<p>rosieleem totally lost me also with that post, sax. I did not understand the context of the quote snippets or what he/she meant. </p>
<p>And yes Hunt, I have a curiosity about the court trials and how “much” of the Freeh report will be usable. I never feel comfortable with rush to judgement. I have opinions based on the same info, but nothing more.</p>
<p>Until the Freeh report was released, my belief was that these men did not know what was happening. The way i saw it was that McQ came across the shower scene, and told Paterno in euphemisms. Paterno’s mind just would not “go there” but recognized this as something that had to be reported, and told Schultz and Curley, fullfiling his obligation. The point of contention to me, and to the Grand Jury was what he told Schultz and Curley, as they seemed to feel that what he told Paterno was vague enough to avoid recommendation from indictment. The way I looked at it was that there was no sure thing as to what McQ said, and once Paterno turned it over to someone who was head of University security,it was not for him to get involved. Had McQ unequivocally stated that he told Paterno that what he saw was rape, not something that did not “look right”, I would have looked at it differently. I also went with the Grand Jury’s decisions as they had heard direct testimony from the parties. </p>
<p>The great failing here, IMO, was that those two, Schultz and Curly did not immediately send the police officers and CPS over to Sandusky, and shut him down until an investigation was done, to ensure that nothing untoward was happening. </p>
<p>I could not believe that Paterno had any inkling that Sandusky was involved in this sort of thing, and believed that he had acted as I would have, had someone told they saw what could be interpreted as inappropriate behavior. I would have called the head of security/police and had the witness tell him exactly what he saw, and let those who are in charge of these things take care of them. Had the person been a friend and coworker, yes, I would have called him to ask him, "what the heck was he doing, and how this sort of thing can be terribly misinterpreted, and that he was going to have to talk to security/police/CPS. </p>
<p>Wrong move? In retrospect, yes, but remember, that something this horrible could possibly be happening would not have occurred to me. Also, in my scenario, there would be no other past suspicions and episodes. Maybe, I would think that anyone spending time alone with kids the way Sandusky was , was taking risks, but not in a moment would have I thought of him as a child predator, with his work with the foundation, the person that I would know, adopting the kids, etc, etc. My thoughts would not go there, and I would be sorry that the incident had to be reported. Unless McQ was so explicit that there was no question as to what he saw. That would have been key here. </p>
<p>The Freeh reprot made it clear that Paterno went further than this. He was involved in discussions with Schultz and Curley as to what to do. There was evidence that he knew that things like this had happened before, and that something was wrong here. This was not something that was misinterpreted, and no reasonable person reading the Report could come to that conclusion. </p>
<p>That Spanier was was also apprised of the situation, and none of these men called CPS and have the police track down the kid, and have Sandusky investigated, is where the huge fail is. That they wanted to just bury the whole thing is what is abominable. </p>
<p>Spanier also knew that this sort of thing had happened before with Sandusky which really just boggles my mind. No question in my mind that Spanier needs to go before a Grand Jury and be asked some hard questions. I just hope that the DA is working on this and just tightening the net.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, your post describes exactly what happened to me.</p>
<p>Me too. Exactly the way I thought through the whole process.</p>
<p>Hunt. I think many of us want to hear directly from these guys in court. I am glad to hear you say it again.</p>
<p>I do think they will all be charged with perjury since it appears from the emails that they knew about 1998.</p>
<p>The rush to judgement has been amazing and I hope someone writes a book about this when it’s all said and done. The timing of when people knew what has been a real sticking point for me. And of course it all boils down to what mcqueary really said and what they really heard him say.</p>
<p>“If the NCAA rolled over why is everyone saying the offer on the table and agreed to was worse than the death penalty?”</p>
<p>I think the death penalty would have been much better for the future of Penn State, the institution, the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the football team.</p>
<p>I doubt that much of anything will come out of criminal proceedings in the legal system, unless the feds decide to charge the former Professor Emeritus under the Mann Act, and I can’t imagine that happening. (or unless, etc., etc.)</p>
<p>“I have been upset when posters have commented about a Penn State grad not being given the same consideration in a hiring situation, as that seems terribly unfair and inappropriate.”</p>
<p>I too think it would be terrible unfair and inappropriate. And I am sure it will happen. Not often, but often enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, not in the Big Ten. All bowl game revenue (after team expenses) gets turned into the conference, which pools it and splits it equally among all Big Ten schools. That’s meant to keep the rich schools from getting even richer, and to level the financial playing field a little. That’s why the NCAA bowl ban would have meant no financial penalty at all to Penn State, except that the Big Ten added its own sanction and said that since Penn State was bowl-ineligible, it was also not going to get its share of conference bowl money. But instead of splitting up Penn State’s share among the other Big Ten schools, the conference is giving that 1/12 share to child abuse prevention organizations. The net cost to Penn State is expected to be $13 million, which is on top of the NCAA’s $60 million fine.</p>
<p>Captain – my problem is that no one in their right mind regarded Curley or Schultz as Paterno’s superior. If you or I have a problem like this at work (assuming we are not required reporters, which I am not), if you do not go to the police, you go to your superior. Curley and Schultz rightly assumed that if Paterno wanted something to happen, he would see that it happened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>+1000…</p>
<p>I’ll third cpt’s summary. This is how I interpreted the situation prior to the Freeoh report. The fact that there was so prosecution in the original incident said alota bout what people were actually “describing” or “saying.” Time will tell us what happens now with the report.</p>
<p>Good post, cptofthehouse. This whole thing is a good lesson to normal people like you and me. If we hear of some questionable behavior from someone we know and trust, we have to entertain the notion (difficult as it is) that the person actually is committing the crimes they might be committing.</p>
<p>Someone I knew and trusted turned out to be molesting a little girl, the sister of a friend. I knew everyone involved: the molestor, his friend, the little girl, the molestor’s parents, the victim’s parents (the molestor was a minor). I never, never, ever would have guessed this kid would do something like what he turned out to have done.</p>
<p>In order to protect the vulnerable, we have to go through channels when required, and report when required-- precisely because we can’t believe people we know would do such terrible things.</p>
<p>As someone outside the PSU family, to me it was very likely that all those involved HAD to know about the 1998 investigation. How could Paterno not be told that his assistant coach was being investigated for child abuse? Then comes the 2001 incident. At this point, it now had to be obvious they were dealing with a serious issue. Just the fact that Curley and Schultz denied knowing anything at all told volumes. Paterno admitted knowing about the 2001 incident. He admitted knowing it was sexual in nature. Paterno testified he told that to Curley. </p>
<p>Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury because it’s absurd to think they knew nothing. Whether the prosecution can make that stick in a court of law is another story.</p>
<p>Agree going my way. The other question I ask is who OUTSIDE PSU knew? Sandusky finds out he wont get Paterno’s job. He did interview for UMaryland job. How could Sandusky, the defensive coordinator at PSU not get a head coach job a tick down the ladder? Doesnt make sense to me.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You seem to be assuming that a failure to get a conviction proves that the defendant actually didn’t do it. Well, maybe. But does the name “O.J. Simpson” mean anything to you? Do you personally believe that since the criminal jury acquitted him that he, not as point of law but as a point of actual fact, did not commit the murders?</p>
<p>If some big exculpatory evidence that we do not currently know comes out at a trial of the Penn State people, then yes, I’d be willing to change my personal opinion of who is guilty here. But there are so many ways someone who actually did the crime can come out of court without being convicted (legal technicalities, errors or misconduct by the prosecutors, biased pro-Penn State jurors, and so on) that simply getting off on the charge by itself does not mean we have to believe the person actually committed no crime.</p>
<p>I’m curious if Sandusky would have plead guilty if victim #2 was present along with those voicemails</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Strictly speaking about being better off with different penalties, this would not be the case if all the existing sanctions would have come on top two (or more) years of a death penalty, and started in a transition period to redemption. The penalties should have make them wish for a death penalty. They weren’t. </p>
<p>If you mean, better off as far as helping them move forward after understanding that penalties were justified, and attempt to make them seeking for positive changes in their fusball-uber-alles culture, I think you’d have a better chance to grow avocados in the Sahara.</p>
<p>Grcxx3</p>
<p>“The adults at Penn State failed horribly. And the leadership is still shaky. So, it’s up to the student body to make things right - by working their tails off in class, continuing the efforts to raise money/awareness for child abuse victims, continuing the THON fundraising, supporting all the activities and athletic teams on campus (even the young men who choose to stay and play football), and going on to full and productive lives.”</p>
<p>Is he involved with Thon? My daughter worked on a committee as a technology captain. It required a big time commitment but it was a great experience and it is all student run. I hope he has a good year.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how a PSU student getting good grades and going on to a productive life helps to make things right. This was not an academic scandal nor an employment scandal.
To me, it just sounds like rah-rah to current students that really has no meaning behind it. It is the president, and BOT and faculty that must work to mske this right.</p>
<p>“It is the president, and BOT and faculty that must work to mske this right”</p>
<p>This. So far, I am not impressed. I am not faulting Erickson for agreeing to the NCAA penalties (I think he had no choice), I am dissappointed that everything still seems to be change of command, no encouragement to get faculty more power.</p>
<p>SMU came out of its scandal a stronger academic insitution. One reason is that the faculty at SMU asserted themselves strongly in the wake of the NCAA sanctions. Perhaps this has been mentioned already, but the faculty Senate did make a strong statement: </p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.senate.psu.edu/re-ncaa_072412.pdf[/url]”>http://www.senate.psu.edu/re-ncaa_072412.pdf</a></p>
<p>If only the Faculty Senate got as much attention as Franco Harris: </p>
<p>
[Franco</a> Harris, 2 other former Penn St players criticize “flawed” Freeh report in letter, email - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/harris-2-other-former-penn-st-players-criticize-flawed-freeh-report-in-letter-email/2012/07/27/gJQAbvLoEX_story.html]Franco”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/harris-2-other-former-penn-st-players-criticize-flawed-freeh-report-in-letter-email/2012/07/27/gJQAbvLoEX_story.html)</p>