ADVERTISEMENT

Paterno knew about Sandusky in the 1970s (link)

aoi_toku said:
They are pointing to conspiracy and are in full denial - surprise surprise.

Fun's fun but that board needs to be killed with fire.
Click to expand...

HAA!!! Yes it does!

One of the (few) sane PSU fans on there said those threads would never be allowed on the 24/7 site and the nuts would be run off immediately. But not on Tom McAndrew's site. Tells you where his head is at.
 
Allegedly.

This may sound like I'm being an apologist, but I thought about this more last night and this is basically a non-story to me.

It's a claim:

(1) that was made 35-years-after-the-fact,
(2) in a contextual environment where many folk were making claims against PSU and PSU was nearly always paying,
(3) by an person who will likely never make his name public,
(4) against a dead guy,
(5) where we have absolutely no clue to the wordage used,
(6) where there doesn't appear to be a police report, and besides
(7) how would a child have been able to get access to a football coach to tell his story?

What do I do with that?

Besides --- even if could be proven true or false --- does that change anything as regards Paterno? The 2001 story is enough. At least there is something significantly more tangible there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
M suspect said:
I don't mean to rain on you parade, but a poster on BWI is saying someone from this board is obsessed with the Sandusky scandal. I wonder who that poster could be?
Click to expand...

That's a classic deflection technique. Nothing to see here!

As I have explained at other times, I am interested in cults. I've read a bunch of books on Scientology, for instance. Penn State fans are another cult I'm interested in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
michnittlion said:
Allegedly.

This may sound like I'm being an apologist, but I thought about this more last night and this is basically a non-story to me.

It's a claim:

(1) that was made 35-years-after-the-fact,
(2) in a contextual environment where many folk were making claims against PSU and PSU was nearly always paying,
(3) by an person who will likely never make his name public,
(4) against a dead guy,
(5) where we have absolutely no clue to the wordage used,
(6) where there doesn't appear to be a police report, and besides
(7) how would a child have been able to get access to a football coach to tell his story?

What do I do with that?
Click to expand...

And where is the physical evidence in ANY of Sandusky's alleged crimes?? No DNA evidence??? No soiled underwear??? No eye witnesses???
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
michigangoblue999 said:
And where is the physical evidence in ANY of Sandusky's alleged crimes?? No DNA evidence??? No soiled underwear??? No eye witnesses???
Click to expand...

All of this is crazy. I am a Gopher fan, and I don't know what to say or do. I grew up admiring Joe Paterno from afar. Penn State was a neutral team, so I grew to like Penn State purely as a college football fan. Putting myself in a PSU fans shoes, I think I still would be in shock about what happened/ is happening. In disbelief.

The whole situation is a tragedy. It has to be tough to have a guy who did so much for that University and his players to be attached to this.

Anyone who knows me knows I like to joke/ raze people, but this situation is just crazy. Seems like the only hope/ bright spot in this is that hopefully all institutions of higher learning will learn how to deal with a Sandusky going forward.
 
michigangoblue999 said:
And where is the physical evidence in ANY of Sandusky's alleged crimes?? No DNA evidence??? No soiled underwear??? No eye witnesses???
Click to expand...

As you surely noticed --- I used the word "tangible." I did not use the word "physical."

Mike McQueary, the police reports from the 2000s, the victims who testified in court in 2012, JoePa's grand jury testimony, et cetera. That all fits the definition of tangible.

I've seen nothing similarly tangible (as of the moment) as regards this 1976 allegation.
 
[QUOTE="michnittlion, post: 2365767, member: 4302"
(7) how would a child have been able to get access to a football coach to tell his story?[/QUOTE]

This is the thread that PSU fans are clinging to on BWI. Just one question....
Who said that the child approached Paterno by himself? Oh yeah, nobody said that. PSU fans made that up.

Read the line again: "In 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky;"

You have somehow concluded from that sentence that the boy must have approached Paterno by himself? How do you conclude that a parent or other adult wasn't there as well? Hmmm, yeah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
michigangoblue999 said:
This is the thread that PSU fans are clinging to on BWI. Just one question....
Who said that the child approached Paterno by himself? Oh yeah, nobody said that. PSU fans made that up.

Read the line again: "In 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky;"

You have somehow concluded from that sentence that the boy must have approached Paterno by himself? How do you conclude that a parent or other adult wasn't there as well? Hmmm, yeah.
Click to expand...

I didn't conclude jack shit. All I said is that it was a legitimate question.

I think I deserve the benefit of you not putting words in my mouth. That's twice in this thread.
 
michnittlion said:
As you surely noticed --- I used the word "tangible." I did not use the word "physical."

Mike McQueary, the police reports from the 2000s, the victims who testified in court in 2012, JoePa's grand jury testimony, et cetera. That all fits the definition of tangible.

I've seen nothing similarly tangible (as of the moment) as regards this 1976 allegation.
Click to expand...

What were you expecting? The man settled out of court with Penn State. He probably can't disclose anything, and PSU sure as hell isn't going to talk about it. It's worth noting that he was apparently vetted and PSU agreed to pay up. We know that some claims have been denied.

So we have a situation where it's pretty much impossible for there to be anything tangible.

What we do have is a pattern of Paterno having knowledge of Sandusky's child sexual abuse not telling the police. It's just another data point.

And the story also includes new(?) allegations from the 80s. I'm not sure why those aren't being picked apart yet on BWI....
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
michigangoblue999 said:
What were you expecting? The man settled out of court with Penn State. He probably can't disclose anything, and PSU sure as hell isn't going to talk about it. It's worth noting that he was apparently vetted and PSU agreed to pay up. We know that some claims have been denied.

So we have a situation where it's pretty much impossible for there to be anything tangible.

What we do have is a pattern of Paterno having knowledge of Sandusky's child sexual abuse not telling the police. It's just another data point.

And the story also includes new(?) allegations from the 80s. I'm not sure why those aren't being picked apart yet on BWI....
Click to expand...

Penn State recognized the claims of 26 people and paid out --- they denied 6.

Did Penn State weigh the claims solely on proof or validity? I doubt it. More like: "as long as (1) this is something that embarrasses us if made public, and (2) we can't possibly produce anything tangible to DIS-prove the claim: we'll recognize the claim."

An accusation dating back to the 1970s, that going public, would certainly be embarrassing from the PSU POV. It's also an accusation that is pretty difficult to dis-prove. He told a guy who is currently dead. When you have 31 other claims occurring simultaneously --- the simplest road may be to pay the claim, thereby getting that claim off the table, and try to get some $ from the insurance carrier.

I don't blame the insurance carrier here either. If I'm them, and Penn State is trying to get $$ because "someone told Paterno something" 35-40 years earlier? I'll deny that claim out of hand. Tell PSU to sue me. That's what happened. The insurance company actually lost the portion of the lawsuit that relates to 1976, FWIW.

My greater point remains. As regards 1976: it's a long-shot to show it as either true, false, or somewhere in-between. I'd argue that 1976 is not even a "data point." Where is the "data"?
 
michnittlion said:
My greater point remains. As regards 1976: it's a long-shot to show it as either true, false, or somewhere in-between. I'd argue that 1976 is not even a "data point." Where is the "data"?
Click to expand...

A victim came forward, that's as much as we know. Surely Penn State has more information, but they won't be sharing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
michnittlion said:
I didn't conclude jack shit. All I said is that it was a legitimate question.

I think I deserve the benefit of you not putting words in my mouth. That's twice in this thread.
Click to expand...

It was an odd question, then, don't you think?

"how would a child have been able to get access to a football coach to tell his story?"

Hmm, let's see, he told somebody like his parents and then they approached somebody, and then at some point he met with and told his story to Paterno. I don't understand what you were asking with the question. What is unbelievable about a child telling this story to Paterno?
 
michigangoblue999 said:
A victim came forward, that's as much as we know. Surely Penn State has more information, but they won't be sharing it.
Click to expand...

An alleged victim. The word "alleged" belongs there.

Yes or no, do you think Penn State was paying out claims solely based on the validity/truth of the claims?

My posit to that question is no. I think it's more a case of "if we can't DIS-prove his story, we're going to pay, get this case off the docket, then file a claim with insurance."
 
michigangoblue999 said:
It was an odd question, then, don't you think?

"how would a child have been able to get access to a football coach to tell his story?"

Hmm, let's see, he told somebody like his parents and then they approached somebody, and then at some point he met with and told his story to Paterno. I don't understand what you were asking with the question. What is unbelievable about a child telling this story to Paterno?
Click to expand...

No, it's not an odd question. It's a legitimate question. The type of question an intellectually curious person would ask before saying "I have weighed all available evidence and made up my mind as to whether the initial claim is true."
 
michnittlion said:
An alleged victim. The word "alleged" belongs there.

Yes or no, do you think Penn State was paying out claims solely based on the validity/truth of the claims?

My posit to that question is no. I think it's more a case of "if we can't DIS-prove his story, we're going to pay, get this case off the docket, then file a claim with insurance."
Click to expand...

Well, naturally Penn State isn't adjudicating the claims, so they have to err on the side of not rejecting valid claims.

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly many victims who chose not to come forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
michnittlion said:
No, it's not an odd question. It's a legitimate question. The type of question an intellectually curious person would ask before saying "I have weighed all available evidence and made up my mind as to whether the initial claim is true."
Click to expand...

There is one sentence in the court document. I don't expect all the blanks to be filled in. Yes, it would be great to know more about the incident, but I don't understand how anybody could think the intent of that sentence was to convey the idea that the child went to see Paterno by himself. This is what PSU fans have latched onto, and I don't get it.
 
michigangoblue999 said:
There is one sentence in the court document. I don't expect all the blanks to be filled in. Yes, it would be great to know more about the incident, but I don't understand how anybody could think the intent of that sentence was to convey the idea that the child went to see Paterno by himself. This is what PSU fans have latched onto, and I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Yep --- one sentence in the court document.

Which leads to a thread that is titled with the conclusion "Paterno knew about Sandusky in the 1970s."

It's fair to say this is very difficult to verify story. Hard stop.

Whether it matter anyway is another question? If one covers something up for a year, that's wrong. If they cover something up for 35 years, it's still wrong.
 
How much do you need besides a sentence that says a kid told Paterno he was molested by Sandusky? Many of history's greatest documents can be reduced to one significant sentence. Do you need 27 pages of legalese first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36 and OmarLittle
  • Like
Reactions: rojo36
Is it plausible that Sandusky only started molesting kids in the 90s? Is it plausible that none of the victims came forward or that Paterno had no awareness until then?

The movie Spotlight shows how the Boston archdiocese covered up for over 80 pedophiles over the course of decades, and that it took some determined digging to get to the truth.

How much easier would it have been to cover up for just one pedophile in State College, a smaller community dominated by Penn State to a much greater extent than the archdiocese dominated Boston?

We'll probably never know Paterno's precise roll in the enabling and cover up over the years.

But we really already know enough. Protecting the kids was just not a priority for Paterno. Maybe he took some half-hearted actions to give himself some plausible deniability while the athletic department or others did the heavy lifting for him.

Joe was dirty. He knew and he stood by and he let Sandusky continue to prey on those kids. Does it matter whether it was for 10 years, 15 years, or over 30?

The NCAA stuff is over. Any gloating or feeling superior by Michigan fans or others should be over. It's really only about right and wrong, learning the right lessons, and making amends where possible at this point.

I really feel for those in the PSU community who are fighting to do the right things at this point and restore the integrity of a great institution. Against a seeming army of idiots stuck in their denial and hero worship. I hope they keep fighting to keep that statue from going back up and have Paterno's name expunged from every place of honor and recognition on that campus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reality Man
^^^ As long as there is a movement to restore Paterno's name there won't be any moving on any time soon. God forbid if it was Bo and not Paterno I'd disown the man but my fandom wouldn't take a hit.
 
ChicagoBlueFan said:
JoePed has to be one of the biggest con artists ever. To be so beloved by the Penn St fans while allowing his ped buddy to run wild for over 20 years. Sad and disgusting.
Click to expand...

The stories from the victims at Sandusky's trial were stomach-turning. Just a living hell in Happy Valley for so many little boys. Disturbing is not a strong enough word.
 
BaconBread said:
The movie Spotlight shows how the Boston archdiocese covered up for over 80 pedophiles over the course of decades, and that it took some determined digging to get to the truth.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened with the Boy Scouts. Sometimes good organizations have massive, massive failures. Otherwise good people made terrible mistakes, whether they were trying to protect the organization or just couldn't deal with an unspeakable situation, they buried their heads in the sand instead of doing right. Penn State fans should realize and accept this. You can't move on if you don't learn from your mistakes.
 
I got banned from BWI yesterday for posting something on this issue. Here is what I basically said and I would like Michnittlion to respond.

Here is the question. Let's say I 'con' 100 clients of mine out of money. I basically then die from suicide or some disease. Should that be used as a legitimate excuse to say...Oh, Reality Man is not here to defend himself?

This isn't a court of law for PSU fans....not molestation victims. Paterno shouldn't get a free pass no more than Ken Lay or some holocaust guard/officer who has dementia. The evidence outside the court of law can be interpreted by the legitimacy of the complaintant.

This was a tragedy. This is bigger than PSU but just so happened at PSU. A reasonable person can't just say the following.

1. Oh...Paterno isn't here to defend himself
2. Oh...every single one of these claims are all about exploitation against a proven child molester.


I expect better from you michnittlion. You are better than this and I am sure 'we' can find a number of PSU fans who know and will state publicly that Paterno knew he had a sexual deviant on his staff and there were many reasons he did not deal with this issue seriously.

1. Friendship?
2. Conservative/religious old school lack of comfort
3. Respected his DC.

Get ahead of the curve on this issue.



RM
 
Reality Man said:
I got banned from BWI yesterday for posting something on this issue. Here is what I basically said and I would like Michnittlion to respond.

Here is the question. Let's say I 'con' 100 clients of mine out of money. I basically then die from suicide or some disease. Should that be used as a legitimate excuse to say...Oh, Reality Man is not here to defend himself?

This isn't a court of law for PSU fans....not molestation victims. Paterno shouldn't get a free pass no more than Ken Lay or some holocaust guard/officer who has dementia. The evidence outside the court of law can be interpreted by the legitimacy of the complaintant.

This was a tragedy. This is bigger than PSU but just so happened at PSU. A reasonable person can't just say the following.

1. Oh...Paterno isn't here to defend himself
2. Oh...every single one of these claims are all about exploitation against a proven child molester.


I expect better from you michnittlion. You are better than this and I am sure 'we' can find a number of PSU fans who know and will state publicly that Paterno knew he had a sexual deviant on his staff and there were many reasons he did not deal with this issue seriously.

1. Friendship?
2. Conservative/religious old school lack of comfort
3. Respected his DC.

Get ahead of the curve on this issue.



RM
Click to expand...

What are you disappointed in me for?

I'm totally agnostic as to whether this 1976 allegation is true. Part of why I'm agnostic --- it doesn't matter at all in the big picture.

IMO, Joe had a moral failure in 2001 as regards Sandusky. Whether Joe had earlier moral failures? Well, (a) Joe's dead, (b) those past victims are being compensated/getting justice and (c) I'm a forward-looking guy, who is happy with the path PSU is presently on.

Given that, I don't care if there was one moral failure by Joe or 1,000. I'll leave it to others to quibble over the exact statistic in the history book ---- but whatever the final statistic it's ultimately all the same as regards the future.
 
Last edited:
Makes me sick when I think about them in the B1G and we are associated with them by conference.
:mad::confused::(

Just swap 'em out with some other team during the next conference expansion. Pitt would be a great replacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OmarLittle
michnittlion said:
I'm totally agnostic as to whether this 1976 allegation is true. Part of why I'm agnostic --- it doesn't matter at all in the big picture.

IMO, Joe had a moral failure in 2001 as regards Sandusky. Whether Joe had earlier moral failures? Well, (a) Joe's dead, (b) those past victims are being compensated/getting justice and (c) I'm a forward-looking guy, who is happy with the path PSU is presently on.

Given that, I don't care if there was one moral failure by Joe or 1,000. I'll leave it to others to quibble over the exact statistic in the history book ---- but whatever the final statistic it's ultimately all the same as regards the future.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. We already know what we need to know.
 
michnittlion said:
What are you disappointed in me for?

I'm totally agnostic as to whether this 1976 allegation is true. Part of why I'm agnostic --- it doesn't matter at all in the big picture.

IMO, Joe had a moral failure in 2001 as regards Sandusky. Whether Joe had earlier moral failures? Well, (a) Joe's dead, (b) those past victims are being compensated/getting justice and (c) I'm a forward-looking guy, who is happy with the path PSU is presently on.

Given that, I don't care if there was one moral failure by Joe or 1,000. I'll leave it to others to quibble over the exact statistic in the history book ---- but whatever the final statistic it's ultimately all the same as regards the future.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Let's not pursue this debate.

For your review.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state/index.html
 
Love this paragraph by Brian. He makes my point in a more articulate way. Which side would you believe? Believing Paterno didn't know about Sandusky earlier is like someone claiming OJ was set up by the LAPD or at least in that range of delusion.

judge has not declared that Joe Paterno knew. Several people have told the court, under penalty of perjury, that Paterno was repeatedly told Sandusky was molesting boys going back some 40 years. This is in addition to the Mike McQueary incident, for which the best defense mounted was that Paterno was a confused old man. That defense won't fly for incidents from the 70s and 80s, leaving us choosing between two possibilities: several people are lying in depositions or Joe Paterno enabled Sandusky for decades. What's the Vegas line here? I know the latter is a serious underdog.
 
Reality Man said:
I disagree. Let's not pursue this debate.

For your review.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/jerry-sandusky-victims-paterno-penn-state/index.html
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that article from three days ago. :)

Much like 1976, I'm agnostic on 1971. I'm not going to argue with someone who believes the 1971 story, nor will I argue with someone who pokes questions in the story and doesn't believe. Big picture, doesn't matter who's right.

Funny thing: you liked BaconBread's post (which was a good post), and you don't like my post --- but (not to put words in his mouth, but I think he/she would agree), we're saying much the same thing.
 
I saw 'Spotlight'. Raised Catholic and a huge critic of the CC.
I liked BB's post. It was spot on and gets' it'. It sure looks from what I have read that Paterno at the end of the day didn't want to deal with this messy situation. It made him uncomfortable and who knew his concerns. In fact...I think Paterno is a lot like Robert Kardashian where he may have been troubled and wanted to stay loyal to a friend and contemporary.

It does matter if there was 1 moral failing or 5 moral failings as you like to say. I don't think Paterno is the monster here but I do laugh at the segment of the PSU community who wants to somehow claim that the 'evidence' doesn't lead anyone to believe that Paterno knew there were problems with Sandusky way way before the McLeary? revelation. Maybe after Paterno heard about the story again and again he then took a more proactive approach by reporting it to PSU authorities. Maybe his conscience started getting to him. This is no different than what has happened in other instiutions.

This about the following in my mind.

1. Try and prevent this stuff from ever happening again...anywhere.
2. Giving victims the right to express themselves.
3. This is less about Paterno and more about the 'deniers' in the PSU community that Paterno/PSU were enablers. How else can you explain a child molester having such a safe haven for so many decades? Probably a lot of people who looked the other way out of shame and fear. See Catholic Church. This is human and happens all too often. Can you say the police?




RM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

argus99

Today is the 1561 straight day osu hasn’t won a game against Michigan

Replies
0
Views
2K
The Den
argus99
argus99
Josh Henschke

Insider Intel: On Warde Manuel and Juwan Howard...

Replies
40
Views
2K
The Den
buttaball
buttaball
argus99

Sports Radio Rumors in Philly - Wizard/GM Roseman is focusing on Wolverines and Seminoles..

Replies
6
Views
1K
The Den
WOLVERNOLE
WOLVERNOLE
argus99

Quick Comments on JH’s Firing, The Future of the BBall Team. OT info for the many Jarheads, Grunts, Squids, Flyboys, & Keyboard Warriors in The Den.

Replies
2
Views
314
The Den
Minocm
Minocm
M

A little something for the over the top....

Replies
12
Views
323
The Den
Macdaddy7657
M
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back