Jerry Sandusky thread

[cartman]

The Boy Scouts made the change a few years back that on any outing, there has to be at least two adults at all times, never any one-on-one time is allowed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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.

You take a chance when you let your kid out of the house. It's just a matter of where you draw the line. School and sports alone are risky.

[Passacaglia]

Am I missing something where there's ambiguity regarding what Paterno knew? From the indictment:

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 next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen.

That seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Am I missing something where there's ambiguity regarding what Paterno knew? From the indictment:

That seems pretty clear cut to me.

I think some of the other statements suggested McQ may not have described everything to Paterno. But further up in the page is the quote that he at least described "things of a sexual nature" to Paterno.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Am I missing something where there's ambiguity regarding what Paterno knew? From the indictment:

That seems pretty clear cut to me.

that sounds like a summary rather than actual testimony. Certainly paterno's testimony indicated more ambiguity. I don't know how directly the assistant was questioned on that, it wasn't really relevant to the criminal angle.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think some of the other statements suggested McQ may not have described everything to Paterno. But further up in the page is the quote that he at least described "things of a sexual nature" to Paterno.

The only "things of a sexual nature" statement I see is referring to what Paterno told Curley, not what McQueary told Paterno.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

The only "things of a sexual nature" statement I see is referring to what Paterno told Curley, not what McQueary told Paterno.

Not sure I follow ... Paterno is relaying what McQueary told him to Curley, correct?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Not sure I follow ... Paterno is relaying what McQueary told him to Curley, correct?

That's not how I read the document. It says McQueary reported to Paterno what he saw (anal intercourse), then Paterno told Curley that a grad assistant had seen Sandusky in the showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's not how I read the document. It says McQueary reported to Paterno what he saw (anal intercourse),.

Paterno didn't say that. Did mcqueary? You have to be careful when its not a transcript, but a summary created by humans with varying writing skills.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

The church I attend requires members to do nursery duty once a quarter. There are different legal papers signed by men and women. The papers men have to sign indicate that we will not take part in things like changing diapers or taking older kids to the bathroom specifically to remove any chance of anything appropriate happening. It's understood and none of us complain about it at all.

Similar story here, with the exception of it being a requirement. We have a crew of volunteers. All who volunteer are required to undergo a criminal background check, and men can only volunteer with their wives, and we're not allowed to change diapers or take kids to the bathroom (other than our own, of course.) It's a pretty sweet deal, actually. "Honey, got a stinky one over here. I'd be willing to help you out, BUT I CAN'T!!! I'll play peek-a-boo while you change the diaper."

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

Paterno didn't say that. Did mcqueary? You have to be careful when its not a transcript, but a summary created by humans with varying writing skills.

Sounded like Mcqueary said it that way and JoePa re-worded it when he reported it.

[spleen1015]

OT - I think it is jacked up that your churches won't let men change diapers. I don't really care but it is 2011. Men can change diapers and women can molest kids too.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

Paterno didn't say that. Did mcqueary? You have to be careful when its not a transcript, but a summary created by humans with varying writing skills.

Of course. It could be written wrong, but it says that McQueary reported to Paterno "what he had seen", and they explained what he had seen earlier. Sure, it's humans with varying writing skills, but they're aware of how parsed the document is going to be, right?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by molson

You take a chance when you let your kid out of the house. It's just a matter of where you draw the line. School and sports alone are risky.

Ummmmmmmmm....what? I was saying you can't take a chance on not reporting something. What does your statement have to do with that?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

OT - I think it is jacked up that your churches won't let men change diapers. I don't really care but it is 2011. Men can change diapers and women can molest kids too.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not that men can't change diapers. It's that men are by far more likely to be molest than women. The churches are just protecting kids and themselves. (I just did a quick Google search, and it appears that this policy is now fairly common, if not prevalent.)

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think you're missing the point here. It's not that men can't change diapers. It's that men are by far more likely to be molest than women. The churches are just protecting kids and themselves. (I just did a quick Google search, and it appears that this policy is now fairly common, if not prevalent.)

I get the point. I just think it is silly.

[albionmoonlight]

Re: policies against men changing diapers:

You also have to think in terms of a blanket ban being easier to enforce (and carrying much less judgment) than a specific ban.

If no guys can change diapers or take kids to the bathroom alone, then it is just "a silly rule."

It is much more awkward to have everyone be "well, Bob can't change diapers, because he kind of creeps us out, even if we can't quite articulate why."

Also, a blanket rule like that allows people to get kicked out of the nursery BEFORE something happens. "Sorry, Bob. I know that you meant well, but you can't have nursery duty anymore. Our insurance won't let us keep people in the nursery who violate the no-diapers rule. Nothing personal."

[SteveMax58]

Wow...I had not been following this story at all beyond the 10 second snippets I'd see in passing on various news reports.

Sickening.

[corbes]

I'm sure some people here grew up reading Clair Bee. I have a hard time imagining that Chip Hilton wouldn't have intervened to stop a sexual assault against a child from occurring, no matter who the perpetrator was. And I have a hard time imagining that Henry Rockwell would have told Chip to take his story to the AD, and then we'll just let that process unfold--in the meantime, everything's A-OK.

[Shepp]

I just took the time to read the Grand Jury report on this and I'm really having a hard time seeing why there is such outrage against Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary.

Unless I'm missing something the chain of events is this:
1. McQueary sees Sandusky perform the sexual act on the boy in the shower.
2. McQueary reports this to Paterno.
3. Paterno reports what McQueary had told him to AD Curley and VP Schultz.
4. Curley and Shults meet with McQueary.
5. Curley and Shultz ban Sandusky from the campus and issue is dropped.
6. Everyone testifies at the Grand Jury and Curley and Shultz claim they didn't know the exetent of the sexual assault.
7. Curley and Shultz are arrested for false statements aong with Sandusky who raped the child.

Something else that the Grand Jury report said that I noticed is that Shultz oversaw the campus police department. I'm geussing that Paterno and McQueary figured telling him was as good as reporting it to the police.

Once again I understand the outrage against Sundusky. I can also see the anger with Curley and Shultz but with some of the things I've seen written here you'd think Paterno and McQueary were molsting children too.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

There's no ambiguity. There's just people like Jon who think ignoring anal rape of children is okay as long as the football program is protected.

We all know that Jon doesn't believe anything unless he sees it for himself.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Shepp

I just took the time to read the Grand Jury report on this and I'm really having a hard time seeing why there is such outrage against Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary.

Unless I'm missing something the chain of events is this:
1. McQueary sees Sandusky perform the sexual act on the boy in the shower.
2. McQueary reports this to Paterno.
3. Paterno reports what McQueary had told him to AD Curley and VP Schultz.
4. Curley and Shults meet with McQueary.
5. Curley and Shultz ban Sandusky from the campus and issue is dropped.
6. Everyone testifies at the Grand Jury and Curley and Shultz claim they didn't know the exetent of the sexual assault.
7. Curley and Shultz are arrested for false statements aong with Sandusky who raped the child.

Something else that the Grand Jury report said that I noticed is that Shultz oversaw the campus police department. I'm geussing that Paterno and McQueary figured telling him was as good as reporting it to the police.

Once again I understand the outrage against Sundusky. I can also see the anger with Curley and Shultz but with some of the things I've seen written here you'd think Paterno and McQueary were molsting children too.

Read the rest of this thread and you will gain more insight into why Paterno is such a piece of shit. Did he do what he needed to do legally? Probably. Did he do what he needed to do morally. No fucking way. Sometimes, there are things more important than just following man-made laws and washing your hands of a situation. This was one of those times.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Shepp

I just took the time to read the Grand Jury report on this and I'm really having a hard time seeing why there is such outrage against Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary.

Unless I'm missing something the chain of events is this:
1. McQueary sees Sandusky perform the sexual act on Paterno's grandkid in the shower.
2. McQueary reports this to Paterno.
3. Paterno reports what McQueary had told him to AD Curley and VP Schultz.
4. Curley and Shults meet with McQueary.
5. Curley and Shultz ban Sandusky from the campus and issue is dropped.
6. Everyone testifies at the Grand Jury and Curley and Shultz claim they didn't know the exetent of the sexual assault.
7. Curley and Shultz are arrested for false statements aong with Sandusky who raped the child.

Something else that the Grand Jury report said that I noticed is that Shultz oversaw the campus police department. I'm geussing that Paterno and McQueary figured telling him was as good as reporting it to the police.

Once again I understand the outrage against Sundusky. I can also see the anger with Curley and Shultz but with some of the things I've seen written here you'd think Paterno and McQueary were molsting children too.

I added the bolded. If that was the case, do you think Paterno would have handled anything differently than he did?

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Did he do what he needed to do legally? Probably. Did he do what he needed to do morally. No fucking way. Sometimes, there are things more important than just following man-made laws and washing your hands of a situation. This was one of those times.

I guess that is where my confusion is coming from. I've been a cop for ten years and my experience has been that if a witness is willing to get involved at all, they have gone above an beyond. About the only way I can see this event turning out better, aside from Curley and Shultz not covering it up, would be if McQueary had called the police right then and there and Sandusky was caught with the boy, if not during the actual assault. The fact that he didn't do this doesn't really shock me though, because the typical human response is; I don't want to get involved unless I ablsolutely have to. Your moral responsibilty argument is great I just hardly ever see it happen.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

We all have different reactions to difficult situations. Others in this thread have already said most wouldn't do this.

But I feel pretty secure that if I saw someone, ANYONE, raping a ten year old boy I would call the police.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

We all have different reactions to difficult situations. Others in this thread have already said most wouldn't do this.

But I feel pretty secure that if I saw someone, ANYONE, raping a ten year old boy I would call the police.

Thats great, and its also the right thing to do. Its also the exception rather than the rule. I've worked murder cases where we had to threaten witnesses with prosecution just to show up in court so I've kind of given up on people just doing the right thing just because they should.

[Passacaglia]

How horrible for that kid, too -- to see that an adult saw this, and that maybe it will end, then watch that adult take off.

[dfisher]

Originally Posted by Shepp

I just took the time to read the Grand Jury report on this and I'm really having a hard time seeing why there is such outrage against Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary.

Unless I'm missing something the chain of events is this:
1. McQueary sees Sandusky perform the sexual act on the boy in the shower.
2. McQueary reports this to Paterno.
3. Paterno reports what McQueary had told him to AD Curley and VP Schultz.
4. Curley and Shults meet with McQueary.
5. Curley and Shultz ban Sandusky from the campus and issue is dropped.
6. Everyone testifies at the Grand Jury and Curley and Shultz claim they didn't know the exetent of the sexual assault.
7. Curley and Shultz are arrested for false statements aong with Sandusky who raped the child.

Something else that the Grand Jury report said that I noticed is that Shultz oversaw the campus police department. I'm geussing that Paterno and McQueary figured telling him was as good as reporting it to the police.

Once again I understand the outrage against Sundusky. I can also see the anger with Curley and Shultz but with some of the things I've seen written here you'd think Paterno and McQueary were molsting children too.

Shultz is in charge of the campus police, which would be the equivalent to letting the State College police commissioner know. The Penn State campus police has all the rights of a municipal police force and are really the University Park police.

[gkb]

Paterno is not a victim. I've again been surprised today by people being upset about not only Joe being fired, but by how he was fired - over the phone. They literally could have spray painted it on one of his cars and I would've been, "Hmm, better than he deserved."

Picture this - for years after Joe was told, at the very least, that Jerry was seen in a shower late at night with a 10 year old boy - Joe and Jerry hanging out at practice together. Maybe grabbing a bite to eat in the cafeteria once practice was over. "Hey Jerry, how's it going? How's the wife? Kids?"

Paul Posluszny was on Mike and Mike this morning saying how in 2004 and for Sandusky was still very much around. And that the players were encouraged, if they wanted to help out, to do so by volunteering for the Second Mile program.

How about McQueary who, by his own Grand Jury testimony says he say Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy. He didn't hear about it from someone else he saw that little boy being anally raped by this old man. McQueary is at those practices as well and he's seeing Sandusky day in and day out.

Paterno is not a victim.

[Izulde]

Mike McQueary Will Coach For Penn State This Weekend Against Nebraska | SI Tracking Blog – Tracking the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

Seriously? Paterno gets fired after notifying his superiors, including the head of Penn State's university police, and the guy who is exponentially more culpable than anyone but Sandusky, is allowed on the sidelines?

Now *this* is absurd.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Mike McQueary Will Coach For Penn State This Weekend Against Nebraska | SI Tracking Blog – Tracking the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

Seriously? Paterno gets fired after notifying his superiors, including the head of Penn State's university police, and the guy who is exponentially more culpable than anyone but Sandusky, is allowed on the sidelines?

Now *this* is absurd.

McQueary should be fired too, I am surprised that he hasn't yet.

[timmynausea]

The Onion opts for scathing instead of funny:

Sports Media Asks Molestation Victims What This Means For Joe Paterno's Legacy | The Onion Sports Network

Edit: It's probably impossible to make anything about this funny, of course.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Mike McQueary Will Coach For Penn State This Weekend Against Nebraska | SI Tracking Blog – Tracking the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

Seriously? Paterno gets fired after notifying his superiors, including the head of Penn State's university police, and the guy who is exponentially more culpable than anyone but Sandusky, is allowed on the sidelines?

Now *this* is absurd.

Lawyer buddy of mine speculates that there may be some kind of whistleblower-type law involved here.

[Ben E Lou]

McQueary now being investigated?

An Aspiring Coach in the Middle of a Scandal - NYTimes.com

“It’s not that he’s not willing,” John J. McQueary, his father, said about his son’s public silence. “I think it’s eating him up not to be able to tell his side, but he’s under investigation by the grand jury. He’ll make it. He’s a tough kid.”

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Logan

Lawyer buddy of mine speculates that there may be some kind of whistleblower-type law involved here.

Possible.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Shepp

I've worked murder cases where we had to threaten witnesses with prosecution just to show up in court so I've kind of given up on people just doing the right thing just because they should.

Honestly, I understand these people infinitely more. Was Sandusky going to put a hit out on McQueary? I mean, I guess I understand the potential for his career at PSU to be in jeopardy but that is far different from fearing for your life if you testify.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

McQueary now being investigated?

An Aspiring Coach in the Middle of a Scandal - NYTimes.com

Even more probable that he might get charged as well.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Shepp

I just took the time to read the Grand Jury report on this and I'm really having a hard time seeing why there is such outrage against Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary.

Unless I'm missing something the chain of events is this:
1. McQueary sees Sandusky perform the sexual act on the boy in the shower in 2002.
2. McQueary reports this to Paterno.
3. Paterno reports what McQueary had told him to AD Curley and not VP Schultz, two days after the incident occurred.
4. Curley and Shults meet with McQueary.
5. Curley and Shultz ban Sandusky from bringing kids on the campus, take his locker room keys, the issue is dropped, and he is allowed to keep his office on campus and use team facilities, as recently as last week.
6. Everyone testifies at the Grand Jury and Curley and Shultz claim they didn't know the exetent of the sexual assault, in 2010.
7. Sandusky still on campus, and using team facilities, in November of 2011.
8. Curley and Shultz are arrested for false statements along with Sandusky who raped the child.

Bolded a couple key points that you were missing, and added some that may help you better understand some of the outrage. Key among them that no, Sandusky was never kicked off campus. He was barred from bringing anymore kids on campus. He himself was still kicking it on campus, and using the team weight room (that he may have shared with minor students), for years after the 1998 incident, and months after everybody in the administration had given sworn testimony at a then ongoing grand jury investigation into whether he brutally raped multiple children on the Penn State grounds.

Originally Posted by Shepp

Something else that the Grand Jury report said that I noticed is that Shultz oversaw the campus police department. I'm geussing that Paterno and McQueary figured telling him was as good as reporting it to the police.

Schulz was the VP of Business and Finance for PSU, and as such his office oversaw the the financial and business end of the University Police Department. Dude was not part of the chain of command, and not a member of the police department. Schulz was also never contacted by Paterno as far as I can tell by recent reports. Paterno only contacted his AD Curley, two days after the incident occurred, who then talked to McQueary with Schulz.

As I said in earlier post, Penn State players were attributed with 138 documented criminal reports in just the 6 years between 2002-2008. It seems safe to say that Joe Patrno should have been intimately familiar with just what constitutes a criminal complaint, the mechanics of an ensuing investigation, how no such thing came close to happening, and how talking to the AD or VP in their offices is not equatable to making a police report, which by necessity involves a verifiable physical record and investigation.

[Tigercat]

Here is my problem with assuming it is right to totally cast McQueary aside or assume the worst in him. He might have just freaked the fuck out. And I don't think that would have been that unusual of a reaction. All of us would like to think, and maybe we are correct, that in that position as a young man/woman we would have burst into the shower, punched Sandusky in the face, and dragged that kid away.

But maybe McQueary saw the sexual act being committed by an important man around his workplace, a man he thought he knew to be a great man when it comes to children, and he just freaked out. Not to mention what a traumatic scene it must have been to see that kind of cruel and obscene act.

He certainly didn't do the "right" thing, not by a long shot. But if the scene did cause a severe stress moment or trauma, one can understand why he acted the way he did, and why later he went to a man he trusted to try and make this right and provide stability.

[Autumn]

If the school doesn't oust McQueary I have to wonder if there's more to his story. Did he pursue the issue and get rebuffed or lied to by the administration? That's one reason I could imagine they wouldn't be willing to fire him, knowing that he actually did the right thing and they didn't.

Or it may just be because he's under investigation still. The guys being charged with perjury haven't been fired either, right?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Autumn

The guys being charged with perjury haven't been fired either, right?

No, they resigned.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Here is my problem with assuming it is right to totally cast McQueary aside or assume the worst in him. He might have just freaked the fuck out. And I don't think that would have been that unusual of a reaction. All of us would like to think, and maybe we are correct, that in that position as a young man/woman we would have burst into the shower, punched Sandusky in the face, and dragged that kid away.

But maybe McQueary saw the sexual act being committed by an important man around his workplace, a man he thought he knew to be a great man when it comes to children, and he just freaked out. Not to mention what a traumatic scene it must have been to see that kind of cruel and obscene act.

He certainly didn't do the "right" thing, not by a long shot. But if the scene did cause a severe stress moment or trauma, one can understand why he acted the way he did, and why later he went to a man he trusted to try and make this right and provide stability.

I've had similar thoughts. This is gonna sound glib, but the entire culture of college football is based around old men grooming young men in how to respond to some generic flavor of 'adversity' ....which is not to imply it's inherently evil or based in the dark pedo arts or anything, just that dedicating your life towards playing and coaching football at it's penultimate level may result in 'ASK COACH' being your (practically programmed) response to pretty much any kind of trouble or trauma, especially if it involves the program.

None of which is meant to be an excuse for McQueary's actions.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

None of which is meant to be an excuse for McQueary's actions.

Nope. But if it is what happened, his dad should feel some serious blame over whatever happens to his son. (Not to mention future victims after the incident.) The son making poor choices after witnessing a traumatic event is one thing, but the father should have heard what the son said over the phone and told him, "go to Coach AND the cops."

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Nope. But if it is what happened, his dad should feel some serious blame over whatever happens to his son. (Not to mention future victims after the incident.) The son making poor choices after witnessing a traumatic event is one thing, but the father should have heard what the son said over the phone and told him, "go to Coach AND the cops."

Right, the father's reaction is a clear example of watching out for his son's career, not the kid.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Here is my problem with assuming it is right to totally cast McQueary aside or assume the worst in him. He might have just freaked the fuck out. And I don't think that would have been that unusual of a reaction. All of us would like to think, and maybe we are correct, that in that position as a young man/woman we would have burst into the shower, punched Sandusky in the face, and dragged that kid away.

But maybe McQueary saw the sexual act being committed by an important man around his workplace, a man he thought he knew to be a great man when it comes to children, and he just freaked out. Not to mention what a traumatic scene it must have been to see that kind of cruel and obscene act.

He certainly didn't do the "right" thing, not by a long shot. But if the scene did cause a severe stress moment or trauma, one can understand why he acted the way he did, and why later he went to a man he trusted to try and make this right and provide stability.

The inherent problem here is that McQueary was a 28 year old adult former football player. I get the "freaking out" argument, and I guess we all react in different ways, but my version of freaking out in that situation would be to beat Sandusky to a fucking pulp rather than call my dad and leave the scene of the crime doing nothing about it.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Ok, so on Saturday Penn State can take the field, have the band play, have the mascot run around & everybody can act like everything is all ok because they threw Joe Paterno out on his ass. You remember Paterno, right? He was the coach who personally condoned the rape of children!

It's funny that everybody that seems to have any opinion is 100% against Paterno. Yet when you look at the ESPN poll only 54% (currently) say he should have been fired.

Nebraska at Penn State just became more of a circus than it would have been with Paterno coaching. I feel bad for everybody who has to take that field & represent Penn State University.

All around it's just a sick & sad story.

I do not think that word means what you think it does...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Bolded a couple key points that you were missing, and added some that may help you better understand some of the outrage. Key among them that no, Sandusky was never kicked off campus. He was barred from bringing anymore kids on campus. He himself was still kicking it on campus, and using the team weight room (that he may have shared with minor students), months after everybody in the administration had given sworn testimony at a then ongoing grand jury investigation into whether he brutally raped multiple children on the Penn State grounds.

He was still bringing kids on campus. There are reports of him taking kids as late as 2007 to Penn State practices. He was a fixture on campus, at games, and at bowls. The school even paid for him to take some of his victims to these bowl games.

Serious question for those defending Joe Paterno. A trusted employee comes to your home and tells you he saw a former employee who had previous allegations against him raping a 10 year old child. Do you honestly just push it up the chain and not pursue this? Do you honestly just ignore this when you see the predator around with kids again? I want to know if this is the way you would personally react to hearing something like this.

[cartman]

Has anyone heard from Dr. Sak? He is probably the biggest PSU fan on the board.