Penn State

by **ryrob** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:07 pm

Honestly don't understand the JoePa lynch mob mentality. It's easy in hindsight to say "How could he not know?" in light of all the victims and the revolting things that are now public.

At the time though, he hears a disgusting report from his GA and appropriately reports it to the two assclowns upstairs. Said assclowns don't do anything. Maybe he followed up with them and they say "Don't worry about it, it's being investigated." At that point, what more do you want him to do? Make a citizen's arrest? Think you need to take this with some perspective considering what was actually known at the time, and also considering that none of us actually know what happened after he reported it.

All of that said, almost positive he's fired. He's already guilty in the court of public opinion.

by **EagleDave** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:22 pm

ryrob {l Wrote}:Honestly don't understand the JoePa lynch mob mentality. It's easy in hindsight to say "How could he not know?" in light of all the victims and the revolting things that are now public.

At the time though, he hears a disgusting report from his GA and appropriately reports it to the two assclowns upstairs. Said assclowns don't do anything. Maybe he followed up with them and they say "Don't worry about it, it's being investigated." At that point, what more do you want him to do? Make a citizen's arrest? Think you need to take this with some perspective considering what was actually known at the time, and also considering that none of us actually know what happened after he reported it.

All of that said, almost positive he's fired. He's already guilty in the court of public opinion.

Morally you would think he would object to even having the guy on campus once he found out about it. As was mentioned earlier, in no way does the AD have any authority over the football program at PSU. If Paterno wanted Sandusky on "administrative leave" pending an investigation, he would have snapped his fingers and made it happen. Instead he was allowed to stay on staff with complete access.

As someone pointed out in a column that I read today, if this had reportedly happened to JoePa's grandkids, I don't think he'd have just kicked it upstairs and forgotten about it.

by **eagle9903** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:22 pm

ryrob {l Wrote}:Honestly don't understand the JoePa lynch mob mentality. It's easy in hindsight to say "How could he not know?" in light of all the victims and the revolting things that are now public.

At the time though, he hears a disgusting report from his GA and appropriately reports it to the two assclowns upstairs. Said assclowns don't do anything. Maybe he followed up with them and they say "Don't worry about it, it's being investigated." At that point, what more do you want him to do? Make a citizen's arrest? Think you need to take this with some perspective considering what was actually known at the time, and also considering that none of us actually know what happened after he reported it.

All of that said, almost positive he's fired. He's already guilty in the court of public opinion.

I guess part of the equation is what JoePa said to the upstairs assclowns, and whether he applied any pressure in one way or the other for them to act.
Also from a non legal perspective, he either believed McQueary or didn't. If he did, he allowed a child rapist to keep an office in his facility(and it is his still) and allowed Sandusky to bring his victims to Penn State practices with his blessing, if he didn't believe McQueary then he has made a guy he thinks lies about his friend's being pederasts his direct link to the field now that he spends his days drooling and defecating in a hovaround.

Btw there is a zero percent chance Jay Paterno would ever be made HC before this shit. If there had been the old man would be gone already.

by **ryrob** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:34 pm

EagleDave {l Wrote}:
ryrob {l Wrote}:Honestly don't understand the JoePa lynch mob mentality. It's easy in hindsight to say "How could he not know?" in light of all the victims and the revolting things that are now public.

At the time though, he hears a disgusting report from his GA and appropriately reports it to the two assclowns upstairs. Said assclowns don't do anything. Maybe he followed up with them and they say "Don't worry about it, it's being investigated." At that point, what more do you want him to do? Make a citizen's arrest? Think you need to take this with some perspective considering what was actually known at the time, and also considering that none of us actually know what happened after he reported it.

All of that said, almost positive he's fired. He's already guilty in the court of public opinion.

Morally you would think he would object to even having the guy on campus once he found out about it. As was mentioned earlier, in no way does the AD have any authority over the football program at PSU. If Paterno wanted Sandusky on "administrative leave" pending an investigation, he would have snapped his fingers and made it happen. Instead he was allowed to stay on staff with complete access.

As someone pointed out in a column that I read today, if this had reportedly happened to JoePa's grandkids, I don't think he'd have just kicked it upstairs and forgotten about it.

Sandusky was not an employee at the time though, correct? Thought he just had access to the facility, which they then restricted to "no kids with you". That's the most damning part of all this, because that implies that they thought he was guilty.

by **JesuitIvy** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:42 pm

If you're Al Golden, to slightly change the subject, do you want to clean up after this? Seems better to clean up the mess at Miami then this, which clearly extended its tentacles into a lot of places.

by **ryrob** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:46 pm

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:If you're Al Golden, to slightly change the subject, do you want to clean up after this? Seems better to clean up the mess at Miami then this, which clearly extended its tentacles into a lot of places.

This is different than Miami, where it's engrained in the booster culture to pay players and do other illicit things. This is on the heads of a few utter shitheads. You clean house in the athletic department, and it's like it never happened.

by **eagle9903** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:53 pm

ryrob {l Wrote}:
EagleDave {l Wrote}:
ryrob {l Wrote}:Honestly don't understand the JoePa lynch mob mentality. It's easy in hindsight to say "How could he not know?" in light of all the victims and the revolting things that are now public.

At the time though, he hears a disgusting report from his GA and appropriately reports it to the two assclowns upstairs. Said assclowns don't do anything. Maybe he followed up with them and they say "Don't worry about it, it's being investigated." At that point, what more do you want him to do? Make a citizen's arrest? Think you need to take this with some perspective considering what was actually known at the time, and also considering that none of us actually know what happened after he reported it.

All of that said, almost positive he's fired. He's already guilty in the court of public opinion.

Morally you would think he would object to even having the guy on campus once he found out about it. As was mentioned earlier, in no way does the AD have any authority over the football program at PSU. If Paterno wanted Sandusky on "administrative leave" pending an investigation, he would have snapped his fingers and made it happen. Instead he was allowed to stay on staff with complete access.

As someone pointed out in a column that I read today, if this had reportedly happened to JoePa's grandkids, I don't think he'd have just kicked it upstairs and forgotten about it.

Sandusky was not an employee at the time though, correct? Thought he just had access to the facility, which they then restricted to "no kids with you". That's the most damning part of all this, because that implies that they thought he was guilty.

Sandusky had emeritus status, I have absolutely no idea whether that makes him an employee or not? I'd imagine the school had similar responsibilities though since they gave him an office and unfettered access. They didn't restrict his access until very late in this whole mess, and admitted to the GJ that the kid restriction was unenforceable.

This seems to come down to who dumbed it down from anal rape to horseplay. Did the GA report it as what it was? Did JoePa sugarcoat it? Did Curley? Spanier?

It seems to me that whoever stopped saying anal rape of a 10 year old and started saying horseplay probably is the ultimate blameholder.

by **Bumpers** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:38 pm

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
Bumpers {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:The Grad Asst is likely a kid one year removed from college. He went to JoePa for guidance. Saint Joe opted to handle it internally. That's what the GA learned from Papa Paterno. Bottom line here is that this is on JoePa and the AD. And give me a fucking break with this "Joe did nothing wrong since he reported it to his boss". The AD ain't his boss. The AD serves at Joe's approval. At no point could the AD fire JoePa. The AD at PSU is an administrator in the truest sense of the world. The punishment has all the hallmarks of JoePa. The police weren't contacted becaus JoePa did not want them contacted.

If JoPa told the kid not to go to the police, then fine. But bottom line is that the GA is an adult, not a kid, and he is the witness and should have gone to the police regardless of what JoPa told him.

Wrong, unless PA law is still in the 1800s. Most states have statutes making all educational personnel mandatory reporters of "reasonable belief" of abuse of a minor. That specifically does not permit a mandatory reporter to claim that receipt of a first hand account, as hearsay to the mandatory reporter, is free to claim a lack of reasonable belief because he didn't see it himself or the that the declarant lacks credibility until the claim can be independently verified. You hear ir, you report it to the police - that's the law in every state as far as I know and assume.

If the GA told Joe Pa, Jo Pa was a mandatory reporter under most states' mandatory reporter laws, and should have been legally obligated to report to he police.

Having handled these cases on both the criminal and civil end of things in Illiois, I can authoritatively state that if PA's law is anyhing like IL's, JoPa couldnhave been charged with a felony ifbthe incident happened within the last three years. It may be that the only thing saving a lot of these pieces of sh!t who sat on the reports is that the statutes of limitation for the criminal charges have expired.

You can bet, though, some pretty hefty civil suits are coming PSU's way.

How is JoPa a mandatory reporter? The prepubescent kid wasn't a student at PSU. If all educators are mandatory reporters regardless of whether the kid is under your care, then fine, you are right. I'm no expert on child law, I just thought that the abused had to be in your care for you to be a mandatory reporter, for example say the child's teacher or doctor.

You are correct, it's not any kid, only those whom the reporter or his employer is charged to care for or supervise. I understood the kid to be indirectly under PSU's care as a visitor under the care of it's agent. Granted, this is a murky area but the law is not so nuanced in it's intent to protect children as to make the law not applicable in this circumstance, particularly since it's an educational institution. The only case I know of (in Illinois granted) drawing the line is where a psychologist learned of an accusation within treatment of an adult, and because the psych doc was not treating the child, and the child was otherwise not under the docs care, the statute didn't apply.

by **EagleWolverine** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:34 am

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:Is this quote a joke?

Speaking personally, Huck said Sandusky has “done some wonderful things in his lifetime and we should try to help him ... We all make little mistakes in our lives.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... nn_st.html

But the little mistakes are so sexy with their cherubic little faces.

- Rob Sandusky

by **Endless Mike** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:25 am

I don't understand why this hasn't gotten more publicity. Compare this to the coverage that the sports media gave the Ohio State tattoo scandal.

by **eagle9903** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:27 am

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I don't understand why this hasn't gotten more publicity. Compare this to the coverage that the sports media gave the Ohio State tattoo scandal.

Its been 24-7 on sports radio and there have been several newspaper articles, is it not getting a lot of ESPN coverage?

by **cvilleagle** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:45 am

I don't know about heaping blame on Paterno. I mean:

1. He's been senile for years.
2. From the article I read, it sounds like he wasn't really given the full story by the GA, just that something "inappropriate" was happening.
3. He did report it to the AD, who it turns out is a fuck-up, but that's not really JoePa's fault.

by **eagle9903** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:04 am

cvilleagle {l Wrote}:I don't know about heaping blame on Paterno. I mean:

1. He's been senile for years.
2. From the article I read, it sounds like he wasn't really given the full story by the GA, just that something "inappropriate" was happening.
3. He did report it to the AD, who it turns out is a fuck-up, but that's not really JoePa's fault.

I think its really unclear on where the fully story isn't passed, if ever. I doubt, but wouldn't be floored if Spanier knew everything.

Taking the most damning incident, I don't find it far fetched to believe:
1.McQueary - accurately described child rape
2.JoePa - accurately described child rape
3.Curley - accurately described child rape
4.Schultz - omits details making incident look like harmless horseplay

Under this scenario Schultz is the one who should be getting 99% of the shitstorm and JoePa McQueary, while no saints in this situation, aren't nominated for as worst person in the world.

Alternatively, I find this to be the most likely scenario:
1.McQueary - accurately described child rape;
2.JoePa - omits details making incident look like harmless horseplay;
3.Curley - Kind of knows what's going on but not explicitly enough to act without putting job on line;
4.Schultz - Kind of knows what's going on but not explicitly enough to act without putting job on line;

In this case JoePa is the horrific monster he's being made out to be and I think this situation makes McQueary disgustingly opportunistic. In this instance I somewhat feel sympathetic towards the higher ups, but not that much.

JoePa's version is completely unbelievable to me.
1.McQueary - omits details making incident look like harmless horseplay;
2.JoePa - Knows nothing*;
3.Curley - Knows nothing;
4.Schultz - Knows nothing;

McQueary, a miserable college qb and known fire crotch becomes JoePa's go-to assistant in the meantime.

by **hansen** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:21 am

The AD and Vice-President that Curely reported to are gone. I can't see them surviving this whatsoever. As for JoePa, i have no idea. i don't know enough of the Penn State culture to judge whether he can outlast this on his past success. Either way Paterno's legacy is tarnished unless someone else take's the fall.

I agree with the rival intern. there is no way that Paterno didnt know anything unless he specifically told the GA to specifically not tell him anything in order to isolate himself. but, in that case, he's just as guilty in my opinion.

This whole incident is sickening, disgusting, and shameful. Yet another blackeye on college athletics. it really puts things in perspective.

by **Endless Mike** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:24 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I don't understand why this hasn't gotten more publicity. Compare this to the coverage that the sports media gave the Ohio State tattoo scandal.

Its been 24-7 on sports radio and there have been several newspaper articles, is it not getting a lot of ESPN coverage?

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I didn't see much on it over the weekend. I learned about it from this thread.

Granted, as I recall most of the Ohio State stuff came out during the offseason when there was little CFB news, so that could be it as well.

by **eagle9903** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:37 am

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I don't understand why this hasn't gotten more publicity. Compare this to the coverage that the sports media gave the Ohio State tattoo scandal.

Its been 24-7 on sports radio and there have been several newspaper articles, is it not getting a lot of ESPN coverage?

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I didn't see much on it over the weekend. I learned about it from this thread.

Granted, as I recall most of the Ohio State stuff came out during the offseason when there was little CFB news, so that could be it as well.

I didn't think it was that big of a deal when I first read this thread(I also hadn't seen it elsewhere). I'm not sure why but when I hear about this kind of thing my brain always automatically filters it to something not as terrible as what actually happens. Then I was driving on Saturday morning and all of a sudden the actual nature of the crime started to come to light and while any kind of child molestation is terrible, this is one of those once in a lifetime kind of media story as it combines a sports legend and child rape. My guess is that this will be on and off the front of the sports page for a year or more. Its on philly.com above the stupid occupy human interest nonsense of the day and above signing Thome, so I think it's taking off.

by **cvilleagle** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:41 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
Endless Mike {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I don't understand why this hasn't gotten more publicity. Compare this to the coverage that the sports media gave the Ohio State tattoo scandal.

Its been 24-7 on sports radio and there have been several newspaper articles, is it not getting a lot of ESPN coverage?

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I didn't see much on it over the weekend. I learned about it from this thread.

Granted, as I recall most of the Ohio State stuff came out during the offseason when there was little CFB news, so that could be it as well.

I didn't think it was that big of a deal when I first read this thread(I also hadn't seen it elsewhere). I'm not sure why but when I hear about this kind of thing my brain always automatically filters it to something not as terrible as what actually happens. Then I was driving on Saturday morning and all of a sudden the actual nature of the crime started to come to light and while any kind of child molestation is terrible, this is one of those once in a lifetime kind of media story as it combines a sports legend and child rape. My guess is that this will be on and off the front of the sports page for a year or more. Its on philly.com above the stupid occupy human interest nonsense of the day and above signing Thome, so I think it's taking off.

It's also on the front page of CNN.com, for what it's worth.

by **2001Eagle** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:42 am

Has it been reported whether the NCAA is going to investigate? I believe blowjobs to potential recruits and athletes competing for walk-on positions are improper benefits.

by **hansen** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:44 am

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:Has it been reported whether the NCAA is going to investigate? I believe blowjobs to potential recruits and athletes competing for walk-on positions are improper benefits.

only from the opposite sex, durr

by **The Knife of Asia** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:47 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
cvilleagle {l Wrote}:I don't know about heaping blame on Paterno. I mean:

1. He's been senile for years.
2. From the article I read, it sounds like he wasn't really given the full story by the GA, just that something "inappropriate" was happening.
3. He did report it to the AD, who it turns out is a fuck-up, but that's not really JoePa's fault.

I think its really unclear on where the fully story isn't passed, if ever. I doubt, but wouldn't be floored if Spanier knew everything.

Taking the most damning incident, I don't find it far fetched to believe:
1.McQueary - accurately described child rape
2.JoePa - accurately described child rape
3.Curley - accurately described child rape
4.Schultz - omits details making incident look like harmless horseplay

Under this scenario Schultz is the one who should be getting 99% of the shitstorm and JoePa McQueary, while no saints in this situation, aren't nominated for as worst person in the world.

Alternatively, I find this to be the most likely scenario:
1.McQueary - accurately described child rape;
2.JoePa - omits details making incident look like harmless horseplay;
3.Curley - Kind of knows what's going on but not explicitly enough to act without putting job on line;
4.Schultz - Kind of knows what's going on but not explicitly enough to act without putting job on line;

In this case JoePa is the horrific monster he's being made out to be and I think this situation makes McQueary disgustingly opportunistic. In this instance I somewhat feel sympathetic towards the higher ups, but not that much.

JoePa's version is completely unbelievable to me.
1.McQueary - omits details making incident look like harmless horseplay;
2.JoePa - Knows nothing*;
3.Curley - Knows nothing;
4.Schultz - Knows nothing;

McQueary, a miserable college qb and known fire crotch becomes JoePa's go-to assistant in the meantime.

How about just getting the facts:
http://i.usatoday.net/sports/college/fo ... d-jury.pdf

This is sick, and JoePa, Curley, Schultz, all of them should go down for this... Outrageous handling of the situation. All are a bunch of scumbags.

by **angrychicken** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:58 am

Touching kids is gross. Covering up for kid touchers is equally as gross. Blindly defending alleged kid touchers or those who have covered up for kid touchers is creepy. I blame the media.

by **ATLeagle** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:04 pm

A local high school sniffed out Sandusky within a couple of years of him being a volunteer coach. Penn State never did anything in 32 years while he was on staff?!

by **The Knife of Asia** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:04 pm

angrychicken {l Wrote}:Touching kids is gross. Covering up for kid touchers is equally as gross. Blindly defending alleged kid touchers or those who have covered up for kid touchers is creepy. I blame the media.

They already KNEW he was a PET'r in '98... It is absolutely ABSURD. ABSURD he would be allowed to be around children at that point... The grand jury report is tough to read. This guy was a bonafide predator. And they aided and abetted him the whole way.

by **SeaCaptim** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:05 pm

and furthermore, if the perjury charges against Hurley and administrator are supported by the evidence, it seems highly likely that Joe Paterno either knew the details, or must have connected the dots. "An unusual" act in the shower with two males, usually does not involve running an option right with the soap.

I think we are going to hear more information coming from the other 8 reported victims (and their parents, friends etc) and there probably will be more than the current 8, if history repeats itself.

I hope that the PSU political machine, does not run a "protect Joe Paterno" campaign, at the expense of getting the truth out. I fear that this is exactly what will transpire. Hurley and Schultz have had many months (if not years) to plan their defense strategy.

by **HJS** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:15 pm

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:A local high school sniffed out Sandusky within a couple of years of him being a volunteer coach. Penn State never did anything in 32 years while he was on staff?!

While Uncle Jerry retired in 1999, didn't he continue to run the Paterno's Kids Football Camp until 2009?

by **PhillyandBCEagles** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:20 pm

SeaCaptim {l Wrote}:and furthermore, if the perjury charges against Hurley and administrator are supported by the evidence, it seems highly likely that Joe Paterno either knew the details, or must have connected the dots. "An unusual" act in the shower with two males, usually does not involve running an option right with the soap.

It seems highly likely at this point that Paterno knew about the incident and fulfilled his legal (inform the AD) but not moral (get Sandusky the hell away from the program at all costs and cooperate fully with the investigation) obligation. The only possible defense of JoePa that might come into play would be if he knew about the incident, but wasn't told that the other party was a minor.

How does McQueary witness this taking place and not intervene physically??

by **angrychicken** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:21 pm

What? No Happy Valley jokes?

by **hansen** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:23 pm

Coincidence between Sandusky retiring in '99 and a police investigation into his boy touching ways in '98? Me thinks not.

This whole incident smells funnier the more I learn about it.

by **Endless Mike** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:38 pm

PhillyandBCEagles {l Wrote}:
How does McQueary witness this taking place and not intervene physically??

Or at the very least yell "What the fuck are you doing?"

by **ATLeagle** on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:45 pm

PhillyandBCEagles {l Wrote}:
How does McQueary witness this taking place and not intervene physically??

A ginger always runs. (I am a ginger so I can say that.)

Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Re: Penn State

Who is online