Online Now 888

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 568
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 861
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

Patern Fmily Statement (7/10) - Long

  • psujmc1992 said...

    This type of hyperbole kills me. Joe and Sue (I guess) did a lot that benefited the University. What other Paterno did anything FOR Penn State? With regards to Joe, he won a lot of football games that increased the visibility of Penn State and was instrumental in increasing donations. But I don't buy he make "Penn State what it is today", like some claim. Brilliant faculty and students did.

    I don't disagree with your point. But who/what brought that brilliant faculty and students to PSU? While it may not have been the primary reason they came, I'm pretty sure it was a factor. So I can see where he is coming from.

    chasfcd11

  • chasfcd11 said...

    I don't disagree with your point. But who/what brought that brilliant faculty and students to PSU? While it may not have been the primary reason they came, I'm pretty sure it was a factor. So I can see where he is coming from.

    Wow, now Joe was a driving force behind faculty and regular students coming to PSU. The legend grows.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • TheBleedingLion said...

    sneaky;

    i think one mistake people are making is the same mistake the media is making. I'm not a Joe apologist and welcome all facts. But lets take what we know for what it is and not ignore the "hindsight" portion of his statement:

    1. MM testified that he didnt tell Joe exactly what he saw, he also proved during cross examination that he wasn't even sure what he saw...which ultimately led to an acquittal on that incident. That alone speaks volumes, but lets keep going on it to address Joe's "moral obligations." So basically Joe knows Jerry was in the showers with a child, thats it, why would he assume that a man like Jerry was doing something so devious. He obviously thought that alone was wrong and reported it to Curley and Shultz for further investigating. So he wasn't ok with it like many say he was. He had no reason to believe child molestation was happening and doing so and publicly stating something so disturbing without actual facts can also be viewed as morally wrong, no? We all like to say we would have done this or done that, but thats easy to say now after seeing 10+ victims come forward. His statement that "with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more" shows that at 84 and battling lung cancer he still was more intelligent and centered than 90% of us who fly off the handle when difficult situations arise.

    2. I'm not sure how any of you can criticize the Paterno's handling of their public statements. The guy was fired in front of a national audience, gagged, and literally left to die without being able to address his response to what happened. The family can't defend themselves against what they dont know. Leftcoast is way off base with his position. This material hasn't been presented to them so they literally have no clue what Joe is being accused of, if anything, by the Freeh Report. Not sure what else you want them to say. But I applaud their stance that they are not afraid of what the report says and are ready to respond when its presented to them. They have complete confidence in Joe and I see no reason for them to apologize to people. Sure, he gave an interview before he died, but even then he still didn't know a lot of what was about to come out, so he couldn't address the investigation fully. To me, that is proof that he really didn't know what was about to come out. A guilty man is always easy to read in my opinion because they become defensive and forging, Joe did neither and is being criticized for it because people assume he knew more. Some people need to get over the perception that Joe Paterno ruled State College, Pa. Sure, he had some pull and his words were very influential, but lets not assume he used the power people gave him outside his realm of responsibility. Because there is not one fact out there that he EVER did this, just assumptions. Time and time again Joe asked people to not view him as larger than life, does that not tell you something about how he viewed himself?

    3. I'm not trying to defend Joe, I'm trying to defend the facts. I don't think there will be a happy ending for Joe regardless of what the report says because the damage is done and it really saddens me. You can't change public perception and the loudest voice tends to be the most ill-informed. We were very fortunate to have someone like Joe running our football program for so many years, and we took great pride in that. It made our fan base what it is and different from everyone else in my opinion. Like I said before, if it comes out that Joe did out step his boundaries and did turn a blind eye then shame on me and I can honestly say that it will really change my belief that there are truly good people out there. It will also be completely heart broken because I am a fan of Penn State Football because of the old cry "winning the right way." And that to me goes beyond the student athlete, its the culture, a culture Joe Paterno brought to Penn State that has withstood the test of time.

    1. We know that Joe knew young boy, naked, shower, Sandusky, something of a sexual nature. Call me crazy, but I think that should be enough for Joe. If it was bad enough for Joe to report it, one would think he would follow up on it. You aren’t correct. The charges in reference to the MM victim were not all acquitted. Some of those charges were not guilty and some were still found guilty. Please explain to me him not reporting it right away, “not wanting to ruin anybody’s weekend” Doesn’t sound like what a great man does to me. I was just told of a young boy in the shower with a grown man and something of a sexual nature but I will wait to report it cause I don’t want to ruin anyone’s weekend. Not to worried about how that childs weekend was now was he? I hear all the time how Joe went above and beyond and did this and that and yet in his biggest test and turned his back and walked away. The other big difference in this and other people is that not everyone represents themselves like Joe did. I know I don’t. Sorry, he comes off as a hypocrite to many people.

    2. Joe was gagged from giving the presser he wanted to give. Yet what he wanted to say was still said in a statement that was read. So he was able to say it. He also gave a 2 day interview. So please stop saying he was gagged and couldn’t tell his side of the story (in regards to Sandusky) He had his chance and did so. He also stated he never talked of it after reporting it (which appears to be false) and that he didn’t know they didn’t take care of it so what more could he possibly have to say on the situation? Now, if you want to talk about the things in the report about player discipline and what not that’s a different story. He did not have a chance to defend or tell his side of the story on those things. It’s hard to believe that Joe didn’t know more, I’d argue one has to suspend belief in reality to believe so. Joe used power in many ways and you are naive if you think he never abused it. The fact that it took a child molestation cover up for them to do this to Joe should tell you all you need to know about his power. It was also lawyers silencing him so he had no choice but to comply. He also had nothing to say as has been shown. Don’t tell me he didn’t have power when he told his supposed bosses to pound sand when they came to his house. Stop pretending he didn’t have a lot of power and control. Now, that said, I do NOT think he forced anyone to cover this up. I do believe he knew it was being covered up and did nothing about. The reasons why can be debated for hours. The other difference is that I think EVERYONE should have been fired, including the BOT members. I’m not giving anyone a free pass. Curly, Schultz, Spanier, Joe, the BOT they all deserved to have been fired and should have been fired. They all deserve blame and scorn. Don’t tell me about what Joe said, would you like examples of things Joe said and did the opposite? And im not just talking about saying this team is good when they aren’t. Joe has skeletons in his closet like everyone, some just don’t believe it. For years I stated that the same things happen at PSu that happen everywhere (no im not looking for a pat on the back) and I was blasted and called a liar and told im stupid and just hate Joe etc. and now all of a sudden many of those same people are on here saying of course those things happened, they happen everywhere and Joe did what all other coaches do. Wow, interesting change of story.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • psujmc1992 said...

    This type of hyperbole kills me. Joe and Sue (I guess) did a lot that benefited the University. What other Paterno did anything FOR Penn State? With regards to Joe, he won a lot of football games that increased the visibility of Penn State and was instrumental in increasing donations. But I don't buy he make "Penn State what it is today", like some claim. Brilliant faculty and students did.

    Who do you think forced the BOT into action to recruit that faculty, and to change the image of the University to attract those students? Who do you think spent countless hours and all kinds of energy fund raising for the University, being the face of the University - all to drive the University to improve it's faculty and academc facilities? This isn't myth either. This is history. After he won his first national championship, he walked into a BOT meeting and delivered a speech that urges the board to transform Penn State from an agricultural university to the World Class University it is today.

    What I said wasn't hyperbole at all. It's actual history. Without the Paterno family, my degree isn't worth what it is, and it's entirely possible that PSU isn't the top 50 university it is right now, without the Paterno family acting like the catalyst for change in the 70s and 80s.

    They might not have been the changing factors that drove our Uniersity forward, but they were behind the drive to create those changes.

    Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

    appoo ●

  • leftcoastlion said...

    Some things will never change. For PSU fans it is the relentless defense of all things Paterno. I did nothing other than express frustration with the Paterno family's continued failure to tell Joe's side of the story, and got bombed by nearly 60 down votes.

    You should know that if you don't speak of Joe as the deity many saw him as you will get downvotes galore.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • sneakypete said...

    You should know that if you don't speak of Joe as the deity many saw him as you will get downvotes galore.

    Or if you don't bash him at every turn, you worship him. Works both ways and most see it.

    "One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."

    LaJollaLion ●

  • sneakypete said...

    Umm Joe gave an in house interview after he was fired. He could have told his story, if there was more to tell. They clearly can't stand that negative things will finally come out about Joe.

    Joe did not force anyone to not report Sandusky, but your fooling yourself if you think he didn't know it was being swept under the rug.

    "For the last two months, at the request of the Attorney General's office, I have not discussed the specifics of my testimony regarding the pending cases. And while I will continue to honor that request, I do feel compelled to address comments made subsequent to November 9; specifically, I feel compelled to say, in no uncertain terms, that this is not a football scandal.

    Taken from Joe's letter post interview. Pay close attention to "at the request of the AG's office", the people who put JS away and deemed Joe credible.

    "One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."

    LaJollaLion ●

  • LaJollaLion said...

    "For the last two months, at the request of the Attorney General's office, I have not discussed the specifics of my testimony regarding the pending cases. And while I will continue to honor that request, I do feel compelled to address comments made subsequent to November 9; specifically, I feel compelled to say, in no uncertain terms, that this is not a football scandal.

    Taken from Joe's letter post interview. Pay close attention to "at the request of the AG's office", the people who put JS away and deemed Joe credible.

    I'll ask again. Joe stated he reported it and didn't discuss it again. He stated he did not know what Curly and Spanier were or were not doing. So if this is true, what more could he have to say?

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • sneakypete said...

    I'll ask again. Joe stated he reported it and didn't discuss it again. He stated he did not know what Curly and Spanier were or were not doing. So if this is true, what more could he have to say?

    Well since he didn't say anything, how in the hell would anyone know? I'll wait for the facts to unfold. I think the who knew what and when will come out more when prison is on the line for the 3 amigos above Joe.

    "One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."

    LaJollaLion ●

  • sneakypete said...

    I'll ask again. Joe stated he reported it and didn't discuss it again. He stated he did not know what Curly and Spanier were or were not doing. So if this is true, what more could he have to say?

    but pete, what do you want him to follow up on? Easy to sit here and say molestation now. Why is MM's bland description of what he saw so credible to Joe? It wasnt to a jury. Read McQueary's testimony not the bits and pieces. Listen to Dranov's testimony, not bits and pieces. Both men were basically told Jerry was in the shower with a child, it could have been sexual in nature but not sure. Being that Jerry was not an employee of the university, was a perceived saint for his work with troubled youth, and given access to these buildings NOT by Joe Paterno.....yes, it sounds troubling, but its not as clear cut as you make it sound. Joe told Curley and Shultz to look into it and had McQuery talk to them about what he saw. He made a mistake, yes, by giving Jerry the benfit of the doubt..thats about it. There was no victim which makes it even more complicated. So Jerry says I have no clue what your talking about and Red says otherwise. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that Curley and Shultz should have looked harder because of the seriousness of the crimes. I also agree that Joe should have went above and beyond to follow up (maybe he did, we will find out either tomorrow or during the curley/shultz trial). Point is we don't know what took place on the follow up yet...face that. You have some very powerful allegations against Joe when tomorrow you may find out he was flat out told it was a misunderstanding by a higher up....which gives him no reason to follow up. On the contrary maybe tomorrow I find out that Joe did know more and failed to do much, it works both ways. The difference is that some are being patient and giving Joe a little benefit of the doubt here based on his entire body of work, and rightfully so. I respect your opinion, I just think you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.

    TheBleedingLion ●

  • TheBleedingLion said...

    but pete, what do you want him to follow up on? Easy to sit here and say molestation now. Why is MM's bland description of what he saw so credible to Joe? It wasnt to a jury. Read McQueary's testimony not the bits and pieces. Listen to Dranov's testimony, not bits and pieces. Both men were basically told Jerry was in the shower with a child, it could have been sexual in nature but not sure. Blies?that Jerry was not an employee of the university, was a perceived saint for his work with troubled youth, and given access to these buildings NOT by Joe Paterno.....yes, it sounds troubling, but its not as clear cut as you make it sound. Joe told Curley and Shultz to look into it and had McQuery talk to them about what he saw. He made a mistake, yes, by giving Jerry the benfit of the doubt..thats about it. There was no victim which makes it even more complicated. So Jerry says I have no clue what your talking about and Red says otherwise. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that Curley and Shultz should have looked harder because of the seriousness of the crimes. I also agree that Joe should have went above and beyond to follow up (maybe he did, we will find out either tomorrow or during the curley/shultz trial). Point is we don't know what took place on the follow up yet...face that. You have some very powerful allegations against Joe when tomorrow you may find out he was flat out told it was a misunderstanding by a higher up....which gives him no reason to follow up. On the contrary maybe tomorrow I find out that Joe did know more and failed to do much, it works both ways. The difference is that some are being patient and giving Joe a little benefit of the doubt here based on his entire body of work, and rightfully so. I respect your opinion, I just think you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.

    I want him to follow up on a young boy, in the shower with Sandusky and something of a sexual nature. IIRC, Red stated he made it clear that they knew it was sexual but did not go in to detail. Sounds like something to follow up on to me, maybe not you. He obviously trusted Red as a man or he wouldn't have hired him. How could Joe have followed up if he said he didn't discuss after reporting it? People already believe the Freeh report is a witch hunt to get Joe and think its all lies so tomorrow won't change anything. Many will say it was a cover up to amen the dead guy. Look at your previous post, you imply (to me) similar sentiment.

    This post was edited by sneakypete on 7/11/2012 at 12:39 PM

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't Joe say that McQueary never indicated to him that it was of a sexual nature? I felt like there were a lot of inconsistencies between McQueary's testimony and Joe's that were never fully resolved.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • psubills62 said...

    Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't Joe say that McQueary never indicated to him that it was of a sexual nature? I felt like there were a lot of inconsistencies between McQueary's testimony and Joe's that were never fully resolved.

    Yes. That's what Joe told Curley & Schultz, per his own testimony.

    Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

    appoo ●

  • psubills62 said...

    Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't Joe say that McQueary never indicated to him that it was of a sexual nature? I felt like there were a lot of inconsistencies between McQueary's testimony and Joe's that were never fully resolved.

    The opposite. Joe said that mcqueary told him about behavior "of a sexual nature" when he was under oath. Not sure what appoo thinks he knows.

    This post was edited by perfect on 7/11/2012 at 1:17 PM

    perfect

  • perfect said...

    The opposite. Joe said that mcqueary told him about behavior "of a sexual nature" when he was under oath. Not sure what appoo thinks he knows.

    EDIT: never mind.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by psubills62 on 7/11/2012 at 1:27 PM

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • And if u doubt that go read the statements from right after the story broke with the paterno family saying. "Chill out guys mike didn't explicitly state rape so why would joe take it seriously"
    (Paraphrased)

    perfect

  • perfect said...

    The opposite. Joe said that mcqueary told him about behavior "of a sexual nature" when he was under oath. Not sure what appoo thinks he knows.

    your right, i believe he used the term "fondling", he definitely said McQuery thought it was sexual in nature

    TheBleedingLion ●

  • Paterno direct quote under oath:
    "I don't know what you would call it, but it was of a sexual nature. I didn't push mike to describe it because he was already upset"

    Appoo interpretation:
    "McQueary never indicated to him that it was of a sexual nature."

    Family defense:
    "It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.".

    perfect

  • TheBleedingLion said...

    your right, i believe he used the term "fondling", he definitely said McQuery thought it was sexual in nature

    Sounds like something you would expect a guy like Joe to follow up. Hell, how about report it right away instead of worrying about ruining soneones weekend. Where is the worry for that child?

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • sneakypete said...

    Sounds like something you would expect a guy like Joe to follow up. Hell, how about report it right away instead of worrying about ruining soneones weekend. Where is the worry for that child?

    You're dead on. I have no idea what MM, his father, or Dr. D were thinking. Good call. Clearly when I see any rape going on, the first person I think to call is a sports coach.

    This post was edited by LaJollaLion on 7/11/2012 at 2:06 PM

    "One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."

    LaJollaLion ●

  • LaJollaLion said...

    You're dead on. I have no idea what MM, his father, or Dr. D were thinking. Good call. Clearly when I see any rape going on, the first person I think to call is a sports coach.

    I agree. They are all to blame as well. But Joe is not innocent and shared blame as well. He showed just as little concern.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • The whole thing is completely insane and I can't comprehend or rationalize anyone's reaction other than mcqueary. And his reaction only sort of makes sense to me until a couple months have passed.

    perfect

  • perfect said...

    The whole thing is completely insane and I can't comprehend or rationalize anyone's reaction other than mcqueary. And his reaction only sort of makes sense to me until a couple months have passed.

    I don't understand Mikes, how do you not go right to the police?

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete

  • from the same author who called for the ncaa to not get involved

    http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/07/11/joe-paternos-family-released-damage-control-statement-in-anticipation-of-freeh-report/

    Bom274

  • TheBleedingLion said...

    your right, i believe he used the term "fondling", he definitely said McQuery thought it was sexual in nature

    I actually I misread Bills post, and missed the "never". Joe testified to the grand jury "sexual nature"

    Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.

    appoo ●

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports