Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
48,029
New York City
Most here are going on the assumption that the incident in 98 and Sandusky's subsequent early retirement in 99 are related. If you start there then once he hears about 02 he knows it is true but he can't go forward with the information as he is already complicit in a cover up.
He then goes to his "superiors" to fulfill his legal obligation and to get them to continue the cover up. I have no idea if Paterno knew going "up" the chain covered him legally or if he just wanted to wash his hands so he took it to two people who were involved in 98 and he knew would take care of it again.
That is my guess. Horribleness happens in 98, Sundusky is quietly removed in 1999 and they hope it's buried. Then he's caught raping a 10 year old by an eye witness in 2002. At that point, everyone must have known they were deep in the muck and they just buried that, too, in hopes it would go away, to protect the Institution of Penn State and, more important, Penn State football. They must have realized how horrible it would have been to have to admit a 1)a child rapist worked there for 20 years and 2) they covered up the 1998 story, so hiding the truth must have seemed like a decent option to them.

It wasn't a decent option. It was pathetic, irresponsible, unacceptable, and criminal. I hope Penn State is damaged in the short term.(in the long term, nothing ever lasts, so I'm not naive enough to think major changes will occur that will be lasting.

Poor Joe Paterno my ass. He covered up child rape. He has no excuse and he deserves nothing but scorn. All the good in the world that he did gets swallowed up by this one bad, because it was that bad of a bad.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
19,673
Newton
I have to say, I'm not entirely comfortable with the way people who try to piece this together by suggesting Paterno may have acted wrongly but not criminally are being characterized by posters here as "deluded" or "apologists."

To be clear, I absolutely think Paterno deserved to be fired -- and I hope he goes to his grave realizing this destroys everything he did.

But whether it's Ananias or anyone else, I haven't read too many people who are excusing anything here -- just trying to understand how something this awful could have been condoned by this many people. I feel like we should try to be mindful of that before we accuse someone of being some mindless kool aid drinker who is trying to find reasons for absolving Paterno.
 

drtooth

2:30
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 23, 2004
11,242
Someone's Molars
I think we can all look at this and realize there is plenty of blame to go around here.

1. Sandusky-Nothing needs to be said

2. McQuery- Should have taken more immediate action (preferably stopping it) the he did.

3. Paterno-Should have gone to police or at least followed up to his superior.

4. Coaching staff- How could they NOT know this was going on with Sandusky give that most of them have been at PSU 20+ years??

5. Curley and Schultz- Did nothing.

6. Spanier-All his employees below and he is the top of the food chain.


Everyone here appears to be either protecting their position/legacy, the university's reputation, the multi-million dollar franchise that is PSU football or their own reputation at the expense of these children. A lot of people here have blood on their hands and none of those listed above should be allowed to keep their jobs.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
48,029
New York City
But whether it's Ananias or anyone else, I haven't read too many people who are excusing anything here -- just trying to understand how something this awful could have been condoned by this many people. I feel like we should try to be mindful of that before we accuse someone of being some mindless kool aid drinker who is trying to find reasons for absolving Paterno.
I need you to explain how Paterno can be absolved. He was told Sandusky was fucking a ten year old in the ass on the grounds of Penn State, three years after other child abuse allegations. But this wasn't 10th hand heresy, it was first hand.. He ran this news up the flag pole and washed his hands of it. Wait, he didn't do that? Then why was Sandusky free until last weekend?

This is ridiculous. There is no absolution.

I'm going to go Kremlin Watcher very, very soon. Because there is no goddammit absolution. A child fucker was allowed to go free and still use Penn State facilities despite the fact that many, many people knew he was a child fucker.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
27,924
Harrisburg, Pa.
I'm up here, it's bizarre-o-world outside Beacer Stafium.

I also saw bomb-sniffing dogs earlier. I know they had a bomb threat at the stadium last night, guess they are just continuing sweeps.

There are tons of police around the stadium. We walked past Paterno's house this morning and saw 4 or 5 guys knelt in prayer facing his front door.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
From the details that have emerged, I don't view him as a monster who was involved in covering up the scandal, but just someone who was tragically lacking perspective ie. he felt that his responsibility was only the football program, so incidents of this nature aren't meant to be dealt with by him.
The problem with speculating about why Paterno didn't do anything besides reporting it to one person is that he had to deliberately ignore things going on around him in order not to question it. It's possible in a situation similar to this for someone in Paterno's position to perform their duty as required by law and optimistically believe that it's being handled, but it's not possible in this situation.

McQueary either told Paterno directly that he witnessed anal rape by Sandusky or he lied to the grand jury about how explicit he was. Paterno testified that he definitely spoke to McQueary, as McQueary had claimed, and that he was definitely "very upset", but that what was reported to him was not so explicit. Paterno reported this up the chain as "fondling or something of a sexual nature".

The problem with being optimistic about Paterno's motivations and actions here is that both McQueary and Sandusky stayed around the school and the program. McQueary even got promoted. It's entirely possible for someone to hear a report of one of their friends being a child rapist, not want to hear the details, and pass the report on to someone else who can handle it. It's absolutely not possible for someone to hear a report like this, pass it on, and think it's being resolved while seeing both of the people around the school and working on your staff! In order to believe this you would have to believe McQueary put on a crying act and completely exaggerated about Sandusky and a child being naked in the showers together. If this is what happened, Paterno would have to believe that Sandusky showering with small children was perfectly normal behavior, but that it's also perfectly normal behavior for someone to see it and get "very upset". It just doesn't fly.

Paterno might not be a "monster", but the best-case scenarios here for empathizing with him here still mark him as being culpable and so deliberately unwilling to question any of it in ways that can only include him as part of the cover-up. The worse cases and worst-case scenarios are of course disgusting and include Paterno knowingly obfuscating the process while absolving himself of legal repercussions while aware of Sandusky's behavior and allowing it to happen.

To think any higher of Paterno in this situation requires making so many altuistic assumptions that it is not credible. e.g., you also have to assume that he was completely unaware of the 1998 incident in addition to the assumptions I listed above, and that the administrators were somehow assured of completing their duties independently without reporting it to or talking with Paterno. This is also completely dubious, as the one person who Paterno reported up the chain to was Tim Curley, a former player under both Paterno and Sandusky who grew up in State College, PA.

It's one thing to believe optimistically in humanity, but after all of this it's like believing that mafia bosses are legitimate businessmen and do not order murders. There's no way Paterno was not involved in this somehow.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,496
Bangkok
Well firstly, Sandusky didn't continue working on his staff. He was already gone by that time.

Secondly, Paterno told McQueary to report it to the higher-ups, which McQueary did. Paterno's already been quoted as saying that he stopped McQueary before he was able to reveal all the details - for whatever reason - and asked McQueary to report it to the higher-ups.

Like I said, the key to the 1998 incident is that charges weren't pressed, for whatever reason. It wasn't like Sandusky was put on trial and acquitted. Charges weren't even filed. What does that say about the case against him? In hindsight, with the details of all the other victims, Sandusky's guilt is pretty clear. But from Paterno's perspective, the 1998 case was a one-off in which Sandusky wasn't even charged. From Paterno's perspective, there's no reason to suspect Sandusky of being a child molester because the DA reviewed the allegations and decided not the press charges. If you don't take cues from law enforcement officials then who do you take cues from? Maybe a deal was made where Sandusky wasn't charged and would be removed from the staff, but I don't see how that benefits the child, and I don't see how that deal benefits all the other kids at Second Mile. My guess is that he wasn't charged because there wasn't enough evidence, and no deal of any kind was made. Do you think a DA would not charge a child molester if he agreed to resign from his position on a football staff? It doesn't make any sense, man. That deal still leaves open the possibility that he's molesting kids through his charity, or that he would simply just molest kids but not be a member of the football program. No DA makes that deal. Sandusky's position on a football program has no relevance to whether a DA would charge him for child molesting or not. It might be a deal that Paterno would be willing to make, if you're extremely cynical, but then you would have to jump through even more hoops because now you're effectively saying that Paterno has enough power to sway and influence the DA to charge or not charge a suspected child molester.

I don't think there's any doubt that he was aware of the 1998 incident. But he could have reasonably assumed that it was a one-off based on the DA's action. Then 2002 happened, and I think you have to evaluate his judgment and decision here by firstly trying to understand his perspective. Like I've explained before, if you do this, it could easily be Paterno passing on the responsibility because he felt that there were other people who were better placed to deal with it, in which case his mistake is of a more innocent nature, even if the consequences were tragic.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,496
Bangkok
If you believe what Paterno said about him stopping McQueary from describing the events in graphic detail, then what he told the higher-ups - 'fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy' - was all he could tell. And he did tell them. And then the higher-ups interviewed McQueary, where McQueary now told everything in full detail. Paterno wasn't present for this meeting.

If you believe Paterno, then he passed the responsibility on to people he thought were better placed to handle it. There was a moral failure because he didn't report it to the cops, but I don't see how you can frame his actions as trying to 'cover up' the incident when he reported it up the chain. From the details that we have now, I think Paterno's being painted with a brush far too heavy and far too strong, when his actions - although not faultless by any means - could have very easily been a reason that a child molester was sent to jail. But the higher-ups failed. If they report the incident to the cops then Sandusky's in jail and Paterno gets muted praise for his minor role. Paterno's not the key here. He passed the responsibility on, and the responsibility was taken by the two guys above him.
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
18,143
pawtucket
And here's a good column explaining how it all happened from Ron Bracken, who covered Penn State football and battled Joe from 1968-2010.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/11/2982203/climate-of-secrecy-led-to-crumbling.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,279
Houston, TX
No. The problem is that we are talking about Joe Paterno. When the focus of the discussion on this matter is Joe Paterno and Penn State football, then it is clear that we have already forgiven them as a society. When we focus on what all this means to his legacy and what will happen to the Penn State football program, we have already more or less absolved them. The villains are the victors, their legacies secured by our blind devotion to bread and circuses and our own societal unwillingness to confront the terrible truth of child abuse in the United States. The victims will get some money and platitudes thrown their way. And we'll forget about them until the next serial rapist is uncovered. I hope those of you with young children have the means to protect them.

I will now stop posting in this thread.
 

Kevin Jewkilis

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2006
1,241
Lafayette Sq., Cambridge
Like I said, the key to the 1998 incident is that charges weren't pressed, for whatever reason. It wasn't like Sandusky was put on trial and acquitted. Charges weren't even filed. What does that say about the case against him? In hindsight, with the details of all the other victims, Sandusky's guilt is pretty clear. But from Paterno's perspective, the 1998 case was a one-off in which Sandusky wasn't even charged. From Paterno's perspective, there's no reason to suspect Sandusky of being a child molester because the DA reviewed the allegations and decided not the press charges. If you don't take cues from law enforcement officials then who do you take cues from? Maybe a deal was made where Sandusky wasn't charged and would be removed from the staff, but I don't see how that benefits the child, and I don't see how that deal benefits all the other kids at Second Mile. My guess is that he wasn't charged because there wasn't enough evidence, and no deal of any kind was made. Do you think a DA would not charge a child molester if he agreed to resign from his position on a football staff? It doesn't make any sense, man. That deal still leaves open the possibility that he's molesting kids through his charity, or that he would simply just molest kids but not be a member of the football program. No DA makes that deal. Sandusky's position on a football program has no relevance to whether a DA would charge him for child molesting or not. It might be a deal that Paterno would be willing to make, if you're extremely cynical, but then you would have to jump through even more hoops because now you're effectively saying that Paterno has enough power to sway and influence the DA to charge or not charge a suspected child molester.
It is extremely difficult to get convictions for sexual crimes in America, even when children are involved. Furthermore, the process is extremely traumatic for the victim, especially for children, even if the trial does end in a conviction. As sad as that fact is, there are many legitimate reasons the DA could have decided not to proceed with the case that have nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of Sandusky.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,501
Washington, DC
This isn't like buying the wrong kind of toilet paper.

I agree with Apisith's comment about Paterno lacking perspective. Of course, that doesn't excuse what he did at all, not does it afford him any benefit of the doubt as to his actions. I wouldn't be surprised to find that an 84 year old man had no real concept of the width and breadth of damage that can be inflicted through sexual abuse. People of his generation can hold some pretty idiotic beliefs and stereotypes, and it's fair to say they come by it naturally. I can accept that part of what went wrong here is directly related to Paterno being poorly educated on the subject without also saying that that absolves him.

That said, there's no excuse for his lapse in moral judgement.
If I had to guess, I would say that this is likely to be closer to the truth for Paterno's actions rather than a pure Machiavellian plot. Which doesn't make what he did less immoral.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
It is extremely difficult to get convictions for sexual crimes in America, even when children are involved. Furthermore, the process is extremely traumatic for the victim, especially for children, even if the trial does end in a conviction. As sad as that fact is, there are many legitimate reasons the DA could have decided not to proceed with the case that have nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of Sandusky.
How about the most obvious one: the DA knew there was a conspiracy of silence, a PSU football omerta, and that he wouldn't be able to get anyone to testify against Sandusky? Not his friends, not his colleagues, not eyewitnesses to his predation, not the victims, and not their parents?
 

sfip

directly related to Marilyn Monroe
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2003
7,829
Philadelphia suburb
I won't be able to watch this game because I already have plans to drive to my brother's place in Massachusetts and I'll be leaving shortly. I'll admit I haven't read the last few posts because I've been trying to watch and at the same time get ready for the trip. Regardless, I can't even begin to express the emotions I have right now. As much as I understand why many people here feel this game shouldn't be played, I have to strongly disagree with them. This needed to be done. The healing process for so many people who have been affected by this is so important and the emotions going on are so significant for so many people. Not playing the game wouldn't have resolved this, even for the victims and their families who I hope understand that they're in our thoughts and won't be forgotten.

I'm sure my choice of words wasn't ideal in this post. I hope people can understand I'm not in the best state of mind right now. Regardless I have to get going for my trip. If I've offended anyone because anything in this post didn't come out as intended, I apologize ahead of time. I know people will disagree and that's ok, but I felt a need to say this.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,496
Bangkok
Just a thought: If Paterno was aware of any other incidents regarding Sandusky, would he have not mentioned it during the Grand Jury testimony? The fact that the report does not mention any other incidents that Paterno either witnessed or was aware of suggests to me that Paterno only knew about 2002. And contrary to what I said earlier, he may not have known about 1998 as well, although I don't remember exactly what the report said about the 1998 incident, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

From a legal standpoint, if Paterno knew about other incidents and didn't mention them, could he be indicted later if other victims now step forward?
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
10,599
The Coney Island of my mind
No. The problem is that we are talking about Joe Paterno. When the focus of the discussion on this matter is Joe Paterno and Penn State football, then it is clear that we have already forgiven them as a society. When we focus on what all this means to his legacy and what will happen to the Penn State football program, we have already more or less absolved them. The villains are the victors, their legacies secured by our blind devotion to bread and circuses and our own societal unwillingness to confront the terrible truth of child abuse in the United States. The victims will get some money and platitudes thrown their way. And we'll forget about them until the next serial rapist is uncovered. I hope those of you with young children have the means to protect them.

I will now stop posting in this thread.
Promise?
 

dirtynine

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
5,813
Philly
I think we can all look at this and realize there is plenty of blame to go around here.

1. Sandusky-Nothing needs to be said

2. McQuery- Should have taken more immediate action (preferably stopping it) the he did.

3. Paterno-Should have gone to police or at least followed up to his superior.

4. Coaching staff- How could they NOT know this was going on with Sandusky give that most of them have been at PSU 20+ years??

5. Curley and Schultz- Did nothing.

6. Spanier-All his employees below and he is the top of the food chain.


Everyone here appears to be either protecting their position/legacy, the university's reputation, the multi-million dollar franchise that is PSU football or their own reputation at the expense of these children. A lot of people here have blood on their hands and none of those listed above should be allowed to keep their jobs.
This is where I am as well.

I've been thinking a lot about this case, and I've had a very hard time reconciling my feelings about the terrible nature of what happened at Penn State with a nagging feeling that mob-like, frenzied behavior is driving the reaction that happened this week. And when mob-like behavior begins to swell up, and emotion begins to dictate actions (on every side), it gives me an uneasy feeling, no matter what direction it's pointed in. This, I think, is because unless emotional, angry, quick, group-driven behavior it's directed with perfect wisdom, there is the potential for wrong to be done. Our legal system was designed to circumvent this, and to give breathing room for rationality to prevail, and to formalize punishment by giving it the mandate of law. I might be in a severe minority, but when things start to get this heated, and decisions driven by that heat are enacted, and they are praised as unilaterally right, I get nervous that the wisdom and rationality of our system is being dealt a blow. My natural reaction, then, is to play devil's advocate, and I find myself searching for reasons why, say, Joe Paterno might not be as much of a monster as many are saying, or Mike McQueary might not be the coward and co-conspirator in evil as many are portraying him. About Sandusky, of course, there can be no debate, and I hope his justice is served out quickly and with the kind of force he inflicted on others.

This instinct, to defend the idea of waiting for some kind of official process of discovery and judgement may or may not be the right instinct, but as someone who feels protective of what defines our American system of justice - rationality, no matter what anyone says - I feel it's right. And as much as it feels proper to indulge extreme prejudice against everyone involved in this situation, it feels wrong to me as well - like I'm giving up on a more difficult, but ultimately more American way of deciding right from wrong.


One might say that a system as broken as the one that allowed horrific child abuse to occur does not deserve or require a rational reaction in response. Or that the corrective steps that were taken this week will be proved proper and right, hindsight or not. Perhaps so. That Sandusky and anyone else involved in harming children are ultimately given their due by the coldest assessment our law allows is the most important outcome.

When people get what they deserve, it is justice. When we allow our laws, and our system to drive the judgement, it is American justice. When we allow public and media reaction to drive the judgement, it is popular justice. I will always be in favor of the former.

I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to some, and I honestly hope Sandusky is unable to live with himself. Because that will be self-meted justice, perhaps the one thing that trumps all.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Just a thought: If Paterno was aware of any other incidents regarding Sandusky, would he have not mentioned it during the Grand Jury testimony? The fact that the report does not mention any other incidents that Paterno either witnessed or was aware of suggests to me that Paterno only knew about 2002. And contrary to what I said earlier, he may not have known about 1998 as well, although I don't remember exactly what the report said about the 1998 incident, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

From a legal standpoint, if Paterno knew about other incidents and didn't mention them, could he be indicted later if other victims now step forward?

Paterno claims he was unaware of the charges from 98, I along with many others find this difficult bordering on impossible to believe. I find the surprising retirement of the still in his prime Sandusky in 99 a bit too convenient.

I imagine Paterno could be charged with perjury if it is found he knew about 98 but I don't see how they could ever prove he did.

I can't say why Sandusky wasn't charged in 98 after he essentially confessed to molesting the boy with police present. Was it because these cases are so hard to prove or was there something more sinister going on?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
19,540
Paterno claims he was unaware of the charges from 98, I along with many others find this difficult bordering on impossible to believe. I find the surprising retirement of the still in his prime Sandusky in 99 a bit too convenient.

I imagine Paterno could be charged with perjury if it is found he knew about 98 but I don't see how they could ever prove he did.

I can't say why Sandusky wasn't charged in 98 after he essentially confessed to molesting the boy with police present. Was it because these cases are so hard to prove or was there something more sinister going on?
I would assume it is because there is 1. a degree of vagueness to his comments that make it easy for a defense attorney to argue he didn't feel at the time the "hug" was wrong and that it wasn't sexual in nature. and 2. It is very likely the judge would not allow that evidence to see a jury, I am assuming here that the conversation they listened in on was a phone call. Pennsylvania is a 2 party consent state so they couldn't record it without a warrant.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
No. The problem is that we are talking about Joe Paterno. When the focus of the discussion on this matter is Joe Paterno and Penn State football, then it is clear that we have already forgiven them as a society. When we focus on what all this means to his legacy and what will happen to the Penn State football program, we have already more or less absolved them. The villains are the victors, their legacies secured by our blind devotion to bread and circuses and our own societal unwillingness to confront the terrible truth of child abuse in the United States. The victims will get some money and platitudes thrown their way. And we'll forget about them until the next serial rapist is uncovered. I hope those of you with young children have the means to protect them.

I will now stop posting in this thread.
I've followed this whole thread. I understand that you've been pointed, opinionated, and at times, poignant in this thread.

This is how these things always go. We want to put a face on everything. We talk about whoever is the most famous, or infamous, actor in any situation. We don't talk about Nicole Brown Simpson, we talk about OJ. We don't talk about Christina-Taylor Green, Dorothy "Dot" Morris, or any of the other four people killed in Arizona in January; we talk about Gabby Giffords, and secondarily Jared Loughner. We don't talk about Charles Manson's victims, we talk about how Charlie hung out with rock stars.

We try, as a society, to wrap our heads around an unimaginable situation. We do that through context. In the context of this tragedy, the one thing we all know about is the guy who was on the Penn State sideline for 60 yrs. It's neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong, it just is.

Also, we understand death. A lot of us understand sexual molestation and violence. I'd be surprised if half this board doesn't know someone who's been molested, or raped, or otherwise assaulted sexually, or sadly, be a victim of the unconscionable acts themselves. I know I do. I feel like half the women I've dated has had something along these lines happen to them. Few of us know what goes through the mind of killers, or pedophiles, or people who cover up for these crimes. How could people do this despicable stuff? In a sad way that fascinates us. I wish it didn't but it does.
 

J.McG

lurker
Aug 11, 2011
204
If I see another shot of someone genuflecting on Paterno's front lawn or another "GOD BLESS YOU JOE PA!" sign enormous banner in the crowd at this game, I'm going to be sick.

EDIT: And is it me or is ESPN deliberately trying to muffle the Seven Nation Army JoePa chants, a la "bullshit" chants after a bad penalty call?
 

Delicious Sponge

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
1,083
Boston
That message on ESPN from the interim PSU president is so off-key.

Yes, we know your "heart goes out" to those who were victimized. Good for you that you plan to rebuild the trust and respect that PSU used to have. But you're asking for people to join you in doing that? Why should any of us do anything for you?

His message should have been something like: We are appalled by what has happened. It doesn't represent what PSU is all about. There are legal investigations going on and we will support them to the best of our abilities until everyone that was involved in letting this happen in our community is brought to justice. Only by assuring you that we have done our part to live up to the values of our organization can we earn back your trust and respect and to this cause we are all dedicated.

The message he chose was "some bad things happened, but it's time to move on." It's not that easy.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,469
I've read the Grand Jury report, by the way. At this point in time, I don't think there's any doubt about Sandusky's guilt. But at that point in time, in 2002, Paterno knew of one incident which the DA decided not to press charges, and then was informed that 'something of a sexual nature' occurred in the locker room. He then passed on this information to his superiors. His actions, given what he knew, doesn't sound like someone who wanted to ignore it to protect his football program. It just sounds like someone who felt that there were people better placed to deal with it. He failed the kid by not informing the police, but he at least informed someone else. That's why I view it as an innocent mistake. He didn't ignore it or swept it under the carpet.
I keep going back to this foolishness that people continue spewing that Paterno was "informed by McQueary that something of a sexual nature occurred." Living in reality here for a moment i'm trying to imagine a scenario where the private conversation between two football coaches includes the term "something of a sexual nature" without any further description. These are two frickin alpha-male football coaches for christs sake and i understand this is a board full of overly analytical types (pun intended) but i can fairly confidently assure you that the quote much more closely resembled, "Jerry was fucking the boy in the ass, Joe!!"

Of course this will be dismissed and criticized because we don't have "evidence" of this as i've been through silly SoSH debates in the past in similar fashion (How dare you accuse Barry Bonds of using steroids, where is the evidence?) Silliness.

Oh yeah, and completely ignore that Paterno's "superior" was an AD who began his career as Paterno's personal assistant as a kid. Yeah, i wonder who was calling those shots. Ignore it though.....Joe "reported this to his superior." Whatever.


Other anecdotes about Paterno that I've read in the past couple of days suggests that he considers himself a pure football man and acts accordingly. It doesn't suggest that he would sacrifice other things for football, but that his responsibility is only the football program, nothing else, so he doesn't concern himself with other things, rightly or wrongly.
So damn frickin naive at best and simply ignorant at worst. Do some research on Paterno's level of fundraising for Penn State University before you post crap like this. Joe Paterno's primary job the past 30 years has been to raise money for the University he loved and nothing was going to stop him.....not even if he had to assist in coverups I'll give you a head start.....

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

In fact, Paterno played a key role in getting Penn State into the fundraising business. He once recalled a meeting with university trustees to talk about the football team’s 1982 national championship where he issued a challenge to make the university No. 1 in academics as well.

In 1984, the university launched its first campaign, setting a $200 million goal — the highest target ever set by a public university at the time. It raised $352 million.

“Fundraising is a lot like recruiting,” Paterno once said. “Sooner or later, you gotta ask the kid, ‘Are you coming or aren’t you?’ I don’t see much difference. You make the case. And you say we’d like this, and sometimes they’d say, ‘Well, yeah, I can handle that.’ Sometimes they’ll say, ‘I can’t do that right now. How about this?’ That’s fine.”

And Paterno had a talent for separating people from their money. One time, he asked his friend Frank Pasquerilla for money to build the $9 million Pasquerilla Center, a religious and ethical affairs center at the State College campus.
No one knows exactly how much Paterno raised for the university over the years. Rod Kirsch, senior vice president for development and alumni relations, said in 2009 that it would be foolhardy to guess — $50 million, $100 million, $500 million, more?

Some estimate it’s much more. They guess it exceeds $1 billion.

Paterno played a large role in the trustees’ decision to set $1 billion as the target for Penn State’s capital campaign that ended in 2003, a goal few universities had taken on at the time, Thomas said. Paterno was confident the amount could be reached.

The campaign raised $1.4 billion.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
32,660
Haiku
Just a thought: If Paterno was aware of any other incidents regarding Sandusky, would he have not mentioned it during the Grand Jury testimony? The fact that the report does not mention any other incidents that Paterno either witnessed or was aware of suggests to me that Paterno only knew about 2002. And contrary to what I said earlier, he may not have known about 1998 as well, although I don't remember exactly what the report said about the 1998 incident, so forgive me if I'm wrong.
You are grasping at straws to absolve this Pope-like figure of willful ignorance, dereliction of moral duty, cover-up, or worse. The Grand Jury report is not a transcript of all testimony before the Jury -- it is a brief and nauseating account of the information they found influential in recommending charges against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. The report does not absolve Paterno or McQueary -- it merely does not recommend charges against them. If the report had the level of detail needed to assess Paterno's state of mind, we would also have a clearer idea of why the Jury was convinced that McQueary was telling the truth about what he told Curley and Schultz, and that Curley and Schultz were both lying when they said it wasn't serious or wasn't sexual.

Do you seriously believe that Paterno's long-time assistant was forced into retirement at age 55, after being investigated by police for child molestation, and Paterno didn't know anything about it? Penn State apologists need to deal with that impossibility directly, or they lose all credibility.
 

DukeSox

Rick Derris
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
11,305
That message on ESPN from the interim PSU president is so off-key.

Yes, we know your "heart goes out" to those who were victimized. Good for you that you plan to rebuild the trust and respect that PSU used to have. But you're asking for people to join you in doing that? Why should any of us do anything for you?

His message should have been something like: We are appalled by what has happened. It doesn't represent what PSU is all about. There are legal investigations going on and we will support them to the best of our abilities until everyone that was involved in letting this happen in our community is brought to justice. Only by assuring you that we have done our part to live up to the values of our organization can we earn back your trust and respect and to this cause we are all dedicated.

The message he chose was "some bad things happened, but it's time to move on." It's not that easy.
There don't seem to be a lot of administrators at Penn State who are actually that smart.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
8,098
NOVA
Imagine if Penn St comes back and wins this game dramatically. The announcers are already setting up the "healing" narrative. This is disgusting and insulting to the victims. Go Nebraska!
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
Well firstly, Sandusky didn't continue working on his staff. He was already gone by that time.

Secondly, Paterno told McQueary to report it to the higher-ups, which McQueary did. Paterno's already been quoted as saying that he stopped McQueary before he was able to reveal all the details - for whatever reason - and asked McQueary to report it to the higher-ups.
Sandusky didn't continue working on his staff, but he still had an office at the school. And he still was seen around the locker rooms without anybody batting an eye, apparently. He was even seen on campus a week before this news got huge. McQueary was not only still on the staff, but he received a promotion, getting a full-time job as an assistant coach instead of being a graduate assistant. How can you hire someone at a full-time position if you think his "very upset" proclamation that he saw a child being raped (McQueary's words) or "fondling or something of a sexual nature" (Paterno's words) and still see Sandusky around on campus connected with the football program?

How can you receive a report of sexual assault from someone who is "very upset" and not question what happened to discover its severity? You're not even mildly curious whether the assistant is freaking out over something he imagined, or if he actually did witness a rape in progress?

He did not stop McQueary before he was able to reveal all the details. McQueary testified that he reported all of the details. The grand jury statement about Paterno's testimony does not even dispute this. It found as a fact that Paterno received McQueary's report and passed on the report as "fondling or something of a sexual nature". To claim that Paterno stopped him from explaining what it was is an assumption. He also did not ask McQueary to report it to the higher-ups -- Paterno reported it to one higher-up, his former player (and then Athletic Director) Tim Curley. Here's the quote from the grand jury report:

The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his hom ethe very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.
This should make clear that you have either made an incorrect assumption about the events and their timeline or that you are repeating incorrect information or that you are repeating unverified information (rumors). I'm not sure why you would believe anything other than the grand jury report, which was convened to find out the facts of what happened.

Paterno heard McQueary's report, on a Saturday morning, waited an entire day, then reported it to his "immediate superior", who was a former player of his and a former player of Sandusky's. Not only that, but he reported something significantly different from what McQueary claims to have told Paterno in the first place. Paterno either willfully played down the allegations in his report to Curley or he had a "very upset" assistant talking about molestation and did not bother to ask about how serious it was before passing it on. He's deliberately starting a cover-up in diminishing what happened and starting their crazy game of telephone or he's deliberately unwilling to accept or think about what might have happened and tried to remove himself from the process. In doing so, he set a stage for an incomplete investigation, as he has downplayed the severity. What the hell did Paterno do that entire Saturday? Apparently didn't think about what happened, if you want to believe he was blissfully ignorant of the situation. Or apparently he considered it briefly before deciding "nah, the stuff in 1998 was just Sandusky wrestling with a kid and grabbing his genitals in the shower, it wasn't that bad, he wouldn't do something like this". How can you even believe that? How can you not only believe it, but play along in this rumor-spreading by citing completely incorrect information?

You are correct in that Paterno wasn't in the meeting between the administration and McQueary, but who cares? McQueary waited a day, Paterno waited a day, and then the AD and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business called McQueary in a week and a half later to ask him if he saw a small boy get "fondled or something of a sexual nature". A boy is either raped or fondled in the showers by someone who had done something similar before, and they as a group spend two weeks diddling around before a single person (if you think Paterno didn't want to hear about it) asks McQueary what he actually saw? And then a couple of weeks after that, a full month after the rape, they take away Sandusky's keys to the locker room and it had been reported to the charity? Not a single one of them contacted any kind of law enforcement? McQueary and Paterno were never contacted by police, even in a "did McQueary talk to you Mr. Paterno?" kind of way? At this point, how can you think any of this is a legitimate investigation, and how can you think that it's not willful and deliberately conducted in this way by a group of people all with very strong ties to each other, to Paterno, and to Sandusky?

How can you believe any of that? You think Paterno believed the 1998 thing was "a one-off" by Sandusky? Like I said before, hey guys, the first one's free! How many times to you have to molest a child to be considered a child molestor? If there's an unwillingness to believe someone you thought was a good person is actually a child rapist, that is somewhat understandable, but how many times do you have to hear about him fondling or raping children before it becomes credible? Apparently more than two, if you think Paterno made an innocent mistake.

Please stop misrepresenting the events as found by the grand jury, since they actually heard the testimony of all the persons involved. By the way, "the Grand Jury finds the graduate assitant's testimony to be extremely credible." We have no idea why they found it to be extremely credible, but I'm going to take their word for it. I'm not sure how anyone can think McQueary could convince a room full of strangers that he was for-really-reals serious about a child being raped, probably by being "very upset" as he was when he reported to Paterno, but that he was absolutely unable to convince Paterno, his former coach when he played football.
 

mascho

Kane is Able
SoSH Member
Nov 30, 2007
14,952
Silver Spring, Maryland
Yahoo Sports reporting that Sandusky was working out at the Penn State gym last week.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sandusky_penn_state_presence_last_week110711
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Say what you will about McQueary -- his grand jury testimony cut against his self-interest, and consequently is highly credible. Further, we may safely presume that McQueary's father testified to what his son told him at the time, and that those prior statements were congruent with his son's testimony. This, presumably, is the basis for the grand jury's decision to indict Curley and Schultz. It is also the basis for many people's moral outrage at Paterno.

Those who would defend Paterno must begin by explaining why McQueary would lie.
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,839
Alberta
I have to offer a confession...when estimating the revenue of one major college football game, I did some bad math and had an extra zero in there...what I had seen as $100 Million was really only $10 Million. Then I spun that into "fraction of a billion". The better phrase would have been "Tens of Millions". The point still stands that it's a shitload of money, but not quite as enourmously massive a shitload of money as I migh thave implied at first.

WayBacks assertion that this stuff is so damn profitable that that losing one home date and compensating opponents for skipping two away games wouldn't come close to "crippling" Penn State could be true, but one would have to carefully review the numbers to say for sure. Those are the sort of numbers that can get spun and manipulated like crazy, depending on what's is being shown, and who is showing it.

Anyway, Mea Culpa on the "fractions of billions" thing. That was just incorrect.
 

berniecarbo1

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2008
1,518
Los Angeles, CA
I have to offer a confession...when estimating the revenue of one major college football game, I did some bad math and had an extra zero in there...what I had seen as $100 Million was really only $10 Million. Then I spun that into "fraction of a billion". The better phrase would have been "Tens of Millions". The point still stands that it's a shitload of money, but not quite as enourmously massive a shitload of money as I migh thave implied at first.

WayBacks assertion that this stuff is so damn profitable that that losing one home date and compensating opponents for skipping two away games wouldn't come close to "crippling" Penn State could be true, but one would have to carefully review the numbers to say for sure. Those are the sort of numbers that can get spun and manipulated like crazy, depending on what's is being shown, and who is showing it.

Anyway, Mea Culpa on the "fractions of billions" thing. That was just incorrect.

Understood Fred, but look, we all know this is all about the Benjamins. After the game they interviewed the acting university president and he was asked if PSU would beg off going to a bowl. He said No, if the team qualified for a bowl (which they already have) and were invited, they would accept a bowl bid. The logical extension of that is if they win their division (and even with the loss today they are still in the hunt) they would go to the Big 10 CG and if they won that, they would go to The Rose Bowl. Football stills rules State College. Do they have no shame at all? I can understand to a degree that they feel they have to play out the season. But that should be it. Amazing that they stiil don't get it.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Tom Bradley: "I felt today that just maybe the healing process started to begin."
https://twitter.com/petethamelnyt/status/135462789396434944

I know it's really easy to say the wrong thing in a situation like this, so I don't want to kill the guy here, he's in a tough spot and I'm sure is doing the best he can. But no...it's not the football team or fans that needs to be healed.

That's why, even though I didn't think the game had to be canceled, it's just a really weird and uncomfortable situation, there's no "triumph over adversity" narrative, and no feel-good theme.
 
May 11, 2009
425
Minnesota
http://www.maxpreps....ll-teaching.htm

October 2008 article about Sandusky, starting with a nugget about he and Bradley's working relationship and summarizing his post-PSU coaching career. Filled with quotes I'm sure people wish didn't exist on the internet anymore.

"You have to look at who he is, and what he stands for," said Williamsport head coach Tom Gravish, who has known Sandusky ever since his coaching days at East Juniata. "He stands for everything that is right in life. There's so much more to him than the game of football. I refer to him as Saint Jerry because I have so much respect for him. I'll never forget when we had a football festival when I was at EJ, and I asked him about helping us out. He never wavered. He said, 'Absolutely, I'm there.' He has so much energy and is always smiling."
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
18,143
pawtucket
http://www.maxpreps....ll-teaching.htm

October 2008 article about Sandusky, starting with a nugget about he and Bradley's working relationship and summarizing his post-PSU coaching career. Filled with quotes I'm sure people wish didn't exist on the internet anymore.
I bet the writer wishes his name were off that article. Or maybe he should just change his name and assume a new identity.
 

RG33

Potty Mouth
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
4,548
CA
Good for that guy. This was a very poignant comment from the writer:

Abuse flew at Matko from young and old, students and alumni, men and women. No one intervened. No one spoke out against the abuse. Over the course of an hour, a lone man stopped, read the sign and said, “I agree.” Those two words were swallowed by the profanity and threats by dozens of others during the hour."
 
May 11, 2009
425
Minnesota
Thanks for sharing. I feel dirty after reading that. What possesses a grown man to throw a sign to the ground that condemns child abuse? Does that idiot even realize how that must look? Unless he actually approves of child abuse?

Unreal. I drank the ESPN kool-aid for a few hours this morning enough to think that playing today was the right thing to do. This article just about undoes it for me.

Adding: To Lose Remerswaal's point, I would love to see just one ESPN talking head leave out "alleged" before the word "victim". I bet that person wouldn't be seen again for weeks, hopefully after they find a better job at Yahoo.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,469
http://www.maxpreps....ll-teaching.htm

October 2008 article about Sandusky, starting with a nugget about he and Bradley's working relationship and summarizing his post-PSU coaching career. Filled with quotes I'm sure people wish didn't exist on the internet anymore.
"I knew some kids from way back, and I took an interest in them." Sandusky said.
In addition, The Second Mile continues to succeed. It has nine programs that touch well over 100,000 kids in all counties of the state. It has three offices – in State College, Camp Hill and King of Prussia.
The game plan has been drawn up, and he has drilled the defense.

Passion.
 

Delicious Sponge

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
1,083
Boston
There's plenty of reason to be critical of ESPN, but they're right about this. They use the word alleged not because they don't believe it really happened, but because if they didn't it would basically give the defense a slam-dunk grounds for appeal.
No - they're doing that because to do otherwise is potentially slanderous in the event isn't convicted of anything. News organizations do this all the time. It doesn't make it any more pleasant to listen to, but there it is.
 

Kevin Jewkilis

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2006
1,241
Lafayette Sq., Cambridge
No - they're doing that because to do otherwise is potentially slanderous in the event isn't convicted of anything. News organizations do this all the time. It doesn't make it any more pleasant to listen to, but there it is.
Maybe in the UK, but in the US you need to prove malicious intent, and that's a hard standard to prove against a (purported) news organization.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,469
Maybe in the UK, but in the US you need to prove malicious intent, and that's a hard standard to prove against a (purported) news organization.
While this may be true surely you can understand why a conglomerate such as Disney wouldn't even want to go near that hornet's nest, can't you?
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
Maybe in the UK, but in the US you need to prove malicious intent, and that's a hard standard to prove against a (purported) news organization.
Doesn't matter. Until someone has been convicted, you go with "alleged." Frankly, I'd go with "Victims 1-8 allege that Sandusky ..." rather than refer to a person as an "alleged victim." It's just better writing and removes the "he said/he said" from the conversation.



 

J.McG

lurker
Aug 11, 2011
204
I don't think there's any doubt that he was aware of the 1998 incident. But he could have reasonably assumed that it was a one-off based on the DA's action. Then 2002 happened, and I think you have to evaluate his judgment and decision here by firstly trying to understand his perspective. Like I've explained before, if you do this, it could easily be Paterno passing on the responsibility because he felt that there were other people who were better placed to deal with it, in which case his mistake is of a more innocent nature, even if the consequences were tragic.
You've got to be kidding. "Innocent mistake"? Locking your keys in the car is an innocent mistake. Failing to properly address (at best) or even covering up (at worst... ?) child rape allegations is not an innocent mistake.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it helps your cause to support it with sound reasoning. This weak inductive logic does not qualify:

- Most authority figures do the right thing.
- Authority figures aren't supposed to do the wrong thing.
- Joe Paterno, the DA, et al. are authority authority figures.
- Joe Paterno, the DA, et al. did the right thing.

Not only does it not hold water, it's laughably naive.

EDIT: grammar
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,678
Peabody, MA
I don't think there's any doubt that he was aware of the 1998 incident. But he could have reasonably assumed that it was a one-off based on the DA's action. Then 2002 happened, and I think you have to evaluate his judgment and decision here by firstly trying to understand his perspective. Like I've explained before, if you do this, it could easily be Paterno passing on the responsibility because he felt that there were other people who were better placed to deal with it, in which case his mistake is of a more innocent nature, even if the consequences were tragic.
You know, if I were in Joe Pa's shoes, and I heard about a child being raped, I think that logic is right. I would pass on the responsibility to other people who were better placed to deal with it.

Like the fucking police. Not another civilian whose image would be tarnished by this information coming out.

Seriously, what sort of mental gymnastics do people have to do, both themselves, and the people defending them, to believe that not informing the police that a child was molested when you knew is anything other than reprehensible or despicable.

Ask yourself this, if Sandusky killed a man in that shower and Joe Pa knew, would you be defending it? If Sandusky burnt down the science building, would you think it's okay to just go to his supervisor and never address the issue with the authorities?