Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

[Reverend]

From what I've heard the Board of Trustees would not be considered 'grown-ups stepping in' in how they handled things in 2002... which is why I have been skeptical this entire time that Joe has been solely at fault for keeping this whole thing quiet.

Well, like Sprowl, I hadn't heard anything that would suggest that and have heard things that would suggest otherwise. Also, I don't know how to check their roster, but I have no reason to believe that the leadership of the board is the same today as it was then.

If anything, I see them as potentially a backbone Penn can cling to in order to reassert a sense of self, like, the return of King Arthur narrative. The big players on the boards of trustees of schools often get there because they give a crap about the school; there are generally many competitors for a prestigious position such as that.

I know I'm a big justice geek, but both times the board intervened--first against the president saying the school backed all the guys, and second when Paterno claimed it was in his power when he resigned--and said, no, things aren't like that now, not any more... I got chills. I honestly got chills.

That's where Penn can become Penn again, in my opinion.

 

[lars10]

Well, like Sprowl, I hadn't heard anything that would suggest that and have heard things that would suggest otherwise. Also, I don't know how to check their roster, but I have no reason to believe that the leadership of the board is the same today as it was then.

If anything, I see them as potentially a backbone Penn can cling to in order to reassert a sense of self, like, the return of King Arthur narrative. The big players on the boards of trustees of schools often get there because they give a crap about the school; there are generally many competitors for a prestigious position such as that.

I know I'm a big justice geek, but both times the board intervened--first against the president saying the school backed all the guys, and second when Paterno claimed it was in his power when he resigned--and said, no, things aren't like that now, not any more... I got chills. I honestly got chills.

That's where Penn can become Penn again, in my opinion.

1. You are right...the board is not the same as it was in 2002...there may be holdovers, but I haven't fully researched that yet. The list of trustees is available here: http://www.psu.edu/trustees/membership.html
And you guys are right... I do think it was presumptive of Paterno to assume he could dictate his future to the trustees and that the makeup of both is most likely very different.

2. It's a pet peeve..but Penn is UPenn... Penn State is Penn State.

 

[lars10]

Paterno did not do all that he was able to do, and the law has little to do with it because the law here is about requirements, not limits. If you think a crime happened, you can report what information you have. People jump up and down about hearsay and all that because they've watched a few Law & Order episodes, but that stuff is about the standard of evidence required to convict a person; it doesn't mean that the police might not start taking a case seriously. The law sets a lower bound on what is required of Paterno, but does not place limits on him bringing concerns to the police.

Reverend.. I appreciate your responses...and the patience with which you guys have answered my posts.

The reason I asked the question regarding what Paterno could do legally was because of a blog post written by a lawyer.. http://www.thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/

 

[lars10]

No, Curley and Schultz were indicted for both perjury (a felony) and for failure to report abuse of a minor (a misdemeanor). Their responsibility for reporting the abuse arises from Pennsylvania law, not from some obscure university protocol.

Paterno had several options: he could have reported to the police himself what McQueary told him. He could have relayed the full account, including the rape, to his superiors -- but he downplayed it. He could have followed up with any of the authorities at some point. In each case, however, Paterno seems to have done the absolute least that he could do.

Paterno had to have been aware of a pattern of child abuse by Sandusky. One such incident in 1998 was clearly known to Paterno, PSU and the police. Sandusky was removed from the coaching succession plan and pushed into retirement at that time, and probably as a result of that incident.

This post assumes that McQueary told Joe everything. I don't think this assumption can be made yet given the grand jury document.

I see no evidence that states that Joe downplayed this. He brought McQueary to Schultz and Curley and he testified to them as to what he saw. The reason Curley and Schultz are in trouble is because the Grand Jury believes McQueary told them more than they said he did. What Joe said to the two of them has nothing to do with it.

The pattern of child abuse is based on two incidents? The incident in 1998 was an investigation by the police and DA based on a Mother who saw that her child had showered with Sandusky and the subsequent phonecall, correct? There was no eyewitness in that case. It is our presumption that Sandusky was forced to resign due to that incident. I don't know that the pattern was obvious then, but it may have been.

There is a chance that Joe knew far more than has been revealed yet and that he hid and covered up for a friend to maintain his reputation and that of the school's. But is is possible that all he knew was that Sandusky had been accused in 98 and witnessed in 2002? Seems unlikely

 

[canderson]

So McQuery is a lying piece of shit?

Mike McQueary, key witness in Jerry Sandusky sex abuse case, changes story about shower incident

Mike McQueary attended Jerry Sandusky fundraiser one year after making sexual assault allegations

Apparently they've also seen hs hand-written report and he never mentions stopping anything.

 

[julesfan]

So McQuery is a lying piece of shit?

Mike McQueary, key witness in Jerry Sandusky sex abuse case, changes story about shower incident

Mike McQueary attended Jerry Sandusky fundraiser one year after making sexual assault allegations

Apparently they've also seen hs hand-written report and he never mentions stopping anything.

That he attended that monster's charity golf tournament, after seeing that man raping a 10 or 11 year old boy, is stomach turning. Any sympathy I may have had for McQueary has just evaporated.
What loathsome people, every single one involved in this disaster.

 

[Sprowl]

This post assumes that McQueary told Joe everything. I don't think this assumption can be made yet given the grand jury document.

I see no evidence that states that Joe downplayed this. He brought McQueary to Schultz and Curley and he testified to them as to what he saw. The reason Curley and Schultz are in trouble is because the Grand Jury believes McQueary told them more than they said he did. What Joe said to the two of them has nothing to do with it.

The pattern of child abuse is based on two incidents? The incident in 1998 was an investigation by the police and DA based on a Mother who saw that her child had showered with Sandusky and the subsequent phonecall, correct? There was no eyewitness in that case. It is our presumption that Sandusky was forced to resign due to that incident. I don't know that the pattern was obvious then, but it may have been.

There is a chance that Joe knew far more than has been revealed yet and that he hid and covered up for a friend to maintain his reputation and that of the school's. But is is possible that all he knew was that Sandusky had been accused in 98 and witnessed in 2002? Seems unlikely

The Grand Jury report refers to three reports that McQueary made -- to his father, to Paterno, and to Curley and Schultz. Only the content of the third report is specifically detailed: "he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers." Curley and Schultz denied that McQueary's reported sexual assault, but the Grand Jury believed McQueary and did not believe Curley or Schultz.

In order to believe that Paterno really didn't know what was going on, it is necessary to believe that McQueary told Paterno a vague version that involved only "fondling and something of a sexual nature." Why would McQueary go vague with Paterno when he was explicit with Curley and Schultz a week afterwards and (we presume) with his father the night before.

If you don't think that Paterno knew about the investigation of Sandusky for child abuse in 1998 -- an investigation which included surveillance by police of a confession by Sandusky to the child's mother -- then why would Paterno tell Sandusky that he would not be his successor as coach, and why would Sandusky be forced into retirement at 55? Why would Saint Joe acquiesce in his long-time right-hand man's forced retirement without any idea why Sandusky was being shuffled off? It doesn't pass the stink test.

With this accumulation of evidence, it would be grossly irresponsible for a supervisor not to recognize a pattern of repeated child abuse by an ex-employee as reported by a current employee. Yet somewhere in this game of telephone, the charge gets muddled down from anal rape to "something of a sexual nature" to "disturbing and inappropriate" to "horsing around" to "not that serious." It takes a remarkable and unmerited degree of faith in Joe Paterno to assume that everybody else is responsible for that convenient downgrading.

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

Investigators broke open the Sandusky case thanks to a message board post. Pretty all-encompassing story about the investigation here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?pagewanted=all?src=tp

 

[mauf]

Reverend.. I appreciate your responses...and the patience with which you guys have answered my posts.

The reason I asked the question regarding what Paterno could do legally was because of a blog post written by a lawyer.. http://www.thatlawye...e.blogspot.com/

It's remarkably easy to get a law degree.

 

[Sprowl]

Investigators broke open the Sandusky case thanks to a message board post. Pretty all-encompassing story about the investigation here:

http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all?src=tp

A few interesting snippets from the link that I have not seen reported elsewhere:

The cover-up probably includes The Second Mile:

Officials at the Second Mile, the charity for at-risk children that Sandusky founded and that prosecutors say he used to target victims, reported that several years of the organization's records were missing and had perhaps been stolen.

Courtney was kept out of the loop in 2002:

And in 2002, after McQueary had reported what he had seen to the university's senior officials, those officials not only never told the police, but they also never even informed the university's top lawyer. That lawyer, Wendell Courtney, said in an interview this week that he would have been duty bound to report to law enforcement officials any allegations of inappropriate conduct toward children by Sandusky.

The 1998 PSU police report ran to hundreds of pages, and Gary Schultz was aware of it:

Gary Schultz, the university official charged with overseeing the campus police, said under oath that he recalled being aware of some kind of incident involving Sandusky and a boy showering together, and the subsequent investigation.

Sandusky's inability to get another job was indeed because the word got around that he was not a safe hire:

Some investigators said they were convinced that the idea that Sandusky had an inappropriate interest in, and relationships with, young boys was a fairly widely held suspicion around and even outside Penn State's football program over the years. "This was not the secret that they are trying to make out now," one person involved in the inquiry said. "I know there were a number of college coaches that had heard the rumors. If all these people knew about it, how could Sandusky's superiors not know?"

There's more that doesn't make sense: how did Courtney, as he claims, not know about the 1998 investigation? The Grand Jury report says otherwise:

Schultz testified that the 1998 incident was reviewed by the University Police and the "child protection agency" with the blessing of then-University counsel Wendell Courtney. Courtney was then and remains counsel for The Second Mile.

 

[lars10]

In order to believe that Paterno really didn't know what was going on, it is necessary to believe that McQueary told Paterno a vague version that involved only "fondling and something of a sexual nature." Why would McQueary go vague with Paterno when he was explicit with Curley and Schultz a week afterwards and (we presume) with his father the night before.

If you don't think that Paterno knew about the investigation of Sandusky for child abuse in 1998 -- an investigation which included surveillance by police of a confession by Sandusky to the child's mother -- then why would Paterno tell Sandusky that he would not be his successor as coach, and why would Sandusky be forced into retirement at 55? Why would Saint Joe acquiesce in his long-time right-hand man's forced retirement without any idea why Sandusky was being shuffled off? It doesn't pass the stink test.

With this accumulation of evidence, it would be grossly irresponsible for a supervisor not to recognize a pattern of repeated child abuse by an ex-employee as reported by a current employee. Yet somewhere in this game of telephone, the charge gets muddled down from anal rape to "something of a sexual nature" to "disturbing and inappropriate" to "horsing around" to "not that serious." It takes a remarkable and unmerited degree of faith in Joe Paterno to assume that everybody else is responsible for that convenient downgrading.

here's a timeline of events: http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Penn-State-sex-abuse-case-timeline-of-key-dates-Jerry-Sandusky-110711

I do think that Paterno knew of the investigation in 98...an investigation that was deemed not to be criminal by the DA. As his friend who has theoretically known him for at least 40 years is he to assume that the investigation was incorrect and that JS was actually guilty? Could his vision have been clouded by their friendship?

Again..there are other reasons that Joe could have chosen not to have Sandusky as a successor...it is your/our assumption it is due to the allegations of child abuse...this is not an absolute.

Paterno was Sandusky's supervisor? definitely not after 99. There are two people who have been charged with perjury for downgrading McQueary's testimony... how is that not enough evidence that others are capable of downgrading? McQueary told his story directly to Curley and Schultz.... Paterno was not a go between in that conversation so there was no game of telephone.

I think there is enough real evidence that Paterno did some things wrong, but some of the things that have been presented as facts of other wrongdoing over the past week are definitely not as of yet.

 

[natpastime162]

I never said anything of the kind. I said they asked for, and got, an exemption from "public records laws." That's a fact. The rest is your overreaction and stupidity.

Then you need to read your first reply to my post again.. Specifically the second to last sentence. Where you say it isn't abut asking for an exemption to certain "public records laws."

 

[Sprowl]

here's a timeline of events: http://msn.foxsports...Sandusky-110711

I do think that Paterno knew of the investigation in 98...an investigation that was deemed not to be criminal by the DA. As his friend who has theoretically known him for at least 40 years is he to assume that the investigation was incorrect and that JS was actually guilty? Could his vision have been clouded by their friendship?

Again..there are other reasons that Joe could have chosen not to have Sandusky as a successor...it is your/our assumption it is due to the allegations of child abuse...this is not an absolute.

Paterno was Sandusky's supervisor? definitely not after 99. There are two people who have been charged with perjury for downgrading McQueary's testimony... how is that not enough evidence that others are capable of downgrading? McQueary told his story directly to Curley and Schultz.... Paterno was not a go between in that conversation so there was no game of telephone.

I think there is enough real evidence that Paterno did some things wrong, but some of the things that have been presented as facts of other wrongdoing over the past week are definitely not as of yet.

Paterno was McQueary's supervisor in 2002 and Sandusky's supervisor in 1998, as I made clear in my first post with the distinction between a current employee and an ex-employee. Sandusky was investigated to the point of a 100-page investigative report and a sting operation. There might have been some totally unrelated reason why a famous coach is forced to retire at 55, and never gets another job. Until somebody can come up with such a reason, Occam's Razor says the simplest, most obvious solution is the best one, and the NYT report that crakerraker linked to confirms that the word had gotten around to other college coaches.

Paterno downgraded McQueary's charges when passing them on to Curley. He used euphemisms where McQueary's charges were graphic. Curley and Schultz did the same, but the buck stopped with them because they were Paterno's nominal superiors. They passed on a sanitized version to Spanier, and apparently nobody passed anything on to Courtney.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

That NYT article was very good, and I thought gave a sense of why the grand jury believed McQueary's testimony.

I thought that snippet about the DA's wife's biological brother having been adopted by Sandusky was pretty surprising.

 

[lars10]

Paterno was McQueary's supervisor in 2002 and Sandusky's supervisor in 1998, as I made clear in my first post with the distinction between a current employee and an ex-employee. Sandusky was investigated to the point of a 100-page investigative report and a sting operation. There might have been some totally unrelated reason why a famous coach is forced to retire at 55, and never gets another job. Until somebody can come up with such a reason, Occam's Razor says the simplest, most obvious solution is the best one, and the NYT report that crakerraker linked to confirms that the word had gotten around to other college coaches.

Paterno downgraded McQueary's charges when passing them on to Curley. He used euphemisms where McQueary's charges were graphic. Curley and Schultz did the same, but the buck stopped with them because they were Paterno's nominal superiors. They passed on a sanitized version to Spanier, and apparently nobody passed anything on to Courtney.

I'd really like to read the full testimony to know for a fact that McQueary did indeed tell Joe all the graphic details so that we know for a certainty that Joe downgraded his testimony to Curley and Schultz.

JS' book states that he turned down two other head coaching jobs after retiring to concentrate on 2nd mile. There is also another rumor that UVA wanted to hire him in 2000 but decided against it... potential concerns that his charity work would take away from his coaching...or other reasons.

I know there were no rumors in 91-96 around campus at the student level. And I'm fairly certain I would have heard any other rumors in years close to that since I had family and friends on campus....unless of course the rumors weren't that widely known.

 

[JBill]

Investigators broke open the Sandusky case thanks to a message board post. Pretty all-encompassing story about the investigation here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?pagewanted=all?src=tp

Don't know how anyone can read that and think there wasn't a cover up.

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

Hmm, wondering if Gov. Corbett needs to resign as well:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/pennsylvania_gov_tom_corbett_d.html

Gov. Tom Corbett today said he allowed the release of a $3 million state grant to The Second Mile foundation this summer in part because he did not want to compromise the grand jury probe of Jerry Sandusky by talking about it with his staff or advocates in the Legislature.

The Corbett Administration signed off on the Second Mile grant in July, after a review of all Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program applications initially approved for release by his predecessor, Ed Rendell.

"Yes I knew this (Sandusky investigation was under way), but I could not act publicly on this without saying certain things that would have possibly compromised the investigation," Corbett told reporters after an unrelated event in Philadelphia. "So eventually we did approve it."

Also, a lot of The Second Mile board members, past and present, donated to Corbett's campaign fund: http://deadspin.com/5859802/past-and-present-board-members-of-the-second-mile-gave-a-combined-20178364-to-gov-corbetts-2010-campaign

 

[Judge Mental13]

Why would Corbett resign for trying not to compromise an investigation?

 

[mauf]

Hmm, wondering if Gov. Corbett needs to resign as well:

http://www.pennlive...._corbett_d.html

Calling this "grasping at straws" would be charitable. There's no story here.

Also, a lot of The Second Mile board members, past and present, donated to Corbett's campaign fund: http://deadspin.com/...s-2010-campaign

I'll reserve judgment. It seems TSM's board was/is practically a Who's Who of State College, PA, so this may not be unusual for a PA pol.

 

[Byrdbrain]

I do think that Paterno knew of the investigation in 98...an investigation that was deemed not to be criminal by the DA. As his friend who has theoretically known him for at least 40 years is he to assume that the investigation was incorrect and that JS was actually guilty?

I'm no lawyer but deciding not to prosecute someone isn't the same thing as deciding the alleged activity isn't criminal. The speculation I have heard is the DA decided he would have a hard time winning the case based on the word of a young boy vs. Sandusky. I assume Sandusky's semi-confession wouldn't be admissable.

 

[lars10]

I'm no lawyer but deciding not to prosecute someone isn't the same thing as deciding the alleged activity isn't criminal. The speculation I have heard is the DA decided he would have a hard time winning the case based on the word of a young boy vs. Sandusky. I assume Sandusky's semi-confession wouldn't be admissable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Penn-State-sex-abuse-case-timeline-of-key-dates-Jerry-Sandusky-110711

I have read it described a number of different ways... in the above for instance "the DA decided there would be no criminal charge".
It is possibly just semantics, but it has seemingly been described both ways... It may be as you described though in that the DA decided he didn't have enough evidence to file a criminal charge.
He had the word of a young boy and Sandusky's confession, but that doesn't appear to have been enough.

To me..the fact Sandusky said 'I wish I were dead' is enough reason to question him further...that phrase sticks out as a very odd thing for an innocent man to say.

 

[Byrdbrain]

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Penn-State-sex-abuse-case-timeline-of-key-dates-Jerry-Sandusky-110711

I have read it described a number of different ways... in the above for instance "the DA decided there would be no criminal charge".
It is possibly just semantics, but it has seemingly been described both ways... It may be as you described though in that the DA decided he didn't have enough evidence to file a criminal charge.
He had the word of a young boy and Sandusky's confession, but that doesn't appear to have been enough.

To me..the fact Sandusky said 'I wish I were dead' is enough reason to question him further...that phrase sticks out as a very odd thing for an innocent man to say.

Yes one would certainly think so, but is a discussion which police heard by hiding in another room admissible? Can any lawyers comment on that?

 

[DegenerateSoxFan]

Yes one would certainly think so, but is a discussion which police heard by hiding in another room admissible? Can any lawyers comment on that?

It sure is. In fact, a common investigative tactic is to set up what's known as a "confrontation" call between a victim and a suspect. The victim calls up the perp and confronts them (I'm going to the cops") Often, the unsuspecting perp will try to convince them not to and say all sorts of damaging things.

 

[Reverend]

2. It's a pet peeve..but Penn is UPenn... Penn State is Penn State.

There's a U Penn besides Wharton?

My bad.

 

[loshjott]

There's a U Penn besides Wharton?

My bad.

When I got to Penn (not Wharton, BTW) in 1983, the bookstore was selling "Not Penn State" t-shirts. My old roommate just emailed me wishing he'd held on to his...

 

[J.McG]

1. You are right...the board is not the same as it was in 2002...there may be holdovers, but I haven't fully researched that yet. The list of trustees is available here: http://www.psu.edu/t...membership.html
And you guys are right... I do think it was presumptive of Paterno to assume he could dictate his future to the trustees and that the makeup of both is most likely very different.

PSU Trustees, November 2002 (post McQueary incident): http://web.archive.org/web/20021127053959/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/bot%20membership.html

PSU Trustees, March 2009 (start of Sandusky investigation/grand jury): http://web.archive.org/web/20090301024706/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/membership.html


Not really a surprise since he was University President, but Spanier was a voting ex officio member during both periods. Also noticed a few names I've read as being major donors to Second Mile.

 

[dcmissle]

Have fans, will travel, via the AP:

The chief administrative officer of the Rose Bowl says if Penn State wins the Big Ten title, the Nittany Lions will be "embraced" by the bowl.

Kevin Ash said Thursday that the Rose Bowl would let the Big Ten or Pac 12 decide if there is a reason its champion shouldn't play in Pasadena.

Ash says, "Whoever the champions are we'll welcome with open arms."

There have been calls for Penn State to decline a bowl bid in the aftermath of the child sex-abuse scandal involving former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. The scandal led to the firings of coach Joe Paterno and the school president.

However, last week new Penn State president Rod Erickson said the expectation is that Nittany Lions will play in a bowl game.

So who gets the reach-around?

In all seriousness, I think PS should play wherever it's invited provided that every last penny allocable to PS is distributed to a charitable organization devoted to the kind of children who were the real victims in this.

 

[Hyde Park Factor]

I'd like to see Penn State sponsor a 60 second PSA that encourages kids to speak up if they've been molested. It's all well and good to have laws that compel people to report what they see, but there usually isn't a witness. And even when there is, well, here we are.

 

[BigMike]

This one is not related to Sandusky, but from basically the same generation. More evidence that it seems PSU may have been willing to cover anything up, if it might negatively impact the football program

More cover ups

“We asked him to talk to the players because we were concerned about their safety,” says Richards, “and he said in that meeting that he would never do anything to put the university in a bad light. So we said, ‘Then you are choosing the university over students lives.’”

Wolf was chilled by Paterno’s response also. She says Paterno told them, “I’m only a football coach.”

 

[mabrowndog]

This one is not related to Sandusky, but from basically the same generation. More evidence that it seems PSU may have been willing to cover anything up, if it might negatively impact the football program

More cover ups

Wow. That is chilling.

 

[J.McG]

Breaking News on Sportscenter: ESPN's Mark Schwatz is reporting that police have launched an investigation into allegations that Syracuse mens basketball assistant coach Bernie Fine molested a number of young boys, including one of the team's ball boys.

http://espn.go.com/e...sting-boy-1980s

Seems the Sandusky case may be encouraging past victims of abuse to come forward.



EDIT: Added story link.

EDIT #2: A separate thread covering this has now been added. http://sonsofsamhorn...-investigation/

 

[canderson]

This one is not related to Sandusky, but from basically the same generation. More evidence that it seems PSU may have been willing to cover anything up, if it might negatively impact the football program

More cover ups

To be completely fair, this was well documented in State College and in the Daily Collegian (PSU's student newspaper) at the time.

Turns out the body was a gang-related victim of a NYC outfit. "Few new," as the story states, just become it wasn't picked up by major media outlets.

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

I think there is enough real evidence that Paterno did some things wrong, but some of the things that have been presented as facts of other wrongdoing over the past week are definitely not as of yet.

I'd really like to read the full testimony to know for a fact that McQueary did indeed tell Joe all the graphic details so that we know for a certainty that Joe downgraded his testimony to Curley and Schultz.

JS' book states that he turned down two other head coaching jobs after retiring to concentrate on 2nd mile. There is also another rumor that UVA wanted to hire him in 2000 but decided against it... potential concerns that his charity work would take away from his coaching...or other reasons.

I know there were no rumors in 91-96 around campus at the student level. And I'm fairly certain I would have heard any other rumors in years close to that since I had family and friends on campus....unless of course the rumors weren't that widely known.

What exactly are you saying here, lars10? You seem to be digging for whatever shreds of evidence you can find to separate Paterno from this mess. Why? Furthermore, why would you so willingly let that desire be both the focus of your search and the mechanisms you use to conduct that search?

There are numerous factual errors which you have been happy to repeat, some of which are actually posted in reply to someone who presented them to you, as Sprowl has just noted. How hard is it to believe in a game of telephone between the PSU administration when you can directly quote someone's post in your reply, reference it in your reply, and get the terminology and factual timelines wrong?

Why do you need to see a grand jury transcript to believe what McQueary testified to? The grand jury statement is not only fairly explicit with what happened, but it also has absolutely zero mention of Paterno even disputing what McQueary testified to. The only thing mentioned is that Paterno met with McQueary, received McQueary's report, that McQueary was "very upset", and that Paterno passed on that "fondling or something of a sexual nature" happened. It also mentions that McQueary's testimony as to what happened was very credible. What more, exactly, do you need? To believe anything other than Paterno either stuck his head in the sand and downplayed McQueary's report is basically doubting the veracity of the grand jury report, ie, calling them all liars or incredibly stupid. Is that really what you believe? You're taking genuine confusion or uncertainty about what happened and then just throwing it in a blender with credible reports and timelines of what actually did happen and then drinking the doubtshake it creates. Nobody really knows what McQueary told Paterno, but it also doesn't really matter. It was either an explicit retelling of seeing a boy being raped in the showers, or it was a vague description of a man who had been investigated and potentially fired for "horseplay" (grabbing the genitals) of little boys. In both cases, Paterno did nothing for 24 hours before passing on that "fondling or something of a sexual nature" happened. Either way, Paterno downplayed what happened or pretended it wasn't that bad and he "was just a coach" and bore no responsibility for what went on in his locker rooms, then took on McQueary as an assistant coach and continued seeing Sandusky around campus.

Paterno has been a focus because he apparently completely fulfilled his legal obligations despite being apparently knowing about what was going on. No one that I've seen has said he should be charged with anything. People are upset because he helped it continue, not because he is not being charged. This outrage is focused on Paterno moreso than Curley and Schultz because he naturally attracts a lot more attention as the head coach, but also because the other people have already been charged with perjury. If everyone involved were facing legal charges and the possibility of some justice, then the outrage would be nowhere as intense as it has been. Of course, this hasn't happened in the 15 years since the first incident, and perhaps longer, so it is only natural that people are frustrated with the attempts of people involved with the PSU administration to both blatantly cover up what happened and also to just kick the can down the road hoping that it will go away. This isn't some witch-hunt, it is anger directed towards people who would both deliberately obstruct justice and people who would help procrastinate the rule of law because they don't want to see their precious football team's image stained.

Jerry Sandusky's book, which you have apparently read, states that he turned down two other coaching offers before retiring to focus on the Second Mile. I'll take your word for it. I'll also point out that no one really cares. Do you think the guy is going to write "well, I had a good gig going at Penn State, and could have been a head coach at a few other places. But then everyone found out I liked to fuck little boys, so I was out of a job"? I don't think so.

Your unwillingness to believe in the terrible judgment and outright complicity by the people both obviously and allegedly involved is particularly disturbing because this kind of disbelief has allowed Sandusky to continue molesting little boys for so long in the first place. I really wish you'd just step back, realize it's not your fault, and stop looking for reasons to excuse anyone's behavior before you learn what the behavior even was.

 

[sfip]

South Park wastes no time.

 

[CoRP]

South Park wastes no time.

Awesome.

 

[lars10]

There are numerous factual errors which you have been happy to repeat, some of which are actually posted in reply to someone who presented them to you, as Sprowl has just noted. How hard is it to believe in a game of telephone between the PSU administration when you can directly quote someone's post in your reply, reference it in your reply, and get the terminology and factual timelines wrong?

I see this is a factual error that has been repeated as well. Paterno did go to Schultz and Curley, but McQueary also said what he saw directly to them as well seperately. I think it's unfair to call this a game of telephone when Paterno was not in fact a go between.

I have read varying reports of what McQueary actually said to Paterno...but McQueary testified to Schultz and Curley and the GJ believes he told them everything. Paterno also testified to the GJ. He has not been charged with perjury where C and S have.

"You're taking genuine confusion or uncertainty about what happened and then just throwing it in a blender with credible reports and timelines of what actually did happen and then drinking the doubtshake it creates."

People are doing the exact same thing in vilifying Paterno and others.

"Nobody really knows what McQueary told Paterno, but it also doesn't really matter. It was either an explicit retelling of seeing a boy being raped in the showers, or it was a vague description of a man who had been investigated and potentially fired for "horseplay""

People have stated that Paterno downplayed what McQueary told him... You and I don't know what McQueary told Paterno...so how do we then know that Paterno downplayed it? It would seem like the GJ believes that Paterno didn't downplay it because he is not being charged with perjury.

" they don't want to see their precious football team's image stained."

This has also been stated multiple times. The school has/had a lot more to lose than just the football team. It assumes that PSU students, PSU alum, State College residents and others in the area are a simple people where football is the only thing that matters and nothing else. I think it's far more likely that the administration at PSU were potentially looking the other way to protect Penn State the brand.

"Jerry Sandusky's book, which you have apparently read, states that he turned down two other coaching offers before retiring to focus on the Second Mile."

I have not read the book. Sprowl and others have stated that Sandusky was not offered any other coaching jobs after he retired from PSU in 98. This is stated to prove that Sandusky must have been fired because he was a pedophile and everyone knew it...including other football programs. I did a quick google search to see if that was true and it quoted the book. No one here really knows what happened in 99, but many assumptions have been made about why Sandusky retired.

I don't mean to anger you and others. I just want to fully understand the situation and get all the facts straight in my head before I condemn a man and a University that I've had some part in for most of my life.

The facts as they are...it looks like PSU has been enabling this man. I am outraged by this and also completely mystified as to why they would do that.

On the other hand...people have expected Paterno to remove JS from his office and campus. They have then used this to say that Paterno further enabled JS. They also have stated that Paterno covered it up when Paterno did tell someone who it is reasonable to assume he thought would go to the police since they were legally required to...I think it is also possible that Paterno could have assumed that JS had been cleared of wrongdoing again in 2002 like in 1998 and not followed up. Many people think the opposite is the only possible reason...that Paterno knew exactly what JS was doing and let it continue for years solely to protect his legacy and football team. Paterno's actual level of complicity matters to me.

I think this is far worse than one man covering up a crime and then living with it. I think it's possible that the University's leaders as well as it's board of trustees, State College Police and the legal system has acted to cover this up.

I take it a lot more personally than most of you here because it is personal... because the people that people describe as enablers or sheep or whatever...are my family and friends even though I know we've done nothing wrong. At the same time I don't mean to make this about me... because you're right... in the end JS has been a predator and serially victimized so many children.

I am not trying to confuse facts, issues etc... I'm trying to be less confused and less disappointed and angered by an institution that I believed in.


Edit: wording

 

[lars10]

This article has been posted before... but it pretty much sums up how I feel now and felt then about PSU and PSU football.

http://www.grantland...wing-penn-state

The only difference is that my family stayed outside of Boston. If my Dad had had his way we would have moved to Pennsylvania to be close to family and for the cheaper housing and activities (hunting, fishing) that PA offers.

(And right on cue...today I get a letter asking for me to give to PSU's annual fund.)

edit: added last sentences

 

[JBill]

Link via Yahoo's Dan Wetzel, NCAA will be investigating Penn State for lack of institutional control:

"I am writing to notify you that the NCAA will examine Penn State's exercise of institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics programs, as well as the actions, and inactions, of relevant responsible personnel," Emmert wrote. "We recognize that there are ongoing federal and state investigations and the NCAA does not intend to interfere with those probes."

http://live.psu.edu/story/56442

 

[Hyde Park Factor]

I see this is a factual error that has been repeated as well. Paterno did go to Schultz and Curley, but McQueary also said what he saw directly to them as well seperately. I think it's unfair to call this a game of telephone when Paterno was not in fact a go between.

I have read varying reports of what McQueary actually said to Paterno...but McQueary testified to Schultz and Curley and the GJ believes he told them everything. Paterno also testified to the GJ. He has not been charged with perjury where C and S have.


People are doing the exact same thing in vilifying Paterno and others.

People have stated that Paterno downplayed what McQueary told him... You and I don't know what McQueary told Paterno...so how do we then know that Paterno downplayed it? It would seem like the GJ believes that Paterno didn't downplay it because he is not being charged with perjury.

This has also been stated multiple times. The school has/had a lot more to lose than just the football team. It assumes that PSU students, PSU alum, State College residents and others in the area are a simple people where football is the only thing that matters and nothing else. I think it's far more likely that the administration at PSU were potentially looking the other way to protect Penn State the brand.

I have not read the book. Sprowl and others have stated that Sandusky was not offered any other coaching jobs after he retired from PSU in 98. This is stated to prove that Sandusky must have been fired because he was a pedophile and everyone knew it...including other football programs. I did a quick google search to see if that was true and it quoted the book. No one here really knows what happened in 99, but many assumptions have been made about why Sandusky retired.

I don't mean to anger you and others. I just want to fully understand the situation and get all the facts straight in my head before I condemn a man and a University that I've had some part in for most of my life.

The facts as they are...it looks like PSU has been enabling this man. I am outraged by this and also completely mystified as to why they would do that.

On the other hand...people have expected Paterno to remove JS from his office and campus. They have then used this to say that Paterno further enabled JS. They also have stated that Paterno covered it up when Paterno did tell someone who it is reasonable to assume he thought would go to the police since they were legally required to...I think it is also possible that Paterno could have assumed that JS had been cleared of wrongdoing again in 2002 like in 1998 and not followed up. Many people think the opposite is the only possible reason...that Paterno knew exactly what JS was doing and let it continue for years solely to protect his legacy and football team. Paterno's actual level of complicity matters to me.

I think this is far worse than one man covering up a crime and then living with it. I think it's possible that the University's leaders as well as it's board of trustees, State College Police and the legal system has acted to cover this up.

I take it a lot more personally than most of you here because it is personal... because the people that people describe as enablers or sheep or whatever...are my family and friends even though I know we've done nothing wrong. At the same time I don't mean to make this about me... because you're right... in the end JS has been a predator and serially victimized so many children.

I am not trying to confuse facts, issues etc... I'm trying to be less confused and less disappointed and angered by an institution that I believed in.


Edit: wording

Please just re-read this. Several times if necessary. You can even try imagining that it's your son's boy scout troop leader instead of Paterno and see what you think then. How can you say that there's a "level of complicity"? Paterno knew something and did essentially nothing. Or as little as possible. His colossal moral failing is hardly mitigated by the fact that his hands are legally clean. (Or may be, whichever)

 

[RedOctober3829]

Per WFAN, Joe Paterno has been diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer. Wow.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

According to his son, JoePa has been diagnosed with lung cancer per ESPN

 

[canderson]

Here's a link from the Patriot-News.

Doctors say it's treatable.

 

[Leather]

Curious timing.

 

[JBill]

Curious timing.

According to the article, he was diagnosed just last week:

Paterno was diagnosed after being hospitalized last Saturday, during the game against Nebraska.

Rough couple of weeks, to say the least.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Per the New York Times - Second Mile preparing to fold:

David Woodle, the chief executive of the charity, known as Second Mile, said in an interview Friday that the foundation was seeking to transfer its programs to other nonprofit organizations. The Second Mile's leaders are looking at a limited number of organizations that could, and would, carry forward the foundation's work with disadvantaged youth. He would not say which organizations would be candidates.

"We're working hard to figure out how the programs can survive this event," Woodle said. "We aren't protective of this organization that it survives at all costs."

 

[mr_smith02]

Per WFAN, Joe Paterno has been diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer. Wow.

Good thing he caught it early...maybe he can stop it.

 

[terrynever]

Good thing he caught it early...maybe he can stop it.

Paterno made note on more than a few occasions over the past 25 years that Bear Bryant died one month after he retired from coaching. People thought Joe felt the same thing would happen to him. The lung cancer won't kill him, it's treatable, but he's 84 and under a lot of self-induced stress. I wouldn't be surprised if he dies within the year.

 

[mr_smith02]

Paterno made note on more than a few occasions over the past 25 years that Bear Bryant died one month after he retired from coaching. People thought Joe felt the same thing would happen to him. The lung cancer won't kill him, it's treatable, but he's 84 and under a lot of self-induced stress. I wouldn't be surprised if he dies within the year.

Karma works at its own pace.

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

Or he plans on faking his own death to avoid an indictment, and meeting up with Sandusky in Mexico like Red and Andy Dufresne. Dear Jerry. If you're reading this, you've gotten out. And if you've come this far, maybe you're willing to come a little further...

 

[Tokyo Sox]

Good thing he caught it early...maybe he can stop it.

Well played.