<p>In a statement issued Sunday night, Penn State football coach Joe Paterno said he was shocked, saddened and as surprised as everyone else to hear of the abuse charges.</p>
<p>“If this is true, we were all fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families. They are in our prayers,” Paterno said in a statement issued by his son, Scott.</p>
<p>What a mockery!!</p>
<p>greenbutton, well said. I’m sorry for what your community is going through right now.</p>
<p>Agree that Joe Pa’s statement is insulting.</p>
<p>Yes. What a mockery indeed.</p>
<p>So it comes down to the private meeting between Jo Pa and the grad assistant. No one else in the room. Jo Pa says the grad assistant was vague. The grad assistant says he was specific.</p>
<p>After reading Jo Pa’s statement I believe he is throwing the grad assistant under the bus.</p>
<p>They should all go. So many men. So many cowards. The sooner the better.</p>
<p>Thank god for moms and brave young boys.</p>
<p>I love Penn State. This is horrendous. This is just horrendous.</p>
<p>A couple things I notice from the grand jury report:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Sandusky was invited to retire shortly after the first reported incident, in 1998. In 2002, he was no longer an assistant coach, but rather an “emeritus” something or other that gave him access to the football facilities. So in answer to my question above whether Paterno fired him, the answer was “Yes, the first time.” There is still a question what Sandusky was doing with a boy in tow at the 1999 Alamo Bowl, but maybe that was the final straw leading to his effective dismissal a few months later.</p></li>
<li><p>A big potential hole in the case against Curley and Schultz is that, at least apparently, no one has interviewed, or even identified, Victim #2, the 10-year-old in the shower (now at least 20). Right now, it’s a he-said, she-said situation, in which the graduate student says he saw and reported anal sex, and the two administrators say he didn’t report anal sex. (And Paterno . . . apparently everyone is too scared to say the words “anal sex” in his presence. He clearly did not present the case to Curley as one involving anal sex. Did he hear “anal sex” from the grad assistant? His testimony seems to have been pretty coy.) Sandusky would certainly say that there was no anal sex to observe, and I don’t think there are other incidents reported of anal sex in the PSU shower room. So, notwithstanding that the grand jury believed the grad assistant, I think it will be very hard to convict Curley and Schultz of perjury without the victim saying, “Yes, I was being sodomized in the shower and someone came in and saw us.” (Or, put another way – if the victim came in and said “Sandusky never had sex with me in the shower. Someone came in once and saw us fooling around,” the perjury case would be dead as a doornail.)</p></li>
<li><p>I suspect the absence of Victim 2 is what has delayed the charges in this case for a long time. Not anything ridiculous like whether a man or a woman was attorney general. The case has been going on for a while, and Sandusky separated himself from his charity over a year ago. It looks like the Victim 1 allegation was made in 2009.</p></li>
<li><p>This sure isn’t Duke Lacrosse, at least as far as Sandusky is concerned. They have multiple victims covering over a decade testifying independently to a consistent, recognizable pattern of behavior.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It’s “JoePa”. And no, it isn’t about the meeting, because after that meeting the matter of a retired staff member’s behavior was referred to the department head, as dictated by PA law. The AD chose to not report it, which is a clear and serious violation of that same law. Mandated reporters are specifically directed to NOT make value judgements of the veracity of the claim or claimant, so the two guys most at fault are the ones who didn’t do what they are legally required to. Of course, plenty of people are guilty of not doing what they were morally obligated to do, I am so not making any excuses for these people. Removing him from the football program and/or the Second Mile only exposed other children. He should have been charged and arrested. House cleaning on the way, but there’s not enough bleach in the world to wash away the stain.</p>
<p>Can’t give JoePa a pass, he reported it to his department head? Talk about passing the buck…JoePa IS Penn State, can do whatever he wants whenever he wants,he should have called the police himself…What a disgrace…</p>
<p>Oh yeah, JoePa is not blameless. Not saying that at all.</p>
<p>Background checks would not have found Sandusky. But I agree that requiring them is a good practice.</p>
<p>The grad student had good credibility, I would think. He was the QB at PSU earlier, so he wasn’t someone who they had only known for one year. He was from the town.</p>
<p>Sandusky had been around for over 30 years. He had founded and was running a 501c3 “doing good” for at risk youth, which in the past year (2010) had revenue of about $2.5M and assets of $8M. Apparently it was not a shoe-string operation and in fact, had consumed enough energy and time that Paterno had cited it as a reason for Sandusky to discontinue coaching back in 1998 or 99.</p>
<p>Its too bad that charitable activities seem to become arenas of opportunity for perverts like this. If you are born with or develop perverted desires, you need to control them. This is reminiscent of the “Father Bruce” covenant house, and the more recent Haitian School sex abuse scandal of Doug Perlitz.</p>
<p>I would wager that the grad assistant, if he were able to be honest, would say today that he wishes he had gone into the shower and beaten the living snot out of Sandusky. Life would have been better for everyone involved.</p>
<p>Or perhaps JoePa had some knowledge of Sandusky’s behaviors and used the idea of Sandusky’s energy and time drain from the non-profit as an excuse to oust him from PSU without actually reveailing his alleged activities with young boys</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I’m sure he regrets his actions every day of his life.</p>
<p>Is it curious to anyone else that ABC TV hasn’t broadcast the story with much fervor, unlike, say CBS? The CBS Morning Show devoted a segment to the case today, whereas I didn’t see anything on Good Morning America [maybe I missed it while surfing or perhaps ABC aired something after I headed to work]. I’m suspicious because of the ESPN connection at ABC TV and the way that ESPN has fawned over Paterno for years, particularly Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts, a former ESPN staffer.</p>
<p>Do you mean to imply that there is improper influence at work in the relationship between big time college football and the TV networks? I’m SHOCKED! SHOCKED!</p>
<p>More possible suspicion; another report stated that the university attorney whom apparently had some discussion with the campus authorities after Paterno’s meeting with the Athletic Director…was also listed as general counsel for the Second Mile organization. If true, what a conflict of interest!!! The inaction and a$$ covering by the adults in this story is repulsive.</p>
<p>Also, someone just reminded me of the coach Rene Portland controversy at Penn State years ago. Apparently this same AD had no compunction with taking swift action to punish her…and she deserved it.</p>
<p>AND
Dr. Jack Raykovitz, President and CEO of The Second Mile was also informed of the sexual abuse incidents back when Paterno, Schulz and Curley knew!!!</p>
<p>Oh what a dreadful web of deceit.</p>
<p>This from an article I read today:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>GMA covered the story this morning and even got an interview with Sandusky. He said nothing, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with that suggestion is that even “fooling around” implies consent on both sides. There’s no such thing as consent by a 10-year old to any physical contact with a naked middle-aged man in the shower. Even referring to the allegation as one of “having sex” is absurd. Again, no such thing. Rape is the only appropriate description of the allegation.</p>
<p>Sandusky might want to put his private parts into protective custody.</p>
<p>Donna: I didn’t say that Sandusky would be OK in that situation, or that there was no duty to report. I said that the perjury count – which is by far the most serious charge against the two defendants who didn’t personally rape children – is a he-said, she-said situation (the grad assistant says he saw and reported anal sex, Curley and Schultz said he didn’t report more than horseplay). Corroboration of the actual facts one way or the other would make or break that case.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting, either, that non-prosecutability is the same as innocence, or being morally right. I think everyone knows that this whole mess stinks, that children were being victimized and lots of people who could have done something to stop it didn’t. But as a lawyer I think the perjury charge may be tough to prove.</p>
<p>Why would the grad student have bothered reporting it in the first place if it was just innocent “horseplay” that he saw. Assuming there even is such a thing with a grown man and a 10-year old in the shower. Which I doubt.</p>