४ नोव्हेंबर, २०१२
"To be fair and consistent, you have to read this as a posthumous indictment of Joe Paterno..."
This = "The charges filed last week accusing three former Penn State administrators of engaging in a 'conspiracy of silence' to cover up child sexual abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky raise questions about whether legendary football Coach Joe Paterno could have been charged if he were still living."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
Of course, Paterno could have been charged. Of the four he would have been the least likely to see a conviction, however. To this day, we still see people willing to sell their soul to protect the program and Paterno was the embodiment of the program.
I'm not sure. Morally yes, legally, it's not clear what Joe knew, other than he trusted those around hin too nuch.
I have thought for a long time that Penn State was wrong to keep Joe around into his senility. They are now paying the price.
We'll never KNOW what Joe knew, but we do know that he was a smart guy who should have been able to figure out what was going on and done something about it. Perhaps "retiring" Sandusky was his answer. That would be more in keeping with how his generation handled matters to do with "sex"; rather than making them front page news.
This once again proves that the coverup is as bad or worse than the crime.
Since I am hear I am fervently hoping that Axelrod gets to eat large quantities of crow come Wednesday. He strikes me as an unprincipled Sh**T!
I have thought for a long time that Penn State was wrong to keep Joe around into his senility. They are now paying the price.
We'll never KNOW what Joe knew, but we do know that he was a smart guy who should have been able to figure out what was going on and done something about it. Perhaps "retiring" Sandusky was his answer. That would be more in keeping with how his generation handled matters to do with "sex"; rather than making them front page news.
This once again proves that the coverup is as bad or worse than the crime.
Since I am hear I am fervently hoping that Axelrod gets to eat large quantities of crow come Wednesday. He strikes me as an unprincipled Sh**T!
There was a time when speculation wasn't news. Today, more that passes for news is opinion (re: speculation) than not. I am not suggesting that is how things should be - but it is hard not to deny.
What Paterno knew came from his conversation with McQueary. At this point, we don't know what McQueary told, as his story has changed many times. We also don't know what McQueary told Schultz and Curley. Again, McQueary has proven to be an unreliable witness. The Sandusky jury exonerated Sandusky on the three counts that were directly related to McQueary's testimony.
As for Sandusky's retirement in 1999, it was not related to the 1998 investigation by state and local law enforcement. Paterno and Sandusky had a troubled relationship for a long time prior to 1999. Paterno thought Sandusky was trying to force him out, so Paterno forced Sandusky into retirement.
Paterno never new about sex between males - he scoffed at the very notion! - not much of a classicist.
Dying was definitely Paterno's best career move in the last 15 years.
Joe would have been crucified had he lived, rightly or wrongly.
The iPad attempted to correct Paterno to "pater noster" - funny little Catholic angle without him knowing about child rape and such. Curious.
I read John Hinderacker's legal argument about the Freer report some months ago. Hinderacker is the proprietor of Powerline, a conservative weblog.
He argued, quite convincingly, that Paterno did his full legal duty and that the Freer report proved that.
He further argued that it is a legal and moral fallacy to suggest that Paterno should have played some investigative role beyond his legitimate reporting function.
I don't have the link, but I'll try to find it.
Legal fallacy? Fine.
Moral fallacy? C'mon, man.
"Wild theories aren't news. A rush to judgment isn't news. They're "infotainment," if you can even call it that for most of the irresponsible stuff out there. Facts are news."
Those are a bunch of generalities that relate badly to this post.
Here are the facts:
1. Paterno is dead. That's not going to develop. He cannot be charged with a crime. It's over for him.
2. The others who were involved around him have been charged with crime.
3. The issue on which the quoted lawprof opined is whether the charges that have been made raise the inference that Paterno, if he had lived, would have been charged.
That's a closed set of facts. There is nothing to wait for. There is no "rush" occurring here, and this post isn't about entertaining people with salacious material.
Your comment is off.
I have seen some articles about Jimmy Saville, the BBC disc jockey. His offenses both in magnitude and numbers dwarf those of Jerry Sandusky. The very concept of visiting disabled children in a hospital and then abusing them is hideous to contemplate. Some hospital administrators apparently gave him his own apartment at the hospital in order to facilitate his opportunities for fund raising and child abuse.......Child abuse is the creepiest of all offenses, but it does seem that the creepiness is amplified if the enabling institution such as the Catholic Church or the Penn football program has a low Q score among the liberals. If the covering institution such as the BBC, the Sandinistas, or Hollywood has liberal approval the coverage is correspondingly muted.....The bet here is that most of the BBC enablers will walk free and most of the Penn State people will, at the very minimum, see their careers ruined.
Shouting Thomas is still the defender of child rapists and their co-conspirators. He also believes Eichmann did all he was required to do.
It should be remembered that Paterno was a football coach which is what he cared about. My understanding is that he reported it to his superiors and maybe he was told by them to not talk about it so as not to compromise the future legal case. He wasn't a policeman, he was a football coach who cared about football regardless of his purported influence. I've not followed it closely so I don't really have a strong opinion.
I wish the liberal media would apply to the Obama Benghazi behavior the same high standard they apply to Paterno.
dreams, Before being a football coach Paterno was a grandfather, father and man. He succeeded in the first one, failed in the last three. And, since his victories for a decade were abolished, he even failed as a coach.
Shouting Thomas is still the defender of child rapists and their co-conspirators.
You have no fucking sense at all about running your mouth.
Why stop with those 3? Sandusky appears to have been a highly regarded assistant coach for 30 years, including 22 years as defensive coordinator at a major football factory. He was responsible for the unit that earned the school the nickname Linebacker U. And then he suddenly gave up coaching and never sought a head coaching position. Really?
What exactly did Sandusky tell the athletic directors who must have called him to try to lure him out of retirement? What exactly did PSU officials tell ADs who called to ask if there were any reasons they shouldn't be trying to lure him out of retirement. It defies credibility that nobody was interested in giving him a job and made those inquiries. Is it even remotely plausible that some significant portion of coaches and ADs at big football schools around the country didn't know exactly what Sandusky was suspected of? How much slack do they get because they merely looked the other way instead of being actively involved in a cover-up?
Jimmy'll fix it!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I don't see anything more than more general speculation in this article. There apparently is some direct evidence of the actions taken by the men in charge of investigating the reported abuse; evidence that has resulted in criminal indictments. The article speculates that Paterno was right there in the middle of that decision-making process; specifically, that Paterno was furthering the conspiracy. No facts that I have read actually demonstrate any such participation by Paterno.
Under Pennsylvania law, Paterno would not be guilty of criminal conspiracy unless he was shown to have committed an overt act that furthered the conspiracy. Even if he did discuss the situation with the men who were in charge the investigation, and even if he actually did express an opinion that the situation did not merit a police report, that is not an act in furtherance of a conspiracy. An example of participating in this type of conspiracy would be agreeing to give law enforcement false information, or destroying documents.
I read that Paterno reported the abuse to his superiors, given that he was a football coach in a high stress job, why wouldn't he leave it to his superiors and the police to investigate.
Joe Paterno was a football coach with a great record and a great reputation, we know he was an expert in football but we don't know if Paterno felt that he was smarter, wiser and had more expertise in how to deal with the Sandusky situation than his superiors. The main criticism of Paterno seems to be that with his purported influence he should have gone over the heads of his superiors.
That doesn't seem to me to be fair criticism.
AndyN
You really shouldn't write about things that you don't understand. Your assumptions about Sandusky, his retirement and the reasons he did not continue with a football coaching career are way off base.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा