Jerry Sandusky Busted/Paterno did NOTHING to prevent him from continuing his assault on children.

[sakata_catching]

Madden is a shock jock and a shameless self-promoter, and I'm inclined to take anything he says with a grain of salt, but anyone who thinks the bombshell he dropped yesterday is too far-fetched to believe should familiarize themselves with the Casa Pia scandal in Portugal.

In fact, it was the first thing I thought of when I learned of Sandusky's involvement with Second Mile.

[SteveA]

He had another conversation with JoePa about it beyond the first Saturday? I hadn't read that.

Don't know about that. But you go to someone, "distraught", and report a sexual act, and they pass that on to your superiors.

And then you work side by side with that person for hte next 9 years and never talk about it again? And never wonder how it got swept under the rug and covered up?

I just don't buy it. McQuery should have been fired too (as I have said repeatedly in every post and I don't think a single person has chosen to disagree).

But I'm sorry, I can't guy the "forgetting" angle for Paterno. Not with Sandusky a frequent presence there (he worked out in the gym on nearly a daily or weekly basis with Bradley, his successor and now interim coach). Not with McQueary working on his staff for hte next 9 years, earning promotion from grad assistant to actual assistant coach and eventually to the point where he is the guy calling the plays.

The absolute minimum Paterno should have done is gone back, at some point after it became clear that this was being swept under the rug (perhaps when the decision was made to not allow Sandusky to bring kids to the facility anymore), and go to McQueary and say: Tell me again what you saw. Look me in the eye and tell me you aren't making htis up.

And if McQueary did that, the ONLY moral thing to do is to pursue it further. Got to the state police, child services, the media.

The ironic thing about all this is that if Paterno had done just that... it would NOT have hurt the program. He would be considered an incredible hero for exposing a coverup even at the expense of his program's image. Of not sitting there and allowing Curley/Schulz/whoever to whitewash a horrible crime so that the University's image didn't take a hit.

But the bottom line is that at some point it had to become obvious to Paterno and McQueary that the truth was being covered up. And they chose to go with the flow and allow that to take place.

[PrivateO]

This whole thing sounds like a sick, twisted episode of Law and Order: SVU.

[SammyBirdland]

If this is what happened, then Paterno is certainly both morally and legally culpable. I disagree that the report says anything that makes it look like JoePa was told anal sex and told the people he reported fondling. And I'd argue that the law would indicate otherwise. If that were true, I'm not sure why JoePa wouldn't also be indicted like the other two men. JoePa testified X, McQueary testified Y. If they disagreed when discussing what was said during that meeting by that much, he would certainly have been indicted unless the grand jury is also complicit in protecting him.

Paterno potentially downplaying the nature of the allegations isn't really the crux of the issue here. Regardless of what Paterno told Curley and Shultz, McQueary testified that he met directly with Curley and Shultz a week and a half later (Paterno wasn't there). McQueary used the words "anal sex" in the report that he gave to them during this meeting (page 7 of the indictment). Curley denied this, which is why he's facing perjury charges.

These people are in hot water because they knew that Sandusky was a witnessed child rapist, they didn't call the cops (although they can claim they called the cops in contacting Shultz), they continued to watch Sandusky walk around the office/campus/gym for ten years, and no one said a thing.

[SammyBirdland]

This assumes that during that initial conversation, McQueary wanted to press the issue forward and Paterno wanted to minimize. What if McQueary was telling Paterno, I don't want to call the police? What if McQueary was upset but unwilling to really verbally deal with what he saw in that meeting? What if McQueary was the minimizer in that initial conversation? Is that so hard to believe? He talked to the AD 10 days later.

This is irrelevant to me. Is it relevant to you? If you tell me that you just saw someone having anal sex with a ten year old, somebody is calling the cops. It's either you, or me. You can pick.

Joe Paterno's own words in the indictment say that McQueary told him that he "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." It's on page 7. Here is the document. The words are from Paterno's own testimony and are in the indictment. Perhaps there was a downplay by McQueary. We don't know if he used the words "anal sex" or if he said he "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy". It doesn't matter. There were enough words told to Joe Paterno to act, according to Joe Paterno's statement.

For reference, here is a photo of a random 10 year old boy.

If you witnessed a grown man having anal sex with the kid in that picture, would you call the cops? If someone came to you distraught telling you that they just saw a grown man having anal sex with the kid in that picture or that he "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" to the boy in this picture, would you call the cops? Would you think anything of Sandusky walking around your office for 10 years after the incident?

It's a horrible call to have to make, but it shouldn't be a tough decision.

Edited November 11, 2011 by SammyBirdland

[SammyBirdland]

The crux for JoePa's culpability (to me at least) is what he knew and when. Was it a vague report of "something" with no detail from an assistant who never mentioned it again or was it much, much more. If he minimized, he isn't the man I thought he was and I take back everything I've written about him here.

Here is what Joe Paterno testified that McQueary told him:

"the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy"

[SammyBirdland]

Yup, but nearly saying anal sex or sexual assault. It sounds like McQueary was unwilling to say what he saw. He just said it was wrong. He clearly said "anal sex" to AD when they finally got around to interviewing him 10 days later. Hence, it isn't hard for me to believe that he was downplaying it in the original JoePa meeting.

Ok, have it your way. He may not have said the words "anal sex" to Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno says that he said "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".

Here are a list of some things that I would report to police:

- Murder

- A hit and run where I got the license plate

- An adult having anal sex with a ten year old

- An adult in a shower fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy

- A group of people attacking a person on the street

Edited November 11, 2011 by SammyBirdland

[royalstillman]

If there was one person who could have put an end to this,it was Joe freakin' Paterno.He can say in hindsight,blah,blah,blah all he wants.He's Joe freakin' Paterno for crying out loud!He had nine years to mull over this.Joe decided being a football coach came first and foremost.Period.Like Tony says,actions speak louder than words.

[Dipper9]

Sure, if he said anal sex or forced himself on him or anyone that specific, there is no debate that Paterno not only should have gotten McQueary to call the cops that day, but he certainly shouldn't have allowed himself not to see some result/change to Sandusky's status in the future. There is a lot of evidence McQueary didn't say anything nearly that strong or specific in the meeting. McQueary has been quoted as saying that via 2nd hand account (it isn't clear in the GJ report IMO). JoePa himself has said in the last few days to the media that he wasn't told anything nearly that strong by McQueary. He said the same to the grand jury. He wasn't indicted for perjury. As a matter of fact, he was cleared and identified as a cooperating witness. That isn't normal if his actions were what folks are suggesting. Again, maybe the grand jury is protecting the man, but they sure didn't protect anyone else. They indicted the others when the other weren't even the focus of the investigation.

You can find ways to defend him all you'd like, but the fact is, I don't care if the words were "I just saw Sandusky kissing a naked boy in the shower" that should been MORE than enough for Paterno to take it to the cops. If you don't see that, then I really don't want you around my kids!

[SammyBirdland]

And that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I'm not calling the police on a 2nd hand report from someone who won't call the police themselves unless I have some other information supporting it. As I've written many times, I would have made it my responsibility to get more info though. I can't explain or justify why he didn't.

That's fine. If that's the case, you shouldn't be in a leadership position at a university.

[SammyBirdland]

I wouldn't potentially ruin someone's life on a 2nd hand vague report by calling the cops.

I bet you would if it were your child.

"Mr. Vatech! My name is Little Timmy and I'm at summer camp with your son, Rodrigo! We're six hours driving distance away. I'm sorry that I'm crying, but I really need to tell you something! I just saw the camp counselor in the shower with Rodrigo. It hurts to say exactly what I saw, but I need to tell you, he was fondling him or doing something of a sexual nature with him. My cell phone is about to die, I gotta go."

Edited November 11, 2011 by SammyBirdland

[SJA]

I've said this before, but if they were covering up for the guy, then why wouldn't they tell him to get as far away from the program and school as possible? It doesn't make any logical sense why they would let him hang around if they knew what he was doing. I just don't get it.

The adage of keep your friends close and your enemies closer seems to apply here. Are you going to completely shun the man who was supposed to be the great JoePa's successor and cause a LOT of eyebrows to be raised? That would certainly get the media digging into your program. Plus, maybe you think you can control him (not that I believe that to be the case here, but it's a possibility). Also, shunning could lead him to go elsewhere and then the potential that he gets into trouble there and then gets linked back to his issues at PSU.

Here is a great article by Sarah Ganim from The Patriot-News who has been covering this long before this week. It mostly summarizes the Grand Jury report, but there are other items that she brings up including:

McQueary is a guy who once stepped in and broke up a player-related knife fight in a campus dining hall ? a fight police admit could have been very ugly.

So if this guy had the courage to step in and break up a knife fight, why didn't he have the courage to stop a thin older man abusing a child. To me it's clear that he was more worried about the program (and his future in it) than an innocent child. Truly pathetic.

Also included in this piece is a story of his foster (then later adopted) children. The child (Matt) attempted suicide several months after being placed in the Sandusky home. His birth mother and the probation department had serious concerns about his well-being in the Sandusky home. Matt defended the Sandusky's though...to the point that even years down the road, he would bring his own children (Jerry's grandchildren) to visit. Those visits are no longer allowed per court order.

This doesn't really support or "convict" Jerry in any way, but it does provide some info that I hadn't seen reported anywhere else.

[Dipper9]

Yeh, Dip that is what we need, more emotional hyperbole. Because smart decisions are routinely made when people ratchet up the emotion and get out the pitchforks. Now I'm not safe to be around kids because I wouldn't potentially ruin someone's life on a 2nd hand vague report by calling the cops.

IF YOU are the Head Football Coach and the God of Happy Valley, and are telling me that you wouldn't call the police after receiving a tip that another staff member had seen a man sexually abusing a child, then you can call it hyperbole or whatever you'd like, but I, Dipper, don't want you anywhere near children. Be offended if you'd like, and be pissed at me if you'd like, but it is unfathomable that Paterno, or you, would rather allow children to be abused then to *gasp* possible ruin the reputation of your Pal.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I bet you would if it were your child.

So rash and emotional responses without any thought are ok?

[SammyBirdland]

So rash and emotional responses without any thought are ok?

That's not a rash and emotional response without any thought. But yes, it's ok. We're on an internet forum, speak your mind.