Coach K on PSU Crimes: Feels "Badly" for Joe Pa, Points to "Culture Changes"
by Nestor on Nov 14, 2011 1:34 PM PST
Email
PrintCoach K feels very "badly" about the disgusting, horrific scandal that is unfolding at PSU. Guess who is feeling so "badly" about? Oh, no. Not about those victims of the (alleged) unspeakable crimes but he is feeling "badly" for Joe Pa:
"Well, I think, unless you're there, it's tough to comment about everything,'' Krzyzewski said. "I just feel badly for him and whatever he is responsible for, it'll come out and hopefully it'll come out from him.
Coach K apparently didn't have anything to say about the pepetrator of these disgusting crimes and the people in position of power, who looked the other way. He instead blamed this on "culture change":
"I think one thing you have to understand is that Coach Paterno's 84 years old. I'm not saying that for an excuse or whatever. The cultures that he's been involved in both football-wise and socially, have been immense changes and how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different.
So I guess in Coach K's generation, if you know there is a pedophile in your staff, you take bare minimal measure (I am being charitable here to Paterno) to protect the children. Is anyone going to point out to ESPN's patron-saint - abusing and raping children are not matter of cultural issues, they are disgusting, inhumane crimes?
Oh and speaking of ESPN, in June Paterno and K taped a show for ESPN about "ethics, integrity and issues associated with college athletics" entitled "Difference Makers: Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski."
Appalling at all levels. These people have no freaking shame.
GO BRUINS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great men don't sit around and do nothing when something awful and tragic is happening
No one should ever call Paterno a “great man” from here on out. Innocent lives were being tragically altered and Paterno knew and did nothing.
Guess we know how Coach K would have handled this situation if it was thrown in his lap.
Oh geez..
Not at all! If only I could edit that… Very very poor choice of words on my part
All of the red flags emerging from this whole scandal
don’t suggest a mere “looking the other way” by that entire community. As disgusting and petrifying as it sounds, this whole thing reeks of a massive decade-long cover-up. I don’t mean to sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, but there are major questions that need to be answered. What exactly happened to that DA who, upon beginning his investigation of Sandusky, suddenly and mysteriously “disappeared” in 2005. His body was never found. But his computer was, with the hard drive conveniently destroyed.
I’m truly hoping there’s a full blown federal investigation into this entire community, not limited solely to the PSU coaching staff. Penn State was an irrelevant nowheresville tiny town before Paterno. He made them relevant and put them on the map. The entire community, including the local Police Department, ran through the university and that football program. I wish none of this had ever happened, but I’m afraid we’ve just seen the tip of the iceberg so far.
I think there might have been a conspiracy
but not really an active one. I am not sure the DA’s disappearance had anything to do with this. In my experience, what looks like an active conspiracy is usually just tacit approval. People want to see bad things happening as bad people acting together for it to happen. The truth usually is much less dramatic but (at least in my mind) much more sick: those in power just don’t give a damn about those who are weaker. There’s really no risk to exposing Sandusky when he was first suspected, in 1998. There still isn’t much risk to exposing him in 2002, Penn State could have pointed the finger at him, and let the chips fall as they may. The simple reason why they didn’t was the fact that there was no upside to exposing Sandusky. The only upside was helping those kids, and they sure as hell aren’t going to advance your career. They did the moral calculus (with these children’s lives) and silence won out in their minds, simple as that.
I do agree that this is the tip of the iceberg. What I am very interested in is what is not really discussed in the grand jury report. A victim (now an adult) notes that he was contacted by Sandusky, Sandusky’s wife (!!!) and a “friend” of Sandusky prior to his grand jury testimony. One can only assume that these people all were trying to influence this victim’s testimony. Now, who is this “friend” who would back a pedophile? And, though there may be some law types here who may know better, this grand jury was held in secret. That limits heavily who knew that the grand jury was meeting and who they were investigating. Whoever leaked to Sandusky that he was being investigated certainly has some explaining to do.
No experience in and no knowledge of criminal things or grand juries.
The witnesses who were called may have known nothing, but deduced what was going on from the questioning and called Sandusly to find out what was going on. Or Sandusky could have been subpoenaed and then dug into his little black book and make a few phone calls to try to cover things up. I don’t see a big consipracy with leaks and all that.
The bigger thing, at least to me, is the absolute silence for so many years. The graduate assistant knows what he saw. In ten years, no one ever asked him for the details that Paterno apparently failed to ask him the next day? I don’t buy that. No matter how the conversation got started the day he reported it to Joe, at some point Joe has to have asked “Tell me exactly what you saw,” if only to try to find a way for Sandusky to come up with an innocent explanation. If the assistant described what he saw, and what had to be indelibly burned into his memory, then Joe is guilty of covering up and complicit in the subsequent crimes. In my non-criminal lawyer opinion. If the assistant said “I saw Sandusky sodomizing a little boy” and that translated into Joe’s report of “horsing around,” then Joe should do some time.
And when Joe reported to the president, at some point in the conversation the question should have been asked “What exactly did the graduate assistant see?” And then Joe either reports the truth or he doesn’t.
But how did this not get handled by that evening? Sandusky should have been in jail. I think, again based on no evidence, that Saint Joe was thinking about his legacy even then.
No one learns from Watergate. People in power are such fools.
You're all assuming
that Paterno didn’t know about Sandusky’s perversion before the assistant caught him. I’m not so sure that’s the case.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Recently, I read a rather succinct, insightful article written by
a Phoenix trial lawyer who has extensive expertise in handling child abuse cases. He won quite a few cases defending individuals accused of such wrongdoings too.
Now, I am not saying Sandusky is or is not guilty, now that additional informations continue to surface. But usually the guy said even before the case goes to trial, the emotions & mass hysteria whipped up by the event itself already has doomed the defendant’s chance, and summarily turned upside down the legal premise of innocence until proven guilty.
However evil was Sandusky’s alleged deeds would not even have the chance to be heard in court in the face of such ferocious firestorm of public indignation & outrage.
So before the defense attorney begins preparations to defend his client, convicted already in the court of public opinions currently, he needs to engage the prosecution in a highly charged, no holds barred battle of pretrial slugfest to level the playing field first, if a fair trial can ever materialize for his client.
In light of the NBA interview by Bob Costas to the accused, and his attorney’s simultaneous comments on CNN, it looks like the defense is starting their pretrial counterpunches in exactly the same legal strategy I read.
Not meaning to be on the accused side, but it makes sense too. After all, what is the purpose of even granting the accused the rights to plead in court when the public only seems interested in instant justice & retribution ?
I came across the article before Penn State’s scandal erupted.
Did Sandusky commit the crimes?
I notice that no one has said that the graduate assistant made the whole thing up. Paterno has not said that Sandusky is factually innocent, and that the stories are a complete fabrications. No one has said that Sandusky is factually innocent of the charges except Sandusky. His statement sounds a whole lot like a statement that he’s going to find the real killers.
Whatever he said now is whatever he said
Much like us, we said what we said based on the information available thus far, although it all points to Sandusky’s culpability in our mind. But we are only the court of public opinions, angling for something to be done, and done quickly because of the children he allegedly victimized.
That’s why I said the defendant must have his day in court no matter how reprehensible the case is. And if you are his attorney, unless you find it in your heart unconscionable to defend him, then of course you let someone else who could do the job take over. Otherwise, in terms of strategy, there is an urgent need to stem the tide, level the playing field first and foremost so that you can at least present the case.
As of now, the rope is thrown over the tree branch, its noose tightened, ready for someone to haul the guy out to be hanged, on the spot. We do not have this sort of frontier justice anymore. Let the furor blows over and try him in court. That’s the inalienable constitutional rights people must accord him.
I agree with Sandusky getting his day in court
but his attorney should have never allowed him on to speak with Costas. He sounded really creepy. He never showed any outrage at being charged, seemed unwilling to say the charges are all fabrications and even hesitated and stumbled when asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys (he stuttered and said that he wasn’t sexually attracted, but enjoyed spending time with them, etc. No guilt there, but I think most people would be outraged if they were even asked that question and their denials would be stern to say the least). His attorney made a mistake there, or maybe Sandusky insisted, which is crazier because he didn’t sound like a man ready to defend his reputation.
This trial will be very ugly for all involved.
Yes, Jimmy, I listened to it on my computer
And when Bob Costas asked that infamous question of whether he was a pedophile, the manner that his voice reflected did not seem at all like someone " outraged nor offended ".
Even the camera showed that fierce gaze in Costas’ eyes when he asked that question as if he just wanted to know, once and for all, and on all of our behalf too, if the guy was indeed what the grand jury reported made him out to be.
Very disturbing indeed.
If Sandusky indeed initiated the contact without his attorney’s concurrence, then the latter or someone within the defense must be present for the occasion, lest the accused blew his own case even before trial. I remember the Iran Contras congressional hearings during the Reagan administration. Every one of those implicated had an attorney there. Oliver North’s & Bud McFarlane’s attorneys especially breathed fire at the panel of lawmakers questioning their clients. Even though United States eventually indicted North and McFarlane somehow avoided it, but my point is clear. An accused person, insisting on his innocence, does not mount a counter media offensive with weak, pale & distressed voice.
You are right, the voice sounded beaten, tired, utterly depressed. It was not spirited by any means under the circumstances if he thought people prejudged him. Go ahead, scream HELL NO, for god’s sake. He has nothing to lose at this point, if you ask me.
All that can be coached, however, if the idea of interview came from the attorney.
Another thought comes through my mind. Given the hysteria engulfing the case nationally, when even POTUS, an attorney & law professor himself, chimed in and made statements implying Sandusky’s duplicity, if not outright guilt at this stage, then how can the State of Pennsylvania, or prosecution to be exact, expect to seat an impartial jury panel ?
Coach K, Franco Harris, for instance
are all entitled to their opinions. Let them say what they want. We don’t agree with them as much as they don’t agree with us. That’s the way 1st amendment works.
This is the beauty of our society.
Imagine if this was someplace else. With this Penn State firestorms sweeping across the country, there is no telling some masked agents might simply kick down the door of the accused individual’s house, blindfold him, gag him, tie him up before hauling him away into night, feet kicking. Nobody ever hears from him, period Case closed because he disappeared.
We are much, much better than that.
At some point,
friendship has to take a back seat to doing what’s right.
In a way, Coach K is doing the same thing that Paterno did—erring on the side of being non-confrontational versus dealing with a friend who has crossed the line. For whatever reasons, JoPa didn’t have it in him to call his friend (Sandusky) aside and deal with him man-to-man.
Given McQueary’s first-hand report, and given that Sandusky hasn’t denied, at least, naked, soapy horsing around with a preteen, JoPa should have fired Sandusky on the spot. And, that’s not even considering possible criminal behavior. What kind of leader allows this level of libidinous immorality to go unpunished? What kind of “friend” puts non-confrontation on a higher plane than protecting innocent young lives?
And, now, Coach K is going out of the way to make excuses for JoPa. If generational differences aren’t the lamest excuse for pedophilia, I don’t know what is. He could have said that he has always known his friend to be moral and upstanding, and left it at that. He can feel badly for him without making excuses for him.
Tell-tale sign that an excuse is about to follow: someone who says “I’m not making excuses, but…”
Don't take coach K's words too seriously
That was just his opinion. Nothing happened under his watch at Durham. It never would, perhaps. And there is no telling what coach K himself might do were he in Joe Paterno’s shoes, really.
Also, other than the shower episode, when it was witnessed, plus Sandusky & the other preteen embracing erotically on the floor, also caught by a high school employee and duly reported, everything else is just the prosecution side of the story. The furor profoundly impacts us, you and I included. We can condemn, convict him in our minds, or even hang the guy in effigy before a bonfire outside his house. But the law still requires defense to present its case when the trial occurs.
Do you still remember this utterly sad case in northern California back in the mid 90’s. The distressed mother of her adolescent child took it upon herself one day during the trail, when the testimonies so traumatized her, and the sight of the person accused of molesting her kid proved too much for her to bear, that she brought a gun somehow to court.
I cannot remember exactly the detail of how she manged to elude court security but she just had to take action on her own. The pain, the anguish drove her over the edge in her desperation to right an unforgivable wrong. When the trial adjourned for recess, she calmly approached the defense table and shot the accused.
Some of you may have better knowledge of the case but my point is this. No matter how incensed, repugnant, morally provoked we are by the scandal, it could get out of hand if we do not accord the accused his rights.
It means let the legal process moves forward.
Sorry
Coach K has a massive platform and he propagated that tone-deaf message through outlets such as NYT. I do take the issue of his completely tonedeafness on this issue seriously. I found his comments out of touch and repulsive.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
