Kim Jones Joins Mike Francesa After Paterno’s Firing

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (WFAN) — WFAN’s Kim Jones chatted with Mike Francesa on Thursday’s show following the dismissals of legendary ex-Penn State head coach Joe Paterno and former university president Graham Spanier.

Jones described the unusual scene at Thursday’s press conference.

“It was the most bizarre press conference I’ve ever been a part of.  It didn’t appear that anyone was there to lead it because no one spoke until the chairman of the board of trustees finally did after the cameras were situated.  There was no microphone to ask a question,” Jones explained.

According to Jones, the Paterno camp believed before the announcement it was possible that Joe Paterno could possibly escape with his job intact.  Obviously, that wasn’t the case as Penn State University ended their 61-year relationship with Paterno on Thursday.

“The feeling in that Paterno camp was he was on more solid ground than Graham Spanier.  Obviously he wasn’t on solid ground at all.  I can tell you for certain the Paterno camp misread the board of trustees’ meeting two nights ago,” Jones mentioned.

Francesa demanded that Penn State wide receivers coach Mike McQueary to be removed from his position and believe that eventually the board will make the right decision by firing McQueary.

“He should be out of the program.  He should not be there tomorrow.  It’s not even a question.  Guys who have been longtime assistants, I’d like to ask them some questions just to know, ‘Did any of you have your eyes open around here with Sandusky.  Is anybody paying attention to what’s going on around in this school?’  This has taken on such a life but listen, they (the board) did do what had to be done.  By the time they give it another day’s thought, I’m sure McQueary will go away too,” Francesa stated.

Jones, a Penn State alum was shocked by the chaotic scenes on her former campus where students turned their rage upon university property and news trucks.

“There were thousands of students but on a campus that big of say – 40,000 students, it was a small percentage for sure.  It clearly got out of hand with the tear gas and the flipping over of a satellite truck.  That’s the kind of stuff that really saddens me and really makes me wonder about the mindset of these students,” Jones described.

She described the fall from grace of a proud and prestigious university.  According to Jones, no one in power took responsibility for what was going on and looked out for their own best interests.

“The power struggles strikes me as so self-centered.  No one thought about the victims.  We’re well-aware of that but when you talk about Penn State, there was really no one thinking of the good of the university.  It was all individual entities acting in their own best interests,” Jones stated.


(TM and © Copyright 2011 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2010 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

  • Allessio Ventura

    I have read the grand jury report and conclude from this information that Joe Paterno did what he needed to do according to the law.  You are implying that he can be cited for crimes, but I don’t know how you conclude that based on what is in the report.  On the moral side, we really don’t know yet what Joe knew or did not know and when, because other than a few misguided statements, he has been essentially gagged by both the University and now his lawyer.

     The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare was definitely involved in the investgation of Victim 6 (see page 20, 2nd to last paragraph).  Also, see page 19, paragraph 1, regarding Victim 6, that poor child’s case was reported by his mother to the University Police.  The investigation was closed by the police after the county DA decided against criminal charges.  For Victim 8, the janitorial staff witnessed a sexual act, but were reluctant to report it for fear of losing their jobs (see page 22, paragraph continued from previous page).  For Victim 1, we see on page 4, that a wrestling coach was an eyewitness to questionable behavior.  For Victim 2, we see another eyewitness to a horrific sexual act in th shower.  The eyewitness is referred to as a graduate assistant.  The GA left the scene, informed his dad, and waited until the next morning before going to the football head coach’s home (see page 7).  The head coach testified that he received a verbal report from the GA, and he then notified his supervisor (Penn State AD) regarding the GA’s report.  Also we see on page 7 that the GA was called to a meeting with the Penn State AD and the Penn State Senior VP for Finance and Business.  The head coach was not invited to this meeting.  The GA told them what he knew, then weeks later the GA heard back from the AD that the defendant had his keys to the locker room taken away and that the Second Mile org was notified.  The GA was never interviewed by the university police or any other entity.  Here is where the AD lies (page 8) about never hearing from the GA that anal sex had occurred.  On page 8 we see an attempt by the head coach to escalate this, where he reports disturbing and inappropriate conduct in the shower as reported by the GA.  That is, he told the AD and senior VP.  On page 9, the SVP declares the GA allegations as not serious and denies that the head coach and GA never reported the anal sex conduct.  We also see on page 9 that the 1998 incident, according to the SVP, was reviewed by the University Police and the child rotection agency, and he thought the same agency was reviewing the 2002 matter as reported by the GA.  In fact, the SVP confirmed that the Univtersity President had been apprised of the fact that a GA had reported a 2002 incident in the shower (see bottom of page 9, into page 10).  The conclusion of the grand jury is that parts of the AD and SVP testimonies are not credible (see bottom of page 11).  

    The important point to remember is what is noted on page 12, under Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse.  23 Oa.C.S. ()6311, provides that when a staff member reports abuse, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to notify the Department of Public Welfare.  The failure to report is a violation of the law, but it is on the shouders of the head of the institution.  Bottom line is, the Grand Jury report does not indicate any legal or moral culpability on the part of the head coach.  There is no clear description of what the head coach did know beyond what the GA told him for Victim 2, and it is clear that the head coach did what was necessary in order to inform the DA and SVP.  You may want to think so, but he is not the head of the institution.  It ís also clear from the report that the police were involved at least for Victim 6.  

    Now, I would like to understand what else the head coach could have done since it is not clear what he knew about the other cases.  Perhaps everybody involved in Victim 2’s case should have gone to the police immediately, but they were relying on the testimony of the GA.  I think in hindsight that should have been done for this case, but it s not just the head coach’s responsibility.  Certainly the GA, DA,and SVP should have as well.  It is clear also that the head of the institution should have, since by law they are required to.  So if the board of trustees terminates employees, it should include many more individuals than the coach and the president.  If it includes the coach, the GA must certainly go.  

    There was also a wrestling coach who witnessed an inappropriate act, but I have not heard that he was fired.  How about the janitor and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Safety, the GA, the DA’s office, and the very children’s organization that Sandusky started?  There were others.

    We do need to protect these children and it is horrific that this occurred, but it seems to me that the punishment and comments we are seeing are subjective and symbolic in nature.  If the coach must go, so must everyone else in the management chain, and certainly any eye witnesses who did not go to the police.  As far as I can see, there is no evidence that the head coach tried to notify the police, but until he speaks, we will not know for sure.  He appears to have taken the approriate internal, administrative measures as required by law, as stated by the grand jury.  

    So again, what is your basis for thinking Joe Paterno committed a crime?  

    Again, the Grand Jury said 23 Oa.C.S. ()6311, provides that when a staff member reports abuse, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to notify the Department of Public Welfare.  That is not Joe Paterno, as much as you would like to believe so.

  • Clovis Clodoveo

    Ayer habia comentado sobre el incidente,sii se puede llamar asi, lo ocurrido
    en la Penn State University.Como el comentarfio mas arriba indicado lo encuentro
    fuera de lugar juridico, vuelvo a comentar como sigue.
    “Como se disfraza un depredador de niños/as, muy dificil descubirlo. Podria
    pasar un buen tiempo (como es el caso que nos ocupa de la Peen State University)
    en aflorar su instinto de bajeza vil.Ahora vemos el caso ocurrido al alumno de 10
    años, en la referida universidad con su entrenador de futbol. La maldad del depredador exploto. Menos mal que no atento con la vida del menor, para ocultar su cruel delito “.

  • Bob m

    Kim, you are wrong on this one when you say that no one was thinking of the victims. I think that many of the students who were protesting in support of Joe Paterno were simply supporting a man who had done much good over a very long career. That support is not a lack of support for the victims. You can have both feelings. This is a country of laws that is founded on due process. Central to our system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Trying Joe in the media is unfair. Criminal guilt is determined not on the basis of a grand jury indictment. That is why it is not legal to leak these, Guilt is determined by a jury who see ALL of the facts. Both Mike and your opinions are an attempt to inflict revenge, instant punishment. That is un-American. Your comments needlessly hurt Joe’s family and friends and do nothing to help those injured. I know that people in the media have to be 100% moralistic because their jobs demand it. $$$ trumps all. You could lose your job by saying the wrong thing. I just wish you would try to be fair. If you wanted to do something to prevent these horrible acts from happening in the future you could call for a new Federal law to protect whistle blowers from losing their jobs when they report on their supervisors. In this case it may have allowed the janitor who witnessed one of these criminal actions to report it and prevent any future acts of this type by this man.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Giving Tuesday
Charles Osgood Event

Listen Live