BOT interview with NYT and new column about Paterno

when he went to practice tuesday afternoon – Scott was talking to the cameras, and, as he was getting into the car, Joe started a real “we are” cheer

but still – that’s about the weakest damn excuse – maybe if he’d called the accusers liars he’d still be coach

Paterno joined in, and the last thing he said was "And we’ll always be Penn State".

And just when I think I’m done… I read that and get a lump in my throat again.

To some trustees, Paterno failed in not reporting to police what he had been told of Sandusky’s suspected assault. Some of the trustees were also upset that Paterno was seen leading "We are Penn State" cheers on his lawn with students and fans who had gathered after Sandusky’s arrest, which some board members viewed as insensitive.

I still don’t remember him leading those chants on his lawn except after his OWN firing…which I would presume was after the meeting to fire him…so either they’re retroactively using this as an excuse as to why they fired him, or just got misquoted in the paper, something is off here.

I read that he did not socialize with assistants. Mostly just professional relationships.

If he truly knew the role he was playing

I get the first two right off the bat then struggle. The only saving grace is when it’s my wife’s celeb rag mag and there’s a hot broad in it.

Joe didn’t mention it in his Grand Jury testimony, but he may have brought it up to the AG’s office – I’d bet that Joe’s first phone call after McQueary left his house was to either his lawyer or Scott. If I were in that position, my first move would be to find exactly what ‘by the book’ meant for me and follow it to the letter.

…and yeah, I’ve said several times that there was no immediate, ongoing crime to be stopped, so taking an extra day wasn’t nearly as big a deal as some people make it out to be.

“bickering between posters on the board” eh?

It was my understanding that the board acted unanimously to fire Joe Paterno.

Quoting the moderator of this board, who discusses the scandal as “everyone’s and no one’s fault”, has “nothing to do with the scandal.”

Check.

is really pretty incredible.

There is a difference as members of the BOT did know about this incident and did know about the investigation. They just never brought it up to everyone else.

It was about allegations that had nothing to do with the 2002 incident.

but just pointing out that I recently saw many people on here say that they never heard rumors about the 1998 (or, I think, the 2002 incident) until after the GJ investigation began. These same people seemed pretty sure that they would have heard something if the rumors were out there. I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth so I won’t name any names. They can confirm this if they want.

So my impression is that the rumors started circulating after the GJ investigation began but before the presentment was released.

At one point, someone posted a link to a message board where someone clearly seemed to indicate that they knew of “smoke” if not fire in this case. Not sure of the dates, but it was interesting – if anyone cares to dig that back up.

“None of us…had ever heard anything about it”

Where “it” was very clearly referring to the 2002 incident. I specifically explained last time you tried to appropriate my quote that it had nothing to do with Penn State or the 2002 incident.

The above poster was talking about the 2002 incident specifically, because the current topic is whether or not the Board should have known that Penn State could be involved and be subject to a huge scandal, NOT that JS was generally rumored to have molested kids. As you’ve noted, I had heard something about JS generally, but never in the context of Penn State or any specific year.

So what I’m saying is that second-hand reports about JS generally are irrelevant to this conversation. I understand your point, and it is perhaps worth something when used in the proper context, but you’re stretching here.

to the Faculty Senate and at BoB’s presser was nothing until Nov.

Here’s my problem with that – he’s provost, writer (signatory) of the Employee Handbook, #2 at Old Main taking over business for GS when he’s out of office (which, one can surmise, is often) – but he hears NOTHING, doesn’t read Collegian, doesn’t have a staff member or colleague who walks into his office and say – hey did you see that there’s a Grand Jury investigation?

I would not be surprised if Bradley and others had heard from Mike McQueary about what he saw in 2002. But what would you have them do? They knew it was reported to their boss, who turned it over to his bosses, and nothing came of it. They can’t be expected to go out on a limb either and contact state police. I hold no ill will towards them if MM had mentioned it to them.

But if somebody on the Board, who is at the top of the food chain, had general secondhand knowledge that there was even a possibility that Sandusky was doing these things, then I think it is justifiable to laugh in their face when they say they were completely blindsided by this whole thing. And then punch them in the face for doing nothing over the last 10, possibly 14 years.