JP did know. The timeline damns him: McQ tells JP, JP tells Curley, Curley and Schultz meet with McQ, Curley and Schultz confirm that they’re going to tell the authorities, but then the next day Curley tells Schultz and Spanier that he has changed his mind after speaking with JP and that they’re going to try and get Sandusky to seek professional help first before reporting him. It’s clear that JP knew and that doing the right thing was not foremost on his mind.
So all that’s left to SA is this nonsense about naked hugs, because if the contact in the shower was in fact purely innocent, then it wouldn’t matter that JP knew about it.
The Paterno family and a handful of Penn State trustees are suing the NCAA to get Paterno’s win record reinstated and to over set the NCAA sanctions in general. Plus Sandusky intends to appeal his conviction. Plus there may yet be civil lawsuits against Penn State by the victims.
Also, he did all of that while knowing about the prior criminal investigation of Sandusky in 1998. He then denied such knowledge in front of a grand jury.
And according to the Freeh report, even after they supposedly told Sandusky in March 2001 that he couldn’t bring kids to PSU facilities, Victim 5 was assaulted in the Lasch Building shower in August.
Which of course makes it all Joe Paterno’s fault because Penn State didn’t position armed guards at every door 24/7 to keep him out. :rolleyes:
The normal procedure when people have been denied access to a facility is to have them removed once someone in a position of authority has been informed of their presence, and perhaps to have them arrested if they persist. The Freeh comment and your posting of it have no subjective value and are intended merely to add fuel to a fire that began ten years after the fact. Once again you and the Freeh report show an eager bias to assign blame where no reasonable person interested in facts and the normal workings of day to day reality would agree. Again you are condemning Penn State for not looking into a crystal ball, this time to divine Sandusky’s presence with a child in the shower after it had been placed off limits.
I think I read somewhere that he still had a key. If you tell someone to stay away and not use your shit, why are going to let them keep the key to said shit?
Yeah, we should blame Penn State for not looking into a crystal ball. It’s not their fault. When they were told that Sandusky was sexually abusing children they didn’t know it would turn out to be true.
It is the esteemed Starving “Hey, Who Doesn’t Shower With Boys?” Artist’s contention that that original investigation was the actual misinterpreted naked heterosexual sports-related shower hug in question, since there were no charges levied.
And if that first naked heterosexual sports-related shower hug was just a crazy mistake, Paterno probably thought that what McQueary saw was just another unfortunate misinterpreted naked heterosexual sports-related shower hug.
No, it’s Paterno’s fault because he convinced Curley not to go to the authorities, instead choosing to keep quiet about it and give Sandusky one last chance to reform himself. If they had done what the law demanded, they wouldn’t have needed to concern themselves with watching Sandusky like a hawk because he would have been in prison (and in any event, the fact that Sandusky assaulted a kid not six months later on university property shows that the co-conspirators had washed their hands of any duty to make sure Sandusky wasn’t using his position to prey on more children).
So predictable that you would post such a phony diatribe as this, absolutely full of suppositions and unsupported conclusions (in perfect keeping with the rest of you compatriots in this thread I might add), only to be hailed for presenting such an excellent summary of my position in the thread.
Let’s take a look at reality, shall we:
The evidence (or rather lack thereof) shows that Paterno knew of only two incidents: a shower hug that was investigated and dropped, and another incident in the shower two years later in which he was informed by McQueary that he thought Sandusky was sexually abusing a child in the shower. I say “thought” because McQueary seemed unable to describe the exact nature or category of abuse he witnessed. Paterno may have believed him entirely, may have believed him at the time but upon second thought came to feel McQueary had possibly misconstrued what he’d seen as had evidently happened two years earlier, or he may have McQueary was wrong to begin with. Either way it doesn’t matter because he reported it in detail the very next morning in accordance with longstanding campus protocol established decades before at the request of the local police in order to prevent their being flooded with multiple reports of the same crime.
So Paterno discharged his responsibility properly and fully and in a timely manner.
There is no proof in the Freeh report that Joe Paterno persuaded Curley not to contact the authorities. As I’ve explained already, Paterno’s involvement could have been nothing more than to suggest to Curley that he do as he thought best as for all he knew what McQueary saw may have been criminal or may have been another instance like the previous one which was investigated and dropped, whereupon Curley remained undecided and wrote that after meeting with Paterno he’d decided to question Sandusky about it instead.
There is absolutely nothing that makes this scenario less believable than the one in the Freeh report and for a couple of reasons makes more sense. Paterno had no reason to cover for Sandusky. Sandusky was several years out of his employ by then and prior to Sandusky’s leaving bad blood had developed between the two over Sandusky’s increasing devotion to his charity rather than his job with the football team. And there is no evidence anywhere that Paterno tried to minimize McQueary’s assertions or convince anyone to go easy on Sandusky for the benefit of his football program, the school, or anything else.
Your characterization of my position on the hug as “innocent” is both dishonest and of no matter. I’ve said numerous times that I thought Sandusky was engaging in sexually skeevy behavior with that boy (if McQueary’s story is to be believed, and I’m beginning to have my doubts for reasons I’ve already described), but the point is that from Paterno’s perspective ten years ago it may simply have been another case of a shower hug like the one that was investigated and dropped. If you have a problem with hugs in the shower being deemed harmless and dropped, talk to the police and prosecutors who made that decision at the time, not me.
