It got weird November of 2011.
Yeah, how does this type of response “just not add up” for anyone who’s seen Spotlight, or read the Murphy Report or anything about the Boy Scout sex abuse cover-ups?
“I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff” was not at all an uncommon attitude with regard to allegations of molestation before about a couple decades ago. Public recognition of and outrage about child sex abuse is a comparatively recent phenomenon (and is still by no means universal, despite having become much more widespread). Many people used to find it literally unthinkable.
Rape culture. It’s not just for girls anymore.
Some of us are well aware that it never was.
I think you’re confused. The “man” in the quote is the 2014 adult version of the 14 year old boy who had been assaulted in 1976. Not a witness like McQueary.
Not at all. You are twisting my words.
Yes I am talking about that ‘entire question’ and to that is where I apply ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ standard. Paterno had good reason to know that Sandusky was inappropriately touching boys. He chose to ignore the complaints. Paterno is a jerk.
[nitpick]
Paterno was a jerk.
[/nitpick]
Paterna was an accessory after the fact, or possibly, a criminal accomplice.
Accessory after the fact for some of the molestations, and an enabler of other future ones.
I’m thinking that dying was a handy move for Paterno, legally*. Any lawyers can chime in, but I’d be surprised if he couldn’t have been charged. Maybe now, but probably even back when Sandusky was sentenced.
*Tongue in cheek. I kid my son that Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain were smart enough to die before they became lounge singers in Vegas (in large white sequined jumpsuits)…
I don’t think that type of vague assessment is worth a whole lot - anything, really - especially coming from a guy who by his own admission came to that conclusion having “not read a lot of the Paterno and Sandusky issue”. YMMV, but I don’t think this is even worth arguing about.
We were discussing, right? Who’s arguing? Were you finding me argumentative?
And we are not comparing research resumés on the topic, at least I am not. Words like “a lot” and “not a lot” are relative and subjective terms.
Yeah. Everyone blamed it on the cancer but - was there an autopsy? Cancer is almost never that fast and convenient.
Wiki says this:
But I’m starting to suspect that the “complication” was that he deliberately overdosed.
Possibly, but my dad was diagnosed with lung cancer, and given, IIRC, 12 months. It seems like my brother called about every three days with a new, more dire prognosis, and he was dead inside a month.
Personally I think Sandusky murdered him.
He knew that Paterno knew more than anyone about all his misdeeds over the years, and with his trial coming up he couldn’t afford to leave this key witness alive.
Yeah. It’s possible.
Seems unlikely for a Catholic who was dying anyway. And cancer can be unpredictable, particularly when you pile that much stress on top of it.
I’m just speculating of course. The part I quoted above said that Joe Jr. claimed the cancer was treatable, so he might not have thought off himself as dying. Who knows.
OTOH, being a Catholic didn’t stop him from conniving at child molestation all those decades. Of course, the Catholic church in Pennsylvania was also conniving its pants off at the same time, so, well, who knows what he believed.
Well assuming that Sandusky didn’t murder him, my other theory is that he’s still alive, and the whole cancer thing was faked to enable him to get out of a sticky situation.
I mean, what’s the likelihood that a guy gets diagnosed with cancer at the exact time that he’s facing a huge legal and PR crisis?
I suspect he might be even now coaching another NCAA team under an assumed name.
Same happened to my step dad. And Paterno also a crazy amount of stress from being fired and being accused of enabling a child molester.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk