warning: link about Paterno
- Thread starter IowaIrish1
- Start date
I believe that the kid told paterno in the seventies about his being sexually assaulted or touched in certain places because why would a kid at that age lie about something like that. paterno needs to burn in hell if true and not be with the angels
He is a POS A low life Anyone who thinks different is ignoring the obvious. And to think 200 former Penn State players are lobbying to put his statue back in front of the stadium.. Such small minds to ignore the pain and abuse he inflicted on young men and boys by ignoring his staff members proclivity to enhance his member.
I was watching a show called Big Ten Treasure Hunter in which this guy travels around looking for Big Ten memorabilia. Last week was Penn State. He was interested in a Paterno item that this booster had. Is there still a market for Paterno memorabilia? Could this tragic scandal have created a demand for Paterno and Sandusky items? Former PSU players would have a different view if it was their son who was the victim. They need to just slink away and keep quiet and let this ordeal pass on into history. There were no winners in this. The focus should always be the kids. It' should always be about the victims. Not a stupid statue.
There is nothing that "directly" points to the fact that Paterno knew anything, however, with the power that he had at that school, there is no way that something went on without his knowledge (direct or indirect). Until that smoking gun comes out, it is all hear say.
But -- where there is smoke.......
Last edited:
Sandusky victim: Joe Paterno told me to drop abuse accusation
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/us/je...penn-state0957PMStoryGalPhoto&linkId=24234146
Child told Paterno of sex abuse in 1976, court papers allege
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/court_filing_says_joe_paterno.html
Paterno's Grand Jury Testimony:
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Right now he is fleeing bo's pitchfork....
here is a mystery, if MMcC is truthful when he says Shiano witnessed this with him (he described Shiano's expression) then why was MM the only one to go to Paterno? Why did they go to Paterno instead of the authorities; but MOST of all why did they not go to the childs rescue?? Get the child outta there and subdue Sandusky till authorities arrived?
No hero available, just cowards and liars?
No hero available, just cowards and liars?
I don't: read on.
( would be even more convinced if I knew more of the victim; and does the victims contention corroborate statements/testamony by MMc)
Last edited:
McCreary never said Schiano witnessed the same incident McCreary witnessed. McCreary claims he told another assistant coach, Tom Bradley, about what he saw and Bradley said it didn't surprise him because he already "knew of some things" including a separate incident years earlier in which he claimed Schiano witnessed Sandusky doing something inappropriate with a young boy.
McCreary's story makes a lot more sense than the denials coming from Schiano and Bradley. Sandusky was a prolific child molester who was seen by several people over the years showering with children. We know of the complaint in 1998 made by a mother of a 7 year old boy who claimed Sandusky showered with her son and acted inappropriately. It's extremely unlikely news of that incident didn't get around to the coaching staff. And of course there was the incident McCreary witnessed. He obviously told people, and yes, he should have done a lot more, but did tell people. There is no way that story didn't get around and yet you still have people claiming they weren't aware of it, including, I assume, Bradley and Schiano who both denied knowing about any allegations against Sandusky before 2011. I don't think that claim is credible at all.
^ thank you for that clarification. I agree, the denials sound self serving.
Coaches, administrators, mothers, fathers victoms; everyone but the police? why?
Coaches, administrators, mothers, fathers victoms; everyone but the police? why?
Last edited:
You need to do more research. He knew and and put the program ahead of the victims.
I'm not sure who knew what and when. With that said it's evident some in the football program knew something. Sandusky was mentioned by PSU fans that I know as the heir apparent if and when Paterno decided to retire. Of course he never did until all this stuff broke. But in the 90s there was talk of him retiring. Then in 1997 or around that time Sandusky decided to leave the program. I don't know why, but he did leave. PSU fans that I know we're shocked. They were sure he was going to take over at some point. He was one of the premier defensive coordinators in the country.
At the time I didn't think much of it. However, looking back now, something really stands out about his departure. If he was so highly regarded as a great defensive coach, how come no one at any other school tried to hire him as a head coach or defensive coach? He was no longer at PSU coaching. He was available. Good coaches are always being pursued. Yet he wasn't. In fact most head coaches try to advance their assistant coaches to higher positions. Holtz is a guy that always did that. Paterno, as far as I know never went to bat for Sandusky. They were together for roughly 25 years. Again, I'm not making any claims as to who knew what. But you have to ask yourself, was something there between Sandusky and Paterno? Also, the fact that you never heard any other schools going after Sandusky kind of makes you wonder, did other schools get wind of what was going on at PSU? Only Paterno knew what he knew. PSU fans reveered him. He ran a clean program and graduated his players. It's sad to think he knew of Sandusky's issues and did not take action or at least take seriously what may have been said to him back in 1976 and after. I think when I look at ND and say, why can't they just do what these other schools do and just get what they need to win? The fact is PSU football program became bigger than anything there. That isn't what universities are supposed to be about. ND through the years has clamped down on the football program when those in charge thought it was becoming too big. I can understand why and for the record, I would never want the Irish to sell its soul for football glory. Win, but win by not compromising your values and maintaining integrity. That's always the way it should be done. Go Irish!!
At the time I didn't think much of it. However, looking back now, something really stands out about his departure. If he was so highly regarded as a great defensive coach, how come no one at any other school tried to hire him as a head coach or defensive coach? He was no longer at PSU coaching. He was available. Good coaches are always being pursued. Yet he wasn't. In fact most head coaches try to advance their assistant coaches to higher positions. Holtz is a guy that always did that. Paterno, as far as I know never went to bat for Sandusky. They were together for roughly 25 years. Again, I'm not making any claims as to who knew what. But you have to ask yourself, was something there between Sandusky and Paterno? Also, the fact that you never heard any other schools going after Sandusky kind of makes you wonder, did other schools get wind of what was going on at PSU? Only Paterno knew what he knew. PSU fans reveered him. He ran a clean program and graduated his players. It's sad to think he knew of Sandusky's issues and did not take action or at least take seriously what may have been said to him back in 1976 and after. I think when I look at ND and say, why can't they just do what these other schools do and just get what they need to win? The fact is PSU football program became bigger than anything there. That isn't what universities are supposed to be about. ND through the years has clamped down on the football program when those in charge thought it was becoming too big. I can understand why and for the record, I would never want the Irish to sell its soul for football glory. Win, but win by not compromising your values and maintaining integrity. That's always the way it should be done. Go Irish!!
Kelso
You are mistaken on this. Paterno knew and admitted he knew as early as 2000 Maybe not explicitly that Sandusky was doing boys but he knew sexual inappropriateness was going on and he did zero
Why do people find excuses for this POS?
I know a guy who was recruited by JoePa, along with ND recruiting him. He did not have a problem with JoePa, but he specifically mentioned that "sanduky" guy as being a little off. Didn't go into any specifics and I didn't ask or care to know. This was in 1995 or 96.
The story that says the most to me was the one about Paterno's behavior at Sandusky's retirement dinner.
Paterno & Sandusky were very, very close. And Paterno was famous for being emotional & giving to his friends at ceremonies.
At Sandusky's ceremony Paterno was clearly not happy, said a couple sentences, then walked off seemingly disgusted.
Those is attendance said it was very odd, & those in the know knew it was because of the allegations. That was Paterno's way of wiping himself of Sandusky.
Human behavior is a good way to judge a lot of things. Paterno's behavior that night shows he knew. And that was in 1999, well before he said he knew.
Paterno & Sandusky were very, very close. And Paterno was famous for being emotional & giving to his friends at ceremonies.
At Sandusky's ceremony Paterno was clearly not happy, said a couple sentences, then walked off seemingly disgusted.
Those is attendance said it was very odd, & those in the know knew it was because of the allegations. That was Paterno's way of wiping himself of Sandusky.
Human behavior is a good way to judge a lot of things. Paterno's behavior that night shows he knew. And that was in 1999, well before he said he knew.
Yep, 1999; Joe could not have undone the damage but he could, had the choice, to do the right thing and get the legal authorities on the situation. A lot of people failed those children. And, as you are a Dad, like me ( granddad also) it probably seems incredulous that anyone could deliberately harm a child.
well pers joe was probably more concerned about contending for titles every other year so over a kid getting his life changed forever by getting sexually assaulted by one of his coaches but I guess we'll never know the real truth as to why joe wouldn't help these kids in the seventies and later on because of him being no longer with us
along the lines of people can convince themselves to believe whatever is in their bedt interests at any time, devoid of moral conviction, we have Mora and Urb both issuing self serving statements.
I like Paterno and still do. I don't think he quite grasped he was sheltering a pedophile. There was probably a strong element of cognitive dissonance kicking in so that he couldn't quite admit to himself that his defensive coordinator had these problems. In the grand scheme of things (take Caligula or Nero for instance) not terrible for a leader
just like what I posted earlier this week, people can excuse, explain or believe just about anything if they need too; especially if it 'rights' their world, benefits them, or fits a need.
(hint: not referring to JoePa)
(hint: not referring to JoePa)
Ahhhh. The Catholic Church. When you say "The Catholic Church", do you mean the leadership? The faithful? The articles of faith? How many priests are around the world? How many were predators? The church leadership failed. No doubt. The Church will survive with or without you. The loss Of Ireland? Mass attendance and church attendance is down all over the world. The inexcusable way the church leadership handled the predator problem is just a convenient excuse not to attend church. Young people would rather occupy whatever they are occupying that particular week than attend Mass. Protests and occupying is their religion. The Catholic Church will survive. Any time you have any institution controlled by human beings, you have the possibility of corruption. Teachers, schools, churches, mosques, temples, unions, Scouting, politics. And so it goes.
