NYT report that Paterno was told about Sandusky in 1976

[keefe]

What a dirty, vile thing this is

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-abuse-claim-in-1976.html?_r=0

[mu03eng]

What a dirty, vile thing this is

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-abuse-claim-in-1976.html?_r=0

Just for a point of reference it is an aligation from an insurance provider with a vested interest in deflecting responsibility for paying out $60 million in settlement payments to victims. As of yet there is zero evidence that it is true.

If true, it changes everything regarding Paterno and the university

[WarriorInNYC]

Just for a point of reference it is an aligation from an insurance provider with a vested interest in deflecting responsibility for paying out $60 million in settlement payments to victims. As of yet there is zero evidence that it is true.

If true, it changes everything regarding Paterno and the university

This is a very good point that I think a ton of people will miss due to the wording of the headline.

"Paterno was Told of Sandusky Abuse Claim in 1976, Judge Says" carries quite a lot of weight and attracts a lot more eyeballs than what the article actually says.

The article pretty much says that insurers assert a boy told Paterno, but its not clear what that assertion is based on.  The article's next paragraph then notes that unidentified assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact, but nothing about them reporting it to Paterno.

However, that headline makes the reader think this is devastating to Paterno.  It really is good writing to influence opinion.

When I first read it, I thought this was very bad for Joe, but after reading your post, I decided to reread it, and there really isn't much here against him.

[HouWarrior]

Correct me as memory fades. Didnt NCAA, in the end, restore all the JoPa vacated victories, and let the school off with a sort of "time served" and close out their end?

[mu03eng]

This is a very good point that I think a ton of people will miss due to the wording of the headline.

"Paterno was Told of Sandusky Abuse Claim in 1976, Judge Says" carries quite a lot of weight and attracts a lot more eyeballs than what the article actually says.

The article pretty much says that insurers assert a boy told Paterno, but its not clear what that assertion is based on.  The article's next paragraph then notes that unidentified assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact, but nothing about them reporting it to Paterno.

However, that headline makes the reader think this is devastating to Paterno.  It really is good writing to influence opinion.

When I first read it, I thought this was very bad for Joe, but after reading your post, I decided to reread it, and there really isn't much here against him.

And I think this is a really important point for how the media works generally. Click bait headlines are generally accepted media practice but as we get inundated with info we depend more and more on headlines/synopsis

[mu03eng]

Correct me as memory fades. Didnt NCAA, in the end, restore all the JoPa vacated victories, and let the school off with a sort of "time served" and close out their end?

Yes

[keefe]

Just for a point of reference it is an aligation from an insurance provider with a vested interest in deflecting responsibility for paying out $60 million in settlement payments to victims. As of yet there is zero evidence that it is true.

If true, it changes everything regarding Paterno and the university

Navy

I am not endorsing the assertion and understand the POV of the claimant. But this report isn't simply that the insurer has made the claim but that a judge has reviewed the supporting evidence that coaches knew about Sandusky's behavior in 1976 and that the information was not forwarded up the chain of command.

Right now, we, the public, don't have specifics. But a judge has and he has stated that the football staff knew about this in 76 and never acted on it.

Details to follow but this doesn't look good for PSU.

[mu03eng]

Navy

I am not endorsing the assertion and understand the POV of the claimant. But this report isn't simply that the insurer has made the claim but that a judge has reviewed the supporting evidence that coaches knew about Sandusky's behavior in 1976 and that the information was not forwarded up the chain of command.

Right now, we, the public, don't have specifics. But a judge has and he has stated that the football staff knew about this in 76 and never acted on it.

Details to follow but this doesn't look good for PSU.

Crash

I'm not dismissing it, I'm very concerned about the allegation. I'm also not a legal expert to fully comprehend the ramifications nor the varied levels of concern given civil vs criminal litigation.

My whole point is that this entire episode has been about rush to judgement and clickbait media. Let's wait for all information to come out before we determine the level of disgust we deploy here.

The man is dead, if we burn him in ecute onehy 6 months from now when we know actual facts, that's fine. Just not read to do it now based on what we "know"

[keefe]

Crash

I'm not dismissing it, I'm very concerned about the allegation. I'm also not a legal expert to fully comprehend the ramifications nor the varied levels of concern given civil vs criminal litigation.

My whole point is that this entire episode has been about rush to judgement and clickbait media. Let's wait for all information to come out before we determine the level of disgust we deploy here.

The man is dead, if we burn him in ecute onehy 6 months from now when we know actual facts, that's fine. Just not read to do it now based on what we "know"

Concur. The whole Sandusky thing wounds the soul at a visceral level.

As a TACP we saw some horrific things but the absolute worst was when children were being harmed. There is something hard-wired into our DNA that demands we protect children.

[MU82]

Yes, but here's the good news: In NC, Sandusky can't go into a ladies' room.

He can go into a men's room ... but nothing bad could ever happen there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Correct me as memory fades. Didnt NCAA, in the end, restore all the JoPa vacated victories, and let the school off with a sort of "time served" and close out their end?

They basically had to because of some other pending lawsuits, but the damage was done.  The NCAA rightly delivered a heavy blow to PSU as it should have.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, but here's the good news: In NC, Sandusky can't go into a ladies' room.

He can go into a men's room ... but nothing bad could ever happen there.

Bad stuff can happen anywhere and does.   Question is if we should have policies that make it even easier.  We know where you stand.

[MU82]

Bad stuff can happen anywhere and does.   Question is if we should have policies that make it even easier. 

This sounds almost word-for-word like the typical argument for gun control.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This sounds almost word-for-word like the typical argument for gun control.

But because bad guys don't abide by gun control laws and law abiding citizens do, all you're doing is penalizing the good guys...that's the problem.  This just in....criminals don't abide by laws.

[MU82]

But because bad guys don't abide by gun control laws and law abiding citizens do, all you're doing is penalizing the good guys...that's the problem.  This just in....criminals don't abide by laws.

And because bad men or bad women or bad transgender men or bad transgender women or bad men pretending to be transgender women or bad whoever else don't abide by lewd & lascivious behavior laws and law abiding citizens do, all you're doing is penalizing the good men or good women or good transgender women...that's the problem. This just in....criminals don't abide by laws.

Ipso fatso, just as all the gun control laws in the world don't stop gun violence, Hate Bill 2 and other laws like it won't stop criminals from committing crimes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And because bad men or bad women or bad transgender men or bad transgender women or bad men pretending to be transgender women or bad whoever else don't abide by lewd & lascivious behavior laws and law abiding citizens do, all you're doing is penalizing the good men or good women or good transgender women...that's the problem. This just in....criminals don't abide by laws.

Ipso fatso, just as all the gun control laws in the world don't stop gun violence, Hate Bill 2 and other laws like it won't stop criminals from committing crimes.

Accept when you then create a law that opens an aircraft carrier wide hole for the bad guys to use the law to their advantage....which is even more troublesome.  Which is what happened in your state.  Now, if you want...take this to the politics board where it belongs.

[MU82]

Accept when you then create a law that opens an aircraft carrier wide hole for the bad guys to use the law to their advantage....which is even more troublesome.  Which is what happened in your state.  Now, if you want...take this to the politics board where it belongs.

You're wrong ... again. My work is done here.

Except to say that it's "except," not "accept."

[keefe]

You're wrong ... again. My work is done here.

Except to say that it's "except," not "accept."

Except when one must accept it

[GooooMarquette]

Except when one must accept it

Exceptional!

[GGGG]

They unsealed the court documents this morning.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/nation-world/national/article89055837.html

A man testified in court in 2014 that Penn State football coach Joe Paterno ignored his complaints of a sexual assault committed by assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in 1976 when the man was a 14-year-old boy, according to new court documents unsealed Tuesday in a Philadelphia court.

The victim, who was identified in court records as John Doe 150, said that while he was attending a football camp at Penn State, Sandusky touched him as he showered. Sandusky's finger penetrated the boy's rectum, Doe testified in court in 2014, and the victim asked to speak with Paterno about it. Doe testified that he specifically told Paterno that Sandusky had sexually assaulted him, and Paterno ignored it.

"Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, 'I don't want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?'" the man's lawyer asked him in 2014.

"Specifically. Yes . . . I was shocked, disappointed, offended. I was insulted. . . I said, is that all you're going to do? You're not going to do anything else?"

Paterno, the man testified, just walked away.

[🏀]

I can't hear a word your saying.

[mu03eng]

A couple of other things to throw in from Doe 150's testimony. Supposedly when he was assaulted there were multiple boys in the shower and 150 cried out about the assault for the other boys to hear, but there was no testimony from any other witnesses corroborating the story. Also 150 testified that he told Paterno but that he specifically did not contact police.

[MU82]

Hmmmm.

[Coleman]

There's no way Paterno didn't know.

[MU82]

There's no way Paterno didn't know.

I tend to agree. Coaches are notorious control freaks.

They claim to know the ins and outs of every aspect of their program, and they tell each recruit's mommy that they personally will look out for her little boy.

And yet, almost everytime anything goes wrong, like this with JoePa, or Roy with the academic scandal at UNC, or whatever, it's ... "Wow, this is so surprising! I never could have imagined such a thing happening in this program!"