Does it really matter if Joe Paterno knew or not?

[opie1988]

why don't rich people just lobby to make it legal for anyone making over $250,000 a year to molest children?? Then they'd never have to "cover anything up" or deal with trials and charges or any of that stuff, because what they are doing would be "completely legal" because they got the laws changed to make it so

if they had just done that, then all of this would be moot - no probs for Joe Pa, Penn St, the NCAA, etc etc

Well...well.....look at how the hippie-fukk has changed. Funny how I don't remember you saying things like this when you were hosting dinner parties in your 2 br/2.5 bath/fireplace with park view. You're biggest concern back then was whether or not you should sell your van to one of your roadies, or continue paying the $1200 a month for that uncovered parking space on the 8th floor.

Now look at you....a few years of having your soul and dreams crushed by bad beats and drug fueled bouts of depression, and all of a sudden you've decided that having a dirt floor in your great room and overall residing in squalor gives you the right to lash out against the machine.

Guess that BTP victory didn't quite get you all those corporate sponsorship dollars you thought it would, huh, pal?

Don't forget....its your turn to hang out you and Diego's undergarments on the clothesline today!!

[jjgold]

Look who started thread

Lets state some facts about Opie

grand daddy stole so much land in late 1800's and put oil rigs on them and drove off the poor
Opie reaping the rewards now
big house
now I hear calling some shots at sbr
buys his wife ( Miss Houston back in the day) she does not like him..money $$$$$$$

He is what is wrong with America...strong Rep, bug business, get out of my way small timers, takes advantage of the poor
Takes his wallet out and gets what he wants and his way

Hey Opie take your fukkin money and cowboy hat and go fuk yourself

[William Walters]

why don't rich people just lobby to make it legal for anyone making over $250,000 a year to molest children?? Then they'd never have to "cover anything up" or deal with trials and charges or any of that stuff, because what they are doing would be "completely legal" because they got the laws changed to make it so

if they had just done that, then all of this would be moot - no probs for Joe Pa, Penn St, the NCAA, etc etc

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

Spoken like a guy that lives in a fukkin hut!

[stevenash]

Everything the NCAA is doing is for appearances and for the hope they are somehow not included in the massive upcoming civil lawsuits/settlements.

This!
. ""The NCAA is way out of line with this. It's an overreaction. It's a knee-jerk reaction. I think the statue should have come down. I'm for it. They can take the games, take the wins away. That's fine. There's no future in the past anyway. But to punish the university now? How does this work for the new coach? What's fair about this for him? It's absolutely crazy."

He added: "This is the problem when the NCAA tries to become part of the judicial system. This should have been handled by the courts."

-Brad Benson

Dr. Erickson said Mark Emmert pretty much strong armed PSU into accepting his terms.
Pretty much implied 'take it or leave it, or we'll levy the death sentence on the whole program"

Anybody know Emmert's backround, former LSU Chancellor. Yeah, that program is squeaky clean too. Former University of Washington President.... I'm sure if we wanted to, we could dig up all sorts of dirt on Emmert too if we wanted too.

Nobody is forgiving Sandusky, rot in hell. Paterno should have done a whole lot more, Benson is right, forfeit wins, tear down the statue, all that stuff, but Emmert overstepped here.

This was pretty much the knock on Emmert before the PSU scandal. "Slow. Toothless. Tone deaf to the real problems in college sports."
He is using this case for personal agenda.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

Just to throw this out there... something similar to this is happening right now at another major university. Could be your favorite team. It is definitely happening somewhere else. They might just be more successful at covering it up.

Society is a sick place.

[jjgold]

Loshak is a hut liver
Sandy Eyes CR
He has no idea what is going on in the world

Throw him a plate of yayo and he is happy

[The Kraken]

I'm sure the NCAA factored future litigation into the equation but really doubt it was given much weight. Although it would reduce future settlements significantly, seeing as they've already set aside some $70mil (I believe).

But given the nature of this crime and the circumstances, I think it's more likely that the NCAA is making an example out of PSU. Listen, it's now understood that if you know of a crime being committed, staying silent or only reporting it to your upline is not an adequate defense. Especially if the crime is serious enough, say seeing kids get gaped in the showers. This ruling will hold individuals accountable for their decisions. The person witnessing the crime must follow up on it and make sure it that corrective action was taken and LE were notified. Ignorance will no longer be a tolerable defense.

Overall, I believe they got it right and the impact will be far-reaching and long lasting.

[konck]

Bottom line here is they know what the guy did.
When he opened up the charity he ran for kids so
he could have his pick not one of those ***** called
him and said listen you sick fuk I know what happened
here at Penn St no way you run this thing or I go to the cops
not only that if I even hear you looked at another kid ill find you
myself and blow your nuts off with a gun.
Dont think the police dont find out about this unless your out of
that charity in 24 hrs

[ttwarrior1]

Louis Freeh's report on Penn State's response to Jerry Sandusky's crimes against children has now led to serious NCAA sanctions and the removal of a monument to coach Joe Paterno. The report alleges a cover-up by the quartet of former university president Graham B. Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Paterno.
But the report itself shows the key decisions were made by only three of them. There is almost no evidence that they consulted substantially with Paterno.
Story continues below.


The report first considers the 1998 accusations that Sandusky showered with and molested a boy involved in his charity, the Second Mile. Authorities ultimately did not pursue the case, partly because the investigation was mishandled. But nothing in the report shows Paterno was in any way involved in the investigation or that he attempted to influence it.
The only mention of the coach in this regard are two e-mails from Curley: "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks." And, a week later, "Anything new in this department? Coach [Paterno] is anxious to know where it stands." Nothing in the report suggests any further involvement by Paterno. In fact, it concludes: "After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno."
While the report suggests that Paterno knew "everything that was going on," it's silent as to the nature of any discussions involving Paterno. What the coach knew is therefore purely a matter of speculation, although "touched base" doesn't suggest an in-depth review.
Given this background, Paterno's response to the 2001 incident witnessed by a coaching assistant Mike McQueary is far less outrageous than has been asserted. McQueary testified to a grand jury that he told Paterno he witnessed something "extremely sexual in nature" but did not go into "very much detail." Paterno's testimony was that he understood the conduct was "sexual in nature" but did not press for details because McQueary "was very upset."
Paterno called Curley two days later and met with him and Schultz. The only report of this conversation is Schultz's. In his grand jury testimony, Schultz said it was his impression that Sandusky's behavior was inappropriate and that Paterno wanted to bring it to his and Curley's attention. In spite of this, Schultz did think the allegations were serious or criminal.
Public relations

The report shows that Schultz, Curley, and later Spanier wanted to minimize the incident to protect the university. It also shows that Paterno was not an active participant in the alleged cover-up.
The report details many meetings among Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, who expressed concern about "public relations." The plan they arrived at was that Curley would talk to Paterno and to Sandusky, and, barring a confession by Sandusky, would indicate he was going to notify the Second Mile and the state Department of Public Welfare.

Story continues below.


After Curley had a discussion with Paterno, he wrote an e-mail to Schultz and Spanier saying, "After giving the matter more thought and talking it over with [Paterno] yesterday — I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved." He adds that he wants to talk to Sandusky, discuss the incident, and get his cooperation in notifying the charity and state officials "at some point." Spanier e-mailed his agreement to Curley and Schultz, calling the proposed approach "humane."
This Curley e-mail constitutes the only mention of a contact with Paterno after the coach's initial report to Curley and Schultz. The e-mail is most important for what it does not contain — namely, any information concerning the substance of the discussion with Paterno or Paterno's reaction to Curley's proposal. It does not state what advice, if any, Paterno gave. Nor does Curley attribute his being "uncomfortable" to anything Paterno said.
Daily vilification

The report shows that although Paterno was a powerful man at the university, in this instance he let his superiors (at least in the official chain of command) make the calls. He was not in the loop.
No one can deny, in hindsight, that Paterno should have tried to be more involved in the matter. But despite his stature on campus, his job was in fact to coach football, not to investigate the misconduct of a longtime friend who was no longer part of the football program. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier had assumed the responsibility to handle the case, and Paterno was probably happy that they had. Most of us would have done the same thing.
Freeh's report notes that Paterno wanted to cooperate in the investigation but died before he could. So he is not here to rebut the innuendo that is endemic to the report.
Paterno had a virtually unblemished record over the course of his long, outstanding career. He was regarded as a paragon. But he was a human being, and human beings make mistakes — mistakes that look worse when viewed in retrospect.
He does not, however, deserve daily vilification in the media. And he does not deserve to have his reputation, built over a lifetime, destroyed because he didn't interfere when those who supposedly had the responsibility and expertise to handle the Sandusky matter failed miserably to do so.
David C. Harrison is a Philadelphia attorney and Penn State alumnus

[William Walters]

Louis Freeh's report on Penn State's response to Jerry Sandusky's crimes against children has now led to serious NCAA sanctions and the removal of a monument to coach Joe Paterno. The report alleges a cover-up by the quartet of former university president Graham B. Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Paterno.
But the report itself shows the key decisions were made by only three of them. There is almost no evidence that they consulted substantially with Paterno.
Story continues below.


The report first considers the 1998 accusations that Sandusky showered with and molested a boy involved in his charity, the Second Mile. Authorities ultimately did not pursue the case, partly because the investigation was mishandled. But nothing in the report shows Paterno was in any way involved in the investigation or that he attempted to influence it.
The only mention of the coach in this regard are two e-mails from Curley: "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks." And, a week later, "Anything new in this department? Coach [Paterno] is anxious to know where it stands." Nothing in the report suggests any further involvement by Paterno. In fact, it concludes: "After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno."
While the report suggests that Paterno knew "everything that was going on," it's silent as to the nature of any discussions involving Paterno. What the coach knew is therefore purely a matter of speculation, although "touched base" doesn't suggest an in-depth review.
Given this background, Paterno's response to the 2001 incident witnessed by a coaching assistant Mike McQueary is far less outrageous than has been asserted. McQueary testified to a grand jury that he told Paterno he witnessed something "extremely sexual in nature" but did not go into "very much detail." Paterno's testimony was that he understood the conduct was "sexual in nature" but did not press for details because McQueary "was very upset."
Paterno called Curley two days later and met with him and Schultz. The only report of this conversation is Schultz's. In his grand jury testimony, Schultz said it was his impression that Sandusky's behavior was inappropriate and that Paterno wanted to bring it to his and Curley's attention. In spite of this, Schultz did think the allegations were serious or criminal.
Public relations

The report shows that Schultz, Curley, and later Spanier wanted to minimize the incident to protect the university. It also shows that Paterno was not an active participant in the alleged cover-up.
The report details many meetings among Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, who expressed concern about "public relations." The plan they arrived at was that Curley would talk to Paterno and to Sandusky, and, barring a confession by Sandusky, would indicate he was going to notify the Second Mile and the state Department of Public Welfare.

Story continues below.


After Curley had a discussion with Paterno, he wrote an e-mail to Schultz and Spanier saying, "After giving the matter more thought and talking it over with [Paterno] yesterday — I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved." He adds that he wants to talk to Sandusky, discuss the incident, and get his cooperation in notifying the charity and state officials "at some point." Spanier e-mailed his agreement to Curley and Schultz, calling the proposed approach "humane."
This Curley e-mail constitutes the only mention of a contact with Paterno after the coach's initial report to Curley and Schultz. The e-mail is most important for what it does not contain — namely, any information concerning the substance of the discussion with Paterno or Paterno's reaction to Curley's proposal. It does not state what advice, if any, Paterno gave. Nor does Curley attribute his being "uncomfortable" to anything Paterno said.
Daily vilification

The report shows that although Paterno was a powerful man at the university, in this instance he let his superiors (at least in the official chain of command) make the calls. He was not in the loop.
No one can deny, in hindsight, that Paterno should have tried to be more involved in the matter. But despite his stature on campus, his job was in fact to coach football, not to investigate the misconduct of a longtime friend who was no longer part of the football program. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier had assumed the responsibility to handle the case, and Paterno was probably happy that they had. Most of us would have done the same thing.
Freeh's report notes that Paterno wanted to cooperate in the investigation but died before he could. So he is not here to rebut the innuendo that is endemic to the report.
Paterno had a virtually unblemished record over the course of his long, outstanding career. He was regarded as a paragon. But he was a human being, and human beings make mistakes — mistakes that look worse when viewed in retrospect.
He does not, however, deserve daily vilification in the media. And he does not deserve to have his reputation, built over a lifetime, destroyed because he didn't interfere when those who supposedly had the responsibility and expertise to handle the Sandusky matter failed miserably to do so.
David C. Harrison is a Philadelphia attorney and Penn State alumnus

ttwarrior...........my man...............please give credit to actual writers to avoid being bashed.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-24/news/32828890_1_joe-paterno-sandusky-investigation-athletic-director-tim-curley

[Boner_18]

I absolutely does matter. We can't (and dont) hold people responsible for acts performed under their watch when they didn't have actual knowlege of those acts and otherwise should not have known. To use your BP analogy, I doubt anyone (besides crazy enviro-libtards) would hold the CEO of BP responsible if the spill had occurred during the commission of a rogue drilling operation siphoning off BP lines to fill a pirate tanker, where the CEO didnt have knowledge of this rogue act.

This is a good thing. Otherwise we impose strict liability on people, and that's no good. Imagine if we imposed liability on joe-pa because one of the athletes came to the gym late at night one winter and the facility manager, an employee of Joe-pa hadn't deiced the walkway. Athlete, slips and dies. The janitor is negligent, but is that foreseeable by Joe? Answer is no.

In this instance, it is abundantly clear that Joe at least SHOULD HAVE known, and likely even DID have actual knowledge of the acts occurring in his gym, on his watch. This imparts liability to him. I know it seems silly to ask what did he know and when, and insofar as what he knew exceeded some minimum threshhold I don't give a shit. But its an important question to ask, and im glad the law does ask it.

[WvGambler]

http://us.cnn.com/2012/07/15/opinion/martin-paterno-coward/index.html?c=&page=1

Pretty truthful article

May be difficult for apologists to read.