mcqueary espn mag online now

[mscott59]

Mar 6, 2014 14:43:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 6, 2014 11:49:22 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

so your conjecture as to mcqueary's motives are fine... as long as they lead toward your narrative. got it. as for freeh? my god man, i love how you position this. did freeh have subpoena power? does the attorney general have subpoena power? you need to give up this 'freeh is the devil who hates psu' mindset and start looking at the stuff in the report that is relevant. and a quote from the a-d, in the context of email responses on sandusky, saying 'after talking it over w/joe'? how else can that be interpreted? how would a normal person w/o any agenda see that comment?

mark scott
tosu 81

you keep putting words in my mouth!! i never said freeh hates penn state. he's a hired gun who uses his credentials to say whatever people are hiring want him to say. he makes himself a lot of money doing so. corbett pushed the psu bot to hire him. corbett and the psu bot had every incentive in the world to deflect attention away from them. with what freeh did to richard jewell, is it that surprising the lengths he'd go to make someone complicent?

freeh didn't have subpoena power. ironically, the guy who did have subpoena power...state prosecutor frank fina, said he didn't think paterno was guilty of a cover up!!! everyone always forgets this of course. www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_no_e.html

freeh told the public that his report was independent. he didn't tell the public that he was going to just use one side's evidence. freeh didn't talk to any of the major players he accused of being complicit in a cover up of child abuse. and before you come back at me by saying paterno refused to talk to freeh....i will just say you're wrong. paterno wanted to be interviewed but died before he could read page 53 of the freeh report if you do not believe me.

notice curley's e-mail was phrased "this is what joe wants to do." it was phrased "after talking it over with joe." curley could have easily made up that he talked to joe in order to bolster his position. it happens all the time everywhere. as a kid, if i wanted something, i tell my dad "well, mom agrees with me" in an attempt to convince my dad that i should get this item. when we had a break room newly constructed in my office a few years ago, i suggested we put a pac man arcade machine in the break room. i told the project manager that other people were on board with me. no one as actually on board with me. i was just hoping it would help the idea get further traction.

why is it that when someone says something to back your position (fina 'thinks' paterno didn't cover anything up), that constitutes confirmation of innocence, but when the freeh report shows potential evidence, as in emails between execs, you find ways to poke holes (ie curley could have lied. happens all the time)?? it's really quite amazing to see you do this so consistently.

i've never claimed the freeh report to be perfect. but you seem to think that if it's not 100% accurate, it's 100% bogus. both laughable and sad. and again, if paterno had wanted to talk to freeh, he could have. he chose to continue to sit down w/his book's author, he chose to sit down w/jenkins for an interview. he could have prioritized differently, but chose not to. that's the truth.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

Mar 6, 2014 15:56:30 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 6, 2014 14:43:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

you keep putting words in my mouth!! i never said freeh hates penn state. he's a hired gun who uses his credentials to say whatever people are hiring want him to say. he makes himself a lot of money doing so. corbett pushed the psu bot to hire him. corbett and the psu bot had every incentive in the world to deflect attention away from them. with what freeh did to richard jewell, is it that surprising the lengths he'd go to make someone complicent?

freeh didn't have subpoena power. ironically, the guy who did have subpoena power...state prosecutor frank fina, said he didn't think paterno was guilty of a cover up!!! everyone always forgets this of course. www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_no_e.html

freeh told the public that his report was independent. he didn't tell the public that he was going to just use one side's evidence. freeh didn't talk to any of the major players he accused of being complicit in a cover up of child abuse. and before you come back at me by saying paterno refused to talk to freeh....i will just say you're wrong. paterno wanted to be interviewed but died before he could read page 53 of the freeh report if you do not believe me.

notice curley's e-mail was phrased "this is what joe wants to do." it was phrased "after talking it over with joe." curley could have easily made up that he talked to joe in order to bolster his position. it happens all the time everywhere. as a kid, if i wanted something, i tell my dad "well, mom agrees with me" in an attempt to convince my dad that i should get this item. when we had a break room newly constructed in my office a few years ago, i suggested we put a pac man arcade machine in the break room. i told the project manager that other people were on board with me. no one as actually on board with me. i was just hoping it would help the idea get further traction.

why is it that when someone says something to back your position (fina 'thinks' paterno didn't cover anything up), that constitutes confirmation of innocence, but when the freeh report shows potential evidence, as in emails between execs, you find ways to poke holes (ie curley could have lied. happens all the time)?? it's really quite amazing to see you do this so consistently.

i've never claimed the freeh report to be perfect. but you seem to think that if it's not 100% accurate, it's 100% bogus. both laughable and sad. and again, if paterno had wanted to talk to freeh, he could have. he chose to continue to sit down w/his book's author, he chose to sit down w/jenkins for an interview. he could have prioritized differently, but chose not to. that's the truth.

mark scott
tosu 81

you are accusing me of doing the same thing you are doing. you ignore things that paint paterno in a better light but stress the things that don't. but on top of doing that, you are making flat out false statements to backup your accusations (ie paterno forced sandusky to retire due to the shower incident, paternos relationship with sandusky went cold after 1998, etc).

fwiw, yes, i think it's very relevant that the only guy with subpoena power in this whole mess didn't think paterno was involved in a cover up. how could you not?

the freeh report is 50%. i never said it's all or non. the math is rather easy. freeh took evidence given to him by one side. he ignored/was unable to receive evidence from the other side. the freeh report is equivalent to someone being put on trial for murder, and only the prosecution is allowed to present their case. freeh claimed he reviewed 3 million documents and interviewed over 400 people. yet two e-mails where paternos was neither the sender nor receiver but possibly the subject of the e-mail and this is used to justify a conclusion that paterno covered up for a child molester. 61 year career w/ barely an ethical flaw is completely ignored. ridiculous.

like i said, page 53 of the freeh report claims that paterno was interested in speaking to freeh but didn't because he was sick. can we reverse this? maybe freeh wasn't interested in what paterno had to say and didn't pursue the interview? how are we to truly know? what makes your conjecture more accurate than mine?

[mscott59]

Mar 6, 2014 16:46:10 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 6, 2014 15:56:30 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

why is it that when someone says something to back your position (fina 'thinks' paterno didn't cover anything up), that constitutes confirmation of innocence, but when the freeh report shows potential evidence, as in emails between execs, you find ways to poke holes (ie curley could have lied. happens all the time)?? it's really quite amazing to see you do this so consistently.

i've never claimed the freeh report to be perfect. but you seem to think that if it's not 100% accurate, it's 100% bogus. both laughable and sad. and again, if paterno had wanted to talk to freeh, he could have. he chose to continue to sit down w/his book's author, he chose to sit down w/jenkins for an interview. he could have prioritized differently, but chose not to. that's the truth.

mark scott
tosu 81

you are accusing me of doing the same thing you are doing. you ignore things that paint paterno in a better light but stress the things that don't. but on top of doing that, you are making flat out false statements to backup your accusations (ie paterno forced sandusky to retire due to the shower incident, paternos relationship with sandusky went cold after 1998, etc).

fwiw, yes, i think it's very relevant that the only guy with subpoena power in this whole mess didn't think paterno was involved in a cover up. how could you not?

the freeh report is 50%. i never said it's all or non. the math is rather easy. freeh took evidence given to him by one side. he ignored/was unable to receive evidence from the other side. the freeh report is equivalent to someone being put on trial for murder, and only the prosecution is allowed to present their case. freeh claimed he reviewed 3 million documents and interviewed over 400 people. yet two e-mails where paternos was neither the sender nor receiver but possibly the subject of the e-mail and this is used to justify a conclusion that paterno covered up for a child molester. 61 year career w/ barely an ethical flaw is completely ignored. ridiculous.

like i said, page 53 of the freeh report claims that paterno was interested in speaking to freeh but didn't because he was sick. can we reverse this? maybe freeh wasn't interested in what paterno had to say and didn't pursue the interview? how are we to truly know? what makes your conjecture more accurate than mine?

Show me one time where I stated that paterno forced Sandusky to retire One time. You can't. Because I've never said that. Which has been typical all along; paterno devotees project heightened accusations to draw a stronger line that he's innocent. Please stop.

The freeh report is NOT equivalent to a murder trial. It's a compilation of information gathered. And yes, that email matters, because of the context. Paterno didn't use email, so it makes sense in that context that other execs who more commonly used email would communicate about the coach in that way. Joe did many many great things over his career. No one has ever disputed that. But you, and others, keep giving him every benefit of doubt in this scenario where actions can be interpreted more than one way. I emphasize every. Reading the report and determining that the coach could have done more, could have known more, known sooner, is not conjecture.

There were many people in authority who could have put a stop to this entire sordid affair much sooner than it eventually did. Paterno himself admitted he regretted not doing more. I believe he was telling the truth. That he knew he was in a position to take more definitive action to protect those kids, but did the minimum. Why don't you believe him?

Mark Scott
Tosu 81

[ihs82]

Mar 7, 2014 8:15:21 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 6, 2014 16:46:10 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

you are accusing me of doing the same thing you are doing. you ignore things that paint paterno in a better light but stress the things that don't. but on top of doing that, you are making flat out false statements to backup your accusations (ie paterno forced sandusky to retire due to the shower incident, paternos relationship with sandusky went cold after 1998, etc).

fwiw, yes, i think it's very relevant that the only guy with subpoena power in this whole mess didn't think paterno was involved in a cover up. how could you not?

the freeh report is 50%. i never said it's all or non. the math is rather easy. freeh took evidence given to him by one side. he ignored/was unable to receive evidence from the other side. the freeh report is equivalent to someone being put on trial for murder, and only the prosecution is allowed to present their case. freeh claimed he reviewed 3 million documents and interviewed over 400 people. yet two e-mails where paternos was neither the sender nor receiver but possibly the subject of the e-mail and this is used to justify a conclusion that paterno covered up for a child molester. 61 year career w/ barely an ethical flaw is completely ignored. ridiculous.

like i said, page 53 of the freeh report claims that paterno was interested in speaking to freeh but didn't because he was sick. can we reverse this? maybe freeh wasn't interested in what paterno had to say and didn't pursue the interview? how are we to truly know? what makes your conjecture more accurate than mine?

Show me one time where I stated that paterno forced Sandusky to retire One time. You can't. Because I've never said that. Which has been typical all along; paterno devotees project heightened accusations to draw a stronger line that he's innocent. Please stop.

The freeh report is NOT equivalent to a murder trial. It's a compilation of information gathered. And yes, that email matters, because of the context. Paterno didn't use email, so it makes sense in that context that other execs who more commonly used email would communicate about the coach in that way. Joe did many many great things over his career. No one has ever disputed that. But you, and others, keep giving him every benefit of doubt in this scenario where actions can be interpreted more than one way. I emphasize every. Reading the report and determining that the coach could have done more, could have known more, known sooner, is not conjecture.

There were many people in authority who could have put a stop to this entire sordid affair much sooner than it eventually did. Paterno himself admitted he regretted not doing more. I believe he was telling the truth. That he knew he was in a position to take more definitive action to protect those kids, but did the minimum. Why don't you believe him?


Mark Scott
Tosu 81

in a previous post, you said "i'm sorry... but your theory imho still fails the common sense test. the freeh report found the emails establishing that psu execs knew that sandusky had been investigated in '98. even though it did not end up in charges, do you think it was just coincidence that sandusky suddenly retired out of the blue the following year?" maybe I am misinterpreted what you meant, but I took it to mean that you think Sandusky's retirement is related to the 1998 investigation into Sandusky. that's simply not true. he chose to retire b/c he was told he wasn't going to be the next head coach. if he was considered such a potential liability from the 1998 incident, why the hell would they let him coach against in 1999 for his final season? it makes no sense.


the freeh report is not equivalent to a murder trial. in a murder trial, there is often due process where both sides present their arguments to an objective jury and judge. there has not yet been due process for the penn state administrators.

paterno regretted not doing more in hindsight. in hindsight. that means knowing what he knew at the time of sandusky's arrest, he wished he had done more.

btw, I read yesterday that don van atta omitted a key part of his profile. when investigators contacted mcqueary in 2010, he thought it was b/c he had sent pictures of his privates to a co-ed student w/ his penn state issued cell phone. he didn't respond back to investigators for three weeks. he had no idea it was b/c of the sandusky incident. supposedly, van atta had proof of this but his espn bosses didn't want him to include it in the story. they thought outing mcqueary as a victim of sexual abuse w/o mcqueary's permission would be more appropriate for some reason.

[mscott59]

Mar 7, 2014 9:17:34 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 7, 2014 8:15:21 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Show me one time where I stated that paterno forced Sandusky to retire One time. You can't. Because I've never said that. Which has been typical all along; paterno devotees project heightened accusations to draw a stronger line that he's innocent. Please stop.

The freeh report is NOT equivalent to a murder trial. It's a compilation of information gathered. And yes, that email matters, because of the context. Paterno didn't use email, so it makes sense in that context that other execs who more commonly used email would communicate about the coach in that way. Joe did many many great things over his career. No one has ever disputed that. But you, and others, keep giving him every benefit of doubt in this scenario where actions can be interpreted more than one way. I emphasize every. Reading the report and determining that the coach could have done more, could have known more, known sooner, is not conjecture.

There were many people in authority who could have put a stop to this entire sordid affair much sooner than it eventually did. Paterno himself admitted he regretted not doing more. I believe he was telling the truth. That he knew he was in a position to take more definitive action to protect those kids, but did the minimum. Why don't you believe him?


Mark Scott
Tosu 81

in a previous post, you said "i'm sorry... but your theory imho still fails the common sense test. the freeh report found the emails establishing that psu execs knew that sandusky had been investigated in '98. even though it did not end up in charges, do you think it was just coincidence that sandusky suddenly retired out of the blue the following year?" maybe I am misinterpreted what you meant, but I took it to mean that you think Sandusky's retirement is related to the 1998 investigation into Sandusky. that's simply not true. he chose to retire b/c he was told he wasn't going to be the next head coach. if he was considered such a potential liability from the 1998 incident, why the hell would they let him coach against in 1999 for his final season? it makes no sense.


the freeh report is not equivalent to a murder trial. in a murder trial, there is often due process where both sides present their arguments to an objective jury and judge. there has not yet been due process for the penn state administrators.

paterno regretted not doing more in hindsight. in hindsight. that means knowing what he knew at the time of sandusky's arrest, he wished he had done more.

btw, I read yesterday that don van atta omitted a key part of his profile. when investigators contacted mcqueary in 2010, he thought it was b/c he had sent pictures of his privates to a co-ed student w/ his penn state issued cell phone. he didn't respond back to investigators for three weeks. he had no idea it was b/c of the sandusky incident. supposedly, van atta had proof of this but his espn bosses didn't want him to include it in the story. they thought outing mcqueary as a victim of sexual abuse w/o mcqueary's permission would be more appropriate for some reason.

do you know for a fact that sandusky retired because he wasn't going to be head coach immediately? this is where i have problem w/how you talk about this. when you make a point like curley making stuff up in an email... you're giving conjecture for a different behind the scenes explanation dispelling what could be interpreted as a true meaning on the surface. but if it betters how paterno looks, you take anything said at face value only (ie, atty gen saying he 'thinks' joepa wasn't involved). do you see what i'm getting at here? there's no hidden meaning in an uber successful legendary coach shockingly retiring, but there's great possibilities of different meanings for an email referring to talking w/paterno?

there's a lot we don't know. w/paterno's death there's potentially much we'll never know for sure. but there's a lot of responsibility amongst leaders at psu at the time for how long this continued. joepa may have had a lot, or only a little, but in '01 for sure, he was one of many in a position to do something, and didn't. and he regretted it.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

Mar 7, 2014 11:02:34 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 7, 2014 9:17:34 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

in a previous post, you said "i'm sorry... but your theory imho still fails the common sense test. the freeh report found the emails establishing that psu execs knew that sandusky had been investigated in '98. even though it did not end up in charges, do you think it was just coincidence that sandusky suddenly retired out of the blue the following year?" maybe I am misinterpreted what you meant, but I took it to mean that you think Sandusky's retirement is related to the 1998 investigation into Sandusky. that's simply not true. he chose to retire b/c he was told he wasn't going to be the next head coach. if he was considered such a potential liability from the 1998 incident, why the hell would they let him coach against in 1999 for his final season? it makes no sense.


the freeh report is not equivalent to a murder trial. in a murder trial, there is often due process where both sides present their arguments to an objective jury and judge. there has not yet been due process for the penn state administrators.

paterno regretted not doing more in hindsight. in hindsight. that means knowing what he knew at the time of sandusky's arrest, he wished he had done more.

btw, I read yesterday that don van atta omitted a key part of his profile. when investigators contacted mcqueary in 2010, he thought it was b/c he had sent pictures of his privates to a co-ed student w/ his penn state issued cell phone. he didn't respond back to investigators for three weeks. he had no idea it was b/c of the sandusky incident. supposedly, van atta had proof of this but his espn bosses didn't want him to include it in the story. they thought outing mcqueary as a victim of sexual abuse w/o mcqueary's permission would be more appropriate for some reason.

do you know for a fact that sandusky retired because he wasn't going to be head coach immediately? this is where i have problem w/how you talk about this. when you make a point like curley making stuff up in an email... you're giving conjecture for a different behind the scenes explanation dispelling what could be interpreted as a true meaning on the surface. but if it betters how paterno looks, you take anything said at face value only (ie, atty gen saying he 'thinks' joepa wasn't involved). do you see what i'm getting at here? there's no hidden meaning in an uber successful legendary coach shockingly retiring, but there's great possibilities of different meanings for an email referring to talking w/paterno?

there's a lot we don't know. w/paterno's death there's potentially much we'll never know for sure. but there's a lot of responsibility amongst leaders at psu at the time for how long this continued. joepa may have had a lot, or only a little, but in '01 for sure, he was one of many in a position to do something, and didn't. and he regretted it.

mark scott
tosu 81

the investigation into sandusky was in may of 1998. that means there were two football seasons after the 1998 shower incident that sandusky coached. remember, this occurred before the 1998 football season. if paterno and others thought sandusky was a pedophile and they wanted him out, why would they allow him to coach to more seasons? it makes zero sense. just use common sense here.

"coach paterno, sandusky was investigated by authorities for possibly molesting a young boy in the shower. what should we do?"

"lets allow him to coach two more seasons."

"good idea coach. we should allow a possible pedophile on the staff for 2 more seasons."


and yes, i think the guy currently on trial for perjury could possibly lie in an e-mail about a subject that is not on the e-mail chain.

[mscott59]

Mar 7, 2014 13:28:54 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 7, 2014 11:02:34 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

do you know for a fact that sandusky retired because he wasn't going to be head coach immediately? this is where i have problem w/how you talk about this. when you make a point like curley making stuff up in an email... you're giving conjecture for a different behind the scenes explanation dispelling what could be interpreted as a true meaning on the surface. but if it betters how paterno looks, you take anything said at face value only (ie, atty gen saying he 'thinks' joepa wasn't involved). do you see what i'm getting at here? there's no hidden meaning in an uber successful legendary coach shockingly retiring, but there's great possibilities of different meanings for an email referring to talking w/paterno?

there's a lot we don't know. w/paterno's death there's potentially much we'll never know for sure. but there's a lot of responsibility amongst leaders at psu at the time for how long this continued. joepa may have had a lot, or only a little, but in '01 for sure, he was one of many in a position to do something, and didn't. and he regretted it.

mark scott
tosu 81

the investigation into sandusky was in may of 1998. that means there were two football seasons after the 1998 shower incident that sandusky coached. remember, this occurred before the 1998 football season. if paterno and others thought sandusky was a pedophile and they wanted him out, why would they allow him to coach to more seasons? it makes zero sense. just use common sense here.

"coach paterno, sandusky was investigated by authorities for possibly molesting a young boy in the shower. what should we do?"

"lets allow him to coach two more seasons."

"good idea coach. we should allow a possible pedophile on the staff for 2 more seasons."


and yes, i think the guy currently on trial for perjury could possibly lie in an e-mail about a subject that is not on the e-mail chain.

of course the guys on trial for perjury could possibly lie in an email. it's also possible that paterno knew more about sandusky.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

Mar 8, 2014 15:49:04 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 7, 2014 13:28:54 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

the investigation into sandusky was in may of 1998. that means there were two football seasons after the 1998 shower incident that sandusky coached. remember, this occurred before the 1998 football season. if paterno and others thought sandusky was a pedophile and they wanted him out, why would they allow him to coach to more seasons? it makes zero sense. just use common sense here.

"coach paterno, sandusky was investigated by authorities for possibly molesting a young boy in the shower. what should we do?"

"lets allow him to coach two more seasons."

"good idea coach. we should allow a possible pedophile on the staff for 2 more seasons."


and yes, i think the guy currently on trial for perjury could possibly lie in an e-mail about a subject that is not on the e-mail chain.

of course the guys on trial for perjury could possibly lie in an email. it's also possible that paterno knew more about sandusky.

mark scott
tosu 81

yea, it's possible that paterno knew more about sandusky. but to conclude he had sinister motives is ridiculous, especially given the credibility and the vagueness of mcqueary's eye witness account. especially given that out of three million documents allegedly reviewed, only two e-mails that paterno was neither the sender nor receiver were used to come to this conclusion. especially given that no one was instructed to lie or not talk. especially given that dozens of other people knew about the 2001 incident, including trained experts and mandated reporters. especially given the paterno was initially praised by the attorney general for his honest testimony. especially give that patern had every incentive to lie about some of the specifics relayed to him by mcqueary, but didn't and damaged his own reputation. especially given that the head prosecutor stated that paterno was not involved in any cover up.

louis freeh was hired by the psu bot to justify their decision to fire paterno while at the same time, deflecting away from the state's failures to recognize Sandusky in the past. the ncaa accepted freeh's findings and punished penn state so emmert could show the world how big his you know what is.

[mscott59]

Mar 10, 2014 8:24:54 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 8, 2014 15:49:04 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

of course the guys on trial for perjury could possibly lie in an email. it's also possible that paterno knew more about sandusky.

mark scott
tosu 81

yea, it's possible that paterno knew more about sandusky. but to conclude he had sinister motives is ridiculous sinister. lmao. i love the words you put in others' mouths. , especially given the credibility and the vagueness of mcqueary's eye witness account. especially given that out of three million documents allegedly reviewed, only two e-mails that paterno was neither the sender nor receiver were used to come to this conclusion.lmao again. only 2, but if they speak the truth??? especially given that no one was instructed to lie or not talk.and you know this.... how? especially given that dozens of other people knew about the 2001 incident, including trained experts and mandated reporters.what does that have to do w/whether paterno/execs didn't do enough? especially given the paterno was initially praised by the attorney general for his honest testimony. especially give that patern had every incentive to lie about some of the specifics relayed to him by mcqueary, but didn't and damaged his own reputation.so joepa didn't know anything because he damaged his own rep? especially given that the head prosecutor stated that paterno was not involved in any cover up.he said he believed paterno wasn't involved. that's not a determination of a jury, right? once again, the prosecutor's word is the truth... the words (via email) of the athletic director, psu president, etc. are OBVIOUSLY lies. lmao again.

louis freeh was hired by the psu bot to justify their decision to fire paterno while at the same time, deflecting away from the state's failures to recognize Sandusky in the past. the ncaa accepted freeh's findings and punished penn state so emmert could show the world how big his you know what is.that's right! the bot conspired to fire paterno! the legend that they despised so much that they let him stay on as coach 10 years longer than he should. ok.

[ihs82]

Mar 10, 2014 12:11:06 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Mar 10, 2014 8:24:54 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

yea, it's possible that paterno knew more about sandusky. but to conclude he had sinister motives is ridiculous sinister. lmao. i love the words you put in others' mouths. , especially given the credibility and the vagueness of mcqueary's eye witness account. especially given that out of three million documents allegedly reviewed, only two e-mails that paterno was neither the sender nor receiver were used to come to this conclusion.lmao again. only 2, but if they speak the truth??? especially given that no one was instructed to lie or not talk.and you know this.... how? especially given that dozens of other people knew about the 2001 incident, including trained experts and mandated reporters.what does that have to do w/whether paterno/execs didn't do enough? especially given the paterno was initially praised by the attorney general for his honest testimony. especially give that patern had every incentive to lie about some of the specifics relayed to him by mcqueary, but didn't and damaged his own reputation.so joepa didn't know anything because he damaged his own rep? especially given that the head prosecutor stated that paterno was not involved in any cover up.he said he believed paterno wasn't involved. that's not a determination of a jury, right? once again, the prosecutor's word is the truth... the words (via email) of the athletic director, psu president, etc. are OBVIOUSLY lies. lmao again.

louis freeh was hired by the psu bot to justify their decision to fire paterno while at the same time, deflecting away from the state's failures to recognize Sandusky in the past. the ncaa accepted freeh's findings and punished penn state so emmert could show the world how big his you know what is.that's right! the bot conspired to fire paterno! the legend that they despised so much that they let him stay on as coach 10 years longer than he should. ok.

1. louis freeh said paternos motives were sinister. no point to arguing what paterno did/didn't know and if he should or shouldn't have done more. but i will argue that there is no way in hell paterno acted with evil motives.

2. mcqueary testified at the preliminary hearing for spanier/schultz/curley that he was never given instructions not to talk to anyone.

3. spanier/schultz/curley told the head of the 2nd mile, a mandated reporter, about the incident. yet, the guy working closest with Sandusky who is required under law to report suspicion of child abuse was fooled too. that's a big deal imo. but blaming the 2nd mile is not as sexy as blaming the football program.

4. like i said earlier, i'm not debating what paterno did/didn't know. i am debating his motive. if he was out to protect himself at the expense of young boys, then why in the world would he testify something that was so damaging.

5. it is funny that you think it's somehow blind of me to take the word of a prosecutor over the word of someone facing prison time for lying about knowledge of child sex abuse.

6. bot didn't conspire to fire paterno. they were under immense pressure to do something. but they handled it like cowards. after 61 years, he deserved to at least have the opportunity give his side of the story.

[mscott59]

Mar 11, 2014 8:14:23 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Mar 10, 2014 12:11:06 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

1. louis freeh said paternos motives were sinister. no point to arguing what paterno did/didn't know and if he should or shouldn't have done more. but i will argue that there is no way in hell paterno acted with evil motives.

2. mcqueary testified at the preliminary hearing for spanier/schultz/curley that he was never given instructions not to talk to anyone.

3. spanier/schultz/curley told the head of the 2nd mile, a mandated reporter, about the incident. yet, the guy working closest with Sandusky who is required under law to report suspicion of child abuse was fooled too. that's a big deal imo. but blaming the 2nd mile is not as sexy as blaming the football program.

4. like i said earlier, i'm not debating what paterno did/didn't know. i am debating his motive. if he was out to protect himself at the expense of young boys, then why in the world would he testify something that was so damaging.

5. it is funny that you think it's somehow blind of me to take the word of a prosecutor over the word of someone facing prison time for lying about knowledge of child sex abuse.

6. bot didn't conspire to fire paterno. they were under immense pressure to do something. but they handled it like cowards. after 61 years, he deserved to at least have the opportunity give his side of the story.

1. no point arguing what paterno knew? ihs, that is at the crux of this entire investigation for most psu fans and, i'd contest, ALL paterno fans, who've not only cried foul at staining his legacy but have also put out claims that everyone believes paterno is the most guilty in all this, which i've seen no claim, other than paterno fans. no point arguing what he knew? so that doesn't matter? let's just say i think it does. the question is, will we ever know for sure.

2. mcqueary says he wasn't told not to tell anyone anything about this. i don't see the importance of this statement. would you go around telling everyone in state college that you thought you saw a legendary coach accosting a young boy? most normal people wouldn't, so mcqueary not doing it either doesn't matter. what does matter is why mcqueary, or paterno, or spanier/schultz/curley, didn't inform police/authorities of the appearance of a possible crime. that's what matters.

3. blaming the 2nd mile for psu allowing sandusky to keep an office on campus, in the athletic dept., after multiple appearances/reports of possible sex crimes against children? what would the 2nd mile have to do with psu's decisions? nice attempt at deflection there.

4. if you don't know what paterno knew, how can you possibly know enough to debate his potential motive? that statement makes absolutely no sense. at all. i'm thinking he testified what he knew as the truth, just like when he said he had regrets about his action/non-action after the fact.

5. once again, it's ok to use hindsight to explain paterno's regrets, but hindsight doesn't work for you to lay blame about the truthfulness of a couple emails. a decade+ ago no psu execs were facing any kind of charges.

6. handled it like cowards. once again, hindsight. i don't remember many people saying the bot handled it like cowards at the time. i will agree that there was pressure, especially after accepting the freeh report as a basis for what happened/what to correct moving forward. but people also forget the power plays paterno made to the bot over the years, especially around 2000 when an increasing number of nitt fans were saying it was time to retire. paterno wouldn't even address the subject with his 'supposed' superiors. for all the good joepa did at psu, there were times where it sure did look like he felt he was above authority. he wasn't the first coach to be unceremoniously let go. he may be the most prominent, and i can understand psu fans not liking him going out in a more fitting way. but you shouldn't let how he was fired get in the way of trying to learn what happened in the sandusky saga.

mark scott
tosu 81

[Buckeye Dale]

I've stayed out of this exchange, but I'll add to the back & forth just a couple ideas...
As far as what JoePa knew, I recall reading on more than one occasion that even the janitors commented that NOTHING happened in the PSU athletic department that Paterno was unaware of...he had fingers in everything, and knew everything.
As far as covering up or not going forward harder, I remember his first public interview, the big deal seemed to be not the kids, but the image of the institution. My take from his interview was that he'd been there so long, and had become the face of the school, and this was understood as a personal attack on him.
Also that JoePa was old school. A lot of sexual abuse from that era was basically ignored. It was a point of shame, as were some diseases, to that generation of people. Rather than face it, they ignored it.
As far as discussion, I think by now, just about everyone's minds are made up. Regardless of what is 'discovered' in any future investigation, the accusations have been made, and there will forever be a shadow cast on JoePa's legacy. Fair, probably not. But today's tendencies to cast today's standard on yesterday's living here especially will hold true.