Jerry Sandusky thread
 

Jerry Sandusky story

Figured this story deserves a thread of its own.

One thing that sticks out to me - he retired in '99 at age 55? I'm curious to hear from Penn State fans what the story was at the time - seems a bit odd for an assistant football coach to retire that early unless he was claiming some kind of health-issue or family matter. Assistants in those days didn't make that much - he probably on just started clearing 6 figures in the last few years of his career - so I'm guessing he didn't retire with a huge amount of money socked away.

In light of what's been alleged, it natural to wonder if his retirement wasn't actually him getting pushed out.

My father-in-law is a huge, huge Penn State fan, and for his sake I sure hope Paterno is clear in all of this.

Paterno does not seem clean in this. A graduate assistant told him in 2002 he saw Sandusky raping a child in the PSU locker room. Paterno never notified the police and even allowed Sandusky to bring another 11 year old (who Sandusky was also raping) to multiple practices in 2007.

If these prove to be true, Paterno should be fired immediately and never allowed back on the Penn State campus again.

I also wonder if the Penn State admins knew this info was coming out, and downplayed JoePa's 409th win. It was a pretty low key, considering he just became the all time winning-est Div. 1 college football coach.

There is a special place in hell for that man. Hopefully someone sends him there sooner rather then later. Anyone that does this should get a bullet between the eyes.

Nice timing of a bye week as well.

Yeah, what worries me in this is that Paterno didn't seem to push the info he got far enough. As well, you have to wonder if this wasn't the first time he had an inkling of what may have been going on.

I seriously hope Paterno didn't drop the ball on this. Not a huge fan of his but he's still a legend that you don't want to see fall like that.

Could the NCAA hit PSU for LOIC? It seems unlikely but if anything deserves LOIC I'd wager it's this.

LOIC?

Lack of Institutional Control.

Lack of institutional control

Sickening story. Maybe Sandusky will do everyone a favor and kill himself.

I'm guessing the NCAA won't have a leg to stand on here, I can't imagine they have a statute they can charge them with.

I'm guessing JoePa and the AD get quietly ushered out at the next possible opportunity, Penn State takes their lumps in court and we all try to pretend as much as possible that this never happened. As disgusting and unpalatable as that might be.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more improbable it seems that the NCAA could get involved. Regardless, this could haunt the program for quite a long time. While I don't believe Urban Meyer is a realistic candidate to replace JoePa, I cannot see him wanting to go into this potential mess now. What a black cloud over the university.

Chill on the NCAA part. A player didn't do the horrible act of selling their jersey. A university just covered up and even aided in the systematic rape of children.

Not sure how the AD gets quietly ushered out. He has been arrested for perjury and failure to report the sexual assault of a child.

I don't know about Paterno, but the Prez issued a statement backing both the guys charged, aside from Sandusky. That's not quiet. Speculation on twitter among the writers is maybe it went all the way up the chain, so he is backing them because his ass is on the line, too.

As far as downplaying Paterno's 409th win, I think that has more to do with the fact that Paterno is little more than a spectator right now, and I've even read some stuff suggesting he shouldn't be credited with any wins this year. His role and lack of involvement in any of the game day stuff does bring up the question of at what point is a coach not really a coach. I mean, even at the end, Bowden was still on the sidelines and appeared to be involved in major decisions (going for it on 4th downs, etc.).

As a Penn State fan, I'm very saddened by this. I always thought Sandusky's timing of his retirement seemed odd, and it was a little surprising he wasn't lured by other schools for coaching positions.

Sadly, I think we've just scratched the surface. I think enough will be uncovered that the entire athletic department will, and should, lose their jobs over this.

Interesting. I quote this from the ESPN article: "Longtime head coach Joe Paterno, who has more victories than any coach in the history of Division I football, was not charged, authorities said, and the grand jury report did not appear to implicate him in wrongdoing. It said that when Paterno first learned of one report of abuse, he immediately reported it to Curley, but Sandusky was no longer coaching at the time and it's not clear whether Paterno followed up with Curley."

The way it's phrased, it sounds like Paterno immediately reported this upon hearing about the abuse. Upon closer inspection, the "first learned of one report of abuse" may imply that he had heard about the abuse earlier.

This is a truly disgusting story. The idea that an entire university staff, from a janitor to the school president, could hide something like this just makes me want to vomit. No way does Paterno NOT know about this shit, he has been running the show at Penn State since the Civil War.

Makes me wonder how much of this is going on/has gone on at other schools, all in the name of college athletics.

Sandusky was investigated in 1998 for a similar incident. Everyone on the PSU staff knew about this.

Paterno was also told by the graduate assistant that he had seen anal sex occur in the shower between Sandusky and the child. The graduate assistant was incredibly upset and told this to Paterno at Paterno's home.

You know what I don't get. Let's say you see something like this, and you take it to your boss like you think you should. And they do nothing about it. How can you not bring it up to someone else?

This. I believe Paterno may have followed the law - state reporting laws usually require employees only to report to their immediate supervisor to escape legal culpability - but it sounds a lot like Paterno broke many moral and ethical rules by keeping silent with the knowledge he apparently had for over ten years.

Pretty crazy that Sandusky was bringing this kid to PSU practices .. in 2007 and JoePa allowed it.

This sounds like some Law and Order SVU shit here.. Jesus.

This +2. Paterno might be in the clear legally, but that doesn't mean he's not a piece of shit if the story is as currently reported.

"Hey, what happened with our former defensive co-ordinator who we caught having sex with an 11 old on our premises"
"uh, oh we told the police and they didn't care. honestly"
"okie dokie, sounds good"

Really? I can't imagine knowing about something like this and not reporting it. WTF from a guy who was supposed to be as stand up as they come.

Taken as an observation unrelated to this incident (i.e. I haven't read enough on this case to comment it on it at this point), I'd say you're pretty close to right.

I'd even say it's really something that's only been true for a portion of "our generation", depending on your generation of course.

I don't care if the guy was from Abraham Lincoln's generation. If anyone knew that this guy had raped a kid and didn't go to the police with this information I have not even a smidge of respect or sympathy for them. You don't have to be born in the 21st century to have figured that one out by now.

It's not that simple. It wasn't part of the culture until recently. If you contacted the police in 1930, or even 1960 and told them that some respected adult was molesting a kid they either: wouldn't believe you, tell you you have to get him to church to pray it off, or tell the boy to stop tempting him. There wouldn't be an investigation or anything. The reporter would be accused of having some ax to grind (basically where we are in some parts of the country still when it comes to child abuse, per the texas judge thread) There were no sex crimes divisions. Very few sex crime prosecutions (most of those involved poor men raping girls on in public somewhere)

Now, I'm not saying an old guy in 1997 shouldn't know better, and shouldn't be held responsible by our laws and ethics today, but this is a very different time with new rules that were not second nature for people just a few decades ago.

I'd argue that you're right but for a different reason. What you "know" and what you could offer evidence of are often two very different things.

Maybe I'm missing something but unless Paterno himself walked in on something (which I haven't seen indicated) realistically his options were probably pretty limited in terms of having any real impact.

This doesn't sound like a case of some suspicious rumors. It sounds like someone walked up to Joe and said, "I saw this guy raping a kid." I repeat, I don't care what generation you're in, or what you think people will say, or what you think they will do. You don't stop until that guys is under questioning at the police station.

I understand times were different fifty years ago. But still, yes, it is that simple. Whether it's second nature, third nature, whatever, there's only one right answer here. It was the right answer when Joe Paterno was a kid, whether people admitted it or not, and it's the right answer now.

I'm faintly amused to see JiMGA arguing for moral relativism though.

It's one of those things where everyone living today believes they would be in the top 1% of people, morally, in previous generations. You wouldn't be prejudiced against black people, you'd support gay marriage, you wouldn't throw Christians in the pit to be eaten by lions. I mean sure, if we could take Autumn circa 2011 and send him back, that'd be the case, but if you were born then, I don't know how you can be so sure you'd be so ahead of everyone else morally. Odds are you wouldn't be. Odds are most of us wouldn't be. It's just a interesting thing to think about, I'm not saying anything about the present case. Contemporary laws should obviously apply to everyone regardless of when they were born.

Edit: I've thought about this in the past in terms of a personal family situation - a few generations ago a close family member of mine was molested, over time, by another close family member. And some point, I'm not sure when, people were suspicious, and then knew. I don't know all of the timelines, but I know no police were ever involved. That surprised me at first when I heard about it decades after the fact - the molester in question was still alive until 10 years or so ago and I knew him growing up...my family would visit his family, like normal (but just in retrospect, I was never left alone with him). Now, maybe everyone in my family generations ago that knew, or suspected, are terrible monsters for not going to the police. Fair enough. But they weren't alone. This is what happened in families in the 50s and 60s (and earlier, I'm sure) Police were not an option, either a practical sense (they wouldn't do anything), or in a family sense - it just couldn't happen. It's a well respected guy, you take care of the best you can in the family, you don't try to take down, or abandon, the family's chief bread winner. After all, its probably the victim's fault anyway, right (thinking of the time).

Nope, you're seeing me argue that realistically unless Paterno had pictures or video that he took himself then there's probably a better chance of him being dismissed for being senile than anyone believing him if he ran screaming to the cops claiming something this outrageous.

edit to add: And that's assuming he believed the claim in the first place.

Oh I'm not at all suggesting that any of us would be different if we'd been born then. [reminds me of that hilarious Eddie Murphy bit]. I'm saying I'm not willing to give anyone a bit of sympathy in the year 2002 or 2011 or even 1997 for holding on to those ideas. He's not running the wishbone over there, right? So he's learned enough tricks over the past 50 years. He damn well should have learned that one.

And I'm also just talking generally about anyone who knew what this guy had did and didn't make sure he got taken into custody. Whoever that is, it seems like there were a whole bunch of them.

How much credibility did the person walking up have? And FTR, I'm not casting aspersions on them, I'm trying to ask an honest question here.

And that's before we even rationally consider the part of the equation that weighs credibility of the accuser versus credibility of the accused (to Paterno I mean).

I think you live in a different world than I, then. Where I live allegations like this, even with nothing even remotely like an eyewitness, are taken incredibly seriously. To think that they had an eyewitness, and that people would call them senile? To me that's a bunch of bunko. It's the sort of shit abusers say to people to make them not report them.

I've thought about this in the past in terms of a personal family situation - a few generations ago a close family member of mine was molested, over time, by another close family member. And some point, I'm not sure when, people were suspicious, and then knew. I don't know all of the timelines, but I know no police were ever involved. That surprised me at first when I heard about it decades after the fact - the molester in question was still alive until 10 years or so ago and I knew him growing up...my family would visit his family, like normal (but just in retrospect, I was never left alone with him). Now, maybe everyone in my family generations ago that knew, or suspected, are terrible monsters for not going to the police. Fair enough. But they weren't alone. This is what happened in families in the 50s and 60s (and earlier, I'm sure) Police were not an option, either a practical sense (they wouldn't do anything), or in a family sense - it just couldn't happen. It's a well respected guy, you take care of the best you can in the family, you don't try to take down, or abandon, the family's chief bread winner. After all, its probably the victim's fault anyway, right (thinking of the time).

Unless the guy was a known pathological liar, or this guy's arch enemy, seems to me he had enough credibility.

Ya, I'm not going to go as far as "sympathy", anyone who breaks the law in this manner can be locked up for life as far as I'm concerned....But I do kind of understand how a guy 70+ thinks about all of this differently.

I understand Molson, but what does that have to do with today? I can't imagine how anyone not living in a cave would still think that police should not be involved in cases of abuse. If yo'ure talking about something in the family, yes. But what reason would an unrelated adult have for not following up on something like this in this day and age?

Goes back to the credibility of the alleged witness to the credibility of the accused. Reality is that it's almost certainly easier to get away with anything - much less something this heinous - proportionally with your reputation.

I don't follow a lot of Penn State internal politics, so maybe I'm overestimating the status of the assistant or something, but I'm assuming he was a pretty respected member of the staff/community. If that's the case, then to get any sort of action you're probably going to need to bring some fairly serious evidence to the table to get action that goes beyond "hey man, look, there's some people saying some pretty nasty shit about you right now. Anything you need to tell us?"

I'm not talking about right/wrong here, I'm just trying to look at it realistically. And yes, I'd say the odds of JoePa going senile are considerably higher than the odds of an accusation like this being believed or even being true.

I don't know. He was a graduate assistant so I imagine that JoePa had some respect and trust for the guy. They are technically part of your coaching staff. So when one of those guys comes to your home distraught and tells you he saw a well-respected man within the program having sex with a child, it should cause some concern. This isn't the typical accusation.

But on top of that, JoePa knew Sandusky had a previous allegation of very similar circumstances.

He didn't do anything illegal, but I hope that when it comes to a child, and when it comes to multiple allegations (particularly from one on your own staff), it should be something you pursue harder.

But Joe wouldn't be the one to be believed. He's just passing on information he was given. So his senility or believability isn't a question.

Yes, the credibility of the witness matters. But it matters in proportion to the details he gives. If he says, "I saw this guy acting funny around this kid," yes, people may not pass it on. If he says, "I saw this guy having sex with this kid," then as I say, unless the guy's a raving lunatic, this gets acted on. We've probably all seen sketchy situations that gave us a weird feeling, but we didn't feel were enough we could act on. That's a lot different than seeing someone have sex with a kid.

And that witness is the number one person who should have been pursuing this case. If the university made it seem like they were taking care of things and then didn't report anything, leaving that witness not to pursue this, I hope they get torn down.

Ya, I might be going too far off tangent here....organizations/families though, if someone is 60+, odds are that in their past, they've dealt with rumors or knowledge of abuse (or were victims of abuse) and saw everyone around them, including authority figures make great efforts keep it quiet, make excuses for it, keep it in house. That was their lives. It's no surprise it would be their first instinct today. We are the first generation who has been effectively taught to seek outside help immediately, it's just a part of our upbringing now.

And he passed it along as required, correct? Without regard to credibility or anything beyond his responsibility, right? (Again, that's how I understand the situation, I could be mistaken). That seems to suggest that he didn't believe the allegation was credible enough to take to police himself, or at least that seems like a reasonable interpretation of the situation to me.


Hmm ... I might not disagree with that, but our interpretation of how that works is apparently 180 degrees from each other.

I'd be more likely to believe a respected assistant / friend (I'm guessing) is occasionally swiping a pack of copy paper from the office than I am to believe that they've committed something this heinous. Absent any suspicions of your own, unless you're convinced that you're a horrible judge of human nature yourself (and can handle the self-indictment that brings) then I'm hard pressed to imagine an allegation less believable/credible without an extraordinary amount of evidence.


Now on this part we seem to agree.

If I can play a bit of devil's advocate here, let's say the GA went and told the police. Does said GA ever have a hope of landing a job in D-I college football after that? Or does he get the reputation of a narc and someone who can't be trusted to think of the program first?

If he didn't believe the allegation, why not fire the grad assistant? Would you really want someone on your staff falsely accusing people of having sex with children? And remember, this isn't the first allegation against Sandusky. At some point you'd think that he'd realize that something is fishy.

To me it seems less about believing the grad assistant and more about protecting the Penn State football program.

Gone through the hassle of firing anyone lately? Most people I know would rather deal with employees taking a dump in their desk drawer than even start the process.

I think having a guy falsely accusing people of raping children in your locker room might be worth the trouble of firing.