4merper4mer Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 (edited) Link It comes as no surprise that these allegations are made. In a case so widespread I personally find it hard to believe that more people knew about this than we'll ever know. I almost didn't start the thread because inevitably names and allegations will get thrown around and it will be difficult/impossible to prove anything. Paterno's son has already started in with rhetoric. There was a lot there in this case to indicate to me that Sandusky's activities would have been difficult to hide. These are mainly the quantity and the length of time but there are other factors as well. I think if all the facts about what happened, who knew, when they knew, etc. came out it would be the most instructive thing possible. I don't think that will ever happen. Edited May 6, 2016 by 4merper4mer
jr1 Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 It's tribalism. People swept it under the rug because all they cared about was football
BuffaloBud Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 In the end prolly know more about Watergate than this.
BarleyNY Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Link It comes as no surprise that these allegations are made. In a case so widespread I personally find it hard to believe that more people knew about this than we'll ever know. I almost didn't start the thread because inevitably names and allegations will get thrown around and it will be difficult/impossible to prove anything. Paterno's son has already started in with rhetoric. There was a lot there in this case to indicate to me that Sandusky's activities would have been difficult to hide. These are mainly the quantity and the length of time but there are other factors as well. I think if all the facts about what happened, who knew, when they knew, etc. came out it would be the most instructive thing possible. I don't think that will ever happen. Where'd you see one of his sons defending him? It wasn't in the link. I'd think that it is unlikely that he will get any defense from his sons unless they're protecting their mother or the family fortune. All of his children are adopted and it was heavily rumored that Jerry Sandusky plead out because at least one of his sons was going to testify that he'd been abused by him. Rather than have that happen he took the deal.
4merper4mer Posted May 6, 2016 Author Posted May 6, 2016 Where'd you see one of his sons defending him? It wasn't in the link. I'd think that it is unlikely that he will get any defense from his sons unless they're protecting their mother or the family fortune. All of his children are adopted and it was heavily rumored that Jerry Sandusky plead out because at least one of his sons was going to testify that he'd been abused by him. Rather than have that happen he took the deal. It was in a different article that I saw. I forget which site. He was on twitter calling it false. "Bunk" to be exact. I found one. That's a different article from the one I first mentioned but the same basic info.
dpberr Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Penn State is a weird cult. It could come out as fact that Paterno knew about Sandusky's child abuse since 1976 and they'd STILL want JoePa's statue returned and rail against the "conspiracy" against the University. In some ways Paterno's blind eye towards the whole thing is worse. In a position to stop it. Did absolutely nothing. Lots of kids paid the price for that.
bbb Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 What I don't get is if Paterno knows this in 1976, why doesn't he, at the least, get rid of the guy..........Did he think he was such a good coach that he was necessary for winning?
Observer Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 Paterno obviously knew and either took it up the chain and then did nothing or just did nothing throughout. I don't care about him at this point but I still find it despicable that the "School" and its defenders keep football at the top of their priority list. This scandal was just a little bump in the road. Back to celebrating the culture that allowed this to happen.
bbb Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 I'd like to see the logic behind why Paterno would hide it since now they early 70s. I don't care if Sandusky was the 2nd coming of Knute Rockne, why would he keep him.
Gordio Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 I'd like to see the logic behind why Paterno would hide it since now they early 70s. I don't care if Sandusky was the 2nd coming of Knute Rockne, why would he keep him. You maybe overthinking this. It could be he kept him on because he just didn't care. The whole Penn State culture is sick if you ask me & how they are still trying to protect Paterno. He is as guilty as Sanduski because he did nothing about it when he could ended it decades before. Sad situation all the way around.
Alaska Darin Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 You maybe overthinking this. It could be he kept him on because he just didn't care. The whole Penn State culture is sick if you ask me & how they are still trying to protect Paterno. He is as guilty as Sanduski because he did nothing about it when he could ended it decades before. Sad situation all the way around. It's not just Penn State. Big time college sports is as corrupt as any entity on the planet. What happened at PSU is simply part of a disgusting culture of big money, decadence, and corruption.
Gordio Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 It's not just Penn State. Big time college sports is as corrupt as any entity on the planet. What happened at PSU is simply part of a disgusting culture of big money, decadence, and corruption. Agreed.
bbb Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 PSU president hits back at media: http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20160509_Penn_State__No_evidence_Paterno__staff_knew_early_Sandusky_allegations.html
K-9 Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 Why didn't he (Paterno) just get rid of him? Because Sandusky was considered a brilliant defensive mind and the architect of "Linebacker U" in State College, PA. "Get rid of him" sounds like why didn't Paterno just unleash this predatory monster on some other community when he had the chance. Paterno and the numerous other adults that knew of this behavior for decades (this type of thing is would be known by many in such a small community) should have been arrested for aiding and abetting a pedophile child rapist. Cowards, all of them. PSU president hits back at media: http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20160509_Penn_State__No_evidence_Paterno__staff_knew_early_Sandusky_allegations.html So president Barron has had enough? Did the first 10 year old boy raped in the showers have "enough" as well?
bbb Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 Why didn't he (Paterno) just get rid of him? Because Sandusky was considered a brilliant defensive mind and the architect of "Linebacker U" in State College, PA. "Get rid of him" sounds like why didn't Paterno just unleash this predatory monster on some other community when he had the chance. Paterno and the numerous other adults that knew of this behavior for decades (this type of thing is would be known by many in such a small community) should have been arrested for aiding and abetting a pedophile child rapist. Cowards, all of them. So president Barron has had enough? Did the first 10 year old boy raped in the showers have "enough" as well? Way to skip the words "at the very least" So, Sandusky WAS Knute Rockne then, I guess. At least that makes it more logical. Things have to make sense.
4merper4mer Posted May 9, 2016 Author Posted May 9, 2016 Why didn't he (Paterno) just get rid of him? Because Sandusky was considered a brilliant defensive mind and the architect of "Linebacker U" in State College, PA. "Get rid of him" sounds like why didn't Paterno just unleash this predatory monster on some other community when he had the chance. Paterno and the numerous other adults that knew of this behavior for decades (this type of thing is would be known by many in such a small community) should have been arrested for aiding and abetting a pedophile child rapist. Cowards, all of them. So president Barron has had enough? Did the first 10 year old boy raped in the showers have "enough" as well? Well said. So the media is not supposed to report allegations filed in court papers because they haven't been proven? What an absolute joke. I suppose they're not supposed to report on allegations of murder until a conviction is rendered either? It would be one thing if it were reported as some sort of fact but it was not. It was reported as an allegation exactly how it should have been. Barron should be excoriated for being the president of a university and not thinking the press has freedom to report on that university. He's an idiot. Every time one of these people opens his or her mouth they give themselves away for what they really are. And what they are is something that no single word can describe. Disgusting, monstrous, greedy, evil, stupid, blind, reprehensible, filthy loser would be a start. Just a start.
K-9 Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 Well said. So the media is not supposed to report allegations filed in court papers because they haven't been proven? What an absolute joke. I suppose they're not supposed to report on allegations of murder until a conviction is rendered either? It would be one thing if it were reported as some sort of fact but it was not. It was reported as an allegation exactly how it should have been. Barron should be excoriated for being the president of a university and not thinking the press has freedom to report on that university. He's an idiot. Every time one of these people opens his or her mouth they give themselves away for what they really are. And what they are is something that no single word can describe. Disgusting, monstrous, greedy, evil, stupid, blind, reprehensible, filthy loser would be a start. Just a start. Better said.
4merper4mer Posted May 9, 2016 Author Posted May 9, 2016 Way to skip the words "at the very least" So, Sandusky WAS Knute Rockne then, I guess. At least that makes it more logical. Things have to make sense. Because "at the very least" presents it as an acceptable option, even if undesirable. There are any number of reasons that could be viable to answer your question about why they kept this cretin around. Most, if not all would be speculation and likely irresponsible at this point.
bbb Posted May 9, 2016 Posted May 9, 2016 Because "at the very least" presents it as an acceptable option, even if undesirable. There are any number of reasons that could be viable to answer your question about why they kept this cretin around. Most, if not all would be speculation and likely irresponsible at this point. No, I'm not saying it's acceptable. I'm trying to put my mind into 1970s Joe Paterno's mind. WTF reason would he have to keep this guy? I think that in the 1970s, these types of things were handled more by firings than legal action. (I know of one alleged one in my high school at the time).
Recommended Posts