<br>
<br>
<p>But cpt, this occurred in 2001 when Paterno was in better health and while his health in 2011 could be called into question, he was with full faculties then, though you’re right, we don’t exactly what McQueary said…</p>
<p>“though you’re right, we don’t know exactly what McQ said…” is what I was saying and you seem to be refuting that and then coming right back to agreeing???</p>
<p>There is some question as to what Paterno’s mental acuity was even earlier than 2011, as Mini has brought up. What Paterno said was told to him by McQ was quoted last year, not in 2001. There is agreement between McQ testimony and what Paterno stated last year, that McQ did not say a rape was taking place. Did he say “it looked sexual, to him”? Did he actually say “it looked sexual” , “was sexual” or wasn’t appropriate? </p>
<p>Paterno acknowledged he did not do enough. If someone reported that an adult was taking a shower with a kid, both or either nude, that is cause for alarm bells, IMO. There had better be danged good reason, and one of emergency measures and the parents and others had better have been told. So Paterno took it right to the top, in terms of the PSU police. Didn’t just tell McQ to call, or just give him the number. He then left it up to the guy in charge of the PSU police, and he did take measures to keep Sandusky and his kids programs off of his property, but to totally cut him out without some due process is not right either. Paterno did not see what happened, nor was he given the full description. What is at issue here is how expicit and complete McQ was in reporting this. It appalls me that the child and Sandusky did not get hauled into the station and get thoroughly questioned, or did this happen? I am not sure how all of this even went to Grand Jury in the first place.</p>
<p>^^^ I think the mother of the high school boy, frustrated by inadequate response at the school, drove straight to child protective services. CPS deemed the accusation credible and turned it over for investigation. The ensuing investigation turned up McQ and those “noises” about Sandusky that Spanier (?) referred to when talking to McQ’s father. It was the high school boy and mom who started investigators on the road that ultimately led to the grand jury indictment.</p>
<p>"Did he say “it looked sexual, to him”? Did he actually say “it looked sexual” , “was sexual” or wasn’t appropriate? "</p>
<p>No, he said was that he made sure the Paterno KNEW it was sexual, and was wrong. That’s what he said.</p>
<p>Ten years later, a dying man with dementia tries to justify himself. (Wouldn’t we all.)</p>
<p>After the emails between Vicky Triponey came out, detailing the extremes that Paterno went to in insuring that any and all allegations of improper conduct by either Penn State football players or coaches be kept completely confidential and hidden from the authorities, it’s easy to understand how Sandusky was able to do what he did. Paterno demanded that she be fired when she asked him to encourage his players to tell the truth–he told his players that if they went to the authorities to report crimes, he would kick them off the team–it is no wonder that every single person associated with the football program feared for their job if they reported a crime–Joe got them their jobs and he threatened to take them away–he said that anyone who reported wrongdoings could not be trusted and therefore, could not be associated with the team any longer. This atmosphere of silence and fear had been going on for years at PSU–long before the Sandusky crimes were made public–and I feel that it was the main reason why these crimes were allowed to occur over and over again.</p>
<p>thank you mini.<br>
great post rcefn.</p>
<p>please. do any of you seriously think that PSU administration were truly confused about what happened? At minimum they knew that yet again Sandusky was in the shower naked making physical contact with a little boy. and that his front was touching the child’s rear. Can anyone here say that’s not sexual. talk about denial.</p>
<p>If Spanier said it’s humane to not report to law enforcement to me this indicates there was something to report but he wanted to be humane. Why would he say it’s humane not to report? If there was no criminal behavior, there would be no reason at all to consider reporting to law enforcement.</p>
<p>Cpt, I wasn’t refuting and we’re both on the same page here. I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to the 2001 incident or the 2011 interview. What happened probably happens in many other institutions with " an old boy network" where things get the wink and a nod or a blind eye turned to crimes or misdeeds. Take, as I said before the company town in an isolated area and people in authority who shirked their responsibility ( maybe it was legal but it wasn’t moral) and allowed children to be victimized.
I’m still amazed that Sandusky got bail.
Yes it is only supposed to be given to assure that someone shows up for court but I can’t think of any other high profile case like this where the defendant wasn’t remanded…
At PSU, it was football uber alles and “don’t damage the brand” or do/say anything that might hamper recruiting. It. is sickening and I write that as a hugh football fan, though not a fan of PSU, even before the incidents…</p>
<p>I think Paterno knew as far back as 1998, and perhaps earlier. As for the rest of the administration, since they didn’t have day-to-day contact with Sandusky, it’s hard to know. But Paterno saw Sandusky virtually every day for 30 years. He saw him with young boys in his custody for much of that time. He essentially fired him in 1999 despite Sandusky having a sterling sports record. No one else would hire Sandusky, and everyone who sought to hire him would have contacted Paterno first.</p>
<p>Let’s remember that when it comes to coverups, Paterno had a track record:
<a href=“http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students[/url]”>http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students</a>
Students -football players - went to their graduation in bulletproof vests, and Paterno simply stood by.</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about the threats to the AA students to make any comment. </p>
<p>Clearly, Paterno put the quash on Sandusky’s career. How much he could honestly say, is up in the air. What he believed Sandusky was actually doing to kids is not clear, IMO, either. There is a huge difference between thinking someone is inappropriate about personal boundaries and rape. Where any of these university officials are in what they though S was doing, is the question. and if what they knew or can be proven that they knew was something required to be reported to the police or to CHild Protection. THat will come down to the memos that are retrieved and Mc Q’s testimony.</p>
<p>The grand jury upon hearing the case did choose not to recommend indicting Paterno but went after the 2 PSU officials. Ironic that P was the one fired.</p>
<p>I would like to hear or read a straight out explanation from those PSU officials on what they thought about Sandusky’s dealings and what they heard. I know that the word is that they did not hear anything they felt was reliable and criminal that required reporting. What did they hear, know and what would it have taken to make the report? </p>
<p>This really boggles my mind, coming on the heels and midsts of the priest scandals.</p>
<p>^^ actually, to me it boggles the mind a lot less knowing that many of those involved likely grew up in that environment as well.</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between thinking someone is inappropriate about personal boundaries and rape.</p>
<p>yes, there is. however it is quite clear that whatever Sandusky did went way over being inappropriate about personal boundaries. you mentioned it is hard for you to even imagine this, that is very obvious.</p>
<ol>
<li> The grand jury almost certainly declined to indict Paterno because (a) he reported McQueary’s allegation to Curley, who said he would handle it, and (b) McQueary admitted that he was not explicit with Paterno. So there wasn’t much of a case for lying to the grand jury, as there was with Schultz and Curley, and at most a weak, hyper-technical case for failing to report. And doubtless the prosecutors would have preferred that Paterno be neutral or friendly to them in connection with prosecuting the others.</li>
</ol>
<p>That doesn’t have anything to do with whether the PSU Board had reason to fire Paterno.</p>
<p>Also, Curley and Schultz, and McQueary, for that matter, were fired as well. McQueary not by the Board, but by the new coach, and by the fact that he clearly was no longer in a position to be an effective coach at PSU, whatever the merits of his actions.</p>
<ol>
<li> Notice the pattern here at every step, by practically every person – When they have doubts (or worse) about Sandusky, they take steps to dissociate themselves personally from him, and maybe to keep him away from their institution. But not to stop him. Every one of them knew Sandusky was dealing with young boys every day of every week, and no one felt he owed those boys anything, as long as whatever was happening to them happened off Penn State property. McQueary wouldn’t stay in the same room with Sandusky, apparently, and wouldn’t play in his golf tournament anymore, but he didn’t do a thing to keep Sandusky away from young boys.</li>
</ol>
<p>Whether or not they had a legal duty to do more than they did is part of the technical landscape of the charges. But from a moral standpoint, how could anyone possibly justify standing by while Sandusky devoted himself to nurturing pre-teen and young teenaged boys? “I knew he was a molester, but I was OK with it as long as it didn’t happen in front of me, or in my house.” How can that possibly be OK for a moral person?</p>
<ol>
<li> If we want to burn someone in effigy, how about the general counsel of Second Mile? He was the Penn State general counsel at the time of the 1998 investigation, and was involved with that, so he knew a lot. And he left to go work for Sandusky for more money. And helped Sandusky run the organization he used as his recruiting network. He was probably protected from testifying before the grand jury – and thus from lying to the grand jury – by attorney-client privilege issues. And he couldn’t have ratted out Sandusky for the same reasons. But he could have done a lot at the Second Mile, and it looks like he did nothing at all. What’s more, he could never have accepted a dime from the Second Mile, not crossed its threshold or shaken Jerry Sandusky’s hand. But he did.</li>
</ol>
<p>There’s a bad guy for you.</p>
<p>The primary reason that I have a lot of interest in the case is regarding the legal rights staying in place in the most shocking type of a case where the accused is someone that popular opinion would be to “let him hang” without a trial. </p>
<p>However, as I have clearly stated a number of times, what I truly cannot get is whether these people did not know that he was raping children. Not that they thought he was too touchy, that he violated personal boundaries, that he was inappropriate, but that he was raping children. That shakes me to the core. Are we really that afraid of things that we would not step up if we saw a child get raped or took a report that a rape was witnessed? </p>
<p>How could Sandusky’s wife and kids not know of his proclivities and activities? How about that foundation? No one would have a strong word with him and implement safeguards for the kids? What would YOU do? </p>
<p>I’ve had to intervene a number of times on what I truly felt and knew was harmless behavior but because it could look bad or could turn into something bad. I just don’t understand what happened here.</p>
<p>“McQueary admitted that he was not explicit with Paterno.”</p>
<p>He admitted no such thing. He said he not only told Paterno that Sandusky was having sex with the boy, “he made sure he knew it was sexual, and it was wrong.” All that was left to the imagination were the handles and the orifices.</p>
<p>“Sexual” and “wrong” is explicit enough. Who would think something “sexual” and “wrong” was not child abuse? There was an obligation by those in authority not to sweep it under the rug.</p>
<p>If I may, the discussion of Paterno misses, IMHO, the point: he has a legacy, it’s tarnished but he still has that legacy. He’s dead. He can’t be tried in court. He did a lot of good things. He did at least this one important thing wrong and, it appears, his non-action may have influenced others not to act. That’s bad but it doesn’t mean everything else he did was bad. People have mixed legacies. If we whitewas people into saints or condemn them in the entirety, we miss the point. Some people are genuinely awful. Some are hideous. This is not that. </p>
<p>The constant excuses for Paterno drive others to argue and that pushes the argument in circles. People need to accept he wasn’t a plaster saint.</p>
<p>As for the others, the courts will try some of them. As for Sandusky, his guilt is now obvious. His lawyers tried to avoid having this case heard. We can now see why: he comes off as a true monster. That kind of monster always excuses his actions. They never see their wrongs. They can’t admit it. They can’t see it. We have to accept that. Sandusky will go to his grave asserting his love for children and all that junk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is obvious the PSU football moneymaking machine was the reason these otherwise intelligent men turned a blind eye. They may have justified it by saying why should the actions of one man bring down a great football program along with the millions of dollars a year it generates for the school. So keep it under wraps, kick Sandusky off the team, and the money keeps rolling in. I guess they figured the boys were collateral damage for the good of the whole.</p>
<p>And the ironic thing is, had they come clean from day 1, it most likely would have turned out OK for the football program.</p>
<p>So when do the emails between the admins get released or used in court?</p>
<p>Admin emails are part of the Curley/Schultz perjury case, and that won’t begin for quite a while. The appeal to dismiss the charges based on statute of limitations and/or Paterno’s death (because his statements about what he was, and was not, told were key to the perjury charge) is still pending. There is also still a grand jury investigation that may, or may not, bring further charges against other admins. The presumption is that Spanier is part of that investigation, which is why he sued for the emails (to prepare a defense against them). </p>
<p>Current president Ericson gave a great answer in a local interview about where PSU has to go now. He said that the university needs to find out what they did wrong, no matter how difficult those answers will be, and that as a community it will need to balance “humility and pride” in the future.</p>
<p>“And the ironic thing is, had they come clean from day 1, it most likely would have turned out OK for the football program.”</p>
<p>This is what I don’t understand. How could they have imagined that this would protect PSU? I work with legal counsel in a large corporate setting dealing with workplace behavioral issues, and their concern is always mitigation of risk to the company. And they often state how critical it is to follow the organization’s own policies and guidelines and to often do more. It appears the insular environment coupled with awful arrogance that they could get away with this truly clouded their thinking. These were intelligent educated leaders. Is their legal counsel truly untouchable?</p>