Say it ain't so, Dead Joe!

[AlaCowboy]

Seems like Ole Joe was more informed about his buddy Sandusky a long time back.



From the PennLive report:

One of Penn State's insurers has claimed "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State's athletic director at the time.


www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/05/penn_states_joe_paterno_told_o.html

[mscott59]

One of the Columbus tv stations led their 11 pm newscast w this report.

May 5, 2016 21:13:43 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Seems like Ole Joe was more informed about his buddy Sandusky a long time back.



From the PennLive report:

One of Penn State's insurers has claimed "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State's athletic director at the time.


www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/05/penn_states_joe_paterno_told_o.html

[mscott59]

There were a lot of us who found it very difficult to believe that, in a town as small as state college, leading a program as big as Psu, that paterno wasn't in the know about either whispers or accusations about Sandusky. If these reports are true, these dates go back 20 years prior to the first grand jury investigation, prior to the political maneuvering of that era beginning in the late 90s, and would certainly indicate that not only did paterno know, but previous athelletic administrators (and, you'd think, previous university presidents) knew about Sandusky as well. And, apparently, did nothing, putting dozens and dozens of future area children in danger.

Again, if true, that goes beyond sad. That's criminal.

May 5, 2016 22:13:52 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

One of the Columbus tv stations led their 11 pm newscast w this report.

May 5, 2016 21:13:43 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Seems like Ole Joe was more informed about his buddy Sandusky a long time back.



From the PennLive report:

One of Penn State's insurers has claimed "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State's athletic director at the time.


www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/05/penn_states_joe_paterno_told_o.html

[Buckeye Dale]

May 5, 2016 22:31:05 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

There were a lot of us who found it very difficult to believe that, in a town as small as state college, leading a program as big as Psu, that paterno wasn't in the know about either whispers or accusations about Sandusky. If these reports are true, these dates go back 20 years prior to the first grand jury investigation, prior to the political maneuvering of that era beginning in the late 90s, and would certainly indicate that not only did paterno know, but previous athelletic administrators (and, you'd think, previous university presidents) knew about Sandusky as well. And, apparently, did nothing, putting dozens and dozens of future area children in danger.

Again, if true, that goes beyond sad. That's criminal.

May 5, 2016 22:13:52 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

One of the Columbus tv stations led their 11 pm newscast w this report.

Yep...wide coverage ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3575517/Convicted-child-molester-Sandusky-gets-May-20-hearing.html

[snap infraction]

May 5, 2016 22:31:05 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

There were a lot of us who found it very difficult to believe that, in a town as small as state college, leading a program as big as Psu, that paterno wasn't in the know about either whispers or accusations about Sandusky. If these reports are true, these dates go back 20 years prior to the first grand jury investigation, prior to the political maneuvering of that era beginning in the late 90s, and would certainly indicate that not only did paterno know, but previous athelletic administrators (and, you'd think, previous university presidents) knew about Sandusky as well. And, apparently, did nothing, putting dozens and dozens of future area children in danger.

Again, if true, that goes beyond sad. That's criminal.

May 5, 2016 22:13:52 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

One of the Columbus tv stations led their 11 pm newscast w this report.

it is so frustrating to read these reports....philly daily news & philly inquirier (main philly paper run by son of ex psu trustee who was on the psu board of trustees in 2011) led with this too.  it's the top topic on morning sports radio here.  

think about this for just one second.  

#1.  this claim is made by an insurance company seeking to deny penn state tens of millions for the victim settlements  just keep the source in mind as they have incentive to list every single unsubstantiated claim that paints penn state in a negative way.  

#2.  under what circumstance does a kid report to paterno that he was molested by sandusky? did a 15 year kid back in 1976 just walk into paterno's office?  why did he not call the police? tell his parents? tell a teacher?  a guidance counselor?  friend?  anyone else in the universe besides the head football coach at penn state?? 

#3.  in 1976, sandusky was a position coach.  he wasn't even a coordinator.  why the hell would paterno risk everything to protect a lowly position coach?

#4.  penn state has given millions of dollars to every child who has claimed to share the same air as sandusky over the last 25 years.  there is obvious tremendous financial incentive to make a claim of abuse that was ignored by penn state.  people literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling someone they were abused and penn state ignored it.    

 #5.  the accuser will never be identified.  the accuser will never be asked any additional questions.  yet the media, and posters here and people in general just assume any claim is guilt.  since everyone assumes every claim that is made is 100% factual, paterno has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disprove.  

[mscott59]

May 6, 2016 7:30:43 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

May 5, 2016 22:31:05 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

There were a lot of us who found it very difficult to believe that, in a town as small as state college, leading a program as big as Psu, that paterno wasn't in the know about either whispers or accusations about Sandusky. If these reports are true, these dates go back 20 years prior to the first grand jury investigation, prior to the political maneuvering of that era beginning in the late 90s, and would certainly indicate that not only did paterno know, but previous athelletic administrators (and, you'd think, previous university presidents) knew about Sandusky as well. And, apparently, did nothing, putting dozens and dozens of future area children in danger.

Again, if true, that goes beyond sad. That's criminal.

it is so frustrating to read these reports....philly daily news & philly inquirier (main philly paper run by son of ex psu trustee who was on the psu board of trustees in 2011) led with this too.  it's the top topic on morning sports radio here.  

think about this for just one second.  

#1.  this claim is made by an insurance company seeking to deny penn state tens of millions for the victim settlements  just keep the source in mind as they have incentive to list every single unsubstantiated claim that paints penn state in a negative way.  

#2.  under what circumstance does a kid report to paterno that he was molested by sandusky? did a 15 year kid back in 1976 just walk into paterno's office?  why did he not call the police? tell his parents? tell a teacher?  a guidance counselor?  friend?  anyone else in the universe besides the head football coach at penn state?? 

#3.  in 1976, sandusky was a position coach.  he wasn't even a coordinator.  why the hell would paterno risk everything to protect a lowly position coach?

#4.  penn state has given millions of dollars to every child who has claimed to share the same air as sandusky over the last 25 years.  there is obvious tremendous financial incentive to make a claim of abuse that was ignored by penn state.  people literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling someone they were abused and penn state ignored it.    

 #5.  the accuser will never be identified.  the accuser will never be asked any additional questions.  yet the media, and posters here and people in general just assume any claim is guilt.  since everyone assumes every claim that is made is 100% factual, paterno has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disprove.  

the source matters, but that doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true. so are you saying the claims are false? that they pulled 1976 and 1988 out of thin air? and it was a lot easier to 'simply walk', figuratively speaking, into the office of a cfb head coach in '76 than it is today. your other questions regarding why someone in that town would go to joepa first? that frustrates me SO much that you continually dismiss the power and influence paterno had running a big time program in a small community. hell, what did mike mcqueary do back in '02? what did his DAD tell him to do? to go tell joe... see what he thinks.

btw, your view that an insurance company is saying this to avoid paying psu... does it enter your mind that psu would deny that this happened so they could receive these reimbursement payments? psu wants the insurance company to, in essence, cover their losses in connection with this, to the tune of $60 million. there is tremendous financial incentive for psu to hold fast to the notion that no one knew what sandusky was doing, possibly for decades, on/near campus. your alterior motive theory seems to go only one way when it comes to anything dealing with paterno's legacy.

[snap infraction]

May 6, 2016 8:00:51 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 6, 2016 7:30:43 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it is so frustrating to read these reports....philly daily news & philly inquirier (main philly paper run by son of ex psu trustee who was on the psu board of trustees in 2011) led with this too.  it's the top topic on morning sports radio here.  

think about this for just one second.  

#1.  this claim is made by an insurance company seeking to deny penn state tens of millions for the victim settlements  just keep the source in mind as they have incentive to list every single unsubstantiated claim that paints penn state in a negative way.  

#2.  under what circumstance does a kid report to paterno that he was molested by sandusky? did a 15 year kid back in 1976 just walk into paterno's office?  why did he not call the police? tell his parents? tell a teacher?  a guidance counselor?  friend?  anyone else in the universe besides the head football coach at penn state?? 

#3.  in 1976, sandusky was a position coach.  he wasn't even a coordinator.  why the hell would paterno risk everything to protect a lowly position coach?

#4.  penn state has given millions of dollars to every child who has claimed to share the same air as sandusky over the last 25 years.  there is obvious tremendous financial incentive to make a claim of abuse that was ignored by penn state.  people literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling someone they were abused and penn state ignored it.    

 #5.  the accuser will never be identified.  the accuser will never be asked any additional questions.  yet the media, and posters here and people in general just assume any claim is guilt.  since everyone assumes every claim that is made is 100% factual, paterno has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disprove.  

the source matters, but that doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true. so are you saying the claims are false? that they pulled 1976 and 1988 out of thin air? and it was a lot easier to 'simply walk', figuratively speaking, into the office of a cfb head coach in '76 than it is today. your other questions regarding why someone in that town would go to joepa first? that frustrates me SO much that you continually dismiss the power and influence paterno had running a big time program in a small community. hell, what did mike mcqueary do back in '02? what did his DAD tell him to do? to go tell joe... see what he thinks.

btw, your view that an insurance company is saying this to avoid paying psu... does it enter your mind that psu would deny that this happened so they could receive these reimbursement payments? your alterior motive theory seems to go only one way when it comes to anything dealing with paterno's legacy.

it doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true but it's insanely unfair that paterno now has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disapprove b/c the media has found paterno guilty of this allegation in 1976 w/o knowing anything else besides what an insurance company seeking to avoid paying lots of money said.  

it wasn't pulled out of mid air.  the claims were made by someone.  we will never know who made the claims though.  therefore, there is no accountability if the claims are false.  but if psu paid out money to those who made these claims (and these are sealed so we don't know who psu settled with), they have everything to gain.  

we are talking 1976.  psu in 1976 wasn't an established powerhouse program.  if a bank got robbed in 1976, does the bank teller call paterno before calling the police?  if a gas station was robbed, does the gas station first call paterno before calling the police?  every crime in state college PA that allegedly occured have to go through paterno first?  mcqueary should have went to the police in 2001.  he panicked and didn't.  you speculate b/c paterno was powerful and that's how the town operated.  my speculation is that mcqueary was a grad assistant at the time and wanted a perm coaching position and was afraid that reporting to the police might somehow damage his chances.  why is yoru speculation any more accurate than mine?  neither of us will ever truly know.  

we have no idea if psu denied this alleged 1976 incident or not.   the judge gave his opinion citing what the insurance company claimed.  we have no idea how credible psu found this claim.  we have no idea if psu disputed this claim or not.  we have no idea if psu settled with the 1976 accuser or not. it's all sealed.   that's why it is frustrating that we are all rushing to judgement with literally zero facts.  







 

[snap infraction]

btw paterno had 4 kids ages 4-14 years old in 1976. but protecting an obscure assistant coach (at the time) was more of a priority than protectiing the welfare of children.

[mscott59]

May 6, 2016 8:15:28 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

May 6, 2016 8:00:51 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

the source matters, but that doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true. so are you saying the claims are false? that they pulled 1976 and 1988 out of thin air? and it was a lot easier to 'simply walk', figuratively speaking, into the office of a cfb head coach in '76 than it is today. your other questions regarding why someone in that town would go to joepa first? that frustrates me SO much that you continually dismiss the power and influence paterno had running a big time program in a small community. hell, what did mike mcqueary do back in '02? what did his DAD tell him to do? to go tell joe... see what he thinks.

btw, your view that an insurance company is saying this to avoid paying psu... does it enter your mind that psu would deny that this happened so they could receive these reimbursement payments? your alterior motive theory seems to go only one way when it comes to anything dealing with paterno's legacy.

it doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true but it's insanely unfair that paterno now has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disapprove b/c the media has found paterno guilty of this allegation in 1976 w/o knowing anything else besides what an insurance company seeking to avoid paying lots of money said.  

it wasn't pulled out of mid air.  the claims were made by someone.  we will never know who made the claims though.  therefore, there is no accountability if the claims are false.  but if psu paid out money to those who made these claims (and these are sealed so we don't know who psu settled with), they have everything to gain.  

we are talking 1976.  psu in 1976 wasn't an established powerhouse program.  if a bank got robbed in 1976, does the bank teller call paterno before calling the police?  if a gas station was robbed, does the gas station first call paterno before calling the police?  every crime in state college PA that allegedly occured have to go through paterno first?  mcqueary should have went to the police in 2001.  he panicked and didn't.  you speculate b/c paterno was powerful and that's how the town operated.  my speculation is that mcqueary was a grad assistant at the time and wanted a perm coaching position and was afraid that reporting to the police might somehow damage his chances.  why is yoru speculation any more accurate than mine?  neither of us will ever truly know.  

we have no idea if psu denied this alleged 1976 incident or not.   the judge gave his opinion citing what the insurance company claimed.  we have no idea how credible psu found this claim.  we have no idea if psu disputed this claim or not.  we have no idea if psu settled with the 1976 accuser or not. it's all sealed.   that's why it is frustrating that we are all rushing to judgement with literally zero facts. &nbs


 

would you please stop saying that the media has found him guilty? that not what this story says. now it's the insurance company who's making this up to avoid psu being on the hook for $60 million you've continually held up as the university's good faith effort to make these victim partially whole? seriously?? and to say psu wasn't a powerhouse in '76 is doing some serious soft pedaling. back to back unbeaten season in '68/'69 and again in '73? 3 top 5 and 4 top 10 finishes in that 6 year span. let's just say i disagree, having been in ohio stadium as a hs junior when they played there in '75.

and your scenarios about a bank being robbed or a gas station being robbed are poor analogies... we're talking about a possible crime directly connected to psu... and paterno was a big deal then in an even smaller state college than it is today. as for comparing speculation? mcqueary's dad told him to talk to joe. that's not speculation. the news here is that, according to these records, that there were 3 separate statements made, in '76 and twice again in the late 80s, regarding sandusky and possible inappropriate contact with children. i don't know if i'm more amazed that no one there connected the dots by the late 90s or that you're still waving people to drive by, claiming there's nothing to see here.

[oujour76]

May 6, 2016 8:15:28 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true but it's insanely unfair that paterno now has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disapprove b/c the media has found paterno guilty of this allegation in 1976 w/o knowing anything else besides what an insurance company seeking to avoid paying lots of money said.  

it wasn't pulled out of mid air.  the claims were made by someone.  we will never know who made the claims though.  therefore, there is no accountability if the claims are false.  but if psu paid out money to those who made these claims (and these are sealed so we don't know who psu settled with), they have everything to gain.  

we are talking 1976.  psu in 1976 wasn't an established powerhouse program.  if a bank got robbed in 1976, does the bank teller call paterno before calling the police?  if a gas station was robbed, does the gas station first call paterno before calling the police?  every crime in state college PA that allegedly occured have to go through paterno first?  mcqueary should have went to the police in 2001.  he panicked and didn't.  you speculate b/c paterno was powerful and that's how the town operated.  my speculation is that mcqueary was a grad assistant at the time and wanted a perm coaching position and was afraid that reporting to the police might somehow damage his chances.  why is yoru speculation any more accurate than mine?  neither of us will ever truly know.  

we have no idea if psu denied this alleged 1976 incident or not.   the judge gave his opinion citing what the insurance company claimed.  we have no idea how credible psu found this claim.  we have no idea if psu disputed this claim or not.  we have no idea if psu settled with the 1976 accuser or not. it's all sealed.   that's why it is frustrating that we are all rushing to judgement with literally zero facts.  
 

No doubt that it's hearsay and is impossible to prove or disprove. But, FWIW, you are incorrect about Penn State not having something to protect in 1976. They were a well established national program at that point.

From '67 thru '76 they played in seven (7) major bowl games like the Orange, Sugar and Cotton. They won about 90% of their games in that period with 5 or 6 top ten finishes. I watched OU play PSU in the 1972 Sugar Bowl...Paterno and Penn State were household names.

[snap infraction]

May 6, 2016 9:04:54 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 6, 2016 8:15:28 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true but it's insanely unfair that paterno now has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disapprove b/c the media has found paterno guilty of this allegation in 1976 w/o knowing anything else besides what an insurance company seeking to avoid paying lots of money said.  

it wasn't pulled out of mid air.  the claims were made by someone.  we will never know who made the claims though.  therefore, there is no accountability if the claims are false.  but if psu paid out money to those who made these claims (and these are sealed so we don't know who psu settled with), they have everything to gain.  

we are talking 1976.  psu in 1976 wasn't an established powerhouse program.  if a bank got robbed in 1976, does the bank teller call paterno before calling the police?  if a gas station was robbed, does the gas station first call paterno before calling the police?  every crime in state college PA that allegedly occured have to go through paterno first?  mcqueary should have went to the police in 2001.  he panicked and didn't.  you speculate b/c paterno was powerful and that's how the town operated.  my speculation is that mcqueary was a grad assistant at the time and wanted a perm coaching position and was afraid that reporting to the police might somehow damage his chances.  why is yoru speculation any more accurate than mine?  neither of us will ever truly know.  

we have no idea if psu denied this alleged 1976 incident or not.   the judge gave his opinion citing what the insurance company claimed.  we have no idea how credible psu found this claim.  we have no idea if psu disputed this claim or not.  we have no idea if psu settled with the 1976 accuser or not. it's all sealed.   that's why it is frustrating that we are all rushing to judgement with literally zero facts. &nbs


 

would you please stop saying that the media has found him guilty? that not what this story says. now it's the insurance company who's making this up to avoid psu being on the hook for $60 million you've continually held up as the university's good faith effort to make these victim partially whole? seriously?? and to say psu wasn't a powerhouse in '76 is doing some serious soft pedaling. back to back unbeaten season in '68/'69 and again in '73? 3 top 5 and 4 top 10 finishes in that 6 year span. let's just say i disagree, having been in ohio stadium as a hs junior when they played there in '75.

and your scenarios about a bank being robbed or a gas station being robbed are poor analogies... we're talking about a possible crime directly connected to psu... and paterno was a big deal then in an even smaller state college than it is today. as for comparing speculation? mcqueary's dad told him to talk to joe. that's not speculation. the news here is that, according to these records, that there were 3 separate statements made, in '76 and twice again in the late 80s, regarding sandusky and possible inappropriate contact with children. i don't know if i'm more amazed that no one there connected the dots by the late 90s or that you're still waving people to drive by, claiming there's nothing to see here.

just a very short while ago, all major charges (some minor remain) were dropped against schultz/spanier/curley.  this news would seemingly be major.  but it made page 19 of all the major publications.  it was barely talked about at a national level.  

last nite, an unsubstantiated claim against paterno was made with no additional details or facts or evidence or anything except one line from a judge's opinion going back forty years.  and it was the top news story in many major newspaper publications and has been a topic of sports talk radio and trending on twitter, etc.  

the media's interest in this how thing has always been paterno and his culpability.  just look at deadspins awful misleading headline for godsakes deadspin.com/court-opinion-reveals-joe-paterno-reportedly-knew-of-je-1775014993?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow  how can you not say the media isn't finding him guilty of this?

i didn't deny that mcqueary dad told him to talk to joe.  that is fact.  your opinion on his motive for doing so is pure speculation.  i think he and his dad was concerned about future job opportunities which is also speculation.  

i don't know why you find it so amazing that after psu opened up their checkbooks in 2012 that people made claims of also being abused.  i mean is that a complete shocker to you?  and it's amazing for all these claims of abuse that no one thought to call the police or anyone else but the head football coach, who was supposedly easily accessible to every 15 year old in the world.   

after debating this long about it i am surprised you still don't know my position.  i never claimed everyone is innocent.  i think people fucked up big time.  i just don't buy the sinister motives everyone assigned to paterno.  and i dont buy freeh's claim that psu's corrupt culture (essentially blaming fans and students) was the reason sandusky did what he did.  

[snap infraction]

May 6, 2016 9:32:23 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 6, 2016 8:15:28 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true but it's insanely unfair that paterno now has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disapprove b/c the media has found paterno guilty of this allegation in 1976 w/o knowing anything else besides what an insurance company seeking to avoid paying lots of money said.  

it wasn't pulled out of mid air.  the claims were made by someone.  we will never know who made the claims though.  therefore, there is no accountability if the claims are false.  but if psu paid out money to those who made these claims (and these are sealed so we don't know who psu settled with), they have everything to gain.  

we are talking 1976.  psu in 1976 wasn't an established powerhouse program.  if a bank got robbed in 1976, does the bank teller call paterno before calling the police?  if a gas station was robbed, does the gas station first call paterno before calling the police?  every crime in state college PA that allegedly occured have to go through paterno first?  mcqueary should have went to the police in 2001.  he panicked and didn't.  you speculate b/c paterno was powerful and that's how the town operated.  my speculation is that mcqueary was a grad assistant at the time and wanted a perm coaching position and was afraid that reporting to the police might somehow damage his chances.  why is yoru speculation any more accurate than mine?  neither of us will ever truly know.  

we have no idea if psu denied this alleged 1976 incident or not.   the judge gave his opinion citing what the insurance company claimed.  we have no idea how credible psu found this claim.  we have no idea if psu disputed this claim or not.  we have no idea if psu settled with the 1976 accuser or not. it's all sealed.   that's why it is frustrating that we are all rushing to judgement with literally zero facts.  
 

No doubt that it's hearsay and is impossible to prove or disprove. But, FWIW, you are incorrect about Penn State not having something to protect in 1976. They were a well established national program at that point.

From '67 thru '76 they played in seven (7) major bowl games like the Orange, Sugar and Cotton. They won about 90% of their games in that period with 5 or 6 top ten finishes. I watched OU play PSU in the 1972 Sugar Bowl...Paterno and Penn State were household names.

they had no reason to protect sandusky.  he was an obscure position coach in 1976.  

[snap infraction]

random person: "hey joe, your obscure position coach is sodomizing children around the same age as your 4 kids"


joe paterno" "that's ok. i need to win football games and it's more important that we cover this up. if it becomes an issue in the future in like 25 years, i will just tell my supervisors who will talk to various experts like the head of the local police force and licensed psychologists who are mandated reporters.  and if they do nothing, i'm ok with the entire world just blaming me anyway.  it's much more important that we continue to recruit well"

[daleko]

May 6, 2016 7:30:43 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

May 5, 2016 22:31:05 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

There were a lot of us who found it very difficult to believe that, in a town as small as state college, leading a program as big as Psu, that paterno wasn't in the know about either whispers or accusations about Sandusky. If these reports are true, these dates go back 20 years prior to the first grand jury investigation, prior to the political maneuvering of that era beginning in the late 90s, and would certainly indicate that not only did paterno know, but previous athelletic administrators (and, you'd think, previous university presidents) knew about Sandusky as well. And, apparently, did nothing, putting dozens and dozens of future area children in danger.

Again, if true, that goes beyond sad. That's criminal.

it is so frustrating to read these reports....philly daily news & philly inquirier (main philly paper run by son of ex psu trustee who was on the psu board of trustees in 2011) led with this too.  it's the top topic on morning sports radio here.  

think about this for just one second.  

#1.  this claim is made by an insurance company seeking to deny penn state tens of millions for the victim settlements  just keep the source in mind as they have incentive to list every single unsubstantiated claim that paints penn state in a negative way.  

#2.  under what circumstance does a kid report to paterno that he was molested by sandusky? did a 15 year kid back in 1976 just walk into paterno's office?  why did he not call the police? tell his parents? tell a teacher?  a guidance counselor?  friend?  anyone else in the universe besides the head football coach at penn state?? 

#3.  in 1976, sandusky was a position coach.  he wasn't even a coordinator.  why the hell would paterno risk everything to protect a lowly position coach?

#4.  penn state has given millions of dollars to every child who has claimed to share the same air as sandusky over the last 25 years.  there is obvious tremendous financial incentive to make a claim of abuse that was ignored by penn state.  people literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling someone they were abused and penn state ignored it.    

 #5.  the accuser will never be identified.  the accuser will never be asked any additional questions.  yet the media, and posters here and people in general just assume any claim is guilt.  since everyone assumes every claim that is made is 100% factual, paterno has the burden of disproving something that is impossible to disprove.  

You should have been a spokesman for the Philly Diocese.

[mscott59]

May 6, 2016 10:01:53 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

May 6, 2016 9:04:54 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

would you please stop saying that the media has found him guilty? that not what this story says. now it's the insurance company who's making this up to avoid psu being on the hook for $60 million you've continually held up as the university's good faith effort to make these victim partially whole? seriously?? and to say psu wasn't a powerhouse in '76 is doing some serious soft pedaling. back to back unbeaten season in '68/'69 and again in '73? 3 top 5 and 4 top 10 finishes in that 6 year span. let's just say i disagree, having been in ohio stadium as a hs junior when they played there in '75.

and your scenarios about a bank being robbed or a gas station being robbed are poor analogies... we're talking about a possible crime directly connected to psu... and paterno was a big deal then in an even smaller state college than it is today. as for comparing speculation? mcqueary's dad told him to talk to joe. that's not speculation. the news here is that, according to these records, that there were 3 separate statements made, in '76 and twice again in the late 80s, regarding sandusky and possible inappropriate contact with children. i don't know if i'm more amazed that no one there connected the dots by the late 90s or that you're still waving people to drive by, claiming there's nothing to see here.

just a very short while ago, all major charges (some minor remain) were dropped against schultz/spanier/curley.  this news would seemingly be major.  but it made page 19 of all the major publications.  it was barely talked about at a national level.  

last nite, an unsubstantiated claim against paterno was made with no additional details or facts or evidence or anything except one line from a judge's opinion going back forty years.  and it was the top news story in many major newspaper publications and has been a topic of sports talk radio and trending on twitter, etc.  

the media's interest in this how thing has always been paterno and his culpability.  just look at deadspins awful misleading headline for godsakes deadspin.com/court-opinion-reveals-joe-paterno-reportedly-knew-of-je-1775014993?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow  how can you not say the media isn't finding him guilty of this?

i didn't deny that mcqueary dad told him to talk to joe.  that is fact.  your opinion on his motive for doing so is pure speculation.  i think he and his dad was concerned about future job opportunities which is also speculation.  

i don't know why you find it so amazing that after psu opened up their checkbooks in 2012 that people made claims of also being abused.  i mean is that a complete shocker to you?  and it's amazing for all these claims of abuse that no one thought to call the police or anyone else but the head football coach, who was supposedly easily accessible to every 15 year old in the world.   

after debating this long about it i am surprised you still don't know my position.  i never claimed everyone is innocent.  i think people fucked up big time.  i just don't buy the sinister motives everyone assigned to paterno.  and i dont buy freeh's claim that psu's corrupt culture (essentially blaming fans and students) was the reason sandusky did what he did. &nbs

sigh. you're leaving quite a bit out of why the most serious of charges got dropped. it wasn't because they were found innocent, or for a lack of evidence. it was because the university counsel testified against them before the grand jury. they got a technicality get out of jail free card. big difference. as for the 'minor' charges still pending? you think perjury, failure to report suspected abuse and endangering the welfare of a minor are minor, in light of this string of events?

an unsubstantiated claim of potential wrongdoing in '76, on its own, is just that. but when it happened again in '87? again in '88? a decade later when a grand jury did an investigation? more allegations in '01? '08? '11? i mean how long a line of bread crumbs do you need? you keep talking about the media's interest. here's my interest... children were put at risk, and if this claim is true, you could say a blind eye was turned to it for over three decades. the fact it went on for one decade is unthinkable given the circumstances.

and if you think that mcqueary's dad told his son to 'talk to joe' in order to protect future job opportunities, i don't think you've ever lived in a small town that houses a single, giant organization.