- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
Penn State Sandusky Trial #12 (GUILTY-post verdict discussion)
- Thread starter ynotdivein
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
The Paterno family has issued a statement:
Over the last nine months Joe Paterno has been praised by some in near saintly terms and criticized by others as a villain. He was neither.
As the people who worked closely with Joe know, he was tough, aggressive, opinionated and demanding. He was also highly principled, uncompromisingly ethical, dedicated to his job at Penn State and committed to excellence.
When the Sandusky case exploded last fall, Joe's first instincts were to tell everything he knew. He assumed the University would want to hear from him, but he was never given the chance to present his case.
He planned to hold a press conference, but University officials ordered him to cancel it. And then the various investigations started and the legal process took over. On top of everything else, Joe was diagnosed with lung cancer. Two months later he was gone. The end result is his story has never fully been told.
As this situation unfolded, Joe cautioned everyone not to jump to conclusions. He believed that a rush to judgment and a disregard for due process would ultimately result in conclusions that would not stand the test of time. To be clear, he did not fear the truth, he sought it. As much as anyone he wanted to know exactly what Jerry Sandusky had done and he wanted to understand how it happened.
The hiring of the Freeh Group is the single most important action the Board of Trustees has taken. Joe supported this decision with the hope that it would result in a thorough, balanced and thoughtful assessment of the Sandusky tragedy. Unfortunately, recent events have raised questions about the fairness and confidentiality of the investigative process.
Over the last several weeks there has been a virtual
of leaks about the Freeh Group's work. To be clear, we do not know the source, or sources, of the leaks. What cannot be disputed, however, is that select emails intended to smear Joe Paterno and other former Penn State officials have been released. Testimony from witnesses highly critical of Joe has been revealed. And purported conclusions condemning the culture of the football program have been widely disseminated. The Board promised a fair, transparent and impartial process. These developments are a threat to their stated objectives.
When these leaks first started we appealed to the Freeh Group, the Board and the Attorney General to condemn the leaks and caution the public that it would be wrong to reach any conclusions from selectively released materials. We then asked that all emails and other documents be released so a full picture of their research could be understood.
As purported conclusions started leaking out, we followed up with the Freeh Group to ask for the right to respond. Since Joe Paterno never had an opportunity to present his case, we believe we should have a reasonable time to review their findings and offer information that could help complete the picture. We were told we could offer responses to the publicly reported allegations, but the Freeh Group declined to confirm that these allegations are in the final report. It is our firm belief that the report would be stronger and more credible if we were simply given a chance to review the findings concerning Joe Paterno in order to present the case he was never allowed to make.
Since the outcome of this process appears set in stone, we have no choice but to wait for the report and respond as best we can. Given that the report is estimated to be between 100-150 pages it will understandably take us some time to study it and prepare a comprehensive response.
In advance of the release of the report, there are a few facts we want on the record:
* We would still welcome a chance to meet with the Freeh Group to review the findings and offer a response. We do not seek or expect the right to edit the report; but we believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions.
* To this point, Joe Paterno is the only person who publicly acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more. This was an honest and courageous admission that a true leader must assume a measure of responsibility when something goes wrong on his watch.
* The sad and frightening fact is Jerry Sandusky was a master deceiver. He fooled players, coaches, law enforcement officials, child service professionals, Penn State Board members, University leaders, neighbors, donors, staff and supporters of Second Mile and his family.
* With respect to the email from Tim Curley which stated, "After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," the media spin that this is proof of some sort of cover up is completely false. When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions.
* Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno did not know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile. Joe Paterno did not act in any way to prevent a proper investigation of Jerry Sandusky. To claim otherwise is a distortion of the truth.
If he were with us today, we are certain Joe Paterno would say that he wished he had done any number of things differently. We also believe he would make it clear that he was not an investigator, law enforcement officer, child services professional or a member of the Board of Trustees. Joe would accept his responsibility, but he would expect others to step forward as well.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/10/3257420/joe-paterno-did-not-cover-up-for.html#storylink=cpy
Over the last nine months Joe Paterno has been praised by some in near saintly terms and criticized by others as a villain. He was neither.
As the people who worked closely with Joe know, he was tough, aggressive, opinionated and demanding. He was also highly principled, uncompromisingly ethical, dedicated to his job at Penn State and committed to excellence.
When the Sandusky case exploded last fall, Joe's first instincts were to tell everything he knew. He assumed the University would want to hear from him, but he was never given the chance to present his case.
He planned to hold a press conference, but University officials ordered him to cancel it. And then the various investigations started and the legal process took over. On top of everything else, Joe was diagnosed with lung cancer. Two months later he was gone. The end result is his story has never fully been told.
As this situation unfolded, Joe cautioned everyone not to jump to conclusions. He believed that a rush to judgment and a disregard for due process would ultimately result in conclusions that would not stand the test of time. To be clear, he did not fear the truth, he sought it. As much as anyone he wanted to know exactly what Jerry Sandusky had done and he wanted to understand how it happened.
The hiring of the Freeh Group is the single most important action the Board of Trustees has taken. Joe supported this decision with the hope that it would result in a thorough, balanced and thoughtful assessment of the Sandusky tragedy. Unfortunately, recent events have raised questions about the fairness and confidentiality of the investigative process.
Over the last several weeks there has been a virtual
of leaks about the Freeh Group's work. To be clear, we do not know the source, or sources, of the leaks. What cannot be disputed, however, is that select emails intended to smear Joe Paterno and other former Penn State officials have been released. Testimony from witnesses highly critical of Joe has been revealed. And purported conclusions condemning the culture of the football program have been widely disseminated. The Board promised a fair, transparent and impartial process. These developments are a threat to their stated objectives.When these leaks first started we appealed to the Freeh Group, the Board and the Attorney General to condemn the leaks and caution the public that it would be wrong to reach any conclusions from selectively released materials. We then asked that all emails and other documents be released so a full picture of their research could be understood.
As purported conclusions started leaking out, we followed up with the Freeh Group to ask for the right to respond. Since Joe Paterno never had an opportunity to present his case, we believe we should have a reasonable time to review their findings and offer information that could help complete the picture. We were told we could offer responses to the publicly reported allegations, but the Freeh Group declined to confirm that these allegations are in the final report. It is our firm belief that the report would be stronger and more credible if we were simply given a chance to review the findings concerning Joe Paterno in order to present the case he was never allowed to make.
Since the outcome of this process appears set in stone, we have no choice but to wait for the report and respond as best we can. Given that the report is estimated to be between 100-150 pages it will understandably take us some time to study it and prepare a comprehensive response.
In advance of the release of the report, there are a few facts we want on the record:
* We would still welcome a chance to meet with the Freeh Group to review the findings and offer a response. We do not seek or expect the right to edit the report; but we believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions.
* To this point, Joe Paterno is the only person who publicly acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more. This was an honest and courageous admission that a true leader must assume a measure of responsibility when something goes wrong on his watch.
* The sad and frightening fact is Jerry Sandusky was a master deceiver. He fooled players, coaches, law enforcement officials, child service professionals, Penn State Board members, University leaders, neighbors, donors, staff and supporters of Second Mile and his family.
* With respect to the email from Tim Curley which stated, "After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," the media spin that this is proof of some sort of cover up is completely false. When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions.
* Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno did not know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile. Joe Paterno did not act in any way to prevent a proper investigation of Jerry Sandusky. To claim otherwise is a distortion of the truth.
If he were with us today, we are certain Joe Paterno would say that he wished he had done any number of things differently. We also believe he would make it clear that he was not an investigator, law enforcement officer, child services professional or a member of the Board of Trustees. Joe would accept his responsibility, but he would expect others to step forward as well.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/10/3257420/joe-paterno-did-not-cover-up-for.html#storylink=cpy
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
* With respect to the email from Tim Curley which stated, "After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," the media spin that this is proof of some sort of cover up is completely false. When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions.
I generally agree with the rest (not totally), but on this point, I differ a bit.
Though some here have, I have never suggested that Paterno instigated or ordered a cover up. I have suggested that, based on that e-mail, Paterno knew that one was taking place and raised no objection to it.
The family is not denying that.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
And that time, Paterno was right. The expulsion had not started and the charges against Phillips were incredibly weak.
Here are several articles on it, including an editorial from a sportswriter who was at first critical of Paterno's decision:
This was a scandal at Penn State. This was Joe Paterno thumbing his nose at his university. When the Phillips story broke, it seemed the ultimate act of arrogance for Paterno not only to play him in the Capital One Bowl but to sneer at the notion that he should have to explain why he played him. I excoriated him at the time, and I humbly stand corrected now.
I had argued that Paterno should not have played Phillips in the bowl game. Phillips' expulsion did not go into effect until the beginning of the spring 2003 semester, but by playing him, Paterno had violated the spirit of the school's decision. He didn't have to throw Phillips off the team; all he had to do was sit him for one game and let the gears of the judicial system grind.
Now, the statement by Penn State president Graham Spainer that Paterno's decision was incorrect seems premature, and Phillips's expulsion seems a grave injustice. I thought otherwise until yesterday, until I walked into the Centre County Courthouse and listened to the dearth of evidence presented by the prosecution. Until I watched Anwar Phillips sit in a stairwell by himself - his head in his hands, his future in the hands of 12 strangers - and realized that if they had convicted him, the jury members would have failed terribly.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MensIssuesOnline/message/4725
BBM
This is actually one of those cases I cite to show how aggressive a prosecutor Ray Gricar was, going up against Paterno with a very weak case, and losing.
Considering the little that has been said of Paterno, I think the family has said quite enough in proportion. I would like them to hush and let the report speak for itself.
Truth be told, their continual defensiveness and now the criticism of the Report sight unseen makes me feeling even less charitable towards the actions/inaction of Joe Paterno. They really need to stifle it IMHO.
Truth be told, their continual defensiveness and now the criticism of the Report sight unseen makes me feeling even less charitable towards the actions/inaction of Joe Paterno. They really need to stifle it IMHO.
back2back19
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 0
The Paterno family has issued a statement:
Over the last nine months Joe Paterno has been praised by some in near saintly terms and criticized by others as a villain. He was neither.
As the people who worked closely with Joe know, he was tough, aggressive, opinionated and demanding. He was also highly principled, uncompromisingly ethical, dedicated to his job at Penn State and committed to excellence.
When the Sandusky case exploded last fall, Joe's first instincts were to tell everything he knew. He assumed the University would want to hear from him, but he was never given the chance to present his case.
He planned to hold a press conference, but University officials ordered him to cancel it. And then the various investigations started and the legal process took over. On top of everything else, Joe was diagnosed with lung cancer. Two months later he was gone. The end result is his story has never fully been told.
As this situation unfolded, Joe cautioned everyone not to jump to conclusions. He believed that a rush to judgment and a disregard for due process would ultimately result in conclusions that would not stand the test of time. To be clear, he did not fear the truth, he sought it. As much as anyone he wanted to know exactly what Jerry Sandusky had done and he wanted to understand how it happened.
The hiring of the Freeh Group is the single most important action the Board of Trustees has taken. Joe supported this decision with the hope that it would result in a thorough, balanced and thoughtful assessment of the Sandusky tragedy. Unfortunately, recent events have raised questions about the fairness and confidentiality of the investigative process.
Over the last several weeks there has been a virtual
When these leaks first started we appealed to the Freeh Group, the Board and the Attorney General to condemn the leaks and caution the public that it would be wrong to reach any conclusions from selectively released materials. We then asked that all emails and other documents be released so a full picture of their research could be understood.
As purported conclusions started leaking out, we followed up with the Freeh Group to ask for the right to respond. Since Joe Paterno never had an opportunity to present his case, we believe we should have a reasonable time to review their findings and offer information that could help complete the picture. We were told we could offer responses to the publicly reported allegations, but the Freeh Group declined to confirm that these allegations are in the final report. It is our firm belief that the report would be stronger and more credible if we were simply given a chance to review the findings concerning Joe Paterno in order to present the case he was never allowed to make.
Since the outcome of this process appears set in stone, we have no choice but to wait for the report and respond as best we can. Given that the report is estimated to be between 100-150 pages it will understandably take us some time to study it and prepare a comprehensive response.
In advance of the release of the report, there are a few facts we want on the record:
* We would still welcome a chance to meet with the Freeh Group to review the findings and offer a response. We do not seek or expect the right to edit the report; but we believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions.
* To this point, Joe Paterno is the only person who publicly acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more. This was an honest and courageous admission that a true leader must assume a measure of responsibility when something goes wrong on his watch.
* The sad and frightening fact is Jerry Sandusky was a master deceiver. He fooled players, coaches, law enforcement officials, child service professionals, Penn State Board members, University leaders, neighbors, donors, staff and supporters of Second Mile and his family.
* With respect to the email from Tim Curley which stated, "After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," the media spin that this is proof of some sort of cover up is completely false. When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions.
* Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno did not know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile. Joe Paterno did not act in any way to prevent a proper investigation of Jerry Sandusky. To claim otherwise is a distortion of the truth.
If he were with us today, we are certain Joe Paterno would say that he wished he had done any number of things differently. We also believe he would make it clear that he was not an investigator, law enforcement officer, child services professional or a member of the Board of Trustees. Joe would accept his responsibility, but he would expect others to step forward as well.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/10/3257420/joe-paterno-did-not-cover-up-for.html#storylink=cpy
I wish the Paterno's would stop releasing statements. Truth of the matter is, they have NO idea what Joe Paterno did or didn't know, anymore than the rest of us. Whatever Joe told them when all of this came out isn't automatically the truth. However, I do not believe he ordered a coverup. I think he knew about it and had no objection to it. Like everyone else, he didn't care. Not Spanier. No Curley. Not Schultz. Not Paterno. Not McQueary(although, at least he came forward at some point but still... did very little). No matter how you slice it, dice it and add it up, there was an epic failure and despite how much they seem to be determined to clean JoePa's name(and make sure to question this report, so everyone will doubt it's findings pertaining to Paterno), he isn't innocent. He did wrong. He deserves blame. He deserves criticism. He deserves to have people question him. He isn't even remotely close to being the bad guy here though. That doesn't make him the Big Bad, so they can stop trying to portray this report as being about Paterno and taking him down.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
When has that ever stopped anyone? Especially me? :dance:
back2back19
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 0
LOL I give us a pass. I just hate all the press releases about stuff that could end up being nothing.
CJMAJORGIRL24
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,325
- Reaction score
- 2
I think its all BS. Sorry JoePa fans....!! jmo!!
IMO it isn't something he would discuss with his family over dinner....
"Oh yea-ol jer' got caught playing tickle monster again, i am going to have to fire his butt...
And IMO he had more than enough time to tell his side of the story. YEARS in fact. He knew about this longgggggggggggggggggg before he knew he had cancer.
So i felt like saying to the family..
bs
bs
bs
BS
BS
BS....
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 110
Well, I guess we will all be busy reading the report Thurs. AM, lol...
Agree with your post! And I really resent the way the Paternos are so defensively trying to taint the report before the public has even read it. This pre-emptive action makes me think they are worried about something they think is in it. If the family has so much confidence in his integrity and how he handled the situation, why are they so anxious? It makes me more suspicious of Paterno and what the family may know.
It seems to me they are protesting a little too much....
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
Well, as pointed out, they are gradually moving away from **Well, Joe didn't know anything, after he reported it,** to **Well, Joe wasn't the mastermind.**
It doesn't help.
What gets me is, that Curley and Schultz would have had zero legal problems, had they told the truth in the grand jury.
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 110
Yep, that's the reason I posted that for all these men's smarts and education, they all made a stupid mistake in judgement and the most stupid thing is, they stuck to it for all these years, even after they had agreed to 'follow up'! And now, IMO, we have Spanier stupidly lying to Freeh that he didn't know nuthin'!
You don't think even if they told the truth they still would have been charged with not reporting the abuse? I think they all agreed to tone down what the report was to 'horseplay' trying to avoid that but it didn't work with the GJ or AG.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,567
- Reaction score
- 29,638
snipped for focus and just jumping off, not directed at J. J.
uncompromisingly ethical, my a... I mean, my father's nightshirt!
Anyone uncompromisingly ethical, especially one with JP's influence, would have made damn sure McQueary's report was investigated and responded to to the fullest extent possible, and would never hide behind the cover of "I did my legal duty and expected those I reported it to to take care of it properly."
Anyone uncompromisingly ethical, wielding JP's influence, would have made damn sure McQueary's report was false before allowing Sandusky into any tiny corner of his domain ever again.
Ok, rant over.
ETA Okay not quite over. One last thing: the Paterno family should shut their collective pieholes and hold out hope that the Freeh report doesn't paint their sainted patriarch in the bad light the leaks indicate it might. Their obviously preemptive strikes accomplish nothing in the PR department.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
We are not even at that point anymore. This was different from turning it over to his superiors and washing his hands from it. That e-mail, unless Curley was lying in it, or was referring to "Joe the plumber," indicates that Paterno supported the idea of not telling DPW.
The thing is, the statement does not deny that he knew of, and supported, not telling DPW. The statement says, "When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions." No, he was, if Curley's e-mail is honest, in favor of it.
Let's sum up everyone's stated position:
JoePa never gave Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky.
Schultz sent out an email that suggested a 3 point plan to contact an outside agency, notifiy the Second Mile, and talk to JS. Schultz testified he thought the plan was executed.
Spanier's attorney claims, "at no time in the more than 16 years of his presidency at Penn State was Dr. Spanier told of an incident involving Jerry Sandusky that described child abuse, sexual misconduct or criminality of any kind."
The Second Mile released a statement that said, "As The Second Miles CEO Jack Raykovitz testified to the grand jury, he was informed in 2002 by Pennsylvania State University Athletic Director Tim Curley that an individual had reported to Mr. Curley that he was uncomfortable about seeing Jerry Sandusky in the locker room shower with a youth. Mr. Curley also shared that the information had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing. At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the grand jury report."
Curley was empathic that McQueary did not make any allegation of a sexaul nature. His testimony was quite different from everyone else's who spoke to McQueary. Even Schultz acknowleged that MM might have mentioned JS touching the boy's genitals.
Looks like Curley is the man left holding the bag. Any attempt to implicate others would be an admission on his part that he committed perjury when he said MM never mentioned anything of a sexual nature.
What are the Paternos talking about in the above statement? Paterno did an interview with Sally Jenkins before he died. He had a chance to tell his story. He did the absolute minium required of him; he met his legal obligation. What else is there to say?
StellarsJay
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 0
The day before Spanier resigned he issued this statement:
http://www.williamsport.com/news/lo...rate-at-the-highest-levels-of-honesty-924039/
“The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.
With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.
Graham Spanier”
One trustee- I don't remember who- said one of the reasons Spanier had to go was that at the height of the November explosion some one -- the Board or trustees-- drafted a release to be sent out and discovered the next day that Spanier has significantly changed the wording and sent it out under his own name (or susbtituted his own release.) This must be the one they are talking about.
In it, I have bolded the word compassion because it echoes the sentiment of "humane" that occurs in Spanier's 2001 email.
http://www.williamsport.com/news/lo...rate-at-the-highest-levels-of-honesty-924039/
“The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.
With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.
Graham Spanier”
One trustee- I don't remember who- said one of the reasons Spanier had to go was that at the height of the November explosion some one -- the Board or trustees-- drafted a release to be sent out and discovered the next day that Spanier has significantly changed the wording and sent it out under his own name (or susbtituted his own release.) This must be the one they are talking about.
In it, I have bolded the word compassion because it echoes the sentiment of "humane" that occurs in Spanier's 2001 email.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
Legacy protection is ugly, and it has one major problem, it almost never works. One of the reasons is, is that you have to back away from prior statements and actions.
I just wrote that about RFG, but I could have written it about Paterno. Neither man was a saint, perfect, or "Superman," but both did a lot of good. The legacy is going to indicate that. I would say the same thing about JFK and Reagan; we can look as some of their successes, but they both had some notable failures (Bay of Pigs and Iran-Contra, respectively).
That e-mail leak changed everything. The story was, Paterno reported it, but didn't have any input into the investigation; he reported it and pulled back. That e-mail indicates he did not pull back.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 4,669
There is exercising compassion, and there is being humane.
Then the is doing what is RIGHT. I don't think Dr. Spanier ever understood that.
The same can be said about Paterno and much of the Administration especially those involved in the athletic dept at Penn State.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 133
- Guests online
- 2,818
- Total visitors
- 2,951