Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
32,566
Haiku
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.
I thought you were asking for confirmation of the timeline.

I agree that it does not pass the smell test, and also with the inference that he was retired early under pressure and the word got around that he was not a safe hire, but that the early and subsequent indications of child abuse were covered up through a combination of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by his superiors, including Paterno.

So far, the Attorney General has charged just Curley and Schultz with malfeasance (perjury) and nonfeasance (failure to report abuse of a minor to the police). McCann's article suggests that Paterno's misfeasance (inaccurate or incomplete reporting of McQueary's charge) may be malfeasance too.
 

soPhisHticated

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 10, 2005
585
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.

I agree. They (Curley and Shultz) absolutely should have called the real police. That Shultz runs the University Police (or it reports to him, it's unclear) might have created the false perception that "cops" were involved in "investigating" something here. It's wrong, and I'm not ignoring that.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,724
I agree. They (Curley and Shultz) absolutely should have called the real police. That Shultz runs the University Police (or it reports to him, it's unclear) might have created the false perception that "cops" were involved in "investigating" something here. It's wrong, and I'm not ignoring that.
Do you think before you type? So Curley and Shultz are completely guilty but JoePa is 100% innocent?
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I agree. They (Curley and Shultz) absolutely should have called the real police. That Shultz runs the University Police (or it reports to him, it's unclear) might have created the false perception that "cops" were involved in "investigating" something here. It's wrong, and I'm not ignoring that.

I didn't really think you were, just thought I'd throw that out there.
My understanding is the Police Dept. is under Shultz but that it is really only fiduciary, he doesn't "run the police" in any way, shape or form.
 
May 11, 2009
425
Minnesota
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.
Did the 1998 showering incident take place off campus?

Not to nit-pick, because I do believe there's way too much circumstantial evidence for Joe
not to have known about the 1998 episode... but I don't know that an employer is one of the calls a DA would make if there hasn't been a decision to bring charges yet. I can't tell you how many instances of employers being "shocked" that an employee is indicted of some crime or another, even cases that directly impact the company. Police et al. tend to be very careful not to bring too many parties in to a pending investigation if they don't perceive those parties to be material to that investigation. Especially in high profile cases where public perception can destroy careers.

If Paterno knew about this in 1998, it likely wasn't from Ray Gricar. But IMO the PSU
community is too tight-knit and the Sandusky career path took too sharp of a left turn at that time to think this didn't get around to those in charge.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
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.
Oh, I agree. I am just challenging the idea advanced by some that he retired because he learned that he wasn't getting the HC of the PSU job and not because he got caught raping a kid/kids.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,247
Houston, TX
I think it's awesome that some of you guys hope Paterno isn't culpable here. Do you also hope for the actual truth to come out and for the victims to get help and counseling, or only if it turns out Paterno isn't culpable? Fucking hell you guys need to get your priorities straight.
 

Sea Bass Neely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,353
I've mostly tried to stay out of this. And while I have a strong contempt for Penn State's fan base, I absolutely hate how this has become a Joe Paterno and Penn State Story.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Oh, I agree. I am just challenging the idea advanced by some that he retired because he learned that he wasn't getting the HC of the PSU job and not because he got caught raping a kid/kids.

Well I don't think they are two separate things. He was told there is no way in hell he is getting job as HC of the PSNLs because he was raping kids.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,294
New York City
In '02, after Paterno had handed the McQueary matter to his superiors, who then brought in McQueary for an interview and took steps (not effective ones) against Sandusky, what was Joe's role supposed to be? It seems to me that he was out of the loop at that point, and Sandusky was not his employee or issue. We don't even know how friendly they were at that point, or how often they saw each other, if ever. As far as Paterno knew, the matter didn't concern his team, and his superiors were aware of it and dealing with it. What was he supposed to do next? Go to the media? Jump up and down? I'm not sure he didn't behave like a rational person would in that situation. Is it his fault his superiors did not act effectively with the information?

Now, if Paterno already knew all the details from 1998 in the detail that the Grand Jury had, before the McQueary even happened, then yes, there is complicity.

And finally, I think the idea that Paterno has some shaman-like hold over State College is a bit silly. He barely has anything to do with running the team anymore. He's a figurehead, and is loved like one. That's all. There's nothing cultish about it.
Work with me because I'm spitballing here, and I'm no expert, but I think he could have, you know, called the cops.
 

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,858
Pennsylvania
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?
Paterno has done, given and sacrificed more for the
university than arguably any coach in any sport. Turning down the New England Patriots offer in the 80's basically cemented himself a place in every alumni's heart. Multiply Red Auerbach by 7 and put him in a college atmosphere.

I am a Penn State fan (not an Alum). I would be angry and seething with rage if I wasn't saddened, appalled, dispondent, and in utter disbelief.

I knew Paterno was loyal to a fault and loved Penn State, but never though he would be forced out because he stood accused of essentially turning a blind-eye to his defensive coordinator's heinous crimes. (With overwhelming evidence based on the GJT)
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,081
A good timeline, to which I added the May 1999 notation.

1969 _ Jerry Sandusky starts his coaching career at Penn State University as a defensive line coach.

1977 _ Jerry Sandusky founds The Second Mile. It begins as a group foster home dedicated to helping troubled boys and grows into a charity dedicated to helping children with absent or dysfunctional families.

January 1983 _ Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1982 season.

January 1987 _ Associated Press voters select Penn State as college football's national champion for the 1986 season.

1994 _ Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.

1994-95 _ Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.

1995-96 _ Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.

1996-97 _ Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.

1996-98 _ Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.

Jan. 1, 1998 _ Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.

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.

May 1999 _ Sandusky tells Victim 4 that Paterno had informed Sandusky he would not be his successor.

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, 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.

2005-2006 _ Boy known as Victim 1 says that meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.

Spring 2007 _ During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.

Spring 2008 _ Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy's mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.

Early 2009 _ An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa. teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.

September 2010 _ Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.

Nov. 5, 2011 _ Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.

Nov. 7, 2011 _ Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.

Nov. 8, 2011 _ Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno's regular weekly press conference.

Nov. 9, 2011 _ Paterno announces he'll retire at the end of the season.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I love how Paterno's defenders are giving him a pass on not knowing about -- or worse, not caring about -- blatant criminal behavior by the Athletic Director. If he couldn't be arsed to follow through to make sure that the rape of a child in the locker room was reported to the proper authorities, why do we think he ran a clean program otherwise?

Edit: Obviously, compared to this it seems trivial whether PSU's football program was "clean." The schadenfraude on display during the Tressel scandal now seems laughable. Yet, PSU fans still don't see they've been conned.
 

GBrushTWood

lurker
Jul 12, 2005
371
Brookline
What's different about this place?
Nothing is different about Penn State. People in the United States are infatuated with picking teams/sides/viewpoints and viscerally supporting these institutions or sides with all their emotions, despite any logical counterarguments. Facts are not important, your side "winning" and the bad guys "losing" is. Preposterous counter arguments are floated because you support your side, not based on evidence or data. GO TEAM!

If this would have happened in Alabama or Florida, you would see the exact same freak show. Did anybody watch the ESPN special on Alabama vs. Auburn last night? Some lunatic fan from Alabama apparently noticed an Auburn fan put a Cam Newton jersey on their statue of Bear Bryant. Accordingly he went to Auburn and poisoned their beloved, sacred, dopey tree. This was taken as seriously as the Rwandan genocide by the two fan bases.

The point is, we've got a LOT of morons in this country who will blindly support their sides despite even the most heinous actions. This Penn State is a fantastic example of the "team" mentality. The answer is that a ton of people are really dumb.
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
17,960
pawtucket
This wasn't easy, and I don't expect many of you to agree with my conclusion:

http://www.woonsocketcall.com/node/3829
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,247
Houston, TX
In '02, after Paterno had handed the McQueary matter to his superiors, who then brought in McQueary for an interview and took steps (not effective ones) against Sandusky, what was Joe's role supposed to be? It seems to me that he was out of the loop at that point, and Sandusky was not his employee or issue. We don't even know how friendly they were at that point, or how often they saw each other, if ever. As far as Paterno knew, the matter didn't concern his team, and his superiors were aware of it and dealing with it. What was he supposed to do next? Go to the media? Jump up and down? I'm not sure he didn't behave like a rational person would in that situation. Is it his fault his superiors did not act effectively with the information?

Now, if Paterno already knew all the details from 1998 in the detail that the Grand Jury had, before the McQueary even happened, then yes, there is complicity.

And finally, I think the idea that Paterno has some shaman-like hold over State College is a bit silly. He barely has anything to do with running the team anymore. He's a figurehead, and is loved like one. That's all. There's nothing cultish about it.
And this is part of the problem right here. What. The. Hell.

Maybe you should have put it this way: I'll just go ahead and believe anything Joe Paterno says in the matter because he is, after all, Joe Paterno.

Rape is, short of murder, just about the worst thing a human being can do to another person. Rape of a minor - think about it. So yes, Joe Paterno, as leader of the football program and arguably the most powerful man at Penn State, absolutely had a responsibility to ensure that NO RAPE was going on after he heard about this incident. There is no gray area here. He shirked his responsibility. The "why" is not important. But he absolutely failed in his duty to make sure his assistants and associates were not raping young boys. What is so difficult about that to understand?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,094
In '02, after Paterno had handed the McQueary matter to his superiors, who then brought in McQueary for an interview and took steps (not effective ones) against Sandusky, what was Joe's role supposed to be? It seems to me that he was out of the loop at that point, and Sandusky was not his employee or issue. We don't even know how friendly they were at that point, or how often they saw each other, if ever. As far as Paterno knew, the matter didn't concern his team, and his superiors were aware of it and dealing with it. What was he supposed to do next? Go to the media? Jump up and down? I'm not sure he didn't behave like a rational person would in that situation. Is it his fault his superiors did not act effectively with the information?

Now, if Paterno already knew all the details from 1998 in the detail that the Grand Jury had, before the McQueary even happened, then yes, there is complicity.

And finally, I think the idea that Paterno has some shaman-like hold over State College is a bit silly. He barely has anything to do with running the team anymore. He's a figurehead, and is loved like one. That's all. There's nothing cultish about it.
Paterno is directly responsible for building the program and earning nearly one billion dollars to this University.....while he technically had a chain of command let's not fool ourselves into thinking Paterno had superiors at this school aside from the Board of Trustees. In case you haven't noticed the school has not wasted any time forcing resignations of the VP of Finance, Athletic Director, and now President of the University but have not taken any action on Paterno who will very likely be coaching on Saturday afternoon.

Sandusky still maintained his office at the school and utilized the football facilities.....it's safe to say he bumped into Paterno every now and then over the past decade. Paterno made a choice to cover this up or else he would have done the morally correct thing to do and saved many young boys from future abuse.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Yes, but would you acknowledge that any other HC of any other program -- no matter how big and glitzy -- would almost certainly be gone by now.

He adhered to legal minimums, said himself today he wish he would have done more, and as a result an unknown number of boys were raped and an unknown number of those were preventable.

So is he going to appear on the sidelines Saturday or hide in the press box?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,151
deep inside Guido territory
Yes, but would you acknowledge that any other HC of any other program -- no matter how big and glitzy -- would almost certainly be gone by now.

He adhered to legal minimums, said himself today he wish he would have done more, and as a result an unknown number of boys were raped and an unknown number of those were preventable.

So is he going to appear on the sidelines Saturday or hide in the press box?
I'd say he'll be in the press box.
 

Mr. Wednesday

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,147
Eastern MA
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.
I gotta say, I'm no Paterno apologist, but I'm not clear on how he's in the wrong for 1998 unless he intervened to spike the investigation (and I would not totally discount that possibility). The investigation was undertaken by the police, and the DA elected not to file charges. Subsequent to that, Paterno pushed Sandusky out the door. To argue for something more than that, I'd need to know more about why the investigation was dropped, and how much Paterno knew about the details of it.

It's the 2002 incident which is really damning. If Paterno knew about the investigation in 1998 (and I find it impossible to believe that he didn't know about it), then the 2002 served as confirmation both that there was fire to go along with the smoke in 1998 and Sandusky was still doing it. He and the PSU administration had an opportunity to do the right thing, and instead, they buried it.

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.
If you take the word of people who have spent a significant amount of time around the Penn State program, there is no realistic chance that he had no idea of anything until March 2002. None.

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?
Read the article on Grantland. Listen to the Kim Jones bit on WFAN that was posted earlier. Both talk about the cult of personality and reality distortion field that had grown up around Paterno and Penn State football.

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?
The importance of big-time football (something that I don't think you can have any real conception of without spending time outside New England), and the personal identity with the school and the team. The belief that they were doing things, not only differently, but the "right" way, better than the vast majority of big-time football. The belief that they had something special there.

Well I don't think they are two separate things. He was told there is no way in hell he is getting job as HC of the PSNLs because he was raping kids.
Maybe. Or maybe he was just told that there is no way in hell he is getting the job as HC of the PSNLs because the school wasn't willing to deal with the fallout of an enterprising reporter bringing up the aborted investigation.

And finally, I think the idea that Paterno has some shaman-like hold over State College is a bit silly. He barely has anything to do with running the team anymore. He's a figurehead, and is loved like one. That's all. There's nothing cultish about it.
Really? You don't see the cultish aspects of the response now, or the way that things were handled in 1998 or 2002? Have you read the Grantland piece, or listened to the Kim Jones piece? He's purely a figurehead right now, but he was more than that at the beginning of the decade, even if he didn't have the same level of control over the day-to-day operation of the football team as he once had.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,094
Yes, but would you acknowledge that any other HC of any other program -- no matter how big and glitzy -- would almost certainly be gone by now.

He adhered to legal minimums, said himself today he wish he would have done more, and as a result an unknown number of boys were raped and an unknown number of those were preventable.

So is he going to appear on the sidelines Saturday or hide in the press box?
Of course he would have done more to not have placed himself and his school in the predicament it is in today. Paterno had every day since (you pick the year) 1998, 2002, 2008 or whenever to have done more. He made the conscious decision not to act in any manner (or worse, prevent others from doing so) over the past decade. People are always remorseful after their world has crashed down on them because well.....their world just crashed down on them.

"I don't know if you heard me before but to the victims.....or whatever they call them" WTF is this?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Of course he would have done more to not have placed himself and his school in the predicament it is in today. Paterno had every day since (you pick the year) 1998, 2002, 2008 or whenever to have done more. He made the conscious decision not to act in any manner (or worse, prevent others from doing so) over the past decade. People are always remorseful after their world has crashed down on them because well.....their world just crashed down on them.

"I don't know if you heard me before but to the victims.....or whatever they call them" WTF is this?

Sadly true. I don't imagine he jumped out of bed any night with nightmare visions of who Sandusky might be raping at that very moment.

How does anyone -- much less anyone with his juice -- live with himself in these circumstances?
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
but have not taken any action on Paterno who will very likely be coaching on Saturday afternoon. .
Despite Paterno's statement, I still can't believe this is going to happen. The board is going to do something, and I have to think the governor at least is going to throw his body in front of the possibility of him coaching Saturday. It just can't happen.

Dept of Ed will be investigating:

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-investigate-penn-states-handling-sexual-misconduct-alleg

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, "If these allegations of sexual abuse are true then this is a horrible tragedy for those young boys. If it turns out that some people at the school knew of the abuse and did nothing or covered it up, that makes it even worse. Schools and school officials have a legal and moral responsibility to protect children and young people from violence and abuse."
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,724
What? He reported it and got an investigation started. That presumably would involve the cops if necessary. In his shoes, wouldn't you assume that your superiors, who were running the investigation, would do that?

It's like saying, my kid tells me that a friend of ours down the street is a terrorist making a bomb. Worried, I call the local police, and they say ok - we got this, and they interview my kid, who saw the suspicous things. As far as I know, things are being handled (Unbeknownst to me, the cops never really do much with the tip, and never tell the FBI.) Then the a car bomb blows up. That's my fault, because I didn't try to call the FBI directly, or go to the newspapers, or break the guy's door down myself?
Except no one called the cops in the 2002 portion of this case. You dont call the cops and you are a complicit as the rest ...
 

Yazdog8

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,349
Redwood City, CA
In '02, after Paterno had handed the McQueary matter to his superiors, who then brought in McQueary for an interview and took steps (not effective ones) against Sandusky, what was Joe's role supposed to be? It seems to me that he was out of the loop at that point, and Sandusky was not his employee or issue. We don't even know how friendly they were at that point, or how often they saw each other, if ever. As far as Paterno knew, the matter didn't concern his team, and his superiors were aware of it and dealing with it. What was he supposed to do next? Go to the media? Jump up and down? I'm not sure he didn't behave like a rational person would in that situation. Is it his fault his superiors did not act effectively with the information?

Now, if Paterno already knew all the details from 1998 in the detail that the Grand Jury had, before the McQueary even happened, then yes, there is complicity.

And finally, I think the idea that Paterno has some shaman-like hold over State College is a bit silly. He barely has anything to do with running the team anymore. He's a figurehead, and is loved like one. That's all. There's nothing cultish about it.
You're referring to now. Back in 2002 JoePa was 75 or 76 and was by all accounts more than just the figurehead that he is now. He absolutely had control of everything to do with the football program.

If his superiors failed to act, he should have gone to the cops. Hell, he should have gone to the cops even if his superiors did act.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Doing nothing, not following up on anything, and then allowing a suspected pedophile to continue to use school facilities are, in fact, decisive actions. Read the SI piece I posted -- there is certainly room to argue that Paterno had a duty (never mind a moral obligation) under PA law to report everything he knew to police -- and to do so accurately -- but did not.
 

Monbo Jumbo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
24,644
the other Athens
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.
Good post


...and...therefore...ergo...


There must be stuff we don't know. We know Paterno covered for Sandusky. Those streets usually run two ways.
 
May 11, 2009
425
Minnesota
I've mostly tried to stay out of this. And while I have a strong contempt for Penn State's fan base, I absolutely hate how this has become a Joe Paterno and Penn State Story.
And upon reflection, wiser words haven't been said.

Every time I think about what's going on, what didn't happen, who probably knew and failed to save a kid from lifelong trauma, my immediate reaction is to check in on this thread in the event I can actually put into words the anger I have towards the enablers that allowed this to go on. I usually can't. But the Penn State staff is the easiest target for those of us that don't know how to direct our anger. I can't think of anything in this world that creates a more raw, emotional response out of people than the topic of child sex abuse... I certainly don't spend my days contemplating the subject, and then when we as a society get slammed in the face with it we are forced to take a deeper look into ourselves and those around us, and what would we do if faced with the same situations the Paternos and McQueary's of the world faced.

And lost in all of this is the absolute horror of what those kids went through. There are sex abuse survivors that would rather have been killed than deal with the pain of it. These kids, now in their mid-20's to 30's, probably have varying degrees of success or failure in getting their lives back to even a hollow semblance of where they want to be, but deep down they know they will never get there. They most likely think it's their own fault it happened. And between the GJ indictment and 24/7 media coverage and the full realization that there were others, this must be like reliving the experience for most of them.

I hope by some miracle some good comes of this. And I'm not just talking about cleaning house at Penn State University or Jerry Sandusky living the rest of his miserable life with sodomites. I hope this is finally a step towards giving these kids closure, to know that what they did was not their fault and is not by any means an acceptable form of human behavior. I hope people (particularly parents) are taking a good look around and evaluating what's going on in their children's lives, who is involved and what questions are being asked to ensure the adults supervising them can be trusted. And I hope Pennsylvania (and other states) takes a long, hard look at their child welfare and sex abuse reporting laws, because it's become apparent how many people will do the absolute minimum the law allows if put in an uncomfortable situation.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
This wasn't easy, and I don't expect many of you to agree with my conclusion:

http://www.woonsocke...l.com/node/3829
Thanks for posting, Terry. That was an exceptional piece, well-constructed and carrying an historical perspective this thread hadn't yet seen. While I'm sure there'll be skeptics, your conclusion is entirely plausible, and you support it with sound reasoning.

I highly recommend everyone in this thread give it a read, and try to resist the urge to label it as just another PSU alum making excuses for Paterno. It's a really level-headed take on things.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,391
Yoknapatawpha County
Doing nothing, not following up on anything, and then allowing a suspected pedophile to continue to use school facilities are, in fact, decisive actions. Read the SI piece I posted -- there is certainly room to argue that Paterno had a duty (never mind a moral obligation) under PA law to report everything he knew to police -- and to do so accurately -- but did not.
Not only this, but if this guy (Paterno) is as powerful as I am repeatedly being told/ demonstrated, the fact that he did not take any one of these opportunities to do good instead of to hide is just tragic. The amount of influence and power he clearly has creates another level of moral failure here--McQueary should have called the cops for sure, but he doesn't have to go to bed every night knowing that if he said jump, shit would have turned around immediately. Anyone saying he did what he could is just beyond deluded--this guy could clearly snap his fingers at that institution and people come running. Instead he chose to pass it on to his boss and, I don't know, pretend best as he could it would go away eventually?
 

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,858
Pennsylvania
You're referring to now. Back in 2002 JoePa was 75 or 76 and was by all accounts more than just the figurehead that he is now. He absolutely had control of everything to do with the football program.

If his superiors failed to act, he should have gone to the cops. Hell, he should have gone to the cops even if his superiors did act.
I don't know if you noticed, but Penn State football wasn't exactly a powerhouse between 2000-2004. The spectrum of Paterno's power in the last decade ranges from figurehead to autonomy.
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
This wasn't easy, and I don't expect many of you to agree with my conclusion:

http://www.woonsocke...l.com/node/3829
I don't think it's too controversial to say that "tunnel vision" led to his priorities getting out of whack. You certainly have a little more perspective than most people commenting on it.

However, this is the first time I've heard this: "Jerry Sandusky, the assistant coach whose private demons eventually would bring down the whole program, was forced into retirement in 1999 after taking a young boy to a bowl game as his guest. This was just the tip of the iceberg showing up ahead of the Titanic."

Is that generally accepted? Because that looks even worse for Paterno, I think.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
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?
You probably don't want to take a look at this thread:

http://mobile.blackshoediaries.com/2011/11/9/2549356/joe-paterno-announces-retirement-from-penn-state#comments

Full of a bunch of PSU supporters boo hooing his retirement and making the man into some sort of victim, praising his statement, blaming the media, etc. Unbelievable. And not kids/students who are young and dumb and don't know better.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
Is it his fault his superiors did not act effectively with the information?

Now, if Paterno already knew all the details from 1998 in the detail that the Grand Jury had, before the McQueary even happened, then yes, there is complicity.
yes? Paterno met with McQueary, who was "very upset", where McQueary supposedly told Paterno that he saw Sandusky having anal sex with a 10 year old boy. Paterno started the telephone game where he told his AD "blah blah fondling or something". McQueary might have lied about how explicit he was with Paterno, but even if he did, Paterno took a report from a "very upset" assistant and downplayed the entire thing for reasons we can only speculate about, all of them self-serving and terrible.

Why does Paterno had to have known about 1998 for him to be complicit at all? Does it really require a previous incident of alleged sexual abuse for someone to pass on a report accurately and without downplaying it? The first one's free, guys!

If Paterno thought McQueary was not credible at all, he could pass it along and let what he thought were McQueary's lies fall apart on their own under the AD's scrutiny. Instead he grabbed the hatchet and took the first swing at chopping down the responsibility tree by giving the AD a reason not to take it seriously, or, worse, a reason not to investigate it straight from Joe Pa. Even in a best-case scenario, Paterno looks pretty awful.

He barely has anything to do with running the team anymore. He's a figurehead, and is loved like one. That's all. There's nothing cultish about it.
There's nothing cultish about just wanting to love a figurehead as a figurehead? Even if he was either negligent or complicit in the cover up of sexual abuse? I think this is when the phrase "drinking the koolaid" is completely apropriate.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
What makes me sick about McQueary, besides his failure to go to police for what are likely selfish reasons and cowardice, is that once he knew that Paterno did nothing, the school did nothing, and the cops did nothing, he accepted a job in what he knew was a corrupt organization and remains there to this day. He chose a paycheck and prestige over helping to stop a sexual predator from harming other kids. I hope that decision haunts him for the rest of his life. It should.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,161
CT
In the nine years since Paterno reported the incident to the AD, he knew nothing was being done about it and that Sandusky was getting away with past and perhaps even current assaults and rapings of children.

Every day JoePa woke up in the morning and read the paper with his coffee and didn't see a huge headline on the front page indicating Sandusky was arrested for child abuse, he reasoned with himself that for one reason or another he was OK with it.

Why? Only JoePa or JoePa and a few people around him know. But in all likelihood, JoePa knew even MORE than just the 2002 case of child abuse. Which makes it so mistifying that he did nothing considering the reputation he had for being so interested in teaching by example rights and wrongs not only of football but more importantly of life.

Part of me wonders if Monbo Jumbo was right. That Sandusky had something on JoePa. I'm not saying it involved child abuse, but it could have involved anything, let your mind wander.

For a guy to risk his entire reputation and his entire university's reputation on the news of Sandusky never getting out is just baffling. Especially in this world of TMZ, twitter, blogs, any and every way for information to leak out.

Maybe Sandusky has something on Paterno. That would certainly answer some questions now, wouldn't it?
 

Mr. Wednesday

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,147
Eastern MA
Part of me wonders if Monbo Jumbo was right. That Sandusky had something on JoePa. I'm not saying it involved child abuse, but it could have involved anything, let your mind wander.
If Sandusky had anything (and the course of events does lead one to wonder), I'd assume it involved the program. Academic fraud, recruiting violations, under-the-table payments, maybe. Or if you want it to be darker, think about some of the stuff that has been said about how parochial JoePa was with anything involving his athletes and the police; maybe something criminal with players got swept under the rug. Maybe I'm believing too much of the reality distortion field and Happy Valley exceptionalism, but the narrative from insiders does lead one to believe that the people most responsible for the myth would have a lot of their personal worth tied up in maintaining it---and when you think about it, too, in that sense, Sandusky himself was "dirt" on JoePa.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
If Sandusky had anything (and the course of events does lead one to wonder), I'd assume it involved the program. Academic fraud, recruiting violations, under-the-table payments, maybe. Or if you want it to be darker, think about some of the stuff that has been said about how parochial JoePa was with anything involving his athletes and the police; maybe something criminal with players got swept under the rug. Maybe I'm believing too much of the reality distortion field and Happy Valley exceptionalism, but the narrative from insiders does lead one to believe that the people most responsible for the myth would have a lot of their personal worth tied up in maintaining it---and when you think about it, too, in that sense, Sandusky himself was "dirt" on JoePa.

Yeah I think it comes down to the last statement. Sandusky was the dirt on the program, once 98 got swept under the rug then Paterno was complicit and couldn't afford the news on 02 to leak out.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,094
I don't know if you noticed, but Penn State football wasn't exactly a powerhouse between 2000-2004. The spectrum of Paterno's power in the last decade ranges from figurehead to autonomy.
Oh this is complete bullshit. Paterno was ASKED by Spanier and Curley to step down following the 2004 season which Paterno talks about almost as if it were a joke saying, "Are you kidding, i'm going to retire on my terms" and he remained as Head Coach. Enough of this crap about calling Spanier and Curley his "superiors" while they held higher titles it was absolutely Joe Paterno who was calling all the shots as recently as 2004.......and he just challenged the Board of Trustees to a game of power ball this morning which he may or may not win. Superiors can terminate those who work under them....neither Spanier nor Curley could remove Paterno from his job without it being a mutual agreement.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,915
San Diego, CA
Yeah I think it comes down to the last statement. Sandusky was the dirt on the program, once 98 got swept under the rug then Paterno was complicit and couldn't afford the news on 02 to leak out.
Absolutely, and this was clearly the thought process for them - the '98 allegation wasn't airtight (and it's not totally clear how much Paterno officially knew vs was told off the record), and so they figured it wasn't a big enough deal to trash the program in order to go crazy over it. Then 2002 happens, and at that point it's clear that the '98 thing was very likely true, and that if they pursue the 2002 allegation strongly it's absolutely going to leak that they didn't pursue it in '98 (and thus everyone will blame them for allowing the 2002 event as well as anyone that got molested inbetween).

So they figured that by that point their choices were basically what's occurring right now (the entire program gets burned to the ground, along with them), or they can stick their heads in the sand and keep to a story of "they're just allegations, there isn't anything clear enough to make it worth the amount of negative press a full investigation would create right now"
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
I've mostly tried to stay out of this. And while I have a strong contempt for Penn State's fan base, I absolutely hate how this has become a Joe Paterno and Penn State Story.
It's pretty instructive though. This was the perfect storm for a pedophile. He was able to gain stature and authority because of his relationship to PSU and Paterno, and they were willing to look the other way for nearly 20 years.. And this was still going on AFTER all of revelations of abuse by so many Catholic priests came to light.

Letting Paterno leave on his own terms will just be the cherry on top.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
When it comes out in the wash, this thing is going to be 1,000 worse than what would've have resulted if they had just kicked Sandusky out and come clean about it back in 1998. It shows you the arrogance and the power of Paterno and his regime that they got away with keeping this under wraps for 13 years. No wonder that dead DA gave up prosecuting -- he knew he couldn't find anyone to stick their necks out and say what they knew. I
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
17,960
pawtucket
Oh this is complete bullshit. Paterno was ASKED by Spanier and Curley to step down following the 2004 season which Paterno talks about almost as if it were a joke saying, "Are you kidding, i'm going to retire on my terms" and he remained as Head Coach. Enough of this crap about calling Spanier and Curley his "superiors" while they held higher titles it was absolutely Joe Paterno who was calling all the shots as recently as 2004.......and he just challenged the Board of Trustees to a game of power ball this morning which he may or may not win. Superiors can terminate those who work under them....neither Spanier nor Curley could remove Paterno from his job without it being a mutual agreement.
The true story is Spanier and Curley went to Joe's home after the 4-8 season in 2004 and asked him to resign and Joe showed them the door. Spanier was afraid to exercise his power because Joe made more money for that university than any of the big ticket alumni boosters. I have a friend who saw Joe and Spanier dancing in a line dance at the Nittany Lion Inn after a football game (I'm assuming it was after a victory.) My friend, a professor, knew right then that Joe was never leaving.

Curley began his executive career as the grad assistant who served as Joe's personal assistant in the late 1970s. The joke was his job was to carry Joe's underwear around in a brief case on road trips. 15 years later, he was athletic director. Totally underqualified.
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
I still think the game this weekend is going to be an embarassment for PSU, even if Nebraska fans on the road may be polite.

Next week, OSU fans won't be so polite.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,756
I still think the game this weekend is going to be an embarassment for PSU, even if Nebraska fans on the road may be polite.

Next week, OSU fans won't be so polite.
You have to admit that it will make for good TV.