The Lions' Pride

The same way all of the murdering SOBs at Virginia Tech and Colorado feel. The same way all the loathesome hate criminals at Rutgers do. Oh wait the national media and closed minded morons haven't labeled those associated with these schools as such. PSU Alums however are obviously not allowed the courtesy to care about their school due to the action/inaction of a handful of people?

Wait, the emails about "coach wants to know," or whatever other extremely vague sentences were used to "reasonably conclude" that Joe knew all about 98 were actually from 2001?
Serious question. I know there were corrections to the Freeh report after the fact but not what they specifically we're. There a link for this?

You keep saying know about 98. Know what? That there was something weird possibly with JS, sure. He was fully exonerated of wrong doing by a few different fields was he not? Police, psychologist, and what not. So what was known(possibly(or maybe at best)), in 2001 about 1998 was that there was nothing deemed punishable by authorities. So knowing that, in theory, a lack of reaction to a story told by another(a story that has yet to be consistent and was admittedly, but the eyewitness himself, lacking in detail, I might add) is something that could be doubted. It seems those commenting on your response are not defending Joe, but your lack of facts, or anything close to facts as you keep spouting these statements. Siting the emails certainly isnt the way to go, as they are vague and inconclusive in nearly every regard. Something I think many seem to be ignoring is that no one aside from victims and the monster knew for sure that such horrible acts were occurring, until just a couple months ago. Hindsight is indeed influencing much here, and clouding the ability to try and 'put oneself in those shoes AT THAT TIME', if you ask me.

shame he didn't have the back of the children....

Joe lied to someone from the media? Seriously that is shocking lol.

A non sarcastic seriously here though, I never heard a thing is another truly interpretive response. Seems cut and dry. However, did he never hear a thing that would constitute further suspicion. As hearing about exoneration from wrong doing is what he heard. Meaning he never heard anything like MM reported(whatever that actually was), as he stated earlier in the same interview he had not heard of that type of thing before. She references the 2002 reporting by McQueary in the questioning as well leading to this type of correlation.

Not to mention this little blurb from Sally Jenkins:

“It was tough, tricky interview, compromised by his health and monitored by his attorneys, and I certainly didn’t walk away from the interview satisfied,” she said in a Washington Post Web chat.

As to why would he lie, he could have multiple reasons if he did in fact lie. Im not him and wasnt there, as we got a transcript, where I would prefer full non stop video review personally, though we dont always get what we want of course.

And no I am not trying to change your or anyone else's opinion, you asked the question I just responded

Age should NEVER be used to excuse Joe's actions. He claimed to be healthy enough and sharp enough to continue coaching. And people actually believed it (and that he should coach as long as he wanted). SMH.

Something I thought was interesting was that Freeh hung on to Paterno saying "You did the right thing, now it's up to me to decide what happens next." First of all, the basic principles in McQueary's testimony ( including dates and times which were off by over a year) changed several times. Why in the world would Freeh hang on to on of the smallest details in that shoddy testimony as one of his reasons for believing Paterno helped cover this up?

I also find it laughable that Freeh concluded that Joe Paterno closely followed the 1998 investigation based on two e-mails that stated 1) I have briefed the coach, keep us updated. 2) Is there anything new? Coach is anxious to know where we stand.... First off, if Paterno was following it closely, why would Curley have to e-mail Schultz for an update? Knowing Joe, he would have went to Schultz himself before asking Curley to talk to Schultz for him.

Finally, for those who think Joe perjured himself, you're wrong. The GJ asked "Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"

Paterno: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.
You did mention — I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don’t know. I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."

The GJ asked the wrong question here... By law, there was no inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky because he was fully exonerated in 1998. Paterno testified in 2010, so saying that any inappropriate sexual conduct occurred between Sandusky and a young boy would have been false because, according to the court at the time, it was investigated and dropped.

Because how the Hell else is he going to blame this all on Paterno?

People should be much more worried about the future instead of dwelling in the past.

One of the most disturbing pieces of information? To hear that Sandusky was under investigation and then that the investigation was closed without charges later? Yeah, I'm sure that was the most disturbing thing Joe had EVER heard. Baloney.

Considering he specifically said "I don't remember" in both cases...who exactly are you to say he does or doesn't remember?

Who cares if he was coaching? Everyone knew his health was going downhill fast.

Fact is, people don't always remember exactly what happened 14 years ago. Obviously in hindsight it seems like a big deal. But Joe dealt with investigations all the time with players getting into trouble. I seriously doubt that an investigation that closed without any charges was "one of the most disturbing pieces of information he had likely ever heard in his life." That's just a bunch of manure.

You have numerous things incorrect in your post, you should do some more research before sounding so sure. But one point I will address if this fallacy of Joe "letting" Jerry have access to his football buildings. I hate to break it to you, but they weren't Joe's buildings. He did not have the deed to them, nor run security at the doors. They belong to the university, and access to them rested well above Joe's scope. Remember, Jerry was no longer a coach. Joe simply did not have any authority over him. To believe otherwise is to buy the propaganda of people who don't know.