The Sex Abuse Scandal at PSU

[SMO]

Shocking accusations at Penn State. I'm curious why DBR speculates that this may result in Joe Paterno's ouster given that preliminary reports suggest he was one of the people that reported the alleged misconduct instead of covering it up. Do suggestions of his removal or retirement have more to do with his age or does someone think he was involved?

[mph]

I just finished reading the grand jury report and it's hard to know where to begin. As mentioned on the front page, this scandal is nothing like the Duke Lacrosse case. There are multiple credible witnesses and the testimony of the victims and witnesses paint a consistent and compelling picture of Sandusky's MO. I can't think of an similar situation (testimony of multiple victims and at least three independent eye witnesses) where allegations of sexual abuse turned out to be false. This is going to end very badly for Sandusky. It's also likely to end badly for PSU, the football program, and Joe Paterno.

As a former PSU grad student I'm sickened and depressed by the way this was handled by PSU administrators, and if the grand jury report accurately describes what the GA told Paterno, I think there's a good chance he is coaching his last season. I oversee a coaching staff of five assistant coaches and two GAs and I can't imagine having one of my GAs report a similar situation and not taking it to the police. Again, if the reports of Paterno's involvement are accurate, I don't fault him for not knowing about Sandusky's behavior and I don't fault him for going to his AD first. I even understand how he might violate PA's 48 hour reporting requirement while he waits to see how the administration handles things. However, once the administration decided to handle this with what can't be reasonably characterized as even a slap on the wrist, Paterno should have held the administration accountable and forced them to file a police report. It also seems inexcusable that Paterno didn't either unilaterally ban Sandusky from all football facilities or, if he lacked the legal power to do so, at least push the university to ban Sandusky pending a full police investigation.

It's just an incredibly sad story and a horrible stain on a university and coach that seemed to have a long legacy of doing things the right way.

[SMO]

Can you paraphrase the GJ report? Media in PA is reporting Paterno was credited by the GJ with reporting what he had heard. I thought the accusations surfaced long after Sandusky retired but maybe I'm wrong?

[mph]

Can you paraphrase the GJ report? Media in PA is reporting Paterno was credited by the GJ with reporting what he had heard. I thought the accusations surfaced long after Sandusky retired but maybe I'm wrong?

Here's the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/documents/sandusky-grand-jury-report11052011.html) to the report.


Sandusky holds emeritus status with Penn State. ln addition to the regular privileges of a
professor emeritus, he had an office and a telephone in the Lasch Building. The status allowed
him access to all recreational facilities, a parking pass for a vehicle, access to a Penn State
account for the internet, listing in the faculty directory, faculty discounts at the bookstore and
educational privileges for himself and eligible dependents. These and other privileges were
negotiated when Sandusky retired in 1999. Sandusky continued to use University facilities as per
his retirement agreement. As a retired coach, Sandusky had unlimited access to the football
facilities, including the locker rooms.

So, while Sandusky wasn't a member of the coaching staff when Paterno became aware of the allegations, he had an office in the football building and approved access to all football facilities.

Paterno is credited with reporting the allegations to the AD, which is a good start but not enough given the horrific nature of the act the GA allegedly reported:


The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to report what
he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno ("Paterno"), head football coach of Pemi [sic] State. The next
morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home,
where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a
Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called
Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his
home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry
Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a
young boy.

Approximately one and a half weeks later, the graduate assistant was called to a meeting
with Penn State Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business
Gary Schultz ("Schultz").

[dukedoc]

The GJ report is impossible to paraphrase. I only got through the first two victims' accounts and had to stop.

It sounds like Joe Pa became aware in 2002, 3 years after Sandusky's retirement. He then reported it to the AD, but it isn't clear to me if he did anything beyond that, even after A LOT of time passed and it was obvious that no legal action had been taken against Sandusky despite allegations involving actions that anyone would know are grievous criminal acts. I think that's the issue - even though he reported it to his superior, that wasn't enough. He himself needed to go to the authorities if no one else was. Anyone who knew about the allegations and also knew that no legal action was being taken was complicit in keeping this man out and about and potential putting further young boys at risk.

I love Joe Pa. I respect him immensely. But everyone - and I mean everyone - is fallible. Sad.

[sagegrouse]

Shocking accusations at Penn State. I'm curious why DBR speculates that this may result in Joe Paterno's ouster given that preliminary reports suggest he was one of the people that reported the alleged misconduct instead of covering it up. Do suggestions of his removal or retirement have more to do with his age or does someone think he was involved?


Can you paraphrase the GJ report? Media in PA is reporting Paterno was credited by the GJ with reporting what he had heard. I thought the accusations surfaced long after Sandusky retired but maybe I'm wrong?

Sandusky retired in 1999, but as others have said, retained an office at PSU and had access to the facilities. The reported incident at Penn State occurred in 2002, although there was another graphic incident witnessed by Penn State employees at some point.

I would say that Penn State was "stupidly loyal" to a long-time coach and two university officials are likely guilty of perjury. There is no evidence that Penn State severed ties with Sandusky.

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

Very disturbing and ugly situation. I've been a Penn State fan for years, and my father, brother, and uncle went to school there.

Report from Harrisburg Patriot-News website (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/report_former_coach_jerry_sand.html)


A source close to the investigation told The Patriot-News that head coach Joe Paterno will not be charged, and was praised by prosecutors for handling himself appropriately.

Although the situation is not similar to the false accusations against Duke lacrosse players, I think it is reasonable to see how the situation plays out before assuming wrong-doing on the part of the Penn State adminstrators.

[bob blue devil]

this is a tricky topic. imo, if JoePa was aware of these extremely serious accusations (which it sounds very likely he was), and he had reason to believe that the law, forget about the university, was not aware of them (which some have hinted at, but may be a legitimate question), then he clearly erred in not being personally sure the law was brought into the picture.

in this hypothetical i'm not saying JoePa is a terrible person, but he clearly did not exemplify the leadership that is expected given his role and was necessary for the situation. let's hope this is not the case, as i think most of us see JoePa as one of the good guys in a sport where we keep seeing bad examples; it would be sad to see him as an ineffectual leader in such a serious matter.

(shout out to coach cut for his fantastic job in all aspects of his role!)

[SMO]

Here's the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/documents/sandusky-grand-jury-report11052011.html) to the report.



So, while Sandusky wasn't a member of the coaching staff when Paterno became aware of the allegations, he had an office in the football building and approved access to all football facilities.

Paterno is credited with reporting the allegations to the AD, which is a good start but not enough given the horrific nature of the act the GA allegedly reported:

I wonder why Paterno is being praised by prosecutors...I heard he will be a witness for the state...incentive to testify or did he really do the right things?

One thing I really don't get is why the primary witness, the GA, didn't report it to police. Or maybe he did after nothing happened?

[mph]

Although the situation is not similar to the false accusations against Duke lacrosse players, I think it is reasonable to see how the situation plays out before assuming wrong-doing on the part of the Penn State adminstrators.

I agree with this and just want to clarify that I think there's significantly more doubt about what transpired between the GA, Paterno, and the administration than about Sandusky's guilt. I really hope there's more to the story than what's been reported by the grand jury.


I wonder why Paterno is being praised by prosecutors...I heard he will be a witness for the state...incentive to testify or did he really do the right things?

One thing I really don't get is why the primary witness, the GA, didn't report it to police. Or maybe he did after nothing happened?

Based on what we can glean from the report, it seems like grand jury believed Paterno testified truthfully. Someone with legal expertise will have weigh in on whether or not Paterno met the legal requirements for reporting suspicions of child abuse. It's possible that he was only legally required to report this to his superiors and then became their responsibility to file a police report. I don't know.

But, it's important to distinguish between his legal and moral culpability. To this point, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Paterno broke the law, but there's reason to doubt his judgement in taking reasonable steps to prevent someone associated with his football program from sexually abusing children. Doubt doesn't equate to guilt, but the GA's grand jury testimony is troubling to say the least.

[Indoor66]

I agree with this and just want to clarify that I think there's significantly more doubt about what transpired between the GA, Paterno, and the administration than about Sandusky's guilt. I really hope there's more to the story than what's been reported by the grand jury.



Based on what we can glean from the report, it seems like grand jury believed Paterno testified truthfully. Someone with legal expertise will have weigh in on whether or not Paterno met the legal requirements for reporting suspicions of child abuse. It's possible that he was only legally required to report this to his superiors and then became their responsibility to file a police report. I don't know.

But, it's important to distinguish between his legal and moral culpability. To this point, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Paterno broke the law, but there's reason to doubt his judgement in taking reasonable steps to prevent someone associated with his football program from sexually abusing children. Doubt doesn't equate to guilt, but the GA's grand jury testimony is troubling to say the least.

Criticism from afar is quite easy. We do not have the facts about this matter. Given that Jo Pa has a successful, honorable career - without any evidence of breaking rules or tolerating the breaking of rules - that spans a period that exceeds the existence of many, if not most, of the posters on this board, I am withholding any assignment of culpability or condemnation until MANY more facts and timelines are known.

Some people, due to their exemplary and honorable life and deeds, are entitled to no less.

[roywhite]

I agree with this and just want to clarify that I think there's significantly more doubt about what transpired between the GA, Paterno, and the administration than about Sandusky's guilt. I really hope there's more to the story than what's been reported by the grand jury.



Based on what we can glean from the report, it seems like grand jury believed Paterno testified truthfully. Someone with legal expertise will have weigh in on whether or not Paterno met the legal requirements for reporting suspicions of child abuse. It's possible that he was only legally required to report this to his superiors and then became their responsibility to file a police report. I don't know.

But, it's important to distinguish between his legal and moral culpability. To this point, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Paterno broke the law, but there's reason to doubt his judgement in taking reasonable steps to prevent someone associated with his football program from sexually abusing children. Doubt doesn't equate to guilt, but the GA's grand jury testimony is troubling to say the least.

A couple points here:

1. not a laywer either, but from what I've read, Paterno did fulfill his legal obligation in reporting what he had heard from the Grad. Asst. to his superior, the Athletic Director, and did so in timely fashion. With second-hand knowledge, was he in some way obligated (even ethically) to take this further? Did the graduate assistant tell Paterno or other administrators the same story (in graphic detail) that he later told the grand jury? It's not clear.

2. Jerry Sandusky was not on the football staff in 2002 when this particular incident and report took place. Sandusky retired in 1999; as part of his retirement package, he had an office in the football office complex and access to the facilities; as I understand it, that's not an unusual perk for a long-time PSU coach. Now, the grand jury record indicates that Sandusky engaged in this kind of contact at least going back to the early 1990's. Was there any awareness of this on Paterno's part? Did it factor into Sandusky's (forced?) retirement?

I hope these things get sorted out; the athletic director Curley has been accused of perjury. The President, Graham Spanier, has indicated strong support for Curley.
The overall system did not work if an apparent sexual predator operated under their noses for years. Yuck.

[DukeGirl4ever]

I am in "Penn State" land and have many friends and family members who went there (including my husband). For years, all I heard was how great of a program PSU football was, and how "clean" they were. I kept my mouth shut b/c on the surface, they appeared clean. But, living about 2-3 hours away from the university, every little thing those players did was on the news....every arrest....every party. I cannot believe the number of arrests that have occurred in that program over the years and it seemed, at least to me, the repercussions were non-existent. For what? To continue the winning tradition?

Now, I am quite sure these types of things (arrests) occur in other programs, and I know being close to the university has heightened my awareness. However, no one really ever questioned Joe Pa's reactions and the way he handled his players' "extracurricular" activities. I will be VERY interested to see how this plays out for him. Unfortunately, he's a god around here and I think untouchable....but I do think he may have coached his last season. Time to move on...record is broken, mission accomplished.

There are no words for Sandusky. My brother played football for his son at Albright College, and his ethics were questionable as well. Allowing players to drink before games....pre-season player skits which resulted in one player setting himself on fire. Glad to say my brother left the program after two seasons.

[Mike Corey]

Penn State is saying that the grad assistant did not tell Joe Pa or anyone else that he witnessed an anal rape of an adolescent.

Penn State's response to being alerted to what the grad student had seen? They prohibited Sandusky from bringing children from the Second Mile program onto campus. That was it. They did not alert the authorities.

As far as I'm concerned, that is criminal. They permitted a sexual predator to continue using Second Mile as an incubator for his perversions.

Joe Pa should resign tomorrow morning.

[mph]

Just in time. (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7199068/penn-state-nittany-lions-bar-accused-ex-coach-jerry-sandusky-campus)


Penn State says it is barring from campus a former football coach accused of sexually assaulting eight boys...

[weezie]

The link to the GJ report provided above also includes Mike Wise's column for today. It would appear that the WaPo stands firmly behind Wise's conjecturing.
I'm no fan of Wise's, I remember how he pilloried the lax team, but he brings some pretty strong coffee the this horrible PSU affair.

The fans must be completely devastated.

[roywhite]

Penn State is saying that the grad assistant did not tell Joe Pa or anyone else that he witnessed an anal rape of an adolescent.

Penn State's response to being alerted to what the grad student had seen? They prohibited Sandusky from bringing children from the Second Mile program onto campus. That was it. They did not alert the authorities.

As far as I'm concerned, that is criminal. They permitted a sexual predator to continue using Second Mile as an incubator for his perversions.

Joe Pa should resign tomorrow morning.

Some due process perhaps?

I'm sure you have some reason for saying that Joe Pa should resign tomorrow morning?
Could you elaborate and be specific?

Paterno's testimony to the grand jury was apparently that the grad. assistant did inform him of the incident, and that Paterno did report it to the Athletic Director.
And you know that Sandusky was not on the football staff at that time?

[Mike Corey]

Paterno was aware that someone in charge of an organization that dealt exclusively with children had done something inappropriate with a child--be it sexual assault, inappropriate touching, or whatever else was communicated from the grad assistant to paterno--and all he did was report it up the ladder?

Furthermore, Sandusky had been investigated for child molestation in 1998.

Even after the 2002 incident, Sandusky maintained his involvement with the organization for another seven years. And my understanding is that according to the grand jury report, he continued bringing children to games, and so on and so forth.

Being naked with a child in a University shower, if nothing else, is bad enough. And yet the only punitive measure that the grand jury found to have been taken was the prohibition of Sandusky bringing children from the organization to campus.

[Indoor66]

Is Jerry Sandusky related to Alex Sandusky who played for the Baltimore Colts in the 50's?

[SCMatt33]

I think that it important for everyone to remember that despite multiple witnesses, all of whom seem credible, and the incredibly insidious nature of the allegations, no one has been found guilty of anything. I don't really care if there was a video in which he identified himself before committing the crime, due process must be observed. That being said, there are actions that Penn State should have taken immediately. You can't fire people over potential allegations, but those directly implicated including Curley and Schultz should be suspended with pay pending the final outcome of their cases.

As for Paterno, there is a delicate balance with the appropriate course of action as this is workplace related. His first course of action in alerting his immediate supervisor is absolutely correct. You don't have to take something that you heard from a second hand source and go completely outside the chain of command. Passing it up the ladder is appropriate to have it investigated. Could he have taken it to the police if he wanted, absolutely. It is never inappropriate to contact the police if you think there is something illegal going on. Where he erred was not following up with anyone to insure that the allegations were properly investigated. In this case that certainly appeared to be a big deal because of how those above him conducted themselves, but you can't judge the severity of what Paterno did wrong based on how the inappropriate actions of those above him made this case worse than what it should have been. What Paterno did does not appear to be illegal and we have to take that part of it at face value. It certainly hurts his reputation that he did not take further action but I personally don't believe that it comes close to outweighing all of the positives that he has done for that community over the years.

[Mike Corey]

You're absolutely right. Mea culpa. I'm angry and shouldn't be writing emotionally.

[allenmurray]

As for Paterno, there is a delicate balance with the appropriate course of action as this is workplace related. His first course of action in alerting his immediate supervisor is absolutely correct. You don't have to take something that you heard from a second hand source and go completely outside the chain of command. Passing it up the ladder is appropriate to have it investigated. Could he have taken it to the police if he wanted, absolutely. It is never inappropriate to contact the police if you think there is something illegal going on. Where he erred was not following up with anyone to insure that the allegations were properly investigated. In this case that certainly appeared to be a big deal because of how those above him conducted themselves, but you can't judge the severity of what Paterno did wrong based on how the inappropriate actions of those above him made this case worse than what it should have been. What Paterno did does not appear to be illegal and we have to take that part of it at face value. It certainly hurts his reputation that he did not take further action but I personally don't believe that it comes close to outweighing all of the positives that he has done for that community over the years.

Chain of command?

This is not the equivilant of a stock clerk at Target and his relationship with the district manager. Paterno has as much power as anyone in the athleteic department at Penn State. I'm not sure if Paterno did the right thng or not, but phrases like "chain of command" are not qute the same in this situation as they are in other workplaces. It is not as though Paterno lacked status and power in the hierarchy at Penn State.

[SCMatt33]

Chain of command?

This is not the equivilant of a stock clerk at Target and his relationship with the district manager. Paterno has as much power as anyone in the athleteic department at Penn State. I'm not sure if Paterno did the right thng or not, but phrases like "chain of command" are not qute the same in this situation as they are in other workplaces. It is not as though Paterno lacked status and power in the hierarchy at Penn State.

Strictly speaking, it is. When it comes to legal matters, Paterno is not the most powerful person on campus. He doesn't run investigations, and that sort of thing is in the job description of the athletics director. There are certain things where Paterno's notoriety trump the official power of each position. This case is not among them.

[dukedoc]

Strictly speaking, it is. When it comes to legal matters, Paterno is not the most powerful person on campus. He doesn't run investigations, and that sort of thing is in the job description of the athletics director. There are certain things where Paterno's notoriety trump the official power of each position. This case is not among them.

I'm not an expert on the law, but it strikes me as very odd that the alleged rape of a child would be considered a matter for "internal investigation". If someone was murdered in the gym, the AD would not run that investigation. Is this any different? Why didn't anyone call the police? At some point, if the GJ report is true, Joe knew, and he also knew the police were not involved. Even if he and the others were very suspicious that the allegations were false, how could they be satisfied with that assumption for years and years and risk exposing further children to this man?

[Mike Corey]

Point in fact, the grand jury stated that state law was broken by not informing the authorities.

From the grand jury report:


The Grand Jury concludes that the sexual assault of a minor male in 2002 should have been reported to the Department of Public Welfare and/or a law enforcement agency such as the University Police or the State Police. The University, by its senior staff, Gary Schultz, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business and Tim Curley, Athletic Director, was notified by two different Perm State employees of the alleged sexual exploitation of that youth. mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse is located at 23 ?63l1 (Child Protective Services Law) and provides that when a staff member reports abuse, pursuant to statute, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to report or cause such a report to be made by telephone and in writing within 48 hours to the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. An oral report should have been made to Centre County Children and Youth Services but none was made. Nor was there any attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2 or to protect that child or any others from similar conduct, except as related to preventing its re- occurrence on University property. The failure to report is a violation of the law which was graded a summary offense in 2002, pursuant to 23 ?6319.2

[dukedoc]

Point in fact, the grand jury stated that state law was broken by not informing the authorities.

From the grand jury report:

Thanks for finding that Mike. That seems to criminally implicate just the "people in charge of the school" which would not include Joe Pa. However, then there are the distinctions between criminal culpability and moral culpability, and for the latter, it seems everyone was to some extent guilty including Joe. I think the thing that is making me particularly angry is the media report that Joe Pa is being praised by authorities for his actions. That seems preposterous. The only people in this whole thing deserving of praise are the victims who have found the strength to come forward with their experiences, and the law enforcement officers trying to shed light on the exact truth.

[SCMatt33]

I'm not an expert on the law, but it strikes me as very odd that the alleged rape of a child would be considered a matter for "internal investigation". If someone was murdered in the gym, the AD would not run that investigation. Is this any different? Why didn't anyone call the police? At some point, if the GJ report is true, Joe knew, and he also knew the police were not involved. Even if he and the others were very suspicious that the allegations were false, how could they be satisfied with that assumption for years and years and risk exposing further children to this man?

It's not, but legal matters within any workplace scenario are not the responsibility of an employee like a coach. I don't about where anyone else works, but I have always been told that I can bring legal matters (directly work related or otherwise) to whomever I want, whether that be my superiors, the company's legal department, or outside authorities. I'm not saying that Paterno couldn't have taken the matter elsewhere, or that he shouldn't have followed up, but alerting his superiors is a proper course of action and it is his superiors actions responsibility to bring the matter to the police, if necessary. It was clearly necessary, they didn't do it, hence they are being charged with a crime. Paterno reported what he had heard and since he wasn't directly involved with anything as a witness, he is not really involved beyond that point. I know everyone is fixated on the exact crime that occurred, and that is a big deal for Sandusky, but the nature of the crime doesn't change the responsibilities or potential penalties for anyone as far as reporting it.

[allenmurray]

Strictly speaking, it is. When it comes to legal matters, Paterno is not the most powerful person on campus. He doesn't run investigations, and that sort of thing is in the job description of the athletics director. There are certain things where Paterno's notoriety trump the official power of each position. This case is not among them.

The power he had was informal, but huge - the power to speak up and make things happen.

[dukedoc]

It's not, but legal matters within any workplace scenario are not the responsibility of an employee like a coach. I don't about where anyone else works, but I have always been told that I can bring legal matters (directly work related or otherwise) to whomever I want, whether that be my superiors, the company's legal department, or outside authorities. I'm not saying that Paterno couldn't have taken the matter elsewhere, or that he shouldn't have followed up, but alerting his superiors is a proper course of action and it is his superiors actions responsibility to bring the matter to the police, if necessary. It was clearly necessary, they didn't do it, hence they are being charged with a crime. Paterno reported what he had heard and since he wasn't directly involved with anything as a witness, he is not really involved beyond that point. I know everyone is fixated on the exact crime that occurred, and that is a big deal for Sandusky, but the nature of the crime doesn't change the responsibilities or potential penalties for anyone as far as reporting it.

This is all true. However, it just seems incredibly unlikely to me that Joe would pass this allegation up the chain of command and then be done with it. It involved the school that he loves, a close colleague of many years, and an unconscionable crime of huge proportions. My hope with respect to Joe was that he was simply lied to by those above him and the ensuing years of silence were borne out of a sincere belief that appropriate steps had been taken and the allegations were found to be false. I can't think of another defensible reason to stay silent and not go to the cops for so many years.

I apologize for being speculative and emotional. Not sure what else will come out of a message board thread on something as upsetting as this though. I'm also a pediatrician who has cared for young people who have suffered from these sorts of things, so perhaps I'm letting those experiences get the better of me.

[SMO]

Thanks for finding that Mike. That seems to criminally implicate just the "people in charge of the school" which would not include Joe Pa. However, then there are the distinctions between criminal culpability and moral culpability, and for the latter, it seems everyone was to some extent guilty including Joe. I think the thing that is making me particularly angry is the media report that Joe Pa is being praised by authorities for his actions. That seems preposterous. The only people in this whole thing deserving of praise are the victims who have found the strength to come forward with their experiences, and the law enforcement officers trying to shed light on the exact truth.

Do you think the praising authorities might know something about Paterno's actions that we do not?

[dukedoc]

Do you think the praising authorities might know something about Paterno's actions that we do not?

Good point. I hope you're right. Many years have passed though since this all allegedly happened...

[SCMatt33]

This is all true. However, it just seems incredibly unlikely to me that Joe would pass this allegation up the chain of command and then be done with it. It involved the school that he loves, a close colleague of many years, and an unconscionable crime of huge proportions. My hope with respect to Joe was that he was simply lied to by those above him and the ensuing years of silence were borne out of a sincere belief that appropriate steps had been taken and the allegations were found to be false. I can't think of another defensible reason to stay silent and not go to the cops for so many years.

I apologize for being speculative and emotional. Not sure what else will come out of a message board thread on something as upsetting as this though. I'm also a pediatrician who has cared for young people who have suffered from these sorts of things, so perhaps I'm letting those experiences get the better of me.

You're absolutely right, but we have no idea what happened between Paterno and Curley/Schultz. Paterno could have gone back to them and they told him that it turned out to be nothing. There's only so much that Paterno was in position to do since he didn't see or know of anything himself. Something was told to him. All he can do is repeat that allegation privately. What we know is that he brought it up to those above him, but not the police. If he was told that it was taken care of and that it was nothing, there's not much more he should have done. If he was completely ignored and he knew that nothing was done and still didn't take it further, then he made a huge error and judgement. That's all I'm saying. The only things that we know about what Paterno did was that he did report what he heard, but not to the police. Whether that action was appropriate or not depends on the rest of the situation, but we have no idea what that is, so it is completely inappropriate to judge him one way or the other at this time.

[dukedoc]

Sorry guys. I think I've been too speculative and emotional in my posting on this thread. Will refrain from further posts on this thread as this issue hits too close to home with respect to my work.

[Ping Lin]

I think there may be an elephant in the room -- okay, maybe not elephant, but perhaps a medium-sized horse -- that no one is talking about, and that is Joe Pa's advancing age.

Joe Pa, in short, was 73 years old when this first arose, and after taking the first initial step, may not have been able to devote the time and energy necessary to chase this one down (and particularly if the higher-ups like Curley were willing to stonewall him). Heck, one of the most trenchant criticisms of Paterno in the last few years is that he's not really been able to keep up with the coaching, instead being present as an inspirational figure of sorts.

Note that this isn't a defense of Paterno per se; one could reasonably argue that if he didn't have the energy to chase down something as important as this, then he didn't deserve to hold on to his position as coach. I suppose, however, having had some experience in realizing what magnitude of effort is required to flag something like this down, that may explain why my feelings are kind of "meh" with regard to Joe Pa's culpability in this matter. His failing strikes me, if not excusable, then at least understandable.

[mph]

You're absolutely right, but we have no idea what happened between Paterno and Curley/Schultz. Paterno could have gone back to them and they told him that it turned out to be nothing. There's only so much that Paterno was in position to do since he didn't see or know of anything himself. Something was told to him. All he can do is repeat that allegation privately. What we know is that he brought it up to those above him, but not the police. If he was told that it was taken care of and that it was nothing, there's not much more he should have done. If he was completely ignored and he knew that nothing was done and still didn't take it further, then he made a huge error and judgement. That's all I'm saying. The only things that we know about what Paterno did was that he did report what he heard, but not to the police. Whether that action was appropriate or not depends on the rest of the situation, but we have no idea what that is, so it is completely inappropriate to judge him one way or the other at this time.

Paterno's moral culpability primarily hinges on whether the GA told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz that he witnessed the rape of a child or whether he told Paterno, et al that he witnessed "inappropriate" touching while wrestling. If its the latter, then your scenario is plausible. But, if the GA reported the rape of a minor, why would Paterno think it's appropriate for the administration to conduct an internal investigation without notifying the police? If you were the head football coach and the allegations involved a long-time coordinator with an office in your building and access to your facilities, wouldn't you specificity ask your superiors if the police were notified? If the adminstration lied and said the police investigated the allegations and found them to be worthless, wouldn't you suspect deceit when you asked the GA whether he was interviewed by the police or when they never came to interview you or any other member of your staff?

If the GA's story turns out to be true, I have a hard time seeing how Paterno could have been deceived without at least some degree of negligence on his part. I agree that it's inappropriate to judge Paterno until all of the facts are in, but the grand jury explicitly stated that they found the GA's testimony credible, which raises some difficult and necessary questions.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I will withhold judgement on Paterno until everything is known.

SoCal

[Bojangles4Eva]

But, living about 2-3 hours away from the university, every little thing those players did was on the news....every arrest....every party.

I've lived in State College (at least during the school year) for 5 years, and from my experience the players don't seem like they are getting in trouble a lot. Ive also tutored many of them over the years and they always reflected well on the program.

In regards to this issue, I'll wait till the trial and verdict to formulate an opinion on JoePa. I would hope his actions were made with good intentions, and that the reason why he didn't go further was due to a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or the university flat out lying to him.

[Atlanta Duke]

Paterno's moral culpability primarily hinges on whether the GA told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz that he witnessed the rape of a child or whether he told Paterno, et al that he witnessed "inappropriate" touching while wrestling. .

The testimony of JoePa and the then graduate assistant (who currently is a Penn State assistant coach) to the grand jury apparently contradicts that of Curley and Schulz

Paterno likely will end up a key witness for the prosecution of Curley and Schultz.

Their testimony of what happened in 2002 -- when now-assistant coach Mike McQueary said he witnessed Sandusky in a sex act with a boy in a shower -- contradicts that of Paterno and McQueary. ...

McQueary recalled the incident taking place the evening of March 1, 2002, when he went into the locker room to put away sneakers and get recruiting tapes. McQueary said he saw Sandusky standing behind a boy about 10 years old, performing a sex act in the shower.

McQueary immediately left and told his father. In the morning, he told Paterno, who then called Curley.

About 10 days later, McQueary met with Curley and Schultz and told them what he witnessed, according to the grand-jury report.

But the grand jury heard a different version of that meeting when Curley and Schultz testified.

They said they were never told about any sexual act. Curley's recollection is that the incident resembled "horsing around," and Schultz recalled that it was described as "not that serious."

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/report_former_coach_jerry_sand.html

So I guess the defense will be that JoePa knew what the graduate assistant alleged but did not accurately report it up the chain of command (which will work a lot better if the graduate assistant did stick with his original allegations)

Unbelievable way for the JoePa era to end

[cspan37421]

IANAL, so may be this is a dumb question, but with all the talk about whether JoePa had an obligation to report the reported incident to law authorities or child protective services (irrespective of what the AD did or didn't do), what about the GA? Should he not have at least as much responsibility to do so, since he was the one who witnessed it, and may have been the most emotionally invested person in seeing that proper action was swiftly taken?

Seems to me that if "chain of command" isn't an issue with reporting a serious crime (as opposed to a rules violation), then the the GA could have/should have followed up with authorities too.

[roywhite]

I think there may be an elephant in the room -- okay, maybe not elephant, but perhaps a medium-sized horse -- that no one is talking about, and that is Joe Pa's advancing age.

Joe Pa, in short, was 73 years old when this first arose, and after taking the first initial step, may not have been able to devote the time and energy necessary to chase this one down (and particularly if the higher-ups like Curley were willing to stonewall him). Heck, one of the most trenchant criticisms of Paterno in the last few years is that he's not really been able to keep up with the coaching, instead being present as an inspirational figure of sorts.

Note that this isn't a defense of Paterno per se; one could reasonably argue that if he didn't have the energy to chase down something as important as this, then he didn't deserve to hold on to his position as coach. I suppose, however, having had some experience in realizing what magnitude of effort is required to flag something like this down, that may explain why my feelings are kind of "meh" with regard to Joe Pa's culpability in this matter. His failing strikes me, if not excusable, then at least understandable.

What did this have to do with Joe Paterno as head football coach?

Jerry Sandusky was not on the football staff in 2002.
The graduate assistant, who was on the football staff, reported the incident to Paterno who, properly, reported it to the Athletic Director.

There are a number of things we don't know here:
Did the grad. assistant report the incident in graphic detail to Paterno or merely identify Sandusky and tell Paterno that he saw something inappropriate involving Sandusky and a young person?
Just why did the athletic director not contact local police for a full investigation?
Once Paterno reported his second-hand knowledge of the incident, did he even have the right to be apprised of the status of the investigation, let alone some duty to follow this through?

As noted in a previous post, the Harrisburg Patriot News reported that "a source close to the investigation told The Patriot-News that head coach Joe Paterno will not be charged, and was praised by prosecutors for handling himself appropriately".

Paterno is obviously a major public figure identified closely with Penn State athletics, but let's be fair in evaluating just how this incident relates to him.

[SCMatt33]

Paterno's moral culpability primarily hinges on whether the GA told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz that he witnessed the rape of a child or whether he told Paterno, et al that he witnessed "inappropriate" touching while wrestling. If its the latter, then your scenario is plausible. But, if the GA reported the rape of a minor, why would Paterno think it's appropriate for the administration to conduct an internal investigation without notifying the police? If you were the head football coach and the allegations involved a long-time coordinator with an office in your building and access to your facilities, wouldn't you specificity ask your superiors if the police were notified? If the adminstration lied and said the police investigated the allegations and found them to be worthless, wouldn't you suspect deceit when you asked the GA whether he was interviewed by the police or when they never came to interview you or any other member of your staff?

If the GA's story turns out to be true, I have a hard time seeing how Paterno could have been deceived without at least some degree of negligence on his part. I agree that it's inappropriate to judge Paterno until all of the facts are in, but the grand jury explicitly stated that they found the GA's testimony credible, which raises some difficult and necessary questions.

I don't know where everyone gets the idea that anyone said that an internal investigation only was appropriate. I had said earlier that it was not Paterno's job to run an investigation into what he heard. By that, I mean that Paterno's only official responsibility is to repeat what he heard, and not necessarily to the police since this is still a workplace related issue. I have said it many times, but we can't even begin to speculate as to what Paterno was told, told his superiors, or suspected. The absolute only thing we know is that he apparently repeated what he was told to his superiors, and that he never contacted the police. Many here are speculating about specific possibilities, which I find pointless given how many different possibilities there are.

[roywhite]

Paterno has released a statement, as reported by the Harrisburg Patriot News (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/joe_paterno_issues_statement_a.html)


"If true, the nature and amount of charges made are very shocking to me and all Penn Staters. While I did what I was supposed to with the one charge brought to my attention, like anyone else involved I can't help but be deeply saddened these matters are alleged to have occurred.

"Sue and I have devoted our lives to helping young people reach their potential. The fact that someone we thought we knew might have harmed young people to this extent is deeply troubling. 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.

"As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.

"I understand that people are upset and angry, but let's be fair and let the legal process unfold. In the meantime I would ask all Penn Staters to continue to trust in what that name represents, continue to pursue their lives every day with high ideals and not let these events shake their beliefs nor who they are."

[bob blue devil]

...I mean that Paterno's only official responsibility is to repeat what he heard, and not necessarily to the police since this is still a workplace related issue...

i'm definitely not with you here.

[cspan37421]

if it was a murder would it be a workplace-related issue?

is violent crime ever just a workplace-related issue, one that need only be run up to the coach and from the coach to the AD?

[feldspar]

Seriously, this isn't that hard folks. Gimme a flippin' break. You hear an old dude is prancing around naked in the shower with a young boy? Do the math. Don't rest until you've exhausted all avenues of locking the creep up. If you've got a shaken up GA sitting in your office who has no reason to make this stuff up, why would your first call not be to the police? No way are JoePa's hands completely clean here.

This whole thing makes me want to break something. A bunch of disgusting people covering their tracks and doing the bare minimum when there are kids getting abused.

I hope Sandusky rots in prison. He deserves worse.

[SMO]

Seriously, this isn't that hard folks. Gimme a flippin' break. You hear an old dude is prancing around naked in the shower with a young boy? Do the math. Don't rest until you've exhausted all avenues of locking the creep up. If you've got a shaken up GA sitting in your office who has no reason to make this stuff up, why would your first call not be to the police? No way are JoePa's hands completely clean here.

This whole thing makes me want to break something. A bunch of disgusting people covering their tracks and doing the bare minimum when there are kids getting abused.

I hope Sandusky rots in prison. He deserves worse.

Similarly, if you hear second hand that some jocks raped an exotic dancer you pursue all means of locking the guys up. It's that simple. Always is.

[feldspar]

[QUOTE=SCMatt33;526401this is still a workplace related issue. [/QUOTE]

Showing up to work late is a workplace related issue.

Stealing office supplies is a workplace related issue.

Old dude getting naked in the shower with young boys isn't a workplace related issue. That's the kind of thing you call the cops for. It's not something you wait around 10 days to see what the AD decides to do about it. It's not something you sit back and say "gee, golly, okay he got his keys taken away from him, that should do the trick" about.

[Mike Corey]

The New York Times digs in (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/sports/ncaafootball/in-penn-states-sex-abuse-case-a-focus-on-how-paterno-reacted.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto) to many of the questions regarding Paterno that have been discussed here.

[roywhite]

The New York Times digs in (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/sports/ncaafootball/in-penn-states-sex-abuse-case-a-focus-on-how-paterno-reacted.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto) to many of the questions regarding Paterno that have been discussed here.

We know directly that the New York Times was a terrible source of information in their coverage of the false accusations of the Duke lacrosse players.

I'm also reminded of the discussion of the New York Times in a recent thread about Harvard and Tommy Amaker.
Olympic Fan noted:
"I'm glad that sagegrouse reminded us of the deceitful smear job that the New York Times did on Tommy -- and how it's created a lingerinjg impression that he's done something wrong or skirted the rules while at Harvard. It's funny, the NY Times used to be a respected bastion of journalist -- the paper of record. But in recent years it's become just about as shady and unreliable as the Durham Herald-Sun. What the NY Times did to Tommy is very similar to its warped coverage in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax -- and in both cases "the paper of record" has refused to apologize and correct the mistakes it made."

Maybe there are better sources for sports related questions?

[Verga3]

Let's let all the facts come out...but, Joe's hair should have been on fire. Reporting up the chain of command was appropriate given the circumstances, but will be informative to know what we may never know...did Joe press the AD or ever confront Sandusky man to man.

[Mike Corey]

Ad hominem attacks on the paper of record will not suffice in discrediting a story on a matter that is not being reported by the authors that wrote on the two stories you reference.

[roywhite]

No link yet, but local Central PA television stations are reporting that Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and administrator Gary Schultz are gone as result of a Board of Trustees meeting Sunday.
Both have been charged with perjury following a grand jury investigation.

[roywhite]

Ad hominem attacks on the paper of record will not suffice in discrediting a story on a matter that is not being reported by the authors that wrote on the two stories you reference.

When the Times refuses to admit mistakes or issue corrections as in the cases noted, it's more than an issue with an individual reporter.
Suit yourself, but the "paper of record" has damaged it's own credibility.

[Mike Corey]

Whether or not you are willing to critically read the most respected newspaper in the country is immaterial; Joe Paterno has admitted to being aware of, at the very least, inappropriate behavior in the shower between his longtime defensive coordinator and an adolescent boy; we know further that no one at Penn State bothered to notify the authorities, a few of them in contravention of state law; and we know that Sandusky was hosting Penn State camps--overnight ones--as recently as 2009.

That is incorrigible.

[Dukeface88]

Just for general reference, the Pennsylvannia statue on reporting child abuse can be found here (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/chap3490toc.html#3490.4.).

[77devil]

We know directly that the New York Times was a terrible source of information in their coverage of the false accusations of the Duke lacrosse players.

I'm also reminded of the discussion of the New York Times in a recent thread about Harvard and Tommy Amaker.
Olympic Fan noted:
"I'm glad that sagegrouse reminded us of the deceitful smear job that the New York Times did on Tommy -- and how it's created a lingerinjg impression that he's done something wrong or skirted the rules while at Harvard. It's funny, the NY Times used to be a respected bastion of journalist -- the paper of record. But in recent years it's become just about as shady and unreliable as the Durham Herald-Sun. What the NY Times did to Tommy is very similar to its warped coverage in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax -- and in both cases "the paper of record" has refused to apologize and correct the mistakes it made."

Maybe there are better sources for sports related questions?


Ad hominem attacks on the paper of record will not suffice in discrediting a story on a matter that is not being reported by the authors that wrote on the two stories you reference.

I don't think many people consider the NYT the self described paper of record anymore. Circulation has dropped circa 20% since the mid 90's. If any publication fits the description these days it's the WSJ. The learning from the past reporting of controversial, high profile stories is to take in diverse sources of information.

[sagegrouse]

I don't think many people consider the NYT the self described paper of record anymore. Circulation has dropped circa 20% since the mid 90's. If any publication fits the description these days it's the WSJ. The learning from the past reporting of controversial, high profile stories is to take in diverse sources of information.

Print circulation is only one measure of a paper's strength. NY Times stories are widely published on line and in other print sources.

The Wall Street Journal is a business and economics rag with -- ahem -- a fairly limited viewpoint on economics, etc. It's coverage on other subjects is sporadic. This is not the same as a daily newspaper with coverage on everything.

sagegrouse

[SMO]

Ad hominem attacks on the paper of record will not suffice in discrediting a story on a matter that is not being reported by the authors that wrote on the two stories you reference.

Nothing personal Mike, but I don't think questioning a publication's credibility based on prior examples of shoddy reporting can be considered an ad hominem attack. That would be like saying a security guard's history of falling asleep on the job shouldn't even be mentioned if a robbery takes place on his watch.

[Mike Corey]

Nothing personal Mike, but I don't think questioning a publication's credibility based on prior examples of shoddy reporting can be considered an ad hominem attack. That would be like saying a security guard's history of falling asleep on the job shouldn't even be mentioned if a robbery takes place on his watch.

I'm not sure I agree with the analogy, but I concede the point about the ad hominem language. Thanks for keeping me in line. :)

Basketball season just needs to start.

[Wander]

Paterno admits he didn't call the police, right? That's enough for him to be fired, and if he didn't take any other action that is currently unrevealed to us, I'd like to see prosecutors try and charge him criminally.

I'm a little surprised by the tone of some of the posts here. I don't see why it matters that Penn State had less than the average number of arrests for a big time college football program. I'd rather have Butch Davis coaching Duke's football team with Jim Tressel as an assistant and Nevin Shapiro as a booster, John Calipari as Duke's basketball coach, and Jim Calhoun as the athletic director all at once before I'd have a guy who didn't report child molestation to the police.

Again, this all comes with the big "if" that there isn't more information on JoePa's actions.

[SMO]

Paterno admits he didn't call the police, right? That's enough for him to be fired, and if he didn't take any other action that is currently unrevealed to us, I'd like to see prosecutors try and charge him criminally.

I'm a little surprised by the tone of some of the posts here. I don't see why it matters that Penn State had less than the average number of arrests for a big time college football program. I'd rather have Butch Davis coaching Duke's football team with Jim Tressel as an assistant and Nevin Shapiro as a booster, John Calipari as Duke's basketball coach, and Jim Calhoun as the athletic director all at once before I'd have a guy who didn't report child molestation to the police.

Again, this all comes with the big "if" that there isn't more information on JoePa's actions.

We keep coming back to something that doesn't add up. It seems Paterno didn't alert authorities but is being praised by prosecutors for doing the right thing(s). The only explanations I can see are:

1. He was misled about how the situations was handled, presumably by the AD
2. Prosecutors need him as a witness and want to buttress his credibility so the are making him sound like a "good guy"
3. He did or is doing more than we know to aid in the investigation

Why else would they say he did the right thing?

[cspan37421]

an ad hominem attack is a fallacy in logical argument. It involves making a case against the person or their background, not the reasoning or evidence they present in their argument. It's like saying that you can't believe Nelson Mandela's autobiography because he was once deemed a criminal and spent time in jail.

Credibility is a factor when one questions the accuracy of specific factual claims made (based on prior experience of getting facts wrong). I do think that it's not unreasonable to have some skepticism about even so eminent a paper as the NYT given its modern history and occasional severe problems with journalistic integrity. That said, I still read it (with a grain of salt, perhaps two).

roywhite seems to be concerned with using the NYT as a source; if he read the piece, he'd know that the story mostly summarizes what is in the grand jury presentment. If one is concerned about whether the NYT accurately summarized the GJP, a good solution to is to go to the source (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf) directly. [PDF]

[cspan37421]

We keep coming back to something that doesn't add up. It seems Paterno didn't alert authorities but is being praised by prosecutors for doing the right thing(s). The only explanations I can see are:

1. He was misled about how the situations was handled, presumably by the AD
2. Prosecutors need him as a witness and want to buttress his credibility so the are making him sound like a "good guy"
3. He did or is doing more than we know to aid in the investigation

Why else would they say he did the right thing?

I share this concern. Reading in the grand jury presentation, it uses what, to me, is a telling turn of phrase. It says that Paterno called the AD to his home to inform him "the very next day." [page 7] The use of the modifier "very" is unnecessary in a factual report. It gives almost a defensive tone to the sentence. Its inclusion suggests to me that the author (desperately?) wishes to give the impression that Paterno acted quickly.

One hopes that there is some positive stuff we don't know about - people who tried to do the right thing, including JoePa. But I think most of us know enough about cognitive dissonance to understand that it would be very hard for anyone in that area to throw JoePa under the bus for (arguably) doing the minimum - reporting it to his boss, and (possibly) nothing else. He is revered in PA, not only for his record-setting accomplishments, but for doing so while running a cleaner program than many (for its level of success), and for his character and integrity. It's hard to call those into question when you have such emotional investment in the guy.

In time hopefully we'll have a better impression of who reported what, to whom, and when.

[GDT]

In time hopefully we'll have a better impression of who reported what, to whom, and when.

For me, if Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation (even though Sandusky was not charged) that involved two boys in a campus shower, and did as little as was reported in the gj report in 2002, that's a huge problem. Schultz admitted that he was aware of it and I have a hard time believing that Paterno was completely oblivious, but I suppose it's possible. Even then, it still seems dodgy.

But I guess when I hear about a man who starts a charity to help disadvantaged boys, then allegedly abuses them in showers on university grounds over seven years, five years after a campus investigation, my need to blame may override my patience.

[roywhite]

We keep coming back to something that doesn't add up. It seems Paterno didn't alert authorities but is being praised by prosecutors for doing the right thing(s). The only explanations I can see are:

1. He was misled about how the situations was handled, presumably by the AD
2. Prosecutors need him as a witness and want to buttress his credibility so the are making him sound like a "good guy"
3. He did or is doing more than we know to aid in the investigation

Why else would they say he did the right thing?

My take on that question at this point is:

1. I think it's likely the grad. assistant "under-reported" the incident to Joe; did not include graphic details
2. Joe promptly informed his superiors, specifically the Athletic Director
3. In football parlance, it may have been a weak hand-off, but the ball was then with the Athletic Director, and the matter was not handled properly (full investigation and contact authorities)
4. Should Joe have been further involved from that point? It certainly looks that way now, but we don't know the details of the information he received (point #1)
5. What Joe had was a second-hand report of misconduct which he properly reported to the athletics director; at the time, Sandusky was not on the football staff
6. In some organizations, policy is that someone who had a second-hand report is actually not entitled to particpate further or monitor an investigation; I don't know PSU policies, which may have been lacking
7. Joe has earned a high degree of credibility over the years

[77devil]

Print circulation is only one measure of a paper's strength. NY Times stories are widely published on line and in other print sources.

The Wall Street Journal is a business and economics rag with -- ahem -- a fairly limited viewpoint on economics, etc. It's coverage on other subjects is sporadic. This is not the same as a daily newspaper with coverage on everything.

sagegrouse

"New York Times' Share of Newspaper Sites' Traffic Hits 12-Month Low"

Extra, extra, read all about it.

http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/ny-times-share-newspaper-traffic-hits-12-month-low/227495/

Look, my primary point was that no newspaper is the source of record anymore and certainly not the NYT. As to your critique of the slant of the WSJ, the same is true, and more so of the NYT. That's why I wrote a variety of sources should be read.

Are you cranky this morning?

[sagegrouse]

"New York Times' Share of Newspaper Sites' Traffic Hits 12-Month Low"

Extra, extra, read all about it.

http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/ny-times-share-newspaper-traffic-hits-12-month-low/227495/

Look, my primary point was that no newspaper is the source of record anymore and certainly not the NYT. As to your critique of the slant of the WSJ, the same is true, and more so of the NYT. That's why I wrote a variety of sources should be read.

Are you cranky this morning?

Am I cranky this morning? At my age, I am always cranky! The WSJ has fabulous in-depth reporting on business and economics matters. It is not a "paper of record" on anything but business, where it is authoritative.

I am probably feeling guilty 'cuz I have led the charge against the NY Times sports pages, which have been guilty of straining at the leash to deliver unjustified whacks to Duke and to Amaker's Harvard team.

sagegrouse
'I thought the sports pages at the Times were worthless, but it has done a good job on the conference realignment issues'

[cspan37421]

My take on that question at this point is:

1. I think it's likely the grad. assistant "under-reported" the incident to Joe; did not include graphic details
2. Joe promptly informed his superiors, specifically the Athletic Director
3. In football parlance, it may have been a weak hand-off, but the ball was then with the Athletic Director, and the matter was not handled properly (full investigation and contact authorities)
4. Should Joe have been further involved from that point? It certainly looks that way now, but we don't know the details of the information he received (point #1)
5. What Joe had was a second-hand report of misconduct which he properly reported to the athletics director; at the time, Sandusky was not on the football staff
6. In some organizations, policy is that someone who had a second-hand report is actually not entitled to particpate further or monitor an investigation; I don't know PSU policies, which may have been lacking
7. Joe has earned a high degree of credibility over the years

1. Why do you think that is likely? He later called into a meeting and was quite specific in a meeting with Schulz and Curley. See p. 7. If he under-reported it to JoePa, why was he ever called back? You make it sound as if he was trying to avoid hurting the old man's sensibilities. Besides, it also says on p. 7 that Paterno reported that the GA has stated "fondling or something of a sexual nature" - that's not much under-reporting to me. I would not come to that inference at all. Have you read the report, esp. p. 7?

2. Promptly = a day later? I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but in a case when you've got child rape, waiting a day could mean another victim, or another incident of the same victim.

4. I don't know the law but it seems to me that a case could be made that EVERYONE who knew it had an obligation to report to the police or child protective services.
5. Second hand? How do you figure that? He had a first-hand report. His report, without the GA present, would be second-hand.
7. No one is questioning the credibility of a claim JoePa has made in this matter. They're asking about who did what, and who should have done what.

[sagegrouse]

In the event that this is curtains for Joe Pa, let me tell my one Joe Paterno story.

My friend Dick Smith, who is a few years older, was at a camp in New England in the 1940s, and Joe Paterno, then a quarterback at Brown, was his counselor. Dick's mother was very ill, which was one of the reasons Dick was sent to camp. Unhappily, his mother passed away, and Joe Paterno pesonally delivered the word.

Fast forward 30 or 35 years. My friend, who had an advertising firm, was at Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Jersey for a meeting. Joe Paterno was also in the reception area, so Dick approached the Coach and said, "My name is Dick Smith. I don't know if you remember me, but you were my camp counselor." "Oh my God," said Paterno, "How could I forget?" I think Paterno is a very decent human being.

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

1. Why do you think that is likely? He later called into a meeting and was quite specific in a meeting with Schulz and Curley. See p. 7. If he under-reported it to JoePa, why was he ever called back? You make it sound as if he was trying to avoid hurting the old man's sensibilities. Besides, it also says on p. 7 that Paterno reported that the GA has stated "fondling or something of a sexual nature" - that's not much under-reporting to me. I would not come to that inference at all. Have you read the report, esp. p. 7?

2. Promptly = a day later? I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but in a case when you've got child rape, waiting a day could mean another victim, or another incident of the same victim.

4. I don't know the law but it seems to me that a case could be made that EVERYONE who knew it had an obligation to report to the police or child protective services.
5. Second hand? How do you figure that? He had a first-hand report. His report, without the GA present, would be second-hand.
7. No one is questioning the credibility of a claim JoePa has made in this matter. They're asking about who did what, and who should have done what.

I understand your outrage and won't debate this point-by-point, as we simply don't know all the details of internal communications, other than the grand jury document and reports we read.
I do take issue with "first hand"; Joe did not witness the incident; that would have been first-hand; he had an account from someone who saw the incident.

[cspan37421]

I understand your outrage and won't debate this point-by-point, as we simply don't know all the details of internal communications, other than the grand jury document and reports we read.
I do take issue with "first hand"; Joe did not witness the incident; that would have been first-hand; he had an account from someone who saw the incident.

I'm not outraged (by your reply) - I bolded because I was incredulous. I don't know why you would think it one way or another (particularly that way).

As for first hand, my point is that the GA's account was first hand. Joe could have (and probably should have) had the GA sit down with him and the AD on that Sunday (preferably Saturday, same day) so that the reporting didn't turn into a game of telephone. He could have said, "Mr. AD, this is my GA. GA, tell the AD what you saw."

[PADukeMom]

If JoePa reported what he was informed of in 2004 but Sandusky was not part of the team since 1999, how can this possibly taint JoePa? Once he reported it to the higer authorities the ball was not in their court. They are the ones who screwed-up & glad they are no longer part of the program.
I do think this will be the point where JoePa hangs it up after the season. Rumor around here all season long has been Urban Myer wants the job.

[DukeBlueNikeShox]

It's so ironic that Joe Paterno and the athletic department was such big supporters of Rene Portland, who had a hard stance forbidding lesbians in her program. Yet, they allowed a staff member to have sexual relations with male children and they chose to stick their heads in the sand...

[SoCalDukeFan]

First of all remember Paterno got the information second hand. We don't know what he said to GA. Maybe he told the GA to report it to the police and he would report it to the Penn State authorities, which he did. Maybe the Penn State people came back to him and said that they turned it over to the police or that they had investigated and found nothing. Remember they are being charged with lying.

If someone came to you and and said they witnessed someone committing a crime would you, with no other evidence, go to the police yourself or would you tell him/her to go to the police. Paterno's son thinks that Joe knew nothing of the earlier allegation.

My take is that the GA should have gone to the police, as should the janitor in the earlier case. Neither did.

SoCal

[mph]

There are two new pieces of information that shed light on Paterno's involvement. The first was his statement denying knowledge of the specific details that the GA allegedly reported to Curley and Schultz. This seems consistent with the grand jury report. The second piece of information is the report that the GA in question is current assistant coach Mike McQueary. This is now being widely reported, but I haven't seen confirmation outside of the unnamed sources cited by the Patriot-News of Harrisburg.

Two thoughts:

1. There's nothing in Paterno's past or in the publicly known details of the case that would cause me to doubt him.

2. Still, we know that Paterno testified that the GA was "very upset" and that he thought it a serious enough matter to call the AD to his home on a Sunday. We also know that he knew enough details to describe the event as "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," and that it involved the showers in the PSU football building.

Even if he thought the administration was handling things with the police, isn't that enough information to at a minimum insist that Sandusky be banned from his football facilities?

Putting yourself in the same situation, wouldn't you ask the GA followup questions like: What exactly do you think you witnessed? Is there any chance that there's an innocent explanation for what you witnessed? Do you believe you witnessed a criminal act? etc.

[Faison1]

The Grand Jury Report is brutal. If true, there is absolutely no excuse for his actions. However, having lived through the Duke Lax Case, I will reserve judgement until all the facts are proven true.

In the case of JoePa's actions, I think it's a tough call. Imagine if it was one of your best friends for life who was working in your firm or business. You found out through third party that your friend was engaged in a serious offense/crime. What would you do? Notify someone, or hand him over to the police? I guess I'll never know until I'm confronted with the circumstances.

[sagegrouse]

The Grand Jury Report is brutal. If true, there is absolutely no excuse for his actions. However, having lived through the Duke Lax Case, I will reserve judgement until all the facts are proven true.

In the case of JoePa's actions, I think it's a tough call. Imagine if it was one of your best friends for life who was working in your firm or business. You found out through third party that your friend was engaged in a serious offense/crime. What would you do? Notify someone, or hand him over to the police? I guess I'll never know until I'm confronted with the circumstances.

Not a hard question. In this case, your responsibility is to your stockholders, primarily, and secondarily, to your employees for the health of the business and their safety on the job. You go to the police or DA (through your lawyers). In Joe Pa's case, he was not the CEO -- that responsibility lies with the AD or the University President. I am not nearly certain, however, that Paterno did enough. I don't see how he can wash his hands of the case merely by telling the AD. In hindsight, he should have done much more.

sagegrouse

[Mike Corey]

The second piece of information is the report that the GA in question is current assistant coach Mike McQueary.

Very interesting bit of information. Thank you for sharing this.

[-jk]

The events as presented seem an overwhelming, solid, and damning accusation. But let's not forget that the process must be allowed to play out - we all know how a rush to judgment is fraught with peril. We just have allegations so far; we have no certainty about who said what to whom, or when.

Let's be careful with speculation and presumption. All of these are real people with real lives.

And please stay on topic and civil.

thanks,

-jk

[Faison1]

Not a hard question. In this case, your responsibility is to your stockholders, primarily, and secondarily, to your employees for the health of the business and their safety on the job. You go to the police or DA (through your lawyers). In Joe Pa's case, he was not the CEO -- that responsibility lies with the AD or the University President. I am not nearly certain, however, that Paterno did enough. I don't see how he can wash his hands of the case merely by telling the AD. In hindsight, he should have done much more.

sagegrouse

Who knows what happened? Maybe the story JoePa was given was that the kid in the shower was 18. Let's say that was the case. Would you go to the Police or D.A. then?

[mph]

Who knows what happened? Maybe the story JoePa was given was that the kid in the shower was 18. Let's say that was the case. Would you go to the Police or D.A. then?

We know that's not the case. The grand jury reported that Paterno testified to telling Curley that the allegations involved "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

[MCFinARL]

Not a hard question. In this case, your responsibility is to your stockholders, primarily, and secondarily, to your employees for the health of the business and their safety on the job. You go to the police or DA (through your lawyers). In Joe Pa's case, he was not the CEO -- that responsibility lies with the AD or the University President. I am not nearly certain, however, that Paterno did enough. I don't see how he can wash his hands of the case merely by telling the AD. In hindsight, he should have done much more.

sagegrouse

In hindsight, yes--but of course hindsight is always a lot clearer than the way things look at the time. I don't see any justification for covering Paterno with glory here, but I also don't see anything clearly justifying some posters' suggestions that Paterno should be fired immediately or even criminally prosecuted. His most recent statement says he did was not told the exact details of the incident by the GA; assuming that is true, we could argue that he should have asked, but it's also fairly easy to understand how the GA might not have wanted to describe the situation exactly to the 73-year-old coach he may well have revered, and that Paterno, upset to hear such an allegation against a former close colleague, may not have asked.

If he did not understand the severity of the incident, he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain. Again--that's not to say that we would think he did enough now, but that at the time it would not have been grossly outside the normal behavior range of a fundamentally decent, flawed (as we all are) person to conclude that he had done enough. And there's been no indication that he was involved in the follow up meeting of Curley and Schultz with the GA or in any decisions that arose from it.

And since he was not, in fact, a witness to the incident, he may have thought it would be inappropriate to contact the police directly. I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so. In the end, the GA is the person the police would have had to talk to anyway. Again--I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that he may not have (and I'm not sure I would have) preceived that he wasn't doing the right thing.

If more comes out, of course, that's a different story. But if no other shoe drops, it seems to me the second guessing Paterno is doing about his actions (or inaction) and the pain of seeing the school and program he has devoted his life too fall under such a deep cloud of shame may be an appropriate level of punishment for his role.

[roywhite]

In hindsight, yes--but of course hindsight is always a lot clearer than the way things look at the time. I don't see any justification for covering Paterno with glory here, but I also don't see anything clearly justifying some posters' suggestions that Paterno should be fired immediately or even criminally prosecuted. His most recent statement says he did was not told the exact details of the incident by the GA; assuming that is true, we could argue that he should have asked, but it's also fairly easy to understand how the GA might not have wanted to describe the situation exactly to the 73-year-old coach he may well have revered, and that Paterno, upset to hear such an allegation against a former close colleague, may not have asked.

If he did not understand the severity of the incident, he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain. Again--that's not to say that we would think he did enough now, but that at the time it would not have been grossly outside the normal behavior range of a fundamentally decent, flawed (as we all are) person to conclude that he had done enough. And there's been no indication that he was involved in the follow up meeting of Curley and Schultz with the GA or in any decisions that arose from it.

And since he was not, in fact, a witness to the incident, he may have thought it would be inappropriate to contact the police directly. I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so. In the end, the GA is the person the police would have had to talk to anyway. Again--I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that he may not have (and I'm not sure I would have) preceived that he wasn't doing the right thing.

If more comes out, of course, that's a different story. But if no other shoe drops, it seems to me the second guessing Paterno is doing about his actions (or inaction) and the pain of seeing the school and program he has devoted his life too fall under such a deep cloud of shame may be an appropriate level of punishment for his role.

A very good summary and reflects well my thoughts at this point.

I tried to make the point previously, in football terms, that the "handoff" from the grad. assistant and Paterno to the Athletics Director was weak or sloppy, but that the ball did get to the Athletics Director. The fumble at that point is inexplicable.
Even with vague details, there was enough to have a full investigation and notify local police. It didn't happen.

Paterno is the focus of considerable scrutiny on this, but I believe the role of the University President, Graham Spanier, needs to be evaluated also.
Did he hear from the Athletics Director and his administrator Schultz about this?
Why did Spanier say this weekend that he fully supported those two, and expected them to be cleared of all charges.
Spanier's academic background is in sociology and family matters; surely he could have provided perspective and perhaps sounded more of an alarm when even basic details of the incident reached him.

[mph]

Paterno is the focus of considerable scrutiny on this, but I believe the role of the University President, Graham Spanier, needs to be evaluated also.
Did he hear from the Athletics Director and his administrator Schultz about this?
Why did Spanier say this weekend that he fully supported those two, and expected them to be cleared of all charges.
Spanier's academic background is in sociology and family matters; surely he could have provided perspective and perhaps sounded more of an alarm when even basic details of the incident reached him.

Spanier actually used the word "unconditional" to describe his support of Curley and Schwartz. I get the desire to defend coworkers (friends?) you admire and respect, but given the circumstances his statement was inappropriate and tone deaf.

[feldspar]

he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain.

I guess I still don't understand this. At the very BEST, Paterno was told that a former assistant, who runs a well-known charity for boys was seen "horsing around" in the shower, naked, with a young boy.

Is it honestly that hard to put two and two together? Is it that hard to put a call into the police and say, "You might want to take a look at this guy." At the very least, he's a pervert who shouldn't be allowed young boys.

[Mike Corey]

Live video (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/penn-state-scandal-press-conference-live-blog-attorney-general-kelly-on-sandusky-investigation/2011/11/07/gIQA3vidvM_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost )of the AG's office discussing the investigation.

[johnb]

Here are my early guesses:

Paterno will be allowed to resign at the end of the season; if the grad asst told him about the sex, and he didn't pursue it beyond reporting it to the AD, then he should be prosecuted. He won't be because he's a legend, etc, but, after decades of watching priests go to prison for the same thing, he should've known the rules.

The other two PSU guys are clearly cooked, and I'm guessing at least one will go to jail for perjury.

And I'd also guess the University president will be forced to resign after this comment:

"University representatives released a statement from Spanier on Saturday calling the allegations against Sandusky “troubling” and adding that Curley and Schultz had his unconditional support.

He predicted they will be exonerated."

if they aren't exonerated, which seems likely, then the president will be forced to confront that he leads a corrupt system. While we can--and have--complained about Brodhead's neutrality/lack of support with the lax case, Spanier's comments are precisely why Brodhead didn't provide unconditional support to the Duke students; an indictment generally means very bad news, so how could he know that Nifong would commit malpractice? If he'd given unconditional support" to rapists, he'd have been fired.

[GDT]

I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so.

Given the nature of the crime and the relationships between the people involved, I'm not sure this is a good way to look at this. If your program's graduate assistant (who you may have later made an assistant coach) tells you your right hand man for over 30 years is abusing a boy in your locker room showers, can we agree that's not just 'someone' witnessing a 'crime'.

[sagegrouse]

In hindsight, yes--but of course hindsight is always a lot clearer than the way things look at the time. I don't see any justification for covering Paterno with glory here, but I also don't see anything clearly justifying some posters' suggestions that Paterno should be fired immediately or even criminally prosecuted. His most recent statement says he did was not told the exact details of the incident by the GA; assuming that is true, we could argue that he should have asked, but it's also fairly easy to understand how the GA might not have wanted to describe the situation exactly to the 73-year-old coach he may well have revered, and that Paterno, upset to hear such an allegation against a former close colleague, may not have asked.

If he did not understand the severity of the incident, he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain. Again--that's not to say that we would think he did enough now, but that at the time it would not have been grossly outside the normal behavior range of a fundamentally decent, flawed (as we all are) person to conclude that he had done enough. And there's been no indication that he was involved in the follow up meeting of Curley and Schultz with the GA or in any decisions that arose from it.

And since he was not, in fact, a witness to the incident, he may have thought it would be inappropriate to contact the police directly. I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so. In the end, the GA is the person the police would have had to talk to anyway. Again--I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that he may not have (and I'm not sure I would have) preceived that he wasn't doing the right thing.

If more comes out, of course, that's a different story. But if no other shoe drops, it seems to me the second guessing Paterno is doing about his actions (or inaction) and the pain of seeing the school and program he has devoted his life too fall under such a deep cloud of shame may be an appropriate level of punishment for his role.

I agree with your points. Of course, Joe Pa should not face criminal charges. No, he should not be summarily dismissed for this event. But I think he had two "appropriate" courses -- neither one taken. One was to be all over the AD in following up after he met with him re Sandusky. I.e., he should have seen it as a threat, not only to young boys, but also to the University (which, of course, it has become). Or, gotten every last detail from the GA, taken notes, and used those notes to talk to both the AD and the police. I think other coaches would have handled it in these ways, including K and other Duke coaches. Another poster made this point.

This season could be his last act, however, since the hierarchy in the University and the athletic department are likely to change. Those changes could be a signal to retire.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

If JoePa reported what he was informed of in 2004 but Sandusky was not part of the team since 1999, how can this possibly taint JoePa? Once he reported it to the higer authorities the ball was not in their court.

For god's sake, we're not talking about finding out that your quarterback got a free tattoo or cheated on his problem set, we're talking about covering up the raping of children. There isn't enough font size or capital letters to appropriately convey this.

If the grand jury testimony is accurate, then at best Paterno displayed enough of a lack of leadership such that he shouldn't be allowed to coach an intramural sports team, and at worst should be criminally prosecuted. If.

[SMO]

For god's sake, we're not talking about finding out that your quarterback got a free tattoo or cheated on his problem set, we're talking about covering up the raping of children. There isn't enough font size or capital letters to appropriately convey this.

If the grand jury testimony is accurate, then at best Paterno displayed enough of a lack of leadership such that he shouldn't be allowed to coach an intramural sports team, and at worst should be criminally prosecuted. If.

Not picking on just you, but could the next poster that suggests Paterno could or should be prosecuted please explain to all of us what information s/he has that not only calls into question prosecutors' praise of Paterno, but also demonstrates you have more knowledge about his actions than they do?

[ForkFondler]

For god's sake, we're not talking about finding out that your quarterback got a free tattoo or cheated on his problem set, we're talking about covering up the raping of children. There isn't enough font size or capital letters to appropriately convey this.

If the grand jury testimony is accurate, then at best Paterno displayed enough of a lack of leadership such that he shouldn't be allowed to coach an intramural sports team, and at worst should be criminally prosecuted. If.

Paterno has been a figurehead coach for some time. He was probably about to resign anyway. If there was any coverup on the part of the football staff, it probably wasn't him. The graduate assistant who saw the incident is now an assistant coach, hmmm....

[killerleft]

Do you think the praising authorities might know something about Paterno's actions that we do not?

Bingo. Don't jump on somebody's actions until you know all the facts. One scenario that I would find plausible (and still allow Paterno to keep his "human being in good standing sticker): Paterno reported the allegations to his superiors. Either they get back with Joe and report that things were not as the GA reported, or Joe asks them in a day or three and they tell him things are fine. Joe (not being the kind who convicts people on flimsy or no evidence like some on this board are willing to do) takes them at their word, since their dealings with him have always seemed to be conducted with honor.

I'm not saying this is how it happened, but I would believe it before I would believe that Joe Paterno willingly protected a child molester. That's just me, thinking that a lifetime of goodwill and honor AT LEAST allows Paterno to be considered "innocent" rather than a helpmate to Sandusky. To me it seems foolish and intractible to be demanding that Paterno resign or that he be fired. There are things to know before we can thoughtfully make an appraisal of any type.

[killerleft]

I share this concern. Reading in the grand jury presentation, it uses what, to me, is a telling turn of phrase. It says that Paterno called the AD to his home to inform him "the very next day." [page 7] The use of the modifier "very" is unnecessary in a factual report. It gives almost a defensive tone to the sentence. Its inclusion suggests to me that the author (desperately?) wishes to give the impression that Paterno acted quickly.

One hopes that there is some positive stuff we don't know about - people who tried to do the right thing, including JoePa. But I think most of us know enough about cognitive dissonance to understand that it would be very hard for anyone in that area to throw JoePa under the bus for (arguably) doing the minimum - reporting it to his boss, and (possibly) nothing else. He is revered in PA, not only for his record-setting accomplishments, but for doing so while running a cleaner program than many (for its level of success), and for his character and integrity. It's hard to call those into question when you have such emotional investment in the guy.

In time hopefully we'll have a better impression of who reported what, to whom, and when.

I expect that what would make it harder to throw JoePa under the bus woud be his honesty and integrity, judged by a lifetime of works and examples. In other words, JoePa may have done everything right. Incredible, I know, but maybe true all the same.

[Billy Dat]

There are some incredible details emerging...how about the fact that it appears that some of the allegations made it all the way to the DA of Centre County, Ray Grircar, who never acted on them. Why? We'll never know, because Griarcar went missing in April 2005 and was declared assumed dead this past July.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Gricar
"Gricar was reported missing to authorities after failing to return home from a road trip. His car was found in Lewisburg with his cell phone inside, and his laptop computer was found in the adjacent Susquehanna River; other than that, very little trace of Gricar has been found. After being missing for over six years with no trace of his whereabouts, Centre County authorities declared Gricar legally dead on July 25, 2011."

I am not saying that the two incidents are connected, it just adds intrigue to this horrendous case and investigation.

You know who seems to have done their job? The Keystone Central School District and the post-Grircar DAs office of Centre County, PA, who followed-up a kid and his mother's complaint after the mother realised Sandusky had showered with her son and launched the 3-year investigation that led to this arrest.

[GDT]

...his laptop computer was found in the adjacent Susquehanna River; other than that, very little trace of Gricar has been found.

His hard drive had been removed from the laptop and was unreadable. Searches made on Gricar's home computer in the weeks before his disappearance included "how to wreck a hard drive" and "water damage to a notebook computer". Is that odd or what?

[MartyClark]

i'm definitely not with you here.

We must have a Pennsylvania lawyer on board. Is there a Pennsylvania statute that required JoPa to report this to the police or some agency? Is there a statute that required him to do more than he did? I'm not saying that complicance with Pennsylvania law, if that is the case, was morally sufficient but I think the legal standard is a good starting point to evaluate this mess.

[77devil]

In the event that this is curtains for Joe Pa, let me tell my one Joe Paterno story.

My friend Dick Smith, who is a few years older, was at a camp in New England in the 1940s, and Joe Paterno, then a quarterback at Brown, was his counselor. Dick's mother was very ill, which was one of the reasons Dick was sent to camp. Unhappily, his mother passed away, and Joe Paterno pesonally delivered the word.

Fast forward 30 or 35 years. My friend, who had an advertising firm, was at Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Jersey for a meeting. Joe Paterno was also in the reception area, so Dick approached the Coach and said, "My name is Dick Smith. I don't know if you remember me, but you were my camp counselor." "Oh my God," said Paterno, "How could I forget?" I think Paterno is a very decent human being.

sagegrouse

I'm sure this is but one of hundreds of good deeds Joe Pa has done over the decades, and yet, his legacy will be irreparably tarnished at best over this. It's a shame. But why didn't he do more? I suspect we'll learn a lot more in the weeks and months ahead.

Living in PA, I know more than a few Penn State fans, and a few of them were, let's say, less than charitable during the the LAX case particularly at the beginning. Karma is what it is.

[rasputin]

We must have a Pennsylvania lawyer on board. Is there a Pennsylvania statute that required JoPa to report this to the police or some agency? Is there a statute that required him to do more than he did? I'm not saying that complicance with Pennsylvania law, if that is the case, was morally sufficient but I think the legal standard is a good starting point to evaluate this mess.

I'm not a Pennsylvania lawyer, and my familiarity with this area of the law comes from advising (Missouri) school districts about their responsibility to report suspected child abuse to the proper juvenile authorities. The Missouri statute makes all teachers, principals, and other school officials mandated reporters. The statute says that the "person in charge" (principal, usually) is to be notified immediately, and then that person is supposed to make the report, or see to it that it is made. (Often times that responsibility will be delegated to a counselor or assistant principal.) If Paterno did notify the A.D., and if Paterno was told that the required report was made, I don't see any liability upon Paterno, if the Pennsylvania statute is similar.

Under the Missouri statute, it is also clear that anyone can make a report. The statute doesn't require literally every individual to make a report, undoubtedly because it doesn't make sense for six people, who all have the same basic information, to make, and for the Children's Division to receive and investigate, six identical reports.

[bundabergdevil]

I'm certainly not a Pennsylvania lawyer but my understanding is that the law on who MUST report suspected (suspected is a key word here) child abuse varies from state to state. For example, Utah law, I believe, requires ANY person with suspicions to report it to authorities while Vermont and maybe Pennsylvania (I don't know for sure so don't quote me) have MANDATED REPORTERS...that is, people, due to their contact with children (doctors, teachers, etc) are required by law to report any suspected abuse.

Assessing the legal obligations of JoePa, the GA, the janitors, etc would probably start with whether or not Pennsylvania has a mandated reporters vs. any person requirement and then whether said individuals qualify as "mandated reporters." Note, my understanding is that reporting to authorities means the police or child services professionals, not your immediate superior. So, depending on the law, it is entirely possible that JoePa, the GA, the janitors, etc could all be legally held responsible for not reporting.

That's my two cents on the legal angle from what I understand. Morally, I have to agree with those posters who said when a crime of this magnitude is involved, you do everything you can to see it is investigated by the proper personnel.

[GDT]

Either they get back with Joe and report that things were not as the GA reported, or Joe asks them in a day or three and they tell him things are fine. Joe (not being the kind who convicts people on flimsy or no evidence like some on this board are willing to do) takes them at their word, since their dealings with him have always seemed to be conducted with honor.

If this is accurate I think they would have have had to have said the "GA was wrong" or "things are fine" PLUS "oh, by the way, Sandusky is not allowed to use our facilities with young people anymore". Which I find a little more difficult to accept at face value, personally.

[SoCalDukeFan]

What I think most of you fail to take into account is that Joe Pa got this info second hand.

IMHO he should have asked (forced if possible) the GA to go to the police. Maybe he tried to do that. I personally would not go to the police with an allegation that someone told me. Sandusky would deny it, so getting the Penn State officials involved was probably the right thing to do.

I wish the GA had gone to the police or any of the other earlier people who witnessed Sandusky other apparent crimes.

Of course there is a chance that Joe Pa told the GA that he Joe would handle it and no need for the GA to go to the police. In that case, Joe should be arrested.

At least I now know what I would do in a similar situation. Get the accuser to go to the police.

SoCal

[GDT]

IMHO he should have asked (forced if possible) the GA to go to the police. Maybe he tried to do that.

Since we're entertaining 'maybes', maybe the GA heard that Sandusky was investigated in 1998, admitted to the mother of a pre-teen that his genitals may have touched her son in the shower, that he was wrong and wanted to die and saw that the investigation was quashed. Maybe thought the police would have given more credence to JP than him and trusted him to do the right thing.


I personally would not go to the police with an allegation that someone told me.

If a 28 year-old who worked for me told me a man who was my top assistant for 23 years had done what was alleged, I would have either seen him vindicated or turned him in. Or I suppose I could have done nothing. For years. And years. Wondering every time I saw him on campus. And thought about his boys 'charity'.

[GDT]

Since we're entertaining 'maybes'

Hey, SoCalDukeFan, I'm apologizing in advance because I think my quotes are too sarcastic. It's a difficult issue and snark doesn't help.

[mph]

What I think most of you fail to take into account is that Joe Pa got this info second hand.

IMHO he should have asked (forced if possible) the GA to go to the police. Maybe he tried to do that. I personally would not go to the police with an allegation that someone told me. Sandusky would deny it, so getting the Penn State officials involved was probably the right thing to do.

I wish the GA had gone to the police or any of the other earlier people who witnessed Sandusky other apparent crimes.

Of course there is a chance that Joe Pa told the GA that he Joe would handle it and no need for the GA to go to the police. In that case, Joe should be arrested.

At least I now know what I would do in a similar situation. Get the accuser to go to the police.

SoCal

I respect the fact that reasonable people can disagree about this, but in this context, yes, I believe the seriousness of the allegations, Sandusky's ties to the program, the fact that the alleged crime occurred in football facilities under my supervision, and the knowledge that Sandusky founded a charity that worked with at-risk youth would have compelled me to verify that this was reported to the police or to eventually report it myself. I know that it's easy to criticize the way someone else handles something from afar and that these situations always appear less complicated when you're not caught up in them, but if this allegation didn't call for some persistent follow-up, I don't know what would.

BTW, not going to the police with an allegation someone told them is one of the two charges facing Curley and Schultz. The law recognizes that there are some situations that compel you to report third party information to the police. While this law doesn't appear to apply to Paterno in this particular situation is does address your general concern about reporting hearsay allegations to the police.

[mph]

The Pennsylvania state police commisioner, who has been involved with the investigation for several years, said the following (http://my.news.yahoo.com/official-paterno-didnt-enough-stop-abuse-203512968.html) today:


Paterno may have fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child."

He added: "I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us."

Here's a link (http://news.yahoo.com/cops-condemn-penn-states-culture-not-preventing-sex-081520819.html) to his part of today's press conference.

[SMO]

For those interested in the PA statute the GJ report says "the person in charge of the school or instituation has the responsibility and legal obligation" to report the alleged abuse. See page 12 below. Perhaps that's why McQueary went to Paterno, and Paterno went to his superiors.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/06/sports/ncaafootball/20111106-pennstate-document.html

[killerleft]

If this is accurate I think they would have have had to have said the "GA was wrong" or "things are fine" PLUS "oh, by the way, Sandusky is not allowed to use our facilities with young people anymore". Which I find a little more difficult to accept at face value, personally.

I'm not sure that the timing of Sandusky's loss of privileges coincides with the first reporting by the GA. I don't think it does. My scenario was only one of several that would still allow Paterno to be without fault (until hindsight is factored in). I'm just trying to inject a bit of caution to the thread. Unless you think Paterno is also a liar, his expanded comments, noted in a previous post, would seem to support my assertion that he did not think the allegations were true at the time. How he arrived at this conclusion is less clear. It is looking likely that the GA didn't go into details of what he saw with JoePa that he did later with others. If it pleases you to believe the worst, then go ahead. We're just speculating, after all.

[peterjswift]

What I think most of you fail to take into account is that Joe Pa got this info second hand.

IMHO he should have asked (forced if possible) the GA to go to the police. Maybe he tried to do that. I personally would not go to the police with an allegation that someone told me. Sandusky would deny it, so getting the Penn State officials involved was probably the right thing to do.

I wish the GA had gone to the police or any of the other earlier people who witnessed Sandusky other apparent crimes.

Of course there is a chance that Joe Pa told the GA that he Joe would handle it and no need for the GA to go to the police. In that case, Joe should be arrested.

At least I now know what I would do in a similar situation. Get the accuser to go to the police.

SoCal


One thing that I haven't seen in all of these comments is the fact that Paterno *did* arrange for the GA to speak directly to Curley and Schultz. There was a meeting where the GA was able to speak directly to Curley and Schultz. This is what so many are upset about. Curley and Schultz were not only told third-hand by Joe Paterno about the issue, they also met directly with the GA, and Curley and Schultz's only actions were to ban Sandusky from the facility and tell him not to bring people from his charity on campus (and they also contacted the charity about the report as well). They should have gone to the cops.

I would just like to reiterate that Joe Pa heard second hand from a GA a shocking report about someone Joe knew for years. It was probably hard for him to even believe the report at all. Despite this, he went directly up the chain of command, and even made sure that the GA was heard directly by the people who should hear about this. I think people keep forgetting or don't realize that Joe ensured that the GA met with Joe's superiors about this. This was despite the fact that Sandusky was NOT Joe's employee and hadn't been for several years.

In hindsight, Joe Pa could and should have done more, but calling for his head over this is a complete misdirection of the rage and anger about this situation.


Also - I'd like to point out that the connection with Gricar gave me chills when I first heard it....but I honestly think that there were far bigger threats to his life from the massive drug ring that he helped dismantle than anything in connection to this case. I think it makes a great conspiracy theory and would be an interesting plot to a Grisham novel...but nothing else.

[tendev]

I am shaking my head at the excuses made for Joe Paterno on this board. He apparently committed no crime but he failed in every moral respect. The notion that "reporting it up the chain of command" is all he is required to do does not pass the laugh test. If anyone thinks that Joe Paterno is not the boss at Penn State they would have to say the same about Coach K.

Let's say this happened with the basketball program at Duke. I would like to hear the argument from anyone who says Coach K would have done the same thing as Paterno did here. At best Paterno failed at moral leadership, at worst he was involved in a cover up. It is clear that someone in the athletic department knew about the 1998 incident and this being at least the 2nd incident, just maybe they were trying to protect Penn State. Paterno has no excuse; he need to go.

[roywhite]

I am shaking my head at the excuses made for Joe Paterno on this board. He apparently committed no crime but he failed in every moral respect. The notion that "reporting it up the chain of command" is all he is required to do does not pass the laugh test. If anyone thinks that Joe Paterno is not the boss at Penn State they would have to say the same about Coach K.

Let's say this happened with the basketball program at Duke. I would like to hear the argument from anyone who says Coach K would have done the same thing as Paterno did here. At best Paterno failed at moral leadership, at worst he was involved in a cover up. It is clear that someone in the athletic department knew about the 1998 incident and this being at least the 2nd incident, just maybe they were trying to protect Penn State. Paterno has no excuse; he need to go.

I'm wary of making a comparison here between Penn State and Duke, but since that's your point, consider this:

I've heard and read Coach K express some regrets about not being more involved in the scandal involving false accusation of the Duke lacrosse players.
This was certainly not his area of responsibility, but it's fair to say that he felt some moral inclinations to be more involved.
At Penn State, Sandusky was no longer on Paterno's staff at the time of the incident; he was a retired employee.

I don't know if you saw the ESPN special on Coach K and Joe Paterno this summer; it was well done.
I've followed both schools for many years, and always felt there were tremendous similarities between Paterno and Krzyzewski, both in background and approach.
It was apparent from watching the shows, which included some background chat as well as a panel presentation, that Coach K had tremendous respect and affection for Paterno.

Again, this is a tricky analogy, but I don't think the case for Paterno's failings to do more is made by guessing about Coach K and what he might have done.

[Billy Dat]

Powerful, front page editorial in today's Harrisburg Patriot News
http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=PA_PN&ref_pge=lst

[PADukeMom]

OK I did not hear the entire story yesterday. Now I have heard it & yes I a deeply concerned, disturbed & furious. I also remember back to the Lacrosse situation so I am going to sit back & reserve final judgement until the entire matter has been through the judicial system. If Sandusky did do as he is accused then that man should burn in the furthest regions of HELL & even that's too good for him.
My grey area concerns JoePa. He did report what he was told 3rd hand as soon as he found out. Should he have followed up...yes. Should he have alerted the police...probably...no yes he should have. Hindsight is 20/20 and none of us are perfect but these were children so you have to follow up, no question about it. I do believe if Paterno had witnessed this personally, Sandusky would have been in jail. I am very disappointed in Paterno but I do think he believed the matter was reported to the proper authorities & didn't follow-up which was a huge error on his part. Then I do take into consideration he is a gentleman in his 80's who is running a big time college football program. As a daughter of an 87 year mother, let's just say there are times when not all of the dots connect.
This is the last year of Paterno's contract & I would wager to guess he will retire after this season. It just pains me that this man will forever be tainted because because of the alledged acts of one Jerry Sandusky. My rose colored glasses are off. I guess I am going to have to get used to the idea of Urban Meyer being the next head coach at Penn State.
As a Penn State graduate & fan I hang my head in shame & embarassment.

[peterjswift]

I am shaking my head at the excuses made for Joe Paterno on this board. He apparently committed no crime but he failed in every moral respect. The notion that "reporting it up the chain of command" is all he is required to do does not pass the laugh test. If anyone thinks that Joe Paterno is not the boss at Penn State they would have to say the same about Coach K.

Let's say this happened with the basketball program at Duke. I would like to hear the argument from anyone who says Coach K would have done the same thing as Paterno did here. At best Paterno failed at moral leadership, at worst he was involved in a cover up. It is clear that someone in the athletic department knew about the 1998 incident and this being at least the 2nd incident, just maybe they were trying to protect Penn State. Paterno has no excuse; he need to go.

He did more than just report it up the chain of command. This is in the grand jury report. He also made sure the primary witness (GA) was able to tell his story directly to the superiors involved. This is significant.

There is no doubt that Joe Pa could have done more, but I'm not convinced that he failed in every moral respect. Hindsight is 20/20, and we do not have nearly enough information to judge and condemn Joe Pa the way that you and many others are doing.

Also, anyone close to PSU knows that Joe Pa is NOT the boss at PSU. It is a completely different situation with him than with Coach K. When Coach K talks, people listen. When Joe Pa talks, people might listen, but they also think: "this guy is over 80 years old" and they don't take him seriously. Joe Pa is a figurehead at best. He certainly could have done more, I don't deny that....but the condemnation and judgment people are passing on him already after he's had over 40 years of exemplary service are going overboard. He has earned his trust and respect, and I think that requires us to pass a judgment of charity on him until all the facts are in.

[PADukeMom]

One other question did Mike McClosky witness this or was it reported to him 2nd hand?

[cspan37421]

I am shaking my head at the excuses made for Joe Paterno on this board. He apparently committed no crime but he failed in every moral respect. The notion that "reporting it up the chain of command" is all he is required to do does not pass the laugh test. If anyone thinks that Joe Paterno is not the boss at Penn State they would have to say the same about Coach K.

Let's say this happened with the basketball program at Duke. I would like to hear the argument from anyone who says Coach K would have done the same thing as Paterno did here. At best Paterno failed at moral leadership, at worst he was involved in a cover up. It is clear that someone in the athletic department knew about the 1998 incident and this being at least the 2nd incident, just maybe they were trying to protect Penn State. Paterno has no excuse; he need to go.

I'm not sure I would go that far, at least not until we know more. But a couple of thoughts: if anyone had a moral obligation to go to the police, it was actually the GA, right? His was the first-hand account (I think terminology is getting mixed up on this thread) and could vouch for what he saw as an eyewitness. Now, given the fact that the GA, while an adult, was young and very shaken by the experience, I can understand him going to Paterno first - a trusted figure, a mentor, and asking "what should I do?"

It is at THAT point that I would hope that the head coach would be experienced and knowledgeable enough to realize that he wasn't dealing with a rules violation that required reporting up the chain of command to the AD; rather, he had been approached by one of his subordinates who explained that he witnessed a violent sexual crime on campus, committed by an adult against a child. One would hope that the first thing that springs to the mind of the head coach is, "this describes a crime, ergo, it's a police matter, not a compliance matter." Unfortunately, that did not appear to happen. But maybe he did know the "reporting person" statute for PA and if so, maybe he did realize that the AD, not himself, was the one who would need to contact the police or child protective services. More information is really needed.

edit: are we really up to "third hand" now? Pretty soon it'll be said that JoePa first heard about the allegations in the newspaper! I was not an English major, but it seems to me that if he was told of the shower rape incident by a person who saw it happening, he heard a FIRST-HAND account. JoePa telling that story to the AD makes JoePa's story a second-hand account. But the GA was the eyewitness, ergo, first-hand. I could be wrong, but if so, how? THanks.

[Mike Corey]

I am not pleased that Sandusky was permitted to continue hosting a Penn State overnight football camp as recently as 2009.

The accounting for how Penn State permitted that to happen, despite its knowledge, will be interesting to hear.

It does not reflect well on Penn State football or Penn State as a university that such was permitted to happen.

[PADukeMom]

My bigger question is why didn't the President of the university report it? Spangler has some 'splaining to do.

[MCFinARL]

I agree with your points. Of course, Joe Pa should not face criminal charges. No, he should not be summarily dismissed for this event. But I think he had two "appropriate" courses -- neither one taken. One was to be all over the AD in following up after he met with him re Sandusky. I.e., he should have seen it as a threat, not only to young boys, but also to the University (which, of course, it has become). Or, gotten every last detail from the GA, taken notes, and used those notes to talk to both the AD and the police. I think other coaches would have handled it in these ways, including K and other Duke coaches. Another poster made this point.

This season could be his last act, however, since the hierarchy in the University and the athletic department are likely to change. Those changes could be a signal to retire.

sagegrouse

I agree, it appears Paterno missed an opportunity to step up in a dangerous and disturbing situation. Perhaps he did so because he very desperately wanted the GA's report to be a misperception or misunderstanding and he counted on others to look into it, but of course I'm just speculating, and in the end it obviously would have been better for him to follow the train where it led, no matter how painful.


Not picking on just you, but could the next poster that suggests Paterno could or should be prosecuted please explain to all of us what information s/he has that not only calls into question prosecutors' praise of Paterno, but also demonstrates you have more knowledge about his actions than they do?

Amen. We can speculate about what Paterno may have known or might have done differently, but nothing has been reported that demonstrates he was actively involved in a cover up or any criminally punishable activity, and if the lacrosse case taught us anything, it should be that it's wise to wait for solid information before throwing criminal allegations around.

[peterjswift]

This doesn't have much information about the trial, but it is an earnest description of what a lot of lifelong PSU fans are feeling. I've lived in north-central PA my entire life...with only a few years of college in Western PA (just as close to State College though), so this really rings true.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state

I think the author really hits the nail on the head. I'm experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance the more I think about this crime (calling it a scandal seems to trivialize it). It is one thing to love PSU football. However, PSU fans love way more than the football team, they love what the program stands for and the way the "right way" has been upheld with success for so long. Reading about this crime really exposes, in my mind, just how far this allegiance has affected me, and it is clear that it isn't just the football team that I'm a fan of. The trouble is, if it is the program and what the program represents that I've been a fan of, and this has come crumbling down, just "football" isn't really enough to keep me interested.

I think Duke fans, especially, can understand this. If we just loved basketball, there's a number of other teams we could easily attach ourselves to. It isn't just the game that brings people to be fans, especially the kind of fans that follow the team so diligently that they post on message boards year-round about the team.

[MCFinARL]

edit: are we really up to "third hand" now? Pretty soon it'll be said that JoePa first heard about the allegations in the newspaper! I was not an English major, but it seems to me that if he was told of the shower rape incident by a person who saw it happening, he heard a FIRST-HAND account. JoePa telling that story to the AD makes JoePa's story a second-hand account. But the GA was the eyewitness, ergo, first-hand. I could be wrong, but if so, how? THanks.

A small and obviously side point--but since you raise it I will give you an English major answer--you get a gold star. The GA's account was an eye witness and thus first-hand account of what he saw; what Paterno told the AD, and could have told the police, was a first-hand account of his own conversation with the GA, but a second-hand account of what the GA reported. Third-hand, in this case, might refer to what the AD might have reported to the university president if he spoke to him before interviewing the GA directly.

[Wander]

When Joe Pa talks, people might listen, but they also think: "this guy is over 80 years old" and they don't take him seriously. Joe Pa is a figurehead at best.

Then maybe we should add a university letting someone over 80 years old be the head coach of powerhouse 1-A college football program to the long list of failures involved here.

[peterjswift]

Then maybe we should add a university letting someone over 80 years old be the head coach of powerhouse 1-A college football program to the long list of failures involved here.

That....might be a legitimate criticism.

[cspan37421]

One other question did Mike McClosky witness this or was it reported to him 2nd hand?

It's my understanding that it has been reported that McClosky was the GA who witnessed it. I believe someone earlier in the thread mentioned it but didn't have a second source. Regardless, the GA is the first-hand source and the GA went to Paterno.

[killerleft]

Then maybe we should add a university letting someone over 80 years old be the head coach of powerhouse 1-A college football program to the long list of failures involved here.

Seriously? Then why not just turn old people into Soylent Green and be done with it?

[cspan37421]

Then maybe we should add a university letting someone over 80 years old be the head coach of powerhouse 1-A college football program to the long list of failures involved here.

A Penn Stater would know better, but I have a vague recollection that there had been some trial balloons floated several years ago (maybe even a dozen) which appeared to be aimed at testing public opinion about asking JoePa to step aside. Very quickly it became evident that he didn't want to step down. At that point it was a judgment call as to which course of action would be best for PSU - pressure him to step down, and appear to be mistreating a living legend, arguably past his prime (but still pretty darn good), or letting him decide when he was ready to go, even if that meant PSU might never challenge for a title while he was still around (given his advanced age, what recruit could feel confident the coach would be around for four more years?). [Let alone any age-related lapses in judgment & oversight that could stain the program and university's name.]

[cspan37421]

Seriously? Then why not just turn old people into Soylent Green and be done with it?

I may not be the best at brainstorming, but I'm pretty sure that's not the only other option. :)

[mph]

It's my understanding that it has been reported that McClosky was the GA who witnessed it. I believe someone earlier in the thread mentioned it but didn't have a second source. Regardless, the GA is the first-hand source and the GA went to Paterno.

The person named is Mike McQueary, former PSU QB and the current WR coach and recruiting coordinator.

I think it's reasonable to assume he's the GA. I caught parts of yesterday's press conference, and reporters referred to McQueary by name without correction from the AG. He's also been universally reported as the the GA, making it likely we would have heard a denial from McQueary if those reports were false.

[Thurber Whyte]

Just for general reference, the Pennsylvannia statue on reporting child abuse can be found here (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/chap3490toc.html#3490.4.).

There is no general duty to report child abuse. The statute referenced in the grand jury report is actually 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6311, which contains almost identical language. I am having trouble linking it directly, but you can go here (http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=pac-1000) to search for it. It is very strange that the code would be organized that way. Reading both statutes, it does not appear clear to me that university administrators are among those persons required to report suspected child abuse. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6311(a) defines a required reporter generally as, “A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children,” and then goes on to list specific occupations such as doctor, social worker, law enforcement official and the like.

Furthermore, Paterno would seem to be off the hook legally. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6311(c) indicates that persons working in an institution may satisfy the reporting requirement by reporting to the person in charge. Whether Paterno had a moral duty to go farther is another matter entirely. However, the Vice President involved oversaw the campus police.



The apparent weakness of the legal case against Curley and Shultz seems to confirm my initial suspicion that prosecutors used the grand jury to run perjury traps on them. There is really no other explanation for a grand jury investigation in this situation. All the evidence against Sandusky himself in the grand jury report could have been developed through police investigation. A judge could have issued any subpoenas required to obtain documents from the university. I think it is fair to say that Curley and Shultz were targets of the investigation as much as Sandusky. Grand jury procedure 101 is that prosecutors never call the target of an investigation before the grand jury because the target can give exculpatory testimony. The only reason to call the target before the grand jury is to ask them questions about things the prosecutors already know about and then see if they testify differently.

Essentially, as I see it, prosecutors cannot successfully prosecute Curley and Schultz for failure to report so they used the grand jury to try to get them to say they did report when they did not and then prosecute them for perjury. The reason Curley and Schultz would be tempted to lie is obvious: they thought they were already in serious legal trouble and could be prosecuted if they said they did not report. The grand jury report characterizes their testimony as equivocal so they may have taken the bait.

Do not get me wrong. I agree that they had a moral duty to get the police involved right away if there was reason to suspect Sandusky of child sexual abuse. If there was and they failed to do so, go ahead and put the boot into them for that. What I have a problem with is prosecutors manufacturing a crime where there is none in order to achieve an outcome that is not otherwise permitted by law. As distasteful as the allegations against Curley and Shultz are in this particular case, there are some obvious dangers in prosecutors using their power in this fashion.



While we can--and have--complained about Brodhead's neutrality/lack of support with the lax case, Spanier's comments are precisely why Brodhead didn't provide unconditional support to the Duke students; an indictment generally means very bad news, so how could he know that Nifong would commit malpractice? If he'd given unconditional support" to rapists, he'd have been fired.

Without getting into the merits, I just want to make sure the underlying issue is clear. Nobody asked Brodhead to declare the falsely accused players innocent. Brodhead was asked to condemn the systematic violation of their civil rights and demand due process of law. What Brodhead was being asked to do was made very clear to him. Nifong’s misconduct was beyond dispute and took place on national television. I hope I can say that much without getting the banhammer.

[killerleft]

I may not be the best at brainstorming, but I'm pretty sure that's not the only other option. :)

Well, he WOULD be good for something, at least;)

[JasonEvans]

Two things...

1) To me a key question is what happened when Curley and Schultz confronted Sandusky to tell him he was banned from bringing kids into the Penn State locker rooms. Did Sandusky deny the allegations? Did he admit anything? More importantly, did they ask him the name of the kid he was with that day so someone could contact the child an investigate a little bit? Wouldn't most people's first reaction be to ask Sandusky for his side of the story -- I wonder what story he gave that they did not need to follow up at all and forward the info onto the police. Pathetic!

2) JoePa's legacy - I think there is a lot to still be known about what JoePa did and (more importantly) did not do in this whole thing. I am not a fan of what I have heard so far. He may not have broken the law, but it sure feels like he did not rise to a moral standard we all think he should be held to. But, that is not what I want to talk about right now.

JoePa has been a good man at Penn State. He has won a ridiculous number of games and been a mentor to an incredible number of kids. He has given back, to Penn State and other charities, in some remarkable ways. There is little question that up until this week everyone associated with the Penn State program had every right to be incredibly proud of his association with the school.

And that is why this week has been so sad. Unless Sandusky is somehow completely exonerated (highly unlikely given the number of independent accusers), this scandal will forever taint the JoePa legacy. It comes at the very end of his career, so we will not have time to let it fade into history. It is such a disgusting scandal and involves folks so high up in the Penn St administration that it simply will not be forgotten. It is sorta sad that when JoePa's obituary is written, there will be paragraphs, probably highly placed ones, mentioning this story and the taint it put on the end of his career.

--Jason "I feel sorry for the guy-- even though I think he probably should have done more in this case" Evans

[cspan37421]

The person named is Mike McQueary, former PSU QB and the current WR coach and recruiting coordinator.

Thanks for clarifying - it didn't sound quite right, but I didn't check. I figured I knew what they meant ....

[SoCalDukeFan]

that Paterno did go to the police. What would the police have done? I would assume interview the GA first. I don't think that the police proceed on secondhand info when firsthand should be pretty easy to get.

It just seems to me that the GA should have gone to the police and I would like to understand why he did not before judging Paterno.

It also seems to me that by telling Sandusky not to bring kids on campus or whatever that the Penn State officials thought something was wrong and were trying more to protect the University than innocent children. Reprehensible.

SoCal

[Billy Dat]

I wonder what story he gave that they did not need to follow up at all and forward the info onto the police. Pathetic!


Agree. What's worse is that similar Sandusky crimes were reported 4 years earlier, in 1998 after the mother of a boy he molested called the police. The DA, the aforementioned Gricar, had police officers in the home of the accusing mother when Sandusky said to her, ""I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead", yet Gricar never pressed charges. No one will ever know why because Gricar is dead. The system broke down in so many places around Sandusky's crimes over such a long period of time that it is hard to believe.

[PADukeMom]

The person named is Mike McQueary, former PSU QB and the current WR coach and recruiting coordinator.

I think it's reasonable to assume he's the GA. I caught parts of yesterday's press conference, and reporters referred to McQueary by name without correction from the AG. He's also been universally reported as the the GA, making it likely we would have heard a denial from McQueary if those reports were false.

I know it is McQueary, red headed guy who was a so-so QB. Call it a Tuesday morning, caffine deprived 50 something brain. Why did Mike McQueary not go directly to the police himself????? I honestly believe if Paterno witnessed this happening personally Sandusky would have already been tried & convicted. Did McQeary witness this in 1999 or 2009? I live right smack dab in the middle of Penn State country so the new overload is overwhelming & conflicting.

[Billy Dat]

It just seems to me that the GA should have gone to the police and I would like to understand why he did not before judging Paterno.
SoCal

How about the fact that this GA is now a full fledged assistant and has been looking at Sandusky in and around the football facility for the past 9 years since seeing him do what he did with his own eyes, knowing that the guy is still around kids all the time! I guess the human mind is really capable of remarkable compartmentalization.

[PADukeMom]

Jason,b eing the mother of sons who were involved in sports and as a parent who was involved in the various organizations if someone where to come to me with any allegations of any sort of abuse of a child my response would be to contact the police immediately. I would not talk to the coach first nor the organization. The child has got to come first.
The more I hear of this the more digusting this is. This is a huge mess.

[Reilly]

... It just seems to me that the GA should have gone to the police ....

Or, called 911 then and there. The institution-must-report-laws seem to fit when folks learn something after the fact (like Paterno and the AD and the administrator). If you stumble on an active crime scene, call 911.

[Duvall]

that Paterno did go to the police. What would the police have done? I would assume interview the GA first. I don't think that the police proceed on secondhand info when firsthand should be pretty easy to get.

It just seems to me that the GA should have gone to the police and I would like to understand why he did not before judging Paterno.

Why can't we judge the actions of the two independently - whatever McQueary's reasons for choosing not to go to the police, it appears that Paterno had enough information to do a lot more than he chose to do.

Here's what I don't get. Penn State has to have known about the likelihood of an indictment for the better part of a year - the story broke in March! (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html) How can they not have been better prepared for this?

[Mal]

The system broke down in so many places around Sandusky's crimes over such a long period of time that it is hard to believe.

This is what's been so saddening to me this week. I understand where JE's coming from, but I'm really not sad about the tarnishing of Joe Paterno's legend and reputation. He's a football coach. Everyone will always know he was a really good football coach and did some good things and helped a lot of young men become upstanding and productive adults, and was not himself molesting and raping children. So if his reputation takes a hit because at the end of all of this the consensus becomes that he didn't do enough or allowed himself to remain willfully ignorant, I'm not going to be upset by that. It will be well-deserved.

What's sad is that a 10-year-old boy is alleged to have been raped in a shower in the Penn State football locker room, and it appears that no actions were ever taken to even find out the identity of the child. Somewhere out there, if the claims are correct, there's an 18-year-old kid who's been living with this, anonymously and with no help, for almost half his life, undoubtedly forming the conviction that grownups will not protect him. Which conviction has surely not been challenged over the last week. I'm trying very hard to reserve judgment on all of this until we know all the facts, and account for human fallibility in the individual decisions. But it appears to be undisputed that McQuery says he saw Sandusky in the act, and within a few days three separate, very powerful adults had heard his story, and no one ever figured out who the kid was. If that all turns out to be true, then it's inexcusable for each of them, including Paterno, under any set of circumstances I can imagine. I won't care if Paterno can plausibly make the case that his superiors had told him the matter was being taken care of and he had no reason to not believe them. Even if his initial reaction was one of shock and disbelief that his longtime assistant could possibly be capable of something like what he was hearing. If he didn't at some point ask "Have you found the kid?" he will have failed miserably in the morality department. If these were individuals who didn't know Sandusky personally and did not continue to interact with him for years afterwards, or who had no power within the system, it might be different. It might also be different if these were not individuals who were (or are) employed by the State of Pennsylvania for the express purpose of educating and caring for the wellbeing of young people. That it appears none of them did anything to ensure that a young person was being attended to, is the sad thing here. I'm having a difficult time figuring out the hypothetical scenario where the facts that may materialize over the next several months change this.

[rthomas]

Penn State Said to Be Planning Paterno’s Exit Amid Scandal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&src=tp

Paterno should have called the police. Period.

[Duvall]

NYT: Penn State planning Paterno's exit (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1).

[Mike Corey]

Penn State planning Paterno's exit and right soon.

Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&hp).

[sagegrouse]

"Days or weeks" and "definitely not next season." Link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&hp)

sagegrouse

[formerdukeathlete]

Or, called 911 then and there. The institution-must-report-laws seem to fit when folks learn something after the fact (like Paterno and the AD and the administrator). If you stumble on an active crime scene, call 911.

Sandusky retired in '99. It is asserted that he was forced to retire due to complaints about questionable behavior. As a retired coach he continued to hang around the locker room. The reported incident occurred in 2002. An article in rivals had Sandusky working out in the Penn State Football weight room last week.

http://patdollard.com/2011/11/football-coach-multiple-underage-gay-rapes-scandal-rocks-penn-state/

Before and after retiring, Sandusky used his access to Penn State Football and the private foundation for boys he set up to lure in and rape boys ages 10 to 13 at Penn State and even on away game trips.

I had understood that one of the reasons Sandusky was forced out in '99 was due to complaints from players about inappropriate advances from Sandusky.

I suppose Sandusky was still helping out the coaches on a volunteer basis, rationale for allowing him continuing access to the Penn State weight rooms. I imagine this access to the weight rooms might be extended to all former players (Sandusky had played in the '60s). So, to ban Sandusky would have been a bit confrontational. Still, with the history of complaints about inappropriate advances and observation of child molestation, he should have been banned, probably in '99. A lot of this would not have happened.

[roywhite]

"Days or weeks" and "definitely not next season." Link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&hp)

sagegrouse

That's the right thing to do.

Actually, he should have left some years ago, and I think he may have retired himself this year, mostly due to health issues.

Very sad that his exit at the time of this scandal will likely always be in the first paragraph of any news account of his career.

[sagegrouse]

Penn State Said to Be Planning Paterno’s Exit Amid Scandal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&src=tp

Paterno should have called the police. Period.


NYT: Penn State planning Paterno's exit (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1).


Penn State planning Paterno's exit and right soon.

Linky (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&hp).


"Days or weeks" and "definitely not next season." Link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-said-to-be-planning-paternos-exit.html?_r=1&hp)

sagegrouse

Wow! Four posts within a couple of minutes. We really do have to "get a life." -- sage

[Billy Dat]

Wow! Four posts within a couple of minutes. We really do have to "get a life." -- sage

I think this case has just really hit a nerve, I can't explain my own intense reaction. Obviously, and sadly, this kind of pedophilia happens everyday all over the world. We know it has plagued the catholic church, youth sports organizations and schools of all kinds, the list goes on. On some level, as horrible as it is, you want to divorce the context of Penn State football from the story and say it's just another case of people looking the other way at a rampant pedophile. But, it's hard to emotionally do that. As a Duke fan, I think it hits home because our programs have similar reputations - ESPN recently paired our coaches in a special called, "Difference Makers - Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski". While I like to try and be a realist and I know that no program is completely clean and perfect, I have always taken great pride in the fact the Duke's overall sports program and especially the basketball team is something I can be proud of, that is it run as clean as it can be. Related to that is admiring programs who also try and do things the right way - that includes the UNC basketball program, and many other programs like Stanford, Georgia Tech, and, yes, Penn State. Seeing one of the "good guys", meaning the Penn State football program and sports administration leadership, embroiled in this fiasco just depresses me - another glass is half empty moment.

[A-Tex Devil]

I think this case has just really hit a nerve, I can't explain my own intense reaction. Obviously, and sadly, this kind of pedophilia happens everyday all over the world. We know it has plagued the catholic church, youth sports organizations and schools of all kinds, the list goes on. On some level, as horrible as it is, you want to divorce the context of Penn State football from the story and say it's just another case of people looking the other way at a rampant pedophile. But, it's hard to emotionally do that. As a Duke fan, I think it hits home because our programs have similar reputations - ESPN recently paired our coaches in a special called, "Difference Makers - Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski". While I like to try and be a realist and I know that no program is completely clean and perfect, I have always taken great pride in the fact the Duke's overall sports program and especially the basketball team is something I can be proud of, that is it run as clean as it can be. Related to that is admiring programs who also try and do things the right way - that includes the UNC basketball program, and many other programs like Stanford, Georgia Tech, and, yes, Penn State. Seeing one of the "good guys", meaning the Penn State football program and sports administration leadership, embroiled in this fiasco just depresses me - another glass is half empty moment.

Good post. The main page made a good point about how often these guys are community leaders, often focusing on charities/events/activities for children. And it sucks because 99.9% of people in the same leadership roles are genuinely heroic people. When I was growing up, we had an assistant little league coach on our team who was also a vice principal at the intermediate school (5th and 6th grade). He helped increase the schools profile by emphasizing, and pushing, teachers to take a more proactive role in the students' success. He was well regarded and very well liked by the parents - he could charm the moms, and was a "good ole boy" and could relate to the dads as well. He was arrested 2 years later on charges just like the ones Sandusky was charged with. In retrospect, you look at his behavior and say "of course!" He often invited kids from the baseball team and other students (almost universally from fatherless households) to "hang out," often overnight. I remember vividly how each student got to go to his office at the school to meet him when he first became vice principal and play games on his new macintosh (which in 1987, was pretty damn cool) . It's crazy, and all seems so obvious in retrospect. And, again, it sucks that guys like that are out there raising suspicion on the people that are actually doing some good.

[cspan37421]

And it sucks because 99.9% of people in the same leadership roles are genuinely heroic people.

let's be clear: we presume them to be. And none of us knows the true percentage. I hope it's that high; I'm not sure it is.

w/r/t billydat, and his comments on Paterno & Coach K:

Let's just say that Lord Acton had it right: power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's why we have checks and balances in our system of government (obviously it's necessary but not sufficient). Let's hope no one has too much power at Duke.

[roywhite]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

(not that I have any great ideas about how to change that)

[MCFinARL]

Agree. What's worse is that similar Sandusky crimes were reported 4 years earlier, in 1998 after the mother of a boy he molested called the police. The DA, the aforementioned Gricar, had police officers in the home of the accusing mother when Sandusky said to her, ""I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead", yet Gricar never pressed charges. No one will ever know why because Gricar is dead. The system broke down in so many places around Sandusky's crimes over such a long period of time that it is hard to believe.

According to the NYTimes this morning, "Gerald Lauro investigated the 1998 allegation for child protective services. He said he did not find enough evidence of sexual assault to determine that the charge was founded." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/sports/ncaafootball/penn-states-paterno-is-not-a-target-in-sexual-abuse-inquiry.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg

This could explain why the University did not have a more emphatic response to the earlier incident, and in fact within a year Sandusky was retired from the program. But it doesn't begin to explain the University's response in 2002. Obviously, from a legal point of view, Sandusky was innocent until proven guilty, but frankly, with a crime like this, the fact of multiple accusations over a period of years would seem to add credibility to each individual accusation. One boy might misunderstand an ambiguous action, or even, in a worst case scenario, make up a story; eight boys, probably not.

[MCFinARL]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

(not that I have any great ideas about how to change that)

Yes and yes, whether or not the likely outcome in this particular case is "right" or "deserved."

And me neither.

[g-money]

Guys - This forum is starting to feel like an episode of Nancy Grace around the time of the lax scandal. We of all people should be willing to let the process take its course before joining the lynch mob. This is not a defense of JoePa, who may well have committed a grave sin by his failure to contact the police, but it is a request that we withhold judgment until more is known.

Don't let the modern media fool you: The presumption of innocence is one of the things that makes America great. I know of three Duke lacrosse players that were not afforded that right, and it sucked.

edit: looks like roywhite and MCFinARL beat me to the punch. Glad I'm not the only one who's concerned.

[GDT]

This could explain why the University did not have a more emphatic response to the earlier incident, and in fact within a year Sandusky was retired from the program.

Are you suggesting the two are connected?


One boy might misunderstand an ambiguous action, or even, in a worst case scenario, make up a story; eight boys, probably not.

What about 5 men who knew about a current coach showering in the locker room with young boys in 1998 (that one child claimed was an assault) and then showering again in 2002 with a 10 year old that a 28 year-old GA reported as a sexual assault. Is that ambiguous?

[brevity]

I can't think of anything to say that can keep up with how fast this scandal has moved in the past few days. Any defense of Coach Paterno, however well-meaning or even well-informed, just feels so outdated right now.

So, some less obsolete talking points a little further away from the heated central discussion (aka the mild tangent):

1. To what extent does it matter that this happened at a state university? I hear the terms "public" and "state" bandied about, and I wonder if the sources feel that this situation is somehow worse if it's framed as a betrayal of taxpayer trust. I understand that many of the principals involved are state employees, but right now the collective sentiment (namely, justifiable outrage) seems to hold contempt of any aspect of this story that appears internal or private. This aspect of the story, to me, feels misplaced. A private college that carried itself with this level of ineptitude is deserving of identical outrage.

2. Is it fair to assign emotional guilt to people who gloss over the crime-against-children part of this situation in order to focus on the university's reactions and inactions? "Think of the children," goes the cliché, but I think it's pretty obvious from most opinions, and the volume and speed in which we voice those opinions, that we are all doing just that. The sexual abuse forms the baseline for the intensity of this discussion, but it's also pretty much a discussion killer. I think human nature leads us to focus on the parts of the scandal we can more readily handle.

3. Before this week, I've never heard of on-campus outreach programs for children set up by a university athletic department. Maybe ticket programs for sporting events, but nothing more elaborate. Is this program something that is commonly found in colleges? If so, how closely are they monitored to maintain propriety? You can imagine. As soon as a similar incident is uncovered at a second school, people will skip right over the words "unfortunate coincidence" and land right on "epidemic."

Thoughts are welcome, especially on the third point, because I feel ill-informed (in addition to ill). I hope that I've successfully skated a fine line here for moderator purposes, even though the ice already looks cracked in a few places.

[throatybeard]

I agree with whoever said, upthread, that the thread title "Penn State scandal" runs the risk of trivializing the severity of the crimes alleged. ('Scandal' sounds like it could be anything from Miami coaches buying recruits lap-dances, to someone breaking into the Watergate hotel, to Ashton Kutcher running around on Demi Moore, to about anything else).

I've retitled the thread "Sexual Abuse Case at Penn State." I've deliberately put Penn State in a prepositional phrase because, as bad as this situation is, I don't think it's fair to characterize the entire institution by this case, which is more or less what would be implied by the noun adjunct "Penn State Sexual Abuse Case." There are plenty of people in the History Department or Food Services or a bunch of other units, and they could not have done anything about this.

[cspan37421]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

(not that I have any great ideas about how to change that)

Yes; no.

As one who very early on in the Duke Lacrosse case was queried by friends of my family who knew I went there, I was careful to reserve judgment then. I said, "IF they did it, they do not have my sympathy at all, just because I went to the same school." (more like that). Then I said, "BUT, I've heard there may be problems with her story. I'm not saying she's lying, I'm just not sure, so I think we have to reserve judgment." My point is that my loyalty was to the truth - and not a blind loyalty to my school and fellow Dukies.

I think in this thread we've largely discussed matters that are not under dispute. We haven't generally talked about Sandusky's guilt or innocence. We have talked about what we expected should have been done if someone reports (to the head coach) witnessing a child rape on campus. As far as I know, what was done after this is not much in dispute ... though there may be other things that were done of which we are unaware, and I think many on this thread have explicitly recognized that and held out hope, for instance, that people like JoePa did more than we know, and perhaps that's why the GJ report seemed, at first glance, favorable towards him. As time went on, I think we are not as confident there's anything else he did but report it to his AD. Perhaps the BOT at PSU felt that way too. True for GA by the way, too.

[gus]

What about 5 men who knew about a current coach showering in the locker room with young boys in 1998 (that one child claimed was an assault) and then showering again in 2002 with a 10 year old that a 28 year-old GA reported as a sexual assault. Is that ambiguous?

Because of the shock and disgust associated with abuse of children, people are often willing to suspend disbelief and are far more willing to prejudge guilt. There is a long and sordid history of false allegations of paedophilia that have ruined peoples' lives (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria).

While I don't suggest that Sandusky is innocent, I do feel that caution is always warranted in these kinds of cases. Let's let the criminal justice system, now that it's finally been involved, do its work.

[MCFinARL]

Are you suggesting the two are connected?


What about 5 men who knew about a current coach showering in the locker room with young boys in 1998 (that one child claimed was an assault) and then showering again in 2002 with a 10 year old that a 28 year-old GA reported as a sexual assault. Is that ambiguous?

I don't know whether they are connected; in retrospect my post may have sounded like I thought they were--poorly phrased. I meant more that, given the state officials' decision not to pursue charges over the 1998 incident, university officials may have concluded that they were done with the matter when Sandusky retired (granted they did continue to permit Sandusky to use university facilities--but, again, state officials had decided not to pursue the matter).

Re your second question, I wonder if you misunderstood my post--my very point was that one incident might have been considered "ambiguous," especially if the state child protective services representative determined there was not adequate evidence to pursue it, where more than one incident would probably seem a lot less ambiguous, and university officials' response is harder to understand.

At the risk of irritating you further, though, I'm not sure it's been established that there are five men who knew about both incidents, at least if they are supposed to include the GA (no evidence he was aware of 1998) and Joe Paterno (whose son says that he did not know about the 1998 incident).

At this point I think I am going to bow to the wisdom of other posts on this thread about not rushing to judgment and stop speculating about any aspect of this matter beyond the reported and/or confirmed facts.

[Mike Corey]

With respect, there is a rather significant distinction between this instance and that of the Duke lacrosse case.

The information made available here is the result of a multi-year investigation of the PA Attorney General's office; the information available in the Duke lacrosse case was from a single accuser, and wrongfully embellished by a rogue city attorney.

Absolutely, the presumption of innocence is to remain untrammeled. But it is much more justifiable to draw preliminary opinions in this instance rather than in the Duke lacrosse imbroglio, IMO.

[Duvall]

Is anyone else concerned that the hyper-speed and attention of modern media coverage of scandals is a bad match with legal due process?

Do we have de facto lynch mobs calling for blood before all facts are heard?

It's always good to be wary of the "punish now, investigate later" culture. But it's important to remember that while this is a breaking story, it is not a new story - we are seeing the culmniation of a three-year invesigation into more than a decade of events.

[peterjswift]

This isn't directly related to the case, but I appreciate how members of the board approach this. Even the most strongly worded posts are thoughtful and insightful. I've been reading a few other messageboards discussing this, and no where else (even on PSU boards), is the level of discourse this mature. Understandably, the PSU boards may have a lot more strong emotion tied to this, regardless of whether they want to lynch or defend Paterno, but reading through all the points on here requires more introspection than any of the others.

I usually just lurk here, and have always thought this about most of the discussions....but I think this particular discussion is one that can bring up the strongest emotions of any threads I've read, and the consistency and thoughtfulness of the posters is very obvious.

[MCFinARL]

I agree with whoever said, upthread, that the thread title "Penn State scandal" runs the risk of trivializing the severity of the crimes alleged. ('Scandal' sounds like it could be anything from Miami coaches buying recruits lap-dances, to someone breaking into the Watergate hotel, to Ashton Kutcher running around on Demi Moore, to about anything else).

I've retitled the thread "Sexual Abuse Case at Penn State." I've deliberately put Penn State in a prepositional phrase because, as bad as this situation is, I don't think it's fair to characterize the entire institution by this case, which is more or less what would be implied by the noun adjunct "Penn State Sexual Abuse Case." There are plenty of people in the History Department or Food Services or a bunch of other units, and they could not have done anything about this.

Your thread name and your explanation both make sense. Given some of the events that have been coupled with Duke in phrases like this in recent years, we should be especially circumspect on this front.

[AtlBluRew]

I agree that both Joe Pa and the GA should have been following up with their superiors, particularly with Sandusky still lurking around the facilities with his at-risk kids. That said, I don't find fault with them not calling the police right away. I can imagine both of them really fearing the impact of the situation on the University and feeling obligated to tell their superiors what they knew ... although I hope that if it were me, I'd add, "We need to call the police." At that point, I'd expect the superiors to first call the University attorney. Next call would probably be to Sandusky, because he'd been a central figure in the program for so many years. But then the third call would be to the police. I cannot imagine a University attorney saying, "We'll be OK if we just tell Second Mile."

Both Joe Pa and the GA certainly felt an obligation to protect the University and the program, but that obligation is fulfilled by getting the University attorney involved right away. In fact, I really think that any sensible person, on seeing that nothing was being done and the Sandusky was still around, would consult their own attorney to find out both what to do next and how to protect themselves from liability for the inaction of their superiors.

[sagegrouse]

Guys - This forum is starting to feel like an episode of Nancy Grace around the time of the lax scandal. We of all people should be willing to let the process take its course before joining the lynch mob. This is not a defense of JoePa, who may well have committed a grave sin by his failure to contact the police, but it is a request that we withhold judgment until more is known.

Don't let the modern media fool you: The presumption of innocence is one of the things that makes America great. I know of three Duke lacrosse players that were not afforded that right, and it sucked.

edit: looks like roywhite and MCFinARL beat me to the punch. Glad I'm not the only one who's concerned.

I see it a little differently. Most of the discussion here is about the leadership, or lack thereof, and the actions, or lack thereof, of officials at Penn State when the 2002 or 1998 allegations surfaced.

No one here has tried to organize a lynch mob vis a vis Sandusky, who will have his day in court. This discussion has focused on Paterno, Curley, Schulz and Spanier (spellings?). I think the likely criminal charges for perjury against the AD and VP are a bit contrived, as is any charge that they "were responsible reporting officials." But I think they all are guilty of misfeasance in the performance of their duties. And both innocent children and Penn State have suffered.

sagegrouse

[MCFinARL]

With respect, there is a rather significant distinction between this instance and that of the Duke lacrosse case.

The information made available here is the result of a multi-year investigation of the PA Attorney General's office; the information available in the Duke lacrosse case was from a single accuser, and wrongfully embellished by a rogue city attorney.

Absolutely, the presumption of innocence is to remain untrammeled. But it is much more justifiable to draw preliminary opinions in this instance rather than in the Duke lacrosse imbroglio, IMO.

That's fair. And most of the "official" reporting and opinion writing I have seen on this seems not to be leaping to unwarranted conclusions nearly as fast as so many writers did in the Duke lacrosse case. That said, there is still some cause for concern here, especially as it relates to speculating about who knew what when and why they did or did not speak directly to the police. In the case of someone with as solid a record of good character and good works before this incident as Joe Paterno, he has perhaps earned a little forbearance before we throw him all the way overboard, even if there is already sufficient reason to reach a preliminary opinion that he didn't do what he should have in this case.

[JasonEvans]

It is incredible how quickly Joe Paterno's legend has been tarnished and how many folks are calling for his head RIGHT NOW. A friend told me he read a tweet that said:


We all wondered whether anyone could suffer as steep and quick a fall from grace as tiger woods; I think we have our answer.

I further direct you to this SI column (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/11/08/penn-state-joe-paterno-scandal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a1), written both as a journalist and a father.


I waited several days to write this because my first thought was what I would do if someone did something like this to my child. My initial reaction -- and I'm fairly certain most parents would feel this way -- was homicidal. If someone molested my child, he would need the police to protect him from me. If I found him first, his death would be neither quick nor clean. I might spend the rest of my life in prison, though I'm not sure a right-thinking jury would convict me.

....

The Penn State alma mater includes this line: "May no act of ours bring shame." Someone wrote those words on a poster Monday and hung them from a statue of Paterno on Penn State's campus. If Sandusky pleads guilty or is convicted of these accusations, that statue of Paterno should be torn down.

-Jason "like I said earlier, I feel for the guy, his legacy, and his reputation as one of the most honorable human beings around... but he deserves a lot of the barbs he is getting today" Evans

[mph]

Here's an emotional clip from Matt Millen on ESPN this afternoon. I think he captures the feelings of many PSU students, alums, and fans. Every aspect of this story is so sad.


http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:7207952

[KenTankerous]

Between Matt Millan and this:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state

tears...

[burnspbesq]

The system broke down in so many places around Sandusky's crimes over such a long period of time that it is hard to believe.

Not to excuse anyone who didn't live up to any applicable standard ... but ... I lived in SoCal during the McMartin Preschool fiasco. It's not hard for me to imagine even a conscientious and morally upright prosecutor having that in the back of his or her mind when confronted by allegations of child abuse by Sandusky. Child abuse cases are notoriously difficult to bring under the best possible circumstances, and here you have a defendant who is beloved in the community from which you have to pick a jury. Wishing the whole thing would just go away is understandable (albeit inappropriate) behavior.

[Billy Dat]

Here's an emotional clip from Matt Millen on ESPN this afternoon. I think he captures the feelings of many PSU students, alums, and fans. Every aspect of this story is so sad.


http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:7207952

Great clip, he basically hits upon every issue discussed on these boards...those defending Paterno and pleading for due process and those outraged that this could have happened. As a PSU lineman who played for both Paterno and Sandusky and sits on the board of Sandusky's charity, Millen's feelings are worth witnessing.

[Mike Corey]

Great clip, he basically hits upon every issue discussed on these boards...those defending Paterno and pleading for due process and those outraged that this could have happened. As a PSU lineman who played for both Paterno and Sandusky and sits on the board of Sandusky's charity, Millen's feelings are worth witnessing.

Completely agreed.

In the spirit of acknowledging Millen's thoughtful request for patience, I want to apologize to anyone I've offended with any of my postings on this subject, particular with regard to the due process that must be followed and that is surely owed. I've been notified that I have come across as celebrating the events of the past few days, and in reviewing what I've written I suppose I can understand how that might have been the impression. This is dreadful news all around; here's hoping some good can somehow come of this awful situation, and that the wheels of justice are as thoughtful and efficient as many of you have been in navigating and sharing your thoughts in the past few days.

[g-money]

With respect, there is a rather significant distinction between this instance and that of the Duke lacrosse case.

The information made available here is the result of a multi-year investigation of the PA Attorney General's office; the information available in the Duke lacrosse case was from a single accuser, and wrongfully embellished by a rogue city attorney.

Absolutely, the presumption of innocence is to remain untrammeled. But it is much more justifiable to draw preliminary opinions in this instance rather than in the Duke lacrosse imbroglio, IMO.

Mike, I agree with you to the extent that there is a lot more evidence against Sandusky in this case than there was against any of the lacrosse players. There are so many witnesses who have offered up testimony (with nothing to gain, might I add) that it looks like an open-and-shut case. However, the man is still entitled to his day in court, as painful as that might be.

Where I think there is substantially more gray area at this point in time lies in the rush to judgment against Paterno, Curley et al.. I would argue that while Paterno's brief statement and the information contained in the Grand Jury report shed some light on what happened, we won't really know exactly what happened (and who's morally and legally to blame) until they and the graduate assistant speak publicly or under oath. That's why I believe that these calls for Paterno's job could potentially be premature - we really haven't even heard his side of the story yet.

Edit: Once again beaten to the punch, this time by the man himself! Apparently I need to learn to type faster.

[Mike Corey]

Coach Paterno is speaking to the media now from his house.

He has reportedly said, "Say a prayer for all the victims and their families."

[Poincaré]

Joe Paterno has claimed in some report that the graduate assistant in question did not give him the "details"


But Paterno said specific actions alleged to have occurred in the grand jury report were not relayed to him.

"It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report," Paterno said in the statement. "Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
Source (http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/id/7207465/penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-scandal-jerry-sandusky-was-campus-last-week-reports-say)

What exactly was he told? We have the grand jury report but we do not have the grand jury testimony transcripts. Exactly what level of inappropriateness was implied in the graduate assistant's report to Joe Paterno? Was it at the level of sexual abuse?

Once the university officials talked to the graduate assistant, what did they tell Joe Paterno?

While things look bad, can we make judgments about this without knowing the answers to these questions? Presumably, Joe Paterno was ready to offer his own versions at the recent press conference that was cancelled by the president of Penn State.

I do not think that it is so hard to wait until Joe Paterno tells his full story. What do we actually gain by condemning now? It is not like we won't be able to condemn the appropriate parties the next week or the week after.

Details are being mixed up in this story. For example, it was said that Joe Paterno only received reports of misconduct in 2002 (again, how much he was told is still unclear). The stories also include information about the AD knowing about the 1998 report. Do we automatically assume that Joe Paterno knew about that, too? In the frenzy, everyone is being lumped together as having committed the exact same sins. They might all have sinned (or not), but, if so, we do not know whether they sinned in the same exact way.

Again, why not wait? We do not lose the option of condemning Joe Paterno in the future by reserving judgment now.

I might place high probability on the possibility that future information will confirm the need to condemn him, but that is again no justification for condemning him now when some of the key details of what he knew are unknown.

[GDT]

At the risk of irritating you further, though, I'm not sure it's been established that there are five men who knew about both incidents, at least if they are supposed to include the GA (no evidence he was aware of 1998) and Joe Paterno (whose son says that he did not know about the 1998 incident).

I can't find the source for my assertion right now (and it's driving me crazy) so I withdraw it, but I'll keep looking. In terms of 1998, perhaps Schultz and then university counsel Wendell Courtney (who was also Second Mile counsel) were the only people in the know (plus police and AD, the two boys and the mother and the child protection agent). And they kept the allegation about the current defensive coordinator from Paterno and the president.

[roywhite]

Student rally at Joe's house (http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-paterno-students-house-2011-11)

Here's a link to coverage of a student rally at Joe Paterno's house (this started around 6:45 PM or so Tuesday evening)

[SCMatt33]

Here's an emotional clip from Matt Millen on ESPN this afternoon. I think he captures the feelings of many PSU students, alums, and fans. Every aspect of this story is so sad.


http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:7207952

I took a break from this thread for a few days, but thought I would comment again with these new developments. The Matt Millen clip really does capture everything. I am from the Philadelphia suburbs and have no direct ties to Penn State, but several indirect ties. I have numerous friends who are students and alumni of PSU and strongly considered going there myself before going to Duke. From my years around members of the Penn State community, I have learned that there is not a prouder alumni base that I have come across. They really do care about the fact that they do things right as opposed to trying to be the best. In and of itself, that can come across as a bit arrogant, having a view that you are above the fray of the scandal that plagues college sports every day. I don't know how they do it, but in their pride, they have never seemed to me to be arrogant. That is a really hard line to toe, but they do it. I haven't talked to any of them about it since this weekend, but I completely understand how Matt Millen would have that reaction.

I have always been a huge advocate of due process, and as such, I think that Paterno should be allowed to finish the year while the facts are still being determined. There are some extraordinary circumstances in which I would agree that you can't let him coach, especially given that their last two games are on the road, followed by a bowl game. I would say that it's easier to let him go out there than most since he now coaches from the box and not on the field. It is still a tough decision, though, because letting him go out there subjects the school and the team to much more scrutiny, so I wouldn't disagree too vehemently if he doesn't coach.

I'm also a pretty upset on how much the coverage of this story has centered around Paterno, who may have dropped the ball on his moral responsibility, but he didn't commit those heinous acts. This is a front page issue about abuse that's being turned into a back page football story. On the note of the media, this case is already over in several ways. Even if due process plays out to show that this was somehow (not very likely) a big mistake, Penn State, Paterno, and the others involved can't be vindicated in such a way that there won't still be suspicion. I know many hate comparing to the Lacrosse case, but while all of the legal stuff can't be compared, public reaction can. It is widely understood that while having a stripper party isn't a great idea, absolutely nothing happened. To get that understanding, the accuser had to be completely discredited and the DA had to be disbarred and jailed for fabricating evidence. Given how far this has gone with a grand jury investigation, that type of vindication is no longer possible. The best they can hope for is to be found not guilty, which will still leave a bad taste in the mouth of many, and many will assume that they simply got off the hook instead of actually being innocent. Again, I don't know what happened, and you don't know what happened, but the perception is already set. Penn State can never have that status of being above the fray back. Their alumni can never have it back. Joe Paterno's legacy will end with this giant black mark, whether he coaches Saturday, the rest of the year, or five more years. In many ways, his exit reminds me a bit of Woody Hayes. For those who don't know, Woody Hayes was the Ohio State football coach for almost 30 years and won three national titles. In what would be his final game, the 1978 Gator Bowl, OSU threw a game clinching interception to Clemson. The Clemson player was pushed out of bounds right where Hayes was standing and Hayes proceeded to punch the player through his face mask. He was fired the next day. Now Hayes did not enjoy a reputation anywhere near that of Paterno, but its going down the same road where one day he's the longtime coach, the next, he's forced out.

Given what is happening to the Penn State community, I've started to notice that they are going through the five stages of grief right before our eyes. In fact I think that Matt Millen went through almost everything on air (he seemed to already be past denial).

Denial: The student body is certainly still in this stage. There are many still 100% behind Paterno, chanting for him when he gets confronted by the media. I can't remember if it was Tim Curley or Gary Shultz, but one of their lawyers lambasted the media in an interview. I've never seen a lawyer lose it in an interview like that

Anger: Matt Millen was certainly on fire at the beginning of that video. He raised his voice to the point where he flat out stated "I get mad!"

Bargaining: With Millen, this sort of happened simultaneously with anger as he pleaded with everyone to let the situation play out before making assumptions even though that ship has sailed. Joe's son Scott was also pleading with the media to give Paterno a chance to speak.

Depression: Millen eventually broke down crying, and became very emotional about the situation.

Acceptance: Millen ended his interview by accepting what's coming. He said that "there's a train coming down the tracks" and that they have to deal with it honestly and "step up"

I certainly feel first and foremost for the victims and their families, but also for the Penn State community who have certainly lost a lot, and the students, who have to deal with something that they didn't even know about until this weekend. I stated it before, but while the legal scenario is totally different from the Duke Lacrosse case, the public perceptions and ramifications will be similar. I was a freshman when the lacrosse incident happened. I couldn't go anywhere that summer without being asked about it. There are other things that will happen as well. I would imagine that most of their football recruiting class will go elsewhere, applications from the general public will drop significantly, and it will take time for the school to recover. In fact, even if they are completely innocent, the ramifications will likely be much worse for Penn State as opposed to Duke. Although it proved to be wrong and they paid for it later, Duke basically washed their hands of the lacrosse case from the beginning. Penn State can't do that. The administration was directly involved and is being charged with crimes, not to mention that some of the abuse took place on campus.

Penn State will go on, and the legal situation will play out with full due process, but much has already been decided and lost by everyone in that community. Because they deserve the last word, once again, while as sports fans we all focus on that aspect of this, my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their family as they try to continue to cope with what happened.

[peterjswift]

Student rally at Joe's house (http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-paterno-students-house-2011-11)

Here's a link to coverage of a student rally at Joe Paterno's house (this started around 6:45 PM or so Tuesday evening)

Just to add to this, this is a rally in support of Joe Paterno. Joe also spoke to the crowd a couple of times from his front lawn.

[weezie]

Coach Paterno is speaking to the media now from his house.

He has reportedly said, "Say a prayer for all the victims and their families."

Thank goodness. There isn't much more he can say right now, but that's what should be at the center of any of these arguments above.

[SMO]

Just to add to this, this is a rally in support of Joe Paterno. Joe also spoke to the crowd a couple of times from his front lawn.

This seems just as premature as calls for his dismissal, but I do hope he has a chance to speak publicly soon.

[cspan37421]

I thought the Millen video was strange on many levels - all of them having to do with his various emotional reactions. In the first half, he almost seemed more upset that JoePa was being accused of not reacting strongly enough than he was the allegations of an epidemic of child rape with its epicenter being the Lasch building @ PSU. After he broke down, he seemed to give some thought to the kids ... but for a guy on the board of Second Mile, I expected/hoped he'd be more concerned about the kids from the get-go.

SCMatt33 really captured much of it well with his 5 stages of grief. But to me, the question was: to what was Millen's grief directed? Coach Paterno? PSU? The kids of Second Mile? Can you imagine being Millen - or a number of famous others who have helped fundraise for The Second Mile ... realizing that the organization MIGHT have been founded as a front for getting a pedophile close access to particularly vulnerable kids? It would be hard to countenance that notion, even if you believe the organization probably did a lot of good for a lot of other kids.

I agree with SCMatt33 also about PSU's alumni being tight and proud; I worked with many of them early in my career (PSU has an actuarial science major I think, so many future actuaries came out of that school). They had a bond closer to that of a smaller school - and I heard another commentator from PSU today say that many mistake the school for one about 1/4-1/3 of its size, in terms of the closeness. So this has got to hurt.

We still have much to learn ... the latest stuff I've heard seems to indicate that JoePa is claiming that the GA left out virtually all the sordid details of the incident, which seems to contradict the claim in the GJ presentment, which provided IMO sufficient detail to warrant a call to police or child protective services (or at the very least ask the GA for further clarification - "you saw what????" AND then a call to the police/CPS. It will be very interesting to see which way this difference is resolved. JoePa seems to be putting all his chips in the middle on this one.

[johnb]

Thank goodness. There isn't much more he can say right now, but that's what should be at the center of any of these arguments above.

I'll apologize if I've rushed to judgment, but Paterno could say more. He could say, "you know, I was blinded by my friendship with Sandusky and psychologically crippled by my status as demigod coach and so I declined to get the ball rolling in terms of the investigation. I am currently beset by devils that make me rethink my moral compass, and while we should all say a prayer for these particular victims as well as victims all over the world, I just wanted to apologize specifically for not having pushed forward the investigation so that no one else would get hurt."

So, yes, he could say more. And, yes, I'm aware he's an old man, but he's the one (one of the ones) who made the mistake, but he's also the one who decided to stay as the coach when he should have retired 5-10 years ago.

We can liken this to our basketball program, but as someone pointed out 500 posts ago, its hard to imagine Coach K hearing such an allegation from, say, Wojo, and then doing nothing after reporting it to the AD....

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

I'll apologize if I've rushed to judgment, but Paterno could say more. He could say, "you know, I was blinded by my friendship with Sandusky and psychologically crippled by my status as demigod coach and so I declined to get the ball rolling in terms of the investigation. I am currently beset by devils that make me rethink my moral compass, and while we should all say a prayer for these particular victims as well as victims all over the world, I just wanted to apologize specifically for not having pushed forward the investigation so that no one else would get hurt."

So, yes, he could say more. And, yes, I'm aware he's an old man, but he's the one (one of the ones) who made the mistake, but he's also the one who decided to stay as the coach when he should have retired 5-10 years ago.

We can liken this to our basketball program, but as someone pointed out 500 posts ago, its hard to imagine Coach K hearing such an allegation from, say, Wojo, and then doing nothing after reporting it to the AD....
In the same way that the regularly scheduled press conference was canceled by the University, I'm guessing that Coach Paterno, as an employee of the University, has been instructed/advised about speaking at this time.

This is a very sad and mean situation on many levels. The type of accusation is one of the hot buttons that can bring highly emotional responses from all sides. It's easy to speculate about what should have been done, but none of us knows what we'll do in a high pressure situation until we face one..... even when there's been training and practice in what to do. The follow up and investigation seem to have faltered repeatedly. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Meanwhile, it's important to allow the legal process run its course. It may be imperfect, but our legal system is one of the critical features of a democracy.

[SCMatt33]

I thought the Millen video was strange on many levels - all of them having to do with his various emotional reactions. In the first half, he almost seemed more upset that JoePa was being accused of not reacting strongly enough than he was the allegations of an epidemic of child rape with its epicenter being the Lasch building @ PSU. After he broke down, he seemed to give some thought to the kids ... but for a guy on the board of Second Mile, I expected/hoped he'd be more concerned about the kids from the get-go.

SCMatt33 really captured much of it well with his 5 stages of grief. But to me, the question was: to what was Millen's grief directed? Coach Paterno? PSU? The kids of Second Mile? Can you imagine being Millen - or a number of famous others who have helped fundraise for The Second Mile ... realizing that the organization MIGHT have been founded as a front for getting a pedophile close access to particularly vulnerable kids? It would be hard to countenance that notion, even if you believe the organization probably did a lot of good for a lot of other kids.

I agree with SCMatt33 also about PSU's alumni being tight and proud; I worked with many of them early in my career (PSU has an actuarial science major I think, so many future actuaries came out of that school). They had a bond closer to that of a smaller school - and I heard another commentator from PSU today say that many mistake the school for one about 1/4-1/3 of its size, in terms of the closeness. So this has got to hurt.

We still have much to learn ... the latest stuff I've heard seems to indicate that JoePa is claiming that the GA left out virtually all the sordid details of the incident, which seems to contradict the claim in the GJ presentment, which provided IMO sufficient detail to warrant a call to police or child protective services (or at the very least ask the GA for further clarification - "you saw what????" AND then a call to the police/CPS. It will be very interesting to see which way this difference is resolved. JoePa seems to be putting all his chips in the middle on this one.

I don't think that Paterno can really contradict the grand jury presentment. The report, found here (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf) for those who haven't seen it (WARNING: CONTENT OF REPORT IS VERY DISTURBING AND CONTAINS FULL DETAILS), describes what Joe Paterno testified to. The report is clear that Paterno testified that the GA told him specifically that "something of a sexual nature" occurred. It is certainly possible that the memory of an 84 year old man is hazy and he could have been mistaken, but it's hard to back away from that kind of statement.

I wouldn't think too much into Millen not talking about the kids more. Despite what it turned into, the interview was intended to be Millen the sports analyst with a PSU connection. As much as we should all think of the kids first, as a sports reporter, he is paid to talk about that aspect. You could tell pretty quickly that the sports part wasn't where he wanted to be, and I thought Chris McKendry did a good job letting him go where he wanted to.

(EDIT: The description of the Paterno testimony is on page 7 of the presentment)

[MartyClark]

This story is heartbreaking. Despite some of the loose ends, it appears that this assistant coach was a pedophile who committed a horrendous sexual assault on Penn State property.

I have always liked Coach Paterno. It appears that he was one of the good guys for most of his career. Even if he complied with Pennsylvania law, and this is not clear to me, he and the University are going to face some staggering civil lawsuits.

I don't think there are any happy endings here but I hope that the University and the coach can quickly agree on a face saving solution that puts someone else in charge of the program.

[tendev]

I agree that both Joe Pa and the GA should have been following up with their superiors, particularly with Sandusky still lurking around the facilities with his at-risk kids. That said, I don't find fault with them not calling the police right away. I can imagine both of them really fearing the impact of the situation on the University and feeling obligated to tell their superiors what they knew ... although I hope that if it were me, I'd add, "We need to call the police." At that point, I'd expect the superiors to first call the University attorney. Next call would probably be to Sandusky, because he'd been a central figure in the program for so many years. But then the third call would be to the police. I cannot imagine a University attorney saying, "We'll be OK if we just tell Second Mile."

Both Joe Pa and the GA certainly felt an obligation to protect the University and the program, but that obligation is fulfilled by getting the University attorney involved right away. In fact, I really think that any sensible person, on seeing that nothing was being done and the Sandusky was still around, would consult their own attorney to find out both what to do next and how to protect themselves from liability for the inaction of their superiors.

It appears that the University Attorney (at least one of them) was also the legal counsel for Second Mile. There is a lot of back watching apparent here. I just think they did not want this to get outside Penn State. It is the institution protecting itself: the Catholic Church comes to mind here. Sadly, I think there is a very strong impulse to do that.

[JasonEvans]

But to me, the question was: to what was Millen's grief directed? Coach Paterno? PSU? The kids of Second Mile? Can you imagine being Millen - or a number of famous others who have helped fundraise for The Second Mile ... realizing that the organization MIGHT have been founded as a front for getting a pedophile close access to particularly vulnerable kids? It would be hard to countenance that notion, even if you believe the organization probably did a lot of good for a lot of other kids.

I believe that we saw Millen get angry/distraught at everything.

He is angry that his mentor and father figure, Joe Paterno, is being dragged through the mud and tarnished like this. Matt clearly loves Joe and thinks the world of him. It makes Matt sad to see Joe tarnished this way and angry at the world for blaming Joe so much...

But, at the same time, I sense that Matt is angry at Joe for not handling this better. He is probably angry Joe did not take the whole thing to the cops a decade ago and maybe even mad that Joe did not know what was going on with a close, trusted assistant.

Matt is certainly angry at the public for rushing to judgement on his dear Penn State program. He makes a point of saying they have not broken any NCAA rules...

But, at the same time, Matt is clearly angry at Penn State for not handling this better, for not following a stricter moral guideline.

And, finally, Matt is certainly angry at Sandusky-- a man he was very close to; a man he trusted in so many ways; a man he helped to found Second Mile...

But, at the same time, I bet Matt is angry at himself; angry at his conflicted feeling; angry that he did not see this coming after knowing Sandusky for so long.

Matt is angry and sad and probably does not know what to do with himself. I feel for him.

-Jason "that was an enlightening segment to watch" Evans

[fan345678]

I believe that we saw Millen get angry/distraught at everything.

He is angry that his mentor and father figure, Joe Paterno, is being dragged through the mud and tarnished like this. Matt clearly loves Joe and thinks the world of him. It makes Matt sad to see Joe tarnished this way and angry at the world for blaming Joe so much...

But, at the same time, I sense that Matt is angry at Joe for not handling this better. He is probably angry Joe did not take the whole thing to the cops a decade ago and maybe even mad that Joe did not know what was going on with a close, trusted assistant.

Matt is certainly angry at the public for rushing to judgement on his dear Penn State program. He makes a point of saying they have not broken any NCAA rules...

But, at the same time, Matt is clearly angry at Penn State for not handling this better, for not following a stricter moral guideline.

And, finally, Matt is certainly angry at Sandusky-- a man he was very close to; a man he trusted in so many ways; a man he helped to found Second Mile...

But, at the same time, I bet Matt is angry at himself; angry at his conflicted feeling; angry that he did not see this coming after knowing Sandusky for so long.

Matt is angry and sad and probably does not know what to do with himself. I feel for him.

-Jason "that was an enlightening segment to watch" Evans

I agree...while watching, I was at first a bit upset with Millen, then it occurred to me that I can't imagine what he's going through. I give him a lot of credit for putting himself out there to speak when he's surely still coming to terms with this. There have got to be hundreds of good people who unknowingly subjected kids to Sandusky thinking that they were doing a great thing thing (guidance counselors, youth workers, social workers, therapists, etc.) only to now discover that they were delivering kids whom they loved and wanted to help into the hands of a perverted psychopath. I think I read that Sandusky had a degree in family therapy, as well...it's just horrifying.

[JasonEvans]

There have got to be hundreds of good people who unknowingly subjected kids to Sandusky thinking that they were doing a great thing thing (guidance counselors, youth workers, social workers, therapists, etc.) only to now discover that they were delivering kids whom they loved and wanted to help into the hands of a perverted psychopath. I think I read that Sandusky had a degree in family therapy, as well...it's just horrifying.

I read that Sandusky and his wife did not have any kids (if the allegations are true, one has to wonder about his ability to be intimate with his spouse) but they adopted 6 children.

Can you imagine what the adoption officials who placed children with him are thinking today?!?!

-Jason "anyone know if Sandusky is still married? Has his wife or kids spoken up yet" Evans

[DukeGirl4ever]

I read that Sandusky and his wife did not have any kids (if the allegations are true, one has to wonder about his ability to be intimate with his spouse) but they adopted 6 children.

Can you imagine what the adoption officials who placed children with him are thinking today?!?!

-Jason "anyone know if Sandusky is still married? Has his wife or kids spoken up yet" Evans


Jason,
I posted this before, but it's worth reposting. My brother football played for Sandusky's son, EJ, at Albright College (and now coaches at West Chester, IIRC). He was asked to resign after some shady business that occurred at Albright the last 2 years he was there. As far as I knew, that was Sandusky's real son. He also has another son, Jon. Again, as far as I knew, they were his offspring (sorry...it's 10pm and a better word choice is escaping me).

I also read that he had some adopted children, but I do not know how many. If any one else has any info on whether or not EJ and Jon are his real children, I'd appreciate it! I have been under that assumption since my brother played football for EJ.

Addition - The children and wife all have Facebook pages, but of course nothing has been posted there. I can't even begin to imagine what they feel...or if they knew what went on all these years.

[Bojangles4Eva]

I'll apologize if I've rushed to judgment, but Paterno could say more. He could say, "you know, I was blinded by my friendship with Sandusky and psychologically crippled by my status as demigod coach and so I declined to get the ball rolling in terms of the investigation. I am currently beset by devils that make me rethink my moral compass, and while we should all say a prayer for these particular victims as well as victims all over the world, I just wanted to apologize specifically for not having pushed forward the investigation so that no one else would get hurt."

So, yes, he could say more. And, yes, I'm aware he's an old man, but he's the one (one of the ones) who made the mistake, but he's also the one who decided to stay as the coach when he should have retired 5-10 years ago.

We can liken this to our basketball program, but as someone pointed out 500 posts ago, its hard to imagine Coach K hearing such an allegation from, say, Wojo, and then doing nothing after reporting it to the AD....

I'd say with regards to the first paragraph, there is no question of "if" you rushed to judgement, for you have created quite an interesting story based on no factual evidence.

[Newton_14]

So, I have held off on posting on the subject to let the anger subside and insure I did not say something inappropriate. As a father of 2 kids (14 & 6), a life-long athlete who developed great relationships with some very fine men who coached and mentored me along the way, a person who fully believes sports is a powerful tool to teach kids life lessons, and finally as a person who believes we all have a responsibility to protect the children around us, this ordeal has just sickened me to my core.

The one thing that has just screamed out for an answer since the very first article I read on this case is this: Why oh why did the GA not intervene immediately when he happened upon Sandusky molesting the 10 year old in the shower? How could he not immediately run in there, stop the activity, grab the child and get him to safety, and then immediately dial 911 and get the police there to arrest Sandusky? If that is your child in that shower, do you want the GA to immediately stop it and get your child out of there, or do you want him to slip out the back and report it to the head coach the next day? The only thing that was important at that point in time was saving that child and getting him to safety. I don't care who the perp was and what the relationship was between the perp and the GA. To me, there is no rational choice other than to immediately intervene.

I am hugely disappointed with Paterno, and the others the incident was reported to. I believe in due process, but each of these men have some tough questions to answer. If the allegations are true, there are serious consequences for all to face. At the end of the day though, I just cannot get past the GA not intervening that day and saving that child. That would haunt me forever.

At what point did any of these folks put the welfare of the children front and center with their decision making?

[SCMatt33]

The one thing that has just screamed out for an answer since the very first article I read on this case is this: Why oh why did the GA not intervene immediately when he happened upon Sandusky molesting the 10 year old in the shower? How could he not immediately run in there, stop the activity, grab the child and get him to safety, and then immediately dial 911 and get the police there to arrest Sandusky? If that is your child in that shower, do you want the GA to immediately stop it and get your child out of there, or do you want him to slip out the back and report it to the head coach the next day? The only thing that was important at that point in time was saving that child and getting him to safety. I don't care who the perp was and what the relationship was between the perp and the GA. To me, there is no rational choice other than to immediately intervene.

I think the first thing to mention is that from the GA's prospective, there is nothing rational about the situation, and having a rational response is pretty tough. We don't know how long he witnessed anything. Was it 5 seconds, 30 seconds, a few minutes. It's plausible that he was able to comprehend what happened, but by the time he got over the shock, it was done. My second thought is that even if he did get over it quickly, there is still fear about who it is. This guy, even though he was retired, still had major clout, and probably had significant influence compared to a GA. It's not irrational to have fears about your job if you say something and they take his word for it. In those seconds and minutes, the myriad of things that can run through your mind and paralyze you is mind boggling to say the least.

The grand jury presentment says that the first thing he did after leaving the locker room was call his father. Honestly, that's probably what I would have done too. My first instinct is to call someone who I absolutely trust, and is not part of my workplace to ask for advice. He could have a tendency to doubt himself and not even be sure if what he saw was real. In any case, he would want some advice before doing something he couldn't take back. His father told him to go to Paterno, who then relayed it to the AD. The GA later met with the AD who told him that Sandusky's locker room keys were taken away and it was reported to the director of the second mile. It's really only at this point where the GA lapsed in judgement. Before this, he had the confidence that it was moving up the ladder and that the police would presumably be brought in, and it would be done by someone in a more authoritative position. However, when he was told that Sandusky merely lost his locker room privileges, that's when he needed to question why the police weren't called and do it himself if necessary.

It's all well and good to talk about what the right thing to do at that moment was, but it's really easy to get paralyzed by the moment when something that outrageous happens before your eyes. Once he had time to think and saw that his superiors were doing nothing, he really needed to act further, and that's where he erred. While on the subject, that is also the exact same way in which Joe Paterno erred. When it comes to heinous crimes like this, there is no rational, and trying to put people's responses into rational terms is impossible.

[Newton_14]

I think the first thing to mention is that from the GA's prospective, there is nothing rational about the situation, and having a rational response is pretty tough. We don't know how long he witnessed anything. Was it 5 seconds, 30 seconds, a few minutes. It's plausible that he was able to comprehend what happened, but by the time he got over the shock, it was done. My second thought is that even if he did get over it quickly, there is still fear about who it is. This guy, even though he was retired, still had major clout, and probably had significant influence compared to a GA. It's not irrational to have fears about your job if you say something and they take his word for it. In those seconds and minutes, the myriad of things that can run through your mind and paralyze you is mind boggling to say the least.

The grand jury presentment says that the first thing he did after leaving the locker room was call his father. Honestly, that's probably what I would have done too. My first instinct is to call someone who I absolutely trust, and is not part of my workplace to ask for advice. He could have a tendency to doubt himself and not even be sure if what he saw was real. In any case, he would want some advice before doing something he couldn't take back. His father told him to go to Paterno, who then relayed it to the AD. The GA later met with the AD who told him that Sandusky's locker room keys were taken away and it was reported to the director of the second mile. It's really only at this point where the GA lapsed in judgement. Before this, he had the confidence that it was moving up the ladder and that the police would presumably be brought in, and it would be done by someone in a more authoritative position. However, when he was told that Sandusky merely lost his locker room privileges, that's when he needed to question why the police weren't called and do it himself if necessary.

It's all well and good to talk about what the right thing to do at that moment was, but it's really easy to get paralyzed by the moment when something that outrageous happens before your eyes. Once he had time to think and saw that his superiors were doing nothing, he really needed to act further, and that's where he erred. While on the subject, that is also the exact same way in which Joe Paterno erred. When it comes to heinous crimes like this, there is no rational, and trying to put people's responses into rational terms is impossible.

Thanks for the reply Matt. The part I bolded makes sense and I did consider that. I still lean strongly on intervening right then if you are sure of what you are witnessing. My impression from the GA's account is that he was sure of what he saw. I am trying to give the GA the benefit of the doubt, but the thought of the kid left alone with the perp just keeps bringing me back to "stop it and save the kid". Maybe I am not being entirely fair to the GA but I just cannot reconcile it.

This is just a tough tough deal...

[greybeard]

Is it clear that paterno did not drop the dime on his boy at the start?

I am not following everything that the prosecutors have been saying--heads on dc sports radio made a big deal that prosecutor referred to him as "mr." instead of "coach," but i see nothing of import in that.

If paterno did go to the authorities, would he feel the need to validate his integrity at this point, or would he just let events play way out? Authorities might not have wanted him to disclose to anyone in the administration that he had gone to the authorities, to even be explicit with them about what he had heard. Grand jury reports do not always reflect the details of a witness' testimony. In this case, the general wording might be purposeful. If this does not go to trial, we might never know. I don't know that paterno will feel the need to justify his actions to anyone.

[JamminJoe]

I read about 4 pages, when I thought why is all the focus on Paterno? Just because he's a big football coach. Just to make the story even bigger? To make yourself feel morally superior to a famous coach (semi-jk). In the big picture, the authorities are going after the guys they should be going after, Sandusky and the 2 school officials. If you have so much self righteousness in you, sure go after the coach too.

[Bojangles4Eva]

I read about 4 pages, when I thought why is all the focus on Paterno? Just because he's a big football coach. Just to make the story even bigger? To make yourself feel morally superior to a famous coach (semi-jk). In the big picture, the authorities are going after the guys they should be going after, Sandusky and the 2 school officials. If you have so much self righteousness in you, sure go after the coach too.

Fantastic quote. Living in State College, interacting with co-workers/students, reading the newspapers and seeing the protests, it's insane how much the focus of this has been on Paterno rather than the guy that stands accused of 40 counts of child abuse.

[J4Kop99]

What's your take on the PSU students "rioting" tonight

--I think many of them are missing the point here. I understand the love for Paterno and it is nice to see that they care deeply about their school... but it all seems like the wrong thing to do. Maybe that's just me though. Hard to make sense of any of this to be honest...

[mph]

I read about 4 pages, when I thought why is all the focus on Paterno? Just because he's a big football coach. Just to make the story even bigger? To make yourself feel morally superior to a famous coach (semi-jk). In the big picture, the authorities are going after the guys they should be going after, Sandusky and the 2 school officials. If you have so much self righteousness in you, sure go after the coach too.

The obvious answer is because Sandusky has been arraigned and will face justice for his alleged crimes. Curley and Schultz also face a reckoning for their role. But what happenned at Penn State wouldn't have happenned without failures up and down the chain of command. That includes McQueary, Paterno, and perhaps Spanier. While there are no reports that Paterno committed a crime, there's enough evidence in the grand jury report and Paterno's written statement that, at a minimum, raises serious doubts about his judgement in handling a case that could have protected the boy being abused in 2002 and the who knows how many other victims in the ensuing years. These are obviously legitimate questions and many loyal Penn Staters are heartbroken to have to ask them. Self-righteousness has nothing to do with it.

[JamminJoe]

Well, you might be right. But just like in the lacrosse case, I'd rather wait for the facts to come out before making a judgement.

[fan345678]

Well, you might be right. But just like in the lacrosse case, I'd rather wait for the facts to come out before making a judgement.

The lacrosse case was an immediate reaction by an overzealous DA and a university administration that was, from my own undergraduate experiences with the office of student development, just dying for an excuse to throw some students under the bus. The Penn State matter as it now stands is the result of a multi-year investigation by a grand jury. There's a BIG difference.

Based on my own interactions with the OSD at Duke, I'll never back down from the statement I just made about them, but I will assert that if something like this had come to their attention at Duke, I think they would have had the perpetrator's head on a platter within hours.

Duke was guilty of overreacting and not gathering the facts in the lacrosse case, and a number of students suffered as a result. The other side of that coin is that if, say, a high profile basketball assistant at Duke were witnessed doing what Sandusky did, I am confident that the university administration would have acted with extreme prejudice. In fact, I think that an excuse to de-emphasize athletics would have been welcomed by the Nan-ites (yes, I know Brodhead had just gotten there, but it was still mostly Nan's people).

One of the problems that Duke brought upon itself in the Keohane years was that in an effort to protect themselves, they found ways to move high liability situations off of campus. As a result, they put themselves in the position of trusting the city of Durham. It backfired on them, but at least the discovery and ultimate fault for wrongdoing in the investigation weren't confined to the university...or, if you prefer metaphors, they cut out the middle man (themselves), then tried to have their cake and eat it, too (the lacrosse accusations were a dream come true for some of the admins).

[JamminJoe]

The only thing I'm equating here is the rush to judgement. And I'm not talking about Sandusky (duh to mph), I'm talking about Paterno. You don't see a parallel between the DBR headlines today and the headlines about the lacrosse boys. I am assuming all the people talking about how they've never turned their backs on injustice are writing from Africa on the front lines of real injustice. Tongue in cheek again, but hopefully you get the point. All I'm saying is just wait for the real facts and don't be imagining some horror film scenario about how evil Paterno is.

[cspan37421]

The only thing I'm equating here is the rush to judgement. And I'm not talking about Sandusky (duh to mph), I'm talking about Paterno. You don't see a parallel between the DBR headlines today and the headlines about the lacrosse boys. I am assuming all the people talking about how they've never turned their backs on injustice are writing from Africa on the front lines of real injustice. Tongue in cheek again, but hopefully you get the point. All I'm saying is just wait for the real facts and don't be imagining some horror film scenario about how evil Paterno is.

Here's the difference: The facts in the Lacrosse case were in dispute from day one. What is being debated here is based on information that, as far as any of us knows, is NOT in dispute. Unless someone is holding back information, we have several adults who had been informed about child sexual sexual abuse in their midst and they (apparently) did nothing but seek to move the problem off campus. Perhaps they did more ... but to my knowledge they haven't claimed to have done more! So it's not in dispute right now.

If there were contradictory claims about the efforts these adults made to contact the proper authorities regarding the crime that was witnessed, then yes, picking sides in that dispute prematurely would be a rush to judgment. I'm unaware of such a controversy over these particular facts, and therefore I don't see it as a rush to judgment.

Moreover, as far as I know, no one is calling JoePa evil. In fact, I see the self-preservation instincts at work as all too human (and I would not be surprised if some of the principals' notions of self integrate PSU itself to some degree). Not all moral actions are easy to take (such as rescuing the kid in the shower, or calling authorities on a longtime trusted coach) ... some require courage and a placing of others at or above self-interest.

[peterjswift]

Here's the difference: The facts in the Lacrosse case were in dispute from day one. What is being debated here is based on information that, as far as any of us knows, is NOT in dispute.

To be fair, it sounds like Sandusky is pleading not-guilty so he clearly disputes this, and no one has really heard the accused side of things yet. Given the evidence, I think it is unlikely that he is innocent, but I still think the accused should be given his day in court to dispute this.

[devilsadvocate85]

To be fair, it sounds like Sandusky is pleading not-guilty so he clearly disputes this, and no one has really heard the accused side of things yet. Given the evidence, I think it is unlikely that he is innocent, but I still think the accused should be given his day in court to dispute this.

To me, the key difference in the discussion regarding Spanier, Paterno, McQuery and others is that their obligation to report, follow-up, do more, etc does not go away regardless of the guilt or innocence of Sandusky. The persons in power to prevent further incidents did not do enough and if there are legal statutes that compel the reporting of such incidents, they are clearly guilty in that regard.

[cspan37421]

To me, the key difference in the discussion regarding Spanier, Paterno, McQuery and others is that their obligation to report, follow-up, do more, etc does not go away regardless of the guilt or innocence of Sandusky. The persons in power to prevent further incidents did not do enough and if there are legal statutes that compel the reporting of such incidents, they are clearly guilty in that regard.

Yes, in the spirit of what JamminJoe said above, I'm not talking about Sandusky. I totally agree that he deserves his day in court and no one should rush to judgment on him - and we should and will rely on a jury for this. I'm also not talking about the perjury charges against the AD and VP.

What I'm saying isn't in dispute, to my knowledge, is that an eyewitness account of child sexual abuse on PSU's campus was reported to a few, if not several, other adults - including some high-ups at PSU, and none of them alerted the authorities. Unless that's in dispute, I think it's fair to stake out an opinion on that.

[GDT]

What I'm saying isn't in dispute, to my knowledge, is that an eyewitness account of child sexual abuse on PSU's campus was reported to a few, if not several, other adults - including some high-ups at PSU, and none of them alerted the authorities. Unless that's in dispute, I think it's fair to stake out an opinion on that.

I would just add that the eyewitness was later hired as an assistant coach. I'm trying to think of a scenario where an intern comes to the board of directors of a company to say he saw the retired CFO on company property in the shower molesting a boy and that intern is later hired and the CFO walks free. I guess even though the intern was horribly mistaken in what he saw, he was still trustworthy enough to be given a position of responsibility.

[SMO]

I would just add that the eyewitness was later hired as an assistant coach. I'm trying to think of a scenario where an intern comes to the board of directors of a company to say he saw the retired CFO on company property in the shower molesting a boy and that intern is later hired and the CFO walks free. I guess even though the intern was horribly mistaken in what he saw, he was still trustworthy enough to be given a position of responsibility.

This is why I'm a bit mystified at the disproportionate media focus on Paterno. Either no one has figured this out yet or they'd rather pen opinions on the more well-known name. I'm guessing the latter. I also heard McQueary was a family friend of Sandusky, which sheds more light on his response.

[BD80]

The "case" against Paterno and PSU revolves around the detail with which McQuery reported the sole incident about which Paterno received information. McQuery NOW recalls he was specific and detailed in what he reported to Paterno - but Paterno recalls differently. At that point, Sandusky was seen to be a community leader who had a very solid reputation for HELPING and working with children. Sandusky had adopted and raised SIX children - one of whom is in charge of personel with the Cleveland Browns. There had been an allegation of impropriety years earlier, but it had been investigated and found to have had no basis.

Most children who are helped by these organizations have no or little contact with their fathers. As much as they may need financial aid, they are also lacking contact with an adult male who cares about them. In addition to running the charity, Sandusky was seen as someone who donated his TIME and actually tried to connect with the boys. Imagine the chance to go work out at the PSU football facilities with a former PSU coach - one responsible for producing the most impressive group of linebackers in the history of college or pro football?

If Paterno had been specifically told that Sandusky was having sex with a young boy in the shower - he would have remembered that detail, and would have pursued the matter more vigorously. McQuery may believe he was more specific, but I am sure he was hesitant about: 1) telling his idol that his well respected friend was a pedophile, and 2) using descriptive language with such a grandfatherly figure. Maybe McQuery used descriptive language in talking with his father and is now confusing the conversations these many years later. I would suggest that McQuery was not as specific or detailed with Paterno as he remembers, and that there was a difference in the level of impropriety he implied in recounting his observations and that which Paterno inferred.

McQuery must have doubted what he saw - the shear horror of it would make anyone question their own eyes - particularly since it involved such an iconic figure on campus and because it occured in such a safe place that he considered home. If he was certain, how could he not follow up with the police?

Paterno should retire at the end of the season, his actions examined, but he should not be pilloried for what he could have but didn't do unless it is clear he knew what was happening.

If guilty, Sandusky should go to prison, where he shall reap what he has sown.

[PADukeMom]

What has been coming out here in the media which is Penn State Country is that McQuery went to Paterno the following day to report that he witnessed inapproprtaie behavior between Sandusky & the child. He did not report that he witnessed the molestation which very well could have been true. Paterno reported what he was told as inappropiate behavior to his superiors which he is required to do. The head of the university, Graham Spangier did NOTHING! Why is his head not on a silver platter?
I am not in any way defending Paterno in his responsibility in this matter. As a Mom I am furious. Maybe he was prohibited from finding out the idenity of the child due to laws restricting access to the child's idenity. All I know is I am sad, depressed & angry.
There are 3 games left on the Penn State schedule. I just think the school has to let Paterno finish out the remaining games & allow him to retire. No bowl game this season. Remember if you fire Paterno at this point, you have to let the entire coaching staff go as well. Is the university going to forfiet those 3 games? What about the current players? Saturday is senior day.
Sheesh there is only losers & idiots in this matter. The man I grew up looking up to as a hero has removed my rose colored glasses about humanity as a whole.
Penn State Univeristy you royally messed-up! I will forever be part of the Penn State family but I think I need to take some time away from my "family". It is going to take a very long time for me to be able to wear my Penn State apparel again.

[SCMatt33]

The AP is reporting that Paterno will retire, but will still coach the rest of the season.

[Reilly]

A bit on the law:

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202530045139

[cspan37421]

McQuery NOW recalls he was specific and detailed in what he reported to Paterno - but Paterno recalls differently. ...

If Paterno had been specifically told that Sandusky was having sex with a young boy in the shower - he would have remembered that detail, and would have pursued the matter more vigorously.

Have you read the Grand Jury Presentment, especially page 7 ? Paterno himself testified* that "... the graduate student had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Do you really need more specific than that? Is that really too vague, ambiguous, and subject to interpretation?

* - the paragraph has 3 sentences. The first starts with "Joseph V. Paterno testified ..." and the second begins "Paterno testified ..." - but the third does not. I strongly think it is implied. If the GA was as vague as you appear to think he was, why did Paterno call his AD the next day? Why didn't it just end there, maybe with JoePa saying, "well, I'll look into it, don't worry." Why did the AD meet with the GA? Why was the president of the university notified? All these subsequent events seem very implausible - very unlikely to have occurred at all - if the GA was as vague as you imply. I don't find that perspective credible at all.

[zack2014]

What I'm saying isn't in dispute, to my knowledge, is that an eyewitness account of child sexual abuse on PSU's campus was reported to a few, if not several, other adults - including some high-ups at PSU, and none of them alerted the authorities. Unless that's in dispute, I think it's fair to stake out an opinion on that.

According to ESPN, Schultz was in charge of the campus police department on campus and was alerted. I have heard from friends at Penn State that if they had called 911 it would actually route to the campus police. So at least on campus there is still the feeling that the authorities were notified but they did nothing.

[cspan37421]

According to ESPN, Schultz was in charge of the campus police department on campus and was alerted. I have heard from friends at Penn State that if they had called 911 it would actually route to the campus police. So at least on campus there is still the feeling that the authorities were notified but they did nothing.

the GJ Presentment specifically rules that out in several places w/r/t the 2002 incident involving the GA who found Sandusky in the shower with a boy. (p. 8, 10)

It does acknowledge CP involvement and a lengthy report for an incident back in 1998. That's not the main one being discussed here, however. That's not the one involving Paterno, Curley, and Schultz.

[BD80]

Have you read the Grand Jury Presentment, especially page 7 ? Paterno himself testified* that "... the graduate student had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Do you really need more specific than that? Is that really too vague, ambiguous, and subject to interpretation?

* - the paragraph has 3 sentences. The first starts with "Joseph V. Paterno testified ..." and the second begins "Paterno testified ..." - but the third does not. I strongly think it is implied. If the GA was as vague as you appear to think he was, why did Paterno call his AD the next day? Why didn't it just end there, maybe with JoePa saying, "well, I'll look into it, don't worry." Why did the AD meet with the GA? Why was the president of the university notified? All these subsequent events seem very implausible - very unlikely to have occurred at all - if the GA was as vague as you imply. I don't find that perspective credible at all.

Your response pretty well proves my point. As clear as I thought I was - in a written remark - you took a different interpretation.

I didn't say the GA was "vague." I said he may not have told Paterno he saw Sandusky having sex with a boy in the shower. Paterno did report the incident to his superior - so he understood there was something that needed investigated.

Frankly, there is a world of difference between a student telling Paterno he saw Sandusky having sex with a boy in the shower and him telling Paterno he saw "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," particularly since Paterno reported the incident to his superior and assumed the matter had been investigated. Sandusky was a long-time colleague who had devoted years of service to children. I just believe a bit of perspective is needed in judging Paterno, particularly at this early stage in the exposition of facts.

[Reilly]

... As far as I knew, that was Sandusky's real son. He also has another son, Jon. Again, as far as I knew, they were his offspring ... I also read that he had some adopted children, but I do not know how many. If any one else has any info on whether or not EJ and Jon are his real children, I'd appreciate it! .....

According to this article, all six Sandusky children were adopted (three as infants, three after being in foster care):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017979/index.htm

[Billy Dat]

Out of interest, for fans of top-of-the-heap sportswriter, Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated and Kansas City Star fame...

Posnanski moved to State College this summer as part of his next big book project...the definitive biography of Joe Paterno. The cliche that timing is everything holds true here.

Aside from an immediate blog post (link below), JoePos has decided to wait this out and let his eventual book speak his feelings/findings. As one of his recent tweets says, people are asking him whether he considers himself the luckiest writer in the world or the unluckiest. He says he feels more like the latter, but that he intends to do right by the subject, warts and all.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/06/darkness/

[Poincaré]

Paterno has released a statement saying that he will retire at the end of the season. Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20111109/SPORTS08/111109024/Paterno-issues-statement-retirement).

It is very short, but it indicates that he does not absolve himself of blame. I presume that more details on what he believes he did wrong will be forthcoming when he gives his next press conference. I am very curious as to what he will say.

[Mal]

I read about 4 pages, when I thought why is all the focus on Paterno? Just because he's a big football coach. Just to make the story even bigger? To make yourself feel morally superior to a famous coach (semi-jk). In the big picture, the authorities are going after the guys they should be going after, Sandusky and the 2 school officials. If you have so much self righteousness in you, sure go after the coach too.

We get your point, but let's not be obtuse here. What's interesting or worthy of discussion about Sandusky at this point? If he's guilty, he's a monster. There's not much nuance there. And while the AD and administrator's alleged actions are up for grabs and not fully settled until more facts come out, if it turns out that they were as flatly callous as the initial allegations make it seem, there's not much nuance to their moral failure, either. They also aren't nationally known as the most powerful man on a campus of 40,000+ students, and Paterno, while famous for being the football coach, is also legendary for his reputation and moral standing, and has offered those things up publicly as the foundation of his successful football program. His role or lack thereof is infinitely more nuanced and interesting as a moral quandary. Sandusky was one of his right hand men for decades, so the interpersonal relationship and all that entails in the psychology of Paterno's actions here is fascinating. That he happens to be a household name is mostly coincidental. His position in all this is like a textbook discussion sample from an Ethics course.

There's been very little self-righteousness or rush to judgment in this thread, and no indications of grudges or vindictiveness toward Paterno driving anyone's comments, in my humble opinion.

[cspan37421]

BD80, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not see the world of difference you say that you do. I see enough to have warranted action, whether or not the act was related as having involved anal rape or not.

Please note, Paterno's testimony did not involve him quoting the graduate student; those were Paterno's words - the GJP does not state that Paterno claims they were McQueary's words. McQueary could have been explicit in his description with Paterno, and I believe you noted that he states he was; Paterno's testimony does not preclude that.

Interestingly, the GJP does state that Curley was asked if he had received a report specific enough to note anal rape and he denies it was that specific. [his testimony was considered materially false by the GJ]. I wonder why there's nothing in there about Paterno being asked if McQueary was that specific. Its absence may be another "tell" - kind of like the the dog that didn't bark (silver blaze)

[DukeGirl4ever]

According to this article, all six Sandusky children were adopted (three as infants, three after being in foster care):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017979/index.htm

Wow - that is a shock! I thought the boys, Jon and EJ, looked like their father and they look similar to one another. Maybe both boys had the same birth mother and were adopted by the Sandusky family.

Thanks for finding that. I searched for about 15 minutes last night and wasn't able to find anything.

[J4Kop99]

Paterno has released a statement saying that he will retire at the end of the season. Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20111109/SPORTS08/111109024/Paterno-issues-statement-retirement).

It is very short, but it indicates that he does not absolve himself of blame. I presume that more details on what he believes he did wrong will be forthcoming when he gives his next press conference. I am very curious as to what he will say.

Incredibly sad that his career has to end this way, but there is more to this than just Joe Paterno. It's frustrating to see that almost everyone in the media's main focus is Joe.

-I heard somewhere that he will have a press conference later today. I do not know if that is still the case though and I forget where I originally heard/read that. I, too, am interested in what he will say. I am sure there will be a few things that attorney's have already warned him about though.

[DukeGirl4ever]

Incredibly sad that his career has to end this way, but there is more to this than just Joe Paterno. It's frustrating to see that almost everyone in the media's main focus is Joe.

-I heard somewhere that he will have a press conference later today. I do not know if that is still the case though and I forget where I originally heard/read that. I, too, am interested in what he will say. I am sure there will be a few things that attorney's have already warned him about though.


And now the speculation will begin with who will replace JoePa. In fact, it already has.
Here's to hoping they find someone with a GREAT reputation and character. They are going to need it because this is just the beginning of the mess at PSU.

[Reilly]

Wow - that is a shock! I thought the boys, Jon and EJ, looked like their father and they look similar to one another. Maybe both boys had the same birth mother and were adopted by the Sandusky family ....

The article I found was from 1999; I believe the Posnanski (sp?) piece linked above lists the adopted child total at 8 ....

I was a bit surprised, like you, all were adopted, as genetics seem to have a lot to do w/ athletic talent, and since Sandusky the elder was a PSU player, and then when two of his sons were PSU players, that led me to believe there was a biological connection.

[the amoeba]

Frankly, there is a world of difference between a student telling Paterno he saw Sandusky having sex with a boy in the shower and him telling Paterno he saw "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy,"

I haven't posted on this board in months, yet feel compelled to log in to disagree with this point.

[killerleft]

Have you read the Grand Jury Presentment, especially page 7 ? Paterno himself testified* that "... the graduate student had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Do you really need more specific than that? Is that really too vague, ambiguous, and subject to interpretation?

* - the paragraph has 3 sentences. The first starts with "Joseph V. Paterno testified ..." and the second begins "Paterno testified ..." - but the third does not. I strongly think it is implied. If the GA was as vague as you appear to think he was, why did Paterno call his AD the next day? Why didn't it just end there, maybe with JoePa saying, "well, I'll look into it, don't worry." Why did the AD meet with the GA? Why was the president of the university notified? All these subsequent events seem very implausible - very unlikely to have occurred at all - if the GA was as vague as you imply. I don't find that perspective credible at all.

What is the vaguest part of the whole deal? Why didn't the GA go directly to the police to report an obviously vile felony? HE was the eyewitness. I'm just having trouble seeing how Paterno seems to be the evil one even though Spanier, Schultz, and the GA are more culpable. I would liken the GA's inaction to being a hit-and-run driver who later returned to the scene, just a bit late to be of help to the victim.

[GDT]

I haven't posted on this board in months, yet feel compelled to log in to disagree with this point.

I can't help but believe that wasn't meant the way it was written.

And I agree that MCQueary, Curley, Spanier, and especially Schultz deserve as much approbation with the facts we have now.

[A-Tex Devil]

What is the vaguest part of the whole deal? Why didn't the GA go directly to the police to report an obviously vile felony? HE was the eyewitness. I'm just having trouble seeing how Paterno seems to be the evil one even though Spanier, Schultz, and the GA are more culpable. I would liken the GA's inaction to being a hit-and-run driver who later returned to the scene, just a bit late to be of help to the victim.

While I agree the GA deserves extreme scrutiny and probably scorn, it's more akin to witnessing his dad's best pal commit a hit and run, fleeing the scene as well, then returning.

But the fact that the GA discussed what he witnessed with JoePa at any level, even if limited to "naked in the shower together," and both Sandusky is allowed to remain on campus carte blanche, and the GA is kept on and promoted up the staff, makes ZERO sense to me. It's hard to rationally explain. Either Sandusky had to go (or get arrested), or the GA had to go for making up stories.

I can speculate on some potential reasons for this considering the relationship between Sandusky and the GA's father, but I have a feeling, like others, the worst is yet to come out.

[Reilly]

Scandal's unintended effects ... there's a Baltimore sportscaster (Gerry Sandusky) whose father was a Baltimore Colts coach ... no relation ... but some confusion out there in the world:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baltimore-sports-blog/bal-sportsblitz-gerry-sandusky-and-jerry-sandusky1109,0,5901092.story

[GDT]

I think I meant opprobrium.

[Duvall]

What is the vaguest part of the whole deal? Why didn't the GA go directly to the police to report an obviously vile felony? HE was the eyewitness. I'm just having trouble seeing how Paterno seems to be the evil one even though Spanier, Schultz, and the GA are more culpable.

What gave you the impression that anyone thinks that there is a limit on the amount of blame to go around here?

[Bostondevil]

A few points.

Remember when OJ Simpson was in that white Bronco? How upsetting it was to Bob Costas? OJ Simpson was his friend. He didn't want what was happening to be true. Most of us don't want our friends to be capable of horrible deeds. I'm going to assume that Joe Paterno felt the same way about Jerry Sandusky. In the official statement, Paterno refers to Sandusky as Coach Sandusky. IMHO, that says an awful lot right there. Personally, using Coach to describe the man made my skin crawl, but Paterno still sees him that way. In the immortal words of Albus Dumbledore, it takes a brave person to stand up to your enemies, it takes an even braver one to stand up to your friends. We on the outside can point at him and say how he didn't do the right thing, the moral thing, how could he not? My answer - he wasn't brave enough. That's where he's let us down. That's why so much of the attention in this case is on him. All the accolades, all the winning, all the running of a clean program fall away because he wasn't brave enough and we expect our sports heroes to be brave enough.

Second point, the adminstrators, they just wanted the problem to go away. University administrators entering into cover it up, make it go away, cover your I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. mode? Really? We're surprised by this? Do any of you spend time on or near university campuses? Should they have called the police? Absolutely. But to them personally they probably would have only succeeded in losing their jobs sooner. Yes, they could have protected the children, they should have protected those children, but is anybody really surprised that they chose not to? All we're asking is for people in their position to put the needs of a few 'at risk' children ahead of their own. Like I said, really? That's going to happen? And what about the 'shareholders' of Penn State, don't they owe something to them, to keep the good name going? Calling in the authorities could have severely damanged one of the University's main revenue generators. Universities are just another form of corporation. I equate their actions with Toyota deciding that the lawsuits from the deaths caused by their faulty accelerators were cheaper than a recall.

[AtlBluRew]

It appears that the University Attorney (at least one of them) was also the legal counsel for Second Mile. There is a lot of back watching apparent here. I just think they did not want this to get outside Penn State. It is the institution protecting itself: the Catholic Church comes to mind here. Sadly, I think there is a very strong impulse to do that.


Good catch ... I'd forgotten that. This story is just getting worse and worse.

[dyedwab]

...who grew up in State College

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state

I would venture to say that many of us would be able to relate to some of the sentiments in here.

[johnb]

We get your point, but let's not be obtuse here. What's interesting or worthy of discussion about Sandusky at this point? If he's guilty, he's a monster. There's not much nuance there. And while the AD and administrator's alleged actions are up for grabs and not fully settled until more facts come out, if it turns out that they were as flatly callous as the initial allegations make it seem, there's not much nuance to their moral failure, either. They also aren't nationally known as the most powerful man on a campus of 40,000+ students, and Paterno, while famous for being the football coach, is also legendary for his reputation and moral standing, and has offered those things up publicly as the foundation of his successful football program. His role or lack thereof is infinitely more nuanced and interesting as a moral quandary. Sandusky was one of his right hand men for decades, so the interpersonal relationship and all that entails in the psychology of Paterno's actions here is fascinating. That he happens to be a household name is mostly coincidental. His position in all this is like a textbook discussion sample from an Ethics course.

There's been very little self-righteousness or rush to judgment in this thread, and no indications of grudges or vindictiveness toward Paterno driving anyone's comments, in my humble opinion.

good points

[Thurber Whyte]

A bit on the law:

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202530045139

Great article! It confirms what I said upstream in this topic that Curley and Schultz almost certainly cannot be convicted on the charge of failure to report because they did not actually have a duty to do so under state law. Remember you heard it from me first! :cool: It is for this reason the prosecutors had to manufacture a crime buy running a perjury trap on them in order to have any hope of convicting them for anything.

There is a weird political dimension to this case that I have not figured out yet. Can anyone tell me why the state attorney general’s office is handling this case rather than the Centre County District Attorney and why they needed a multiyear investigative grand jury to investigate it? I have not seen that explained yet. Kiddy diddlers are a dime a dozen and local police are more than competent to find and interview the usually cooperative complaining witnesses. This is not the Russian Mafia they are trying to bring down here! As horrible as the conduct alleged is, the only reason the case is getting attention from the press is that the alleged perpetrator is a local celebrity.

[Poincaré]

I want to raise one minor point about what the "confirmed facts" of this case are.

As far as I understand, grand jury transcripts are sealed unless a compelling need is demonstrated. (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm#II)

A grand jury report is not the same as a transcript and is the subjective interpretation of the majority of the grand jury of the testimony they heard. As far as I know there is no policy of making a report of the minority opinion.

Again, it looks fairly bad. Let's say that there's a 99% chance that Joe Paterno knew enough to have a moral (not legal) responsibility to do more. His recent statement certainly makes it sound like he himself now believes so. But how much? To condemn someone based on 99% is to say that we are okay with condemning 10 innocent people for every 1000 people accused. I am not comfortable with those 10 suffering because we can't even wait a month or two before passing judgment. I am not saying Joe Paterno is in that 10, but condemning Joe Paterno so strongly now hurts those who will be in that 10 in the future.

Again, what do we gain from this? The victims are not any better off. It is not as if the principle that we must report any hint of child abuse to the cops is diminished by waiting for more information before publicly condemning Paterno on a message board. We can offer to contribute to the legal fees of the victims when they sue PSU. We can raise our own level of vigilance in our own communities. We can donate to organizations that help heal the victims of such horrific crimes.

Are we being effective and efficient in our reaction to this news? Or are we just instinctively struggling to find an appropriate way to express and react to the fear that we have in our hearts about what if this happens to our kids without actually taking real action?

Again, there will be no harm in waiting a little while longer before we decide how much public condemnation is deserved by one Joe Paterno. While we are waiting, there are better things we can do to make sure this does not happen to our own children. While we wait for more information, there are better things we can do to help the victims of child abuse.

[dukedoc]

Apparent Coach is going to comment on the Penn State fiasco

@SiriusXMSports
SiriusXM Sports
Mike Krzyzewski, Duke Head Coach, addresses Joe Paterno's retirement tonight at 7p on @MadDogRadio SXM 86. Audio: tinyurl.com/bl4yqxy

[Billy Dat]

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
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area

[91920110]

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…….



http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Full-Episode-200-Adult-Men-Who-Were-Molested-Come-Forward-Video

[OldPhiKap]

I want to raise one minor point about what the "confirmed facts" of this case are.

As far as I understand, grand jury transcripts are sealed unless a compelling need is demonstrated. (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm#II)

A grand jury report is not the same as a transcript and is the subjective interpretation of the majority of the grand jury of the testimony they heard. As far as I know there is no policy of making a report of the minority opinion.



I do not know Pennsylvania procedure, but grand juries generally hear the evidence presented by one side only. There is no defense attorney, nor right to call witnesses in rebuttal. The old saying is that you can indict a ham sandwich if you wanted.

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".

[killerleft]

What gave you the impression that anyone thinks that there is a limit on the amount of blame to go around here?

I am very well aware that there are souls who are extremely good at passing out blame, here and elsewhere. Blame is what we do best!:) I'm just glad that when punishments are handed out, evidence will be the primary reason for it, not internet messageboards or newspaper opinion pages.

[stillcrazie]

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.

-stillcrazie

[greybeard]

Great article! It confirms what I said upstream in this topic that Curley and Schultz almost certainly cannot be convicted on the charge of failure to report because they did not actually have a duty to do so under state law. Remember you heard it from me first! :cool: It is for this reason the prosecutors had to manufacture a crime buy running a perjury trap on them in order to have any hope of convicting them for anything.

There is a weird political dimension to this case that I have not figured out yet. Can anyone tell me why the state attorney general’s office is handling this case rather than the Centre County District Attorney and why they needed a multiyear investigative grand jury to investigate it? I have not seen that explained yet. Kiddy diddlers are a dime a dozen and local police are more than competent to find and interview the usually cooperative complaining witnesses. This is not the Russian Mafia they are trying to bring down here! As horrible as the conduct alleged is, the only reason the case is getting attention from the press is that the alleged perpetrator is a local celebrity.

I had gotten that this was a grand jury "report" not a transcript, but NOT THAT THIS WAS A STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL investigation over a matter within the Centre County DA's jurisdiction. My initial instinct, that Joe reported this to the police, as it was reported to him, is much stronger. If I am correct, what more exactly should he have done? If the police and the DA went nowhere with this, and Standusky resigned, we're walking a very, very delicate line here by anyone in that university's taking anything public. Am I right or am I right. Lawyers who know about this stuff, where does this stand? Huge lawsuit if went public in such a circumstance based upon a hearsay account is my guess. We still don't know what this guy told Paterno years earlier; I should also say that scientific peer review tests finding drugs effective have been proven false when conducted five years later; same with examining scientific findings that a particular type small bird's mating patterns were based upon whether the male suiter's wing feathers were exactly even--turns out the findings were all wet. What am I getting at, objective reality is hard to come by. What does testimony 10 years after the fact about what was reported show, especially if this went to the police--even the campus police which as one poster pointed out Paterno had every reason to expect had been done--he reported it to the guy who was the head of campus security including the police.

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.

[Indoor66]

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…….



http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Full-Episode-200-Adult-Men-Who-Were-Molested-Come-Forward-Video

Thank you for your sharing. You have my abiding respect for your handling of your own difficult past. I also thank you for bringing a perspective to this discussion that I think has been lacking. It is far to easy to make blanket condemnations of individuals without considering the life experience and frame of reference of the party involved.

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.

[Bostondevil]

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.

[Poincaré]

Call be [sic: me] Soothsayer Greybeard, but I got a nickle that says that Paterno did what you all are saying he should have.

One bit of detail that I read today on NPR said that Gary Schultz, one of the people Joe Paterno reported the incident to, had oversight of the university police (link (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline)).

Indeed, the web site of Finance and Business, the unit that Schultz headed in 2002 (link (http://www.fandb.psu.edu/fandb/units/University-Police.cfm)), 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.