September 19, 2012

"We certainly haven’t forgotten about Mr. Sandusky’s victims."

Of course, you haven't. Whether you care or not — and past behavior suggests you do not — they all represent lawsuits.

"We want to make sure that we do the right thing in terms of providing a just outcome for them." Aren't you wonderful?! I'm assuming "just" is code for not ruinously destructive to the ongoing enterprise that is Penn State.

58 comments:

Crunchy Frog said...

Let's see... 11 years of TV and ticket revenue come to how many $millions?

Happy Valley is going to be feeling the pain for a long, long time.

Maguro said...

Lifetime season tickets?

Michael said...

Are you suggesting that the outcome should be "ruinously destructive" to Penn State? Are we to promiscuously issue death sentences to institutions whose employees exhibit human failings (as long as it's institutions we don't like and what happened makes us feel really bad)? What if it were Harvard rather than a "football school?" Of course there should be lawsuits and settlements, but Penn State has a right to defend itself.

Michael K said...

Big lawsuits certainly make people feel better, like winning the lottery. And then, there are the lawyers.

edutcher said...

They're crazy if they don't.

As Michael K notes, the lawyers smell the blood.

Shouting Thomas said...

Somebody's got to clean up the shit. Been a long time since you had to do that, right?

Hard for you to imagine getting that dirty?

Victor Erimita said...

How about a class action representing the entire country, for Michael Mann's climate change fraud? Penn State raked in big bucks for that, too.

rhhardin said...

I doubt the whole victim idea as soap opera, for a few reasons.

1. I grew up when there were strange acting uncles but no hysteria about it.

2. It turns out child abuse didn't exist as a narrative before the 60s, and child sexual abuse before the 70s. (Ian Hacking, 1991), confirming my impression.

3. The hysteria itself, morphed into all men are child abusers by now, is a subject of wonder (Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig, "The Myth and Reality of Sexual Abuse of Children", in _From the Wrong Side - a paradoxical approach to psychology_. GC puts it down to a grammatical reflex to the myth of the innocent child, requiring a myth of an external absolute evil.)

4. Day care trials in the 80s, that Dorothy Rabinowitz won a prize for debunking, of impossible crimes on zero evidence. I think one guy is still in jail because he won't confess.

5. Modern legal liability makes damage pay. The more you pay, the more damage you get.

6. If anything the victims are instructed on the damage they should be suffering, which would in fact damage the victims, but allows everybody else to entertain themselves, another force locking the narrative in.

7. I don't believe anything in the media.

8. My big three social problem myths, having lived just fine when they didn't exist, are dangerous dogs, child abuse and drunk driving. All have since been invented, and they attract audience eyeballs.

Both Hacking ahd GC have to swear up and down and over and over that child abuse is a horrible thing before saying "but". Why not just once? The hysteria.

So I doubt it.

Lower the awards and see what happens.

rhhardin said...

Oh and don't forget Socrates.

Shouting Thomas said...

rhhardin makes some interesting points.

I'll add that my personal experience teaches me that victims of even the most astonishing "sexual abuse" are not necessarily doomed to be jibbering idiots who are "ruined for life."

That notion was born from feminism and the psychotherapeutic fads of the 70s and 80s.

Sexual injury is like any other injury. It affects different people in different ways and in differing degrees.

Crack is quite right about the cult basis of the sexual abuse hysteria.

Methadras said...

Michael said...

Are you suggesting that the outcome should be "ruinously destructive" to Penn State? Are we to promiscuously issue death sentences to institutions whose employees exhibit human failings (as long as it's institutions we don't like and what happened makes us feel really bad)? What if it were Harvard rather than a "football school?" Of course there should be lawsuits and settlements, but Penn State has a right to defend itself.


Of course Penn state has a right to defend itself, but against what? They systematically institutionalized Sandusky's behavior with nary a wink nor a nod. Their inaction along with Paterno's protective umbrella is the noose that should hang them. They ought to be sued into oblivion. Frankly, Penn state should shutter its doors utterly and completely.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The money will come from insurance policies and "funds set aside from interest on internal loans."

What?

Oso Negro said...

The most just punishment would be to limit concessions in Happy Valley for the next 20 years to giant hot dogs offered in tiny little buns. No condiments. Call 'em "The Big Penn Stater."

madAsHell said...

Wow!

That has to be your longest post, rh. I've come to appreciate your brevity, and now I appreciate your research.

I agree. My mom lives next door to my former elementary school. I have noticed that mothers tend to walk, or drive their children home.

That was an immediate wedgie when I was a kid. You were labelled a Momma's boy.....and you were BULLIED.

chickelit said...

Campus aesthetes tend to resent campus athletes. It's a broadbrush swipe, but I have a feeling that lots of urbane faculty would get some Schadenfreude out of seeing a football school like Penn State go belly up. Or at least their sports programs.

But what if it happened to their school?

David said...

I don't read Althouse as saying that Penn State should be ruinously destroyed. They're gonna pay, that's for sure, and the plaintiffs will have no concern for the future viability of Penn State.

At this point the most destructive thing the university's leaders could do is to stonewall and resist payment. Financial damage can be repaired. Reputation is much harder to fix. The reputation damage is terrible already, but could become catastrophic in they handle this poorly.

Penn State is an excellent university and a crucial asset of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It's continuing strength is very important to the state.

Quayle said...

"If we terminated the football program it would mean that the pedophiles have won."

"We must continue the football program for the sake of the children."

Uncle Frank said...

Sorry, Methadras, but your comment, "They systematically institutionalized Sandusky's behavior with nary a wink nor a nod," parrots conclusions of the uninformed. I challenge anyone to read the emails attached to the Freeh report and explain exactly what proof shows Paterno created a protective umbrella over Sandusky. I'll make it easy for you: such evidence does not exist.

Lem said...

Reminiscent of the Tobacco ransom... I mean settlement.

Fen said...

Are we to promiscuously issue death sentences to institutions whose employees exhibit human failings (as long as it's institutions we don't like and what happened makes us feel really bad)?

Yes, when the school leadership is actively involved in suppressing warnings of sexual abuse so as to protect their PR... we are "to promiscuously issue death sentences".

Any questions?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Lynch said...

Power is the corruption that keeps on corrupting.

Carnifex said...

@Uncle Frank

Then why did Pedophile State sign off on it? Why did they tear down Joe Predators statue?

Here's better questions...Why didn't the assistant who caught Sandusky raping a boy in the shower beat the shit outta Jerry?

Why did Joe Predators sole act remind people of a Marcel Marceau concert?

Why did the regent, the president, and Joe Predator resign in disgrace?

Why do you continue to provide cover fire for Pedophile State?

Ah hah! I got it! Joe Predator and the Pedophile State Administration were working a string...ahem...I mean a sting operation to catch Jerry Sandusky in a case tighter than a 12 year old boys ass! It took them 1o years, and they just needed a few more years to really nail Sandusky. They were gonna' shove it in Sandusky's ass deep, and break it off. If it hadn't been for those pesky nes reports they woulda' had Sandusky locked up tighter than his lips around a 10 year olds dick.

jr565 said...

Of the 9 or so victims how many are even remotely related to Penn State? at most 3. Of the 3 only the last one really has any bearing on whether Penn state was involved in a coverup.
The first one was not a molestation but had the campus police involved. However, no charges were ever brought at the time. All the people from the head of the university to Paterno say they never heard of the incident. And there is no indication that they in fact did.
The second was seen by a janitor, and then reported to his supervisor, but all l indications are no one ever told their higher ups. That leaves the last one, we're all familiar with.
All the other incidents were not known because no one bothered to come forward until the grand jury convened.

There is therefore no massive coverup of a known pedophile. What we know now, is not what was known then.

Granted, the one case alone was poorly handled and by going to Sandusky rather then bringing charges against him it allowed Sandusky to continue, so they're not blameless.
Again though, the case we know as presented by the grand jury is not the case of Penn state, but the case of Sandusky. And just because he molested 9 kids (or whatever the number) and we know that now doesn't mean that Penn state covered up the molesting of said nine kids. Most of the molesations occured in his basement and because none of the kids were involved in any way with Penn state nor came forward at any time until the grand jury was convened there would be no incident for Penn stateto even cover up.

Further, the emails that supposedly show That the people involved in deciding what to do with Sandusky (which by the way did NOT include Paterno) actually show that they weren't sure that a molestation occure. The email written by shutz I believe, says that if he is guilty it might open penn site up for liability? What was he referring to? The totality of sandusky's molestation up till then? NO! They were talking about the last incident only. And if they argue that if he's guilty it MIT open them up for liability it suggests that they are not in fact sure the story.

What did the witness who came forward actually tell them? he himself said he never said rape, though at other times he's said he saw more. He himself said he deliberately withheld info from Paterno about what he saw because it was Paterno and he you don't tell that stuff to the coach. Which is entirely consistent then with what Paterno told his higher ups.
As far as why Mcqueary didn't call the cops, as he said "he thought he WAS dealing with the cops" the person he was directed to was the head of campus security and liaison to the cops.

Revenant said...

"They systematically institutionalized Sandusky's behavior with nary a wink nor a nod," parrots conclusions of the uninformed. I challenge anyone to read the emails attached to the Freeh report and explain exactly what proof shows Paterno created a protective umbrella over Sandusky. I'll make it easy for you: such evidence does not exist

Intentional or not, that was a pretty deft attempt at misdirection -- using the lack of evidence against one specific Penn State employee (Paterno) to imply that there's no evidence against anyone at Penn State.

The evidence against Paterno is, indeed, weak. The evidence against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier is damning. Plus, of course, the university set itself up for legal liability by neglecting (for over 20 years -- yikes) to comply with the Cleary Act's reporting requirements for sexual assault.

jr565 said...

So carnifex, you're simply arguing emotion and not the acts of the case. Penn state isn't blameless, but there is no evidence of a massive coverup as you suggest. Joe Paterno did not molest anyone, so why you would say joe Predator is beyond me.

Again, just because 9-14 kids came forward and said they were molested by Sandusky (which is absolutely true) does not mean that penn state knew of or was involved in the cover up of those 9-14 molestations.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
The evidence against Paterno is, indeed, weak. The evidence against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier is damning. Plus, of course, the university set itself up for legal liability by neglecting (for over 20 years -- yikes) to comply with the Cleary Act's reporting requirements for sexual assault.

you're absolutely right about Paterno. He got railroaded here completely. You're also right about shutz, Curly and Spanier. However, when you say the evidence is damning against them, it's evidence of the one incident, not evidence of sandusky's long history of molestation.

cubanbob said...

chickelit said...

Interesting observation but is the University completely walled off from the football team? If the damages awards are that enormous would they not severely impact the University or possible take it down altogether?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

They (Curley, shutz and Spanier) handled the incident poorly. The decision to not go to the authorities appears to have been Curley's after initially deciding to go a different way (presumably notifying the authorities) and this was agreed to by Spanier in particular). However, as they said in their emails, if the allegations were true it might open them up to some degree of negligence which suggests that they weren't in fact sure that he WAS guilty. (otherwise it would be phrased more along rhe lines of "if anyone finds out the truth then we might open them up to some degree of negligence". Big difference.

What exactly did Mcqueary see, and what did he tell them? He's given conflicting stories, but he has said he "never used the word rape". So if he didn't see a rape, there may be some question about what he saw, and more importantly what he told the higher ups. If for example he said "I saw Sandusky molesting a kid" and they then said lets talk to Sandusky about it and not mention it to the authorities it's different than if he said "I saw Sandusky doing something with the kid, and I can't say exactly what ws happening but it looked innapropriate" and they then said we don't know for sure what happened so let's talk to sandusky about it rather than going to the authorities, it would still be the wrong choice, but it wouldn't be as bad.

Finally, just to show how this case was distorted by the coverage, Curley DID in fact block Sandusky from bringing kids on campus any more and did notify his charity, and AFAIK Sandusky didn't brng kids back to penn state after that point. But he did continue molesting kids. The coverage though suggests that these further incidents of molestation were part of the Penn State furtherance of a coverup, when in fact they took place off campus and were not reported to anyone until the grand jury.


Maguro said...

you're absolutely right about Paterno. He got railroaded here completely. You're also right about shutz, Curly and Spanier. However, when you say the evidence is damning against them, it's evidence of the one incident, not evidence of sandusky's long history of molestation.

No, Paterno clearly perjured himself when he testified that the McQueary incident was the first time he was aware of any issues with Sandusky. The e-mail traffic uncovered by Freeh shows that he, Curley and Spanier were all quite aware of the 1998 investigation that was ultimately dropped by the State College cops.

Also, it seems overly generous to believe that Paterno didn't know there anything amiss with Sandusky and his foundation after the 1998 investigation and particularly after McQueary's revelstions in 2003. I mean come on, how many reports of child molestation by one guy do you need before you think, hey, maybe there's something wrong here.

My opinion is that he knew damn well what was going on, but cared about the university's reputation (as well as his own squeaky-clean image) more than he cared about stopping the molestation.

Maguro said...

It's also fallacious to think that JoePa worked for Tim Curley or Graham Spanier, so he gets a free pass for being a powerless underling. Everyone familiar with PSU knows who called the shots there and it wasn't Curley or Spanier. Paterno was like an emperor there, they even built him a cheesy statue. If he'd wanted justice to be done, it would've been.

jr565 said...

Maguro wrote:

No, Paterno clearly perjured himself when he testified that the McQueary incident was the first time he was aware of any issues with Sandusky. The e-mail traffic uncovered by Freeh shows that he, Curley and Spanier were all quite aware of the 1998 investigation that was ultimately dropped by the State College cops.

please provide a link for that. I'm not aware that this is the case at all. Also, Paterno may have been mentioned in one email, But he i wasn't part of any email chain going back.and forth.

Maguro said...

please provide a link for that. I'm not aware that this is the case at all. Also, Paterno may have been mentioned in one email, But he i wasn't part of any email chain going back.and forth.

No, you are correct, Paterno wasn't part of the email chain. The Freeh report does note that Paterno was "kept informed" of the 1998 investigation, so I still think it is likely that he perjured himself when he testified that the 2003 incident was the first time he became aware of Sandusky's "issues".

William said...

There's an article by Malcolm Gladwell in this week's New Yorker about the Sandusky case. Gladwell makes the point that the authorities involved weren't so much negligent in their observations as Sandusky was skillful in his sleight of hand. Sandusky presented the image of a goofy, exuberant character who was as childlike as the children he mentored. Sandusky was quite clever--Machievellian even--in the way that he groomed children. Sometimes there was a lead time of two or three years before he made a move. Apparently the protective coloration of a typical child molestor is to not look like a typical child molestor....In the article it was noted that Paterno had tunnel vision. He was keenly observant about the moves of his football team on the field and in practice, but anything peripheral to that he did not have time for....Sandusky is the villian of this piece. The other figures are to some extent culpable, but they are not monsters.....Also, I agree with rhhardin. Most children most of the time are able to survive a fair amount of emotional trauma. To tell these kids that they have been irreparably harmed might be something of a self fulfilling prophecy.

jr565 said...

Maguro,
Here's one of the problems. The emails haven't been released to the general public. However, here's a link from sports Illustrated that shows the distortion I'm talking about.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/07/12/penn-state-free-report-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky/index.html

The report says that they KNEW about the molestation as far back as 1988. The problem with this is, Sandusky wasn't accused of molestation by the cops in 1998. That was never even charged. The cops got involved because the kids mother complained about Sandusky being involved in inappropriate behavior with her kid (ie showering with him etc) however, the reason it never went fuerthwr was because the kid denied that anything innapropriate happened. He said or wrote that as a kid he didn't understand that what Sandusky was doing was innapropriate (because it never rose to the level of molesation) and thought that Sandusky ws just being friendly and he in fact enjoyed the treatment. And denied to the cops that anything occured. It was only later, as he got older that he realizes that something innapropriate had occured. But because he told the cops nothing happened, they never brought charges.
When sports illustrated says "Anyone who has spent any time inside a major football program or university knows there are few kept secrets. Common sense dictated Penn State's leaders knew in 1998 and that Sandusky's 1999 retirement was no coincidence, but absent evidence to support that, the men still could enjoy some benefit of the doubt. They can't anymore" what is it that they supposedly knew? Of a molestation? in 1998? Not even the cops, nor the prosecutor knew that, because that wasn't the charge. And at any rte, no charges were ever brought let alone dropped. Because the kid argued that nothing happened.

Note how Sports Illustrated implies though that it was KNOWN in 1998 of a molestation. They can't even get the charge right. There was no molestation in 1998 (well, there may have been, but not with this particular victim), there was no allegation of molestation in 1998 therefore Penn state can't know of something that had not yet occured.
The degree to which they knew anything specific about any charges at all is not known, but at any rate, since no charges were ever brought, even if they did no something (I.e. Sandusky was too close with the kids) they also knew that nothing came of it and no charges brought.

Carnifex said...

That's right. I am going to side with the children. Do you honestly believe any sane person would put into e-mails the details of how the conduct a cover up of child rape? You honestly think that Paterno had no freakin' clue that his good buddy Jerry was raping children. You think Louis Freeh, ex head of the FBI just did a hatchet job on Penn State because he went to Harvard?

I know what can be proven in a court of law has nothing to do with integrity, honesty, and humility, none of which the PSU administration has a clue about.

And I know that every child that was raped after they were informed about Sanduskys doings was raped with their consent...all for a football.

Take your sanctimony, and your proof, and go to those children, and tell them to shut the fuck up. Because that's just what you told them here. Or will you keep quiet like Joe Predator did?

Go Nittany Lions!! Go Catamounts!! Go Team Pedo-bear!!

jr565 said...

They also knew that Sandusky was in charge of a charity that involved kids who needed extra special care, and that he had kids around. The whole team saw these kids and thought nothing of the act that they were hanging around. That ws just Sandusky being Sandusky. If charges were brought (well this is not accurate, since charges were never brought) but then the "victim" says nothing innapropriate happened tht could easily be attributed to "that's just Sandusky being Sandusky, and a parent took something the wrong way that was in fact innocent. Otherwise, wouldnt charges have been brought?
Sandusky seems to have been really good at hiding his child molesting ways in plain site, including starting a charity for boys that we now realize was probably his way of finding victims to molest. But because he was such a good manipulator he fooled a lot of people in thinking he may hae been someone who was hands on with kids and not a molester using his charity to troll for kids.

Carnifex said...

What's the corn holing of a few kids really mean in the world anyway? Hell, they were bound to be fucked sometime, somewhere, by somebody. And if Joe Predator got to win a few more games and teach young men about honesty, and integrity, and sticking up for the law...Well, it's just good business. So what if a few fudges got packed. Society as a hole...ahem...I mean whole, benefitted. Just try to imagine the Knute Rockne speech as per Joey the Pa...I got to go do somethin' right now, I'll work on it when I get back.

jr565 said...

Carnifex wrote:
And I know that every child that was raped after they were informed about Sanduskys doings was raped with their consent...all for a football.

no you don't know that. Tell me, how many victims did penn site know about? How many victims didn't come forward until the grand jury convened? do you know? Please be precise and give me the number. Because otherwise you are asserting something that NO ONE knew, not the cops not the DA and not Penn state because no victim came forward.

As I stated earlier, there were three incidents,and only three incidents that lenn state may have had some knowledge of, NOT 14! Te first as, was not a molestation charge, it was an innapropriate conduct charge. And it wasn't a charg
E because no chares were actually rought because the victim said nothing happened. The second was something that a janitor saw, but never reported except to his superior who told him to write a reprt and he never bothered. Ther is no evidence that this case ever was brought to anyone's attention. That leaves the incident that Mcqueary saw. Again, Mcqueary says he never said he saw a rape. But he saw something. This is the one that I would argue Penn state is not blameless on. But even knowing that it doesn't mean that Penn state knew of Sandusky being some pedophile molesting dozens of kids or that there was a coverup of those incidents. Those incidents were not known UNTIL other victims came forward, and that didn't happen until recently.

The media as per usual is doing a terrible job of reporting the incident and is simplifying the story and lumping the various molesations together as if just because Sandusky did molest kids, that his entire history was of molesation was known by penn stte officials and covered up by them.

If you,look at the history of sanduskys molesation history as presented by the DA all of the details are lumped together. But that is the case against Sandusky, not against penn state and the two are being lumped together simply because the da is presenting them as a history, and ecause we are aware that in 2001 mcqueary saw something and reported it to authorities who apparently sat on their hands. Penn states involvement in any coverup refers to the victims who they might have been aware of. And it wasn't 14.

If you read the grand jury testimony most of the victims were molested at his home. One witness came forward and said he saw Sandusky on top of a kid, and Sandusky said he was practicing wrestling moves. But did that take place at Penn State? NO! it took place at a high school that Sandusky had access to as the football coordinator, but it wasn't part of Penn state. And at any rate, the gym teacher who witnessed it never told authorities. As such, how would penn state officials know about that incident? they wouldn't. And yet somehow that's common knowledge that Penn state is covering up, one more victim that Penn state knew about. We know about it now, because we heard about it in the grand jury, but it was not KNOWN at the time by anyone except the victim, Sandusky and the gym teacher, not affiliated with Penn State, who never told anybody anyway.

jr565 said...

Carnifex wrote:
That's right. I am going to side with the children. Do you honestly believe any sane person would put into e-mails the details of how the conduct a cover up of child rape? You honestly think that Paterno had no freakin' clue that his good buddy Jerry was raping children. You think Louis Freeh, ex head of the FBI just did a hatchet job on Penn State because he went to Harvard?

I'm convinced people Are just incapable of understanding nuance when it comes to this case to the point where they let their anger at Sandusky turn into an argument where by if you even point out the facts of the cad,you are denying Sandusky molested kids.
Let's hold two thoughts in our mind at the same time. One Sandusky molested kids.
Two, penn state was aware of an incident that occured in 20001 and didn't act as appropriately as we'd like, though what they knew about tht one incident is in dispute.
Just because penn stte knew of tht incident doesn't mean they were aware of sandusky's long history of molestation nor covered up those other incidents.

We know, because with the benefit of grand jury testimony the whole story came out. But that story is a story of Sandusky being a molester, not of Penn state knowing that story and covering it up. They did not know about the majority of the victims we think they are responsible for covering up. No one did. Let me repet that. No one did (well except Sandusky and his victims of course). When the grand jury convened a lot of victims came forward to say that thy too were molested by Sandusky. Until then these were not reported incidents. There is no reason these other incidents would be reported to Penn state because the kids being molested were not penn state students. If any reporting of the crimes were to be made, it would e to the cops, not to Paterno or penn state officials. There aren't even police reports.
I wish there were. This is one of the reasons child molesters can get away with their crimes for so long, they don't always reprt the crime so it goes unnoticed and there are rarely witnesses.

So let's say Sandusky molested 20 kids. That doesn't mean that penn stae was aware of 20 kids being molested and covered up the molesation of those 20 kids. That is the implication though. And it is bullshit.

Do you get the distinction? This is not to say that because penn state wasnt aware of the majority of the victims that Sandusky didn't molest all those kids (he did), and it also doesmt mean that where they were aware of something happening (certainly the incident in 2001) that they didn't resolve it the wrong way. (they did).

jr565 said...

Carnifex wrote:
That's right. I am going to side with the children. Do you honestly believe any sane person would put into e-mails the details of how the conduct a cover up of child rape? You honestly think that Paterno had no freakin' clue that his good buddy Jerry was raping children

well carnifex, I would argue that in act Paterno probably didn't know hat Sandusky was raping kids. How many of the kids who were presented as victims in the grand jury were known as victims by ANYONE prior to them being presented befor the grand jury. Do you know? You should because I already told you.

jr565 said...

And we know that Paterno didn't know about the details that Mike Mcqueary saw because mike mcqueary said he deliberately kep the details vague when discussing it with Paterno. Thus when he reported it tips Cypurley and described it as something innapropriate, thats pretty much what mcqueary told him verbatim. Which he reported to the people he was supposed to report it ito. Oh, and he wasn't actually a witness, so didn't see anything. The witness who did see something left it intentionally vague and was told to report it to the head of security on campus as he was supposed to based on policy. If he doesn't see the event and is only told about the event in vague terms by the oly witness, then no I would argue that he didn't know that Sandusky was raping kids let alone that particular kid.

whoresoftheinternet said...

What Sandusky did to those kids is what Obama is doing to the Constitution and the U.S.

Deal with it, Allie the Obama Whore.

Milwaukee said...

Sandusky is considered among the best college assistant coaches to have never been a head coach. He retired when eligible, and then had this "special" relationship with Penn State. It would be easy to speculate that if he had wanted to, he could have had a head coaching position. The relationship with the Penn State football allowed him to continue to use the facilities, and to bring children in through his program. This seems rather curious. Where there rumors out there about him, or did he enjoy his set-up so much that he didn't want to relocate and start all over? Any thoughts on this?

Fen said...

well carnifex, I would argue that in act Paterno probably didn't know hat Sandusky was raping kids

Argue away. As Carnifex indicated upthread, Penn State and its leadership no longer deserve any benefit of doubt.

No I can't prove it in a court of law. Guess what? I don't need to.

TWM said...

Eh, screw Penn State. SEC rules!

Uncle Frank said...

jr565, I salute you for trying to educate those on this board who really don't know the facts. Not only do they clearly not know the facts, they clearly don't want to, either.

Aridog said...

Uncle Frank said...

Sorry, Methadras, ... [snip] ... what proof shows Paterno created a protective umbrella over Sandusky. I'll make it easy for you: such evidence does not exist.

Nonsense. Utter bullroar. Was Paterno informed of Sandusky's behavior and physical conduct? Yes. Did he report the felony to the local city or county police? No. There's your "evidence" ...culpability by acknowledged omission.

Paterno admitted he was informed and asserted he notified "school" authorities, not police.

The conduct continued for years after Paterno was first notified, in his facilities, on his watch. The school administration accepted his weakness by exhibiting their own.

TWM said...

"jr565, I salute you for trying to educate those on this board who really don't know the facts. Not only do they clearly not know the facts, they clearly don't want to, either."

I was thinking the same thing but about those who continue to support Joe and the rest of the people who, if they did not cover this up, acted with willful blindness and allowed it to happen.

Of course, denial by loved ones is not unusual in child abuse cases. No one wants to believe someone, in this case the institution and leaders of Penn State, would ignore these things, but it happens all the time.

Aridog said...

jr565 said...

And we know that Paterno didn't know about the details that Mike Mcqueary saw because mike mcqueary said he deliberately kep the details vague ...

More hogwash and weak sniveling excuses. Was Paterno informed a adult man with connections to the football program was showering naked in university football facilities with naked young underage boys?

Do underage boys frequent very many Div 1A university athletic facility showers with adult coaches or former coaches, naked under the same shower head? No?

Well, okay then...never mind, eh?

Mcqueary was and is a gutless wonder himself, for not intervening physically and directly at the moment he observed the conduct. He didn't call the police either. He tattled to Paterno et al and figured that was enough.

Hell of a culture there at Penn State...apropos of ancient sport related Grecian Pederasty.

Except that at Penn State the boys were not of the age of consent.


prairie wind said...

tighter than a 12 year old boys ass! It took them 1o years, and they just needed a few more years to really nail Sandusky. They were gonna' shove it in Sandusky's ass deep, and break it off. If it hadn't been for those pesky nes reports they woulda' had Sandusky locked up tighter than his lips around a 10 year olds dick.

Geez, Carnifex. Don't spend so much time fantasizing what sex with boys would be like.

Aridog said...

Milwaukee said...

Where there rumors out there about him, ... [snip] ... Any thoughts on this?

I doubt it will ever be proven, but there had to be rumors and inside knowledge. There was a pattern. Patterns get noticed. A coach or former coach visiting the facilities' showers naked with naked underage boys, more than once, several times, does NOT go unnoticed. It doesn't get reported further if it is known the head dog also knows and does nothing....this enables the conduct in fact.

Uncle Frank said...

If you have actually read the facts of this case, and it's apparent that few commenters on this thread have, almost everyone with any connection to this matter failed to do the proper thing.

That includes, among many others, the Centre County DA, Centre County Children & Youth, Keystone Central School District, and The Second Mile. I'm not excluding personnel from Penn State.

A fair argument can be made that the only persons who took appropriate steps were the mothers of three of Sandusky's victims. If you're keeping score, they are the mothers of Victim 6 (1998 shower incident), Victim 1 (Keystone Central student) and Matt Sandusky (Sandusky's adopted son). All 3 tried to inform/alert authorities, mostly to be pushed back. Where's the outrage there?

One more thing--Sandusky adopted 6 children. Adoptions usually require a home study and some investigation. Apparently, six times the pros failed to identify the guy as a creep.

But never mind, let's still hang the whole thing on a football coach.

jr565 said...

Aridog wrote:
More hogwash and weak sniveling excuses. Was Paterno informed a adult man with connections to the football program was showering naked in university football facilities with naked young underage boys?

I don't know. Was he? Was he also informed that no charges were filed because the victim said nothing inappropriate occured. That there was an incident doesn't mean that those not involved no the specific details especially if cops aren't bringing charges and the DA says there's no case.

Do underage boys frequent very many Div 1A university athletic facility showers with adult coaches or former coaches, naked under the same shower head? No? Again, The da supposedly has this info. Why didn't he bring charges let alone drop them. Did the details make it into a local newspaper somewhere? Just because it's common knowledge to us now doesn't mean it was common knowledge to Curley or Paterno then. The specifics I mean. And not having the specifics they may only have the details that Sandusky had a complaint about some potential inappropriate behavior with a kid (who Sandusky hung out with a lot) but that nothing came of it because the cops looked into it and decided to not bring charges.thats assuming they knew anything. It doesn't mean they actually knew specifics.
It will ultimately come out during the trial, where those being charged can say what the knew about the first incident as well as what was told about the incident in 2001.but it may be the case that they simply did not know what we know now.
Also, let's talk about Sandusky for a second. He was known for bringing troubled kids to campus, and known for having a charity for said kids. That COULD be completely innocent and commendable. And he probably was known as being very touchy feely with the kids who he, in public treated like his sons). Touchy feely doesn't automatically mean creepy molester. Sometimes, especially when dealing with kids an adult can be deemed to have done something innapropriate with a kid that is in fact innocent, like a kid hugs you do you hug the kid back. Whatever. And the person
Might get hauled before a board and told that there was a complaint. He/she might then get be reprimanded or not for conduct that though innocent I his/her mind is technically against the rules. And told, even though we don't think there's anything to it, what was done was innapropriate, so if it's done again there will be trouble. Be more careful with your actions, lest someone view it as more innapropriate than you intended. This is not to excuse people who actually molest kids, but simply to note that events can be viewed in
Multiple ways, and sometimes people can get in
Trouble for what is ultimately innocent behavior.
If the cops look into the case and the DA never brings charges it's an example of that. Someone took
Offense at something, the cops looked into it and found there was no merit to it. But because there was a complaint, be more careful with your actions so the aren't misconstrued in the future.
If that were the case, especially if you are never told specifics about the charges, then they could know there was a complaint but assume that because the cops never brought charges that it was an example of a misconstrued action that someone took offense at and not an attempt at molestation.

jr565 said...

As stated by others though, Curley, Shultz and co. Mishandled the event that we are all familiar with. They should have taken it to the authorities rather than take it to Sandusky himself. In the emails there was initial talk that they should contact child services, but Curley ultimately decided not to go that route, which was agreed to by the head of the university. That's the fuck up here. But that doesn't mean that penn was involved in a massive cover up of known molestations commuted over years. Those molestations did occur, but there's no indication
That penn state knew about the majority of them. Paterno I'd barely involved in this. A better case can be made for the people actually charged with a crime. Spanier perhaps should be charged as he was involved in the decision to not call child services. BUT, even if that's stipulated, the case is very narrow only to the event in 2001 (and perhaps 1998, depending on what evidence comes out) NOT the totality of sandyskys crimes. Further, of the two that Penn State knew about, neither was a molestation charge. As mcqueary said he never used the word rape.certainly innapropriate conduct, which in retrospect and with the hindsight of knowing the totality of sandusky's crimes, damning. But you can't convict people on hindsight knowledge, only what they knew at the time of the event

Aridog said...

Uncle Rank said...

But never mind, let's still hang the whole thing on a football coach.

Hogwash, again. No one is hanging the entire thing on a dead coach. Hang it on the entire administrative establishment at Penn State, and the local police if they were informed and did nothing, and you have the blame where it belongs.

jr565 ... you burn up a lot words dithering and parsing a relatively simple issue. People with the power to act knew, but did nothing substantive to stop it. Period. All the rest is whitewash and finger pointing