November 7, 2011

NYT says Joe Paterno "not implicated of wrongdoing in a grand jury report."

That's buried in the last paragraph of today's article — by Mark Viera — on the Penn State scandal, followed by this paean to Paterno:
Paterno helped propel Penn State to the top tiers of college football, and the university had one of the most pristine images in the sport, largely thanks to Paterno and his success in 46 seasons as head coach.
But the indictment did allege facts that implicated Paterno! (Maybe there's something in that strange locution "not implicated of" that I don't understand.)

It's not just the NYT. I'm seeing a lot of news reports that are inanely quick to assert that Paterno did everything right. Here's an exception in the NY Daily News:
Advocates of sexual abuse victims are taking a hard stand against the Penn State athletic department, including venerable football coach Joe Paterno, saying he should face criminal charges for failing to tell police that one of his assistants allegedly sexually assaulted a boy in a Nittany Lions locker room.

“At the very least, he should be fired,” said Robert Hoatson, a Catholic priest who founded an organization called Road to Recovery that counsels abuse survivors.

“Any adult who learns about a child being abused should immediately go to the police,” Hoatson said....

In 2002, Kelly said, a graduate assistant saw Sandusky sexually assault a naked boy in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus. The grad student and his father reported the incident to Paterno, who immediately told Curley about the allegation, prosecutors said. Curley and Schultz met with the grad assistant about a week and a half later.

Hoatson said Paterno had a responsibility to tell authorities about the report, especially when it became clear that university officials would not take action.
Obviously!

Why is the New York Times carrying water for Joe Paterno?

182 comments:

Jay said...

I hope the local media do not give Paterno a pass.

He said:

In a phone interview Sunday, Scott Paterno, serving as his father's spokesman, said the first and only incident reported about Sandusky to Paterno was in 2002. Scott Paterno, a former lawyer, is a Harrisburg-based political operative.




But this can't be the first time he heard anything:

The grand jury's report says that Wendell Courtney was an attorney for both the university and The Second Mile in 1998, when university police and the Centre County district attorney's office investigated other reports of Mr. Sandusky having inappropriate contact with young boys on campus


This was all engabled by the University and I hope the 8 victims sue the daylights out of them.

Jay said...

So Paterno's top assistant is under investigation by the University Police and the County DA and he knows nothing about it?

Really?

MadisonMan said...

saying he should face criminal charges for failing to tell police that one of his assistants allegedly sexually assaulted a boy in a Nittany Lions locker room.

This suggests he broke a law. Which one?

There is a lot to criticize Paterno (and others) about in this sordid tale. How is Paterno's failing to report something he didn't see himself criminal? I agree he should have pushed the grad assistant to go to the police. It's the eyewitness report that is most important.

It's interesting (to me) that the University Attorney hasn't said anything. Was he briefed? When my relative was a Dept Head, he would routinely report questionable things to his Dean -- someone was always threatening a lawsuit -- and then the university attorney would eventually get back to them that the suit -- usually merit-less -- was dropped. I wonder if the University Attorney was in the loop here.

MadisonMan said...

In other words, he did nothing criminally wrong. Not implicated of criminal wrongdoing. Which is miles apart from not being morally wrong.

Someone obviously doesn't know the goddamn words to the alma mater.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
saying he should face criminal charges for failing to tell police that one of his assistants allegedly sexually assaulted a boy in a Nittany Lions locker room.

This suggests he broke a law. Which one?

There is a lot to criticize Paterno (and others) about in this sordid tale. How is Paterno's failing to report something he didn't see himself criminal? I agree he should have pushed the grad assistant to go to the police. It's the eyewitness report that is most importa


First ask cardinal Law and the Catholic hierarchy about laws and responsibility “Madman” and then realize that since the 1990’s child abuse has been REQUIRED to be reported, at least by school and health officials. So there may actually have been a lw broken, certainly it’s a “sin of OMISSION” wouldn’t you say?

And it certainly won’t stop CIVIL Suits…

Lastly, are there not law suits against Cheney and Rumsfeld for actions they had NO knowledge or and no involvement with, but because they were “in charge” they are named? It was “Joe Pa’s” team, and he had a MORAL, and possibly, LEGAL responsibility to report and investigate.

Jay said...

It's interesting (to me) that the University Attorney hasn't said anything. Was he briefed?

Oh MadisonMan check this out!


The grand jury's report says that Wendell Courtney was an attorney for both the university and The Second Mile in 1998, when university police and the Centre County district attorney's office investigated other reports of Mr. Sandusky having inappropriate contact with young boys on campus. Mr. Courtney still represents The Second Mile, the report says, and he could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Mr. Courtney's law firm was replaced last year by the university's first in-house general counsel, Cynthia Baldwin. Ms. Baldwin is a Pittsburgh native and Penn State trustee who served as a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice from 2006 to 2008 and previously served in several divisions of Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. She declined to comment Sunday.


Interesting, huh?

gerry said...

Is Paterno Catholic? Is he related to or friend of a Catholic bishop? Hell, has he ever spoken to a Catholic priest?

Any of those conditions would have the press and academia and Democrats and well, everyone deemed to be important by those who define importance, demanding retribution and money and everything from Paterno and the school.

MadisonMan said...

...and the New York Times has been highly enamored of Joe Paterno since Dick Nixon proclaimed Texas the best team in the nation despite Penn State's consecutive unbeaten seasons.

The enamor-ment (?) deepened when JoePa decided against the millions for a pro coaching contract (the whole Joe: Don't Go Pro! campaign that swirled through Happy Valley in the early 70s) with New England.

Curious George said...

"Obviously!"

While I think you are probably right I don't think it's as obvious as you claim.

JoePa hears the grad assistant's story and tells the AD.

The Grand Jury report says that Curly and Schultz said what was told to them by the grad assistant as much less serious than what was told JoePa.

There is no information on any subsequent conversations between the grad assistant and JoePa. Of course the AD and JoePa must have had discussion on this. If Curly said to JoePa what he told the Grand Jury, I could see JoePa trusting Curley and thinking it was not as serious as was reported to him.

Jay said...

What I don't understand is that the GJ report says how distraught the grad assistant was (
"It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report,"


Yet he gets in the meeting with Paterno and apparently gets all mealy mouthed?

Also, note that news accounts also say this: "
The assistant testified that he witnessed what he believed to be Mr. Sandusky subjecting a boy who appeared to be about 10 years old to anal sex in the shower.
"

But he didn't tell that to Paterno, the AD, or anyone?

Bizarre.

SGT Ted said...

Witch Hunt

Kit said...

It's the Grad Assistant who actually witnessed the sexual assault and should be charged for failing to report it to police. What's with that? Everyone else was operating on "hear say". I'm not trying to protect anyone, but the intellectual argument needs to be made.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

MayBee said...

There is no information on any subsequent conversations between the grad assistant and JoePa. Of course the AD and JoePa must have had discussion on this. If Curly said to JoePa what he told the Grand Jury, I could see JoePa trusting Curley and thinking it was not as serious as was reported to him.

What?
Your former quarterback (and now current assistant coach) tells you he sees your former defensive coordinator RAPING a 10 year old in your team's showers and you just never really talk about it with him?

And that's ok?

Oh, maybe it wasn't so bad. Maybe he was just naked, pinning a naked 10 year old boy to the shower walls.

Would people who saw a 10 year old boy being raped on the street just walk on by? Would they be ok with the police not hearing about it?

Petunia said...

I also wonder why the grad assistant didn't go to the police.

MayBee said...

It's a totally sick environment. Everyone is so afraid of losing their job for putting Penn State in a bad light, they don't even stop a rape they see happening. They don't get the police involved.
They don't do anything to get the word out that this man is forcing himself on young boys so the boys in his charity can be protected.

They just say, "hey, don't do that in our locker room anymore"

Pogo said...

"Frog fail."

Aiming to keep the story internal, it gets away, and the "brand" is harmed worse than had they done the right thing in the first place.

When stupid meets evil, stupidity trembles, then trebles.

Chris said...

Jay,
Sandusky retired in 1999 when he learned that he wouldn't be the next head coach. These incidents occurred later...

...which means that he was NOT "Paterno's top assistant" at the time

Chris said...

Since Sandusky was NEITHER a coach nor a PSU employee at the time...

...I'm hard pressed to understand what culpability Paterno has in this if he was only told about one incident and not given many details about it.

ndspinelli said...

Paterno is a good, liberal Dem..that's why. He built a library @ Penn State..he attended Brown, the most liberal of the Ivy League schools.

Paterno should be a mandatory reporter of child abuse since he is a coach. Attorneys can research the Pa. statute, but I believe that's pretty standard in all states abuse reporting laws. The state of Mo. is what I'm most famliar. The mandatory reporter is obliged to report if they know OR SUSPECT that abuse has taken place.

I worked a case in Mo. where a girl told her guidance counselor that her best friend was being sexually abused by her father. The guidance counselor found the student very credible. She told me she thought about calling in the victim for an interview but thought it prudent to do so w/ a cop. KC Police brought in a female detective and they interviewed the victim in the counselors office. The scum father was convicted. This is the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're a "venerable" coach I guess.

Jay said...

Chris said...
Jay,
Sandusky retired in 1999 when he learned that he wouldn't be the next head coach. These incidents occurred later...

...which means that he was NOT "Paterno's top assistant" at the time


Chris,
Sandusky was under investigation by the campus police and county DA in 1998 as the story I linked to demonstrates.

He was indeed coaching then.

Roger J. said...

While as disturbing as this story is, perhaps it reflects the role of "college football" as a money maker for institutions of higher learning, and their subsequent unwillingness to jeopardize their football programs.

College football at least at the higher divisions, is all about money--and what feckless administrator wants to reduce cash flow?

The NCAA needs to go away, and academe needs to deal with sports programs (basketball and football primarily) as the businesses they are.

ndspinelli said...

I would surmise a grad asst. would be a mandatory reporter but I don't know that.

Curious George said...

@MayBee

Chill. I just tried to point out a scenario. I personally think they all knew what happened and wanted to hush it up.

Personally, the grad assistant should have:

1) stopped the raping
2) Gone to the police

Jerry Sandusky should hang himself in the garage.

Jay said...

Chris said...
Since Sandusky was NEITHER a coach nor a PSU employee at the time...


Which makes it all the worse.

He was using the University facilities to sexually assult children.

Can't wait to read about the judgement against PSU on this.

Kit said...

Chris, actually, Schultz told the jurors he also knew of a 1998 investigation involving sexually inappropriate behavior by Sandusky with a boy in the showers the football team used. So, the U, at some level, knew something was up while he was still working there.

MadisonMan said...

Paterno is a good, liberal Dem..that's why. He built a library @ Penn State..he attended Brown, the most liberal of the Ivy League schools.

Yes, that's why he endorsed GHW Bush in Bush's presidential run.

ndspinelli said...

Curious, If you're a mandatory reporter there's no fucking chain of command..no hierarchy of men covering their asses. You call 911 for chrissake. THAT'S THE LAW!

MayBee said...

If people believe JoePa didn't have many details about the rape his grad assistant saw, doesn't that alone indicate a huge moral failure on his part?

Did he just not want to know about it? He's the one who "reported" it to the AD. Did he just not care enough to ask his distraught grad assistant for details before he "reported" it?

Was it just not that important to find out what Sandusky was doing naked in the team showers with a 10 year old?

Roger J. said...

Where are the Penn State "pot bangers" a la Duke? Where is the outrage, a la Duke (misplaced as it was?)--The PSU faculty are a bit more timid, apparently, than the gang of 88 at Duke--of course the gang of 88 was besotted with political correctness, and perhaps the PSU faculty are a bit more discerning.

All in all a sad story.

Chris said...

Chris,
Sandusky was under investigation by the campus police and county DA in 1998 as the story I linked to demonstrates.

He was indeed coaching then.


But he wasn't coaching when the incident in question occurred.

In regards to the 1998 investigation, when did the university police announce that they were investigating Sandusky?

Don't police usually keep such investigation "under wraps" for a while?

If so, isn't it possible that Paterno wouldn't know about it?

Ann Althouse said...

The expression should be "not implicated inwrongdoing." "Implicated of" is not idiomatic English, and I suspect "of" is an artifact of editing. Some other word was probably there before, like "not accused of wrongdoing," which would make sense in that description of the indictment.

But he is clearly implicated in wrongdoing. He played a role, he made a decision, and there's a question whether it was enough. Note the word there is "wrongdoing," not "crime." So in the NYT text, it is not an issue of whether what Paterno did could expose him to prosecution. According to the indictment, he knew something had happened to at least one boy, something was going on, and the malefactor was getting away with it. Obviously, that implicates him!

Note too that the NYT article does not include those details from the indictment. Instead it informs us that he was not implicated and reminds us of his glorious reputation.

That is biased journalism. Unacceptable!

Jay said...

Was it just not that important to find out what Sandusky was doing naked in the team showers with a 10 year old?


They told the University President it was horse play and apparently he thought is was just a-ok to take away Sandusky's keys and office.

No follow-up questions.
No inclination to call the state police.

Horse play.

ndspinelli said...

Madisonman, I'll take you @ your word about him endorsing W. He was a Dem when I followed Penn State back in the 70's. I guess like many people he got more conservative as he got older. Sept. 11th turned a lot of folks..like Dennis Miller.

Jay said...

But he wasn't coaching when the incident in question occurred.


Um, so?
He was given an office at the University.

In regards to the 1998 investigation, when did the university police announce that they were investigating Sandusky?

Don't police usually keep such investigation "under wraps" for a while?


Are you seriously suggesting in a town as small as State College it needs to be "announced"?

Really?

So Paterno is so aloof he doesn't know his right hand man is under investigation by the DA?

What does that tell you?

Chris said...

Chris, actually, Schultz told the jurors he also knew of a 1998 investigation involving sexually inappropriate behavior by Sandusky with a boy in the showers the football team used. So, the U, at some level, knew something was up while he was still working there.

It certainly appears that there were people at PSU who knew of the investigations and the allegations and either covered them up or didn't do anything about them.

That said, I'm not sold yet that Paterno was one of those people.

IF (and it's a big IF) Paterno's statement today is correct and he only knew about one alleged incident and the grad student didn't give him much detail, then I don't see what "wrongdoing" Paterno has been "implicated" in.

Now, IF (and it's also a big IF) Paterno is lying about what the Grad student told him (or lying about not knowing about the prior allegations), then he needs to be charged.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Since Sandusky was NEITHER a coach nor a PSU employee at the time...

...I'm hard pressed to understand what culpability Paterno has in this if he was only told about one incident and not given many details about it


So you’re saying an Non-Coach/Employee of PSU was in the showers with a 10 year old boy and NOTHING was done? Because if that’s your claim, you’re not helping….”Hey Coach I just saw Coach Sandusky in the showers with a 10 year old boy.” “What the H3ll was he doing in OUR showers, with ANYONE? He doesn’t work here, call the cops!”

And when someone comes to me with that story, I think I’d talk to the person named, “Bob, there was a very serious ACCUSATION leveled against you. I think it would be best if from now on, you have at least one player, coach, or assistant with you at all times. Don’t put yourself in a vulnerable position here.” INSTEAD, it’s “La-La—la if he isn’t indicted, we’re all good.” Sorry no dice.

MayBee said...

Chill. I just tried to point out a scenario. I personally think they all knew what happened and wanted to hush it up.

Why are you telling me to chill? You tried to point out a scenario that you don't even believe. A really disgusting scenario that still doesn't, as Althouse discusses here, absolve Paterno "of wrongdoing".

ndspinelli said...

Professor, Your comment about biased NYT journalism reminds me of Captain Renault, "I'm shocked to learn there's gambling in this establishment."

MadisonMan said...

ndspinelli, there was a huge spate of letters to the editor in the alumni magazine when it happened.

When JoePa's son ran for office, he ran as a Republican (NTTAWWT).

glenn said...

"Why is the New York Times carrying water for Joe Paterno?"

Because Joe is one of us, not one of them.

vnjagvet said...

Since Sandusky was NEITHER a coach nor a PSU employee at the time...

...I'm hard pressed to understand what culpability Paterno has in this if he was only told about one incident and not given many details about it.


...and concededly reported it to his boss the AD, who had the duty to investigate. Has anyone writing about this explained what authority Paterno had over Sandusky in 2002, and how Sandusky had access to the locker room?

Chris said...

Jay,
Have you ever BEEN to State College?

When college is in session it is by no means a "small town". It's quite possible that the early stages of the investigation (which would have occurred right before Sandusky retired) could have been done quietly.

I'd need more information before making grandiose claims of omniscience for Paterno.

Jay said...

Chris said...
Jay,
Have you ever BEEN to State College?


Um, yes.

When college is in session it is by no means a "small town"

Yes, it is.

Especially related to the actual adults in question.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
When college is in session it is by no means a "small town". It's quite possible that the early stages of the investigation (which would have occurred right before Sandusky retired) could have been done quietly.

I'd need more information before making grandiose claims of omniscience for Paterno


Dood/Doodette it’s not the size of the COLLEGE, it’s the Football program…THAT is much smaller, I may not know who’s under investigation in my town, but I can tell you if one of my firm’s employees had been seen in the shower with a 10 year old and the cops were called, WE’D KNOW.

Chris said...

So you’re saying an Non-Coach/Employee of PSU was in the showers with a 10 year old boy and NOTHING was done? Because if that’s your claim, you’re not helping….”Hey Coach I just saw Coach Sandusky in the showers with a 10 year old boy.” “What the H3ll was he doing in OUR showers, with ANYONE? He doesn’t work here, call the cops!”

Sandusky (neither a coach nor an employee at the time), was granted access to PSU at the time of his retirement.

You still haven't convinced me that Paterno had any other moral or legal obligation than what he did upon hearing (in Paterno's words) vague and non-detailed claims of an incident.

Sandusky WASN'T Paterno's responsibility at that time.

Again, though, if Paterno WAS told specifics about the incident, than Paterno SHOULD be charged.

Jay said...

Has anyone writing about this explained what authority Paterno had over Sandusky in 2002, and how Sandusky had access to the locker room?


Nobody is asserting that Paterno had any authority of Sandusky.

He had a moral obligation to call the police in my opinion.

Sandusky was given an office as part of his retirement package.

Kit said...

According to this article:

Schultz's lawyer, Thomas J. Farrell, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the mandated reporting rules only apply to people who come into direct contact with children. He also said the statute of limitations for the summary offence with which Schultz is charged is two years, so it expired in 2004.

The grand jury report that lays out the accusations against the men cites the state's Child Protective Services Law, which requires immediate reporting by doctors, nurses, school administrators, teachers, day care workers, police and others.
Neither Schultz nor Curley appear to have had direct contact with the boys Sandusky is accused of abusing, including the one involved in the eyewitness account prosecutors say they were given.

The law “applies only to children under the care and supervision of the organization for which he works, and that's Penn State, it's not The Second Mile,” Farrell said of his client. “This child, from what we know, was a Second Mile child.”


So, the defense is that they’re hiding behind the split in organizations. Sheesh.

Jay said...

Neither Schultz nor Curley appear to have had direct contact with the boys Sandusky is accused of abusing, including the one involved in the eyewitness account prosecutors say they were given.


Right.

And they purposefully kept it that way by not asking who the child was or any further questions.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Sandusky (neither a coach nor an employee at the time), was granted access to PSU at the time of his retirement.

You still haven't convinced me that Paterno had any other moral or legal obligation than what he did upon hearing (in Paterno's words) vague and non-detailed claims of an incident


Try that at your place of (former) employment…at a MINIMUM, Paterno needed to talk to Sandusky, inform him that there were very serious allegations, and that subject to those allegations resolutions Jo Pa expected:
• Sandusky to turn in his keys and access authority; or
• Inform the Football Program when he’d be in and that there would be someone with Sandusky at all times. And that failure to abide by these rules would trigger the revocation of his access privileges.

MayBee said...

Again, though, if Paterno WAS told specifics about the incident, than Paterno SHOULD be charged.

If Paterno didn't care enough to discover the specifics of the incident, he should be shamed.

I suspect there was a reason the grad assistant (former quarterback,now assistant coach) didn't stop the rape, but called Paterno instead.

Shouting Thomas said...

The sex abuse hysteria, again.

Give it a break, folks.

Nothing drives people more to fits of sanctimonious rage that this sex abuse hysteria.

Another helping of this bullshit.

Every story I've read says that the authorities have no info of any involvement of JoePa.

We need a witch to burn at the stake.

Absolute hysteria.

Meade said...

"Absolute hysteria."

I see. You're saying the entire thing is a fabrication. It's all in our imaginations.

Roger J. said...

Shouting Thomas does have a good point--again, the Duke "rape case" demonstrates the consequences of not letting evidence play out.

Many people assumed that the excrebale Crystal Magnum was raped--as it turned out, primarily thanks to the work of a few bloggers, they were exonerated, and Magnum as it turned out was a very cheap whore and possibly a murderer to boot.

Where is the presumption of innocence that that many people like to spout.

MadisonMan said...

According to the local paper, the AD is on leave now, and the VP has retired.

I wonder how this will affect attendance at Penn State Sports Camps. Who would send a kid there?

edutcher said...

Essentially, the article adds nothing to the one Ann posted yesterday except for the fact that the two are going on leave.

So, right now, we're where we were yesterday.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Shouting Thomas does have a good point--again, the Duke "rape case" demonstrates the consequences of not letting evidence play out

There’s a big difference, here the child (ren) was/were raped! And the evidence WASN’T followed it was buried….and Paterno made some critical mistakes in the handling of the allegations, at a minimum.

madAsHell said...

Why is this becoming an issue nearly 10 years after the fact?

How did they keep the 10 year old boy quiet for so long??

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Where is the presumption of innocence that that many people like to spout

1) It kinda went out the door after the indictment and the release of the Grand Jury report which seems to indicate that Paterno COULD have known, had he wanted to; AND
2) My Rabbi doesn’t close the door when he counsels womyn or children…..He may be “presumed innocent” but he takes steps to minimize the risk. And I keep pointing out that Paterno OUGHT to have taken steps to minimize the risk to his reputation and Sandusky’s, by demanding Sandusky take certain steps to protect himself! At minimum Paterno was reckless, and at worst morally complicit…..

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
How did they keep the 10 year old boy quiet for so long

Seriously, you can ask this question? If it were hard to silence children, no molesters would ever escape prosecution.

Roger J. said...

Joe--I have no idea what happened--I can only hope the legal system works, and the facts emerge--

And I can only suggest that ST has the right approach--investigate, get the facts, and then see what happens.

Pogo said...

Interesting how vindictive the press has been about vague claims of sexual harassment by Cain, but dry reportage about Paterno.

Shouting Thomas said...

I see. You're saying the entire thing is a fabrication. It's all in our imaginations.

Well there are three possibilities:

1. Nothing happened and no crimes were committed.

2. Some of the alleged crimes were committed.

3. All of the alleged crimes were committed.

You have some special insider knowledge?

I don't.

DADvocate said...

From what I heard on the radio and read, it sure seems like Paterno know something. What is the definition of "wrongdoing?" I hate to see Paterno suffer at his old age, but if he knew or suspected (which is the legal requirement to report child abuse in many states) and didn't report it to the police or other child abuse authorities, he needs to step down at the least.

Roger J. said...

Dad--agree with your point--but it might be desirable to wait and see what the facts are--right now, I dont think we know.

Meade said...

"Where is the presumption of innocence that that many people like to spout."

Why should we presume innocence? We're private citizens. We have no obligation to presume innocence. Presuming innocence is an obligation of the government - whose power must yield to the individual's constitutional right to due process.

Here is my advice to every 10 year-old child: When dealing with people who are bigger than you and have more power than you, presume guilt. The burden of proof is on the bigger more powerful. Before you accept his friendship, money, gifts, tickets, horseplay... Coach must prove his innocence.

traditionalguy said...

Paterno is a Pope like figure. That makes him infallible, doesn't it?

He is Joe "Pa". The papa figure over the last 25 years.

Roger J. said...

Meade--the presumption of innocence applies the accused.

Lets say, for example, I accused you of molesting me when I was sixteen and you were thirty some 20 years ago--are you prepared to "prove" your innocence?
I think you couldnt.

Shouting Thomas said...

Here is my advice to every 10 year-old child: When dealing with people who are bigger than you and have more power than you, presume guilt. The burden of proof is on the bigger more powerful. Before you accept his friendship, money, gifts, tickets, horseplay... Coach must prove his innocence.

Meade, this knight on a white horse bit is an admirable part of your character. I used to do it a lot, too. It's a good part of the traditional male role. I commend you on it.

But, it's becoming more and more obvious that you've never experience this crap. Let me tell you again, as somebody who has dealt with the repercussions of this shit in depth, that the solution of calling in the law and bitching out everybody who has dirty hands doesn't work in practice the way you think it does.

Now, I know it's difficult in such an emotional charged issue as child sex abuse, but let's apply the same old measure:

Are you more concerned with the outcome or with your ideals?

And that's about all I have to say, because to say any more that would make sense, I'd have to write a book.

Roger J. said...

It appears to me, Meade, that you think the presumption of innocence is not applicable--I dont agree with you but you are entitled to your opinion.

Am I distressed by the story? of course I am, but there are existing mechanisms to deal with it. My position, is let those mecahnisms play out before ultimate judgment is passed.

vnjagvet said...

Penn State seems to have handled this incident in much the same way as the Catholic Church handled the pedophiliac priest scandal, but without the payoffs and victim intimidation.

DADvocate said...

How is Paterno's failing to report something he didn't see himself criminal?

Laws vary from state to state, but in Tennessee it is a crime to fail to report suspected child abuse.

Pennsylvania's law seems to be weaker. As I read the PA law, if Paterno reported it to "the person in charge," he fulfilled his legal obligation, which is a rather weak one in this case.

Meade said...

"How did they keep the 10 year old boy quiet for so long??"

Probably something like this: Oh, Timmy, why would you say something like that about Coach? After all the good things he's done for you? And even if he did the things you are describing, stop and think long and hard before you put yourself and your relatively small complaint ahead of the reputation of the greatest most wonderful football program and university in the whole history of universities.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Lets say, for example, I accused you of molesting me when I was sixteen and you were thirty some 20 years ago--are you prepared to "prove" your innocence?
I think you couldnt


Well Roger, let’s add this, 10 years ago someone told you that Meade was diddling children in your company’s showers…now you and I can presume Meade’s innocence, but we STILL have the duty to safeguard our company and Meade, by suggesting he do or not do certain things…and if we don’t, after having been told this, we have an accounting coming, first in Civil Court and then before Yhwh.

Meade said...

"But, it's becoming more and more obvious that you've never experience this crap."

Why are you so eager to presume my innocence?

MayBee said...

What are we presuming innocence about?

If Sandusky didn't rape the 10 year old in the shower, then the grad assistant (now assistant coach) made up a horrible lie and told Paterno about it in 2002. Paterno didn't really follow up on the lie his staffer told about a respected figure.

If Sandusky did rape the 10 year old, then the grad assistant told Paterno the truth, and Paterno didn't really follow up on the truth about the rape by a suspected figure.

Or the grad assistant didn't see anything, didn't really tell Paterno about it at the time, and this is the first Paterno is hearing about it. And that guy is currently on Paterno's staff.

What innocence scenario makes Paterno look like he handled this serious situation well?

J said...

The machiavellian-papist remains one of the most lethal creatures in the judeo-christian mob. Fuggetabout it

As say...Elliot Ness realized

Roger J. said...

Joe--I spent 10 years as a head start administrator in WA state where I was required by law to report any allegations of possible child abuse, irrespective of who levied the allegations--once I reported them to the DHSH I fulfilled my duty. I dont know what laws govern PA--The laws of PA it seems to me should govern and then the legal system can deal with them.

Shouting Thomas said...

Meade, once again you've demonstrated that you've never experienced the repercussions of this shit.

No, the child doesn't have to be browbeaten or threatened to keep quiet.

The child wants to keep quiet, because in cases in which these crimes occur, the perp is most often a figure he or she loves and wants to please.

No threats or intimidation are necessary.

MayBee said...

Nobody knows who the 10 year old was. He has not been identified.

Roger J. said...

If Mr Paterno was covered by those laws and failed to report them, then the PA legal system can take appropriate action.

My only point is that these are the legal questions that obtain in this case. the legal system, ponderous as it is, is the governing body.

Real American said...

The Grad assistant isn't named David Cash Jr, is he?

Roger J. said...

We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. Your choice.

MayBee said...

And the 10 year old has not testified.

The grad assistant saw him in the shower with Sandusky and didn't interrupt. Sandusky left with the boy and there was no investigation because the police were not called.

DADvocate said...

The child wants to keep quiet, because in cases in which these crimes occur, the perp is most often a figure he or she loves and wants to please.

Often, the kid doesn't want to suffer the, at least perceived, humiliation of the public knowledge that someone stuck their dick up his ass or forced him to give them a blow job.

J said...

what's this--now Shouting Tweek-fag's saying Paterno had no obligation to tell the cops? No, he did, hijo de puta (don't bother responding tweek scum if you know what's good for ya. just get the f**k offline)

Arrest this bum, Meade

Meade said...

Go ahead, Shouting Thomas, write your book on why it's sometimes not a good idea to go to the police when one has become aware of abuse of children. I am eager to read your book. Enlighten us.

Daniel Fielding said...

I think Joe Pa showed real bad judgement in not reporting it to the authorities. And as such, he ought to be fired, and should spend the rest of his years in ingnominy. (Did I spell it right?)

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I spent 10 years as a head start administrator in WA state where I was required by law to report any allegations of possible child abuse, irrespective of who levied the allegations--once I reported them to the DHSH I fulfilled my duty. I dont know what laws govern PA--The laws of PA it seems to me should govern and then the legal system can deal with them

You have fulfilled your LEGAL duty, no more…and if you don’t take steps to prevent further contact with the perp and the victims, you have FAILED your administrative/PR duty, as well as a duty to Yhwh. Again, once informed Joe Pa ought to have said, “Sandusky you may NOT come here without an escort. If you do, we will strip your privileges.” You can presume Sandusky innocent, I presume my Rabbi innocent, but I still don’t have my Rabbi close the door when with either a womyn or a child…..

Roger J. said...

Joe--I understand the point that I think you are making--there is legal duty and moral duty--but at the time when any administrator chooses to let his perception (note perception) over his legal duty, then you open the door to to possibly even worse things.

Shouting Thomas said...

Go ahead, Shouting Thomas, write your book on why it's sometimes not a good idea to go to the police when one has become aware of abuse of children. I am eager to read your book. Enlighten us.

That's the first time you've ever resorted to the tactic of fabrication, Meade, and it demonstrates just how explosive this issue is and how it seems to demand ultimate vengeance in return.

Thanks for demonstrating that.

This is precisely why it's a good idea to cool out and let the legal process play out.

Meade said...

"(Did I spell it right?)"

No. And now you must spend the rest of your life living with gnomes.

MadisonMan said...

The Grad assistant isn't named David Cash Jr, is he?

No.

An interesting aspect to this story is that the person who saw the raping grew up in State College, playing football all through high school. The classic local boy makes good story person stumbles upon the evil truth.

The DA gone missing adds another fascinating element.

The screenplay writes itself, almost.

traditionalguy said...

Laws exist against things that people do a lot, not stuff that they don't do much.

And this dilemma is about how we apply laws to Father Figures that we usually honor.

Pretending that it is unthinkable only leaves us in a lawless situation. Meade is right.

Roger J. said...

Trad guy--and when the law leaves us in a we perceive to be a lawless situation, we are free to act on it on the results of the lawless situation?

I hope you dont mean that. The consequences could be stark.

Shouting Thomas said...

The classic local boy makes good story person stumbles upon the evil truth.

It's only one of the truths.

There are several thousand others... at least one for each life that JoePa encountered.

I'll bet the score is something like...

250,000 good outcomes
7 bad outcomes

This matters. Can any of you claim that your life produces that scoreboard?

Could it be that it's time for JoePa to hang it up? Could be. Could it be that JoePa is just completely out of touch with the sexual hysterias of the feminist era? Could be.

MadisonMan said...

Could it be that JoePa is just completely out of touch with the sexual hysterias of the feminist era? Could be.

I think there is a truth in this statement. JoePa is as old as my Mom, and their generation did not directly deal very well with Sexual Predators, IMO.

Kit said...

Pennsylvania's law seems to be weaker. As I read the PA law, if Paterno reported it to "the person in charge," he fulfilled his legal obligation, which is a rather weak one in this case.

I would agree.

Meade said...

"250,000 good outcomes
7 bad outcomes"

Exactly. Every one of those 250,000 is now contaminated times 7.

Titus said...

Why didn't any of the parents go to the police?

Or did they/

Meade said...

Titus, at least one mother did. There was an investigation. I think it was in 1998.

Shouting Thomas said...

"250,000 good outcomes
7 bad outcomes"

Exactly. Every one of those 250,000 is now contaminated times 7.


How. They've now decided to take back the money from those hundreds of kids who collected an NFL paycheck with the help of JoePa?

They closed down the library that JoePa endowed?

All those kids who received financial help to get a degree have to turn it back in?

Really, you need to get control of yourself, Meade.

There is no sin so big that it cannot be forgiven. There is no sinner so vile that he cannot be redeemed. Jesus H. Christ said this. Remember?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
250,000 good outcomes
7 bad outcomes


So as long as the EVIL is outweighed by the GOOD, we’re all square…you’re sounding silly now.

Meade said...

"Jesus H. Christ said this. Remember?"

Yes. Jesus forgives. I don't.

And I don't forget.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
250,000 good outcomes
7 bad outcomes


*WOW* Cardinal Law you’re posting here now? After all you did oversee outreach to the Marginalized, aid to the Poor, education to the Faithful, many souls were saved, and along the way a few boys were raped, but look at the millions Cardinal Law helped, and only a few dozen boys raped…good exchange huh?

Shouting Thomas said...

"*WOW* Cardinal Law you’re posting here now? After all you did oversee outreach to the Marginalized, aid to the Poor, education to the Faithful, many souls were saved, and along the way a few boys were raped, but look at the millions Cardinal Law helped, and only a few dozen boys raped…good exchange huh?"

We take what we can get.

This is a world full of sinners.

exhelodrvr1 said...

On the surface, it appears that JoePa should have done more. But don't rush to judgement until all the facts are out.

MayBee said...

What kind of sick world is this if a coach can't even cover for his friend raping 10 year olds in the locker room, without women getting all emotional about it?

MayBee said...

Note to child predators:

If you want to rape a 10 year old, you're best off doing it in a Head Start bathroom or a college team locker room. Because those people aren't going to do shit about it. They aren't obligated to, and if they do it really makes it worse.

Shouting Thomas said...

What kind of sick world is this if a coach can't even cover for his friend raping 10 year olds in the locker room, without women getting all emotional about it?

The absolute hysteria exhibited here has nothing to do with reality, or even with empathy with the purported victims.

It's just an expression of sanctimony, and an exhibit of self-righteousness.

Absolutely useless.

Kit said...

Yes. Jesus forgives. I don't.

And I don't forget.


To your own peril.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
We take what we can get.

This is a world full of sinners


It is and when the Saints become SINNERS, we punish the Saints, as well…Machiavelli wasn’t amoral, you know…”Realism” means you expect some bad, not that you ACCEPT some bad….

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


So if there were 249,999 BAD outcomes, but 250,000 GOOD ones, we’d be “kewl” too? Just kind of give me a rough calculus here, and does 7 boy rapes equal 300 NFL players, does it equal 400 NFL players, or does it equal one NFL big-time salary, or two? How much in popcorn sales is a boy rape worth? I’m just askin’ so we can begin to weigh out various good and bad outcomes.

Shouting Thomas said...

So if there were 249,999 BAD outcomes, but 250,000 GOOD ones, we’d be “kewl” too? Just kind of give me a rough calculus here, and does 7 boy rapes equal 300 NFL players, does it equal 400 NFL players, or does it equal one NFL big-time salary, or two? How much in popcorn sales is a boy rape worth? I’m just askin’ so we can begin to weigh out various good and bad outcomes.

Those are questions only God can answer.

ndspinelli said...

Shouting, When you defend the indefensible[Catholic Church and criminal Cardinal Law] you have zero moral authority on this. I do agree that sometimes there is hysteria involving sexual abuse. But you believe that is the case w/ the Catholic Church. That is patently false. You're not really Robert Hansen, the FBI opus dei traitor posting somehow from federal prison, are you? He's a good Catholic just like you.

What are the details that make you an elevated authority on this? Because, as I said yesterday, your personal demons seem to have blinded you. Take a 25 mile bike ride this afternoon and stop embarassing yourself. WW2 is over Samurai soldier. Turn in your weapon.

Again..when J is right and you're wrong on a subject you need to move the fuck on, bro.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Those are questions only God can answer

Oddly a very poor argument…so since ONLY Yhwh can answer, for sure, then on Earth we can say, 1 bad outcome outweighs 250,000 good outcomes see how easy this is? Just shoving it onto Yhwh doesn’t help us here, and since you’re saying “it’s unknowable” then we can make any claim, no matter how absurd, because the answer is unknowable, and hence our answer, though absurd, COULD be Yhwh’s.

Big fail there Cardinal Shouting Thomas.

So let’s try again, 7 boys were raped, now what were those “good outcomes” much less how did you arrive at the 250,000 figure? Does sending people to NFL count as a good outcome? Do National Championships count as good outcomes? Please elaborate. Simply saying it’s in Yhwh’s Hands is a cop-out, OF COURSE it’s in Yhwh’s Hands, but He expects us to operate here, as well, not just leave it to Yhwh’s Judgment.

Meade said...

To your own peril.

Perhaps. But I could argue that more harm has been done by premature forgiveness, inauthentic forgiveness, and forgiveness out of convenience or duty than harm done by withholding - even genuine - forgiveness.

knox said...

Shouting:

...the solution of calling in the law and bitching out everybody who has dirty hands doesn't work in practice the way you think it does.

So what should be done?

And quit hedging. You can tell us what you think people should do instead of "calling in the law," without revealing your personal story. I really want to know what you think the better alternative is.

ndspinelli said...

Amen, Meade. All male[and to a lesser degree all female] organizations are dangerous. A woman involved in this sordid tale would have been more likely to be on the side of children. I'm not saying men can't..they can and do. But, the all male dynamic, evidenced by the Catholic Church travesty, shows us the lack of balance; as is also shown here. And it's men trying to rationalize it here.

ndspinelli said...

knox, It might be edifying to see Shoutings pretzel logic. But, it's irellevent. This is a nation of laws, not men. It is mandatory that the police be called. That's the law. Is the outcome always righteous..absolutely not. But, if we are not a nation of laws then we might as well shred the Constitution. Shouting has some serious baggage. He would need a team of skycaps @ the airport for the baggage he has on this!

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Amen, Meade. All male[and to a lesser degree all female] organizations are dangerous. A woman involved in this sordid tale would have been more likely to be on the side of children. I'm not saying men can't..they can and do. But, the all male dynamic, evidenced by the Catholic Church travesty, shows us the lack of balance; as is also shown here. And it's men trying to rationalize it here

Oh Puh-leeeze, leave Gloria Steinem at home (in the kitchen). Look how NOW reacted to Bill Clinton and Monica…how certain “feminists” offered “Lewinski’s” to Bill for keeping Abortion safe and legal.

This has NOTHING to do with sex, and EVERYTHING to do with group cohesion…and as Shouting puts it, weighing the costs versus the outcomes. If Gloria Steinem or Molly Yard had found this happening in NOW’s shower’s they would have been just as likely to sweep it under the rug! This is about making “us, look bad” not testosterone….

Love said...

Ann - "Why is the New York Times carrying water for Joe Paterno?"

All of the news outlets and sources are carrying the same water.

He was told about this at least eight years ago and merely passed it on to an assistant.

Love said...

MayBee said..."Note to child predators:
If you want to rape a 10 year old, you're best off doing it in a Head Start bathroom or a college team locker room. Because those people aren't going to do shit about it. They aren't obligated to, and if they do it really makes it worse."

Or of course, a Catholic church.

Shouting Thomas said...

The answer is unknown and unknowable.

I didn't say that instances of sex abuses haven't occurred. I said that they happen at just about the same frequency as in the general populace, and that the demand to allow openly gay priests into seminary increased the frequency.

Once a few cases of abuse were brought into public, ambulance chaser lawyers and money hungry "victims" piled on in the hundred because they knew that the Church could not possibly defend itself.

The answer to what is to be done in instances of child sex abuse that occur within the family, or are committed by authority figures is entirely individual to each instance. The parents involved have a very difficult job to do in terms of deciding who to trust and where to go for advice and help.

I cannot think of an arena where the law is a blunter and more stupid club than in this arena. In instances of a parental abuse, the "solution" often places the child in a series of institutional and foster homes where abuse is just piled on top of abuse. You might want to read Charlie Manson's biography for enlightenment.

When it comes to abuse committed by authority figures, the questions are just as convoluted, but different.

JoePa might have some responsibility. He might have none. I can think of scenarios in which all things are possible. Should he have been worried about the outcome for a lifelong friend, as well as for purported victims?

Yes.

A person doesn't stop being a soul in the eyes of God just because he's committed an awful crime.

So, rage on at me. I don't care. I think you're behaving kind of moronically.

Roger J. said...

I have no dog in this fight (apologies to Mr Vick)

But can anyone tell me what the laws of the state of PA require of Mr Paterno?

that seems to me to be the relevant question--Meade IIRC has raised the question of moral responsibility, and while that is a good observation, it may not be legally disposable.

What does the law of PA require Mr Paterno to do?

Anyone? even Bueller

Love said...

SGT Ted said..."Witch Hunt"

To the point, and of course completely wrong.

What would you possibly be basing such a ridiculous statement on?

Everybody lying?

Love said...

Shouting Thomas - It's not often one recommends a biography of Charles Manson to shore up a thoroughly convoluted argument relating to child abuse.

Duh.

Roger J. said...

Love: I would suggest that some fair amount of folks had their lives ruined with what I would suggest were witch hunts some years ago: Wenatchee WA, the McMartin preschool fiasco.

Lets look at what the law requires and see if people within that system abide by the requirements of the law

just my .02

DADvocate said...

But can anyone tell me what the laws of the state of PA require of Mr Paterno?

I linked to the pertinent law in an earlier comment.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
A person doesn't stop being a soul in the eyes of God just because he's committed an awful crime

No said they did, pick that straw man up off the floor and put him in the garden where he belongs, dood.

Love said...

Roger: According to the lawyer...

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The Pennsylvania law requiring some school officials and others to report suspected child abuse does not apply to a Penn State administrator who's accused of keeping quiet about allegations that a former football coach molested a boy in a shower, the administrator's attorney said Sunday.

The comments by Pittsburgh lawyer Thomas J. Farrell offer a preview of the defense he plans to use on the charge of failing to report faced by his client, Gary C. Schultz, the university's senior vice president for finance and business. Farrell said he will seek to have the charge dismissed.

The charge is part of a broader case centered on retired Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who is accused of sexually abusing eight boys over 15 years. Schultz, 62, and Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, 57, were both charged Saturday with failing to report to state and county officials that a witness told them he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a naked boy in the showers of a team practice facility in 2002.

Schultz and Curley were both also charged with perjury. Lawyers for all three men say they are innocent.

Farrell told the Associated Press on Sunday the mandated reporting rules only apply to people who come into direct contact with children. He also said the statute of limitations for the summary offense with which Schultz is charged is two years, so it expired in 2004.

MayBee said...

But can anyone tell me what the laws of the state of PA require of Mr Paterno?

that seems to me to be the relevant question


No, it really isn't.

Doing the thing that is morally wrong is not always equivalent to doing the thing that is legally wrong.

Who did Paterno act to protect? A child he knew had been abused (and other children, given Sandusky's "charity"), or his football team's reputation.

Roger J. said...

Dad--thanks--was working on my chipping game for a bit this morning (priorities you know)

I will go back to your posting

god forbid, someone should actually cite, like you know, facts

thanks for the pointer

Love said...

§ 21.502. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), RNs, LPNs or CRNPs who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. RNs, LPNs and CRNPs who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the RN, LPN or CRNP, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).

(c) Reporting procedure. Reports of suspected child abuse shall be made by telephone and by written report.

(1) Oral reports. Oral reports of suspected child abuse shall be made immediately by telephone to ChildLine, (800) 932-0313.

(2) Written reports. Written reports shall be made within 48 hours after the oral report is made by telephone. Written reports shall be made on forms available from a county children and youth social service agency.

(d) Written reports. Written reports shall be made in the manner and on forms prescribed by the Department of Public Welfare. The following information shall be included in the written reports, if available:

(1) The names and addresses of the child and the parents or other person responsible for the care of the child, if known.

(2) Where the suspected abuse occurred.

(3) The age and sex of the subjects of the report.

(4) The nature and extent of the suspected child abuse including any evidence of prior abuse to the child or siblings of the child.

(5) The name and relationship of the persons responsible for causing the suspected abuse, if known, and any evidence of prior abuse by those persons.

(6) Family composition.

(7) The source of the report.

(8) The person making the report and where that person can be reached.

(9) The actions taken by the reporting source, including the taking of photographs and X-rays, removal or keeping of the child or notifying the medical examiner or coroner.

(10) Other information which the Department of Public Welfare may require by regulation.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Who did Paterno act to protect? A child he knew had been abused (and other children, given Sandusky's "charity"), or his football team's reputation

And by acting, even taking sensible steps, he could have protected BOTH….I’m not claiming that Sandusky ought to have been declared “guilty” of anything, merely that when that heinous allegation was, finally, made that Paterno ought to have taken his own steps, not just pass the information along.

Shouting Thomas said...

I think that the real issue obsessing the folks who are getting so upset at me is that they are trying to figure out this dilemma...

How do we end the curse of child sexual abuse?

The answer I'm giving you is... you won't end the curse of child sexual abuse, no matter what you do.

That doesn't mean child sexual abuse should be tolerated. Criminal abusers certainly should be punished.

But, the feminist hysterics insistence that punishment and education will stop child sexual abuse is just bullshit. Murder has been committed since the beginning of human history and it will continue to be committed despite all attempts to eradicate it.

There is no "right" way of looking at child sexual abuse that will magically cause it to cease.

And, when you empower a class of people to poke around in our private lives and behavior, you've just created another arena of potential abuse that will be just as bad.

The basic configuration of the human condition is not subject to change.

Roger J. said...

MayBee--I understand your point about the difference between legal rights and moral rights--but do you really want to be in a position where you assert your legal fights are subordinate to moral rights? At the risk of oversimplication, you have made the case for vigilantism or lynchings. (IMO opinion of course)

Shouting Thomas said...

Shouting Thomas - It's not often one recommends a biography of Charles Manson to shore up a thoroughly convoluted argument relating to child abuse.

Duh.


I edited a biography of Charles Manson.

You want to see they horrors that institutionalization can produce on an innocent child?

Read about Charlie Manson.

Ralph L said...

The grad assistant saw him in the shower with Sandusky and didn't interrupt. Sandusky left with the boy and there was no investigation because the police were not called
No sodomy here, just "following too closely."
So who did call the police, and when?
Does the grad assistant still have a job, and a conscience?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
But, the feminist hysterics insistence that punishment and education will stop child sexual abuse is just bullshit. Murder has been committed since the beginning of human history and it will continue to be committed despite all attempts to eradicate it

Stop with the straw man arguments…let’s use your “argument.” I’m Joe Pa, one of my Grad Assistants comes to me and says, “I saw Coach Sandusky murder a little boy in the shower.” Have I done all I need to if I just pass along that tid-bit to the AD? After all I can’t stop murder, it’s always going to happen? Have I done enough, not just legally, but also administratively and morally? I think the answer is obviously, “NO.”

I keep saying, Joe Pa needed to tell Sandusky that from that moment on, he needed to be accompanied by ANOTHER ADULT, any time he was in the Athletics/Football area, and if those conditions were unacceptable to him then his privileges for access would be revoked. This doesn’t mean “I” think Sandusky is guilty of anything, it simply means I am providing him and myself an alibi, should any other accusations arise….IF he’s guilty, I’m making it harder for him to commit his crime…

Again, Rabbi’s and closed doors, don’t have them…doesn’t make your Rabbi guilty, just your Synagogue and Rabbi, smart….

Shouting Thomas said...

Underlying this entire discussion is the feminist assertion that child sexual abuse is something that can be prevented or driven out of existence if only people's attitudes are change so that they regard it as a matter of law enforcement.

This is utter bullshit.

Joe said...

The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
You want to see they horrors that institutionalization can produce on an innocent child

Well then there you go, abolish the Foster Care System and leave the children with the abusive crack heads, because of Manson…HLD IT, by your “system” of logic as long as the number of “good outcomes” outnumbers the “bad” ones, it’s all good….so one Charlie Manson is FAR OUTWEIGHED by all the good of Foster Care…

You’re getting incoherent Shouting…your logic is about at “J” level now….next you’ll start with the Spanglish.

Shouting Thomas said...

I've read, literally, dozens of news stories that have tried to sort out the facts.

Every one agrees that JoePa fulfilled his legal responsibilities and has no legal exposure.

You seem to want something more than that.

Too bad. You're not entitled to that.

If you want more than that, you're just involved in a lynching.

Shouting Thomas said...

Joe, you're not angry with me.

I'm just telling you reality.

You're angry with reality.

Reality is sometimes pretty damned awful.

Too bad.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Underlying this entire discussion is the feminist assertion that child sexual abuse is something that can be prevented or driven out of existence if only people's attitudes are change so that they regard it as a matter of law enforcement

The fact you keep saying this, doesn’t make it so….Underlying this entire discussion is the sense of REVULSION people feel when they learn that a Football Program felt its reputation and the reputation of its coach was more important than protecting little boys…that all that was done was simply passing along information and then acting as IF, that’s all that could be done or needed to be done.

Again if it was a murder we’d be just as outraged, because the whole thing is that PSU seemingly felt “Joe Pa’s reputation” was of greater value than the little boys lives….We will NEVER end murder or child abuse, but we sure as H3ll need to work on protecting the innocent when we can….even IF it makes Joe Pa and his program look a little bad….

Roger J. said...

I have to agree with ST and disagree with others that asserted Mr Paterno had a moral obligation to do something--Perhaps he did, but I am not privy to Mr Paterno's moral compass--nor, I think, would a court of law look at moral obligations--Dr Kervorkian, Timothy McVeigh, and others have all made those arguments--Our moral compasses are not enshrined in law, and the law determines our guilt or innocense.

Shouting Thomas said...

The fact you keep saying this, doesn’t make it so….Underlying this entire discussion is the sense of REVULSION people feel when they learn that a Football Program felt its reputation and the reputation of its coach was more important than protecting little boys…that all that was done was simply passing along information and then acting as IF, that’s all that could be done or needed to be done.

You don't know that protecting JoePa's reputation had anything to do with this. You're just assuming.

Yes, doing what is legally required was and is all that we can ask of JoePa.

So, you feel REVULSION. Good for you. That and two bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

MayBee said...

but do you really want to be in a position where you assert your legal fights are subordinate to moral rights? At the risk of oversimplication, you have made the case for vigilantism or lynchings. (IMO opinion of course)

A guy walked into his team locker room and saw a man known to him raping a 10 year old boy.
Instead of stopping it- in any way- he quietly backed out of the room and let the rape continue.
Then, instead of calling the police, he called his football coach.
Instead of calling the police, the football coach told the Athletic Director.

Instead of calling the police, the Athletic Director waited a week and then spoke to the witness.

Instead of calling the police, they decided to ask the man who was seen raping a boy to stop bringing boys to their locker room.

There are so many moral and legal failures here it is shocking. There was no suspected child abuse.
There was a witnessed rape.

Now, after the fact, someone is looking at the crimes committed not only by the rapist, but by those who did nothing about it. Some may not have committed crimes that can be punished legally, but that doesn't mean their moral failings can't have a price.

At this point, criticizing the absolute moral failure of those who did nothing by conjuring up a *lynch mob* seems outrageous.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Every one agrees that JoePa fulfilled his legal responsibilities and has no legal exposure

Really Althouse doesn’t seem to think so…just because you say it doesn’t make it so, and IF Althouse sees an opening, what do you think all those lawyers you despise see? Civil Action, dood…..Just think how this is going to look in court, Joe pa told that rape is happening in the showers and his reaction, call the AD? That’s it? Try that at YOUR house, “But I called the police. I wasn’t under any obligation to ensure that my Uncle wasn’t behaving inappropriately in my shower.” You WEREN’T? Really talk to a lawyer about that…what makes the settlement WORSE, is, just like the Catholic Churches problem, that when informed that there MIGHT be a problem, rather than act prudently, Joe Pa or Cardinal Law just sought to cover up or look the other way….that simply COMPOUNDS the problem, when it comes to light….

Great Army phrase, “Bad news is not like wine, it does NOT get better with age.”

Roger J. said...

May Bee- thanks for your response--if I may suggest, our moral failings are between our God and ourselves--when we impose our particular moral imperatives on the legal system we are going down a very dangerous road, IMO

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I respectfully disagree with it.

That said, I regard chld abuse, pedophilia, and other abbeations as horrendous--but I trust the law to deal with them.

When we abandon the law to our personal moral compasses, we open the door to many other outrages--I am not willing to go there.

MayBee said...

So if you all saw a child being raped in a car on your street, would you feel satisfied with yourself if you did not stop it? If you didn't call the police?

If your friend came to your door and told you he just saw your neighbor raping a boy, would you feel you've done the moral thing if you decide to call the Neighborhood association president in the morning? And then nothing ever again? What about when you know the neighbor keeps having boys over?

Shouting Thomas said...

Well, dude, now you've brought up a completely different subject.

Yes, I don't doubt that JoePa and PSU will be subjected to civil suit exposure. Might be justified. They are big targets with fat wallets.

That's quite a bit different than criminal exposure.

Should JoePa lose his job? Don't know. So far, I don't see any reason he should. He's what... 84? He's going to be departing soon no matter how you cut it.

Could all be moot.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
You don't know that protecting JoePa's reputation had anything to do with this. You're just assuming

But to use your “logic” ONLY YHWH KNOWS THAT…I can say anything, only Yhwh knows for true, but sadly courts rule in THIS life, not Yhwh’s Judgment….I’m SURE that if a 10 y.o was raped in “Freshman Dorm No. 1” they’d have behaved the exact same way…well actually I’m betting, no they wouldn’t have…because a drunken freshman isn’t a beloved Sports Legend like Paterno….

Shouting Thomas said...

Once again, you're just assuming that JoePa was "covering up" anything.

That's something that has to be proved in court.

You have no way of knowing that.

Roger J. said...

Actually MayBee--I would probably take my 45 out and shoot the perpetrators--but at the end of the day I may have satisfied my moral obligations, but would still be answerable to the legality of my obligations.

While I have minimal respect for lawyers and the law, the law is the only thing that stands between society and anarchy. (I am very much a Hobbesian in that regard)

My opinion of course, and you obviously disagree--but I suggest we just disagree on this point.

I do appreciate your responses, and thank you for not emplying invective to underscore them.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


Yeah and Paterno and PSU’s wallets and Paterno and PSU’s reputations would be a lot better NOW, and any judgments smaller NOW, IF they’d acted differently THEN…my point. Simply telling the AD was NOT adequate….and Paterno could have and OUGHT TO HAVE done certain things, absent any other actions, by outside agencies. I keep saying, my Rabbi NEVER closes his door in counseling…does it mean my Rabbi is a rapist/pedophile, No, just that my Rabbi wants to avoid any legal complications. INSTEAD, Joe Pa and PSU, determined that the “legal exposure” was minimal and took little action…a decision that will cost them, justifiably, a lot, both in terms of reputation and dollars.

Ralph L said...

if only people's attitudes are change so that they regard it as a matter of law enforcement.
WTF? So let's all turn a blind eye to it? There are a limited number of adult child-rapists. Should we incarcerate them after the first rape or wait 'til the hundredth?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
That's something that has to be proved in court

So now you’re just reduced to the “You don’t know that” defense…I hate to pop your bubble but that’s pretty much the botto of the barrel in terms of defenses, only just above the “N’uh-Uh” Defense….oh and BTW, you think Legal involves only CRIMINAL, they are LEGALLY on-the-hook, in Civil Court…that’s LAW, too.

Shouting Thomas said...

Ralph, at least now we know that you are a deliberate liar.

REVULSION over things is often a great cover for deliberate liars.

MayBee said...

While I have minimal respect for lawyers and the law, the law is the only thing that stands between society and anarchy. (I am very much a Hobbesian in that regard)

I really don't understand.
You think people should only be criticized if they do something illegal?
You think a college football coach should not be held to any moral standard?

I think Joe Paterno should be let go because of his obvious moral failure. I don't think he should be shot or lynched or arrested.
There is no obligation any of us has to only criticize behavior that is criminal.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, Joe, I keep asking you the same question, which you don't regard it as fit to answer... since you want to tell me over and over how morally outraged you are.

So, you feel REVULSION.

Who the fuck cares? That amounts to what?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


Shouting, what do you think the basis of Morality is, “MORAL OUTRAGE” “How can Yhwh allow this? Does Yhwh Allow this? How can ‘This’ be changed?”

So far all you got is “You don’t know for sure” and “PSU wasn’t legally obligated to do more.” Oh and that this is all feminist hysteria, attempting to eliminate a sin that can never be eliminated….In short not what I’m arguing.

Roger J. said...

Ummm Maybee--criticing people for what they do based on our moral standards is, I think, problematic--of course you can criticism them, but any punishment that happens will be a function of the law and its penalties.

Here is how I respond to your comment: You tell me what YOU think are the appropriate moral standards to be applied, and how those moral standards should be applied and how they should be judged.

The application of transgressions against our personal moral standards IMO has nothing to do with who trangresses them. Football coach or private citizen.

Herb said...

i've heard from former players that Paterno showers with the team.

Ralph L said...

Ralph, at least now we know that you are a deliberate liar.

For quoting you? My reading comprehension is pretty good--it must be your writing that sucks.

Oh, and fuck you, too.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
i've heard from former players that Paterno showers with the team

Only the YOUNGER players*NUDGE*NUDGE*WINK*WINK*

Ralph L said...

i've heard from former players that Paterno showers with the team
He's just trying to prevent circle jerks after a victory. The cleaning crew complained.

ndspinelli said...

Shouting, Charles Manson??? Your nemesis J is just sitting back and laughing while you implode. How does that make you feel. At least J is smart enough[albeit vile] to know that when your enemy is destroying himself just sit back and let him. CAN'T YOU SEE THIS DUDE?

Joe, You're just a fool and apparently hate women. I deplore feminism but all male institutions create this kind of shit..that's the painfull reality. Not getting any, bro? You can buy it you know. "On the dirty boulevard."

Jay said...

I find it hard to believe that Paterno knew nothing about this:

1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report.

The culture of cover up is incredible.

MayBee said...

Here is how I respond to your comment: You tell me what YOU think are the appropriate moral standards to be applied, and how those moral standards should be applied and how they should be judged.

I don't think the witnessed rape of a 10 year old is in any kind of fuzzy moral territory.

I don't think sweeping it under the rug is in any kind of fuzzy moral territory.

Make the victim 16 or 17 and I can see some qualms about making sure it is stopped or reported.

But not 10 or 11. That's not even a close moral call.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Joe, You're just a fool and apparently hate women. I deplore feminism but all male institutions create this kind of shit..that's the painfull reality. Not getting any, bro? You can buy it you know. "On the dirty boulevard

I’m a fool and hate womyn…well that’s certainly a well-reasoned argument. Please note how NOW reacted to Paula Jones versus Anita Hill…Hill, “One of us” was OBVIOUSLY a victim of the Patriarchy, whereas Jones, “Not one of us” and “Trailer Trash” was thrown to the wolves. Womyn “protect their own” just as much as men. This isn’t about SEX, dood/doodette but human nature…but if you want to make it about the Patriarchy I’ll be willing to laugh at you.

frank said...

Well, at least now we know why 'his boys' call him "Papa Joe"

frank said...

PapaJo--Joe Pappa--JoePa, I'm dyslexic

frank said...

MayBee and Joe--two compasses that point to the 'true North' when lost in the moral swamp known as the 'Big AA'

Beth said...

If I walk in on an adult raping a child I'm going to worry about reporting it after I put a stop to it, resorting to violence if necessary. And if this happened at my workplace, my notice to my supervisors would be purely courtesy to inform them that I had called city - not campus - police to report a sexual assault.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Good column on this:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_rosenberg/11/07/pennst.scandal/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

Maguro said...

Why is the New York Times carrying water for Joe Paterno?

Mostly force of habit, one supposes. The media has been kissing JoePa's ass for 40 years now, so it's hard to let go.

Maguro said...

I don't think the witnessed rape of a 10 year old is in any kind of fuzzy moral territory.

I don't think sweeping it under the rug is in any kind of fuzzy moral territory.


Yep. Not really getting the whole angst-ridden "moral gray area" angle that ST has been arguing on this issue.

This one is as black and white as it gets.

Meade said...

Beth said...
"If I walk in on an adult raping a child I'm going to worry about reporting it after I put a stop to it, resorting to violence if necessary. And if this happened at my workplace, my notice to my supervisors would be purely courtesy to inform them that I had called city - not campus - police to report a sexual assault."

Exactly.

WineSlob said...

Paterno's in a Real Inferno
Shielding That Pedaphilic Ass-Colonel
JoePaw's Faux Pas
Was a Guffaw at the Law
And His Legacy's Now Piss in the Urinal.

cassandra lite said...

"Why is the New York Times carrying water for Joe Paterno?"

Because he's not running for president as a Republican.

Ralph L said...

From a NYT article more critical of Paterno:
the graduate student who made the report — first to Paterno and later to Curley and others — is Mike McQueary, a former Penn State quarterback who now serves as a senior assistant to Paterno

That's an unfortunate name for this scandal.

Carnifex said...

I tried reading the published indictment but literally got ill reading about victim #2. Worse was that there were 8 more victims.

Joe Pa didn't do the molesting but he turned a blind eye towards it. A great coach who will now be remembered by history as being lower than Woody Hayes. A once beloved icon of the sport reduced to punchlines from shock-jocks, and scatological jokes.

Given the involvement, and lack of judgement by the entire Penn State establishment it would be fair to say they had a "lack of institutional control" albeit not directly involving their sports team, and that the NCAA would not be remiss in implementing a "death penalty" much like Southern Methodist received.

Some counter that PSU was not directly involved in the abuse, but they were the first institution to become aware of it and decided that they weren't going to do anything to draw attention to themselves.

"Bad PR" doth make cowards of us all, to paraphrase the bard. What a horrible motto to instill in your institutions, and your children.