PDA

View Full Version : Penn State



rojomojo915
July 24 2012, 02:56:23 PM
So here is one for the US folks (and possibly Euro's if the case has become that big).

Yesterday the NCAA publish what the punishment for Penn St would be: Link (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-nittany-lions-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998)

Full article text in spoiler

The NCAA has hit Penn State with a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998, the organization said Monday morning. The career record of Joe Paterno will reflect these vacated records, the NCAA said.

Penn State also must reduce 10 initial and 20 total scholarships each year for a four-year period.

The NCAA revealed the sanctions as NCAA president Mark Emmert and Ed Ray, the chairman of the NCAA Executive Committee and Oregon State's president, spoke at a news conference in Indianapolis at the organization's headquarters.

"In the Penn State case, the results were perverse and unconscionable. No price the NCAA can levy will repair the grievous damage inflicted by Jerry Sandusky on his victims," Emmert said, referring to the former Penn State defensive coordinator convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse last month.

The NCAA said the $60 million was equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA ordered Penn State to pay the penalty funds into an endowment for "external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university."

"We had our backs to the wall on this," Penn State president Rodney Erickson told the Centre Daily Times of Pennsylvania in an interview later Monday, saying the school accepted the penalties to avoid the so-called "death penalty" that could have resulted in the suspension of the football program for at least one year. "We did what we thought was necessary to save the program."

In response to Erickson's comments, Ray, speaking to ESPN.com's Adam Rittenberg, said the NCAA did not threaten Penn State with the death penalty, and that the sanctions issued were unanimously agreed upon by the NCAA Executive Committee.

"It was a unanimous act," Ray said earlier during the news conference. "We needed to act."

In interview with ESPN's John Barr, Erickson reiterated his fear of the death penalty, not handed down since SMU was forced to drop football in 1987 because of extra benefits violations. The school decided not to play the next season, either, as it tried to regroup.

"The alternative was really far worse," Erickson said in the interview with ESPN. "The [death sentence] was a possibility. Various numbers were tossed around, four being the highest. The [death sentence] is traumatic for everyone. It's traumatic for the student-athletes involved. It's traumatic for the university. It's traumatic for the university, particularly smaller ones, kind of like we are here in central Pennsylvania."

"That's simply the answer," Erickson said. "I thought it was better to go down this path than face a multiple-year death penalty."

With the wins from 1998-2011 vacated, Paterno moves from 409 wins to 298, dropping him from first to 12th on the winningest NCAA football coach list. Penn State also will have six bowl wins and two conference championships erased.

The Penn State athletic program also will be put on a five-year probation and must work with an athletic-integrity monitor of NCAA's choosing. Any current or incoming football players are free to immediately transfer and compete at another school.

"There is incredible interest in what will happen to Penn State football," Ray said at the news conference. "But the fundamental chapter of this horrific story should focus on the innocent children and the powerful people who let them down."

The Big Ten fully supports the NCAA's actions, saying in a news release it is condemning and censuring the school for "egregiously" failing on "many levels -- morally, ethically and potentially criminally."

The conference also will place the university on a five-year probation to run concurrently with the NCAA's and has declared the football program ineligible for the Big Ten championship game for the four years in which the NCAA banned the Nittany Lions from postseason play.

Penn State's proceeds from Big Ten bowl revenues from the four years, amounting to an estimated $13 million, will be allocated "to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children," the conference said.

Penn State, in a statement released less than an hour after the NCAA sanctions were revealed, said it will accept them and that the "ruling holds the university accountable for the failure of those in power to protect children and insists that all areas of the university community are held to the same high standards of honesty and integrity."

"The tragedy of child sexual abuse that occurred at our university altered the lives of innocent children," Erickson said in the news release. "Today, as every day, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims of Mr. Sandusky and all other victims of child abuse."

Adam Taliaferro, a former player for Paterno who has since recovered from a spinal cord injury he suffered in a 2000 game, expressed frustration in a post on Twitter.

"NCAA says games didn't exist," tweeted Taliaferro, who was elected to Penn State's board of directors in May. "I got the metal plate in my neck to prove it did..I almost died playing 4 PSU..punishment or healing?!? #WeAre."

The penalties came a day after Penn State removed its Paterno statue outside Beaver Stadium, a decision that came 10 days after a scathing report by former FBI director Louis J. Freeh found that Paterno, with three other top Penn State administrators, had concealed allegations of child sexual abuse made against Sandusky.

The Freeh report concluded their motive was to shield the university and its football program from negative publicity.

"Today we receive a very harsh penalty from the NCAA and as head coach of the Nittany Lions football program, I will do everything in my power to not only comply, but help guide the university forward to become a national leader in ethics, compliance and operational excellence," Penn State football coach Bill O'Brien said in the statement. "I knew when I accepted the position that there would be tough times ahead. But I am committed for the long term to Penn State and our student athletes."

By vacating 112 Penn State victories from 1998-2011, the sanctions cost Paterno 111 wins. Penn State finished last season 1-3 with Tom Bradley as coach after Paterno was fired in November, days after Sandusky was charged.

Former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden will now hold the top spot in the NCAA record book with 377 major-college wins. Paterno will be credited with 298 wins. Vacated wins are not the same as forfeits -- they don't count as losses or wins for either school.

"I didn't want it to happen like this," Bowden told The Associated Press. "Wish I could have earned it, but that's the way it is."

The late Grambling State coach Eddie Robinson has the overall NCAA Division I record with 408 wins.

The Paterno family released a statement Monday afternoon.

"The sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family or those who knew him best," the statement said. "That the president, the athletic director and the board of trustees accepted this unprecedented action by the NCAA without requiring a full due process hearing before the Committee on Infractions is an abdication of their responsibilities."

The scholarship reductions mean that Penn State's roster will be capped at 65 scholarship players within a couple of seasons. The normal scholarship limit for major college football programs is 85. Playing with 20 fewer is crippling to a program that tries to compete at the highest level of the sport.

The NCAA is considering waiving scholarship limits for programs to which Penn State players transfer, provided they reduce proportionately in the next year. For example, the limit is 25 new scholarships per year to a total of 85 scholarships. If the limits are waived in 2012-13 to accommodate one Penn State student-athlete who wishes to transfer to a particular school already at the limits, in 2013-14 the school will be limited to 24 new scholarships and 84 total scholarships.

The NCAA took unprecedented measures with the decision to penalize Penn State without the due process of a Committee on Infractions hearing, bypassing a system in which it conducts its own investigations, issues a notice of allegations and then allows the university 90 days to respond before a hearing is scheduled.

After the hearing, the Infractions Committee then usually takes a minimum of six weeks, but it can take upward of a year to issue its findings.

But in the case of Penn State, the NCAA used the Freeh report -- commissioned by the school's board of trustees -- instead of its own investigation.

"We cannot look to NCAA history to determine how to handle circumstances so disturbing, shocking and disappointing," Emmert said in the statement. "As the individuals charged with governing college sports, we have a responsibility to act. These events should serve as a call to every single school and athletics department to take an honest look at its campus environment and eradicate the 'sports are king' mindset that can so dramatically cloud the judgment of educators."

A former Committee on Infractions chairman and current Division I Appeals Committee member told ESPN.com's Andy Katz on Sunday the NCAA's penalizing of an institution and program for immoral and criminal behavior also breaks new ground.

The former chair, who has been involved with the NCAA for nearly three decades, said he couldn't use his name on the record because the case could come before him and the committee he still serves on in an appeals process.

"This is unique and this kind of power has never been tested or tried," the former chair said. "It's unprecedented to have this extensive power. This has nothing to do with the purpose of the infractions process. Nevertheless, somehow (the NCAA president and executive board) have taken it on themselves to be a commissioner and to penalize a school for improper conduct."

The chair said that the NCAA was dealing with a case that is outside the traditional rules or violations. He said this case does not fall within the basic fundamental purpose of NCAA regulations.

"The purpose of the NCAA is to keep a level playing field among schools and to make sure they use proper methods through scholarships and et cetera," the chair said. "This is not a case that would normally go through the process. It has nothing to do with a level playing field. It has nothing to do with whether Penn State gets advantages over other schools in recruiting or in the number of coaches or things that we normally deal with."

The NCAA, the chair said, had never gotten involved in punishing schools for criminal behavior.

"The criminal courts are perfectly capable of handling these situations," the former chair said. "This is a new phase and a new thing. They are getting into bad behavior that are somehow connected to those who work in the athletic department.

"This is an important precedent. And it should be taken with extreme care."

The NCAA, heavily criticized for its sometimes-ponderous pace in deciding penalties as scandals mounted at Ohio State, Auburn, USC and elsewhere, acted with unprecedented swiftness in arriving at the sanctions for a team that is trying to start over with a new coach and a new outlook.

Emmert had put the Penn State matter on the fast track. Other cases that were strictly about violating the NCAA rulebook have dragged on for months and even years. There was no sign that the infractions committee so familiar to college sports fans was involved this time around as Emmert moved quickly, no doubt aided by the July 12 release of the report by Freeh and what it said about Paterno and the rest of the Penn State leadership.

The investigation focused partly on university officials' decision not to go to child-welfare authorities in 2001 after a coaching assistant told Paterno that he had seen Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the locker room showers. Penn State officials already knew about a previous allegation against Sandusky by that time, from 1998.

The leaders, the report said, "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the university's board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large."

Sandusky is awaiting sentencing after being convicted last month of sexually abusing 10 boys over 15 years.

In a cell phone conversation on Monday afternoon, Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola told ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack, that Amendola "is disappointed that the NCAA has taken such harsh action before a full and complete legal investigation has occurred."

Amendola, who has yet to speak to Sandusky in reaction to the NCAA sanctions, told Cossack he "is also disappointed in the Penn State Board of Trustees agreeing to a consent decree based on allegations which are currently unsubstantiated involving Joe Paterno and other Penn State administrators."

Emmert had warned Penn State last fall that the NCAA would be examining the "exercise of institutional control" within the athletic department, and said it was clear that "deceitful and dishonest behavior" could be considered a violation of ethics rules. So, too, could a failure to exhibit moral values or adhere to ethics guidelines.

The Freeh report also said that Penn State had "decentralized and uneven" oversight of compliance issues -- laws, regulations, policies and procedures -- as required by the NCAA.

Recent major scandals, such as improper payments to the family of Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush while he was at Southern California, and players at Ohio State trading memorabilia for cash and tattoos, have resulted in bowl bans and the loss of scholarships.

Under NCAA rules covering postseason bans, players are allowed to transfer without sitting out a season as long as their remaining eligibility is shorter than or equal to the length of the ban.

I understand that the football program was the cause of this, but Im not 100% sure I agree that the NCAA should of been the ones to intervene and impose penalties. Jerry Sandusky is now locked in a cell and never going to see the light of day again and criminal charges are being brought upon others that were involved in the case.

And here is another question, if Joe Paterno was still alive, would he be facing criminal charges. I feel like one of the main reasons that the NCAA is intervening is because there will be no punishment for Joe Pa and that if he was still alive the whole NCAA side of the process would of gone down a different road.

Ophichius
July 24 2012, 03:18:09 PM
This seems like a mistake on the part of the NCAA. Penalizing not only the college, but the football players who played the game is inflicting a lot of collateral damage in the name of revenge. I believe a more appropriate measure would have been some limited form of economic sanctions combined with striking those involved from any record.Remove the perpetrators from the records completely. Physically chisel the names off the trophies.

It's a symbolic act in the end, disowning monsters. Do it right, obliterate their names from the history of the sport, but don't take those who were uninvolved with them.

-O

spasm
July 24 2012, 03:25:18 PM
Are they doing all this just because he diddle little boys? Seems excessive and pointlessly vindictive against people who had nothing to do with said diddling. Unless Penn state did something else I missed?

Fuggin
July 24 2012, 03:44:18 PM
Are they doing all this just because he diddle little boys? Seems excessive and pointlessly vindictive against people who had nothing to do with said diddling. Unless Penn state did something else I missed?

Penn State knowingly hid the crimes as far back as 1998 (or 2001...depending on what you read). Maybe because you don't have kids, you are apathetic about it, but I find it atrocious that people looked the other way to protect Penn State's image.

Tarminic
July 24 2012, 03:45:54 PM
Are they doing all this just because he diddle little boys? Seems excessive and pointlessly vindictive against people who had nothing to do with said diddling. Unless Penn state did something else I missed?
Recently, a report was released that concluded that many of the high-level people at Penn State covered up the abuse because it would destroy the school's reputation. At that point, it's no longer the problem of a single individual who committed a crime but a culture that valued the football program's reputation more than the safety of children involved in the program. As such, it can be argued that it falls within the NCAA's interest to penalize as it represents a problem with the institution itself.

More info on the report: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/12/156654260/was-there-a-coverup-report-on-penn-state-scandal-may-tell-us


"The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest."

spasm
July 24 2012, 03:59:37 PM
Well I didn't know about the cover up. Fuck 'em then.

indi
July 24 2012, 04:00:44 PM
As I see it, there is the directly guilty party (the abuser) and the people who are equally guilty despite not having committed the abuse (the people that covered it up). They might even be more guilty in the sense that covering it up probably enabled the perp/perv to continue and damage other people for life.

It is sad that the players who did nothing to deserve this in any way are now penalized, but I don't see how it can be helped. It is a good thing that the NCAA has made it clear this is unacceptible behaviour - someone has to take responsibility, in a way. Hopefully this means the culture Tarm refers to will change as well, since there will be nothing to be 'gained' anymore by covering up.

(One Dutch cabinet collectively stepped down only a few months before fulfilling their term when an investigation showed Dutch errors of judgement concerning the genocide of Srebrenica. This cabinet had nothing to do with that, but someone had to take responsibility and show - even if only symbolically - that something is not ok and will not just be forgotten. That was strange to see, yet I find myself agreeing. Just as I find myself agreeing to this punishment.)

Nicho Void
July 24 2012, 04:52:24 PM
I have to wonder if there isn't a better solution. The NCAA has essentially fucked any current or incoming Penn state football players, not to mention the reputation of any players from 199(8)? - now (hey man, you played for Penn? What are you, a pedophile?). Sure, those players are allowed to transfer, but the imposed fine along with the inevitable slashed revenue from the program in the coming years is going to have far reaching effects on the general student population as a whole.

Why not just fire everyone from the top down and replace the program? Burn the guilty, spare the innocent.

spasm
July 24 2012, 06:32:07 PM
I have to wonder if there isn't a better solution. The NCAA has essentially fucked any current or incoming Penn state football players, not to mention the reputation of any players from 199(8)? - now (hey man, you played for Penn? What are you, a pedophile?). Sure, those players are allowed to transfer, but the imposed fine along with the inevitable slashed revenue from the program in the coming years is going to have far reaching effects on the general student population as a whole.

Why not just fire everyone from the top down and replace the program? Burn the guilty, spare the innocent.

Firing them isn't much of a punishment and deterrent to any other programs doing this. They didn't cover it up to protect their jobs, they covered it up to protect the football program.

Nicho Void
July 24 2012, 08:06:39 PM
I have to wonder if there isn't a better solution. The NCAA has essentially fucked any current or incoming Penn state football players, not to mention the reputation of any players from 199(8)? - now (hey man, you played for Penn? What are you, a pedophile?). Sure, those players are allowed to transfer, but the imposed fine along with the inevitable slashed revenue from the program in the coming years is going to have far reaching effects on the general student population as a whole.

Why not just fire everyone from the top down and replace the program? Burn the guilty, spare the innocent.

Firing them isn't much of a punishment and deterrent to any other programs doing this. They didn't cover it up to protect their jobs, they covered it up to protect the football program.
So ban them from NCAA football for life. Sends a stronger message than nullifying some wins in record books. I mean, what stops these coaches from leaving Penn and getting jobs elsewhere?

Zeekar
July 24 2012, 08:28:23 PM
I have to wonder if there isn't a better solution. The NCAA has essentially fucked any current or incoming Penn state football players, not to mention the reputation of any players from 199(8)? - now (hey man, you played for Penn? What are you, a pedophile?). Sure, those players are allowed to transfer, but the imposed fine along with the inevitable slashed revenue from the program in the coming years is going to have far reaching effects on the general student population as a whole.

Why not just fire everyone from the top down and replace the program? Burn the guilty, spare the innocent.

Firing them isn't much of a punishment and deterrent to any other programs doing this. They didn't cover it up to protect their jobs, they covered it up to protect the football program.
So ban them from NCAA football for life. Sends a stronger message than nullifying some wins in record books. I mean, what stops these coaches from leaving Penn and getting jobs elsewhere?

You're thinking they will get hired now with this sort of reputation. I for one really doubt any school would be willing to put up with such amount of bad publicity.

FourFiftyFour
July 24 2012, 11:30:57 PM
I have to wonder if there isn't a better solution. The NCAA has essentially fucked any current or incoming Penn state football players, not to mention the reputation of any players from 199(8)? - now (hey man, you played for Penn? What are you, a pedophile?). Sure, those players are allowed to transfer, but the imposed fine along with the inevitable slashed revenue from the program in the coming years is going to have far reaching effects on the general student population as a whole.

Why not just fire everyone from the top down and replace the program? Burn the guilty, spare the innocent.

Firing them isn't much of a punishment and deterrent to any other programs doing this. They didn't cover it up to protect their jobs, they covered it up to protect the football program.
So ban them from NCAA football for life. Sends a stronger message than nullifying some wins in record books. I mean, what stops these coaches from leaving Penn and getting jobs elsewhere?

You're thinking they will get hired now with this sort of reputation. I for one really doubt any school would be willing to put up with such amount of bad publicity.

This right here will be the most damaging aspect of this whole debacle. People with Penn State degrees just saw the value of their degree plummet. The first thing someone will think of after seeing Penn State when viewing a resume or application will be the Sandusky disaster.

The value of college degrees are based on the brand created by the University. This case has crushed all the brand equity Penn State spent decades building up.

If Paterno was seeking to protect the football program or the school he failed miserably.

inora aknaria
July 24 2012, 11:42:49 PM
I feel like the ncaa ruling is a great way of saying covering shit up is counter productive, it will burn you worse if you cover it up then expose it now. If this were to happen in the future I would hope the response is: we have to protect our image so let's out the abuser immediately.

tapatalk

DevilDude
July 25 2012, 12:43:15 AM
I have to wonder if there isn't a better solution. The NCAA has essentially fucked any current or incoming Penn state football players, not to mention the reputation of any players from 199(8)? - now (hey man, you played for Penn? What are you, a pedophile?). Sure, those players are allowed to transfer, but the imposed fine along with the inevitable slashed revenue from the program in the coming years is going to have far reaching effects on the general student population as a whole.

Why not just fire everyone from the top down and replace the program? Burn the guilty, spare the innocent.

Firing them isn't much of a punishment and deterrent to any other programs doing this. They didn't cover it up to protect their jobs, they covered it up to protect the football program.
So ban them from NCAA football for life. Sends a stronger message than nullifying some wins in record books. I mean, what stops these coaches from leaving Penn and getting jobs elsewhere?

You're thinking they will get hired now with this sort of reputation. I for one really doubt any school would be willing to put up with such amount of bad publicity.

This right here will be the most damaging aspect of this whole debacle. People with Penn State degrees just saw the value of their degree plummet. The first thing someone will think of after seeing Penn State when viewing a resume or application will be the Sandusky disaster.

The value of college degrees are based on the brand created by the University. This case has crushed all the brand equity Penn State spent decades building up.

If Paterno was seeking to protect the football program or the school he failed miserably.

I think there's a big disconnect here, the NCAA isn't punishing any one individual, that's not really their mandate. The NCAA is charged with policing fairness and ethics within college sports, what they're doing with this ruling is punishing the institution that is the Penn State football program. The whole reason sandusky wasn't caught for so many years was due to the emphasis the university placed on winning at football over things such as scholastic achievement or implementing regulations on ethics (no seriously, Penn State has as of this writing still not implemented regulated ethics reforms in it's sports program mandated in the mid 90's).

As to any stigma on the players or graduates of Penn State, well, the NCAA is responsible for precisely none of it. Jerry Sandusky already did the damage and nothing's going to change that.

Rudolf Miller
July 25 2012, 12:58:04 AM
I feel bad for the people who got caught up in the aftermath.

I don't feel bad for the unkind treatment Sandusky will receive in prison.

As an extension of the punishment, I believe current players are spared by being allowed to freely transfer without penalty.

Fuggin
July 25 2012, 01:10:40 AM
As an extension of the punishment, I believe current players are spared by being allowed to freely transfer without penalty.

Yes...current players can transfer without the usual 1-year sit out penalty.

Sponk
July 25 2012, 01:44:12 AM
Looks like the reporter who broke this won a Pulitzer (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/17/reporter-sara-ganim-who-won-a-pulitzer-for-breaking-sandusky-story.html) for it.

Reed Tiburon
July 25 2012, 01:50:52 AM
Here are the things I think

1. "This has nothing to do with the NCAA" etc: Yes and no. Yes, the NCAA is corrupt as shit and the penalties are motivated in part by a need to assert their own relevance. But the cover-up was 100% because of the football program and its perceived importance. When McQueary heard those rhythmic slapping sounds of kiddy diddling, did he go to the president of the university? The police? No, he went to Paterno, the football coach - as a poster on another board put it, "a glorified gym teacher". It's obvious that at places like Penn State, and Alabama, and Auburn, and so on - football is WAY THE FUCK too important.

2. "This only hurts people who had nothing to do with it": The NCAA was very clear in their press conference (if anyone else watched it). The penalties are intended to change the culture, to make sure this NEVER FUCKING HAPPENS AGAIN. They are explicitly intended to de-emphasize football, and there's gonna be collateral damage. TBH, if you are a rabid Penn State booster/alum/student, you are part of the problem. You helped create the culture that tolerated this coverup. Hard to have sympathy for idiots who riot and burn cars when their coach gets fired for covering up child rape. And fuck JoePa and his precious win record too.

The players can transfer without penalty. If you're going to feel bad for anyone, feel bad for the academic programs that are going to get cut because of the huge drop in football revenue.

3. You best believe that if any other university is covering up ANYTHING, they are on the horn to the NCAA right now. But...

4. The sanctions didn't go far enough. The problem is cultural and it is endemic in US college sports, and the sanctions probably won't change that. I would have preferred the death penalty tbh. It's the only thing that could have gotten the message across fully - revere sports above all else, and we'll take your sport away. On the PSU message boards, they're already talking about "staying strong" and "ten years from now" and all this. Football football football, and everybody's forgotten about the kids. Should have killed the program.

5. For you filthy foreigners, Penn State != Penn, they're two different universities.

FourFiftyFour
July 25 2012, 04:46:12 AM
Was thinking about this with my PR/CrisisComms hat on and I came to the conclusion that the fastest and probably most sincere way for Penn State to recover would to voluntarily discontinue their participation in the NCAA on a temp basis.

They'd lose a shit ton of students athletes not to mention money but they would gain credibility almost instantly and then again when they reenter competition 4 or 5 years later.

It's not a fully thought out idea but over compliance seems to be the best tactic here.

FourFiftyFour
July 25 2012, 04:52:30 AM
To reeds point several of my friends think nothing of this scandal other than
"This is great for purdue/U of I."

The simple fact is that college sports touch the lives of more people than sandusky's victims do. People know they should care but once the media coverage dies down hardly anyone will talk about the victims. On the other hand every Saturday night in the Midwest will be filled with how much Penn State sucks.

On a tangent I still hate the NCAA and hope this causes their downfall or at least reform.

Keorythe
July 25 2012, 08:32:52 AM
The NCAA ruling does seem pretty harsh. It destroys any regular player's accomplishments and they can no longer claim wins. This may in fact snowball into having a number of innocents lose their record and award statuses. There could have been other ways of going about this, namely striking the names of the three main perpetrators from all records.

First let me establish my creds here. Like many psych. degree holders, I ended up working as a Child Protective Services Investigator. So the ins and outs of how these things work are pretty well known to me.

Second, let me state that I am extremely disappointed by former FBI Director Freech. I've already been through a dog and pony show once. When the FLDS polygamy case down in Eldorado, it should have been an open and shut case. Our director at the time decided to make it a media event and changed our policies and usual methods of doing things to maximize the story potential. This backfired...badly. The male population was sorely unattended and almost forgotten, the young females ended up bottling up when investigators were given orders to seek specific connections to Jeffs instead of our usual chain of evidence method (longer but established a solid chain) and they loved Jeffs, investigators were pulled in from all over having to dump or put on hold ongoing cases in their areas, etc etc. The entire thing was a circus, followed by lawsuits, and a LOT of missed opportunities. The report released by Freech is terrible in it's presentation of the facts. This report was intended for the greatest media impact and aggrandizement of Freech while ignoring basic procedures. So lets break this down.

1. That the janitors saw anything but refused to report it out of fear for their jobs is irrelevant to the case against Penn State. That the janitors would have been protected by whistleblowing laws or that their possible termination was pure speculation is ignored. However, it makes for storytelling to boost the byline. I also hope these guys did lose their jobs. As the ones who saw more of the sexual acts performed than anyone else, I'm frankly shocked that they didn't even try. Also note that they discussed informing Paterno instead of going to the police. This emphasizes the obsolete method of reporting available at the time.

2. Lack of empathy for the victim or protection of the victims is not something that that Penn State officials should care about. If charges are dropped and/or lack of evidence then the case is closed. No further action is necessary. There is no victim as one could not be proven. We'll get to the importance of this further on.

3. Paterno did everything right. REDACTED As a staff member, if you receive second hand information, especially information that starts with "I'm not sure what I saw", then you either report it directly to the police or push it upstairs depending on your policy. You job isn't to start firing people at the drop of an accusation. It's to get the information to the people who need to know so that they start an investigation. Especially if they are high ranking individuals. Again I'll get to the importance of this further on. And yes this is a major point. Additionally the report details Paterno talking about an advanced plan with Curley, Shultz, and Spainer. However, the details within the actual report body sound more like he was advised of what was happening and did not give any input nor actually consulted with. Paterno specifically asked about the first reported incident and if it was confirmed "horsing around". The response was "yes" from both the Curley and Shultz.

4. The Pennsylvania Dept. of Family Welfare (Child Protective Services would fall under this) found nothing and I quote, "The investigators told Sandusky there was no criminal behavior established [and] that the matter was closed as an investigation." Now take in mind that an investigation centers around the child in question. The investigator is trained to look for red flags and keywords during the interview with the child. If anything pops up then the investigation is taken up a notch, and the child will be placed into protective custody and a special child pyschologist is brought in for a much more specific interview (involves anatomically correct dolls and much more intimate but specific questions). Interviews with the accused and others only really helps to establish times, dates, and corroborating evidence. However, eyewitness testimony is a fickle beast. Also remember that CPS is a separate State entity and Penn State has no influence over them.

5. The initial reporting of what McQueary saw to Paterno was vague and lacked details. He did not specifically state what he saw and only noted it as "sexual in nature". Had he actually told Paterno that he had seen Sandusky slamming the kids asshole, things would probably have gone much much differently. Note that McQueary was a graduate assistant at the time and did have something to gain. Additionally, it was already established by the 1998 incident that Sandusky had a history of horseplay with kids but no illegal behavior. This sets a precedent for not taking this as serious as it was. Also note that instead of going to the police or using the anonymous reporting system already in place, McQueary first talked to his father and then reported it to Paterno. Furthermore, the term "horsing around" was again used by Shultz and Curley when describing the 2001 incident to the Attorney General.

6. Curley, Shultz, and Spainer were blatantly guilty of not reporting this to CPS. While the evidence was very thin, it wasn't their place to make that kind of call. They failed in their responsibilities and the road to hell is paved in the best intentions. Regardless of how thin the evidence which they probably believed would lead to the same outcome, the President of the Univ. should have at least involved the appropriate authorities much earlier and let an investigation proceed in 2001. Luckily Shultz and Curley, the largest offenders, were indeed charged.

Ok so, this seems kind of cold doesn't it? Yes, but it's like that for a reason. First of all, accusations of child molestation are a life changing event whether they are true or not. Friends and family will either support or distance themselves from you regardless if you are absolved by a court. It is for these reasons that child molestation investigations are kept under wraps with identities kept from as many as possible. And false accusations are EXTREMELY common. My workload was 80% dealing with separating couples making accusations of child abuse. Along the way, some people were ruined over allegations that proved to be false further down the line.

The higher up the totem pole, the more common these become especially as a form of blackmail or just pure malice and not just child abuse. That seems to be all to common for famous people. Imagine yourself should allegations be made against you and the incident to be made very public. Again, true or false it wouldn't matter and you might lose friends or employment over the incident. For someone like Sandusky who was that far up the chain, utmost care would need to be taken in the event that the accusations proved to be false. As the investigator determined there was no criminal behavior, the case should have been dropped and everyone should have forgotten about it. But even in this case, the people involved had changed attitudes about Sandusky despite the fact that the investigator had given him a clear slate. They initially questioned Sandusky's association with Penn State and Second Mile. Again, this was after he was cleared by a CPS investigator. Notice how strong an effect accusations can be?

The report makes a lot of statements that are either irrelevant or should not have even been considered. Example: "No record or communication indicates that McQueary or Paterno made any effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child had been harmed." As an investigator, this is completely irrelevant. Neither McQueary or Paterno should have made any effort to seek out the child. They are not investigators and any action they may have taken could have been treated as tampering with evidence if the child was contacted and interviewed by them. At that point it would be very easy to make a coercion argument against them. However, this distributes extra blame in "what they should have done/hindsight" manner. Then there's the "failed to control Sandusky's access to University facilities and campuses" quote that gets brought up a lot in news articles and other media. Again I have to ask, why? Why should they have limited access if the investigation by an outside authority found no wrongdoing? That strikes me as some serious hindsight quarterbacking there. After the investigation started in 2011, I could then understand them attempting to do so as he was already retired and no longer employed by Penn State. But again, their abilities were limited as he had not been convicted and his status, as a result of not briefing the Board, gave him special access.

I'm also kind of baffled by the large sections dealing with the Board of Trustees. This all appears to be open and shut. The board was kept in the dark. The emeritus status given to Sandusky was not removed as the board was unaware of anything happening beforehand. Not until after it became public did the board take any steps. Yet actions or rather inaction by the board takes up a big chunk of this report. Had this been to determine Spanier failure to brief trustees I would understand. But in many points it seems as though the report is attempting to place blame on the board for not trying harder.

For all that was said and done, the school used obsolete reporting chains and lacked the strict procedures that we see today. Am I going to chalk this up to an endemic culture of corruption within the Univ.? Nope, the evidence doesn't support that kind of statement. Incompetence, lack of solid procedure, poor communication, and bad precedent contributed more than anything else to this huge mess.

It's 3:30am and I'm too tired to proof read this thing. Blah.... Ignore the typos and let me know if I crossed any statements by accident so that I may change them later.

edit: The actual 237 page report can be found here: http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

Lallante
July 25 2012, 12:44:31 PM
Yeah but fuck those guys.

Seriously, the purpose of the ruling is to ensure that no school ever covers up something like this at an institutional level ever again, because the punishment is worse than the benefit they gained.

FourFiftyFour
July 26 2012, 05:45:53 AM
And to net them a cool 60 mil. Not to mention any kickbacks gotten from people within the other big ten schools.

Fitzy
July 27 2012, 02:16:07 AM
Ok couple of problems Keorythe, Paterno definatly didn't do everything right, he abdicated his responsibility.

In 1998 Curley was making requests from Shultz for updates on behalf of "Coach", so he knew what was going on. At the end of the 1998 investigation everyone is happy with the decision not to press charges against Sandusky, yet Curley feels the need to tell Sandusky not to take children into campus showers anymore. In other words, shady shit was going down in the showers and they knew it, or at least suspected it, but everyone was happy to go along with the bullshit idea that maybe if they told the pedo to stay out of the showers then maybe he would get the message and they can pretend this whole thing never happened.

Then in 2001, and remember this is what Paterno told a Grand Jury, McQueary told him that he had witnessed something of a sexual nature between a boy and Sandusky in the shower. The outcome of that was for the university to ban Sandusky bringing the kids onto the campus. So go ahead and butt fuck little boys Jerry just do it in the privacy of your own home for fucks sake.

The assertion that Paterno would have done more if McQueary had been more specific is contradicted by the man himself, in his interview with the Washington post:


"You know, he didn't want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man."

I also work in a state CP agency, and I can tell you if a hostel worker or any staff member admitted to the kind of conduct that Sandusky admitted to in 1998, they would have been investigated and fired, criminal charges or no. Just because an employee isn’t criminally charged, doesn't mean you can't conduct an administrative investigation into their conduct and fire them for inappropriate behaviour.

Keorythe
July 27 2012, 04:36:46 AM
Ok couple of problems Keorythe, Paterno definatly didn't do everything right, he abdicated his responsibility.

In 1998 Curley was making requests from Shultz for updates on behalf of "Coach", so he knew what was going on. At the end of the 1998 investigation everyone is happy with the decision not to press charges against Sandusky, yet Curley feels the need to tell Sandusky not to take children into campus showers anymore. In other words, shady shit was going down in the showers and they knew it, or at least suspected it, but everyone was happy to go along with the bullshit idea that maybe if they told the pedo to stay out of the showers then maybe he would get the message and they can pretend this whole thing never happened.

I'm going to agree on the abdication of responsibility part and retract my earlier statement about "doing everything right". In 2001 the Clery Act was supposed to have been implemented. However, it was not at Penn State and most of the Univ. staff of all branches including Paterno were ignorant of the requirements. Nor had the Campus Police had any training in the matter. While they can claim ignorance, they were still in the wrong.

Having said that, claims that Curley and Shultz “knew” something shady was going on doesn’t really stand up very well. The initial investigator said specifically that there was no evidence of criminal activity. Actions afterwards constitute a pro-active stance to make sure there are no longer any misunderstanding in the future. This is pretty common in any professional setting and I’m sure there’s been a few people here who have had to deal with those kinds of “I know you weren’t wrong but don’t do it again” situations with upper management.



Then in 2001, and remember this is what Paterno told a Grand Jury, McQueary told him that he had witnessed something of a sexual nature between a boy and Sandusky in the shower. The outcome of that was for the university to ban Sandusky bringing the kids onto the campus. So go ahead and butt fuck little boys Jerry just do it in the privacy of your own home for fucks sake.

The assertion that Paterno would have done more if McQueary had been more specific is contradicted by the man himself, in his interview with the Washington post:


"You know, he didn't want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man."

2001 is when things did send up red flags. But then Sandusky was already retired and doing his 2nd Mile thing. At that point, it all fell on Pres. Spanier and VP Shultz more than anyone else to take action. Again, if you read the document, you’ll see that Paterno was kept in the loop but not much else. Post 2001, the Spanier, Shultz, and Athletic director Curley were making the calls here. But then here’s where it turns into a SNAFU. Timeline shows a compliance meeting with the board after an affidavit is issued then a college wide email on policy concerning supervision of minors and reporting wrongful conduct is pushed out shortly after that. pg 241-256

McQuarey was very vague with Paterno on the entire nature of the incident. He said “sexual in nature” but Paterno already had an idea of the “horseplay” incident earlier. Had he actually stated that he “saw Sandusky ramming his dick into a 10yr old” things might have gone a LOT differently. Unfortunately he didn’t. See pg. 189. Paterno, not realizing his duties under the Clery act runs it up the chain as he does with any reputation problem. The whole compliance failure on the Clery act wasn’t just in the sports collegiate either. It pervaded throughout all scholarly and finance departments of the University. This is supported by the timeline.


I also work in a state CP agency, and I can tell you if a hostel worker or any staff member admitted to the kind of conduct that Sandusky admitted to in 1998, they would have been investigated and fired, criminal charges or no. Just because an employee isn’t criminally charged, doesn't mean you can't conduct an administrative investigation into their conduct and fire them for inappropriate behavior.

Why would you even consider starting an administrative investigation? There were no grounds for a vindictive termination after the 1998 incident. Nor are you talking about an easily replaceable “throw away” employee. As a CPS investigator, you of all people ought to know how much stock is placed in our reports. Making an investigation public is enough to damage a person’s reputation and their livelihood permanently whether accusations are true or false. And in this case, the initial investigator dropped the ball pretty damn hard. Understand that they brought in a child psychologist. See pg. 176 Sex for favors is mentioned once and its probable that the child in question may have been coerced under those circumstances.

Some other sections that support all of this can be found in pages around the 60’s, 110-112, 130




TL;DR: major communication snafu thanks to old guys not with the times. Evidence of them actually knowing he was a pedo and protecting him regardless are thin. Earlier statement of former FBI Dir. Freech pumping this for as much as it’s worth still stand. This doesn’t excuse the act, but rather does not constitute the kind of corruption that’s being accused.

Lallante
July 27 2012, 10:16:37 AM
Football fans who are against this remind me of film fans defending sick paedo rapist Roman Polanski

tl;dr the punishment should fit the crime unless the punishment affects my interests in which case lets just go easy on them ok?

Lallante
July 27 2012, 10:18:54 AM
Just to be clear - if Paterno was alive today, he would be looking at serious prison time and rightly so. Not to mention the lawsuits from the kids parents.

The amount of mindfuck in Keorythe's post above makes me feel physically sick. Lets just go through the facts:

1. A coach you are in charge of (your proposed replacement no less) is accused of being a paedophile
2. An enquiry finds insufficient evidence so you let him stay on
3. You find out about MORE paedo activities after this against another child
4. You are sufficiently concerned to ban him from bringing children onto campus, but do NOT tell the police or take any other action to protect that child or any other children because doing so might hurt your own reputation/career.

Legally, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Paterno would go down and go down hard.

Keorythe
July 28 2012, 01:31:13 AM
Just to be clear - if Paterno was alive today, he would be looking at serious prison time and rightly so. Not to mention the lawsuits from the kids parents.

The amount of mindfuck in Keorythe's post above makes me feel physically sick. Lets just go through the facts:

1. A coach you are in charge of (your proposed replacement no less) is accused of being a paedophile
2. An enquiry finds insufficient evidence so you let him stay on
3. You find out about MORE paedo activities after this against another child
4. You are sufficiently concerned to ban him from bringing children onto campus, but do NOT tell the police or take any other action to protect that child or any other children because doing so might hurt your own reputation/career.

Legally, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Paterno would go down and go down hard.

Mindfuck? I'm pointing out the facts. You're making an emotional argument without much basis. Do I think Paterno would be facing any time? Not likely. Failure to report an incident is a misdemeanor. While enough emotion is behind it, I pointed out the evidence where he didn't have much of a take on the issue while highlighting the screw ups of Spaniel, Curely, and Shultz. I even gave you some page numbers because I knew people were lazy. We've come a long long way on child protection legislation. We didn't even get the FCC to adopt the AMBER alert system until 2002 and Adam Walsh didn't go into effect until 2006. These old farts probably had a hard enough time dealing with the concept of grown men shafting another's asshole. The concept of a homosexual man plugging away on a little boy would have been akin to a bogeyman coming to real life, let alone someone they had known for decades.

But what really boggles me is when people keep talking about the first instance in 1998 and completely ignoring that a god damn child pyschologist which is the highest level of investigation before an indictment found no evidence criminal activity and no evidence of child molestation happening. That's not the same as "insufficient evidence" or "you scraped by because we didn't find enough". That right there means, nothing happened. Think of it this way. A 10yr old boy accuses you of molesting him. The entire thing is a lie but you still get to meet with CPS. The incident leaks and makes it to your friend and family. After an investigation, you're cleared of all charges. Should your friends and co-workers believe you are not a pedo? Why?

I am neither a college football fan nor a Penn State fan. I have no stake in this. I also hope that Sandusky feels all kind of wrath on his way down to hell. But as I've noted earlier, I have very little patience for someone like former Mr. Freeh to take a case and blow it up into something approximating a giant corruption event for his own personal gain and aggrandizement of his law firm (note: he quit the FBI a long time ago and is working as head of his own high profile law firm). The report doesn't support that. This had little to do with "the Penn State way" or any connection with corruption and collegiate sports.

Lallante
July 30 2012, 12:45:50 PM
Just to be clear - if Paterno was alive today, he would be looking at serious prison time and rightly so. Not to mention the lawsuits from the kids parents.

The amount of mindfuck in Keorythe's post above makes me feel physically sick. Lets just go through the facts:

1. A coach you are in charge of (your proposed replacement no less) is accused of being a paedophile
2. An enquiry finds insufficient evidence so you let him stay on
3. You find out about MORE paedo activities after this against another child
4. You are sufficiently concerned to ban him from bringing children onto campus, but do NOT tell the police or take any other action to protect that child or any other children because doing so might hurt your own reputation/career.

Legally, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Paterno would go down and go down hard.

Mindfuck? I'm pointing out the facts. You're making an emotional argument without much basis. Do I think Paterno would be facing any time? Not likely. Failure to report an incident is a misdemeanor. While enough emotion is behind it, I pointed out the evidence where he didn't have much of a take on the issue while highlighting the screw ups of Spaniel, Curely, and Shultz. I even gave you some page numbers because I knew people were lazy. We've come a long long way on child protection legislation. We didn't even get the FCC to adopt the AMBER alert system until 2002 and Adam Walsh didn't go into effect until 2006. These old farts probably had a hard enough time dealing with the concept of grown men shafting another's asshole. The concept of a homosexual man plugging away on a little boy would have been akin to a bogeyman coming to real life, let alone someone they had known for decades.

But what really boggles me is when people keep talking about the first instance in 1998 and completely ignoring that a god damn child pyschologist which is the highest level of investigation before an indictment found no evidence criminal activity and no evidence of child molestation happening. That's not the same as "insufficient evidence" or "you scraped by because we didn't find enough". That right there means, nothing happened. Think of it this way. A 10yr old boy accuses you of molesting him. The entire thing is a lie but you still get to meet with CPS. The incident leaks and makes it to your friend and family. After an investigation, you're cleared of all charges. Should your friends and co-workers believe you are not a pedo? Why?

I am neither a college football fan nor a Penn State fan. I have no stake in this. I also hope that Sandusky feels all kind of wrath on his way down to hell. But as I've noted earlier, I have very little patience for someone like former Mr. Freeh to take a case and blow it up into something approximating a giant corruption event for his own personal gain and aggrandizement of his law firm (note: he quit the FBI a long time ago and is working as head of his own high profile law firm). The report doesn't support that. This had little to do with "the Penn State way" or any connection with corruption and collegiate sports.

As head coach Paterno has assumed a duty of care towards the students who make up his teams. As head coach he is directly in charge of Sandusky's access to the kids he is abusing. He is not just some random bystander, his action and inaction directly facilitated the abuse of children, something he could have reasonably foreseen (or even had actual knowledge of) but choose to bury his head in the sand about because of the effect it would have on his career.

I'm not talking emotionally, I am talking legally. He is responsible and therefore would do time.

Keorythe
July 31 2012, 02:13:24 AM
Just to be clear - if Paterno was alive today, he would be looking at serious prison time and rightly so. Not to mention the lawsuits from the kids parents.

The amount of mindfuck in Keorythe's post above makes me feel physically sick. Lets just go through the facts:

1. A coach you are in charge of (your proposed replacement no less) is accused of being a paedophile
2. An enquiry finds insufficient evidence so you let him stay on
3. You find out about MORE paedo activities after this against another child
4. You are sufficiently concerned to ban him from bringing children onto campus, but do NOT tell the police or take any other action to protect that child or any other children because doing so might hurt your own reputation/career.

Legally, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Paterno would go down and go down hard.

Mindfuck? I'm pointing out the facts. You're making an emotional argument without much basis. Do I think Paterno would be facing any time? Not likely. Failure to report an incident is a misdemeanor. While enough emotion is behind it, I pointed out the evidence where he didn't have much of a take on the issue while highlighting the screw ups of Spaniel, Curely, and Shultz. I even gave you some page numbers because I knew people were lazy. We've come a long long way on child protection legislation. We didn't even get the FCC to adopt the AMBER alert system until 2002 and Adam Walsh didn't go into effect until 2006. These old farts probably had a hard enough time dealing with the concept of grown men shafting another's asshole. The concept of a homosexual man plugging away on a little boy would have been akin to a bogeyman coming to real life, let alone someone they had known for decades.

But what really boggles me is when people keep talking about the first instance in 1998 and completely ignoring that a god damn child pyschologist which is the highest level of investigation before an indictment found no evidence criminal activity and no evidence of child molestation happening. That's not the same as "insufficient evidence" or "you scraped by because we didn't find enough". That right there means, nothing happened. Think of it this way. A 10yr old boy accuses you of molesting him. The entire thing is a lie but you still get to meet with CPS. The incident leaks and makes it to your friend and family. After an investigation, you're cleared of all charges. Should your friends and co-workers believe you are not a pedo? Why?

I am neither a college football fan nor a Penn State fan. I have no stake in this. I also hope that Sandusky feels all kind of wrath on his way down to hell. But as I've noted earlier, I have very little patience for someone like former Mr. Freeh to take a case and blow it up into something approximating a giant corruption event for his own personal gain and aggrandizement of his law firm (note: he quit the FBI a long time ago and is working as head of his own high profile law firm). The report doesn't support that. This had little to do with "the Penn State way" or any connection with corruption and collegiate sports.

As head coach Paterno has assumed a duty of care towards the students who make up his teams. As head coach he is directly in charge of Sandusky's access to the kids he is abusing. He is not just some random bystander, his action and inaction directly facilitated the abuse of children, something he could have reasonably foreseen (or even had actual knowledge of) but choose to bury his head in the sand about because of the effect it would have on his career.

I'm not talking emotionally, I am talking legally. He is responsible and therefore would do time.

Ummm....Sandusky abused kids from "The Second Mile". A charity group that he had created for at-risk kids. Paterno was never placed in charge of the kids nor coached them. Second Mile was allowed to use Penn State facilities due to the coaching history of Sandusky with Penn State. Don't make me go find the page numbers for you. The initial discussion between Spaniel, Curley, and Shultz after the 2001 accusations was them pointing out that this was a "Second Mile" problem, not Penn State problem because it was they weren't a part of Second Mile activities.

Maybe you should look at the charges thrown at the main culprits here. Shultz and Curley were charged while Paterno was still alive. Paterno was considered a witness but never a suspect or offending party. While alive they acknowledged that he had satisfied his obligations. The law at the time was which is why he was never charged:

"Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals, including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report the alleged abuse to the authorities." Curely and Shultz were his immediate supervisors.

Ok... Is that enough for you to admit that Freeh may have just pumped this up a bit more than what actually happened to make his law firm look really good? Eh, probably not.

Lallante
July 31 2012, 03:27:48 PM
Lets just make this clear:

Paterno:
- lied to a Grand Jury (he claimed he didnt know about Sanduskys previous history of accusations of sexual misconduct with children in 2001 when in fact the emails recently considered by the Freeh report shows he was fully aware and had closely followed the 1998 investigation).
- convinced Curley, Schultz and Spanier not to follow through with their plan to report Sandusky to Child Protection Services in 2001 (this is documented in a Curley email of the time saying "changed my find following talking it over with Joe [Paterno]".


A similar case in the church led to a senior official in the Phili Archdiocese was found guilty of child endangerment when he allowed a priest with a similar known history to sandusky to continue to be around children on church property.

At the very least he would go down for Perjury. More realistically, given that the email evidence reviewed by the Freeh investigation shows he was absolutely integral in the decision not to report Sandusky to the authorities DESPITE knowing about the previous allegations in 1998, he would be guilty of child endangerment.



Even with the legal issues aside there remains this simple, inescapable chain of fact:
1. Paterno knew Sandusky had been investigated for abusing kids in 1998 - this was the very reason Sandusky was told he would no longer become the head coach after Paterno.
2. Paterno knew Sandusky had sexually approached a young boy in the shower in 2001.
3. Paterno knew that his superiours (at his suggestion) did not intend to inform the police or government or make any attempt to find the boy.
4. Paterno did NOTHING else to protect that child or any other children.
5. As a direct result, many more children were sexually abused.

IF you dont think that makes him morally at fault you live in cloud cuckoo libertarian lala land.

Keorythe
August 1 2012, 04:37:43 AM
Lets just make this clear:

Paterno:
- lied to a Grand Jury (he claimed he didnt know about Sanduskys previous history of accusations of sexual misconduct with children in 2001 when in fact the emails recently considered by the Freeh report shows he was fully aware and had closely followed the 1998 investigation).
- convinced Curley, Schultz and Spanier not to follow through with their plan to report Sandusky to Child Protection Services in 2001 (this is documented in a Curley email of the time saying "changed my find following talking it over with Joe [Paterno]".


A similar case in the church led to a senior official in the Phili Archdiocese was found guilty of child endangerment when he allowed a priest with a similar known history to sandusky to continue to be around children on church property.

At the very least he would go down for Perjury.

You're getting your people mixed up here. He never committed purgery as he had told investigators exactly what was told to him by McQuarey and what was later pushed up to Shultz and Curley. When asked about any other incident before 2001, he claimed he only remember something about a rumor. Both Shultz and Curley were indicted for perjury while Paterno was still alive. Given the fact that this was 12 years later, and that he had only been given "tabs" on the entire thing (where as Shultz and Spanier were integrally involved) it's not a stretch to say he just forgot.


More realistically, given that the email evidence reviewed by the Freeh investigation shows he was absolutely integral in the decision not to report Sandusky to the authorities DESPITE knowing about the previous allegations in 1998, he would be guilty of child endangerment.

Umm, no. I thought you were above sound bytes. Curley discussed the matter with Paterno. He did not state that he had come up with a new course of action, nor had Paterno told him to do otherwise. He stated he was uncomfortable with the original decision. Take in mind that Schultz had talked with a lawyer 2 weeks before this happened. See pg. 69. This is a big sticking point. Schultz had no reason to lie to their own lawyer with whom they were seeking counsel. And before you go there, no, if they didn't understand the Clery act then they surely weren't worried about their own reporting this kind of thing (Clery act didn't force lawyers to report confidential info like this until 2008). Since Freeh isn't a real authority and only acting as an outside investigator, he didn't have access to the actual confidential records. That may have changed things up a bit in either direction. Anyway, after Curley had talked with Paterno, Curley changed his mind and recommended that they confront Sandusky face to face about the incident. Pg. 74, and especially the follow up by investigators on pg. 2 of Exhibit 2J. Paterno was not part of those discussions later as the document specifically points out on pg. 75 Despite this, it was out of Paterno's hands as he had reported it to his superiors, thus fulfilling his obligations. I already quoted the wording of the law in my previous post.


Even with the legal issues aside there remains this simple, inescapable chain of fact:
1. Paterno knew Sandusky had been investigated for abusing kids in 1998 - this was the very reason Sandusky was told he would no longer become the head coach after Paterno.
2. Paterno knew Sandusky had sexually approached a young boy in the shower in 2001.
3. Paterno knew that his superiours (at his suggestion) did not intend to inform the police or government or make any attempt to find the boy.
4. Paterno did NOTHING else to protect that child or any other children.
5. As a direct result, many more children were sexually abused.

1. Again, incorrect. The 1998 incident was gone and forgotten. Sandusky was dedicating too much time to Second Mile and Paterno chastised him for not dedicating it to coaching instead. Quoted as saying "Don't worry about 2nd Mile - you don't have the luxury of doing both. One will always demand a decision of preference. You are too deeply involved in both." See pg. 57-58 and Exhibit 3D

2. Not really. McQuarey stated what he saw was sexual in nature but did not give any details other than "rough positioning". He did not mention actually seeing intercourse, fondling, anal, nor oral sex. Where as you continue to use the 1998 incident as proof, it actually hurts a case against Paterno as it sets precedent for Sandusky "horsing around". The description of "horsing around" was specifically used during a Special Investigative Counsel interview on pg. 70. Descriptions of the 1998 incident are pretty detailed. Sandusky had bear hugged a bunch of kids in the past with no sexual abuse occurring and the CPS investigation seeing no issues. See pg. 47 As mentioned earlier, McQuarey had a real opportunity to make a difference and instead flubbed it by being vague. From the description given to investigators years later (with almost a decade to think about it) it sounds a lot like Sandusky was butt fucking a little boy. But instead he gave Paterno a watered down version. Why must I keep repeating this?

3. As mentioned above. Not really. We know Paterno discussed what the upper management was planning to do with Curley. We have no idea if Curley made his decision on advice from Paterno or later. Too speculative at this point.

4. As already stated. It wasn't his job to do so. The kids involved were all Second Mile kids. Sandusky had already retired by 2001 and Paterno had no authority over him. Paterno had no reason to protect anyone since had had very little to go on. The guy only knew football. Nothing else. He was a fish out of water. His own words

I didn't exactly know how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopordize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people who I thought would have more expertise than I did. It didn't work out that way. Paterno added "In hindsight I wish I had done more" and had regretted he did not.

5. Placing a lot of blame on him rather than Spanier, Shultz, and Curley who were the ones with the real power here.


IF you dont think that makes him morally at fault you live in cloud cuckoo libertarian lala land.

Morally at fault? You make a lot of assumptions. Assumptions which had you acted on and ended up being false would net you in a lot of trouble. Had McQuarey been a lot more specific I would be inclined to agree with you. But he wasn't. At best Paterno could have pushed for more information on the entire 2001 issue and then gone from there. But he did not. Since it was in the hands of people he trusted, and who were better versed in something other than football, then it's hard to tie in any sort of moral obligation. At best we can use the discussion with Curley in 2001 but then as pointed out, we don't know much. Chicken or the egg?

Original point still stands. Freeh was not with the FBI nor any law enforcement agency. He was an outside investigator and was given free reign to make assumptions and statements which law enforcement and Child Protective agencies would be barred from doing. I see a lot of artistic license in his key findings. More than likely he needed a major slam dunk after bungling the case involving a Saudi prince in some arms case which I can't be arsed to spell.

Lallante
August 1 2012, 10:04:09 AM
Keorythe Paterno said the following under oath:
“I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no,” a rumor “may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.”

The emails reveal he was both asking for and receiving regular updates on the 1998 investigation from Curley and Schultz. This is perjury. Its not credible that he "forgot" something he followed closely for months of such incredible importance.

2. "Sexual in nature" with a naked boy in the shower and he didnt ask for more details or consider whether he had an obligation to find the boy, talk to Sandusky or go to the police? Schultz and Curley are going to go down on the basis of the EVEN MORE watered down details he passed on to them!

3. Curleys email specifically says he changed his mind a result of discussion with PAterno.

4. "Not my job" isnt a legal or moral defence. Its also not relevant to the question of whether he owed the kids a duty of care. Sandusky was only allowed on college property as a result of Paterno's agreement so he had authority over him. If you know a guy you know sexually abusing a child you cant just shrug and say "not my job/problem". Thats indescribably wrong.

5. All of them should be locked up. All of them.

Why didnt Paterno ask McQueary for details? He had to report them to Schultz and Curley - its obviously his obligation to get the fullest picture possible to allow that report to be accurate. Putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalala doesnt excuse you of responsibility any more than one person being "more" at fault means another is not at fault at all.

Bartholomeus Crane
August 3 2012, 12:59:19 PM
I'd have to go with Lall here.

If you look at all the things Paterno did and didn't do during this period, the picture that emerges is quite clear: He turned a blind eye towards what he at least suspected was happening; tried his best to keep his distance from it; and covered everything up as best he could. And he did so with the clear motive of protecting his own career and the reputation of the football program at PSU. And basically, so did the others involved.

If the defence against that charge is: "it wasn't stipulated exactly in the rules and regulations at PSU at the time" than that is legally and morally a weak arse defence.

In the end, however you want to look at it, Paterno and the others had these students and kids in their care. As care-takers, either directly or indirectly, you have a moral and legal obligation to protect them from sexual predators like Sandusky. They all knew something was fishy, and they kept getting more indications of it throughout the period. This whole cover up facilitated more of these heinous crimes to be committed. And with the 2-mile thing, they basically facilitated Sandusky further. At that point a claim: "Well, I reported it to my superiors and I thought that was all I needed to do." is just not good enough.

Nor is all this talk about 'if it turned out to be false it could have done a great harm to an innocent'. Ofcourse, especially if you try to project PSU as innocent come what may.

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. And I'm quite certain that had Paterno not died, he'd be doing hard time by now. And deservedly so.

On a personal note, in my eyes Paterno was just as culpable as the Catholic Church is when they try to protect their child molesters.

Keorythe
August 4 2012, 06:42:46 AM
In the end, however you want to look at it, Paterno and the others had these students and kids in their care. As care-takers, either directly or indirectly, you have a moral and legal obligation to protect them from sexual predators like Sandusky.

And with the 2-mile thing, they basically facilitated Sandusky further. At that point a claim: "Well, I reported it to my superiors and I thought that was all I needed to do." is just not good enough.

I know you like to get your 2 cents in here but maybe you should read the arguments before you try and comment on them. None of the kids were ever under their care. 2nd Mile was created by Sandusky and it was his rank and title that gave him access to Penn State facilities. Paterno never coached these kids nor participated in 2nd mile.

Lall, still won't admit that the report by Freeh may have been exaggerated which was my original point.

Bartholomeus Crane
August 4 2012, 10:14:08 PM
In the end, however you want to look at it, Paterno and the others had these students and kids in their care. As care-takers, either directly or indirectly, you have a moral and legal obligation to protect them from sexual predators like Sandusky.

And with the 2-mile thing, they basically facilitated Sandusky further. At that point a claim: "Well, I reported it to my superiors and I thought that was all I needed to do." is just not good enough.

I know you like to get your 2 cents in here but maybe you should read the arguments before you try and comment on them. None of the kids were ever under their care. 2nd Mile was created by Sandusky and it was his rank and title that gave him access to Penn State facilities. Paterno never coached these kids nor participated in 2nd mile.

Lall, still won't admit that the report by Freeh may have been exaggerated which was my original point.

Perhaps you should read back what you wrote instead. That Freeh's report may have been exaggerated may have been your starting point, but along the way that brought you to: 'Paterno did nothing wrong'.

And that is just not born out by the evidence. It is quite obvious (not just from Freeh's report) that Paterno went to quite some length to cover this up. Playing deaf, dumb, and blind to everything in order to save his own career and the football program at PSU. And then the only argument you seem to come up with is 'outdated regulations', 'Paterno only needed to report it to his superiors', and a firm belief that 'JoePa knew nothing!'.

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. The argument is narrow, far to legalistic, and basically not supported by the evidence presented. Furthermore it smells like the standard legalistic ploy: attack the process to arrive at the forgone conclusion that thus the outcome is invalid.

Well, sorry, but Paterno did lots of things wrong, and he would have been doing hard time by now had he still been alive.

Keorythe
August 5 2012, 03:45:35 AM
In the end, however you want to look at it, Paterno and the others had these students and kids in their care. As care-takers, either directly or indirectly, you have a moral and legal obligation to protect them from sexual predators like Sandusky.

And with the 2-mile thing, they basically facilitated Sandusky further. At that point a claim: "Well, I reported it to my superiors and I thought that was all I needed to do." is just not good enough.

I know you like to get your 2 cents in here but maybe you should read the arguments before you try and comment on them. None of the kids were ever under their care. 2nd Mile was created by Sandusky and it was his rank and title that gave him access to Penn State facilities. Paterno never coached these kids nor participated in 2nd mile.

Lall, still won't admit that the report by Freeh may have been exaggerated which was my original point.

Perhaps you should read back what you wrote instead. That Freeh's report may have been exaggerated may have been your starting point, but along the way that brought you to: 'Paterno did nothing wrong'.

Well it seems you didn't read my post after all. It was crossed out and stated, REDACTED. Although granted, when I did look at and post the actual policy it turns out he did do everything right.


And that is just not born out by the evidence. It is quite obvious (not just from Freeh's report) that Paterno went to quite some length to cover this up. Playing deaf, dumb, and blind to everything in order to save his own career and the football program at PSU. And then the only argument you seem to come up with is 'outdated regulations', 'Paterno only needed to report it to his superiors', and a firm belief that 'JoePa knew nothing!'.

This is Srs Business. Unlike the earlier drivel, you might want to go and back this up. Not born out of evidence? Great lengths to cover up? Sorry, where did you get that? Paterno wasn't even in a position to do that. Spanier, Shultz, and Curley (barely) on the other hand did. Outdated regulations? You mean regulations that were pretty unknown throughout the entire university? Save his career and football program? I pointed out their own quotes showing how they didn't even think it was an issue for Penn State, rather they thought it was an issue for 2nd Mile because it was the program Sandusky was running and not Penn State. I pointed out where Paterno wasn't even a part to that. JoePa knew nothing? Which part you trying to take out of context? The 1998 investigation which showed nothing or when McQuarey dropped the ball and gave a watered down version of events in 2001?

I wonder why I even thought people would use page numbers.


Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. The argument is narrow, far to legalistic, and basically not supported by the evidence presented. Furthermore it smells like the standard legalistic ploy: attack the process to arrive at the forgone conclusion that thus the outcome is invalid.

Attack the process? What are you talking about? Narrow and legalistic? Again, where are you going with this. We just throw out legalities and go with hindsight? Maybe you're trying to go with a moralistic argument in which case highsight wins and he should have gone on the warpath and fired Sandusky in 1998 based on rumor and feelings alone.

At least your post was brief.


Well, sorry, but Paterno did lots of things wrong, and he would have been doing hard time by now had he still been alive.

Grand jury didn't see it that way.

I'm afraid that despite my efforts including breaking down actual laws, giving page numbers for the lazy, and generally doing the footwork I am still met with platitudes. As this is such and emotional topic and I foresee a giant circle jerk going on (and certain people getting lots of +rep for derp while I get hit with -rep) I shall bow out of this. Not worth it for a sport I don't even like to watch or a team I can care less about.

Bartholomeus Crane
August 5 2012, 10:32:32 AM
Always with the same butthurt attitude when people point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

You blast the janitors for not going to the police when they suspected something was up with Sandusky. But, as Fitzy pointed out, Paterno knew a lot more, but he didn't take this any further either (and his job wouldn't have been on the line)! You attack everyone but Paterno, while it is quite obvious to anyone else who reads up on the case that he played quite a part to the whole effort to cover this up, and that he had a clear motive for doing so!

Dragging in the legalistic argument of 'obsolete reporting practices' means nothing in this respect.

Throughout the Freeh report it becomes clear that at PSU the prevailing attitude was 'let's keep this quiet, no one needs to know'. And that was made quite clear to the janitors and upwards. And Paterno played his part in that. Curley, Schultz, they couldn't have pulled this off without Paterno. Your counter argument that Paterno forgot, or knew only football, or thought it was out his jurisdiction, just don't square up with that.

In the end, Paterno, just as Curley, Schultz, and Spanier had a responsibility. They all failed to live up to their responsibility. And although they may have done so to different degrees, that doesn't mean any of them is entirely innocent. Pointing fingers at the janitors, or McQueary, of Freeh's reporting, or anyone else, simply doesn't change that.

Keorythe
August 5 2012, 10:04:14 PM
Always with the same butthurt attitude when people point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

You blast the janitors for not going to the police when they suspected something was up with Sandusky. Janitors admitted to seeing actual oral and anal intercourse on two separate occasions.


But, as Fitzy pointed out, Paterno knew a lot more, but he didn't take this any further either (and his job wouldn't have been on the line)! Paterno didn't know "a lot more". He was given second hand information from McQuarey in 2001. I'm not sure if you're reading the same post by Fitzy because he doesn't say anything of the sort. Just that an investigation could occur if no wrong doing were found. But I pointed out later that CPS, Univ. police, and even a child psychologist found no wrongdoing. The investigation was actually pretty detailed and covered in the report. An internal investigation would have had fewer resources or expertise on the issue.


You attack everyone but Paterno, while it is quite obvious to anyone else who reads up on the case that he played quite a part to the whole effort to cover this up, and that he had a clear motive for doing so!

Paterno was a head coach. The others were his superiors. Two of which decided Univ. policy and were ultimately the ones that were obligated to notify the authorities based on the Clery Act. Freeh report focuses on them as well. You should read it.


Dragging in the legalistic argument of 'obsolete reporting practices' means nothing in this respect.

There was nothing obsolete. Just unknown and not understood. This addressed the whole "corruption" topic and "Penn State way" issue as being a major issue. Something hammered on by the media and later by people like Vicky Triponey whose interactions had nothing to do with the case. This is highlighted when they start asking about what their policies were in the first place after the 2001 incident.


Curley, Schultz, they couldn't have pulled this off without Paterno. Your counter argument that Paterno forgot, or knew only football, or thought it was out his jurisdiction, just don't square up with that.

Completely false. You still haven't read my original statements. At best Curley had influence from Paterno in 2001 when they (Spaniel, Curley, and Shultz) were discussing what to do. The details of that discussion are unknown. I'm not sure where you got this whole "forgot" thing. If you're talking about the Grand Jury which occurred 12yrs later when he was 85yrs old then I'm not sure how you tied it in to a cover up. Unless you're trying to say that he had known the intricate details and was covering for 12yrs. The evidence doesn't show that and I pointed it out in the actual report.


In the end, Paterno, just as Curley, Schultz, and Spanier had a responsibility. They all failed to live up to their responsibility. And although they may have done so to different degrees, that doesn't mean any of them is entirely innocent. Pointing fingers at the janitors, or McQueary, of Freeh's reporting, or anyone else, simply doesn't change that.

This is an oxymoron. You claim these 4 had a responsibility. But then throw out everyone else's responsibilities. That's the making for a good witch hunt. The janitors were brought up in the first place because Freeh tried to show that they were scared of Paterno. They reported nothing when they should have gone to one of the many other outlets. The law at the time stated it could be to your supervisor, law enforcement, or CPS. They did none of the above and they saw more than anyone combined. McQuarey satisfied his obligations by knocking this up the chain of command to Paterno. Paterno did the same to Curley and Shultz who were his superiors. Which part of that did you not understand? And I clearly did not attempt to absolve Shultz, Curley, or Spaniel of anything either. But my addressing the manner of Freeh's reporting had significance as he made some major leaps of conclusion with his evidence that simply would not stand up to any real scrutiny. But then again as I pointed out, Freeh wasn't with law enforcement but an outside law firm who was allowed to use some artistic license in their report.

Had anyone else responded I would have ignored this. But I came back just for you Bart.

Bartholomeus Crane
August 6 2012, 11:35:29 AM
Your misrepresentations and misinterpretations are taking on absurd proportions by now.



Always with the same butthurt attitude when people point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

You blast the janitors for not going to the police when they suspected something was up with Sandusky. Janitors admitted to seeing actual oral and anal intercourse on two separate occasions.

Janitor "A" saw oral intercourse, janitor "B" saw two pairs of feet beneath a stall door and later Sandusky leaving with a kid. Janitor "B" regularly saw Sandusky after hours in the Lash building, often accompanied by young boys. After duty Janitor "C" met up with "A" and "B" to calm "A" down after what he had seen. And what does he suggest? "C" suggested he should report what he saw. Response? "no, they'll get rid of all of us!" ("A"). "B": reporting the incident "would have been like going against the President of the United States in my eyes". "I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone." He explained: "football runs this University", and said "the university would have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs."

And that is the way it was at PSU at that time. And Paterno plays an obvious and central role in how and why it was that way. You blast the janitors for not going to the police, and you may have some point there. But these janitors were clearly scared of losing their jobs. Scared of Paterno doing anything to protect the football program. And they were on the lowest rung of the ladder, and without a doubt in their mind that this would have happened.

That's not a dottering old man out of his depth, that was Paterno at the time, and that was the perception of how he would deal with it. As head coach he was the man directly responsible for what went on in those buildings. McQueary (and his dad) clearly thought so.



But, as Fitzy pointed out, Paterno knew a lot more, but he didn't take this any further either (and his job wouldn't have been on the line)! Paterno didn't know "a lot more". He was given second hand information from McQuarey in 2001. I'm not sure if you're reading the same post by Fitzy because he doesn't say anything of the sort. Just that an investigation could occur if no wrong doing were found. But I pointed out later that CPS, Univ. police, and even a child psychologist found no wrongdoing. The investigation was actually pretty detailed and covered in the report. An internal investigation would have had fewer resources or expertise on the issue.

Paterno knew more than enough, or at the very least should have know more than enough, especially after McQueary came to him. And note that after McQueary saw Sandusky sodomise that boy in the mirror, he talked to his dad first, before going to Paterno. Clearly he was quite apprehensive about going to Paterno with this. Not least since he too was just an assistant. Clearly, that's the kind of atmosphere prevalent at PSU at the time.

But finally he confronts Paterno with his testimony on Saturday morning. Does Paterno then press him to be more explicit? No, McQueary was 'upset' apparently, and Paterno doesn't want to push him. Sure. You know what. At that point, or at any point after that he could have asked McQueary to be specific. Instead he didn't ask, and went with 'horsing around', no matter what people were trying to tell him.

Then what? Well, he tells McQueary that "he did what he had to do, now it is my job to figure out what we want to do". Wait what? Figure out what we want to do? Is there really much of option at this point? If he had listened or wanted to know he was just told that Sandusky was caught red-handed sodomising a minor in the showers of a building he was 'the president of the united states' off.

And to what do his actions translate? He doesn't want to bother anyone over the weekend (this being Saturday morning)! So he brings it up to Schultz and Curley when? "early the next week." or "within the week". Ohhh, whatever right? Does he even bother to find out which boy it was? If the boy was hurt? Ofcourse, not, who cares about the boys, right? Did he confront Sandusky what the bloody hell he was doing in the Lash building with those kids (where Paterno knew he shouldn't have been!)? No. He tell McQueary to leave it all to him and quietly carries it upstairs. And how? Well, according to Schultz and Curley in a way that they "had no indication that a crime had occurred."

Okay then ....

No doubt self-serving testimony at this point; but from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier testimony they weren't told about sodomy seen in the mirror, but 'maybe inappropriate behaviour', 'horsing around'. It only made them uncomfortable because they knew about Sandusky and 1998. And then the four of them talk among each other about what to do. Yes, the four of them. Because it is clear from the report that Paterno is kept in the loop all the time. Then Schultz and Curley meet McQueary and obviously they're just a deaf as Paterno about what happened, even though McQueary explicitly tells them that the behaviour was "extremely sexual". No wonder McQueary at that point must have thought that he was just telling his bosses, Paterno and later Schultz and Curley, something they didn't want to hear!

Then ofcourse Curley (characterised as "Paterno's errand boy" by another PSU official) comes up with another 'option' as a response, i.e., not to report Sandusky, but bar him from the locker rooms with boys and talk to 2nd mile. JVP, i.e., Paterno is, naturally, kept fully informed all the while. Then the whole cover-up begins.

Let's be clear about this. Curley, Schultz, Spanier are all blasted (and convicted) for this cover-up and their involvement in it. But Paterno was there as well! He was kept "up to speed" on all that happened. And had a voice in how this was dealt with. At least through Curley, but directly as well. And at any time he could have spoken up! Just like the others have been blasted for not doing!

But he, according to you, is entirely innocent! A saint ...

Nonsense. Just utter nonsense.



You attack everyone but Paterno, while it is quite obvious to anyone else who reads up on the case that he played quite a part to the whole effort to cover this up, and that he had a clear motive for doing so!

Paterno was a head coach. The others were his superiors. Two of which decided Univ. policy and were ultimately the ones that were obligated to notify the authorities based on the Clery Act. Freeh report focuses on them as well. You should read it.

I have. What isn't in the Freeh report is that Paterno was a complete and innocent bystander in what went on there, as you want us to believe. He was involved from the first reporting by McQueary all through the way it was dealt with later. He wasn't some janitor. He wasn't some assistant football coach on a temporary contract. He ran the football program at PSU. He was the man in charge about everything that went on there, including the Lash building where all this took place. He was involved in this from the beginning to the end. And he's just as guilty for the cover-up as Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.



Dragging in the legalistic argument of 'obsolete reporting practices' means nothing in this respect.

There was nothing obsolete. Just unknown and not understood. This addressed the whole "corruption" topic and "Penn State way" issue as being a major issue. Something hammered on by the media and later by people like Vicky Triponey whose interactions had nothing to do with the case. This is highlighted when they start asking about what their policies were in the first place after the 2001 incident.

Yes, poor PSU, they just didn't understand the rules and regulations! That is why they inadvertently covered up this massive scandal that has since utterly destroyed their reputation. They just didn't know! Seriously, your obtuseness has reached dizzying heights now.



Curley, Schultz, they couldn't have pulled this off without Paterno. Your counter argument that Paterno forgot, or knew only football, or thought it was out his jurisdiction, just don't square up with that.

Completely false. You still haven't read my original statements. At best Curley had influence from Paterno in 2001 when they (Spaniel, Curley, and Shultz) were discussing what to do. The details of that discussion are unknown. I'm not sure where you got this whole "forgot" thing. If you're talking about the Grand Jury which occurred 12yrs later when he was 85yrs old then I'm not sure how you tied it in to a cover up. Unless you're trying to say that he had known the intricate details and was covering for 12yrs. The evidence doesn't show that and I pointed it out in the actual report.

You have repeatedly depicted Paterno as someone completely out of his depth in this. But in 2001 Paterno wasn't a dottering fool who only knows football and who was quite on the outside of this. McQueary came to him in 2001, he was kept in the loop afterwards, and he had a clear influence on Curley, and Curley comes up with the 'lenient' option, the cover-up, which is then discussed, and he then reports back to JVP, i.e. Paterno. At all times you have these 'superiors' keeping him in the loop as the man in charge on the spot, who agreed with everything, and not once protested or spoke up. If Spaniel, Curley, and Schultz colluded to cover-up, Paterno was just as much a part of it. He just got away with it because he died.



In the end, Paterno, just as Curley, Schultz, and Spanier had a responsibility. They all failed to live up to their responsibility. And although they may have done so to different degrees, that doesn't mean any of them is entirely innocent. Pointing fingers at the janitors, or McQueary, of Freeh's reporting, or anyone else, simply doesn't change that.

This is an oxymoron. You claim these 4 had a responsibility. But then throw out everyone else's responsibilities. That's the making for a good witch hunt. The janitors were brought up in the first place because Freeh tried to show that they were scared of Paterno. They reported nothing when they should have gone to one of the many other outlets. The law at the time stated it could be to your supervisor, law enforcement, or CPS. They did none of the above and they saw more than anyone combined. McQuarey satisfied his obligations by knocking this up the chain of command to Paterno. Paterno did the same to Curley and Shultz who were his superiors. Which part of that did you not understand? And I clearly did not attempt to absolve Shultz, Curley, or Spaniel of anything either. But my addressing the manner of Freeh's reporting had significance as he made some major leaps of conclusion with his evidence that simply would not stand up to any real scrutiny. But then again as I pointed out, Freeh wasn't with law enforcement but an outside law firm who was allowed to use some artistic license in their report.

Had anyone else responded I would have ignored this. But I came back just for you Bart.

I'm not throwing out anyone's responsibilities. That's your strawman. Paterno is guilty just as much as Curley, Schultz, or Spaniel. The janitors should also have done more, but you know what, they were on the lowest rung of the ladder, scared for the fallout from Paterno. It is a shitty excuse, but hey, at least they have one. The only one who comes somewhat clean is McQueary. He was an assistant football coach on a temporary contract who tried to report what he saw to the man everyone looked up, and who was his boss. He was told it would be dealt with properly and he believed them. It was not his fault that his superiors didn't want to hear what he had to say, and it is not his fault that Paterno and the others wanted to cover this up instead. He probably should have done more, but he was naive enough to believe in Paterno.

But what is clear is that in 2001, Paterno didn't just pass this along to his 'superiors'. He was part of the process and the discussion and had, through Curley, and directly (the meetings), a clear influence in what came out of that. If Schultz, Curley, and Spaniel were negligent in the way they dealt with this, then so must Paterno. Your attempts to picket-fence Paterno as an dottering old innocent bystander in all of this is simply not supported by evidence and testimony and frankly common sense. Freeh's reporting doesn't play fast and lose with the evidence, you are doing so with your interpretation of what is presented. And that has nothing to do with Freeh not being law enforcement and everything to do with you wanting to whitewash Paterno no matter what.

You want page numbers with that? Most of this is in chapter 4. You know, the chapter after 3; where PSU hands Sandusky a nice severance package after he got away with kiddy fiddling after the 'thorough' investigation in 1998. You know, that 'investigation' that basically ended with one of your vaunted law-enforcement detectives telling Sandusky, in the bloody Lash building itself, not to take any more showers with little boys! BTW, Paterno was kept informed of that investigation as well.

Boy oh boy, how Paterno must have been surprised to hear McQueary's story in 2001!

Yeah, you know what. I don't have much confidence in you and your 'law enforcement agencies'. They fucked up big in this whole sordid tale as well. And if that is why you are blasting Freeh and his report, perhaps you should reconsider ...

Keorythe
August 7 2012, 06:08:17 AM
Your misrepresentations and misinterpretations are taking on absurd proportions by now.



Always with the same butthurt attitude when people point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

You blast the janitors for not going to the police when they suspected something was up with Sandusky. Janitors admitted to seeing actual oral and anal intercourse on two separate occasions.

Janitor "A" saw oral intercourse, janitor "B" saw two pairs of feet beneath a stall door and later Sandusky leaving with a kid. Janitor "B" regularly saw Sandusky after hours in the Lash building, often accompanied by young boys. After duty Janitor "C" met up with "A" and "B" to calm "A" down after what he had seen. And what does he suggest? "C" suggested he should report what he saw. Response? "no, they'll get rid of all of us!" ("A"). "B": reporting the incident "would have been like going against the President of the United States in my eyes". "I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone." He explained: "football runs this University", and said "the university would have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs."

And that is the way it was at PSU at that time. And Paterno plays an obvious and central role in how and why it was that way. You blast the janitors for not going to the police, and you may have some point there. But these janitors were clearly scared of losing their jobs. Scared of Paterno doing anything to protect the football program. And they were on the lowest rung of the ladder, and without a doubt in their mind that this would have happened.

That's not a dottering old man out of his depth, that was Paterno at the time, and that was the perception of how he would deal with it. As head coach he was the man directly responsible for what went on in those buildings. McQueary (and his dad) clearly thought so.

That was a perception. Ok we can roll with that. Anyone can have a perception even though they didn't provide any previous examples to substantiate that (the report shows a minor 2007 event). Congratulations on absolving guys afraid of losing their janitor jobs instead of reporting Sandusky raping several boys. Not just vague impressions but repetitive times and in clear view of him raping their assholes. Granted, their speculation/perception is little more than fluff as it pertains to the case. We can add in the Triponey lady here as well. Again, nothing pertaining to the actual perjury case.




But, as Fitzy pointed out, Paterno knew a lot more, but he didn't take this any further either (and his job wouldn't have been on the line)! Paterno didn't know "a lot more". He was given second hand information from McQuarey in 2001. I'm not sure if you're reading the same post by Fitzy because he doesn't say anything of the sort. Just that an investigation could occur if no wrong doing were found. But I pointed out later that CPS, Univ. police, and even a child psychologist found no wrongdoing. The investigation was actually pretty detailed and covered in the report. An internal investigation would have had fewer resources or expertise on the issue.

Paterno knew more than enough, or at the very least should have know more than enough, especially after McQueary came to him. And note that after McQueary saw Sandusky sodomise that boy in the mirror, he talked to his dad first, before going to Paterno. Clearly he was quite apprehensive about going to Paterno with this. Not least since he too was just an assistant. Clearly, that's the kind of atmosphere prevalent at PSU at the time.

Now you're speculating about McQuarey being apprehensive about this being about Penn State closing up over the incident. With that same speculation, he could have been apprehensive about bringing this to the staff and appearing to try and get something out of it. Thin. Very thin. I love the hindsight quote "should have known more than enough". Yeah, sure. Slippery slope and all of that...


But finally he confronts Paterno with his testimony on Saturday morning. Does Paterno then press him to be more explicit? No, McQueary was 'upset' apparently, and Paterno doesn't want to push him. Sure. You know what. At that point, or at any point after that he could have asked McQueary to be specific. Instead he didn't ask, and went with 'horsing around', no matter what people were trying to tell him.

Then what? Well, he tells McQueary that "he did what he had to do, now it is my job to figure out what we want to do". Wait what? Figure out what we want to do? Is there really much of option at this point? If he had listened or wanted to know he was just told that Sandusky was caught red-handed sodomising a minor in the showers of a building he was 'the president of the united states' off.

Actually, that's the quote that Paterno said he thought he said to McQuarey when asked by a reporter in 2011. McQuarey on the other hand stated, "He said that Paterno's response was that he [Paterno] needed to "tell some people about what you saw" and would let McQuarey know what would happen next." See pag 68.

I'll give you one thing, Paterno could have asked for more details. McQuarey failed to be more specific and Paterno was worried for McQuarey being upset. Later Paterno said he wished he had done more. But hindsight is such a luxury.


And to what do his actions translate? He doesn't want to bother anyone over the weekend (this being Saturday morning)! So he brings it up to Schultz and Curley when? "early the next week." or "within the week". Ohhh, whatever right? Does he even bother to find out which boy it was? If the boy was hurt? Ofcourse, not, who cares about the boys, right? Did he confront Sandusky what the bloody hell he was doing in the Lash building with those kids (where Paterno knew he shouldn't have been!)? No. He tell McQueary to leave it all to him and quietly carries it upstairs. And how? Well, according to Schultz and Curley in a way that they "had no indication that a crime had occurred."

Okay then ....

Actually, the event happened on a Thurs. Paterno was called that night and met with McQuarey Fri. morning. Then Sunday afternoon Paterno met with the Shultz and Curley at his house. see pg 68 Paterno was not obligated to find the boy, only to report it up the chain. None of them were. I don't think you understand that part. Doing so would have been much much worse. The head coach hunting down and attempting to discover the identity of the youth and possibly talking with him before the authorities? Yeah, bad juju in the making. I could see the agencies wanting to go after you for obstruction of justice. That's a job for the authorities.



No doubt self-serving testimony at this point; but from Schultz, Curley, and Spanier testimony they weren't told about sodomy seen in the mirror, but 'maybe inappropriate behaviour', 'horsing around'. It only made them uncomfortable because they knew about Sandusky and 1998. And then the four of them talk among each other about what to do. Yes, the four of them. Because it is clear from the report that Paterno is kept in the loop all the time. Then Schultz and Curley meet McQueary and obviously they're just a deaf as Paterno about what happened, even though McQueary explicitly tells them that the behaviour was "extremely sexual". No wonder McQueary at that point must have thought that he was just telling his bosses, Paterno and later Schultz and Curley, something they didn't want to hear!

Again with the reaching. Uncomfortable and 1998? 1998 would have given them precedent to lean in favor of Sandusky, not against him. Read the actual findings in the 1998 investigation. The children all testified that Sandusky liked to rough play (horseplay was the word) with them. The 1998 case cleared Sandusky COMPLETELY. No speculation about the event. None. So what did they do? Besides talking about it amongst themselves (Spanier, Curley, and Shultz but not Paterno), they finally hired a lawyer. After given counsel the entire thing shifted to taking it off of their plate and handing it over to Second Mile. The investigation even noted this fact. "It also is reasonable to conclude from the email statement that the men decided not to report to law enforcement or child protection authority because they already had agreed to report the incident to Second Mile. See page 75.

Since Sandusky at the time was neither employees by Penn State but was running Second Mile, it was passed over as a Second Mile problem. Note that after the 1998 incident there was a big investigation and a lot of hoopla that turned out to be nothing. They didn't want to deal with that again. Would you? But really what seals the deal is Spaniel telling the investigative counsel that they had no concern of criminality. "Spanier explained that he was concerned with Sandusky because the situation "doesn't look good, I was concerned with what people will think, the visibility and public relations aspects of it. I was not concerned with criminality. THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION ABOUT ABUSE OR SEXUAL CONDUCT." See page 73 And again later, 7 days after it had been reported to the Attorney Generally, Spaniel and company pass the info to Second Mile who then concluded it was a non-issue themselves. see pg 78 (more on this later).



Then ofcourse Curley (characterised as "Paterno's errand boy" by another PSU official) comes up with another 'option' as a response, i.e., not to report Sandusky, but bar him from the locker rooms with boys and talk to 2nd mile. JVP, i.e., Paterno is, naturally, kept fully informed all the while. Then the whole cover-up begins.

Yeah, and there is your only connection to Paterno being in the loop. You characterize him as having been an integral part from start to finish yet we only have this one instance. Meanwhile pages 66-75 are packed full of discussions between Spaniel, Shultz, and Curley pointing out times and details. Also discussing who specifically talked with who over and over. But only once with Paterno and what appears only in passing. Neither were the details of the exact discussion made known.



Let's be clear about this. Curley, Schultz, Spanier are all blasted (and convicted) for this cover-up and their involvement in it. But Paterno was there as well! He was kept "up to speed" on all that happened. And had a voice in how this was dealt with. At least through Curley, but directly as well. And at any time he could have spoken up! Just like the others have been blasted for not doing!

Cover up? I've been ripping this "cover up" notion to shreds earlier. The Grand Jury busted them for perjury. This wasn't a giant conspiracy to protect Sandusky. This was a bunch of old school white guys in over their heads. Did they do wrong? Oh hell yes they messed up. Was this a corruption scandal? Nope. Follow the trail of evidence. Spaniel went to the Attorney General to report the matter in March. See page 74. It was this event that got the ball rolling with the authorities. Cover up? They reported their own cover up? Incident occurred on Feb 9. Incident was reported by Spaniel to Penn. AG on March 11. Barely over a month from the McQuarey witnessing the event to the notification of the Attorney General. Yeah, some cover up...


But he, according to you, is entirely innocent! A saint ...

Nonsense. Just utter nonsense.

Oh let's just keep those ad hominems rolling....




You attack everyone but Paterno, while it is quite obvious to anyone else who reads up on the case that he played quite a part to the whole effort to cover this up, and that he had a clear motive for doing so!

Paterno was a head coach. The others were his superiors. Two of which decided Univ. policy and were ultimately the ones that were obligated to notify the authorities based on the Clery Act. Freeh report focuses on them as well. You should read it.

I have. What isn't in the Freeh report is that Paterno was a complete and innocent bystander in what went on there, as you want us to believe. He was involved from the first reporting by McQueary all through the way it was dealt with later. He wasn't some janitor. He wasn't some assistant football coach on a temporary contract. He ran the football program at PSU. He was the man in charge about everything that went on there, including the Lash building where all this took place. He was involved in this from the beginning to the end. And he's just as guilty for the cover-up as Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.


And we've graduated from ad hominems to strawmen and fallacies. Ignoring the fact that while Paterno was indeed THE head coach at Penn State, Curley was THE athletic director and was actually responsible for the Lash building and Paterno's superior. Or that Univ. VP Shultz and Pres. Spaniel were the ones who actually approved policy regarding facilities and who was allowed to use them. You say he was involved from start to finish yet you have two accounts, the reporting and then a heads up by Curley, a week and a half before it was reported to the Attorney General.




Curley, Schultz, they couldn't have pulled this off without Paterno. Your counter argument that Paterno forgot, or knew only football, or thought it was out his jurisdiction, just don't square up with that.

Completely false. You still haven't read my original statements. At best Curley had influence from Paterno in 2001 when they (Spaniel, Curley, and Shultz) were discussing what to do. The details of that discussion are unknown. I'm not sure where you got this whole "forgot" thing. If you're talking about the Grand Jury which occurred 12yrs later when he was 85yrs old then I'm not sure how you tied it in to a cover up. Unless you're trying to say that he had known the intricate details and was covering for 12yrs. The evidence doesn't show that and I pointed it out in the actual report.

You have repeatedly depicted Paterno as someone completely out of his depth in this. But in 2001 Paterno wasn't a dottering fool who only knows football and who was quite on the outside of this. McQueary came to him in 2001, he was kept in the loop afterwards, and he had a clear influence on Curley, and Curley comes up with the 'lenient' option, the cover-up, which is then discussed, and he then reports back to JVP, i.e. Paterno. At all times you have these 'superiors' keeping him in the loop as the man in charge on the spot, who agreed with everything, and not once protested or spoke up. If Spaniel, Curley, and Schultz colluded to cover-up, Paterno was just as much a part of it. He just got away with it because he died.

There was no reporting back to JVP in 2001. I think you're getting 1998 mixed up with 2001. Paterno (aka JVP) kept asked to be kept in the loop about the 1998 case until it was given a clean slate by CPS, the police, and the child psychologist. The lenient option or humane option. I don't think you understand what that meant. See bottom of page 75 "Spanier said that his use of the word "humane" refers "specifically and only to my thought that it was humane of [Curley] to wish to inform Sandusky first and allow him to accompany [Curley] to the meeting with the president of the Second Mile. Moreover, it would be humane to offer counseling to Sandusky if he didn't understand why this was inappropriate and unacceptable to us". They aren't talking about covering up a criminal case. They're talking about going to Second Mile with Sandusky rather than behind his back.


But what is clear is that in 2001, Paterno didn't just pass this along to his 'superiors'. He was part of the process and the discussion and had, through Curley, and directly (the meetings), a clear influence in what came out of that. If Schultz, Curley, and Spaniel were negligent in the way they dealt with this, then so must Paterno. Your attempts to picket-fence Paterno as an dottering old innocent bystander in all of this is simply not supported by evidence and testimony and frankly common sense. Freeh's reporting doesn't play fast and lose with the evidence, you are doing so with your interpretation of what is presented. And that has nothing to do with Freeh not being law enforcement and everything to do with you wanting to whitewash Paterno no matter what.

:facepalm:
Debunked with page numbers no less.


You want page numbers with that? Most of this is in chapter 4. You know, the chapter after 3; where PSU hands Sandusky a nice severance package after he got away with kiddy fiddling after the 'thorough' investigation in 1998. You know, that 'investigation' that basically ended with one of your vaunted law-enforcement detectives telling Sandusky, in the bloody Lash building itself, not to take any more showers with little boys! BTW, Paterno was kept informed of that investigation as well.

Hmm, you skimmed the summary didn't you. Yes that explains it. Chapter 4 is really big.

Again with 1998. Let me explain this to you one more time. Police declared no wrongdoing. CPS declared no criminality. Case closed. Child investigator. Maybe, but not really. No intent found. As a former CPS investigator, this is as good as it gets. At this point if 3 investigative sources clear someone in this manner you should treat them as completely innocent. Why? Because even an allegation of child molestation is devastating to a person. It doesn't matter if it's true or false. If you're accused and it becomes public, you are forever branded as a kiddie fiddler. Doesn't matter if you've never even met the kid. Friends and family stay an arms length away even after you are cleared. The public treats you like a pariah. Job? Good luck if you know about the allegations. The vast majority of my case loads were people (mostly divorcing couples) attempting to ruin the others reputation with claims of child abuse. Almost always false. But it only takes a single CPS investigator to determine if the initial investigation is valid or not. In this case we had two second tier investigators along with CPS.

Sandusky was retiring with a long standing history of coaching. With 1998 completely cleared, there was no reason to not give him his retirement.


Yeah, you know what. I don't have much confidence in you and your 'law enforcement agencies'. They fucked up big in this whole sordid tale as well. And if that is why you are blasting Freeh and his report, perhaps you should reconsider ...

I blasted Freeh, who is NOT law enforcement but just a lawyer, because of his artistic license to report things in a light that did not stand up to their own evidence. That Freeh ignored state policies for the kind of reporting allowed in these cases only serves to reinforce my point.

I'm sorry you don't have any trust in these law enforcement agencies. It's after all only their job to do this stuff everyday under specific guidelines. I'm sure you know best and we should pursue emotional based judgements. <--see I can ad hominem too!

Aramendel
August 7 2012, 07:19:10 AM
But he, according to you, is entirely innocent! A saint ...

Nonsense. Just utter nonsense.

Oh let's just keep those ad hominems rolling....

...

I'm sorry you don't have any trust in these law enforcement agencies. It's after all only their job to do this stuff everyday under specific guidelines. I'm sure you know best and we should pursue emotional based judgements. <--see I can ad hominem too!

Not getting involved in you two making out, but I think you should visit the "Argue with style" thread and reread what an "ad hominem" fallacy is.

Bartholomeus Crane
August 7 2012, 07:29:59 AM
But he, according to you, is entirely innocent! A saint ...

Nonsense. Just utter nonsense.

Oh let's just keep those ad hominems rolling....

...

I'm sorry you don't have any trust in these law enforcement agencies. It's after all only their job to do this stuff everyday under specific guidelines. I'm sure you know best and we should pursue emotional based judgements. <--see I can ad hominem too!

Not getting involved in you two making out, but I think you should visit the "Argue with style" thread and reread what an "ad hominem" fallacy is.

Just about to say the same ...

Navigator Six
August 7 2012, 12:53:54 PM
I think you two should stop talking about this. :-P It's not like you're going to convince each other, and you've both basically laid out your cases several times at this point.

Lallante
August 14 2012, 06:18:56 PM
Its kinda lame to draw this analogy, but this does rather remind me of the various exploiting dramas in Eve:Online - some retards genuinely believe once they have done the bare minimum reporting (e.g. a petition or bug report) that gives them a get out of jail free card.

Bartholomeus Crane
August 14 2012, 07:24:10 PM
Its kinda lame to draw this analogy, but this does rather remind me of the various exploiting dramas in Eve:Online - some retards genuinely believe once they have done the bare minimum reporting (e.g. a petition or bug report) that gives them a get out of jail free card.

It is not just the idiotic of it, it is the tenacity they show in maintaining it ... Navigator Six is quite right, there's just no point arguing about it. They'll just repeat their myopic interpretation down to the page number any time, ignoring each and every other point or page number that doesn't fit their chosen narrative. And there it ends ...

Keorythe
August 15 2012, 03:55:10 AM
Its kinda lame to draw this analogy, but this does rather remind me of the various exploiting dramas in Eve:Online - some retards genuinely believe once they have done the bare minimum reporting (e.g. a petition or bug report) that gives them a get out of jail free card.

It is not just the idiotic of it, it is the tenacity they show in maintaining it ... Navigator Six is quite right, there's just no point arguing about it. They'll just repeat their myopic interpretation down to the page number any time, ignoring each and every other point or page number that doesn't fit their chosen narrative. And there it ends ...

That goes both ways Barth. Especially when you ignore specifics and try to generalize things.

Lallante, when it comes to sensitive and life altering subjects like this, you report it to the authorities and nothing more. Doing more makes you just as vulnerable to criminal charges and litigation especially if your guesswork turns out wrong. In which case you may have harassed an innocent person.

Lallante
August 15 2012, 08:13:02 AM
Its kinda lame to draw this analogy, but this does rather remind me of the various exploiting dramas in Eve:Online - some retards genuinely believe once they have done the bare minimum reporting (e.g. a petition or bug report) that gives them a get out of jail free card.

It is not just the idiotic of it, it is the tenacity they show in maintaining it ... Navigator Six is quite right, there's just no point arguing about it. They'll just repeat their myopic interpretation down to the page number any time, ignoring each and every other point or page number that doesn't fit their chosen narrative. And there it ends ...

That goes both ways Barth. Especially when you ignore specifics and try to generalize things.

Lallante, when it comes to sensitive and life altering subjects like this, you report it to the authorities and nothing more. Doing more makes you just as vulnerable to criminal charges and litigation especially if your guesswork turns out wrong. In which case you may have harassed an innocent person.

You might be able to live with that on your conscience, I could not. If I genuinely suspected child abuse was happening and ongoing (as he MUST have done), I would consider it an absolute moral imperative to do everything I could to stop it.