[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^Jesus dude, I’ve been saying ALL ALONG that this is a massive cover-up. This goes way past just Paterno, but that doesn’t change that he could’ve and should’ve done more. Don’t know how many times I can say that we’re gonna be surprised how far down the rabbit hole this goes.[/quote]
It doesn’t have to be a cover up. SMH
Did it ever occur to you that the case didn’t have legs in the beginning? That it wasn’t strong? You (and others) look at this with the benefit of hindsight and that’s when puzzle pieces start fitting nicely together. When you’re actually doing the puzzle, you’re struggling…you think a piece fits, only to find it doesn’t. This is what happens in an investigation. Something you think has legs, doesn’t. When shit accumulates, a case gets stronger. People just don’t up and confess to a whodunit. Witnesses/victims recant or do not want to testify and cooperate (common in an abuse case). My guess is they didn’t have what they needed to indict early on. They had already taken one crack at it and didn’t have enough. They had to impanel a grand jury to investigate the thing…this was not some ABC color-by-the-numbers investigation.
I’ll say it again…molesters are everywhere in this society, including churches and schools. PSU could have easily survived an EX coach being a molester. PSU would not even have suffered a case of hiccups. You out the fucker, and it’s news for a bit and then people are moving on to the next football game. That’s the reality. Something like this would have never taken down the PSU machine. There is no need for a cover-up unless you believe that the average Joe could turn a blind eye to abuse.
And we’re not talking one person turning a blind eye, we’re talking a conspiracy requiring the silence of 5 or so people in authority - that damn near qualifies as a criminal organization. Sorry…don’t buy it. There is MORE to this story and it’s not going to be anything fantastic to satiate your rabbit hole desires. It’s going to be the tedium of testimony…“he said, she said”. It’s going to be a series of failures that in hindsight appear obvious (many airlines crashes and other catastrophic accidents for instance are a series of errors that when looked upon AFTER THE FACT appear quite obvious and even simple problems…add stress, human error and other factors in real time, and the “simple” becomes quite complicated). You get 5 people communicating about an incident, and with any wavering by McQueery and this things changes shape.
It could be the above, or 5 or more humans turned away so children could be abused. I don’t know one such man (although I know they exist obviously)…but somehow, 5 or more ended up at PSU in positions of authority. I find it remarkable that you could so easily believe that without wanting to know more.
LOL at the rabbit hole. Some of you have very active imaginations. [/quote]
It reads like you’re letting the University off the hook. I haven’t read all your posts in this thread but you can’t blame people looking at things in hindsight considering the seriousness of the subject and events. Most people agree that Joe Paterno had to leave the University, along with everyone that was remotely connected to the incident. People are angry because this wasn’t some sort of out-of-the-blue revelation into Sandusky’s character and behaviour, the signs were there and there were actual complaints dating more than 10 years ago.
Now, like that analogy of aviation accidents you used, Penn State as the airliner has to absorb severe consequences. I don’t know if we’re talking conspiracy but there was shameful negligence on the part of various figures. The investigation will filter who messed up or covered up the most and the actual number of people that had some sort of duty within proximity.[/quote]
I’m not letting the University off the hook. But you’d know that if you read the thread and I’m not going to repeat my already well documented position about the affair. Suffice it to say that I do not disagree in principle with what you have written. But I do think any judgement concerning Paterno should be reserved until we have all the facts - meaning we know what he was told, and when, and what was reported back to him.
At the end of the day, and what everyone is ignoring - is that the man reported up the chain of command the VERY NEXT DAY regarding a man he worked very closely with for over 20 years. That is not the action of a man wishing to engage in a “cover-up” or “look the other way”. Before or if you retort the foregoing, I dare you to do so WITHOUT SPECULATING. I’m saying we simply do not know. And I’m also willing to be “wrong”. But we don’t know that yet.
