OT Penn St ...

[raf46]

the abuse was reported in 1971. the school paid damages then, but took no action against Sandusky. Which allowed him to stay on at Penn St and continue to abuse.

 

[80shusky]

@FriarJ what I read today stated that Paterno knew about the 1971 abuse as early as 1976 and perhaps earlier. Penn State allegedly knew earlier because they apparently paid the person off in 1971.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

My SO is from Pennsylvania. Her family still either defend him or completely avoid talking about it and acting like it never happened. Sickening.

My cousin got his 15 minutes of fame flipping off the ESPN cameras on live TV during the "riots" on campus after everything went down. Needless to say, he still doesn't admit there was any wrongdoing in the entire situation other than Sandusky. He's a phenomenally smart guy too, but in this one situation, his head is so far down in the sand that it doesn't matter.

 

[UCweCONN]

My cousin's got his head so far up his that it doesn't matter.

Fixed it.

 

[joober jones]

Anyone listen to the interview on WEEI in Boston this morning with the guy saying Paterno and Sandusky are innocent? Craziness

Who were they interviewing, Bernie Fine?

 

[joober jones]

Cuse fans think those two are just Fine

Just realized you beat me to it after I posted.

 

[Adios]

Penn State fans will do an excellent job in normalizing pedastry. Hide your sons, too.

 

[mauconnfan]

Yeah, with everything Syracuse was accused of and investigated for over the past 15-20 years, why wasn't the Bernie Fine saga part of it? Was it only because nobody could prosecute him anymore because the statute of limitations had already run? Is that the measure of the NCAA's reach in these cases?

The players were paying people off probably as they wanted it to go away and not allow any further detail. I mean do you think any of them wanted to have to admit they were laying down with Laurie Fine (or standing up)? LOL

 

[SubbaBub]

@FriarJ what I read today stated that Paterno knew about the 1971 abuse as early as 1976 and perhaps earlier. Penn State allegedly knew earlier because they apparently paid the person off in 1971.

That's not what it said either. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying the settlement by intimation that PSU and Paterno knew about this incident. That has not be shown by any evidence whatsoever.

As for the family, based on the actual evidence to date there is little to no indication that Paterno didn't live up to his obligations. There are others for which this is not true. If I were them, I'd be fighting this too. Most everyone commenting has been caught up in the media frenzy, making a lot of assumptions about what a person Kew or didn't and isn't looking at the evidence. The DA cleared Paterno more than once and stated he fulfilled has obligations under the law. You may think that isn't wnough considering the heinous nature of the crimes perpetrated, but it is not that simple in terms of the investigation, prosecution, and contracts involved.

The NCAA version of events has since been torn to pieces.

 

[Rocktheworld]

That's not what it said either. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying the settlement by intimation that PSU and Paterno knew about this incident. That has not be shown by any evidence whatsoever.

As for the family, based on the actual evidence to date there is little to no indication that Paterno didn't live up to his obligations. There are others for which this is not true. If I were them, I'd be fighting this too. Most everyone commenting has been caught up in the media frenzy, making a lot of assumptions about what a person Kew or didn't and isn't looking at the evidence. The DA cleared Paterno more than once and stated he fulfilled has obligations under the law. You may think that isn't wnough considering the heinous nature of the crimes perpetrated, but it is not that simple in terms of the investigation, prosecution, and contracts involved.

The NCAA version of events has since been torn to pieces.

There are legal obligations, and then there are moral obligations. They don't always hold hands. Yes, he may have done the bare minimum to avoid legal trouble, but to know it was happening and to allow it to continue by keeping that animal on staff is abhorrent. He had complete control over Sandusky's access to children to violate, and did next to nothing.

 

[superjohn]

That's not what it said either. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying the settlement by intimation that PSU and Paterno knew about this incident. That has not be shown by any evidence whatsoever.

As for the family, based on the actual evidence to date there is little to no indication that Paterno didn't live up to his obligations. There are others for which this is not true. If I were them, I'd be fighting this too. Most everyone commenting has been caught up in the media frenzy, making a lot of assumptions about what a person Kew or didn't and isn't looking at the evidence. The DA cleared Paterno more than once and stated he fulfilled has obligations under the law. You may think that isn't wnough considering the heinous nature of the crimes perpetrated, but it is not that simple in terms of the investigation, prosecution, and contracts involved.

The NCAA version of events has since been torn to pieces.

Sticking up for a pederast enabler is not a good look.

 

[PWS]

Here is Sally Jenkins take in the Washington Post. Not sure how anyone can conclude that Paterno did not know what was going on.

Penn State should own its role in the Sandusky scandal

 

[80shusky]

That's not what it said either. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying the settlement by intimation that PSU and Paterno knew about this incident. That has not be shown by any evidence whatsoever.

As for the family, based on the actual evidence to date there is little to no indication that Paterno didn't live up to his obligations. There are others for which this is not true. If I were them, I'd be fighting this too. Most everyone commenting has been caught up in the media frenzy, making a lot of assumptions about what a person Kew or didn't and isn't looking at the evidence. The DA cleared Paterno more than once and stated he fulfilled has obligations under the law. You may think that isn't wnough considering the heinous nature of the crimes perpetrated, but it is not that simple in terms of the investigation, prosecution, and contracts involved.

The NCAA version of events has since been torn to pieces.

Hi,
Here are the excerpts that I read that lead me to the post that I made.

One line in a court document in an insurance case involving Penn State alleged Paterno was told of Sandusky's child abuse in 1976, 31/2 decades before Sandusky's arrest in 2011. A CNN story quoted an alleged Sandusky victim as saying he told Paterno in 1971 that he was raped by Sandusky in a Penn State bathroom and was told by Paterno, "Stop this (talk) right now!"

And from NBC News:
But in the new order, dated Wednesday, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer wrote in passing that the insurance company, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance, had claimed that "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

These are of course only allegations and not proven by evidence other than the victim's testimony however I think there is enough smoke here that it is not a reach to assume Paterno know well prior to 2011. And of course there are people looking to get paid off here and an insurance company that is looking not to pay anyone as you would expect. It appears I did misread that Penn State paid out in 1971, they apparently paid out recently going back to 1971.

And from The Washington Post part of Barron's response:

In his letter, Barron wrote, “The two allegations [from the 1970s] related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. … We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.”

Of course downplay the "claim by an alleged victim" because it doesn't fit their narrative that they did everything right and didn't know anything. These were accounts by the victims in 1971 and 1976 themselves, not sensationalized media accounts.

 

[dogfan96]

Hi,
Here are the excerpts that I read that lead me to the post that I made.

One line in a court document in an insurance case involving Penn State alleged Paterno was told of Sandusky's child abuse in 1976, 31/2 decades before Sandusky's arrest in 2011. A CNN story quoted an alleged Sandusky victim as saying he told Paterno in 1971 that he was raped by Sandusky in a Penn State bathroom and was told by Paterno, "Stop this (talk) right now!"

And from NBC News:
But in the new order, dated Wednesday, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer wrote in passing that the insurance company, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance, had claimed that "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

These are of course only allegations and not proven by evidence other than the victim's testimony however I think there is enough smoke here that it is not a reach to assume Paterno know well prior to 2011. And of course there are people looking to get paid off here and an insurance company that is looking not to pay anyone as you would expect. It appears I did misread that Penn State paid out in 1971, they apparently paid out recently going back to 1971.

And from The Washington Post part of Barron's response:

In his letter, Barron wrote, “The two allegations [from the 1970s] related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. … We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.”

Of course downplay the "claim by an alleged victim" because it doesn't fit their narrative that they did everything right and didn't know anything. These were accounts by the victims in 1971 and 1976 themselves, not sensationalized media accounts.

"Sensationalized media accounts"... about a guy who is a convicted serial pedophile.. sure he was doing all this without the knowledge of ANYBODY in the football program..

 

[Northbound]

There are certainly a few who did know as Sandusky was investigated by the DA and no charges were filed. Where's that guy? How about the police detectives who did the investigation? Where are the second mile people?

I think the DA you're referencing went missing in 2005 and was declared dead in 2011, so if you can find that guy you'd be some type of super sleuth.

 

[Phorcys]

In good news today, Jerry Sandusky has been assigned a new cellmate…

… an angry man with a really big fist.

 

[Paesano]

I think the DA you're referencing went missing in 2005 and was declared dead in 2011, so if you can find that guy you'd be some type of super sleuth.

Imagine if Penn State nation took out a DA? This could end up as a movie some day. But, if they did, I only have one question. Why haven't they taken care of Emmert yet?

 

[mainlinedave]

That's not what it said either. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying the settlement by intimation that PSU and Paterno knew about this incident. That has not be shown by any evidence whatsoever.

As for the family, based on the actual evidence to date there is little to no indication that Paterno didn't live up to his obligations. There are others for which this is not true. If I were them, I'd be fighting this too. Most everyone commenting has been caught up in the media frenzy, making a lot of assumptions about what a person Kew or didn't and isn't looking at the evidence. The DA cleared Paterno more than once and stated he fulfilled has obligations under the law. You may think that isn't wnough considering the heinous nature of the crimes perpetrated, but it is not that simple in terms of the investigation, prosecution, and contracts involved.

The NCAA version of events has since been torn to pieces.

Simply not true.

While under oath, Paterno said that the first time he had heard allegations that Sandusky may have had inappropriate behavior with a minor was in 2001. He said it was the only time he had heard anything at all related to Sandusky as it related to this type of deviant behavior.

But it was later shown that in 1998, while Sandusky was being investigated for molesting a different kid, Paterno had asked for an update.

Curley, the AD, emailed Schultz (a Vice President at Penn State) a message captioned "Jerry," and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

Paterno clearly lied under oath. He knew about Sandusky in 1998, and when it happened again in 2001, as reported by McQueary, Paterno should have made his assistant coach call the police himself.

Paterno knew, and hid it. It's that simple. Anyone who doesn't recognize that for what it is is simply covering for that turd Paterno.