What is it with some of you? He was head coach of a football team. He didn't own or control the University
Blame the President of the University
Joe Paterno and Penn State president fired!
- Thread starter krichardson
- Start date
- Status
Try asking yourself the same question!
maybe the following can help you understand....
Tom Boswell wrote something in the WaPo last week about 1998, that really got my attention. I had failed to grasp the importance of these facts when I read the grand jury PDF – pretty sure I was just skimming by the time I got to the section on victim #6:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paterno-sa...
Paterno will still be questioned — and will have to decide how much he will choose to answer — about what happened in 2002 and, maybe as important, 1998.
In 1998, university police did an extensive investigation of accusations against Sandusky, then Penn State’s defensive coordinator, involving his showering with children; two separate incidents, both with 11-year-olds.
The mother of one child and a university policeman, who was eavesdropping in a makeshift sting operation, have testified that, when confronted by the mother, Sandusky said: “I understand I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”
...
Penn State’s decision was to close the investigation, bring no charges and not call the police or other outside authorities. Sandusky, assumed to be Paterno’s successor, retired from coaching the very next year. Why quit when you’re only 55? ... Was Sandusky’s retirement a coincidence or, in some part, a reaction to the 1998 university police investigation, which took weeks? Who knew? What did they know? What did they suspect?
Could Paterno, the lord of this tiny world, not have knowledge of a potentially monstrous scandal about his do-gooding right-hand man? Maybe. ... But who knew what in 1998 is way beyond a fair question. It’s an essential question — and one nobody at Penn State or its football program is answering.
It’s pertinent because in 2002, with Sandusky retired, Paterno followed the narrow letter of the law after being given eyewitness information by a graduate assistant about Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy.
To me, 1998 changes everything about what happened in 2002. There was a 2- or 3-week police investigation in 1998 (2 police detectives are named in the grand jury presentment, and one investigator with PA's Dept of Public Welfare) at the end of which no charges were filed, but Sandusky's career at Penn St takes a sudden sharp turn. The record leaves open the interpretation that there was pressure not to pursue charges against Sandusky. But let's assume that's not the case, instead the county DA decided they couldn't make a case – ok, that happens.
The problem is not 1998. In a way, 1998 seems almost kosher: incident is reported, police investigate the criminal end of it. DA can't make anything stick, but the university doesn't like what they've seen and they quietly persuade Sandusky to step away at the end of the season. If there was no pressure from the university to make this go away (about which I'm a little cynical), then that's a pretty reasonable sequence of events from an institutional perspective. Though I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to leave Sandusky in charge of a foundation for at-risk youth –
But with 1998 in the books, when an incident happens 3 years later, you've got to respond at full alert. The senior university people, who have been indicted, and Paterno. Two possibilities:
• Paterno knew about the investigation in 1998, and was part of easing Sandusky out the door. He had to know, right? Sandusky reported to him! He was his right hand man, his defensive coordinator, his heir apparent. There's no way the university pushed him out the door without Paterno knowing. And if he wasn't pushed, if he retired of his own volition, then he had to explain himself to Paterno. Paterno had to know. And that makes his minimal response in 2002 damning. The DA said he fulfilled his legal responsibilities, but if he knew, then he had a greater obligation. As the biggest figure at Penn St, he undoubtedly set the tone for how the 2002 incident was handled. He responded minimally and the result was a cover-up. He needs to go.
• Paterno did not know about the investigation in 1998. This is almost worse, right? If Sandusky was invited to leave by the university, and no one told Paterno why, it means that there is an atmosphere around Paterno shielding him from bad news or things he does not want to know. Which means he is not functioning as a responsible executive, and he needs to go.
I dunno, maybe I'm being overly conspiracy minded, and there's a third option. Maybe district attorneys and campus police depts really can keep investigations secret, and no one at the university knew about the 1998 incident. Maybe Sandusky retired of his own volition next year, possibly feeling exposed by the investigation, and he spun Paterno a song and dance about why he was retiring. Maybe when the 2002 incident rolled around, JoePa had no idea there was prior history, so he just reported the matter and moved on.
But from a distance, 1998 investigation and Sandusky's retirement a year later looks, maybe not quite like a smoking gun, but suspicious as hell.
i was disappointed to hear that, now we're altering the course of history and making it seems like he didn't win 904 games. nothing that happen boosts his performance or was against ncca rules
the molestation would've still happen weither the man was allowed on campus or not. he wasn't a penn state employee by the time paterno was told about this. he STILL ran a charity program and STILL would've had access to young boys, what do i base that on? the fact that he continued to do it beyond being employed with penn state. plus, how is a football coach "all powerful", he was the head of a football program, not the head of a university or in charge of the criminal investigation. i like that you're fired up about this, it's just misplaced though. blame the parents that knew and didn't badger the police enough to get him convicted. blame the janitor that saw and the superior he told. blame mcqueary the grad assistant who saw the rape in the shower. blame the police cheif that mysteriously went missing. blame the school president who allowed jerry to continue to come on campus. blame the athletic administrator that has the ultimate say in who can or can't have access to the athletic facilities. blame the local media that claimed they weren't surprised and had known about the case for years but didn't blow the top off of it by talking to the victims. i'm not trying to deflict blame, i'm just saying joe paterno shares the blame with alot of people. this is the ultimate case of a crap load of people dropping the ball
The plot thickens.....
Here's more...from the TMF site:
Heard about this on the radio yesterday and just tracked it down. This was published in April of this year by the Beaver County Times (of all places). Amazing thing, it reads like it could have been written this week:
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/mad...
If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn't act, instead facilitating Sandusky's untroubled retirement - are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.
Initially accused in 1998. Retires in 1999. Never coaches college football again. Sandusky was very successful at what he did. The architect of Linebacker U. Helped win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Recognized as college football's top assistant in 1986 and 1999.
Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement.
But there's no shortage of stories and rumors about Penn State football sweeping problems under the rug, is there?
Why did college football let an accomplished coach like Sandusky walk away at 55? Why did he disappear into relative anonymity?
Here's more...from the TMF site:
Heard about this on the radio yesterday and just tracked it down. This was published in April of this year by the Beaver County Times (of all places). Amazing thing, it reads like it could have been written this week:
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/mad...
If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn't act, instead facilitating Sandusky's untroubled retirement - are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.
Initially accused in 1998. Retires in 1999. Never coaches college football again. Sandusky was very successful at what he did. The architect of Linebacker U. Helped win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Recognized as college football's top assistant in 1986 and 1999.
Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement.
But there's no shortage of stories and rumors about Penn State football sweeping problems under the rug, is there?
Why did college football let an accomplished coach like Sandusky walk away at 55? Why did he disappear into relative anonymity?
It wouldn't surprise me if the 1998 investigation was kept from Paterno and/or the University mainly because not admitting to knowing about it would result in some pretty serious charges against them; I don't see any of them being dumb enough to lie in court when doing so does not save their butts one bit and just gets them in more trouble.
And Sandusky had his access to Penn State facilities revoked after Paterno found out. I'm not seeing a problem here beyond a failure of the police on multiple occasions.
One thing I've noticed is that few people ever actually read into stuff these days; things make way more sense if you inform yourself to the fullest prior to voicing an opinion.
Exactly my sentiment for both points. Way more people dropped the ball yet only a few are getting punished (no matter how minor that punishment may be).
And Sandusky had his access to Penn State facilities revoked after Paterno found out. I'm not seeing a problem here beyond a failure of the police on multiple occasions.
One thing I've noticed is that few people ever actually read into stuff these days; things make way more sense if you inform yourself to the fullest prior to voicing an opinion.
Exactly my sentiment for both points. Way more people dropped the ball yet only a few are getting punished (no matter how minor that punishment may be).
Reading only helps only if you actually understand what you're reading or avoid reading selectively only the ones you like!
So if Paterno did go to the cops what did he tell them? And why did he not follow up on the situation? After all he hired Sanders and Mcquery worked for him. krichardson he should watch how you pick your hereos. BUSTER!!
i believe he would've told him what mcquery told him....hence why an investigation was originally done and then charges were not made. i'm confused as to why it's joe pa's job to lead the investigation
Lighten up and calm down....In the first place I don't have any heroes that I don't know personally and I certainly don't know any of these people.As for Paterno talking to the police,I don't know what he told them but whatever it was it was up them to consider the information and act on their decision.
Well this article certainly makes things more interesting: Penn State assistant: 'I did the right thing'.
It's not that hard to understand this stuff, and I've read all the stuff on it that I have come across. The problem is that we have people here who haven't done so and choose to go solely off of what the news has given them; many people have completely checked out from following the story because of how much hype and overexposure that it's been given.
You definitely raise some valid points from the articles that you linked; I'm not going to deny that those are possibilities of what could have happened. If anyone higher up at Penn State and/or Paterno, had any knowledge of the 1998 investigation, then I see no reason for those involved to not receive some major criminal punishments for the cover up.
It's not that hard to understand this stuff, and I've read all the stuff on it that I have come across. The problem is that we have people here who haven't done so and choose to go solely off of what the news has given them; many people have completely checked out from following the story because of how much hype and overexposure that it's been given.
You definitely raise some valid points from the articles that you linked; I'm not going to deny that those are possibilities of what could have happened. If anyone higher up at Penn State and/or Paterno, had any knowledge of the 1998 investigation, then I see no reason for those involved to not receive some major criminal punishments for the cover up.
- Status
