# Penn State



## am1 (Nov 10, 2011)

What a horrible situation.  I do not understand how anyone could be interested in those acts.  Or not better report what happened.  It is hard to think of how many times these are not reported at all.  

It is sad that students are protesting Paterno being fired and not about university officials covering it up.

How was Sandusky still allowed access to campus?

How much jail time is he going to face for his crimes?  


Its crazy how one bad decision can ruin a legacy but I think it has to be done.  Anything to stop abuse in the future is needed.  Hopefully the next Joe Pa in the situation will do a better job of reporting it.


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

Absolutely disgusting.  I read the 23 page grand jury indictment yesterday. 

  How McQueary didn't also lose his job is beyond me.  They all should have civil suits brought against them.  

  I also found it bizarre that the outcry over Paterno's firing was more extreme than that over the abuse and cover-up.  Sad commentary, IMO.


----------



## lvhmbh (Nov 10, 2011)

Where did you find the 23 page GJ indictment?  Interested in reading.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm finding it difficult to write a post here that can't be seen as delving into the "social commentary" stuff that's taboo on TUG.  The whole sordid mess is despicable and every person who knew even the slightest detail must now be held accountable.  It's stunning to me how much the culture surrounding the football program at Penn State mimics the culture that was at play and allowed the Boston pedophile priest scandal to flourish years ago.  Hopefully, eventually, that culture will be eradicated at every institution where it exists.


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

lvhmbh said:


> Where did you find the 23 page GJ indictment?  Interested in reading.



  I don't remember.  I just Googled it.  

  Be forewarned, it's quite disturbing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 10, 2011)

lvhmbh said:


> Where did you find the 23 page GJ indictment?  Interested in reading.



It's everywhere all over the web, but a little bit difficult to find it by itself without biased commentary.  This link should take you to the document.


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 10, 2011)

This IS absolutely disgusting.  That it went on for over a dozen years with everyone holding the institution's and it's leaders 'reputation' higher than the well-being of trusting children is even more disgusting.

This, however is not either the first, nor anywhere close to the worst of these offenses. TUG rules prevent me from shouting my disgust over abuses to hundreds- not just single digits- of youths abused by authority figures of a certain Roman institution- who were simply moved around to hide their actions, and none of the leaders of which are residing in prison.

Until the attitudes of people change and no authority is seen as being above the law, and every offender is held responsible for his/her actions offenses against 'weaker' or more defenseless people will continue.

Somehow the Moorish or old Chinese custom of having eunuchs in authority or care-taking positions over wives, children and the vulnerable doesn't seem so over the top. (not REALLY seriously advocating this)

Jim


----------



## JanT (Nov 10, 2011)

I am absolutely appalled by this whole mess.  Every one of them should be held accountable and punished.  They KNEW what was going on and did nothing.

And I agree - it is quite disturbing to see these college students protesting the firing of Paterno.  He, too KNEW what was happening and did nothing to stop it.  WTHeck?????  What is wrong with our society?


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> Absolutely disgusting.  I read the 23 page grand jury indictment yesterday.
> 
> How McQueary didn't also lose his job is beyond me.  They all should have civil suits brought against them.
> 
> I also found it bizarre that the outcry over Paterno's firing was more extreme than that over the abuse and cover-up.  Sad commentary, IMO.


 
I've thought both ways about McQueary.  On one hand, he is the one that originally told Paterno about the incident (that took some courage).  He also is the one that told truthful testimony to the Grand Jury.  Without his testimony, you have nothing on the Penn State administration, because they tried to say that they were just told it was some kind of 'horseplay'.

Yet on the other hand, he had to have known that Penn State tried to sweep it under the rug, even after he came forward.  We also know that he got promoted from just being a GA to assistant coach at some point after he came forward to Paterno.  

I don't know, in the end I have to admire his courage.  He could have lied to the Grand Jury just like the other two administrators, that got convicted for perjury.  He had to have known that his truthful testimony could potentially bring down the whole Penn State football program.

If I've missed anything here, please let me know.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

Actually the more I think about it and to my limited knowlege... if you don't have McQueary there really is no case at all against the Penn St. adminstration (and Paterno as well).

It appears he's the only one telling the truth and I see him as kind of the whistleblower in the whole episode.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 10, 2011)

Yep, McQueary is invaluable in making the case.  On the one hand I can't imagine actually being an eyewitness to that monster in action and NOT interfering in some way to stop it while it's happening, but I do have some idea of how a culture develops to the point where one man is God in a system and all others kowtow to his authority.  That was Joe Paterno just as certainly as it was Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston.  So on the other hand, I can understand why McQueary's first inclination was to ask his dad for help in reporting what he'd seen to Joe Paterno, and why he felt powerless to take it upon himself to buck the establishment and go to the authorities on his own.  But still, he needs to be gone from that campus along with every other person who had any knowledge of what was going on.  Nothing short of a completely cleaned house will bring dignity back to that university and, if it's even possible, salvage that football program.


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 10, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> Actually the more I think about it and to my limited knowlege... if you don't have McQueary there really is no case at all.



This and the DA who was on the verge of bringing up charges disappeared in '05 without a trace, his laptop with crushed hard drive fished out of the Susquehanna. He was just declared dead this year. No suspects. Curious, no?

Jim


----------



## brigechols (Nov 10, 2011)

Penn State should also fire McQueary. He was 28 years old at the when he witnessed the alleged rape of a 10 or 11 year old boy - old enough to know that what he witnessed was a horrific act. He displayed a lack of judgment by not immediately contacting the authorites. McQueary's dad also displayed a callous disregard for the victim by directing his son to call Joe Pa rather than the authorities. Even at the age of 28, it would have been an opportune moment for the parent to teach his son that it is best to do the right thing and report criminal activity to the proper authorities. As a mother, I cannot imagine witnessing an assault on a child and not stopping it or failing to report it to the police.


----------



## Culli (Nov 10, 2011)

brigechols said:


> Penn State should also fire McQueary. He was 28 years old at the when he witnessed the alleged rape of a 10 or 11 year old boy - old enough to know that what he witnessed was a horrific act. He displayed a lack of judgment by not immediately contacting the authorites. McQueary's dad also displayed a callous disregard for the victim by directing his son to call Joe Pa rather than the authorities. Even at the age of 28, it would have been an opportune moment for the parent to teach his son that it is best to do the right thing and report criminal activity to the proper authorities. As a mother, I cannot imagine witnessing an assault on a child and not stopping it or failing to report it to the police.



I'm absolutely outraged that McQueary DIDN'T STOP IT while he witnessed it.  I don't care if its Mike Tyson YOU HAVE TO PROTECT that innocent child.  How in the world could someone see that happen and not attempt to stop it!?!?!?!  Complete coward in my book, yes I don't know the whole story but I know enough of it to say YOU HAVE to protect an innocent child.

NOBODY INVOLVED in this gets any credit...lack of judgment?  WOW that is a complete understatement.  I say they throw them into prison with the general population and see what happens to them, including JO PA


----------



## pranas (Nov 10, 2011)

Most colleges and universities have rules about reporting abuse or crime.  Usually, an employee is to call campus security not the local police.  This way the administation can  "take care" of it their way.   A lot of stuff gets "taken care" of or covered up. College administrators are very good at making sure this type of information is not released. Abolish campus police or security and a lot more things would see the light of day but I doubt if most schools would do this voluntarily because it would cause other problems.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

brigechols said:


> He displayed a lack of judgment by not immediately contacting the authorites.


 
I believe he contacted authorities within 24 hours of the incident.  He reported it to Paterno and Paterno reported it to the Vice President who was in charge of campus security.  If I was in the same situation, I would have thought that would have been good enough.  

However, in hindsight, his error in not following up with the local police turned out to be just as bad a judgement call as Paterno's neglect, if you look at it from the perspective of the kids involved.  

I agree, he should be gone also.  But not for the same reasons as you feel.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 10, 2011)

All school employees are mandated reporters and are required by law to report child abuse DIRECTLY to CPS.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> All school employees are mandated reporters and are required by law to report child abuse DIRECTLY to CPS.


 
Is that true in every state and was it true in 1998?  And are you referring to Paterno or McQueary?  Not sure if a GA is considered an employee or not.


----------



## brigechols (Nov 10, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> I believe he contacted authorities within 24 hours of the incident.  He reported it to Paterno and Paterno reported it to the Vice President who was in charge of campus security.  If I was in the same situation, I would have thought that would have been good enough.
> 
> However, in hindsight, his error in not following up with the local police turned out to be just as bad a judgement call as Paterno's neglect, if you look at it from the perspective of the kids involved.
> 
> I agree, he should be gone also.  But not for the same reasons as you feel.



According to the grand jury report, the graduate assistant reported the alleged rape to his dad and Joe Pa. About ten days later, he was called to a meeting with Curley and Schultz where he described the alleged rape. I don't consider his dad, Joe Pa, Curley, or Schlutz the proper authorities.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

brigechols said:


> According to the grand jury report, the graduate assistant reported the alleged rape to his dad and Joe Pa. About ten days later, he was called to a meeting with Curley and Schultz where he described the alleged rape. I don't consider his dad, Joe Pa, Curley, or Schlutz the proper authorities.


 
Everyone sees that today in hindsight.


----------



## brigechols (Nov 10, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> All school employees are mandated reporters and are required by law to report child abuse DIRECTLY to CPS.



There are at least a half-dozen states (Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri and South Dakota) where the protocol for staff members of schools is to notify the person in charge in the event of suspected child abuse. That superior is then legally obliged to report to the authorities.


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> Is that true in every state and was it true in 1998?  And are you referring to Paterno or McQueary?  Not sure if a GA is considered an employee or not.



  I believe the Campus Security Act applies here.  It's a federal law that requires campus crimes be reported and timely warnings be given to students when a crime has been reported to campus security.  Passed in 1990.  

  I'm not a lawyer, so I may not have interpreted all aspects correctly.


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

brigechols said:


> According to the grand jury report, the graduate assistant reported the alleged rape to his dad and Joe Pa. About ten days later, he was called to a meeting with Curley and Schultz where he described the alleged rape. I don't consider his dad, Joe Pa, Curley, or Schlutz the proper authorities.



  If the VP was in charge of campus security, I would consider that proper reporting.  It's then the VP's legal obligation to report the crime to law enforcement.  That clearly didn't happen, which is likely why the VP is in deep trouble.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> I believe the Campus Security Act applies here.  It's a federal law that *requires campus crimes be reported* and timely warnings be given to students when a crime has been reported to campus security.  Passed in 1990.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, so I may not have interpreted all aspects correctly.


 

You're talking about reported by the school to the local police, right?


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Nov 10, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> This and the DA who was on the verge of bringing up charges disappeared in '05 without a trace, his laptop with crushed hard drive fished out of the Susquehanna. He was just declared dead this year. No suspects. Curious, no?
> 
> Jim



  Yes, this is_* chilling *_and one cannot help but link it to a much larger cover up.

I hope that those who are guilty of these acts and those of not reporting or not following up at _Penn State_,  end up in the State Pen.


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> You're talking about reported by the school to the local police here, right?



  Yes, reported by the school.  But that may be (I don't know) in the form of a quarterly report, etc.

  Edited to add:  If we have anyone here who knows the proper interpretation of the Campus Security Act, I'd like to have it explained more precisely.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 10, 2011)

PA Mandated Reporting Requirements: 

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/049/chapter42/s42.42.html

(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees 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 licensee, 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).

According to this timeline 

http://espn.go.com/college-football...dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

The first Paterno was told of an incident was March 2, 2002, and he reported it the athletic director Curley on March 3, 2002. That then was discussed with Senior VP for Finance and Business Curley later in the month; it was reported to The Second Mile, but nothing came of it in legal channels until December 2010. 

Questions: 
Does JoPa "in the course of...employment...come into contact with *children*"? 
Did the "*child* [come] before [him]"?

And regardless of those, He did "immediately notify the person in charge...or the designated agent..." at which point "the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report..."

Hence it seems to me that JoePa did follow the Mandated Reporting Requirements (if those even apply to him - not sure if a college coach comes into contact with "children"). 

Morally, should he have done more? Probably. I know I would have kept at it and called police and child welfare myself. Everyone who knew should have called police and child welfare, morally, but according to the mandated reporting law, it appears that telling your higher-up is sufficient. 

In any case, it is outrageous that this many years have gone by without the allegations getting serious attention.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 10, 2011)

In California, by law - teachers and other school staff must make the report to the authorities themselves.


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

From ABC News:

  Federal Investigation of Penn State Allegations 

  The end of the line for Paterno and Spanier at Penn State came a few hours after the U.S. Department of Education announced it was launching an investigation into whether university officials mishandled the allegations.

The Education Department is checking to see if the university failed to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act), which requires colleges to disclose reported criminal offenses on campus.

"If these allegations of sexual abuse are true, then this is a horrible tragedy for those young boys," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a news release. "If it turns out that some people at the school knew of the abuse and did nothing or covered it up, that makes it even worse. Schools and school officials have a legal and moral responsibility to protect children and young people from violence and abuse."


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> Yes, reported by the school.  But that may be (I don't know) in the form of a quarterly report, etc.
> 
> Edited to add:  If we have anyone here who knows the proper interpretation of the Campus Security Act, I'd like to have it explained more precisely.



Here's a summary of the Clery Act.  It looks like schools have to keep a log of reported crimes, give "timely warnings" about current crimes, and compile an annual report of crime statistics before Oct 1 each year.

The more you hear about this the more terrifying it becomes.  This morning on WEEI in Boston they interviewed Mark Madden, a journalist who wrote a column last April about Jerry Sandusky.  (Why that column didn't garner more attention at the time is another mystery to add to the list.)  Well, this morning Madden said,


> "I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."



I know, it's a rumor and there's danger in putting too much stock into rumors.  But Madden's history makes him a somewhat believable source, certainly someone who has the contacts to learn about Sandusky and the whole mess.  IF (big IF!) what he said this morning is true, then I can understand why McQueary, the janitor who also witnessed Sandusky with a young boy, and many others connected to Penn State and Second Mile would be extremely hesitant to come forward with what they knew.  It seems highly unlikely that the missing DA isn't connected to all this.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 10, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> In California, by law - teachers and other school staff must make the report to the authorities themselves.



Is that just K-12, or also colleges?


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 10, 2011)

brigechols said:


> There are at least a half-dozen states (Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri and South Dakota) where the protocol for staff members of schools is to notify the person in charge in the event of suspected child abuse. That superior is then legally obliged to report to the authorities.



There's just one problem here.  There's a difference between "I heard that so and so is doing something to little kids," and " I SAW so and so do an explicit act TO a small child."  The former is _suspected_.  The latter isn't.  I go with a previous poster.  Anyone who witnessed what the grad student witnessed, and handled it by turning his back on the poor child and walking away, (which is indeed what he did), has blood on his hands, so to speak.  I don't think McQueary deserves a pass like he is currently getting.  I could not live with myself if I had turned my back and walked out on that little child.  Could you????


----------



## pjrose (Nov 10, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> There's just one problem here.  There's a difference between "I heard that so and so is doing something to little kids," and " I SAW so and so do an explicit act TO a small child."  The former is _suspected_.  The latter isn't.  I go with a previous poster.  Anyone who witnessed what the grad student witnessed, and handled it by turning his back on the poor child and walking away, (which is indeed what he did), has blood on his hands, so to speak.  I don't think McQueary deserves a pass like he is currently getting.  I could not live with myself if I had turned my back and walked out on that little child.  Could you????



I agree that he should have stopped it then and there, but at least he reported it.....and it moved up the line a few times and then stopped.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 10, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I agree that he should have stopped it then and there, but at least he reported it.....and it moved up the line a few times and then stopped.



I guess that depends on what the definition of the word "reporting" is!


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 10, 2011)

As a Buckeyes fan I can help but picture  Jim Tressel sitting home right now thinking, "How you like ME now?"


----------



## Elan (Nov 10, 2011)

It's not a stretch to consider that McQueary reported the crime to the most powerful man on campus.  I would guess that Paterno likely had enough power/influence to have the president removed if he had ever wanted to do so.  Forty six years at one institution in a position as visible as head football coach gives one that type of influence.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> It's not a stretch to consider that McQueary reported the crime to the most powerful man on campus.  I would guess that Paterno likely had enough power/influence to have the president removed if he had ever wanted to do so.  Forty six years at one institution in a position as visible as head football coach gives one that type of influence.


Well, we can argue this point till we are blue in the face, but I have to agree that it does seem JoePa was the most powerful man on campus.  I honestly thought he was above this sort of thing, but you know what they say about absolute power.  

It is just sad what some will do, or not do, to protect a reputation.  It shouldn't have been the reputation of the school that was destroyed, but in the end, when Jerry Sandusky is just another pedophile in prison, we will all remember the day that Happy Valley was happy no more.


Sometime in the next 12 months we are going to be reading Joe Pa's obit.  This will surely kill him.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> How McQueary didn't also lose his job is beyond me.



Is it possible he is protected by the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act?

George


----------



## pjrose (Nov 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> *How McQueary didn't also lose his job is beyond me.  *. . . .



I don't see why he should - he's the one who reported it, discussed it with at least three university officials and was then never questioned by university police.  



laurac260 said:


> I guess that depends on what the definition of the word "reporting" is!



Well, he was a student at the time, so wasn't a mandated reporter - he reported it to his father, then the coach, who then reported it to the Athletic Director and the VP.  Any and all of the above should have called the police immediately.

And yes, McQueary morally should have yelled STOP, taken the kid to safety, and called the police - but I'm a lot less likely to blame a student than the adults who did nothing (i.e. Curley and Schultz).  And they WEREN'T fired.  

Why should those who DID report it - at least to higher-ups - be fired but NOT the higher-ups who didn't pursue it???


----------



## 1950bing (Nov 10, 2011)

Boy, this is a hard one. I think that most people think highly of JoePa as good man. When I think of him and all that he has done for Penn State and NCAA football as to what Richard Petty did for NASCAR.( I know I know Petty never harmed boys but work with me here ) JoePa,s numbers will never be repeated !
However what happened to the young boys is horriable and cannot go over looked. Someone failed the boys. They are the ones hurt here.
Is this one of the, what did he know and when ? Did JoePa do what was required of him back when this happened ? You can't bring into todays laws and apply them to what happened back when it happened. Is the blame misdirected ?
Like I said this is a hard one. I know people will call me crazy but I see this similar to what happened in Egypt. The president was exposed, said he would
quit at his term end and then got run out.
Again, what happened to the boys is awful. I just hate to hear it.
Boy, this is a hard one.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Nov 10, 2011)

Just makes you sick to your stomach.

I agree with those who said, anyone connected with this has to go.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 10, 2011)

1950bing said:


> Boy, this is a hard one. I think that most people think highly of JoePa as good man. When I think of him and all that he has done for Penn State and NCAA football as to what Richard Petty did for NASCAR.( I know I know Petty never harmed boys but work with me here ) JoePa,s numbers will never be repeated !
> However what happened to the young boys is horriable and cannot go over looked. Someone failed the boys. They are the ones hurt here.
> Is this one of the, what did he know and when ? Did JoePa do what was required of him back when this happened ? You can't bring into todays laws and apply them to what happened back when it happened. Is the blame misdirected ?
> Like I said this is a hard one. I know people will call me crazy but I see this similar to what happened in Egypt. The president was exposed, said he would
> ...



Go back and read about what happened when Sandusky "retired".  Stuff was known.  Stuff was swept under the rug and Mr. Sandusky went on to allegedly do this to more kids.  Seems pretty easy to me.  And the firings should go from McQueary on up.  He wasn't a "kid", he was a 28 year old man.  The fact that he was a student is irrelevant.  Even an 18 year old freshman knows this sort of thing is wrong.  If you see it, and turn your back to it, you are complicit.  For a grown man, who is old enough to have kids, even old enough to have a 10 year old son of his own, to go home, "sleep on it", tell his daddy (again, we are talking about a 28 year old man), then go and tell a football coach????  A football coach?  If your neighbor's house was burning down do you call a plumber?  No, you call a fireman, and you call him NOW, not after you slept on it and decided whether you should get involved.  A criminal act requires police intervention, not a football coach.  Come on folks!  What if this was your 10 year old?  I have a 10 year old, and I'd be livid at the way McQueary handled the situation!  And yet he's made out to be some sort of knight in armor?  Sorry, but I won't give this guy a pass.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 10, 2011)

Laura, that's a bit harsh, saying that those of us who are trying to understand McQueary's (and others') inaction are making a "knight in armor" out of him or "giving a pass" to any of them.  Nobody has said that any of them deserve accolades or absolution.

I think what Sandusky was doing was known by many for years, probably long before it was reported to a level any higher than the Head Coach.  I think it's conceivable that anything and everything in that area could have been sacrificed for the good of the football program - it certainly generated enough profit to make folks think twice about bringing public scrutiny anywhere near it.  I don't think at all that it's outside the realm of probability that whenever those in the know talked about Sandusky that Joe Paterno laid down the law and forbade them to discuss it beyond their circle.  I can envision that by the time McQueary actually witnessed Sandusky in action, all of Paterno's underlings were completely disgusted with the entire situation but knew that it had been going on so long that when it finally was public knowledge, it could bring down the entire program.

We'd all like to think that in McQueary's shoes we would have stopped Sandusky on the spot.  Maybe.  I really don't know what I would be able to do in such a traumatic situation if I happened on it in my safe world today.  In that world, where as one of Paterno's minions I would have probably been indoctrinated to turn a blind eye and keep my mouth shut, I can well imagine that I would be powerless.

But all of that isn't to excuse McQueary and the others.  Like we've all said, they all deserve to be removed from the program at the very least.


----------



## Culli (Nov 10, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> Go back and read about what happened when Sandusky "retired".  Stuff was known.  Stuff was swept under the rug and Mr. Sandusky went on to allegedly do this to more kids.  Seems pretty easy to me.  And the firings should go from McQueary on up.  He wasn't a "kid", he was a 28 year old man.  The fact that he was a student is irrelevant.  Even an 18 year old freshman knows this sort of thing is wrong.  If you see it, and turn your back to it, you are complicit.  For a grown man, who is old enough to have kids, even old enough to have a 10 year old son of his own, to go home, "sleep on it", tell his daddy (again, we are talking about a 28 year old man), then go and tell a football coach????  A football coach?  If your neighbor's house was burning down do you call a plumber?  No, you call a fireman, and you call him NOW, not after you slept on it and decided whether you should get involved.  A criminal act requires police intervention, not a football coach.  Come on folks!  What if this was your 10 year old?  I have a 10 year old, and I'd be livid at the way McQueary handled the situation!  And yet he's made out to be some sort of knight in armor?  Sorry, but I won't give this guy a pass.



Knight in Armor!?!?!?!?  NO WAY HE IS A COMPLETE COWARD and I can't understand how anyone could witness this and not stop it or make an attempt.  Forget about the reporting part...they would have to report it after they dragged his butt to the hospital or the graveyard for me beating him to a pulp.  The more that comes out about this the worse it gets and I have a feeling this is just the begining.  As a Father (heck as human being) I can't believe that all these people knew and this guy was working out at the facility just last week...........are you kidding me?


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 10, 2011)

Re: Paterno.
If only the guy had retired a long time ago, when he should have, like at age 72, he might have somehow managed to keep his reputation intact. Instead, he hung around far too long, like a petrified tree, and now, its forever tarnished.

Perhaps the NCAA should set a mandatory retirement age for coaches, like the FAA does for pilots, becuz they have a responsibility for others and after a certain longevity, their judgment just isn't what it used to be.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 10, 2011)

Sue, don't assume that I was referring to those on this board when I was saying he was made out to be a knight in armor, but the media sure is giving him a pass and treating him like he was some kind of hero.  The man  witnessed a 10 year old boy being sodomized.  I don't give a rats pahtootie what people knew of Sandusky's prior behavior, or how people were told to behave.  Anyone with a modicum of common sense and decency would stand up.  The way you described it just makes the whole situation that much more despicable.  Sorry, but I won't back down off this point.  Shame on anyone who could say they wouldn't have defended the boy then and there.  

edited today:  I saw a picture of McQueary today.  He's a big, football player dude.  Sandusky notsomuch.  McQueary could have easily leveled Sandusky and ended this whole mess then and there.   Somewhere there is a 20 something young man who is hearing all this stuff in the news, and learning that someone saw what happened to him that day when he was 10 years old, and turned his back and did nothing.   The boy probably didn't even realize there was a witness till now.  Can you imagine how he must be feeling?  McQueary's defense just got weaker.  In my book he is the most complicit.  



SueDonJ said:


> Laura, that's a bit harsh, saying that those of us who are trying to understand McQueary's (and others') inaction are making a "knight in armor" out of him or "giving a pass" to any of them.  Nobody has said that any of them deserve accolades or absolution.
> 
> I think what Sandusky was doing was known by many for years, probably long before it was reported to a level any higher than the Head Coach.  I think it's conceivable that anything and everything in that area could have been sacrificed for the good of the football program - it certainly generated enough profit to make folks think twice about bringing public scrutiny anywhere near it.  I don't think at all that it's outside the realm of probability that whenever those in the know talked about Sandusky that Joe Paterno laid down the law and forbade them to discuss it beyond their circle.  I can envision that by the time McQueary actually witnessed Sandusky in action, all of Paterno's underlings were completely disgusted with the entire situation but knew that it had been going on so long that when it finally was public knowledge, it could bring down the entire program.
> 
> ...


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 10, 2011)

Paterno has contacted a prominent criminal attorney.
__________________________________________
"By Michael Isikoff
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent

Joe Paterno has reached out to a prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer to represent him in the Penn State sex abuse case, a source close to the case told NBC News.

J. Sedgwick Sollers, who once represented President George H.W. Bush in the Iran-Contra affair, was contacted by Paterno's advisers on Thursday. But Sollers has not yet met with Paterno, and a formal retainer agreement has not been signed."
____________________________________________

I'd surmise there's gonna be a lot of 'Who knew what, when?' questions before this is finished. I want to see justice served in this matter as much as anyone, but for the (now) young men who went through this and have been trying to put their lives together, dredging up years'  past abuse will open many old wounds.

Jim


----------



## pjrose (Nov 10, 2011)

OK Laura, I accept your argument that McQueary didn't do enough and didn't do it quickly enough.  

And meanwhile, Curley and Schultz remained part of Penn State until very recently when one retired and one is on administrative leave.  And Sandusky is working out in a gym.  Repulsive and Disgusting.

I don't think I would have fired JoePa, though - I think letting him end out the season would have been ok.  However, none of us is privy to all the facts, and he may well have known more than we have been led to believe.


----------



## am1 (Nov 10, 2011)

I am sure this is going to get a lot worse.  Who knew what when but also what else happened. 

Not sure how he would still be welcomed on campus regardless of it being reported to police.  I could not imagine seeing him and being able to live with it.  

If McQueary went above the head coach he would have been out of a job at Penn State and possibly college football.   Not that its right but its the way it is.  He could also have thought that Paterno would report the crime to the police.  But when there was no action then he could have went to the police himself.

Firing a lot of the people involved is for sure the right thing to do.  The legality of it has a separate issue for the police to decide on.  Penn State officials are expected to do better than what the law says.  Not really sure who should be criminally charged other than Sandusky and the ones who perjured themselves.  

Lets hope he gets the maximum and not get off on a technicality, statue of limitations, plea deal or other loop hole.  

This is the worst thing to happen in college sports.  

Penn state grads may have trouble getting a job in the future.  I would question their judgement and priorities if I was the one hiring.  

I think the game saturday should be cancelled, played at another site or in an empty stadium.  

Hopefully this does some good in that people will know to stop it and or report to the police.  Sadly, this happens all too often.  The victims have to deal with it and many seem to have trouble with that.  A few high profile cases in Canadian Junior hockey, at Maple Leaf Gardens and with a WWF employee.  As well as a religious organization but lets not go there.  There are lots more reported and have to be many more that are never reported.


----------



## gpurtz (Nov 10, 2011)

2 of my 3 sons are Penn State grads.  It is a wonderful academic institution.  It is terrible that those administrators who could have ended Sandusky's tyranny in 2002 failed to do so.  To give McQueary a pass is inexcusable.  He was 28, not 18 or 8.  Had he done what he should have done (dial 911), Sandusky would have been in prison during the past 9 years, not victimizing more young boys.  As for Joe Pa, he could have and should have done more.  For this reason, he had to go.  I will not excuse Paterno for failing to do more, but I also will not forget what he has meant to Penn State, the millions of dollars he has raised for hundreds of charities, the lives he has touched both in and outside of football. He is an incredibly good human being, notwithstanding the fact that he could have and should have been a better one.


----------



## ricoba (Nov 10, 2011)

In a sports obsessed nation where athletes are treated as royalty, I hope we soon begin to learn the lesson that the "winning at any cost" mentality is a fallacy and false premiss. 

Someone always pays. 

Sadly in this case, it was young innocent children who paid the greatest price.


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 10, 2011)

ricoba said:


> In a sports obsessed nation where athletes are treated as royalty,
> 
> Sadly in this case, it was young innocent children who paid the greatest price.



Now I see that the authorities never even got the name of the 10-year-old who was being sodomized in the shower. PA Governor: "Please come forward, we're looking for you."

This will be an absolutely EPIC example of justice denied- and if proof can be found surrounding the DA's disappearance in '05, possibly violent suppression of evidence to protect the University's leaders and sports authorities.

Sickening!

Jim


----------



## Kal (Nov 11, 2011)

Let's see what kind of "retirement" package JoPa obtains.  When a person is fired with cause, retirement benefits are often out the window.  He will need every penny to fend off all the personal law suits.


----------



## MuranoJo (Nov 11, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> This and the DA who was on the verge of bringing up charges disappeared in '05 without a trace, his laptop with crushed hard drive fished out of the Susquehanna. He was just declared dead this year. No suspects. Curious, no?
> 
> Jim



Sounds like what we've heard so far is only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## lvhmbh (Nov 11, 2011)

Said in the report that Sandusky was given an elevated retirement package by Paterno - yuck!


----------



## Elan (Nov 11, 2011)

Kal said:


> Let's see what kind of "retirement" package JoPa obtains.  When a person is fired with cause, retirement benefits are often out the window.  He will need every penny to fend off all the personal law suits.



  At age 84, I'm not sure his retirement package is that important.  I'd have to assume his net worth is in the tens of millions.


----------



## Conan (Nov 11, 2011)

[Political comment deleted - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## klpca (Nov 11, 2011)

Reading the indictment was sickening.

And for the life of me, I will never understand how two adults witnessed two boys being assaulted and _walked away_. 

This is about way more than football, Penn State, and Joe Paterno.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Nov 11, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> As a Buckeyes fan I can help but picture  Jim Tressel sitting home right now thinking, "How you like ME now?"



Ugh!  So, because the worst scandal/tragedy in college football has exploded it makes Tressel's actions OK?  Tressel was caught lying and covering things up also.  Granted, it wasn't anywhere close as bad as what's going on at Penn State, but that still doesn't excuse his actions.  In fact, I imagine if Tressel's wasn't presented with the same situation as Paterno that Tressel's wouldn't have done the same thing and just swept it under the rug to protect the "program".

I think this scandal is going to get far worse for Penn State as I think it's going to be revealed that a lot of people knew about Sandusky.  I heard on the radio that a Penn State linebacker was suspended by Paterno in 2005 for making prank/harassing phone calls to a former Penn State assistant coach.  Hmmm?

Hopefully some good will come out of this.  By exploding and exposing this enabling culture that was developed at Penn State and by bringing down Paterno this will prevent these enabling cultures from developing in the future.


----------



## djs (Nov 11, 2011)

[Response to political post deleted - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 11, 2011)

[Quote of deleted post removed - DeniseM Moderator]

Would that SOMEONE had intruded 9 years ago when acts were witnessed and reported to University officials. THEY then chose to stifle any investigation. Private matters between consenting adults in private surroundings is one thing. Homosexual rape of a child in public is something entirely different. 

The tip of this iceberg is getting so large as to capsize the whole university. Forget the football program- it's already dead. More information makes it appear worse with every hour.

Jim


----------



## Elan (Nov 11, 2011)

Clemson Fan said:


> I think this scandal is going to get far worse for Penn State as I think it's going to be revealed that a lot of people knew about Sandusky.  I heard on the radio that a Penn State linebacker was suspended by Paterno in 2005 for making prank/harassing phone calls to a former Penn State assistant coach.  Hmmm?



  I'll be the first to admit that I'm jumping ahead of things here, but I would tend to agree.  Seems to be one of those cases where everyone in the football hierarchy knew, and there was some sort of agreement that it was not to be discussed or addresed.  

  If that indeed is the case, then there's more likelihood that the larger "boys for boosters" theory has merit.  I can't see why the entire football program (and to some extent, the university) would put itself at risk to protect one slimy ex-coach _unless_ there was big money involved.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> Would that SOMEONE had intruded 9 years ago when acts were witnessed and reported to University officials. THEY then chose to stifle any investigation. Private matters between consenting adults in private surroundings is one thing. Homosexual rape of a child in public is something entirely different.
> 
> The tip of this iceberg is getting so large as to capsize the whole university. Forget the football program- it's already dead. More information makes it appear worse with every hour.
> 
> Jim



You've mentioned the correlation to the pedophile priest scandal in the catholic church; it was my first thought as well when I heard the first reports out of Penn State.  One of the Boston priests was my (beloved at the time) 9th-grade confirmation instructor, several friends of mine were victims of his, he and other parish priests through the years were so integral to my family's life that we invited him to co-serve at our parents' funerals after he had been moved from our parish but before the scandal broke.  What I learned about pedophile behavior and the cover-ups that all-too-sadly accompany it is directly a result of that familiarity with the priest scandal, and what leads me to believe that Penn State's scandal will be at least as all-encompassing.  It won't be a surprise at all if the football program dies there.  Honestly, I can't believe that there will be a game played tomorrow.  As far as I'm concerned, every action that places an emphasis on the football program instead of the cover-up can be construed as enabling the scandal and re-victimizing the victims.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> ... Shame on anyone who could say they wouldn't have defended the boy then and there.



Laura, earlier I had said, "I really don't know what I would be able to do in such a traumatic situation if I happened on it in my safe world today."  Now I don't know if you're saying "shame on you" to me because of it.  If you are, please try to understand that I didn't mean that I would not be willing to defend someone in a powerless situation.  What I did mean is that I don't know what I would be capable of doing if I came upon such a situation.  It's not that I'd be afraid for my own safety, it's that I don't know if I would be capable of reacting in a way that would help the victim at that moment.  Fear is a powerful thing, powerful enough to paralyze.  BUT I can say with surety that even I were paralyzed to the extent that I couldn't stop the act as it was happening, I'd be calling 911 as soon as I could function.



laurac260 said:


> edited today:  I saw a picture of McQueary today.  He's a big, football player dude.  Sandusky notsomuch.  McQueary could have easily leveled Sandusky and ended this whole mess then and there.   Somewhere there is a 20 something young man who is hearing all this stuff in the news, and learning that someone saw what happened to him that day when he was 10 years old, and turned his back and did nothing.   The boy probably didn't even realize there was a witness till now.  Can you imagine how he must be feeling?  McQueary's defense just got weaker.  In my book he is the most complicit.



Now in McQueary's case I don't think he was physically paralyzed by fear and couldn't act at that moment.  (And by the way, McQueary says that the victim and Sandusky saw him at that moment - that now-20-something kid knew years ago that a rescuer turned his back on him.)  What I do think, though, is that he was as indoctrinated to the cover-up commanded by Joe Paterno as any other Penn State employee was.  I think Paterno from the very beginning was protecting himself and his dear friend, and above all else His Blessed Program.  I think the reason he got away with so much in opposition to the trustees is that he was threatening them with the loss of their cash-cow football program.  When McQueary saw Sandusky in action, I don't think he went simpering to his Dad in shock over what he had seen.  I think he went to his Dad with rage and determination, looking for help to rid their world of the monster they all knew existed.  I envision that encounter probably much differently than you do, something along the lines of, "For the love of GOD, Dad, I SAW him!  I SAW HIM!  You have to help me here, it was a BOY!"  (Probably with a few f-bombs thrown in but this is TUG.)  McQueary is second-generation Penn State - his dad played for Paterno.  I think his Dad managed to calm him down and convince him to not go to the authorities but instead to Paterno the next day.  Read back over that testimony - McQueary says he gave Paterno explicit details of what he'd seen [but by the time Paterno reported it to the Campus Security the day after that (which was the minimum he could do and still satisfy complicance) he "cleaned up" the report by saying that what was seen was "horseplay."] - (delete what's bracketed, corrected by sstamm)

Now I do agree, McQueary needs to go.  So does every other person who held a position on that football program's staff and on the university's board.  I wish along with everyone else that McQueary could have done something at that moment.  But I can somewhat understand that he may have been paralyzed by fear.  Maybe not physical paralysis, but a form much more insidious.


----------



## dwojo (Nov 11, 2011)

am1 said:


> What a horrible situation.  I do not understand how anyone could be interested in those acts.  Or not better report what happened.  It is hard to think of how many times these are not reported at all.
> 
> It is sad that students are protesting Paterno being fired and not about university officials covering it up.
> 
> ...


I do not understand why the entire coaching staff was not charged with covering it up.


----------



## Skittles1 (Nov 11, 2011)

I am a Penn State graduate, and I am absolutely sick over all of this.  First and foremost, my heart goes out to all of the victims of that sick monster, whose innocence was taken from them, and who will be haunted by those events for the rest of their lives.  I am in agreement with Susan's previous statement about how McQueary likely reacted to the situation.  He absolutely should've immediately stopped what was going on, and went to the police.  But he is from State College, and, as was stated before, is a second generation PSU football player, so this football program is in his blood, and if Joe Pa told hime he would take care of it, I'm sure he thought he would.  As for Joe Paterno, I have such mixed emotions.  Over his many years of service to PSU, he has given back so much to the university and to the community.  It pains me that such a good man and coach, will be left with this legacy.  That is the Penn State running through my veins talking.  But I do think the Board of Trustees did the right thing firing Paterno and President Graham Spanier.  They need to clean house of anyone involved in this cover-up.  I also think over the coming weeks, much more information and allegations will come to light, for example about that missing DA.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 11, 2011)

*Horseplay*?  Curley called it *horseplay* (or horsing around)?  

repulsive, repulsive. 

Thumbs down, many many thumbs down.


----------



## sstamm (Nov 11, 2011)

Now things are getting a bit confused.

It was not Paterno who called it "horseplay."

According to the Grand Jury Report, McQueary told Paterno what happened. 

 Paterno then told Curley, the AD, that the grad asst. had reported to him that he had seen Sandusky in the shower "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

It was Curley, in his grand jury testimony, who said that the grad assistant told him that they were "horsing around."  His testimony was found to be not credible.

While there is certainly enough blame to go around, I think it is important to not twist the facts.  My information comes from the Grand Jury REport, which was nauseating to read.

While it does seem that Paterno was not specific in reporting what McQueary told him, he did not reduce it to horseplay.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 11, 2011)

Correction noted, and made above.  Thanks


----------



## sstamm (Nov 11, 2011)

Also, President Spanier testified that Curley and Schultz reported the incident to them in the same manner- that an unidentified staff member was uncomfortable because Sandusky was horsing around in the shower with a boy.

See, here's what gets me.  There are no circumstances under which it would be appropriate for Sandusky EVER to be in the showers with a young child.  So whether it was called horseplay or sexual abuse, it should have been reported.

Also, unfortunately there were other missed opportunities for adults to have intervened.  A wrestling coach at a high school came upon Sandusky and a boy engaging in what appeared to be inappropriate contact in the weight room at the high school.  But it never says that the coach reported it, just that he thought it was odd.

I'm trying to be careful not to judge the grad asst. and the janitor who witnessed Sandusky too harshly.  Yes, they should have done something.  But whistle-blowers are not always taken seriously.  That is why someone in authority (i.e. Paterno) should have used his authority to make sure that something was done.  If Curley and Schultz didn't act, Paterno should have followed up with the police.  But he didn't.  At the very least, a disappointment that he didn't do the right thing.  But I'm afraid that it will come out that his inaction was motivated by a deeper involvement in a cover up.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Nov 11, 2011)

The amazing thing to me is that Penn State students rioted in support of Joe Paterno.  What kind of an education are they getting?  Penn State will be a much easier target for litigation than the Catholic Church.  Penn State has been disgraced and may very well be sued out of business.  It does not take a college graduate to understand this.  The Board of Trustees is working to control the damage as much as possible.  The question the students should by asking is not why Joe Paterno was fired but why it took so long for Joe Paterno to be fired.

My sympathy lies with the young boys who were subjected to the abuse.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Nov 11, 2011)

I've tried to read through everything said here on this thread as well as the grand jury report.  Like everyone else, I'm sickened by how these young boys could be violated in such a sick and grotesque manner.

I think Penn State did what they had to regarding the school president and Paterno.

Regarding McQueary and why he wasn't fired (yet) . . . perhaps it has to do with his legal rights as a whistleblower?  Employers may not retaliate against a whistleblower and perhaps they have legal counsel not to pursue firing him until more is known.

I don't know, but it was one of the scenarios that played through my mind in trying to understand why he wasn't fired initially.  (Note, I haven't said he should or shouldn't be fired . . . for me that's still an open question as I don't know that I know enough to say.)

That said, I do wish he had done more at the very moment that he walked into what he said he saw.  Having worked in youth sports for many years, I cannot imagine seeing that and just turning to walk out.  The culture of school loyalty and/or intimidation must have been significant.


----------



## Kal (Nov 11, 2011)

Elan said:


> At age 84, I'm not sure his retirement package is that important. I'd have to assume his net worth is in the tens of millions.


 
My point is actually him getting anything after being fired.  When a company is dealing with "for cause", the game changes....for most people.  Let's see if the University has any guts.  I doubt it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

Thank you for the correction, sstamm.  You're right - it isn't helpful or necessary to get the facts wrong.

I feel a little bit better about Paterno's actions in that one instance.  But it doesn't change my overall opinion that he had more power than anyone on that campus to stop a monster, or that his influence wasn't responsible for the actions - and inaction - of every person who knew about the monster.

When the first allegation was brought Sandusky could have been reported to outside police authorities by the administration.  As long as there was no cover-up, the football program and the university could survive the loss of Sandusky with minimal damage.  And no decent man of integrity would have disagreed with the decision to involve the police authorities.

Joe Paterno IS Penn State.  He knows that, everybody knows that!  If Joe Paterno wanted Sandusky gone then it would have happened almost as immediately as he voiced the command.  But somebody had the authority (or autonomy?) to convince the administration and trustees that there would forever be a place for Sandusky on that campus despite what had been reported about him.  Who else could that somebody be other than Joe Paterno?


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 11, 2011)

One talk show that I listened to brought up an interesting point about Joe Paterno, who is over 80 years old. He grew up in a generation that was less aware of issues like child molestation, and found them extremely embarrassing and difficult to deal with, and something that was not discussed openly.  If that was his mind-set, it may have seemed like this was too indecent for public discussion, and the best way was to quietly report it to administration, and let them handle it privately. 

I don't agree with that, obviously, but it does make sense.  I mean, think about an 80+ member of your family - can you discuss child molestation with them?  How would they react?  If my own mom was alive, she would be about 80, and a topic like that would be too indecent to even discuss, for her.


----------



## Kal (Nov 11, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> ...Now in McQueary's case.... I envision that encounter probably much differently than you do, something along the lines of, "For the love of GOD, Dad, I SAW him! I SAW HIM! You have to help me here, it was a BOY!" (Probably with a few f-bombs thrown in but this is TUG.) McQueary is second-generation Penn State - his dad played for Paterno. I think his Dad managed to calm him down and convince him to not go to the authorities but instead to Paterno the next day....


 
I think McQueary was really frightened mostly about his future career.  If he personally took action, and knowing the institution of PS football, he would be dead meat, not only at PS but also in the national football scene.  So the 20 yo went to his dad.  No help there as he was even more buried in the sacred institution of PS football.  He had to respond, so he said something to JoPa and called it a day. He was now clear and his football future was safe.

Next sickening moment will be the student and alumni reaction on Saturday.  Does anybody really believe that the team was unaware of what was going on?  Away from the locker room you could only imagine how the chit-chat propagated - "don't tell anybody but here is something about coach you won't believe...."

It's always about protecting the institution and most importantly about the football legacy.


----------



## TSchmidt (Nov 11, 2011)

I just saw the interview of Victim #1's mother.    Okay, call me the suspicious type, but if a couch were wanting to spend that much time with my son, all sorts of red flags would go up.

Spending the night numerous times?   Going out of town with him?    Plus all the phone calls.    That would never happen in my house.    That mother fell down on her job.   I might let him go over once, but not if he were the only kid there.    Would any of you other mothers let this happen without many, many questions??

There were lots of instances where this could have been stopped.   Too many people overlooked suspicious things.    Very sad.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> One talk show that I listened to brought up an interesting point about Joe Paterno, who is over 80 years old. He grew up in a generation that was less aware of issues like child molestation, and found them extremely embarrassing and difficult to deal with, and something that was not discussed openly.  If that was his mind-set, it may have seemed like this was too indecent for public discussion, and the best way was to quietly report it to administration, and let them handle it privately.
> 
> I don't agree with that, obviously, but it does make sense.  I mean, think about an 80+ member of your family - can you discuss child molestation with them?  How would they react?  If my own mom was alive, she would be about 80, and a topic like that would be too indecent to even discuss, for her.



I think there's definitely something to that, Denise.  Once more correlating to the pedophile priest scandal, the overriding question at the time was how could the parents have kept silent?  The majority of those victims had reported the incidents to their own parents who in turn contacted the priests' superiors at the parish level.  It sounds mind-boggling, doesn't it, that PARENTS wouldn't involve outside police authorities when their OWN children were victims!?  But between the stigma and embarrassment of child molestation that was prevalant among that generation, and the absolute power that the local priests held in their neighborhoods combined with the absolute autonomy that the Catholic Church hierarchy held, it was possible for the parents to be forgiven their misguided loyalties.  I often wonder, too, if my parents had been alive when the scandal finally broke, would they have discussed it with us or been embarrassed by us asking about it.  It seems impossible that they wouldn't have at least been aware of the rumors among the adults at the time - several victims were family friends.

They say in some areas of the country College Football is a religion.  In the northeast that was never a part of our culture but I sure am beginning to see now how it can be the truth.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

The actions of the president, the VP, Paterno, and/or McQueary can easily be explained... think about it.  They were all trying to protect their beloved university and football program.  Each of them knew that if they took a bold stance on this matter the damage that could cause. 

There are some on here that want to boldly state what they would do if they were in the same situation as any of these men.  Well, I don't think any of us know for sure how we would react in the same situation.   It's very easy to say something anonymously on an internet forum.   

In my mind there is one person who stood up and stopped the whole charade... and that was McQueary.   I believe it took courage for him to tell the truth to the grand jury.   Yes, I also feel he should have stopped the incident he witnessed, but I'm going to give that young man a ton of credit for what he did do afterwards.


----------



## siesta (Nov 11, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> This and the DA who was on the verge of bringing up charges disappeared in '05 without a trace, his laptop with crushed hard drive fished out of the Susquehanna. He was just declared dead this year. No suspects. Curious, no?
> 
> Jim


 what makes you say the Prosecutor was "on the verge of bringing up charges" against Sandusky before he dissapeared? The prosecutor who dissapeared in 2005, was the same one who DIDNT pursue charges against Sandusky in 1998 for showering and "hugging" a child that ended up causing him (Sandusky) to have to retire in 1999. The current charges against Sandusky incude this 1998 incident as well as 7 other victims I believe. 

*Investigators see no link between DA's 2005 disappearance and '98 Sandusky probe*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...ndusky-probe/2011/11/11/gIQAbeNhCN_story.html

If there is any suspicion regarding the DA's disappearance, its that someone harmed him for NOT pursuing charges. Your implication that a University cover up ensued that also caused a probing DA to be murdered as part of that cover up is fiction fit for Hollywood.


----------



## Elan (Nov 11, 2011)

Kal said:


> I think McQueary was really frightened mostly about his future career.  If he personally took action, and knowing the institution of PS football, he would be dead meat, not only at PS but also in the national football scene.



  Don't agree.  He was a 28yo GA.  In the college football world, being a GA means his duties could have been as insignificant as making sure the uniforms got washed every week, and his pay was probably pretty meager.  

  IOW, he wasn't throwing away a great job, and at age 28 he certainly had enough time to recover from any negative repercussions.  Not at PSU, perhaps, but almost certainly elsewhere.


----------



## rapmarks (Nov 11, 2011)

from something I read, Sandusky was seen in the showers with the child in 2003, 4 years after he retired.  what is he doing in the showers when he no longer works there.  It is hard to believe that powerful men were unwilling to do anything to stop the abuse.  They certainly can't condone tht behavior, pedofiles are not even safe in prison.  

As far as the parents of the child, there was a letter in an advice column just this week.  The daughter stayed with her cousin and her uncle came in the room and made advances.  she was 9 years old and fought him off, told her parents.  The father does not want to tell his sister what the husband did. the mother wants to report it.  how many times is this repeated all over the place?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

TSchmidt said:


> I just saw the interview of Victim #1's mother.    Okay, call me the suspicious type, but if a couch were wanting to spend that much time with my son, all sorts of red flags would go up.
> 
> Spending the night numerous times?   Going out of town with him?    Plus all the phone calls.    That would never happen in my house.    That mother fell down on her job.   I might let him go over once, but not if he were the only kid there.    Would any of you other mothers let this happen without many, many questions??
> 
> There were lots of instances where this could have been stopped.   Too many people overlooked suspicious things.    Very sad.



What are the statistics?  I think I heard Dr. Phil say the other day on CNN that "Stranger Danger" accounts for only 10% of child molestation incidents, and 1-in-4 girls and 1-in-6 boys will be victims.  That means that there are a whole lot of victims out there who are suffering at the hands of people who are entrusted to care for them by the parents.  Very sad is right.


----------



## brigechols (Nov 11, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> In my mind there is one person who stood up and stopped the whole charade... and that was McQueary.   I believe it took courage for him to tell the truth to the grand jury.



In my opinion, the grand jury testimony of Victim 1, Victim 3, Victim 4, Victim 5, Victim 6, and Victim 7 exposed the wrongdoing of Sardusky and PSU administrators. I hope that Victim 1 and Victim 8 are alive and willing to come forward.


----------



## sstamm (Nov 11, 2011)

TSchmidt said:


> I just saw the interview of Victim #1's mother.    Okay, call me the suspicious type, but if a couch were wanting to spend that much time with my son, all sorts of red flags would go up.
> 
> Spending the night numerous times?   Going out of town with him?    Plus all the phone calls.    That would never happen in my house.    That mother fell down on her job.   I might let him go over once, but not if he were the only kid there.    Would any of you other mothers let this happen without many, many questions??
> 
> There were lots of instances where this could have been stopped.   Too many people overlooked suspicious things.    Very sad.



I would certainly have asked a lot of questions, and I can't imagine allowing my child to spend the night or go out of town, but I don't know the mom's circumstances.  Is she a single parent?  I only ask because, initially, I'm sure this all seemed very positive- a big football coach mentoring your child, taking him places, access to cool things like PSU football.  Wasn't Sandusky married?  So his wife was at home too?  Seems ok, right?  Pedophiles are experienced in making victims (and maybe their families) seem comfortable with the access, so that once they start making moves, it becomes confusing for the victims, and many feel guilty or like it's their fault. Never underestimate the ability of career pedophiles to manipulate.

The mom of one of the victims did question, the first time her son came home with wet hair, and she found out they'd showered.  She reported it to University Police.  This was in the late 1990's.  Supposedly Univ. Police investigated, interviewed Sandusky, who admitted he showered naked with the boy and hugged him.  Eventually, the investigation was closed and the Centre County District Attorney decided there would be no criminal charges.  (That was the DA who later disappeared, which is a whole other thing.)
WHAT????

So many times the ball was dropped, and not just by Paterno and the football staff.


----------



## Mel (Nov 11, 2011)

sstamm said:


> I'm trying to be careful not to judge the grad asst. and the janitor who witnessed Sandusky too harshly.  Yes, they should have done something.  But whistle-blowers are not always taken seriously.  That is why someone in authority (i.e. Paterno) should have used his authority to make sure that something was done.  If Curley and Schultz didn't act, Paterno should have followed up with the police.  But he didn't.  At the very least, a disappointment that he didn't do the right thing.  But I'm afraid that it will come out that his inaction was motivated by a deeper involvement in a cover up.


I can't judge the Graduate Assitant, or the mother if Victim 1, but the rest deserve what they get.

The GA was a student, not an employee.  He probably was not required to report, though even if he was, the requirement was to report to his supervisor - that would be Paterno.  Consider the position we know he was in, as well as the position he might have been in.  We know he witnessed Sandusky - and that Sandusky and the victim saw him.  There was the 1999 case, so it is possible that he had already hear rumors about him, and what he witnessed confirmed them.  Given what we've seen of the students supporting Paterno, can you honestly say his career wouldn't have been over before it even started, if he had gone over Paterno's head?  

He was a Graduate Assistant.  If he went over Paterno's head, he would lose what little link he had to the football program, and may have risked his education.  I know, that doesn't mean much to the victims, but he probably thought any action would be in vain - Sandusky and Paterno were powerful men.  There had already been allegation in 1998, and those only resulted in forcing his retirement.  In his shoes, would you really expect a new case 4 years later to result in a different outcome?

As for the mother, she was a single mother, needing a male role model for her son.  This was a father figure taking an interest in her son.  His involvement started through an organization set up for that purpose - to provide a role model for at-risk boys.  She trusted those who introduced her son to Sandusky.  If the schools vouched for him, the university vouched for him, he was a respected and trusted powerful member of the community.  Why would she not trust him with her son?  He had similar standing to the priests in Boston and elsewhere.

I also wonder about Sandusky's wife - so many mentions of him attending events with these boys, and her being absent.  While she might not be interested in the events, I would think after the 1998 allegations that she might want to keep a closer watch on his activities.  Where does she fit in all this?  I can't imagine she knew nothing of what was going on, yet she too was a victim of a different sort, in denial all these years.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

brigechols said:


> In my opinion, the grand jury testimony of Victim 1, Victim 3, Victim 4, Victim 5, Victim 6, and Victim 7 exposed the wrongdoing of Sardusky and PSU administrators. I hope that Victim 1 and Victim 8 are alive and willing to come forward.


 
The testimony of the victims brought Sandusky down.  However, it was McQueary's testimony that brought down the President, the VP, and Paterno.  And in the future will cause serious damage to the university.  

Think about the difference.  That's my point.  It took guts for him to tell the truth.


----------



## Kal (Nov 11, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> ... think about an 80+ member of your family - can you discuss child molestation with them? How would they react? If my own mom was alive, she would be about 80, and a topic like that would be too indecent to even discuss, for her.


 
As a test, I talked to an 80+ member of my family and his comment was:

_"...there's always some blabbermouth around..."_

Totally an out of touch generation.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 11, 2011)

Mel said:


> I also wonder about Sandusky's wife - so many mentions of him attending events with these boys, and her being absent.  While she might not be interested in the events, I would think after the 1998 allegations that she might want to keep a closer watch on his activities.  Where does she fit in all this?  I can't imagine she knew nothing of what was going on, yet she too was a victim of a different sort, in denial all these years.



Actually, it has been widely reported that the Grand Jury report says that  Sandusky's wife called victim #7 BEFORE he was set to testify, along with two other calls from Sandusky, and a friend of Sandusky. There can be no good reason for those calls.

Even more chilling, Sandusky and his wife have 6 adopted children - some of whom were adopted as older children.  They also had 5 foster children.

A Time Reporter has reported the following:





> Sandusky's former daughter-in-law is taking no chances. The mother of Sandusky's grandchildren — ages 5, 7 and 9 — obtained a court order Tuesday prohibiting Sandusky from unsupervised visits with his grandchildren and barring overnights at Grandpa's.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 11, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> There are some on here that want to boldly state what they would do if they were in the same situation as any of these men.  Well, I don't think any of us know for sure how we would react in the same situation.   It's very easy to say something anonymously on an internet forum.



Here I must beg to differ with you.  I know firsthand what it is like to be a child  and have grownups, on multiple occasions, (friends, family and total strangers), witness my abuse while they looked the other way.  Not to the extent of this, but I can tell you, in the eyes of a child there is nothing more crushing than looking in the eyes of an adult you were taught to trust, looking in the eyes of someone who you thought was like a superhero (a grownup to a little kid is someone who is going to SAVE THEM) while another adult is abusing you, and having them avert their eyes and pretend they didn't see it.  Why, because it made them uncomfortable?  Because they don't want to get involved?  Because the person doing the abusing is their brother, or "friend" and they don't want to affect their relationship? 

  So emphatically YES, I can tell you what I would do, what I have done, when I witness a child being abused.  I stand up.  I speak out.  I don't care who hears me, I don't care what the person doing the abusing has to say.  I will intervene.  I will call the police.  I have done it and will again if I have to.  Until you walk in that child's shoes you will never know what it is like to be them.  I do.  It sucks.  And I could not look at myself in the mirror if I didn't stand up for a child, like no one stood up for me.  So how McQueary looks at himself in the mirror every day is beyond me.  Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious, but it is what it is.  

So, there, in a nutshell is why I feel so impassioned about this subject.  I know what it's like to be witnessed, and I also know what it's like to have someone, a grown up, touch me inappropriately and have adults sweep it under the rug.  The act is long gone.  The way it was handled and dismissed never, ever leaves you.


----------



## Patri (Nov 11, 2011)

am1 said:


> Penn state grads may have trouble getting a job in the future.  I would question their judgement and priorities if I was the one hiring.
> 
> I think the game saturday should be cancelled, played at another site or in an empty stadium.



Good grief. I think this is a little over the top. You want to punish students working their butts off at a tough college, many of whom never even go to a football game? The university has outstanding academic programs and THON. So the kids there today are now part of the problem?
And why punish Nebraska? There has to be some common sense here.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 11, 2011)

McQueary has been placed on admin leave.  That's a start.  He should have done more.  Hopefully he realizes that now and if he is ever faced in a similar situation (god forbid), he will choose the right path the next time.

Meanwhile I read the indictment.  Lots of people looked the other way.  Truly sad.


----------



## am1 (Nov 11, 2011)

Patri said:


> Good grief. I think this is a little over the top. You want to punish students working their butts off at a tough college, many of whom never even go to a football game? The university has outstanding academic programs and THON. So the kids there today are now part of the problem?
> And why punish Nebraska? There has to be some common sense here.



Not at all.  Students are violently protesting the firing of a  man who help cover up sexual abuse and whatever else comes out.  College graduates are hired based on the history of the schools athletic programs.  Even the Ivys.  The Ivys are the Ivys because they were together for sports.  Now major college sports have passed them by but that is how those school are who they are today.  Schools care more about how they are aligned athletically then athletically.  Any school interested in the SEC has to weigh this but both A&M and Mizzou decided to join a lesser academic conference for sports and money and prestige.  

If a team has a good sports run the previous year the the alummni are more likely to be hired.  

I am not saying if this is a good or bad way to hire but is the facts. I am saying that not hiring individuals based on bad acts said students have done collectively is fair.  

For entry level jobs I really do not believe much matters in who is hired.  

There are a few exceptions MIT, Cal tech who have never been judged on their athletics.  

It is not about Nebraska being punished.  It is not even about punishing Penn State.  (I will not make a call on if their season should be cancelled).  It is about their safety.  Numerous riots have occurred in the past in college as well as pro sports.  For reasons or no reasons.  Also in my sole opinion it is not having to get involved with this.  Any pre and post game questions are going to be about how they feel/felt and dealt with the situation.  That is a lot to ask for 18 - 22 year olds.  They are not compensated enough and have other issues to deal with.  School assignments are the first that come to mind.  But family, relationships are others.  

It is also about Penn State University having more important things to deal with them a football game that takes over the campus and town.  


For everyone reading, college athletics is a whole different world.  It is amazing the amount of gossip that goes on.  How much loyalty there is and as well as how many "violations" occur.  Even when it comes to non important teams in non important sports at non important schools.


----------



## KarenLK (Nov 11, 2011)

I just read the Grand Jury pages and have one question...

What the #$%& was Mrs Sandusky thinking through all of this??...having kids sleep over. Didn't she know any of this was going on after all these years??? Just wondering.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Nov 11, 2011)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Yes, this is_* chilling *_and one cannot help but link it to a much larger cover up.
> 
> I hope that those who are guilty of these acts and those of not reporting or not following up at _Penn State_,  end up in the State Pen.



I would bet many, many knew of this and said nothing, including the campus police. This was a massive coverup that we've only heard the tip of the iceberg I believe.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 11, 2011)

KarenLK said:


> I just read the Grand Jury pages and have one question...
> 
> What the #$%& was Mrs Sandusky thinking through all of this??...having kids sleep over. Didn't she know any of this was going on after all these years??? Just wondering.



Mrs. Sandusky, the other coaches who saw him traveling with little boys all the time, bringing them to his meetings, taking them on jaunts, to movies, to games, having them sleep over in his house, IN his hotel rooms.   It's one thing to mentor young boys.  It's another thing to constantly have the 10 year old "flavor of the month" at your side.  Who brings little boys to their meetings?  Didn't ANYONE think this was odd??  THEY weren't spending countless hours with little boys.  Why was HE???


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

Everything he did was overlooked by the witnesses and covered up by the folks who held the power.  His victims, the young boys who probably number in the hundreds when you consider that he began his Second Mile foundation back in 1977, were all sacrificed to protect The Penn State Football Program.

THAT'S why the team should not be allowed to finish out this season, and why the school should not be allowed to field a team at all until every single person who holds a position in the football program or on the board is removed from that position.  Every game that is played and every power position that remains as is, is a slap in the face to the victims who were sacrificed for the program.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 11, 2011)

*tomorrow's game*

I just checked the schedule for the game tomorrow.  It is set to air on ESPN at noon.  Now that atleast one sponsor has pulled out (cars.com), and atleast one other "thinking about it", I wonder will ESPN air the game?  I'm sure they've discussed this very thing.  

Meanwhile, in Happy Valley, (found on ESPN.co )...Sam Stellatella, a three-position player in the 1950s, has donated money to Sandusky's defense and urged other former players to do the same.

"I told him he's going to need a million dollars to defend himself," the 73-year-old Stellatella said. "He called me back and said, 'What am I going to do with this money?' I said, 'Use it for your lawyer because you're going to need it.' "

Stellatella sent Sandusky $100. He wrote personal letters to other members of the 1959 Liberty Bowl team that defeated a Bear Bryant-coached Alabama team and asked they also donate. He does not know how much money was raised.

"I know some of the guys sent money," Stellatella told The Associated Press. "Here's the thing, these are horrendous charges against him. But he's still entitled to his day in court. Everybody's prejudged him. He's done horrendous damage to Paterno and (athletic director Tim) Curley and the football program. I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset.

"But he's still entitled to his day in court."

That's a lone stance among a group of players who have been quick to distance themselves from Sandusky.

Brad Benson, a former Penn State offensive lineman who won a Super Bowl with the New York Giants, was not invited to attend the game. He said he wouldn't go anyway -- and had no problem with his fellow former Nittany Lions presenting a unified front -- as long as they remembered the true victims of this case.

"I sure wouldn't want it be a show of solidarity for Joe," he said.

Benson spoke in anger about Paterno's actions and, more troubling, the reaction of unruly students who toppled a television news van, rioted and attempted arson after a peaceful demonstration Wednesday night turned ugly.

"There are people right now that are supporting Joe. They are rioting and doing things they shouldn't be doing," he said. "I equate these students that are rioting to the occupiers on New York City right now. They're not mature enough to understand why they're rioting. They weren't there when this happened. What are they protesting? They're protesting that someone with a tremendous responsibility failed to fulfill his moral responsibility, and other people failed as well."

Sources told ESPN that as a way to possibly honor Paterno, some current Penn State players have discussed bringing a game ball to the fired coach's house if the team defeats Nebraska.  

For whatever it's worth.


----------



## ricoba (Nov 11, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> One talk show that I listened to brought up an interesting point about Joe Paterno, who is over 80 years old. He grew up in a generation that was less aware of issues like child molestation, and found them extremely embarrassing and difficult to deal with, and something that was not discussed openly.  If that was his mind-set, it may have seemed like this was too indecent for public discussion, and the best way was to quietly report it to administration, and let them handle it privately.
> 
> I don't agree with that, obviously, but it does make sense.  I mean, think about an 80+ member of your family - can you discuss child molestation with them?  How would they react?  If my own mom was alive, she would be about 80, and a topic like that would be too indecent to even discuss, for her.



I think I could easily speak with my 84 year old Mother & 85 year old Dad about this.

While they have come from the same generation as Paterno, I think they are fully aware that if they become aware of something wrong happening, they wouldn't just cover it up.  

I can also imagine my Dad beating the hell out of Sandusky if he had seen the shower incident that McQueary saw!  (if he were a bit younger  )


----------



## Patri (Nov 11, 2011)

am1 said:


> I am not saying if this is a good or bad way to hire but is the facts. I am saying that not hiring individuals based on bad acts said students have done collectively is fair.



You are saying it is a good thing, because you said if you were hiring it would affect whether you took a PSU grad. Very sad. There are 45,000 students enrolled at that campus. 90,000 at all of them combined.
The drunks and angered students who overturned the van are accountable for their actions. Anyone who participated in a coverup is responsible for that. Why would you smear people who knew nothing about it?
I hope you are not involved in any hiring authority or in the justice system. Students past and present are just as shocked as the rest of us.


----------



## am1 (Nov 11, 2011)

Patri said:


> You are saying it is a good thing, because you said if you were hiring it would affect whether you took a PSU grad. Very sad. There are 45,000 students enrolled at that campus. 90,000 at all of them combined.
> The drunks and angered students who overturned the van are accountable for their actions. Anyone who participated in a coverup is responsible for that. Why would you smear people who knew nothing about it?
> I hope you are not involved in any hiring authority or in the justice system. Students past and present are just as shocked as the rest of us.



The bad good way/bad way was about hiring students based on their colleges sports powers.  That is the way I feel about it.  I do not care to debate it as it is not important to this discussion.  If I was to see a resume from a Penn state grad the first thing I would think of was them rioting.  You are right that many more did not riot but it is what it is.  I am not aware that not hiring because of university attended was a protected class.  

We will see how many recruits pass on the university as well as applicants.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 11, 2011)

pianodinosaur said:


> The amazing thing to me is that Penn State students rioted in support of Joe Paterno.  What kind of an education are they getting? . . . .



It's not at all amazing to those of us who live up here; JoePa is an icon, even a god.  Penn State Football is sacred, as is Joe.  I think at first that many of us (me included) saw him as a scapegoat, as an unimpeachable man of honor.  

Interestingly, tonight the students are holding a different kind of demonstration, this time a vigil for Sandusky's victims.

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/sto...candlelight-vigil/9wG5BLQ4C0-Qdd8K7vz-1Q.cspx


----------



## pjrose (Nov 11, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Everything he did was overlooked by the witnesses and covered up by the folks who held the power.  His victims, the young boys who probably number in the hundreds when you consider that he began his Second Mile foundation back in 1977, were all sacrificed to protect The Penn State Football Program.
> 
> *THAT'S why the team should not be allowed to finish out this season, and why the school should not be allowed to field a team at all until every single person who holds a position in the football program or on the board is removed from that position.  Every game that is played and every power position that remains as is, is a slap in the face to the victims who were sacrificed for the program.*



I think I disagree here, because the team is made up of students, who shouldn't be punished for the transgressions of the staff and administration.  

I say "I think," because I've already changed my mind a few times from reading the very thoughtful and informative posts of my TUG buddies!


----------



## am1 (Nov 11, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I think I disagree here, because the team is made up of students, who shouldn't be punished for the transgressions of the staff and administration.
> 
> I say "I think," because I've already changed my mind a few times from reading the very thoughtful and informative posts of my TUG buddies!



This is the way it currently is.  Current students pay for former students and coaches decisions.  In this case, Penn state could strip pensions and ban from the employees from campus but have little other authority.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 11, 2011)

Kal said this earlier in the thread, "Next sickening moment will be the student and alumni reaction on Saturday. Does anybody really believe that the team was unaware of what was going on? Away from the locker room you could only imagine how the chit-chat propagated - "don't tell anybody but here is something about coach you won't believe...."

I think that's correct - it's entirely possible that the players could have had knowledge of what was happening in that program.  But regardless of which team members knew or didn't, from this point on everyone involved with Penn State should be singly focused on making things right with the victims.  It's not enough, IMO, that eventually the school will pay millions in fines and settlements.  It's not enough, IMO, that the Head Coach will not be able to be on that field.  What's needed now is for those victims to see that the university is placing their well-being ahead of the sainted team's ability to take the field.

Where is the NCAA in all of this?  Why aren't they all over it?  Other schools have had their programs temporarily suspended for actions far less damaging than what's been happening at Penn State for far too long.  Innocent players on those suspended teams had no choice but to suffer for the actions of a few, as sad as that may be.  But some things are more important than football and it is long past time for Penn State officials to make that correct determination.  There is no reason why any innocent players on Penn State's team should be more important than the victims of the scandal that was allowed to fester in their program.  If the NCAA isn't stepping in here to force the university to take the hard steps on the road to recovery, the university trustees should be doing it.  They began with the decisive correct removal of Spanier and Paterno.  But they can't stop there.  The one thing they can do NOW is show the victims and the rest of the world that their football program is NOT the be-all and end-all of the university, by not allowing the team to take the field.  IMO.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 11, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Kal said this earlier in the thread, "Next sickening moment will be the student and alumni reaction on Saturday. Does anybody really believe that the team was unaware of what was going on? Away from the locker room you could only imagine how the chit-chat propagated - "don't tell anybody but here is something about coach you won't believe...."
> 
> I think that's correct - it's entirely possible that the players could have had knowledge of what was happening in that program.  But regardless of which team members knew or didn't, from this point on everyone involved with Penn State should be singly focused on making things right with the victims.  It's not enough, IMO, that eventually the school will pay millions in fines and settlements.  It's not enough, IMO, that the Head Coach will not be able to be on that field.  What's needed now is for those victims to see that the university is placing their well-being ahead of the sainted team's ability to take the field.
> 
> Where is the NCAA in all of this?  Why aren't they all over it?  Other schools have had their programs temporarily suspended for actions far less damaging than what's been happening at Penn State for far too long.  Innocent players on those suspended teams had no choice but to suffer for the actions of a few, as sad as that may be.  But some things are more important than football and it is long past time for Penn State officials to make that correct determination.  There is no reason why any innocent players on Penn State's team should be more important than the victims of the scandal that was allowed to fester in their program.  If the NCAA isn't stepping in here to force the university to take the hard steps on the road to recovery, the university trustees should be doing it.  They began with the decisive correct removal of Spanier and Paterno.  But they can't stop there.  The one thing they can do NOW is show the victims and the rest of the world that their football program is NOT the be-all and end-all of the university, by not allowing the team to take the field.  IMO.



That's certainly a compelling argument Sue.  I think the game will be allowed to go on.  It will be interesting to see how ESPN covers it, assuming they still broadcast the game?


----------



## Elan (Nov 11, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Kal said this earlier in the thread, "Next sickening moment will be the student and alumni reaction on Saturday. Does anybody really believe that the team was unaware of what was going on? Away from the locker room you could only imagine how the chit-chat propagated - "don't tell anybody but here is something about coach you won't believe...."
> 
> I think that's correct - it's entirely possible that the players could have had knowledge of what was happening in that program.  But regardless of which team members knew or didn't, from this point on everyone involved with Penn State should be singly focused on making things right with the victims.  It's not enough, IMO, that eventually the school will pay millions in fines and settlements.  It's not enough, IMO, that the Head Coach will not be able to be on that field.  What's needed now is for those victims to see that the university is placing their well-being ahead of the sainted team's ability to take the field.
> 
> Where is the NCAA in all of this?  Why aren't they all over it?  Other schools have had their programs temporarily suspended for actions far less damaging than what's been happening at Penn State for far too long.  Innocent players on those suspended teams had no choice but to suffer for the actions of a few, as sad as that may be.  But some things are more important than football and it is long past time for Penn State officials to make that correct determination.  There is no reason why any innocent players on Penn State's team should be more important than the victims of the scandal that was allowed to fester in their program.  If the NCAA isn't stepping in here to force the university to take the hard steps on the road to recovery, the university trustees should be doing it.  They began with the decisive correct removal of Spanier and Paterno.  But they can't stop there.  The one thing they can do NOW is show the victims and the rest of the world that their football program is NOT the be-all and end-all of the university, by not allowing the team to take the field.  IMO.



  The NCAA has already addressed the situation.  Their stance is to let the legal action run it's course.  Furthermore, the NCAA is about maintaining fairness in competition, not punishment for criminal acts.  The violations that occurred were criminal, but provided PSU with no competitive athletic advantage (to the best of my knowledge).  Lastly, the NCAA takes forever to do anything.  If they began an investigation yesterday, it'd likely take 3 months or more before we heard their findings.  Just the way it is........


----------



## pjrose (Nov 11, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> . . .  Away from the locker room you could only imagine how the chit-chat propagated - "don't tell anybody but here is something about coach you won't believe...."



I don't think so, because Sandusky has been gone for a long time.  My guess is that the current and recent students were clueless.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 11, 2011)

Well, Sandusky is out on bail.  Bizarre.  My husband thinks he will end his life before he ever sees the inside of a courtroom.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Nov 12, 2011)

*Musings*

Is it possible the DA took his own life over guilt of not investigating/prosecuting charges in '98?

Is it possible that McQuary himself was victimized by a pedophile- perhaps even Sandusky?

There needs to be complete confidentiality for reporters of abuse. In our county, suspicions/allegations are investigated by Children's Services.  No matter how "minor" something might appear (e.g. horseplay), it should be reported and investigated. If an extensive media campaign to raise awareness and encourage people to report, with their anonymity guaranteed, the chain-of-command protocols in place in so many institutions could be avoided.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Nov 12, 2011)

I suspect it's taken time for everything to process. It's hit everyone across the nation hard, I can't imagine what it's like for the students at Penn State.  Thus shifting focus on the victims (pjrose thanks for the link) seems like a logical progression to me.  I hate to even say 'If anything good can come of this'... but if anything good can come of this it will be increased awareness of child sexual abuse and the repurcussions of looking the other way or covering it up.

Prayers are with the victims of Sandusky and all victims of sexual abuse (obviously this has opened wounds for countless people) and the students of Penn State (this list could on forever as the list of people affected goes on forever).

As far as playing the game. Game days here in Nebraska are big in this house. I never thought I'd ever hear my husband say Nebraska shouldn't play a game. Play or not, there are no winners today.

Yes Laura, I was kind of surprised to see that Sandusky was out on bail. (OK, had to delete the rest of my thoughts on that). 

Thanks TUG for being such a great sounding board.


----------



## JudyS (Nov 12, 2011)

The Penn State situation is truly appalling. I taught at colleges for 15 years and have seen first hand how administrators care more about protecting their school's reputation than they do about protecting crime victims. 

At one of the schools where I used to teach, Eastern Michigan University, a female student was raped and murdered by an intruder (a non-student who was apparently a stranger to her.) The administration claimed the student had died of an asthma attack! Other students and the community did not know the student was murdered until the local police announced they were charging a man with murdering her. (I imagine the administrators would have preferred that the police not even be involved, but it's kind of hard to keep the police out of a case when there's a dead body.)

The Eastern Michigan University case turned into a huge scandal and several members of the Board of Regents resigned, but I don't think any administrators faced criminal charges, even though the Campus Security Act requires college administrators to notify the public of crimes that occur on campus. If no suspect had ever been caught, Eastern Michigan University might have gotten away with their cover-up. 

At least in Michigan, where I live, college employees are *not* mandated reporters. This is because college jobs typically do not involve contact with children. In the 15 years I taught at colleges (plus several years as a graduate assistant), I was never given any sort of training on what to do if I witnessed or heard of a crime. (Administrators are supposed to report  crimes that have taken place, but there are no reporting requirements for rank-and-file employees.) I think this lack of training for college employees is another sign that administrators don't really care about stopping crimes on their campuses. I am not trying to excuse any of the Penn State employees, where the crime involved was extremely severe and it should have been obvious that the police needed to be notified. However, I do believe colleges should be more pro-active and train their employees about what to do if they suspect a crime has occurred, especially since not all crimes are as clear-cut as the ones at Penn State. Hopefully, the Penn State situation will make colleges take crimes more seriously.


----------



## Carta (Nov 12, 2011)

I'm weighing in on this waaay too late... But please hear me:  If u have not read the complete "Indictment", You cannot voice your opinion..... Please Google the indictment.... It's public info


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 12, 2011)

Carta said:


> I'm weighing in on this waaay too late... But please hear me:  If u have not read the complete "Indictment", You cannot voice your opinion..... Please Google the indictment.... It's public info



Agreed.  I have been on a few forums reading people's comments, and you can tell who has read it and who has not bothered.  A disclaimer is warranted though.  It is graphic in nature and very troubling indeed.

On a side note, I watched the beginning of the game before heading to the OSU game.  I was touched at how the team handled the beginning of the game, and props to ESPN for their beginning of the game coverage (note I only watched the first 3 minutes, the prayer at the beginning and the commentary afterward).  I felt alot of sympathy for the students in the stands.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 12, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> One talk show that I listened to brought up an interesting point about Joe Paterno, who is over 80 years old. He grew up in a generation that was less aware of issues like child molestation, and found them extremely embarrassing and difficult to deal with, and something that was not discussed openly.  If that was his mind-set, it may have seemed like this was too indecent for public discussion, and the best way was to quietly report it to administration, and let them handle it privately.



I, too, can understand this.  I am in my late 70s and grew up in an ethnic neighborhood in Philadelphia.  The adults I remember were hard working, church going, focused on their family and tended to mind their own business.  If behavioral issues took place within their family or neighborhood they took care of it themselves.  Otherwise it was someone else's problem to solve. We may not agree with this today, but that was the way it was.

George


----------



## ondeadlin (Nov 12, 2011)

There was some absolutely shameful behavior at the game today from people who are obviously incapable of keeping football in perspective.

It breaks my heart that not one person stopped to help this guy as he was being abused.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/12/penn-state-stadium-profanity-scorn-joe-paterno/


----------



## Tia (Nov 12, 2011)

Took plenty of courage and guts to do what he did,  and it's sad statement of ignorant people in this world. 



ondeadlin said:


> There was some absolutely shameful behavior at the game today from people who are obviously incapable of keeping football in perspective.
> 
> It breaks my heart that not one person stopped to help this guy as he was being abused.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/12/penn-state-stadium-profanity-scorn-joe-paterno/


----------



## Mel (Nov 12, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> So emphatically YES, I can tell you what I would do, what I have done, when I witness a child being abused.  I stand up.  I speak out.  I don't care who hears me, I don't care what the person doing the abusing has to say.  I will intervene.  I will call the police.  I have done it and will again if I have to.  Until you walk in that child's shoes you will never know what it is like to be them.  I do.  It sucks.  And I could not look at myself in the mirror if I didn't stand up for a child, like no one stood up for me.  So how McQueary looks at himself in the mirror every day is beyond me.  Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious, but it is what it is.


I understand you would report what you saw, but you are not McQuary, nor are any of the rest of us.  I honestly don't think most of us truly know what we would do in that situation.  We would like to think we would do the right thing, but there are so many other factors that weigh into the equation.  In your case, you are inclined to see things from the victims perspective, but most of us here are not.  With hindsight, perhaps McQuary would do things differently too.


beejaybeeohio said:


> Is it possible the DA took his own life over guilt of not investigating/prosecuting charges in '98?
> 
> Is it possible that McQuary himself was victimized by a pedophile- perhaps even Sandusky?
> 
> There needs to be complete confidentiality for reporters of abuse. In our county, suspicions/allegations are investigated by Children's Services.  No matter how "minor" something might appear (e.g. horseplay), it should be reported and investigated. If an extensive media campaign to raise awareness and encourage people to report, with their anonymity guaranteed, the chain-of-command protocols in place in so many institutions could be avoided.


Confidentiality would be a good step, but it doesn't really solve the problem.  If McQuary had reported what he saw to police, it would have been obvious it was him - Sandusky saw him.

Judging from the reaction we've seen of students on campus the other evening, and the fans on their way to the game today, I can understand why he didn't go any further than reporting to Paterno.  If he had taken it further, after reporting to Paterno, it would have called into question what Paterno had done - and we might have seen him fired for the same reasons 9 years ago.  And McQuary would have been seen as disloyal to the program and to the school.  Even now the school says he did not coach today because of threats - were they from those who thought he should have reported what he saw 9 years ago, or perhaps more likely from those who think he should have kept his mouth shut.  All the other witnesses brought down Sandusky - only McQuary brought down Joe Paterno.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 12, 2011)

I got an answer for a verbal and hostile situation witness:

"I walked away and looked away; so thankful that if was NOT me being attacked."


----------



## pjrose (Nov 12, 2011)

ondeadlin said:


> There was some absolutely shameful behavior at the game today from people who are obviously incapable of keeping football in perspective.
> 
> It breaks my heart that not one person stopped to help this guy as he was being abused.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/12/penn-state-stadium-profanity-scorn-joe-paterno/



Wow, just shaking my head.  Two men did pull away one woman who was yelling at him.  
And then the pamphlets about child sexual abuse littering the ground - what thoughtless slobs.


----------



## geoand (Nov 13, 2011)

gpurtz said:


> He is an incredibly good human being, notwithstanding the fact that he could have and should have been a better one.



His public personna was that he is a good human being.  His act of ignoring the child proves that he is not a good human being.

If he was told by a GA that the GA witnessed a murder in the shower room and Joe then told his boss about it and nothing else would you still think he was an incredible human being? He has shown me such a lack of character that I could not think of him as good human being.


----------



## geoand (Nov 13, 2011)

Talent312 said:


> Re: Paterno.
> If only the guy had retired a long time ago, when he should have, like at age 72, he might have somehow managed to keep his reputation intact. Instead, he hung around far too long, like a petrified tree, and now, its forever tarnished.



Tarnished because of what he did, not because he stayed too long.  By not taking action he did allow this stuff to continue.


----------



## geoand (Nov 13, 2011)

pjrose said:


> Is that just K-12, or also colleges?



It just befuddles this simple mind that we have to pass a law stating who reports a crime to the police.  I see something bad happen, I try to stop it and I report it to the police.  If I am in danger because I see something bad happen, I call police first and then try to stop it.  To me, that is what we are supposed to do for each other.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 13, 2011)

IMHO, Paterno's advanced age likely played a significant role in his failure to recognize and adequately perform his responsibility.  As we move into old age, our thinking becomes more restricted to familiar routines. Our cognitive capacity is less able to grasp the significance of things outside of our experience and we become more products of our past than the present.

Schools need to recognize when the time comes to put doddering icons out to pasture, both for their sake, and the sake of those for whom they are responsible. There are reasons why there are mandatory retirement ages in certain professions, like for pilots, judges, etc. It has to do with the ability to think critically about new information and to exercise good judgment when dealing with them.

At least FSU finally found the fortitude to give Bobby Bowden the boot. The tendancy is to leave old doddering cogers in place becuz they seem relatively harmless, but that is exactly when things start to go awry.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Nov 13, 2011)

Somewhere in the comments today, someone said that none of us know what we would have done if we had witnessed what McQuary did.  True, none of us are in his shoes with his history with the college or people involved.

That said, I've forced the issue in my professional life more than once over ethics and moral issues and ended up either quitting or being fired for doing so.  I can assure you, there is no doubt in my mind as to what I would have done!!!


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Nov 13, 2011)

geoand said:


> His public personna was that he is a good human being.  His act of ignoring the child proves that he is not a good human being.



I'm not defending Joe Pa, he did a very "bad" thing by not pursuing the sexual abuse reported to him beyond reporting it to his superiors.  But he is a "Human Being", as are we all, with acts of commission and omission to be regreted and amended.  None of us are saints and to say Paterno's not a good human being is not a judgement to be made by another human being.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Nov 13, 2011)

A big struggle for me with the situation, is not only the incident of 2002 not being addressed properly, but didn't the people that knew of it continue to  see Sandusky around high risk youth? They had to know how heavily involved he was in the Second Mile organization  If they didn't, they should have. I can't get past that.  Just thinking that stopping it from happening in the Penn State locker rooms was good enough is pathetic, IMO. 

Joe Paterno is a good person who made a bad decision. I agree his age/era played into that. A person in his position has more responsibilities than coaching a football team. 

FYI - My Dad will be 85 years old this month, he does not think Paterno should have been fired. He attended Penn State but I don't think that has anything to do with his opinion. My Dad will state his opinion, but not discuss it (again, I think, typical for someone that age).


----------



## geoand (Nov 13, 2011)

beejaybeeohio said:


> I'm not defending Joe Pa, he did a very "bad" thing by not pursuing the sexual abuse reported to him beyond reporting it to his superiors.  But he is a "Human Being", as are we all, with acts of commission and omission to be regreted and amended.  None of us are saints and to say Paterno's not a good human being is not a judgement to be made by another human being.



If that is true, than the judgement made by others that he is a good human being should not be made either.  Can't have just one way.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 13, 2011)

Sorry folks, but why should the football team be penalized for the wrong doing of an x-coach?

Also, according to the state of Penn. law coach P follow the letter of the law by reporting the incident to his supervisor.  He was not the one that saw the act taking place.

The victim are the children and we should never forget them.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 13, 2011)

Pedro, I'd agree with you IF the story was only about Sandusky molesting one boy one time, and - maybe - if Paterno himself hadn't admitted that he "should have done more."  But the scandal goes far beyond that, to an untold number of molestations over a period of years, supported by a culture fostered in that football program and probably encouraged (the culture, I mean, not Sandusky) by a revered Head Coach.  That monster was allowed free reign to victims who were already disadvantaged and a place in which to practice his atrocities.  This is WAY bigger than one incident, one perpetrator, and one report.


----------



## Big Matt (Nov 13, 2011)

Pedro,
I have trouble thinking about how lousy this is for the 80+ kids on the team and I'm torn because of that.

However, to me, the obvious answer is to eliminate the entire football program.  Get rid of it and then in a few years or maybe 10 they should reconsider it.  This is as big of a mess that I can remember for any athletic program at any level.  

It will never happen because of all the money at stake.  Actually, that's the real problem with all of this.  People at all levels looked the other way becuase of the extreme financial impact to everyone.  It makes me want to puke.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 13, 2011)

Yesterday I watched the game and couldn't help but think as the camera was panning over every face on the sideline, "did he know?"  And although I'm not exactly proud to say that I wanted them to lose, I did want them to lose so that there wouldn't be an opportunity for the team to parade to Paterno's house and give him the game ball.  That was their plan and the thought of it actually happening sickened me.  He does not deserve any of those idolization moments any more.

The reason I think the team should not be allowed to take the field now is because there is still too much unknown surrounding who knew what, and when.  As long as there is still one person involved with Penn State football - all the way through the ranks from the players to the university's administration - about whom you can look at and wonder, "did he know?," then the program shouldn't be allowed to continue as is.  It needs to be purged.


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 13, 2011)

In my opinion, this shows that many (especially sports, religious and scouting) organizations allow unfettered access to vulnerable youth. I would hope that their overseeing authorities would look closely at the 'leadership' to be sure that organizational loyalty doesn't upstage 'right.'

That said, I have no dog in this fight. No kids of my own. I am not nor have ever been, or are likely to ever be a youth leader of any stripe. I have said all I am saying on this abomination.

Seems to me that I read that there are to date, four separate investigations of this matter. We will become so sick of the details that- like learning on the news the finer details of oral sex in the late '90s- this whole affair will make man/boy sex common items of polite conversation. Yet another subject removed from the closet and placed before the court of public opinion.

If there were a hiatus of the football program after the current season, players could go to other institutions, coaches and administrators could seek employment elsewhere. It would be the price of turning a blind eye to betrayal of faith. *A bonus*: Penn State could benefit immeasurably by being noted for academic excellence, not sporting department misbehavior- which will be a post-script for years whenever Penn State is mentioned.

Jim


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 13, 2011)

$70,000,000 in profits every year is what that football program ADDED to the bottom line. Don't tell me those numbers DID NOT influence every decision at Penn State University. Full ride scholarships, salaries, equipment, offices, cars, recruiting, bonuses ==> this was BIG BUSINESS. It was elephant in the room and those kids were barely a mouse.

Maybe the Ivy League, Military academies, and Patriot League have it right. No scholarships for sports performance, no scouts, no special admissions, no special dorms, no special dining halls => you are a regular full credit course carrying student required to carry and PASS academic courses (not basket weaving 101 or sports psych 102).


----------



## pianodinosaur (Nov 13, 2011)

The University of Chicago eliminated varsity sports many years ago.  The lack of a football team had little impact on my urology residency and had little impact on my niece, when she attended The University of Chicago as an undergraduate.  We never missed the Monsters of the Midway.  We were too busy getting an education.

College sports seem to function as a farm league for professional football and professonal basketball.  Winning football teams bring in lots of money.  What is more important, a winning football team or the safety of children?  What is more important, moral conviction and courage or booster donations?  Follow the money trail.


----------



## Big Matt (Nov 13, 2011)

If you eliminate football, men's basketball, and some other unique situations (women's basketball at UConn for example), none of the other sports make any money for the colleges at all including: wrestling, track, cross country, mens and women's gymnastics, swimming and diving, field hockey, soccer.....the list goes on and on.  For these "Olympic" sports, the kids are generally treated like the rest of the student population.  

I played division I baseball in college and didn't get a dime.  We had to go to class, study hard, eat in the regular dining halls, stay in a dorm with other students, etc.  The ONLY advantage that we got was the ability to sign up for classes early to accommodate our practice schedules (afternoons).  To me that was a true student-athlete experience.  I wouldn't trade it for anything.  



vacationhopeful said:


> Maybe the Ivy League, Military academies, and Patriot League have it right. No scholarships for sports performance, no scouts, no special admissions, no special dorms, no special dining halls => you are a regular full credit course carrying student required to carry and PASS academic courses (not basket weaving 101 or sports psych 102).


----------



## Sandi Bo (Nov 13, 2011)

One of my daughters played softball for an NCAA Division III school. NCAA Division III cannot award athletic scholarships.  She was injured playing softball and eventually quit playing. If she had been on an athletic scholarship, the decision would have been more complicated. I remember thinking how nice it was that she could make her decision based on academics, and how right that felt.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 13, 2011)

deleted.  deleted.  deleted.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 13, 2011)

pedro47 said:


> Sorry folks, but why should the football team be penalized for the wrong doing of an x-coach?
> 
> Also, according to the state of Penn. law coach P follow the letter of the law by reporting the incident to his supervisor.  He was not the one that saw the act taking place.



Hey, you're right.  No biggie.  It was just horseplay between a couple guys.  Why should anyone be getting their panties in a bunch about this.  Let's go play some football, huh??


----------



## pjrose (Nov 13, 2011)

pedro47 said:


> Sorry folks, but why should the football team be penalized for the wrong doing of an x-coach?
> 
> Also, according to the state of Penn. law coach P follow the letter of the law by reporting the incident to his supervisor.  He was not the one that saw the act taking place.
> 
> The victim are the children and we should never forget them.





laurac260 said:


> Hey, you're right.  No biggie.  It was just horseplay between a couple guys.  Why should anyone be getting their panties in a bunch about this.  Let's go play some football, huh??



Every single coach, administrator, etc who knew about it should go n-o-w. And yes, I'm changing my earlier tune a bit, as I've been convinced by Laura and others that there were plenty of opportunities to STOP it beyond simply reporting it up the chain of command and then looking the other way. Maybe that's all the law required.....but I now know that wasn't enough.  

Then they could bring in interim coaches/staff from outside so the kids who are playing now and who (presumably) knew nothing could continue to play.  

I doubt this'll happen.....but it'd be a way for the current students to not have to pay for the staff members' screw-ups.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 13, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> ... But there IS a difference between being an 'sibling' (presumably still a child), and a grown adult...



Sorry, very wrong assumption. 

And yes, I did edit the original post for personal reasons. Perhaps, you can respect my position and edit your comments to respect my thoughts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 13, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> ... But it's not like McQueary was going to suffer the same fate. ...



Laura, can you envision the long-term culture of "protect The Program at all costs," to which McQueary was born and in which he was raised?  A culture which he finally bucked - as one of the lowest members - by demanding that his father help him, protect him while he stood up for what was right?  It's obvious that you think any person would be enraged in the situation he found himself.  Of course anyone would, no one disputes that!  But just as I can understand why the parents of children molested by priests did not take matters into their own hands or beyond the holy borders imposed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, I can understand why McQueary may have been terrified at that moment to confront Sandusky himself.  But he did immediately call his father from his office on campus and was told to go to his house, where he was somehow persuaded to take his concerns to Paterno the next day (possibly instead of what he wanted to do, get the police involved immediately?)  As others have said, the actions that he did take are most likely responsible for exposing the cover-up.  Do you really not see how he did what he may have thought was the only thing he could do?

Now I know this is all conjecture - obviously I don't know any more than you do about what McQueary was thinking or doing.  But I can at least appreciate that he was in a situation that probably none of us have ever been in.  Not just at that moment, but throughout his entire life.  (And admittedly, I may be unfairly applying what happened in my childhood parish to what went on at Penn State.  But I'll be very surprised to find that the similarities I see between the two don't actually exist.)


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 13, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> .... can you envision the long-term culture of "protect The Program at all costs," to which McQueary was born and in which he was raised?  A culture which he finally bucked - as one of the lowest members - by demanding that his father help him, protect him while he stood up for what was right?....)



I agree with your analysis. McQueary was born and raised in the The Program. His father was in The Program. There was only one team, one coach, one leader and he was a pupil of it all. No doubt the only people he ever dated, were part of that world of PSU also. 

And, thanks.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

Linda, you are right.  My apologies


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Laura, can you envision the long-term culture of "protect The Program at all costs," to which McQueary was born and in which he was raised?  A culture which he finally bucked - as one of the lowest members - by demanding that his father help him, protect him while he stood up for what was right?  It's obvious that you think any person would be enraged in the situation he found himself.  Of course anyone would, no one disputes that!  But just as I can understand why the parents of children molested by priests did not take matters into their own hands or beyond the holy borders imposed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, I can understand why McQueary may have been terrified at that moment to confront Sandusky himself.  But he did immediately call his father from his office on campus and was told to go to his house, where he was somehow persuaded to take his concerns to Paterno the next day (possibly instead of what he wanted to do, get the police involved immediately?)  As others have said, the actions that he did take are most likely responsible for exposing the cover-up.  Do you really not see how he did what he may have thought was the only thing he could do?
> 
> Now I know this is all conjecture - obviously I don't know any more than you do about what McQueary was thinking or doing.  But I can at least appreciate that he was in a situation that probably none of us have ever been in.  Not just at that moment, but throughout his entire life.  (And admittedly, I may be unfairly applying what happened in my childhood parish to what went on at Penn State.  But I'll be very surprised to find that the similarities I see between the two don't actually exist.)



Yes, I can see that culture.  And I can also see that I would not be comfortable compromising my principles to stay in such a culture.  But you are right.  I am not he, and he is not me.  Like someone else said, I can see this from the victim's perspective.  I don't wish that on anyone, but I can tell you that that child (now a man) has never forgotten McQueary's face as he saw what he saw.  He can close his eyes at any moment and see it.  And he will always remember that McQueary did not do enough.  I won't post on that point again, I think the horse has been killed and beaten enough.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

*gee, HERE'S A BIG SURPRISE*

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/1...oach-reportedly-continues-to-receive-monthly/


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 14, 2011)

Retired state pension for $27,500 MONTHLY is $330,000 YEARLY!!!!! As retirement pay!

Total BS.  No wonder why the inner circle was so tight. It was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!


----------



## Tia (Nov 14, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> Retired state pension for $27,500 MONTHLY is $330,000 YEARLY!!!!! As retirement pay!
> 
> Total BS.  No wonder why the inner circle was so tight. It was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!



Ditto, my thoughts exactly all along after I saw somewhere how much $$$$$$$ some of the football coaches are paid annually...


----------



## Patri (Nov 14, 2011)

Why didn't that judge recuse himself? Is no one sane in handling this case?
And Spanier also had a hefty salary. Maybe $800,000? That is mind-boggling, because he can only put in 40 hours per week (or as many as any salaried college president anywhere) so why should he earn so much (which bottom line affected tuition etc. And sound judgment on coaches).
At publicly-funded institutions, salaries should not mimic private industry. The leaders should do their jobs to bring in money and keep operations running smoothly, and if they can't handle it, someone else will take their spots.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Nov 14, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/1...oach-reportedly-continues-to-receive-monthly/



Perhaps Judge Leslie Dutchcot should be under investigation.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2011)

Patri said:


> Good grief. I think this is a little over the top. You want to punish students working their butts off at a tough college, many of whom never even go to a football game? The university has outstanding academic programs and THON. So the kids there today are now part of the problem?
> And why punish Nebraska? There has to be some common sense here.



I'm with you. 

Exactly how is the education diminished? 

What possible reason could there be to distrust a student who simply made a choice to attend a university where there happened to be a scandal?  

careful the baby doesn't go out with the bath water ...


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2011)

KarenLK said:


> I just read the Grand Jury pages and have one question...
> 
> What the #$%& was Mrs Sandusky thinking through all of this??...having kids sleep over. Didn't she know any of this was going on after all these years??? Just wondering.



I'm sure she knew.  I think that she was like the others, shut up and keep living your life.  Speak up and the standard of living you know goes POOF.

Wouldn't be the first wife to look the other way...


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 14, 2011)

geekette said:


> I'm sure she knew.  I think that she was like the others, shut up and keep living your life.  Speak up and the standard of living you know goes POOF.
> 
> Wouldn't be the first wife to look the other way...



As I posted earlier, she actually CALLED one of the victims before he was supposed to testify.  There is no valid reason for her to do that.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2011)

am1 said:


> The bad good way/bad way was about hiring students based on their colleges sports powers.  That is the way I feel about it.  I do not care to debate it as it is not important to this discussion.  If I was to see a resume from a Penn state grad the first thing I would think of was them rioting.



wow.  hope you are never a hiring manager.  what a bad way to pick the right person for your staff, envisioning bad acts on the part of the applicant based on where they went to school.  Simply ridiculous.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I don't think so, because Sandusky has been gone for a long time.  My guess is that the current and recent students were clueless.



agree.  I also doubt the "current players at the time" knew because weren't the children only around during their own events?  I didn't get teh idea that this was happening all the time in the locker rooms.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

geekette said:


> agree.  I also doubt the "current players at the time" knew because weren't the children only around during their own events?  I didn't get teh idea that this was happening all the time in the locker rooms.



The info is in the indictment.  It is very graphic, so if you choose to ferret out the answers you are asking, you will be reading more than you bargain for.  The children were around Sandusky all the time, at meetings, at pep rallies, to the games, when he travelled, it seems as though he took them with him every time he went somewhere.   Sandusky didn't just vanish when he "retired" in 99.  He continued to be a part of the fabric of Penn State.  He also was a volunteer coach at a local high school, where he had unfettered access to his "boys".   I'm not sure what "all the time" means, but he "showered" with the boys pretty frequently it appears.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> As long as there is still one person involved with Penn State football - all the way through the ranks from the players to the university's administration - about whom you can look at and wonder, "did he know?," then the program shouldn't be allowed to continue as is.  It needs to be purged.



Disagree.  Wonder is not evidence.  

I would sue for wrongful firing if I lost my job because someone thought I "should have known" there was an embezzler in accounting when I have nothing at all to do with accounting.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 14, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> He also was a volunteer coach at a local high school, where he had unfettered access to his "boys".


 
Should we shut down the high school too?  There were very serious events that took place here...  let's try and think rationally about this.

Also, some on here are making the presumption that 'everyone' knew.  Well 'everyone' did not know... I agree with the others that say leave the football program as it stands now, it's overkill to shut down the entire football program.  Don't worry, they'll pay a huge price on this one for a very long time.


----------



## geekette (Nov 14, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> The info is in the indictment.  It is very graphic, so if you choose to ferret out the answers you are asking, you will be reading more than you bargain for.  The children were around Sandusky all the time, at meetings, at pep rallies, to the games, when he travelled, it seems as though he took them with him every time he went somewhere.   Sandusky didn't just vanish when he "retired" in 99.  He continued to be a part of the fabric of Penn State.  He also was a volunteer coach at a local high school, where he had unfettered access to his "boys".   I'm not sure what "all the time" means, but he "showered" with the boys pretty frequently it appears.



I'm choosing to not read it, so thank you for clarifying.  I did not understand fully what the at-risk program entailed and did not imagine it to be ... so ...  * full time *


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 14, 2011)

geekette said:


> Disagree.  Wonder is not evidence.
> 
> I would sue for wrongful firing if I lost my job because someone thought I "should have known" there was an embezzler in accounting when I have nothing at all to do with accounting.





ace2000 said:


> Should we shut down the high school too?  There were very serious events that took place here...  let's try and think rationally about this.
> 
> Also, some on here are making the presumption that 'everyone' knew.  Well 'everyone' did not know... I agree with the others that say leave the football program as it stands now, it's overkill to shut down the entire football program.  Don't worry, they'll pay a huge price on this one for a very long time.





geekette said:


> I'm choosing to not read it, so thank you for clarifying.  I did not understand fully what the at-risk program entailed and did not imagine it to be ... so ...  * full time *



That's why I have such a problem with the football program continuing as is right now.  In addition to what Laura said, there are reports that Sandusky was using the Penn State facilities as late as a week before he was arrested on November 5th.  When he was forced to "retire" back in 1999, he retained "coach emeritus" status and was allowed continued access to the facilities.  In effect all they did back in 1999 was slap his wrist while letting him continue what he'd been doing.  Maybe they thought that the formal "retirement" would absolve them legally down the line when/if the scandal broke?  I don't know, but their concern was definitely NOT with Sandusky's victims.

There simply isn't any way to know right now how many, if any, current members at all levels of the Penn State football program know what has been covered up for all these years.  Certainly the various reports make it appear that all of the remaining staff and players are not innocent.  If the emphasis should be placed right now on Sandusky's victims, which I think is what we all believe, then how is it possible for us to be okay with the possibility that there are people aware of the cover-up who are still active in the program, and how is it possible that we can think the ability of the players to take the field is more important than the victims' healing process?

I agree, I really do, that there must be innocent people in that program and it's not fair that they could be made to suffer in order for the university to do the right thing for the victims.  But "collateral damage" occurs whenever a scandal like this is unearthed.  That's only the least of the sad facts involved here.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> That's why I have such a problem with the football program continuing as is right now.  In addition to what Laura said, there are reports that Sandusky was using the Penn State facilities as late as a week before he was arrested on November 5th.  When he was forced to "retire" back in 1999, he retained "coach emeritus" status and was allowed continued access to the facilities.  In effect all they did back in 1999 was slap his wrist while letting him continue what he'd been doing.  Maybe they thought that the formal "retirement" would absolve them legally down the line when/if the scandal broke?  I don't know, but their concern was definitely NOT with Sandusky's victims.
> 
> There simply isn't any way to know right now how many, if any, current members at all levels of the Penn State football program know what has been covered up for all these years.  Certainly the various reports make it appear that all of the remaining staff and players are not innocent.  If the emphasis should be placed right now on Sandusky's victims, which I think is what we all believe, then how is it possible for us to be okay with the possibility that there are people aware of the cover-up who are still active in the program, and how is it possible that we can think the ability of the players to take the field is more important than the victims' healing process?
> 
> I agree, I really do, that there must be innocent people in that program and it's not fair that they could be made to suffer in order for the university to do the right thing for the victims.  But "collateral damage" occurs whenever a scandal like this is unearthed.  That's only the least of the sad facts involved here.



There's a whole lot of things in this to be disgusted about, several people who saw questionable things  but one thing that really bothers me in the indictment was that in 2002, when it was reported to Penn State "authorities" about Sandusky having sex in the locker room with the boy (this is what was witnessed by McQueary by his own testimony), that Curley handled it by telling Sandusky he was not allowed to bring youth with him to the athletic facilities any more.  Really????  Boy, that sure fixes everything, right?  In other words, continue your practices on your own time, don't bring your dirty laundry here.  

Now we find out that the judge who let Sandusky out on bail was a contributor to his charity organization.  Who DIDN'T the guy have in his pocket?  It really makes me wonder, are people covering for him to protect the Penn State program, or did they give him coach emeritus status, access to the facility, a nice pension plan, etc, because he had dirt on someone(s)?


----------



## ampaholic (Nov 14, 2011)

geekette said:


> wow.  hope you are never a hiring manager.  what a bad way to pick the right person for your staff, envisioning bad acts on the part of the applicant based on where they went to school.  Simply ridiculous.



Wow, I hope not either. I went to school at UC Berkeley from 1969 - 73, how would that prejudice you? (one can only imagine).

:hysterical: (geez, dad said I should go to Cal Tech).


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2011)

What happened at Penn State is an inexcusable tragedy.  I support the recent actions of the Board of Trustees.  Firing the university president and the football coach are pretty significant steps.

In addition, there are multiple investigations going on.  The new long term football coach and university president will likely...and hopefully...be from outside the Penn State community to bring in some new blood and help reform the "good old boy culture" that has existed there.  (I doubt that the current interim coach and president will get the jobs permanently.)

In the meantime, I think that some people in the media and here on TUG have gotten a bit carried away. The victims need to helped, and they need time to heal.  So does the entire Penn State community.  

Shutting down the football program, blackballing Penn State graduates when hiring, and going on witch hunts to try to find and punish every single person who knew/should have known some of what was happening are not actions that will bring healing.  They are actions that will tear the community farther apart.  

Indeed, I'm sure there are at least a few people in the town of State College, PA who are not affiliated with the football program, Penn State, The Second Mile Charity, or even the high school where Sandusky spent time...yet knew what he was doing and didn't speak up.  How can we punish them?  Should we shut down the entire town of State College, throw everyone out, put up a fence, and declare it uninhabitable for the next 10 years?  (Kind of like a nuclear accident zone.)  Would that be enough?

What happened was a terrible moral failing and a tragedy for everyone involved...especially the victims.  However, you can't bring back the age of innocence by overkill now. That will only cause increased bitterness, divide the community, and make things worse.  (Look what happened after World War I.)  It's time for healing and for moving forward in a positive direction.  

Let Penn State play football.  Let the students and faculty and alumni and fans live their lives.  Never let them forget they have a moral responsibility to do the right thing.  And let's...each of us...recommit to living our own values instead of picking apart Penn State endlessly.

Steve


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 14, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> There's a whole lot of things in this to be disgusted about, several people who saw questionable things  but one thing that really bothers me in the indictment was that in 2002, when it was reported to Penn State "authorities" about Sandusky having sex in the locker room with the boy (this is what was witnessed by McQueary by his own testimony), that Curley handled it by telling Sandusky he was not allowed to bring youth with him to the athletic facilities any more.  Really????  Boy, that sure fixes everything, right?  In other words, continue your practices on your own time, don't bring your dirty laundry here.
> 
> Now we find out that the judge who let Sandusky out on bail was a contributor to his charity organization.  Who DIDN'T the guy have in his pocket?  It really makes me wonder, are people covering for him to protect the Penn State program, or did they give him coach emeritus status, access to the facility, a nice pension plan, etc, because he had dirt on someone(s)?



I agree, Laura, anything's possible here.  It seems every time you look at the situation from a different angle, you're left wondering if it will ever end or if there ever was a moment when someone other than any of the victims' parents stood up 100% for what is right and decent.  There's not one person about whom we can say "s/he did the right thing, no question."


----------



## CapriciousC (Nov 14, 2011)

JudyS said:


> At least in Michigan, where I live, college employees are *not* mandated reporters. This is because college jobs typically do not involve contact with children. In the 15 years I taught at colleges (plus several years as a graduate assistant), I was never given any sort of training on what to do if I witnessed or heard of a crime. (Administrators are supposed to report  crimes that have taken place, but there are no reporting requirements for rank-and-file employees.) I think this lack of training for college employees is another sign that administrators don't really care about stopping crimes on their campuses. I am not trying to excuse any of the Penn State employees, where the crime involved was extremely severe and it should have been obvious that the police needed to be notified. However, I do believe colleges should be more pro-active and train their employees about what to do if they suspect a crime has occurred, especially since not all crimes are as clear-cut as the ones at Penn State. Hopefully, the Penn State situation will make colleges take crimes more seriously.



Agreed - when I taught at a state university in California, professors were not classified as "mandatory reporters" (with the exception of those in the education/counseling/psychology fields who held state licenses).  I believe that this is a problem.  In a perfect world, such laws wouldn't be required, but then, we obviously don't live in a perfect world.  We had a rash of sexual assaults on female students one semester that I was teaching, and the administration urged us all to discuss the events with our students and give them some safety guidelines.  However, we were never given any instructions as to what we "should" do if we witnessed the abuse of a child.  My default reaction would be to contact the police and/or CPS, but I think that I think that way because a number of my friends are secondary school teachers.  When my husband and I were discussing this news over the weekend, he said his first thought would have been to notify the chain of command at the university.  I personally think he's wrong about this, but I think it's one of those areas between what is required per policy and what one should do ethically and morally.


----------



## Patri (Nov 14, 2011)

Steve said:


> Let Penn State play football.  Let the students and faculty and alumni and fans live their lives.  Never let them forget they have a moral responsibility to do the right thing.  And let's...each of us...recommit to living our own values instead of picking apart Penn State endlessly.
> 
> Steve



Thanks Steve, for a wise and calm post.


----------



## am1 (Nov 14, 2011)

It happens all the time.  Graduates do or do not get jobs based on the university they attended.  

I am pretty sure Penn State "sold" the Penn State name in the past.  

Seeing students rioting because a football coach was fire with cause is a black eye on the university as a whole.  

They had the opportunity to show everyone that they did not agree with what on but choose to riot instead.

It is quite likely Paterno did not know how bad this was as he never retired earlier.  It was hard to even say he was the head coach the last few years.  He already passed BB as the winningest college coach.  Unless his Ego was just way too big to let go or he stayed on so his son would continue to have a job with the program.  

The moment of silence at the game was a little off.  Thats the one thing the kids never needed.  It was nice to see the players meet up before and after the game.  Its too bad they were drawn into this mess.  

Even at a mid major school in a lower sport on a bad team life as a DI student-athlete is great. 

 I would think that every school breaks the NCAA rules but Penn State has gone way above and beyond even Miami, Ohio State and SMU.  The NCAA has too many rules but one this should add is moral decency. 




ampaholic said:


> Wow, I hope not either. I went to school at UC Berkeley from 1969 - 73, how would that prejudice you? (one can only imagine).
> 
> :hysterical: (geez, dad said I should go to Cal Tech).


----------



## geoand (Nov 14, 2011)

Steve said:


> What happened at Penn State is an inexcusable tragedy.  I support the recent actions of the Board of Trustees.  Firing the university president and the football coach are pretty significant steps.
> 
> In addition, there are multiple investigations going on.  The new long term football coach and university president will likely...and hopefully...be from outside the Penn State community to bring in some new blood and help reform the "good old boy culture" that has existed there.  (I doubt that the current interim coach and president will get the jobs permanently.)
> 
> ...



Certainly understand and respect your opinion.  I also agree with much of it.  However, I think all people who were involved in the coverup need to be identified.  That is only fair to those who were injured in such a horrible fashion.  I also think that all those who knew about the horrible acts need to be identified.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 14, 2011)

Culli said:


> I'm absolutely outraged that McQueary DIDN'T STOP IT while he witnessed it........How in the world could someone see that happen and not attempt to stop it!?!?!?!  Complete coward in my book, yes I don't know the whole story but I know enough of it to say YOU HAVE to protect an innocent child



McQueary sent an email to friends saying the truth is not out and that he did stop it.  Maybe you should wait and see what the facts are before you crucify him.  

George


----------



## pjrose (Nov 14, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> McQueary sent an email to friends saying the truth is not out and that he did stop it.  Maybe you should wait and see what the facts are before you crucify him.
> 
> George



Is that email available somewhere online?


----------



## easyrider (Nov 14, 2011)

ampaholic said:


> Wow, I hope not either. I went to school at UC Berkeley from 1969 - 73, how would that prejudice you? (one can only imagine).
> 
> :hysterical: (geez, dad said I should go to Cal Tech).



  We all know what goes on at Berkeley.......... Your on the list.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 14, 2011)

pjrose said:


> Is that email available somewhere online?



Here is the new report - http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...sky-alleged-sex-abuse-shower-article-1.977525


----------



## e.bram (Nov 14, 2011)

Security at Penn State are the police. it is a state institution.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Nov 14, 2011)

Thanks for posting the link Denise.

Even if he did stop that particular incident, what's he been doing the last 9 years?


----------



## Mel (Nov 14, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Here is the new report - http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...sky-alleged-sex-abuse-shower-article-1.977525


If you click through on another story, about the resignation of the CEO of Second Mile, at the end of that story there is this quote:


> The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reports that McQueary is consulting with an attorney after being placed on paid administrative leave following death threats about his testimony against Sandusky.


Perhaps that is partly why he didn't take things any further than reporting to his superiors as he did.  He did not have a legal obligation to report directly himself, and if there are death threats now, there probably would have been then too - particularly if he was the catalyst that ultimately brought Sandusky down.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

DeniseM said:


> Here is the new report - http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...sky-alleged-sex-abuse-shower-article-1.977525



That's not how he testified.  So either this, or his testimony, is false.  Which is it?


----------



## pjrose (Nov 14, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> That's not how he testified.  So either this, or his testimony, is false.  Which is it?



The GJ report is a synopsis, not a complete transcript - so maybe something was left out of the transcript?  Though I'd think stopping it, as he is now saying, would certainly have been important enough to keep in. 

Do they know the identity of that particular victim?


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 14, 2011)

pjrose said:


> The GJ report is a synopsis, not a complete transcript - so maybe something was left out of the transcript?  Though I'd think stopping it, as he is now saying, would certainly have been important enough to keep in.
> 
> Do they know the identity of that particular victim?



Nevermind. I deleted my post.    I've heard they don't know who he was.


----------



## 6scoops (Nov 14, 2011)

*Sandusky is talking!*

Can't believe his attorney is letting him speak.  He was just being interviewed via the telephone on Rock Center with Brian Willams.  What a creep!  Yuck, he say's "I shouldn't of showered with those kids."


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 14, 2011)

Sandi Bo said:


> Thanks for posting the link Denise.
> 
> Even if he did stop that particular incident, what's he been doing the last 9 years?



Among other things he reported what he saw to Paterno, the head football coach.   One and one half weeks later he retold his story to Curley, the Athletic Director and Schultz, who oversaw the University Police.  Recently he provided the testimony to the Grand Jury that helped secure multiple indictments.  

George


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 14, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> That's not how he testified.



Exactly what was his testimony?  All I can find is that it says in the Grand Jury Roport that "The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught".   

George


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 15, 2011)

Sandusky's interview from today - http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/15/video-the-jerry-sandusky-interview/


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 15, 2011)

disclaimer---I have no idea of the reliability of this rag, but for whatever this is worth, I stumbled upon this today...

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/14/111511-news-sandusky-lawyer-teen-web/


----------



## Mel (Nov 15, 2011)

I find it interesting in the interview that his lawyer thinks "these kids are going to come forward" and sayit didn't happen.  He says he has identified the kid McQuary saw - yet the state hasn't identified him.  I'm sorry, I wouldn't trust someone who now comes forward and claims to be that boy, saying it was all a misunderstanding.  If that was the case, why didn't he come forward in 2002?


----------



## scrapngen (Nov 15, 2011)

Sandusky's interview really creeped me out as well as made me sick. Granted, the whole situation does that, but hearing his voice describe actions he thinks are perfectly ok, and his deflection of those questions re: allegations he is accused of is sickening. It is clear that he feels he has done nothing wrong..

This was about money, pride and an institution (college football) that had become too big with too much power and people in authority felt they could make their own decisions about what constitutes a crime...

We think we live in an enlightened society with justice for all. We still have a long way to go when people are more concerned with the "program" than the victims.

The reporting and discussions/riots/ is all  about what should happen with the football program, the games, the head coach's and president's tarnished reputations, and very little about the victims. Death threats against the whistleblower, but no death threats toward the abuser who is really the one who should be blamed for the downfall of the program?? (not that I'm advocating death threats!) One man stands with a sign remembering the victims in a nonconfrontational way at the start of the football game and all HE gets is abuse, while the coach/team gets tons of support from the people?? Monetary support pouring in for the accused person's defense, but why no money pouring in for a victims' fund??

OK, there WAS a candlelight vigil for the victims, (after the riot supporting the head coach) and that man holding the signs took a very personal stand. Many people are truly horrified by these events. It is making national and international news. So there is hope that the culture can slowly change... It is even concievable that this would not have gotten the grand jury and publicity it is had if we not had  the priests and church coverups scandal. Hopefully, this will make more people aware that these crimes need to be reported and stopped.


----------



## geekette (Nov 15, 2011)

wouldn't surprise me if this is just tip of the iceberg and many football players and/or "ordinary citizens" that came out of that 'charity program' start coming forward.

The silence is over.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 15, 2011)

geekette said:


> wouldn't surprise me if this is just tip of the iceberg and many football players and/or "ordinary citizens" that came out of that 'charity program' start coming forward.
> 
> The silence is over.


 
Coming forward in what manner?


----------



## geekette (Nov 15, 2011)

I meant victims.

I find it hard to believe that a guy with such ...  impulses ... would have limited himself to a handful of kids.  I think there are more, and I think we will hear from them.

Someone that has gone thru life after such abuse may actually be relieved to tell his story, especially now that he would most likely be believed.  And would possibly want to help nail the guy, be supportive of the victims, etc.


----------



## boyblue (Nov 15, 2011)

What if...

What if Sandusky is telling the truth as it relates to Paterno (he said Paterno didn't know)
What if these allegations are proven false (Sandusky admitted to inappropriate contact – Which is serious, but it's not rape!)
What if we just wait on due process before we tear apart an exemplary 46 year career?  How about presumption of innocence man?

If this were a matter of facts, born out in a court of law I’d say scr%w  Paterno (Hang ’Em High), the wellbeing of those boys has to take precedence…
But right now it’s like that Nationwide commercial… on the one hand we have some serious allegations, and on another hand we have Joe PA’s 46 years of doing it by the book, and on another hand (yep three hands) we have the mob shouting “crucify him”.
Not to class Joe Pa with JC, but we all know that mobs tend to get their way.

Presumption of innocence! What you talkin bout Willis!


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 15, 2011)

boyblue said:


> What if...
> 
> What if Sandusky is telling the truth as it relates to Paterno (he said Paterno didn't know)
> What if these allegations are proven false (Sandusky admitted to inappropriate contact – Which is serious, but it's not rape!)
> ...



If you read the indictment, you see that McQueary's testimony is either  #1, from a very deviant individual (McQueary) who has a sadistic streak and a deep desire to bring another grown man down and destroy his reputation, just for spite, or #2, an actual rape of a young boy in progress.  

There just isn't a 3rd option.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 15, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> If you read the indictment, you see that McQueary's testimony is either  #1, from a very deviant individual (McQueary) who has a sadistic streak and a deep desire to bring another grown man down and destroy his reputation, just for spite, or #2, an actual rape of a young boy in progress.
> 
> There just isn't a 3rd option.



So now you believe that there is a possibility that McQueary is "a very deviant individual who has a sadistic streak".  To suggest this without any facts is outrageous!

George


----------



## boyblue (Nov 15, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> If you read the indictment, you see that McQueary's testimony is either  #1, from a very deviant individual (McQueary) who has a sadistic streak and a deep desire to bring another grown man down and destroy his reputation, just for spite, or #2, an actual rape of a young boy in progress.
> 
> There just isn't a 3rd option.



I read the 23 page document and I was repulsed.  Sandusky by his own admission has some serious issues.

There is nothing in the 23 pages that indicates that Paterno knew and did nothing.  A trial may prove that to be the case, but Paterno won't get that opportunity.  The court of public has done him in.

The charges are so serious that unpaid leave may have been appropriate for Paterno, but to fire him is obviously overkill and matter of feeding the mob.


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 15, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> So now you believe that there is a possibility that McQueary is "a very deviant individual who has a sadistic streak".  To suggest this without any facts is outrageous!
> 
> George



No, hardly.  You missed my point.  What I was saying was in response to BoyBlue who said, "what if the allegations are false?"  My point was that only a truly sick, deviant person would ever make up a story like that to hang on another person.  Either that, or what he said he saw was true, which means that the question "what if the allegations are false?" could only be met with an emphatic, "they can't possibly *be* false, because.... "


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 15, 2011)

boyblue said:


> I read the 23 page document and I was repulsed.  Sandusky by his own admission has some serious issues.
> 
> There is nothing in the 23 pages that indicates that Paterno knew and did nothing.  A trial may prove that to be the case, but Paterno won't get that opportunity.  The court of public has done him in.
> 
> The charges are so serious that unpaid leave may have been appropriate for Paterno, but to fire him is obviously overkill and matter of feeding the mob.



You said, <<What if these allegations are proven false (Sandusky admitted to inappropriate contact – Which is serious, but it's not rape!)>>  That's what I was replying to.  In my original post I had bold faced that sentence, but it did not show up boldfaced when I posted my reply. THAT is what I was replying to.


----------



## boyblue (Nov 15, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> You said, <<What if these allegations are proven false (Sandusky admitted to inappropriate contact – Which is serious, but it's not rape!)>>  That's what I was replying to.  In my original post I had bold faced that sentence, but it did not show up boldfaced when I posted my reply. THAT is what I was replying to.



I understand and I am almost certain that Sandusky will be proven guilty.  I am somewhat certain that Paterno will be proven innocent of complicity.  My only issue is the rush to judgement.

I haven't seen Americans this sure about anything since the WMD's - I'm just saying


----------



## laurac260 (Nov 15, 2011)

boyblue said:


> I understand and I am almost certain that Sandusky will be proven guilty.  I am somewhat certain that Paterno will be proven innocent of complicity.  My only issue is the rush to judgement.
> 
> I haven't seen Americans this sure about anything since the WMD's - I'm just saying



I have no idea about Paterno.  I have no idea what he knew or didn't know.  Curley (The Athletic director?)  testified that he told Sandusky that he wasn't to bring his "youth" to the facilities anymore.  That was his answer to the allegations.   I think he needed to go for not doing enough.  I really can't speak for Paterno.  He said himself that he should have done more.  I don't know if that is an admission of guilt, or a comment from a morally decent guy who wishes he had been involved enough to have done something.  Only time will tell.


----------



## boyblue (Nov 15, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> I have no idea about Paterno.  I have no idea what he knew or didn't know.  Curley (The Athletic director?)  testified that he told Sandusky that he wasn't to bring his "youth" to the facilities anymore.  That was his answer to the allegations.   I think he needed to go for not doing enough.  I really can't speak for Paterno.  He said himself that he should have done more.  I don't know if that is an admission of guilt, or a comment from a morally decent guy who wishes he had been involved enough to have done something.  Only time will tell.



We are in agreement.


----------



## Patri (Nov 16, 2011)

I just read the report. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Others have said the same thing. I guess the more negative you hear by more and more people, you get a preconceived notion of what it was going to contain.  It was icky, and my heart goes out to those boys. Despite our anything-goes society, they still had a sense of privacy and knew Sandusky was behaving inappropriately. And they had no skills to slap him upside the head and say, "Leave me alone, you pervert!" Even the adults didn't have the courage to challenge him face to face on the activities they found 'suspicious' or odd. The poor janitor told plenty of people, and his superior should be on the carpet for failure to act.
I don't believe McQueary told the police, as he is now alleging. Why would that not come up for the grand jury? They wanted the whole truth.
I hope the victims have received counseling and can lead healthy adult lives.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 16, 2011)

Patri said:


> . . .  those boys. Despite our anything-goes society, they still had a sense of privacy and knew Sandusky was behaving inappropriately. And they had no skills to slap him upside the head and say, "Leave me alone, you pervert!" . . .


*Maybe some did?*



Patri said:


> . . .  The poor janitor told plenty of people, and his superior should be on the carpet for failure to act.
> . . .



*absolutely*


----------



## ondeadlin (Nov 17, 2011)

boyblue said:


> There is nothing in the 23 pages that indicates that Paterno knew and did nothing.  A trial may prove that to be the case, but Paterno won't get that opportunity.  The court of public has done him in.
> 
> The charges are so serious that unpaid leave may have been appropriate for Paterno, but to fire him is obviously overkill and matter of feeding the mob.



The report clearly states on p. 7 that the graduate assistant, after having witnessed Sandusky raping a young boy in the Penn State showers, went and told Paterno the next day.  The report further states that Paterno testified to essentially the same facts, saying the graduate assistant told him Sandusky was doing "something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

So, yes, there is clearly something in the 23 pages that indicates Paterno knew - his own testimony.

At that point, Paterno had a moral obligation to go to the police.  So did the graduate assistant.

Paterno was properly fired for failing to do this.  The graduate assistant's career is essentially over as well.

It's a shame they both didn't do the right thing, and that they've lost their careers over it, but it's also a reminder that power and personal motives can warp all of our perspectives if we're not careful.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2011)

boyblue said:


> I read the 23 page document and I was repulsed.  Sandusky by his own admission has some serious issues.
> 
> There is nothing in the 23 pages that indicates that Paterno knew and did nothing.  A trial may prove that to be the case, but Paterno won't get that opportunity.  The court of public has done him in.
> 
> The charges are so serious that unpaid leave may have been appropriate for Paterno, but to fire him is obviously overkill and matter of feeding the mob.





ondeadlin said:


> The report clearly states on p. 7 that the graduate assistant, after having witnessed Sandusky raping a young boy in the Penn State showers, went and told Paterno the next day.  The report further states that Paterno testified to essentially the same facts, saying the graduate assistant told him Sandusky was doing "something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
> 
> *So, yes, there is clearly something in the 23 pages that indicates Paterno knew - his own testimony.*
> 
> ...



Good lord.  If Paterno knew nothing then I'll print out every post in this thread and eat the papers.

It's one thing to understand why any of the people involved in this took the actions they did; it's another to try to use those excuses to exonerate certain of them.  I can see why people who love Paterno want to find an excuse for him but there simply isn't one.  He admitted that he knew something!  Every single person who knew something and did nothing should lose his/her job - it's that simple for me.  The lawyers have months, years!, ahead of them to try to prove their cases and send folks to jail, but the university needs to act more swiftly and decisively to clean up that program.  A light dusting means nothing - they need to scrub it with bleach.

As horrifying as Sandusky's actions are, the story here is the cover-up.  Most folks are aware that pedophiles exist - even if you live your whole life without ever coming into contact with one you can't deny that they are out there.  But what makes this so much more horrifying is that apparently many powerful people knew that this particular pedophile was actively abusing boys among them, yet they still sacrificed victims for the money generated by their football program.  Their collective greed enabled the monster.  That's despicable, and that's why folks with no connection to the community ("the mob," I'd guess) are so invested in the story.


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 17, 2011)

*Like peeling an onion....*

It seems like every day we learn more about what we want to know less about. It's like peeling the layers off an onion. And the tears flow.....

Imo, Paterno's action of transferring his house and assets to his wife's name is not the action of a blameless person.

Jim


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 17, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> ....Imo, Paterno's action of transferring his house and assets to his wife's name is not the action of a blameless person.
> 
> Jim



Agreed. And the news reports say this was done in JULY!


----------



## Elan (Nov 17, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> Imo, Paterno's action of transferring his house and assets to his wife's name is not the action of a blameless person.
> 
> Jim



  Doesn't everyone start their estate planning at age 84?


----------



## Timeshare Von (Nov 17, 2011)

Hasn't this thread reached "controversial social issue" status yet?


----------



## pjrose (Nov 17, 2011)

Timeshare Von said:


> Hasn't this thread reached "controversial social issue" status yet?



I don't think so - I think most people are pretty much on the same track, and people are being very polite   It's getting repetitive....but that's not against TUG rules.

Besides, I think it should stay open for when new info is released.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Nov 17, 2011)

I agree... I've been following along silently and basically I'm in shock.   But I think with people discussing it, it helps others understand the severity of the problem and maybe some people may come forward in their own lives with things they see.  While I think my generation is more likely to report something there is still that abuse of power that scares people and some times people just don't report things.   It has definitely opened my eyes.  I had no idea.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2011)

Timeshare Von said:


> Hasn't this thread reached "controversial social issue" status yet?



I don't think so.  When I think of "controversial social issues" I think of things like abortion or assisted suicide or something like those things which, when discussed, result in people polarizing into pro- and con- camps.  And generally, which result in the participants resorting to blanket insults against anyone who's seen to be in "the other camp."  (Truly, I hope simply mentioning the topics to illustrate the point doesn't result in a mod shipping me to Neverland. I honestly didn't know how to make the point without the words.)

This particular topic isn't polarizing at all - we all agree that pedophilia is an abomination which shouldn't be tolerated.  Though we might have minor disagreements about the fall-out, nobody has been disrespectful in the way that's usually seen with polarizing subjects.  IMO.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> Agreed. And the news reports say this was done in JULY!



Does this coincide with when he testified to the Grand Jury?  If he consulted an attorney when he was summoned (which any reasonable person would,) was he then advised to protect his assets?  It's possible.  As much as I believe he was more responsible for the cover-up than anyone, because of the power he held which could have prevented the cover-up before it began, I don't think I have a problem with him protecting his assets on his attorney's advice.


----------



## ace2000 (Nov 17, 2011)

I'm starting to get a good idea on how the lynch mobs worked in the old days.  Just because someone hears something from someone else... rumor, fact, or otherwise does not constitute KNOWING.  This goes for Paterno and any of the others that didn't witness a crime.  

Yes, Paterno made a serious judgement error.  But, the man has suffered enough in my opinion.  Don't worry... he'll pay a heavy price.  The football team will pay a heavy price.  And Penn State will pay a heavy price.

.


----------



## am1 (Nov 17, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> I'm starting to get a good idea on how the lynch mobs worked in the old days.  Just because someone hears something from someone else... rumor, fact, or otherwise does not constitute KNOWING.  This goes for Paterno and any of the others that didn't witness a crime.
> 
> Yes, Paterno made a serious judgement error.  But, the man has suffered enough in my opinion.  Don't worry... he'll pay a heavy price.  The football team will pay a heavy price.  And Penn State will pay a heavy price.
> 
> .



Civil suits are still to come.  You are right he has paid a heavy price already but he should do all he can do to help his legacy.  Doing things like transferring your assets is not going to help that. Regardless of the reason.

Looks like another situation is starting at Syracuse.


----------



## pjrose (Nov 17, 2011)

Article about Victim Four - abuse went far beyond the shower.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/jerry_sanduskys_victim_four_te.html


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 18, 2011)

ace2000 said:


> I'm starting to get a good idea on how the lynch mobs worked in the old days.  Just because someone hears something from someone else... rumor, fact, or otherwise does not constitute KNOWING.  This goes for Paterno and any of the others that didn't witness a crime.
> 
> Yes, Paterno made a serious judgement error.  But, the man has suffered enough in my opinion.  Don't worry... he'll pay a heavy price.  The football team will pay a heavy price.  And Penn State will pay a heavy price.
> 
> .



Ironic, isn't it?  If all the folks who knew Sandusky's "secret" had formed a mob long before now, there'd be no need for the mob forming now.


----------



## Tia (Nov 18, 2011)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-allegations/2011/11/18/gIQA05w1XN_story.html

Seems this story has given some other victims courage to tell now too....


----------



## geekette (Nov 18, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Ironic, isn't it?  If all the folks who knew Sandusky's "secret" had formed a mob long before now, there'd be no need for the mob forming now.



Yep.  Very true.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Nov 19, 2011)

*Charity Founded By Sandusky Makes Plans To Fold*

CHARITY FOUNDED BY SANDUSKY MAKES PLANS TO FOLD- by Mark Viera, Jo Becker & Pete Thamel/ College Football/New York Times


Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 10, 2011)

*Expert Questions Makeup of Penn St. Case Charity*

Expert Questions Makeup of Penn St. Case Charity - by GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press / Yahoo!Sports/Rivals.com


Richard


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 10, 2011)

I would be in favor of TUG forming its own posse to called out whenever the concensus was that someone needed to be:
-- tarred+feathered;
-- run out of town on a rail; or
-- thrown to the sarlacc to be digested for a thousand years (Star Wars).


----------



## bobpark56 (Dec 10, 2011)

Talent312 said:


> I would be in favor of TUG forming its own posse to called out whenever the concensus was that someone needed to be:
> -- tarred+feathered;
> -- run out of town on a rail; or
> -- thrown to the sarlacc to be digested for a thousand years (Star Wars).



Of course...and these folks would not be required to have facts either. Simple opinion will do!


----------



## Tia (Dec 15, 2011)

Dateline has a segment on tomorrow  Dec 16 about the missing DA, Ray Gricar.

http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/


----------

