sickening penn state football allegations

[Tim McG]

1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but stays on as a volunteer and retains full access to the campus and football facilities.

Because, uh, they do that for everybody?

Read it again, Jim:

1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed, according to the testimony included in the grand jury report of the police detective who investigated the incident.

Case declared closed in 1998 by DA and University Police

It's not really a matter of a lack of consistency. Goodspeak has not bothered to master the simple facts of the case. Arguing with him is a fool's errand.

Oh?

Who isn't familiar with the case now, Mr. Simple Facts?

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Pete C]

Seems to me this is no longer about Paterno, it's about GoodSpeak.

Funny how that happens...

[Larry Kart]

Do you think we'll eventually find out that the case that was closed by the University Police in 1998 was closed in part because of pressure from within and above? Further, given that Sandusky was widely regarded as Paterno's heir apparent, why was he told when still in his 50s that the job would not be his and why, with his long track record of high achievement as a coach, did he then retire and not get a job coaching elsewhere? Curious, no? He did, after all, groom every linebacker at Linebacker U. for 32 years and would seem like a person who would be in demand. Could it be that be that Joe Pa scratched him off the list because he knew or suspected post 1998 what Sandusky was up to? Also, you do know that the DA in that case then went missing and that his computer, with its hard drive missing, was found in a river:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/questions-on-sandusky-wrapped-in-2005-gricar-mystery.html?scp=1&sq=gricar&st=cse

[JSngry]

1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but stays on as a volunteer and retains full access to the campus and football facilities.

Because, uh, they do that for everybody?

Read it again, Jim:

1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed, according to the testimony included in the grand jury report of the police detective who investigated the incident.

Case declared closed in 1998 by DA and University Police

Yeah, I got that. Now let's read this again:

1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but stays on as a volunteer and retains full access to the campus and football facilities.

Being accepted as a volunteer and allowing said volunteer to retain access was an entirely discretionary act on the part of the school, and unless Paterno's role in the school was that of a total pawn, he would have had the ability to veto this. But he and/or they didn't.

Why not?

Is it standard procedure at Penn State to allow anybody and everybody who retires from a position to retain full access? Did Sandusky threaten to expose other improprieties? Did Paterno & Co, not take the allegation seriously, figured it was a one-time lapse of an otherwise fine fellow and accept his resignation "with regrets"? Was everybody involved in the decision-making process so "old school" in their thinking that child rape was viewed as a "peccadillo" instead of an act of vileness, and gee, sorry you had to go through all this, Jerry, no hard feelings I hope?

1999 was not 1949. The notion of an adult "getting their jollies" with kids was no longer allowed to have any ambiguity attached to it. Paterno & Co, either A) outright refused to believe the accusation, even with an eye-witness account of one of their own; B) believed the accusation but didn't find anything particular wrong with it; or C) believed the accusation, found it repugnant, but still let Sandusky have full, unsupervised (one must assume) access to facilities so as to keep up appearances.

A = Irresponsible & naive, B = Repugnant C = Borderline (at best) criminal negligence

Under what set of circumstances do the actions of 1999 in the wake of the events of1998 not constitute a fundamental FAIL?

Edited November 11, 2011 by JSngry

[Tim McG]

Seems to me this is no longer about Paterno, it's about GoodSpeak.

Funny how that happens...

This from the guy who attempted to goad me earlier.

Look, you guys are hammering me...it isn't the other way around. You don't want me to react, then get off me.

See also:

personal responsibility

Do you think we'll eventually find out that the case that was closed by the University Police in 1998 was closed in part because of pressure from within and above? Further, given that Sandusky was widely regarded as Paterno's heir apparent, why was he told when still in his 50s that the job would not be his and why, with his long track record of high achievement as a coach, did he then retire and not get a job coaching elsewhere? Curious, no? He did, after all, groom every linebacker at Linebacker U. for 32 years and would seem like a person who would be in demand. Could it be that be that Joe Pa scratched him off the list because he knew or suspected post 1998 what Sandusky was up to? Also, you do know that the DA in that case then went missing and that his computer, with its hard drive missing, was found in a river:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/questions-on-sandusky-wrapped-in-2005-gricar-mystery.html?scp=1&sq=gricar&st=cse

Pressure from PSU? You bet. They didn't report the Sandusky/grad assistant allegation to the autorities either so I'd say it is quite possible PSU applied some pressure here.

Let me add a few questions of my own: Could it also be that Paterno didn't do anything else because the case was closed by the authorities? Is an accusation as good as guilt? Why is it everyone here assumes the worst in people? Is it at all possible you all could be wrong about this?

Paterno is a scapegoat because of the same PSU idiots who blew it back in 1998. Period.

Sandusky is the criminal.

Time to re-focus, guys.

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

Could it be that be that Joe Pa scratched him off the list because he knew or suspected post 1998 what Sandusky was up to?

That's really the most logical explanation, which renders the retaining of full access and privileges all the more negligent. It would have been one thing to just rid yourself completely of the guy but remain totally closed-lipped about the reason why, that's a fully corporate thing to do, bad, but "normal" enough. We have no legal grounds to accuse you further, but you have no legal right to remain anywhere near us.

But if you have suspicion enough to get the guy out of your business plans but still keep him around in any and every other way, that's nothing more than a simple failure to grasp basic reality due to god only knows what convoluted delusions...

Hey Jerry, you know, we don't think you're morally fit to be the future of Penn State, but, uh...here's the keys to the house and the car. Beer in the fridge, help yourself. Behave yourself now, ok?

Good call, guys!

[Tim McG]

1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but stays on as a volunteer and retains full access to the campus and football facilities.

Because, uh, they do that for everybody?

Read it again, Jim:

1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed, according to the testimony included in the grand jury report of the police detective who investigated the incident.

Case declared closed in 1998 by DA and University Police

Yeah, I got that. Now let's read this again:

1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but stays on as a volunteer and retains full access to the campus and football facilities.

Being accepted as a volunteer and allowing said volunteer to retain access was an entirely discretionary act on the part of the school, and unless Paterno's role in the school was that of a total pawn, he would have had the ability to veto this. But he and/or they didn't.

Why not?

Is it standard procedure at Penn State to allow anybody and everybody who retires from a position to retain full access? Did Sandusky threaten to expose other improprieties? Did Paterno & Co, not take the allegation seriously, figured it was a one-time lapse of an otherwise fine fellow and accept his resignation "with regrets"? Was everybody involved in the decision-making process so "old school" in their thinking that child rape was viewed as a "peccadillo" instead of an act of vileness, and gee, sorry you had to go through all this, Jerry, no hard feelings I hope?

1999 was not 1949. The notion of an adult "getting their jollies" with kids was no longer allowed to have any ambiguity attached to it. Paterno & Co, either A) outright refused to believe the accusation, even with an eye-witness account of one of their own; B) believed the accusation but didn't find anything particular wrong with it; or C) believed the accusation, found it repugnant, but still let Sandusky have full, unsupervised (one must assume) access to facilities so as to keep up appearances.

A = Irresponsible & naive, B = Repugnant C = Borderline (at best) criminal negligence

Under what set of circumstances do the actions of 1999 in the wake of the events of1998 not constitute a fundamental FAIL?

C'mon, Jim.

You cannot discount the fact the case was closed just to make your point. Otherwise, it has no basis in truth.

Could it be that be that Joe Pa scratched him off the list because he knew or suspected post 1998 what Sandusky was up to?

That's really the most logical explanation, which renders the retaining of full access and privileges all the more negligent. It would have been one thing to just rid yourself completely of the guy but remain totally closed-lipped about the reason why, that's a fully corporate thing to do, bad, but "normal" enough. We have no legal grounds to accuse you further, but you have no legal right to remain anywhere near us.

But if you have suspicion enough to get the guy out of your business plans but still keep him around in any and every other way, that's nothing more than a simple failure to grasp basic reality due to god only knows what convoluted delusions...

Hey Jerry, you know, we don't think you're morally fit to be the future of Penn State, but, uh...here's the keys to the house and the car. Beer in the fridge, help yourself. Behave yourself now, ok?

Good call, guys!

So, again, suspicion, assumption, conjecture and assumption are as good as facts? Well, then let's get a rope and hang the bastard!

Man, with all due respect here, I sure hope none of you guys work in the court system or are on the police force.

Edited November 11, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

C'mon, Jim.

You cannot discount the fact the case was closed just to make your point. Otherwise, it has no basis in truth.

Discounts are for Wal-Mart...and I try to avoid Wal-Mart.

And you cannot discount that Paterno had a choice to make about what to do with Sandusky after his resignation.

Or are you claiming that acceptance as a volunteer and being granted full, unsupervised access to campus and facilities is legally mandated & not a discretionary act?

Not even Wal-Mart sells it that cheap!

Well, then let's get a rope and hang the bastard!

No, let's just accept that he made a seriously flawed judgement for which he is now being held accountable (or if you like, "being held accountable"), and let it go at that.

I've no doubt that if not for the publicity, he'd not be going through this right now. So in that sense, he is in some fashion a "scapegoat". I'm not having any illusions about the purity of intent of the university's actions in all this.

Best case scenario - everybody who fucked up gets brought to light and is held accountable. Everybody.

Realistic scenario - Full Justice will be Partially Served.

But if you really did fuck up - and Paterno really did fuck up - you don't get a Free Pass just because your persecutors are not Pure Of Heart. Life don't work that way.

Edited November 11, 2011 by JSngry

[Brad]

Apparently Paterno has retained the services of a well known criminal attorney, which is probably a wise move, and the assistant coach has been put on administrative leave, apparently for his own protection.

[Pete C]

This from the guy who attempted to goad me earlier.

In your rhetorical world view, "agree" and "goad" is a common dichotomy.

[alocispepraluger102]

Apparently Paterno has retained the services of a well known criminal attorney, which is probably a wise move, and the assistant coach has been put on administrative leave, apparently for his own protection.

the assistant coach is in protective custody at an undisclosed location after numerous death threats. somebody will be killed in this mess, if they haven't been already.

"i'm done coaching," he said.

his players were denied a chance to visit him.

[Quincy]

After seeing this report I totally get why the grad student didn't intervene.

[Aggie87]

After seeing this report I totally get why the grad student didn't intervene.

...it's all clear now!

[alocispepraluger102]

second mile foundation tries to separate itself from founder

article

[Tim McG]

This from the guy who attempted to goad me earlier.

In your rhetorical world view, "agree" and "goad" is a common dichotomy.

Please.

Your make-believe understanding of what it means to goad people is astounding, to say the least. Denial, at best.

You're famous for this shit, Pete.

Don't play games with me...we've already been down this road. You ain't kiddin' nobody with this pretend protest. We've met. OK?

[Big Wheel]

It's getting to be about that time again...

Edited November 12, 2011 by Big Wheel

[TedR]

Quite frankly the facts that are known in this case and, more importantly, what is unknown is making my head spin. The positive part of this thread for me is learning what procedures should be followed if, God forbid, as citizens we are witness to this kind of abuse and assault. Quote from today's paper (forgive me if this 2008 high school complaint has already been discussed but it's new to me):

"But a full decade passed before police began another investigation into Sandusky after another mother (in 2008)reported Sandusky's alleged behavior to a {local high school] where Sandusky was a volunteer coach and her son was a freshman. The high school immediately barred Sandusky from school property and reported the behavior to authorities, which led to the investigation and Sandusky's indictment. IT'S STILL UNCLEAR WHOM THE SCHOOL TOLD THAT SANDUSKY HAD BEEN BANNED AND WHY........During most of that time (between 2008 and his indictment in 2011) Sandusky remained active with the Second Mile.....Asked who had been told of Sandusky's 2008 banning, [the high school] issued a statement saying it would be "inappropriate" to comment. 'ALL THE PREDATOR NEEDS FROM US IS SILENCE AND INACTION', said David Clohessy" [the director of SNAP, a network of survivors of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests].

So, according to this report, the high school reported to "authorities" (police or Child Protective Services?)and, after a 3 year investigation, Sandusky was indicted. Even with the high school correctly following procedures, Sandusky, banned from a high school and Penn State facilties, still was allowed to be with kids. In hindsight we know that Sandusky remained a predator. But, in 2008, it was known he was banned from two places and, still, he was allowed full freedoms elsewhere.

Something needs to be improved so parents and average citizens can more effectively protect their children besides waiting for the procedures in place to deal with these situations.

edited to say ALL CAPS were my emphasis

Edited November 12, 2011 by TedR

[Tim McG]

Quite frankly the facts that are known in this case and, more importantly, what is unknown is making my head spin. The positive part of this thread for me is learning what procedures should be followed if, God forbid, as citizens we are witness to this kind of abuse and assault. Quote from today's paper (forgive me if this 2008 high school complaint has already been discussed but it's new to me):

"But a full decade passed before police began another investigation into Sandusky after another mother (in 2008)reported Sandusky's alleged behavior to a {local high school] where Sandusky was a volunteer coach and her son was a freshman. The high school immediately barred Sandusky from school property and reported the behavior to authorities, which led to the investigation and Sandusky's indictment. IT'S STILL UNCLEAR WHOM THE SCHOOL TOLD THAT SANDUSKY HAD BEEN BANNED AND WHY........During most of that time (between 2008 and his indictment in 2011) Sandusky remained active with the Second Mile.....Asked who had been told of Sandusky's 2008 banning, [the high school] issued a statement saying it would be "inappropriate" to comment. 'ALL THE PREDATOR NEEDS FROM US IS SILENCE AND INACTION', said David Clohessy" [the director of SNAP, a network of survivors of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests].

So, according to this report, the high school reported to "authorities" (police or Child Protective Services?)and, after a 3 year investigation, Sandusky was indicted. Even with the high school correctly following procedures, Sandusky, banned from a high school and Penn State facilties, still was allowed to be with kids. In hindsight we know that Sandusky remained a predator. But, in 2008, it was known he was banned from two places and, still, he was allowed full freedoms elsewhere.

Something needs to be improved so parents and average citizens can more effectively protect their children besides waiting for the procedures in place to deal with these situations.

edited to say ALL CAPS were my emphasis

On this point we absolutely agree, Ted.

How anyone who has been indicted for child molestation can be allowed to continue working with kids show a complete breakdown in the Child Protective Services department in that state.

My guess is because the charges were dropped in 1998, that somehow made it "OK", I won't speculate. But it sure looks like the system is irrevocably broken.

[BERIGAN]

Ashton Kutcher, super genius....

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2011/11/ashton-kutcher-said-something-impossibly-stupid/

[alocispepraluger102]

judge who granted cashless bail to jerry sandusky is a volunteer at his foundation.

no conflict of interest there.

conflict of interest

[Pete C]

The head of Second Mile has resigned in hopes it would help the organization regain public confidence.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/14/head-of-charity-in-penn-state-sex-scandal-resigns/

I didn't know before just now that Sandusky's biography has an eerily ironic title.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Pete C

[alocispepraluger102]

if you thought the way penn state football program was screwy, wait till you hear about their lady basketball program.

the president had a media opportunity the other day and a journalist asked the president about the penn state situation. "heartbreaking. we think first and foremost of the victims of these alleged crimes. it's a good time for us to do some soul searching, every institution, and not just penn state, about what our priorities are, and making sure our first priority is protecting our kids. we all have a responsibility, we can't leave it to a system. we cant leave it to someone else."

he's talking about soul searching. when he says it's time for soulsearching about our values of kids vs. sports and all that, the president needs challenged as to why HE continues to do special favors for kevin johnson, a former boston celtic, now mayor of sacramento. there have been 2 major accusations of him groping underage girls, one in a shower while naked, strange six figure payoffs to the one girl's parents, similarly in sacramento. there was another issue a bout a student in one of his charter high schools, not to mention his misuse of americorps(remember the americorps inspector general resignation earlier this year?), funds. obama goes to the mat for this guy. the man has a history of doing things with underage women-children, strange payoffs and intimidation of people. why aren't all the moral watchdogs in our society paying any heed to this matter?

the president maintains a friendship with johnson. would the president enjoy having mr. johnson around his lovely daughters?

at penn state, back in 2003, a young woman named jen harris, an honors graduate of a prominent high school accepted a sholarship to play basketball for penn state lady lions. a year and a half later, ms. harris was dismissed from the basketball team . rene portland, her unbelievably great sucessful coach, with the blessings of the university administration currently hiding the man-boy rape scandal, made no secret of her training rules. if you were to play womens basketball at penn state, there were to be no drugs, no drinking(football players can drink), and NO lesbians. portland's intention, she told the chicago sun-times was "to take the stigma of lesbianism out of women's sports."

some female athletes are gay; some male athletes are gay.. so what.

portland was hostile to athletes she suspected, included harris, who was apparently not gay, driven to the point of suicide.

harris, sick of the homophobia in women's sports filed a lawsuit against portland, penn state athletic director tim curley, and the university, alleging discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation. she had no idea other young women on the team would come forward detailing abuse and discrimination at the hands of penn state university.

portland promised parents she would take good care of young athletes she was enlisting.

any girl on the team she suspected of lesbian tendencies was kicked off the team.

times change, and coaches, and the rest of us must change.

penn state, at the same time, is tolerating one of their major coaches boinking young boys and god knows what else.

ethics are ok, i guess, until they interfere with your or my or our institutional goals or friendships.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Rene_Portland

yosuke yamashita trio

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=sB_cOgLa4rA

Edited November 14, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[alocispepraluger102]

The head of Second Mile has resigned in hopes it would help the organization regain public confidence.

http://newyork.cbslo...candal-resigns/

I didn't know before just now that Sandusky's biography has an eerily ironic title.

thnks. pete, for the excellent article touching a lot of bases.

the legal fees in this mess would have fed 10,000 hungry youngsters.

[Aggie87]

Interesting info regarding McQueary, from SI.com:

Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary said in an email to former teammates that the “truth is not out there fully” regarding his involvement in the grand jury indictment of former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, according to Peter Alexander of NBC News.

“I did the right thing…you guys know me…the truth is not out there fully…I didn’t just turn and run…I made sure it stopped…I had to make quick tough decisions,” McQueary said in the email, according to a series of tweets from Alexander.

In 2002, McQueary was the graduate assistant who reportedly saw former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy in the shower at the Penn State athletic facility. McQueary told the grand jury that he reported the incident to former head coach Joe Paterno, who was fired late Wednesday night.

McQueary did not coach in Penn State’s game against Nebraska on Saturday and is reportedly in “protective custody.”

If this is true, my regard for him has gone up a little bit - though it still baffles me as to why not a single person - McQueary included - went to the police, ever.

[Chuck Nessa]

yup. seems self serving.