Paterno Out
Hard to argue with the decision:
Penn State trustees fired football coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier amid the growing furor over how the school handled sex abuse allegations against an assistant coach.
The massive shakeup Wednesday night came hours after Paterno announced that he planned to retire at the end of his 46th season.
But the outcry following the arrest of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky on molestation charges proved too much for the board to ignore.
One key question has been why Paterno and other top school officials didn’t go to police in 2002 after being told a graduate assistant saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in a school shower.
Typically you’d want to go to the police with that, I’d think.
So, by special request from ODB: open thread!
Patterico (f724ca) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:11 pmPretty sad when an entire AD from a well respected University looks the other way on sexual assault by an adult on children.
I am shocked. At a Big Ten guy who adores the mid-west ethic, very disappointed.
How liable is the School in this one? Seems like they are closing the barn doors after horses got out but ….
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:14 pmItaly is about to be molested something awful
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:16 pm#3. Hope All the PIGS get out of the Euro. My last few vacations have been so expensive with the Euro so high.
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:27 pmNo, not, don’t quit patterico!
Oh… paterno, not patterico…
never mind!
(With apologies to Gilda Radner)
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:30 pmI’d guess the university will be receiving a lot of legal documents. Especially from lawyers of the later young victims who would not even have been victims had somebody-anybody gone to the police a decade ago to stop Sandusky.
elissa (57611d) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:36 pmI heard some guy on a radio show today. I don’t remember which one. He said he was a law enforcement officer and he was talking about the Penn State situation.
He said that he had seen this type of situation before and that people don’t want to believe that someone they know and trust is capable of such actions, so when they hear or witness such crimes, they compartmentalize and and try to rationalize what they’ve seen or heard.
He was a guy on the radio.
All I could think of was my children — and all children.
Fortunately, I have never witnessed any activity as alleged against Sandusky.
Regardless, I do know what I would do if I did witness it. I would call the police.
If I heard about it, I would press for a full investigation, even at the expense of my own job.
I say this knowing of someone who lost a job based on a false allegation and was exonerated.
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/9/2011 @ 8:37 pmThe guy who witnessed the crime should have (1) stopped it and (2) called the police.
Paterno was told by the witness and passed the information to his superiors. If neither the witness below nor the superiors above went to the police, I don’t see how you can attach blame to Paterno in the middle.
CAL (85d157) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:56 pmWatching ESPN, there are some borderline riots in College Station, PA. They have turned over a news truck. Joe Paterno and his wife came out and spoke with the reporters a bit. Wow.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 11/9/2011 @ 9:57 pm“Typically you’d want to go to the police with that…”
Yeah…probably…but maybe the whole put-an-end-to-it process should have started with a particularly forceful statement from the discoverer of the crime-in-progress.
Something along the lines of; “Hey Old Man…get your penis out of that young boy’s rectum before I drown your worthless a$$ in that toilet over there!” …but I’m old-fashioned like that at times.
MJN1957 (6e1275) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:05 pmSad to see this. Of course it is terrible what happened, and people need to be held responsible, but on the whole (from a very little contact with ex-Penn State players) Paterno was as he seemed. He insisted players go to class if it conflicted with practice. He gave millions of dollars to the school. He really loved the school and the students. I remember people saying he was too old and needed to retire back in the 80’s, before they defeated Miami in the national championship game.
There is something of truth in what the law enforcement caller said (comment #7 by Ag80). Like the spouse being cheated on who “doesn’t suspect a thing” when all of their friends know what’s going on. There is the quote that, “Human beings cannot take very much reality”. I don’t know what to make of the number of people involved in the lack of response.
First, you have the graduate assistant. On one hand he has known and respected this coach for at least 4 years as a player, but he’s got to be at least 22 or 23. He freaks out. What he has seen is so startling that he doesn’t know what to do, except wish it was a bad dream and never really happened.
But then you have his dad. One step removed you would have hoped he would have had better perspective and called the police. But no, he tells him to contact Joe Pa. They are acting as if it is a family issue and trying to deal with it in the family.
Joe Pa then hears of it, and likewise treats it as a “family matter” rather than calling the police. Why did he do that? of course, one could say that all of these people just wanted to cover it up for “the sake of Penn State football”, but that is a kind of stupid idea. One assistant coach, no matter how important, can be arrested and locked up without reflection on the team. In one way he should have said, “Tell the police”, just like his dad should have said. Was it established that he was not going to go to the police, no matter what he was told?
Well, having been brought to Joe as an issue “within the family”, he passes it up the bureaucratic chain rather than saying, “Wait a minute, this is a criminal matter, not a football program or coaches problem”. The chain of command fails to do anything, except commit perjury at a later date. Was Joe ever told, “We’ll take care of it”, “We took care of it”?
Now, one can say this is just all an example of people wanting to cover up a problem for the sake of the football program. Could be, but I’m not sure it was as simple as that. I think there was an initial shock and confusion on how to proceed, and once it went the direction of “dealing with it within the family” rather than contacting the police, it just snowballed in that direction.
I’m interested if there are any forensic psych people who read this and can comment.
I’ve heard someone say, “Judge a person in the totality of their actions” (not sure if it is Bill Bennett or Dennis Prager, I think it is one of them). What does that look like here for Paterno? The school, not just the football, has been his life. I would not be surprised if he died within 6 months, the proverbial “broken heart”. I’m not wishing it by any means, and not really predicting it, just worrying out loud.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:15 pmSad, sordid finish to a stellar college football coaching career. Brings to mind the sullen end of the coaching career of the great Woody Hayes.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:16 pmPray for the kids who were victimized by that #@##*@#*#%# Sandusky.
either orr (6713b4) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:17 pmMy daughter was out there tonight at State College (she’s a PSU student). There were a few troublemakers, she said, but most of the kids behaved. (There are a few in every crowd.)
The kids are thinking that Joe is being made a fall guy. And, since the board didn’t fire the athletic director who was indicted last weekend, I can see why they’d think that way.
I also think a few of those board members ought to be grilled. If the knowledge was that widespread, some of them would have known.
It rather depends on what “assaulting” really means in that sentence. This is the problem when we borrow language to mean other things. The law treats “statutory rape” as if it were rape. It considers them equally heinous. But they’re not, and we all know it. For at least some possibilities that fit the legal definition of “assault”, if I saw something like that I’d be inclined to think “lucky boy”, shut the door, and pretend I didn’t see anything, knowing that if I were in the boy’s place I probably wouldn’t want it reported. On the other hand, there are other possible meanings of the word which I would definitely report. But with the way the language has been distorted it’s impossible to tell what is meant in this case.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:25 pmI wrote a post that I see on my computer at #9 of 11, but not listed on scroll.
The AD who is accused of lieing to the grand jury was not fired??
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:26 pmThe athletic director, Tim Curley, was put on administrative leave on Monday.
Given that the AD is facing criminal charges over the same situation that led to Paterno’s firing, I think it’s a safe bet that Curley will never return from administrative leave.
Joshua (555ea3) — 11/9/2011 @ 10:43 pmDoing what he was legally required to do, as opposed to what should have been his moral obligation.
JD (2c2b3f) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:17 pmOops. Accidentally hit submit before finishing that thought.
JD (2c2b3f) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:18 pm_________________________________________
Typically you’d want to go to the police with that, I’d think.
But consider what has been roiling parts of the Catholic church for decades: Any number of scandals that involve priests and under-aged males. And do the offending priests even get excommunicated? Or if molestation and pedophilia don’t justify excommunication, then what does?
Moreover, was the silence or self-imobilized behavior of witnesses at Penn State necessarily all that different from the response — within the culture of the US military, no less — towards Nidal Hasan before he massacred several people at Fort Hood?
We live in such an age of insanity, that a variety of people, had they observed Sandusky and young boys together, would have refrained from saying a peep. Otherwise, they’d worry about looking like a killjoy, prude and “homophobe.”
Mark (411533) — 11/9/2011 @ 11:19 pm“Brings to mind the sullen end of the coaching career of the great Woody Hayes.”
Not really.
Hayes got fired for hitting a player on the other team in a bowl game.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:13 amDisco Stu screws the pooch AGAIN!
Icy (d29113) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:54 amJoe Pa committed a faux pas
Icy (d29113) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:00 am@15- Yes, really.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:33 amCorrect me if I am wrong. From the accounts that I have read, the coach acted properly in line with the existing law. He had not witnessed the act himself and properly reported it to his superior. Most large organizations have internal policies regarding the reporting of criminal activity or behavior to the police. Unless you believe in “ex post facto” justice, you should realize that Coach Paterno acted properly and in accordance with existing law at the time of the offence.
Michael M. Keohane (996c34) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:33 amAnd the reason the eye witness, Mike McQuery, famed coach and super quarterback that saw the molestation in person didn’t get fired as well? Old Joe only had hearsay but Mikey had the actual evidence. The prosecutor likely needs Mike but PSU certainly doesn’t need an accessory to molestation around their campus.
But note PSU also had knowledge since 1998 of the predator and allowed him full access to PSU.
cedarhill (ff487a) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:45 amCoach Paterno followed the law: after Mike McQueary reported the assault he saw to Coach Paterno, the next day, (and one has to wonder why a 6’4″, Division 1 football player from only a few years previously didn’t physically intervene when he saw Jerry Sandusky anally raping a ten year old boy) Coach Paterno told the Atrhletric Director he needed to meet with him, and disclosed the incident.
Coach Paterno says that he was not aware of the full details of the assault; does that mean that Mr McQueary, then a graduate assistant, didn’t tell him the specific details, or that Coach Paterno chose to “soften” the story when he informed the AD? The AD said that he was unaware of the full details of the assault; does that mean he got a sanituzed story from Coach Paterno, or does that mean that Coach Paterno relayed a sanitized version as he heard it from Mr McQueary, or does that mean that Mr Paterno gave the full version to the AD, and the AD chose not to believe the whole thing?
One very much unanswered question: did the Athletic Director tell Coach Paterno that he would handle the reporting to the police? If so, it would be perfectly reasonable for Mr Paterno not to go to the police at that point; his superior was taking that job, and would probably be consulting with the school’s legal counsel.
Mr Sandusky had been accused of child sexual abuse in 1998, which was reported to the authorities, and the district attorney — who disappeared in 2005 — chose not to press any charges. Does that mean the DA was covering up, or that there was simply insufficient evidence to charge Mr Sandusky?
I can understand the dismissal of President Spanier: he was captain of the ship when the ship ran aground, and that’s always the captain’s responsibility and fault even if it happened on midwatch, while the captain was asleep and a lieutenant junior grade had the watch. But Coach Paterno is being fired for not doing far more than was required of him, and which might have caused him to run afoul of his supervisor and the school’s legal counsel.
The trustees have simply cleared the deck of everybody except Coach McQueary; I wonder what happens if Mr Sandusky is acquitted?
The Dana in Pennsylvania (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 4:00 amMcQuery’s role in this is bizarre. He should have gone to the Cops. How he is not being roasted is beyond me.
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/10/2011 @ 4:32 amDid they not fire AD Curley because he is in the middle of a criminal investigation? Is it standard procedure to place on admin leave, sort of a “neutral position” until the criminal proceedings are finished? I guess that would make sense as a general policy, and if a general policy, then to make an exception would set a precedent for the future which would be confusing.
I don’t think my comment at #9 is showing.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:25 amFootball is big money. I don’t know about Penn State, but a Oklahoma, the revenue from football pays for all the other athletic programs, especially the women’s teams who don’t have the gate men’s sports enjoy.
It would be difficult to imagine a worse scenario than a football coach molesting little boys, but covering for him for a decade is outrageous. Any eye witness, in my view, had the responsibility to report this crime to the police immediately.
Arch (0baa7b) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:26 amAt SI the question is raised as to whether Penn State football should be sanctioned by the NCAA, even given the death penalty.
I’m not sure. I guess one can argue they let football become so big they covered up criminal activity to save it, and so the program should be cut.
On the other hand, the NCAA is charged with enforcing it’s rules, not adding or subtracting to criminal penalties. In some ways treating it as a sports program infraction sort of trivializes it. It comes to mind the Bush opposition to hate crimes legislation. If you are going to give a 1st degree murderer the death penalty, what more do you want? If the university fires everyone involved and the courts prosecute those criminally responsibile, what good purpose do NCAA sanctions do, other than as a self-serving attempt to make the NCAA and college sports in general look good (they think, anyway).
Does anyone think this could also happen in academics, such as a Nobel prize winner being protected by an elite school? But again, I think the motivation was only in part “we need to protect the university”, I think a lot of it was like a family trying to hide its secrets (not an excuse, but different considerations).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:39 amThe Philadelphia physician wrote:
Perhaps it’s more along the lines of the glitterati still gushing over anal-raping child molester Roman Polanski.
The Dana who can see the connection (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:10 amA question for all of you crying for Paterno’s head:
Imagine this happening in real time, without the benefit of later knowing that the alleged offender was later arrested and convicted. Someone tells you they saw something they think might have been wrong. The witness is someone you barely know and have no real experience with which to gauge whether he is honest or out to get someone who he doesn’t like. (and what exactly did the guy think he saw? Explicit abuse? Or a situation which just didn’t seem right?) The witness hasn’t gone to police and won’t even after you tell him he should do so if he really thinks he saw something improper. Even if you’re not friends with the alleged offender, is that enough to subject the guy to a police investigation? On one hand, you don’t want any kid to be abused. On the other hand, you know that the police don’t arrest just the guilty, there have been plenty of people falsely accused and whose reputations and lives were ruined. And unlike other situations where a false alarm can be more easily forgotten, being suspected of sexually abusing a child is not something that is ever erased from memory. And do you kick him off the premises, based on nothing more than a second hand story told by someone who himself doesn’t care enough to call the police?
Bottom line, what is the standard by which a non-witness should be expected to ruin someone else’s life?
And for those who say Paterno should have called the police himself, imagine if it were you who were supposedly seen doing something not right. You haven’t done anything criminal, would you want your life ruined because someone knee-jerked called the police because he didn’t want to risk losing his job some ten years later?
steve (369bc6) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:15 amArch wrote:
Under Pennsylvania law, certain professionals have a legal obligation to report suspected or confirmed sexual abuse of minors, including doctors, nurses, teachers and the like; football coaches are not on that list.
Mike McQueary’s legal responsibility was to report it to his supervisor, Joe Paterno, which he did. Mr Paterno’s legal responsibility was to report it to his supervisor, which he did. As the department head, it was Athletic Director Curley’s responsibility to report it to the police, which he apparently did not do.
The Dana with a daughter who's a Penn State student (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:15 amcedarhill wrote:
There was an investigation into Jerry Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse of minors in 1998, an investigation handled by the district attorney, and the DA chose not to charge Mr Sandusky with anything. What Penn State knew was that Mr Sandusky had been accused of child molestation but had been cleared.
The Dana with a daughter who's a Penn State student (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:49 am“Does anyone think this could also happen in academics, such as a Nobel prize winner being protected by an elite school?”
MD in Philly – Absolutely
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:51 amCorrect me if I am wrong.
From the accounts that I have read, the coach acted properly in line with the existing law. He had not witnessed the act himself and properly reported it to his superior. Most large organizations have internal policies regarding the reporting of criminal activity or behavior to the police. Unless you believe in “ex post facto” justice, you should realize that Coach Paterno acted properly and in accordance with existing law at the time of the offence.Comment by Michael M. Keohane — 11/10/2011 @ 3:33 am
— Done.
Icy (dd3656) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:54 amSteve asked:
Different in different cases. That might seem unfair, but it’s reality.
A work friend of mine and I were discussing the case yesterday afternoon, and both concluded that Jerry Sandusky’s life is ruined even if he is acquitted on all charges; like with O J Simpson, he’ll always be believed to be guilty.
Mr Sandusky was released on $100,000 bail; there won’t be anyone in the Keystone State who would be surprised if we get a news report that he committed suicide.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:54 amhttp://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2009/07/frank-m-lombard-revisited-wheres.html
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:58 amAgain, there is a difference between acting according to the law, and what many of us would call the proper moral actions. Paterno acted properly according to the law. the extent to which he acted on his moral obligation is all that is in question.
JD (2c2b3f) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:07 amDana – the ‘his life is going to be ruined’ problem was a real issue for me when I was a juror on a child molestation case. As a juror, you always want to get it right, but the stakes of a mistaken verdict are *so high* in such a case.
aphrael (701749) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:10 amI can’t fault Penn State for firing Paterno, but neither would I have been calling for it. On one hand he did what was required of him. As one person alluded to, had he done anything else he may have been acting in conflict with school policy and internal legal instructions.
On the other hand, if one thought there was anything to the issue, you would think a person in the chain would want to know that things were followed through on. Of course, it is possible that Paterno had asked for follow up and was told something like, “It’s being handled”.
I don’t want to be defending Paterno at all costs, but I do think on any given day he has probably been consistent in wanting the best for his scholar-athletes and the school. Is this a 10 year ongoing moral failure, or a failure to act at one period in time that for Paterno lapsed into history?
Does one look at this and say, “See, I told you so, they’re all crooks”, or “Even good people can make serious lapses in judgment”? I tend to think the second, which puts all in the situation of being frail and none of us without responsibility for doing some wrong in life; but at the same time there are those who have little guilt no matter what they do in pursuit of their desires, and those who know right and wrong and more often than not do the right. I think it was reasonable (but not necessary) for Penn State to fire him, but it is not reasonable to trash him with disrespect. Pardon my usual “abrevity”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:09 amMD in Philly – I think they probably gave him a choice he couldn’t refuse and he refused it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:20 amGreetings:
I’m not getting a sense of what “due process” Coach Paterno was offered or received. Perhaps something along the lines of the Duke lacrosse players ???
If he is/was employed by a state organization shouldn’t there have been some opportunity for him to at least make a statement to the decision makers ???
11B40 (d6656a) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:24 amI gotta go with Steve (Comment #32) on this one. Did an entire blog post on it called “In defense of Joe Paterno.”
http://no-boxes-allowed.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-defense-of-joe-paterno.html
Little bit surprised Patterico is not more understanding of Paterno’s dilemma here, but his experience with such matters is probably different than mine.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Jeff Cox (841109) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:36 amAphrael,
The stakes of a mistaken charge are so high. It’s not just guilty until proven innocent, it’s guilty even if proven innocent.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Jeff Cox (841109) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:37 amdaley-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:40 amAre you referring to Paterno? Yes, I imagine he was asked to move his voluntary retirement up to immediately, and he said no to that. The issue is disruptive no matter how it is handled.
“Are you referring to Paterno? Yes, I imagine he was asked to move his voluntary retirement up to immediately, and he said no to that.”
MD in Philly – Exactly my thought. For the good of the institution.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 9:53 amI haven’t read through all the comments. I just skimmed through the last few comments. In fact, I haven’t even read the article. How’s that for coming in and shooting cold?
I’m going to make this antiseptic, for the benefit of the doctor/veterinarian/herbalist from Otumwa, who comments here regularly.
Joe Pa did the Liberal thing. And he got … well, you know. Liberals are all for eliminating absolutes. Liberals are all for half measures and covering up crimes for their like kind and anyone associated with their like kind. Joe Pa spoke directly to his authorities and to his authorities’ authorities. But Joe Pa didn’t make a criminal case of an internal matter. That’s the Liberal way.
If Joe Pa had gone to the cops, all the Liberals (that would include Pennsylvania State University) would have screamed bloody murder. Benefit of the doubt and squealers and all that rot. So Joe Pa did the next best thing. In fact, Joe Pa did more than the next best thing. Not only did he alert his superiors, he went above and beyond and went above his superiors to their superiors. He just didn’t go the Full Monty and invite outsiders to see Penn State’s junk.
Liberals deal in half steps, double standards, and “protect your own at all costs.” Joe Pa played by the Liberal playbook. And Joe Pa lost his job.
I predict Joe Pa doesn’t live to see the next inauguration. And it’s all the fault of the Liberal (Double) Standard that Joe Pa used to make his wrong decision. At Joe Pa’s advanced age, take coaching football away from him (ad PSU did) and you take his raison d’etre away. As if PSU fired the gun that shot the bullet that killed him. No difference. And all because Joe Pa played by the Liberal rules.
John Hitchcock (dd2978) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:12 amLive by the Liberal Rules, die by the Liberal Rules.
Sad, really!
AD-RtR/OS! (0345ac) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:16 amJohn Hitchcock – How would it work in the military?
If a soldier becomes aware of a potential criminal matter involving another soldier and a civilian, does the soldier report that simultaneously up the chain of command and contact civilian authorities or rely on the chain of command to contact civilian authorities?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:42 amSo if the assitant coach had reported to Paterno he had just witnessed an armed robbery in the locker room the procedure wuld require him to report that to the AD? BS! This isn’t a matter of NCAA violations that would follow such a procedure. A citizen must report a crime and let the police investigate. Plus he allowed this guy access to PSU facilities after hearing about this makes him culpable in my opnion for any harm done to boys after the date of the locker room rape. He used his access to PSU fottball to lure these boys.
The molestation of even one boy outweighs any BS in terms of wins on the football field.
btw I don’t beleve a word of the reports that Paterno didn’t know any details of the assault. It was his responsibility to know the details now he’s making excuses as is PSU.
McCleary is even worse. First thing you do in that situation is end the assault and deliver some severe blows to the person doing the assault. He had a responsibility to report to police as much as Paterno. Since when does reporting up the chain in commend supersede reporting to the police just because your work for a college athletic department?
phaedruscj (3da70c) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:43 amFor at least some possibilities that fit the legal definition of “assault”, if I saw something like that I’d be inclined to think “lucky boy”, shut the door, and pretend I didn’t see anything,
The kid was about 10!
Sandusky preyed on 10,11, and 12 year olds.
Lucky kid? That is so wrong.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:46 amLiberals are all for half measures and covering up crimes for their like kind and anyone associated with their like kind
Um.
Could you tone down the rhetoric a little bit? I’m a liberal, and I’m as offended by Paterno’s behavior here as anyone else is.
aphrael (701749) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:48 amLiberals don’t support child molesters. What bunk.
Sadly, people of all stripes are too often able to pretend they don’t know about the wrongdoings of people they care about. The ability to justify the bad actions of yourself or your friends is amazing. That’s human, not liberal or conservative.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:52 amJohn, I would make the case that liberals — selectively — DO believe in absolutes. Hence, one accusation proves Herman Cain’s guilt; opposition to Obama’s policies IS racism; hate crimes legislation, etc.
Icy (dd3656) — 11/10/2011 @ 10:57 amMike McQueary’s legal responsibility was to report it to his supervisor
And if you are walking down the street and see a man raping a 10 year old, you have no legal responsibility to do anything about it.
If you allow that man to spend the next 5 years bringing 10 year olds over to play in your yard, you aren’t doing anything illegal but your morality should be harshly judged.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:01 amThe requirement to report suspected child abuse to your superiors was put in place to protect children, to make sure abuse was not being overlooked or ignored.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:03 amIt was not put in place to protect rapists from someone at a lower level calling the police.
Oh my freaking Gee! Patterico’s out?! How can that be? Thought he owned the blog? That means no one is safe here. Aaron, Leroy, jd, icy, you are all next! 🙂
The Emperor (03864d) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:06 amPaterno had a moral obligation to follow up. If Sandusky was not arrested, or under investigation in, say, three days, Paterno should have gotten back on the phone until something happened. He was always preaching about character, which in many cases means more than just filling in the boxes on a legal how-to sheet.
Would this happen with academics? See Mann, Hockey Stick
Richard Aubrey (5b5dfa) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:07 amNo it was paterno not patterico.
So will Paterno come out and say Cain tried to put his hand up his shirt.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:14 amIn fact, I haven’t even read the article. How’s that for coming in and shooting cold?
Pretty good, I’d say.
I predict Joe Pa doesn’t live to see the next inauguration….. At Joe Pa’s advanced age, take coaching football away from him (ad PSU did) and you take his raison d’etre away. As if PSU fired the gun that shot the bullet that killed him. No difference.
I share that concern, if it is meant to show concern. Not just coaching football, but the students and the University. He gave millions to the school and did really stress academics among his players.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:21 amphaedruscj wrote:
Coach Sandusky and the boy being assaulted both became aware that they had been observed; it isn’t hard to imagine that Mr Sandusky quickly ended the assault, before Mr McQueary could have physically intervened. We don’t really know precisely what happened, because the grand jury report is not that specific.
The nitpicking Dana (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:17 pm“…and did really stress academics among his players.”
It is just unfortunate that the EduCrats have succeeded in removing the teaching of morality from the educational experience;
AD-RtR/OS! (0345ac) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:19 pmand Joe was of insufficient character to buck that system and demand good character from those who taught with him, and their charges.
The Philadelphia physician wrote:
Around here, there’s a lot of speculation that it will be Jerry Sandusky who doesn’t live to see the next inauguration, but somehow I doubt that there will be nearly as much concern about that.
The somber Dana (3e4784) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:20 pmRush was on the point that the local DA who never pressed charges against Sandusky when this happened has disapperared under mysterious circumstances,
AD-RtR/OS! (0345ac) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:23 pmand has now been declared “legally deceased”.
Where are Woodward & Bernstein investigating this?
Did a parent of one of these kids extract a measure of justice?
Perhaps there are “perfect crimes”?
If he’s guilty then I don’t care if Sandusky lives to see tomorrow.
Icy (dd3656) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:26 pmEmperor showed up as a tight end and left as a wide receiver… AGAIN!
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:28 pmI’m concerned one of the victims will commit suicide when they see all the angst that was caused by them finally coming forward.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:38 pmMy only comment is that after reporting the issue up the chain of authority and discovering that the top of the chain chose to not report it, then you a moral ethical responsibility (maybe not legal) to follow up.
Joe (bbbdbb) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:44 pmabsolutely correct
Joe (bbbdbb) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:48 pmHaving just read the indictment I do not see how anyone can credibly believe that the entire Penn State football program and probably most other progrms did not know the extent of Sandusky’s perversion. The incidents cited began in the late 90’s. He started his charitable group in the late 70’s. Did he magically just become a pervert 20 years later? Doubtful. His early retirement at the height of his career at age 55 followed on the one investigtion done cited in the above emails. Come on! How naive are you guys? The track record for pedophiles is that they do not change, they keep on doing it. Those who knew and took no action to stop the man are complicit morally. I don’t care about the legalities. This was a moral abdication from all including Paterno who is worshipped as an icon of morality. You can’t have a double standard here.
bio mom (a1e126) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:57 pmI just read the grand jury report, and saw specifically what it was that McQueary claimed to have seen. Not just an “assault”, as the cited article describes it, which as I wrote above could mean lots of things, including things I would definitely turn a blind eye to. I think if I’d seen that I’d have at the very least have made sure the boy was OK, and was going to be OK; and only if he specifically told me to get lost would I do so.
But what struck me in reading the report is how different that one incident was from all the others. Which leads me to believe those who claimed that the version McQueary told them, or that they heard second-hand, did not include those details, and they assumed it was more like what they had long suspected to be Sandusky’s thing. And that, for better or worse, is widely considered to be inappropriate but not very serious; the sort of thing one wants to make sure doesn’t happen again, but not the sort of thing to ruin someone’s life over. Maybee above compared this incident to armed robbery; but most of the rest of the record more resembles panhandling. So if that’s what people assumed had been going on, then their reaction seems proportionate.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 12:58 pmThey clearly knew that he had a thing for boys; but that’s not a crime. They probably suspected that he went further than the law strictly allowed, but this one incident is very atypical of the rest of the grand jury’s findings.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:00 pm71: Guess you live by a lower standard than I do.
bio mom (a1e126) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:04 pmbut this one incident is very atypical of the rest of the grand jury’s findings.
Because it was anal sex instead of oral?
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:04 pmBoth that and which way round it was. Also the witness’s estimate of the boy’s age was much younger than the confirmed ages of the boys involved in the other incidents reported. Which makes me wonder whether the witness misjudged or misremembered. Also, I find it hard to believe that a boy that young would not be hurt by the activity reported, in which case surely the witness would have seen and heard evidence of that, and would have mentioned it. That his report seems entirely consistent with a consensual encounter suggests to me that the boy was older.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:17 pmDunno if anyone else has noted it:
Penn State Students Riot
Smock Puppet, Victim of Gender Discrimination. Yes, I am. (2fb1c2) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:26 pmNone of the boys were at the age of consent. All of the boys were in middle school.
McQeary, I’m assuming, guessed the age he did because the boy did not look as if he’d gone through puberty.
The stories are almost entirely consistent- Sandusky chose middle school boys and involved them in a series of escalating encounters, often in the shower.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:28 pmIt may be true that McQeary didn’t see what he thought he saw. It’s equally true that we have no idea how many times Sandusky had already done this to the boy. There’s no reason to assume it was the first time.
It’s amazing how few people these days have the balls to stand up and say something. I see it among my younger friends all the time.
The mantra of the times tends to be:
“Don’t Make Waves“.
It’s all part and parcel of the forces pushing Americans to become sheeple, instead of Men.
Smock Puppet, Victim of Gender Discrimination. Yes, I am. (2fb1c2) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:32 pmFor those of you defending Paterno:
What level of naked-in-the-shower-at-night-with-a-prepubescent touching should be allowed before you tell your school you don’t want that guy having his kids camp at your football facilities?
What details could he have heard for it to be acceptable to continue to associate his program with this man?
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:36 pmThat is a legal definition, not one that reflects reality. Teenagers are obviously capable of consenting to sex; it happens all the time. That the law doesn’t call it consent, and treats it as a nullity, doesn’t change the reality. Even if the law is right to do so, it’s still a legal fiction, not a true statement.
Maybe. Or maybe he was just not good at judging ages. But whatever the reason for the error, the grand jury report seems to me to give us reason to suspect that there was indeed an error. And therefore we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that the appearance of actual (rather than legal) consent was not an error.
What to do in that situation? Well, what would you do if you caught a teenage boy getting a blow job from an adult woman, and showing every sign of enjoying it? That’s at one end of a spectrum; the reported incident is at the other. But there’s a graduated path from one to the other.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:41 pmDidn’t exactly that happen?
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:42 pmMillhouse- all of them were younger than 9th grade. 10,11,12. What are you seeing that is so vastly different?
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:42 pmNo Millhouse, that did not happen. Did you really read the report? He continued to have football camps at Penn State. He continued to bring the boys to sporting events at Penn State.
The last victim, upon whom Sandusky allegedly performed oral sex, was discovered by Sandusky at a Penn State football camp put on by Sandusky’s charity.
All they did was tell Sandusky not to bring the kids into their shower.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 1:44 pmIcy : Very intelligent comment. How long did it take you? Most six year olds can figure that out in microseconds.
Michael M. Keohane (996c34) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:01 pmThe grand jury report is a depressing read. Everyone that knew in 2002 and didn’t report it to proper authorities is in trouble. Possibly including Paterno.
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf
carlitos (49ef9f) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:15 pmI’ve seen some people comment (mostly at Ace of Spades) that they believe part of the reason this wasn’t responded to more forcefully was because of the normalization of homosexuality. That normalization has occurred especially on University Campuses.
I thought about that and discarded it, thinking that obviously sexual relations between a man an an underage prepubescent would be offensive to anyone. Then I read Millhouse’s comments here. In one comment M says that many would close the door while thinking, “Lucky boy.” Then later he says that McQueary probably underestimated the boy’s age.
Really? A barely pubescent boy is so difficult to distinguish from a post-pubescent young man who can properly consent? Especially one who is naked. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can certainly tell the difference between a middle-school boy and a late highschool boy.
Millhouse, you certainly have academic abilities, and may even be widely considered as learned, but you are absolutely not wise.
bonhomme (a8b058) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:25 pm“That is a legal definition”
Milhouse – That’s all that matters here unless you are going to begin arguing again that people have the right to pick and choose which laws to obey. If you don’t like the legal definition, lobby with NAMBLA to get it changed.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:25 pmI’m seeing the grand jury report. What are you seeing? None of the other incidents reported seem to be of boys younger than 13. The pattern that emerges from the document is that he enjoys the company of young boys approaching puberty, but doesn’t initiate sexual contact until puberty. If you think you saw something different you need to read it again. That’s why the report of the 10-year old seems inconsistent with the pattern. Together with its other inconsistencies, it rouses my suspicion that something is missing or askew with it.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:27 pmActually, people do have the right to pick and choose which laws to obey; I do not recognise any moral obligation to obey any law, and regard anyone who believes in such an obligation as a moral pervert. Right and wrong do not in any way depend on what the law happens to be in any particular place or time.
But that’s not relevant here. What we’re discussing is not whether Sandusky was wrong to act as he did, but whether those who became aware of his activity should have reported him. And unless you believe in the KGB/Gestapo ideal, where everybody has a duty to inform on everybody else, then you must concede that there are legal offenses that you would not report if you discovered them. If you found your child smoking a joint, would you call the cops and hand them over to be sent away? I doubt it. And the moment you concede that there is a line to be drawn, that there are crimes which it’s OK not to report, then we have to discuss where that line is to be drawn.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:32 pm“Curley testified that he…advise[d] Sandusky that he was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus from that point forward. […] Sandusky had been directed not to use Penn State’s athletic facilities with young people.”
“Schultz testified that he and Curley agreed that Sandusky was to be told not to bring any Second Mile children into the football building.”
While the grand jury decided that both men had lied about other things, no doubt seems to be expressed about this matter. And going quickly through the document I can’t find any reference to Sandusky violating these restrictions. Where are you seeing what you claim?
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:44 pmWrong.
Victim 1- 13
Victim 2 – estimated 10
Victim 3 – 13
Victim 4 – 12 or 13
Victim 5 – 8 when it started
Victim 6 – 11
Victim 7 – 12 or 13
Victim 8 – 11-13
There is a reason that children can’t legally consent. It’s because they aren’t capable.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:50 pmDaleyrocks, do you not consider it important that Roman Polansky’s victim was actually unwilling? Do you think his crime would be no different if she had consented, since the law would consider such consent a nullity? Whoopi Goldberg famously said that while what Polansky did was legally rape, it wasn’t “rape rape”. She was wrong; but do you not think that matters? What if she’d been right; would that not change anything for you? Do you not even concede that the distinction she (erroneously) drew is a real one?
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:50 pmCarlitos, you evidently have problems reading. You are seriously misrepresenting what the document says.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:51 pm“The grand jury finds that portions of the testimony of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are not credible. … The grand jury finds that Tim Curley made a materially false statement under oath … Furthermore, the grand jury finds that Tim Curley made a materially false statement under oath … “
carlitos (49ef9f) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:53 pmCarlitos, my apologies, victim 5 reports his age as somewhere between 8 and 10. You were right about that one.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:54 pmMilhouse, I can’t copy / paste from the pdf doc. If I’m wrong, please show your math.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:54 pmYes, they found portions of those two men’s testimony not credible. But there’s nothing to indicate that they doubted the portions I quoted. More than that, there’s no evidence adduced on the basis of which they could find those portions not credible.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:57 pmCarlitos, I’m going through it again now. You’re right about victim 6’s age too, but that incident is rather weak. Inappropriate behaviour, yes, but I doubt that it was criminal; certainly nothing to support a pattern that would make the alleged incident with victim 2 more credible.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 2:59 pmVictim 7 doesn’t report much, and victim 8’s age once again depends on someone else’s estimate.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:02 pmCarlitos, I apologise for impugning your literacy.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:03 pmSorry, people, phone just rang and I’ve gotta go. Probably won’t be back at a computer until at least midnight.
Milhouse (f8511c) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:04 pmMilhouse, I disagree. Carlitos seems to be reporting the grand jury report accurately.
“Victim 1 testified that he was 11 or 12 years old when he met Sandusky … in 2005 or 2006” (p.2). “Victim 1 testified that this [behavior which led to molestation] began to occur during the summer of 2005 or 2006.”
“He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old [redacted because inappropriate on this blog]”, p.6.
“VIctim 3, now age 24, met Sandusky … in the summer of 2000, when he was between seventh and eighth grade.” (p. 13).
“Victim 4, now age 27, was a Second Mile participant who was singled out by Sandusky at the age of 12 or 13.”
“Victim 6 recalls being taken into the locker room next to Holuba Hall at Penn State by Sandusky when he was 11 years old, in 1998.”
Victim 7 is ambiguous, as they met when he was 10 but it appears nothing happened “for a couple of years”. (page 20)
Victim 8 is “described as being between the ages of 11 and 13” at the time a janitor saw him being raped, p. 21-22.
aphrael (701749) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:06 pmAccording to the left we’re all a bunch of racists for supporting this guy and Herman Cain looks like a minstrel clown.
That is logical if your an ultralefty masquerading as a libertarian.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/10/2011 @ 3:20 pm“Daleyrocks, do you not consider it important that Roman Polansky’s victim was actually unwilling? Do you think his crime would be no different if she had consented, since the law would consider such consent a nullity?”
Milhouse – It makes no difference in this country whether Polanski’s victim consented because as has been previously pointed out to you, minors do not have the legal ability to consent in this type of situation.
People are free to pick and choose which laws to obey, but they are not free from the consequences of ignoring the laws they choose to not to obey. We have discussed your strange concepts of the rights and obligations of citizenship several times before. I doubt you would pass a high school civics class if they were still taught today.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2011 @ 4:38 pm“Curley testified that he…advise[d] Sandusky that he was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus from that point forward. […] Sandusky had been directed not to use Penn State’s athletic facilities with young people.”
vs.
Victim 1 testified he came to the attention of Sandusky when he attended the Second Mile football camp at Penn State. Victim 1 testified Sandusky brought him to sporting events at Penn State, including pre-season practices.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 4:49 pmthat’s a paraphrase, btw. But it’s in the report.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 4:52 pmUnfortunately, here is another possible added layer of ugly. The article also discusses the unusual timing of the retirement of Sandusky and posits it may have been a sort of quid pro quo with Penn State for a decision to cover up back when it occurred, (since he was only 55 when he retired and had always been seen as heir apparent to JoePa). Whoosh–all of a sudden he retires and never coaches anywhere again.
http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandusky-rumored-to-have-been-pimping-out-young-boys-to-rich-donors-says-mark-madden.html
elissa (920846) — 11/10/2011 @ 5:13 pmAm I the only one that thinks Milhouse is ok with this whole Sandusky issue?
#106 so true daley.
PatAZ (c65c00) — 11/10/2011 @ 5:16 pmPatAZ – its the Milhouses of this world that make us make sure – we are doing the right thing before we pass judgement
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 11/10/2011 @ 5:30 pmThe quote below is from an article written in early April by Madden, the guy interviewed in the story I linked at 5:13pm:
“Worst-case scenario: Sandusky is charged. Then it seems reasonable to wonder: Did Penn State not make an issue of Sandusky’s alleged behavior in 1998 in exchange for him walking away from the program at an age premature for most coaches? Did Penn State’s considerable influence help get Sandusky off the hook?
Don’t kid yourself. That could happen. Don’t underestimate the power of Paterno and Penn State in central Pennsylvania when it comes to politicians, the police and the media.
In 1999, Penn State was rid of Sandusky. His rep was unblemished, which allowed him to continue running a charitable foundation that gave him access to underage males. To be a volunteer assistant with a high school football team, thus gaining access to underage males.
If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn’t act, instead facilitating Sandusky’s untroubled retirement – are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline. ”
My own question is, with all this uncertainty hanging out there, it is almost incomprehensible that Penn State could have been so amateurish and ill equipped to deal with the fall-out and emotion from the indictments when they finally came down.
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area
elissa (920846) — 11/10/2011 @ 5:47 pmPaterno did not bear witness; McQueary did.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:18 pmPaterno did not bear witness; McQueary did.
Paterno was told something. What level of touching by a naked man in a shower with a boy could he have been told about for it to be ok that he did not stop allowing his football program and facilities to be used by Sandusky to entertain boys?
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:26 pmActually, people do have the right to pick and choose which laws to obey; I do not recognise any moral obligation to obey any law, and regard anyone who believes in such an obligation as a moral pervert.
Milhouse, you don’t really mean that! Din ha-malkutha ha-din and all that…*
[For the rest of you: it’s from the Talmud, and means literally “the law of the land is the law”–and was meant by the Rabbis of the Talmud to mean that we are in general obligated to accept the laws of the lands in which we live, especially in regard to economic matters and financial transactions (so that, for instance, a contract valid under California law between two Jews is valid under Jewish law even though it was made in a way that would otherwise invalidate it under Jewish law).
JBS (1b86f1) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:37 pmThat is the operative word. He was told something by someone. He did not bear witness himself.
Now, it is obvious McQueary did not report the incident to the police at the time. And it is blameworthy for Paterno and the administration to have failed to fire McQueary for this conduct, either because McQueary either failed to report a sex crime committed on Penn State grounds (assuming it happened) or slandered Sandusky (assuming it did not happen) But there was neither legal not ethical duty to pass on second-hand information. To illustrate it better, suppose someone told me that one of you committed child rape? Would I have a moral duty to go to the police, instead of telling, advising, or encouraging that someone to tell the truth to the police?
We all know what happened to Grant Snowden, Gerald Amirault, and Tonya Craft. We all know what happened in Duke University and Kern County. And we should keep those incidents in mind when judging this incident.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:38 pmSo Mike, what do you think Joe Paterno was told by McQueary that made Joe Paterno think “It is fine with me that this man who did ___________ should indeed hold his youth football camps in my facilities and should indeed bring boys to my football practices”?
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:42 pmOr do you think, since he didn’t see it himself, whatever McQueary told him he saw did not influence Joe Paterno’s thoughts about the fitness of using his university for Sandusky’s youth camps and outings?
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:44 pmWould I have a moral duty to go to the police, instead of telling, advising, or encouraging that someone to tell the truth to the police?
We have no idea if Joe Paterno did this. The report does not indicate he advised McQuery to go to the police, and McQ in fact did not go to the police. McQueary has remained on Paterno’s staff.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:47 pmMayBee,
In order for a conscientious person adhering to a reasonable moral code to continue allowing the person in question to hold youth football camps at his facilities makes me think he was told pretty much next to nothing. That, or Joe Paterno was not who he has presented himself to be over the years. It’s very difficult to understand how his conscience could allow him to remain silent all these year and/or rationalize or justify any sort of knowledge he may have regarding what took place and be able to look the other way for so long.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:50 pmPatAZ – its the Milhouses of this world that make us make sure – we are doing the right thing before we pass judgement
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 11/10/2011 @ 5:30 pm
This, coming from the clown that accused Cain of rape.
JD (318f81) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:52 pmme think he was told pretty much next to nothing. That, or Joe Paterno was not who he has presented himself to be over the years.
Yes, I agree it has to be one or the other. Although by next to nothing, I have to say it would have to be “I saw coach sandusky last night in the locker room with a kid” and Paterno not asking “Why are you telling me this?”
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:55 pmOne could reasonably question whether McQuery, then a mere graduate assistant, was promoted to his current position by both Paterno and the AD as a “favor” for services performed (or, in the case of the police not performed) which might have been viewed by all as an overall “benefit” to the school.
elissa (920846) — 11/10/2011 @ 6:56 pmIt might be easier getting info out of the Vatican re the abuse of congregants by Priests, than out of PennSt over this matter –
AD-RtR/OS! (0345ac) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:10 pmIvory Towers seem to be very formidable redoubts.
JD
I’m not agreeing with Milhouse and I didnt accuse cain of rape but was refering to commentators that were
And the Cain thing isnt over
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:22 pmAs I explained in the comment above .
I think Paterno trusted McQueary to tell the truth to the authorities.
for him to “know” in a legal sense, he would have either observed the crime itself, an admission from Sandusky, or physical or photographic evidence indicating guilt.
Suppose McQueary had done the right thing, and Sandusky was indicted. To what could paterno have testified? At best, he could testify about McQueary’s character in a prosecution attempt to bolster McQueary’s credibility. But McQueary himself would have been the key witness.
I would not speculate until there is evidence.
Remember Duke University.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:28 pmfor him to “know” in a legal sense,
I’m not asking in a legal sense.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:34 pmIt seems like a question that should be much easier to answer than it apparently is.
Paterno didn’t “fail to fire” McQueary – he was a graduate assistant at the time.
By your own description, Coach Ethical Example passed judgement on McQueary’s failure to report a sex crime/commit a horrible slander by … hiring him on to his full time staff.
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:42 pmFor what it’s worth, Paterno himself testified that McQueary told him he saw Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”.
MayBee (081489) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:44 pmIt’s amazing how many keep going to the legal definition and process as opposed to what a moral person’s conscience would demand if they were told even the very least of it. Frankly, I would be troubled if I weren’t bothered by a grown man keeping silent about such a troubling event for so long.
for him to “know” in a legal sense, he would have either observed the crime itself, an admission from Sandusky, or physical or photographic evidence indicating guilt.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:45 pm_____________________________________________
Jerry Sandusky on molestation charges
I’ve read that records indicate Sandusky is a registered Republican. It would be interesting to study how his apparently screwed-up, sick sexuality squares or doesn’t square with his ideology. Perhaps he’s a RINO or so squishy that he’ll go into the voting booth and pull the lever based on who or what has gotten the most positive publicity on, say, CNN, or in Time magazine, the Atlantic Monthly and the New York Times.
I know perverts come in all shapes and forms, but I still can’t envision a person who’s down-to-earth socially and politically also being such a freak privately. Even more so when pedophilia, unlike behavior between consenting adults, involves innocent victims. So although human nature has many twists and turns, I bet if one were to scratch below the surface of Sandusky’s mindset, they’d discover he’s oddly apolitical or certainly not into a philosophy of common sense and decency—ie, something more rightwing than left.
Mark (411533) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:48 pmAnd for those of you confused about whether you are witnessing a crime that requires an immediate response – either physical intervention or calling 911 – when you see a 55 year old man engaging in sex with a 10 year old, please stay away from any position of responsibility involving children.
For crying out loud people.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:51 pmThe OWS anarchists have gone to protesting the wall street people who gave to Obama to defecating on cop cars and dying from overdoses.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:53 pmAnd some of the protesters are a bunch of self-loathing democrap joooooooooooooos
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:54 pmSorry for the Off topic.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:55 pmMark
Umm,
Left or right, its not political, just highly criminal
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 11/10/2011 @ 7:56 pmGod love ya Eric.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:16 pm==Comment by EricPWJohnson — 11/10/2011 @ 7:56 pm==
I agree with you about that Eric, we gain nothing by trying to morph these criminal acts and multiple moral failings into a political story.
elissa (920846) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:16 pmAnd as Blue Ox pointed out.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:18 pmDana @ #26
Based on your own description of events, a man who should have been able to intervene in the rape of a child, chose not to. Instead he “reported the assault” to Paterno.
Paterno responds to the knowledge that his graduate assistant failed to intervene in the anal rape of a 10 year old by hiring him on full-time. He spends the next ten years preaching responsibility and ethics.
And you’re OK with this ’cause he followed the law.
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:19 pmMichael Ejercito
You missed my point entirely.
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:25 pmhttp://bleacherreport.com/articles/935174-penn-state-scandal-jerry-sandusky-may-also-face-charges-in-san-antonio
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/10/2011 @ 8:44 pm____________________________________________
Left or right, its not political, just highly criminal
But ideological biases appear to be no less telling or revealing about what makes people tick than almost any other aspect of the human mind. IOW, I find political impulses in people an interesting guidepost in how they will or won’t behave in a variety of situations. Moreover, a high percentage of gays/bisexuals are of the left, and Sandusky’s apparent fetishes involve both pederasty and homosexuality.
Mark (411533) — 11/10/2011 @ 11:35 pmSo let me get this straight: MCQueary gets hired after he agrees to keep his mouth shut to the authorities. This is such a classic coverup – to protect PennState football at the expense of young boys. There is a huge circle of cowardly people here – even extending into officers of the court. Some should be prosecuted, some fired, some will have to live with this forever and better seek forgiveness from a higher authority. The PennState football program should be shuttered and McQueary should never be in a position of any influence over young men. He is such a coward.
SDHarms (c94e22) — 11/11/2011 @ 3:07 amI myself like to see things clearly described with “the bottom line”, an example of which is SDHarms comment at #144.
But I have too often experienced that the peculiarities of thruth complicate such analyses. In a way it is like using statistics to lie. One can refer to factual evidence, but in a way which is at best incomplete and misleading.
I guess we have no one in forensic psychiatry reading, or if they are they are staying quiet for lack of 1st hand knowledge of the case.
An alternative “bottom line” explanation would be that the people involved related to each other more as family as business associates (at least on the coaching level), and the dynamic was similar to a family being silent about such a problem.
I don’t think Joe Pa was so good at acting that he appeared one way so consistently, yet was something totally else underneath. If that was true, we could all reassure ourselves that we would always do the right thing. The idea that he is a basically decent man who had a lapse in this situation is much more threatening to those of us who would like to think we are above such behavior.
I’m not trying to excuse such behavior, I am interested in understanding how it came about, if there is more to it than simply a cover up for the sake of football. As richard nixon would say, coverups are what is stupid and damaging, it would have been better to isolate and deal with the problem.
McQueary will not be present involved with coaching the game tomorrow, as the school says they/he have received “death threats”. Nothing more has been said if people give their motives as “his role in bringing down Joe Pa” or that he refused to act himself when he witnessed it or exactly what.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2011 @ 7:02 amI don’t think anyone always does the right thing.
I think once your own failure is pointed out so plainly to you, and you see there were people (children) harmed as a direct result of your failure, it’s time to step aside from your position of leadership and glory.
MayBee (081489) — 11/11/2011 @ 7:36 amMayBee,
While I agree with you at 146, I think that the fact that these people remained so long as well as when the story was made public decided to stay until the end of the eason and had to be removed by the school much sooner rather than later, reveals a lack of character as well as a misguided sense of relevancy. The season and the school remained more important to certain individuals with an apparent lack of understanding at the fulls scope of unintended consequences their inaction may have brought about.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/11/2011 @ 7:53 am==An alternative “bottom line” explanation would be that the people involved related to each other more as family as business associates (at least on the coaching level), and the dynamic was similar to a family being silent about such a problem==
MD, I believe a number of sportswriters (who probably know more about this than many of them are comfortable saying publicly) have actually used the Penn State “family” model in their writing. Not that they are trying to justify what happened (because it can’t be justified), but to help explain to us laypeople why the same acts and facts that are so obvious to outsiders, might have been minimized and ignored by the “family” because they were so close to it to assess it all rationally.
Yes. You are wise to point out that families harbor and protect and turn a blind eye to criminals and miscreants all the time.
elissa (c04a7b) — 11/11/2011 @ 8:01 amDana- I completely agree with you. My 146 was giving Paterno every benefit of the doubt about what he knew when, and what he felt he could do about it. Yes indeed, not resigning immediately is a tell about the character of the man, and we can use it to judge him in a new way.
MayBee (081489) — 11/11/2011 @ 8:10 amPersonally, I had been a huge fan of the man. I believed in his selflessness. Refusing to step aside made me realize his own glory was much more important to him than I’d previously believed.
I am heartened to see the Penn State students get a grip and start focusing on the alleged victims. They may even be among them.
MayBee (081489) — 11/11/2011 @ 8:38 amPerhaps I should have said “alleged” behavior of Sandusky in my previous comment. Regardless, for anyone to condone/cover up this “alleged” behavior makes them just as guilty. It would be interesting to know how many people were privey to this information.
What a way for Joe Paterno to end a illustrious career.
PatAZ (c65c00) — 11/11/2011 @ 8:51 amFrom now on I will always think of Penn State as Omelas State University. (H/T Aaron.) Furthermore, if the allegations are proven true (that University administrators were told about an assault but failed to report it and later perjured themselves), then the football program should be sanctioned by the NCAA at least as harsh as the sanctions imposed on Baylor’s basketball program.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2011 @ 1:47 pmTrue, DRJ.
AD-RtR/OS! (556f44) — 11/11/2011 @ 2:01 pmThis, in its’ corruption of the academe, is way worse than a car for some player’s Dad.
The NCAA will have to stand judgement on their reaction to this scandal.
MD in Philly,
I think we learned a lot about Paterno this week. At every stage, from keeping the assault report within the institution up to his initial statement issued after the scandal broke this week, Paterno’s main concern seemed to be Penn State University’s reputation. One way to view this is to credit Paterno for being intensely loyal to Penn State, something I’m sure he feels and I know the fans appreciate. But since Paterno and Penn State are so intertwined, it’s also possible Paterno wanted to protect his own reputation more than he wanted to deal with what happened in that locker room and where it led. However, whatever his motivation, Paterno was the leader of Penn State’s football program. Whether or not he did what the law requires, he failed as its leader.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2011 @ 2:34 pmDRJ and MayBee-
Joe Paterno may be motivated totally by self-interest, but I doubt it. Even his desire to finish out the season may have been more out of a sense of loyalty to his current players than self-interest. Again, some may see that as a ridiculous point of view, but I think it is entirely possible that is what he had in mind. What does the typical Penn State ball player prefer? Do they think Joe is evil and needs to be fired? Do they still respect him for what they have personally experienced and wish he could finish out the season? If the team captains told Joe they wanted him to finish out the season, was his refusal to resign immediately self-centered, or for the sake of his players?
I do not know, I just find it all troubling and confusing.
As far as NCAA sanctions go, I guess if it is all viewed as trying to protect the football program, then give them the axe. But if it is seen as a criminal act and a failure to act, then let the criminal justice system do it’s thing. The NCAA enforces its rules, not criminal activity.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2011 @ 4:04 pmThe protection of Penn State is so similar to the those protecting the Catholic Church while knowing sexual abuse to children was happening.
So whether or not Paterno was or was not motivated by self interest is a moot point because at some level, either his own interest or the interest of an institution superseded the safety and interest of children. Which ever way one cuts it, it is disgraceful. And whichever way it is, one has to marvel that he could effectively push it to the periphery of his mind and soldier on like nothing was wrong. What kind of conscience allows that…
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/11/2011 @ 4:11 pmDo they still respect him for what they have personally experienced and wish he could finish out the season? If the team captains told Joe they wanted him to finish out the season, was his refusal to resign immediately self-centered, or for the sake of his players?
If they respected him for what they personally experienced, it is a good lesson for them at this age to learn it isn’t all about them. The man who had done so much for them had failed other, younger boys in a most depressing way.
MayBee (081489) — 11/11/2011 @ 4:29 pmMD in Philly,
I know you like Penn State/Paterno and that you are agonizing over this, but I agree with Dana. It’s interesting to speculate what motivates people but ultimately what matters is the choices they make, not their motivations. My point was that Paterno seems to be more concerned with institutional or personal reputation than with the abuse, and he seems to acknowledge as much in his statement when he says “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”
As for NCAA sanctions, the Baylor case shows that criminal activity can be the basis of NCAA sanctions if it becomes institutionalized or part of a cover up. Criminal prosecutions are designed to identify and punish offenders but they also send a message to society about acceptable individual behavior. This case can change individual behavior and make people think twice about what they would do in a similar situation. Similarly, NCAA sanctions can change institutional behaviors and I submit that’s an important element of responding to situations like this — where the criminal prosecutions themselves won’t impact Penn State except to the extent it is paying the administrators’ legal fees (which it is).
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2011 @ 4:30 pmActually, MD, I think the Penn State administrators are getting the benefit of the doubt when we suggest they may have been motivated by concerns about reputation. The alternative is that they were trying to help Sandusky — presumably a friend and colleague — avoid a difficult situation. I’d hate to think they were motivated by that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2011 @ 4:47 pmIf they respected him for what they personally experienced, it is a good lesson for them at this age to learn it isn’t all about them
No, it’s not all about them. But I think it is too easy to look from afar and simply say, “What a creep, I’m glad I’m not like him”.
They could learn a lot of lessons, from, “Never trust anybody, no matter what they appear to be and their reputation says”, or, “A lifetime of accomplishment can be destroyed quickly if your integrity fails”, or, “Any day could be the day you are faced with an unexpected crisis that demands you act with courage and wisdom”, or, “Do not trust others to do their job if you share responsibility”. I am sure there are other lessons as well, such as never let a child attend a sports camp, never trust an adult male, never trust a college that makes money on sports…
Concerning NCAA sanctions, or lack thereof. If Penn State football suffers, so does just about every sport and student athlete at the school. Now, maybe it should come to that, but I’m not sure who you’re punishing when they drop tennis, swimming, fencing, gymnastics, etc…
The school will hurt financially from angry alumni, already their bond rating is being reviewed which will mean additional financial loss.
Apparently the grand jury investigation started close to 2 years ago or so, and at least some of the Board of Trustees (including the now-governor) knew it was happening. Of course, they didn’t know about the problem while it was a problem and did nothing about it, but rather knew the investigation was happening and did nothing pre-emptively. I guess the question is were they correct to do nothing in light of the pending criminal investigation? I believe Sandusky had already been banned from the campus, though I may have some of it wrong.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2011 @ 7:58 pmRe 159, DRJ-
Actually it has already been discussed that maybe the way to look at it is not as a school protecting its reputation but as a family protecting its own members. Or people simply refusing to believe such a terrible thing.
Yes, it is choices that we make that are the obvious thing with their consequences. But I think choices are made for reasons, and if one does not understand one’s motives one is at a disadvantage at preparing oneself for the choices that come.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/11/2011 @ 8:07 pmMD,
In answer to your two main points: First, the NCAA only sanctioned the Baylor basketball program, not all its sports. Second, many organizations seem like families to the people that work there. If that’s what you think happened then Penn State is a very dysfunctional family. Is that really your position?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2011 @ 6:07 amPaterno is a perv.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/12/2011 @ 6:27 amNo, it’s not all about them. But I think it is too easy to look from afar and simply say, “What a creep, I’m glad I’m not like him”.
I suppose there are many thinking that that, but I’m not sure that has much to do with whether Paterno should be coaching. He let his school down, and he helped set up a situation where children continued to be victimized using his beloved institution. There are important things to be learned from that, especially by those he has been charged with teaching on his team.
MayBee (081489) — 11/12/2011 @ 7:14 amI certainly don’t believe you think the lesson is “don’t send your kids to sports camp”.
With respect to your last sentence– no, Sandusky had not already been banned from campus, unless you means since he was arrested and let out on bail.
If Penn State is sanctioned, it will suffer the same as any number of universities whose football teams have been sanctioned. USC, Miami, Ohio State, Michigan State and many others went through it. Is there some reason Penn State will be especially harmed by sanctions?
MayBee (081489) — 11/12/2011 @ 7:19 amOf course, they didn’t know about the problem while it was a problem and did nothing about it, but rather knew the investigation was happening and did nothing pre-emptively. I guess the question is were they correct to do nothing in light of the pending criminal investigation?
As long as children were on campus at football camp while an investigation was being conducted and the same adult involved was still working out and maintaining an office there as recently as last week, how is this even a question?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/12/2011 @ 9:38 amDana, the points you raise are good ones.
AD-RtR/OS! (22b718) — 11/12/2011 @ 10:39 amMy personal viewpoint is that the PTB at PaState just did not want to know what was happening, or else they would have moved, once they knew of the investigation of Sandusky, to remove him from the campus and its facilities; to be put on “administrative leave” if he were still an employee, so to speak.
That they didn’t take this preliminary step to distance themselves from his activities while the investigation was on-going, opens them up to further liability IMO.
responses not in order of importance
Being sanctioned by the NCAA is different than the “death penalty”, prohibiting football as a sport for a period of time, which is what some people have asked for, and is what I have been (unclearly) discussing. Whether the NCAA sanctions them with fewer scholarships, or no post season play, or whatever that still allows PSU to have a football team and have 80,000+ fans watching every game is totally different from an NCAA “death penalty”. Most schools with big football programs use “excess revenue”=”profits” from football to fund a substantial amount of their other sports. No football, no money for other sports, no money, no coaches, no equipment, no teams. I imagine some schools are the same with basketball, such as Kentucky, UNC, etc. I think basketball is typically a positive net return, but without a stadium of 70,000+ it rarely would generate enough money to cover the rest of a major sports program. I doubt if anything else in college even covers the expense of the sport, except maybe hockey at places like Wisconsin, with # of attendees similar to basketball.
Re sports camps- even before this I would be very reluctant to let a child younger than 16 go to any camp that includes overnight with people I do not know. Being a doctor, especially if working with a concentration of people with HIV, substance abuse, etc., one hears a lot of stories of how lives are shipwrecked early. Between that and my personally never participating in such things growing up, I have very little enthusiasm for such things. (“Going to camp” for me was going to grandma’s and walking to the public pool 2 blocks away…) It would appear that you agree that there are many possible lessons to be learned.
As far as Sandusky’s presence on campus, I thought he had been banned as of 2009 or so. I guess it was then that he was denied access to PSU facilities to work with his program, not banned completely from campus. If he has been allowed access to facilities used by the Penn football team and in that capacity he had interaction with children, then clearly wrong. If it meant he had interaction with PSU football players, whatever one thinks of it, 17 or older football players are different from 10-12 year olds at a football camp.
PSU athletics/esp football as a very dysfunctional family? That is exactly my point. There seems to have been a massive unwillingness to deal with the problem. Anybody clear thinking, even if only from a public relations/financial point point of view, would have said deal with Sandusky ASAP. There are people who abuse children in the world and to find one in your midst and discipline him is nothing compared to letting the person stay. So in one way looking at it as a cover-up wasn’t just a moral lapse, but it was just plain stupid.
Then there is the odd “loose end” of the DA involved in the 1998 investigation vanishing (and presumed dead) in 2004 or so. Obviously maybe not linked at all, but as long as things don’t add up, one wonders what is being left out.
I am not trying to defend anybody as much as trying to understand what insanity/blindness/wickedness allowed this to develop.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/12/2011 @ 11:02 amMD in Philly,
Dana made this point above but I want to make it completely clear by excerpting from her link:
Penn State’s silence allowed Sandusky to continue hosting children’s sports camps, including some that were apparently hosted by Penn State or an affiliate. There’s nothing wrong with children going to sports camps, Boy Scout trips, and the like. There’s something very wrong with adults who do nothing, and perhaps even cover for, possible abusers.
If the allegations are true, why did this develop? Hubris, evil, greed, cowardice, or just plain weakness. Maybe a little of everything.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2011 @ 2:50 pmI am not trying to defend anybody as much as trying to understand what insanity/blindness/wickedness allowed this to develop.
I don’t see you defending anyone per se, but in trying to understand what it was that allowed this to develop, I immediately look at what the key individuals have/had to lose by speaking up. It’s rarely looking at what can be gained that compels the choice as human nature being frail and fallen tends to instead automatically veer toward what the individual can lose. Self-interest, first and foremost.
The main players in the Penn St situation had everything from collective reputation to individual reputation to lose (or at least called into question), but more importantly when looking at the bigger picture the institution itself had a tremendous amount to lose. Submitting one’s loyalty to an institution requires sacrificing one’s loyalty to their own moral code and sense of right and wrong because inevitably a situation is going to arise which requires a choice to be made. In this case, an unspeakable situation ironically made the choice to speak up a clear cut obvious one without question. Or at least it *should* have been, unless to the individual something *more* important was at stake. How sad is that.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/12/2011 @ 3:23 pmOne more point about death penalty-type sanctions that might stop Penn State football for a period of time. Frankly, it seems so trivial compared to these allegations, but the point of sanctions is to stop behavior like the acts alleged here. The worse the behavior, the more important it is to do something that gets the institution’s attention and that convinces its leaders not to let something like this happen again.
Yes, it’s a shame that innocent people and programs may be hurt by the sanctions. I’m sure all schools, players, students and fans that face sanctions feel this way, especially since the worst sanctions are usually imposed on schools where the offenders have been fired or moved on. But it’s the only way to make sure institutions exercise real oversight in the future.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2011 @ 3:45 pm==But it’s the only way to make sure institutions exercise real oversight in the future.==
I totally agree with the purpose and the hope embedded in that sentiment DRJ– but ah, if human nature were only that simple. Next time (and there will be a next time) it will be a different institution, a different crime/infraction, and different actors involved. The horror of what happened at Penn State and the effects of whatever firings and sanctions that are ultimately imposed on them as punishment, will unfortunately have little impact on preventing “the next time”, I fear. The fact that sanctions have been being imposed on college athletics programs since my parents were in college, is proof of that.
elissa (0d296c) — 11/12/2011 @ 4:24 pmInstitutions exercising real oversight is completely dependent upon the character and moral fortitude of those that make up the governing board and leadership of said institutions. Without that, there can and will be no oversight exercised.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/12/2011 @ 4:27 pmIf the participants of the Occupy Movement are a guideline, looking for good character, and high moral fortitude in today’s society is a daunting task within the educational community.
AD-RtR/OS! (22b718) — 11/12/2011 @ 5:07 pmThere’s an argument that NCAA sanctions actually encourage schools to remain silent in the hope they won’t get caught, as opposed to addressing problems and thereby making them public. The harsh NCAA sanctions against TCU after it publicized and dealt with a booster’s wrongdoing is a case in point. The NCAA later reduced the sanctions because I think it realized its initial message was “Don’t get caught.” And others think there should be no oversight over college sports — just treat it like a professional sport like the NFL.
On the topic of NCAA sanctions, here’s a recent interview with Joe Paterno about why Penn State hasn’t had any major sanctions. Like MD in Philly, things like this make me feel for JoPa.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2011 @ 5:31 pmPaterno’s years at Penn will no doubt be the focus of much scrutiny and looking into as the weeks unfold. That may or may not be to his benefit. It’s a horrible thing to live with regret.
To many, Paterno’s fall from grace has come as a sudden and stunning shock. But in recent years, the football regime over which he presided like a god had begun to show signs of ethical decay. A search of media and court records by the Daily Beast reveals a program at Penn State marred by allegations of sexual aggression. At times those incidents met with apparent indulgence by Paterno and college authorities. Paterno’s failure to report Sandusky’s alleged assault was not the only time the head coach appeared to have an ambiguous approach toward members of his program accused of sexual misconduct.
In late 2002, Penn State cornerback Anwar Phillips was accused by a classmate of sexual assault, and the university suspended him for two semesters. But before his suspension began, the Nittany Lions were to play Auburn in the middle of January in the Capital One Bowl. Paterno put Phillips in uniform.
And Paterno apparently had support from above. In his 2005 book about Paterno, The Lion in Autumn, sportswriter Frank Fitzpatrick described the uproar that followed. Athletics director Tim Curley, who has been charged with failing to report a crime and perjuring himself in front of the grand jury, insisted in 2003 that it had been “appropriate” for Phillips to play; university administrators said that a miscommunication was to blame.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/12/2011 @ 5:55 pmDRJ-
I was specifically talking about the culpability of the current Board of Trustees, including Governor Corbett (I do not know when his tenure began) during the period of inquiry.
Re: Phillips- was he charged and convicted in a criminal court? If not, on what basis did Penn State reprimand him at all?
Dana-
I was trying to say that a clear thinking self-interested person would have jetisoned Sandusky ASAP, not try to cover up. Amputate what is rotting if you want to save the rest. That’s why I think it is too simple to say that everyone involved just felt they had too much to lose to come clean. Of course, 5, 10 years into the fiasco it would be much easier to see why keeping quiet would make sense, but then again, why would a new trustee member of president say, “I’m willing to go down with this ship”?
Re DRJ on lesson being fess up vs. don’t get caught- one of the safest industries is the airline industry/flying. A large reason for this, some have said, is that the largest penalties are for failure to disclose. The model is one of shared responsibility to get things right, not see who can be blammed and sued.
Gotta go.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/12/2011 @ 7:27 pmHey Doc, it’s always good when you drop by for a chat.
AD-RtR/OS! (22b718) — 11/12/2011 @ 7:33 pmThanks AD,
One thing that bothers me, is I still bet if you followed Paterno around for 6 months he would compare favorably to what you would see from most other coaches. What he did in this instance is something none of us would hope to fall to, but I still think this is a terrible inconsistency in him, rather than “the true norm” that has been hidden from the public.
King David was said to be a “Man after God’s heart”, yet committed adultery and then orchestrated a murder to cover it up; and he failed to take action when one of his sons raped a sister. Those things are wicked, yet it does not erase the reality of his unwillingness to kill his persecutor Saul when he had opportunity.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/12/2011 @ 9:18 pmMD,
Check out Joe Nocera’s excellent The Institutional Pass in today’s NYT. It’s eye opening.
While King David was indeed a man after God’s heart and committed some serious sin, he was also repentant of his sins and anguished over them. Psalm 51.
Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.
Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.
Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/12/2011 @ 9:32 pmAnd sustain me with a willing spirit.
I’ll check out the article,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/12/2011 @ 9:35 pmand I bet Paterno is doing a lot of anguishing too, not all self-centered.
Another one. At The Citadel.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-crime-citadel-abusetre7ab12f-20111112,0,7693005.story
elissa (0d296c) — 11/12/2011 @ 10:12 pmRoss Douthat discusses reputation as motivation and compares it to the Catholic Church. How does an organization that does good works deal with bad elements that threaten the organization? Douthat suggests good people can mistakenly but in good faith put the organization above individual needs. Maybe that’s true but I also think we need to find out who knew about Sandusky’s behavior and how long they knew about it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 8:47 amSandusky was still recruiting for Penn State.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 9:23 am____________________________________________
Perhaps I should have said “alleged” behavior of Sandusky in my previous comment
If you read the Grand Jury report on Sandusky, the last thing on your mind will be “alleged.” That’s because his behavior apparently was more aggressive, explicit and widespread — ie, additional victims and eyewitnesses not mentioned in at least earlier media coverage of the case — than a casual understanding of the story would lead one to believe.
His wife also reportedly was aware of some of the rumors or accusations well before the news broke and perhaps was (or is) the classic enabler. She and Sandusky are the parents of 6 adopted children, and I cringe at the possibility that some acts of molestation even occurred within that family.
Mark (411533) — 11/13/2011 @ 9:29 amOh wow, DRJ.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 9:32 amNot only still recruiting but maintaining an office there and using the weightlifting facilities. This is a not a person anyone had any concern about.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:08 amI read Douthat’s piece and really came away with the feeling that he desperately trying to find a gracious reason for the egregious response to Penn St and the Catholic Church.
I don’t see virtuous men in either situation – but men with frail human natures who behaved with nothing more than a disgraceful selfishness.
The institutions, both Penn St and the Catholic Church are cash cows that rely on massive donations from followers and members and no one in the leadership of either organization was or is willing to risk losing their reputation which in turn would stop the gravy train.
For one to be so indoctrinated by an institution that they would willfully turn away from protecting a child evidences an immensely selfish and weak character already in play from the get-go.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:20 amI didn’t really pay much attention to this earlier, mostly passing over what little I read and just hearing a little bit on the radio.
I read some newspaper articles from Wednesday and Thursday and Friday (interestingly, the Wall Street Journal had nothing about this on Wednesday and neither did the New york Post on Tuesday I think. The Daily News had an editorial that day, right underneath the one about Herman Cain. Also in the newspapers Wednesday were things about the NBA lockout and boxer Joe Frazier dying.
I think I can say now:
1) Paterno was fired not for doing nothing, but for lying to the Board of Trustees or to the public. That’s why they wouldn’t let him retire.
They stopped him from giving a press conference Tuesday and before that said it would only be about football, but Paterno wanted to speak about the Jerry Sandusky and what he did and what he knew.
Paterno had issued a statement in which he
claimed that in 2002 he had only gotten a sanitized version of what happened, but Mike McQueary told the grand jury that he told Paterno all the explicit details of what he saw, and he repeated to Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, and another official, I think Gary Schultz, Gary Schultz, senior vice president and treasurer from 1993 to 2009 and this year interim
vice president for finance and business, both of whom have been indicted for perjury. McQueary also spoke to the commander of the campus police.
The Board of Trustees also fired Graham Spanier, the university president, the same day they fired Paterno.
2) People talk and say Paterno should have reported the allegation like as if something would have happened if he had. If he had, it would have been covered up just like the 2000 case, seen by a janitor who now has dementia,
or the 1998 case, which got much further before disappearing. Sandusky must have been really scared at that time. But the case was taken under the personal control of the Centre County DA, Ray Gricar and faded away. Ray Gricar either committed suicide, or more likely, was killed, and his laptop destroyed, with his body, although not his car and cellphone, completely
vanishing, on or about Friday April 15, 2005, and anything reported before then likely would have been covered up.
There are things funny about that case, including claims that Ralph Ralston, who worked for the State College Police force, being more involved in the investigation than he was. It was campus police Detective Ronald Schreffer who really was the only investigstor, and who may have falsely claimed that Ralph Ralston was present at an interview with the boy’s mother. Schreffer and his current wife now refuses to talk to the press. (his former wife gave some biographical details)
I would venture to say that Gerald Lauro, the investigator for the state welfare department, probably never got to talk to the boy until after the boy’s mother had been paid off, which is the most likely assumption. The grand jury never got to the bottom of most of this.
3) The case that started all of this was reported in 2008. They seem to think that Sandusky’s activities stopped sometime in 2009. For at least two more years they’ve been investigating this.
And now, they release an indictment finally on Saturday, November 5, 2011, and people are supposed to get all excited and react the next day?
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:25 amIt’s still early enough in the recruiting season that top ranked H.S. athletes and their parents who were considering Penn State for its “excellent football program” can make other choices. I wonder if any current players will attempt to de-matriculate and relocate to another big ten school and program. Would that even be allowed under NCAA rules, I wonder?
elissa (d3d356) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:29 amThe Case of the Missing DA
His brother also had disappeared in 1996 in Ohio (but his body was found)
May 15, 2006 Dateline NBC story
Ray told his live-in girlfriend of 3 years that he was going to stay home in bed – he drove 50 miles away. Bloodhounds lost scent 20 feet from where his car was eventually found. Now what was this? It could only be a secret meeting. And if he was honest he would have told people about threats.Aand if he committed suicide how does he make his body disappear, and why?
Questions on Sandusky Are Wrapped i n a 2005 Mystery by Ken Belsen printed in the Wednesday November 9, 2011 New York Times
His laptop wallet and keys were missing. His laptop was later found without the hard drive.
The hard drive was later found (was it the right hard drive?) but even those people who recovered data from the Columbia couldn’t recover any data they said. Maybe they only got it after the FBI handled it.
Gricar was supposed to not like Paterno and the college. Was that part of the cover-up?
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:46 amhttp://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?293012-Ray-Gricar-Missing-DA/page82
One commentator: Let me just say this … again … and then I’ll shut up. You absolutely cannot have Centre County LE (the DA’s office or any of its police departments) investigating the sudden, prolonged and unexplained disappearance of the sitting DA. You just can’t have it. It doesn’t make sense. It isn’t right. We, the public, have been cheated. Will SPM make that right? I don’t know. But she is now a full-fledged member of the very same problem that has existed from the start.
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:52 amelissa,
An NCAA player at a Division I college can transfer to another college but it’s difficult. To start with, here is the 32 page transfer rule handbook that each player must understand and comply with. Players who want to transfer also have to understand and comply with applicable conference and individual college transfer rules.
The NCAA rules include that a player must get permission from his current college to talk to another college about transferring and get a release. In addition, typically a player must spend one academic year in residence at his new college before he is eligible to compete. I doubt Penn State will release its players to transfer but some pundits are already calling for that to happen.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:54 amA review of the facts for the benefit of anyone still teetering—
In 2000, though, Penn State football suddenly fell of a cliff and finished 5-7. And in ’01, after that 0-2 start, the team would go on to finish the year an anemic 5-6.
So, what the heck happened? Well, for one thing, after 32 years at Penn State, Jerry Sandusky had retired from coaching.
Now, tell me why in ’99, Sandusky – arguably the finest defensive coordinator in all of college football at the top of his game following a 10-win season that was capped with a bowl game shutout – retired in perfectly good physical health at the tender coaching age of 55?
And explain to me the reasons behind Paterno choosing that ’99 season – which, by any measure, was a highly successful one – as the proper time to inform his longtime defensive lieutenant that he would not be succeeding him as head coach of Penn State, a job for which many had long considered Sandusky to be the heir apparent.
Call me cynical – or just call me sensible – but knowing what what we now know about Jerry Sandusky, I have a very difficult time believing that the recently revealed 1998 investigation by university and municipal police into a complaint that he had inappropriate contact with a naked boy in a shower didn’t play a role in Sandusky’s abrupt retirement.
However, Paterno tells us this week via a statement that he’s “shocked” by the child sex abuse charges levied against Sandusky and that if the allegations are true, “we were all fooled.”
But how about you stop playing the rest of us for fools, Joe.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/wisch-i-think-paterno-knew-more/
elissa (d3d356) — 11/13/2011 @ 10:59 amDRJ–
Thanks for the NCAA transfer rules info.
elissa (d3d356) — 11/13/2011 @ 11:15 amPenn State was also involved in Climategate:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/10/penn-state-president-fired/
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/02/01/mann_inquiry_concludes_board_t.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/13/2011 @ 11:27 amMichael E. Mann (born December 28, 1965) is an American physicist and climatologist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. He is best known as lead author of a number of articles on paleoclimatology and as one of the originators of a graph of temperature trends over the last thousand years, called the “hockey stick graph” because of its shape. The graph was highlighted in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, receiving both praise and criticism, and has been the subject of a long-running controversy. Mann is also known as a founding member of the RealClimate blog, to which he and a number of other scientists contribute, and is the co-author with Lee R. Kump of Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming (2008).
Comment by elissa — 11/13/2011 @ 10:59 am
A review of the facts for the benefit of anyone still teetering—
A further indication that people need to look at what happened to the 1998 case – and also the case of the disappearing DA.
They all want to say now he must have had a good reason for not prosecuting that case, and that his disappearance couldn’t have any connection to all this.
Maybe not in a simple way, but this could be the tip of some sort of iceberg.
Jerry Sandusky, I read, was once thought to be a likely successor to Paterno.
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/13/2011 @ 11:35 amSammy–as horrible as the situation is (that we now know about) some other possibilities still hanging out there at the periphery are almost just too horrible to even contemplate.
elissa (d3d356) — 11/13/2011 @ 11:44 amYou know, there are a lot of abandoned coal mines in PA that no one ever looks inside of.
AD-RtR/OS! (ce0593) — 11/13/2011 @ 11:48 am___________________________________________
The Case of the Missing DA
Not sure if the strange disappearance of Ray Gricar is connected in some way to Sandusky, but I would be surprised if it didn’t have at least some link to the work that a DA does in investigating various crimes, suspected crimes and known or would-be felons.
One reason why I worry about the US becoming more and more like a Mexico, is that I imagine disturbing stories like those of mysteriously disappearing members of law enforcement and the judiciary become more and more common, or certainly less and less unexpected.
Mark (411533) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:00 pmFirst, I read Nocera’s article and found it superficial. His basic view, as I understand it: Big college football makes a lot of money, they take advantage of the student athletes, they’re all bad, it’s just Paterno is the one got caught covering something up.
But Paterno did emphasize academics. All-American and All-Pro defensive tackle Mike Reid retired from football in part because Paterno told him (when a student) that if football ever became too important it was time to quit. Reid realized that in part after a team mate was seriously injured and paralyzed neck down in a game at Green Bay. He later recalled just wanting to get the injured player off the field so they could get back to playing football, not caring about the player or the extent of his injuries.
We are trained as doctors and lawyers not to jump to conclusions too early and take all of the facts into account. Beginning with the saying, “Truth is stranger than fiction” let us consider a few things:
1) Everyone assumes that Joe Pa had power over everything football, including the facilities at Penn State. Some suggest that Joe Pa was essentially all powerful because of his accomplishments and what he meant to the University.
Maybe Joe Pa, as head football coach, only had power over the football tream. Maybe the only thing he could personally do about Sandusky was get rid of him as a football coach, which he did in 99 after the event that led to a criminal investigation of Sandusky, which from all I can tell is the first evidence of Sandusky being a problem. Maybe Joe Pa, primarily occupied with what he was in charge of as head football coach, made the mistake of “washing his hands” of what the higher ups were doing about Sandusky. Maybe this is what he meant about “should have done more”, gone out of his way to make the AD and others do the right thing or blow the whistle.
2) Everyone assumes that Sandusky is at the top of the food chain, and that the cover-up is all related to Sandusky. What if Sandusky recruited for more than Penn State Football, like child pornography or prostitution. “At risk kids”. Are those kids who don’t have caring parents, or parents at all, or parents that even care where their child is at night? What unsavory characters would be running child porn and sex rings? Probably people who wouldn’t be above killing a DA who wanted to reopen an investigation when a previously accused sex offender seemed to be at it again.
Bigger money than Joe Pa made and bigger legal consequences then Penn State had may have been in play. Yes, I know it seems that I’m just persistent at claiming, “Say it ain’t so, Joe”, but if someone does something that seems out of character one has to ask why. The quick answer to this question is to protect “Penn State Football” and the money associated with it. Another answer would be the action was done under duress. Maybe Joe was told, “Shut up about it and don’t get involved” and did essentially that?
I’m not saying Joe was innocent of wrongdoing, and I’m not saying that people high up in the University are innocent (though I suppose some are), I’m just saying that I am unconvinced by the prevailing story. Maybe I’ve watched too many Columbo episodes, or endured too many plot twists with “24”.
For the record, I have no information other than what is available in the media and my hunches.
What says the host DA?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:24 pmSammy-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:29 pmThanks for the reminder about Mann. Early on in the discussion, I asked if people thought a University would also try to cover-up to protect a prominent scientist/etc. The resounding answer was, “Is it true that the little piggy went ‘wee, wee, wee’ all the way home?”
Bigger money than Joe Pa made and bigger legal consequences then Penn State had may have been in play. Yes, I know it seems that I’m just persistent at claiming, “Say it ain’t so, Joe”, but if someone does something that seems out of character one has to ask why. The quick answer to this question is to protect “Penn State Football” and the money associated with it. Another answer would be the action was done under duress. Maybe Joe was told, “Shut up about it and don’t get involved” and did essentially that?
If that’s the case, Joe Paterno still chose to associate himself with Penn State and Penn State Football, including asking new students to go there and get involved in the sordid mess.
Going elsewhere was always an option for the Joe Paterno you imagine.
I will suggest that we, I, you, did not actually know Paterno’s character enough to say what was out of character. We do not know people just because they are public figures with a public reputation.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:32 pmLet me repeat, repeat, repeat. I did not say Joe Paterno was innocent of wrongdoing.
We certainly do not know about public figures with public reputations. But with Paterno there are 60 years of accumulated anecdotes. There have been people trying to get rid of him since the mid-80’s, and before this all they’ve been able to argue is that he is too old and too old fashioned (“Look at those boring uniforms, even!!”).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:38 pmMD–I don’t think you went to school there, but as someone who obviously knows a lot about Penn State what is your take on the seeming dichotomy between “people trying to get rid of him since the mid-80′s”, and yet so many willing to walk on hot coals for him?
elissa (d3d356) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:49 pmHad people noticed the trail of breadcrumbs that was being left by Sandusky, there would have been arguments against Paterno much earlier than this week.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:55 pmelissa-
Well, the only thing I have heard in the public domain has been his age and being “over the hill”, “too old to relate to the players”, etc., until recent years when age and health clearly are an issue and the impact they have on recruitment; “Why go to Penn State to play for Joe Pa if he isn’t the coach anymore- due to retirement or he is physically unable”. Which I think has been a real issue the last few years.
No, did not go to Penn State (“If you want to be a Badger…”) but know many who have and are.
Everybody has detractors, unless you’re perfect, and then you have a special group of detractors.
When John Cooper was fired as head coach at Ohio state some years ago, he had the best record of any coach in the NCAA during that period, but he did not do particularly well against “the school up north” nor in bowl games.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 12:59 pmI saw an SI reporter this morning lamenting the fact that he had been too busy praising Paterno to notice how wonky that 1999 Sandusky retirement was. He was kind of beating himself up thinking he might have exposed Sandusky then and prevented future victims.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:02 pmMD,
I agree we should consider other scenarios that take into account all the facts. Your hypothetical assumes Paterno only had control over the football program so he had little or no power over Sandusky. How, then, did Sandusky still have access to the football team’s locker room and weight room, and why was he still recruiting for Penn State’s football team? The only way your hypothetical makes sense to me is if Paterno was merely a figurehead coach, and I haven’t seen any credible report that claims that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:05 pmThe only way your hypothetical makes sense to me is if Paterno was merely a figurehead coach, and I haven’t seen any credible report that claims that.
Yes. And as I tried to say, it only makes sense if Paterno had no ability to make a statement by leaving the university and coaching elsewhere.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:08 pmThis issue, no matter how guilty Paterno is, does not stop at Paterno. I am virtually bet-certain that Paterno is not the one that has been primarily behind covering for Sandusky. By his own mouth Paterno has said he “should have done more”. To me, when a person says “they should have…” they are admitting at least a mistake, if not a morally blameworthy mistake. It only remains to be seen just how blameworthy Paterno is, and where to and how high the web of involvment goes.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:18 pmThis issue, no matter how guilty Paterno is, does not stop at Paterno.
Oh, absolutely not.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:23 pmPaterno has been so thoroughly discussed, I believe, because he has been so frequently defended. Students rioted at his firing! Nobody was rioting about any of the other guys who lost their jobs.
MayBee-
The incident in 1998 was investigated by the DA and dropped. I don’t know if it was in the public record at the time. I guess I am under the impression that the official investigation of a crime by the appropriate DA is likely to be the “final word” on whether a crime was committed.
BTW, what are we complaining about now, that Joe Pa did not go to the DA with the information he had, right? He went to the University authorities, or did you just want him to go to the newspaper and say “McQuery said he saw Sandusky sexually molesting a child in the shower”?
If the DA knew in 99 of the alleged incident but did not bring it to trial, was Joe Pa supposed to head the lynch mob?
DRJ-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:36 pmAll you lawyers out there, would a coach be in charge of university facilities, or would the physical plant be under the jurisdiction of another department.
I do not know all of the facts, (I repeat, repeat, repeat), I am just saying that while Joe Pa was a sucessful, prominent, and influential football coach, he was still a football coach, answerable, to the AD, president, people in between, Board of Trustees, amd alumni.
Of probably some importance in the matter is that Joe Pa was not charged with the crime of lying to a grand jury, like two people higher than him in the Penn State organization.
BTW, what are we complaining about now, that Joe Pa did not go to the DA with the information he had, right? He went to the University authorities, or did you just want him to go to the newspaper and say “McQuery said he saw Sandusky sexually molesting a child in the shower”?</i
I'm not sure exactly what this is in response to, but my complaint is now, and always has been, that Paterno failed in a horrible way by not doing everything in his considerable power to get Sandusky away from his football program and away from young boys.
And he continued to fail after the indictment by trying to hold onto his job rather than acknowledge his failure and what it wrought hit him like a ton of bricks.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:41 pmLet me retry:
BTW, what are we complaining about now, that Joe Pa did not go to the DA with the information he had, right? He went to the University authorities, or did you just want him to go to the newspaper and say “McQuery said he saw Sandusky sexually molesting a child in the shower”?
I’m not sure exactly what this is in response to, but my complaint is now, and always has been, that Paterno failed in a horrible way by not doing everything in his considerable power to get Sandusky away from his football program and away from young boys.
And he continued to fail after the indictment by trying to hold onto his job rather than acknowledge his failure and what it wrought hit him like a ton of bricks.
I’m also saying that more people are trying to defend Paterno than any of the other people involved.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:48 pmYes. And as I tried to say, it only makes sense if Paterno had no ability to make a statement by leaving the university and coaching elsewhere.
Comment by MayBee
MayBee, you not only tried to say that, but you said it, and now you’ve said it again. I did not contradict you before, I will not contradict you now. Paterno could have done that. Paterno could have done other things. He himself said he could have done other things. He is not innocent.
All I am trying to say is that when all is said and done, I bet there is more than protecting Sandusky and/or Penn State football behind this, and while Joe Paterno could have and should have done more, as he has said so himself, that he was not among those actively advocating a coverup. maybe that makes a difference, maybe it doesn’t.
The students supported the coach they knew from seeing him around campus who was fired without criminal wrongdoing, a big difference from University officials they would not recognize who were indicted by a grand jury. That the University fired him “electively” was not lost on the students. Yes, some students rioted, but we were told by people at this blog that the number of trouble making students was small. (I did not read that the National Guard was called out). Out of 10,000’s of people between 17-27 (or so), i bet you’ll find several eager to do something stupid any given night. Does that excuse it? No, merely perspective.
DRJ- he had power over Sandusky to force his retirement. He did not have power to tell someone who was not his employee what they were allowed to do, unless he had direct and final authority over those other things.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 1:59 pmMayBee, you not only tried to say that, but you said it, and now you’ve said it again.
I’m sorry, I’m not always good at clearly expressing what I’m trying to say.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:04 pmAre you the only one allowed to try to restate your opinion?
MayBee,
You have pointed out that he failed to leave the University in protest. I agreed with that.
I am pointing out that he:
1) At first instance likely forced Sandusky’s retirement (perhaps to the AD, “He goes or I go.”)
2) At first instance he knew the DA was investigating the case
3) He told school authorities what he knew second hand about the later incident
4) He cooperated with a Grand Jury when called
So when you say he “failed in a horrible way by not doing everything in his considerable power to get Sandusky away from his football program and away from young boys.” you are describing 1) not quitting in protest and 2) not going directly to the press.
Resigning is evidence of power (considerable or otherwise) only if the threat of it gets what you want, otherwise it is simply removing yourself from personal reponsibility. Going directly to the press has its own problems. Yes, he could have done either one at multiple points along the way. I guess he could have gone directly to the AG of PA if he had wanted to, though I don’t know if that would have simply resulted in telling the local DA to look into it (“again” in the case of the person later presumably murdered).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:19 pmNo, of course I’m not the only one who is allowed to restate an opinion.
I was stating that you had made yourself clear and that I had agreed (in the context I intended a lack of disagreement to be an assent). The point had been made and established.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:24 pmDoc, as to access to the physical plant,
AD-RtR/OS! (ce0593) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:37 pmI would look very closely at the Athletic Director – it’s his little kingdom.
And, I would think that he answers directly to the University President.
Re #208 FWIW
The SI reporter might also want to ask himself that had he pressed for more info about the 1999 retirement if he would have found out more than the DA investigating the case, or if he would have ended up dead like the DA.
Unless there is new info, or it is pointed out that I need to apologize for something myself, I don’t think I have more to say.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:38 pmGuys, JoePa says no Sandusky anywhere within 10 miles of campus and it would have been done. JoePa was bigger than anyone in that state including the Governor.
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:41 pmThanks AD for contributing.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:41 pm#163 Sadly, his lack of action would lead you to wonder. If I heard of someone like that in my stead, I would go ballistic.
ODB (0f13a8) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:43 pmODB-
Objective evidence please. Perhaps there were other people involved also bigger than the governor. The governor does not officially have the power to have pesky DA’s assassinated.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:43 pmAs an investigator, I would want to look at all of the family members of those victims in the 1998 incident, or earlier if known.
AD-RtR/OS! (ce0593) — 11/13/2011 @ 2:48 pmDA’s, even ex-DA’s, just don’t “disappear” in this country under mysterious circumstances such as these.
You’ve made your points quite clear. I think for me, I read your comments and they beg the question on the personal level: With the information we do have, what makes you different than someone like Paterno (or any other staff member who knew about Sandusky) that would refuse, and frankly be unable to remain silent in light of said knowledge? (This aside from being a mandated reporter by profession)…
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/13/2011 @ 3:08 pmWell what if Paterno did warn them?
Than he ain’t as bad as we think.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/13/2011 @ 3:52 pmMD in Philly:
I think it depends what you mean by “in charge” and on the specific college and coach. Certain college personnel senior to a coach, such as the President or the AD, would probably have equal or greater authority than a coach to make decisions about the school’s football facilities. One or both might have complete authority at some schools. On the other hand, I think certain coaches have more authority over their kingdoms than others. My guess is that Paterno would be one of those coaches who had more authority over the football program than a typical coach — wasn’t he also the AD at one point? — although he may have ceded some of that authority over the years because of his age or events.
That’s one reason why I’d like to know more about what happened before, especially in 1998 and 2002 and possibly 2008, when Sandusky’s relationship with Penn State seems to have changed. Things may have changed for Paterno, too, but I think the upcoming lawsuits and investigations will answer these questions.
We don’t really know this is true. On the one hand, you’re arguing Paterno didn’t have enough authority over the football program to make decisions and, on the other, you’re arguing Paterno had enough authority to compel Sandusky’s firing. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either Paterno was in charge or he wasn’t. If he had enough authority to say “He goes or I go,” then presumably he also had the authority to ban Sandusky but he didn’t. Sandusky still had an office on campus and used the football facilities, still used other Penn State facilities for his camps, and was still recruiting for Paterno.
We don’t how forthcoming and truthful Paterno was, either. We know the grand jury declined to indict Paterno but that doesn’t mean his statements weren’t in conflict with McQueary’s testimony. It sounded to me like they made different statements about what McQueary told Paterno he saw and what Paterno said McQueary told him. It could be the grand jury simply didn’t want to indict Paterno for perjury, especially if they felt the conflict could be explained by Paterno’s age or hearing or simply because they like him.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 4:17 pmDana-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 4:38 pmI can say what I think should be done and why I think it should be done, but I am reluctant to say what I would do unless I had been in the situation. It is easy to say that one would do the right thing, not always as easy to do it, as a general principle.
In addition, if it’s true McQueary’s father and Sandusky are friends, then maybe McQueary told his son to tell Paterno because he knew Paterno would try to help Sandusky. I’m not saying this is what happened but I think it’s something you have to consider.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 4:42 pmI think that is very worth considering, DRJ.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:15 pmWhat kind of “help” do you mean? That Joe Pa would get Sandusky into counselling for pedophiles?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:26 pmHelp keeping it from turning into another criminal investigation, and to let him know to take that behavior off campus. Lest he be caught again by a less friendly interloper.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:37 pmI can’t say what they expected. Maybe they believed Paterno would know how to report this so it would get the attention it deserved and be fair to Sandusky. Maybe they believed Paterno would know how to handle it so it wouldn’t hurt Penn State. Maybe they believed Sandusky would listen to Paterno and change his ways. Or maybe they believed Paterno could make it all go away.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:39 pmPaterno was groped by Herman Cain.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:39 pmAmong the principal Penn State actors in this drama for the last dozen or so years there was probably quite a bit of compartmentalization (the internal sectioning off of upsetting or conflicting thoughts and emotions) going on. It is a well known coping mechanism.
Sharon Salzberg, a Buddist teacher said the following about emotional compartmentalization which I thought is worth adding to this discussion:
“In order to live with integrity, we must stop fragmenting and compartmentalizing our lives. Telling lies at work and expecting great truths in meditation is nonsensical. Using our sexual energy in a way that harms ourselves or others, and then expecting to know transcendent love in another arena, is mindless. Every aspect of our lives is connected to every other aspect of our lives. This truth is the basis for an awakened life.”
elissa (d3d356) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:43 pmDRJ- I would say he’d go to Joe Paterno if he felt Joe would know how to handle it in the best interest of either
a)Joe Paterno
b)Jerry Sandusky or
c)Penn State Football
The one reason you would not go to Joe Paterno would be to make sure the child rapes are stopped. For that you’d stop the rape, or call the police.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:43 pmResigning is evidence of power (considerable or otherwise) only if the threat of it gets what you want, otherwise it is simply removing yourself from personal reponsibility. Going directly to the press has its own problems. Y
There’s also the option of calling the police.
As for quitting, I’m not saying quit in protest. If I understand your scenario, you think it’s possible Joe Paterno was powerless to keep the AD from allowing Sandusky to associate himself with Penn State and the Penn State football team.
I’m saying, who wants to be a part of such a sick culture as you are imagining? A coach forced to allow a man he has been told is sexually inappropriate with 10 year-olds to continue to use his facilities and even to recruit for his progra? That sounds to me like a program a man of integrity would walk away from, to bring his integrity to a university with no such sickness.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:51 pmMayBee #238,
I kind of agree but I also think MD is right that there is a family dynamic here. I don’t know much about Penn State but it’s always reminded me of Texas A&M. Both are located in basically rural areas. Both have a strong blue collar fan base, which to me means both have fans with conservative family values. Like A&M, believing in the cult of Penn State is about more than football or college. It’s about family. The ironic thing is there’s nothing that represents the family more than an innocent child. I think that’s why this is tearing everyone up so much.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:51 pmI’m saying, who wants to be a part of such a sick culture as you are imagining? A coach forced to allow a man he has been told is sexually inappropriate with 10 year-olds to continue to use his facilities and even to recruit for his progra? That sounds to me like a program a man of integrity would walk away from, to bring his integrity to a university with no such sickness.
Walk away from because his own moral code and conscience would not let him compromise to such a destructive degree.
My guess is Paterno was part and parcel of the institution: Defending, protecting, serving, and willfully loyal when necessary.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/13/2011 @ 5:58 pmI don’t disagree, DRJ. I think the family dynamic is probably right, and that’s why the instinct was to protect the family- Sandusky, Paterno, and Penn State.
I think that’s exactly why they acted the way they did. But there is nobody in the world that will say a family can do whatever it wants to do as long as the key adults agree to doing it.
And having a self-justification for doing something doesn’t make it anywhere near right or excusable or even good. People outside the “family” should see that clearly.
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 6:01 pmTrue, MayBee.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2011 @ 6:12 pmOk, so I find myself agreeing with DRJ, Dana, and elissa. As if that’s a new thing. 😉
MayBee (081489) — 11/13/2011 @ 6:15 pmDo you suppose Paterno could have said to the admin, “I don’t want Sandusky on campus under any circumstances.” and it would happen? Full disclosure, stopped in State College in 1971 on the way through PA. Don’t know much about it except the setting seemed pleasant enough.
Richard Aubrey (a75643) — 11/13/2011 @ 6:19 pmIf Paterno could tell the admin to keep Sandusky off campus, then he failed. If he couldn’t, then how did he have enough clout to do what he did? Seems as if either he had the clout and didn’t do what he should, or the admin had the clout, knew something was wrong, and took cosmetic measures, knowing it wouldn’t make any difference. Complicit in every way.
If I saw a person committing a crime, and I didn’t want him caught and punished, I wouldn’t tell anyone.
MayBee, you are suggesting that Paterno was calling the shots, that he was able to prevent criminal charges from being filed.
Why do you want to assume the worst of someone who wasn’t indicted?
Some are of the opinion that Joe Pa essentially owned the University and could make everyone ask, “How high?” when he said jump. I don’t think that is necessarily so. It’s like people who think the doctor is in charge of decisions about admitting people to the hospital and such. If the utilization review people say you can’t admit, good luck fighting. If they say discharge today, good luck fighting. It makes no difference that the MD has the education, the license, and is ultimately the one who sends business the hospital’s way, in the end you have little say (unless you are an ornery SOB that punishes everyone just for talking to you, and then you might get leeway just because no one wants to deal with you).
There is an itty bitty chance that Joe Pa liked coaching football and liked the kids he worked with at Penn State. If he thought leaving would not change anything, except perhaps let things get worse, maybe he would stay.
Acting with integrity is one thing. Acting to protect one’s integrity (or reputation of integrity) may be something else. As Aslan said to Reepicheep, “Perhaps you think too much of your honor”.
At the moment, I prefer my speculation to yours, and so I will try to keep my intention of not saying more unless there are more facts.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 6:24 pmMr. Aubrey-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/13/2011 @ 6:44 pmSay I am a department chairman with lots of money and power. My secretary is not a pleasant person to work with. He/she criticizes me on everything from my appearance (“Where did you get that ugly tie?”) to misspellings on rough drafts I give to be typed (being old and pre-keyboard). One day I get fed up arguing to get things done and call HR, “I want a new secretary, I’m not having this person work for me anymore!!” Whatever forms need to be completed get done, etc., and the person is no longer working under me. Do I then have the power to call HR and say, “And I don’t want that person to step on University property again!!!”
I don’t think so. Unless I file some sort of complaint with higher ups, all I can do is make sure the person no longer works for me (and I guess that could be hard given employment contracts, unions, and the like).
So why is it hard to believe Paterno could force out someone who works for him from his staff, but not have the authority to keep him out of the University? It seems to me that makes sense only if you assume Paterno can tell the AD and University President what to do, and that is an assumption, not a description of known fact.
A couple of additional pieces of information as the thot plickens (if that is possible):
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2011 @ 10:24 am1) The interum head coach has been around PSU for 30 yrs or more, much of that as direct assistant to Sandusky. Some alumni have said that if they wanted to fire people at this point, they should have simply fired the entire staff and ended the football season. This may be already known to many, and is not surprising to me, but I had not heard it said, at least not by a Penn State alumnus/supporter.
2) Supposedly there is an ice cream parlor around State College that has a sundae called a “sandusky”, which is two scoops of ice cream in a cup with the cone on top sticking up-
you with children at PSU, any confirmation on whether this is true?
“…unless you are an ornery SOB that punishes everyone just for talking to you, and then you might get leeway just because no one wants to deal with you…”
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/13/2011 @ 6:24 pm
So, Doc, does that make you the “House” prototype? (Heh!)
Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka Carlos, the Jackel (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 10:57 amMy Bad…249
AD-RtR/OS! (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 11:00 amActually, not me, AD/Jackel-
But it did cause some problems in that I once had a boss who was, and he always complained about how I couldn’t get things done as fast as he could.
Some people ask a secretary to do something, and it gets put on the list, others yell at the secretary to do something or I’ll give you h—, and it often gets done faster. As dysfunctional as “The Office”, but no where nearly as amusing.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2011 @ 2:06 pmI keep on learning more and more, and getting some minor corrections to my ideas as I read. And then there are some things it takes time to pick up – like that this case (the case now) was in the hands of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, not the Centre County DA any more. Since 2009. But didn’t the investigation start in 2008?
This whole case was not total news to the public either. I read somewhere a name of a reporter who was writing stories and now I ran across this:
From last Friday’s {Jonah] Goldberg file sent out Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM
American Horror Story
Like a lot of people this week, I can’t shake the Penn State scandal.
Unless this turns out to be one of those bizarre, entirely fabricated witch-huntstories like the Amirault case [http://tinyurl.com/8355dka] — which I doubt pretty much entirely — I think this is going to get a lot worse before it gets “better.”
Too many things don’t make sense.
For starters, how does the Board of Trustees get blindsided by a story that was in the papers in August? They didn’t even need to read the papers, of course, because there’s no way this was all kept secret, particularly after people started getting dragged in front of a grand jury. How do the trustees find themselves in a situation
where they have to fire Joe Paterno at ten o’clock on Tuesday night just days before
the last home game? Obviously, boards can be clueless about what’s going on, but this kind of cluelessness had to be cultivated by someone.
A more flummoxing question: Who in the world sees a grown man buggering a child and doesn’t stop it? If fighting words exist, surely fighting deeds must as well.
I’m not going to rehearse all of the arguments everyone’s already heard or made themselves. But the absolute breakdown in decency and responsibility on display in this tale should be a reminder of how normal people can surrender to the perverted and evil logic of complacency.
On Corruption
I will admit it’s easy for me to be self-righteous about this. Because of the nature
of what I do for a living, I’m not entirely beholden to one employer or institution.
I want to stay at National Review for the rest of my life, all things being equal, but if I lost my job here I’d probably land somewhere else. Maybe for less — or more! — money. But I’d be okay.
So I am very lucky.
But I’ve tried to put myself in the position of the various witnesses. The “graduate assistant,” Mike McQueary, was a young man at the beginning of his career. So I try to think of myself in, say, 1995 when I had a younger man’s worries about getting ahead. If I saw someone I revered, respected, and feared doing what McQueary says
he saw Sandusky doing, I’d like to think I’d grab a fire extinguisher and smash it into his forehead nonetheless. But I can see myself calling my dad for advice, setting up a meeting with someone like Paterno, and working through channels. What I can’t grasp — and pray I would never do — is the possibility that I would just
leave it there: “It’s out of my hands now.”
The same goes for the janitors. Again, I’m trying to be open-minded about a situation I’ve never been in myself. Again, I’d like to imagine I’d become a helicopter of fists the second I saw what they saw. But I also understand they don’t have the options I have. They needed their jobs, their pensions. So I can grasp the caution
at the outset. But over time, as you saw that nothing was being done, you think through your options. You discover that as a “whistleblower” you’d have protections.
[Note the case in 2000 is is Victim Number 8, meaning it is the last one the grand jury found out about. Since the story broke there are now maybe a dozen more. The janitor was a Korean War veteran and said this was worst than anything he saw in Korea. The janitors discussed this and decided not to report. Anotehr person working there saw Sandusky and the boy exit the shower holding hands. The janitor who saw it was only working there temporarily so he really didn’t have to fera losing his job – at least unless there was some bigger organization involved. They say he now has dementia. The identity of neither the 2000 boy or the 2002 boy is known to the Pennsylvania Attorney General. By the way the judge in the case may be too close to Sandusky – he did not impose any conditions upon his bail over the objections of prosecutors]
And yet you still do nothing? I can’t get my head around it. It would eat at my conscience and, eventually, my soul.
I think part of the answer lies in the rich complexity of corruption. In Hollywood and on the left, corruption has been reduced to a naked transaction of money (and occasionally sex) for services rendered. There’s also the much-discussed and misunderstood corruption that comes with power (I discuss that at length in my next book).
But corruption is so much richer and varied than all that. My father always used to say that the biggest source of corruption isn’t money, but friendship. He’s right. Go offer a newspaper editor or politician $10,000 to hire someone. Most won’t even consider it. But if a friend asks for a favor, the answer is much more likely
to be yes. Friends strike bargains with friends, even though they could get a better deal elsewhere. Friends forgive mistakes in business because that’s what friends do.
Not all such transactions are corrupt so much as part and parcel of how civil society works.
Besides, because friendship goes both ways, paying a premium for the trust and reliability of such relationships might actually be a good business decision.
Which is simply to emphasize the fact that corruption is a very complicated thing,
with variables and considerations not immediately apparent to those looking from the outside in. Still, tribal, familial, and social allegiances most certainly can be corrupting, in large ways and small. After all, in many circumstances we’re
more likely to lie to our friends than to strangers. “I loved your column!” “I read
your book!” “Your daughter’s beautiful!”
Anyway, this is a long way of saying I don’t think there’s any amount of money — nor any job — that would cause me to turn a blind eye to something like this. But I could see it taking more effort and time to do the right thing if it were a friend or a loved one. I told one of my best friends yesterday that if it was him, I’d
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/14/2011 @ 2:43 pmgive him 24 hours to turn himself in or to commit suicide. I’d like to believe that’s true. I know I never want to be put to the test.
Sammy-
I don’t know if you saw my post at #201. Largely speculative, but trying to make more sense out of something that doesn’t.
Interesting that it went up to the AG office (to me anyway).
My business school son thought it was odd to incompetant that it appeared the Board of Trustees was so poorly prepared for this.
A question, FWIW. I assume that whenever there is an investigation into the workings of a drug ring, arms selling, porn or human trafficking, there must be a period of time where crime and the harming of persons is occuring, is known to be occuring, but because of the need to gather evidence, have reason for subpoenas, etc. no intervention is done. Anybody know how this works and is willing to say?
It would be very helpful to know if the DA’s disappearance was linked to this. I remember hearing about it when it happened, lots of questions, few answers.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2011 @ 3:14 pmDoc, since he was declared “Legally Dead” by a court after the prescribed interval, it appears that no one has any idea that they are willing to share as to his fate.
AD-RtR/OS! (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 3:21 pmWhy the hell does Pennywise Paterno give me the creeps?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/14/2011 @ 3:24 pmThe detective in charge of investigating the disappearance of DA Ray Gricar doesn’t think there’s a link between Gricar’s disappearance and the Sandusky case, but he plans to investigate to be sure. There’s a Gricar timeline here but I don’t know how accurate it is.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2011 @ 3:42 pmWell, DRJ, that’s awfully nice of him.
AD-RtR/OS! (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 3:49 pmI hope it’s not going to interfere with his deer hunting.
more…257…
AD-RtR/OS! (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 3:52 pmI think I saw somewhere that PA deer hunters constitute the largest force of armed “infantry” in the world.
That may be the case, DRJ (and thank you for the info), but on what basis does he make that judgement?
As I’ve mentioned on occasion, this is getting to the point I’m not going to believe anything unless it is said under oath. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that Gricar’s computer had been tampered with, that the hard drive was missing. Supposedly it was then recovered, but nothing could be obtained from it by the experts. It was either the wrong thing or somebody went to a lot of work to scrub it.
How many things does a DA from rural PA work on that is going to get him “disappeared” and his computer contents taken….Too bad he didn’t have a computer back up anywhere…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2011 @ 4:03 pmGuess they didn’t have “Carbonite” then?
AD-RtR/OS! (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 4:06 pmToo bad.
AD-
It would be in very poor taste to do an advertisement using this, but a heck of a story if such a thing showed up. And more deer are taken than in any other state- I have a story about deer during hunting season that will have to wait.
DRJ- (in hushed tones with serious look)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/14/2011 @ 4:40 pmfrom what I could tell, an initial report said that there were no unusual fingerprints in the car…a later report said there were no identifiable fingerprints in the car; circling the car dogs could find no evidence of his scent…yet many said it was a probable “walk away” or suicide.
He had worked on breaking a big narcotics case with then AG (now Gov.) Corbett, who since election as governor has been on PSU Board of Trustees.
AD & MD,
I agree with you both that the detective seems too quick to say there’s no link, although he has been investigating this case for years so maybe he knows something more about what happened to Gricar than has been publicly released.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2011 @ 6:33 pmDavid French very thoughtfully and clearly expresses a lot of what I have felt and feebly attempted to state in this thread. There are simply some thing in life that require no question and demand an immediate action – because nothing less will do.
There are moral absolutes in life, and one of them is this: If a man comes across a child rape in process, he should do whatever he can to stop the rape and protect the child. There should be no reasonable debate about this, and the relevant question is not whether that standard is correct but whether we have the individual courage to meet that standard.
Those two sentences should be among the least controversial ever written in the pages of NRO. Indeed, there should be no need to even write them, but in the aftermath of my Friday posting about cowardice at Penn State, I was surprised at the number of individuals — both in the comments and via e-mail — who admonished me for my rush to judgment of the young graduate assistant who failed to stop Sandusky and failed even to call the police. “His career was at risk” some said. Others noted that Sandusky was likely a “father figure” to the young coach. Still others said that telling Joe Paterno many hours later was “enough.” But what does all that say about the inherent selfishness of the rationalizer? How important is your career? How much will you allow perceived authority to intimidate you? Do you respond to a crisis by asking what is “enough,” or what is right?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/14/2011 @ 8:23 pmDRJ & Doc…
AD-RtR/OS! (885414) — 11/14/2011 @ 8:48 pmI saw a report about the dogs that they followed the scent from his car to a point 30-50 feet away, where it ceased…as if someone got into a car.
AD-
That may well be true, but it is not what I remember seeing, which is why in addition to not trusting my memory 100% I want statements of fact that will bear up to patterico-type scrutiny under oath. Either way, the point is the same that it is not consistent with suicide or “taking off” unless there was another person involved.
Dana-
Thank you for the link. I think it is a good article (FWIW).
My very basic opinion is that there are too many things that just seem too strange to be the whole story. McQuery’s supposed response is one of them. French’s article deals with one of the major questions at this step, the role of shock/denial in how a person deals with something. One thing French doesn’t take into account, is that the soldiers in combat were expecting that challenge, to whatever limited degree one can anticipate a stressful situation they have never been in before. IF the McQuery incident is basically fact, we have little reason to think McQuery anticipated the situation he was going to confront. That is not to excuse McQuery, I just want to clarify where the comparison is accurate and where not so. I often use analogies in my thinking, but they are helpful only to the degree they are accurate.
More to come, I imagine.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/15/2011 @ 4:05 pmFYI-
Penn State trustees have hired Louis Freeh to conduct an independent investigation of all things related to the Sandusky case.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/21/2011 @ 9:02 amNew allegations against Sandusky are being investigated based on claims by two minors — one of whom is a Sandusky family member. The article says Sandusky has six adopted children and several foster children. Sandusky’s attorney said: “My concern is if they bring new charges based upon new people coming forth, that bail’s going to be set, and he’s going to wind up in jail.”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:37 pm