<p>The March article has been mentioned a few times. It’s a good question as to why the media did not shed light on the story last spring and I found it interesting that when the story first broke widely, an anchor from ESPN asked a professor of communications at PSU, an expert on media, why the media (I assume ESPN included) virtually ignored it. He said, and I paraphrase, most likely because of the exemplary reputation of PSU football.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, even the media’s reaction was to bury it.</p>
<p>goingmyway –
don’t you think if Second Mile heard at least <em>whispers</em> about Sandusky they never should have allowed him to have contact with the children.
If Curley is to be believed he testified that he informed them in 2002 - yet Sandusky continued contact?
In any case, this orgainization should have implemented proper safeguards esp in the wake of abuse cases with the Catholic church and Boy Scouts.
The boys who were being abused - so far - were all in the care of Second Mile. They were ultimately responsible for their safety.</p>
<p>Did second mile have any kind of training program or protocol for those working with their youth? you would think they would, as these are at risk kids with issues. And if they were unaware of the gifts, slumber parties, etc., it seems they had a very lax program</p>
<p>ttparent- here is one statement I saw-“Paterno’s son, Scott, has said that lawyers for Penn State assured him his father was never told about the 1998 report – investigated by university police.”</p>
<p>There were others I had seen where they say Paterno said he was unaware of the 1998 incident. You can google and find them.</p>
<p>Nor was there a reason for Curley and Schultz to lie to the grand jury “for” Sandusky, but no one thinks they did that. The assumption is that if they lied to the grand jury, it was in a misguided effort to protect themselves and Penn State. These guys didn’t give a rip about Sandusky except to the extent he could prove an embarrassment to Penn State. That could motivate a cover-up. My guess is that Paterno didn’t go out of his way to cover up, exactly. I suspect he, with help from other top PSU officials, got Sandusky to resign shortly after the 1998 incident, assuming that if Sandusky just went away quietly and the 1998 investigation was quietly dropped as part of what circumstantially looks like a negotiated settlement between PSU and Sandusky, then whatever Sandusky subsequently did as a private citizen no longer affiliated with Penn State football couldn’t hurt PSU and Paterno’s football program. They didn’t stop to think about all the kids who would continue to be hurt. And they didn’t push Sandusky far enough away, letting him keep keys to the football facilities and an office on campus, and let him continue to bring young boys around. Had they severed all ties with him in 1998, he no doubt would have continued his predatory ways somewhere else, but Penn State wouldn’t have been implicated. Because it’s so clear in retrospect that Schultz and others at PSU knew about the 1998 incident which also apparently took place in a shower at the Penn State football facility, the PSU officials, and by implication the university itself, look like both fools and moral monsters for allowing a known child molester to continue to use the Penn State athletic facilities, and to bring young boys around there after hours. That could easily be enough to motivate Schultz and Curley to make efforts to cover up the 2002 incident, as well as their later denials that the key officials involved knew anything about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All true, but the difference here is that Paterno was Sandusky’s boss in 1998, his direct supervisor and the head coach in charge of the entire football program. Sandusky was effectively Paterno’s #2. I find it utterly incredible that if someone in Sandusky’s position was investigated by the campus police, the university VP in charge of security, and the DA, especially on something as potentially explosive for the football program as a child molestation charge, Joe Pa was kept completely out of the loop. That’s just inconsistent with everything we know about how he ran that football program, and how important, powerful, controlling, and domineering a person he was within the university and in the larger Happy Valley community. Heck, they’d have been scared to death NOT to tell him.</p>
<p>I think the likeliest thing is that Paterno knew about the 1998 incident, Schultz knew (which he admits), the AD knew, and the president knew. And they knew the bad publicity could be devastating to Penn State and its football program if word got out that the #2 in charge in the football program was a child molester. So they pushed Sandusky out the door very shortly after the 1998 incident, and Paterno seems to have carefully kept his distance from Sandusky from that point forward. But part of the price for Sandusky’s leaving quietly was their silence—which they probably judged to be in the best interest of Penn State and Penn State football anyway. But they apparently were willing to sacrifice a bunch of young kids as Sandusky’s victims in order to protect Penn State’s name. That’s the only way I can connect all the dots here. It’s speculation, of course, but no other explanation makes sense of the facts as we know them. More will come out at Schultz’s and Curley’s trials. They can’t maintain a cover-up forever, and it’s already falling apart on them. For one thing, JoePa apparently told the grand jury that McQueary had told him that “something of a sexual nature” had taken place between Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State locker room in 2002, and that he discussed the incident with Schultz and Curley. That seems to pretty squarely contradict their grand jury testimony that they had no knowledge that the incident was sexual or that a crime had been committed. And once Schultz and/or Curley realize their goose is cooked on the perjury charges, they might become a little more cooperative in revealing who knew what, and when, in hopes their cooperation might lead to a reduced charge or a lighter sentence.</p>
<p>“Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky were not ever <em>friends</em>. Not now, not 20 years ago.
Joe Paterno testified to the GJ that he had no recollection of rumors concerning Sandusky being discussed in his presence. There was and is no reason for Joe Paterno to ever <em>cover up</em> for Sandusky.”</p>
<p>Over that 20+ year span, Joe Paterno spent more time with Jerry Sandusky during waking hours than with his own wife! (and vice versa.) Every single day during the season, sometimes night hours too watching tape; recruiting trips, etc., etc., Paterno would have seen Sandusky is the company of dozens (if not hundreds) of young boys. Some people are not “friends” with their wives or husbands, but spend an awful lot of time around them.</p>
<p>There may very well have been a reason (actually I can think of several) for JoePa to cover up for Jerry. We haven’t discussed them here, and I don’t want to speculate here either. </p>
<p>The dementia explanation works pretty well too. And maybe JoePa was always just dumb as a brick.</p>
<p>I think we have been through this before. Please reread Paterno son statement for yourself. How could such a statement be equivalent to Paterno denying that he knew nothing about 1998 incident? First it says nothing about Paterno’s knowledge, and second it is a hearsay from Scott that stating another supposedly unknown Penn State lawyers that they never informed him about a report. That is as vague as it can be. If Schultz or Curley or anyone else besides the lawyers talked to Paterno about the incident, then that statement is still perfectly true and correct. I have googled and there are no other official statements or quotes from Paterno about such a claim. Feel free to prove me otherwise by pointing me to a link.</p>
<p>Oh, well that settles that. Lawyers for Penn State say it, therefore it must be true.</p>
<p>Wait–Joe’s son is saying that he knows his father never knew about the 1998 report because “lawyers for Penn State assured him of it?” Ummm, what does his DAD tell him about it?!</p>
<p>I manage crisis management in a corporate workplace. We communicate as a team and always handle issues openly and with thought. In my view there had to be some discussion amongst the players as to how they would handle this mess. I agree with bclintonk’s analysis as a likely scenario of what occurred. There’s no way they were simply unaware, or didn’t consider how bad the press would be for PSU if it got out. Frankly I think it was their arrogance that let them believe they could get away with this approach. Very sad that the young boys may have been considered collateral damage.</p>
<p>As said before, what you are leaving out here is the pervert was being investigated. Doesn’t it seem highly unlikely no one would ever question the wife if her husband were being investigated for sexually abusing children?</p>
<p>As far as what the Second Mile should have done, yes, I think they also dropped the ball here. Unfortunately it’s not a crime, yet, to not report child abuse in Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>Also, again, it’s not so much that Paterno was covering up for Sandusky, than he was covering up for his football program. I don’t doubt he was absolutely sickened by the guy. Maybe he did do as much as he could. Maybe it was Curley and Schultz and Spanier telling him they would handle it. Maybe he felt that since in 1998 the law officials buried it, they would just do so again. </p>
<p>At least Paterno has admitted that McQueary had told him told something sexual was going on in the shower. Unlike the other two.</p>
<p>I never said he did not know. I said he claims he did not know. Schultz is now the first person to claim he knew and that information just came out.</p>
<p>It must be a crime for anyone involved with children to NOT report suspected abuse. Child care workers, teachers, etc. are mandated reporters. I’m sure that Second Mile fits into that category. I also wonder if they conduct routine CORI checks on all employees. I need one done every two years in my job. Although, unless he was actually arrested in 1998, nothing would show up, anyway.</p>
<p>"I never said he did not know. I said he claims he did not know. Schultz is now the first person to claim he knew and that information just came out. "</p>
<p>Still not correct. Paterno never claims he did not know, try parsing that statement from his son again. I don’t know how you can say that for sure.</p>
<p>little nervous saying this, but am I the only one that found it suspicious that Paterno became ill immediately after this all broke. Of course I realize his age, and it is very possible to simply be what it is, but it made me wonder.</p>
<p>One thought about the 1998 incident. I agree that bclintonk’s analysis is a sensible way to connect the dots. But a slightly more benign interpretation along the same lines was that the investigators concluded that there wasn’t enough proof of any crime to prosecute Sandusky at that time, or even to go public with accusations. But there was still enough to make the decision to get rid of him. Clearly, they didn’t get rid of him enough–why they didn’t is mysterious to me. Perhaps he threatened to drag it all out in the open to defend his good name?</p>
<p>myturn…it does seem odd. I am not a Paterna fan at all, but even though odd, it is kind of hard to fake or even exaggerate cancer and cancer treatments. My guess is that he has been ill for some time, and delayed his treatment and announcement of his illness for football season.</p>
<p>Just anecdotal, but when I was working in a cardiac unit, I thought it was very interesting how many patients we had in the unit with heart attacks very soon after retiring.</p>
Hunt, I agree and that is why the actions or lack of action by Schultz and Curley are so disturbing. Schultz says he was aware of the 1998 showering incident and the investigation that followed. The DA did not indict Sandusky but there was enough evidence and concern for an investigation. Had Schultz reported what McQ observed - Sandusky could have been stopped in 2002.</p>