Should the Joe Paterno Statue Come Down in Happy Valley?

[Tacopants]

With any due diligence and research, you can find countless stories from former players who credit Joe with making them into proper men. He changed their lives. Don't believe it? Then you don't know the history of the program. Former players loved the guy like a father.

SoCal, great post, and I am not disagreeing with the above statement but I keep hearing this over and over as one of the great things JoePa has done in his life. Again, not disagreeing, but let's say these former players went to play for Bear at Bama, Bo at UM or Tom Osbourne at Nebraska? Would they have not turned into proper men? Did former players not love these coaches like a father? Could it be possible that a lot of college football coaches influence young men like JoePa did, especially ones that come from fatherless homes, and that the same would have been said if another coach was at PSU at the time?

 

[SoCal]

SoCal, great post, and I am not disagreeing with the above statement but I keep hearing this over and over as one of the great things JoePa has done in his life. Again, not disagreeing, but let's say these former players went to play for Bear at Bama, Bo at UM or Tom Osbourne at Nebraska? Would they have not turned into proper men? Did former players not love these coaches like a father? Could it be possible that a lot of college football coaches influence young men like JoePa did, especially ones that come from fatherless homes, and that the same would have been said if another coach was at PSU at the time?

You might be right. My perspective is influenced by growing up in PA. We cheered for PSU on Saturdays and the Eagles on Sundays. Joe was an icon. Having said that, I also know that the national media gave Joe a lot of credit for running a squeaky clean program too. Unless I am have a biased memory as an alumni.. PSU was nationally known for doing things right. Also, Joe coached a lot longer than anyone else, so generations of players passed through there and generations of sportwriters gave him his due. If you subtract the scandal from his legacy, the guy really seemed to be all the right things ... and consistently for a long long time.

I seem to remember when i attended, that some players got into a scrap outside a bar. If I remember correctly, there was some joking about it the following week because the players more or less got sent to Joe's house for a talking to. That was either a national or a campus story, but either way.. the guy was like a parent away from home for some of the players. Maybe that's the way it is all over. I don't know. Penn State football was really all I knew. I was damn proud of it too. Damn shame it's all gone to hell know. Like I said, Camelot is dead.

 

[SoCal]

Paterno painted himself as "old-fashioned Joe" when it served him well, and he may well have privately talked with Sandusky at some point, but simply being "fooled" doesn't jibe with the timeline. We know that Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation and was keenly interested in how it progressed. If that were the first time Paterno learned of Sandusky's ways, talked with him then and was "fooled" at that point, it's amost understandable. But to be informed in 2001 about the shower rape, knowing what he already knew from 1998, and still do nothing -- worse than that, let the brass know he didn't want them to go to the authorities -- and STILL to allow Sandusky to bring young boys to Penn State facilities... well, it's hard to make any sort of argument that a reasonable person could still be unaware of what he had in his house.

My own opinion is that Paterno simply became too enamoured of himself. Conciously or subconciously, he saw himself as a king in his own kingdom, and saw the football program as his sole purview. He was not to be questioned. He made the rules. Keep in mind that the Sandusky case was not the first time he had stonewalled, hid or interfered with an investigation.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...-11-22/11-22-11-Paterno-Discipline/51346682/1

In the end he went to his grave still insisting the 13 years (or more) that Jerry Sandusky was allowed to use Penn State football as a honey trap for young boys was "not a football scandal" (that's what Paterno said in his final e-mail to former players). He even took advantage of the short period before the final Sandusky affair came to light to push for an unscheduled raise for himself. Paterno certainly did some good things -- donations, assurance of a good graduation record, etc. -- but knowing what we all now know, it certainly seems that Joe Paterno's greatest concern was Joe Paterno.

Whatever happens to Penn State now -- death penalty or something less -- they really need to start a completely fresh page with the football program. There should be no holdovers from the Paterno days. Remove the statue, change the uniforms, start on a completely blank page.

The part about the timeline. I realize Sandusky "fooling" Joe over time and multiple occurances doesn't add up. I'm trying to make sense of it, but there are some parts of this we may never know. Your thought about Joe being all about Joe... aka King Shit of PSU. It is certainly possible he turned away for the good of himself. I have a hard time swallowing that pill, but I know it's possible. I think over time... if he really was a bastard out for himself, we will start to hear from others on the inside giving personal accounts. This is all still too fresh and painful for many people to come out and blast the guy. Or maybe the story has more to it and those personal accounts will shed new light of yet another twist. I fully admit the guy F'd up royally... but I want to know more.

 

[Enfuego]

Post 262, Line 3.

This one? I replied to you already on this. What shows that Paterno clearly hushed up the allegations for fear of bad publicity? Is there an email or did he say this to someone or what? For the life of me, I wish someone would take a page number from the report and show me where it says this. I've read the entire report and don't see this anywhere.

"The report said that Paterno and the other university officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in 2001 for fear of bad publicity. Asked on Thursday whether the actions of the four men amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be for a grand jury to decide. But the former FBI chief and federal judge said the evidence shows "an active agreement to conceal."

 

[Willie99]

And you have the page number with a quote from Paterno in the Freeh Report that says he let Sandusky do this for fear of bad publicity? I'll standby for that proof.

you know it's not coming

 

[vinscully]

This one? I replied to you already on this. What shows that Paterno clearly hushed up the allegations for fear of bad publicity? Is there an email or did he say this to someone or what? For the life of me, I wish someone would take a page number from the report and show me where it says this. I've read the entire report and don't see this anywhere.

"The report said that Paterno and the other university officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in 2001 for fear of bad publicity. Asked on Thursday whether the actions of the four men amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be for a grand jury to decide. But the former FBI chief and federal judge said the evidence shows "an active agreement to conceal."

I'm assuming from what we know from the various reports the following is true: Three people (Spannier/Shulz/Curley got together and decided to report Sandusky to CPS (or some other official body). They then backtracked on that decision after 'discussion with Joe.'

If you believe that version of events, what was Joe doing if he wasn't covering up? It's common knowledge they were going to take it further and only an intervention by Paterno stopped that. That's how I read it anyway.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Blind people cant see scully

 

[vinscully]

Blind people cant see scully

Like the guy said earlier in the thread, this is one of the better discussions I've seen about this topic, but to me at least the evidence seems to show Paterno was attempting to cover it up the second he talked those guys out of taking it further, and I'm not sure that point is even debatable.

Only Joe Pa knows why he did that and he's not here to tell us so we'll probably never know.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Like the guy said earlier in the thread, this is one of the better discussions I've seen about this topic, but to me at least the evidence seems to show Paterno was attempting to cover it up the second he talked those guys out of taking it further, and I'm not sure that point is even debatable.

Only Joe Pa knows why he did that and he's not here to tell us so we'll probably never know.

You know its sad what im about to say. And ENFUEGO is going to get real pissed when he reads this, but this would be the one time he would have a leg to stand on because what im about to say is just a theory with no basis in provable truth.
What im about to say requires believing some things that I cant prove for 100%.

But if you read everything closely and read between the lines you can make the case that the other 3 guys were 100% fully prepared to turn Sandusky in but for some reason or another after JoePa joined the conversation somehow they all of a sudden changed there mind.
The only thing that changed between the time that they said they are going to report him and them not reporting was later talking to Joe Pa.

Again, none of that is provable, but you can certainly conjure up that though by reading the latest news.

But even if my theory is, that still does not remove blame from those 3 even if they had intentions of telling before talking to JoePa

I bet im not the only person who thought this.

 

[CHOPTALK]

I hate typing on phones. Excuse the typos
too much trouble to fix them

 

[Enfuego]

I'm assuming from what we know from the various reports the following is true: Three people (Spannier/Shulz/Curley got together and decided to report Sandusky to CPS (or some other official body). They then backtracked on that decision after 'discussion with Joe.'

If you believe that version of events, what was Joe doing if he wasn't covering up? It's common knowledge they were going to take it further and only an intervention by Paterno stopped that. That's how I read it anyway.

And this is the issue I take with this entire thread. Everyone is assuming a whole bunch of stuff instead of relying on factual documentation. What was the discussion with Joe? What was said in that discussion? Who had the discussion? Where did it take place? All of that is what I question.

 

[Enfuego]

Like the guy said earlier in the thread, this is one of the better discussions I've seen about this topic, but to me at least the evidence seems to show Paterno was attempting to cover it up the second he talked those guys out of taking it further, and I'm not sure that point is even debatable.

Only Joe Pa knows why he did that and he's not here to tell us so we'll probably never know.

And you cannot prove this happened beyond a reasonable doubt whatsoever. It's pure conjecture on behalf of the Freeh Report. True?

 

[Enfuego]

You know its sad what im about to say. And ENFUEGO is going to get real pissed when he reads this, but this would be the one time he would have a leg to stand on because what im about to say is just a theory with no basis in provable truth.
What im about to say requires believing some things that I cant prove for 100%.

But if you read everything closely and read between the lines you can make the case that the other 3 guys were 100% fully prepared to turn Sandusky in but for some reason or another after JoePa joined the conversation somehow they all of a sudden changed there mind.
The only thing that changed between the time that they said they are going to report him and them not reporting was later talking to Joe Pa.

Again, none of that is provable, but you can certainly conjure up that though by reading the latest news.

But even if my theory is, that still does not remove blame from those 3 even if they had intentions of telling before talking to JoePa

I bet im not the only person who thought this.

Chop, why would I get pissed? It's your opinion and that is not for me to question at all. I think your case is totally believable for sure. Can it be proven? Only time will tell I guess.

 

[Enfuego]

Not surprised that the Paterno family has ordered an independent review of the findings of the Freeh Report. This thing is going to go on for awhile it seems. The below quote sums up my thoughts 100%.

"We are dismayed by, and vehemently disagree with, some of the conclusions and assertions and the process by which they were developed by the Freeh Group," Wick Sollers, the lawyer for the Paterno family, said in a statement Monday. "Mr. Freeh presented his opinions and interpretations as if they were absolute facts. We believe numerous issues in the report, and his commentary, bear further review."

 

[THawk+]

In my opinion, repeat "my opinion". The Paterno family, I think Jay more than anyone else had better be very careful here trying to save his dad's legacy. If he is not careful he may just make it worse
on top of keeping it in the news and dragging his dad through the mud even more.

Does anyone here really think that the Paterno family independent review will find anything but Joe Pa innocent of anything involving this case???

This dog + pony show just needs to ride off into the sunset, dismantle or turn the statue around like someone else suggested earlier in this thread.

Penn St. needs to lose theri football program for a couple of years and then restart it after getting rid of anyone who was there before...

The people I feel sorry for are all the cult like people who live there

 

[Enfuego]

I think what people need to understand is that there was a specific narrative in the Freeh Report. And everything included in the report contributed to the narrative, specifically mentioning facts, emails, conversations that either contributed or did not contribute to the overall conclusion(s) stated by Freeh and his team. You need only look to 2 specific items in the report that really had little to no bearing on the investigation in general as to what the narrative was and the conclusion Freeh wants everyone to come to.

1) Mentioning Spanier's stern action regarding Curtis Enis' agent giving him $400 for clothing to an awards banquet
2) When McQueary went to Paterno, Paterno first saying, 'if you're calling about a job, don't bother coming over.'

Strongly contributes to Enfuego's position (and Jay Paterno's) that the report is merely an interpretation and not a legal document with sworn testimony.

Also, Enfuego, to clear something up - you've mentioned a few times that Paterno was questioned but never indicted, while Curley and Schulz were. That doesn't really help your argument here, however, given they indicted the others based on theirs and other grand jury testimony and the facts revealed in the Sandusky case. The emails and documents the Freeh report uncovered weren't presented while Paterno was alive, otherwise he may have been prosecuted (for perjury I'd assume)

1) Dsethi, the position that this is an interpretation without fact has been my point all along. Thank you for that opinion.

2) You make a good point about the grand jury testimony. If alive today, I could see Paterno being charged with perjury only but as far as the Sandusky issue goes, no criminal activity would result in a prosecution.

This is an emotional topic and I don't want guys to think I'm defending the guy's actions in any way but some of the opinions in this thread are based on raw emotion without actually reading the report. You've obviously read the report. I thought the line about McQueary was funny.

 

[vinscully]

And you cannot prove this happened beyond a reasonable doubt whatsoever. It's pure conjecture on behalf of the Freeh Report. True?

When you say I can't prove it, I'm going by what the report said and the fact they said they looked at over a million e-mails and communications. The actions I attribute to Jo Pa are from the information I gleaned from the report.

If you're saying they conducted that review and then came to a wholly unfair conclusion there's not much else I can say. My point being, if you don't believe the report then there is nothing anyone can say that could possibly alter your opinion because the report is all we have. It's a bit like me saying I saw Elvis in Albertsdon's this morning. If I say I did and a report says I didn't I would say the report was biased.

The only people unhappy with the report are the Paterno family and that's no more or less than we could have predicted even before it was released.

If the report is unfair then I'm sure jay Paterno will have a field day when he sues the authors.

 

[Enfuego]

I think the McQueary issue is really just him trying to cover his own ass as much as possible at this point, make him seem like the one 'good guy' among villains.

There's little doubt in my mind Paterno would have been prosecuted if alive, whether age and senility get him off the hook is subject to debate. All I really want to know at this point is what the fuck Curley was spoonfeeding Paterno as he was basically his intermediary for most of this it appears (minus McQueary thing). That's the only thing that would even remotely 'save' Paterno at this point, is if Curley fell on the sword and said that he only told Paterno in '98 that Sandusky was being investigated, but not for what. Still, Paterno's own handwriting questioning 'liability?' for Second Mile using Latsch Building is highly, highly questionable.

I doubt we'll ever hear about it from Curley directly but that's pretty much what I'd like to know.

Dsethi, I meant the line was funny about McQueary asking for a job. I read that and kind of laughed. Don't come over if you want a job LOL.

 

[Enfuego]

When you say I can't prove it, I'm going by what the report said and the fact they said they looked at over a million e-mails and communications. The actions I attribute to Jo Pa are from the information I gleaned from the report.

If you're saying they conducted that review and then came to a wholly unfair conclusion there's not much else I can say. My point being, if you don't believe the report then there is nothing anyone can say that could possibly alter your opinion because the report is all we have. It's a bit like me saying I saw Elvis in Albertsdon's this morning. If I say I did and a report says I didn't I would say the report was biased.

The only people unhappy with the report are the Paterno family and that's no more or less than we could have predicted even before it was released.

If the report is unfair then I'm sure jay Paterno will have a field day when he sues the authors.

VS, I'm saying there is no proof anywhere that shows Paterno definitively prevented Sandusky from being investigated because he feared bad publicity for PSU. There are no emails, no taped conversation and nobody has testified he did that. I'm saying Freeh comes to this conclusion but it's not based on relevant fact.

I think the report is thorough and paints a very accurate picture of the timeline but the opinions Freeh comes to are based on his assumptions and conjecture not fact.

 

[YourAllAmerican]

And you cannot prove this happened beyond a reasonable doubt whatsoever. It's pure conjecture on behalf of the Freeh Report. True?

A good, or even decent, lawyer could and would certainly play that up in a criminal court case, where guilt must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it's not likely it would hold up in a civil proceeding, where the burden of proof is less and relationships between Event A, Event B and Event C can be established even without clearly spelled-out hard evidence, if there is enough circumstantial evidence that points to that relationship.

In a civil case -- and us on this forum debating back and forth is far more similar to that than to a criminal case -- it would almost certainly be inferred that the change in plan about going to authorities "after ... talking it over with Joe" was directly because of what Joe Paterno wanted.

Even OJ got nailed in a civil case, despite the glove not fitting.