ALLEDGED - Penn State sex scandal prompts 2 resignations

The Initial DA investigating Sandusky got whacked. I'm not normally captain conspiracy theory... but that's a pretty ****ing big red flag.

 

Heard it was not for this case, but for a drugs case involving the Mafia. A Brooklyn DA disappeared in an identical fashion.

 

What started the Grand Jury investigation, was because one of the victims , #1 in the grand jury finding, told their mom that Sandusky had showered with him, andtouched him inappropriately. She notified the high school the child went to, who notified the authorities like the were supposed to. An investigation began after culminating in a grand jury endightment.

 

And as far as Im concerned. Every adult who knew Sandusky was doing this and did nothing should be held responsible as well, including Paterno.

Mccreary disgusts me. Not a question in my mind, if I walked into a room, and saw a grown man having intercourse with a 10 yr old boy, nothing would have prevented me from getting that child out of there in that instant.

 

This is why I understand how McCreary has a job. He should be out too.

 

Likely, my only comments on this issue:

Send the abuser to jail. Anyone involved in covering it up should be as well.

Beyond that I really don't care for any of the details. I don't give a crap about Paterno.

As for sports media, all I care about are the games and that's all I want to hear about. All these scandals, trials, etc....no thanks

When I hear Penn State on the radio or TV, I change the channel. On radio, channel changing has been frequent. Annoying

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

 

It's that head in the sand 'I only care about sports' attitude by about 7 men that allowed this to continue for 15 years.

 

If he looked the other way then he participated in the cover up. Yes you hope it gets pursued, you hope the officers investigate. I believe that is their job. If you work at kfc and I give you my order, I hope you do your job and give me my bucket of chicken lol

 

They would probably want to interview your kid as he would be a witness. If the kid hangs out at your house yes they would probably want to interview you as well to see if you had any idea of what was going on. Now will they use you in court thats a different story. I can't see them not interviewing the person who originally called in the report.

No one said paterno had to follow up every day.

 

They never gave paterno an alternate theory from what I read. It would be more like, if you reported it, then got told it had been reported to the cops and child welfare, then saw no evidence of any action i.e. cops asking questions, child welfare asking questions, then you just forget about the incident.

No one's asking him to. Asking paterno to ask his bosses whats the status of the investigation because he hasn't seen any action, is not asking him to go rogue detective.

 

And I know no one said Paterno had to follow up every day, I was just talking about myself.

 

I don't know, I'd be interested in seeing Paterno do a Columbo impersonation.

 

There wasn't an alternate theory, but there was inaction by the police, DA, child protective services, etc. for the previous investigations. Was Paterno wrong to forget about those incidents as well?

Why do we assume that Paterno wasn't deceived? Those same bosses are being charged criminally.

 

Well according to you he didn't forget about those incidents and that's why he didn't follow up soooooooo.......

I never said he couldn't have been deceived. I am saying there was evidence he could have seen himself to show him he was being deceived. Why does paterno all of a sudden have to be an idiot? So that people can say oh he did all he could, or at least all an idiot could?

 

I agree that if he looked the other way, he participated in the cover up. But I don't see any evidence that he looked the other way. I see evidence that there were numerous investigations over an extended period of time. Paterno was told of an instance that was similar to previous instances, and reported it. At that point, its fair for him to assume that those officials that were notified would take appropriate action.

And with all due respect to KFC workers, its apples to oranges. KFC workers aren't officers of the law. If I report something to the police, I'm assuming that they aren't covering it up, because they have taken an oath and are under a legal obligation.

 

The DA not filing charges is evidence of what exactly?

And yes, I don't think Joe Paterno was the sharpest knife at that stage of his life. Its completely reasonable to believe he was pretty much oblivious to a lot of things.

 

That they didn't have enough evidence?
That sandusky wasn't guilty?
That someone was covering it up?
I can keep going............

And I don't see how paterno can be in charge of an entire football program be in the planning of games, etc and not be able to ascertain that there was little to no evidence of an actual investigation.

 

Maybe. At the least its evidence that there was an investigation that was delivered to the District Attorney.

A. Have you listened/watched Paterno over the last ten years?

B. We are assuming that there wasn't evidence

C. Is it reasonable for someone to assume an officer of the law is going to violate their oath? Again, if the same evidence of an investigation was present for this incident as was present for previous investigations, then what exactly is leading Paterno to believe that there was a massive cover-up?

 

I think it would be almost impossible for Paterno not to have known.

 

You want to give paterno credit for seeing the previous instances and saying oh its being investigated, yet its out of his element of reasoning to see the previous instances and not ascertain that there was not an investigation going on or that sandusky might actually be a child molester. You don't find that convenient? It's ok for paterno to err on the side of caution and run to his AD, yet its out of the question for him to err on the side of caution and follow up himself with the police, or to call 911. I would say given what we know the evidence is more on the side of paterno just looking the other way. We know he knew of previous investigations. We know he had a staff member, not a kid, not a mother of a kid, a staff member, saying he witnessed first hand sandusky having sex with a child. We know paterno went to his ad first. From what has come out it seems he did not follow up with the invetigation. At the very least Paterno is guilty of indifference towards the subject. At the most he just looked the other way. You have only presented reasonable doubt, but I would say you have little to no evidence of what you are presenting, you are instead just bringing up possibilities and muddying the waters enough to get people to say "well we don't know". Which I admit we may not know all the facts, but from where I standing barring it comes out paterno did in fact follow up with his bosses, I don't think his name will be cleared in all this.

You missed the point. I never said they were the equivalent only in expectations of them doing their jobs. Point is when you go to anyone you within the realm of their career, you expect them to do their job. No you don't expect corruption, but it happens. But again, that has nothing to do with my comparison.

 

Unless you are a vigilante, you tell the AD and if he tells you the that the cops have been notified then you've addressed any immediate danger. However, if years go by and you still see the same guy coming around your facility with other adolescent boys then you, as the head of the program must follow-up to protect both the program and those kids.

 

Sure, but given another accusation comes out, which ones do you think you should tend more towards?

Yes, he's not the idiot you keep trying to portray him as.

So now what? They hired actors to portray cops and go around interviewing people? What evidence do you think I am talking about and what would you take as evidence of an investigation?

Besides the fact there was never even any word that the AD didn't/won't be filing charges? And why do you get to now assume the incidents were the same yet I can't assume they were different?

 

Now we're getting to the point again where Paterno is supposed to determine whether officers of the law are covering up a crime.

Not an idiot, but certainly conceivable that he could be misled by criminals.

We've been told that police attempted to coerce a parent not to pursue the matter previously. Its very likely there were interviews done but were done so only to give the impression of an investigation. We are talking about criminals here.

Was there word when the DA didn't file charges previously? How did Paterno receive the information that the DA wasn't filing charges in 1998?

You can assume whatever you want. We do not have all sides of the story. All anyone can do at this point is assume. But I certainly don't think its fair to label Paterno as failing to fulfill his moral obligation, or say he was covering anything up, based on assumptions that don't include his side of the story. He very well may have been integral in the cover up. He may very well have been lied to and deceived by the cover up.

 

More and more reports are coming out that this was more well known than we were led to believe, I don't buy for one second Paterno never knew how much of a monster Sandusky was, I am convinced he knew as far back as 1998 and now it looks like it could be as far back as 1995.

 

I think it's practically impossible that Paterno and the University did not know that at a minimum there were dozens of allegations against this guy. Sandusky was at one point the heir apparent to Paterno and then suddenly wasn't, with timing that coincides with the allegations. IMO that information alone would be enough for me not to allow this guy to keep showing up on campus with adolescent boys. It wouldn't matter if I believed that a police investigation was on-going.

 

No he doesn't have to ascertain that. He can ascertain the AD didn't have enough evidence. I don't know why you insist on corruption being the reason for files not being charged.

Sure and certainly conceivable he could ascertain the university had lied to him.

For which investigation? And we've been told by the grand jury report child welfare was never notified. Their abscence wouldn't/shouldn't ring any bells?

Sandusky still using the facilities could be evidence no? You don't think paterno could now ascertain sandusky wasn't going to court or in jail?

I'd say the evidence is more on the latter to the former. Especially since most of your evidence hinders on him being a complete idiot.

 

A. He met with the police

B. We don't know that Paterno was told there was sodomy. The grand jury report says he was told of "fondling".

C. Yes, a lot of depends on whether he followed up with his bosses. But I don't see why we would assume he didn't, as opposed to assuming he did.

D. This was a case of a criminal cover-up. Why do we assume that Paterno was complicit with the criminal activity, not a victim (for lack of a better term) of the cover-up? If a mother was told by police to shut up, why isn't it reasonable to believe that the criminals told Paterno that everything was investigated and the investigation was provided to the DA?

E. I'm not trying to muddy any waters. The waters won't be clear until we hear Paterno's side of the story, which will happen in the very near future, in a court of law.

Work in business long enough, and you'll realize that many people have a hard time doing their job. But officers of the law have a legal and moral obligation to uphold their oath. If you can't trust officers of the law, who can you trust?

 

State police telling a parent to keep their mouth shut is absolutely corruption of the highest level. Corruption at this point isn't really debatable.

Corruption and lack of evidence aren't mutually exclusive either. There absolutely could have been a lack of evidence in addition to corruption. But if charges weren't filed in 1998 for lack of evidence, then it would be easy to convince Paterno that charges in 2002 aren't being filed because of lack of evidence. There wasn't any more evidence in 2002 as there was in 1998, from Paterno's perspective.

Correct.

Child welfare was involved in 1998, and investigated Sandusky's foundation for children.

My point is that in 1998, Paterno could have been told by the athletic director that no charges were being filed. In 2002, the same athletic director could have told Paterno the same thing; that the district attorney was not filing charges.

Was he a complete idiot in 1998?

 

Correction he met with the AD who brought in the campus police chief.

Does it really make a big difference? In the eyes of the law it's still illegal.

So he follows up, they lie to him again, he still sees inaction. We're back where we started, which is what your whole debate hinges on. That paterno is an idiot.

You're still ignoring if there were any signs of investigation. Something, again, you have either argued he was too stupid to ascertain himself, or might have been the same as the first investigation. Which you have also argued paterno couldn't use as evidence as he was too stupid to do so. Let's just assume you are right and paterno assumed the investigation was ongoing from 98, why would he expect there to not be more interviews? After a couple of years of hearing nothing, would you assume that the investigation was still taking place and not start asking?

And we already know police corruption exists, and again, this still has nothing to do with my comparison. I never tried to compare the ethics of kfc employees to officers.

 

So you believe that, do you believe paterno when he himself says he could have/should have done more?

Sure if you take them as seperate incidents. You crash a car once, I assume freak accident. You crash it twice, I see a pattern emerging.

So now you are assuming there was no interviews by them of personel, etc in 98?

Sure, after there was no evidence of an investigation, or the cops pretended to investigate and child welfare might have/might not have shown up to do interview themselves, etc.

I doubt it. just like I doubt he's a complete idiot now. The point is most of what you are arguing has been his lacking ability to question anything, but conveniently being able to draw parallels in certain instances. Again its a convenient argument.

 

Yes, it does. Accusations of sodomy would be a significant step up from the previous accusations in 1998. The accusations that did not have enough

If he sees inaction, what is he being lied to about? What did those being criminally charged at this point tell Paterno? That is what the debate hinges on. If he was told that they can't let this get out because the school makes $50M a year off football, then by all means Paterno was part of the cover up. If he was told that they completed an investigation, interviewed Panusky, the kid, the GA that witnessed it, people affiliated with the foundation, and provided that investigation to the district attorney, but decided there was a lack of evidence, then by all means Paterno was a victim of the cover up. That doesn't make him an idiot.

How in the world is Paterno going to ascertain information regarding who has been interviewed? Think about it for a second. Who would he ask? The same people that are being charged criminally now.

 

Off topic: Most of the public doesn't trust police officers anymore. IMO this b/c the position itself is a draw some personalities who are prone to abusing that trust and b/c the training creates an "us vs. them" mentality. If the cops treat everybody as the enemy enough, they can't be surprised when more and more of the public starts thinking of the cops the same way.

 

Yes, absolutely. In hindsight he could have done more. If you are robbed, in hindsight you could have not carried your wallet. That doesn't mean carrying your wallet was the wrong thing to do at the time.

Which is why Paterno reported the incident.

Of course there was. Who was interviewed and what was the result of those interviews?

I'm not saying he didn't lack an ability to question. I'm saying that there is no evidence he had a motivation to question. If I call the police and report a crime, I'm assuming they do not cover it up.

 

Right, either way you now have two accusations, the first involving two boys, this one involving one and a witness who is a member of your staff. That doesn't all come together to you to mean something more?

I never said he was an idiot. You did. All I'm saying is most of what you have argued has hinged on paterno not being able to decipher things for himself. Yes he could have been lied to. No we don't know what/if he was lied to . What we do know is he ran to the AD first, which tells me he made a concious decision to cover up the programs *** first. Now in your opinion is that justifiable? If so, then is it a leap to assume paterno looked the other way in all this mess?

You don't think paterno knew sandusky was interviewed?
You think now that there is another witness, paterno wouldn't have heard/known if his other coach was interviewed?
If personal was interviewed that m ight have witnessed sandusky with the boy?

 

or more like if you had called the police when you watched someone else get mugged, they would have gotten the guy, or at least had more to convict him on, and he would not have had the ability to mug others.

To the AD. So he once again reports it so once again they can do damage control.

By most accounts the child was as was sandusky. Were there others I don't know, could there have been, yes. Would you expect in 2002 for them to interview the coach again?

Earlier when I said he could have seen the investigation was different, or he could have seen there was little to no investigation, or he could have seen etc, you said what? That he was 80 and implied he might not comprehend that.

 

You don't believe that seeing a man you know to have multiple allegations of child molestation against him hanging around your program with adolescent boys is motivation?

 

No. My lack of demand for this ubiquitous media coverage has no bearing on handling the sexual abuse of children.

I just have no desire to be bombarded with this stuff. I have little to no interest in this frenzy beyond the facts and any disposition

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, it means the police should be notified.

I don't think its unreasonable to believe a 70 year old man wasn't able to decipher a criminal enterprise.

Sandusky wasn't interviewed after the 2002 incident?

 

Thats motivation to suspect he is a molester. I don't think thats motivation to believe the police are covering up his crimes.

 

Which wasn't what we were originally arguing here but ok......

And again no one is asking him to. Asking him to look for signs of it not being properly investigated is not the same as asking him to decipher a criminal enterprise. you are taking what I am saying to the extreme.

I don't know about the 2002 but again thats not what you said. You said how would he know who has/has not been interviewed. I said you don't think he knew sandusky was interviewed in 98? You don't think he would know if sandusky was re interviewed in 2002? It says in the grand jury report the grad assistant was never questioned by the cops, or any body else till 2010. Any ideas why they would include that in the grand jury report? Maybe because they see it as evidence of a cover up? Or of an investigation not occurring? You are saying paterno couldn't have deciphered this for himself?