<p>People are upset. People are angry. People want to express their indignation. That is all completely understandable. But some of the self-righteous rage expressed towards other posters who may express another perspective is unnecessary. Perhaps it is in part the challenges with expressing thoughts on the internet, where tone and facial expression are unable to be seen and assumptions are made about them and then hackles get raised all the way around… Either way, I agree with those who wonder why the anger and fury isn’t being directed at Sandusky. This is baffling.</p>
<p>I do too, but not because the grand jury found him credible. It’s because his story runs wildly counter to his own interests. When someone tells you he did something terrible, it’s probably true.</p>
<p>I’ve said nothing at all about Curley and Shutz because I don’t have any source about their actions that I find this reliable.</p>
<p>I’m not interested in talking about Sandusky because that situation speaks for itself. I am confident we all disagree with molesting kids; what’s to discuss? I also view him as so sick and twisted that he’s outside my moral universe altogether. Reactions like fury don’t seem to apply; I’m mute. I don’t even have the language to talk about that kind of thing.</p>
<p>I have quite a lot of sympathy for McQuery. Paterno had treated him like a father for 8 years prior to 2002, and his own biological father told him to take what he saw to Paterno. Having done the third or fourth best thing, he had to walk around campus for the next 9 years, watching Sandusky bring more kids to the campus and into the locker room, watch Paterno serve on Sandusky’s board as if nothing had happened, and knowing there was now a 19-year-old man out there somewhere whose life may have been altered forever by his own poor choice.</p>
<p>We don’t know if Paterno ever said anything to McQuery about the incident ever again, or whether it simply became part of the evil man’s code of silence.</p>
<p>I read that yesterday and then read the GJ report. Between the two can someone tell me without a doubt where Paterno clearly did the wrong thing at the time? Not in hindsight, not conjecture although as mini posted he clearly could have been an enabler but provable at the time facts that he was morally wrong.</p>
<p>He reported the incident, Schultz reports in the GJ that he and Curly reported it to CPS. Now we know that was not true but should we expect Paterno knew it was not true. Should he have been expected at the time to not accept the head of campus police advising him that it was reported to CPS?</p>
<p>“Again - how did the super know about McQuery?” – Tom</p>
<p>The Superintendent did not know about McQuery. It came out in the investigation that took place after the Superintendent reported it.</p>
<p>“During the Grand Jury investigation, Curley told the grand jury that McQueary told him that he saw Sandusky “horsing around” with the boy. That’s how McQueary got called.” - chocololic</p>
<p>mini - I think you are on to something very important and which is very troubling. Did Paterno or McQuery ever discuss the incident again and if not why. I think that should be asked.</p>
<p>Okay- then why was Curly ever brought in. How did the DA know anything about the 2002 incident? Here is who knew as far as I know
Sandusky, the victim, McQuery, his father, Paterno, Curly, Schutlz, the second mile person, Spanier. Did one of them go to the DA?</p>
<p>“I have quite a lot of sympathy for McQuery. Paterno had treated him like a father for 8 years prior to 2002, and his own biological father told him to take what he saw to Paterno. Having done the third or fourth best thing, he had to walk around campus for the next 9 years, watching Sandusky bring more kids to the campus and into the locker room, watch Paterno serve on Sandusky’s board as if nothing had happened, and knowing there was now a 19-year-old man out there somewhere whose life may have been altered forever by his own poor choice.”</p>
<p>Yes, Mini, I agree somewhat, but he ended up with a plum job when all was said and done. I still maintain, at least he did something, unfortunately is was not enough.</p>
in Schultzs grand jury testimony he states he **believed **the child protection agency was investigating the 2002 incident - but he goes on to say that he and Curley notified only Spanier of the incident. If he and Curley didnt inform child protection services, who does he think did? It makes absolutely no sense that an agency would be doing an investigation if they had not been informed there was an incident.</p>
<p>“Okay- then why was Curly ever brought in. How did the DA know anything about the 2002 incident? Here is who knew as far as I know
Sandusky, the victim, McQuery, his father, Paterno, Curly, Schutlz, the second mile person, Spanier. Did one of them go to the DA?” tom</p>
<p>Once Child Protective Services gets involved there is a process in place for info to be dispersed to the proper authorities. I’m not going to speculate as to exactly who told what when, but once CPS investigates the info goes to the proper channels.</p>
<p>TUTu- I understand that but we do not know what Paterno was told. I am implying conjecture like many of you are. I could be wrong and Paterno truly morally wrong. Until all the facts are out we do not know. See how that works.</p>
<p>They likely saw each other almost daily, and worked relatively closely together, for the next nine years. If JoePa believed McQuery didn’t see what he said he saw, I presume he would have fired him. But otherwise, if he fired him, the story would have come out.</p>
<p>So, without getting all novelistic, I think there is likely a BIG part of the story missing. Was Sandusky blackmailing JoePa? Did JoePa know the entire time that he was enabling Sandusky’s penchant for underage boys? Or was he blind as a bat? If he was, why did Sandusky resign? If he wasn’t, why was he serving on Sandusky’s board?</p>
<p>And what about McQuery? How did he manage to keep his job for nine years, and his mouth shut?</p>
<p>I think you are missing the point Ohiomom- how would have CPS known about the 2002 incident even. Someone of those listed had to finally come forward to the DA. I am guessing McQuery.</p>
<p>mini- yes I agree-So, without getting all novelistic, I think there is likely a BIG part of the story missing.</p>
<p>Its surely been discussed somewhere earlier in this thread, but does anyone know why the janitors didn’t report what they saw to CPS? Calhoun whas apparently very upset, to the point that they thought he might have a medical crisis. They reported it to their supervisor, Jim Wetherite, who told him who he could report it to, if he chose to report it. They were new (he and Petrosky) and Wetherite was only temporarily in that facility. So they didnt report.</p>
<p>What about staff at Second Mile? Did no one know? What about all the investigations required before a family can adopt? Sandusky has what, 6 adopted children and also had foster children? I feel so sorry for them and shutter to imagine what they may have possibly been subject to themselves. </p>
<p>Surely all this has been discussed. The point in briging it up again is that as many have said, there is a lot of blame to go around.</p>
<p>Tom – if I reported something like this to a bureaucracy and expected that it would be investigated, I would find it very strange that they didn’t come to talk to me. Paterno was an important witness in the matter. He could speak to McQueary’s agitation at the time of the report and confirm that he was the first PSU official told about the matter. When weeks went by without any inquiry, Paterno should have realized that either no investigation was occurring, or it was being handled incompetently. I agree that the non-report could not have been obvious the same day.</p>
<p>“I think you are missing the point Ohiomom- how would have CPS known about the 2002 incident even. Someone of those listed had to finally come forward to the DA. I am guessing McQuery.” - Tom</p>
<p>What I’m trying to say is that once CPS is involved, and once there is an investigation, people are questioned and facts start to come out. As more facts come up and more people are mentioned more of the story starts to unravel.</p>
<p>A quote from the Patriot article"…Even though Paterno himself had told the grand jury that McQueary saw “something of a sexual nature,” Paterno said this week that he had stopped the conversation before it got too graphic. Instead, he told McQueary he would need to speak with his superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and with Schultz…"</p>
<p>I can understand how Paterno would stop McQueary as soon as he heard that there was sexual misconduct. He didn’t need to hear any more than this to know he would have McQueary report it to the AD. He knew it needed to be reported. He wanted McQueary to directly tell the AD so there was no misunderstanding of what McQueary saw …first hand info. Paterno met with them the next day to tell them they needed to talk directly with McQueary. </p>
<p>In hindsight we all wish Paterno had asked further questions because we want to believe if he heard the graffic nature of the assault he would have gone ballistic. But he didn’t. He heard enough to know it needed to be reported. I see no crime in this. No evil.</p>
<p>I suppose this is where people believe there was the beginning of a coverup. What was said in ths meeting? Why didn’t Paterno not have McQueary at this meeting too. I would like the answers to these questions too. Why did it take 10 days for them to set up this meeting? I guess these are the same questions we all continue to want answered.</p>
<p>Hanna-I agree with you however I have reported integrity issues on my job to HR, our ethics officer and our internal security and it is not unusual for them to not interview me. I may not agree with how they investigate matters but I do not run their shops. I have even heard of decisions that I do not agree with. Here is the general response when you ask- personal matters are private and can not be discussed with you. The same goes with CPS investigations even if he called and asked Paterno would have been told nothing.</p>