- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: JoePa knew about Sandusky in 1976
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:47 am to LSUPERMAN
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:47 am to LSUPERMAN
Where have I excused Paterno in morality? I have not nor ever will.
People are trying to act like he was an accomplice or actively participated, which he did not.
All my argument is people are twisting legal and moral subjects.
People are trying to act like he was an accomplice or actively participated, which he did not.
All my argument is people are twisting legal and moral subjects.
5
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:48 am to sms151t
quote:NOBODY HAS DONE THIS. JESUS CHRIST
All my argument is people are twisting legal and moral subjects.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:49 am to lsupride87
Wrong, go read some of the post on this thread. Especially you in the beginning.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 11:49 am
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:50 am to sms151t
quote:
Wrong, go read some of the post on this thread. Especially you in the beginning.
Not a single person mentioned the law. Including me. 
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:50 am to sms151t
You used the word smear. That implies you think he is without fault.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:51 am to LSUPERMAN
Legally he is without fault. Morally no he is not.
Same stance I have taken since the facts came out.
These are now just allegations yet some are acting like it is fact.
Let it play out, as I stated earlier if found true the roast him.
Same stance I have taken since the facts came out.
These are now just allegations yet some are acting like it is fact.
Let it play out, as I stated earlier if found true the roast him.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 11:53 am
Posted on 5/6/16 at 12:03 pm to sms151t
quote:
Legally he is without fault. Morally no he is not.
Does the distinction matter so much that you would spend 13 pages trying to draw it? Seriously?
Posted on 5/6/16 at 12:14 pm to Bench McElroy
Ziegler is a professional troll. He's a conservative talk radio host who used to be a gigantic Sarah Palin defender. Then he latched on to this case - I think he's made documentaries about how JoPa did absolutely nothing wrong with this case.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 12:22 pm to sms151t
quote:
Legally he is without fault. Morally no he is not.
This is not true. Paterno lied in front of a grand jury on January 12, 2011. Had he lived longer, he would have likely been charged with perjury:
Question to Paterno: "Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"
Paterno: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it."
As the Freeh report demonstrated, emails from 1998 prove that Paterno knew about allegations much earlier.
Paterno's track record of lying about Sandusky makes the 1976 date seem like a legit possibility.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 12:33 pm to sms151t
quote:
People are trying to act like he was an accomplice
If he had knowledge of it and did nothing to stop it, but instead covered up then he is an accomplish.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 12:37 pm to sms151t
quote:
Legally he is without fault.
Umm no he is not.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 12:53 pm to sms151t
quote:
Legally he is without fault
Well yeah, because he's dead
Posted on 5/6/16 at 1:25 pm to sms151t
quote:
People are trying to act like he was an accomplice or actively participated, which he did not.
He was a fricking accomplice.
I'm not even down with the Penn State bashing (plenty of good folks associated with the school who now have to endure a permanent negative stigma through no fault of their own), but the facts of the case clearly paint Paterno in the absolute worst of lights, given his influence.
AT THE VERY LEAST, he was an accomplice. That in and of itself is horrible and beyond all defense.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 1:34 pm to TbirdSpur2010
"My name, I have spent my whole life trying to make that name mean something. And now it's gone."
—Joe Paterno, following his termination
That quote brings me the tiniest bit of satisfaction from this freaking mess.
—Joe Paterno, following his termination
That quote brings me the tiniest bit of satisfaction from this freaking mess.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 1:38 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:Exactly. And no. He's trying to tiptoe around outright defending the guy. TJgator is also doing it. And some guy who knows Paterno and KNOWS he's a great guy. What a group of posters.
matter so much that you would spend 13 pages trying to draw it? Seriously?
Posted on 5/6/16 at 1:40 pm to MikeyFL
quote:fricking a sms
Question to Paterno: "Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?"
Paterno: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it."
As the Freeh report demonstrated, emails from 1998 prove that Paterno knew about allegations much earlier.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 1:46 pm to ReauxlTide222
Read the Thornburgh report it questions the Freeh report.
frickin A Reauxl
There were more than that report that questioned the rush to judgment of the Freeh Report.
There was Bangs and a former US Attorney that did separate reports.
LINK
V. Conclusion
When the evidence relied upon in the Freeh Report is considered in an objective manner,
it is clear that findings in the Report are not accurate, supportable or fair. There is no direct
evidence that Mr. Paterno was aware of the 1998 incident or the investigation that followed.
Furthermore, there are no credible facts in the Freeh Report to support its principal finding
against Mr. Paterno that he conspired with others to cover up the 2001 incident. A review of a
chronology of relevant events shows this lack of support:
Bangs I do not give much credit to since it has ties to the Sandusky defense.
frickin A Reauxl
There were more than that report that questioned the rush to judgment of the Freeh Report.
There was Bangs and a former US Attorney that did separate reports.
LINK
V. Conclusion
When the evidence relied upon in the Freeh Report is considered in an objective manner,
it is clear that findings in the Report are not accurate, supportable or fair. There is no direct
evidence that Mr. Paterno was aware of the 1998 incident or the investigation that followed.
Furthermore, there are no credible facts in the Freeh Report to support its principal finding
against Mr. Paterno that he conspired with others to cover up the 2001 incident. A review of a
chronology of relevant events shows this lack of support:
Bangs I do not give much credit to since it has ties to the Sandusky defense.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 5/6/16 at 2:00 pm to sms151t
I don't even need the Freeh report to bolster my claims that Paterno is a terrible human being.
I can't even fathom how I'd react to being in the same room with someone who would brush off a claim of someone witnessing child molestation by just passing it up the chain. I'm looking at direct quotes of Paterno stating that he was told by McQueary that inappropriate touching had occurred, but that he wasn't told all of the explicit details.
We aren't robots. Sometimes you have to do the right thing. Sometimes there is a such thing as moral responsibility. He should have asked more questions. He should have done something.
He was too enamored with protecting his legacy to give a shite. He did the absolute bare minimum and put people in harms way because of it.
I can't even fathom how I'd react to being in the same room with someone who would brush off a claim of someone witnessing child molestation by just passing it up the chain. I'm looking at direct quotes of Paterno stating that he was told by McQueary that inappropriate touching had occurred, but that he wasn't told all of the explicit details.
We aren't robots. Sometimes you have to do the right thing. Sometimes there is a such thing as moral responsibility. He should have asked more questions. He should have done something.
He was too enamored with protecting his legacy to give a shite. He did the absolute bare minimum and put people in harms way because of it.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 2:00 pm to sms151t
quote:
trying to act like he was an accomplice or actively participated, which he did not.
you don't know that as a fact.
With as close as Sandusky was running 2nd Mile with Penn St. football and how widespread the abuse was there's no telling how deep it ran in that community. Maybe one day Sandusky will name others and fully come clean for repentence.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 2:05 pm to sms151t
The Thornburgh report is an embarrassment that was funded by the Paterno family. Here's a sample of how it tries to "question" the Freeh report:
-----
The Freeh Report, in citing to the grand jury testimony of witnesses (e.g., Messrs.
McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, and Curley, and Dr. Spanier), fails to discuss the two main
evidentiary problems with grand jury testimony generally. First, although a grand jury witness
may be represented by counsel, his counsel is not permitted to object to improper or misleading
questions, which has the potential to create a one-sided record.76 Second, there is no cross
examination of witnesses permitted in grand jury proceedings.77 A thorough cross-examination
is always of paramount importance in eliciting accurate and balanced testimony and in
evaluating whether certain testimony may be inaccurate. By failing to address these fundamental
issues with grand jury testimony, the Freeh Report allows readers to make unfounded inferences
about the accuracy of certain statements it relies upon to render its conclusions.
-----
So, in other words, we should discount all grand jury testimony simply because there is no redirect or cross examination?
Give me a fricking break.
Paterno's grand jury statement exists and the emails from 1998 exist.
That's enough for me to say that Paterno was a narcissistic liar more concerned about his meaningless legacy than the children who were abused.
I'm done with this bullshite.
-----
The Freeh Report, in citing to the grand jury testimony of witnesses (e.g., Messrs.
McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, and Curley, and Dr. Spanier), fails to discuss the two main
evidentiary problems with grand jury testimony generally. First, although a grand jury witness
may be represented by counsel, his counsel is not permitted to object to improper or misleading
questions, which has the potential to create a one-sided record.76 Second, there is no cross
examination of witnesses permitted in grand jury proceedings.77 A thorough cross-examination
is always of paramount importance in eliciting accurate and balanced testimony and in
evaluating whether certain testimony may be inaccurate. By failing to address these fundamental
issues with grand jury testimony, the Freeh Report allows readers to make unfounded inferences
about the accuracy of certain statements it relies upon to render its conclusions.
-----
So, in other words, we should discount all grand jury testimony simply because there is no redirect or cross examination?
Give me a fricking break.
Paterno's grand jury statement exists and the emails from 1998 exist.
That's enough for me to say that Paterno was a narcissistic liar more concerned about his meaningless legacy than the children who were abused.
I'm done with this bullshite.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 2:07 pm
Page 13 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News