ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!

[Obliviax]

If anything, I think that 1998 could have played a role in making them LESS likely to report it. I think the memory of 1998 (with a similar situation where Jerry was in a shower with a young boy and it turned out to be nothing*) made them think that "here we go again, someone else thinks Jerry is doing something wrong when he's probably just goofing around again". I think it's logical to think that clearing him in 1998 played some part in him getting away with the 2001 incident and c/s/s not wanting to go down that road and report him again.

Exactly....Clemente Report. Sandusky set himself up as a savior of 'at risk' boys who used a affectionate and (some say) creepy technique to help these kids. If there was a claim, JS had two responses; a) it works because these boys never had a close relationship with a man and b) "you gonna believe a troubled kid over a highly decorated man who has spent his life helping kids? JS skirted that thin line between creepy/affective and "abusive".

Two highly trained psychologists disagreed. Neither saw a law be broken. Two undercover attempts failed to expose a crime.

yet, Black Elmo knows more than all of them.

 

[bwifan]

But Joe wasn't "out of it". Curley consulted him later as to the plan of action.

Seth can you at least get caught up on things before making these kind of silly statements....

 

[elvis63]

Excuses satisfy those that make them and those sympathetic to them. It doesn't work on others. They dropped the ball, they were informed of something suspicious enough to report to the police. They waited nine days to even talk to MM but first consulted the atty. It looks very bad to those who don't have a huge emotional investment in " my guys wouldn't do that".

No one here is convincing anyone joe or jane regular citizen that they didn't at the minimum screw up royally.

 

[Obliviax]

Excuses satisfy those that make them and those sympathetic to them. It doesn't work on others. They dropped the ball, they were informed of something suspicious enough to report to the police. They waited nine days to even talk to MM but first consulted the atty. It looks very bad to those who don't have a huge emotional investment in " my guys wouldn't do that".

No one here is convincing anyone joe or jane regular citizen that they didn't at the minimum screw up royally.

Excuses or facts? You group "they" with total obscurity to what their roles and responsibilities were. By they, you do exactly what the press and Freeh did. Fact is 'they' all had vastly different roles and responsibilities. Paterno did what he was supposed to do legally and morally. He followed up with the accuser, MM, and MM told him all was good. What else did you really expect Joe to do:

• Joe didn't see anything but was told by someone else he saw something
• Joe told his boss, and the guy responsible
• Joe told the guy whose office was described as the head of campus police
• Joe followed up with the witness to make sure the witness was ok with what was going on

Did you expect Joe to put on a white suit and go all Matlock on him?

 

[pandaczar12]

Dead wrong again, that's your opinion . Others see it differently.

Well, you keep arguing with yourself and let us know when you've figured it out.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Am I correct, from reading your answer, that there is no LAW preventing the report to police?

What law would be broken if you hit yourself in the head with a sledgehammer - - - until you either formed a coherent thought, or knocked yourself unconscious?

None?

So.....why haven't you done that? Especially since either outcome would be a "plus" for society.

 

[WeR0206]

Excuses satisfy those that make them and those sympathetic to them. It doesn't work on others. They dropped the ball, they were informed of something suspicious enough to report to the police. They waited nine days to even talk to MM but first consulted the atty. It looks very bad to those who don't have a huge emotional investment in " my guys wouldn't do that".

No one here is convincing anyone joe or jane regular citizen that they didn't at the minimum screw up royally.

I'm not sure who you are responding to but nothing you said refutes the FACTS in my post. Facts are not excuses, they are facts.

Fact: the one and only witness never even filed a written statement to police so they could start a criminal investigation
Fact: the admins/Joe didn't witness anything and therefore couldn't file a police report on the witness' behalf
Fact: the one and only witness, when followed up by Curley and Joe on separate occasions, never expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done.

So now we are to believe the admins/Joe should have done more even when the one and only witness was satisfied with their response?? This is the argument your side has been reduced to and it's pathetic.

 

[pandaczar12]

but we also have Joe's words to back up some of Mike's story).

Only if you truncate and twist his words, which BTW were not cross examined and have never been heard. They've been posted in this thread, go back and read them.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You don't know...nor do I. Not until the trials.

Yeah, right. I hope no one is still holding their breath (well, there ARE a few folks who I DO hope are still holding their breath).

 

[PennStateNate]

Few Things:

Joe did all he had to do, he reported it to his superior. There are places if you take stuff to the police and not your supervisors first you will get fired. Not saying that would happen at PSU with Joe, but Joe did what he had to do. I still don't understand why people can't understand that.

Second:

Black Elmo can't be a PSU Fan.

Third:

I can't live off 68K, I like to have my time and hobbies too much. Travel, golf, go out with buds.

 

[elvis63]

Excuses or facts? You group "they" with total obscurity to what their roles and responsibilities were. By they, you do exactly what the press and Freeh did. Fact is 'they' all had vastly different roles and responsibilities. Paterno did what he was supposed to do legally and morally. He followed up with the accuser, MM, and MM told him all was good. What else did you really expect Joe to do:

• Joe didn't see anything but was told by someone else he saw something
• Joe told his boss, and the guy responsible
• Joe told the guy whose office was described as the head of campus police
• Joe followed up with the witness to make sure the witness was ok with what was going on

Did you expect Joe to put on a white suit and go all Matlock on him?

Nowhere did I single out Paterno. But as I said the group think here will never convince outsiders that the administration didn't at the least screw up. Simply conducting an investigation by the police would have been enough to cover their end. We looked into it and there wasn't enough to go forward with.

Why didn't they do that?

 

[Aoshiro]

You still don't get it. You have someone representing the university in Sandusky who allegedly (at the time) was engaged in inappropriate (at best) acts with a minor. If you hear this as a university official, you should turn this over to police immediately. Too much risk involved not to. And look at us now... we got screwed because of it.

When Sandusky was an employee (1998) it was turned over to the police. The DA decided that whatever Sandusky was doing wasn't criminal.
Then, when Sandusky retired a couple of years later "someone" overrode Joe Paterno so that Sandusky could continue to bring kids to Lasch.
Quite mysteriously, Freeh did not reveal who that "someone" was.
In 2001, Sandusky did not "represent" Penn State. He was not a Penn State employee. He was an employee of The Second Mile and McQueary's report was properly passed to them. They (Raykovitz & Heim) are the people who decided to not to do anything about it.

 

[Obliviax]

Nowhere did I single out Paterno. But as I said the group think here will never convince outsiders that the administration didn't at the least screw up. Simply conducting an investigation by the police would have been enough to cover their end. We looked into it and there wasn't enough to go forward with.

Why didn't they do that?

I know...you conglated Paterno, who did exactly as he should have done, with Schultz, who had a deeper obligation...and thats the problem.

 

[Aoshiro]

The media didn't create the association with the football program. It was a fact. Former coach, assistant coach, head coach, AD... all were involved in the chain.

C/S/S/P were big boys. They knew the risks associated with their strategy. Unfortunately for them, their families, and PSU it came back to bite them. It is unexplainable how these educated men, who always appeared to choose to "do the right thing" in their history, got this so wrong.

Even if MM simply said "horsing around" they needed to report it to authorities (especially in light of 1998). There was too much downside risk not to, and yet they chose to put themselves and the entire University community at that risk. Why?

What was the potential reward? To protect Jerry's reputation? To protect fund-raising? To protect the glory of Dear Old State? The football programs image? What other upside was there? In any scenario, they made a bad decision for which all Penn Staters are paying the price. The risk outweighed the reward.

Leaders are paid to make intelligent decisions based on these types of analyses. They got it horribly wrong and failed as leaders of the University.

You are assuming that it was not reported to "authorities." From the Altoona-Johnstown case we know for a fact that CYS does not keep records of reports that it dismisses. Why are you so confident that it was not reported? This is something that the AG absolutely cannot prove and it is why Beemer is dragging his feet. This is not a technicality. Not only were they not required to report this incident (as it was relayed to them by McQueary), the AG cannot prove that it was not reported. This case is a farce and it is shameful that this despicable prosecution has cost Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Aoshiro]

That's a good question. I think that Mike thought that a crime was committed, didn't feel comfortable talking about what he saw, and gave what he believed was enough detail to the others so that they also knew that a crime was committed. However, in hindsight, he didn't actually give them enough so that they knew that a crime was committed (either that, or they simply wanted to give Jerry the benefit of the doubt and felt that it must have been a big misunderstanding and there is no way that Mike actually saw what he thought he saw).

Mike thought that he saw a crime being committed against a child and his response was to go home? His dad & Dr Dranov's response was to tell him to call the football coach in the morning?
Bullcrap.

Mike was right to think that Sandusky's behavior was weird, but there is zero chance that in 2001 he thought a child was being molested. Zero. He only came to "believe" that later.

 

[Aoshiro]

Grown man. Naked. Young boy. Naked. At night. In shower.

If it never occurred to C/S/S/P that there was the possibility of something sinister going on, especially after 1998, then they must be dumber than a fencepost. They had a responsibility to the University and to the community to report it to authorities so that a proper investigation could take place. Instead,they chose to be "humane" to Jerry which put the University at risk. Bad decision by all. Which is why they got discharged.

In 1998 the Centre County DA specifically decided that precisely that activity was NOT CRIMINAL.
Did the law change between 1998 and 2001?
Why should people have thought that something that wasn't criminal in 1998 was suddenly criminal in 2001?

 

[Aoshiro]

Excuses satisfy those that make them and those sympathetic to them. It doesn't work on others. They dropped the ball, they were informed of something suspicious enough to report to the police. They waited nine days to even talk to MM but first consulted the atty. It looks very bad to those who don't have a huge emotional investment in " my guys wouldn't do that".

No one here is convincing anyone joe or jane regular citizen that they didn't at the minimum screw up royally.

Apparently it wasn't suspicious enough for Mike, his dad or Dranov to report it to the police, either that night or in the ensuing decade.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Mike thought that he saw a crime being committed against a child and his response was to go home? His dad & Dr Dranov's response was to tell him to call the football coach in the morning?
Bullcrap.

Mike was right to think that Sandusky's behavior was weird, but there is zero chance that in 2001 he thought a child was being molested. Zero. He only came to "believe" that later.

Flip side of that. If there was zero chance, why tell Dad or Doc anything at all? Why did they all feel the need to tell Joe? Declarations are easy to make, but something must have been odd. We have no idea what he saw or heard. That is about the only accurate statement that can be made.

 

[Aoshiro]

Flip side of that. If there was zero chance, why tell Dad or Doc anything at all? Why did they all feel the need to tell Joe? Declarations are easy to make, but something must have been odd. We have no idea what he saw or heard. That is about the only accurate statement that can be made.

Like I said, "Mike was right to think that Sandusky's behavior was weird."
People see things all the times that raise their suspicions. That is not the same as actually witnessing a crime.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Mike thought that he saw a crime being committed against a child and his response was to go home? His dad & Dr Dranov's response was to tell him to call the football coach in the morning?
Bullcrap.

Mike was right to think that Sandusky's behavior was weird, but there is zero chance that in 2001 he thought a child was being molested. Zero. He only came to "believe" that later.

I feel like you lose credibility when you throw around a word like "Zero" when describing the chances that something like this happened with the case. Of course it's a non-zero chance, and any reasonable person would admit as such. You might think that it's unlikely, but it's obviously very possible that Mike witnessed a crime. I have no idea why he acted in the manner in which he did, but I've never been thru anything similar to what happened in this incident, so I'm not sure how I'd react. I'd hope that I'd do something right then and there, but shock can do some weird things to people, and none of us know exactly what we'd do until put in the situation (and hopefully none of us will ever be in that type of situation).

 

[WeR0206]

I feel like you lose credibility when you throw around a word like "Zero" when describing the chances that something like this happened with the case. Of course it's a non-zero chance, and any reasonable person would admit as such. You might think that it's unlikely, but it's obviously very possible that Mike witnessed a crime. I have no idea why he acted in the manner in which he did, but I've never been thru anything similar to what happened in this incident, so I'm not sure how I'd react. I'd hope that I'd do something right then and there, but shock can do some weird things to people, and none of us know exactly what we'd do until put in the situation (and hopefully none of us will ever be in that type of situation).

I don't buy the "too shocked to call the police" excuse for one second. Sure that may apply to MM but were JM and Dr. D also too shocked to tell MM that he needed to file a police report ASAP? Was MM still too shocked to file a report with UPPD or place an anonymous call to ChildLine a day later, a week later, a month later?? I don't think so.

There's a reason why the state didn't want Roberto to ask MM what he told Dr. D during the 12/16/11 prelim (when Roberto asked MM this Beemer objected and the corrupt judge of course sustained it)...it's because Dr. D's version of the story doesn't corroborate MM's 2010 revisionist history version (that he was certain a kid was getting abused). Even JM's testimony, if you read what I posted earlier, doesn't support MM's 2010 version.

I think it's quite clear from reading the testimony and examining everyone's actions from 2001 that MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing other than it weirded him out and he thought someone at PSU should be told. Since he wasn't sure he didn't file a written statement to police but pursued the HR inappropriate shower route and then NEVER expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done when Joe and Tim respectively followed up with him.

If you believe MM's 2010 version no one's actions from 2001 make any sense at all.

 

[Aoshiro]

I feel like you lose credibility when you throw around a word like "Zero" when describing the chances that something like this happened with the case. Of course it's a non-zero chance, and any reasonable person would admit as such. You might think that it's unlikely, but it's obviously very possible that Mike witnessed a crime. I have no idea why he acted in the manner in which he did, but I've never been thru anything similar to what happened in this incident, so I'm not sure how I'd react. I'd hope that I'd do something right then and there, but shock can do some weird things to people, and none of us know exactly what we'd do until put in the situation (and hopefully none of us will ever be in that type of situation).

Shock does not explain why his dad and Dr Dranov told him to sleep on it and call Paterno in the morning.
In 2001 McQueary did not think that he had seen Sandusky molesting a child. Period.

 

[GringoStarr99]

I thought Bilas was for us? He was tweeting a lot about the NCAA over stepping their bounds when sanctions hit.

This is very true...he was very critical of Freeh and his band of idiots...

 

[Erial_Lion]

I don't buy the "too shocked to call the police" excuse for one second. Sure that may apply to MM but were JM and Dr. D also too shocked to tell MM that he needed to file a police report ASAP? Was MM still too shocked to file a report with UPPD or place an anonymous call to ChildLine a day later, a week later, a month later?? I don't think so.

There's a reason why the state didn't want Roberto to ask MM what he told Dr. D during the 12/16/11 prelim (when Roberto asked MM this Beemer objected and the corrupt judge of course sustained it)...it's because Dr. D's version of the story doesn't corroborate MM's 2010 revisionist history version (that he was certain a kid was getting abused). Even JM's testimony, if you read what I posted earlier, doesn't support MM's 2010 version.

I think it's quite clear from reading the testimony and examining everyone's actions from 2001 that MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing other than it weirded him out and he thought someone at PSU should be told. Since he wasn't sure he didn't file a written statement to police but pursued the HR inappropriate shower route and then NEVER expressed dissatisfaction or said more needed to be done when Joe and Tim respectively followed up with him.

If you believe MM's 2010 version no one's actions from 2001 make any sense at all.

But this version would also assume that Joe also made up a story 10 years after the fact too. Regardless of how one wants to spin Joe's words, he did mention that the story sounded sexual in nature, and did say that it involved some type of fondling. From everything that I know about Joe, I really don't think that he was the type of guy that would trump up the story under oath or in future interviews, and or ask Mike to tell him again what happened 10 years later and hide the fact that he and Mike spoke about it again.

My theory would be that Mike also didn't get into specifics with his dad and Dranov since it made him very uncomfortable (same thing with Tim and Gary), and again though that he gave enough details while beating around the bush to get his point across when he obviously didn't. Pretty much seems like what Mike did with everyone, and no one caught on that it might be sexual (or some type of fondling) except for Joe.

 

[Aoshiro]

But this version would also assume that Joe also made up a story 10 years after the fact too. Regardless of how one wants to spin Joe's words, he did mention that the story sounded sexual in nature, and did say that it involved some type of fondling. From everything that I know about Joe, I really don't think that he was the type of guy that would trump up the story under oath or in future interviews, and or ask Mike to tell him again what happened 10 years later and hide the fact that he and Mike spoke about it again.

My theory would be that Mike also didn't get into specifics with his dad and Dranov since it made him very uncomfortable (same thing with Tim and Gary), and again though that he gave enough details while beating around the bush to get his point across when he obviously didn't. Pretty much seems like what Mike did with everyone, and no one caught on that it might be sexual (or some type of fondling) except for Joe.

There are all kinds of studies that show how easy it is to re-shape a person's memory of something that happened a long time ago. Paterno is no more immune to this anyone else.

 

[pandaczar12]

Like I said, "Mike was right to think that Sandusky's behavior was weird."
People see things all the times that raise their suspicions. That is not the same as actually witnessing a crime.

MM was in CYA mode by telling Joe about the weird behavior he saw.

 

[pandaczar12]

There are all kinds of studies that show how easy it is to re-shape a person's memory of something that happened a long time ago. Paterno is no more immune to this anyone else.

Also, Paterno sufficiently qualified his testimony to make it worthless.

 

[WeR0206]

Also, Paterno sufficiently qualified his testimony to make it worthless.

Exactly, Joe was essentially speculating with those statements because right after saying "sexual in nature" and fondling" he said "I don't know what you'd call it" and "I don't know what it was", etc... Anyone trying to hang their hat on an 80 year old's non cross examined 10 year recollection of something is a moron with an agenda.

 

[PENNST34]

You still don't get it. He was not representing the university, and you lose all credibility when you make that statement. Also, no one was told of inappropriate acts with a minor. The University officials acted appropriately given the watered down, untimely hearsay they received. Not one of them will ever be convicted of a crime. The BOT screwed us.

How about you tell us why you are so motivated to pin some sort of guilt on to JVP and C/S/S, who did exactly what they were supposed to do, instead of shining the spotlight on the "professionals" at DPW/CYS/TSM that actually failed those kids?

It seems like Sandusky used Penn St and the football program as a carrot so to me he didn't represent the university. He misrepresented the university. It also seems when Joe said he wished he did more we should believe him. Which also means to me he knew. Reasonable conclusion. Also why can't we seem to just sincerely be sorry and move on?

 

[Aoshiro]

It seems like Sandusky used Penn St and the football program as a carrot so to me he didn't represent the university. He misrepresented the university. It also seems when Joe said he wished he did more we should believe him. Which also means to me he knew. Reasonable conclusion. Also why can't we seem to just sincerely be sorry and move on?

That is just complete and utter BS. Pull out the dictionary. Look up the word hindsight. Seriously, you have to be a completely despicable person to call yourself a Penn Stater and take those words out of context in that way. That is just completely nasty and cruel to deliberately twist a dead person's words in that way. What the heck is wrong with you?

STATE COLLEGE, Pa., Nov. 9, 2011 -- 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.

 

[bhill29]

It seems like Sandusky used Penn St and the football program as a carrot so to me he didn't represent the university. He misrepresented the university. It also seems when Joe said he wished he did more we should believe him. Which also means to me he knew. Reasonable conclusion. Also why can't we seem to just sincerely be sorry and move on?

Dude, what did Paterno do to you? Give my one example in the 60+ years of service that Paterno acted in anything but a professional and ethical manner and perhaps you could start to make an argument that he knew. But I doubt you can find an example. So why should we believe he acted any differently in this situation

Paterno is the only one who made a statement of regret and compassion for the victims and everyone misquotes him and claims it is an admission of guilt. It is not.

And there is no way I can move on. Freeh, OG BOT, Erickson, Corbut and others painted all of us as having a warped sense of priorities. There is no way I'm saying "thank you and may I have another" and there are other good reasons not to move on until we know the truth.

 

[GTACSA]

Exactly, Joe was essentially speculating with those statements because right after saying "sexual in nature" and fondling" he said "I don't know what you'd call it" and "I don't know what it was", etc... Anyone trying to hang their hat on an 80 year old's non cross examined 10 year recollection of something is a moron with an agenda.

"I don't know what you'd call it" as in it was a sexual nature: fellatio, buggery, sodomy etc etc...don't know what you'd call it, but it was "sexual in nature." So how does that play for you?

 

[pandaczar12]

It seems like Sandusky used Penn St and the football program as a carrot so to me he didn't represent the university. He misrepresented the university. It also seems when Joe said he wished he did more we should believe him. Which also means to me he knew. Reasonable conclusion. Also why can't we seem to just sincerely be sorry and move on?

Haven't you read Jay Paterno's book? He explains Joe's words, which should be obvious already. It means "I wish I had known more, so I could have done more."

Why do you truncate his quote... I know I've asked this question already back in post 116 on page 3 of this thread? Please respond this time. The fact that you have to alter his words to make a point should tell you something.

 

[pandaczar12]

"I don't know what you'd call it" as in it was a sexual nature: fellatio, buggery, sodomy etc etc...don't know what you'd call it, but it was "sexual in nature." So how does that play for you?

I'm not exactly sure how you are trying to spin it this time because of your poor writing skills, but I get the general impression you still haven't' learned anything.

Joe's testimony was from a dying 84 YO man trying to help put a predator behind bars. It has never been heard to verify the accuracy of the punctuation, it wasn't cross examined, and it was sufficiently qualified to make it completely worthless. But please hang your hat on that to prove... not sure what you are trying to prove. Why do you keep trying to focus on the football coach that did exactly the right thing with whatever he was told, and was praised by the AG for doing so... but give a free pass to the "professionals" at DPW/CYS/TSM that failed those kids?

 

[GTACSA]

I'm not exactly sure how you are trying to spin it this time because of your poor writing skills, but I get the general impression you still haven't' learned anything.

Joe's testimony was from a dying 84 YO man trying to help put a predator behind bars. It has never been heard to verify the accuracy of the punctuation, it wasn't cross examined, and it was sufficiently qualified to make it completely worthless. But please hang your hat on that to prove... not sure what you are trying to prove. Why do you keep trying to focus on the football coach that did exactly the right thing with whatever he was told, and was praised by the AG for doing so... but give a free pass to the "professionals" at DPW/CYS/TSM that failed those kids?

I've never given a free pass to DPW/CYS/TSM.

No spin jut another interpretation of what Joe may have meant when he said "I don't know what you'd call it." as in he was told it was sexual but what type of sexual activity he did not know.

As far as spin is concerned, they call you the Spinmeister.

 

[PENNST34]

That is just complete and utter BS. Pull out the dictionary. Look up the word hindsight. Seriously, you have to be a completely despicable person to call yourself a Penn Stater and take those words out of context in that way. That is just completely nasty and cruel to deliberately twist a dead person's words in that way. What the heck is wrong with you?

You're obviously an emotional person that completely misrepresented my post. I'm a huge supporter of Joe. I've confronted several of my Philly and Pittsburgh friends that take shots at him. This thread sucks and isn't even worth it anymore. The entire topic sucks. Let it go. At the end of the day I don't give a crap about talking about something that happened years ago.

 

[PENNST34]

Dude, what did Paterno do to you? Give my one example in the 60+ years of service that Paterno acted in anything but a professional and ethical manner and perhaps you could start to make an argument that he knew. But I doubt you can find an example. So why should we believe he acted any differently in this situation

Paterno is the only one who made a statement of regret and compassion for the victims and everyone misquotes him and claims it is an admission of guilt. It is not.

And there is no way I can move on. Freeh, OG BOT, Erickson, Corbut and others painted all of us as having a warped sense of priorities. There is no way I'm saying "thank you and may I have another" and there are other good reasons not to move on until we know the truth.

Dumb post. I'm friggren 22. This is dumb

 

[PENNST34]

Haven't you read Jay Paterno's book? He explains Joe's words, which should be obvious already. It means "I wish I had known more, so I could have done more."

Why do you truncate his quote... I know I've asked this question already back in post 116 on page 3 of this thread? Please respond this time. The fact that you have to alter his words to make a point should tell you something.

Didn't read his son's book. Don't take this the wrong way but seriously why would someone expect a son's version not to be bias? Here's the thing bro I really don't care about this and feel no need to share in the pain. I've moved on and refuse to act like I'm part of the Sandusky mess and let this negatively impact me one second. There are injustices to people everyday. You guys that can't move forward are part of why PENN St may always be branded. I suggest you ignore the naysayers or at the very least don't be so emotional about talking about. One person thinks Joe knew and didn't do enough. Another guy thinks he knew absolutely nothing. Really what does this discussion even mean. The guys dead for goodness sakes. He knew or didn't know......who the hell cares. He was a great football coach that help so many people in his travels. That to me is the mark of a great man. One that leaves his positive imprint on others. Give it a rest man.

 

[Aoshiro]

Didn't read his son's book. Don't take this the wrong way but seriously why would someone expect a son's version not to be bias? Here's the thing bro I really don't care about this and feel no need to share in the pain. I've moved on and refuse to act like I'm part of the Sandusky mess and let this negatively impact me one second. There are injustices to people everyday. You guys that can't move forward are part of why PENN St may always be branded. I suggest you ignore the naysayers or at the very least don't be so emotional about talking about. One person thinks Joe knew and didn't do enough. Another guy thinks he knew absolutely nothing. Really what does this discussion even mean. The guys dead for goodness sakes. He knew or didn't know......who the hell cares. He was a great football coach that help so many people in his travels. That to me is the mark of a great man. One that leaves his positive imprint on others. Give it a rest man.

SHUT. UP.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You're obviously an emotional person that completely misrepresented my post. I'm a huge supporter of Joe. I've confronted several of my Philly and Pittsburgh friends that take shots at him. This thread sucks and isn't even worth it anymore. The entire topic sucks. Let it go. At the end of the day I don't give a crap about talking about something that happened years ago.

You actually spent 4 years (or more?) breathing in and out on a University campus?

God help us.

One would expect greater intellectual engagement and logical thought processes from an illiterate Appalachian "hillbilly"