Online Now 3352

The Blue Board

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

On this Board 2125
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3385
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

  • I'm amused at the people resorting to the idea that Joe was dictator and the most powerful man in State College or some such.

    Perception isn't always reality, people.

    I believe it was Adam Taliaferro who gave two very explicit examples of Joe not even having ultimate power in athletics, much less other University affairs. The first was approving the Big Ten Network. Joe was against it, but his superiors voted for it and told him later that they did. The second was the placement of the baseball field, which apparently encroached on space for football parking or otherwise. Joe was furious about it, but they went ahead with it anyway.

    Joe certainly had support in State College, but to pretend like he was King is ludicrous.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • cockfool said...

    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.

    And what I am saying is that he was never told that there was rape. You stating something that has already been determined not to be true.

    getmyjive11

  • cockfool said...

    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.

    Anal rape was not witnessed. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • psubills62 said...

    I'm amused at the people resorting to the idea that Joe was dictator and the most powerful man in State College or some such.

    Perception isn't always reality, people.

    I believe it was Adam Taliaferro who gave two very explicit examples of Joe not even having ultimate power in athletics, much less other University affairs. The first was approving the Big Ten Network. Joe was against it, but his superiors voted for it and told him later that they did. The second was the placement of the baseball field, which apparently encroached on space for football parking or otherwise. Joe was furious about it, but they went ahead with it anyway.

    Joe certainly had support in State College, but to pretend like he was King is ludicrous.

    lol

    One thing is for sure... Joe hated baseball. I have seen several references to him not being happy with the stadium and the sport in general at PSU.

    getmyjive11

  • psubills62 said...

    I'm amused at the people resorting to the idea that Joe was dictator and the most powerful man in State College or some such.

    Perception isn't always reality, people.

    I believe it was Adam Taliaferro who gave two very explicit examples of Joe not even having ultimate power in athletics, much less other University affairs. The first was approving the Big Ten Network. Joe was against it, but his superiors voted for it and told him later that they did. The second was the placement of the baseball field, which apparently encroached on space for football parking or otherwise. Joe was furious about it, but they went ahead with it anyway.

    Joe certainly had support in State College, but to pretend like he was King is ludicrous.

    He wasn't a king but don't act like Joe Paterno didn't have a ton of stroke up there. You guys, in retrospect, want to act like Paterno was the damned volleyball coach all of a sudden.
    Sorry, that dog won't hunt. In a tiny little town who's very existence relied on that school and that football program Joe Paterno was a MASSIVE figure with considerable power. Absolute power? No. But he was hardly some low level school employee who's only option, upon hearing of a sexual assault on PSU property, was to tell his boss and hope for the best.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • psubills62 said...

    Anal rape was not witnessed. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

    Well, if that's the bar people in positions of authority are using (anything less than anal rape just needs to be kicked up the chain and never followed up on once you're passed it along) then anyone that has children should be very concerned. That's pretty pathetic.

    Fatarat

  • cockfool said...

    He wasn't a king but don't act like Joe Paterno didn't have a ton of stroke up there. You guys, in retrospect, want to act like Paterno was the damned volleyball coach all of a sudden. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. In a tiny little town who's very existence relied on that school and that football program Joe Paterno was a MASSIVE figure with considerable power. Absolute power? No. But he was hardly some low level school employee who's only option, upon hearing of a sexual assault on PSU property, was to tell his boss and hope for the best.

    Wait, so did Joe have more authority than the President, the Athletic Director and the person in charge of overseeing the PSU police? Because that's what it boils down to. It's not like he told an administrative assistant about this.

    getmyjive11

  • Fatarat said...

    Well, if that's the bar people in positions of authority are using (anything less than anal rape just needs to be kicked up the chain and never followed up on once you're passed it along) then anyone that has children should be very concerned. That's pretty pathetic.

    As sad as it is, showering with children is not a crime (I know, that is messed up and hard to believe).

    getmyjive11

  • Bottom line: Great football coach. Great man. But he failed a major test of integrity.

    If you can't admit that, then you undermine your own credibility.

    Fatarat

  • psubills62 said...

    Anal rape was not witnessed. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

    "I made sure he knew it was sexual and it was wrong," McQueary said. "I did not go into gross detail of the act … I didn't feel comfortable using (certain) terms. I didn't explain those details or use those terms when talking to (Paterno) out of respect and out of my own embarrassment, quite frankly."

    From McQueary's grand jury testimony. So he spots Sandusky in the shower with a young boy and tells Joe and makes sure that he understands that it was sexual in nature.....connect the dots already. It's not that hard to figure out.
    This is getting silly. "Joe, I saw a guy pounding a young kid in the butt but never acutally saw his unit..." PSU/JoePa supporter..."Well, technically he didn't witness the penetration and when talking to Joe never used the words "anal rape" so there is Joe's out..."

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    As sad as it is, showering with children is not a crime (I know, that is messed up and hard to believe).

    I get that it's not a crime. Just like blowing on their stomach, or wrestling with them with no shirt on isn't. But there are a lot of things that don't rise to the level of "legal obligation to act" that, morally, require you to act.

    And, point of fact, we don't know that all Joe was told was that MM saw GS showering with a boy.

    Fatarat

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Wait, so did Joe have more authority than the President, the Athletic Director and the person in charge of overseeing the PSU police? Because that's what it boils down to. It's not like he told an administrative assistant about this.

    No, what this boils down to is that a number of people in positions of immense power, Paterno included, chose to sit on their asses for another decade, even after being told that Sandusky just got spotted in the shower with a young boy. THAT is what this boils down to. The rest, from the pathetic attempts to exonerate good 'ole Joe to his families self serving report is nothing but bullchit, spin and white noise.
    Sandusky was an animal and a predator that could have and should have been stopped years ago...only nobody cared enough to try.
    Again Joe isn't alone in this but he's sure as hell right in the middle of it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • I will gladly help pay to build a concealment chamber for this whole family :)

    landonb85 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    As sad as it is, showering with children is not a crime (I know, that is messed up and hard to believe).

    No but performing sex acts in the shower are and that is what McQueary testifed that he saw and that is what he testifed that he told Paterno.
    Again, put your allegiances to PSU aside and connect the dots.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • Fatarat said...

    Bottom line: Great football coach. Great man. But he failed a major test of integrity.

    If you can't admit that, then you undermine your own credibility.

    I have no problem with that statement. It's way different though to fail that test than it is to actively try to cover something up. It also has greater meaning in terms of the NCAA and what they did and their reasoning behind it.

    getmyjive11

  • .... this is going to get nasty between the state and the NCAA

    landonb85 ●

  • cockfool said...

    No but performing sex acts in the shower are and that is what McQueary testifed that he saw and that is what he testifed that he told Paterno. Again, put your allegiances to PSU aside and connect the dots.

    No he didn't tell that to Paterno. And MM has told multiple accounts of what happened. He has several different versions, enough to the point where the jury could not convict Sandsuky on raping that child.

    Basically, no one knows exactly what MM saw because he has never been consistent with it.

    getmyjive11

  • getmyjive11 said...

    I have no problem with that statement. It's way different though to fail that test than it is to actively try to cover something up. It also has greater meaning in terms of the NCAA and what they did and their reasoning behind it.

    Agreed. There was no cover-up and, IMO, even if there was the NCAA still would have no basis ripping schollies and initiating bowl bans. But given the nature of the allegations, you knew blood would be spilled.

    Fatarat

  • cockfool said...

    He wasn't a king but don't act like Joe Paterno didn't have a ton of stroke up there. You guys, in retrospect, want to act like Paterno was the damned volleyball coach all of a sudden. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. In a tiny little town who's very existence relied on that school and that football program Joe Paterno was a MASSIVE figure with considerable power. Absolute power? No. But he was hardly some low level school employee who's only option, upon hearing of a sexual assault on PSU property, was to tell his boss and hope for the best.

    Where did I say he was some low-level employee or the volleyball coach?

    He certainly had support from a number of people in power. But I've never thought that Joe's power was the issue here. I just find it amusing that people claim he was some all-powerful dictator (I believe you claimed he was one of the most powerful men in the state?), when reality simply is not the case.

    Anyway, Joe's power is not the issue. Mike McQueary didn't have any power, but he still could have gone to the police. Dr. Dranov didn't have that much power, but he still could have gone to the police. Same for Mr. McQueary.

    I think that when you're asking "why didn't Joe go to the police," it helps to ask the same question of these other men who also didn't go to the police. It's not a matter of blame shifting, but understanding the situation. The simplest explanation is that none of them knew enough to go to the police.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • Fatarat said...

    I get that it's not a crime. Just like blowing on their stomach, or wrestling with them with no shirt on isn't. But there are a lot of things that don't rise to the level of "legal obligation to act" that, morally, require you to act.

    And, point of fact, we don't know that all Joe was told was that MM saw GS showering with a boy.

    The difference is that morally, you aren't required to do anything. You can be a scumbag as long as you follow the law and that is fine (legally).

    And he did act, just not in the way many wishes he did. But he did, in fact, act.

    getmyjive11

  • cockfool said...

    "I made sure he knew it was sexual and it was wrong," McQueary said. "I did not go into gross detail of the act … I didn't feel comfortable using (certain) terms. I didn't explain those details or use those terms when talking to (Paterno) out of respect and out of my own embarrassment, quite frankly."

    From McQueary's grand jury testimony. So he spots Sandusky in the shower with a young boy and tells Joe and makes sure that he understands that it was sexual in nature.....connect the dots already. It's not that hard to figure out. This is getting silly. "Joe, I saw a guy pounding a young kid in the butt but never acutally saw his unit..." PSU/JoePa supporter..."Well, technically he didn't witness the penetration and when talking to Joe never used the words "anal rape" so there is Joe's out..."

    McQueary also gave the grand jury the wrong year. You think McQueary's testimony can be trusted? His story has changed multiple times now as to what he 1) did, 2) saw, 3) heard. The only three charges that Sandusky was acquitted of were ones that depended on McQueary's testimony.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    No he didn't tell that to Paterno. And MM has told multiple accounts of what happened. He has several different versions, enough to the point where the jury could not convict Sandsuky on raping that child.

    Basically, no one knows exactly what MM saw because he has never been consistent with it.

    That's what he testified to. Odd that you know more. You're believing what you want to believe because you desperately want to go back to having Joe looked at as this great, wonderful guy and not the creepy old guy that was a party to allowing a deviant sexual predator to roam free for years.
    Even taking your stance, that McQueary has been inconsistent and can't be fully trusted (I don't buy that but whatever) at the very least, any reasonable person has to admit that McQueary told Joe something in regards to seeing Jerry in the shower with a kid. It was enough to get Joe, the AD, the university president involved in looking into it.
    Given that this wasn't the first time Jerry had been accused of such conduct you'd have thought it might have amounted to more than it did. But, Jerry went on being Jerry for another decade....and that is inexcusable.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • Fatarat said...

    Agreed. There was no cover-up and, IMO, even if there was the NCAA still would have no basis ripping schollies and initiating bowl bans. But given the nature of the allegations, you knew blood would be spilled.

    I think evidence of a coverup by the football program at least gives some validity to the NCAA's sanctions (even if they have never done this before and probably overstepped their boundaries). But to have no evidence of this absolutely destroys any credibility of the NCAA would have had and just makes them appear like bullies just trying to pile on to appease the public for the benefit of their own image.

    getmyjive11

  • psubills62 said...

    McQueary also gave the grand jury the wrong year. You think McQueary's testimony can be trusted? His story has changed multiple times now as to what he 1) did, 2) saw, 3) heard. The only three charges that Sandusky was acquitted of were ones that depended on McQueary's testimony.

    You know who I don't trust? The Paterno family and delusional PSU homers that are desperately trying to get JoePa's name cleared.
    I'm well aware that MM's story has inconsistencies in it that any good lawyer would try to attack. But at the end of the day, he saw Jerry Sandusky in the shower with a young boy and told Joe Paterno about it. Even the Sandusky defense team didn't try to claim otherwise. So again, connect the dots. It ain't that tough to figure out guys.

    signature image signature image signature image

    cockfool ●

  • cockfool said...

    That's what he testified to. Odd that you know more. You're believing what you want to believe because you desperately want to go back to having Joe looked at as this great, wonderful guy and not the creepy old guy that was a party to allowing a deviant sexual predator to roam free for years. Even taking your stance, that McQueary has been inconsistent and can't be fully trusted (I don't buy that but whatever) at the very least, any reasonable person has to admit that McQueary told Joe something in regards to seeing Jerry in the shower with a kid. It was enough to get Joe, the AD, the university president involved in looking into it. Given that this wasn't the first time Jerry had been accused of such conduct you'd have thought it might have amounted to more than it did. But, Jerry went on being Jerry for another decade....and that is inexcusable.

    Yes, it should have amounted to more than what it did... but who's responsibility is that? The football coach or the president? The football coach or the person who oversees PSU police and had his own file on the 1998 situation?

    And, I have to say it again, nothing has shown that Joe knew the details of 1998. I'm not saying that he didn't know, but you are speculating again, just as Freeh did.

    getmyjive11

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports