Article from this past April that forecasts this week's events...amazing this story didn't go national earlier
Madden: Sandusky a State secret
Beaver County Times - April 3, 2011
Apparent Coach is going to comment on the Penn State fiasco
Mike Krzyzewski, Duke Head Coach, addresses Joe Paterno's retirement tonight at 7p on @MadDogRadio SXM 86. Audio: tinyurl.com/bl4yqxy
Article from this past April that forecasts this week's events...amazing this story didn't go national earlier
Madden: Sandusky a State secret
Beaver County Times - April 3, 2011
I am a life long Duke fan. I am a longtime DBR reader who likes to read “opinions” and get updates on things such as recruiting, injuries, and post game analysis without posting any responses. Unfortunately I am also a surviving victim of being repeatedly sexually molested from a male family member from the age of six to age twelve. So I have a unique perspective on the sickening events at Penn State. But I could not continue reading from this thread without expressing a few things. I have a hard time even watching a fictional show like Law and Order SVU having lived through what I have. To turn on ESPN or click on DBR and read about children who have been permanently damaged like I have been damaged is NOT easy to do.
Having endured years and years of therapy I can tell you all that every day is a struggle and I am often filled with anger and depression. But I can also say while some of you are looking at the situation strictly from a legal standpoint, others are casting judgment from a moral high ground. What you think you would have done as a graduate assistant, head coach, athletic director, university president etc. and what you actually WOULD have done may be two entirely different things. I say that because no human truly knows how they would react in a situation until in THAT situation. We are all of different ages, different backgrounds and have varying ideas in regard to the degree of moral responsibility and proper conduct after the fact. Frankly after reading this entire thread and knowing everyone is familiar with the LAX scandal, I caution you all to choose your words carefully. A DBR guideline has always been to think if what you have typed REALLY needs to be shared and is worded in a proper way. When posting on a subject like child molestation that mindset needs to be tenfold before you press enter on our keyboard.
All of that aside I can say I have never been a fan of Penn State but I have always held Mr. Paterno in high regard. As a victim of sexual abuse I have done lots of study not only about molesters and victims, but the people involved in their lives. PSU considers itself a “family”, and I know first hand NOBODY wants to think something THAT vile about a member of their own family. If there was a small irregularity in the behavior of your own brother, father, cousin, best friend human nature is to blow it off and give the benefit of the doubt. Nobody wants to believe they know a pedophile. Nobody wants to even dwell on the fact atrocities like that even occur; certainly not in THEIR family, peer group or even university. Over the years probably hundreds of people had “gut feelings” and did nothing while others truly suspected nothing at all. It is very easy to read an article or even grand jury report and say this person should have morally done this and that person should have ethically done that. One need look no further than the Catholic church and see HUGE mistakes made. But as a victim I have no doubt again people did NOT want to believe something so heinous about a member of their group.
With Mr. Paterno there IS a generation gap that everyone needs to keep in mind. Pedophiles have always existed and in his day when those things happened it was kept quiet and not discussed. Was that the proper way to handle things? No, certainly not. But if a person is raised to keep things hushed because discussion of such depravity is taboo that is what they will do…..even decades later when many know better. My own father never found out about my abuse but saw signs in my personality changes, school work and many other areas. (A WWII, vet my father would have handled my abuse on his own and ended up in jail.) My own mother to this day has no idea I was abused but I’m sure she still wonders why in the time frame of one summer an outgoing straight A student became withdrawn and making D’s. That generation had and still has a stigma about abuse. That generation even has a stigma in regards to psychology, therapy and PTSD. Again when discussing the slippery slope that is the PSU case TRY and put yourself in the shoes of the people involved and get an idea of their background. A perceived lack of action in their mind may have been the proper action in their mind.
Please also keep in mind the ramifications of making pedophile accusations against someone, guilty or not. There have been widely publicized scandalous child abuse cases where the public and media had the people involved already convicted…..then the accused were found innocent. (The stigma even after a not guilty verdict was so severe they ended up committing suicide.) I say that not to defend Sandusky as I think he has admitted some guilt (yet people have also confessed to horrible things under police interrogation and later found innocent) but I say that because a wrong accusation destroys the life of that person too. In our society rapists and pedophiles are the most vilified members and rightfully so. But with someone telling you they saw something that horrible any rational person would want to tread carefully so not to falsely accuse. And multiplied with the mindset humans don’t want to believe a member of THEIR group could do something like that it makes pointing a finger even more difficult.
While I do NOT think school administrators handled the situation properly (according to the grand jury report) no University wants to air any discovered dirty laundry. Duke would have rather handled the LAX incident low key, UNC sure as hell would have preferred the now public knowledge about their football indiscretions didn’t tarnish their reputation, and Miami…….well that’s Miami. But when the subject involves child abuse the ramifications are all the more damning for a school’s reputation. Should the protection and welfare of the children involved have been the first and primary goal when even a hint of misconduct was brought forward? Yes, of course! But it is natural to want to shield those we respect and the other faculty and students who knew nothing from the stigma that now is attached to PSU. Even as a child one of the reasons I didn’t tell anyone and carried the burden silently for decades was to protect my family.
As a victim I must admit it bothers me to see the subject of child molestation so casually discussed on the news, internet and even message boards. A few of you obviously know the deep damage that type of abuse does in a child’s formative years. And I sense sympathy toward the victims from most of the posts even though you can’t truly grasp what those victims felt and now feel. As parents many of you feel anger and cringe at the thought something like the PSU tragedy could happen or have happened to your child. That is understandable. After reading certain segments of the media accounts I can actually feel my blood pressure rise as I clinch my fist. As stated many of you are looking at things from a legal standpoint and not being directly involved I feel that is the proper way to analyze the whole mess. But when stating your opinion on an ethical or moral standpoint, at the very least type…….IMO. Because I have no doubt what many PSU alums and faculty are feeling is regret. Everyone including the graduate assistant to faculty COULD have done more but I have no doubt now regret they didn’t and probably will their remaining days. Parents are now regretting they let their child get involved with Sandusky’s group and wondering if anything happened to their child. Victims are regretting they didn’t come forward sooner to keep other children from becoming victims. The whole thing is just horrible to fathom for everyone involved.
Finally, with such a horrible series of incidents on the front page and leading off newscasts as stated it is difficult for many of us to take in. I myself have found myself reliving certain incidents in my mind just hearing new details about the case. But while massive damage has been done, damage in humans that will never be whole again no matter what they do; something good can come out of this. Several months back my two best friends who know about my abuse recorded two Oprah episodes for me to watch. It was actually harder for them to watch than for me since a large part of my soul died over thirty years ago. But it was enlightening and allowed me to know I am not alone in what I experienced, even though for many years I thought I was. The statistics she reveals will shock you and many of the pedophile stereotypes you will learn are not true. I challenge each of you to take the time to watch the first episode in the link bellow. (I couldn’t find the second episode online to link.) Perhaps with things coming to light at PSU and via Ms. Winfrey making episodes like that we can prevent future victimization and allow those who have endured to seek help. I leave you with one bit of advice for any and all parents out there. No matter who it is, family, clergy regardless of their credentials or position……..if you EVER get a gut feeling about a person or situation LISTEN TO THAT FEELING. My own father had a gut feeling about my abuser yet I am glad he never had to know how right he was. I will not be posting again or replying to this so I say peace unto you and yours…….
A grand jury serves a much different function than a trial (petit) jury. Grand juries hear part of the prosecution's case to merely determine whether there is enough evidence to go forward with a criminal trial. A petit jury determines whether the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt after hearing argument and evidence from both parties.
Again, not saying that the indictment is wrong or that the accused did not do it. I am saying that an indictment is not proven and uncontested "fact".
Twerp-free since July 1, 2014.
Man, if your Mom made you wear that color when you were a baby, and you're still wearing it, it's time to grow up!
Thank you for having the courage to share your story here. Even though posts here are anonymous, I am sure it was a difficult thing to do. I am sorry for what you went through and hope and pray that you continue to heal and are able to live a meaningful life.
I, too, had thought about the generation gap and the fact that people were raised to deal with this differently a generation ago. It's no excuse for what happened at Penn State, but it makes it easier to see why it happened.
I hope what you wrote might help other people who may have gone through something similar.
By the way, trusting what passes as legit reporting in this 24 hour cycle age is ridiculous and simply is designed to inflame passions.
Here, the state's attorney general has taken no action against Paterno, none, and has said NOTHING about whether the local authorities had been apprised of whatever Paterno had been told, or whether Paterno had been told with corroborating evidence that this had been turned over to the duly authorized police department. If those guys did not go immediately to the DA, if they never went to the DA, well, I'm telling you, as I told everyone from day one, including, through a friend, a FACULTY MEMBER OF THE DUKE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO THE LAX CASE, and I do mean day one, that there was way more than a strong possibility that the allegations were untrue, and then in CAPITAL LETTERS WHEN THE DNA REPORTS CAME OUT, that there was no doubt.
Call be Soothsayer Greybeard, but I got a nickle that says that Paterno did what you all are saying he should have.
If he did, going public or going after S. was not an option. Banning him from campus, etc., talk to the other lawyers here; no question S would not have made an issue of it had Paterno insisted on that. But then ask yourself this--HOW WOULD THAT HAVE STOPPED THE PROBLEM, EVEN MADE A DENT IN IT. LOGIC SAYS IT WOULDN'T HAVE, COULDN'T HAVE.
Let's wait on this one. I'm waiting to see if the equivolent of the DNA evidence comes out here, especially if no criminal action is taken against Paterno--someone, at sometime, will demand it of the DA and/or state Attorney General.
As for Joe's retirement, what would be the point of staying, assuming the best case scenario from Joe's point of view as outlined above. All those years, and, so far as I can see, not a single media person has suggested that "the more to the story" might make the calls for Paterno's head beyond the pale.
I cannot but condemn the actions of Sandusky. That said, I have to maintain some compassion for the other parties to this matter and the decisions they faced. My reading causes me some greater misgivings for the actions of the administrators. For JoPa, not so much. IMO I have to consider the whole of the person I am judging - and must consider his known life experience and frame of reference.
I am not ready to condemn JoPa. More details and information may change that opinion, but I must join 91920110 in choosing a cautious path.
I agree with 91920110, nobody wants to believe that a family member could do this. I'm sure Paterno didn't want to believe that he could hire someone who could do this. And although we'd all like to believe that we would do the right thing in a situation like this, sometimes, in the middle of a situation, the 'right thing' is unclear. The person truly to blame is Sandusky. He's ruined a lot of lives and a lot of livelihoods and a lot of reputations.
Last edited by -jk; 11-09-2011 at 04:40 PM. Reason: unnecessary side conversation
Indeed, the web site of Finance and Business, the unit that Schultz headed in 2002 (link), indicates that he was the boss of University Police in a broad sense.
I am not going to draw any conclusions whatsoever from this, but it does increase the range of what might have possibly transpired in 2002.
Last edited by just a lemma; 11-09-2011 at 03:57 PM.
I don't draw conclusions from this relationship either - or even an inference, frankly. [edit: maybe I should! But I'm tired] But I would raise the question about the UP and how they relate to municipal police. At Duke and other private universities, I'm not sure the campus safety officers really have any jurisdiction over criminal matters (particularly violent criminal matters). I could be wrong, but I suspect they're really there to enforce university policy and civil matters - like speeding, parking, noise violations, etc. But at a state school, I don't know if there would be such a distinction as that which I conjecture exists at a private school. Anyway, food for thought.
Ruined a lot of lives, certainly. But the PSU administration officials (including Paterno) whose livelihoods and reputations have been (or will soon be) ruined put themselves in that position through their own actions and inaction, and barring further information, deserve their shares of blame. The unspeakably awful nature of Sandusky's alleged crimes doesn't change that.The person truly to blame is Sandusky. He's ruined a lot of lives and a lot of livelihoods and a lot of reputations.
"..casting judgement from a moral high ground..." was what I was so clumsily trying to point out last night. I have never really followed Penn State football although I have been aware of Paterno's reputation. Paterno was in a very difficult situation and, even then, did dutifully pass on the information to the people who were in a better situation to take care of it. It's a testament to his honor that he would announce his retirement so quickly in order to not prolong this situation, but it's a shame he is ending his career in this manner.
His father did not tell him to call the police nor did he take him to the police, instead he told him to see Paterno!
Paterno hears the account. He takes the GA to the proper University authorities.
I am not sure what they did but it looks like the authorities did nothing to stop Sandusky from molesting more children.
The one getting all the attention is Paterno.
I wish Paterno had done more but I also wish that the GA would have gone to the police, that his father would have taken him to the police and that the University authorities had done more.
It seems to me that going PUBLIC was not an option. Not legally, not morally. I'd like to hear an unemotional argument to the contrary.
This was and remains a matter for law enforcement. Shultz was in charge of the campus police, who were part of the local police force with regard to any crimes committed on campus on campus. Besides, no one in authority in government, State College, the county, the state, has asserted that the POLICE were NOT informed of the 2002 allegations when they arose or that the allegations were not reported to the local (or county) DA. That would be NO ONE!
Standusky was let go as of the next season, obviously as a consequence of this incident. Standusky was not prosecuted. What should Paterno have done at that point? You do not answer. HOW COME?
As for the assistant, he should have intervened if he saw sexual conduct, even the possibility (possibility, walked in and said, "Hi coach, what's up. Then said something to the kid. Then reported to Paterno.) People do make mistakes, especially in shocking circumstances. Did this young assistant or his old man know that it was not a crime for him not to have intervened on the spot? If not, did he tell the details at the time. And, if he had, would he still have been pillared, as he now is in every media piece done on this awful mess for having not jumped in and brought a stop to what was transpiring. So, maybe, he was not as forthcoming as he should have been, at least to university officials, and who knows what happened thereafter. WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD, OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.
Now, I have been involved in much more minor cases as a federal prosecutor in which I had suspicions that testimony offered months after the fact by police on the stand might have testified to what they remembered but that what they remembered might not have been accurate. I never thought think that they were lying, just had a sense that what they remembered, or even thought they had seen, or the words people used, was inaccurate. Certain events did not logically add up--why didn't the police do X, why no contemporaneous verbattim notes, etc. How reliable is the guy's account 10 years later about what he said and too whom?
How many CERTAIN victim IDs are proven dead WRONG after people wrongly convicted rote in jail. WE KNOW THAT THIS IS TRUE. What did this young guy tell Paterno and the others?
Would the masses feel differently if Paterno had indeed reported this to the police off campus when the incident occurred, or if he knew or had been told by Shultz that the police had been informed (Shultz again was not indicted for not reporting, and no one has said he didn't, at least not that I recall reading (I am not into this like I was in the LAX case since when the LAX case arose a close friend's son had been rail roaded in a similar fashion over a much more minor matter?) Would they not clamor about his not having gone "PUBLIC" even if Paterno knew or had been told that the matter was in the police's hands and no action was taken about the matter? Would anyone in the media not fault him for failing to exert pressure (no one says how, much less that it would have been appropriate) on the DA to indict Standasky in 2002, or had facts to say that that might even have been appropriate (we have said nothing about the kid, his guardians, etc, because we know nothing).
Come on, you got more than "highly unlikely." I'm NOT saying that any of this happened. Tell me why you are so sure it DIDN't.
The NOTION that local police and a local DA would have bowed to pressure from the University if they had a case is INSIPID, as is the notion that anyone in their right mind would have weighed in to block a prosecution or proper investigation (people who suggest that, in my view, are way out on a precarious ledge and are flinging around accusations of some serious crimes here, folks).
It is possible that Shultz did nothing in the face of Paterno's report beyond interview Sandusky himself, but I doubt it. He was not indicted for failure to report. If Paterno stopped with Shultz, who was the head of the local police on campus, should Paterno have expected that the police or Shultz (if he would have appropriately been in the loop, which I doubt) to have kept him apprised of the investigation, what they did or didn't do, or what an investigation turned up? Come on. Hey, if I'm wrong on this, please someone who knows tell me.
So, Sandusky was let go immediately after the season even though no criminal charges were brought.
Are you among those who think that Paterno should have gone PUBLIC with what he had been told in such a circumstance? Do you know if, when no prosecution was brought, Paterno attempted to try to find out why not? Is that what you fault him for failing to do? Especially if he reported it to the police directly himself or was told point blank by Shultz that he would, please explain how and why you think that such an inquiry would have been appropriate, and add your speculation about what he might have been told--I repeat, no one was indicted or even chastized in the grand jury report for failing to bring the accusation to the police or for failing to follow up.
We'll see what falls out. Now that there is to be an in-house investigation and presumably a report, I should think that we will indeed get all the facts. Me, I'm gonna wait.
Last edited by greybeard; 11-09-2011 at 07:16 PM.
Thank you, 91920110, for sharing your insight. To me, you are an amazing individual.
You very eloquently brought up one of my thoughts. JoePa was being given information about a trusted friend and associate. It must have been hard to even consider that Sandusky could possibly have done something so horrible. He took the story to his boss. In hindsight, yes, he should have done more. At the time, he reported the incident, which I'm sure he had a very hard time believing was even a remote possibility. Do we know if he went back to the AD to ask what had been determined? If so, what was he told?
One other question - has any information been given out as to why the State AG investigated and not the local police? I may have missed that information. Was it one of the alleged victims/families or did someone from PSU go outside and report?
My heart goes out to the young men that have allegedly been harmed by Sandusky. To have someone you look up to do such horrendous things to you has to be so very confusing and hurtful. I pray they get the support and counseling they need.
(I use alleged/allegedly as Sandusky has only been charged at this point.)
I'm not going to quote Greybeards post, because it is quite long, and the parts I want to discuss are dispersed throughout, but there are a few factual things to clear up. Schultz was not "in charge" of the campus police. He was the VP of finance and business, which gave him oversight over the campus police, largely relating to their financial matters. He was not in any way in charge of their day to day activities or had any authority over official police investigations. You can plausibly conclude that going to him should lead to the police hearing about it, but within a few weeks it was well known by all involved that he did not go to them at all. Somehow, no one questioned him as to why the police were not involved and did not then go to them on their own. I have no problem with McQueary or Paterno not going directly to the Police and reporting up the chain, but when it became clear that those above them did not go to the proper authorities, they didn't go themselves or even demand that the police be brought in. In my mind, that was the turning point from following protocol and acting within some semblance of reason, to completely burying their head in the sand and ignoring the issue.
Sandusky was never "let go." He retired from the football team in 1999, but kept an office and emeritus title after his retirement. Neither of these were taken away in 2002, so asserting that he was ever "let go" is factually wrong.
I won't repost my entire argument, but I'll link it, and summarize that while it may not be right, it's not too hard to determine why he didn't immediately call 9-1-1 or try to intervene. If he acts right at that moment, it can become his word against Sandusky's, as the kid was likely too traumatized to admit what happened. Given the power that Sandusky had compared to McQueary, it's not hard to see why he would consciously or subconsciously worry about that.
As for what Paterno did or didn't do, or knew or didn't know, you're right. We have no idea. We do know that he knew something, and while that legally makes a big difference, morally he probably should have done more. He's admitted he should have done more. From a job standpoint, that's enough to get rid of him right now if the board of trustee's want's to.
The Penn State board of trustees is about to hold a press conference. Presumably, details of Joe Paterno's immediate future will be revealed. Stay tuned...