Penn State/State Pen [split]

[Conor Dary]

Curious that there is nothing in the grand jury testimony about McQ going to the police, the governor knew nothing about it and none of his friends did since he is trying to convince them that he in fact did.

If McQ in 2002 did go to the police like he claims, wouldn't he have told Paterno who would have informed the world that the cops were notified...my guess is McQ will say anything now.

[Pego]

Isn't that Boss Hogg?
Once upon a time, a prominent South Texas rancher named Hogg named his twin daughters Ima and Ura

It sure seems to me that Mr Hogg hated his little girls with passion, lol.

[odelltrclan]

here's where I'm going. No I don't think the DA's decision not to charge was the end of the story, especially not if the decision was the result of collusion between the DA and Paterno and/or other PSU officials, in order to cover up Sandusky's pedophilia and thus protect the football program. That may not be the case, but it certainly looks like it to me. And in fact PSU did not wash its hands of Sandusky, and that is perhaps its main problem. He continued to have full access to the facilities, among many other things, up until 2002, and lesser access even after that. he had an office at Penn State for christsakes. How does that constitute "washing one's hands?" Regardless of legalities, if in 1998 Paterno knew or had very good reason to believe that Sandusky was a pedophile, he had a moral obligation not to sweep it under the rug, and at the very least had an obligation not to facilitate the pedophilia, which is what he pretty clearly did do when Sandusky retained access to facilities.

Yes, all of what you say is possible, or plausible even, but more akin to Fox Mulder and the X-files. From what you know now, using an emotional response, you insinuate that Joe Pa appears to be near the Almighty in power and influence over his subjects. That 1) he is actively flexing that power and influence over a DA to forego doing his job. In doing so, you appear to presume also that all that is known NOW about Sandusky was going on then and also known to PSU and Paterno.

More plausible to me is that PSU and Paterno were disturbed by what happened in 1998 and essentially told Sandusky that he was no longer welcome as a coach and would not advance further and essentially to go away. The legal authorities did their job (you would think that most people in their positions would have integrity to do so) and concluded there was not enough evidence that the coach was banging juniors, that this one weird incident was probably an isolated and extreme lapse of judgment. That to me is "washing their hands". He was no longer a paid employee, nor had any future with PSU.

If the legal authorities and police concluded there was no wrongdoing , it is plausible they continued to let the Second Mile continue to use the facilities (wherein this access you mention comes from) for what they perceived to be a good thing, helping a youth charitable organization.

You also state that Paterno had a moral obligation not to "sweep it under the rug" with reference to the 1998 incident. I am not sure how could you suggest this? The police were involved, the boy's mother was notified and was part of the investigation, and the DA was involved. Absent anything we now know occurred after that time frame, how could you suggest an obligation to do more? I think Joe Pa more likely was being misled by a liar just like the rest of the community. I think the worst you could say (in 1998) was that he was trusting and naive.

[Pego]

The police were involved, the boy's mother was notified and part of the investigation, and the DA were involved. Absent anything we now know occurred after that time frame, could you suggest obligations to do more? I think Joe Pa more likely was being misled by a liar just like the rest of the community.

I think we are on the same page. The only person beside Sandusky that I have a real problem with is the 1998 DA and he is dead.

[lonewolf]

The fact is, in a situation like this, perception has the same effect as reality. For the greater good of the institution, if that is their priority, to avoid perception/suspicion of cover up, those in charge must take aggresive corrective action at time.
I have neither animus or reverence for Paterno/Pennstate and I perceive that JoePa and other Penn State authorities conspired to cover up.

[26mi235]

Presumably McQueary told police after talking with Paterno, as the event was Saturday evening and he talked with Paterno first thing Sunday morning.

All sorts of scenarios are possible given the still limited information available, especially with some of it seeming to contradict other pieces. the 1998 -> 1999 non- promotion/(forced?) resignation--failure to take another head coaching job for $1million/year raises some flags, but there are several divergent possibilities.

[jeremyp]

At this point, am I the only one who has had "McMartin Preschool" run through his head?

I certainly hope so! If you're buying Sandusky's interview I can only attribute that to a "senior moment."

[Dutra]

Presumably McQueary told police after talking with Paterno, as the event was Saturday evening and he talked with Paterno first thing Sunday morning.

All sorts of scenarios are possible given the still limited information available, especially with some of it seeming to contradict other pieces. the 1998 -> 1999 non- promotion/(forced?) resignation--failure to take another head coaching job for $1million/year raises some flags, but there are several divergent possibilities.

Initially McQueary was said to have told Paterno who told the AD who told the guy in charge of Campus Police. McQueary then met with the AD and the head of Campus police (oddly without Paterno...at least to me). So he did speak to police. He hasn't said that he called police about the incident initially.

My biggest problem is calling dad instead of police. Call the police whether you broke it up or not.

Also....there are so many instances where there seems to be issues which can be construed that there is a potential coverup throughout this entire story that it is not difficult to understand why some think this is a much bigger problem than those who are willing to accept things at face value.

PSU lobbied the PA legislature to pass a law in which it was no longer required to disclose records normally made public....such as incidents like this. It's a little too convenient to me. There are a multitude of conveniences running through this story.

[Dutra]

More plausible to me is that PSU and Paterno were disturbed by what happened in 1998 and essentially told Sandusky that he was no longer welcome as a coach and would not advance further and essentially to go away.

Giving a former coach and office with full facility access is a pretty odd way of telling someone to go away.

We already know that two members in this chain were willing to couch the truth enough to earn a perjury charge. So concluding that just maybe there's some serious shenanigans going on in handling Mr. Sandusky's situation with more than they.

[jeremyp]

Since neither of Mcqueary's late mea non culpas were recorded by either the Grand Jury or the police one has to assume he's changing history. Pun intended. Too little, too late.

[Dutra]

Summation to this point with some new points of interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sport ... =4&_r=2&hp

[26mi235]

Thanks, Dutra; worth reading to get a sense of the unfolding of things.

[KevinM]

Another good piece:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/m ... =cf_t11_a7

[Conor Dary]

Good piece. Penn State is sure one screwed up place...

'Sandusky kept his office at Penn State and continued to have full access to the football facilities. The lone result of the 2002 incident -- a decision approved by Spanier -- is that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing children on campus. Don't do it here. Among all the graphic and horrifying detail in the grand jury testimony, this point is perhaps most damming.

Sandusky's alleged activity continued. It just moved elsewhere. The only two victims in the grand jury report whose identities remain unknown -- whom authorities couldn't contact -- were the ones assaulted on the Penn State campus. Had Sandusky not been so brazen in Mill Hall, had he simply restricted himself to the football facilities in State College, there is little to suggest he would have been caught. For Sandusky -- if not for the boys -- Penn State football was a safe haven.'

[SQUACKEE]

It probably wont matter because there will most likely be many victims and eyewitnesses coming forward, but If Mcqueary lied when he said he went to the police, the defenses attorney will eat him alive when he testifies,i.e.- he is a liar, we can't believe a word he says.

[KevinM]

At this point I’m most interested in this case not to see a rapist punished (though that is certainly a good thing), or to see more and more folks take a fall at PSU (though that may also be justified), but as a way to further expose the ridiculous power and institutional hypocrisy that is part and parcel with college sports at almost all levels.

The big question, of course, is how to make effective changes when the ruling body (NCAA) is governed by university presidents whose jobs, because of irrational alumni giving and use of influence, are often as tied to the success of the football and basketball teams as the coaches and athletic directors.

[Conor Dary]

It probably wont matter because there will most likely be many victims and eyewitnesses coming forward, but If Mcqueary lied when he said he went to the police, the defenses attorney will eat him alive when he testifies,i.e.- he is a liar, we can't believe a word he says.

Perhaps. But there is a difference between testifying under oath and sending out a spurious email.

[26mi235]

My guess is that he had discussions with the police and they did not file anything formally -- possibly (probably?) because their boss said not to, that they would handle Sandusky and had already banned him from bring kids on campus. It is the easiest scenario that fits the 'facts' cited in the report and consistent with the statements of people deemed 'credible' by the Grand Jury.

[Conor Dary]

My guess is that he had discussions with the police and they did not file anything formally -- possibly (probably?) because their boss said not to, that they would handle Sandusky and had already banned him from bring kids on campus. It is the easiest scenario that fits the 'facts' cited in the report and consistent with the statements of people deemed 'credible' by the Grand Jury.

There is like zero evidence McQ talked to any police. Nothing in the grand jury report which doesn't seem likely if true. Why hide that fact? Having some cop as a fall guy seems more like PS's mo.

[Dutra]

My guess is that he had discussions with the police and they did not file anything formally -- possibly (probably?) because their boss said not to, that they would handle Sandusky and had already banned him from bring kids on campus. It is the easiest scenario that fits the 'facts' cited in the report and consistent with the statements of people deemed 'credible' by the Grand Jury.

There is like zero evidence McQ talked to any police. Nothing in the grand jury report which doesn't seem likely if true. Why hide that fact? Having some cop as a fall guy seems more like PS's mo.

I still think McQueary is referring to Gary Schultz...the VP of finance and business who was also the head of Campus Police....when he mentions that he had "discussions" with the police. Those "discussions" occurred 10 days after the fact. Technically he's correct and he's in no danger of taking anyone else down because Schultz is already on the hot seat for what he didn't do.

[26mi235]

The Grand Jury is not citing all of the evidence. They talked with McQueary under oath. They find his testimony credible and that of those charged (e.g., the VP/head of Campus Police) not credible. Given that assessment do you think that it is unlikely that McQueary talked with police but it did not end up as a formal complaint still in the system, possibly quashed by the VP (Schultz)?

Note that several years of records from the Second Mile are missing starting from after the first reported/recorded incident (about 2000-2003, although at least part of one year was found misfiled).

I am amazed that people cite things like 'no evidence' that he filed anything when there are parties involved that might have had reasons not to have everything filed? It is one thing to note that there are pieces that might not fit from what we have heard. It is another to make a major statement drawing conclusions from a deliberately incomplete record that was not even supposed to be released publicly at this point.

The only individual that has had things look better for him as we got a bit more is McQueary and he has been treated in a significantly different manner in that presentment. Since that presentment is a small subset of the available evidence and testimony that they have, why not try to base your speculations on things consistent with that piece of 'evidence'?

[gh]

With over a billion members, the Catholic Church is a awfully big to be a cult.

All churches are cults, period. But that might be a topic for another thread.

I was under the impression this sort of name calling and bashing of major organized religions was not allowed on this forum. But apparently GH does not give a rats.

I "don't give a rats" largely because I tuned out of this thread ages ago. If I saw this in passing, I thought little of it, and in looking at it now, I think little of it. What was stated is completely true, and the conversation didn't wander off into an ugly space.

I realize that "cult" is a word that is frequently used with sinister overtones, but the primary meanings have everything to do with religion and/or being totally devoted to some movement. Heck, if the people who participate here (myself prime among them) aren't a cult, I don't know what is. And I'm proud to belong.

[Avante]

No way I read all that so....

Penn State was right in firing Paterno, where they were wrong was playing a football game. They should have forfeited the Nebraska game, instead they sent the message..."no matter what we play football". Yes I know..."you don't punish those innocent players"....in this situation you don't see it as punishment, you see it as lack of needing to win a football game. Lives were altered due to what happened at Penn State. To think a football game is approriate right after learning of that horrendous situation....wrong! Too bad some college kids will miss a football game over this This isn't about them it's about the victims.

I can see ending the season "after" Nebraska. No need to totally dump the football program for 2011. I do think a bowl game is out of the question, not that any bowl would want them considering the situation.

I do think Sandusky is guilty of everything and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Life in prison...very cool~~~~~

[guru]

I do think a bowl game is out of the question, not that any bowl would want them considering the situation.

I guarantee you folks in Pasadena(not to mention the Big 10 home office)are rooting hard for Wisconsin next week.

[26mi235]

I do think a bowl game is out of the question, not that any bowl would want them considering the situation.

I guarantee you folks in Pasadena(not to mention the Big 10 home office)are rooting hard for Wisconsin next week.

Want to add Madison to that list?

Two last-minute losses, and still the chance to salvage the season with a Rose Bowl win requiring four more straight wins.

[donley2]

With over a billion members, the Catholic Church is a awfully big to be a cult.

All churches are cults, period. But that might be a topic for another thread.

I was under the impression this sort of name calling and bashing of major organized religions was not allowed on this forum. But apparently GH does not give a rats.

I "don't give a rats" largely because I tuned out of this thread ages ago. If I saw this in passing, I thought little of it, and in looking at it now, I think little of it. What was stated is completely true, and the conversation didn't wander off into an ugly space.

I realize that "cult" is a word that is frequently used with sinister overtones, but the primary meanings have everything to do with religion and/or being totally devoted to some movement. Heck, if the people who participate here (myself prime among them) aren't a cult, I don't know what is. And I'm proud to belong.

I have no reason to get stuck on this issue, but actually do appreciate the fact you responded with your thought process.

[Avante]

I do think a bowl game is out of the question, not that any bowl would want them considering the situation.

I guarantee you folks in Pasadena(not to mention the Big 10 home office)are rooting hard for Wisconsin next week.

I hear that. Right now it's the big story and should be. A sad and terrible deal. However, by the time of the Rose Bowl those not really close to the situation will be tired of it. Put Penn State there and here it comes again. The media thrives on that stuff. The football world wants things to be fun.

[guru]

In the when it rains, it pours department...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45360259/ ... _football/

[gh]

The VP of student affairs (former) chimes in with some unflattering stuff in a long USA Today piece. This about a campus brawl:

<<.."The coach was literally telling his players that they couldn't cooperate with judicial affairs or they would get kicked off the team. So we were going nowhere in getting to the bottom of things," Triponey said. "I said to the coach, 'This would be so much easier if you would tell your players just to tell the truth.'

"He was livid, and the message to me was, 'I can't do that. They have to play for me and I can't ask them to rat on each other.' The president also chimed in and said, 'Vicky, the coach is right. We can't expect the players to tell the truth.' So that's the environment that was underlying this whole debate about who's in charge."...>>



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... 51346682/1

[gh]

The first (of how many?) lawsuits has been filed.

http://jezebel.com/5863933/sandusky-law ... n-30-years

[gh]

Sandusky's attorney is mounting a brilliant defense: after he's convicted he can have Sandusky claim he had an idiot for a lawyer!

http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2011/12/13/sandusky’s-lawyer-gives-phone-number-for-gay-sex-line/?tsp=1

[Daisy]

Amendola announced that anyone who believes that Sandusky is a child molester should call “1-800-REALITY.” The folks at Deadspin did, and this is what they discovered:

1-800-REALITY is a gay sex line that offers “the hottest place for triple-x action … Just 99 cents per minute.”

Reality is a bitch.

[jazzcyclist]

Sandusky's attorney is mounting a brilliant defense: after he's convicted he can have Sandusky claim he had an idiot for a lawyer!

http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2011/12/13/sandusky’s-lawyer-gives-phone-number-for-gay-sex-line/?tsp=1

Come on man. You're making this up.

[Marlow]

I'm afraid that as this drags out, we're going to get some very bizarre statements from the defense. I feel sorry for any jurors whose intelligence is going to be insulted on a daily basis.

[Pego]

I'm afraid that as this drags out, we're going to get some very bizarre statements from the defense. I feel sorry for any jurors whose intelligence is going to be insulted on a daily basis.

I cannot wait for the "expert" testimony for the defense. That ought to be good.