Why did Penn State officials conceal Sandusky at all?

[Machine Elf]

Penn State is in hot water now because they endeavored at several levels to conceal Sandusky's molestation of children.

Question: Why did they do it? What did they think would happen if they quickly fired Sandusky and referred him to the authorities for criminal prosecution as soon as they first became aware of his actions? Can someone outline what potentially bad consequences might have befallen Penn State if they had taken that approach instead of trying to bury the whole thing?

[Gagundathar]

It seems weird in retrospect, but maybe they were worried about Penn State's reputation.

[Darryl Lict]

Joe Paterno deemed it so.

[Victor Charlie]

No matter how you cut it, it would've been a huge embarrassment to have Paterno's heir apparent raping little boys. The really inexplicable part is that they didn't think they'd eventually get exposed.

The other reason? They're scumbags.

[md2000]

I'm guessing that it's for the same reason the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and numerous other organizations did... "I've known this guy for decades, that does not sound right, there must be some mistake, tha accusers are just disturbed troublemakers, the story is not credible, even fighting this in public will soil the stellar name of our organization, if we ignore the problem it will go away, we can't afford to lose our excellent assistant, if it's true how come nobody has complained before..." etc. etc. There is no limit to the capability for denial in people who simply do not want a confrontation that would turn really messy.

This just compounded the problems, and things were ten times worse in the end.

I recall a "DearAbby" from the 70s where parents found a local 14 yo boy had molested their 5 yo daughter while babysitting. When they tried to talk to any other girls' parents they were treated like the bad guys. Total denial was easier than facing the truth head on.

[Colibri]

Since there is no real way to know the motivations of the people concerned, let's move this over to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

The really inexplicable part is that they didn't think they'd eventually get exposed.

There's nothing inexplicable about it; they were making the smart bet. Stuff like this usually doesn't get exposed.

We hear about the cases where they DON'T get away with it, like Penn State, or Cardinal Law and whatnot. But of course, if you turn on the light in the barn and see one rat, there's ten. For every Penn State I am quite sure there are 5, 10, or 20 other places where this sort of thing has happened and the coverup went relatively smoothly, ending either in quiet out of court settlements or just nothing at all, and the victims had to go on with no one punished for what had happened.

So what the higher ups at Penn State

[blabber]

Originally Posted by Machine Elf

Penn State is in hot water now because they endeavored at several levels to conceal Sandusky's molestation of children.

Question: Why did they do it? What did they think would happen if they quickly fired Sandusky and referred him to the authorities for criminal prosecution as soon as they first became aware of his actions? Can someone outline what potentially bad consequences might have befallen Penn State if they had taken that approach instead of trying to bury the whole thing?

The schools reputation would have taken a real beating if they had dealt with it as soon as it became common knowledge. The money that the school gets would have dried up as those that donated money to the school would have distanced themselves very far away.[/b]
Yet what the school would have lost is minor compared to what they school is losing now . Most people would have to take a real hard look at Penn State before allowing their child to enroll there.
But l'll tell you something else. Penn State isn't the only school whose hands are dirty. They are just the one's that got caught.

[dropzone]

Blabber, welcome to the SDMB, but could you eliminate the blue color and weird font in the future? It's actually easier to go with the default and we'll get to know you by what you say rather than how you say it.

Thanx

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by md2000

I'm guessing that it's for the same reason the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and numerous other organizations did... "I've known this guy for decades, that does not sound right, there must be some mistake, tha accusers are just disturbed troublemakers, the story is not credible, even fighting this in public will soil the stellar name of our organization, if we ignore the problem it will go away, we can't afford to lose our excellent assistant, if it's true how come nobody has complained before..." etc. etc. There is no limit to the capability for denial in people who simply do not want a confrontation that would turn really messy.

I agree with all of this except the last sentence. I believe that such an accusation(s) comes as such a shock to a person that he refuses to believe it. So he uses the rationales you mentioned to not report it.

Think of your dad, grandfather, a favorite cousin or uncle, and you are told that someone saw him molesting a child. You wouldn't believe it for a second. You hear more accusations. You love the guy. He wouldn't do such a thing. You continue to use the excuses.

While understandable, there comes a point in time where it was your fucking fault for not taking action at some point in time. Penn State officials including Paterno crossed that line. But I believe these things are done out of ignorance and/or denial instead of a desire to avoid a confrontation because they (the general "they") continue to believe that their "Sandusky" is misunderstood.

[tomndebb]

Blabber, I have eliminated the odd font/color/bolding that you chose so that you do not start picking up negative comments from other posters who are irritated by what they perceive to be a matter of form over content--particularly a form they associate with young teen girls.

Please stick to simply using the default text to avoid having posters dismiss your thoughts because they dislike your delivery.

I would think that such stylistic devices would be irritating in MPSIMS, but in Great Debates, it will earn you a very poor reputation.

[ /Moderating ]

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by md2000

I'm guessing that it's for the same reason the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and numerous other organizations did... "I've known this guy for decades, that does not sound right, there must be some mistake, tha accusers are just disturbed troublemakers, the story is not credible, even fighting this in public will soil the stellar name of our organization, if we ignore the problem it will go away, we can't afford to lose our excellent assistant, if it's true how come nobody has complained before..." etc. etc. There is no limit to the capability for denial in people who simply do not want a confrontation that would turn really messy.

And of course the classic: "it would only be giving ammunition to people who want to destroy our organizaton and what it stands for".

Originally Posted by RickJay

There's nothing inexplicable about it; they were making the smart bet. Stuff like this usually doesn't get exposed.

We hear about the cases where they DON'T get away with it, like Penn State, or Cardinal Law and whatnot. But of course, if you turn on the light in the barn and see one rat, there's ten. For every Penn State I am quite sure there are 5, 10, or 20 other places where this sort of thing has happened and the coverup went relatively smoothly, ending either in quiet out of court settlements or just nothing at all, and the victims had to go on with no one punished for what had happened.

Or it gets exposed so much later any possibility of redress is academic and the parties are told it's not worth it to proceed.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by RickJay

There's nothing inexplicable about it; they were making the smart bet. Stuff like this usually doesn't get exposed.

We hear about the cases where they DON'T get away with it, like Penn State, or Cardinal Law and whatnot. But of course, if you turn on the light in the barn and see one rat, there's ten. For every Penn State I am quite sure there are 5, 10, or 20 other places where this sort of thing has happened and the coverup went relatively smoothly, ending either in quiet out of court settlements or just nothing at all, and the victims had to go on with no one punished for what had happened.

So what the higher ups at Penn State

It's one thing to cover one incident or two or three. But a decade worth of ghastly rape involving dozens of children with eyewitnesses? I think that goes beyond any reasonable expectation of undetection. Even if the odds were in their favor, the risk vs. reward computation demonstrated a degree of stupidity that borders on the insane. It's not like the Catholic Church where exposing a priest could rattle the faith of any number of people. Turning Sandusky over to the authorities would've been a black eye, but most would realize it was the action of one man and the school did what it needed to to stop it.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by blabber

The schools reputation would have taken a real beating if they had dealt with it as soon as it became common knowledge. The money that the school gets would have dried up as those that donated money to the school would have distanced themselves very far away.[/b]
Yet what the school would have lost is minor compared to what they school is losing now . Most people would have to take a real hard look at Penn State before allowing their child to enroll there.
But l'll tell you something else. Penn State isn't the only school whose hands are dirty. They are just the one's that got caught.

Actually, Penn State just had it's second best fundraising year ever. Other schools may have dirty hands for one reason or another, but I'll eat my hat if it even approaches what Sandusky and his enablers were up to.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by jtgain

While understandable, there comes a point in time where it was your fucking fault for not taking action at some point in time. Penn State officials including Paterno crossed that line. But I believe these things are done out of ignorance and/or denial instead of a desire to avoid a confrontation because they (the general "they") continue to believe that their "Sandusky" is misunderstood.

But once you ignore it for some period of time, you become complicit in some senses. It's even harder because you have the guilt of being blind for so long, but also the fear of having to explaining how you could have missed it. The latter goes doubly so for people whose blindness becomes a growing mountain of potential legal and financial liability.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by RickJay

There's nothing inexplicable about it; they were making the smart bet. Stuff like this usually doesn't get exposed.

That may be true, but I'm with the OP in that I just don't see the downside of aggressively dealing with it, full disclosure. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if PSU (or any institution) the moment it discovers something suspicious like this, gets it to the authorities, I think better of them, not worse. When it hits the press, if it does, the press release is, "Penn State takes our commitment to our children and to our community very seriously. We have an inviolable policy of involving the authorities to make sure that we do everything we can to protect other children who might otherwise be in danger."

"Good on them," would be my reaction. There are evil pricks in the world, that's not PSU's fault. It is their fault the moment they decide not to involve the authorities. Again, I just don't see the downside.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

But once you ignore it for some period of time, you become complicit in some senses. It's even harder because you have the guilt of being blind for so long, but also the fear of having to explaining how you could have missed it. The latter goes doubly so for people whose blindness becomes a growing mountain of potential legal and financial liability.

We are in full agreement. I was just answering the "why" of the OP.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

It's one thing to cover one incident or two or three. But a decade worth of ghastly rape involving dozens of children with eyewitnesses? I think that goes beyond any reasonable expectation of undetection.

I am quite convinced you are incorrect. To use the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals, as an example, there have been a few high profile cases, but really, how many separate examples can you think of? And how many parishes are there, by comparison? Catholic schools? Orphanages? Other denominations with their own schools, institutions, schools?

We've seen a good dozen or two dozen terrible churuch-related child rape coverups exposed - but there are probably HUNDREDS of cases that went unexposed, on truly massive levels. Even those cases that did come to light often did so after some of the perpetrators had died of old age, so those people got away with it. In Ireland the Catholic Church ran what can literally be descriped as a child rape organization for at least sixty years. Abusers and victims grew old and died before anyone did anything about it. Do you really think the same hasn't happened in other countries with Catholic churches? Not for an instant do I. And that's just one religion; heaven knows what's going on in schools, in youth organizations, and the like.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

That may be true, but I'm with the OP in that I just don't see the downside of aggressively dealing with it, full disclosure. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if PSU (or any institution) the moment it discovers something suspicious like this, gets it to the authorities, I think better of them, not worse. When it hits the press, if it does, the press release is, "Penn State takes our commitment to our children and to our community very seriously. We have an inviolable policy of involving the authorities to make sure that we do everything we can to protect other children who might otherwise be in danger."

"Good on them," would be my reaction. There are evil pricks in the world, that's not PSU's fault. It is their fault the moment they decide not to involve the authorities. Again, I just don't see the downside.

What would be your reaction if they made full disclosure the second or third time that something suspicious happens, if the first one or two times they just did an internal investigation and then brushed it off?

As jtgain says, the first time, you think there's no way it could be a credible accusation, someone was mistaken, someone is mentally ill and making things up, there's no reason to destroy someone's career over this. And sometimes, you'd be right, it would be a baseless accusation or a mistake. But sometimes it's not, and if there is a second or a third incident, you can't go forward, because someone is going to ask "what about that first kid? How many more kids got raped because you didn't report the first one?"

I think that's the situation Penn State was in.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

That may be true, but I'm with the OP in that I just don't see the downside of aggressively dealing with it, full disclosure.

These situations are always complicated by the fact that people think they know how they would react, so they don't truly prepare for the emotional and psychological gravity of the situation. They freeze, panic, then incorrectly assume their window of opportunity to report has closed. For example, a study found physicians fail to report child abuse injuries 21% of the time. Amongst regular folks, 47% don't report known child sexual abuse. So the reality is many people fail to act, even those who are required by law to. But, since people think they would react if they saw something bad, even when some people eventually come forward after the fact, they are doubted because people mistake their half-measures for uncertainty. They look at guys like McQuearyand wonder, if he truly saw what he saw, why didn't stop the abuse, and just beat the shit out of Sandusky.

Then you have the fact that abusers typically groom their victims, and others to accept their personal narrative. By most accounts, Sandusky was a great coach, honorable man who adopts disadvantaged kids, runs a successful charity, etc. That guy could never do something so bad. Why should someone take the word of some janitor, or some assistant coach over the reputation of a guy like Sandusky. A guy many of the people in charge had known for decades. How many of us would take the word of a virtual stranger over someone you feel you know? I would guess that is why PS didn't initially report this guy. They trusted their own sense of judgement and fairness over an underlings.

Then couple that with they mounting feelings of guilt and complicity that arise over time as you begin to see things for what they are, and it becomes fairly clear why people consistently get this wrong. I don't think that excuses people who remain silent, but it does give credence to the belief that if we are not actively conscious of our human frailties, we will often make bad choices.

[Boyo Jim]

I can't say exactly why Penn state execs made the choices they did, but I have some experience with an employer that covered up crimes of an executive, thankfully of a financial nature rather than a sexual one. In tact there were two sets of crimes by two different people and handled entirely differently by management.

A department secretary embezzled about 20 grand out of a physicians entertainment fund over the course of a couple of years. I don't know how she was discovered, but once she was, management called the police and she was led out of the building in handcuffs. I know this because it was in the news periodically for the next several months.

I couple of years later, one of our division directors (a step below a VP) was discovered to be embezzling money. I know a lot more details about this because I was interviewed and provided evidence to management about it. She was issuing bogus contracts to bogus 'consultants' and contractors who didn't exist, depositing the checks into an account she controlled, and pocketing the money. I was one of the staff people who was actually performing the duties that she had claimed required outside contractors.

It was eventually explained to me and my boss (both if us were among those used by this person in her scam) that senior management decided that having a high-profile person life her arrested for fraud and embezzlement would be bad for the institution. She was well connected in the community, was a well known 'face' of the hospital to the public, and they were afraid that the hospital's fundraising ability would be compromised.

Several months later I saw a story in the local paper about this same woman being hired to a very high position in a local women's health organization. I didn't call anyone with a heads up, and AFAIK no one else did either.

But I swear I wouldn't have done nothing if she was sexually assaulting children -- or adults either, for that matter.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I can't say exactly why Penn state execs made the choices they did, but I have some experience with an employer that covered up crimes of an executive, thankfully of a financial nature rather than a sexual one. In tact there were two sets of crimes by two different people and handled entirely differently by management.

A department secretary embezzled about 20 grand out of a physicians entertainment fund over the course of a couple of years. I don't know how she was discovered, but once she was, management called the police and she was led out of the building in handcuffs. I know this because it was in the news periodically for the next several months.

I couple of years later, one of our division directors (a step below a VP) was discovered to be embezzling money. I know a lot more details about this because I was interviewed and provided evidence to management about it. She was issuing bogus contracts to bogus 'consultants' and contractors who didn't exist, depositing the checks into an account she controlled, and pocketing the money. I was one of the staff people who was actually performing the duties that she had claimed required outside contractors.

It was eventually explained to me and my boss (both if us were among those used by this person in her scam) that senior management decided that having a high-profile person life her arrested for fraud and embezzlement would be bad for the institution. She was well connected in the community, was a well known 'face' of the hospital to the public, and they were afraid that the hospital's fundraising ability would be compromised.

Several months later I saw a story in the local paper about this same woman being hired to a very high position in a local women's health organization. I didn't call anyone with a heads up, and AFAIK no one else did either.

But I swear I wouldn't have done nothing if she was sexually assaulting children -- or adults either, for that matter.

I would love to know what your employer gave when asked for a reference that did not expose them to liability for not warning the next employer. It would be some interesting verbal gymnastics.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Originally Posted by md2000

I would love to know what your employer gave when asked for a reference that did not expose them to liability for not warning the next employer. It would be some interesting verbal gymnastics.

I can confirm that Ms. X worked for our company from April 1990 through Dec 2010.

[supery00n]

I'm thinking it might have been due to privacy issues. Let's say you were Joe Paterno or a high level administrative official, and you wanted to address the issue of Sandusky's sexual abuse. The media today is everywhere, and it's going to blow the whole story open. It's hard to maintain anonymity in such a situation, and the media reaction that is seen today is really negative. If the admins had turned Sandusky in earlier voluntarily, it would still have hurt Penn State's reputation, although not as much, since it's the cover up that made the crime worse. But the crime was bad enough that even without such a big cover up, it would have been negative for Penn State's reputation had the situation reached the news media. (Does anyone think that if Penn State had turned him in voluntarily, the media would have given the institution a measure of privacy? Hell no. They would have screamed bloody murder.)

That's why I think criminals deserve a certain measure of privacy and anonymity, especially if they are entrenched within an institutional power structure. For example, the Duke lacrosse team members who were indicted for rape were publicly shamed. Wouldn't it be better to unleash the anger and emotions after the trial was conducted; and allow the accused to remain anonymous until the results of the trial?

I think what happened to Penn State was a lynching of sort. It is a form of public outrage that I find to be quite childish and immature, something that makes people scared to turn someone in from their own group because of the negative publicity that would fall on everyone in the institution. If you give these people and institutions privacy, then they might be motivated to do the right thing.

But again, it's possible that these institutions would use the extra privacy and abuse it, so that nobody would ever find out. That's why I'm against institutions in general...they become full of people who think they're special and are above the law..

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I am quite convinced you are incorrect. To use the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals, as an example, there have been a few high profile cases, but really, how many separate examples can you think of? And how many parishes are there, by comparison? Catholic schools? Orphanages? Other denominations with their own schools, institutions, schools?

We've seen a good dozen or two dozen terrible churuch-related child rape coverups exposed - but there are probably HUNDREDS of cases that went unexposed, on truly massive levels. Even those cases that did come to light often did so after some of the perpetrators had died of old age, so those people got away with it. In Ireland the Catholic Church ran what can literally be descriped as a child rape organization for at least sixty years. Abusers and victims grew old and died before anyone did anything about it. Do you really think the same hasn't happened in other countries with Catholic churches? Not for an instant do I. And that's just one religion; heaven knows what's going on in schools, in youth organizations, and the like.

I'd suggest the Catholic Church was in a better position to maintain a cover than four guys at a state university. They may have treated Paterno like a god, but the Church actually had God on their side (or so thought their parishoners.) Their enablers went all the way up to the Vatican. Plus, sexual abuse was more likely to be swept under the rug by more than just Church officials 30 or 40 years ago. If the stigma associated with it today can keep people from coming forward, imagine what it was like 50 years ago. Either way, the Church had a lot more to lose than Penn State, so, in this perverse sense, it may have been better to take their chances. Given the enormous gulf between risk and reward in the Penn State case, the decision to cover-up was idiocy beyond belief.

[md2000]

Actually I don't see it as that negative if they'd turned him in first time. I suppose the real embarrassment would be a news report that it happened on campus... Which also exposes the university to liability.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by md2000

I would love to know what your employer gave when asked for a reference that did not expose them to liability for not warning the next employer. It would be some interesting verbal gymnastics.

She was allowed to resign with a pension she'd already been vested in. As far as references, that I don't know, though she was well enough known locally within the medical community that perhaps no one checked her references. Also, I don't know how widespread the real reason for her departure was known. I've mentioned this to quite a few other people who worked there, and none had any idea.

I also have other unanswered questions, like how long was she doing this and how much money did she scam? I know that, before this came out, she wouldn't even let my boss see her own annual department budget. We would submit a proposed budget, but what was actually approved never got down to us. She just told us to submit our requests for expenditures and POs to her, and she would get the funds. She ran half a dozen different departments the same way, and we think she just treated every individual budget like it was one big slush fund. And nobody but her knew what was really being spent. She could have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars.

To the hospital's credit, they did take some action after she left to prevent a recurrence. The finance department started sending all budget info directly to department managers as well as division heads, and there were quite a few new controls put on the budget process to make it more transparent to a lot more people.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

As jtgain says, the first time, you think there's no way it could be a credible accusation, someone was mistaken, someone is mentally ill and making things up, there's no reason to destroy someone's career over this. And sometimes, you'd be right, it would be a baseless accusation or a mistake.

Except the first accusation Paterno heard wasn't some outsider or person with an axe to grind. It came from a trusted member of his staff who witnessed it in person. I don't believe Paterno was worried about Sandusky's reputation. He was worried about his own.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by supery00n

...
That's why I think criminals deserve a certain measure of privacy and anonymity, especially if they are entrenched within an institutional power structure. ...

Jerry Sandusky had all the privacy he wanted.

This is ridiculous. You think the police and prosecutors should have different standards of treatment for criminals based on their social positions within a community?

How is this supposed to work? An employer (or a school) should concoct a cover story to explain why this person isn't at work anymore, and then what, swear everyone who knows better to secrecy? The police are supposed to keep the names of defendants off of arrest records? Court calendars shouldn't have the names of the people involved with the cases?

It's thinking like this which RESULTED in the Penn state scandal.

[supery00n]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Jerry Sandusky had all the privacy he wanted.

This is ridiculous. You think the police and prosecutors should have different standards of treatment for criminals based on their social positions within a community?

How is this supposed to work? An employer (or a school) should concoct a cover story to explain why this person isn't at work anymore, and then what, swear everyone who knows better to secrecy? The police are supposed to keep the names of defendants off of arrest records? Court calendars shouldn't have the names of the people involved with the cases?

It's thinking like this which RESULTED in the Penn state scandal.

You know, you're totally right, and I'm totally wrong. That was a stupid post on my part, and it's exactly the excuse that they would have made too.

[Mr. Moto]

Let's remember too that we have public trials for a reason.

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by md2000

I'm guessing that it's for the same reason the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and numerous other organizations did... "I've known this guy for decades, that does not sound right, there must be some mistake, tha accusers are just disturbed troublemakers, the story is not credible, even fighting this in public will soil the stellar name of our organization, if we ignore the problem it will go away, we can't afford to lose our excellent assistant, if it's true how come nobody has complained before..." etc. etc. There is no limit to the capability for denial in people who simply do not want a confrontation that would turn really messy.

This just compounded the problems, and things were ten times worse in the end.

I recall a "DearAbby" from the 70s where parents found a local 14 yo boy had molested their 5 yo daughter while babysitting. When they tried to talk to any other girls' parents they were treated like the bad guys. Total denial was easier than facing the truth head on.

This.

[blabber]

[quote=dropzone;15275472]Blabber, welcome to the SDMB, but could you eliminate the blue color and weird font in the future? It's actually easier to go with the default and we'll get to know you by what you say rather than how you say it.

Thanx[/quote

Thank you for the welcome and will no longer use the blue colour and weird font. But why is it offered if we shouldn't use it ?

[blabber]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Blabber, I have eliminated the odd font/color/bolding that you chose so that you do not start picking up negative comments from other posters who are irritated by what they perceive to be a matter of form over content--particularly a form they associate with young teen girls.

Please stick to simply using the default text to avoid having posters dismiss your thoughts because they dislike your delivery.

I would think that such stylistic devices would be irritating in MPSIMS, but in Great Debates, it will earn you a very poor reputation.

[ /Moderating ]

l have no problem with that and thanks for correcting my error. Had l known in advance this was a no-no l never would have done so.
The fact it's offered gave me the impression l could if l choose to use it.
But as l said no problem.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

What would be your reaction if they made full disclosure the second or third time that something suspicious happens, if the first one or two times they just did an internal investigation and then brushed it off?

As jtgain says, the first time, you think there's no way it could be a credible accusation, someone was mistaken, someone is mentally ill and making things up, there's no reason to destroy someone's career over this. And sometimes, you'd be right, it would be a baseless accusation or a mistake. But sometimes it's not, and if there is a second or a third incident, you can't go forward, because someone is going to ask "what about that first kid? How many more kids got raped because you didn't report the first one?"

I think that's the situation Penn State was in.

The dynamic you describe makes a lot of sense but doesn't happen to fit the facts of this particular case (unless we assume a lot of facts which are not in evidence). The first incident that these guys knew about (in 1998) was reported (though not by them - the kid's mother went to the police). The 2001 incident is the one they didn't report. It does not appear - based on their notes and deliberations as disclosed in the Freeh report - that they were aware of the earlier incidents.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by blabber

Thank you for the welcome and will no longer use the blue colour and weird font. But why is it offered if we shouldn't use it ?

It is offered so people can use it to illustrate some particular emphasis or point, or to add something to a joke. It wasn't intended to be used routinely in ordinary conversation.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

It is offered so people can use it to illustrate some particular emphasis or point, or to add something to a joke. It wasn't intended to be used routinely in ordinary conversation.

Well, it was, but we don't use it so we seem serious but not as serious as if we used Times New Roman.

[DrDeth]

What I don't understand is why they at least didn't quietly fire the pedo, and just let it be known, under the table that he wasn't to be trusted around kids. Why did they keep him on the payroll?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

What I don't understand is why they at least didn't quietly fire the pedo, and just let it be known, under the table that he wasn't to be trusted around kids. Why did they keep him on the payroll?

Well, for one thing, it's pretty much impossible to keep something like that under the table. Whoever is spreading the word is going to pressed pretty hard for an explanation. If they give one, they are going to be extremely vulnerable to a lawsuit by Sandusky.

Plus, their whole course of action was to designed to keep the abuse under wraps. Which is another thing pretty much impossible to so if they are also spreading the story around that Sandusky is dangerous to children.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Well, for one thing, it's pretty much impossible to keep something like that under the table. Whoever is spreading the word is going to pressed pretty hard for an explanation. If they give one, they are going to be extremely vulnerable to a lawsuit by Sandusky. .

So they just fire him. No explanation. "He worked for us from xxxx to xxxx, no further comment".

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Jerry Sandusky had all the privacy he wanted.

This is ridiculous. You think the police and prosecutors should have different standards of treatment for criminals based on their social positions within a community?

How is this supposed to work? An employer (or a school) should concoct a cover story to explain why this person isn't at work anymore, and then what, swear everyone who knows better to secrecy? The police are supposed to keep the names of defendants off of arrest records? Court calendars shouldn't have the names of the people involved with the cases?

It's thinking like this which RESULTED in the Penn state scandal.

I think the idea is not that it would be private to police and other law enforcement, just to the public at large. The idea being that this would encourage people to turn their friends in without having to worry that a false accusation would hurt their friends' reputations.

I'm not sure why he disavowed it so quickly, unless you are assuming the police wouldn't do anything unless the public pressured them to do so.

[Saint Cad]

Never under estimate the power of the old boys' network. I know someone that was fired from a contracting company who was banging a direct report and stealing money from the firm. His buddy at the company he was contracted at thought that was completely unfair so he hired him on knowing full well why he was fired.

He was fired two month later from that company for stealing.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by BigT

I think the idea is not that it would be private to police and other law enforcement, just to the public at large. The idea being that this would encourage people to turn their friends in without having to worry that a false accusation would hurt their friends' reputations.

I'm not sure why he disavowed it so quickly, unless you are assuming the police wouldn't do anything unless the public pressured them to do so.

Just what we need -- the police 'disappearing' people.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

What I don't understand is why they at least didn't quietly fire the pedo, and just let it be known, under the table that he wasn't to be trusted around kids.

He retired in 1999 because he was told - supposedly for reasons unrelated to all of this - that he was not going to become the head coach after Paterno. The athletic department and the school treated him quite generously and he never took another coaching job. I guess now we have a pretty good idea why: in addition to being set for life financially, he had everything he needed as a pedophile. He had unimpeachable PSU credentials and a local charity that provided him with a reliable pool of victims. He knew people in the area trusted him, the police weren't too suspicious, and the school wasn't going to move against him. What else could he want?

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So they just fire him. No explanation. "He worked for us from xxxx to xxxx, no further comment".

He didn't have a job. They did, I think, take away some of his access to PSU facilities in 2001. I don't think your proposal would have helped, and it still would have been a horrible thing to do.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Marley23

it still would have been a horrible thing to do.

I just want to understand clearly you're trying to say. Firing Sandusky without comment would have been horrible because he would not be brought to justice and he could still continue assaulting victims. Is that what you mean?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Marley23

...They did, I think, take away some of his access to PSU facilities in 2001...

No, they didn't. It was in their "plan", but they failed to follow through on it. He raped another boy in the same shower room six months after the one MacQueary reported.

[humblebumble]

They kept it a secret for so long because they wanted to protect Penn State's reputation.

[corkboard]

I just can't get over the fact that nobody in the room- Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Shultz, nobody- played out the hypothetical:

"As bad as it might be for us the the University right now if this gets out, what do you think will happen if Sandusky keeps it up for the next fifteen years and continues molesting these kids, on campus, and it gets out that we knew about it at the outset and did nothing to stop it? It may be unlikely to happen, but in the risk/reward analysis, does it make any sense at all to sweep this under the rug now, considering the shitstorm that will land on University Park someday?

What we need to do now, right now, immediately, is proclaim loudly and publicly that we are cutting Sandusky loose, and why, and that we will do everything in our power to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again on University grounds, and distance ourselves from him and everything he has done so that we're 1,000 miles away when the bomb goes off."

For the life of me I can't understand why none of them thought it through. Stupid. Although it makes you wonder if Sandusky had something to leverage his position.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by corkboard

I just can't get over the fact that nobody in the room- Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Shultz, nobody- played out the hypothetical:

"As bad as it might be for us the the University right now if this gets out, what do you think will happen if Sandusky keeps it up for the next fifteen years and continues molesting these kids, on campus, and it gets out that we knew about it at the outset and did nothing to stop it? It may be unlikely to happen, but in the risk/reward analysis, does it make any sense at all to sweep this under the rug now, considering the shitstorm that will land on University Park someday?

They did. The Freeh Group report includes this email in reference to the planned meeting with Sandusky after McQueary saw him rape a boy in the shower:

Spanier emailed Curley and Schultz:
Tim: This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means that your conversation will be more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is that if the message isn't "heard" and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

Spanier was saying that if they told Sandusky to stop his "inappropriate" actions and he did not listen, they would be liable later. Still, they didn't tell the police or child protective services. Of course, Spanier was right. Sandusky didn't stop abusing children, and Curley and Schultz are now being prosecuted for lying to a grand jury about what they knew and for not reporting the incident.

[Boyo Jim]

I have to say I'm curious as to why Spanier is NOT facing criminal charges (for the moment, at least). Even if Spanier didn't testify, or he used vaguer term in his testimony so they couldn't charge him with perjury, wouldn't he too be considered a mandated reporter? It seems to me that Curley and Schultz could point to Spanier and say, "He's our boss, it was HIS duty to report" -- basically just what MacQueary and Paterno claimed.