[001]
MrDeath
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
On Paterno, since this guy\\\'s done a much, much better job than I could ever do; if you don\\\'t want to read the whole thing, just Ctrl+F for \\\"But Joe KNEW that kids were being raped and did NOTHING.\\\":
[[folder:Mark Willard\\\'s argument]]
Mark Willard
So as I stated on the initial post that started all this craziness, I did not want this to be about the Sandusky tragedy. I didn\\\'t want what I intended as a tribute/memorial to a man who had recently passed to turn into a debate that has already been repeated ad nauseum all over the web.
However, for some people, this can\\\'t not be about the Sandusky tragedy, and I understand that. I\\\'ve received many comments to the effect of, \\\"If Joe Paterno enabled child rape, then in the grand scheme of things it doesn\\\'t really matter that he sent you a card.\\\" It may surprise you, but I agree with that statement 100%.
While I have 0 interest in debating with trolls and internet strangers, I do feel a desire to explain why I still believe Joe Paterno to be a man worthy of honor.
What follows is not an appeal to emotions or any form of loyalty, but an analysis of the facts. It is presented in question and answer format based on comments and messages that I\\\'ve received.
The following documents will be referenced throughout:
Initial Grand Jury Presentment regarding charges against Sandusky, Curley, & Schultz
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Transcript of Preliminary Hearing for Curley & Schultz which contains Joe Paterno\\\'s testimony before the Grand Jury as well as testimony by McQueary
http://www.dauphincounty.org/_files/3193.pdf
Joe Paterno\\\'s Interview with Sally Jenkins
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html
\\\"How can you support a man who enabled child rape?\\\"
I don\\\'t believe he did.
\\\"But Joe KNEW that kids were being raped and did NOTHING.\\\"
If Joe\\\'s testimony is to be believed - and the Grand Jury charged with investigating Sandusky found Joe to be a highly credible and cooperative witness - this statement is false on two levels:
1) Joe knew what McQueary told him. McQueary\\\'s description of what he saw - as recorded during the preliminary hearing for Schultz and Curley - is significantly less straightforward and explicit than what was contained in the Grand Jury Presentment. Further, McQueary censored himself when describing what he believed he had seen to Joe Paterno. McQueary did not tell Joe that he witnessed rape; only that he saw something of a sexual nature that made him uncomfortable. Joe and McQueary\\\'s testimony is in 100% agreement on this. Joe Paterno has stated that he was unaware of the horrific allegations presented in the Grand Jury testimony and there is no factual evidence to the contrary.
2) Joe reported the matter to his immediate superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, as directed by University policy. Joe also saw to the involvement of Gary Schultz, the University administrator with oversight of the Campus Police. Penn State Campus Police are badged officers of the law that carry firearms, and are the only local police force with jurisdiction over on-campus incidents. While it\\\'s fair to argue that Joe did not do enough (and I will address this argument below) it\\\'s factually incorrect to say that he did nothing.
\\\"Why would the Grand Jury Presentment (hereafter GJP) differ from McQueary\\\'s testimony, and why should McQueary\\\'s testimony be trusted over the GJP?\\\"
The GJP is a prosecutorial document that summarizes the sealed testimony that was delivered before the Grand Jury. The sole purpose of the GJP is to justify the indictments leveled against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz, and thus information from testimony that is not relevant to those charges will likely be left out. Information from testimony that is relevant to those charges will likely be presented in the strongest terms possible and may not be as nuanced or qualified as the actual testimony it is based on. It is also worth noting that unlike normal trial by jury, witnesses in a Grand Jury trial are only examined by the prosecution and can not be cross examined by defense attorneys.
Simply put, McQueary\\\'s testimony in the preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz is the only description we have of what McQueary saw and what he told Joe that comes from his own mouth. The GJP is a summary of said testimony with a specific agenda in mind.
See also:
Investigating the Investigating Grand Jury -- What It Is, What It Does
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=207
Sandusky grand jury presentment doesn\\\'t tell the whole story
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/11/sandusky.indictment/index.html
\\\"How do we know that McQueary isn\\\'t just saying that he censored himself when speaking to Joe in order to protect Joe?\\\"
That\\\'s theoretically possible, but if McQueary isn\\\'t a credible witness then all of this is a moot point as far as Joe is concerned. McQueary is the only witness the prosecution has regarding the 2002 incident that involved victim #2. Sandusky of course denies it, and that victim has not come forward to prosecutors. This is the only incident that Joe was informed of.
\\\"Even if Joe was told a censored version of what McQueary saw, he still knew enough that he should have done something about it.\\\"
Agreed. And as I stated earlier, Joe did do something about it. He reported it to his immediate superior and saw to the involvement of the administrator responsible for oversight of the University police.
\\\"But it wasn\\\'t enough! Why didn\\\'t Joe go to the police?! Schultz is not the police!\\\"
Strictly speaking, it\\\'s true that Schultz is not \\\"the police.\\\" Schultz is/was not a badged office of the law. However, when judging Joe\\\'s moral culpability, the more relevant question is, did Joe think he was talking to the police? To my knowledge, Joe didn\\\'t comment on that, but it\\\'s clear from McQueary\\\'s testimony at the preliminary hearing for Curley/Schultz that McQueary - with reason - thought that he was talking to the police when he was talking to Gary Schultz. Given Schultz\\\'s position and responsibility for the police department, it\\\'s not unreasonable to believe that Joe thought the same thing.
Moreover, even if Joe knew that Schultz was not the police, given the information that Joe received from McQueary, I do not believe that forwarding it along to people who would be better equipped to investigate and involve the police as necessary was an unreasonable response. Obviously, in hindsight, we all know better now, but I don\\\'t think that that was an unreasonable response from Joe at the time. You may disagree. That\\\'s my opinion.
\\\"But why didn\\\'t Joe follow up?!\\\"
We all wish that he had, Joe included. However, remember that Joe is not a witness. Joe is someone who received information secondhand. What right does someone have to information regarding an ongoing investigation when the person in question is not a witness, victim, or alleged perpetrator? Even if Joe had been one of the above, it\\\'s not generally standard police procedure to keep a witness updated on every detail of an ongoing investigation.
If Joe believes that Curley and Schultz are handling it, or have handled it, what is he supposed to do at that point? What can he do? And why would he believe that he needs to do or should do anything?
In his interview with Sally Jenkins, Joe stated that he did not contact Schultz or Curley further because he did not want to be seen as trying to exert his influence for or against Sandusky. Given Joe\\\'s position and status as Sandusky\\\'s former employer, this is not an unreasonable consideration.
\\\"Sandusky wasn\\\'t arrested so Joe should have known that the situation hadn\\\'t been taken care of!\\\"
Maybe. But why is it Joe\\\'s place to presume that Sandusky is guilty? Again, Joe was not a witness, and if McQueary\\\'s description to Joe was sufficiently vague, it would have been reasonable for Joe to believe (and hope) that the investigation completed and found that there was no basis to press charges against Sandusky.
\\\"Sandusky said that Joe never brought this up with him. Why didn\\\'t Joe confront Sandusky himself?\\\"
Joe is not the police. What could Joe confronting Sandusky possibly accomplish other than jeopardizing what Joe ostensibly believed was an ongoing investigation?
\\\"Joe said, \\\'I should have done more.\\\' Joe knew that he should have done more and didn\\\'t do it!\\\"
The actual quote was, \\\"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.\\\" The semantics are important here. \\\"I should have done more\\\" is an admission of guilt. \\\"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,\\\" is simply expressing, \\\"Now that I can look back and see what was really going on, I wish I had made different decisions.\\\" That doesn\\\'t mean that the decisions Joe made were unreasonable at the time given the amount of knowledge he had at the time.
See: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_states_joe_paterno_retire.html
\\\"Joe knew exactly what was going on! He had to know! There\\\'s no way Joe couldn\\\'t know!\\\"
You can make this assertion all you want, but without factual evidence to support it, I don\\\'t believe it\\\'s particularly compelling.
If the allegations against Sandusky are to be believed, Sandusky was a serial child sexual predator for well over a decade. It would be impossible for Sandusky to accomplish this undetected for that span of time were he not well skilled in seducing/fooling both the children and adults around him; particularly those in closest proximity to him. This is a known characteristic of child sexual predators, so it is not surprising that Sandusky would possess this skill.
\\\"But the Grand Jury Presentment says xyz!\\\"
Believe me, when you quote the Grand Jury Presentment to a Penn Stater, you\\\'re not telling them something they haven\\\'t already read before, most likely multiple times, through tears, while suppressing the urge to vomit.
If you think that reading the Grand Jury Presentment is a horrific experience, imagine reading it as someone who considers the campus that some of the alleged incidents took place on to be a second home.
\\\"What about the 1998 incident?\\\"
What about it? Joe testified that he was not aware of the 1998 incident and again, the Grand Jury found him to be a highly credible witness. There is no evidence that Joe was aware of the 1998 incident.
If you believe that Joe was aware of the 1998 incident, the onus is on you to explain why anyone other than the victim, his family, the investigating officers, and the DA would be aware of the investigation when (tragically) charges were never pressed.
\\\"Why would Joe tell Sandusky that Sandusky would not succeed him unless Joe was aware of the 1998 incident? Wasn\\\'t Sandusky poised to be the next head coach?\\\"
Joe explained in his interview that he did this because he believed that the amount of time Sandusky spent with The Second Mile would preclude Sandusky from being an effective head coach. There was also a generous retirement package available at that time, which Paterno advised Sandusky to take since Sandusky would not be succeeding Joe as head coach.
\\\"The reason there\\\'s not more evidence of wrongdoing on Joe\\\'s part is because this is all a cover up!\\\"
What you\\\'re basically saying is, \\\"We can\\\'t prove it, therefore he\\\'s guilty.\\\" That\\\'s an interesting approach to take, but let\\\'s consider it. Imagine that McQueary comes to Joe in 2002 and Joe wants to cover it up. There are now two possible courses of action that it would be reasonable for Joe to take:
1) Make McQueary swear to secrecy, and ensure that no one else is ever told of what McQueary witnessed.
2) Bring in other people that can help make this go away, and come up with a coherent cover story that gives them all plausible deniability.
It\\\'s now rather obvious that neither of the above took place. If this is all a cover-up, it might be one of the most inept conspiracies in history.
\\\"I\\\'m not convinced by any of the above. Give me something else.\\\"
OK. The Pennsylvania Attorney General\\\'s Office is more familiar with the facts of this case than you or me. They\\\'ve gone out of their way to release two statements regarding Joe Paterno. You can read them below:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern/story?id=14925158
If the Attorney General\\\'s office had reason to believe that Paterno was guilty of wrongdoing, or even negligence, do you think they would have released those statements?
\\\"What about PA Governor Tom Corbett? Wasn\\\'t he the Attorney General who started the Sandusky investigation? And isn\\\'t he the Trustee who advocated most strongly for Paterno to be released as head football coach? What if he knows something you don\\\'t?\\\"
While it\\\'s true that Corbett started the investigation on Sandusky, remember that Corbett took office as Governor in January of 2011. At this time, he relinquished his duties and investigative authority as Attorney General to current Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly. McQueary was not interviewed by police until very late in 2010, and Paterno did not testify before the Grand Jury until after McQueary was interviewed.
\\\"I\\\'m still not convinced. Give me something else.\\\"
OK. Let\\\'s talk about motives. All crimes need a motive, and if Paterno is going to be accused of enabling child rape, there needs to be a plausible reason for why he would do so. There isn\\\'t one.
\\\"What are you talking about? There are tons of reasons. Didn\\\'t some newspaper investigation find that Paterno was involved in a joint investment with several board members of The Second Mile?\\\"
Yes. \\\"Follow the money.\\\" The problem with this argument is that it expects us to believe that Paterno, a man who made roughly $1 million a year*, lived in the same modest ranch house for the past several decades, drove a very modest car, and regularly contributed extremely generously to Penn State and other charitable causes would be sufficiently motivated by the prospect of an investment going south to cover up child rape. Not a particularly compelling argument.
*When you consider the $4 million to $6 million salaries typical for coaches of Paterno\\\'s stature, combined with Paterno\\\'s almost unparalleled number of wins and length of tenure at Penn State, this is a rather modest number; certainly far, far less than Paterno could have demanded.
\\\"OK, but what about friendship? Paterno and Sandusky were best friends! Paterno would naturally want to protect his friend.\\\"
Actually, it\\\'s been an open secret around the program for quite some time that Paterno and Sandusky did not get along particularly well. This was publicly acknowledged by both of them in interviews as far back as the late \\\'80s. Those who attended Sandusky\\\'s retirement dinner reported that Joe was there for about 5 minutes before standing up, saying something to the effect of, \\\"Have a nice retirement,\\\" and leaving to attend an academic function with Sue. Paterno stated in his interview with Sally Jenkins that his relationship with Sandusky had always been more professional than social.
\\\"OK, but what about the reputation of the program? Surely Paterno cared about THAT.\\\"
He did. But again I don\\\'t believe this is a particularly compelling argument. In 1994, Paterno had an undefeated season that ended with a decisive Rose Bowl victory against the University of Oregon. This Penn State team featured what some college football historians consider to be one of the greatest college offenses of all time. Despite this, Nebraska was awarded the national championship rather than Penn State. There are a couple different reasons you could cite for this, but one that was often stated was Joe\\\'s unwillingness to run up the score on opponents. Joe considered that to be unsportsmanlike behavior, so Penn State\\\'s margin of victory wasn\\\'t nearly as impressive as it could have been in several games. This, despite Joe\\\'s competitive nature and desire for another national championship.
If Joe Paterno wouldn\\\'t even win games more decisively for the sake of his program\\\'s reputation, are we really supposed to believe that a father of 5 and grandfather of 17 would intentionally cover up child rape for that reason?
\\\"Joe Paterno regularly swept legal troubles and academic failings by his athletes under the rug. Surely this pattern of behavior indicates that Paterno was willing to engage in deceit for the benefit of his program.\\\"
A former university administrator has tried to convey as much. It is worth understanding this in context, however. The allegations made by Dr. Triponey against Joe Paterno involve a very selective presentation of football players involved in disciplinary incidents at Penn State. The article highlights the case of Anwar Phillips, who was charged with sexual assault and was still allowed to play in a bowl game. The article glosses over the fact that Phillips was later acquitted. The article also declines to mention the case of Austin Scott, the first string running back who under similar circumstances, was immediately dismissed from the team (and was later acquitted).
Much ink is spilled in Triponey\\\'s comments regarding Paterno\\\'s desire to handle discipline issues within his team on his own terms, rather than subjecting the players to standard University procedure. There are three things worth noting about this:
1) Paterno was trying to discipline his players himself rather than subject them to discipline at the hands of a Student Affairs department that, at the time, many believed was running amok and abusing its power. (If you don\\\'t believe me, Google \\\"Vicky Triponey.\\\" You\\\'ll get some interesting results.) Paterno was not trying to remove discipline from his players; he simply wanted to administer it himself. Given that Paterno knew his players better than Student Affairs, and as football coach had access to more inventive forms of discipline than would be available to Student Affairs (look into what he did with the 2007 team), this is not an unreasonable request.
2) Paterno was making requests. Ultimately, he did not have the authority to overrule Student Affairs, nor did he do so. This has been verified by another Student Affairs administrator, Joe Puzycki. [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_official_denies_rep.html]
3) Triponey can state that Paterno disagreed with the decisions of Student Affairs in some cases, but even she cannot pretend that Paterno ever intervened to protect his players from the law. He did not. [http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/district-judge-never-once-any-sign-paterno-tampered-in-justice-system-988524/]
Paterno\\\'s record regarding concern for the academic success of his players, pushing for tougher academic standards, enforcing higher academic standards than the NCAA within his program, as well as Paterno\\\'s extremely successful graduation rates speak for itself to the point that trying to discredit him in this respect is laughable. It\\\'s somewhat redundant and unnecessary to defend him on this point.
\\\"OK, but even if everything you\\\'re saying is true, Joe Paterno is surely no victim when compared to the children who were molested by Sandusky.\\\"
I agree wholeheartedly, and so did Joe. That doesn\\\'t make it inappropriate to honor Joe, and it also doesn\\\'t make Joe\\\'s treatment in the national media OK.
Concern for the victims and appreciation of Joe Paterno are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory.
\\\"It is an affront to the victims to praise Joe Paterno.\\\"
I sincerely hope that none of the victims nor their families feel this way. I am aware of no evidence that would make me believe that they do. The closest we have to a statement by the victims on Joe Paterno is from a lawyer for several of the victims who said that the Board of Trustees \\\"got it wrong\\\" when they fired Joe Paterno [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_board_of_trustees_g.html]. Sara Ganim also interviewed a sister of one of the victims who stated that Joe Paterno did what he was supposed to do and she does not blame him [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/sister_student_riot_another_bl.html].
\\\"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.\\\"
This is a really good point. What are you doing to spread awareness and prevent child sexual abuse? That\\\'s a question all of us should be asking right now. If the answer to that question for you is \\\"nothing,\\\" this may be a good place to start: http://proudtobeapennstater.com/
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Mark Willard\\\'s argument]]
Mark Willard
So as I stated on the initial post that started all this craziness, I did not want this to be about the Sandusky tragedy. I didn\\\'t want what I intended as a tribute/memorial to a man who had recently passed to turn into a debate that has already been repeated ad nauseum all over the web.
However, for some people, this can\\\'t not be about the Sandusky tragedy, and I understand that. I\\\'ve received many comments to the effect of, \\\"If Joe Paterno enabled child rape, then in the grand scheme of things it doesn\\\'t really matter that he sent you a card.\\\" It may surprise you, but I agree with that statement 100%.
While I have 0 interest in debating with trolls and internet strangers, I do feel a desire to explain why I still believe Joe Paterno to be a man worthy of honor.
What follows is not an appeal to emotions or any form of loyalty, but an analysis of the facts. It is presented in question and answer format based on comments and messages that I\\\'ve received.
The following documents will be referenced throughout:
Initial Grand Jury Presentment regarding charges against Sandusky, Curley, & Schultz
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Transcript of Preliminary Hearing for Curley & Schultz which contains Joe Paterno\\\'s testimony before the Grand Jury as well as testimony by McQueary
http://www.dauphincounty.org/_files/3193.pdf
Joe Paterno\\\'s Interview with Sally Jenkins
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html
\\\"How can you support a man who enabled child rape?\\\"
I don\\\'t believe he did.
\\\"But Joe KNEW that kids were being raped and did NOTHING.\\\"
If Joe\\\'s testimony is to be believed - and the Grand Jury charged with investigating Sandusky found Joe to be a highly credible and cooperative witness - this statement is false on two levels:
1) Joe knew what McQueary told him. McQueary\\\'s description of what he saw - as recorded during the preliminary hearing for Schultz and Curley - is significantly less straightforward and explicit than what was contained in the Grand Jury Presentment. Further, McQueary censored himself when describing what he believed he had seen to Joe Paterno. McQueary did not tell Joe that he witnessed rape; only that he saw something of a sexual nature that made him uncomfortable. Joe and McQueary\\\'s testimony is in 100% agreement on this. Joe Paterno has stated that he was unaware of the horrific allegations presented in the Grand Jury testimony and there is no factual evidence to the contrary.
2) Joe reported the matter to his immediate superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, as directed by University policy. Joe also saw to the involvement of Gary Schultz, the University administrator with oversight of the Campus Police. Penn State Campus Police are badged officers of the law that carry firearms, and are the only local police force with jurisdiction over on-campus incidents. While it\\\'s fair to argue that Joe did not do enough (and I will address this argument below) it\\\'s factually incorrect to say that he did nothing.
\\\"Why would the Grand Jury Presentment (hereafter GJP) differ from McQueary\\\'s testimony, and why should McQueary\\\'s testimony be trusted over the GJP?\\\"
The GJP is a prosecutorial document that summarizes the sealed testimony that was delivered before the Grand Jury. The sole purpose of the GJP is to justify the indictments leveled against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz, and thus information from testimony that is not relevant to those charges will likely be left out. Information from testimony that is relevant to those charges will likely be presented in the strongest terms possible and may not be as nuanced or qualified as the actual testimony it is based on. It is also worth noting that unlike normal trial by jury, witnesses in a Grand Jury trial are only examined by the prosecution and can not be cross examined by defense attorneys.
Simply put, McQueary\\\'s testimony in the preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz is the only description we have of what McQueary saw and what he told Joe that comes from his own mouth. The GJP is a summary of said testimony with a specific agenda in mind.
See also:
Investigating the Investigating Grand Jury -- What It Is, What It Does
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=207
Sandusky grand jury presentment doesn\\\'t tell the whole story
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/11/sandusky.indictment/index.html
\\\"How do we know that McQueary isn\\\'t just saying that he censored himself when speaking to Joe in order to protect Joe?\\\"
That\\\'s theoretically possible, but if McQueary isn\\\'t a credible witness then all of this is a moot point as far as Joe is concerned. McQueary is the only witness the prosecution has regarding the 2002 incident that involved victim #2. Sandusky of course denies it, and that victim has not come forward to prosecutors. This is the only incident that Joe was informed of.
\\\"Even if Joe was told a censored version of what McQueary saw, he still knew enough that he should have done something about it.\\\"
Agreed. And as I stated earlier, Joe did do something about it. He reported it to his immediate superior and saw to the involvement of the administrator responsible for oversight of the University police.
\\\"But it wasn\\\'t enough! Why didn\\\'t Joe go to the police?! Schultz is not the police!\\\"
Strictly speaking, it\\\'s true that Schultz is not \\\"the police.\\\" Schultz is/was not a badged office of the law. However, when judging Joe\\\'s moral culpability, the more relevant question is, did Joe think he was talking to the police? To my knowledge, Joe didn\\\'t comment on that, but it\\\'s clear from McQueary\\\'s testimony at the preliminary hearing for Curley/Schultz that McQueary - with reason - thought that he was talking to the police when he was talking to Gary Schultz. Given Schultz\\\'s position and responsibility for the police department, it\\\'s not unreasonable to believe that Joe thought the same thing.
Moreover, even if Joe knew that Schultz was not the police, given the information that Joe received from McQueary, I do not believe that forwarding it along to people who would be better equipped to investigate and involve the police as necessary was an unreasonable response. Obviously, in hindsight, we all know better now, but I don\\\'t think that that was an unreasonable response from Joe at the time. You may disagree. That\\\'s my opinion.
\\\"But why didn\\\'t Joe follow up?!\\\"
We all wish that he had, Joe included. However, remember that Joe is not a witness. Joe is someone who received information secondhand. What right does someone have to information regarding an ongoing investigation when the person in question is not a witness, victim, or alleged perpetrator? Even if Joe had been one of the above, it\\\'s not generally standard police procedure to keep a witness updated on every detail of an ongoing investigation.
If Joe believes that Curley and Schultz are handling it, or have handled it, what is he supposed to do at that point? What can he do? And why would he believe that he needs to do or should do anything?
In his interview with Sally Jenkins, Joe stated that he did not contact Schultz or Curley further because he did not want to be seen as trying to exert his influence for or against Sandusky. Given Joe\\\'s position and status as Sandusky\\\'s former employer, this is not an unreasonable consideration.
\\\"Sandusky wasn\\\'t arrested so Joe should have known that the situation hadn\\\'t been taken care of!\\\"
Maybe. But why is it Joe\\\'s place to presume that Sandusky is guilty? Again, Joe was not a witness, and if McQueary\\\'s description to Joe was sufficiently vague, it would have been reasonable for Joe to believe (and hope) that the investigation completed and found that there was no basis to press charges against Sandusky.
\\\"Sandusky said that Joe never brought this up with him. Why didn\\\'t Joe confront Sandusky himself?\\\"
Joe is not the police. What could Joe confronting Sandusky possibly accomplish other than jeopardizing what Joe ostensibly believed was an ongoing investigation?
\\\"Joe said, \\\'I should have done more.\\\' Joe knew that he should have done more and didn\\\'t do it!\\\"
The actual quote was, \\\"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.\\\" The semantics are important here. \\\"I should have done more\\\" is an admission of guilt. \\\"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,\\\" is simply expressing, \\\"Now that I can look back and see what was really going on, I wish I had made different decisions.\\\" That doesn\\\'t mean that the decisions Joe made were unreasonable at the time given the amount of knowledge he had at the time.
See: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_states_joe_paterno_retire.html
\\\"Joe knew exactly what was going on! He had to know! There\\\'s no way Joe couldn\\\'t know!\\\"
You can make this assertion all you want, but without factual evidence to support it, I don\\\'t believe it\\\'s particularly compelling.
If the allegations against Sandusky are to be believed, Sandusky was a serial child sexual predator for well over a decade. It would be impossible for Sandusky to accomplish this undetected for that span of time were he not well skilled in seducing/fooling both the children and adults around him; particularly those in closest proximity to him. This is a known characteristic of child sexual predators, so it is not surprising that Sandusky would possess this skill.
\\\"But the Grand Jury Presentment says xyz!\\\"
Believe me, when you quote the Grand Jury Presentment to a Penn Stater, you\\\'re not telling them something they haven\\\'t already read before, most likely multiple times, through tears, while suppressing the urge to vomit.
If you think that reading the Grand Jury Presentment is a horrific experience, imagine reading it as someone who considers the campus that some of the alleged incidents took place on to be a second home.
\\\"What about the 1998 incident?\\\"
What about it? Joe testified that he was not aware of the 1998 incident and again, the Grand Jury found him to be a highly credible witness. There is no evidence that Joe was aware of the 1998 incident.
If you believe that Joe was aware of the 1998 incident, the onus is on you to explain why anyone other than the victim, his family, the investigating officers, and the DA would be aware of the investigation when (tragically) charges were never pressed.
\\\"Why would Joe tell Sandusky that Sandusky would not succeed him unless Joe was aware of the 1998 incident? Wasn\\\'t Sandusky poised to be the next head coach?\\\"
Joe explained in his interview that he did this because he believed that the amount of time Sandusky spent with The Second Mile would preclude Sandusky from being an effective head coach. There was also a generous retirement package available at that time, which Paterno advised Sandusky to take since Sandusky would not be succeeding Joe as head coach.
\\\"The reason there\\\'s not more evidence of wrongdoing on Joe\\\'s part is because this is all a cover up!\\\"
What you\\\'re basically saying is, \\\"We can\\\'t prove it, therefore he\\\'s guilty.\\\" That\\\'s an interesting approach to take, but let\\\'s consider it. Imagine that McQueary comes to Joe in 2002 and Joe wants to cover it up. There are now two possible courses of action that it would be reasonable for Joe to take:
1) Make McQueary swear to secrecy, and ensure that no one else is ever told of what McQueary witnessed.
2) Bring in other people that can help make this go away, and come up with a coherent cover story that gives them all plausible deniability.
It\\\'s now rather obvious that neither of the above took place. If this is all a cover-up, it might be one of the most inept conspiracies in history.
\\\"I\\\'m not convinced by any of the above. Give me something else.\\\"
OK. The Pennsylvania Attorney General\\\'s Office is more familiar with the facts of this case than you or me. They\\\'ve gone out of their way to release two statements regarding Joe Paterno. You can read them below:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/paterno_praised_for_acting_app.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paternos-firing-penn-state-attorney-general-concern/story?id=14925158
If the Attorney General\\\'s office had reason to believe that Paterno was guilty of wrongdoing, or even negligence, do you think they would have released those statements?
\\\"What about PA Governor Tom Corbett? Wasn\\\'t he the Attorney General who started the Sandusky investigation? And isn\\\'t he the Trustee who advocated most strongly for Paterno to be released as head football coach? What if he knows something you don\\\'t?\\\"
While it\\\'s true that Corbett started the investigation on Sandusky, remember that Corbett took office as Governor in January of 2011. At this time, he relinquished his duties and investigative authority as Attorney General to current Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly. McQueary was not interviewed by police until very late in 2010, and Paterno did not testify before the Grand Jury until after McQueary was interviewed.
\\\"I\\\'m still not convinced. Give me something else.\\\"
OK. Let\\\'s talk about motives. All crimes need a motive, and if Paterno is going to be accused of enabling child rape, there needs to be a plausible reason for why he would do so. There isn\\\'t one.
\\\"What are you talking about? There are tons of reasons. Didn\\\'t some newspaper investigation find that Paterno was involved in a joint investment with several board members of The Second Mile?\\\"
Yes. \\\"Follow the money.\\\" The problem with this argument is that it expects us to believe that Paterno, a man who made roughly $1 million a year*, lived in the same modest ranch house for the past several decades, drove a very modest car, and regularly contributed extremely generously to Penn State and other charitable causes would be sufficiently motivated by the prospect of an investment going south to cover up child rape. Not a particularly compelling argument.
*When you consider the $4 million to $6 million salaries typical for coaches of Paterno\\\'s stature, combined with Paterno\\\'s almost unparalleled number of wins and length of tenure at Penn State, this is a rather modest number; certainly far, far less than Paterno could have demanded.
\\\"OK, but what about friendship? Paterno and Sandusky were best friends! Paterno would naturally want to protect his friend.\\\"
Actually, it\\\'s been an open secret around the program for quite some time that Paterno and Sandusky did not get along particularly well. This was publicly acknowledged by both of them in interviews as far back as the late \\\'80s. Those who attended Sandusky\\\'s retirement dinner reported that Joe was there for about 5 minutes before standing up, saying something to the effect of, \\\"Have a nice retirement,\\\" and leaving to attend an academic function with Sue. Paterno stated in his interview with Sally Jenkins that his relationship with Sandusky had always been more professional than social.
\\\"OK, but what about the reputation of the program? Surely Paterno cared about THAT.\\\"
He did. But again I don\\\'t believe this is a particularly compelling argument. In 1994, Paterno had an undefeated season that ended with a decisive Rose Bowl victory against the University of Oregon. This Penn State team featured what some college football historians consider to be one of the greatest college offenses of all time. Despite this, Nebraska was awarded the national championship rather than Penn State. There are a couple different reasons you could cite for this, but one that was often stated was Joe\\\'s unwillingness to run up the score on opponents. Joe considered that to be unsportsmanlike behavior, so Penn State\\\'s margin of victory wasn\\\'t nearly as impressive as it could have been in several games. This, despite Joe\\\'s competitive nature and desire for another national championship.
If Joe Paterno wouldn\\\'t even win games more decisively for the sake of his program\\\'s reputation, are we really supposed to believe that a father of 5 and grandfather of 17 would intentionally cover up child rape for that reason?
\\\"Joe Paterno regularly swept legal troubles and academic failings by his athletes under the rug. Surely this pattern of behavior indicates that Paterno was willing to engage in deceit for the benefit of his program.\\\"
A former university administrator has tried to convey as much. It is worth understanding this in context, however. The allegations made by Dr. Triponey against Joe Paterno involve a very selective presentation of football players involved in disciplinary incidents at Penn State. The article highlights the case of Anwar Phillips, who was charged with sexual assault and was still allowed to play in a bowl game. The article glosses over the fact that Phillips was later acquitted. The article also declines to mention the case of Austin Scott, the first string running back who under similar circumstances, was immediately dismissed from the team (and was later acquitted).
Much ink is spilled in Triponey\\\'s comments regarding Paterno\\\'s desire to handle discipline issues within his team on his own terms, rather than subjecting the players to standard University procedure. There are three things worth noting about this:
1) Paterno was trying to discipline his players himself rather than subject them to discipline at the hands of a Student Affairs department that, at the time, many believed was running amok and abusing its power. (If you don\\\'t believe me, Google \\\"Vicky Triponey.\\\" You\\\'ll get some interesting results.) Paterno was not trying to remove discipline from his players; he simply wanted to administer it himself. Given that Paterno knew his players better than Student Affairs, and as football coach had access to more inventive forms of discipline than would be available to Student Affairs (look into what he did with the 2007 team), this is not an unreasonable request.
2) Paterno was making requests. Ultimately, he did not have the authority to overrule Student Affairs, nor did he do so. This has been verified by another Student Affairs administrator, Joe Puzycki. [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_official_denies_rep.html]
3) Triponey can state that Paterno disagreed with the decisions of Student Affairs in some cases, but even she cannot pretend that Paterno ever intervened to protect his players from the law. He did not. [http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/district-judge-never-once-any-sign-paterno-tampered-in-justice-system-988524/]
Paterno\\\'s record regarding concern for the academic success of his players, pushing for tougher academic standards, enforcing higher academic standards than the NCAA within his program, as well as Paterno\\\'s extremely successful graduation rates speak for itself to the point that trying to discredit him in this respect is laughable. It\\\'s somewhat redundant and unnecessary to defend him on this point.
\\\"OK, but even if everything you\\\'re saying is true, Joe Paterno is surely no victim when compared to the children who were molested by Sandusky.\\\"
I agree wholeheartedly, and so did Joe. That doesn\\\'t make it inappropriate to honor Joe, and it also doesn\\\'t make Joe\\\'s treatment in the national media OK.
Concern for the victims and appreciation of Joe Paterno are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory.
\\\"It is an affront to the victims to praise Joe Paterno.\\\"
I sincerely hope that none of the victims nor their families feel this way. I am aware of no evidence that would make me believe that they do. The closest we have to a statement by the victims on Joe Paterno is from a lawyer for several of the victims who said that the Board of Trustees \\\"got it wrong\\\" when they fired Joe Paterno [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_board_of_trustees_g.html]. Sara Ganim also interviewed a sister of one of the victims who stated that Joe Paterno did what he was supposed to do and she does not blame him [http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/sister_student_riot_another_bl.html].
\\\"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.\\\"
This is a really good point. What are you doing to spread awareness and prevent child sexual abuse? That\\\'s a question all of us should be asking right now. If the answer to that question for you is \\\"nothing,\\\" this may be a good place to start: http://proudtobeapennstater.com/
[[/folder]]
