Jerry Sandusky thread

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

This is the part just blows my mind.

Did you know the DA in question also disappeared under mysterious circumstances and has been declared dead?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Did you know the DA in question also disappeared under mysterious circumstances and has been declared dead?

Yes

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

It appears you think it is both ok and not ok with taking a shower with a 10 year-old. One can consider that act disturbing and inappropriate, but that is not anywhere near rape. And may not even be illegal, so why should he lead a crusade against someone when he doesn't know what he is leading one against? He did what he was suppose to do, I'll reserve judgement against him until more is known. At this point who knows what he thought was happening in the shower.

"Paterno called athletic director Tim Curley to his home and reported that McQueary told him that he had seen Sandusky in the showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

[Commo_Soldier]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Several people have already pointed out basic things that show you clearly have no fucking clue about this case and are contradicting your own approach to things with far less evidence to support them.

There was nothing to the Duke case. The moment things became publicly available it was extremely clear it was some idiot hooker trying to make a buck off of some stupid college kids.

This, on the other hand, is a case of a piece of shit covering the tracks of his pedophile friend, and there's quite a bit to support that. If you can't see the difference in what is known already, you're stupid enough to go to the chair in Georgia.

Ok, and what about people saying Paterno condoned rape, should have done way more, and was only covering up tracks for his friend? We have not heard anything from him or that he knew what exactly was happening. Do you really think Paterno would just shrug his shoulders if he was told Sandusky was raping a 10 year-old? Is that what people honestly think happened? Granted the case against Sandusky is not like the duke case, but the case against Paterno is.

[RomaGoth]

I am sure that this entire story is made up bullshit and all involved are free and clear. In addition, I am also positive that all of these "victims" are just out to make a buck and that nothing actually happened.

Of course, this trail of child molestation only goes back 17 years and it is probably just a witch hunt with no substantial evidence.

Oh, wait....


Sandusky Abuse Claims Date Back To 1994

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

Can you show me a quote that says he was told Sandusky was raping children? I don't see how people can see disturbing and inappropriate and think rape. Those two words can mean lots of things, none of which are as serious as rape.

I was being overboard with this comment, as everybody else seems to be doing. (I don't personally believe it... it was more facetious than anything.) In a few years nobody will remember the name "Jerry Sandusky." They will remember the name "Joe Paterno" though, and this sadly is how many will likely view the situation.

Sandusky is a sick fuck who was a damn good coach. He deserves whatever he gets.

Paterno was a great coach who made mistakes, but the extent of the mistakes we don't know.

Mike Munchak made some nice quotes about Paterno earlier:

“(Paterno) is ultimately responsible for anything that happens while he’s the head coach there, and so he knows he has a lot of responsibility in this.”

“I think I speak for everyone that’s gone there. (Paterno) was a great coach to be around. I know the players were very important to him, not just as football players but as people, he made that very clear. I thought the way he handled the team, the way he motivated the team, the stories he told us, it was more about life, not just football. He really cared, was concerned for what you did after football. The school thing was legitimate, he did want guys to graduate. All the things you heard about him were exactly true. I don’t think that’ll change for anybody… That university wouldn’t be what it is today without him. Unfortunately right now it’s not something you’re going to dwell on. People realize that… the question is, how did all this happen?”

“(Paterno) is like anybody else, he’s going to make some mistakes. I don’t know what kind of mistakes he made in all this, I’m not going to judge him -- at all. I don’t think it’s smart to judge anybody, especially when you don’t know exactly what went on and what he was told and all the details of this thing. I just go on my experiences with him. I’ve made a lot of mistakes myself, so, no, it won’t change how I feel about him, my relationship with him, what he’s done for me and my career as a player. Those kinds of things will always stay the same. Yeah, it’s going to be a black eye for a while for Penn State University, but the university will go on and recover from this.”

[Scoobz0202]

I really don't think people will forget the name Jerry Sandusky. This is going to be huge.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

Ok, and what about people saying Paterno condoned rape, should have done way more, and was only covering up tracks for his friend? We have not heard anything from him or that he knew what exactly was happening. Do you really think Paterno would just shrug his shoulders if he was told Sandusky was raping a 10 year-old? Is that what people honestly think happened? Granted the case against Sandusky is not like the duke case, but the case against Paterno is.

We've heard exactly what he thought was happening. He has given sworn testimony in a grand jury investigation that McQueary told him that Sandusky was "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" in the showers. While there does appear to be some confusion about exactly what he was doing, if all of the options fall somewhere between 'fondling' and 'something of a sexual nature', do you really need more information before passing judgment?

[Commo_Soldier]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

"Paterno called athletic director Tim Curley to his home and reported that McQueary told him that he had seen Sandusky in the showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

That is interesting as in the grand jury testimony the fondling or something of sexual nature is not in quotes like other things are. It just clouds the picture even more what he really knew. As for the follow up that article had two things I found interesting.

— About a week and a half later, McQueary was called to a meeting with Curley and vice president of finance and business, Gary Schultz. He reported what he had seen and was told they would look into it. Paterno was not at that meeting.
— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky’s keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile. Curley advised school president Graham Spanier of the information he’d received and the steps taken as a result. Spanier testified of his approval of the approach taken by Curley. The incident was not reported to the University Police or any other police agency.


If that is the case what does Paterno have to keep asking questions for? Granted it was not told to him, but is it out of the question McQuerry tells him what the results were or was told at a later time?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

First time I've seen that, or even heard it mentioned.

Then, honestly, I think you're actively ignoring this.

I saw that on Saturday for the first time.

Here are a few things that I've read that make me wonder how you could ever compare this to Duke Lax:

-Sandusky is investigated in 1998. No charges are ultimately filed but Sandusky admits to some, including the mother of one of the victims, that he had inappropriate contact with minors.

-I have not seen anything definitive that Paterno knew anything about the 1998 investigation, but I would be shocked if he didn't. My belief here comes from a few different things. I grew up around football coaching staffs and I know how much time they spend together. How much they know about one another's lives. I don't see how this wouldn't have been known.

Second, at some point after 1998, Paterno apparently tells Sandusky that he won't be the next PSU head coach. Sandusky retires suddenly in 1999. Could be coincidental, but it sure seems to walk and quack like a duck.

-In 2002, Paterno is told at least that an assistant inappropriate and disturbing conduct between Sandusky and a pre-teen boy. At most, he is told that the two are having anal sex.

-Sandusky continues to hang around the Penn State campus.

So, maybe you don't buy that Paterno ever found anything out about the 1998 thing. Then you can discount the grad assistant and say fool me once, shame on me, and give Paterno a pass in 2002. I can't though. It's not plausible to me that Paterno knew nothing of the 1998 allegations. The 2002 stuff then should be MAJOR FREAKING ALARM BELLS, even if all you were told is that there was disturbing and inappropriate horsing around in the shower.

And then you let the guy hang around your offices and facilities for 9 more years. I can draw no other conclusion than that being really, really unacceptable.

I'm not outraged. I'm really disappointed, maybe even sad. I've never been a Penn State fan, but Paterno has been a legend in my favorite sport. He was a negligent watch guard at best, and a reckless enabler at worst. And that's sad. Really sad.

[Commo_Soldier]

I have to head to bed, maybe someone can clarify why parts of the grand jury testimony have quotes like "disturbing" and inappropriate" but not the fondling or of sexual nature.

[RomaGoth]

I am 100% positive that if I was a coach of any team at any level and I heard even a fucking rumor from a stray dog in the alley that something was going on in my locker room with an adult and a child, I would be all over it like flies on a pile of shit. Furthermore, I would make certain to follow up and make sure that if the rumors were true, that it doesn't happen again.

Paterno failed on all accounts and he deserves what he is getting.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

If that is the case what does Paterno have to keep asking questions for? Granted it was not told to him, but is it out of the question McQuerry tells him what the results were or was told at a later time?

He doesn't HAVE to do anything more than he did, legally speaking. Had Paterno's legacy been built upon 40+ years actively dedicated towards promoting and teaching young men to do only the absolute bare minimum as required by law, with no regards to moral responsibility, that might make an argument for why he shouldn't be judged so hard.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

You are right, I have not read the testimonial, I've been too busy

For someone too busy, you sure do have a lot of time to say things you know nothing about

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

You really should do some research then before coming in here and spouting off.

Sorry if I haven't spent the day obsessing over this witch hunt (the Paterno part, not the Sandusky part) but I'm still left looking for the part where it says Paterno knew anything about what's in that story you linked.

I'll go slow, maybe I'm missing that part somewhere.

Police listened in on a conversation - check
Prosecutor closes the case - check
Story indicates no charges (current charges cover thru 2009) filed over the next 11 yrs - check* (I mean, unless he was arrested at some point then released to continue or something)

**Am I missing the part where we find out whether Paterno knew about this conversation? I believe I've read where he was "aware of some allegation" prior to the GA visit but nothing I've read/heard has talked about the amount of detail on the earlier claim he was privvy to**

The accompanying timeline in the linked article includes various items but none of them mention Paterno until 2002, when the GA "reports what he had seen". We don't seem to know what was said by the GA to Paterno, nor really what Paterno said to the GA.

Paterno does what he's responsible for doing, reports something (accurately? inaccurately? we don't know as far as I can tell) to the AD. The AD & another admin talk to the GA, they (sometime later) tell the GA that they had taken away Sandusky's keys & reported something to Second Mile.

The rest of the timeline gets even further away from Paterno, so I assume I can skip that part for our purposes here.

The closest thing I see to anything that could (reasonably) land on Paterno is the conversation with the GA but I don't know what that was exactly. Was it specific & graphic? Was it vague & uncertain? The more important question though - as I've said from my earliest comments in this thread - was it credible?

That's the only place I see any possible moral outrage could reasonably come from (since there's no claim of any legal wrongdoing by Paterno, moral outrage is all that's left): If Paterno believed Sandusky was abusing the kids, then I can go along with directing some anger at him. That "if" is what I'm stuck on: I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe Paterno thought that was the case. Does he think so now? Maybe. But what he thinks "now" isn't the question here.

You want to tell me that a reasonable person readily believes (what I gather was) a close co-worker & friend is raping children? That's a hell of thing for most people to imagine of most random acquaintances, but to believe it of an actual friend? I mean, if you readily believe it, what kind of company are you keeping?

(Please, spare me any shit for this next bit, it's nearly 2am & I'm working with what's handy. I like analogies & whatnot, they help more often than they hurt, so I'm gonna use it. There's no intention of comparing the offenses, I'm looking at the reaction of others here, this is the closest personal parallel).

I couldn't convince my own mother that a cousin had a teenage drinking problem, not even when he passed out in class & crashed to the floor. I was an eyewitness, she heard it from other eyewitnesses, no dice. It wasn't what I'd call denial either, it was utter & complete disbelief. She had more confidence in him than she had in my lying eyes. She was completely convinced that we were misinterpreting what we saw. It was probably 20 years later when he acknowledged the problem himself before she believed it.

Now if someone has a hard time accepting that sort of thing, it seems pretty rational to me to imagine that an staggeringly more disturbing & serious accusation would be even more difficult to believe ... which is the point of that story.

Bottom line: until I believe Paterno believed that Sandusky was doing anything remotely close to what he's charged with, the only responsibility I can find him having is the legal one, and it seems the prosecutor in PA has already addressed that (and doesn't appear bashful about charging whoever has turned up in the investigation).

And now, with this novella complete, I got some work that I've got to finish.

[RainMaker]

How could Paterno not know that was the case? The 1998 allegations were widely known throughout the Penn State community. There is absolutely no way that Paterno didn't know about it. And many suspected that Sandusky stepped down the following year over them.

Fast forward to 2002. Your GA shows up at your door in tears and tells you he saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a kid in the showers. Now I don't care if you are best friends with Sandusky or not, you are obligated to push that matter. Not as Head Coach at PSU, not as an adult, but as a fucking human being. And the GA was eventually promoted within PSU. Not exactly something you do if you don't trust the individual.

Still, this doesn't come to believing the allegations. It's a matter of reporting them and pursuing them to make sure the kid is alright and you don't have a child molester using your facilities as his own personal brothel.

Paterno did what he legally had to. And yes this is moral outrage. But here's the thing, when you get paid millions of dollars to run one of the biggest football programs in the country, you sort of have some responsibilities. If he wants to ignore shit like that, then go be a janitor. But you aren't going to be the head coach at Penn State. If his judgement is that poor, then he shouldn't be holding down this job. This is a high profile job, it pays a lot of money, and he is clearly not up to that.

Seriously Jon, read through the Grand Jury testimony. Read through the Attorney General reports. You won't be defending Joe Paterno afterwards.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

Ok, and what about people saying Paterno condoned rape, should have done way more, and was only covering up tracks for his friend? We have not heard anything from him or that he knew what exactly was happening. Do you really think Paterno would just shrug his shoulders if he was told Sandusky was raping a 10 year-old? Is that what people honestly think happened? Granted the case against Sandusky is not like the duke case, but the case against Paterno is.

That is what he did if you believe what he and McQueary told a Grand Jury.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is anyone going to dispute how easy it is to get an indictment? For anything?
Seriously? Anyone? Bueller?

I guess you'll have to excuse me if I find the parallels to the reaction incredibly striking ... alternately, you can go fuck yourself. {shrug} Either works for me.

It's not the indictment in this case though. It's a long history going back 15 years where people knew of accusations of this guy with kids. Penn St. told him to stop bringing kids to the campus. The implication there is, "it's ok man, just don't do it here"

If you play Devil's Advocate you could say that meant "Look Jerry, we know these allegations are horse crap, but we can't take the risk, leave the kids at home"

But even then how does that not get reported to the police? How could you hear an accusation of that nature and not demand it be investigated? That's the failure here. There were accusations before that Paterno knew about.He knew this allegation was serious. And yet he never bothers to ask his boss, "did you maybe report that to the police? Did you do anything to find out who the kid was?"

Paterno and the GA should have followed up with this. Paterno isn't the only one at fault here, but he's the one with the target on his back.

The Duke case involved a drunk hooker, a corrupt DA and was disgusting for a lot of reasons. This involves allegations going back to 1998. This involves multiple victims, not just one person making an allegation. If the facts of the case come out that Paterno really didn't know anything, I'll beg forgiveness, but I don't see how that is possible at this point. It looks like he, along with many other men chose to suspend belief rather than err on the side of caution and try to protect children who couldn't protect themselves. I'm sorry, but for me that's the bottom line. And his legacy will be forever tarnished by that poor choice

[thesloppy]

While the specifics of the timeline, and McQueary's exact words to Paterno remain murky and under question, I have a much easier time parsing the fact that Jerry Sandusky was using team facilities as recently as last week.

At that time, Joe Paterno had not only heard a possibly confusing tale from a GA about something wacky in the showers 10+ years ago, he (and his superiors, and McQueary) had also very recently been called in to give sworn testimony in a grand jury investigation into whether Jerry Sandusky had raped multiple children. At that point I think plausible deniability has flown out the window. Yet, Sandusky was still on campus, using team facilities, and maintained an office near the football building, as recently as a week ago.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The closest thing I see to anything that could (reasonably) land on Paterno is the conversation with the GA but I don't know what that was exactly. Was it specific & graphic? Was it vague & uncertain? The more important question though - as I've said from my earliest comments in this thread - was it credible?

I'm assuming by your other comments that you're not entirely up on this case (me neither, frankly). Are you aware that Mike McQueary, the then GA in question, was promoted after the incident, was a former starting Penn State QB under Paterno, and is now the current WR coach and recruiting co-ordinator for Penn State?

If you don't think dude is credible enough to properly report child-rape, or even if you think he's just prone to exaggeration, you surely wouldn't then promote him to head-up recruiting (of children) for the next ten years, in your own name.

I kinda understand the 'wait and see' approach you're taking Jon, but I also get the impression that you haven't taken a look at everything that is already out there (which is understandable, considering both the volume and the horrible content). Once you've read through even a fraction it is nearly impossible to not ask some of the (relatively mild) between the lines questions that are being tossed around in here.

• The 1998 incident, in which Sandusky confessed to police to showering with multiple young boys (including physical contact with a least one) went all the way to the district attorney, and was investigated by mutliple detectives and welfare officers. Is it even possible they didn't interview/alert anyone or everyone involved with Sandusky at PSU to the possibility they had a possible child molester on staff?
  
• Why was Sandusky still allowed on campus, and using team facilities (conceivably open to minors), not only after multiple incidents had been reported over many years, but during a grand jury investigation for brutally sexually assaulting multiple children, some of which occurred on Penn State grounds?
  
• Why did McQueary and Paterno settle on only the bare minimum legally required of them, after McQueary told Paterno he witnessed Sandusky and a 10-year old boy engaging in inappropriate behavior in the team showers? Why did they wait until two days after the incident to do so?
  
• Why was Sandusky barred from bringing children on campus, and had his locker room keys taken away in 2002, if McQueary's report wasn't deemed sufficient for reporting to the police?
  
• Penn State players were involved in 163 criminal complaints in just the 6 years between 2002-2008, so it seems safe to assume that Paterno knows exactly what constitutes a police report and the ensuing investigation. Why didn't he follow up when it was obvious no such thing was occurring?
  
• Why was McQueary promoted to the Penn State coaching ranks and put in charge of recruiting, soon after he reports Sandusky's rape to his superiors, but no legal action was taken against Sandusky? Why do Penn State's coaching employment records mirror the dates and people involved in Sandusky's scandal? (admittedly, I'm flying off into the ether a bit on this one)

I think there's lots of valid questions still to be asked of Joe, and while Paterno is arguably less culpable than all of the other primaries in this situation, all of those other dudes' failings and fates are pretty well cut and dried. The focus remains fixed on Paterno not just because he has the highest profile by a mile, his sway over Penn State culture, or his previous moral stance, but also simply because he's the only one left whose level of involvement remains worth questioning (and/or defending). As much as I agree with the idea in general that we're all a little quick to pull out the torches and pitchforks before all the answers are out, in this particular case the nature and volume of the questions are such that I'm not sure any acceptable answers remain on the board, for Joe or anybody involved.

[jbergey22]

Very simple. Paterno tried to go all in with a losing hand and got called.

It seemed JoPa was on the right path in 1999 when he told this scumbag he wouldnt be next in line as the Penn St head coach which led to the resignation. I cant figure out why this wasnt all blown up in 2002. It appeared Joe Pa had him pegged as a scumbag as early as 1998. If this is the case why the hell did he want to continue to protect him?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

If you play Devil's Advocate you could say that meant "Look Jerry, we know these allegations are horse crap, but we can't take the risk, leave the kids at home"

Good shorthand for pretty much exactly what I think the reaction was.

But even then how does that not get reported to the police? How could you hear an accusation of that nature and not demand it be investigated? [/quote]

If I don't believe there's an ounce of truth to them, seems pretty easy.

And yet he never bothers to ask his boss, "did you maybe report that to the police? Did you do anything to find out who the kid was?"

Do we know he never asked a single question? Or that he did but was told a plausible X, Y, and Z?

It looks like he, along with many other men chose to suspend belief rather than err on the side of caution and try to protect children who couldn't protect themselves.

That's just not what I see here, definitely not at Paterno's level of it. Above that, eh, I'm not willing to even try to figure out the whole "who knew what & when" at every step of the process. For me to try that degree of analysis to do so today or this week or whatever changes nothing that matters any way.

Besides, there's clearly not going to be a shortage of people (far beyond the reaches of FOFC) that'll tell me exactly how I'm supposed to feel or interpret events.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm assuming by your other comments that you're not entirely up on this case (me neither, frankly). Are you aware that Mike McQueary, the then GA in question, was promoted after the incident, was a former starting Penn State QB under Paterno, and is now the current WR coach and recruiting co-ordinator for Penn State?

Caught that one after my very first comments (not the last 24 hours stuff). Initially he was just an anonymous GA to me (if you happen to read my earliest post from ever how long ago that was).

If you don't think dude is credible enough to properly report child-rape, or even if you think he's just prone to exaggeration,

The most likely scenario to me there is, and has always been, he (the GA) completely misconstrued what he saw. (std caveat about how we don't know what he actually said to Paterno or to anyone else).

I kinda understand the 'wait and see' approach you're taking Jon, but I also get the impression that you haven't taken a look at everything that is already out there (which is understandable, considering both the volume and the horrible content).

I appreciate that, I don't think it's all that unreasonable to have not been ocd about this.

I hope you'll be equally understanding that I've got to stop in mid-post here. Real-life is calling me away from the internet at the moment. Loudly & persistently. I'll try to come back to the laundry list later, if it doesn't get shoved totally off the page or supplanted by new stuff or whatever.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's just not what I see here, definitely not at Paterno's level of it.

What do you see? I'm all for keeping a great coaches legacy in tact if in fact he deserves it. Im just not seeing anything in the evidence that would clear him from this.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier

I have to head to bed, maybe someone can clarify why parts of the grand jury testimony have quotes like "disturbing" and inappropriate" but not the fondling or of sexual nature.

Please start listing what qualifies as "disturbing" and "inappropriate" that would involve an adult and child who are seen in a shower that isn't of a sexual nature. Remember, Sandusky already retired after an investigation of him being a pedophile. Anybody who needs to have the story be more specific, or graphic is failing at logical math.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Logan

You can have your balanced viewpoint. I'll have mine. A person's character is built on tough moments. Paterno failed miserably when he had a very simple one.

Completely agreed.

[jbergey22]

Id love to know who signed them resignation papers in 1999 and why Sandusky had so much leverage to get all of these perks 12 years after his retirement.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The most likely scenario to me there is, and has always been, he (the GA) completely misconstrued what he saw. (std caveat about how we don't know what he actually said to Paterno or to anyone else).

Read the grand jury report. It is pretty clear there is no "misconstruing" of shit. He caught Sandusky in the act of anal rape, and both Sandusky and the boy being raped saw McQueary.

If you just take the time to read the grand jury report, I don't expect you'll change your mind because we've pretty well seen your history of that is nil on this board, but at least you can understand the outrage.

This isn't like one guy saw Sandusky do it this one time. These are allegations from a number of different kids, over a number of years. All of their reports show that what Sandusky did to them fits a pattern, so the only likely explanation of this being made up is that all of these kids from different backgrounds and at fairly different ages all got together to screw this guy. Which I think we can agree is pretty doubtful.

At that point, you move on to how likely is it that Paterno knew something fishy was going on, yet allowed Sandusky to hang around? Pretty fucking likely judging from the sheer amount of people involved with the program who also knew that something fishy was going on. I mean, pretty much the entire janitorial staff witnessed another, later incident. All of Paterno's bosses knew about it.

I am still of the mind that it is possible that even after JoePa was told of "something of a sexual nature" was occurring, that he didn't want to believe it, and let Sandusky have a pass on this issue because he assumed that once he reported it to his bosses, if anything serious was going on that he would eventually hear about it.

But the argument still is, YOU are the face of the program. This went on under your watch, whether it was with your knowledge or even tacit approval or not. You need to be gone.

My question is, how the hell did McQueary see this and not go straight to the cops? The grand jury obviously believes him implicitly, seeing as they are basing perjury charges nearly solely on his testimony.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Id love to know who signed them resignation papers in 1999 and why Sandusky had so much leverage to get all of these perks 12 years after his retirement.

The office and access to facilities isn't that big of a deal. Access to facilities is very common and the office isn't unusual for the emeritus rank which Sandusky was given. Of course they should have sent him to the cops, but they really didn't set him up with a sweetheart deal.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The office and access to facilities isn't that big of a deal. Access to facilities is very common and the office isn't unusual for the emeritus rank which Sandusky was given. Of course they should have sent him to the cops, but they really didn't set him up with a sweetheart deal.

Ok good. There goes my conspiracy theory

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

This would definitely qualify as rumor, but I'm going to put it here just in case more comes:

Mark Madden just said on WEEI that reports coming that #Sandusky and Second Mile pimped out young boys to rich donors.

http://twitter.com/#!/nathanielkraft...21411850465280

[Logan]

Yeah I posted that originally and deleted it when Madden made clear in another tweet that it was purely a rumor...in case anyone saw it quickly.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If I don't believe there's an ounce of truth to them, seems pretty easy.

As Ben said on FB somewhere, even if you don't believe it, when there are children involved and it's your watch, you don't make the call, you let the investigators do their job and determine whether there's truth to it. It's your job as a basic human being to report this, not just to your boss who is concerned with the image of the company, but to the people who can make the determination of credibility. Let alone if you have 20 kids and grandkids or whatever he has.

Humanity fail.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I am 100% positive that if I was a coach of any team at any level and I heard even a fucking rumor from a stray dog in the alley that something was going on in my locker room with an adult and a child, I would be all over it like flies on a pile of shit. Furthermore, I would make certain to follow up and make sure that if the rumors were true, that it doesn't happen again.

Paterno failed on all accounts and he deserves what he is getting.

Mostly playing devil's advocate here as I'm thinking about this from different angles, but what if those rumors were about you? What if someone heard some vague rumor about you, and once the police were involved, your career, and your ability to take care of your family, are 100% over, regardless of your innocence. Would you want someone at your organization to take the slightest step to see if there is anything at all behind that career-killing final move, or just take it right away? I do think at least, that there's more people than who are willing to admit it right now, that would want the organization to take SOME initial step to talk to the people involved first. And if the answer back to the reporting party is, "we've taken care of it, don't worry about it"...it just might be less than a monster that does think that's the end of it, somehow. I have no doubt they told Paterno as little as possible.

Maybe you do have to report every rumor no matter what to the police, I get that line of thinking definitively. But I can't help but cringe at stories like what Ben told earlier about being sure that a guy wasn't guilty of anything but needing to report him anyway. He was cleared, and his career was over. I don't think Ben did the wrong thing at all. But it's still an unfortunate real backlash in society that kind of sucks, more innocent people's careers will be ended, their reputations destroyed (yet more collateral victims off Sardusky). There was that "child care sex abuse paranoia" that gripped the country the 80s and led to many innocent people losing their jobs and their reputations and at least temporarily, their freedom. I have no doubt we're going back there, and I just wish there was something we could do to mitigate it...but I accept that maybe there's not. Honestly, any young man that gets involved with youth coaching, or youth mentoring these days is brave, what a dangerous risk to have to face every day. I know there's some steps you can take - never be alone with a kid for any reason, but damn - there's a reason big sisters gets a ton of volunteers but big brothers are impossible to find, for example. Society perceives "big brothers" as pedophile risks, and who wants to deal with that or take that risk? Those kids who don't get that mentoring because of that phenomenon are yet another collateral victim of monsters like Sardusky.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Logan

Yeah I posted that originally and deleted it when Madden made clear in another tweet that it was purely a rumor...in case anyone saw it quickly.

Ah, I didn't see that anywhere. I thought he had seen reports - pretty poorly worded on his behalf, then.

Wow - Madden in April:

Madden: Sandusky a State secret

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

My question is, how the hell did McQueary see this and not go straight to the cops? The grand jury obviously believes him implicitly, seeing as they are basing perjury charges nearly solely on his testimony.

I think it was more the general environment and way of thinking that goes with it that caused his inaction than him being way more callous than the next guy. And as a long-time college football fan, that is what disturbs me greatly.

And Jon, if you do come back to this, either McQueary flat-out lied in his grand jury testimony, or there's basically no way he misconstrued what he saw. Per his own testimony:

It was about 9:30 p.m. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

Then he went to his office and called his dad, who told him to leave immediately. And he left. Just....wow.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

Mostly playing devil's advocate here as I'm thinking about this from different angles, but what if those rumors were about you? What if someone heard some vague rumor about you, and once the police were involved, your career, and your ability to take care of your family, are 100% over, regardless of your innocence. Would you want someone at your organization to take the slightest step to see if there is anything at all behind that career-killing final move, or just take it right away? I do think at least, that there's more people than who are willing to admit it right now, that would want the organization to take SOME initial step to talk to the people involved first. And if the answer back to the reporting party is, "we've taken care of it, don't worry about it"...it just might be less than a monster that does think that's the end of it, somehow. I have no doubt they told Paterno as little as possible.

The problem with this is that JoPa gave him his chance in 98 and let it go without saying a word about it. It happened AGAIN in 2002 when JoPa knew full well what a scumbag he was. JoPa likely didnt want to kill his recruiting and the Penn St reputation so he thought they could all get away with it. He played with fire and lost. I should say he played with fire and the kids lost.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by miked

As Ben said on FB somewhere, even if you don't believe it, when there are children involved and it's your watch, you don't make the call, you let the investigators do their job and determine whether there's truth to it.

No, I said it in this thread. There was a specific situation where I did *not* believe the charges, but followed through nonetheless.That's just what you do in these situations.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

While the specifics of the timeline, and McQueary's exact words to Paterno remain murky and under question, I have a much easier time parsing the fact that Jerry Sandusky was using team facilities as recently as last week.

At that time, Joe Paterno had not only heard a possibly confusing tale from a GA about something wacky in the showers 10+ years ago, he (and his superiors, and McQueary) had also very recently been called in to give sworn testimony in a grand jury investigation into whether Jerry Sandusky had raped multiple children. At that point I think plausible deniability has flown out the window. Yet, Sandusky was still on campus, using team facilities, and maintained an office near the football building, as recently as a week ago.

This thread is going in circles, and while there is much open for discussion, I think this quoted piece is the thing that we should be hanging our hats on right now. We don't know yet exactly what Joe Pa knew in 2002, or '98, though I imagine we'll find out. But we do know that Penn State continued inviting a rapist under investigation into their facilities, for years and years. No matter what they might have thought about the matter personally, they failed in their professional roles.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think it was more the general environment and way of thinking that goes with it that caused his inaction than him being way more callous than the next guy. And as a long-time college football fan, that is what disturbs me greatly.

And Jon, if you do come back to this, either McQueary flat-out lied in his grand jury testimony, or there's basically no way he misconstrued what he saw. Per his own testimony:



Then he went to his office and called his dad, who told him to leave immediately. And he left. Just....wow.

I still can't fathom how Sandusky left that night in anything but an ambulance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Ah, I didn't see that anywhere. I thought he had seen reports - pretty poorly worded on his behalf, then.

Wow - Madden in April:

Madden: Sandusky a State secret

"Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement."

I guess he missed the story about Sandusky being the leading candidate for the Virginia job. He even had his assistants picked out. I wonder why Virginia did a 180 with Al Groh. I have a guess that hundreds, if not thousands of people in college football knew at least "rumors" of Sandusky. I think Penn St was right to fire Paterno, but based on the standards I'm reading in this thread - shouldn't all of those hundreds of people have reported this to the police? Or perhaps they all had heard something vague about police being involved around '99, and they assumed everything was being handled.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by molson

...never be alone with a kid for any reason...

This is where all forms of youth work is headed, I'm convinced, which means that the most at-risk kids who would most benefit from some one-on-one time with an adult who is going to provide a positive influence are going to lose.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

No, I said it in this thread. There was a specific situation where I did *not* believe the charges, but followed through nonetheless.That's just what you do in these situations.

You have to. Predators count on their ability to talk their way out of situations to continue to molest. You can"t take a chance.

[Autumn]

The thing is, about Joe's reputation and all the good he'd done ... as someone said a few pages back, the success of an organization isn't just built on one person. Whatever role Joe had in it, his success was also built on the students who chose to come and play for him, the staff who worked for him, the support of the school and the fans and the region, and the state that supports his organization. He may have done a lot to create his legend and his record, but he didn't do it all.

I'd say a guy like Joe Paterno owes a lot to those people. What he did the last couple years, at the least, allowing a suspected rapist to come on campus, betrayed the trust that those fans, those students, those athletes and staff, had put in him. There's a lot of people who put a lot of sweat into those 40 years to get him all those wins. He seems to have showed he cares more about the wins than the people. Or that he was under the mistaken impression that it was better to "protect" the people in the program by throwing some kids under the bus.

Why McQueary isn't out on the curb already is beyond me. He clearly must have feared for his position, his career, but he had even more reason than Paterno to act.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is where all forms of youth work is headed, I'm convinced, which means that the most at-risk kids who would most benefit from some one-on-one time with an adult who is going to provide a positive influence are going to lose.

Yeah it is. In some youth work I have been involved in, that was a part of the rules.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is where all forms of youth work is headed, I'm convinced, which means that the most at-risk kids who would most benefit from some one-on-one time with an adult who is going to provide a positive influence are going to lose.

Sandusky's actions with his charity are going to haunt a lot of organizations doing good work. It may not be rational, but I'd be very hesitant to let my join an organization where they have unsupervised contact with adult men. I don't want to be that suspicious, but I'm not about to allow that kind of relationship with someone I don't know, and even then I'm going to talk to my child regularly about what is going on.