Penn State Sandusky scandal

[cosmicfish]

<p>

Cosmicfish, what would you have done if you had seen Sandusky in the shower with a child? Would you have gone directly to the police, or would you have reported him to your superior.

That is a good question, and I don’t know - I like to think I know, but who does? Ultimately, it depends substantially on what I actually witnessed. If I witnessed something weird, something that was not clearly illegal but definitely weird or shady, then I might indeed do as McQueary did. If, on the other hand I witnessed child rape (as McQueary claimed), then I would (a) do the best I was able to stop it, (b) report it to the police, and (c) make sure as best I could that my certain knowledge of the crime led to conviction. And if I did NOT do all that, then I would be tremendously morally and socially wrong. I do not acknowledge any combination of events that includes someone who witnesses child rape keeping shut about it for a decade, and calling it acceptable.</p>

<p>

Yes, going to Paterno instead of the police was in his own best interest. But it was also in the best interest of PSU.

ONLY if PSU is interested in a coverup. If PSU is not going to cover it up, then the police are notified immediately and then you call Paterno or whoever so that they know what is going on.</p>

<p>

You’re willing to give Paterno a pass

I am not willing to give Paterno a pass, I simply do not feel that there is evidence to convict or condemn him for behavior that would seem to be unprecedented. </p>

<p>

even if he was doing nothing of a sexual nature, he should not have been showering with the boys at all. Anyone who works with youth knows that even the appearance of inappropriate behavior is bad. As a Girl Scout leader, if I sleep in a tent with the girls, there has to be another female adult present, unrelated to me. In fact, I need that other adult present at all times, for my own legal protection, and for the protection of the girls.

That is an interesting take. I am no longer a Boy Scout leader (I had girls), but I am an Eagle, and was a Scout leader, and even helped run the training courses for Scout leaders. Everything you describe is indeed correct policy… but it did not used to be, and is hardly universal, especially among organizations with smaller memberships or a lesser history of litigation. When I was a youth, one-on-one time with boys was verboten, but gang showers were pretty common and adults and youth would be in at the same time. And while this is no longer a common practice (thanks to increasing awareness of child abuse) there are plenty of people who do not feel that doing so is inherently wrong - if you start with the assumption that neither you nor your fellow adults are molesters, it is not hard to think it is okay, especially if you are in a group (such as a football team) where gang showers are the norm to begin with.</p>

<p>

While McQ may have been a disagreeable person, it appears that he was fired due to his testimony to the grand jury.

How so? When a new head coach is hired, it is routine to replace the vast majority of the coaching staff! The presumption that he was let go due to his testimony presupposes that he would have been one of the few people retained under Bill O’Brien’s leadership - something that I have seen no evidence for. Or do you think that McQueary was such a vital or skilled whatever-the-heck-he-was that O’Brien would have kept him when he let a majority of the coaching staff go in favor of his own “dream team”?</p>

<p>

I’m sure Sandusky’s employment was at will too, yet he was not only allowed to “retire” quietly, but was paid to do so, and allowed to stick around.

Not the same thing - the offensive and defensive coordinators (Sandusky’s equivalents)under Paterno were ALSO shown the door by O’Brien.</p>

[eastcoascrazy]

<p>The New Yorker article link from post 8387 should be requried reading for everyone posting on this thread. It ought to be required reading for every adult, period. Great article that I just got around to reading. The mind of a pediphile is a cesspool covered by a film of slightly “off” normal. I can see how the early grooming actions of a pediphile could be missed.</p>

[mini]

<p>The early grooming actions of the former Prof. Emeritus, paid for by JoePa and the football program took place in the 1970s. They were continuous, and included federal Mann Act violations. I’d give JoePa a pass for the first five years, perhaps. But I strongly suspect he knew what was going on as early as the late 70s, and had other reasons for not turning his closest associate in.</p>

[rosieleem]

<p>

Have you conveniently forgotten that Sandusky was very thoroughly investigated by non-university police at that time, and exonerrated?

Where in the world did you get the information that Sandusky was very thoroughly investigated? That sounds more like someone using strong words to force a weak opinion on others. Especially when it is painfully obvious that he wasn’t properly investigated at all. And the stink of that "investigation’, much like month-old fish, had to have permeated the ranks of PSU.</p>

[mini]

<p>Check out JoePa’s campaign contributions to the DA in charge of the so-called “investigation”. (And later to to the Attorney General, soon to be Governor, in charge of the later “investigation”.)</p>

[cosmicfish]

<p>

I’d give JoePa a pass for the first five years, perhaps. But I strongly suspect he knew what was going on as early as the late 70s, and had other reasons for not turning his closest associate in.

Do you have ANY evidence of this, or just a need to constantly make assumptions that no one with any actual connection to the investigation has even thought to speculate on?</p>

<p>

Where in the world did you get the information that Sandusky was very thoroughly investigated?

You are right - they investigated him, brought in the DA, set up stings involving surveillance and using officers hiding in closets, but it turns out that the State College Police Department only considers that a moderate investigation - in order for it to be thorough they have to call in CIA interrogation experts and start secretly running people out to extranational sites without real torture laws.</p>

<p>They investigated him pretty dang thoroughly, because it turns out he was a millionaire with national recognition and substantial local support, and they did not want to wrongly prosecute. They were so thoroughly convinced by what they saw that they not only decided not to prosecute, they essentially dropped the investigation entirely. They screwed up. Massively. I have no explanation for how or why, but I don’t think it was because they weren’t looking very hard, and I don’t think that they could have had that many people in on the case and get every single one of them to, if you will forgive the euphemism, play ball. They screwed up. It happens.</p>

<p>

Check out JoePa’s campaign contributions to the DA in charge of the so-called “investigation”.

Being a wealthy and fervent Republican, whose son (can’t remember which one) tried to get into politics, I think you will find out that he donated to a number of Republicans (including the Governor and the DA, among others), and helped them run for office. I can only presume that you have theories on which crimes THEY were helping him out with?</p>

[mini]

<p>I think (if ever investigated) there is far, far more than simple donations.</p>

<p>“Do you have ANY evidence of this, or just a need to constantly make assumptions that no one with any actual connection to the investigation has even thought to speculate on?”</p>

<p>Yes, and it was posted three or four pages back, on Sandusky’s “out-of-state” visits. We don’t know what JoePa and the football program knew, but we do know that they paid for the “a-hem” recruiting visits.</p>

[rosieleem]

<p>

You are right - they investigated him, brought in the DA, set up stings involving surveillance and using officers hiding in closets, but it turns out that the State College Police Department only considers that a moderate investigation - in order for it to be thorough they have to call in CIA interrogation experts and start secretly running people out to extranational sites without real torture laws.

Any investigation of a child abuser that resulted in said child abuser continuing to freely abuse children could not possibly have been thorough. Period. You can spin it all you want.</p>

[cosmicfish]

<p>

I think (if ever investigated) there is far, far more than simple donations.

Why? What evidence do you have that makes you think this? You are the principle voice behind these allegations, please share what makes you so certain. You aren’t hemming and hawing, you are not wavering or unsure, you are confident. Please share the source of this confidence.</p>

<p>

Yes, and it was posted three or four pages back, on Sandusky’s “out-of-state” visits. We don’t know what JoePa and the football program knew, but we do know that they paid for the “a-hem” recruiting visits.

Three or four pages back you posted a link to an article that says that Sandusky made an out-of-state trip for the program, and took a child along whom he molested. I am not disputing that. Other than Sandusky himself, I am not sure anyone is disputing that. I asked if you have any evidence that Paterno et al knew about it. Apparently you do not.</p>

<p>By the way, love that article - a pre-trial article noting that about half the jury has blatant and strong PSU connections, and that even a single “zealot” could scuttle the conviction, an article so convinced that this farce of a trial would free Sandusky that it was simply trying to show why it would happen and how it was not a lost cause because the Feds would take it up.</p>

<p>Love that article. I am starting to think that you wrote it - it meshes perfectly with everything you have posted on here. And it was completely, totally, 100% wrong. At the “epicenter of the fetid cesspool, Sandusky faced jurors wearing Nittany Lion logos” and was convicted on 45 out of 48 charges. And the crowd outside not only failed to mourn, but actually cheered at his conviction.</p>

[cosmicfish]

<p>

Any investigation of a child abuser that resulted in said child abuser continuing to freely abuse children could not possibly have been thorough. Period. You can spin it all you want.

Thorough is not the same as perfect. Child abusers excel at deception, at avoiding every kind of scrutiny imaginable - it is part of why their crimes are so horrible. Serial child molesters like Sandusky are by necessity excellent at it.</p>

<p>So if you think that the investigation was NOT thorough, please feel free to show what else the police should have done, based on their resources and the evidence provided. Please show how what you propose is standard, and not based on amazing hindsight.</p>

<p>And while you are at it, please show how you yourself are so good at hiding your tracks - despite two posts in the last page or so, your CC profile indicates no posts or activity at all! I think a thorough investigation of this obfuscation is required!</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>^^^^cosmic, as you can see, even after posting 3 times on this page, your post count remains 1925. I think parent cafe posts don’t “count.”</p>

[cosmicfish]

<p>Post-count check. Haven’t posted in any forums since this one, so if Nrdsb4 is correct, it should stay at 1925…</p>

<p>And it did!</p>

<p>Huh! I guess you are right Nrdsb4! Are there other “invisible” forums on CC, or is this it?</p>

[SansSerif]

<p>Agreeing with cosmicfish as usual. It always amuses me that so many here rant about Penn Staters who refuse to just agree with every bit of conjecture (excuse me, evidence) on the Freeh report because we are so blind in our love of good ol’ PSU. We are apparently not allowed to question any conclusions at all. Because that would mean, of course, that we don’t care about child molestation. </p>

<p>But then they proceed to create their own conjecture, based on nothing but their own blind hatred of PSU - or perhaps a need to feel self-righteous and superior. They take the fact of a recruiting trip, which of course the university would pay for, and call it “child trafficking” and somehow see this as “evidence” that Joe Paterno was helping Sandusky out. And if you question them, you’re blind or naive. </p>

<p>And yes, mini, I’m talking primarily about you.</p>

[1moremom]

<p>Obviously each person brings his own life experiences to his interpretation of this sad affair. I have a close relative who was abused as a child and he has all sorts of far flung ideas about what actually happened. I was curious to see where another poster might be “coming from” and was interested to read a review of his book (on another topic entirely) that opined “I can’t help but feeling [the author/poster] is little more than a conspiracy theorist.”</p>

[greenbutton]

<p>Thank you cosmic. Very well stated. I wonder why people who apparently have such strong evidence that more crimes have taken place choose to only share that via anonymous forum posting of vague accusations. If these people were to write a letter to the editor and sign it, there would be defamation of character suits flying. </p>

<p>This is not to say we have reached the bottom of the slime barrel regarding the case, and that there’s no possibility more is out there to be investigated. (As opposed to concluded or surmised or inferred or guessed at) . I gave up saying “it couldn’t possibly get worse” months ago. </p>

<p>If every investigation of child abuse only ended once a conviction was made, what a wonderful world it would be. And yet, we all know that’s not the case. Real life isn’t like a movie, and Det. Benson doesn’t always save the day.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Agreeing with cosmicfish as usual. It always amuses me that so many here rant about Penn Staters who refuse to just agree with every bit of conjecture (excuse me, evidence) on the Freeh report because we are so blind in our love of good ol’ PSU. We are apparently not allowed to question any conclusions at all. Because that would mean, of course, that we don’t care about child molestation. </p>

<p>But then they proceed to create their own conjecture, based on nothing but their own blind hatred of PSU - or perhaps a need to feel self-righteous and superior. They take the fact of a recruiting trip, which of course the university would pay for, and call it “child trafficking” and somehow see this as “evidence” that Joe Paterno was helping Sandusky out. And if you question them, you’re blind or naive. </p>

<p>And yes, mini, I’m talking primarily about you.

</p>

<p>What a crock! </p>

<p>Do you assume observers woke up one day to become PSU haters, and this for no good reasons? I’ll throw my own assumption here. I believe most people who posted in this thread did not care a whit about PSU before this became a national scandal. At best, we might have wondered about this strange adulation of JoePa, the white nameless uniforms, and the holier-than-thou eternal coverage by the media.</p>

<p>When the stories emerged, it was not hard to be surprised by the extent of the cover-up, and understand what a charade that entire football legend and legacy was. </p>

<p>In turn, it is you the blinders-wearing fanboys who are still playing the victim card by finding the fines, the suspensions, the indictments, and the commentaries unfounded. </p>

<p>The saddest things of all of this is that this sordid affair remains in the news and that there is football played by PSU. Well, short of the sports media giving the same coverage to this sorry program at all. </p>

<p>And sorry you should be!</p>

[mini]

<p>“They take the fact of a recruiting trip, which of course the university would pay for, and call it “child trafficking” and somehow see this as “evidence” that Joe Paterno was helping Sandusky out. And if you question them, you’re blind or naive.”</p>

<p>You’ve obviously never read the Mann Act. The recruiting trips by themselves are not Mann Act violations. (They may be pedophile or child rape felonies, but not Mann Act violations.) Traveling with a minor across state lines and then having sex with them is child sex trafficking under the Mann Act. People who pay for that travel are accessories to the crime. </p>

<p>We* know*, at a minimum, of the two Mann Act violations that took place in 1998 and 1999, visits to bowl games that were also “recruiting trips”, and where a minor was taken across state lines, and sex took place. (Victim #4’s civil case is going to be a real circus, and if I were PSU and the Gov, I’d pay him off - in the tens of millions, and fast.) We know that in at least the first case, the travel was authorized by and paid for by the football program. (Likely the second as well, but we don’t know what the specific authorization was in that case.) If you don’t know that, you haven’t been following the case much.</p>

<p>We also know that the former Professor Emeritus took “recruiting trips” authorized and paid for by the football program in the 1970s, and that at least in one case, he planned to visit a child sex ring outside of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>More will come out if the feds ever decide to follow the Mann Act violations (but I doubt they’ll ever do so if the former Professor Emeritus gets his 422 years in prison.)</p>

<p>I have no particular interest in PSU one way or the other (I only knew them by their football team and the sterling reputation of their head coach, which I had absolutely no reason to doubt.)</p>

[greenbutton]

<p>No, I <em>get</em> that part. The Mann Act definition of trafficking, I get that. I can’t tell (which is funny, considering how often you have brought it up) if you are saying</p>

<ol>
<li>Knowingly or not is not the test of being an accomplice, as defined by the Mann Act. So if it’s Joe or Curley, or Spanier, or some Accounting Clerk 3 who signed the travel papers, they are guilty in the eyes of the law, regardless of what they knew about Sandusky’s plan for the trip.</li>
</ol>

<p>OR</p>

<ol>
<li>Joe (or Curley, or Spanier, or Clerk 3) actually knew Sandusky was a rapist, and were fine with that. And signed the papers, knowing it. </li>
</ol>

<p>OR</p>

<ol>
<li>Joe (and this iteration you usually just insinuate it’s Joe) not only knew Sandusky was a rapist, and was fine with it, BUT ALSO was a rapist and pedophile, and was actively working behind the scenes to perpetrate crimes on children throughout my community. </li>
</ol>

<p>Honestly, I’m not sure which one of those you are asserting. It seems to me there is a vast difference amongst those choices. Which one of those do you mean, or is there a 4th interpretation I’m missing?</p>

<p>xiggi: We agree that many people did not care about PSU prior to the scandal, and do not particularly care now, nor should they. I do not think it is credible to think that those people are more concerned about the victims or the university’s future than those of us who live here or who are PSU alum, who knew the victims before you had even heard of State College. If we take your comments personally, it’s because for you it’s an interesting rhetorical exercise. For us, it is personal. Long after the media get tired of everything (there will be One Year Stories, and Sentencing Stories, and Curley Trial stories still, though) we’ll be dealing with this.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

xiggi: We agree that many people did not care about PSU prior to the scandal, and do not particularly care now, nor should they. I do not think it is credible to think that those people are more concerned about the victims or the university’s future than those of us who live here or who are PSU alum, who knew the victims before you had even heard of State College. If we take your comments personally, it’s because for you it’s an interesting rhetorical exercise. For us, it is personal.

</p>

<p>Greenbutton, I did not add my opinion to satisfy myself through an interesting rhetorical exercise. And neither did I do out of blind hatred of PSU nor to feel self-righteous and superior. </p>

<p>I have no reason to hate PSU as I do not know it beyond seeing the football team and being amiused at the confusion between Penn and PSU, which irritates the Whartonites. And, of course, I have no reason to like or love the school. </p>

<p>This, however, does not stop me from thinking that the football program should have been penalized because the extended cover-up served to protect the program throughout the years. Yes, had they come forward early, the culprits would have been identified, and the world would have forgiven and forgotten delays and the lack of institutional control at the early stages. But that is not what the leaders decided to do! </p>

<p>I understand that this scandal is hitting plenty of people who love and support PSU, and its football program. But where we obviously differ is that I believe the current sanctions fell way short of the warranted. </p>

<p>Simply stated PSU should have had NO football for many years. The fact that games are televised almost every week is nothing short of a disgrace. And, albeit I did not care one way or the other about JoePa’s program, I will now forever look at the program with scorn and disdain, and share a bit of that for the spineless and intregrity-less NCAA and Big Whatever who were cajoled to hit PSU with soft feathers and protect their own brand.</p>

<p>As I said it is business as usual. I was wrong to think it would take until Christmas!</p>

[greenbutton]

<p>You presume incorrectly (about where we differ). I am glad the sanctions didn’t decimate the local economy, but it wouldn’t have been out of line to be given the death penalty, and we would have survived. The business-as-usual charge should be laid at the feet of the NCAA, the Big10, and the other large U football/bball machines who still put PR and profit before sound policy. Everyone’s arranging the deck chairs, but nobody is thinking of getting on a different boat, as it were. Hopefully when the trials are over we will see some permanent change. I agree that the leaders were stupid, thoughtless, and should have come forward, and it is a terrible tragedy that they did not. </p>

<p>At some point, however, just as the bleed blue-and-white fans will have to accept the NCAA sanctions, so too will those who wanted the death penalty accept that the NCAA didn’t levy it. Everybody needs to get over it – whatever their “it” pov is – and get on with their own life.</p>