Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,844
The Pine Street Inn
And "Stay Classy!"? Really? The fact that you'd be perfectly content to get fired and collect government assistance tells me all I need to know about where you rank on the class scale.
Before we judge him, we really need to know whether he'd work under the table at his next job while continuing to collect UI. That's key.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,246
Houston, TX
Just for clarification, people keep referring to potential ambiguity over whether or not rape occurred. Keep in mind that child molestation and sexual assault do not have to include rape. The fact that Sandusky was naked in the shower with a child is enough to warrant action.
Jesus, people, this is not complicated. McQueary clearly told the Grand Jury that he witnessed with his own eyes Jerry Sandusky anally penetrating a young boy. There is zero ambiguity about the severity of Sandusky's abuse.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
5,682
Philly
Sure but I was responding to the assertion that CS made regarding Joe and PSU looked into it and decided there was nothing there worth passing on to authorities.
If you take McQueary at his word there most certainly is, it seems to me you can't have that as a possibility and still have McQueary working for Paterno.

Edit:I suppose I should have quoted all that but the original post was pretty long so I cut most of it out.
I think that's partially on McQueary though - another guy, like Joe, who opened the door to an investigation but was not adamant that something be investigated. If he loudly proclaimed to Paterno that something happened, again and again, and Paterno refused to give him the time of day, yes, I don't see how they could continue to work together. But who knows how it was presented, at each level? The story was hampered at every turn: part communication break-down, part complacency, part protection, part skepticism, part friendship, part confusion, and part bureaucracy. When all those parts added up, as they apparently did, to something sinister, it became a terrible tragedy. What those obstacles to proper process were, though, determine who and in what weights, is guilty of what. That's what needs to come out.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
You've been in here for two days now justifying the failure of McQueary, Paterno, and others in the school administration from taking more substantive action than they did in stopping Sandusky from harming kids over more than a decade as the result of them being "unsure" of what occurred because what they learned from witnesses fell into a "gray area." Maybe it was rape, maybe it was the normal activities of a 60 year old man and a 10 year old boy showering together in public! Excusing their failure to act because of so-called confusion is exactly the problem with what went on -- people wanted to walk away from an uncomfortable problem because it was easier and more convenient and financially expedient to do so.
Please re-read what I just posted. I said there was absolutely no grey area about what Sandusky did. The grey area I mentioned is what McQueary saw during the moment and what he inferred happened. I never said it was normal behavior at all, I said you have no idea what McQueary was thinking at the time. You only know what McQueary thought about it afterwards. You keep referring the grand jury testimony as if McQueary was walking around with it, having just read it, when he saw Sandusky in the locker room. Judging by his testimony later on, if McQueary knew what a monster Sandusky was, then he would have gone straight to the police.

I've been nothing but critical of the administrations actions, and I think people shouldn't focus on what McQueary did that night as much as what he did over the last ten years. That night was just one night's failure, but he took a promotion and repeated that failure every night for almost a decade, as did the administration above him. If you keep thinking I've said anything else, you are having trouble reading due to anger or something.

Sevens Costanza said:
Second, you keep beating the 'you don't know what you would do in that situation' horse. For all your exhortations about 'heat of the moment overcoming people'... you know what? I bet there's a ton of people, in the heat of the moment, who would have SAID STOP.
Costanza, sorry if you thought my last post was referring to you at all, because I agree with you here. Plenty of people would have stopped it, and they would be commended for it. It's just speculating about who would do what, though, and distracts from what I think is much worse -- they all failed to stop it not just that night, like McQueary did, but for over a decade. It's nothing but inexcusable. Who cares what you or I or anyone else in this thread would do? What should have been done is making sure Sandusky was stopped somehow, and none of them even put a solid effort into doing so, even though it hovered around their campus, locker room, and life every day for so long.

All of them need to be investigated, and not just some in-house wrist-slapper by people already involved, because at this point you can't trust them to do anything but sweep more shit under the rug. I'd even include the campus PD, since they apparently either failed to investigate any of the allegations in the first place, or were manipulated into not doing so. They might have been under the sway of the AD, but then again, McQueary might have called his father and not the local police because he knew that it would do nothing.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
5,682
Philly
Jesus, people, this is not complicated. McQueary clearly told the Grand Jury that he witnessed with his own eyes Jerry Sandusky anally penetrating a young boy. There is zero ambiguity about the severity of Sandusky's abuse.
You're completely correct to pass personal judgement, and I agree that the facts appear to be indisputable in this case. But not for a second would I want to live in an America where we congratulated ourselves on process given its due, and justice served, based on "this guy said he saw it". Again, I'm not arguing that it's not true given what we know here - but your "zero-ambiguity" model does not scale well. I would not want the law operating with your notion of "zero ambiguity", and because of that, we need to hold even seemingly obvious and egregious cases of wrongdoing to a higher standard.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,844
The Pine Street Inn
You're completely correct to pass personal judgement, and I agree that the facts appear to be indisputable in this case. But not for a second would I want to live in an America where we congratulated ourselves on process given its due, and justice served, based on "this guy said he saw it". Again, I'm not arguing that it's not true given what we know here - but your "zero-ambiguity" model does not scale well. I would not want the law operating with your notion of "zero ambiguity", and because of that, we need to hold even seemingly obvious and egregious cases of wrongdoing to a higher standard.
That's fine for criminal cases, and you wouldn't want it any other way. But for employment? Everyone with a whiff of knowledge of this who didn't raise an alarm turned up to 11 needs to be canned by the end of the day. Whether the failed to act when children may have been in danger is beyond question.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,246
Houston, TX
You're completely correct to pass personal judgement, and I agree that the facts appear to be indisputable in this case. But not for a second would I want to live in an America where we congratulated ourselves on process given its due, and justice served, based on "this guy said he saw it". Again, I'm not arguing that it's not true given what we know here - but your "zero-ambiguity" model does not scale well. I would not want the law operating with your notion of "zero ambiguity", and because of that, we need to hold even seemingly obvious and egregious cases of wrongdoing to a higher standard.
From a legal perspective, the outcome here is binary: guilty or not guilty. The severity of the crime is essentially meaningless in establishing guilt or innocence. But if convicted, the severity of the crime is established as fact: if guilty, then he sodomized young boys. It doesn't get much more severe than that, and he should, in fact, then be judged according to the severity of the crime.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
32,565
Haiku
I didn't read the GJ report, so to some extent I'm proceeding out of ignorance.
...
But...what if there were no rapes? What if Paterno looked into it, decided there was nothing that occurred, but reported it to his superior anyway? Who then did his duty to investigate, correctly concluded nothing happened, and moved on? What makes their conduct reprehensible is, as you said, that they allowed a rapist to continue to abuse children. If there was no rapist abusing children, their conduct would be reasonable.
There is no way that a 60-year-old adult can have sex with a 10-year-old child without it being rape. The Grand Jury report is unequivocal about what McQueary testified hearing and seeing. By definition it is involuntary because a child cannot consent.

I bet there's a ton of people, in the heat of the moment, who would have SAID STOP. Or made the guy stop. You don't know how any human being would react in that situation- that's presumably your point. Isn't it then fair to say that it's extremely plausible that someone with a even a shred of moral fiber would have put a stop to the events in question?

Third, you seem to be the only person here who can't seem to grasp that a grown man and a young boy- in a shower together- all alone- isn't weird, or at the VERY least, worthy of someone figuring out what the hell is going on. There's no plausible explination for these events occuring that is benign and harmless in nature.
That's the part that baffles me about McQueary -- he heard sounds, investigated, observed the man raping the boy, saw that both of them saw him, and then... nothing. McQueary, shocked, just slinks away.

I still want to know what it was that convinced the Grand Jury that McQueary was telling the truth about being sure that he told Curley and Schultz that the act was anal sex, and not just "horsing around." It doesn't sound like McQueary is such a paragon of forthrightness and courage that his word will stand up against two others'. There must be some additional confirmation somewhere: did McQueary rehearse what he saw with his father before going to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz? Did he recount the conversations afterwards?
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
I can say with reasonable confidence and conviction that if I were in MM's shoes that I probably would have stepped away to a place that I could not be heard, quickly called 911 to report a rape of a minor in the lockerroom shower and the perpetrator is Jerry Sandusky.
What if there are no payphones near the locker room?
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
A lot of parallels between this case and A Few Good Men.

* Sandusky is Kendrick, who ensured vicious Code Reds were carried out on the weak.

* 20+ pre-adolescent boys all play the role of Pfc William T. Santiago, subjected to relentless and unspeakable abuse.

* Paterno is Col. Nathan Jessup, revered as untouchable by all around him as he rests on the lofty perch of a 61-year career.

* McQueary is Pfc Louden Downey, apparently so obtuse he needs to be told by Lance Cpl Harold Dawson that he was "supposed to fight for those who can't fight for themselves; he was supposed to fight for Willy."

* Attorney General Linda Kelly is LCDR Joanne Galloway, vowing to stand up for those who were denied justice.

Sadly, what's missing is ANYONE playing the role of Lt. Col. Matthew Andrew Markinson, realizing the evil of their own inaction, revealing the dirty secrets, and falling on their sword instead of covering their ass.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Sadly, what's missing is ANYONE playing the role of Lt. Col. Matthew Andrew Markinson, realizing the evil of their own inaction, revealing the dirty secrets, and falling on their sword instead of covering their ass.
As was stated earlier the only "good guys" in this whole story are the teachers/administrators from the school that turned Sandusky in. They of course didn't have the potential negative outcome hanging over them that the other actors in this sick drama did but at least they did the right thing.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
This is a useful primer on the players and the timeline of what has occurred up until yesterday:

NPR

I would also recommend to anyone who thinks McQueary wasn't sure of what he saw to read this SI piece from Michael McCann, who writes about sports law, posted today on the potential future legal ramifications for Paterno and the school:

SI
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
The legal questions here are interesting, but completely miss the point.

At some point in the last 15 years, Paterno had reason to suspect that Sandusky was at best up to something inappropriate and questionable. The troubling thing is not what Paterno's thoughts about his legal obligations were. It's that Sandusky's entire scheme operated on the support of Penn State and Paterno. Without the label of "former PSU coach under Joe Paterno", there is no football camp or Second Mile. I'm sure that parents thought they were signing up for a little bit of Paterno when they signed their kids up with Sandusky.

Paterno had to understand that the PSU connection was important to Sandusky, or else he would have severed it. So for the last 10 years (at least), Paterno was complicit in any crime that Sandusky committed. Maybe not in a legal guilty verdict sense, but certainly in a normal person's view of the world.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
32,565
Haiku
This is a useful primer on the players and the timeline of what has occurred up until yesterday:

NPR
Wendell Courtney, former general counsel of the university and counsel of The Second Mile, is a key player in the disposition of the 1998 abuse case, which was referred to both police and Child Protective Services, and was apparently part of the reason that Sandusky was told that he would not be Paterno's successor as head coach, and subsequently retired from the university. Where is Courtney in the 2002 case, when the report went to the Athletic Director, University VP for Business and Finance, and University President? How in the world would the university counsel not be aware of this case, when it went to everyone else in upper administration?

The 2002 rape in the showers was (at least) the second time that Sandusky's abuse of boys was noted by people at PSU. Paterno should have recognized a pattern of abuse by this point. Courtney should have recognized a pattern of abuse -- assuming that he was in the loop. Maybe, just maybe, the issue could have been handled internally IF one is convinced that it was nothing more than "horsing around" -- but when it is part of a pattern of abuse, I really don't see any way that Paterno can be excused from participating in a serial cover-up.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Wendell Courtney, former general counsel of the university and counsel of The Second Mile, is a key player in the disposition of the 1998 abuse case, which was referred to both police and Child Protective Services, and was apparently part of the reason that Sandusky was told that he would not be Paterno's successor as head coach, and subsequently retired from the university. Where is Courtney in the 2002 case, when the report went to the Athletic Director, University VP for Business and Finance, and University President? How in the world would the university counsel not be aware of this case, when it went to everyone else in upper administration?

The 2002 rape in the showers was (at least) the second time that Sandusky's abuse of boys was noted by people at PSU. Paterno should have recognized a pattern of abuse by this point. Courtney should have recognized a pattern of abuse -- assuming that he was in the loop. Maybe, just maybe, the issue could have been handled internally IF one is convinced that it was nothing more than "horsing around" -- but when it is part of a pattern of abuse, I really don't see any way that Paterno can be excused from participating in a serial cover-up.
My guess is they deliberately kept the attorney out of the loop in 2002.

I am really interested in learning more about the investigation in 1998, and what deals were made.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,294
New York City
Involved? Doubt it. Aware and the one who said just make it go away? No doubt in my mind.
The really disturbing possibility is that Paterno and other senior administrators at Penn State forced Sandusky into retirement in 1999 because of this stuff-that they recognized he was a threat to kids so they pushed him out of the program, but they didn't want to go so far as to actually make their concerns public so they let him continue his work with at risk kids.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,911
San Diego, CA
The legal questions here are interesting, but completely miss the point.

At some point in the last 15 years, Paterno had reason to suspect that Sandusky was at best up to something inappropriate and questionable. The troubling thing is not what Paterno's thoughts about his legal obligations were. It's that Sandusky's entire scheme operated on the support of Penn State and Paterno. Without the label of "former PSU coach under Joe Paterno", there is no football camp or Second Mile. I'm sure that parents thought they were signing up for a little bit of Paterno when they signed their kids up with Sandusky.

Paterno had to understand that the PSU connection was important to Sandusky, or else he would have severed it. So for the last 10 years (at least), Paterno was complicit in any crime that Sandusky committed. Maybe not in a legal guilty verdict sense, but certainly in a normal person's view of the world.
I completely agree, and to me this gets more to the point about Paterno's failings - it certainly seems that he completely absolved himself legally by referring the matter to his "superiors". The issue, however, is that I don't really care. To me, it's the equivalent of how people often make horribly inappropriate comments and then whine about the First Amendment when people (rightfully) act disgusted by them. If the facts presented are accurate, I don't think that Paterno should be in jail. I do, however, thing that it shows a fundamental lack of caring for young, innocent, scared individuals that is COMPLETELY inappropriate for someone in a position of responsibility over young student's care and well-being. And that's the issue that most of us have with this - it's one thing for a poor janitor that could very easily get buried for making accusations of child molestation against a guy as famous and well-liked in the community as Sandusky (even though I agree that's still no excuse), but other than a hit to his ego there's absolutely no excuse for Paterno to do the bare minimum legally required in this situation and then throw his hands up like he's absolved of responsibility.

Being at a position of significant honor and respect at a public university is a priviledge, not his god-given right that can only be taken away if he actually breaks the law. If he doesn't care enough about a 10 year old getting raped to make damn sure it's pursued, why would he possibly care about students struggling academically, or a 21 year old having a concussion?
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
I am really interested in learning more about the investigation in 1998, and what deals were made.
Me too. Especially since the DA who decided not to prosecute in 1998 has been missing since 2005 and is presumed dead. Very weird.

Ray Gricar - Declared legally dead in July, Gricar was the Centre County district attorney from 1985 to 2005, when he disappeared. He chose not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998, after allegations of inappropriate contact with young boys surfaced. The decision helped to end a police investigation into the report.
 

TimNJsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,447
NW New Jersey
1998: Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

June 1999: Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.

Dec. 28, 1999: Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.

Summer 2000: Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.

Fall 2000: A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy -- known as Victim 8 -- pinned up against the wall and performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.

Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.

March 1, 2002: A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.

March 2, 2002: In the morning, the graduate assistant calls coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno's home, where he reports what he has seen.

March 3, 2002: Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director, to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.

March 2002: Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.

March 27, 2002 (approximate): The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky's locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in Grand Jury in December 2010.


Just playing devils advocate here for a sec...


OK...So in 1998 Sandusky is confronted and investigated and ADMITS to "stuff" and somehow miraculously gets away scott free. Its possible that Paterno had no idea this was happening unless there is something somewhere I missed and if there is, forget the rest of my post.

fast forward to 2000....Sandusky is observed by a janitor who fails to report anything. Paterno has no idea this happens either.

2002...McQuery catches Sandusky with the kid and tells Paterno, who in turn immediately notifies his superior. Later in the month they question McQuery and say they will look into it further. Perhaps Paterno sees this as action and feels no need to be involved any further (would you?).

Then nothing publicly happens for another 7 years.

Is it possible that Paterno thought/believed that Sandusky was properly taken care of by the police/lawyers and some type of deal had been made concerning all involved parties?

Count me in the camp that wants more details before I crucify one of my lifelong heroes.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
33,302
I'd like to think the father of any young boy would know exactly how they'd react to seeing what McQueary saw. However, after reading this thread, I guess that might not be the case. I assume McQueary doesn't have kids of his own, but that perspective certainly changes how I'd respond now as opposed to a few short years ago. I don't care if it was someone I knew or not. Jerry Sandusky, Barack Obama, my own father, if I saw something like that happening to a little boy in a shower, not one of them would be leaving there without the assistance of paramedics, but before that happened, you can be damn sure that their "facilities" would have been left so damaged that there would have been no chance for them ever to do that again to another boy. Let a jury convict me for that.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,246
Houston, TX
The really disturbing possibility is that Paterno and other senior administrators at Penn State forced Sandusky into retirement in 1999 because of this stuff-that they recognized he was a threat to kids so they pushed him out of the program, but they didn't want to go so far as to actually make their concerns public so they let him continue his work with at risk kids.
Right. And this is the area that could get Paterno et al into real legal trouble. If he knew or suspected that Sandusky was molesting children, he could be prosecuted and face civil liability. I think he is in very serious trouble with the law once this starts to play out in court. He deserves it.
 
May 11, 2009
425
Minnesota
Me too. Especially since the DA who decided not to prosecute in 1998 has been missing since 2005 and is presumed dead. Very weird.

As noted upthread, he was also involved in a gruesome heroin case that is assumed to be the more likely of work events that would cause his disappearance.

That said, still a question worth asking.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,094
The really disturbing possibility is that Paterno and other senior administrators at Penn State forced Sandusky into retirement in 1999 because of this stuff-that they recognized he was a threat to kids so they pushed him out of the program, but they didn't want to go so far as to actually make their concerns public so they let him continue his work with at risk kids.
This is where i'm at. Part of Sandusky's retirement agreement included full access to the schools athletic facilities, maintaining an office on campus (for what purpose?), and even so much as having his Penn State email account (again, why?), and his parking pass. The smell of a negotiated coverup are everywhere and as Kim Jones (current WFAN, former Penn St reporter) said yesterday, "Sandusky always had young boys with him."

Everyone knew what was going on and they all turned their heads to protect the $50m/yr cash-cow known as Penn State football. They all knew if they spoke up they were finished......completely intimidated by the program.



Then nothing publicly happens for another 7 years.

Is it possible that Paterno thought/believed that Sandusky was properly taken care of by the police/lawyers and some type of deal had been made concerning all involved parties?

Count me in the camp that wants more details before I crucify one of my lifelong heroes.
Just because nothing publicly hasn't been reported only means Sandusky wasn't caught. As has been reported, Sandusky always had young boys around him over the past decade.

Like someone said yesterday (Francesa, Kim Jones, or someone else i forget), "Joe Paterno knows when the busboy at the local diner uses the restroom. Joe Paterno knows EVERYTHING about what goes on in that town."
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
This article was written, amazingly, several months ago:

If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn't act, instead facilitating Sandusky's untroubled retirement - are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.
Initially accused in 1998. Retires in 1999. Never coaches college football again. Sandusky was very successful at what he did. The architect of Linebacker U. Helped win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Recognized as college football's top assistant in 1986 and 1999.
Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement.
But there's no shortage of stories and rumors about Penn State football sweeping problems under the rug, is there?
http://m.timesonline.com/mobile/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
The really disturbing possibility is that Paterno and other senior administrators at Penn State forced Sandusky into retirement in 1999 because of this stuff-that they recognized he was a threat to kids so they pushed him out of the program, but they didn't want to go so far as to actually make their concerns public so they let him continue his work with at risk kids.

There is almost no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what happened. I'm sure everyone involved was smart enough to not write anything down so I rather doubt there will ever be a smoking gun.
As for why he kept his office, his privileges at the university and the general access I'm sure that was part of the deal. It's not like Sandusky had no leverage at all, I'm sure Paterno was desperate to not have any of this stain his program.
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
Is it possible that Paterno thought/believed that Sandusky was properly taken care of by the police/lawyers and some type of deal had been made concerning all involved parties?
That's exactly the concern. The "situation" was "taken care of", not Sandusky. He continued to operate with the implicit blessing of PSU, and therefore Paterno. Maybe Joe thought he was "cured" or something. But that doesn't absolve him in any way.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,094
This is what I disagree with. There is a possibility that he had no idea of anything until March 2002. Im hanging on that hope. If he did know stuff before then, then my life will become a little bit empty.
No disrespect but i trust someone who covered the Penn State program on a day-to-day basis who makes that statement they made more than a Sox fan in NJ. ;)

There was the full police investigation in 1998. If the investigation was done using proper protocol they would have interviewed Sandusky's superior (Paterno) so how would Paterno not know about this investigation? If it was not done using proper protocol this opens another can of worms of dirty cops paid by Paterno's program and school.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
14,595
<null>
This is what I disagree with. There is a possibility that he had no idea of anything until March 2002. Im hanging on that hope. If he did know stuff before then, then my life will become a little bit empty.
One of Joe Pa's employees of 10+ years was under investigation for child abuse and he wasn't told? Pretty far long shot.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
This is what I disagree with. There is a possibility that he had no idea of anything until March 2002. Im hanging on that hope. If he did know stuff before then, then my life will become a little bit empty.
You honestly believe that the State College Police Department launched an investigation of Joe Paterno's defensive coordinator, and that the case reached the district attorney, and nobody put in a phone call to Joe Paterno? Doesn't it seem far, far too coincidental that the assumed heir to the Paterno throne and one of the most respected defensive coordinators in the country retires suddenly in June, a couple of months before the season begins? And if he was so intent on retirement, and did so to "devote more time to his charity", and wanted to remain such an integral part of the Penn State community, why did he interview for the Virginia job the next year?

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up, and the idea that all of this could go on under Paterno's nose without him hearing a thing about it is ridiculous. This reeks of Paterno and a half dozen others putting the Penn State football brand first.

edit: beaten to it by like 8 people.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Here's what I don't get: what is it about this school that has a number of alumni (Millen, others here in this thread) offering some pretty flimsy arguments for why Paterno is not complicit in a cover up to protect the football program. I am just curious since most of us here went to college/universities with football (or other athletic programs) and probably have fond memories of going to games and feeling "school spirit" and all that. I had a great time in college, but if someone like the football coach or the hockey coach or the school president was under fire for abetting and protecting a serial child rapist, I would not for one minute think about going to a pep rally outside his house. At best, if I had any doubts the allegations were false, I'd wait it out and see what the courts had to say.

What's different about this place?
 

drtooth

2:30
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 23, 2004
11,242
Someone's Molars
Sandusky retired after he was told that he would not be Paterno's successor. Did he not get the job because of the 1998 allegations? Time line is too close to think otherwise. And why was he still allowed unfettered access to the facilities and allowed to bring young boys with him after the 1998 charges? Should be a total house cleaning from Spanier all the way down to Paterno immediately. No one involved in this should be allowed to leave on their terms.
 

Mr Weebles

swabbie bastard
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
15,587
NH
Here's what I don't get: what is it about this school that has a number of alumni (Millen, others here in this thread) offering some pretty flimsy arguments for why Paterno is not complicit in a cover up to protect the football program. I am just curious since most of us here went to college/universities with football (or other athletic programs) and probably have fond memories of going to games and feeling "school spirit" and all that. I had a great time in college, but if someone like the football coach or the hockey coach or the school president was under fire for abetting and protecting a serial child rapist, I would not for one minute think about going to a pep rally outside his house. At best, if I had any doubts the allegations were false, I'd wait it out and see what the courts had to say.

What's different about this place?
I guess some institutions, whether they are colleges, social organizations or sports message boards, are willing to overlook someone who covers up or condones pedophilia because of some perceived benefit that person brings to the table.

Maybe they think the "good" (coaching success, baseball stats knowledge, etc.) outweighs the negatives.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
What's different about this place?

This is the cult of Paterno.
My nephew goes there and even as a kid from MA who had a passing interest in College Football it took him about two weeks to get fully indoctrinated. A couple of years ago on a New Years Day he was about ready to punch me because I mentioned something about Paterno coloring his hair.
My wife has already warned me that this subject is off limits on Thanksgiving. She is well aware there is no chance of that happening.
 

soPhisHticated

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 10, 2005
585
This is what I disagree with. There is a possibility that he had no idea of anything until March 2002. Im hanging on that hope. If he did know stuff before then, then my life will become a little bit empty.
I'm with you, Tim.

The inexcusable offense IMO is that the AD and Penn State did not ban Sandusky immediately following the 2002 incident. Take away his parking pass, building pass, office, emeritus status - everything - and tell him he is not longer welcome on University property. If that makes running "The Second Mile" harder, so be it. He can't be allowed on campus. Any of them. They said they reported this to the Second Mile, but did they? And in what context?

By not doing anything more, and just asking him "not to bring children here" is fucking heinous. The only message sent was 'Jerry, we're not sure what you were doing but please don't do it here'.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,294
New York City
State Penners are a freaking cult. And JoePa is their Leader. It really is that simple.
But what's the charm? Longevity, personal charisma, personal relationships cultivated by being active in a community for 60 years, there being nothing else to do in town?
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
The inexcusable offense IMO is that the AD and Penn State did not ban Sandusky immediately following the 2002 incident. Take away his parking pass, building pass, office, emeritus status - everything - and tell him he is not longer welcome on University property. If that makes running "The Second Mile" harder, so be it. He can't be allowed on campus. Any of them. They said they reported this to the Second Mile, but did they? And in what context?

By not doing anything more, and just asking him "not to bring children here" is fucking heinous. The only message sent was 'Jerry, we're not sure what you were doing but please don't do it here'.
While what you say is true you did forget one other small thing the administration could have done in 2002. They maybe, might have oh I don't know, called the police.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Sandusky retired after he was told that he would not be Paterno's successor. Did he not get the job because of the 1998 allegations? Time line is too close to think otherwise. And why was he still allowed unfettered access to the facilities and allowed to bring young boys with him after the 1998 charges? Should be a total house cleaning from Spanier all the way down to Paterno immediately. No one involved in this should be allowed to leave on their terms.
Is this a fact, because I've never seen that? Because if a guy in his coaching prime (age 55) who is considered the "architect" of a nationally-vaunted linebacker program finds out he's not going to get the job he wants, how does he not take an offer from another school to do the job he allegedly so badly wants? His decision becomes 'get Paterno's job or retire?' Doesn't pass the smell test.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Me too. Especially since the DA who decided not to prosecute in 1998 has been missing since 2005 and is presumed dead. Very weird.
As noted upthread, he was also involved in a gruesome heroin case that is assumed to be the more likely of work events that would cause his disappearance.
Also noted upthread: When police found his laptop the hard drive was missing. It was later located in a river and found to have been intentionally damaged beyond repair. Police also reported that they'd found evidence on Gricar's home computer that he'd conducted internet searches on how to destroy a laptop hard drive.

I suppose it's possible such a report could be part of any cover-up, supporting the suicide conclusion.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
What's different about this place?

How about he IS the place and has been for almost 50 years? With all due respect to a world class meteorology department and excellence in many other disciplines, this is a modern day Company town and he's the Chairman of the Board.

Check that -- a Company state. The thing that REALLY sends shivers up my spine is that folks seemingly in the know here are conveying the distinct impression, intentionally or not, that there is nobody to be trusted and that this may be beyond the capabilities of anyone in the Commonwealth to get his or her arms around. The tentacles seem to be that far ranging and deep.

We're talking about the firing of the University's President tonight, and the football coach is still in place. Are you fucking kidding me?

It strikes me as this bad: If I were a US Atty in Philly or Pittsburgh, I'd be praying for a federal jurisdictional basis firmer and wider than Mann Act violations, and if I found one, I'd be on the phone to Eric Holder. I'd then empanel a federal grand jury and put Sandusky in protective custody. He is the loose thread to be pulled -- and if I did the first few things, his life would be on no firmer ground than Lee Harvey Oswald's during a jail transfer in Dallas.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
32,565
Haiku
Is this a fact, because I've never seen that? Because if a guy in his coaching prime (age 55) who is considered the "architect" of a nationally-vaunted linebacker program finds out he's not going to get the job he wants, how does he not take an offer from another school to do the job he allegedly so badly wants? His decision becomes 'get Paterno's job or retire?' Doesn't pass the smell test.
A passage from the Grand Jury report:
Victim 4 remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky he would not be the next head coach at Penn State and which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about the meeting. That meeting occurred in May, 1999.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
OK, but all that says is Victim 4 was told by Sandusky that he was told by Paterno he wouldn't get the job. And my larger point still stands. Assuming it's true, why do you walk away from a successful career 10 years before most people retire? He wasn't independently wealthy AFAIK.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,094
OK, but all that says is Victim 4 was told by Sandusky that he was told by Paterno he wouldn't get the job. And my larger point still stands. Assuming it's true, why do you walk away from a successful career 10 years before most people retire? He wasn't independently wealthy AFAIK.
Read between the lines. He didn't walk away....he was shoved out the door then put a plan together in putting a staff together to interview for the Virginia head job the following year.