<h1>4406 rcefn: while every crime involving a PSU student athlete might not make national headlines, they are all reported and reported ON locally/statewide. Every little thing they do is covered. I would agree that student athletes --especially high profile ones in high profile programs --tend to get all sorts of special treatment but that doesn’t mean there’s a sinister coverup, and that certainly isn’t specific to Penn State. This forum might feel the inequity more personally and intensely since our students, generally speaking, are talented in other areas. That inequity is a social issue across the country and not likely to be solved here.</h1>
<p>There will never be an adequate answer about McQueary’s actions. Certainly if you call to inquire about a complaint of child abuse being investigated or closed, you aren’t going to be given answers, nor should you. And if he had left PSU for somewhere else, now he’d be vilified for running away. He made a mistake then (in not physically intervening) but has done the right thing now (his testimony will help send Sandusky to jail). I admire his courage to do that, knowing how much it will cost him. That doesn’t diminish my compassion for the victims or what they’ve been through.</p>
<p>“Everyone fulfilled their minimum legal obligations.”</p>
<p>I disagree. If this were true, at some point Sandusky would have been investigated by Child Protective Services or by the police. That did not happen. There was failure to fulfill minimum legal obligation at PSU police level when it was sat on and not fully investigated as required by state law. I don’t think the intent of the law is to report and then forget about it. It is to be investigated.</p>
<p>Who cares what his actions were? Sandusky is the scum of the earth and Penn State is tarnished forever. This article by the Orlando Sentinel’s Mike Bianchi says it all:</p>
<p>“On this fathers day, the most important story in sports is about a man and a football program that are the antithesis of what this day represents. Jerry Sandusky and PSU not only failed to protect hopeless, helpless children, Sandusky stands accused of sexually abusing them
and Penn State of shamefully turning a blind eye to it.”</p>
<p>“One after another, the alleged victims took the witness stand in recent days and tragically provided the sad, searing, grim, grotesque testimony of how Sandusky raped them - anally, orally, spiritually and psychologically.”</p>
<p>“If you haven’t already lost all respect for Penn State, its administration and its iconic former coach Joe Paterno, I suggest you read the gut-wrenching, stomach-turning accounts of what Sandusky allegedly did to these young boys.”</p>
<p>“The saddest part of all is that this could have been stopped long ago if Paterno and Penn State had done something when they first learned Sandusky might be abusing boys. Paterno of course did nothing except tell his AD, who then proceeded to also do nothing. What we have now is the most disgusting, despicable scandal in the history of college athletics.”</p>
<p>“On this day, Sandusky stands accused of raping young boys, while Paterno and his superiors are all accomplices. A big-time football program is on trial today for protecting its brand rather than protecting a bunch of lost boys. A day when Penn State should hang its head in shame.”</p>
<p>I know that around here there was a culture of cover-up of football player misdeeds for a number of years; perhaps Penn State was the same. Still, as soon as you identify that it is a kid something in your brain should trigger a need to intervene, either directly or via 911, right then and there. This isn’t a case of wondering if the bruises you saw on a child really reflect abuse – there’s simply no way this kind of assault is EVER ok. It isn’t situational; not even close. I think that is why I have such a tough time with McQueary’s testimony. I don’t doubt the accuracy of it – I just don’t understand how he looks himself in the mirror. I’d give him a pass if he’d been a kid or young teen, or even a young player on the PSU team, but a grown man in his late 20s? And then his dad compounds the crime by telling him to wait and tell it to Paterno.</p>
<p>“Minimum legal obligation” in no way equates to the moral obligation McQueary had. I may not have a legal obligation to call 911 if I see a kid nabbed off the street, but that in no way lessens my moral obligation to report it right away. </p>
<p>Anyone remember Phil Ochs and “Outside of a small circle of friends”?</p>
<p>I agree that he was stunned, and most of us have never faced just this kind of situation. I hope that I’d immediately report to outside authorities, but I don’t know that for sure. I don’t judge him for his immediate reaction, or even the fact that he wanted to talk to his father before he proceeded.</p>
<p>I DO judge him for the fact that after he fulfilled his legal obligation, he washed his hands of the matter. Any day during the ensuing 9 years until Sandusky’s arrest, McQueary could have done something, and chose to do nothing at all. Nine years was a long enough time to examine his conscience, talk to clergy, consult an attorney – and blow the whistle on a monster. Any time during those 9 years, he could have picked up the phone and called CPS, the PA Attorney General, the FBI. He could even have called ESPN; media attention might have shamed some agency or other into doing a credible investigation and ending Jerry’s reign of terror. McQueary did none of that and as a result, uncounted children suffered.</p>
<p>I agree, he should have done more. But one thing I applaud him for, is coming forward now. He didn’t have to. He could have easily stuck with the others, said it could have been merely horseplay, whitewashed his whole story. He’s the only PSU player putting himself on the line here. He opened himself up to threats, he challenged the others’ stories, he’s firmly stating his facts and not backing down. It may be 9 years too late, but it would have been so much easier for a lesser man to never come forward, at this point.</p>
<p>goingmyway, McQueary actually DID have to “come forward.” He was subpoenaed by a grand jury about an incident that had occurred many years earlier, and he testified under oath in a criminal trial. To his credit, he appears to have told the truth on both occasions, probably costing himself a promising career at PSU (but also keeping himself out of legal hot water). And yes, he did originally go to his supervisor after the incident, as required by law. Nonetheless, his two court appearances and the original report to his boss were all compelled, not voluntary. There is no evidence that he has ever done anything in this matter beyond what he was legally required to do.</p>
<p>I don’t suppose it matters, but I don’t follow how his original report to his boss was compelled, other than by the fact that he had disclosed it to his father and his friend.</p>
<p>Curley said McQueary told him the people in the shower “were horsing around, that they were being playful and it just didn’t feel appropriate.” A few minutes later, he added, “My recollection was that they were kind of wrestling, there was body contact and they were horsing around.”
Curley testified that he spoke with Sandusky after first talking with McQueary. Initially, he said, Sandusky denied being in the team’s facilities that night, but acknowledged a couple of days later that he had been there. Curley was not asked for a more detailed description of what Sandusky told him.
Those two conversations between Curley and Sandusky – which occurred years before Curley’s testimony before the grand jury – leave open the possibility that Sandusky offered the term “horsing around” as his explanation, as he did after his arrest. Curley, in turn, might have then introduced the term to the grand jury.
And that scenario raises an intriguing question: Was the defendant himself, Jerry Sandusky, an unseen party on the Telephone line?</p>
<p>I still maintain that even if McQueary was vague, due to embarassment, it would still behoove senior leadership to ask the tough questions, “exactly what did you see, what did you think was happening?”</p>
<p>What McQueary said to JoePa was not vague - he not only told him it was sexual, but 'made sure that he knew it was sexual". </p>
<p>As I understand it, Sandusky, with JoePa’s knowledge, used the facilities for a year after, and (again with JoePa’s knowledge) took young children to other campuses for years aftherwards.</p>
<p>Please explain why McQ would be less explicit with Curley and Schultz than he was w/ Paterno? Why would he tell Paterno what he witnessed was sexual and tell C & S it was horseplay? Or did C & S come up w/ the term horseplay?</p>
<p>the article I posted from indicated that Curley may have gotten the term horseplay from…Sandusky. I certainly don’t believe McQueary was vague. I believe he conveyed it was disturbing and sexual in nature. I think it’s sickening that Curley used the same word to minimize that Sandusky did.</p>
<p>“Please explain why McQ would be less explicit with Curley and Schultz than he was w/ Paterno? Why would he tell Paterno what he witnessed was “sexual” and tell C & S it was “horseplay”? Or did C & S come up w/ the term horseplay?”</p>
<p>This tragedy is identical to the sexual abuse mess within the Catholic Church. Those in charge turned a blind eye in order to maintain the perceived reputation of the organization. Those being abused were not of any concern to those in charge. The only difference that I can see is the church sent their pedophiles from one congregation to another once whispers began to spread within a community while Penn State allowed their pedophile to stay under their roof and within their protective bubble.</p>