Where is Sandusky now? Did they deny him bail? Is he on suicide watch?
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Where is Sandusky now? Did they deny him bail? Is he on suicide watch? [/quote]
Lets hope they chose to kill him like this.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Where is Sandusky now? Did they deny him bail? Is he on suicide watch? [/quote]
Lets hope they chose to kill him like this.[/quote]
lmfaoooo
not torturous enough, minus the clothes I say…
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Where is Sandusky now? Did they deny him bail? Is he on suicide watch? [/quote]
Lets hope they chose to kill him like this.[/quote]
lmfaoooo
not torturous enough, minus the clothes I say…[/quote]
yep and 69
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Where is Sandusky now? Did they deny him bail? Is he on suicide watch? [/quote]
Lets hope they chose to kill him like this.[/quote]
lmfaoooo
not torturous enough, minus the clothes I say…[/quote]
yep and 69[/quote]
yep and after 3 seconds of exercise…
[quote]Ulty wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
we do not know what he knew in terms of the RESULT of any investigation. was the guy cleared? [/quote]
Paterno has not been criminally charged. I know a couple of guys in this thread said he was “cleared,” but I don’t remember reading anything that specifically said that. Maybe I missed it.
Anyway, we aren’t talking about criminal convictions for Paterno at this point, I thought we were talking about what he knew and if he had the power to do anything about it.
He definitely knew about the 2002 incident. I and others specualte that he knew more, although the evidence has not exactly shown that yet. However, based on his stature at PSU this speculation seems reasonable to most of us.
Even if you doubt the amount of power he actually had, I don’t see how you can doubt that he could have done more to stop what happened. Whether or not he rules campus with an iron fist, no one had the ability moreso than Joe Paterno to get shit done around there if he really wanted to. He admitted in his little retirement statement that he should have done more. And by not doing more, JoePa and the rest of the upper administration brought this shitstorm upon PSU when someone outside of the university finally stepped forward.
What is your argument with that?[/quote]
my question about “was the guy cleared” was relative to sandusky as there had been an allegation and investigation of which he was cleared. not sure if that is the one paterno was connected to.
what is my argument with your closing? he wished he did more with the benefit of hindsight is pretty much what he said. which brings me full circle; i want to know what he knew and when before i pass judgment. still have not read the indictment yet but i will.
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Before I get sucked into engaging the lynch mob and having to pointlessly debate the fallacious arguments and speculation that is sure to come, my position is as follows:
Before I am ready to pass judgment, assign culpability or have any other firm opinion on a man who’s body of work (largely with kids) EXCEEDS that of anyone in this thread (and likely will continue to exceed), I will need to know all the FACTS. Allegations will not do.
Speculation, while making for newspapers sales and fun message board threads, will not do. As it stands now, I do not believe Joe Pa “looked the other way”. I may however be convinced otherwise when more information and facts are disclosed. The man changed many young lives for the better. His relative contribution to the university (financially and otherwise) is unmatched by anyone. His program, while doing it by the onerous NCAA rules, speaks for itself.
“Turning a blind eye” or otherwise being “culpable” or “complicit” does not fit the man’s record.
I’ll need more information than junk journalism and an indictment against someone else. When and if we get that, and it points to him, I’ll happily join the lynch mob. I’ll even tie the rope to the limb. [/quote]
BG, we get that you’re fixated on the legal aspects here but surely you must see the moral outrage directed at such a “lack of institutional control” and why certain heads must roll??
[/quote]
not my point. my point is that i cannot ignore joe pa’s considerable body of work and morally convict him until i know what he knew and when he knew it. that’s it. no legal fixation whatsoever. none. i’m having a hard time believing he turned a blind eye to it. if he did, then lynch him. but we don’t have all the facts yet. not by a long shot.
[quote]Trispeter wrote:
I haven’t read all 15 pages of comments here but I am a Penn State Alumni and I have spent a great deal of time over the past week with other PSU-ers learning about this sad story…
However, I completely disagree with the Joe Paterno firing and feel that the university is using him as a sort of scape goat, unless they know something not in the indictment
If you read closely, Schultz, the Senior VP who was involved is the head of the Campus Police… SO this means Joe Pa had reported this to the police… what more could he have done?
I’m disappointed in the actions of my alma mater in many ways, but I think its time to move past this and focus on the real story here, which is not Penn State, its the victims…
and yes, I’m still proud to be a Penn Stater[/quote]
I already made the point that Joe Pa reported it to the police. It has fallen on deaf ears apparently. He should have done MOAR!!! but exactly what he knew to do MOAR about is a complete unknown at this point and just subject to SPECULATION.
all i’ve pretty much stated is that as it concerns Joe Pa, let’s wait for the complete facts.
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Where is Sandusky now? Did they deny him bail? Is he on suicide watch? [/quote]
Lets hope they chose to kill him like this.[/quote]
lmfaoooo
not torturous enough, minus the clothes I say…[/quote]
yep and 69[/quote]
yep and after 3 seconds of exercise…[/quote]
and that time of the month and a fresh dump
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Trispeter wrote:
SO this means Joe Pa had reported this to the police… what more could he have done?
[/quote]
What more could he have done? Followed up and made sure this guy was punished. JoePa ran the show. He could have banned Sandusky from the campus if he wanted but he did not.
If you were the head coach and knew an assistant was caught sexually abusing kids in your locker room would you report it to the AD and Campus Police and leave it at that? See the same guy for years to come bringing young kids into your facility and not say anything further?[/quote]
what if he was told the investigation went nowhere and the guy was cleared? would that change your opinion? how do you know what joe pa was informed of?
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Trispeter wrote:
SO this means Joe Pa had reported this to the police… what more could he have done?
[/quote]
What more could he have done? Followed up and made sure this guy was punished. JoePa ran the show. He could have banned Sandusky from the campus if he wanted but he did not.
If you were the head coach and knew an assistant was caught sexually abusing kids in your locker room would you report it to the AD and Campus Police and leave it at that? See the same guy for years to come bringing young kids into your facility and not say anything further?[/quote]
A real PSUer knows campus police there is a joke. They hand out underage drinking and public urination citations (even to yours truly!)
JoePa should have walked down to centre county police with McQueary, or reported it to an even higher authority[/quote]
lol it’s not a “higher authority”. campus police have the same sworn powers as the county police or the State police for that matter. so please, let’s just agree he reported it to the “police”. although they may give you a ticket, they can still lock your ass up just like the regular police. admitted, the may be largely patrol (not sure if they have “detectives”) but that’s not different than any small town PD.
[quote]gregron wrote:
Still waiting for BG to resond to my answer(s) to his request. [/quote]
stop trying to be some clever dick and learn to have a reasonable debate. i haven’t read the indictment yet. calm the fuck down.
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
I don’t understand why it’s unenforceable either. The only mention of it in the grand jury summary is on the bottom of page 11.
“Both the graduate assistant and Curley testified that Sandusky himself was not banned from any Penn State buildings and Curley admitted that the ban on bringing children to the campus was unenforceable”[/quote]
Because you can’t enforce it without disclosing the reason behind it. People are going to start asking questions if Sandusky is escorted off campus and there’s a 10 year old boy with him. As someone alluded to a few posts back, it’s not legally or operationally unenforceable, it’s unenforceable because of the PR maelstrom that it will cause.
[/quote]
If what you state is true, the implications are stunning. Joe Paterno wasn’t the most powerful man on the Penn State campus, Jerry Sandusky was. By bringing a child on campus in defiance of the ban, he was wantonly flaunting his power.[/quote]
Upon thinking about it further, it seems there has to be a legal or operational reason it’s unenforceable.As far as I know, only the grand jury summary, not the transcripts themselves are available. If what you posted was the only reason the ban was unenforceable, wouldn’t Curley have had to admit that some form of coverup existed? If Curley made that admission, wouldn’t it be in the summary?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I still don’t understand how people are defending or arguing for Paterno and the like. People cannot be this dense. As I said before, I FIRMLY believe that he and others in very high places new about this, and have known for awhile but chose to let it continue. Arguing in defense these people blows my mind.[/quote]
well, for the record, i’m not defending him. if he knew, he’s culpable. if he knew, he’s as culpable as the molester as far as i’m concerned. i’ve simply said we don’t know what he knew or when. just speculation. no more, no less. there has not yet been a full airing of the FACTS.
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think somebody should read his book and then tell us about it…
I couldn’t take it, the picture of him ass pounding a 10 year old in the shower loud enough to be heard out side the shower with the shower running, is burned into my cranium… That kid probably has to wear diapers…I don’t think the corn hole could recover from abuse like that[/quote]
the above is fucking classless.
did you actually just write about a 10 year old getting an “ass pounding”? And did you actually make a comment about a victim having to wear “diapers” and refer to a victim’s “cornhole”?
fucking wow.
i read the indictment up to the conclusion of the victim 2 allegations as those concern Joe Pa. I still want to know what Joe knew and when, and what he was told by those in charge about the outcome of any “investigation”. I don’t think it’s unreasonable in that situation to assume a bonafide investigation is in fact occurring and that no further action was required. I say this in a “vacuum” without knowing what else he knew or didn’t know. if the abuse was indeed “common knowledge” as some have speculated, I don’t buy it.
if there is anything after victim 2 that further implicates joe pa, let me know and i’ll read it.
and, at least as it relates to victim 2, it seems odd that sandusky’s organization was complicit in the lack of action.
i think joe owes a more detailed explanation. whether that is possible before the legal process concludes it unlikely SINCE HE IS A WITNESS FOR THE STATE.
has it not occurred to anyone here that joe pa could have been misled after he reported the incident? does a man that intends to “look the other way” call his superiors the next day to report what has been told to him? i want more facts. simple.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
When this investigation is all said and done, the facts in relation to the circumstances will be so egregious that the question wont be ‘what did he know’ but ‘how could he NOT have known?’.
my purely speculative opinion.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
When this investigation is all said and done, the facts in relation to the circumstances will be so egregious that the question wont be ‘what did he know’ but ‘how could he NOT have known?’.
my purely speculative opinion. [/quote]
and if that’s the case, i’ll happily join the lynch mob for his head. right now, there are many higher on the totem pole of DIRECT KNOWLEDGE.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
When this investigation is all said and done, the facts in relation to the circumstances will be so egregious that the question wont be ‘what did he know’ but ‘how could he NOT have known?’.
my purely speculative opinion. [/quote]
At that point it should be “how could ANYONE not have known?” There were signs all the way back to 1998…