Ot - Ex Penn State Defensive Coord Charged

[UConnCat]

Paterno's statement in which he is still trying to call the shots in State College. Will the Board of Trustees follow Joe's command?

"I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief.

I have come to work every day for the last 61 years with one clear goal in mind: To serve the best interests of this university and the young men who have been entrusted to my care. I have the same goal today.

That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.

My goals now are to keep my commitments to my players and staff and finish the season with dignity and determination. And then I will spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to help this University."

 

[speedoo]

Paterno's statement in which he is still trying to call the shots in State College. Will the Board of Trustees follow Joe's command?

"I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief.

I have come to work every day for the last 61 years with one clear goal in mind: To serve the best interests of this university and the young men who have been entrusted to my care. I have the same goal today.

That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.

My goals now are to keep my commitments to my players and staff and finish the season with dignity and determination. And then I will spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to help this University."

The BOT is running the show and I doubt very much they will pay any attention to anything Paterno tells them to do or not do. He needs to be very careful about what he says imo, and the comment you highlighted is totally unnecessary and actually stupid, coming from Paterno.

 

[UConnCat]

The BOT is running the show and I doubt very much they will pay any attention to anything Paterno tells them to do or not do. He needs to be very careful about what he says imo, and the comment you highlighted is totally unnecessary and actually stupid, coming from Paterno.

I agree that his defiant and arrogant challenge to the BOT was unnecessary in the circumstances.

 

[Icebear]

I have been told from friends in PA this was a negotiated statement.

 

[UConnCat]

I have been told from friends in PA this was a negotiated statement.

That's not what's being reported. A negotiated statement would likely have produced a joint statement from the University and Paterno. This is from the NY Times which clearly has sources on the BOT:

"Despite Paterno’s statement Wednesday, his immediate future is still in the hands of the board, which is scheduled to meet Friday. Gov. Tom Corbett plans to be in attendance.

* * *

The statement did not appear to be put out by the university’s public relations department or athletic communications department, which would have meant that top university officials had approved it. Instead, it appears to have been put out through a public relations press wire. Scott Paterno, a son of Joe Paterno who has acted as family spokesman, wrote on his Twitter page that anyone who wanted more information should stop calling him and contact an outside public relations firm."

 

[Icebear]

That's not what's being reported. A negotiated statement would likely have produced a joint statement from the University and Paterno. This is from the NY Times which clearly has sources on the BOT:

"Despite Paterno’s statement Wednesday, his immediate future is still in the hands of the board, which is scheduled to meet Friday. Gov. Tom Corbett plans to be in attendance.

* * *

The statement did not appear to be put out by the university’s public relations department or athletic communications department, which would have meant that top university officials had approved it. Instead, it appears to have been put out through a public relations press wire. Scott Paterno, a son of Joe Paterno who has acted as family spokesman, wrote on his Twitter page that anyone who wanted more information should stop calling him and contact an outside public relations firm."

The NY Times has not been accurate in a number of details relating to this. The Paterno family has corrected them twice. Corbett owes JoePA huge political debt don't expect him to go too far. Joe is at this point largely a figure 85 year old head who sits in the box upstairs with Galen Hall and Dick Anderson. You rarely see him communicating with either. There have been forces on the board that wanted to force Joe out for half a decade. This is now their chance to close the deal.

Likelihood is that Joe was retiring this year or next anyway.

 

[UConnCat]

The NY Times has not been accurate in a number of details relating to this. The Paterno family has corrected them twice. Corbett owes JoePA huge political debt don't expect him to go too far.

Corrected them on what specifically?

 

[Icebear]

That there was any negotiations going on with the board or that they the family had been contacted about Joe retiring as the NYT reported.

 

[speedoo]

That there was any negotiations going on with the board or that they the family had been contacted about Joe retiring as the NYT reported.

The NY Times did not report any of that. They reported that Paterno's tenure was likely going to end soon, period. And so far that appears to be very accurate.

 

[Icebear]

Actually, they did report it and identified their source as two people connected to the board.

 

[UConnCat]

That there was any negotiations going on with the board or that they the family had been contacted about Joe retiring as the NYT reported.

The NY Times never reported that there were negotiations going on between the BOT and Paterno. The Times was the first to report that the BOT was discussing Paterno's departure and no one has disputed the accuracy of that report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/s...-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html

BTW, media outlets are consistent in their reporting that Paterno's announcement was his effort to get out ahead of any action the Board might take regarding his exit. It remains to be seen whether the BOT will allow him to finish out the season, but my guess is that it will.

 

[Icebear]

Scott Paterno disputed the report on TV on exactly this point.

 

[speedoo]

Actually they did.

They did not. You won't find those reports in the NY Times piece.

 

[UConnCat]

Scott Paterno disputed the report on TV.

Who knows what Scott Paterno was disputing but it wasn't a NY Times report.

BTW, an over-looked issue that the NY Times addresses (see linked article above) is that a source has contradicted Paterno's statement on Sunday that he wasn't given specific details by McQueary about what he witnessed in 2002.

"In explaining his actions, Mr. Paterno has publicly said he was not told of the graphic nature of a suspected 2002 assault by Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant, of a young boy in the football building’s showers. Mr. Paterno said the graduate assistant who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature.

But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident."

 

[Icebear]

Who knows what Scott Paterno was disputing but it wasn't a NY Times report.

BTW, an over-looked issue that the NY Times addresses (see linked article above) is that a source has contradicted Paterno's statement on Sunday that he wasn't given specific details by McQueary about what he witnessed in 2002.

"In explaining his actions, Mr. Paterno has publicly said he was not told of the graphic nature of a suspected 2002 assault by Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant, of a young boy in the football building’s showers. Mr. Paterno said the graduate assistant who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature.

But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident."

McQueary is, also, on record saying he did not tell Joe the full details but that simply that it was inappropriate behavior involving fondling and "something" of a sexual nature as per the Grand Jury report.

 

[Icebear]

Who knows what Scott Paterno was disputing but it wasn't a NY Times report.

BTW, an over-looked issue that the NY Times addresses (see linked article above) is that a source has contradicted Paterno's statement on Sunday that he wasn't given specific details by McQueary about what he witnessed in 2002.

"In explaining his actions, Mr. Paterno has publicly said he was not told of the graphic nature of a suspected 2002 assault by Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant, of a young boy in the football building’s showers. Mr. Paterno said the graduate assistant who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature.

But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident."

The situation may be that someone quoted the NYT to Scott Paterno leading him to understand that they meant the discussions were between the family and the university. He clearly thought he was responding a the NYT statement.

 

[UConnCat]

McQueary is, also, on record saying he did not tell Joe the full details but that simply that it was inappropriate behavior involving fondling and "something" of a sexual nature as per the Grand Jury report.

That's not accurate. Re-read page 7 of the Grand Jury report. Your quote comes from Paterno's testimony of what he reported hearing from McQueary when he spoke with Curley and Schultz. What we don't know in detail is what McQueary claims he said to Paterno other than the following from the report: "the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, and reported what he had seen."

Again, a source has said to the NY Times that McQueary did tell specifics to Paterno. That source is likely either someone close to McQueary or someone who has read his GJ testimony.

 

[HuskyNan]

Tempers are running high in this thread. Can everyone take a breath here?

 

[speedoo]

Tempers are running high in this thread. Can everyone take a breath here?

Sorry, Nan, but I don't see tempers running high here. Just discussing what is factual and what is not, and we are being civil, imo.

 

[UConnCat]

Sorry, Nan, but I don't see tempers running high here. Just discussing what is factual and what is not, and we are being civil, imo.

I agree. The lawyer in me does come out when it comes to factual disputes so I apologize if I come across a bit heavy-handed. I do feel strongly about what happened here, but I'll try to be governed by the (new) nursing side of my personality.

 

[Icebear]

What we don't know in detail is what McQueary claims he said to Paterno other than the following from the report: "the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, and reported what he had seen."

Yes, it is from Paterno's testimony. It is not in conflict with McQueary's report as presented in the GJR. The same is not true of Curley and Schultz's report.

 

[Icebear]

The report made it look like President Spanier did not pursue things. Any idea if he will be implicated in this mess?

Spanier will be gone before this is done. Possibly as soon as tomorrow or the weekend. My expectation is that may have sensed the nature of the issues and isolated himself from it with the old plausible deniability gambit.

 

[Icebear]

Anyone thinking they know how they would respond in a situation like this only needs to remind themselves of the experiments of Stanley Milgram. After WW2 most folks were sure that what had happened in German death camps could never happen in the US. Milgram ran tests in which subjects believe themselves to be applying electrical shock to unseen persons (who were unharmed and not even shocked) as part of a test. After several rounds of increases in level of severity. The unseen subjects soon became screaming and pleading to halt the experiment. A "supervisor" kept urging on the subjects who often complied with no to little questioning. The results were that Milgram showed that human response in America would likely have provided more than enough people to have replaced those carrying out orders in Germany. Until in another's shoes we never know what we might do.

 

[vtcwbuff]

What continues to bother me is the lack of mention of the Second Mile charity in all of this? This was Sandusky point of contact for all of these kids. It is amazing that they have received virtually no mention.

Also, lacking in the coverage has been discussion and analysis of the emotional and system dynamics that contribute to the actions of people and institutions leading to this kind of event. Without understanding these dynamics the risk of repeating and the ability to stop such things are unresolved. It would have been nice to see a couple of professions from psychology help to analyze why folks like McQueary acted as they did given varying constructs of experience.

A very good question and all you have to do is read this thread for the answer. All Paterno - All the time. I am sure the grand jury has looked at Second Mile. There will be more to this once Paterno is out of the picture.

 

[bobbygt]

Anyone thinking they know how they would respond in a situation like this only needs to remind themselves of the experiments of Stanley Milgram. After WW2 most folks were sure that what had happened in German death camps could never happen in the US. Milgram ran tests in which subjects believe themselves to be applying electrical shock to unseen persons (who were unharmed and not even shocked) as part of a test. After several rounds of increases in level of severity. The unseen subjects soon became screaming and pleading to halt the experiment. A "supervisor" kept urging on the subjects who often complied with no to little questioning. The results were that Milgram showed that human response in America would likely have provided more than enough people to have replaced those carrying out orders in Germany. Until in another's shoes we never know what we might do.

It just seems that people need to take a step back and let the facts and statements come forth. People are trying to villify Joe Paterno for what he could've done, or what they would've done if they were McQueary that night.

It seems a fact that neither of them did anything wrong, but perhaps they didn't do more than they could've/should've. It's very easy to say what we would do with all of this information, but much harder when you are there, living it.

I won't rush to any judgement yet.