Louis Freeh and his investigators have shown the Paterno and gang were aware of the charges against Sandusky in 1998 but chose to ignore them. After the 2001 shower incident Paterno co-ordinated a cover up that allowed Sandusky to continue raping boys.

ccrunner609;1231236 wrote:When I read your posts I cannot believe that you would even think any of that could be true. Paterno was knee deep in it and knew everything. What is more plausable is that he went to the university and begged them to keep it on the DL and he would control Sandusky in return for Sandusky retiring.

I've already admitted that I am probably grasping at straws, but I just cannot force myself to believe that Paterno would knowingly protect a child sex beast, so I am choosing to search for answers and wait until (hopefully) more information will come out of the upcoming trials.

Paterno was so plainly out of touch with reality over the past decade, though, that anything is plausible. This video from November of last year, just after the big story broke, is prime evidence.

[video=youtube;4O0EeTDWVPc][/video]

Paterno's advanced age, dating back to before he overtook Bear Bryant as the all-time wins leader in 2001, was always evident, which was in part what made him so lovable. What made him "JoePa."

I don't think "lovable" would be most people's first adjective of choice to apply to paterno today.

isadore;1231289 wrote:I don't think "lovable" would be most people's first adjective of choice to apply to paterno today.

Which is why I said it in the past tense.

Either Paterno believed McQueary when he told him what he saw, and in that case he had to knew Sandusky still being around children was resulting in more child rapes.

Or, he concluded that McQueary lied about Sandusky, and in that case, why would he POSSIBLY continue to promote someone through the ranks for over a decade that he believed tried to slander his good friend with such a terrible lie?

It's only unfortunate that Paterno died before he had a chance to truly live in the shame he has brought upon his family and the Penn State program.

2kool4skool;1231303 wrote:Either Paterno believed McQueary when he told him what he saw, and in that case he had to knew Sandusky still being around children was resulting in more child rapes.

Or, he concluded that McQueary lied about Sandusky, and in that case, why would he POSSIBLY continue to promote someone through the ranks for over a decade that he believed tried to slander his good friend with such a terrible lie?

It's only unfortunate that Paterno died before he had a chance to truly live in the shame he has brought upon his family and the Penn State program.

My contention isn't that Paterno thought McQueary was not telling the truth, but rather that Paterno convinced himself that McQueary must have misconstrued what he saw for something worse than it really was. Nonetheless, Paterno relayed that information to superiors and they ultimately failed to get to the bottom of the situation.

Paterno, as he said shortly before passing, wished that he had done more. I take that to mean that, if he could go back, Paterno would have not given Sandusky the benefit of the doubt after hearing McQueary's account and pressed the issue much further.

reclegend22;1231310 wrote:My contention isn't that Paterno thought McQueary was not telling the truth, but rather that Paterno convinced himself that McQueary must have misconstrued what he saw for something worse than it really was.

That's cool that you think that, but it's not in any way a logical conclusion to draw. People don't "misconstrue" child rape. And people damn sure don't tell their superior his close friend is molesting children unless they're positive.

2kool4skool;1231314 wrote:That's cool that you think that, but it's not in any way a logical conclusion to draw. People don't "misconstrue" child rape. And people damn sure don't tell their superior his close friend is molesting children unless they're positive.

But McQueary never at any time told Paterno that he saw child rape. So it's just not true and very deceiving to say that he did. McQueary told Paterno that he thought he saw something of a "sexual nature," hearing slapping sounds and such. Well, in Paterno's eyes, that phrasing could have meant a number of things, one of those possibilities being that it was just inappropriate playing (such as towel tag or something). So Paterno probably (albeit wrongly and sadly) relayed to Curley and Schultz some watered-down version of that account. Something like: "Mike said he saw Jerry in the shower with a kid and he thinks it may have been of been improper. He's not sure. You should check with Jerry and get to the bottom of it").

And I agree that people don't just tell their superiors that a close friend is molesting children without being positive, which is exactly why I don't think it's reasonable for people to say that Paterno is guilty for not immediately calling the police. He had no firsthand knowledge of the event. Paterno never would have used the phrase "child molester" anyway in his report to Curley and Schultz because Paterno was never directly told that Jerry was molesting children. McQueary was not that detailed.

2kool4skool;1231314 wrote:That's cool that you think that, but it's not in any way a logical conclusion to draw. People don't "misconstrue" child rape. And people damn sure don't tell their superior his close friend is molesting children unless they're positive.

But McQueary never at any time told Paterno that he saw child rape. So it's just not true and very deceiving to say that he did. McQueary told Paterno that he thought he saw something of a "sexual nature," hearing slapping sounds and such. Well, in Paterno's eyes, that phrasing could have meant a number of things, one of those possibilities being that it was just inappropriate playing (such as towel tag or something). So Paterno probably (albeit wrongly and sadly) relayed to Curley and Schultz some variant version of that account. Something like: "Mike said he saw Jerry in the shower with a kid and he thinks it may have been improper. He's not sure. You should check with Jerry and get to the bottom of it").

And I agree that people don't just tell their superiors that a close friend is molesting children without being positive. And McQueary didn't. That's why he skirted around it with a watered-down story. He now claims he definitely saw rape. Well, McQueary should have told that to Paterno. Paterno would have heard the word "rape" and all would have likely been different. I agree. There is no confusing the word "rape."

reclegend22;1231332 wrote:McQueary told Paterno that he thought he saw something of a "sexual nature," hearing slapping sounds and such.

According to McQueary's testimony(and various media members who saw copies of the emails presented in court) he made it "clear" that he was "positive" a "sex act" was taking place between Sandusky and a boy in the PSU showers.

Well, in Paterno's eyes, that phrasing could have meant a number of things, one of those possibilities being that it was just inappropriate playing (such as towel tag or something)

No, it really couldn't. At least not to anyone operating with any sort of clear mind and judgement.

You're SO desperate to defend the guy in the face off all logic and evidence, it's borderline creepy. He's a football coach who you probably never met and who certainly didn't give a shit about you. Not a deity.

"My contention isn't that Paterno thought McQueary was not telling the truth, but rather that Paterno convinced himself that McQueary must have misconstrued what he saw for something worse than it really was"

Well, that would make more sense if Paterno wasn't in the know with the '98 report that passed through public authorities on record. It appears he was which (IMO, no report has confirmed this claim to my knowledge) was why one of the greatest coordinators in I-A football suddenly retired.

How many more times would a sexual assault be reported to JoePa until he finally stopped misconstruing?

I'm not trying to derail the topic, but do you guys think JoePa would have died back in January if he wasn't fired?

I find it hard to believe that you "all of a sudden" die of lung cancer like that. The only reason I bring it up is because they were just talking about his death on ESPNU.

I'm hearing:

5+ year bowl ban
>75% scholly loss next few years
Loss of large chunk of revenue

bigkahuna;1231387 wrote:I'm not trying to derail the topic, but do you guys think JoePa would have died back in January if he wasn't fired?

I find it hard to believe that you "all of a sudden" die of lung cancer like that. The only reason I bring it up is because they were just talking about his death on ESPNU.

i don't but i wonder if he abandoned taking treatments.

isadore;1231409 wrote:i don't but i wonder if he abandoned taking treatments.

That's a good point. He decided to just give up after all of it went down.

Emmerti- freeh report more detailed than any report that the ncaa would have done

Manhattan Buckeye;1231347 wrote:Well, that would make more sense if Paterno wasn't in the know with the '98 report that passed through public authorities on record. It appears he was which (IMO, no report has confirmed this claim to my knowledge) was why one of the greatest coordinators in I-A football suddenly retired.

Once again, there is no evidence that proves with absolute fact that Paterno knew of the '98 investigation. You are simply basing that information off a report from Louis Freeh that essentially amounts only to the indictment from a prosecutor, one that is heavily filled with speculation and in no way details a complete and thorough account of what actually transpired. Due process for Paterno has not run its course. And it might not for some time, as the case's foremost key witnesses, whose accounts were left completely out of Freeh's "comprehensive" report, are currently unavailable to speak due to pending legal action. Let's wait and here what they have to say.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote:How many more times would a sexual assault be reported to JoePa until he finally stopped misconstruing?

JoePa was only notified that one time. Had he been notified of a second shower incident after 2001, there is no doubt in my mind that Paterno would have then had no reason not to believe that something was amiss and would have intervened by alerting the police. If Paterno really did just kind of slough the original McQueary story in 2001 off as some sort of mix-up once Paterno's superiors and campus police decided not to invesitgate the allegations further, it's understandable to see why Paterno would have felt reassurance about the way things were handled if no other such incident ever surfaced.

jay the freeh report disproved all that. it showed the legend knew in 98 about the accusations against sandusky and chose to do nothing about them. the report shows he coordinated a cover up in 2001 after the shower incident. Spanier, Curry and Schultz who you demand testimony from will not speak because of they can not be forced to incriminate themselves. PSU and NCAA accept the report, jay you should.

isadore;1231847 wrote:jay the freeh report disproved all that. it showed the legend knew in 98 about the accusations against sandusky and chose to do nothing about them. the report shows he coordinated a cover up in 2001 after the shower incident. Spanier, Curry and Schultz who you demand testimony from will not speak because of they can not be forced to incriminate themselves. PSU and NCAA accept the report, jay you should.

The Freeh Report proves none of that.

reclegend22;1232009 wrote:The Freeh Report proves none of that.

Have you read the report? Jesus Lord Almighty...it does prove that!!. What is it about emails released publicly do you not understand?

We are not talking about one email either...but multiple emails...confirming that Paterno knew of Sandusky in 98. How can you be so blind?

If you say that Freeh and his multi group of people are lying, I am sure that the written evidence is closely guarded and achived.

With Paterno. it was cover up in 98 which warrants a jail term. In 2001, the second coverup probably would have landed Joe 20-25 years in the pokey. That's right....20 to 25 years for wontonly hiding brutal felonies.

The Paterno apologists here are remarkable people.

reclegend22;1232009 wrote:The Freeh Report proves none of that.

jay for PSU and the NCAA it did.

Footwedge;1232032 wrote:Have you read the report? Jesus Lord Almighty...it does prove that!!. What is it about emails released publicly do you not understand?

We are not talking about one email either...but multiple emails...confirming that Paterno knew of Sandusky in 98. How can you be so blind?

In the end, those emails are incomplete pieces of information that are open to interpretation. They don’t “confirm” anything. Without further clarification from the people who wrote and sent them, we cannot accurately determine the context of those messages. The media and the NCAA have chosen to follow Mr. Freeh's interpretation, and that's their right to do so. Although, I think it's extremely unfair to Joe Paterno, who, even in death, deserves the right to fair and just treatment and the right to have all of the facts heard before such serious attacks are made on his character.

Footwedge wrote:If you say that Freeh and his multi group of people are lying, I am sure that the written evidence is closely guarded and achived.

Never once have I said that Louis Freeh is lying. What I have said is that Freeh was commissioned and paid by Penn State to conduct the investigation and, because of that, one could infer that he arrived at his "reasonable conclusions" based largely on what Penn State wanted to hear: as much blame as possible put on the dead guy. But, in the end, it was Freeh's report, and as such he was certainly free to arrive at the conclusions that he did.

Footwedge wrote:With Paterno. it was cover up in 98 which warrants a jail term.

How so? Sandusky was cleared of any wrongdoing by both child protective services and the state police who investigated the allegation in ’98. Even if he knew, Paterno didn’t have anything to cover up at that point. Your assertion is baseless.

isadore;1232201 wrote:jay for PSU and the NCAA it did.

That I agree with. Both PSU and the NCAA chose to follow the lead of the Freeh Report, and that's fine. But that still doesn't make the report the final, conclusive chapter of this story. Not all the facts are out, and there is still a window of doubt, no matter how slight or whether you want to admit it or not, that Paterno didn't authorize a cover-up.

reclegend22;1232249 wrote:What I have said is that Freeh was commissioned and paid by Penn State to conduct the investigation and, because of that, one could infer that he arrived at his "reasonable conclusions" based largely on what Penn State wanted to hear

This is by far the stupidest argument you've made thus far.

dlazz;1232256 wrote:This is by far the stupidest argument you've made thus far.

It is definitely your right to think that.