<p>OK, it’s pre-trial testimony. Is that insufficient to determine that Paterno knew?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to agree with that. The only way anyone can not agree with that is to say we don’t know for sure if Paterno knew. Which is why, I think, there’s such a drive to discredit McQueary and say we can’t know for sure what was said.</p>
<p>This is just going around and around, but I think many people in an organization who received a report like this would probably first make a call to somebody else in the organization who would be able to tell them what to do. For example, a pastor who received a report like this might well call the bishop or district superintendant’s office for directions on what to do next. A scoutmaster might call the local council. A mid-level manager in a company might call the HR department, or the counsel. This is because even if they’ve received training, it’s human nature to go to an authority figure in a situation like this to find out what you’re really supposed to do. As long as they do so promptly, I don’t really fault somebody for doing this.</p>
<p>Is this what McQ and Paterno did? Did they do it promptly enough? That’s where it gets murky, to me. It’s clear enough that none of them, including McQ and Paterno, did enough to report this and follow it up, but what did they really think they were doing? I’m not persuaded that the facts available show that they were trying to cover it up–a possible alternate explanation is that they were each willing to pass the buck to somebody else to handle. And, of course, nobody handled it. I think that different actions (and motivations) have different levels of culpability, a position that seems unfashionable in this particular discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, I agree with. But when they saw nobody handling it, SOMEONE should have done something. And every one of them who didn’t, and saw Sandusky with young boys, should be so terribly ashamed of themselves.</p>
<p>“the fact that McQueary’s father, a physician, and a family friend, also a physician did not insist it immediately be reported to CPS indicates they were all not following what a reasonable person would do in the same situation”</p>
<p>Paterno was protecting PSU football and McQ’s father was protecting his son’s career. McQ felt he had to do something, so he did, but he wasn’t willing to possibly throw it all away by doing more. I still feel sorry for McQ. He did report, at least. He has Sandusky to thank for ruining his career. That is minor compared to Sandusky’s victim’s fates. The damage Sandusky has done to so many individuals, as well as the institution!</p>
<p>I still maintain that a report of child sexual abuse from a credible witness like McQueary needed to be acted on immediately. why wasn’t anyone worried about what was happening to this child who knew someone saw and STILL nothing was done to stop Sandusky. </p>
<p>Hunt you make sense about reporting to an authority, but McQueary wasn’t reporting theft or another crime that had no direct victim. that’s why I believe they all were wrong to not make an immediate report so that someone could intervene immediately to help this child. We have focused on the reporting of Sandusky for legal purposes but how bout to actually save this kid from future abuse? why didn’t they care about that? </p>
<p>whatever happened to that victim?</p>
<p>Everything went to Paterno. That’s how he ran it.</p>
<p>Of course, it should have been reported immediately to Child Protective Services, but that’s not how Paterno ran the football program. If McQ had reported it to CPS his job would have been on the line, if not fired, just not promoted up.</p>
<p>but if he was fired, or not promoted for reporting to CPS then he could have fought that, and probably would have won…</p>
<p>That’s the thing; it was not worth taking the chance to him. He decided to trust Paterno instead. That way, his conscience could be put to some ease and he would not be risking his job.</p>
<p>Plus, if you are not promoted or groomed how can you know why or why not? There would be nothing to prove. You would never really know why, but you could guess.</p>
<p>I do think it’s worth remembering that if McQ had been entirely selfish, the best thing for him to do would have been to say nothing to anybody. At least he didn’t do that.</p>
<p>seems there may be another young man in Matt Sandusky’s position…</p>
<p>a young man who called Sandusky a “father figure” and a wholly positive influence on his life—may have reached out just days earlier out to a victims’ support group, using language that would suggest he may be a survivor of abuse himself. In an extraordinary behind-the-scenes meeting in the presence of the trial judge, the witness was apparently confronted [Exclusive:</a> The Untold Drama of the Jerry Sandusky Trial - The Daily Beast](<a href=“http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/26/exclusive-the-untold-drama-of-the-jerry-sandusky-trial]Exclusive:”>Exclusive: The Untold Drama of the Jerry Sandusky Trial).</p>
<p>The private message was sent only to Bodenschatz, the Facebook page’s administrator, but was directed at the eight young men who had testified for the prosecution:</p>
<p>“Thank you to the victims to come forward (sic), I am very proud of you. You are the voice for some of us who have been so badly damaged. And stay strong not to let our violators win. Stay STRONG. You have my support!”</p>
<p>htmlabout what appeared to be his confession, but the message was ultimately never presented as evidence.</p>
<p>^^That’s why I feel sorry for him. He did report it. But, doing more would put him in a difficult position.</p>
<p>'I’m not persuaded that the facts available show that they were trying to cover it up–a possible alternate explanation is that they were each willing to pass the buck to somebody else to handle. And, of course, nobody handled it."</p>
<p>But let’s remember that JoePa had almost TEN YEARS to say something (assuming he didn’t know in 1998, or even before). Instead, during that time, he allowed his closest associate (Sandusky) to use the facility, worked on major business dealings with Sandusky’s friends and associates, supported Second Mile which provided his closest associate with opportunity to abuse and molest more children, saw his closest associate in continued contact with young boys. And, yet, during this period, he continued to employ McQueary.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Okay, that’s much better. Not nearly so football-obsessive as it first sounded when the only image mentioned was Sandusky’s.</p>
<p>Again, we’re rehashing, but what did Schultz, et al., tell Paterno after he passed the buck to them? Has that been brought out?</p>
<p>We need to define cover up a bit…</p>
<p>It can mean purposlely faking documents, hiding paperwork, lying, creating phony logs</p>
<p>Then there is the we will do something and then not doing mich of anything when it is clearly your moral and ethical duty, and probably legal responsibility.</p>
<p>When evidence and people words point you in direction and you purposely look the other way, when you hear that what at the very least was extremely inappropriate physical contact on your campus, in your locker room, and you basically do the minimum to protect yourself and your program, that is a cover up. </p>
<p>To cover up does not mean you need to proactively do something big, it can mean you shuffle people around, you down play the truth, you don’t follow thru and you make it clear to those around you that you want it to go away with the least amount of fuss.</p>
<p>Most cover ups are in this vein,</p>
<p>I don’t know one person who would think described behavior by Sandusky in the shower, even without the words anal, rape, who would think it was normal, or right or explainable, or horseplay, or in anyway would not report child protective services. Period. </p>
<p>Mcqweary should have followed up. Each one of those males should have said, well if you re going to do nothing, then I am going outside of the castle.</p>
<p>In 2001 Paterno was 74 years old. McQueary came to Paternos house and talked to him for 10 minutes. Paterno heard enough that he knew it had to be reported ito Curley and Schultz. Paterno has since stated he didn’t know what to do. He didn’t know how it was supposed to be handled (Sandusky was no longer an employee) so he kicked it up to his bosses who would know better than him. He said he didn’t want to do it incorrectly. </p>
<p>He also stated later that he didn’t realize that the behavior McQueary described in the shower was illegal. If that is true then he obviously didn’t process what McQueary told him the way other people would have interpreted it. So what happened? He obviously heard enough to know to report it. Which he did. Both McQ and Paterno admitted it was an embarrasing and awkward conversation that both were trying to get over with. So what we read between the lines (which we can’t do without knowing the GJ report) cannot be assumed to be the same thing that Paterno “read between the lines”</p>
<p>Paterno is of another generation where sex let alone child sexual abuse was not openly discussed. He was 85 when he died. He actually stated he didn’t know that a man could rape another man. Seems unbelieveable to me but as a 50 yr old I lived in a much more open time where this was discussed. So maybe he just really didn’t get it. He was a crochety, grumpy, demanding, impatient old curmudgeon of a man. I would be surprised if this was ever a topic he would even begin to talk about.</p>
<p>After the GJ investigation was released Paterno stated he wished he did more. Of course he did after reading the horrendous acts that occured. THEN he understood.</p>
<p>Remember Joe Paterno was not seen by the grand jury as having done something wrong. These were the professionals who took everyones statements first hand in trying to figure out who needed to be brought in for illegal acts. Joe Paterno was not one of them.</p>
<p>It was up to Curly, Shulz and McQueary to have made sure it was investigated. I am not convinced Paterno understood the full extent of what McQueary was saying. I am not convinced Paterno was covering up anything. </p>
<p>As for the rest of PSU and the administration it appears they are 100% culpable and should be punished accordingly. </p>
<p>All in good time. Lets get the facts. And Greenbutton says they are horrible. So I assume BIG psu coverup high in the ranks. But lets wait a few weeks and find out.</p>
<p>^^??? Paterno knew in 1998, though, didn’t he?</p>
<p>
That’s the first time I’m hearing that. Is that true?</p>
<p>And he was not brought in on charges because he admitted that he was told by McQueary that something wrong and something sexual was going on.</p>
<p>here is a link to the interview
[Paterno:</a> “I didn’t know which way to go” - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502183_162-57359296/paterno-i-didnt-know-which-way-to-go/?tag=contentMain;contentBody]Paterno:”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502183_162-57359296/paterno-i-didnt-know-which-way-to-go/?tag=contentMain;contentBody)</p>
<p>Paterno states he did not know about 1998.</p>