NDL Forum

DRiccio21 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:I am still confused. Did this happen while he was a coach at PSU or after he retired? If this happend when he was on the staff then as Dave said, its under your watch and you go down with the ship.

If it happend after he left, I dont really know what to think.

i'm not positive

i think he was off the staff when the Mcquery stuff happened, but he still kept an office in the football facilities i believe and was still around the program regularly.

He was not on staff when the McQuery incident happened. Another case of misleading information, even if you're prefacing it with "I'm not positive."

ReignOnU wrote:

DRiccio21 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:I am still confused. Did this happen while he was a coach at PSU or after he retired? If this happend when he was on the staff then as Dave said, its under your watch and you go down with the ship.

If it happend after he left, I dont really know what to think.

i'm not positive

i think he was off the staff when the Mcquery stuff happened, but he still kept an office in the football facilities i believe and was still around the program regularly.

He was not on staff when the McQuery incident happened. Another case of misleading information, even if you're prefacing it with "I'm not positive."

i just said 'i think he was off the staff'

jsence2 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:I am still confused. Did this happen while he was a coach at PSU or after he retired? If this happend when he was on the staff then as Dave said, its under your watch and you go down with the ship.

If it happend after he left, I dont really know what to think.

If it happened after he left, you still don't let him into your locker room, wouldn't you agree?

As Reign said, what Joe Pa says, goes. He says you don't come into his locker room, that goes.

Another disrespectful quote. Pathetic.

If/when you read the report, you'll realize that Sandusky was entering the shower area during away games and late after hours. It's quite possible that JoePa had no idea until McQ came to him.

DRiccio21 wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:

DRiccio21 wrote:

brwnbear wrote:I am still confused. Did this happen while he was a coach at PSU or after he retired? If this happend when he was on the staff then as Dave said, its under your watch and you go down with the ship.

If it happend after he left, I dont really know what to think.

i'm not positive

i think he was off the staff when the Mcquery stuff happened, but he still kept an office in the football facilities i believe and was still around the program regularly.

He was not on staff when the McQuery incident happened. Another case of misleading information, even if you're prefacing it with "I'm not positive."

i just said 'i think he was off the staff'

You're right, my apologies. I'm sorry for misquoting you.

I'm reading a lot of information both here and on 2 other websites... there is so much hearsay being thrown around. It's like those little kid games where you start with one story and end with another... the only thing is, it's passing through thousands of hands and everyone just wants to run with whatever they have.

McQ was @ practice coaching yesterday.

Random thought... someone with more legal system background might be able to add to this...

I'm thinking this could end up in the hands of the Feds. Right now it's sitting with the AG of PA. But the kids mentioned going to away games. No major incidents happened, but I believe enough happened to be investigated as a federal crime, correct?

ReignOnU wrote:
Another disrespectful quote. Pathetic.

If/when you read the report, you'll realize that Sandusky was entering the shower area during away games and late after hours. It's quite possible that JoePa had no idea until McQ came to him.

Its also quite possible that he was turning a blind eye or didn't care.

jsence2 wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:
Another disrespectful quote. Pathetic.

If/when you read the report, you'll realize that Sandusky was entering the shower area during away games and late after hours. It's quite possible that JoePa had no idea until McQ came to him.

Its also quite possible that he was turning a blind eye or didn't care.

Absolutely is. But I don't KNOW either one, therefore I can't judge that portion of the argument.

Will you at least concede that he should have done more to follow up with all of this?

And further, will you concede that he should step down now and do the right thing for his players and the program?

I refuse to buy the "he was ignorant to it" defense in all of this.

jsence2 wrote:Will you at least concede that he should have done more to follow up with all of this?

And further, will you concede that he should step down now and do the right thing for his players and the program?

I refuse to buy the "he was ignorant to it" defense in all of this.

Have you read anything I wrote or just continued to respond repeatedly without doing so?

I've already stated that if McQ told him anything that involved a child in the showers, then yes... and that I wished he would have retired effective immediately.

Here is a really good timeline from ESPN:

Sandusky, Penn State case timeline


A chronological look at the case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, based on a grand jury report in Pennsylvania state court. Some key dates in Penn State football history are included. Sandusky has been charged with 40 criminal counts, accusing him of serial sex abuse of minors:

1969
Jerry Sandusky starts his coaching career at Penn State University as a defensive line coach.

1977
Jerry Sandusky founds The Second Mile. It begins as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys and grows into a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families.

January 1983
Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1982 season.

January 1987
Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1986 season.

1994
Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.

1994-95
Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.

1995-96
Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.

1996-97
Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.

1996-98
Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.

Jan. 1, 1998
Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.

1998
Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

June 1999
Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.

Dec. 28, 1999
Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.

Summer 2000
Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.

Fall 2000
A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.

Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.

March 1, 2002
A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.

March 2, 2002
In the morning, the graduate assistant calls coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno's home, where he reports what he has seen.

March 3, 2002
Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.

March 2002
Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.

March 27, 2002 (approximate)
The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky's locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in grand jury in December 2010.

2005-2006
Boy known as Victim 1 says that he meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.

Spring 2007
During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.

Spring 2008
Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy's mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.

Early 2009
An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa., teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.

September 2010
Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.

March 2011
Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News reports that grand jury is investigating Sandusky on allegations of indecent assault against a teenage boy. The Patriot-News reports that five people with knowledge of the case said the grand jury has been meeting for 18 months and has called witnesses including Paterno and Curley. Penn State declines comment.

Nov. 5, 2011
Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.

Nov. 7, 2011
Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university president Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.

Nov. 8, 2011
Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno's regular weekly press conference.

Nov. 9, 2011
Paterno announces he'll retire at the end of the season.

Not to blow the situation off, but just an interesting question about the future...

...IF Spanier is out and Tom Ridge takes the president position, I wonder if that eases the tentativeness that a potential coach would have about coming on board. Right now, I can't imagine an elite level coach would willingly dive into this mess. But with a reputable person like Ridge at the helm, I'd think that would help relieve some tension and show that things are going to get corrected.

i can't fathom how you can defend Paterno in this circumstance.

i've taken a step back, i'm taking away all the disgusting thoughts in my head and trying to be rational. he knew something happened and he continually saw the guy with children for almost a decade.

its quite clear to me, he didn't want the distraction or the black mark he knew this would cause his program and he just swept it under the rug hoping it would go away or he'd die before it ever became public.

ReignOnU wrote:Not to blow the situation off, but just an interesting question about the future...

...IF Spanier is out and Tom Ridge takes the president position, I wonder if that eases the tentativeness that a potential coach would have about coming on board. Right now, I can't imagine an elite level coach would willingly dive into this mess. But with a reputable person like Ridge at the helm, I'd think that would help relieve some tension and show that things are going to get corrected.

if everyone associated from admin to coaches involved was removed, i'm not sure it would deter a coach from coming into the situation.

its not something thats reflective of anything worse than bad judgement by a few people. its not like being at penn state caused this, it could have been any school in any state in America.

ReignOnU wrote:

jsence2 wrote:Will you at least concede that he should have done more to follow up with all of this?

And further, will you concede that he should step down now and do the right thing for his players and the program?

I refuse to buy the "he was ignorant to it" defense in all of this.

Have you read anything I wrote or just continued to respond repeatedly without doing so?

I've already stated that if McQ told him anything that involved a child in the showers, then yes... and that I wished he would have retired effective immediately.

Yes, and you keep adding stipulations. I'm saying based on what you DO know, will you at least concede those points?

Based on what's been proven via grand jury testimony, he knew.

DRiccio21 wrote:i can't fathom how you can defend Paterno in this circumstance.

i've taken a step back, i'm taking away all the disgusting thoughts in my head and trying to be rational. he knew something happened and he continually saw the guy with children for almost a decade.

its quite clear to me, he didn't want the distraction or the black mark he knew this would cause his program and he just swept it under the rug hoping it would go away or he'd die before it ever became public.

I'm not defending anyone... I'm simply not implicating him until I have facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand, especially for someone that is a numbers guy that believes in facts. We don't have them.

You don't know what level that something is. You don't even know if it related to children. So you can't even begin to make the connection to the 2nd part.

There are still so many potential scenarios out there that it's not fair to implicate him yet. (unless you live in Louisiana of course)

ReignOnU wrote:

DRiccio21 wrote:i can't fathom how you can defend Paterno in this circumstance.

i've taken a step back, i'm taking away all the disgusting thoughts in my head and trying to be rational. he knew something happened and he continually saw the guy with children for almost a decade.

its quite clear to me, he didn't want the distraction or the black mark he knew this would cause his program and he just swept it under the rug hoping it would go away or he'd die before it ever became public.

I'm not defending anyone... I'm simply not implicating him until I have facts. I don't see why that is so hard to understand, especially for someone that is a numbers guy that believes in facts. We don't have them.

You don't know what level that something is. You don't even know if it related to children. So you can't even begin to make the connection to the 2nd part.

There are still so many potential scenarios out there that it's not fair to implicate him yet. (unless you live in Louisiana of course)

what the hell did Louisiana do to you huhÉ

jsence2 wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:

jsence2 wrote:Will you at least concede that he should have done more to follow up with all of this?

And further, will you concede that he should step down now and do the right thing for his players and the program?

I refuse to buy the "he was ignorant to it" defense in all of this.

Have you read anything I wrote or just continued to respond repeatedly without doing so?

I've already stated that if McQ told him anything that involved a child in the showers, then yes... and that I wished he would have retired effective immediately.

Yes, and you keep adding stipulations. I'm saying based on what you DO know, will you at least concede those points?

Based on what's been proven via grand jury testimony, he knew.

Goodness jsence. All of that stuff is in my original scenario, nothing was added. Go read it before responding about it again. I'm not even going to bother responding to you on this if you can't take the time to be respectful and read what you're commenting on.

Based on what I do know, I'm not going to say that he needed to do more, because I don't know the what he knew. And again, I've already said that I think he should step down based on what I DO know, because the benefits of doing so far outweigh the benefits of him staying until the end of the season, even if he is completely free of blame.

nick wrote: what the hell did Louisiana do to you huhÉ

Heh, I wouldn't expect a foreigner to know the reasoning for that statement. And I'd actually be shocked if more than a small handful got the reference.

ReignOnU wrote:

nick wrote: what the hell did Louisiana do to you huhÉ

Heh, I wouldn't expect a foreigner to know the reasoning for that statement. And I'd actually be shocked if more than a small handful got the reference.

ya i didnt get it