I’ll answer that but first I’d like to see where Curley makes this remark. All I’ve heard prior to today is that according to the Freeh report Curley said he’d changed his mind after talking to Paterno and decided to discuss the matter with Sandusky first. To my mind this won’t change the outcome re Paterno’s supposed participation, but I’d like to keep the facts straight.
Since I may be busy later I’ve decided to go ahead and answer your question now rather than wait for your answer. I refer you to post 4192 in which I proposed the following scenario as a plausible explanation for Curley’s email. I see nothing in the Freeh report as you relate it today which connects Paterno directly with Curley’s decision to try to get Sandusky to seek help if that is indeed what Curley said he’d decided to do, as I’m sure Curley is easily intelligent enough to come up with the idea of getting Sandusky to seek professional help on his own and he may very well have been considering it and proposed it to Paterno prior to the following scenario being played out in Curley’s office:
Note again for emphasis that Paterno could have given the same answer in response to a query from Curley as to trying to get Sandusky to seek professional help. After all, Paterno is on record as having said he didn’t want to try to influence the investigation or its outcome in any way.
According to the Freeh report, pages 23 and 24:
Well, now I’m curious - did Sandusky “cooperate” enough to mollify Curley, Schultz and Spanier?
Regardless of anything else, no, you didn’t answer the question.
You show me a man who says something like: “He seems to have a thing for hugging kids in the shower” and doesn’t find anything wrong with that, and I’ll show you a man who I’d like to kick right square in the ball sack.
Okay, Jeff, you may be shocked but I’m going to back off my original defense of Paterno in regard to the discussion in Curley’s office. If the Freeh report is honest in its details regarding the meeting, and I have no evidence at this time to believe it isn’t, it does sound like Paterno was instrumental in Curley’s having arrived at the decision to try to get Sandusky to seek professional help for what Paterno had become convinced by that time was a problem serious enough for concern, though one which in my opinion still falls short of his being aware of the true nature of Sandusky’s abuse and/or the impact it would have upon the children who were subjected to it.
There does seem to be a discrepancy though between what I’ve seen Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier doing though vs. what the report details. The complaint has been that Paterno persuaded the admin guys not to go to the police, whereas the report clearly shows that the discussion involved whether to inform the Second Mile charity head and the Department of Child Welfare, neither of which are the vaunted local university town police who allegedly could have gotten to the bottom of it immediately.
So no, Paterno did not talk anyone out of going to the police. And he seemed to play a persuasive role in trying to take a proactive approach which would address the problem as he saw it (which was likely far less serious than it really was) rather than simply throwing the charity and its kids into turmoil by reporting the allegeations to the charity head and getting the Dept of Child Welfare - a notoriously inept, inflexible organization whose policies and practices are often harmful to the children themselves if the one in my state is any example - involved and getting all the kids yanked out of the charity and so forth.
In other words, he and Curley (and the other officials, for that matter) all seemed to be trying to find a solution that was humane and effective and that would address the problem in a way that most people under similar circumstances would be inclined to think was the proper action to take. There was absolutely no talk or concern as to Penn State’s image or the impact of Sandusky’s behavior on the university or its football program. All the concern seemed to be on trying to determine what was the right thing to do as human beings.
And I believe that was the right thing to try to do.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you’ve said.
Tell ya what, you could probably find lots of big, tough guys who decided that Sandusky did nothing wrong by naked hugging the kid in the shower in '98. Why don’t you go kick one of them square in the nutsack, internet tough guy?
Maybe then you’d have a little credibility to go along with all your silly posturing. :rolleyes:
…………………who-o-o-o-o-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!………………
“Did you see that? What the hell?!?!”
…………………who-o-o-o-o-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!………………
“Shit, there it goes again!”
“Yeah!”
“Criminy, any idea what in blazes it might be?”
…………………who-o-o-o-o-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!………………
“Look out! Yeah, I’m pretty sure.”
“What then?”
…………………who-o-o-o-o-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!………………
“Goalposts.”
“Goalposts?”
“Yeah. Goalposts. Starving Artist is back in the thread.”
…………………who-o-o-o-o-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!………………
Let’s line up 100 tough guys and ask them what they’d prefer - to admit Sandusky did something wrong, or get kicked right square in the ball sack.
I don’t think prisons usually let civilians in to pummel the inmates, so Jack may have trouble carrying out your suggestion.
Or do you know some other place to find lots of big, tough men who find nothing wrong with naked hugging of children in the shower?
Yeah, I sort of had in mind the cops and prosecutors who looked at Sandusky’s naked hug of the boy in the shower in '98 and decided, “Whoopsie, no harm, no foul.”
I’m sure their physical location can be found pretty easily, so I’m thinking internet tough boy should be able to go kick them square in the nutsack with no problem.
Heh, heh.
Slight problem with that.
The detective who investigated says Sandusky should have been charged. And says Sandusky wished he were dead over what he had done:
Not even Sandusky himself said “no harm, no foul.” That’s just you.
Also, it will be difficult to kick the DA who declined to press charges, because he vanished off the face of the earth in 2005 after making some odd internet searches:
No idea what to make out of that. (the drive was later found on a riverbank , destroyed, and data could not be recovered)
As usual you disgusting piece of shit, you are completely and totally wrong. Heh, heh. As Reutersdescribes it,
Sandusky admitted it to the cops and the mother, and even asked for her forgiveness.
No one knows why the DA made the decision he made, and we can’t ask him. But apparently Pennsylvania may have a systemic problem in this area: cite
No harm no foul indeed, you (heh, heh) asshole. Whoopsie!
You are wrong, end of sentence. The cops did find something wrong in 1998 and wanted to investigate further. Please stop lying.
Just goin’ by what people in the thread have said as it’s rolled along, Holmes. (Checked the etymology, btw. “Holmes” is correct, apparently grew from admiration of the boxer and has nothing to do with the detective. But I digress…) Comes as no surprise to me that they’ve gotten something else wrong.
Still, unlike virtually if not precisely every one of my opponents in this thread, and as shown by my response to Jeff above, I’m perfectly capable of absorbing new information and changing my position when the evidence shows I’m in error.
So I’m still up on you guys even when I’m wrong. 
WINNING!
………………..who-o-o-o-o-s-s-s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h!………………
There they go again! Watch out!
Troll is as troll does, SA. Pathetic.
Amazingly, I actually agree with this.
A problem of sufficient concern is beyond the threshold for a mandated reporter. If you believe this version, Paterno failed to not only act in a morally acceptable fashion, he failed to comply with the law.