<p>“I know I’m not the brightest person, but I don’t get what the downside would have been to fire and report Sandusky all those years ago.”</p>
<p>There probably was little or no downside when JoePa first found out, likely in the 1970s or 1980s. (Sandusky didn’t start diddling little boys in 1998.) But by 1998, Sandusky had something on JoePa (the fact that JoePa hadn’t reported it earlier.) So when Paterno may have threatened to fire and report him in 1998, Sandusky had some ammunition to fire back. To protect his own reputation and “Penn State Football”, JoePa was now on the receiving end. He engineered it well. Didn’t cost too much money, or much else.</p>
<p>And the evidence for this is that JoePa worked to do it again, in 2001. And again he was successful. JoePa was no idiot. Criminal, but no idiot.</p>
<p>^ but Paterno could have turned him in, and claimed that he wasn’t sure about the earlier knowledge he had on Sandusky, but once he saw a repeat offense he needed to notify others. I think they felt bad for Sandusky, as if he were their troubled child, and didn’t want to harm him, you know, be humane. The other possibility in my view is that Sandusky had some other knowledge about Paterno, cheating, grade fixing, etc.</p>
<p>I hope people stop saying, “He didn’t do enough”, when the truth is he did TOO much by thwarting the plan to report to CPS. If ONLY he had NOT done enough! And Spanier, Schultz and Curley are equally culpable.</p>
<p>Very naive, clearly. The priest scandal hit me hard and was unexpected too, The covering up was particularly galling with priests who were documented as having abused and molested kids were simply sent to other settings with no warnings given of the problem, permitting them to continue with their perversions. </p>
<p>In this case, since the DA’s office (a story in it self) chose not to prosecute Sandusky, just dropped the whole case in 1998, it may not have been grounds for Paterno or anyone to use for dismissing Sandusky, but they certainly could have fired him, and shunned him thereafter, and made sure that around their territory, he wasn’t with children. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why Paterno just didn’t cut him loose then, and that the payments were flowing TO Sandusky. Maybe the story will come out when they follow the money. Perhaps Sandusky had something on Paterno. None of this makes sense to me. That there are perverts of this sort is a sad fact of life That so many will let him operate with impunity and literally feed him the kids is insane to me. There has to be a lot more to this story, and it isn’t going to smell good.</p>
<p>check out that BOT meeting, but be prepared for a rah rah Penn State experience. They are now talking about how proud they are of each others’ work and their recordbreaking fundraising year. Wow, just wow.</p>
<p>I’ll bet those numbers are up there for a state university. What does one guess would be the drop off if the football program were given the “death penalty” for several years?</p>
<p>“In this case, since the DA’s office (a story in it self) chose not to prosecute Sandusky, just dropped the whole case in 1998, it may not have been grounds for Paterno or anyone to use for dismissing Sandusky…”</p>
<p>Relationships between Paterno and the DA? We know that, later, Paterno was a major contributor to the Attorney General (now Governor) while the investigation was going on (and apparently being slowed…)</p>
<p>Which is the cart and which the horse? Every commentator I’ve read says JoePa was the most powerful man in State College, and one of the most powerful men in the state. Why would it be surprising if he used that power (especially when it was being placed at risk?)</p>
<p>mini, the DA in 1998 is not Corbett, it was Gricar who disappeared mysteriously many years later. cpt makes a good point about 1998. How does all the retirement money and emeritus title fit all together with the charges being dropped? The theory that Sandusky has something on Paterno is a plausible one or simply they all knew the extent even though the DA did not have enough but I don’t know. Freeh puts all these information in his report but never connects all the dots.</p>
<p>Oh, I know that. And Gricar disappeared. Hmm. Charges dropped, retirement, extra money, emeritus, etc. - all part of a “grand bargain”. JoePa runs the show. What’s the relationship between Gricar and Paterno? Gricar was a Republican DA, and likely received significant contributions from JoePa and friends. JoePa needs a favor -“Let us handle this in house…” Sound like a familiar MO?</p>
<p>Corbett was later - and the money flow there is pretty clear.</p>
<p>I don’t know either. But following all the money might give a clearer picture.</p>
<p>The fundraising numbers normally include pledges of future contributions. Back when the story broke, many alumni circled the wagons. It is not surprising, then, that many were moved to make pledges this year rather than waiting. There seemed to be a real desire by many to project as business-as-usual front. Likewise, we have posters here arguing that Penn State’s admissions were not hurt by the scandal. </p>
<p>Three new members of the Board of Trustees were elected in May. At least two of the three were critical of the BOT for firing Paterno and said back in May that the BOT should formally apologize to the family.</p>
<p>"We didn’t know, as Freeh writes on page 39, that “several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys” before May 1998.</p>
<p>We didn’t know that when Sandusky was forced into retirement in 1999, he received in Freeh’s words, “an unusual lump sum payment of $168,000” as well as full use of team facilities.</p>
<p>We didn’t know that Paterno, well aware of every sick allegation, wanted Sandusky in 1999 to stay as “Volunteer Position Director–Positive Action for Youth.”</p>
<p>We didn’t know that Sandusky had the gall to ask the school to open, in his name, a football camp for middle school boys."</p>
<p>“The Governor is far from an innocent bystander. As the state’s attorney general in 2009, Corbett headed a state investigation into accusations against the revered former coach. Although his office denies it, there are multiple confirmations that Corbett assigned no one from his office to follow up on the charges: just one state trooper, a state trooper “not authorized to bring charges against Sandusky.” In addition, when Corbett was sworn in as governor in 2011, he still had not informed Thae Second Mile Foundation that their founder was under investigation. Instead, as a candidate for governor, he took $650,000 in donations from members of the Second Mile’s unknowing board, even allowing their chairman to hold a fundraiser for his campaign.”</p>
<p>The really challenging part for me is the behavior of all those at Penn State in 1998/1999. Sandusky will never be head coach. Decides to retire. Payment arranged (looks like they wanted him to go away). Why then give him keys, access to the team sports box (or whatever it is called), an office in the locker room. </p>
<p>If the DA couldn’t make the 1998 charges stick, well that is on the legal system. Why the authorities at Penn State didn’t show Sandusky the door is beyond my comprehension. And that’s after calling Second Mile and filling them in.</p>
<p>What happened in 1998 is worthy of an investigation, complete with a DA who vanishes. It seems that Second Mile is not clean on this either. I wish they could stick it to the governor, as well. Sanctimonious as he is acting, he sat on the case for 3 years, letting Sandusky continue to abuse children. He should be investigated as well.</p>
<p>“The really challenging part for me is the behavior of all those at Penn State in 1998/1999. Sandusky will never be head coach. Decides to retire. Payment arranged (looks like they wanted him to go away). Why then give him keys, access to the team sports box (or whatever it is called), an office in the locker room.”</p>
<p>It’s not really challenging if you postulate that, to protect JoePa and the program, JoePa felt he had to.</p>
<p>“If the DA couldn’t make the 1998 charges stick, well that is on the legal system.”</p>
<p>And who is it that says the DA couldn’t make the charges stick? Who funded his campaign(s)? Who held sway with him? I would make no assumptions about the legal system. After all, it wasn’t very hard apparently for Freeh to find "“several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys” before May 1998. Did the DA interview them? If not, why not?</p>
<p>Ah, but we have the DA’s files. We KNOW (or can find out) whom he interviewed (and whether they were also on Freeh’s list), and who not. And we might be able to find out the source of all his campaign contributions.</p>
<p>(But sorry, JoePa and the program weren’t protected by Penn State; JoePa and program WERE Penn State.)</p>