Jerry Sandusky thread

[molson]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Legally he might be fine. It's the moral issue that everybody is taking an issue with.

He's also kind of the king of Penn St.....if high-level people are being arrested, and people are burning their diplomas and everyone associated with the school is humiliated and embarrassed, that's gotta fall on him too. Sure, he can't know everything, but he certainly has to make it is priority to know as much as possible. "Really McQueary, some kind of vague funny business in the shower, huh? I'm going to ask no follow up questions of you and I won't look into this at all. It's someone else's problem. That should cover me." I think the big guy has to do a bit more there. There's responsibilities that come with being the king.

Even aside from the fact that he may have been able to prevent a lot of child rape, he's also (much less importantly), a key figure responsible for the general status and reputation of Penn St. That comes with being king. If you're king, and your kingdom goes in the crapper, you're implicated no matter what. "It's not my problem" might work if you're an office secretary but when you're the most important guy in the organization, your responsibilities are a lot more fluid.

[Matthean]

Still grabbing from the Ben Jones's Twitter, here's Joe Pa leaving for practice with people still chanting his name.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by britrock88

My impression is something like this.

In 2002, Sandusky is off the coaching staff. A grad assistant notices him doing something funny with a kid in the locker room, and decides to tell JoePa. I imagine that the GA doesn't articulate this to JoePa with a whole lot of specificity. JoePa nonetheless takes the GA's account seriously, and tells his superiors something to the effect that Sandusky was doing something weird with a kid in the showers. At this point, he's fulfilled his legal obligation, and he may not know enough to feel comfortable alerting the authorities directly. So he trusts the administration to act properly.

Certainly this sequence doesn't show JoePa's reaction to be a good example. But at least in a sense, he did nothing wrong. Perhaps he should have picked up on the trail and contacted police after noticing that nothing came of him telling the athletic administration about the incident. Sandusky wasn't a member of JoePa's staff; JoePa responded appropriately to the single report he received from the GA (at least in the legal sense). So why does this fall on his head?

(Please feel free to correct my understanding of the facts. I'm not making this point about JoePa just to be stubborn; I just haven't seen a failing on his part that requires him to be separated from PSU, (and apparently he hasn't, either).)

McQueary went to Paterno's home distraught and told him he saw Sandusky having anal sex with a child in the showers at Penn State. This is in the Grand Jury testimony. This is also after a 1998 allegation of him being inappropriate in the showers that Paterno knew about.

Sandusky was able to use the facilities, was able to hold youth camps, was able to attend practices/games (with kids!), and continue to be a presence on the Penn State campus up until a week ago.

Joe Paterno likely had no legal failing. But he had an enormous moral failing. He was informed by someone he trusted that Sandusky was sexually assaulting kids in his locker room. He did not pursue this and did not do anything to make sure the kid was safe or that Sandusky lost his rights to be on campus.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by britrock88

My impression is something like this.

In 2002, Sandusky is off the coaching staff. A grad assistant notices him doing something funny with a kid in the locker room, and decides to tell JoePa.

Your first impression is already misguided. "Doing something funny with a kid in the locker room" could be Sandusky doing his best Chris Rock impression. By Paterno's own words, he was told of "something inappropriate" happening "in the shower". He needs to be separated from PSU because even if you believe that he did not receive all the facts, despite the GA insisting he gave them (and the grand jury found all of his testimony to be very credible), it is not appropriate for the leader of a football program, and the de-facto leader of the university, to hear that explanation and not follow up any further, and allow the potential offender to hang around his football program up until last week.

And if for some reason Paterno thought the GA was full of shit and lied about what he said about his longtime friend, why not only keep him on staff, but continue to promote him?

At this point, it doesn't seem like Paterno has any potential criminal problems. But I stress, at this point.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Legally he might be fine. It's the moral issue that everybody is taking an issue with.

No disagreement on his accountability on a personal level; I'm just not sure that justifies the president and AD bringing JoePa down with them.

Originally Posted by molson

Even aside from the fact that he may have been able to prevent a lot of child rape, he's also (much less importantly), a key figure responsible for the general status and reputation of Penn St. That comes with being king. If you're king, and your kingdom goes in the crapper, you're implicated no matter what.

Fair points. I have to wonder whether "if you're king, and your kingdom goes in the crapper, you're implicated no matter what" is an appropriate reaction, generally speaking.

[Ksyrup]

It's not just that this happened under his watch. It's that he had knowledge of the allegations and basically left it for others to handle, and knowing what the allegations were and what the "penalty" was, he didn't think anything further needed to be done. And, he let the guy continue to hang around his program.

I asked this question early on, and I still think it holds a clue to who knew what, when: Why did they decide that the appropriate action was to bar him from bringing kids on campus? The guy's a sexual predator in the general sense, it could have been a 10 year old boy that day and a 19 year old student tomorrow. I wonder if it's because they knew of repeated allegations/rumors about him and boys, and took only the most specific action they could to try to address the issue without raising too many red flags about why he no longer had an office, wasn't around the campus, what lead to his surprising early retirement, etc.? The idea that he left because he wasn't going to be JoePa's successor seems laughable now, doesn't it? JoePa was never going to leave, unless he died on the job.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I asked this question early on, and I still think it holds a clue to who knew what, when: Why did they decide that the appropriate action was to bar him from bringing kids on campus?

At some point they required him to conduct all of his anal raping off-campus. Sensible.

[Autumn]

Yes, the fact that they ever let Sandusky back on the campus is an obvious failing. Even if the investigation never went anywhere, even if they did all they had to do legally, there is no way Sandusky should not have been taken aside next time he showed up, told "I think it's a good idea you don't come back here," and that's the end of it. Paterno and company certainly have the informal authority on campus to make that happen, even if they wanted to do it quietly. I would still find that disgusting, but he didn't even do that.

That's why he should go. He didn't apparently even bother to find out who was being raped in his showers, notify the parents, make sure the kid got attention. And if you feel like that's someone else's job, fine. But Joe Pa certainly had the ability to make sure no one at that college ever saw this molester again and he did the exact opposite. I hope he, and a lot of other people, have a lot of trouble sleeping.

[Autumn]

This quote from that SI article encapsulates my thoughts well:

I waited several days to write this because my first thought was what I would do if someone did something like this to my child. My initial reaction -- and I'm fairly certain most parents would feel this way -- was homicidal. If someone molested my child, he would need the police to protect him from me. If I found him first, his death would be neither quick nor clean. I might spend the rest of my life in prison, though I'm not sure a right-thinking jury would convict me. Those were the first thoughts that popped into my head, and I'm not ashamed to say that. So why didn't Paterno, a parent and grandparent who claims to have dedicated his life to the kids, feel the same way? Why didn't he do everything in his power to ensure he helped protect a kid who couldn't protect himself? I thought if I waited a few days I could look at the situation through a more rational lens. I can't. Every time I think about it, I get more angry. And I pray that I can protect my kids from the monsters, because apparently not everyone feels the same responsibility. If Paterno would sit silently for years about this, he has no business representing a proud university. Fire him now, not in days or weeks as The New York Times is reporting. I don't give a damn how many games he's won.

Read more: Penn State must fire Joe Paterno amid Jerry Sandusky sex scandal - Andy Staples - SI.com

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

At some point they required him to conduct all of his anal raping off-campus. Sensible.

But my point is, he is/was a danger to the entire community as a sexual predator, not just to boys. If all you have is just this one allegation in a vaccuum, that is. If, OTOH, you have a secret file of documented complaints/allegations against the guy going back to the early 80s, all involving young boys, then you know how to tailor a remedy that should take care of the problem without raising any antennae...

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by britrock88

No disagreement on his accountability on a personal level; I'm just not sure that justifies the president and AD bringing JoePa down with them.



Fair points. I have to wonder whether "if you're king, and your kingdom goes in the crapper, you're implicated no matter what" is an appropriate reaction, generally speaking.

You are way off base here. Paterno has a responsibility as a human being to report something like this to the authorities and to follow up on it, up to and including not allowing a pedophile on the campus of a university (a state university no less). Instead, he did nothing and allowed this piece of shit to continually molest boys and wander around the PSU campus unobstructed.

Fuck Joe Paterno and his legacy.

[RainMaker]

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But my point is, he is/was a danger to the entire community as a sexual predator, not just to boys. If all you have is just this one allegation in a vaccuum, that is. If, OTOH, you have a secret file of documented complaints/allegations against the guy going back to the early 80s, all involving young boys, then you know how to tailor a remedy that should take care of the problem without raising any antennae...

Don't make me repeat myself.

They didn't *care* about protecting the community. They cared about protecting the Penn State brand.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But my point is, he is/was a danger to the entire community as a sexual predator, not just to boys. If all you have is just this one allegation in a vaccuum, that is. If, OTOH, you have a secret file of documented complaints/allegations against the guy going back to the early 80s, all involving young boys, then you know how to tailor a remedy that should take care of the problem without raising any antennae...

Agreed, I've just reached this level of horrific amusement with the whole Penn St response. I just imagine stuff like:

"Jerry, no more raping"

"AWWWW"

"And no more kids on campus!"

"WHAT??!"

"OK, that was too much, you can still bring kids to campus....just keep all the funny business at home."

[gkb]

McQueary went to Paterno's home distraught and told him he saw Sandusky having anal sex with a child in the showers at Penn State. This is in the Grand Jury testimony.

I haven't been following this closely enough to understand what I perceive as a moderate view many of the posters in this thread are taking. After reading the above, would any of you have reacted the same way McQueary did? Would any of you not tried to help that child (and I mean right THEN, not later)? Would any of you, after hopefully helping that child, not gone directly to the police?

[Autumn]

Yeah, I don't understand at all what happened there with McQueary. I would love to understand how he saw something and didn't intervene, and go directly to the police.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Don't make me repeat myself.

They didn't *care* about protecting the community. They cared about protecting the Penn State brand.

Protecting the community would've hurt the PSU brand short term, but clearly would've helped it long term, because they wouldn't have been nearly as bad off in 1998 or 2002 as they are now. I'm puzzled that they couldn't see that for their own self-interest, beyond the obvious moral obligations.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Penn State Nittany Lions' sex abuse scandal -- Jerry Sandusky was on campus last week, reports say - ESPN

Sandusky was on campus LAST WEEK? If that's true, Paterno has to be fired right now.

Didn't see the day specifically mentioned in that article, but Kim Jones on WFAN said players saw him on Friday during their 6am workout.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Protecting the community would've hurt the PSU brand short term, but clearly would've helped it long term, because they wouldn't have been nearly as bad off in 1998 or 2002 as they are now. I'm puzzled that they couldn't see that for their own self-interest, beyond the obvious moral obligations.

And really, if they exposed a child molester and helped bring him to justice....I don't know how much that even really hurts the brand. They might have been applauded.

I think it goes deeper, I touched on it a few pages back just about how people get these mindsets that can't be overcome. It's kind of a mild mental illness, or at least a thinking error. About keeping things in the organization, and not trusting outsiders or the authorities. And in this case they had the justification, "well, the police found out about it in 1999, and they didn't care, so that's not an option for us - let's just keep this quiet and try to keep him out of here. But not too hard - we don't want to raise red flags.".

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Even if the investigation never went anywhere, even if they did all they had to do legally, there is no way Sandusky should not have been taken aside next time he showed up, told "I think it's a good idea you don't come back here," and that's the end of it. Paterno and company certainly have the informal authority on campus to make that happen, even if they wanted to do it quietly. I would still find that disgusting, but he didn't even do that.

Even worse, PSU allowed him to run camps on campus with kids until 2009 full knowing his history. This is like officially sponsoring a crack addict with a crack camp.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

...

[Rizon]

Wow, that was way big ...

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Wow, that was way big ...

(add in inappropriate joke here)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Protecting the community would've hurt the PSU brand short term, but clearly would've helped it long term, because they wouldn't have been nearly as bad off in 1998 or 2002 as they are now. I'm puzzled that they couldn't see that for their own self-interest, beyond the obvious moral obligations.

I think you may be underestimating the level of pride (and self-righteousness) that Penn State has (well, had) in its "above reproach" image. Combine that with the thinking that I'm sure they had that Sandusky is "one of us," I wouldn't be surprised at all if they simply weren't able to make that distinction. And again, they're hoping that the kid never comes forward. I can envision someone saying in a meeting in 2002 that "most molested kids never report it. This probably will never come out if we don't say anything."

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Matthean

(add in inappropriate joke here)

I can find the Report Post button here, but not the Report Post in 10 Years button.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by gkb

I haven't been following this closely enough to understand what I perceive as a moderate view many of the posters in this thread are taking. After reading the above, would any of you have reacted the same way McQueary did? Would any of you not tried to help that child (and I mean right THEN, not later)? Would any of you, after hopefully helping that child, not gone directly to the police?

I have been thinking on this since the story broke and I really have no idea how McQuery could NOT do something when stumbling upon this awful situation in the locker room. Makes me seriously wonder how much McQuery had to do with this as well.....

[Scoobz0202]

How old was McQuery?

[RomaGoth]

@Ben_Jones88 Ben Jones
Penn State students planning a night time rally around Paterno's house tonight. No way that ends poorly.

@Ben_Jones88 Ben Jones
Should mention that it's a support rally

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I have been thinking on this since the story broke and I really have no idea how McQuery could NOT do something when stumbling upon this awful situation in the locker room. Makes me seriously wonder how much McQuery had to do with this as well.....

Part of me wonders if JoePa isn't telling the truth--that the result of the conversation with his dad is that McQueary used vague wording to help protect the coach and ease his own conscience when talking with Paterno, and then gave the full story to Joe's "superiors."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

How old was McQuery?

28?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

How old was McQuery?

Likely around 27-29 years old.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed, I've just reached this level of horrific amusement with the whole Penn St response. I just imagine stuff like:

"Jerry, no more raping"

"AWWWW"

"And no more kids on campus!"

"WHAT??!"

"OK, that was too much, you can still bring kids to campus....just keep all the funny business at home."

What do you guys want from me? We took away his keys.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Part of me wonders if JoePa isn't telling the truth--that the result of the conversation with his dad is that McQueary used vague wording to help protect the coach and ease his own conscience when talking with Paterno, and then gave the full story to Joe's "superiors."

When you say protect the coach, do you mean Paterno (shielding him from what happened) or Sandusky? Why would he want to protect Sandusky, or why would he feel the need to protect Paterno?

[RomaGoth]

Looks like Sandusky's hearing has been moved to December 7. Another month of this circus at the very least.

[Ben E Lou]

Playing career ended in '97, and this was 2002, so somewhere around there.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Logan

When you say protect the coach, do you mean Paterno (shielding him from what happened) or Sandusky? Why would he want to protect Sandusky, or why would he feel the need to protect Paterno?

I meant Paterno. I just think maybe he wouldn't want to "force" Paterno to report it by saying "anal rape."

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Logan

When you say protect the coach, do you mean Paterno (shielding him from what happened) or Sandusky? Why would he want to protect Sandusky, or why would he feel the need to protect Paterno?

I think what he is saying is that McQuery may have been protecting Paterno by not telling him everything or by mincing his words a little. I am of the opinion that McQuery had a lot to lose by saying anything about this situation since he clearly had plans to be on the coaching staff at some point. He made the wrong decision in any case.

[dawgfan]

I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that people in charge (and likely Paterno himself) didn't know about Sandusky being a predator well before 2002 - there was the '98 incident, and the odd timing of Sandusky "retiring" in '99 at a relative young age after being hyped as Paterno's successor for many years.

[stevew]

This is like the whole Vito/Flynn situation on the Sopranos. If it involved child rape, I mean.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Protecting the community would've hurt the PSU brand short term, but clearly would've helped it long term, because they wouldn't have been nearly as bad off in 1998 or 2002 as they are now. I'm puzzled that they couldn't see that for their own self-interest, beyond the obvious moral obligations.

Unless 1998 wasn't the first allegation or hint of something going on, but the first organized attempt to conceal a trail that might lead back into the 80s. Then it makes a lot more sense to try to bury it.

[RainMaker]

Lot of rumbling that Paterno is out, maybe by the weekend.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

How old was McQuery?

Does it matter? Is there a certain age where it is OK to see a 10 year old boy being raped that you are excused from:

A) Stopping the assault immediately

and

B) Calling the fucking police and having that monster locked up?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lot of rumbling that Paterno is out, maybe by the weekend.

Hard to believe that Paterno's career could end this way.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Hard to believe that Paterno's career could end this way.

Makes a person wonder what else has gone on at Penn St that he has covered up over his career. His willingness to let his d cordinator have his way with children has me wondering what he thought of silly recruiting/academic rules that were put in front of him.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Makes a person wonder what else has gone on at Penn St that he has covered up over his career.

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, and my concerns aren't just with Penn State.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by path12

Does it matter? Is there a certain age where it is OK to see a 10 year old boy being raped that you are excused from:

A) Stopping the assault immediately

and

B) Calling the fucking police and having that monster locked up?

Or at the very least call the police and leave an anonymous message about the incident.

Simply telling your father and then talking to Paterno about it is not enough.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Makes a person wonder what else has gone on at Penn St that he has covered up over his career. His willingness to let his d cordinator have his way with children has me wondering what he thought of silly recruiting/academic rules that were put in front of him.

A Penn State alumna I know said the football players had carte blanche to rape women's basketball players and that it happened a lot while she was there. So if that's true, that's one of the things that may be coming to light in the coming weeks.

[DeToxRox]

The Harrisburg ABC affiliate is reporting Joe resigned following a team meeting today according to a PSU forum. The anchor apparently made sure to mention is was unconfirmed of course.