Thursday, July 12, 2012

Throw the Dead Man Under the Bus

I have watched the whole Penn State scandal and then listened to the Freeh report this morning and I have to say that I am disappointed and a bit angry.  First of all let me put a disclaimer here so as to not be accused of making light of a serious situation.  As for what has gone on it's appalling to me that people would want to blame the dead man.  Joe Paterno is being painted as the bad guy in this whole sick twisted situation because he is not alive to defend himself and I find it pitiful that the Freeh Report came out as it did and the media is now eating it up that Paterno is a horrible human because he allegedly did nothing.  Why are we not blaming who actually committed the crime and the young man who witnessed behavior that was not in the least appropriate?  JoePa was allegedly told that Sandusky was dealing with young boys in a manner that no one would approve of,  he did his due diligence, he told the administrators and they chose to do nothing.  McCreary witnessed the acts and went to his father and then to JoePa.......why not to the police?  Social Services?  The parents of the child?  Yet JoePa is now the scapegoat and is conveniently not here to defend himself.  This opens the gate for survivors to sue the Paterno estate.  How is that going to wind up being fair?  Paterno's widow had nothing to do with this whole issue and she and her children have every right to live out the rest of their lives quietly and with dignity. 

We as a society are constantly looking for someone to point a finger at when something goes horribly wrong instead of taking responsibility for ourselves or placing it where it should go, on the individual who committed the act.  Joe Paterno gave decades of his life to that school and money to boot.  His players were expected to be upstanding young men and for years and years Penn State football was a respected program, now because one coach chose to sabotage his career, reputation and life we are all ready to sully a good man's story.  How are we much better than the hate mongers that we propose to despise?  Not much.


  1. Did you read the report or just decide to spout off.

    The report indicates there is a chain of emails that imply Paterno was the person who decided to not take the accusations to the proper authorities.

    You are naive at best, but most likely just a homer.

  2. I agree with every word you wrote. McQueary has no repercussions for his lack of additional, and they are shoveling the blame over JoePa's grave. It makes me sick.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. The best part of an "anonymous" comment is your I.P. address is attached to it. Dummies think they can make comments and it is "clean" and wont be traced back to them ... keep on typing dummies

  5. These are going to come back and haunt a few people

  6. The problem with Freeh's conclusions are that they are his opinion, and are not supported by the very thin evidence he provides. He concludes that Paterno had more knowledge about the 1998 incident that he indicated (although the emails do not support any firsthand knowledge, only hearsay, and an indication that Paterno wanted to know what was happening), but if that were true, then Paterno would be exonerated on that incident, since Freeh thoroughly documents the investigation by the State Police, Dept of Public Welfare, The University, and the District Attorney. No charges were filed despite the investigations, including Freeh's descriptions of police detectives and DPW people hiding in the victim's house when Sandusky conversed with his mother. Paterno bears no responsibility for that, and had no way of knowing the truth of the allegations. If he knew there was an ongoing investigation, there was nothing more for him to do in 1998, but wait for charges to be brought...which never happened.

    As far as the other incident in which Paterno could be in any way culpable, in 2001, again he had only hearsay evidence (McQueary's report to him, which McQueary himself said was not specific). We know that Paterno reported that, so there could certainly be no cover up there. If the people he reported it to thought there was criminal activity, they had a responsibility to instruct their employee who claimed to witness it, McQueary himself, to the police. They did not, and claim there was no mention of sexual assault by McQueary. Until those people testify under oath, we do not know the whole story about what they thought was going on and what McQueary told them. Why, one could ask, were they not required to testify at Sandusky's trial?

    When viewing this reported incident in the light of what happened in 1998, it would not be surprising that people felt these allegations would not lead to charges or a conviction, especially if McQueary's report was in any way vague or questionalble. Given that McQueary's testimony was discredited by a family friend, and there is no testimony from the victim of that incident, it cannot be considered unquestionable, even after the conviction. Sandusky was not convicted on that count, evidently, so apparently the jury did not believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Maybe it is time we put the blame where it belongs: on Sandusky, McQueary, law enforcement, DPW, the administrators who failed to follow up on Paterno's report, and mostly on Corbett, who allowed Sandusky to roam free after he claimed to have evidence of crimes, years afterward.

    Paterno is guilty of exactly what he admitted to....not doing more than he was required to do. Beyond that, no one has proven anything in a way that would stand up in court. Even the email Freeh cites, which indicates there was a conversation with Paterno, (and again, all these people claim McQueary did not allege rape or abuse to them)and that Curley decided to suggest Sandusky get help for his innapropriate behavior does not prove a coverup, but rather serious conversations between people trying to come to grips with a situation they were not qualified to handle.

    Underlying all of this is a very real posibility that Sandusky will get a new trial because of the improprieties involved with his defense attorneys' request for information to properly prepare their case. Justice is never served when someone is convicted without a fair judicial process. We know that his attorneys complained to the Supremem Court of PA prior to the trial.

    I doubt that Sandusky is innocent, but if his trial was not fairly conducted, he may get out anyway, and that would be the greatest offense to his victims.

    Rather than spout off ill-informed opinions, maybe some people ought to actually read the report, and discover how it has been misreported as conclusive. It is far from it, despite Freeh's commentary.

  7. One comment was deleted for inappropriate language. FOUL LANGUAGE is not acceptable in debate no matter how heated the topic.

    Naive? Really? I read the whole report AND listened to Freeh's summary. It is filled with strictly opinion and very little facts to back them up. JoePa admitted that he did not do more and he should have what do you want from him blood? Oh wait he's dead so that is an impossibility.

    Thank you to the poster above as you laid it out quite well. You are correct that thsi debacle may now lead to another trail and what will those who feel that is was all JoePa's fault feel if Sandusky gets off on a technicality? Are you going to be screaming from the rooftops for his blood?

  8. So now Paterno's being "thrown under the bus"? The very person who threw all those kids under the bus by not turning Sandusky in FOURTEEN YEARS ago, because it would negatively affect his beloved football program/money-making machine?

    Yes, how dare we blame Paterno! We should demand that the NCAA give him back all his wins, and polish his statue! After all, Joe's legacy is much more important than Sandusky's actions and Paterno's coverup.

    Dolt! Your misplaced outrage is EXACTLY why Penn State needs to be put in its place. Clearly, football has ruled too long, to the detriment of common decency and the law.

  9. The bottom line is, Penn State accepted the NCAA sanctions without a fuss.

    A logical person could infer that, for Penn State to do that, it must have thought it was getting off easy.

    I wonder what other closeted skeletons up in State College haven't yet been discovered by the general populace?

  10. Excuse me? Where in the name of heaven and earth did you get that I was excusing the behavior of Sandusky and McQueary? In fact if you had used your reading skills you would get that I am more outraged that people are NOT raging against those who actually committed the crime. Everyone is screaming that he didn't report any thing......HE DID it was the prosecutor that refused to take action. Could JoePa have done more? Most certainly, but it's quite convenient that he is dead isn't it?

    Why are you not railing against McQueary who actually saw the abuse happening and did not hightail it straight to the police. It wasn't heresay then now was it? Why are you not villifying Sandusky's wife when she HAD to know full well waht was happening? No everyone has to climb on board the bandwagon to go after PSU and PSU alone because of what is being called some sense of justice? Really? So we punish everyone who has ever been at that school and played football for the last 14 years along with the kids coming up now because of some bloodthirsty misplaced sense of justice? I am so SICK of hearing it's because Penn State football program needs the hit. OK so the next time another school whose football program is paramount or wait how about the Phillies or Eagles......if any player or coach committs a felony (which seems to be done on a regular basis) or even gets a speeding ticket then the whole team has to pay the fine or for the time that that player has been on the team ALL their wins go away and they cannot play in the playoffs for at least 4 years.

    I wonder if the Falcons would like to have to pay for the actions of Michael Vick?