Phil Knight calls it right at PSU

[freescooter]

This was an awful awful situation. While not letting Joe off the hook, I guess I buy the fact that an 85 year old man might have a certain difficulty dealing with the situation. I actually do buy to at least some degree that he felt the right thing to do was pass it up the ladder. Doesn't totally excuse him by any means, but having talked with someone else who dealt with a very similar issue, I can understand his thinking. It was almost like he didn't want to have to deal with something so disgusting, something a man of his generation would probably never even aknowledge, never mind talk about, so he passed it on to the next guy up the line and hoped it would get dealt with. That is essentially what my friend did, too. That didn't work out well for him either. For that matter, that seems to be what McQueary did too, and he was from a different, more open age. As I say, it was the wrong thing to do. It doesn't excuse what happened. But I think I understand what happened.

 

[Icebear]

Icebear,

Joe followed the law is not quite accurate or sufficient.

Mandatory reporters in Pennsylvania are people that work with children. It is quite logical that they report things to others in the child support hierarchy (who are obligated to report the situation to the appropriate investigative authorities) - thereby not jeopardizing their relationship with the child or putting themselves at risk while ensuring that it is addressed. That statutory policy in no way governs the behavior of adults in other environments.

This case gives precisely the reason why non-mandated reporters have different moral obligations. In this case Paterno reported the situation to two people neither trained nor obligated by law to report the situation. And once he knew that no investigation occurred - he knew after all that no police or protective services staff came to question him or his staff as complainants or potential witnesses - why didn't he then make sure it was reported to appropriate enforcement staff. "I didn't know" is not good enough for someone in his position.

Sorry, but every PA lawyer about 6, two judges, and two DA in PA with whom I have discussed the case would disagree with you. Some are in my congregation others in my community or State College. Joe was not a mandated reporter under PA law but Curley and Schultz were because of the use of the facilities by youth covered under the PA law for various sports camps under the authority of the AD. As a pastor in PA I am a trained mandated reporter through our denomination.

Morally, I disagree with you assessment because both JoePA and McQueary took action and, also, gave testimony potentially against personal interest which according to Augustine is the highest measure of moral action.

 

[Icebear]

Answer me this: Why the hell did Jerry Sandusky retire at the age of 55, when he was on track to possibly be the next head coach of Penn State? Are you insinuating that those on the staff at Penn State believed that their top assistant decided to retire simply because he wanted to hang 'em up? Sandusky made numerous references to suspicious behavior around children in his book, which came out in 2001, prior to the incident witnessed by McQeary.

Also, why on earth did JoePa allow Jerry Sandusky to bring kids to a practice in 2007, years after he had been barred from taking kids on campus?

Because he had approached Joe about the possibility when he might become the head coach. Joe told him that he would not be able to be both head coach and continue his work at Second Mile. Further Joe told him Sandusky needed to begin taking better care of the responsibilities he had as Defensive Coordinator which Joe felt had been lagging. Sandusky made the choice and was given the same severance conditions and access to the facilities that all former coaches were granted. That only makes sense if no one had any awareness of any accusations against Sandusky in the past.

 

[Icebear]

The second Paterno didn't go to the police, the coverup started and then to see kids with Sandusky on campus for the next decade and not do anything, it's absolutely disgusting. Phil Knight is an idiot and it's disturbing to me how Penn State supporters have been acting ever since this scandal broke.

Personally, I believe the law in every state should be changed to require every person to be accountable for reporting any reasonably possible situation of child abuse. Furthermore the requirement should that all such reports will be made to the state police.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Sorry, but every PA lawyer about 6, two judges, and two DA in PA with whom I have discussed the case would disagree with you. Some are in my congregation others in my community or State College. Joe was not a mandated reporter under PA law but Curley and Schultz were because of the use of the facilities by youth covered under the PA law for various sports camps under the authority of the AD. As a pastor in PA I am a trained mandated reporter through our denomination.

Morally, I disagree with you assessment because both JoePA and McQueary took action and, also, gave testimony potentially against personal interest which according to Augustine is the highest measure of moral action.

1) Please explain how they acted against their own interests when this matter was first raised. Going to the police or going public when the university wanted to bury the matter would be acting against their own interests. Telling a couple of administrators and then going quietly into the night while Sandusky continued to bring children on campus seems more like passive complicity. If they acted against their own interests a decade later that is admirable to a degree, but doesn't justify in any way a decade of silence.

2) What did your legal experts tell you? If they said that Joe may have done the minimum required by law it doesn't conflict with my statements. In fact, there may have been no legal requirement at all. PA statutes deal with professionals and staff that are trained to interact with children as part of their occupation. That includes school teachers and administrators, but it could be argued (and has been by Curley and Schultz' attorneys) that it doesn't include university football coaches and administrators. It will be interesting to see how they make out with that argument.

However, what cannot be challenged is that all of those with knowledge are human beings that should know right from wrong. Knowing that there are allegations of harm to children that are not being investigated (and JoePa knew that no investigation occurred) is a massive moral failing. Was JoePa the biggest culprit here - of course not - but he absolutely shares in the blame. That's what makes Knight's and Jay Paterno's statements and the willfully blind loyalty of many in the PSU community so infuriating.

 

[RS9999X]

LOL, yeah it was the Board of Trustees who mistreated Joe and didn't handle the situation well. It wasn't Joe turning a blind eye and then as a Catholic trying to claim he didn't comprehend the crime.

Did I miss the coaches at UConn speaking out on Gregory McKee? Or did they let the authorites do their due diligence and investigation?

If McKee was arrrested again in Chicago over the last 18 months would the UConn staff be responsible for not alerting everyone and putting pictures up on the web? If another players is involved is that proof of a UConn Huskies conspiracy to distribute child ? What if charges were never made and a warrant never issued? Would UConn be responsible if it happened again?

>> A former football player at University of Connecticut was arrested Friday after police say they found 96 pictures and 26 videos of 5- to10-year-old boys engaged in sexual acts on his computer.

Gregory McKee, 19, turned himself into state police in at 8 a.m. He was arraigned at Superior Court in Rockville hours later.

--------------------------------------------
A second UConn student, Seven Lewis, 21, of Plainville, was arrested on Wednesday on federal child pornography charges. Tom Carson, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office said the cases are unrelated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/greg-mckee-arrested-uconn_n_793779.html

Police began investigating possession and distribution of child pornography on the UConn campus in 2010. McKee was arrested in Storrs in December 2010. <<

79 Greg McKee
Class:
Sophomore
Hometown:
Chicago, Ill.
High School:
Martin Luther King Jr. Prep
Height / Weight:
6-6 / 290
Position:
Offensive Tackle
Birthdate:
05/19/1992
Enrolled at Connecticut for the Spring 2010 semester
High School: Named First Team All-Public League from the Chicago Sun-Times on the defensive side....team finished second in conference in senior year...two-time all-conference pick...academically ranked 23rd in class of 218...National Honor Society member...plays the piano and cello...also a member of the wrestling team.
Personal: Greg McKee...born on May 10, 1992

 

[kibblesnbits]

They didn't have to speak out because: 1) There actually was an immediate investigation by legal authorities; and 2) They weren't witnesses or complainants because they had no way to know of the problem until after the fact. On the other hand, Paterno and McQueary knew of the problem and that there was no investigation. At a minimum they accepted that situation. That's why McKee was arrested quickly and Sandusky stuck around to sexually assault boys for many more years. Unless you can show me that Randy Edsall was downloading kiddie from McKee's machine (or at least knew that it was there) and didn't tell the cops, they are not comparable situations.

No one said Paterno and McQueary had to put up billboards. However, knowing that children's lives were being permanently damaged they had a moral obligation to make sure the information was conveyed to people who would conduct a proper legal investigation.

 

[Icebear]

1) Please explain how they acted against their own interests when this matter was first raised. Going to the police or going public when the university wanted to bury the matter would be acting against their own interests. Telling a couple of administrators and then going quietly into the night while Sandusky continued to bring children on campus seems more like passive complicity. If they acted against their own interests a decade later that is admirable to a degree, but doesn't justify in any way a decade of silence.

Their silence originally was a matter of law. As I said in the earlier, law in PA requires that after it is passed on the person reporting it to the highest institutional authority steps back and leaves it alone. Our teachers are taught to make no inquiries. Any other action beyond the simplest inquiries Joe is reported to have made can be termed interference in an investigation. Their, JoePA and McQueary, testimony before the grand jury was by all reports was direct and honest and potentially against self interest. One person present called it open and unflinching.

2) What did your legal experts tell you? If they said that Joe may have done the minimum required by law it doesn't conflict with my statements. In fact, there may have been no legal requirement at all. JoePA and McQueary indeed had no legal requirement under PA law because neither worked directly with kids. Curley as administrator of facilities used for camps of kids is not in the same situation according to most I spoke to. It is an ambiguous area in a law that has not to my knowledge been tested yet.

PA statutes deal with professionals and staff that are trained to interact with children as part of their occupation. Exactly, and that is why I have training as a pastor. That includes school teachers and administrators, but it could be argued (and has been by Curley and Schultz' attorneys) that it doesn't include university football coaches and administrators. It will be interesting to see how they make out with that argument. Agreed. It will be interesting to see how this ambiguous section of the law plays out.

However, what cannot be challenged is that all of those with knowledge are human beings that should know right from wrong. Knowing that there are allegations of harm to children that are not being investigated (and JoePa knew that no investigation occurred) is a massive moral failing. Joe has stated that he had no such knowledge that an investigation occurred that is a huge leap that is not in evidence anywhere. Again, McQueary reported in the arraignment that he was told by Curley that it was being investigated or "followed up." Was JoePa the biggest culprit here - of course not - but he absolutely shares in the blame. That's what makes Knight's and Jay Paterno's statements and the willfully blind loyalty of many in the PSU community so infuriating.

How does Joe share in the blame if he had no prior knowledge of other bad acts of Sandusky, did more than the law required and did follow up asking both the AD and McQueary if the situation was being followed up? The issue of whether JoePA followed up was not addressed in the Grand Jury presentment. It wasn't within the scope of the charges. McQueary's testimony in the arraignment of Curley and Schultz did indicate that JoePA followed up with McQueary, it is not unreasonable to expect that he, also, followed up with Curley.

Despite comments of some no one among the coaches or staff who have spoken has ever seen Sandusky at practices with youth once he was banned from ringing kids on campus. Just because someone says it happened doesn't make it fact any more or less than someone saying it didn't but the entire staff well we see where that testimony goes in court.

BTW, I live about 45 minutes from campus and know numerous folks working there including in the AD. People's perceptions of Joe's dominance of the campus is 20 years old and even then was not his core mode of behavior.





I hope this helps. Again, I would prefer the law require every one of us to report directly to the state police.

 

[RS9999X]

No one said Paterno and McQueary had to put up billboards. However, knowing that children's lives were being permanently damaged they had a moral obligation to make sure the information was conveyed to people who would conduct a proper legal investigation.

Paterno was assured it was being handled wasn't that sufficient? They interviewed McQueary who was the guy with the testimony Joe merely reported what he heard. You know what that testimony is worth in court or in a police statement?

People are being completely unreasonable in their expectations of Paterno. Try applying that same level of logic to the McKee situation.....Paterno.was the man in the middle. Paterno wasn't the witness. he wasn't the person the kid told. He had a subordinate tell him and passed the info along and the subordinate was interviewed.

 

[upstater]

Joe Pa reported nothing to the police. He met with the AD and a VP that the police chief reports to for administrative reasons. He spoke to no law enforcement agents or anyone else with the skills and legal responsibility to conduct a proper investigation.

Edit: As for his subsequent knowledge, he had to know that no comprehensive investigation was done, because the police absolutely would have questioned him and McQueary. That didn't happen.

FYI, Schultz was the same guy that reported the 1998 incident to police, so to say he was simpy a functionary isn't true. He oversaw the 1998 investigation.

I disagree with Knight on a variety of things here, and don't disagree that paterno should have been fired. but i think it's clear ow that Paterno did not cover things up and that he was simply not informed about what happened. people are still emphasizing the grand jury presentment which has already been contradicted by the pretrial testimony where it's been shown that mcQueary did not describe what he saw to Paterno nor to a prominent doctor he spoke to about the molestation on the night before meeting with Paterno.

 

[kibblesnbits]

How does Joe share in the blame if he had no prior knowledge of other bad acts of Sandusky, did more than the law required and did follow up asking both the AD and McQueary if the situation was being followed up? The issue of whether JoePA followed up was not addressed in the Grand Jury presentment. It wasn't within the scope of the charges. McQueary's testimony in the arraignment of Curley and Schultz did indicate that JoePA followed up with McQueary, it is not unreasonable to expect that he, also, followed up with Curley.

Despite comments of some no one among the coaches or staff who have spoken has ever seen Sandusky at practices with youth once he was banned from ringing kids on campus. Just because someone says it happened doesn't make it fact any more or less than someone saying it didn't but the entire staff well we see where that testimony goes in court.

BTW, I live about 45 minutes from campus and know numerous folks working there including in the AD. People's perceptions of Joe's dominance of the campus is 20 years old and even then was not his core mode of behavior.





I hope this helps. Again, I would prefer the law require every one of us to report directly to the state police.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Accepting "it's being followed up" as an answer but not questioning why they weren't contacted as potential witnesses/complainants by even a single investigator isn't sufficient in my eyes when child sexual abuse is alleged. If they did ask, I'd love to hear what answer they found sufficient to let the matter go while Sandusky continued interacting with children for years through his charity in the relatively small State College community. In either case, the essentially accepted that there was no legal investigation despite the severity of the matter.

 

[Adios]

God Almighty. The man is dead. Died two months after being fired. Do you think sitting at a computer arguing about Joe Paterno is going to make a difference in the world? There's so many injustices in this world and this issue gets the most attention from college sports fans? There's thousands of kids (at least) dying from starvation. If you want to make a difference, go help them. The Paterno era is over. The man's life is over. And here we are, egging on him as if it's going to make a difference? Get real. Go to a "third world country" if you want to see injustices. Do something about that, if you care so much, rather than being keyboard warriors.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Paterno was assured it was being handled wasn't that sufficient? They interviewed McQueary who was the guy with the testimony Joe merely reported what he heard. You know what that testimony is worth in court or in a police statement?

People are being completely unreasonable in their expectations of Paterno. Try applying that same level of logic to the McKee situation.....Paterno.was the man in the middle. Paterno wasn't the witness. he wasn't the person the kid told. He had a subordinate tell him and passed the info along and the subordinate was interviewed.

At a minimum Paterno was told by one of his current employees that something inappropriate involving young boys was done by one of his former employees in the football facility - which was absolutely his domain. It's not as if he was told something third hand that happened off campus involving strangers.

Unless Randy Edsall was conducting undercover kiddie stings I'm not sure how he would have had any inkling regarding McKee. However, if you told Edsall that McKee was distributing kiddie pornography in the Burton or Shenkman facilities, I'm extremely confident it would have been addressed ASAP. The situations are not comparable.

 

[kibblesnbits]

God Almighty. The man is dead. Died two months after being fired. Do you think sitting at a computer arguing about Joe Paterno is going to make a difference in the world? There's so many injustices in this world and this issue gets the most attention from college sports fans? There's thousands of kids (at least) dying from starvation. If you want to make a difference, go help them. The Paterno era is over. The man's life is over. And here we are, egging on him as if it's going to make a difference? Get real. Go to a "third world country" if you want to see injustices. Do something about that, if you care so much, rather than being keyboard warriors.

And your posts somehow make you a candidate for a Nobel Prize? Nothing here changes the world - whether it is discussions of controversial matters or recruiting. If it bothers you there is always the option not to read it.

 

[Adios]

And your posts somehow make you a candidate for a Nobel Prize? Nothing here changes the world - whether it is discussions of controversial matters or recruiting. If it bothers you there is always the option not to read it.

The title of the thread says contrary to what most people here are saying. The man is dead. What more do people want? Piss on his body? His grave is probably going to have security, anyway.

Yeah, give me a Nobel Prize. For trying to get college football fans' heads out of their @$$es.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

God Almighty. The man is dead. Died two months after being fired. Do you think sitting at a computer arguing about Joe Paterno is going to make a difference in the world? There's so many injustices in this world and this issue gets the most attention from college sports fans? There's thousands of kids (at least) dying from starvation. If you want to make a difference, go help them. The Paterno era is over. The man's life is over. And here we are, egging on him as if it's going to make a difference? Get real. Go to a "third world country" if you want to see injustices. Do something about that, if you care so much, rather than being keyboard warriors.

No one here ever claimed to be eliminating child abuse by calling out inaction on the dash boneyard. I do not care how freshly dead he is. His inaction is inexcusable. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it and to air it.

 

[Adios]

No one here ever claimed to be eliminating child abuse by calling out inaction on the dash boneyard. I do not care how freshly dead he is. His inaction is inexcusable. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it and to air it.

Well, guess what? Child abuse (or abuse of people, in general) is not going to end anytime soon. Let's go apesh*t about that, shall we? If any of you believe in a God, God should suffice for judgement. If not, go and try to piss on his grave. You'll probably get arrested.

 

[Icebear]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Accepting "it's being followed up" as an answer but not questioning why they weren't contacted as potential witnesses/complainants by even a single investigator isn't sufficient in my eyes when child sexual abuse is alleged. If they did ask, I'd love to hear what answer they found sufficient to let the matter go while Sandusky continued interacting with children for years through his charity in the relatively small State College community. In either case, the essentially accepted that there was no legal investigation despite the severity of the matter.

JoePA wasn't a witness to anything. Why would he expect to be contacted as a witness. He passed along the one witness to Curley and Schultz and then closed the door making sure they had gotten together according to McQueary's testimony. Joe, also, asked McQueary some time later how he was doing regarding the situation. That is more than he was required to do and was all he had privy to.

 

[kibblesnbits]

FYI, Schultz was the same guy that reported the 1998 incident to police, so to say he was simpy a functionary isn't true. He oversaw the 1998 investigation.

I disagree with Knight on a variety of things here, and don't disagree that paterno should have been fired. but i think it's clear ow that Paterno did not cover things up and that he was simply not informed about what happened. people are still emphasizing the grand jury presentment which has already been contradicted by the pretrial testimony where it's been shown that mcQueary did not describe what he saw to Paterno nor to a prominent doctor he spoke to about the molestation on the night before meeting with Paterno.

What does "overseeing the 1998 investigation" mean to you? He probably received reports on it but he wasn't qualified in any way to make determinations regarding the investigation. Schultz had no background in law enforcement or criminal justice. He was an industrial engineer by education and an administrator by training. According to his bio, his administrative domain included the departments of Human Resources, Physical Plant, University Police, Investment Management, Auxiliary and Business Services, Corporate Controller, University Budget, Legal Services and Commonwealth Campus Business Operations. That's hardly qualifications to truly oversee any criminal investigation. If having a department report to you for administrative purposes makes one qualified to perform or even provide direct oversight on its operations, then he must also have been a damn good carpenter, janitor, cost accountant, benefits analyst, affirmative action specialist, copier repairman, etc.

 

[Icebear]

No one here ever claimed to be eliminating child abuse by calling out inaction on the dash boneyard. I do not care how freshly dead he is. His inaction is inexcusable. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it and to air it.

Folks are always allowed to be wrong and yes even as foolish as you. You don't know the facts. He took action, the only real action he could. There was no inaction. The AD head of the Athletic Department and the head of the campus of police were informed. He had no power or access to an authority higher than that. They are not campus security, they are badged police.

 

[Icebear]

What does "overseeing the 1998 investigation" mean to you? He probably received reports on it but he wasn't qualified in any way to make determinations regarding the investigation. Schultz had no background in law enforcement or criminal justice. He was an industrial engineer by education and an administrator by training. According to his bio, his administrative domain included the departments of Human Resources, Physical Plant, University Police, Investment Management, Auxiliary and Business Services, Corporate Controller, University Budget, Legal Services and Commonwealth Campus Business Operations. That's hardly qualifications to truly oversee any criminal investigation. If having a department report to you for administrative purposes makes one qualified to perform or even provide direct oversight on its operations, then he must also have been a damn good carpenter, janitor, cost accountant, benefits analyst, affirmative action specialist, copier repairman, etc.

Schultz was clearly responsible to inform those who were trained to carry on just that type of investigation and overseeing that department he had better know both the chief and who were qualified investigators.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

Folks are always allowed to be wrong and yes even as foolish as you. You don't know the facts. He took action, the only real action he could. There was no inaction. The AD head of the Athletic Department and the head of the campus of police were informed. He had no power or access to an authority higher than that. They are not campus security, they are badged police.

Seems like when you wield the power of paterno, certainly a lot more could have been done. It's been through. You think that his report was sufficient. I disagree. I've been called lots of things and merely foolish was the lightest of them, for that thanks... Lol.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

Well, guess what? Child abuse (or abuse of people, in general) is not going to end anytime soon. Let's go apesh*t about that, shall we? If any of you believe in a God, God should suffice for judgement. If not, go and try to piss on his grave. You'll probably get arrested.

I'll save the god debate for the cesspool... Lol.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Because he had approached Joe about the possibility when he might become the head coach. Joe told him that he would not be able to be both head coach and continue his work at Second Mile. Further Joe told him Sandusky needed to begin taking better care of the responsibilities he had as Defensive Coordinator which Joe felt had been lagging. Sandusky made the choice and was given the same severance conditions and access to the facilities that all former coaches were granted. That only makes sense if no one had any awareness of any accusations against Sandusky in the past.

Sorry, but that is just a load of crap. Penn State had won 5 out of their last 6 bowl games before Sandusky retired. They were coming off of back to back 10 win seasons.

There was a police report about a prominent assistant football coach in 1998, and you're going to sit there and tell me that the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH didn't know about it?

Also, how can Joe Paterno watch a practice of his own and allow a man to take young boys to the practice, 5 years after being told that the same man was raping another boy? How?

Your whole defense about this is just saying that Joe Paterno was a naive and senile man, who somehow didn't know about these things happening in and under HIS program.

 

[CTMike]

How can people say he did all he could when JoePa himself said he could have and should have done more to help the victims? End of story right there.

 

[Icebear]

Seems like when you wield the power of paterno, certainly a lot more could have been done. It's been through. You think that his report was sufficient. I disagree. I've been called lots of things and merely foolish was the lightest of them, for that thanks... Lol.

Doing that is exactly the kind of thing that would get one in trouble for interfering with an investigation. As I said blame the law if you think it is wrong, work to get it changed, but the law is the law and it is what you have. Curley and Schultz are being prosecuted under the law, Joe and McQueary fulfilled what it requires even if doing it blindly and without being even accountable to what it requires.

 

[EricSD]

he wasn't mandated to report it under the law? good lord is that a joke? i guess there are some who can forgive anything.

it's pretty clear there are two sides to this - those who think Joe did nothing wrong, and those who think that when you are aware of young boys being molested you have a moral and ethical obligation to report it. you will NEVER convince me that Joe was not culpable unless you can prove he knew ZERO about it. i don't care if he never witnessed any of it. if he KNEW or was told that there was some kind of molestation going on, then the guy needed to man up. next we are going to be told it's ok that the bishops didn't report the priests molestation of the alter boys because they never actually saw it.

if that's really the argument, and people continue with it, then i hope JoPa's image rots in hell because it's sick that people are defending it.

it's like trying to convince someone who feels otherwise that the death penalty is ok or that abortion is ok. i do NOT think molesting young children is ok nor do i give anyone a free pass who knows about it but turns the other cheek. that's splitting hairs in the most despicable way, regardless what the law is.

Bottom line - did know or not? when someone comes out and proves that JoPa knew NOTHING about the abuse, then i will take back everything i said. If he did know, then his legacy deserves all the rot and tarnish it gets.

 

[Icebear]

he wasn't mandated to report it under the law? good lord is that a joke? i guess there are some who can forgive anything.

it's pretty clear there are two sides to this - those who think Joe did nothing wrong, and those who think that when you are aware of young boys being molested you have a moral and ethical obligation to report it. you will NEVER convince me that Joe was not culpable unless you can prove he knew ZERO about it. i don't care if he never witnessed any of it. if he KNEW or was told that there was some kind of molestation going on, then the guy needed to man up. next we are going to be told it's ok that the bishops didn't report the priests molestation of the alter boys because they never actually saw it.

if that's really the argument, and people continue with it, then i hope JoPa's image rots in hell because it's sick that people are defending it.

it's like trying to convince someone who feels otherwise that the death penalty is ok or that abortion is ok. i do NOT think molesting young children is ok nor do i give anyone a free pass who knows about it but turns the other cheek. that's splitting hairs in the most despicable way, regardless what the law is.

Bottom line - did know or not? when someone comes out and proves that JoPa knew NOTHING about the abuse, then i will take back everything i said. If he did know, then his legacy deserves all the rot and tarnish it gets.

eric, tell me what Joe should have done that is legal under the law. Tell me what the more is. There is no indication that Joe knew for fact that young boys were being molested. He knew of one accusation which McQueary admitted on the stand he did not tell Joe details. Joe made sure that information was passed on to those with real power and authority and checked to make sure those involved did connect. What, specifically, more should he have done? Tell me how you prove a negative, how does one prove that Joe didn't know something? You are asking the impossible.

No one is suggesting forgiving anything, Sandusky is the accused, Curley is the accused, Schultz is the accused. They are being tried. What is being said is hold the right people accountable

 

[whaler11]

Did I miss the coaches at UConn speaking out on Gregory McKee? Or did they let the authorites do their due diligence and investigation?

I have to tip my hat to you. You've come up with the stupidest post in the history of the Boneyard and that is saying something.

 

[EricSD]

eric, tell me what Joe should have done that is legal under the law. Tell me what the more is.

are you serious? really? so someone tells you that a fellow priest is molesting alter boys and girls, but since it's not the law you do nothing? seems pretty black and white to me. I don't care what the law is. it's the right thing to do.