I think Joe Paterno, like all other human beings, is capable of deception. I therefore cannot take what he says as fact. Do I think he is lying about this particular point? I have no idea. His grand jury testimony - what little amount was recorded - is extremely evasive and vague on the point of what McQuery exactly told him. So either he was being purposely evasive to the grand jury or he couldn't remember the details of the meeting very clearly. While being evasive isn't the same as lying it certainly shows some capacity for deceit.
My question. Do you think Joe Paterno is incapable of deception?
Again, even if everything Paterno said is 100% true and he is not leaving anything out, why in the world wouldn't he have asked more questions in the ensuing 9+ years when he saw Sandusky in the company of young boys, especially on the campus and in the athletic facilities. If you were told a friend of yours was a pedaphile would it alarm you if he showed up to your house with strange child in tow? Would you confront him about it or just look the other way?
Last edited by puca; 01-17-2012 at 04:09 PM.
In his Wash Post interview where he stated "I didn't have an inkling that ...", he was either telling the truth or he was lying. Wording like that leave no room for deception. That wording was very strong and specific. It was not in the least bit vague.
So to answer your question, perhaps he was being intentionally vague in his grand jury testimony but not in his statement to the Wash Post.
By the way I believe Joe said that he had no inkling that Sandusky had 'a dark side' prior to 2002. That still leaves quite a lot of wiggle room in the truth department. What is this 'dark side' that Paterno speaks of? Why does Paterno now apparently believe that Sandusky has this 'dark side'? When did he become convinced of this 'dark side'? Finally once he even had an inkling of this 'dark side' why did he turn his head as Sandusky continued to bring young boys onto the Penn State campus and to Penn State football practices during the next 9+ years?
Last edited by puca; 01-17-2012 at 05:09 PM.
I can't rule out Paterno lying. I suppose it's possible but he's not Pete Rose or Joran Vander Sloot.
LaVar Arrington, a former player who knows him much better than I do, does not think he's lying. In fact he admits that he was not a buddy of Paterno's but that the guy is a straight shooter and never lied to him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fZ3P_blog.htmlWhile reading Sally Jenkins’s interview with Joe Paterno, I naturally cross-referenced some of his answers with my memories, as I was there from 1997-99 — the time an investigation of Sandusky had taken place. Of course, coaches are more in the know about information pertaining to the team than players, so I can't confirm for coaches but I honestly believe that Paterno did not know of the investigation. State College, Pa., is a very small place. If knowledge of the investigation had surfaced in any way it would have leaked out and everyone would have known, basically the same way everything has unfolded now. I know that players on the team definitely had no knowledge of any information like this. Again, any news was news in our locker room so it would have spread like crazy among players...
My understanding as it pertained to Jerry Sandusky's retirement, which also was my final year there, was kind of along the same lines as what Paterno said. I was under the impression that after Sandusky realized that Paterno was planning on staying and that he would not have the chance to be head coach, with such a talented group on defense and so many graduating at the end of the year, this would be the perfect time for him to leave. Maybe that's some of my ego involved, but we were a talented group which boasted the No. 1 and No. 2 picks in the 2000 draft along with more draft picks off that defense. So it didn't seem strange at all that he would leave after the 1999 season, especially how active he was with The Second Mile. I figured he'd do that for a few years and then go coach somewhere else...
It's well documented that Joe and I weren't the best of friends — I was never one of his favorites — but he never lied to me. There's not one time I can recall that Joe Paterno lied to me. Made me mad? Yes. Got under my skin? Yes. Challenged me and pushed me to be more than just a football player? Yes. He never lied to me. As a matter of fact, his sometimes-painful honesty is partly why I'm so blunt in my responses to questions at times.
I've been chided sarcastically by some around here for not knowing Paterno so I can't say that he's a truthful man and that's correct. I base my opinions on what others who do know him say. If you don't care about my opinion, that's fine but I think LaVar Arrington's opinion should carry some weight.
If you can't rule out the possibility that Paterno is lying then you cannot take what he says as a fact. That is all I was trying to point out. He obviously knew prior to 2002 that Sandusky liked the company of young boys. He undoubtedly knew that Sandusky took boys with him on the road to bowl games. He should have noticed that Sandusky was frequently with a single boy at a time and seemed to have his favorites. It would be odd if he was not aware that Sandusky often showered alone with these boys seeing as it happened in his athletic facilities and in his locker rooms. Whether he had any ikling that Jerry was molesting the boys is open to debate. I agree it is possible that Joe just didn't put two and two together. However once he heard McQuery's story all of the peices should have fit together and he must have understood what had been going on all those years. And yet he turned a blind eye when the same pattern of behavior continued to occur for the next 9+ years.
For what it is worth I could just as easily find testimonials for Jim Tressel. In my heart I believe Paterno has always meant well, but when it comes to protecting family, friends and reputation I think he, and every other person on the face of the earth, is capable of lying and/or looking the other way.
Anyone's testimony is a fact in this case. It's probably my fault for not making myself clear. My point wasn't to say that his version of events definitely happened. My point was that his testimony on the record is a fact in and of itself.
We do not have any facts on the table that show him to be lying. I have not heard of one person who said that Paterno knew about this prior to 2002. I have not heard any testimony that contradicts Paterno's version of events.
As for Tressel, we need not rely on character witnesses on his behalf. We know he didn't tell the truth.
It's possible that over time people may come out of the woodwork and contradict Paterno's version of events but until that happens, we owe him the benefit of the doubt IMO.
As for your comment that he should have put the pieces together, he admits that. He says that he should have done more. There's no "other side" to debate that point.
My point is that people are villifying him undeservedly. By that I mean they're calling him a liar and suggesting that he is a victim of dementia. Those sorts of attacks are not supported by the facts as we know them today.
You need to start being more critical of "what we know" before you chastise others for being biased....
Kudos to those posters who have approached this story with an open mind.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Do you think folks that claim Paterno is a liar have an open mind?
JoJo you of all people should understand that we should look at things as they are rather than as they appear.
You spent countless hours defending what appeared to be a shady situation in Auburn in its recruitment of Cam Newton. No matter how it appeared, you were correct in stating over and over again that nothing had been proven against Auburn. Apply the same standard here
Last edited by traderumor; 01-17-2012 at 08:44 PM.
Can't win with 'em
Can't win without 'em
It's puzzling for instance how you dismiss Triponey so flippantly when her assertions undercut Joe Pa's explanation. A person cant claim they fear jeopardizing procedure when they have a track record of subverting it.
Last edited by jojo; 01-17-2012 at 09:04 PM.
Also, I think Paterno is a liar, for the record. Given the level of influence and control he had over Penn State and Penn State football in particular, I just do not believe that he was unaware of the 1998 investigation. I wouldn't believe that in any event; I especially don't believe it given the timing of Sandusky's resignation, and Lavar Arrington's character testimony didn't change my mind.
Last edited by top6; 01-17-2012 at 09:47 PM.
I'm actually confused about how this thread became a debate.