New Facts Support Paterno by Btd121

NEW FACTS SUPPORT PATERNO on BSD with comments 

Many of us have said over and over we wanted more facts before judging Paterno a horrible person like many here already have. It is my contention we got a lot of those facts today. Not all. Certainly not the smoking gun. But there was some real positive testimony that came to light today. Not that the media will report any of it. I know most of you seemed to think no one came out looking better, but I think in hindsight that isn't true.

Many of these points have been brought up by others as well as myself, so I am not trying to steal anyone's ideas. I do not write this an attempt to start another debate (although I’m sure it will as I'm guilty of adding my two cents), but rather to gather pertinent facts regarding Paterno's actions for those actually wanting to make an informed decision.

So here is some of the testimony I feel was very important in determining Paterno's alleged moral failure. I will characterize the testimony as best I can based on the tweet summaries we all read today.

1. According to MM, Paterno was not told about the graphic nature of what MM allegedly saw in the bathroom. MM testified he purposely did not go into graphic detail. No anal rape, sodomy or the like. I believe this matches Paterno's characterization of what he heard.

2. MM believed Schultz was the cops, going as far as to say he thought he was basically talking to the DA. MM testified he saw Schultz organizing the police during prior riots. This certainly makes the likelihood that Paterno brought in Schultz for his connection to the police and ultimate ability to start an investigation extremely likely. Why else would he be there?

3. The chief of police in 2002 testified his boss was Schultz. He said he met with Schultz weekly and reported anything of a serious nature to Schultz. (paraphrasing, obviously) I believe he said he reported the 1998 incident to Schultz. This again goes to Paterno thinking he was involving the police in some manner when he involved Schultz.

4. Paterno was the one who brought Schultz into the picture. Both Curley and Schultz testified Schultz was included at Paterno's request.

5. MM was not told by anyone to refrain from talking about the incident to others. Not Paterno, not Curley, not Schultz. If they wanted to cover this thing up, a good start would have been to silence MM.

6. Paterno followed up with MM about how he was feeling on several occasions. While this doesn't answer the question so many are asking about whether or not Paterno followed up, in my opinion it makes it more likely he did. If he followed up with MM, he likely followed up with the others. It also shows that following up was not included in the Grand Jury Presentment. Shocker.

7. While not a positive piece of testimony, one of the "juciest" pieces that certain people on here jumped all over was Paterno's testimony that he probably didn't call Curley over the weekend because he didn't want to ruin his weekend his plans. In fact, Paterno did call Curley the very next day. So this is basically meaningless. It seems Paterno could not remember the exact timeline of when he acted so he offered this as an excuse. Albeit a dumb one. In fact, Paterno couldn't remember the year of the incident and was likely embarrassed. Remember he was 84 (I think) at the time he testified about events 9 years prior.

Well those are my initial impressions. I hope this clears up some of the ambiguity. I'm sure I have convinced no one on the other side of anything, but I hope I at least provided those looking for additional facts, or those who didn’t have an opportunity to follow the testimony, a clearer picture of the new facts relating to Paterno.

Blast away.

What if this happened to me? by Dlkshanghai

What if this Happened to Me on BSD with Comments 

I am a longtime BSD reader and have never written a post. I am a ’95 PSU grad and have been generally obsessed with the Sandusky case since it broke in early Nov. BSD has been my sanctuary through this turmoil and a place I can count on to find news and minority opinions like my own. Thank you all very much.

While it appears that employees of Penn State have various levels of culpability in this case, I can’t help but to relate most strongly to the position of Joe Paterno. In my company, I am in a position of authority. I am in charge of a portion of our business and I have about 300 people that report to me. I have a boss, who is in charge of the entire business (Curley in this example) and he has a boss who is the CEO of the entire company (Spanier). While I am not a famous icon or the most successful business manager of all time, I fit into the same general position as Joe Paterno in my company.

There is also a workout room and a shower in the locker room of my building. If I was presented with the scenario where one of my employees witnessed some sort of “wrong”, “sexual”, incident involving a retired employee of mine and an 11 year old boy in the shower at work, I believe it is reasonable to assume I would act in a very similar manner as Joe Paterno.

Let’s say one of my employees (let’s call him “John”) comes to me and tells me that the previous evening he came into work to retrieve something in the locker room and found a retired employee (let’s call him “Bill”) in the shower with a young boy. John told me he heard what he thought could be rhythmic sex sounds and that he caught a glimpse of them in the shower with Bill behind the boy but he couldn’t really see much. John made noises so they would hear him and he looked in and saw they were no longer close to each other. John leaves. John was really shaken up but didn’t call the police and came to see me the next morning.

I listen to John’s story the next day. He is intimidated by me and he doesn’t go into graphic detail. He does say he thinks it was sexual. I know Bill and I know his wife and his family. His sons interned for me while they were in college. By all purposes, Bill is an upstanding person with an outstanding record with one blemish where he had been accused of doing this exact same thing before but there were never any charges brought and as far as I knew (if at all) the police decided that there wasn’t much there. I knew Bill was a little eccentric but I didn’t think he was a child molester. But I know that John certainly thinks he saw something and I am duty bound to follow up.

At this point, I don’t think I call the police right away. I wasn’t there, I didn’t actually see it. If wrong, I would set off a whirlwind of problems for Bill, his family and possibly to my company. Plus, John didn’t call the police either so his actions tell me that may not be the best approach given what he saw. Instead, I want to talk to my boss and our head of HR. I tell them the story and they say they want to talk directly to John. At this point, having linked the people who are now taking on the burden of the case and I am no longer part of the critical path. Afterward, my boss, who also knows Bill, decides to call him up and ask him what the hell he was doing. Bill states that was there with the kid showing him around and they got dirty so they decided to get cleaned up. That was all. He offered up the name of the kid to verify the story. My boss tells him that it looks really bad and that he shouldn’t have done that and never bring a kid around the building again.

My boss then goes back to John and tells him that they called Bill and told him not to come back to the building with children. He tells him it must have been some mistake and that was it. Later, I decide to follow up with John and ask him if he was OK with how things were handled. He says he is OK with it. I decide that if he, being the actual witness, is OK then I am OK with it too.

So the question here is: Should I get fired? Should my professional reputation be completely tarnished? If my company decided to name a company award after me because of my stellar career, should that also be removed? Was what I did in this scenario so outrageous that it deserves to be a headline of every newspaper in the country? Is this not a generally reasonable course of action? Certainly, “with hindsight” we should have done more but we did what we thought to be rational response.

Frankly, I’d like to hear someone tell me that they would have handled the situation differently. About the only difference I see in my scenario versus the actual Penn State scenario is that Paterno didn’t meet with his boss and HR, he met with his boss and the person who has the police department reporting to them (what would be the equivalent to the mayor of the small town in which I work). This would actually strengthen Paterno’s actions over mine.

BTW, while I am writing I want to mention a few other topics I have read on here and other places.

I work in a university town in an adjacent state to PA. There are about 25K students and it is well known that the campus police are a real police department. They carry weapons, they can arrest you, give you a ticket, investigate crime, etc… When you live and work in one of these towns this is a well-known fact. Not just in Pennsylvania, but here and just about everywhere else.

Also, I love to listen to the theories about how all the “Big Money” has corrupted everyone involved and if you want to know why this occurred, just follow the money. I work with people every day that are responsible for businesses that make Penn State’s football revenue look small. I personally manage a business that is comparable in size. Are you telling me that I would be easily corrupted by the sums of money that I or everyone I work with manages? The thought that this type of money would corrupt these guys is ridiculous. Penn State has no reason to protect Sandusky on a monetary basis. If they would have pursued him and he was found guilty of a crime on their campus, exactly how much would that publicity affect the PSU football revenues? 5%? That is a few million in revenue. Do you think guys like Spanier, Curley or Paterno would care about a few million dollars? These guys give away that kind of money. I read somewhere that they didn’t want to jeopardize the $250K Sandusky got from football camps. You have got to be kidding if you think that type of money makes guys like that even think twice. If anything, it would have affected it more if they would have pursued him and he was found not-guilty. At that point, they could have been sued by Sandusky. Either way, these guys aren’t about money. Just take a look at Joe’s house and you realize the guy doesn’t care at all about money.

If you made it through all of this, thanks for reading.

"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

by AlmostAYardShy  Post on BSD with comments LINK 

• 
  
• 
  
• I commented on this in a different FanPost, but consider that:

1) The statement in this title is often shortened to "..In hindsight"

2) Joe was an English major at Brown

Joe is the kind of person that really picks and chooses his words, and this makes sense because he was an English major. Therefore, it's important to realize what he actually meant with his statement. When you shorten the statement to just "in hindsight," it has completely different implications than "with the benefit of hindsight." For one, "in hindsight" implies previous knowledge of whatever happened and some kind of mistake in decision-making. More than that, it implies some kind of compliance with whatever happened and complacency.

"With the benefit of hindsight" implies knowledge gained after the fact -- or, pretty much the same reaction we all had to the Jerry Sandusky news. I'm not saying anything in regards to Joe's actual innocence or truth of the statement itself (although I do believe he did what he thought was right) but the way Joe phrased his statement is important. Too often in the media, this statement is shortened to "in hindsight." It's not hard to understand why the media at large would do that -- it allows Joe to have prior knowledge of what JS did and allow for a cover-up.

John McQueary Misquote by dice5199

John McQueary Misquote on BSD with comments

"I'm NOW in a position to say Gary Schultz did nothing about it."

This was a supposed quote by Mike McQueary's dad, John, during testimony at the December 16th preliminary hearing in the cases against PSU officials Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. This quote, word for word, was used in various news articles summarizing the proceedings. The quote supports the prosecution's cases against the PSU officials and by extension makes Joe Paterno look worse.

Fast forward to about a week later. The Dauphin County Court released the official transcript of the proceedings.

Curley Schultz Hearing Transcript

On page 157 is the following correct quote by John McQueary,

"I am NOT in a position to say that Gary Schultz didn't do anything about it."

One key word is different and it gives the opposite meaning to the quote.

So how did this misquote come to be and why was it used by several media outlets? Well, it appears that the source was a person present at the hearing who was tweeting on behalf of the Patriot News. The person probably made an honest error, mistakenly hearing NOW instead of NOT and texted it in into cyberspace for the world to read. Other journalists took this damning quote and ran with it. In addition to the Patriot News, journalists for the New York Times and the New York Daily News included the misquote in their articles verbatim with no reference of the original source. I'm not an expert in journalism, but I think this is lazy journalism at best and possibly a case of plagiarizing a quote.

The stories with the misquote are linked below. In each story, the quote is located at the end of the article. This is not a coincidence. A quote placed at the end of a story is typically used to sum up a story and leave the reader with a lasting impression.

Patriot News Article

NY Daily News

NY Times Article

Courtartist.com blog

The ending of the Patriot News article states the following,

McQueary's father, John, bluntly assessed the actions of university officials in his testimony, saying "I was dissatisfied with the process, that it appeared on the surface that the system wasn't doing much about it.I'm now in the position to say Gary Schultz did nothing about it."

There were other live updates from the hearing that provided an accurate version of John McQueary's quote, such as a tweet from Nate Bauer of Blue White Illustrated that stated NOT instead of NOW.

Interestingly, none of the accurate versions of the quote made it into any notable news stories. This lends further credence to the idea that journalists are selectively using the more damning information (or misinformation) against PSU and Paterno.

The Heel Shreds Bernstein

The Heel Shreds Bernstein on BSD with comments 

I believe that most of us are aware of the "article" that Dan Bernstein wrote in which he "shreds the penn state letter". To my dismay, the "article is still up.

Now,

I would like to say while I have your attention:

1. Dan Bernstein is a piece of garbage who couldnt carry Joe Paterno's jock strap in a suitcase.

2. The only reason I know the guy exists is this piece of garbage article that he wrote.

3. Its quite easy to take a piece of work and throw in your own comments to make it look like something it isnt. The original writer isnt there to defend himself. And when you're hiding behind a keyboard, you dont have to worry about being too accurate because its an "opinion" piece.

So as much as I hate to do this, I am going to post just the added comments he made to show you how ridiculous this guy is, and to show without a doubt how badly the guy was trying to get attention.

Below is what he "wrote", and I have now added my comments in italics to show you how you can change a letter's meaning. By the end of my response... I will give my opinion on why he wrote this "article" in the first place.

Its really a low brow move that shows no journalistic ethicality whatsoever. But I never claimed (Nor if I was would I ever admit to it these days) to be a journalist.

You can find the original "article" here:

dan bernstein shreds the Penn State letter

A Letter of thanks to Joe Paterno

Apparently because you don’t mind child-rape. And because Paterno is almost dead, thankfully.

Words such as these are thrown out there for two reasons:

1. You believe Joe Paterno, father of five and grandfather of seventeen, is about to die and you are happy about it and the sorrow that it will cause his family.

2. No one knows who you are and you are trying desperately to change that.

Thats a hard one... right Dick? I mean... Dan? It is Dan right?

Not really. The mere existence of this letter is proof that your perspective regarding the victims is warped beyond recognition.

You got us Dave... err... Dan. Dan right? 

Anyway, our perspective regarding the victims is warped beyond recognition. Thats why ProudPSUforRAINN has raised only $514,714 dollars to support the victims. Which is obviously nothing compared to what you or CBS Chicago has donated right?

Oh wait you havent donated anything yet Don?

Well certainly CBS Chicago has or at the very least has done some PSAs to raise public awareness right?

No?

Hmmm.

And not one of you is surprised by the allegations, just saddened — because Sandusky’s predilections weren’t much of a secret. You share no outrage.

Again you got us Dan. No one was surprised that we had an "alleged" child molester within our community. His predilections werent a secret. We obviously missed the sign on his head that said "Pedophile", and who could have missed the signs like the fact he raised millions of dollars for underprivaledged children and adopted six children of his own. I mean you look at this guys background and it just screams "PEDOPHILE!"

You, without any proof whatsoever, have now condemned the entire Penn State family and accused us all of harboring a pedophile.

You know on a side note here... I cant believe no one knows who you are. With revelations like this I'm surprised your super powers didnt lead you to State College years ago to break this up yourself.

In fact with the gift you have (Of you know, reading minds and stuff) you really should have done more Dick... err.. Dan.

Enough facts are known to condemn Joe Paterno and damn him to hell.

Which are really ... no facts. But who needs facts when your... wait whats your name again? Oh yeah. Dan Bernstein.

As soon as he said “I wish I had done more,” he admitted he chose to protect, abet and enable an alleged serial child-predator, and stood by that decision for years.

Ok so you're not that good at using quotes. No no Dan its ok. You used the right symbol around them... you just didnt use all the words. I'll help you out. He said "With the Benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more". And I know you're a journalist and not an English major so I'll cut you a break here. That means that if he had known then what he knows now... he would have done more.

Thats where you are confused.

Now that we have established you're not an English major... maybe you should take some comprehension classes. Because that in no way means that he admitted to choosing to protect, abet or enable an alleged child predator. In fact, (Facts are those things that you dont use when you write. Google it Dan.) We know that Joe went beyond his legal responsibility to bring in Shultz, who was the director of Campus Police.

Considering Joe did not see this first hand and Mike didnt call him until the day after, not to mention Sandusky isnt Paterno's employer anymore, seems like he did someting that wasnt all of those things you said up there.

This is not a courtroom.

Amen to that and Thank God. Because the only side of a court room you deserve to be on is in the defense chair while Paterno sues you for libel and defamation of character.

We will judge as we choose, based on what we see and hear.

Right. Who cares about facts? Who needs them? In fact lets go get Joe right now. You have any rope?

The fact that you would be compelled to write this is further evidence that the Penn State community is sick.

Oh you do have a fact and I definitely agree with it.

We are sick and tired of "people"(I say that loosely) like you condemning our entire community because its the only way any one is going to give half a Damn about who you are Dan.

We are definitely sick of it Dave... err... Dan.

I can say with certainty that Paterno is remarkable, indeed,

Agreed. Now we're getting somewhere Dan.

especially in his ability to give an alleged child-rapist the run of the Penn State facilities, even as he knew he was using a charity to cultivate victims.

Again. Lets assume. Like I am going to assume from your prior statements that you have mental superpowers that should have allowed you to stop Sandusky yourself years ago.

He has also had a profound effect on any child abused by his trusted lieutenant after he understood what was happening on his watch.

His watch being that Sandusky wasnt his employee or lieutenant or whatever you would like to call him.

Does his faith teach anal rape of children in the shower?

I dont know does yours? Is this a serious question here Don?

Did he display fairness by never once acting in the interest of victims?

I believe we went over this already. Damn. Get a newspaper Dan. Search the web. Check the testimony. Oh thats right this isnt a courtroom where you have to prove anything. You just keep throwing it at the wall and hope it sticks.

This kind of blind veneration feeds the whole problem. Similar things were assumed and said about Sandusky, remember, such as when Rick Santorum sponsored him for a congressional award.

If all of these things were being said and were common knowledge than I believe everyone in the world should have done more. Especially Rick Santorum. You still got that rope Don?

And you are the university that embraced and empowered Jerry Sandusky, even after it became clear that he was a monster.

You dont spend a lot of time in Pennsylvania do ya Dale? Do you even know anyone that went to Penn State? Hrm... after this "article" you wrote I doubt you do anymore. But the Hell with them. Its time for Donny Bertenstein to get famous!

You are the campus on which tone-deaf students rioted in the wake of the scandal, causing $190,000 in property damage.

Yes, a very, very small portion of the student body went to the streets in support of Joe Paterno, not in the wake of the scandal. Did you ever stop to think that part of the reason they rioted involved people who twist words and have no use for facts? Guys... Just... Like... You?

Penn State’s new president just wants the university to be known for anything other than the unspeakable horrors it allowed.

We know what Penn State is known for. One mans actions dont change that. Not even if that one man is the superhero Dale.. ... wait... whats your name again?

This letter doesn’t exactly help him, you realize.

But it sure is helping you to get on a moral high horse and try to ride it into being someone anyone has ever heard of.

You are a missing district attorney, a governor with conflicts of interest, lazy campus police, corrupt judges, and lying administrators.

There is no rush to anything.

Really? Really Dan? The only thing that wasnt rushed here were the people rushing to their radios or the internet to read your articles before your response to this letter. 

I mean lets cut to the chase already Dan. You did this to get attention. It is actually YOU that couldnt care less about the victims. Lets look at it for what it is Dan. Since you found out about this you have done nothing to help awareness of child abuse. You have not donated one penny to any charity regarding the issue.

You have not written any articles or said any words on the radio to help victims get help. You have not offered any help of anything whatsoever.

You, in fact, are in effect using the molestation of children to try to make yourself famous.

And thats by just what we read and hear.

Sandusky joined Penn State in 1966 and started the Second Mile in 1977. The quality of Paterno’s character is on display in the grand jury reports, the perjury-case testimony, and in his own words: “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

Ok. Again, about that Comprehension class we were talking about. Paterno's character has been on display for over 60 years. He has more character in one finger than you have in your entire body. The Grand Jury Report was a summary that already has been proven partially incorrect.

Like your opinion.

Like your Mom telling you that you would grow up and do something worth while one day.

I'm sure when you're near death (I will be thankful when that happens by the way) that you, too, with the benefit of hindsight will realize that even though you made desperate attempts to be an established journalist or broadcaster that anyone cared about or respected... that still no one did. You will wish you did more. You dont know that yet because you dont have the benefit of hindsight.

The Penn State Football Family

Standing proudly for those who facilitate violent sex crimes against children, because your priorities and perceptions are dangerously skewed by your identities as players. Your entire lives have been defined in too large a part by association with a college football program. Now, you are cowards – unwilling or unable to confront the cold truth that your beloved father figure was a bad man, because it causes painful dissonance in your rapidly-decaying brains.

My brain has decayed rapidly while reading your "article". Penn State will continue to stand strong. For much longer than you will be decaying my brain. Penn State's priorities lie in ventures like curing cancer and developing strong leaders and sending them out into the world.

And Dan... the only coward here is you. The guy who hid behind his keyboard and had the nerve to actually submit a piece of trash like this. The guy who stands to become more famous by using the tragedy at Penn State for his own benefit. The guy who gave nothing. The guy who added nothing to the conversation but pain.

Please let me know when you are near death so I can be thankful.

Dont write it in an article or say it on the radio because then no one will know. Who knows... maybe mention Joe Paterno's name again. Then people will care about you and your worthless existance.