Penn State Sandusky scandal

Parent Cafe
1761

<p>Has anyone posted the lint to the Nebraska coach’s speech yet? </p>

<p>[SPORTSbyBROOKS</a> Pelini: PSU Game ‘Should Not Have Been Played’](<a href=“http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/bo-pelini-psu-game-shouldnt-have-been-played-29900]SPORTSbyBROOKS”>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/bo-pelini-psu-game-shouldnt-have-been-played-29900)</p>

<p>Here are excerpts from Pelini’s comments to the media:</p>

<p>I will be honest with you going into the game, I didn’t think the game should have been played, for a lot of different reasons. </p>

<p>I look at my job as a football coach as to educate and to prepare the kids that come into the program for the rest of their life. That’s what we are; we are a university system.</p>

<p>I thought that this game gave us an opportunity to show that the situation going on is bigger than football. It is bigger than the football game that was just played. It is bigger than the young men that played in the game that would have missed it, had they called it off. </p>

<p>It’s about education and putting things into perspective what the situation is all about. Hopefully, the fact that both teams sat up and prayed together put that in perspective a little bit. </p>

<p>It’s about what doing what’s right in society. It’s about doing what’s right and wrong. Trust me, when I tell you, I don’t know the specifics of the situation and I am not judging anybody. But the fact is young kids were hurt and that’s a crime in itself. </p>

<p>It is a lot bigger than football, the NCAA, the Big Ten and anything else. I think that at least, that’s why I think going in the game shouldn’t have been played.</p>

<p>But with it being played, kneeling down and praying with both teams coming together was the right thing to do and hopefully that in of itself made a statement. </p>

<p>I just think it is about the young kids. I got a 12-year old boy. It’s about educating the young kids. I think there were a lot of young kids, all week, with all the things going on and watching ESPN that were really confused for a lot of different reasons. </p>

<p>There is a lot out there that people do not know and a lot of speculation. It’s not about the adults, football or anything else. It’s about education to the youth. I think that gets lost in whole situation. Whatever comes out of it, hopefully a lot of people learned from it and nothing like that ever happens again.</p>

<p>There were times when I felt like here I am telling my team to ignore what’s going on because we have a game to play. But, my main job is to educate and to talk to them about it and put focus on what we know, so these young adults learn from the situation. I think it is a pretty complicated situation for a lot of reasons. </p>

<p>I will be honest with you, earlier in the week, I thought there is no way that we are going to play in this football game. </p>

<p>How did we get to a place where Bo Pelini is desperately needed to remind us that our children are more important than a football game?</p>

<p>The answer lies in State College, Pennsylvania, where a Nebraska football coach’s words should be bronzed and never forgotten.</p>

1762

<p>More is coming out about what PSU/Second Mile’s attorney, Wendell Courtney knew since 1998 [A</a> Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile](<a href=“A Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile”>A Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile)</p>

<p>The charity continued to pay Sandusky almost a half million dollars for 8 years, despite their knowing he’d faced child abuse allegations [Sandusky</a> Made $457G From Pennsylvania Charity Despite Child Sex Allegations, Tax Records Show | Fox News](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/11/sandusky-made-457g-after-pennsylvania-charity-learned-allegations-tax-records/]Sandusky”>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/11/sandusky-made-457g-after-pennsylvania-charity-learned-allegations-tax-records/) and apparently had been the source/ supplier (awful thought) of the victims</p>

<p>Second Mile posted a statement on their website [The</a> Second Mile – Providing Children with Help and Hope](<a href=“The Second Mile”>The Second Mile) In their statement they said

Note that they said an INTERNAL investigation was done. No indication that anyone called DCS, including their own staff who they say are encouraged to report any allegations of abuse or suspected abuse. Epic fail, and serious attempt to cover their rear ends in this mess. Why no outrage towards them? Or towards the janitors who failed to report in 2000? </p>

<p>NBC news/Today show has had interesting discussions on this topic this morning. Including mentioning that an attorney is advertising for victims on his website. Yuk.</p>

1763

<p>“THIS IS NOT RIGHT! </p>

<p><a href=“At Penn State's stadium, profanity, scorn greet one father's protest - Washington Times”>At Penn State's stadium, profanity, scorn greet one father's protest - Washington Times; "– vlines Post 1728</p>

<p>Disgraceful!</p>

<p>I guess the moment of silence, was exactly that, one moment.</p>

<p>"Some posters should recall what Will Rogers famously said: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” - coase </p>

<p>100% agree.</p>

<p>Presenting the winning game ball to Paterno would have been in extremely bad taste.</p>

<p>I’m also relieved they didn’t win.</p>

1764

<p>The governor of PA (former atty General) is being interviewed on Meet the Press now</p>

1765

<p>"Why no outrage towards them? Or towards the janitors who failed to report in 2000? "</p>

<p>I have posted several times that Second Mile knew. Other posters have as well. More will come out. They are also at fault. The janitors reported it up the chain, as McQueary and Paterno did. But, the janitors have far less power and authority than Paterno.</p>

1766

<p>That was a generic question, ohiomom, not addressed to any one poster. This thread has repeated the same things over and over. Most agree that Paterno did not do enough. Even Paterno himself. It is just interesting to see who gets targeted to be thrown under the bus and who does not.</p>

<p>They are about to talk further about the “conspiracy of silence” on Meet the Press</p>

1767

<p>If all that can be said of Paterno is that he “did not do enough”, that will be a victory. I think it far more likely that he was an enabler and, perhaps, an accessory.</p>

1768

<br>

<br>

<p>There is no big mystery. When you are the boss you are accountable. When you are accountable you have to answer for it when things go wrong on your watch. Paterno was the boss of the football program, not the janitors.</p>

1769

<p>Totally agree, coureur. That is my point. I think he (Paterno) owns the responsibility, along with Curley, Schultz, the attorney and school president. And Second Mile. Not the janitors and not McQueary, though yes, they should have done more. They are in a way examples of the Bystander effect. They should have done more at the time. But ultimately, the responsibility is higher up the chain to deal with a known pedophile in their midst. That there is a cover up and that it was swept under the rug is without question.</p>

1770

<p>It will be interesting to see who is found credible when the trial starts. Many posters have mentioned that McQuery was found credible by the grand jury but I think that may be different at the trial level. In the grand jury McQuery was being questioned by an attorney with a goal of making him look credible and Schultz and Curley were questioned in a way to make them look anything but.
When the trial starts there will be a defense attorney so the issue of credibility may look entirely different.</p>

1771

<p>We have had a long terrible ordeal with the Catholic church scandal, now we have this and I am sure there are plenty of other pedophiles operating today. My thought is would we as a society learn from this, or is it another thing that seems to not have big effect just like the Catholic church scandal seemingly had not much of an effect on these school administrators and witnesses.</p>

1772

<p>Before condemning Raykovitz, let us consider that, according to his GJ testimony, he DID act promptly to prevent Sandusky from having access to Second Mile kids when informed that there was an open investigation of Sandusky in 2008. </p>

<p>According to his testimony, he was only informed of the first investigation AFTER it was over, and he was not only kept in the dark about the true nature of the allegations, but told that the investigation had revealed no wrong-doing. As to the investigation being “internal,” this is not ideal, but also let us not forget that “internal” at PSU can include investigations by the police. It is quite possible that whatever Curley said to him implied that the Penn State police were part of the investigations And it is a fact that people who work with certain populations are vulnerable to accusation, and SOME of those accusations are false. Is it the norm in agencies that work with youth to summarily and permanently separate everyone who is accused, even after investigation shows no wrong-doing? While the investigation is going on, yes. But afterward? I doubt it. (Of course, the fact that Sandusky was the founder and chief fundraiser would play into this judgement call, unfortunately…)</p>

<p>Unless Raykovitz is lying through his teeth, Curley lied to him, by omission at the very least. Since the track record seems to show that Raykovitz will act properly when informed, and Curley will minimize, lie, and cover up when informed, I’m inclined to give Raykovitz the benefit of the doubt. For now.</p>

<p>A big question to me, with regard to Second Mile, is the internal policies and procedures that made it possible for an adult to be alone with kids in any circumstances. Certainly in every organization I know that deals with kids–soccer leagues, churches–it is policy that there are always two adults present. Frankly, it is to protect the adults as much as to protect the kids.</p>

1773

<p>I feel so outraged when I read about an “internal investigation”. What exactly does that mean? Nothing, if you ask me. Who are they (Second Mile or Penn State) to investigate anything? What qualifies them to determine if a crime took place and how can they possibly be objective in their assessment of the facts? Did Second Mile interview witnesses or victims? I visualize a whispered conversation in a board room at which they all decide it’s just more comfortable to find no cause for concern. It’s disgusting.</p>

1774

<p>Hopefully there will be increased awareness and perhaps legislative changes with even stronger mandated reporting procedures. Add to that protection for those doing the reporting. The janitors and the GA probably feared reporting directly to the authorities. Intimidation is a powerful feeling. Unfortunately in this case it (fear/intimidation) overrode their choice to do the morally right thing. There should, in the ideal world, be a clear system for how to handle these situations and protection (legally, vocationally, etc) for those making the report. My stand all along is that I agree that the witnesses should have intervened and/or called the legal authorities, but they chose to follow the internal protocol, to contact their superiors within the institution. This was the minimally procedurally acceptable thing to do. All I have professed all along is that I can at some level understand, although not necessarily agree with, their choice (McQueary/the janitors). I do not agree that the higher ups handled it appropriately at all. I find them culpable.</p>

1775

<p>jym- there is a fear of reporting problems when it is perceived or real that the one you are reporting is a “favored one”. I had to report someone at work for using inappropriate language or actions 4 times. He was friends with the entire management team I reported to. Not one of the people who heard the language or saw the assault would come forward but they all made sure I knew. I have a very valid concern that I was going to endanger my job and career.
I took all 4 issues forward and I can not imagine ignoring anything that came close to child abuse.</p>

1776

<p>Good post, Consolation. Yes, the devil is in the details, and the semantics that Curley/Schultz used (e.g. “internal investigation”, that seems to imply that a police investigation given Shultz’s role as having oversight for the university police). As more details emerge, we will see who starts to smell more and more. Imo, there is a difference between making a bad decision under a stressful/crisis situation vs a conscious, deliberate decision to sweep it (illegal/immoral behavior) under the rug.</p>

1777

<p>tom-
That was very brave of you. And as I mentioned earlier, I did a similar thing when I was in grad school. Again, I do not say I agree with the choice McQueary or the janitors made. And I am not defending it. Not at all. It is extremely disappointing that they made that choice. I am simply saying at some level I can understand it. </p>

<p>Sadly, some other posters who expressed similar thoughts have felt it necesary to stop posting on this thread. I can say I understand that too.</p>

1778

<p>EPTR, Second Mile at no time claimed to have done an investigation, internal or otherwise. They are mandated reporters, not investigators. CURLEY claimed to have done one. Penn State’s police force IS the local police force. So they ARE qualified to investigate crimes.</p>

<p>Of course, we know that the 1998 accusation was in fact investigated by the police, but the 2002 accusation was not. We still don’t know why the 1998 investigation did not result in charges. That was up to the DA.</p>

<p>One can certainly ask whether Second Mile should have reported the 2002 accusations. But if they were already reported, they didn’t need to. I think that it seems likely that Curley deliberately misled Raykovitz so that he WOULDN’T think he needed to report something.</p>

1779

<p>jym, I agree. It is easy to sit here as armchair quarterback to say that I absolutely will intervene at the exact moment that one witness the problem. I just heard on Meet The Press from David Brooks that there have been studies on human reaction to these kinds of things, when asked by a question, vast majority say that they will intervene, but when putting people in a mocked up situations and vast majority of them do not respond.</p>

1780

<p>jym, I’m one who expressed similar thoughts about McQueary and the janitors who has quit, for the most part, posting, but I haven’t been scared off. It’s just that the thread is becoming a bit circular – people making the same arguments, posting the same links, etc. – and the rhetoric escalated, and I don’t feel like adding to the unconstructive back and forth. :slight_smile: I am reading and learning.</p>