FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

[BCfanatic2020]

Here’s a question and I’m not trying to be mean.. I’m asking.

isn’t the greater point .. how does this all go on and then Sandusky went the way that went?

and don’t give me “Joepa called law enforcement”.. he could have had someone kicked out of Pennsylvania if they lived east of Pittsburgh at the time.

 

[IANit]

Read the article, So Joe told the rapists roommate (a PSU player as well) that he had to talk to the police. Before a few of the players were set to testify for the rapist, Joe told them to tell the truth. Supposedly one guy stayed behind to talk to Joe, and Joe told him that rapist was guilty and he better not defend him (It sounds like Joe suspected that the dude was going to lie for the rapist).

Joe was also quoted by someone in student affairs that Joe kept his hands off of stuff like Sexual Assaults and believed in the criminal justice system for that.

Jay gave a thoughtful statement that Joe didn't consider rape as a crime of violence, but as a sexual crime, which is probably true of about 90% of the population at that time.

One of the probable victims of this guy made some references to Paterno. They were shaky at best and full of speculation. If I were a betting man, the reporter gave some very vague and suggestive questions that led to "interpretations."

Finally, writer of article called out Joe for not bringing up the rape charges dung national interviews (while competing for National Championship) and barely mentioning it in any of his books (one brief reference), shocking, who in the hell would do that.

Basically, this was just a way to tie Joe into a problem that was certainly present in society at that point regarding the criminal justice system and rape.

While it was a good read, ESPN's reporters must have trained under Sara Ganim. They really want to make themselves part of the story and even try to make the story.

While on the surface this is about giving victims a chance to have their voices heard, it's pretty obvious that the reporters could care less about giving the victims a chance to talk unless it's to smear Joe and PSU Football.

Rather than just reporting the facts, they clearly worked to bring people together to talk about this, and the more negative things they had to say about Joe, the better. One alleged victim even says F JoePa, even though Joe is not the person she should be mad at.

The writers are upset because Joe didn't make a huge announcement regarding Todd Hodne being arrested or dismissed from the team, and also because he didn't call the parents of the alleged victims. But then if he did call a victim or alleged victim it was clearly just to intimidate them or try to influence the situation in some way and protect his player or program, not out of any concern.

My opinion is that Joe Paterno had no legal duty to anyone for the illegal actions of Todd Hodne. It also appears that none of the State College incidents occurred on campus, so Penn State didn't have much involvement other than that he was a student there.

ESPN wants to make it seem like everybody, led by Paterno, knew that Hodne was a predator and swept it under the rug. I don't buy it.

At the end is this gem:
If you have any information about the crimes of Todd Hodne or sexual violence in State College during the 1970s and 1980s, contact Tom Junod at Thomas.C.Junod@espn.com or Paula Lavigne at Paula.Lavigne@espn.com. Or call in tips to 860-370-4850.

Well come on guys, surely with all the knowledge on this board we can come up with something else for ESPN to pin on JoePa.

 

[diontechristmas]

Here’s a question and I’m not trying to be mean.. I’m asking.

isn’t the greater point .. how does this all go on and then Sandusky went the way that went?

and don’t give me “Joepa called law enforcement”.. he could have had someone kicked out of Pennsylvania if they lived east of Pittsburgh at the time.

Not sure if you’re point. PSU has 10’s of thousands of students, and some of them will be bad apples. A guy who was on the team for a year or two decades ago really has no correlation with anything else.

 

[lurkerlion]

IMO the article tries paint the picture that Paterno somehow could have stopped Hodne earlier. That seems to be crap.

I don’t know from the article that Paterno knew players were going to the preliminary hearing in support of Hodne - of course Hodne was entitled to the presumption of innocence and support of his friends and teammates at that point.

Once it was clear he was guilty it is also clear Paterno had less than zero interest in helping and in fact could be accused of witness tampering in the opposite direction in his statement that Hodne was guilty and the threat that if the player testified on his behalf he’d be off the team - a threat he apparently followed through with.

To me, the article wants to imply that Paterno’s call to Karen was to intimidate her but the only quote we got was, “Are you OK?” IMO hardly intimidating but I have no experience as a female victim of sexual assault.

I try not to be an apologist for Joe as I think he did what he should have but also believe he should have asked more questions or simply said, “I don’t want that guy around campus, period.” His referral to supervisors and hands off approach, while probably appropriate, seems short of what his true influence was.

1) Joe should have never called Karen. It was totally inappropriate and potentially illegal. On the other hand, the author elicited comments from Karen (could have a different victim, not sure) where she complained that no one from the program contacted her. Damned if you do…damned if you don’t.

2) Joe should not have said anything except cooperate and tell the truth to his players. If he crossed the line with Cappozoli, inappropriate and possibly illegal. On the other hand, if he thought Cappozoli was going to lie for his childhood friend, then…what would you do?

My wife worked in student affairs back in those days at another university. She said the only common thread was that every incident was handled incorrectly. Protect the program, protect the young player, making sure the incident was handled properly, etc. no matter the motivation, someone always stuck their nose in inappropriately. PSU was no better and probably no worse. No one expects to encounter a Hodne or a Sandusky in their lifetime. Hence, no one expects to handle evil on this scale and small mistakes become large mistakes.

 

[DandyDonII]

1) Joe should have never called Karen. It was totally inappropriate and potentially illegal. On the other hand, the author elicited comments from Karen (could have a different victim, not sure) where she complained that no one from the program contacted her. Damned if you do…damned if you don’t.

2) Joe should not have said anything except cooperate and tell the truth to his players. If he crossed the line with Cappozoli, inappropriate and possibly illegal. On the other hand, if he thought Cappozoli was going to lie for his childhood friend, then…what would you do?

My wife worked in student affairs back in those days at another university. She said the only common thread was that every incident was handled incorrectly. Protect the program, protect the young player, making sure the incident was handled properly, etc. no matter the motivation, someone always stuck their nose inI inappropriately. PSU was no better and probably no worse. No one expects to encounter a Hodne or a Sandusky in their lifetime. Hence, no one expects to handle evil on this scale and small mistakes become large mistakes.

I don't think Joe called Karen, I think Karen is wrong. When I read the story the first time, I came away thinking that ESPN asked a lot of vague-leading questions which produced vague replies that led to interpretations. After reading your post, I reread the article. First off, the story has been edited, I am pretty sure that the location of her statements have been moved further down the article. However, what is apparent, is that when she was first asked about Paterno (it appears she did bring it up initially). She then stated he thought he was involved but couldn't remember specifics. In a subsequent conversation, she was certain that Joe had called her, and that she and Joe had even spoken in person with him on campus. She then inferred that he was trying to thwart the investigation. I am not hear to victim bash, the criminal justice system certainly let her rapist off the hook, but her thoughts into Joe are baseless. I hope Karen can continue to heal.

 

[Petch]

But Joe just had to have his "409". Good for him. He paid dearly for it - a ruined reputation. Karma is a bitch.

Karma…So that’s your wife’s name?

 

[Obliviax]

Here’s a question and I’m not trying to be mean.. I’m asking.

isn’t the greater point .. how does this all go on and then Sandusky went the way that went?

and don’t give me “Joepa called law enforcement”.. he could have had someone kicked out of Pennsylvania if they lived east of Pittsburgh at the time.

Two years after Sandusky the NCAA completed a big study on what coaches should do when faced with an allegation. The result? The coach should report it to his or her boss and somebody else outside the sports vertical structure. That is exactly what Joe did in the Sandusky situation. What is a bigger question is why I didn’t the witness call somebody that night. Because once the victim became unknown, there was not much else to be done. MM clearly states he didn’t actually see a crime committed

 

[Ghost of Hud]

Maybe he hadn’t raped anybody yet, but that kid should have been stopped in high school. And, oh by the way, interesting that the St. Dom athletic director never heard of Hodne doing anything wrong. (Maybe conveniently looking the other way?) Ralph Willard was that guy’s name — the same Ralph Willard who eventually became head basketball coach at Pitt.

 

[Obliviax]

I don't think Joe called Karen, I think Karen is wrong. When I read the story the first time, I came away thinking that ESPN asked a lot of vague-leading questions which produced vague replies that led to interpretations. After reading your post, I reread the article. First off, the story has been edited, I am pretty sure that the location of her statements have been moved further down the article. However, what is apparent, is that when she was first asked about Paterno (it appears she did bring it up initially). She then stated he thought he was involved but couldn't remember specifics. In a subsequent conversation, she was certain that Joe had called her, and that she and Joe had even spoken in person with him on campus. She then inferred that he was trying to thwart the investigation. I am not hear to victim bash, the criminal justice system certainly let her rapist off the hook, but her thoughts into Joe are baseless. I hope Karen can continue to heal.

Agreed. The only reason why they injected Joe’s name was to sell copy. If it wasn’t for that nobody would be interested in reading the story from 1970

 

[MacNit07]

"That's not what the article said, but nice try." - The article DID say exactly that. You might not agree with it but you go full on denying its existence. It is right there in black and white.

I really don't think you want to see more of your false statements but we both know there are more.

I will add that just because something is in an ESPN article does not mean it is a verified fact…

 

[diontechristmas]

The more I read this, the more it burns me up. It’s a piece of investigative journalism that brings to light some terrible actions that got little press at the time. I still don’t understand what the authors narrative was trying to accomplish. Clearly they wanted a Paterno smoking gun, which simply didn’t exist. It’s like the narrative flips between Joe tried to interfere to Joe didn’t do enough…what is it? Joe certainly didn’t protect this scumbag. Was he concerned about bad press? Perhaps, but he at no point stepped over the line, especially as his “meddling” was the norm or even expected from authority figures in that era.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Two reasons
1. Paterno pushed Penn State as "doing things the right way" so when anything goes bad those that he criticized by implying they weren't doing it the right way are going to attack. It's how people work.
2. It's easier to attack someone that is dead and can't defend themselves.

And, yes, people still care that much about Paterno. People love watching someone on top fall from grace.

I agree with point #2, but while I am no Cosby defender, he pretty much did #1 (at least in terms of public facing engagement) as well.

 

[Obliviax]

The more I read this, the more it burns me up. It’s a piece of investigative journalism that brings to light some terrible actions that got little press at the time. I still don’t understand what the authors narrative was trying to accomplish. Clearly they wanted a Paterno smoking gun, which simply didn’t exist. It’s like the narrative flips between Joe tried to interfere to Joe didn’t do enough…what is it? Joe certainly didn’t protect this scumbag. Was he concerned about bad press? Perhaps, but he at no point stepped over the line, especially as his “meddling” was the norm or even expected from authority figures in that era.

There is no such thing as "journalism" anymore. It has become a blend of "The Curse of Oak Island" and "Jerry Springer". I saw a poll asking about media trust for each of the major outlets. There wasn't a single outlet trusted by 50% or more. PBS was the best in the mid to high 40%-range. The best major ones were CBS/ABC in the low 40s. Even if you factor out left and right, moderates followed the average pretty closely. This is, BTW, at an all time low by a long shot.

 

[Waltwam]

Think you are 1000% correct.. also find it interesting from the article they are looking to produce a movie about the Karen ? and Irv Panky relationship…

And even Pankey thought his teammate was innocent until he heard the description of the shoes et all from the rape.

 

[PSUPride1]

There is no such thing as "journalism" anymore. It has become a blend of "The Curse of Oak Island" and "Jerry Springer". I saw a poll asking about media trust for each of the major outlets. There wasn't a single outlet trusted by 50% or more. PBS was the best in the mid to high 40%-range. The best major ones were CBS/ABC in the low 40s. Even if you factor out left and right, moderates followed the average pretty closely. This is, BTW, at an all time low by a long shot.

The cable outlets are a joke. All agenda. And unfortunately the major news outlets have an agenda do and lean left. It's impossible that an unbiased new media always finds fault with one side and never the other. Most normal people I know find faults with both parties as should be the case. It becomes the lesser of two evils but that is becoming an easier choice for me nowadays.

 

[Waltwam]

Here’s a question and I’m not trying to be mean.. I’m asking.

isn’t the greater point .. how does this all go on and then Sandusky went the way that went?

and don’t give me “Joepa called law enforcement”.. he could have had someone kicked out of Pennsylvania if they lived east of Pittsburgh at the time.

Many of the accusations insinuating JoePa or PSU knew about these bad actors would be just like me writing articles saying Boston College and Notre Dame students and faculty knew all about the Catholic priests through the years!!! Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Waltwam]

While it was a good read, ESPN's reporters must have trained under Sara Ganim. They really want to make themselves part of the story and even try to make the story.

While on the surface this is about giving victims a chance to have their voices heard, it's pretty obvious that the reporters could care less about giving the victims a chance to talk unless it's to smear Joe and PSU Football.

Rather than just reporting the facts, they clearly worked to bring people together to talk about this, and the more negative things they had to say about Joe, the better. One alleged victim even says F JoePa, even though Joe is not the person she should be mad at.

The writers are upset because Joe didn't make a huge announcement regarding Todd Hodne being arrested or dismissed from the team, and also because he didn't call the parents of the alleged victims. But then if he did call a victim or alleged victim it was clearly just to intimidate them or try to influence the situation in some way and protect his player or program, not out of any concern.

My opinion is that Joe Paterno had no legal duty to anyone for the illegal actions of Todd Hodne. It also appears that none of the State College incidents occurred on campus, so Penn State didn't have much involvement other than that he was a student there.

ESPN wants to make it seem like everybody, led by Paterno, knew that Hodne was a predator and swept it under the rug. I don't buy it.

At the end is this gem:
If you have any information about the crimes of Todd Hodne or sexual violence in State College during the 1970s and 1980s, contact Tom Junod at Thomas.C.Junod@espn.com or Paula Lavigne at Paula.Lavigne@espn.com. Or call in tips to 860-370-4850.

Well come on guys, surely with all the knowledge on this board we can come up with something else for ESPN to pin on JoePa.

I won't be surprised if Paterno and Penn State are blamed for the situation with the new QB in Cleveland and all of his sexual "escapades!" I'm anxiously awaiting new articles about the Ohio State band and wrestling team, Michigan State, Michigan (NASSAR) Miami Hurricanes, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Obliviax]

I won't be surprised if Paterno and Penn State are blamed for the situation with the new QB in Cleveland and all of his sexual "escapades!" I'm anxiously awaiting new articles about the Ohio State band and wrestling team, Michigan State, Michigan (NASSAR) Miami Hurricanes, etc. etc. etc.

Agreed. So why is this happening? UM, tOSU, Sparty, Clemson (etc.) have all demonstrated that they are willing to defend their university and iconic coaches. PSU threw theirs under the bus.

When I read that article, I wonder if they've ever understood the notion of "swim in your lane". It is like they wanted Joe to become a street cop, detective, prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury. For some reason, 230+ years of legal precedent that led to the USA's justice system is thrown out if it is PSU and JVP. If Joe had done more in the Sandusky issue (like call the victim, police, and prosecutors) the same people would be yelling at him for tampering in the justice system and not sticking to his swim lane as a coach. Fact is, after years of investigation, the NCAA's current guidelines for a coach that receives an allegation of a law being broken is to report it to his/her boss and to someone outside of the sports vertical. This is exactly what Joe did.

 

[DandyDonII]

Agreed. So why is this happening? UM, tOSU, Sparty, Clemson (etc.) have all demonstrated that they are willing to defend their university and iconic coaches. PSU threw theirs under the bus.

When I read that article, I wonder if they've ever understood the notion of "swim in your lane". It is like they wanted Joe to become a street cop, detective, prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury. For some reason, 230+ years of legal precedent that led to the USA's justice system is thrown out if it is PSU and JVP. If Joe had done more in the Sandusky issue (like call the victim, police, and prosecutors) the same people would be yelling at him for tampering in the justice system and not sticking to his swim lane as a coach. Fact is, after years of investigation, the NCAA's current guidelines for a coach that receives an allegation of a law being broken is to report it to his/her boss and to someone outside of the sports vertical. This is exactly what Joe did.

Joe certainly could have called the police, and based upon what you believe McQuery told him, maybe he should have called the police. However, based upon McQuerry's testimony at trial and some basic common sense, I think McQuery gave Joe a statement that insinuated something sexual could have been occurring, but no evidence that it was.
McQuery testified he never saw a penis or a sexual act, and if I recall correctly, he never saw how they were situated. So basically, any sexual evidence is based upon the sounds of skin slapping and the fact that Jerry was showering with a young boy naked (due to Jerry's status in community it was not as a big of a red flag as it should have been). Mcquery also admitted to watering down what he said to Joe (hell, just his observations are pretty watered down). I seriously doubt Mike would say hey Joe, Sandusky was molesting a kid last night so I slammed my locker door and left him with the kid and didn't bother helping him or calling the police.
What Mike saw was a grey area, and I can't fault Joe for simply reporting it up. I do blame Spanier for ultimately allowing it not to be reported. Spanier had a duty to protect PSU at the very least, and should have just reported it to the PD and let them follow up. I don't think Spanier was actively covering for Jerry though.

 

[Obliviax]

Joe certainly could have called the police, and based upon what you believe McQuery told him, maybe he should have called the police. However, based upon McQuerry's testimony at trial and some basic common sense, I think McQuery gave Joe a statement that insinuated something sexual could have been occurring, but no evidence that it was.
McQuery testified he never saw a penis or a sexual act, and if I recall correctly, he never saw how they were situated. So basically, any sexual evidence is based upon the sounds of skin slapping and the fact that Jerry was showering with a young boy naked (due to Jerry's status in community it was not as a big of a red flag as it should have been). Mcquery also admitted to watering down what he said to Joe (hell, just his observations are pretty watered down). I seriously doubt Mike would say hey Joe, Sandusky was molesting a kid last night so I slammed my locker door and left him with the kid and didn't bother helping him or calling the police.
What Mike saw was a grey area, and I can't fault Joe for simply reporting it up. I do blame Spanier for ultimately allowing it not to be reported. Spanier had a duty to protect PSU at the very least, and should have just reported it to the PD and let them follow up. I don't think Spanier was actively covering for Jerry though.

I agree with all of that. My biggest beef is that they didn't document their actions, especially informing the second mile. the people most at fault are MM, his father and neighbor, the second mile, spanier/curly/schultz...and probably a dozen other people who failed to act, then Joe.

I do have to wonder about "Howard Stern." It is said that he was a poster who had been shot on a drug bust and in rehab that posted here and on the premium board. That is where investigators, knowing of another mild Sandusky incident, started to put the puzzle pieces together. That led to confronting MM again. So why didn't Howard Stern do something? if this was on the street, where was everyone?

In my mind, JS was using his charitable work to hide his proclivities. He was a master at it. he had several brushes with the law but all of them were with different locations/investigators. it just took a while for all of the puzzle pieces to come together. It was all of the pieces that added up. Each one by itself was not actionable. Nobody wanted to believe it anyway.

 

[DandyDonII]

I agree with all of that. My biggest beef is that they didn't document their actions, especially informing the second mile. the people most at fault are MM, his father and neighbor, the second mile, spanier/curly/schultz...and probably a dozen other people who failed to act, then Joe.

I do have to wonder about "Howard Stern." It is said that he was a poster who had been shot on a drug bust and in rehab that posted here and on the premium board. That is where investigators, knowing of another mild Sandusky incident, started to put the puzzle pieces together. That led to confronting MM again. So why didn't Howard Stern do something? if this was on the street, where was everyone?

In my mind, JS was using his charitable work to hide his proclivities. He was a master at it. he had several brushes with the law but all of them were with different locations/investigators. it just took a while for all of the puzzle pieces to come together. It was all of the pieces that added up. Each one by itself was not actionable. Nobody wanted to believe it anyway.

It is amazing that even today, unless the case is pretty damn important, how much people can get away with by simply going to a different county (until the convictions start to show up on rap sheets anyway). Although juveniles get away with so many violent acts because the jurisdictions do not talk enough and the way the Rap Sheets are run out here in Ca.

 

[Waltwam]

Before Jerry Sandusky, Penn State football had another serial sexual predator. This is the untold story of his crimes and the fight to bring him to justice.

When Jerry Sandusky's crimes came to light in 2011, the world thought it was the first time Joe Paterno and Penn State had faced a serial sexual predator in their midst. But that was not the case. This is the story of the predator who had come before.

www.espn.com

For those who were wondering what the reported ESPN storyline (long storyline) would be a while back, here it is on the 10th anniversary of the Sandusky scandal from ESPN.
EDIT: for those who are already upset, or not wanting to view/dignify ESPN (I understand), clique at your own risk. It’s not flattering and quite lengthy

Gulf....if only these people would research the political happenings of the day, we could all know the truth about everything that is going on! And hopefully ESPN will get one of its employees to inform us so eloquently about the involvement of Ray Lewis' supposed involvement with murder.

 

[MacNit07]

Agreed. So why is this happening? UM, tOSU, Sparty, Clemson (etc.) have all demonstrated that they are willing to defend their university and iconic coaches. PSU threw theirs under the bus.

When I read that article, I wonder if they've ever understood the notion of "swim in your lane". It is like they wanted Joe to become a street cop, detective, prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury. For some reason, 230+ years of legal precedent that led to the USA's justice system is thrown out if it is PSU and JVP. If Joe had done more in the Sandusky issue (like call the victim, police, and prosecutors) the same people would be yelling at him for tampering in the justice system and not sticking to his swim lane as a coach. Fact is, after years of investigation, the NCAA's current guidelines for a coach that receives an allegation of a law being broken is to report it to his/her boss and to someone outside of the sports vertical. This is exactly what Joe did.

Right again Obli…very much so!

 

[Obliviax]

Tight again Obli…very much so!

Thanks. Think about it...during Sandusky, people were upset he didn't follow up. In this article, it states he called the victim and asked if she was OK but she got the "feeling" he wanted the situation to go away.

You can't win.

 

[MacNit07]

Thanks. Think about it...during Sandusky, people were upset he didn't follow up. In this article, it states he called the victim and asked if she was OK but she got the "feeling" he wanted the situation to go away.

You can't win.

It is another hit piece on a great man. Not a perfect man but a great one.

Everyone should re-read those collection of stories of good deeds that Joe did over the years - mostly for people who he barely knew and nearly all of them out of the limelight.

To think this is a person is someone who would cover for a predator? Preposterous! He is one of the least likely.

I knew Joe a bit from the circles I run in and for every story in that collection there are 3 more that are not in there.

Makes my blood boil what our own BOT - with complicity by ESPN and the press - did to Joe.

 

[PSUSignore]

Thanks. Think about it...during Sandusky, people were upset he didn't follow up. In this article, it states he called the victim and asked if she was OK but she got the "feeling" he wanted the situation to go away.

You can't win.

And Franklin was criticized for reaching out the victim in the Vandy case. There's absolutely no pleasing everyone, and the media attacks certain individuals at their discretion.

 

[Agoodnap]

See below. ESPN has been working in this for quite some time. It’s all about continuing and controlling the narrative they were instrumental in from a media standpoint 10 years ago.

Editing by Eric Neel and Laura Purtell.
Produced by ESPN Creative Studio: Michelle Bashaw, Heather Donahue, Karen Frank, Joey Maese, Kaitlin Marron, Sarah Pezzullo and Munehito Sawada.

This explains all the Iowa trolls in this thread. Eric Neel went to Iowa for his MS and Phd. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

 

[jferretti]

Agreed. The only reason why they injected Joe’s name was to sell copy. If it wasn’t for that nobody would be interested in reading the story from 1970

With all due respect, I think you are missing an important point of the article. Vicious and amoral, Hodne was permitted to go through high school and part of college in a protective cocoon due to his football prowess and his membership on the single most important sports team in State College. Paterno is but a piece in that puzzle. There are others implicated here to a much greater extent than Paterno, including those in law enforcement and the judicial system. The desire to not rock the boat in State College is what allowed predators like Hodne and Sandusky to operate under the collective noses of those who stood in positions to stop them. It allowed Hodne and Sandusky to re-offend. Rather than attempt to blame or exonerate Paterno, perhaps we should examine what environment exists that allowed this to happen so that we can avoid such inexplicable responses in future cases. Why are teammates not empowered to come forward to report abhorrent behaviors? Why is law enforcement not able to treat those associated with the football program like any other potential culprit? What part should school administration play in all of this? There are lots of questions.

This concern applies to Nassar at Michigan State and the situations at Michigan and Ohio State. Individuals being sacrificed for the good of the institution is what this is about.

 

[jferretti]

It is another hit piece on a great man. Not a perfect man but a great one.

Everyone should re-read those collection of stories of good deeds that Joe did over the years - mostly for people who he barely knew and nearly all of them out of the limelight.

To think this is a person is someone who would cover for a predator? Preposterous! He is one of the least likely.

I knew Joe a bit from the circles I run in and for every story in that collection there are 3 more that are not in there.

Makes my blood boil what our own BOT - with complicity by ESPN and the press - did to Joe.

Joe was into everything, sometimes to his detriment. Frankly, that's what makes the Sandusky case hard to fathom. In the 1970's when a kid was dismissed from the team due to lack of performance in and out of the classroom a father went crazy and started threatening the lives of coaches, including Paterno. The FBI got involved to determine who was making the threats. At one point, Paterno thought it best to attempt to reach out to the individual when it was determined who it was. That's a horrible idea under the circumstances, just as is the idea of calling a victim of a rape perpetrated by a team member. But Joe thought he could fix anything until he couldn't.

 

[jferretti]

1) Joe should have never called Karen. It was totally inappropriate and potentially illegal. On the other hand, the author elicited comments from Karen (could have a different victim, not sure) where she complained that no one from the program contacted her. Damned if you do…damned if you don’t.

2) Joe should not have said anything except cooperate and tell the truth to his players. If he crossed the line with Cappozoli, inappropriate and possibly illegal. On the other hand, if he thought Cappozoli was going to lie for his childhood friend, then…what would you do?

My wife worked in student affairs back in those days at another university. She said the only common thread was that every incident was handled incorrectly. Protect the program, protect the young player, making sure the incident was handled properly, etc. no matter the motivation, someone always stuck their nose in inappropriately. PSU was no better and probably no worse. No one expects to encounter a Hodne or a Sandusky in their lifetime. Hence, no one expects to handle evil on this scale and small mistakes become large mistakes.

Your wife's experience is the biggest take away from the article. Sure Joe was included to sell copy but he is just symptomatic of a bigger problem: institutional fealty over individual concern.

 

[AvgUser]

With all due respect, I think you are missing an important point of the article. Vicious and amoral, Hodne was permitted to go through high school and part of college in a protective cocoon due to his football prowess and his membership on the single most important sports team in State College. Paterno is but a piece in that puzzle. There are others implicated here to a much greater extent than Paterno, including those in law enforcement and the judicial system. The desire to not rock the boat in State College is what allowed predators like Hodne and Sandusky to operate under the collective noses of those who stood in positions to stop them. It allowed Hodne and Sandusky to re-offend. Rather than attempt to blame or exonerate Paterno, perhaps we should examine what environment exists that allowed this to happen so that we can avoid such inexplicable responses in future cases. Why are teammates not empowered to come forward to report abhorrent behaviors? Why is law enforcement not able to treat those associated with the football program like any other potential culprit? What part should school administration play in all of this? There are lots of questions.

This concern applies to Nassar at Michigan State and the situations at Michigan and Ohio State. Individuals being sacrificed for the good of the institution is what this is about.

I’m going to disagree somewhat. The word Sandusky is #3. Paterno is # 19. Hodne isn’t until word 600 or so.
(credit to someone on the other board for that info).
The intent of the authors was a mafia-like hit on joepa

 

[LandoComando]

I agree with point #2, but while I am no Cosby defender, he pretty much did #1 (at least in terms of public facing engagement) as well.

Fair enough although I don't think people are ever shocked when an actor turns out to be a problem. Paterno was seen as critical of other programs so those fans want to see him get exposed so they'll reach to do it.

 

[87 Penn St8]

With all due respect, I think you are missing an important point of the article. Vicious and amoral, Hodne was permitted to go through high school and part of college in a protective cocoon due to his football prowess and his membership on the single most important sports team in State College. Paterno is but a piece in that puzzle. There are others implicated here to a much greater extent than Paterno, including those in law enforcement and the judicial system. The desire to not rock the boat in State College is what allowed predators like Hodne and Sandusky to operate under the collective noses of those who stood in positions to stop them. It allowed Hodne and Sandusky to re-offend. Rather than attempt to blame or exonerate Paterno, perhaps we should examine what environment exists that allowed this to happen so that we can avoid such inexplicable responses in future cases. Why are teammates not empowered to come forward to report abhorrent behaviors? Why is law enforcement not able to treat those associated with the football program like any other potential culprit? What part should school administration play in all of this? There are lots of questions.

This concern applies to Nassar at Michigan State and the situations at Michigan and Ohio State. Individuals being sacrificed for the good of the institution is what this is about.

At the high school where I teach vaping and smoking weed are once again rampant in the bathrooms. We hired 2 male security cops who along with our Resource Officer try and keep watch. All teachers have been asked to check lavatories when possible. Kids openly joke about the availability of smoking materials.

Sounds like a perfect time for the drug dog to run through right???? Won't happen. Why? Because kids will get caught and then parents and taxpayers will question those in charge...so things just ride as they do. It is really sad how people often consider their own culpability rather than addressing the problems more directly. Just because there is nothing reported doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Before Jerry Sandusky, Penn State football had another serial sexual predator. This is the untold story of his crimes and the fight to bring him to justice.

When Jerry Sandusky's crimes came to light in 2011, the world thought it was the first time Joe Paterno and Penn State had faced a serial sexual predator in their midst. But that was not the case. This is the story of the predator who had come before.

www.espn.com

For those who were wondering what the reported ESPN storyline (long storyline) would be a while back, here it is on the 10th anniversary of the Sandusky scandal from ESPN.
EDIT: for those who are already upset, or not wanting to view/dignify ESPN (I understand), clique at your own risk. It’s not flattering and quite lengthy

Don’t you have a cross to go and burn with your coaches, Hawk?

Little Chicken Hawk Dick has spoken... lol

OTL: Florida Gators had most athletes as crime suspects from 2009-14

A probe of 10 major football & men's basketball programs found Florida had the most athletes named as suspects in more than 100 crimes from 2009-14.

www.espn.com

Let's Be fair to ESPN...
Lol

 

[GulfCoastLion]

Thanks. Think about it...during Sandusky, people were upset he didn't follow up. In this article, it states he called the victim and asked if she was OK but she got the "feeling" he wanted the situation to go away.

You can't win.

Actually Joe did follow up with RED after he reported what McQuerey claimed he heard in the shower to Curley and Shultz. Red didn’t know who the alleged victim was in the shower, only that he thought he heard noises that indicated stuff was going on, etc. (still don’t know why he didn’t stop it, shout something, etc., if he thought it was true). In any case, Joe followed up with the person who reported it and didn’t know the alleged victim at the time. Joe was the only one who did the right thing, as had been stated by the police investigators, etc. at the time.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Stop responding to these troll loser, envious Karens. NIL with all the corporate sponsors up north...mid west... west will crush these SEC federal welfare institution bagmen states... Phuck ESPN.

 

[MacNit07]

With all due respect, I think you are missing an important point of the article. Vicious and amoral, Hodne was permitted to go through high school and part of college in a protective cocoon due to his football prowess and his membership on the single most important sports team in State College. Paterno is but a piece in that puzzle. There are others implicated here to a much greater extent than Paterno, including those in law enforcement and the judicial system. The desire to not rock the boat in State College is what allowed predators like Hodne and Sandusky to operate under the collective noses of those who stood in positions to stop them. It allowed Hodne and Sandusky to re-offend. Rather than attempt to blame or exonerate Paterno, perhaps we should examine what environment exists that allowed this to happen so that we can avoid such inexplicable responses in future cases. Why are teammates not empowered to come forward to report abhorrent behaviors? Why is law enforcement not able to treat those associated with the football program like any other potential culprit? What part should school administration play in all of this? There are lots of questions.

This concern applies to Nassar at Michigan State and the situations at Michigan and Ohio State. Individuals being sacrificed for the good of the institution is what this is about.

And you are so certain of all the details of this case? How?

 

[MacNit07]

Joe was into everything, sometimes to his detriment. Frankly, that's what makes the Sandusky case hard to fathom. In the 1970's when a kid was dismissed from the team due to lack of performance in and out of the classroom a father went crazy and started threatening the lives of coaches, including Paterno. The FBI got involved to determine who was making the threats. At one point, Paterno thought it best to attempt to reach out to the individual when it was determined who it was. That's a horrible idea under the circumstances, just as is the idea of calling a victim of a rape perpetrated by a team member. But Joe thought he could fix anything until he couldn't.

Your technique for drawing conclusions is on the same level as the hit piece.

 

[94LionsFan]

I did read the article. Did you? You are using that quote out of context. He didn't want his players lying to LE (to defend their teammate) so he wanted to make sure they talked to him to be instructed to only tell the truth.

There is zero wrong with that and is quite admirable.

Go troll somewhere else.

That's not what the article said, but nice try.

In fact, just the opposite: he demanded his players be truthful with law enforcement.

The “out of context” defense is often abused, but in this case it’s correct. The sentence immediately before the damning-sounding one quoted here says:

“He had directed Ragucci to talk to Musser.”

Ragucci was Hodne’s roommate. Musser was a State College cop.

Then it goes into Joe meeting with two players who were testifying. He told the one, “you got to tell the truth the best you can.” The other, who was a friend of Hodne’s from HS, Joe told, “Todd Hodne is guilty, and if you testify for him, you're off the team.”

So yeah, that quote out of context looks bad, but the evidence presented strongly suggests he was worried about Hodne’s teammates trying to help him with false alibis.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Here’s a question and I’m not trying to be mean.. I’m asking.

isn’t the greater point .. how does this all go on and then Sandusky went the way that went?

Because Joe wasn't told of sexual assault in the Sandusky case.