Jerry Sandusky thread

[RainMaker]

Are fans threatening him? He kept the shit within the program like they'd want.

[Scoobz0202]

I know we have some Posnanski fans on here. I didn't know he was living in State College all season while writing a book on Paterno.

Joe Posnanski » Posts The End of Paterno «

[tarcone]

But why would he seek out a criminal defense attorney? He did all he was supposed to. He told his superiors. This is wrong. JoePa is being wrongly demonized, you meanies.

I imagine this will kill Paterno.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But why would he seek out a criminal defense attorney? He did all he was supposed to. He told his superiors. This is wrong. JoePa is being wrongly demonized, you meanies.

Regardless of my current opinion on Paterno, wouldn't he be an idiot to not get an attorney?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Regardless of my current opinion on Paterno, wouldn't he be an idiot to not get an attorney?

His son is an attorney, and has been (mis)handling most/some of his communication up until this point, for whatever that's worth. I think people are focusing the fact that he hired a lawyer specializing in criminal defense, which seems counter to the claim that he fulfilled his legal responsibility, and/or points towards forthcoming dirt. I certainly don't see it as any kind of surprise.....who wouldn't be at least consulting a criminal attorney at this point, if only to cover your ass? Likewise, while his son IS an attorney, he's also managed to stick his foot in his mouth, and sound like an idiot everytime anybody's talked to him during this short time period, so again I'm not surprised to see Paterno seeking someone else's help.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

I know we have some Posnanski fans on here. I didn't know he was living in State College all season while writing a book on Paterno.

Joe Posnanski » Posts The End of Paterno «

See? Posnanski understands what I've been trying to say about the need for a balanced viewpoint of Paterno.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Posnanski is too close and is killing some of his own credibility with nonsense like that piece.

Disagree 100%. He qualifies things repeatedly throughout, points out that he agrees with the fact that Paterno should not coach again and that Paterno had a responsibility here that he failed to live up to. But in general I think that what he has to say is very much worth reading and well thought out and well reasoned.

[molson]

Obviously Posnanski means "we" haven't heard from them, they haven't spoken out, since the grand jury testimony. I know people are reading all kinds of inferences into the grand jury report and making specific conclusions based on that, but you have to understand how something like that is put together, and what the purpose is. There's testimony taken for one purpose - to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. And we don't have the testimony, we have a summary, that's written for the purpose of supporting elements of a criminal charge. There's certainly a ton of questions still out there. A lot remains unclear. Enough is known for criminal charges against 2 people, and enough is known for most of Penn St. to step down or be fired. But that doesn't make every inference accurate. There's no cross-examination at a grand jury, no chance to explain yourself, no context, no bigger picture.

Of course, people could speak out now, and should, and I do hold that against them. I know lawyers love to tell people not to talk, ever, about anything. I'm a lawyer, and I think it's one the laziest, dumbest things lawyers do. There's no thought to it, there's no case-by-case analysis, nobody can ever talk, ever. I get lawyers want control, they don't want to react to new information, but they don't get PR, they don't the human need for explanation. Words would be good here.

[molson]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

And yet his "well reasoned" comments are factually incorrect just relating to the grand jury testimony.

You consider closed-hearing grand jury testimony "speaking to us."?

Edit: Didn't mean to put that in quotes, but obviously he meant "we" haven't heard from them. Obviously he knows there was grand jury testimony.

[Drake]

Isn't fondling by definition "something of a sexual nature"? Or is there a method of non-sexual fondling my first girlfriend never taught me?

Something of a sexual nature doesn't have to be rape. We know from subsequent context that rape was on the table.

Which, to me, makes Paterno's testimony in the line quoted vague, at best. Which would allow Posnanski's assertion that it's unclear what Paterno knew. Maybe it's just me, but when I think of girls being molested, I think rape. When I think of boys being molested, the first image that leaps to mind is bathtubs and bicycle shops, not anal penetration.

That's my bias. I can't say what Paterno's bias might have been if the words "anal rape" weren't explicitly expressed when McQueary was telling him what was up.

(I had a whole paragraph here about Paterno still clearly failing to do enough, moral failing blather and some other qualifications...but, you know what? Fuck it. It's been said enough times by everyone else, and I think Posnanski is dead on about that point -- people can't talk about this story without having to qualify how against child rape they are. And I just don't feel like playing that game. Unless you catch me raping kids in the shower, you can assume it goes without saying that I'm against child rape.)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

And yet his "well reasoned" comments are factually incorrect just relating to the grand jury testimony.

Except that's not true at all. He says what we've all said:

I don’t know anything about Paterno’s role in this except for what little was said about that in the horrifying and stomach-turning grand jury findings.

I think Joe Paterno had the responsibility as a leader and a man to stop the horrific rapes allegedly committed by Jerry Sandusky

Joe Paterno is responsible for what happens on his watch. Period.

I don't think its unfair or unreasonable to have all of those opinions but to feel like the piling on mentality of the media is disgusting, that Penn State went along with that piling on mentality and that while yes Paterno had responsibilities that he didn't live up to the university is actively scapegoating him to deflect from the institution and they should not be doing that, and that there are countless people who have been impacted by the positive things Paterno has done in his life.

And again I'm not defending Paterno, I'm not agreeing with Izulde's stances in this thread. But I think Posnanski's opinion is one worth reading, that's all.

[Drake]

I'm waiting for the grand jury to bring charges against Paterno's wife. Cuz, you know, husbands talk to wives about shit, and I can't believe his wife didn't know Sandusky was raping kids.

I mean, if we're going to start lobbing "failure to inform" nets by popular consensus, she had just as much responsibility to go to the police based on what her husband told her.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm against child rape

I'm glad we have you on record with that

[thesloppy]

I'm actually terrified of whenever stuff starts to trickle out from Sandusky's wife, adopted and foster kids. Dude surrounded himself with at-risk kids. Can we assume any of them were safe/unaffected?

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm actually terrified of whenever stuff starts to trickle out from Sandusky's wife, adopted and foster kids.

I'm sure some attorney has already gotten a hold of all of them and has "advised them not to say anything."....and of course billed for that advice.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Drake

Isn't fondling by definition "something of a sexual nature"? Or is there a method of non-sexual fondling my first girlfriend never taught me?

Something of a sexual nature doesn't have to be rape. We know from subsequent context that rape was on the table.

Which, to me, makes Paterno's testimony in the line quoted vague, at best. Which would allow Posnanski's assertion that it's unclear what Paterno knew. Maybe it's just me, but when I think of girls being molested, I think rape. When I think of boys being molested, the first image that leaps to mind is bathtubs and bicycle shops, not anal penetration.

That's my bias. I can't say what Paterno's bias might have been if the words "anal rape" weren't explicitly expressed when McQueary was telling him what was up.

(I had a whole paragraph here about Paterno still clearly failing to do enough, moral failing blather and some other qualifications...but, you know what? Fuck it. It's been said enough times by everyone else, and I think Posnanski is dead on about that point -- people can't talk about this story without having to qualify how against child rape they are. And I just don't feel like playing that game. Unless you catch me raping kids in the shower, you can assume it goes without saying that I'm against child rape.)

So what if he thought it was "just" fondling? That doesn't make it okay for him to just kick the can on up the chain and ignore the situation. He was widely considered the most powerful man at the university. He HAD to do more in this situation, no matter how little he knew of the specifics of what was going on.

In fact, if McQueary just told him "I saw him do something sexual to a kid" the fucking FIRST thing you ask if you are a reasonable human is "What exactly did you see?"

I too want to hear more details about what he knew and when he knew it, but as of right now, it looks like Joe handled this really, really badly. Badly enough to share a large part of the blame for what happened to many of these kids.

[molson]

Originally Posted by KWhit

So what if he thought it was "just" fondling?.

It's still probably bad no matter what, but that doesn't make it fair to incorrectly infer worse from incomplete information.

Edit: It's fair to speculate, it's a free country, it's fair to believe that Paterno knew about anal rape specifically,it's just not a known fact (at least not yet).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by molson

It's still probably bad no matter what, but that doesn't make it fair to incorrectly infer worse from incomplete information.

"Probably" bad? Any sexual act on a 10 or 11 year old kid is enough to set off every alarm bell in a reasonable person's head. Enough to follow up and figure out exactly what's going on.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Izulde

See? Posnanski understands what I've been trying to say about the need for a balanced viewpoint of Paterno.

I think Posnanski's point is while Paterno was fired for the correct reasons, he's being the escape goat for the wrong reasons. One thing I was thinking about the McQueary side of things is even if you rip on him for running away and telling his dad, both he and his father didn't think involving the police was a good idea. I can tell you what my Dad would say.

[molson]

Originally Posted by KWhit

"Probably" bad? Any sexual act on a 10 or 11 year old kid is enough to set off every alarm bell in a reasonable person's head. Enough to follow up and figure out exactly what's going on.

Sure, probably. Maybe Paterno was assured that the administration was going to take every step possible, including contacting the authorities, and he naively believed them. That's STILL probably not enough, but it's a better picture than has been painted. Maybe somebody told him the police were involved, but they were talking about 1999-2000 instead of 2002 and there was a misunderstanding. It's fair to have opinions on incomplete facts, but let's not pretend we know everything. We do know that the Grand jury didn't catch Paterno in any lies, as they did the two people who were charged.

[Butter]

I think Paterno partially made himself the scapegoat by not resigning right away. And he is mostly the scapegoat because he was the de facto head of Penn State football when these acts took place.

It's not unfair at all. I fail to see Posnanski's point. Maybe he has a point in that we don't know what he knew, etc. etc. But he totally deserves to be fired and to take any and all heat coming to him for what happened on his watch.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by KWhit

In fact, if McQueary just told him "I saw him do something sexual to a kid" the fucking FIRST thing you ask if you are a reasonable human is "What exactly did you see?"

I'd agree, but a reasonable human being wouldn't ask that question if he already knew what probably happened.

[Autumn]

People who head organizations get canned for lesser things all the time. Let's look at it this way -- even if Paterno knew nothing about any of this then he ran an organization about mentoring and training young people yet was unaware that there was a dangerous rapist being invited on campus for years and years and years. It's worse to think he knew that and allowed him to be there, but even if he didn't know that he failed in his responsibility to maintain a safe environment for the students he professes to serve.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Mark Madden will be live on the radio in a few minutes, available here to listen live

102.5 WDVE - 102.5 WDVE

[Drake]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I too want to hear more details about what he knew and when he knew it, but as of right now, it looks like Joe handled this really, really badly. Badly enough to share a large part of the blame for what happened to many of these kids.

I completely agree with you right up to this point. Please understand that I'm in no way apologizing for Paterno. He earned his firing.

What gets on my nerves is just the whole hysterical nature of the discussion that I've seen everywhere this has been discussed. Seriously, of all the boards I'm on, this thread has been -- by far -- the most reasoned and fair in its approach.

Paterno failed. The failure was systemic all the way up the chain of command, beginning with McQueary. But saying Paterno or anyone else shares an equal responsibility with Sandusky is, frankly, exactly the sort of howling Posnanski pointed out.

Because if that's true, if that's the standard by which we measure culpability, then those Al Quaeda folks who point at American civilians and say we're legitimate targets because we didn't stand up to stop our government from blowing up kids as collateral damage are exactly right. So when they catch one of us out there vicariously participating in the blowing up of that kid in their village that one time, they are (or should be, by the "I'd have stabbed him in the face to stop him" vigilante arguments) fully within the acceptable bounds of how we're interpreting acceptable legal and moral behavior. So we should just shut the fuck up about all this 9/11 shit, because we had it coming.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Drake

I completely agree with you right up to this point. Please understand that I'm in no way apologizing for Paterno. He earned his firing.

What gets on my nerves is just the whole hysterical nature of the discussion that I've seen everywhere this has been discussed. Seriously, of all the boards I'm on, this thread has been -- by far -- the most reasoned and fair in its approach.

Paterno failed. The failure was systemic all the way up the chain of command, beginning with McQueary. But saying Paterno or anyone else shares an equal responsibility with Sandusky is, frankly, exactly the sort of howling Posnanski pointed out.

Because if that's true, if that's the standard by which we measure culpability, then those Al Quaeda folks who point at American civilians and say we're legitimate targets because we didn't stand up to stop our government from blowing up kids as collateral damage are exactly right. So when they catch one of us out there vicariously participating in the blowing up of that kid in their village that one time, they are (or should be, by the "I'd have stabbed him in the face to stop him" vigilante arguments) fully within the acceptable bounds of how we're interpreting acceptable legal and moral behavior. So we should just shut the fuck up about all this 9/11 shit, because we had it coming.

I could be wrong here, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that we hijack an airplane and fly it into his house.

I think for the most part we're suggesting that people in positions of power (especially in organizations that work with children) have a responsibility to insure that those children are safe. So if there is even a rumor of an unsafe situation, it is unconscionable to simply kick the can on down the curb - especially when you are the most powerful person in an organization that claims to be doing things the "right way."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I could be wrong here, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that we hijack an airplane and fly it into his house.

I think for the most part we're suggesting that people in positions of power (especially in organizations that work with children) have a responsibility to insure that those children are safe. So if there is even a rumor of an unsafe situation, it is unconscionable to simply kick the can on down the curb - especially when you are the most powerful person in an organization that claims to be doing things the "right way."

I completely agree with you.

It's the "just as responsible as the guy who was ramming his dick into little kids" hyperbole where *I* start howling.

And if I hear the "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing" line one more time, I'm probably going to kick somebody's dog. Paterno and McQueary, at least, didn't do "nothing". They did what they were legally obligated to do. It was certainly not enough. They did the absolute bare minimum. It was not, I hope, what I would do in their shoes. Blah, blah, blah. (The fact that even trying to be non-hysterical and non-inflammatory requires me to write paragraphs where I have to pre-emptively defend my character, moral compass and ethical judgment is absurd.)

But some of the conversation I'm seeing isn't even happy to just squeal about failures. It insists on painting this as some sort of child molesting conspiracy. Paterno and McQueary and everyone else up the chain who didn't try to stop it were part of some child gang-bang ring, and Sandusky was really *their* pipeline to kids.

To me, that's the danger of excessive hyperbole and moral outrage howling, because the above paragraph is, I think, patently stupid, and anyone jumping to that sort of conclusion based on the evidence available, would suggest to me that they're deeply, deeply disturbed.

(I know, I know, it's like I'm just learning that the internet is full of idiots.)

[Ksyrup]

So what'd I miss since Wednesday afternoon?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Drake

But some of the conversation I'm seeing isn't even happy to just squeal about failures. It insists on painting this as some sort of child molesting conspiracy. Paterno and McQueary and everyone else up the chain who didn't try to stop it were part of some child gang-bang ring, and Sandusky was really *their* pipeline to kids.

While I agree that kind of talk is premature and risky to go down that trail at this point, The circumstances are such that it begs the question of who knew what and when. If all we're looking at is the 2002 incident in a vaccuum, it becomes harder to make that leap. When you add in the 1998 incident, and his surprise retirement, you have to wonder. It's hard for me to believe, frankly, that his retirement wasn't some coordinated effort to quietly push him out while trying to maintain some semblance of normalcy (giving him an office, etc, so it didn't look like anything was out of the ordinary with his retirement, for instance). Now, was that above Paterno, or did he know and go along with it, in his and the schools' "best interests" at the time, hoping nothing would ever come to light (and having taken care of the 1998 "problem").

Now, am I going to accuse or state as fact that's what happened? No. But on a messageboard, I have no problem aasking the question and giving my opinion. I think it's fair. Honestly, I'm kinda wondering what Bradley knew of any of this, and it wouldn't surprise me if, long after the season's over, he's no longer interim coach or any kind of coach at the school, we find out he heard the rumors and/or had some inkling of what the retirement was about. I mean, he worked under the guy and replaced him. Perhaps 5 or 6 people did a really good job of keeping it secret, but... it's fair to ask the questions, I think.

[molson]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I could be wrong here, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that we hijack an airplane and fly it into his house.

Not here, but a lot of people elsewhere are advocating similar fates for Paterno, and worse. Ya, maybe some of them aren't serious, and there's a lot of justified anger obviously, but the lynch mob mentality can be a little off-putting I guess. I think anger is just so seductive and it can become far more important to people than real justice, or real sympathy for victims, or real societal changes.

[KWhit]

The real idiots in this mess are all of the Penn State students who are rioting because Paterno was fired.

[Ksyrup]

I love the argument that the media and everyone else is so wrong because we aren't talking about the victims. Um... they are VICTIMS! First of all, some of them are young enough that they can't or shouldn't be publicized to begin with. But in what universe do you live where we out victims of sexual abuse and ignore the perpetrators/enablers? I must have heard half-dozen students use that as an excuse for rioting.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I love the argument that the media and everyone else is so wrong because we aren't talking about the victims. Um... they are VICTIMS! First of all, some of them are young enough that they can't or shouldn't be publicized to begin with. But in what universe do you live where we out victims of sexual abuse and ignore the perpetrators/enablers? I must have heard half-dozen students use that as an excuse for rioting.

Agreed, obviously the victims, their suffering and how they cared for moving forward are the most important part of the resolution in this story (outside of justice being served if/when Sandusky is convicted) but nobodies kids, even if they are now adults, need to be thrown into the media glare right now.

Attention is being placed right where it needs to be at the moment, the healing process for the victims needs to be administered a bit more discreetly.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The real idiots in this mess are all of the Penn State students who are rioting because Paterno was fired.

Bingo, they are Fxxking idiots. This is a huge cover up situation and everyone needs to go.

Penn St. is going to fall hard if they don't clean house and get the program back on track.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by A-Husker-4-Life

Bingo, they are Fxxking idiots. This is a huge cover up situation and everyone needs to go.

Penn St. is going to fall hard if they don't clean house and get the program back on track.

Well, they're going to fall hard either way. But I do tend to suspect that a thorough housecleaning will make the recovery from the fall a bit faster than it would be otherwise.

[molson]

I had totally forgotten about this story - the Red Sox had a very similar, but much less publicized scandal back in the day. I think it's a decent insight into what the culture of organizations was back then, and probably still is at Penn St, and plenty of other places. Everyone knew about it, and the guy was still employed, managers and players and owners response was to, at most, warn kids to stay away from the pervy clubhouse manager:

From Another Era And Another Sport, A Sex Abuse Scandal Still Inflicting Pain Today | ThePostGame

The WWF had a similar scandal, with ring announcer Mel Phillips. Everyone knew. I remember Jesse Ventura, not too long ago, bragging about how he used to warn some of the boys that would help setup the ring in different towns to "stay away from that guy". That was considered getting involved back then, that was something Ventura did that others were unwilling to do. It was considered progressive.

I'm not saying it's right, and like I've said, we've advanced in a positive direction in society. But the human flaws that cause these things are widespread. Monsters like Sardusky expose those flaws of humanity generally, but they also give us a chance to confront them. It's something less than evil though, that prevents people from doing more. It's something we've really had to learn as a society, and are still learning obviously.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by molson

The story out of Penn St was that he wanted to dedicate time to his charity. But then a year later he's the leading candidate at Virginia. Someone who was at Virginia said (in a recent article), that they were concerned that he was too connected to the charity back in PA, and they thought it would take too much of his time. I have a hunch that there were rumors about Sandusky that spread to Virginia and further.

There is a solid reason why the "best assistant coach in the country" and the heir apparent to Joe Paterno NEVER got another coaching job.

[Ksyrup]

I had never heard that Red Sox story before. Damn.

[gkb]

There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995

[cartman]

The Penn State attorney that reviewed the 1998 police report was also representing The Second Mile at that time.

A Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile

[Ben E Lou]

Good article:

Idolatry of Joe Paterno contributed to Penn State Sandusky scandal - Stewart Mandel - SI.com

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Penn State attorney that reviewed the 1998 police report was also representing The Second Mile at that time.

A Penn State Attorney Who Reviewed The 1998 Police Report Against Jerry Sandusky Also Represented The Second Mile

Oh wow. I will be shocked if the PA Bar doesn't begin an investigation of this.

You just know the longer this investigation goes, the more stuff we are going to learn that makes it obvious too many people knew or heard things that the way these incidents and his retirement were handled were not coincidental. They may never prove there was an express cover-up, but the facts are going to suggest it was. Whether it will directly implicate JoePa, who knows.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Oh wow. I will be shocked if the PA Bar doesn't begin an investigation of this.

You just know the longer this investigation goes, the more stuff we are going to learn that makes it obvious too many people knew or heard things that the way these incidents and his retirement were handled were not coincidental. They may never prove there was an express cover-up, but the facts are going to suggest it was. Whether it will directly implicate JoePa, who knows.

All of this begs the question:

Why the fuck are all of these people covering up for Sandusky? Why was he deemed worthy of all this secrecy?

[BYU 14]

Hearing on the radio now that the grand jury indictment indicates Sandusky was sending kids to some boosters who were into the same kind of sickness that he was.

I really hope this is not true, because if it is it takes it to a whole other level depravity. And how does this even come up in a conversation between Sandusky and boosters, WTF?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

They are covering up for PSU, Sandusky just happens to be the reason they have to cover up.

True but there seems to be a lot more going on than just PSU reputation here. If we are talking about a GA, iconic head coach, AD, University president, 2 janitors, numerous assistant coaches (i.e., Bradley has to know something too), a "dead" prosecutor, people at Second Mile, etc..etc...

I realize that some of this is just speculation at this point (we don't yet know of everyone involved) but things don't look to be getting any better. If anything, things will get worse as more and more people become linked to this.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Hearing on the radio now that the grand jury indictment indicates Sandusky was sending kids to some boosters who were into the same kind of sickness that he was.

I really hope this is not true, because if it is it takes it to a whole other level depravity. And how does this even come up in a conversation between Sandusky and boosters, WTF?

That was a rumor that was floating around, but I never heard it was in the indictment. I thought the entire indictment was released already? I believe this may be a rumor that may at this point be part of a new investigation. Unless I missed something, which considering the speed things have been developing the past week, I certainly might.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

They are covering up for PSU, Sandusky just happens to be the reason they have to cover up.

There are only two reasons this makes sense: (1) panic, or (2) they had knowledge going back years (into the 80s) and were afraid of having happen in 1998ish what is happening right now.

It's always possible the 1998 thing was the first time they heard any of this, and they thought it was so bad that they couldn't have it come out publicly, so they panicked and covered it up. But I tend to believe this had been going on for quite some time and there was enough smoke that someone should have done something earlier, and they felt like they had no choice but to bury it as best they could at the time.