I bet in all of this "discussion", less than 5% of you have actually read the Freeh report or actually know WTF you are talking about. You just spout off BS that the media has force fed ya. Personally, I don't believe JVP actively covered up anything. That is unpopular position, but I don't really give a **** about other people's "opinions", especially when they are basing them out of ignorance or some agenda/revenge.

I have read the Freeh Report, and I do know what I'm talking about. But I have older values, which today's society no longer teaches. I value things like polite behavior, treating people the way you'd prefer to be treated, and arguments ending when you quit arguing...

What you call my desire for vengeance is a desire for decency and honesty, which has been sadly lacking coming out of State College, PA over the end of JoePa's reign. The fact that everyone is so concerned about my attitude about Penn State, without even offering an alternative approach, tells me that the main concern of those complaining isn't even in the same ballpark as my main concern...

I just wonder how you guys who are complaining would feel if you - or your child - was one of the ones molested. I'd be willing to bet you'd feel considerably differently about it...

(11-05-2012 05:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I have read the Freeh Report, and I do know what I'm talking about. But I have older values, which today's society no longer teaches. I value things like polite behavior, treating people the way you'd prefer to be treated, and arguments ending when you quit arguing...

What you call my desire for vengeance is a desire for decency and honesty, which has been sadly lacking coming out of State College, PA over the end of JoePa's reign. The fact that everyone is so concerned about my attitude about Penn State, without even offering an alternative approach, tells me that the main concern of those complaining isn't even in the same ballpark as my main concern...

I just wonder how you guys who are complaining would feel if you - or your child - was one of the ones molested. I'd be willing to bet you'd feel considerably differently about it...

Those people probably want vengeance. Its understandable. But I don't believe in collective guilt or every person being all good or evil. There do need to be major changes and I haven't seen everything necessary yet. But that isn't to the point where the school gets shut down and all of the good it does cancelled out with enormous costs to everyone in Pennsylvania, not just those connected with the school.

From Wiki:

"Spanier contributed to the publication of ten books and over 100 scholarly journal articles while a researcher. As a family sociologist, demographer, and marriage and family therapist, he was the founding editor of the Journal of Family Issues.[7] Spanier was also an author of a study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior concerning the practice of mate swapping, or "swinging"."


As a family sociologist and marriage and family therapist, Graham Spanier should have known more than anyone how sexual molestation of children debilitates there development. Spanier is absolutely sickening. He took the values of his "swinging" studies and applied them to this case. There are faculty who see nothing wrong with man/boy "love". For "swinging"' to be an academic specialty for a University President is absolutely disgusting, reprehensible, shows how low academics have reached.

Practically the entirety of the baby boomer college administrative class is morally corrupt. They tolerate everything except for morality. Name one university president at a public university that wouldn't have done the same thing as Spanier? Name one with honor, integrity, and a moral backbone.?

The whole expansion / realignment ordeal has not exposed a single University President that does not excel in deceit, backstabbing, power hungry, and money grabbing behavior.

Hey bit, where in the Freeh report do you think there is solid evidence that proves JVP, Curley, or Spanier knew about the child abuse and covered it up? Just curious. My personal opinion is that MM may not have been as explicit in his forthcoming, the first time around. Given that Sandusky was cleared by the police in '98, I can see why they handled the issue with care, probably worried about defamation. I do believe they could have obviously done more and maybe Curley and Spanier actively covered it up, but to say I know that for a fact is pure speculation. Paterno should have followed up better but I don't think he actively covered up anything. There is something in this case that has not come to light yet, that I think could help explain a lot. There are still just numerous unanswered questions where things just don't add up yet.

(11-06-2012 09:28 AM)LUVECU Wrote:  Hey bit, where in the Freeh report do you think there is solid evidence that proves JVP, Curley, or Spanier knew about the child abuse and covered it up? Just curious. My personal opinion is that MM may not have been as explicit in his forthcoming, the first time around. Given that Sandusky was cleared by the police in '98, I can see why they handled the issue with care, probably worried about defamation. I do believe they could have obviously done more and maybe Curley and Spanier actively covered it up, but to say I know that for a fact is pure speculation. Paterno should have followed up better but I don't think he actively covered up anything. There is something in this case that has not come to light yet, that I think could help explain a lot. There are still just numerous unanswered questions where things just don't add up yet.

Read the grand jury report that is linked above. Schultz looks pretty bad hiding files. There's nothing speculative that he hid his knowledge of Sandusky's questionable activities and realized he was in trouble. That doesn't necessarily mean he knew Sandusky had stepped over the line from questionable to criminal until 2010, but he did cover up what he knew. The fact that they went to an attorney before they talked to McQueary indicates they should have known what they needed to do and it wasn't just gross negligence.

Saying Paterno shut down everything is speculative. We have the one memo saying after a discussion with Paterno, Curley (or Schultz) recomended not to go to the authorities if Sandusky cooperated and Spanier agreed. Noone has said what that discussion with Paterno entailed and exactly what Paterno said or did. We don't know what they told Paterno later on about the case in 2001. There are the e-mail references to keeping "coach" (most likely Paterno) informed on the 98 case.

(11-06-2012 09:28 AM)LUVECU Wrote:  Hey bit, where in the Freeh report do you think there is solid evidence that proves JVP, Curley, or Spanier knew about the child abuse and covered it up? Just curious. My personal opinion is that MM may not have been as explicit in his forthcoming, the first time around. Given that Sandusky was cleared by the police in '98, I can see why they handled the issue with care, probably worried about defamation. I do believe they could have obviously done more and maybe Curley and Spanier actively covered it up, but to say I know that for a fact is pure speculation. Paterno should have followed up better but I don't think he actively covered up anything. There is something in this case that has not come to light yet, that I think could help explain a lot. There are still just numerous unanswered questions where things just don't add up yet.

The fact that indictments are still being handed down should indicate some sort of proof, dude. Everyone you mentioned is currently under federal scrutiny, and the fed hasn't really gotten involved yet...

As for what you believe Paterno did or didn't do, it's already been established that he requested this to be handled in house, without police involvement, to keep the spotlight off his football program. So what you believe on the matter isn't all that relevant...

So you can't. Thanks.

(11-06-2012 11:03 AM)LUVECU Wrote:  So you can't. Thanks.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, dude... :cartman:

There are still JoePa hero worshippers? Damn. He died in disgraced and I take comfort in knowing that he knew that his reputation was destroyed when he passed.

As for what you believe Paterno did or didn't do, it's already been established that he requested this to be handled in house, without police involvement, to keep the spotlight off his football program. So what you believe on the matter isn't all that relevant...
[/quote]

That's what you believe. What has been established is that Curley (or Schultz-I forget which) had a discussion with Paterno and afterwards changed their mind on going to the police right away. We don't know specifically what Paterno said that caused them to re-think their approach. And we have no idea what his motivation was when he had that discussion, only speculation. I could speculate that he was trying to help a former colleague who had issues and protect the university since this was happening on university property without any thought of football (of course it put everything and everyone at more risk).

Whenever I hear Curley, I think of Larry, Curly and Moe. Kind of fitting, Spanier, Curley and Shultz.

(11-06-2012 11:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  There are still JoePa hero worshippers? Damn. He died in disgraced and I take comfort in knowing that he knew that his reputation was destroyed when he passed.

That amazes me, too, especially when they have no obvious connection to PSU. I read the entire Freeh Report, and followed this closely in the media, and I have no dog in the hunt.

IMO, there is absolutely no doubt that all 4 knew exactly what Sandusky was doing, and deliberately covered it up, for years and years. There is also little doubt in my mind that Paterno would have been indicted, if he was still alive.

Beyond that, I'm speculating a little, but I think there were dozens more, if not hundreds, who knew about it, at some level.

Here are facts, and some conclusions, from the Freeh report and from the trial, not speculation: The DA knew, as did a couple more in that office. Some in the Dept. of Child Services knew. Some at The Second Mile knew. Some in state government knew. Some in local law enforcement knew. A couple in Penn State Security knew. A few of the janitors knew. McQueary's father knew. Sandusky's wife knew. All the victims knew. Some of their family members knew.

So, if all those people are documented as knowing at least a little bit about the Sandusky suspicions, how many people do you think REALLY knew something?

Plus, the trial and the Freeh Report only went back to 1998. Sandusky started working for Penn Sate around 1968, and founded The Second Mile in 1972.

IMO, there is absolutely no doubt that all 4 knew exactly what Sandusky was doing, and deliberately covered it up, for years and years. There is also little doubt in my mind that Paterno would have been indicted, if he was still alive.

Beyond that, I'm speculating a little, but I think there were dozens more, if not hundreds, who knew about it, at some level.

Here are facts, and some conclusions, from the Freeh report and from the trial, not speculation: The DA knew, as did a couple more in that office. Some in the Dept. of Child Services knew. Some at The Second Mile knew. Some in state government knew. Some in local law enforcement knew. A couple in Penn State Security knew. A few of the janitors knew. McQueary's father knew. Sandusky's wife knew. All the victims knew. Some of their family members knew.

So, if all those people are documented as knowing at least a little bit about the Sandusky suspicions, how many people do you think REALLY knew?

Plus, the trial and the Freeh Report only went back to 1998. Sandusky started working for Penn Sate around 1968, and founded The Second Mile in 1972.
[/quote]

Even your first paragraph is speculation. You may be right. But there are lots of possible motivations for their actions. People don't want to believe the worst about people they know. They don't want to think about such awful things. There were also 3 people responsible making the decisions (and possibly a 4th influencing them), meaning they could assume the others were taking care of things.

I don't believe at all there was any coverup in 1998. The DA dropped the case. If you know anything about the police and DAs, you would know they drop lots of stuff that is hard to prove. They've got a big workload. People could have convinced themselves it was just horseplay and bad judgement once the DA dropped it. Schultz clearly did have some concerns since he kept the file.

As for 2001, there are lots of reasonable interpretations of their actions. None of those reflect well on the 3 stooges, but not all of them are nearly as bad as a deliberate coverup of known criminal activity.

^ Sure, the first paragraph is speculation. I said IN MY OPINION, at the very beginning of the post. Should have said "speculating a little MORE" in the next paragraph, for those who don't read closely, lol.

The factual part of my post was what the trial and/or the Freeh Report revealed about who had been involved in hearing something, at some level, from 1998 forward.

Paterno lied to the grand jury. That's been proven.

(11-06-2012 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Whenever I hear Curley, I think of Larry, Curly and Moe. Kind of fitting, Spanier, Curley and Shultz.

So do I...