeh Responds to Paterno Report

February 18, 2013 4:41 pm
You miss a crucial distinction.  McQueary was a low caliber assistant, Paterno was the head coach.

Where is the buck supposed to stop? 

The ignorance of some of you good people amaze me.  Go to any major university.  If the head coach wants something done, it gets done.  If he sneezes, other people catch cold.  If he calls up someone in administration and says, "hey, someone came to me with some concerns about this Sandusky guy.  Look into it."  And you thing that this should be the end of it?

How naive are you?  If the affair wasn't investigated, there can be only one explanation.  Joe Paterno didn't care enough about it for it to move forward, or worse, Joe Paterno told them to sweep it under the rug.  Now at the end, Joe was a weak shadow of his former self.  He was only a figurehead and his mental capacity was quite deminished.  It seems pretty apparent that Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and a whole lot of other people were doing a lot of covering for him.  They had one goal, make sure that the university didn't get bad PR.

The real tragedy is that all of this is the result of a horribly botched cover-up.  Had everyone been honset, clear back to 1998, while the short term PR would have been bad, it would have been nothing more than a passing storm.  Sandusky would probably plead out to a minor charge and would have been booted off of the Second Mile Board and banned from the campus.  He would have disappeared from view, hopefully not given the golden opportunities to abuse dozens of victims.

But since everyone was so hung up on saving face and hiding disturbing allegations, it festered and then exploded into this horrible affair, one that will damage everyone who touched it, from the innocent to the guilty.

That is the real tragedy.
smiles_id
SinceDec 13, 2006