Was Joe Pa treated appropriately?

[redandguilty]

People have questioned how "in the know" Paterno was for years. No, I don't believe there's a good explanation for what Paterno did. The easiest explanation for why Paterno acts like this is all a big surprise is that he is lying. But it's also true that I don't know all the facts yet, and we've seen cases before where everyone is united in opinion over a clear cut case, but as the facts come out, they don't quite match up with the original story.

The difference here is that we're not going off of whispers and gossip. We have grand jury testimony that plainly lays out the facts and corroborates all of the negative opinions of Paterno. We know enough facts to conclude that the old man failed to live up to moral obligations and had to be ousted. How out of touch is he that he thought coaching out the rest of the season would be acceptable?

I haven't read it, but I heard exactly the opposite on ESPN. That the report did not establish what Paterno knew.

 

[TheVictors]

The difference here is that we're not going off of whispers and gossip. We have grand jury testimony that plainly lays out the facts and corroborates all of the negative opinions of Paterno. We know enough facts to conclude that the old man failed to live up to moral obligations and had to be ousted. How out of touch is he that he thought coaching out the rest of the season would be acceptable?

ESPN seems a tad inconsistent in its coverage. Yesterday someone associated with McQueary stated he'd been clear and explicit with what he'd seen. Then ESPN represents Paterno as having been told about 'naked horsing around and fondling' taking place between Sandusky & a young boy. To me, that's essentially irrelevant - fondling, naked and shower is enough - but WHY wouldn't Paterno confront his 'very good friend' and if he did, how in the hell didn't something happen in 2002?

I haven't read it, but I heard exactly the opposite on ESPN. That the report did not establish what Paterno knew.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I heard one, supposedly in the know (but who knows) , who said McQuery told Paterno exactly what happened. But nonetheless, even Paterno said "I probably should have done more". He knows he fk'd up.

 

[dubbsco]

Yes. He's a slimeball. He deserves everything he gets. I could give a shit if he was fired via morse code, he had to go.

 

[TheVictors]

Yeah, in a day and age where major news is broken via Twitter and two people will have a 30-text exchange rather than just talk, yeah ...the whole 'fired by phone is an insult' thing is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[newton83]

The difference here is that we're not going off of whispers and gossip. We have grand jury testimony that plainly lays out the facts and corroborates all of the negative opinions of Paterno. We know enough facts to conclude that the old man failed to live up to moral obligations and had to be ousted. How out of touch is he that he thought coaching out the rest of the season would be acceptable?

I haven't read it, but I heard exactly the opposite on ESPN. That the report did not establish what Paterno knew.

My point was that he knew enough to take more action than he did. Whether he had heard it was "only" that Sandusky was naked in the showers with young boys, or whether he heard the full details is immaterial. Any contact like that at all is enough to take action, and Joe barely did anything at all.

 

[redandguilty]

I haven't read it, but I heard exactly the opposite on ESPN. That the report did not establish what Paterno knew.

My point was that he knew enough to take more action than he did. Whether he had heard it was "only" that Sandusky was naked in the showers with young boys, or whether he heard the full details is immaterial. Any contact like that at all is enough to take action, and Joe barely did anything at all.

If that's what he heard and all he did was tell the AD and that was the end of his role in it, then I agree. But if that's the case, then his talk about "experts" being fooled was deception.

 

[mhughes0021]

Mitch[/color]]I heard one, supposedly in the know (but who knows) , who said McQuery told Paterno exactly what happened. But nonetheless, even Paterno said "I probably should have done more". He knows he fk'd up.

If that was true Joepa would be in contempt of court. And he isnt....so its false. Mcqueery and Joepa both TESTIFIED...if there storeies didnt match theyd be in for perjury just like the others.

 

[newton83]

My point was that he knew enough to take more action than he did. Whether he had heard it was "only" that Sandusky was naked in the showers with young boys, or whether he heard the full details is immaterial. Any contact like that at all is enough to take action, and Joe barely did anything at all.

If that's what he heard and all he did was tell the AD and that was the end of his role in it, then I agree. But if that's the case, then his talk about "experts" being fooled was deception.

He testified in front of a grand jury that McQueary told him about sexual contact between Sandusky and a 10-year old boy. Those facts are on the record and not in dispute by anyone involved. Read up on things before you come in here giving an uninformed opinion.

 

[redandguilty]

If that's what he heard and all he did was tell the AD and that was the end of his role in it, then I agree. But if that's the case, then his talk about "experts" being fooled was deception.

He testified in front of a grand jury that McQueary told him about sexual contact between Sandusky and a 10-year old boy. Those facts are on the record and not in dispute by anyone involved. Read up on things before you come in here giving an uninformed opinion.

Thanks for the advice, but when I read multiple accounts of people trying to read it and having to quit because it's too disturbing, I think it's fair to try to focus on the details that people don't regret reading, like who knew what when. Also, you only addressed half my statement. We don't know what was said to Paterno after the fact or if he ever saw Sandusky again. I keep saying, I don't imagine there's an out for Paterno, but we haven't heard his side either. If "experts" told him it was their professional opinion that things were under control and the police didn't have anything to act on and Paterno never saw Sandusky hanging around after that...who knows. It's an awful lot of if, but McQueary is still there, even though nobody thinks he should be, so clearly this story isn't over.