it’s just a movie, how do they know what was said inside joes house?it’s speculation IMO and that’s it. Like all movies they edit it the way they want you to see it.
My wife watched it, she said the exact same thing.
Exactly, how do they know what was said and what actually happened. Only those that choose to believe Joe was innocent know what exactly happened, who said what and when
The last line of the article says it all:
“All of this is hurtful to the victims. … People are too concerned about a dead man’s reputation and not thinking about what it would feel like to be a survivor of child abuse,” Chambers said in recent phone interview. “He was a human being. He had a generous spirit. He did many good things. … But he was a human, not a saint.”
excellent job of cherry picking a statement from a psychologist who's report in 1998 was completely buried by the police, cys and TSM. A person who the prosecution didn't even call as a witness in any trials. why? because they knew they buried that report. If the goal is to get convictions for all charges, why wouldn't the Commonwealth want this psychologist to testify? Most likely because Dr. Chambers posed a great risk in revealing that<b> her report was provided not only to the police, but to the Department of Public Welfare and to Centre County CYS</b> . THOSE are the real criminals, not the people at PSU. remember, Sandusky was NOT working for PSU in 98. She also never came to the conclusion that V6 actually was a victim of anything, just that there were warning signs about Sandusky that could POSSIBLY be bad. try again. Also, her statement implies guilt by Paterno, something the prosecution said was false, and that Paterno had no dealings in any conspiracy nor coverup, just as the criminal cases against Curley, Schultz and Spanier determined. So, the courts nullified her statement
That’s exactly right Murray, that’s what I’ve always jumped at why didn’t the police report the 98 incident to the media because they covered it up and pinned all the blame on penn st and the dead man.also Murray didn’t everybody call Joe Paterno JOE, when they said coach I believe they were talking about Sandusky? Everybody called joe joe not coach. It’s easy to blame the dead man
you posted the link to the article Murray, don't blame me for reading it
I wasn't blaming you for reading it, I was pointing out that you only quoted the one thing in the article that was based on the real truth, that nobody at PSU was complicit.
Go to Onwardstate and read the Tweets regarding Paterno. Invariably you can trace the negative comments to the single helix mutant Bitter Pitters. One guy goes so far as to say he is glad Paterno is dead. Sad that we all share the same o2 supply here on Earth.
which article, this young man nails it: https://onwardstate.com/2018/04/09/wont-watch-hbos-paterno-movie/ and not one hater can answer his questions logically. I do find interesting his quote about the last scene.
"Sandusky was NOT working for PSU in 98"
Considering he coached in the 1999 Alamo Bowl, I disagree.
Correction noted. It was his last year there. Point still remains. Joe didn’t know about that report. Therefore joe knew nothing in 98 but football
I had posted a reply to this thread which was critical of the Second Mile, but it appears to have been scrubbed. This is not surprising.
Regarding my post that I thought was scrubbed: There are two threads relating to the Pattern movie, and my post is still on the other thread. Apologies to those on this thread.
With so many threads, it does get a little confusing at times. Now my 1st thought is "where the hell did I post that" vs "what did I say that was so offensive?"
Well, I just watched this movie tonight. Hate to say it but I did enjoy viewing this movie. They were loose on quite a few facts, for that there is no doubt! But Mr. Pacino's portrayal of Joe was fascinating. It comes down to each individuals interpretation of what they "think" they just saw. Most of the time when certain evidence is discussed throughout the timeline - Joe is seen searching his thoughts ... and they used this technique throughout the entire movie. I interpreted as Joe attempting to search his memory for any clues that he might have missed and how things could have been done better ... where another person might say "he knew" and is attempting to avoid saying that much.
My impression of Joe (the real Joe) was that he was very single minded. He cared about Penn State and Football. Any outside distraction was someone else's problem - his blinders were on and Football was his focus, and I think this movie did portray that sort of personality trait. Now after rereading my last statement I think it could be read negatively and it wasn't meant to be. Albert Einstein had 7 pairs of the same outfit so he didn't have to expend thought on what he needed to wear so he could put 100% into Mathematics. I think Joe was somewhat similar in that regard in a very good way.
So ya'll should give this flick a try ... JMO
Bob. After seeing this: http://wfae.org/post/barry-levinsons-paterno-examines-coachs-passion-and-his-complicity#stream/0 not a chance It WAS agenda driven to the false narrative
sorry, link: http://wfae.org/post/barry-levinsons-paterno-examines-coachs-passion-and-his-complicity#stream/0
"If you take this situation as an example ... Sandusky had sexually molested a young boy, and they knew it. If they had addressed it at the time, it never would have become the scandal it became, and that would have been the end of it.
Instead, they covered it up, and then there's another molestation, and they covered it up, and there's another. We have to take and pay attention to things that are going on, and deal with it. If you try to cover it up, at some point, it explodes."
This was a hit piece, plain and simple.
