Joe Paterno was Sandusky's pal for decades. They coached together all those years. These guys practically live together. if anyone thinks Paterno knew nothing about Sandusky's "inclinations" twenty- thirty years ago, that's just not clear thinking. And how many more before 1998 were compromised?
Not at all Chop. I just have a problem saying he covered the situation up when he actually walked into his boss' office, sat down and told him exactly what McQueary reported to him about what he saw.
A cover up to me is Joe Paterno saying "Hey McQueary, you didn't see anything tonight in those showers so keep your mouth shut." He had information and reported it to his boss which is what we're all trained to do.
But...on the flip side...if you see Sandusky lifting weights in your building after the incident had been reported I surely would've been way more involved in finding out exactly what the outcome of the situation was. That is where all of these guys failed. How can you not ask what the victim's name is and if he's ok at the very least? How can you not go straight to authorities especially given the 1998 report and how do you allow him to keep coming into the Lasch Building? All of that boggles my mind.
This is pretty good circumstantial evidence that Paterno knew his demise was coming from the Sandusky scandal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/s...ract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?_r=3&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/s...ract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?_r=3&hp
Why do you think I point no fault at JP? Of course he's guilty for not doing the following (I've been steadfast in saying it throughout the entire thread).
A) No even finding out if the kid was hurt or who he was.
B) Not following up on his report and asking what the outcome was.
C) Allowing Sandusky to use his facilities even after what he reported to his boss.
With Joe Paterno being the godfather of the program, it was his duty to follow up on his report to ensure the case was properly investigated and he didn't do that. Of course Joe has fault. They all do.
The evidence comes from e-mails between Curley, Spanier and Schulz:
"After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."
That refers to a plan in 2001 to bring in authorities after Sandusky was caught raping a kid in shower. That incident came years after Paterno was involved in Sandusky's first child-molestation investigation in 1998.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...o-penn-state-covered-up-sex-abuse-all/?page=2
http://deadspin.com/5925408/freeh-report-joe-paterno-knew-in-1998
Piecing everything together, here's what is known with no longer any doubt:
1. Paterno knew since 1998 that Sandusky was suspected to have raped children.
2. Paterno did nothing to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State facilities OR to stop him from bringing children there.
3. After being informed in 2001 of Sandusky having been caught raping a kid in the Penn State showers, Paterno asked the PSU brass not to bring in authorities.
4. Paterno still did little to nothing to limit Sandusky's access or to stop him from bringing children there.
Here's what it says right at the top of page 5 of Freeh's statement on the report:
The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno’s. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.
Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.
Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.
