A Molestation Victim's Take on JoPa's Passing

[Franks Tanks]

I don't have time, but did you not state that Joe covered it up for benefit of the program? I think Joe did not do the right thing, but I do not believe Joe executed a cover-up. That is it. Go away.

Actually I don't even know why I came over here.

Nope. Never stated that...even though it turns out that that's EXACTLY what he did. But you make a fly-by attacking me and then want me to just "go away"?

Go **** yourself. I don't know why you came over here either....

I don't think you read anything.

1- It is not proven that Joe was in on the cover-up or the cover-up was his idea. It is simply not proven at this time. if further evidence surfaces I will also pile on Joe for covering it up.

2- It makes no sense to cover-up for the benefit of the program when the program wouldn't be harmed if it were reported years ago. E-mails indicate it was covered up to be "humane" to Sandusky, and it was suggested they could talk to him and get him "help". Stupid idea without a doubt, but a different animal from protecting the program at all costs.

You're right I shouldn't have tried to have a discussion with you. Your posts consist of curse words, smiley faces, and no rational content for adults to discuss.

[Franks Tanks]

I don't know if this is new or old news, but CNN got ahold of several cover-up emails from the PSU administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/p ... ?hpt=hp_c2

The messages indicate former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two other former university officials knew they had a problem with Sandusky after a 2001 shower incident, but apparently first decided to handle it using a "humane" approach before contacting outside authorities whose job it is to investigate suspected abuse.
"This is a more humane and upfront way to handle this,' Gary Schultz, who was a university vice president at the time, allegedly wrote.

Records show no authorities were ever contacted and Sandusky was eventually charged with having sexual contact with four more boys after the 2001 incident. On June 22, Sandusky was convicted of abusing 10 boys over 15 years.

In an exchange of messages from February 26 to February 28, 2001, Spanier allegedly acknowledges Penn State could be "vulnerable" for not reporting the incident, according to two sources with knowledge of the case.
"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly writes.
The alleged e-mails among Spanier, Schultz, 62, and former Athletic Director Tim Curley, 57, never mention Sandusky by name, instead referring to him as "the subject" and "the person." Children that Sandusky brought on campus --some of whom might have been victims -- are referred to as "guests."

That has been around for a while, but thanks for posting. It implies that Curley, Spanier, and Shultz decided not to bring the info to authorities because they felt they could make Jerry stop, and wanted to be humane to him. As I just said it was not right, and they deserve blame, but I don't see how they did this to protect the football program.

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. Never stated that...even though it turns out that that's EXACTLY what he did. But you make a fly-by attacking me and then want me to just "go away"?

Go **** yourself. I don't know why you came over here either....

I don't think you read anything.

1- It is not proven that Joe was in on the cover-up or the cover-up was his idea. It is simply not proven at this time. if further evidence surfaces I will also pile on Joe for covering it up.

2- It makes no sense to cover-up for the benefit of the program when the program wouldn't be harmed if it were reported years ago. E-mails indicate it was covered up to be "humane" to Sandusky, and it was suggested they could talk to him and get him "help". Stupid idea without a doubt, but a different animal from protecting the program at all costs.

You're right I shouldn't have tried to have a discussion with you. Your posts consist of curse words, smiley faces, and no rational content for adults to discuss.

If you honestly can look at all that transpired and belive they covered it up solely to be "humane" to Sandusky, you're delusional. The decision to not pursue/out Sandusky was about one thing, and one thing only: protecting PSU and their precious image. Anyone with a brainstem can see that...at least those of us not looking at it through PSU-colored glasses.

Oh, and I don't know anybody--even on a message board--who claims to be attempting to have a civil discussion, yet begins it by telling the other person their posts are filled with "misinformation and faulty logic".

Let me throw in a few more smilie faces just so we're clear:

[Franks Tanks]

I don't think you read anything.

1- It is not proven that Joe was in on the cover-up or the cover-up was his idea. It is simply not proven at this time. if further evidence surfaces I will also pile on Joe for covering it up.

2- It makes no sense to cover-up for the benefit of the program when the program wouldn't be harmed if it were reported years ago. E-mails indicate it was covered up to be "humane" to Sandusky, and it was suggested they could talk to him and get him "help". Stupid idea without a doubt, but a different animal from protecting the program at all costs.

You're right I shouldn't have tried to have a discussion with you. Your posts consist of curse words, smiley faces, and no rational content for adults to discuss.

If you honestly can look at all that transpired and belive they covered it up solely to be "humane" to Sandusky, you're delusional. The decision to not pursue/out Sandusky was about one thing, and one thing only: protecting PSU and their precious image. Anyone with a brainstem can see that...at least those of us not looking at it through PSU-colored glasses.

Oh, and I don't know anybody--even on a message board--who claims to be attempting to have a civil discussion, yet begins it by telling the other person their posts are filled with "misinformation and faulty logic".

Let me throw in a few more smilie faces just so we're clear:

One would have to be an idiot to not realize that covering it up would be worse for the program in the long run. If the intent was to protect the program, or yourself, you report everything right away. You can go a step further and argue that if Joe just wanted to protect his program he could’ve told McQueary not to tell anyone else. The fact that Joe told Curly indicates that Joe wasn’t thinking cover-up when he heard the news. The cover-up only benefited one person—Jerry Sandusky. They thought they could rehab Jerry. Covering this up to protect the football program makes no logical sense, when reporting the incident correctly wouldn’t have harmed the program.

[AZGrizFan]

One would have to be an idiot to not realize that covering it up would be worse for the program in the long run. If the intent was to protect the program, or yourself, you report everything right away. You can go a step further and argue that if Joe just wanted to protect his program he could’ve told McQueary not to tell anyone else. The fact that Joe told Curly indicates that Joe wasn’t thinking cover-up when he heard the news. The cover-up only benefited one person—Jerry Sandusky. They thought they could rehab Jerry. Covering this up to protect the football program makes no logical sense, when reporting the incident correctly wouldn’t have harmed the program.

In an exchange of messages from February 26 to February 28, 2001, Spanier allegedly acknowledges Penn State could be "vulnerable" for not reporting the incident, according to two sources with knowledge of the case.
"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly writes.
The alleged e-mails among Spanier, Schultz, 62, and former Athletic Director Tim Curley, 57, never mention Sandusky by name, instead referring to him as "the subject" and "the person." Children that Sandusky brought on campus --some of whom might have been victims -- are referred to as "guests."

From your own quote. They were aware of the potential ramifications and elected to go that route anyway..worrying about being "humane" to Sandusky, at the expense of rape victims? Pathetic. Expecting their message to be "heard" by Sandusky? Honestly, that's comical. .you don't "rehab" a pedophile. One would think individuals in their positions would know that. And it's obvious that they KNEW what had transpired SHOULD have been reported, yet they choose not to. There was failure at so many levels--from McQueary, to JoPa, all the way to Spanier, Schultz and Curley--that it's truly pathetic.

[Franks Tanks]

One would have to be an idiot to not realize that covering it up would be worse for the program in the long run. If the intent was to protect the program, or yourself, you report everything right away. You can go a step further and argue that if Joe just wanted to protect his program he could’ve told McQueary not to tell anyone else. The fact that Joe told Curly indicates that Joe wasn’t thinking cover-up when he heard the news. The cover-up only benefited one person—Jerry Sandusky. They thought they could rehab Jerry. Covering this up to protect the football program makes no logical sense, when reporting the incident correctly wouldn’t have harmed the program.

In an exchange of messages from February 26 to February 28, 2001, Spanier allegedly acknowledges Penn State could be "vulnerable" for not reporting the incident, according to two sources with knowledge of the case.
"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly writes.
The alleged e-mails among Spanier, Schultz, 62, and former Athletic Director Tim Curley, 57, never mention Sandusky by name, instead referring to him as "the subject" and "the person." Children that Sandusky brought on campus --some of whom might have been victims -- are referred to as "guests."

From your own quote. They were aware of the potential ramifications and elected to go that route anyway..worrying about being "humane" to Sandusky, at the expense of rape victims? Pathetic. Expecting their message to be "heard" by Sandusky? Honestly, that's comical. .you don't "rehab" a pedophile. One would think individuals in their positions would know that. And it's obvious that they KNEW what had transpired SHOULD have been reported, yet they choose not to. There was failure at so many levels--from McQueary, to JoPa, all the way to Spanier, Schultz and Curley--that it's truly pathetic.

No shit- I was not arguing that point. It is pointless to continue this because you are not even grasping the points I am making.

[AZGrizFan]

Quite a web of mis-information and faulty logic spouted by AzGrizFan (although that shouldn’t surprise me).

It is unfathomable that Joe is somehow the scapegoat in all of this when he didn’t witness anything, is not a law enforcement official, and not an administrator of the university. Sure Joe was an important man, and his opinion held sway at PSU, but he was a just football coach. Mike McQueary did not tell Joe that he thought the boy was being raped. MM told Joe a watered down version, and testified as such under oath in the Curley/Shultz hearings. He told Joe a toned down version, and Joe arranged a meeting with Curley and Shultz. Both Joe and MM viewed Shultz as law enforcement, and MM testified as such. MM told his story to just Shultz and Curley, Joe was not present for the meeting and never heard the gory details from Mike. Joe indicated he followed up with Mike, and apparently Mike said it was handled to his satisfaction.

What killed Joe is the fact that MM didn’t tell him the full story. Perhaps Joe should’ve instructed MM to call the Police, but Joe and MM thought talking to Shultz was the same as reporting it to the Police. Joe was not a witness or a victim and his account of what Mike told him would mean little. The cops need a victim and/or a witness to have success in these cases. I agree that Joe should’ve pushed MM/Shultz/Curley to ensure it was investigated and vetted properly. He could have done more in this regard. However Joe didn’t know the details, and was under the impression that it was investigated properly. Joe was a trusting man and If MM and or Curley told him it was investigated and settled he probably believed them. I do think Joe made a mistake, and that is clear with the benefit of hindsight, but we are killing a man who didn’t know the full story and trusted the people in charge did the right thing.

You're right...in reading this I have NO idea what "point" you're trying to make. You're claiming things that aren't true (regarding my statements) and claiming JoPa is getting "beaten up" in the press when he's barely even been mentioned. What exactly WAS your point?

[Franks Tanks]

Point 1- Joe did initially reported what he was told to the right people. We need to learn why the initial plan went off track.

Point 2- We have no evidence that suggests Joe was responsible for, or even participated in a cover-up

Point 3 – Cover-up was not done to directly benefit the football program


Joe also deserves blame, but he was not the mastermind of a grand cover-up to protect his football program based on what we know. That is my point, but you kept stating that Joe should’ve done more. I don’t disagree, but I am attempting to make some finer points of distinction here.

[AZGrizFan]

Point 1- Joe did initially reported what he was told to the right people. We need to learn why the initial plan went off track.

Point 2- We have no evidence that suggests Joe was responsible for, or even participated in a cover-up

Point 3 – Cover-up was not done to directly benefit the football program


Joe also deserves blame, but he was not the mastermind of a grand cover-up to protect his football program based on what we know. That is my point, but you kept stating that Joe should’ve done more. I don’t disagree, but I am attempting to make some finer points of distinction here.

I've never said he was the mastermind of a grand cover-up...although it's beginning to appear he did participate in discussions about how to keep it "in-house"...and if you want to word-smith things to make yourself feel better, go right ahead. For me, it's pretty simple: Even if only hearing a "watered-down" version of events (accordingto McQueary), I'd have done a HELL of a lot more than JoPa apparently felt the need to...and for that he should rightfully rot in hell.

[Skjellyfetti]