VIDEO: CDT interview with Rodney Erickson, Dave Joyner and Karen Peetz [PSU signs NCAA decree]

Centre Daily (State College, PA) ^ | July 23, 2012 | Christopher Weddle

[Uncle Chip]

Well there were some things he didn’t do. He didn’t do other peoples’ jobs for them:

“It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs. We accept this criticism. At the same time, Joe Paterno and everyone else knew that Sandusky had been repeatedly investigated by authorities who approved his multiple adoptions and foster children. Joe Paterno mistakenly believed that investigators, law enforcement officials, University leaders and others would properly and fully investigate any issue and proceed as the facts dictated. This didn’t happen and everyone shares the responsibility.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/162213565.html

[Scoutmaster]

If my memory serves me correctly, then you've been a defender of Joe Paterno since the beginning. I notice that it doesn't faze you if Paterno perjured himself in front of the Grand Jury.

Let me guess. You've never read the Freeh report, have you?

You may continue your worship of Joe Paterno now.

[Uncle Chip]

<>If my memory serves me correctly, then you’ve been a defender of Joe Paterno since the beginning.<>

No — that would be these two:

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=219

http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/07/red-flags-and-personal-fouls-dishonest.html

<>I notice that it doesn’t faze you if Paterno perjured himself in front of the Grand Jury.<>

Oh — it would if he did but he was never charged with perjury by the Grand Jury and Freeh’s report presents no evidence of perjury either. If you found some in his report, then please post it.

<>Let me guess. You’ve never read the Freeh report, have you?<>

I’ve been through the executive summary and see three names prominently mentioned: Spanier, Schultz, and Curley. Listerning to his detractors here one would think that it was all about Paterno.

<>You may continue your worship of Joe Paterno now.<>

Right!!! And you may continue your worship of Freeh.

[Scoutmaster]

Worship Freeh? You have the wrong man. I remember Waco, the Atlanta Olympic Centennial Park bombings, Ruby Ridge, Khobar Towers, Vince Foster, Richard Hanssen, Wen Ho Lee . . .

As for Paterno's perjury:

First, in his grand jury testimony, he swore under oath that the only person he told about the Sandusky matter was Athletic Director Tim Curley, and only once. That's contrary to everything else known about the case (including the misguided pleas of Paterno supports that "Paterno told the head of university police"). From all documentation, Paterno met later with Curley and Schultz. Strike one.

Two, Paterno testified under oath that he didn't know if any official at Penn State other than Curley ever found out about the Sandusky affair in the shower in 2001. That's a lie - because there's entirely too much evidence that Paterno met with Curley and Schultz.

Do I think Freeh's report correctly identified the failings of Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley? Yes.

Do I think the Freeh report did not address the involvement of the BOT? Yes. After all, within only three or four days of the issuance of the Freeh report, we discovered that in 2004 some members of the Board were concerned about the fact that Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley were acting on their own and exercising their own power in areas involving the football program. Efforts to control them were shot down by three trustees, and the entire thing was only brought to the attention of seven trustees.

There's more blame to go around than disclosed by the Freeh report.

But was Paterno a scapegoat? No. He was a lying enabler.

[Uncle Chip]

<>From all documentation, Paterno met later with Curley and Schultz. Strike one.<>

The problem with this is that I would expect the Football Coach, the Athletic Director, and the Vice President of the University to meet on a regular basis with each other. Proving that they met doesn’t prove anything. Meetings at this level are common and expected.

The real question is when they got together, did they discuss Sandusky, and what was said.

<>Two, Paterno testified under oath that he didn’t know if any official at Penn State other than Curley ever found out about the Sandusky affair in the shower in 2001. That’s a lie - because there’s entirely too much evidence that Paterno met with Curley and Schultz.<>

But his statement is consistent with what the news articles reported: McQueary met with Paterno. Paterno met with Curley. Then Curley and Schultz met with McQueary. Paterno was not at that meeting according to this USA Today article [2002 in it should be 2001]:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011-11-10/jerry-sandusky-investigation-victim-1-cover/51160950/1

It is entirely possible that that meeting between Paterno and Curley was the only one specifically called to discuss Sandusky. And since action was taken some might have been led to believe that the matter was being taken care of.

What is hard to believe is that the subject of Sandusky did not come up in conversations between them at meetings and campus gatherings, and especially between McQueary and Paterno as they rubbed shoulders on a daily basis. The question is: what was said???