Online Now 3337

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2565
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3374
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Paterno Family

  • Focusing on whether there was a "cover-up" or not is a flare being shot out by the Paterno family. What makes everyone involved with this a POS, is not that they covered up a crime, it's that they received an eyewitness account from an employee about a child being raped/molested and they did the bare fU@king minimum that was required of them. I don't need to read a report to know that is pathetic. It's not illegal. It's not worthy of sanctions. But it is a good reason for having your legacy permanently tarnished. And having the Paternos try and make people think otherwise is insulting.

    Fatarat ●

  • psubills62 said...

    Maybe if more people used critical thinking and actually read the documents, there would be a lot more flip-floppers.

    You want to know what critical thinking gets you when you read the documents?

    "It is apparent, however, that 'the record' is lacking because
    the SIC apparently failed to interview virtually all of the key witnesses from the 1998 incident
    and investigation including: ... (9) Ray Gricar, former Centre County District Attorney;"

    This is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the Freeh report was a masterpiece of investigation, but it's beyond idiotic to criticize Freeh for not interviewing someone who's been missing since 2005.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    Please. Knight was a huge Paterno supporter, then turned on him after the Freeh report came out, and now he's back to supporting him. He changes his stance any time something even semi-authoritative comes out about the situation.

    Don't act like Phil Knight is somehow enlightened because he happens to agree with your personal view of the situation.

    Well, he said that he actually sat down later and read through the Freeh report. shrug

    getmyjive11 ●

  • CMXI said...

    Please. Knight was a huge Paterno supporter, then turned on him after the Freeh report came out, and now he's back to supporting him. He changes his stance any time something even semi-authoritative comes out about the situation.

    Don't act like Phil Knight is somehow enlightened because he happens to agree with your personal view of the situation.

    Please. Knight jumped on the same wagon you hitch to fueled by national media outlets. I only act like Knight is enlightened enough to actually read the reports before speaking one thing many like you have failed to do.

    Penn State 7x National Champs, home of the winningest college football coach to ever grace a sideline.

    NittanyEagles

  • Fatarat said...

    Focusing on whether there was a "cover-up" or not is a flare being shot out by the Paterno family. What makes everyone involved with this a POS, is not that they covered up a crime, it's that they received an eyewitness account from an employee about a child being raped/molested and they did the bare fU@king minimum that was required of them. I don't need to read a report to know that is pathetic. It's not illegal. It's not worthy of sanctions. But it is a good reason for having your legacy permanently tarnished. And having the Paternos try and make people think otherwise is insulting.

    That is where the whole "watered down version" comes into play. He did not get all the facts. Who knows how much he received. Both he and Mike McQueary have stated this. It is an accepted fact.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Well, there is the rub. Morallity is ultimately subjective. Even your definition of a coverup is subjective.

    I think we can all agree that there has been no evidence that Paterno actively sought to conceal information. If he wanted, he could have just told MM to not worry about it and held the information to himself.

    See, I don't think we can all agree on that. Joe Paterno made an active decision to keep this in-house. He had 10 years to see that nothing was being done about it, and he made an active decision to stay quiet and not report this to the police for a decade.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • NittanyEagles said...

    Please. Knight jumped on the same wagon you hitch to fueled by national media outlets. I only act like Knight is enlightened enough to actually read the reports before speaking one thing many like you have failed to do.

    roflmao Son, I just pointed out one of the biggest problems with the report above. Have you even read it all?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • Joe Pa ran Penn State like a Dictator, history shows he shouldn't be really surprised with his demise

    signature image signature image

    MasonHurricane ●

  • CMXI said...

    You want to know what critical thinking gets you when you read the documents?

    "It is apparent, however, that 'the record' is lacking because the SIC apparently failed to interview virtually all of the key witnesses from the 1998 incident and investigation including: ... (9) Ray Gricar, former Centre County District Attorney;"

    This is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the Freeh report was a masterpiece of investigation, but it's beyond idiotic to criticize Freeh for not interviewing someone who's been missing since 2005.

    Freeh criticized Paterno for not being able to interview him for his report in his response to the Paterno report, even though Joe was dead.

    You shouldn't take that statement as saying that Freeh should have interviewed Ray, just that he had the ultimate decision on whether to charge Sandusky or not and he was unable to be interviewed.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    That is where the whole "watered down version" comes into play. He did not get all the facts. Who knows how much he received. Both he and Mike McQueary have stated this. It is an accepted fact.

    Well, he got enough of the facts that he was "concerned" enough to report the issue to his superiors. And they got enough of the facts to contact Second Mile. So, however watered down it was, it was clearly thick enough where those involved recognized they had a legal obligation to report it.

    Sticking to the "they didn't have enough facts to recognize what really happened" as an excuse for not taking further action is not going to play.

    Fatarat ●

  • CMXI said...

    See, I don't think we can all agree on that. Joe Paterno made an active decision to keep this in-house. He had 10 years to see that nothing was being done about it, and he made an active decision to stay quiet and not report this to the police for a decade.

    He made an active decision to relay watered-down information to his superiors to handle. That wasn't a decision to "keep it in-house". His dicision was to hand it off so he didn't have to deal with it. Saying it is anything more than that is speculation without evidence.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • Fatarat said...

    Well, he got enough of the facts that he was "concerned" enough to report the issue to his superiors. And they got enough of the facts to contact Second Mile. So, however watered down it was, it was clearly thick enough where those involved recognized they had a legal obligation to report it.

    Sticking to the "they didn't have enough facts to recognize what really happened" as an excuse for not taking further action is not going to play.

    Actually, he didn't have a legal obligation to report it. That's the point.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • CMXI said...

    "Cover up" becomes an issue of semantics though - I don't think anyone disputes that Paterno did all that was legally required of him, so we're not talking about any sort of legal definition. It comes down to a moral issue - if you believe that Paterno had a moral obligation to do more than he did, then you probably believe he "covered up" to an extent by not telling someone else about what he knew was going on. Alternatively, if you believe that he did all he was morally required to do, then you probably believe there wasn't any sort of cover up.

    I'd strongly disagree with that logical progression. Failing to tell more people does not equal "covered up." Especially since the real question comes down to what Joe knew.

    The fact is that seven men "knew" about the incident with McQueary, including whatever McQueary told them and none of them went to the police. The simplest explanation for that (and the other evidence) is that McQueary did not witness or discuss a crime being committed.

    It seems to me that Joe knew the least out of all those men, but yet people are saying he's the one who should have gone to the police. None of those other men went to the police based on what they knew, but Joe, knowing even less, had more than enough basis to go to the police? Makes zero sense.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Freeh criticized Paterno for not being able to interview him for his report in his response to the Paterno report, even though Joe was dead.

    You shouldn't take that statement as saying that Freeh should have interviewed Ray, just that he had the ultimate decision on whether to charge Sandusky or not and he was unable to be interviewed.

    You can take it however you'd like, I'm sure we'll be rehashing all these arguments when Curley goes to trial.

    I'm done with this thread for now though, based on how many PSU fans jumped on me immediately, I have a feeling there won't be much (if any) productive discussion from here on out.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    roflmao Son, I just pointed out one of the biggest problems with the report above. Have you even read it all?

    Father, read it 3 times over gets better and better each time proving what we've known all along and how worthless the public has become. I'm sure you had a whale of a time pointing out the biggest problems with the Freeh report, if you ever read it.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by NittanyEagles on 2/11/2013 at 9:57 AM

    Penn State 7x National Champs, home of the winningest college football coach to ever grace a sideline.

    NittanyEagles

  • getmyjive11 said...

    First of all, he did not have that detailed description of what happened. That is an established fact that everyone agrees on. Secondly, the only reason you think that a 75 year old man had that much power at that time is because he is the only face you saw on TV. He was the only name you heard about. It's curious that people believe that he ran everything at PSU and in SC... he could barely run the football program at that point (and frankly, he was not doing a very good job at that point in his career).

    How many details beyond, "Joe, I saw Jerry in the shower with a young boy" does any person with an IQ bigger than their shoe size need to connect the dots? He KNEW. He'd known for years. When Jerry retired it was Joe that suggested, for liability reasons, that Jerry be barred from bringing any Second MIle kids onto the PSU campus.
    So spare me this idea that Joe was somehow in the dark and spare me the notion that Joe Paterno didn't have a LOT of stroke up there. Upon hearing that one of his graduate assistants had spotted Jerry, no stranger to some very questionable activity involving young boys, in the shower with a kid, Joe took the path of least resistance.
    Whether he ran that school or not the man had more options than what he chose.
    But he and the rest of them sat around for another decade and did nothing. That's despicable by any definition.
    Creepy little hamlet that existed up there. Somebody finally flipped on the lights and the rats are scurrying.
    Look, I have several dear friends that are huge Penn St. people. I feel for those guys and all the PSU folks that supported that man for years but I have zero tolerance for anyone that is trying to explain away Joe's role in this or act like he was somehow a powerless figure in all of this....nothing he could have done, really.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • Fatarat said...

    Focusing on whether there was a "cover-up" or not is a flare being shot out by the Paterno family. What makes everyone involved with this a POS, is not that they covered up a crime, it's that they received an eyewitness account from an employee about a child being raped/molested and they did the bare fU@king minimum that was required of them. I don't need to read a report to know that is pathetic. It's not illegal. It's not worthy of sanctions. But it is a good reason for having your legacy permanently tarnished. And having the Paternos try and make people think otherwise is insulting.

    lol

    signature image

    'Just to make it clear, I'm not transferring, I like it here too damn much to leave.' Jordan Kerner

    ejb5212

  • Fatarat said...

    Focusing on whether there was a "cover-up" or not is a flare being shot out by the Paterno family. What makes everyone involved with this a POS, is not that they covered up a crime, it's that they received an eyewitness account from an employee about a child being raped/molested and they did the bare fU@king minimum that was required of them. I don't need to read a report to know that is pathetic. It's not illegal. It's not worthy of sanctions. But it is a good reason for having your legacy permanently tarnished. And having the Paternos try and make people think otherwise is insulting.

    It's pretty obvious that they did NOT receive a report about molestation or rape, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • cockfool said...

    How many details beyond, "Joe, I saw Jerry in the shower with a young boy" does any person with an IQ bigger than their shoe size need to connect the dots? He KNEW. He'd known for years. When Jerry retired it was Joe that suggested, for liability reasons, that Jerry be barred from bringing any Second MIle kids onto the PSU campus. So spare me this idea that Joe was somehow in the dark and spare me the notion that Joe Paterno didn't have a LOT of stroke up there. Upon hearing that one of his graduate assistants had spotted Jerry, no stranger to some very questionable activity involving young boys, in the shower with a kid, Joe took the path of least resistance. Whether he ran that school or not the man had more options than what he chose. But he and the rest of them sat around for another decade and did nothing. That's despicable by any definition. Creepy little hamlet that existed up there. Somebody finally flipped on the lights and the rats are scurrying. Look, I have several dear friends that are huge Penn St. people. I feel for those guys and all the PSU folks that supported that man for years but I have zero tolerance for anyone that is trying to explain away Joe's role in this or act like he was somehow a powerless figure in all of this....nothing he could have done, really.

    Joe hated the kids being around his program. Having them there was inherently a liability even if there was no Sandusky. He just didn't want those kids around.

    I have said multiple times that I am disappointed that Joe didn't advise McQueary to go to police. But he followed the law, he followed policy and now, somehow, that has turned into him "covering up" the situation. If he wanted to cover it up, why would he tell anyone? If he ran the university and wanted this thing kept quiet, when wouldn't he just keep it to himself and tell MM to fall in line? Also, if that is his thought process then why did he not worry about the victim coming forward? Why didn't he worry about MM's father and family friend coming forward? All of these people "knew" and nothing happened. Why? There was no mention of keeping people quiet in the evidence.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • CMXI said...

    You want to know what critical thinking gets you when you read the documents?

    "It is apparent, however, that 'the record' is lacking because the SIC apparently failed to interview virtually all of the key witnesses from the 1998 incident and investigation including: ... (9) Ray Gricar, former Centre County District Attorney;"

    This is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the Freeh report was a masterpiece of investigation, but it's beyond idiotic to criticize Freeh for not interviewing someone who's been missing since 2005.

    Never said it wasn't. I also never claimed that everything in the documents critical of the Freeh report are flawless. And frankly, the point you've zeroed in on in the above post is immaterial at best. The criticisms of Freeh are about the very foundation of his conclusions.

    Right now, I'm still talking about reading the Freeh report and the documents presented as evidence. I haven't gotten around to reading the documents presented by Clemente or Sollers yet.

    What I'm saying is that anyone who approaches the evidence presented in the Freeh report without taking his "conclusions" as gospel from the outset would find a much different picture from the one Freeh painted.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • CMXI said...

    roflmao Son, I just pointed out one of the biggest problems with the report above. Have you even read it all?

    If your response to me was one of the biggest problems in the report, then they must be pretty good and solid reports.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Actually, he didn't have a legal obligation to report it. That's the point.

    Tell that to Jay Paterno then who, repeatedly, said on M&M that "Joe did what was required of him at the time under PA law and University policy."

    Fatarat ●

  • psubills62 said...

    If your response to me was one of the biggest problems in the report, then they must be pretty good and solid reports.

    As I said before, if the Ray Gricar thing is a "big problem" with the report, then Freeh's response to the report in invalidated as he did the same thing when he said that he wasn't allowed to interview Paterno.

    This post was edited by getmyjive11 on 2/11/2013 at 10:04 AM

    getmyjive11 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Joe hated the kids being around his program. Having them there was inherently a liability even if there was no Sandusky. He just didn't want those kids around.

    I have said multiple times that I am disappointed that Joe didn't advise McQueary to go to police. But he followed the law, he followed policy and now, somehow, that has turned into him "covering up" the situation. If he wanted to cover it up, why would he tell anyone? If he ran the university and wanted this thing kept quiet, when wouldn't he just keep it to himself and tell MM to fall in line? Also, if that is his thought process then why did he not worry about the victim coming forward? Why didn't he worry about MM's father and family friend coming forward? All of these people "knew" and nothing happened. Why? There was no mention of keeping people quiet in the evidence.

    I've said nothing of a coverup. I'm simply not buying this assertion that Joe was too far down on the food chain to do much more than tell his boss. He could have and should have, upon learning that an anal rape had been witnessed, done a hell of a lot more than tell the AD. Especially given that this wasn't the first time that they were made aware that Jerry had done some inappropriate things with young boys.
    At the very least, as the years ticked on and Jerry was still hanging around, he might have bothered to ask "Hey, whatever became of that shower rape thing?"
    But, apparently, they were all willing to just let it go. Joe's not alone in taking the heat here. A lot of folks could have and should have done more. But I'll be damned if the "He followed protocol" defense is good enough.
    My opinion....Joe and everybody else knew for years what Jerry Sandusky was. They just didn't care enough to do anything about it. They didn't cover it up. They just let it ride.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • Fatarat said...

    Tell that to Jay Paterno then who, repeatedly, said on M&M that "Joe did what was required of him at the time under PA law and University policy."

    huh

    That's what I said... Joe Paterno didn't have the legal obligation to report the incident to police... he had to send the information to his superiors. What are you saying??

    getmyjive11 ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports