dagblog - Comments for "Joe Paterno Fired By the Board of Trustees"

Thanks for the responses. The

NCD — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:38:29 +0000

Thanks for the responses.

The rioting students have nothing to complain about, their parents should be ashamed of them. The rioters are defaming Penn State as much as Sandusky the perpetrator, they are saying they don't care about what happened.

The children from the group homes that were taken advantage of by Sandusky do not have parents to protect them, or to pay their way through college. The students should see what life is like in a group home, with 3-4 to a room, no privacy, no constancy, no trust, and rotating caregivers around the clock. Then think what abuse by a pedophile would add to that.

Paterno must have thought no one could ever spoil his reputation, well, so be it, reputation is built on morals, knowing right from wrong, not how many football games your team won.

Harrisburg attorney Ben

Elusive Trope — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:09:18 +0000

In reply to Paterno should have sacked

Harrisburg attorney Ben Andreozzi, who is advising some alleged victims, told The Associated Press that he's worried they could become scapegoats to people angry about Paterno's sudden departure.

The victims "are now watching people parade and riot" and "to think that is not in some way going to impact these victims is naïve," said Andreozzi, who specializes in sexual abuse cases. He said he's working to provide therapy to the victims, but stopped short of saying he represents them.

You are corrtect, and

Elusive Trope — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:57:52 +0000

In reply to isn't part of the testimony

You are corrtect, and actually Victim 6 of the testimony is the one that sparked the investigation - so it is there, too. I have read the testimony in snippets, so it is kind of fragmented in my mind. I was thinking in terms of the 2002 incident testimony which was the focus of so much of this, the details of the 1998 incident was not also being dealt with. And Paterno doesn't seem to be questioned about that (although I think that will change in the future) incident.

isn't part of the testimony

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:18:24 +0000

In reply to One thing to keep in mind is

isn't part of the testimony of that grand jury, is that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 by the campus police for showering with children.

It's in there, page 9-10. V.P. Schultz testified to it, I would imagine in response to examination. Not only University Police but also "child protection agency." Then it goes on to say that both he and Graham Spanier testified basically that they didn't pay any attention to it previously, i.e., when it happened.

One thing to keep in mind is

Elusive Trope — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:19:35 +0000

In reply to The grand jury doc that

One thing to keep in mind is that Paterno in his testimony referred to what he was told by McQueary as "fondling" or "something of a sexual nature." Now something of a sexual nature is being referred to as "horseplay."

Another thing to keep in mind, and which isn't part of the testimony of that grand jury, is that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 by the campus police for showering with children. The man who was considered by just about everybody to be the heir apparent to Paterno then suddenly resigned from the the program in 1999. And he was given a stipulation not to bring children around the campus as part of some deal.

So all of the evidence or apparent evidence people are using is not based solely on the grand jury testimony, but on other facts and potential facts in the larger case.

You're right that that

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:08:44 +0000

In reply to The grand jury doc that

You're right that that document is an account of what the grand jury was told, not a transcript. So we have all the potential biases that get introduced by this factor alone.

It seems the basic argument is that the higher-ups are saying no indication of sexual or criminal misconduct whereas the grad assistant is saying he was really clear that that was what he observed. The person who wrote or the people who approved the writeup clearly believe the grad assistant that he was really explicit on that, that there should have been no real doubt but that some really serious stuff was going on, nothing that could possibly be blithely dismissed as "horseplay".

The grand jury doc that

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:48:51 +0000

In reply to Apparently (heard on ESPN

The grand jury doc that Articleman posted in the news section here clears up a lot about what you are talking about, who in power was told when and how they responded. It's really about that, about a cover-up or at least evasion by those in power. I don't listen to much sports news, and didn't have the whole story, so I read it. Doesn't really take as long to read it as it looks. I'm glad I read it, as seems to me, from the bits and pieces I've heard of sports media coverage, that they are all taking what they say from that doc and just stretching it out and hypothesizing on what's in there in order to cater to the hot story of the moment.

I.E. (it's just one example, there are many points to the case) re:

Paterno had told the grand jury, in re to the 2002 incident, that he had been told that there was fondling or groping, horseplay, and something else involving a boy in the shower. If the first part of that isn't about the biggest kind of red flag imaginable I'm not sure what is. So, if that is accurate....

He said that, it's in the doc, but the grand jury implies that he and higher-ups must have known that the grad assistant said he saw anal intercourse, and that the "horseplay" line was Paterno's coverup response about what he recalled being told. So actually, it's used as an implication that Paterno and others were trying to make light of what happened or trying to convince themselves that things were not as bad as that which was reported and that which Sandusky's past record indicated. Basically, they believe he was lying to them with the "horseplay" line.

Oh and re the students who

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:38:30 +0000

In reply to Paterno should have sacked

Oh and re the students who were doing what was known as "demo" when I went to college it's hard to resist a feeling that they were happy to have a ready excuse for liquoring up and avoiding studying. (Paterno even told gathered students at his home last night to go study, along with some less impressive other comments.) If it were my kid doing that I'd be tempted to just pull him out on the spot, tell him to go find out what that job market is like these days, and let me know what he thinks I should take as evidence that he deserves to attend and have his parents pay for him to go to college. Oh, and I think I'd also feel like I'd been a failure so far as his father.

Apparently (heard on ESPN

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:31:19 +0000

In reply to Paterno should have sacked

Apparently (heard on ESPN radio's "Mike and Mike" this morning) Paterno had told the grand jury, in re to the 2002 incident, that he had been told that there was fondling or groping, horseplay, and something else involving a boy in the shower. If the first part of that isn't about the biggest kind of red flag imaginable I'm not sure what is. So, if that is accurate, and I would think the University's Board would have to treat it as accurate if he testified as such to the GJ, then it sure sounds like a justified firing to me. I thought he acted like a law- unto-himself King yesterday when he said he was planning on leaving at the end of this season and told the Board not to worry itself about his situation any further.

I've not heard whether the University President, also fired, has said he was aware of a report and, if so, what that "report" consisted of. It seems conceivable that a report reflecting or suggesting the seriousness of the situation did not reach him until these past few days. If he really did not know and did not have any grounds for thinking anything untoward was going on then I don't know what the grounds were for firing him. "We're panicking here and we need another scapegoat" doesn't seem legitimate to me. I'm sure we'll hear, and hopefully learn, more about his situation.

Paterno should have sacked

NCD — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:54:07 +0000

In reply to Joe Paterno Fired By the Board of Trustees

Paterno should have sacked this guy himself, told him never to appear around him or his teams again or he will kick his ass. Then told the U Prez its him or me, fire him, arrest him, or I quit.

The students are, in effect, saying our entertainment watching our football team is more important than holding two employees accountable, two who failed in their basic responsibilities as human beings to protect innocent children under their supervision, and who have therefore forfeited their right to work at Penn State. The students are showing they have no concept of moral responsibility or justice, they are a disgrace to themselves, their parents or families who sent them to Penn State to learn, and the college and university.