<p>And a nice cover of respectability. Look I’m connected with penn state. I have their support for my charity. I can travel with little boys. Sandusky played it just enough in the public to get access to his prey, but not enough to be in the news or under watchful eyes. And when younhabe the likes of this crew at your back, well…</p>
<p>Sandusky hid in plain sight…</p>
<p>and PSU’s administration was his lookout</p>
<p>Deviant sex offenders do not tend to blackmail old straight men in order to pave the way for them. Such a knowing and jaded admission of wrongdoing/predatory deviancy is not normally part of the pathology of such criminals. They tend to not feel any remorse, culpability or guilt. In fact, if Sandusky (when confronted this time by Curley, et cal) insisted that “nothing happened,” I would venture to suggest that is and always has been his M.O. Deny. Stay calm and deny. </p>
<p>Sandusky was a denier, and he did not, in fact, ever seem to accept that he was a criminal. He denied it to his wife, the courts, everyone. But other than this feeling (okay, guess) on my part that he was, therefore, not savvy/accepting/calculating enough about his terrible crimes to coolly blackmail his boss, it’s certainly possible.</p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to see if money changed hands in exchange for silence, but I kind of doubt it. At least not out-and-out blackmail. The goals of Sandusky, Paterno, and the University dovetailed; it was in all of their interests to keep silent. The University didn’t have to deal with an embarassing, messy legal and PR problem. Paterno didn’t have to admit to the world, or himself, that his program wasn’t the squeaky clean organization he pretended it was. And of course, Sandusky got to remain a free man with endless access to little boys. As long as everyone stayed mum, everyone got what they wanted.</p>
<p>I think we also shouldn’t underestimate the “ick” factor. I’d bet Paterno never had a conversation in his life about a man having sex with a boy, until Sandusky’s problem couldn’t be ignored any longer. That generation just doesn’t like to talk about sex in general, much less deviant sex. I think he just wanted the damn thing to go away, the less said, the better. Sweeping it under the carpet would have been seen as preferable to questioning by law enforcement, or certainly to testifying in court. And let’s face it, the strategy worked for a very long time. JoePa, and Penn State, and Sandusky had no reason to think it wouldn’t work forever.</p>
<p>Hmm, I’ve read several news reports, and somewhere along the line (can’t find the quote at the moment), I got the impression that Mr. Paterno was uncomfortable with moving forward unless Sandusky was informed. It makes sense to me. And it seems like a reasonable position for the Paterno family/lawyers to take. It does not answer the lack of follow up…but I don’t know what could.</p>
<p>I am not defending anyone’s actions. The whole thing is beyond my understanding. I get that Mr. Paterno was elderly, I actually understand the whole not talking about a man having sex with a boy, I understand Mr. Paterno was a long standing coach, etc. I don’t understand why no one called Child Protective Services or the police (depending on reporting requirements). I watch my share of college football (well, any football), but I don’t see why a football coach should have this much influence over an entire university.</p>
<p>There was no follow up because they wanted it swept under the rug. The emails spell it out.</p>
<p>I think the blackmail theory is implausible. Paterno could just deny any knowledge. How could Sandusky prove he knew? I don’t think Sandusky ever admitted what he had done to anyone and possibly not even to himself.</p>
<p>Well, it’s only speculation, and perhaps we’ll find out!</p>
<p>I too think it would be a kinder explanation for JoePa than the more obvious one - that he chose freely to protect a pervert and pedophilie, his very closest associate, for a very long time, and enabled his behavior, to save his own reputation and that of his vaunted program.</p>
<p>The statue has to come down.</p>
<p>I think along with the cover up, there was a lot of denial and wishful thinking going on. These were educated men. Ignorance or naivet</p>
<p>I agree^…they didn’t need to understand pedophilia. They needed to understand leadership and standing up for children. That’s all really. A coach could have been using boys to run drugs, or to do manual labor for his benefit, something else wrong and illegal. They simply needed to report him and say STOP IT NOW!</p>
<p>Because of their positions, especially Spanier, they should have made it their business to understand it. But, I think they knew exactly what they were doing.</p>
<p>I think they knew what they were doing, as well.</p>
<p>As far as the conspiracy theory goes…no, not buying it. He just doesn’t seem that bright.</p>
<p>Ignorance and naivet</p>
<p>It is totally unfair to say that Penn State officials did nothing. They did tell Sandusky he could no longer bring “guests” on campus. </p>
<p>and this sadly says it all. To use the euphemism guests, denies that these “guests” were children, denies that they were in fact vulnerable children manipulated into believing they were being provided a much needed father figure, denies that they were being sexually abused, denies that there was anything really even wrong going on. </p>
<p>add to that letting him keep the keys to the kingdom…</p>
<p>“It is totally unfair to say that Penn State officials did nothing. They did tell Sandusky he could no longer bring “guests” on campus.”</p>
<p>Almost a year later (if I read it right). After the 2001 incident. And after the 1998?</p>
<p>Most likely explanation is that Joe wanted to protect the Program
Speculation: Jerry knew something from Joe’s past…</p>
<p>I neglected to quote my above sentence. It was from the Daily Beast article and clearly sarcastic.</p>
<p>I was commenting on the outrageous use of the word GUEST. As if these boys were adults choosing to be in the PSU locker room, as Sandusky’s “guest”</p>
<p>The Paterno family is calling for a full release of all the emails. They believe that the selective leaks are a deliberate effort to smear Paterno’s name.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm…the emails themselves aren’t “distorted.” They’re being quoted verbatim. Unless the Paterno family want to argue that the “subject” isn’t Sandusky at all.</p>
<p>They may get their wish tho, on full release. Presumably Freeh’s report will include full documentation. </p>
<p>A preemptive strike by the Paterno lawyers against civil lawsuits from the victims?</p>
<p>I would think Paterno’s family is also in shock at this new information, if they let themselves see this for what it really reveals, they have to let go of a man who didn’t exist. Painful and very difficult. Probably won’t ever happen…</p>
<p>^ you’re probably right. Especially since they are still maintaining that he reported the incident “promptly and fully” and was “never interviewed by the university.” I guess when Curley talked to him that wasn’t technically an “interview.” But come on…</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for Spanier to be indicted. Sounds like he is too:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hard to see how Curley, Schultz, and Spanier can cook up an exculpatory explanation for the emails released so far. In the end the reality is that the 2001 incident was not reported to authorities–and the 3 of them, plus Paterno, knew about it.</p>
<p>^ yes, and honestly, even if the half hatched plan they referenced in the emails made any sense, they didn’t actually adhere to it. So there is NO defense at all imho.</p>