<p>well, Paterno claimed he reported the incident but then never again discussed it with Curley and Schultz, so if the emails are true, authentic, etc. then it seems he did lie. It can be argued that Paterno didn’t tell them not to report Sandusky, but it certainly seems clear that Paterno was involved in the strategizing, and he did not acknowledge that…</p>
<p>You’re probably right, of course. But I still point out that the e-mail doesn’t say what was discussed with Paterno (assuming that it was true that anything was discussed with him). Paterno’s not around. How will you take it if Curley, Schultz, and Spanier now say that it was all Paterno, that he ordered them to cover it up, etc., etc.? Will you think they are telling the unvarnished truth? As I’ve said before, I don’t really believe that anybody involved is telling the full truth.</p>
<p>When I read the emails, it sounds like Mr. Paterno was suggesting that they also inform Sandusky that they are reporting him, why they don’t want him in the gym, etc. That seems reasonable to me–tell Sandusky that the Univ will be reporting him to Second Mile and the appropriate state agencies (not familiar with Penn law to know if that would be Child Protective Services or the police). Unless there are further details in the emails, it’s going to be hard to prove one way or another.
All that being said, I don’t understand why he (Mr. Paterno) didn’t ASK someone why Sandusky was still hanging around so many years later. Why no follow up–wouldn’t you want to know what was going on with the procedues/investigations/whatever you call it?</p>
<p>The best possible face I can put on Paterno is that he told somebody to handle the problem, and to just tell him that it had been handled, without bothering him with the details. That’s consistent with the testimony and interviews he gave (although not phrased that way).</p>
<p>I’m interested in the call to the law firm. What if the lawyers told the Penn State people that they had no legal obligation to report anything to the authorities? As I recall the law, there’s a reasonable argument that they really didn’t have any legal obligation.</p>
<p>It just never made any sense that Paterno did not know more than he let on. How could he have not known about the 1998 investigation? Any investigation would have included Paterno. The charge at that time, while Sandusky was still a PSU coach, was that he showered with a boy at the Penn State facilities. How can it make any sense to anyone that Paterno did not know?</p>
<p>^^ In one of the emails Curley writes that Sandusky (or rather the “subject”, “person”) should be told that they are aware of the earlier incident, which the CNN report says refers to the 1998 case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If so, this is the clearest evidence so far that Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Paterno did know about 1998. Which common sense tells you they had to have done.</p>
<p>In which case they were looking at the 2001 shower incident in the context of not being a first instance, which you would think would put a whole different color on it. </p>
<p>At this point I’m waiting for Spanier to be indicted. Too bad Freeh can’t look into what the authorities did from 1998 on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I asked this before - is the nature of PSU’s involvement with the Big 10 such that there would be legal repercussions if they didn’t play their games (and contribute to the other schools’ coffers)? Just curious from a legal perspective (not a moral one).</p>
<p>^ Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>I think it’s all contractual. The contracts for the games usually guarantee a specified amount of money for the visiting team (home team keeps the gate, concessions, parking, etc, but one of its costs is the guaranteed fee for the visiting team), and if a visiting team cancels there’s a big financial penalty spelled out in the contract. So basically they’d be out a ton of money, losing the revenue from home games, still obligated to pay the fee to visiting teams whether the game is played or not, and paying penalties instead of earning fees for every away game canceled.</p>
<p>There are separate agreements with the Big Ten Conference regarding broadcast revenues, which come primarily through the conference. I’m not sure what kind of contractual obligation they have to the conference to “provide content” by playing the games; probably the networks would just schedule a different set of Big Ten games, though Penn State has one of the biggest followings among Big Ten schools and it appeals to markets, especially in Pennsylvania, that other Big Ten schools just don’t reach, so I suspect the networks (including the highly profitable conference-owned Big Ten Network) wouldn’t be too happy about it. And depending what’s in those network TV contracts, the networks might be entitled to lower the fees they pay to the Big Ten if Penn State sits out a year. Biggest problem for Penn State, though, is that if they canceled a football season, I don’t think the other Big Ten schools would think PSU would be be entitled to an equal share of the conference TV revenue, which is something on the order of $25 million/year/school, mainly from football, but to a lesser extent also from men’s basketball. I don’t know whether they’re contractually entitled to an equal share in any event (though I doubt these schools would have been so stupid as to agree to that), or whether the contract provides that they’d just forfeit their share or some part of it, or whether it’s subject to renegotiation by the member schools; those are huge questions. </p>
<p>Add all that up and we’re potentially talking about a cost to PSU of something on the order of $70 million per season, give or take $10 million, just as a rough estimate. A lot of that is money that currently goes to support other Penn State athletic teams and programs which nobody’s talking about shutting down, so it would blow a giant hole in their budget. I have my doubts that the university can or would absorb that kind of financial blow just to make a public display of self-flagellation.</p>
<p>Thanks, bclintonk. I was just curious (for obvious reasons 
).</p>
<p>Freeh report will be released July 11 – the first day of the biggest summer reunion event (Arts Festival, which draws jazillions of alum back to town) and two days before the BOT annual summer meeting.</p>
<p>"… I don’t understand why he (Mr. Paterno) didn’t ASK someone why Sandusky was still hanging around so many years later. Why no follow up–wouldn’t you want to know what was going on with the procedues/investigations/whatever you call it?"</p>
<p>I think it is very likely from the emails that Paterno did not question a lack of follow up because he is the one who discouraged the reporting of Sandusky that Curley, Schulz and Spanier had been considering. He did not want the situation tarnishing the football program, which was his priority above all else, even the young victims.</p>
<p>Mom2M you said, “When I read the emails, it sounds like Mr. Paterno was suggesting that they also inform Sandusky that they are reporting him, why they don’t want him in the gym, etc. That seems reasonable to me–tell Sandusky that the Univ will be reporting him to Second Mile and the appropriate state agencies (not familiar with Penn law to know if that would be Child Protective Services or the police). Unless there are further details in the emails, it’s going to be hard to prove one way or another.”</p>
<p>Just curious how you interpreted that Paterno suggested that? If they weren’t actually reporting him to CPS or law enforcement then why would they tell Sandusky that they were?</p>
<p>All speculation I realize but Curley’s statement was that after speaking with Paterno he was no longer comfortable reporting Sandusky and wanted to only speak directly with Sandusky, the “person”.</p>
<p>Exactly, Myturnnow,
That has been the thing that has bothered me the most. If everyone thought they did what they were legally and ethically held to do, why would they not question the fact that there were no consequences to Sandusky? These emails explain all of that. There were no consequences because there was no meaningful or effective action taken at the time.</p>
<p>“Well, mini, don’t be coy now! I’m obviously not getting it.”</p>
<p>Well, okay. This is speculative, and I admit it is speculative, but to me, it connects more of the facts than anything else I can come up. </p>
<p>JoePa discovered the fact that Sandusky did it with boys a long time ago, long before 1998. He (JoePa) was at one time the “idiot-child” that I spoke of, and he didn’t know what to do. (And talking to his priest didn’t help much.) So he pretty much decided to do nothing, even though seeing Sandusky repeatedly with the young boys reminded him all the time what he (JoePa) hadn’t done. He would have wanted to get rid Sandusky earlier, but since no one else knew what JoePa knew, Sandusky essentially blackmailed him. At first, not for money. He simply said, “You fire me, you tell anyone else, and I go public with the fact that you’ve known for a long time, and that’s the end of the Paterno legacy.”</p>
<p>After the 1998 episode, the fact or at least strong suspicion had gone beyond Paterno, and JoePa had no choice but to fire Sandusky. But Sandusky wasn’t to go quietly. This time he blackmailed JoePa for real. Part of the “understanding” was that JoePa was to funnel money, either directly to Sandusky, or to him through Second Mile. And he wasn’t going to get him banned from the facilities (because that would strengthen the suspicion.) JoePa was already caught in Sandusky’s web, and there was no way out for him that allowed him to retain his legacy. From that day forth, JoePa became Sandusky’s greatest defender. The 2001 episode bears that out. The secret kept from his business associates from Second Mile bears that out. The hiring of McQ bears that out. The continuation of privileges for Sandusky bears that out. The continuing raising of funds for Second Mile (that Sandusky could then use to abuse children) bears that out. JoePa couldn’t find a way out of Sandusky’s web. He simply was in too deep. </p>
<p>That’s what I really think happened. I can’t prove it. And until there is a good forensic audit of everyone involved, it will be hard to find the trail.</p>
<p>Interesting theory. What explains why Sandusky didn’t get a head coaching job? He could have blackmailed JoePa into giving him a good reference …</p>
<p>interesting theory mini, a la “he knows where the bodies are buried” </p>
<p>Sandusky knew that Paterno was keeping his own secret for him…</p>
<p>Also, Curley’s idea to go to Sandusky and tell him, “we know about you, go get help” clearly had no teeth in it. In other words, when Sandusky simply replied, “it didn’t happen” noone said Oh YES it did and we have a very credible witness. While clearly the way to go was to report him, even if you try to believe their approach was a sincere one, (and I don’t) then why did they just DROP it. </p>
<p>Given the emails and their supposed plan, why didn’t they actually then say, since you denied this and we believe our credible witness we have no choice but to report you. Give us your keys and never show up at PSU again. Seriously, how can they possibly support their approach when they didn’t even follow what they themselves said they would do!?!?</p>
<p>“Interesting theory. What explains why Sandusky didn’t get a head coaching job? He could have blackmailed JoePa into giving him a good reference …”</p>
<p>Word had, in fact, already gotten out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is actually the best argument I’ve heard for keeping the program.</p>
<p>Interesting, mini. I would think there was less outright blackmailing involved, though, since the pattern with serial sex criminals is pretty full denial that they are doing anything wrong at all. (gag!) It’s not so likely, IMO, that such a twisted psyche as Sandusky would archly plot out a blackmail scheme which, in its essence, infers an admittance to being a sick criminal and how he’ll use Paterno’s inaction to stop him (sick Sandusky) to incriminate Paterno, too. While this scenario does explain the long, concerted efforts of Paterno to cover up for Sandusky, it also doesn’t explain why Sandusky didn’t ask for more, as mentioned above. I find it a little more believable (and creepier, too) that Paterno simply wanted to protect what he already had–and keep his coaching job & sainthood rep. It’s less dramatic, but actually more reprehensible. The expediency of keeping one old man’s power is uglier than the thought of a man succumbing to blackmail. </p>
<p>Like you, I am curious to see what an audit would reveal.</p>
<p>“While this scenario does explain the long, concerted efforts of Paterno to cover up for Sandusky, it also doesn’t explain why Sandusky didn’t ask for more, as mentioned above.”</p>
<p>Ah, but we don’t yet know the extent of what he asked for! Lots of money, and virtually unlimited access to young boys (and support for both coming from JoePa) might be a heck of a lot more attractive to Sandusky than a new coaching job.</p>