It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

It was explained to me upthread by a couple of posters that it was a janitor who observed the instance of oral sex and that McQueary was the one who reported the so-called anal rape.

You may very well be right. I'm not certain either way.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Frank

I seem to have some bewilderment as to why the person who saw the accused performing the act did not call the police.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Penn State athletic department did wrong, and should pay whatever price is appropriate, but for Pete's sake, if I came across an adult having sex with a ten-year-old, I wouldn't think, "I'd better talk to Coach," I'd call the fucking cops.

Yes. And then I sure as hell wouldn't take a job with them for NINE YEARS and say nothing about what I'd seen.

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

You may very well be right. I'm not certain either way.

The grand jury report and the story I linked to contain the information. Are you seeing different information elsewhere?

[jayjay]

People! Read the damn indictment! McQueary did, indeed, witness anal rape on a 10-year-old boy. The people doing all the pooh-poohing based on Paterno's reputation should really think about what they're saying.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

It's been pointed out a few times upthread that the GA didn't walk in on anal rape. I think he walked in on Sandusky performing oral sex on a 10-year-old.

No, read the indictment, linked to in post #36. The term used on page 6 is "anal intercourse", and the apparent age of the victim removed any question that it was rape.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

It's been pointed out a few times upthread that the GA didn't walk in on anal rape. I think he walked in on Sandusky performing oral sex on a 10-year-old.

Read the grand jury testimony instead of the thread, it is explicit and has already been linked to once but here it is again:

Link

It isn't a PDF you can copy and paste so I had to manually type this but here is what it says (it is under the heading "Victim 2" in the PDF):

As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

If I had to guess, maybe part of the reason the GA (now known as McQueary) didn't intervene is because both Sandusky and the Victim saw him. Most likely the victim wasn't struggling or showing "obvious" signs of distress. Most likely because he had been victimized many, many times before and had tragically been conditioned to accept this abuse--this happens with real abuse victims who are subjected to serial rapes. I think that for someone like McQueary whose conception of rape is probably more in line with pop culture, he didn't immediately process it because the boy wasn't fighting and in fact had his hands up on the wall and seemed to just be passively taking it.

Of course I'm just guessing there and McQueary's thoughts are impossible to know.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

It's been pointed out a few times upthread that the GA didn't walk in on anal rape. I think he walked in on Sandusky performing oral sex on a 10-year-old.

No idea why this showed up twice.

Has the child the GA walked in on been identified yet? If not, then his discription of the event is the only one we have. That means he had to know he walked in on anal rape, since he's the only one who could give a description of the event.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

No, read the indictment, linked to in post #36. The term used on page 6 is "anal intercourse", and the apparent age of the victim removed any question that it was rape.

How many more people are going to respond to this post before reading the rest of the thread?

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Unfortunately Starving Artist I think you're more or less wishing for something that just isn't true. You really think a 28 year old guy would hear "slapping and the sounds of sex" and then see a kid pinned against a wall with an old dude thrusting at him and that's somehow not anal rape?

I don't necessarily want to take this thread down an avenue that might lead to a mixture of jokes and etc because anal sex often does that, but for the sake of it needing to be said, is your understanding of anal intercourse such that you think anytime it happens the person on the receiving end is in such profound pain they can't help but scream out in "extremely loud" volume that no one could help but hear?

The truth of the matter is this was probably not a prison style, vicious and forceful rape in which three guys hold someone down and the victim is fighting with everything they have and their assailant is basically doing their best to inflict maximum pain and suffering. Most likely, and this is the truly horrible part, Sandusky had forced himself on this boy many, many times before. Even a 10 year old, after being forced into such a thing a few times could probably adjust in such a way that they could suffer it without screaming so loud the whole world hears it.

I do know this, I know many cases in which male children have been raped many, many times by family members in the same house as the rest of their family and no one hears it. So I'm going to assume that it's not like science fiction that someone, even a 10 year old, could get anally raped without making so much noise the whole facility heard it.

You make a good point. If Sandusky had groomed the kid to the point where anal sex was an ongoing occurrance, then yes, it could have happened without excruciating pain like you suggest. As for the slapping souunds, who knows? Sandusky may have been actually raping the kid or merely going through the motions in a faux-playful way and trying to pass it off to the kid as teasing or rough housing. And you would think that if Sandusky had on on-going sexual relationship with the boy he wouldn't have had to risk being seen by having sex with him in a school shower.

Again, I don't know what actually happened. But I do think too many people in this thread have forgotten the fact that they don't really know either.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

How many more people are going to respond to this post before reading the rest of the thread?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you still confused about what the GA said he saw? There are at least two incidents, one involving a janitor observing Sandusky perform oral sex. That resulted in a big police report a 30+ page one that I do not believe has ever been released to the media, back in 1998. Ultimately Sandusky was not charged but it now seems very likely that lead to his being "retired" in 1999.

The Grand Jury is a legally constituted body that investigates facts (or at least listens while the prosecution submits facts), their report isn't some "news report" or "random musings." It is a summation of stuff the McQueary personally testified to before the Grand Jury. There is a reason we're saying read the grand jury report. It is not based on third hand reminiscences, but the testimony of an eye witness. Further, the grand jury goes on to say they found McQueary very credible in his testimony. I'm sorry some people have gotten the facts mixed up, but let there be no doubt McQueary has said before a grand jury he saw Jerry Sandusky anally rape a child. That's legal fact, now obviously it is up to a court of law to determine whether it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt the act actually occurred, but based on the best information we have now--that is what McQueary has testified to under oath.

[ladyfoxfyre]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Sandusky may have been actually raping the kid or merely going through the motions in a faux-playful way and trying to pass it off to the kid as teasing or rough housing. And you would think that if Sandusky had on on-going sexual relationship with the boy he wouldn't have had to risk being seen by having sex with him in a school shower.

Again, I don't know what actually happened. But I do think too many people in this thread have forgotten the fact that they don't really know either.

WTF? This may be one of the most fucked up things I've ever read on this board. "An on-going sexual relationship"? With a 10 year old boy? "Going through the motions in a playful way"? Let's not beat around the bush, this is not an "ongoing sexual relationship", this is ongoing sexual abuse of a 10 year old. But, hey, as long as after your bizarre hand-waving you admit that you don't actually know what happened. Jesus christ.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

How many more people are going to respond to this post before reading the rest of the thread?

I had trouble getting to the end of the thread because so many of your posts (4 of them) kept repeating the wrong information and an equal or greater number of posts by others correcting you.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I'm thinking McQueary didn't really see what everybody here thinks he saw, and wasn't all that sure about it himself at the time. Does it really sound plausible that a grown man raping a ten year old kid in the anus isn't going to result in painful cries and shrieks that the kid would be incapable of holding back even if he tried, not to mention near hysterical tears and sobs afterward and an inablilty to walk or sit normally, both of which conditions you would think would draw the interest of his teachers and parents? And that the child would not be so grossed out, hurt and horrified that he wouldn't tell someone what had happened to him?

So what....McQueary is lying? It means nothing because you don't think it works like that?

My guess is that McQueary got a snapshot of some activity that wasn't quite what he thought it was, such as Sandusky pretending to westle with the kid or trying to get his jollies from some sort of nude contact. Then when McQueary reported it to Paterno, Paterno thought it sounded implausible for the reasons I outlined above and believed that McQueary was mistaken about what he had seen but still thought that whatever was going on should be looked into so he reported it, figuring that if anything amiss had been going on it would be dealt with by the university and/or the police, if police action were deemed to be called for. As it is this thread is reminding me way too much of the Nancy Grace show.

Your "guess" has problems with the actual testimony thus far.

Then again I could be completely wrong,

Heaven forbid.

but no one here knows one way or the other.

Though some people are going on the testimony that has been presented and you are just making shit up.

What we do know though is that full on anal intercourse with a ten year old boy is unlikely, again for the reasons I stated;

Because you're an expert in anal intercourse? We're supposed to give your "reasons" weight because of...........go ahead and fill in a reason because I can't think of a damn one.

and that Joe Paterno has a decades-long reputation for honesty and integrity both in his personal life and on the football field. Thus I think giving him the benefit of the doubt in this particular instance is more than called for.

Had. Joe Paterno "had" a reputation, and given what has been printed thus far there are more than enough reasons to call that reputation into question.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you still confused about what the GA said he saw? There are at least two incidents, one involving a janitor observing Sandusky perform oral sex. That resulted in a big police report a 30+ page one that I do not believe has ever been released to the media, back in 1998. Ultimately Sandusky was not charged but it now seems very likely that lead to his being "retired" in 1999.

The Grand Jury is a legally constituted body that investigates facts (or at least listens while the prosecution submits facts), their report isn't some "news report" or "random musings." It is a summation of stuff the McQueary personally testified to before the Grand Jury. There is a reason we're saying read the grand jury report. It is not based on third hand reminiscences, but the testimony of an eye witness. Further, the grand jury goes on to say they found McQueary very credible in his testimony. I'm sorry some people have gotten the facts mixed up, but let there be no doubt McQueary has said before a grand jury he saw Jerry Sandusky anally rape a child. That's legal fact, now obviously it is up to a court of law to determine whether it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt the act actually occurred, but based on the best information we have now--that is what McQueary has testified to under oath.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that I initially didn't know the specifics, acknowledged that I didn't know the specifics, and received about 6 replies giving me the specifics. At some point, I expected the "read the grand jury" posts to stop when they noticed that several other people had addressed the point already.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

Had. Joe Paterno "had" a reputation, and given what has been printed thus far there are more than enough reasons to call that reputation into question.

And that, to me, is sad. A brilliant career tarnished (rightfully so, in my opinion, if the allegations are true) at the end by the acceptance of, if not the actual cover-up of, heinous crimes.

Before everybody gets all up in my grill about that statement - I can find it sad that a brilliant career ends this way and at the same time find it revolting that children were sacrificed at the altar of football for the "good" of this program.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I had trouble getting to the end of the thread because so many of your posts (4 of them) kept repeating the wrong information and an equal or greater number of posts by others correcting you.

I didn't post the incorrect information 4 times. Sorry, no.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

The grand jury report explicitly says he saw the boy being anally raped. So, assuming McCreary is not lying now, we DO know what he saw. He also testified that he reported this to higher levels, and the two administrators are charged with perjury because they denied that they were told.

As to the noise -- if this kid had been previously raped and abused, which is certainly possible, he may already have learned that he better keep his mouth shut too. Plus, horrible as it is to contemplate, repeated abuse probably would reduce the shock and pain of subsequent abuse.

Yes, I'm taking into account that McQueary is saying he reported anal rape. What I'm thinking is that Paterno and the other officials may not have believed at the time that McQueary actually saw what he thought he did, and therefore were not moved to act decisively on it. I do think that some effort should have been made to find out who the child was and see what he had to say, but I can see how the university would be reluctant to ruin a man's professional and family life based upon what otherwise would be a he said/he said situation where it would be merely one man's word against another.

And yes, I acknowledged to Martin Hyde before I saw your post that in the event the abuse had been occurring previously, the rape could have happened without the pain I described.

[SnakesCatLady]

I just don't get what this guy was doing with a 10 year old in the locker room anyway! It's not like the Y, I don't think there are any programs for 10-year olds at PS. Didn't anyone notice this old fart taking a boy in the locker room and wonder "what's up with that"?

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by SnakesCatLady

I just don't get what this guy was doing with a 10 year old in the locker room anyway! It's not like the Y, I don't think there are any programs for 10-year olds at PS. Didn't anyone notice this old fart taking a boy in the locker room and wonder "what's up with that"?

I'm sure they wrote it off by thinking it had something to do with his charity work.

From the reports, there were a number of red flags that were either deliberately or unconsciously ignored.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by SnakesCatLady

I just don't get what this guy was doing with a 10 year old in the locker room anyway! It's not like the Y, I don't think there are any programs for 10-year olds at PS. Didn't anyone notice this old fart taking a boy in the locker room and wonder "what's up with that"?

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would try to rape children in public. I can't even grasp how fucked up that is.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that I initially didn't know the specifics, acknowledged that I didn't know the specifics, and received about 6 replies giving me the specifics. At some point, I expected the "read the grand jury" posts to stop when they noticed that several other people had addressed the point already.

Perhaps it's because in posts 86, 92, and 96 you repeated the wrong information. and then in post #101, you admitted that you "weren't certain". All this despite several explicit corrections and directions to the correct information.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by ladyfoxfyre

WTF? This may be one of the most fucked up things I've ever read on this board. "An on-going sexual relationship"? With a 10 year old boy? "Going through the motions in a playful way"? Let's not beat around the bush, this is not an "ongoing sexual relationship", this is ongoing sexual abuse of a 10 year old. But, hey, as long as after your bizarre hand-waving you admit that you don't actually know what happened. Jesus christ.

In case anybody has any remaining lingering doubts that SA is just a troll pure and simple, well, there ya go.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Perhaps it's because in posts 86, 92, and 96 you repeated the wrong information. and then in post #101, you admitted that you "weren't certain". All this despite several explicit corrections and directions to the correct information.

Would you drop it already. Jesus fucking Christ, I've explained myself multiple times and even posted with the correct information way back up on this page. I've also explained that one of those posts you're harping on was an accident. So move the fuck on, already.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

So what....McQueary is lying?

I clearly said he could have been mistaken about what he thought he saw.

Originally Posted by Harborwolf

It means nothing because you don't think it works like that?
Your "guess" has problems with the actual testimony thus far.

Heaven forbid. Though some people are going on the testimony that has been presented and you are just making shit up. Because you're an expert in anal intercourse? We're supposed to give your "reasons" weight because of...........go ahead and fill in a reason because I can't think of a damn one. Had. Joe Paterno "had" a reputation, and given what has been printed thus far there are more than enough reasons to call that reputation into question.

Thanks, Nancy. We really don't even need trials for these people, do we?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I clearly said he could have been mistaken about what he thought he saw.

And he might not have been mistaken. Is Sandusky a conservative Republican running for the Senate or something? Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're drunk.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I clearly said he could have been mistaken about what he thought he saw.

Right. However that is directly contradicted by the testimony given. He seems rather specific about what he saw. That's a heck of a mistake to make.

Thanks, Nancy. We really don't even need trials for these people, do we?

I was referring to you. You're making shit up. You're expecting everyone else to take your devils advocate role seriously when you're just making shit up. There is simply no reason to treat anything you've posted seriously. It has no basis in reality. It's a fairy tale.

Keep pushing that Nancy Grace angle. You'd never be so judgemental.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Frank

Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're drunk.

That's my default assumption about SA and a lot of other posters.

[Duke]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I clearly said he could have been mistaken about what he thought he saw.

Not to be crude or anything, but I don't think I'd soon forget seeing a naked 50+ year old guy buttfucking a 10-year-old. But this is just me.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Yes, I'm taking into account that McQueary is saying he reported anal rape. What I'm thinking is that Paterno and the other officials may not have believed at the time that McQueary actually saw what he thought he did, and therefore were not moved to act decisively on it.

OK, suppose you're Joe Paterno, and McQueary has just reported this story to you. And you're thinking, maybe McQueary didn't really see Sandusky forcing anal sex on a naked 10 year old boy. Fine.

Then unless you are open to the idea that McQueary was making this story up out of whole cloth, what in the world do you think McQueary DID see, how in the world do you think this DIDN'T constitute child sexual abuse, and how in the world do you think this WASN'T something that had to be reported to the appropriate civil (non-university) authorities?

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

OK, suppose you're Joe Paterno, and McQueary has just reported this story to you. And you're thinking, maybe McQueary didn't really see Sandusky forcing anal sex on a naked 10 year old boy. Fine.

Then unless you are open to the idea that McQueary was making this story up out of whole cloth, what in the world do you think McQueary DID see, how in the world do you think this DIDN'T constitute child sexual abuse, and how in the world do you think this WASN'T something that had to be reported to the appropriate civil (non-university) authorities?

Also, Paterno thought enough of McQueary to promote him up through the ranks in later years. It isn't as though he can point to the guy and say, "I don't believe him to be credible".

[Martin Hyde]

It's really irrelevant (at least in terms of what Penn State should have done) as to whether Sandusky was anally raping, fondling, just "dry thrusting" or whatever on some little kid. All of them are horrible, horrible things.

If I was the AD of a major university and someone came to me and said "I saw this dude who has a cushy retirement job and 24/7 access to all of our facilities naked in the shower with a 10 year old boy doing something with him" I honestly wouldn't be scrutinizing whether maybe the guy who reported it was mistaken and instead of anal rape he was just seeing some 60+ year old naked dude "thrust without penetration" at a little kid, or just "wrestling" with him or whatever.

Sorry, but that's the job of professionals to investigate and find out what happened, it's not the role of the AD to do that. As a member of society someone in that chain of command (if not all of them) needed to report this to the people who are actually equipped to investigate and evaluate these things.

I don't really care too much if Sandusky was just "innocent playing" naked with a 10 year old in the shower and these allegations destroyed his life, if I was in Paterno, or the AD, or Schultz's shoes to me the fact that he put himself in such a situation with a child (which only a fucking idiot can claim is anything innocent regardless of whether anal rape occurred) mean he pretty much deserved any backlash from an investigation. Sorry but in weighing my decision worry about the minuscule chance that Sandusky had some legitimate reason to be naked in a university shower with a 10 year old and that the mere investigation would ruin him just wouldn't be of much weight to me. Finally, Sandusky had already been investigated by the police in 1998 and it apparently brought no media attention whatsoever, so there is good historical evidence that if Sandusky was "really innocent" the likelihood of an investigation leaking out to the media would apparently have been small.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

While Sandusky is obviously a sick, sick individual, the fact that he allowed himself to get caught and appears to have been blatant in so many ways suggests that he may have wanted to get caught. Perhaps a tiny sliver of morality deep down in his subconscious was screaming out: Please stop me!

If only one of these other dipshits actually did something after finding out, some of these kids could have been saved.

The only explanation I can come up with is that when covering up wrongdoings becomes institutionalized, it just becomes SOP no matter how horrible someone's actions are. Maybe OSU covering up student athletes selling jerseys is not all that unrelated to PSU covering up child rape, as far apart as they may appear to be for those of us on the outside. I can't help but compare this to the Catholic Church's long time cover-up of priests abusing thousands of kids.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by ladyfoxfyre

WTF? This may be one of the most fucked up things I've ever read on this board. "An on-going sexual relationship"? With a 10 year old boy? "Going through the motions in a playful way"? Let's not beat around the bush, this is not an "ongoing sexual relationship", this is ongoing sexual abuse of a 10 year old. But, hey, as long as after your bizarre hand-waving you admit that you don't actually know what happened. Jesus christ.

Oh, calm down. If you'll recall, it was Martin Hydeand Boyo Jim who plausibly suggested that previous anal sex encounters could explain why the boy wasn't crying out in pain. The phrase I used was just in an effort to be a little more adult than to say "Yeah, you're right! He might have been banging the shit out of that kid for years!"

It's becoming easier and easier for me to see how witch hunts, mob justice and lynchings have occurred in this country's past. Calm down and let the facts play out in court. Hysteria may be friend but our system of justice requires facts and deliberation. You and a few of the other posters to this thread might want to take a lesson from that.

Originally Posted by Frank

Is Sandusky a conservative Republican running for the Senate or something?

Only on the Straight Dope would fighting speculative assumptions and hysteria be considered a Republican trait. But if so, I'll happily claim it.

The fact is that nobody here knows exactly what Paterno was told, and they don't know how he interpreted what he was told. Thus they're in no position to pass judgement on what he should have known or what he should have done. I'm content to let the facts come out as the investigation proceeds before I'm willing to condemn a man whose whole life has been one of exemplary honesty and integrity.

Originally Posted by Duke

Not to be crude or anything, but I don't think I'd soon forget seeing a naked 50+ year old guy buttfucking a 10-year-old. But this is just me.

Nor would I.

I would, however, be careful about taking as gospel an accusation that just doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Why would the kid not be crying out? I seriously doubt Paterno considered the possiblity that the abuse had already been going on for some time. And why would Sandusky be raping a kid in the shower where he could be caught in the the first place? Etc., etc., etc. From his perspective as a major university football coach in 1999, mired in a macho, hetero atmosphere and where there would be so much for Sandusky to lose, there is just too much about this allegation that just doesn't add up. Under those circumstances I would think that what a reasonable and responsible person would do is turn the matter over to people who are charged with investigating allegations of criminal behavior and let them decide how to proceed. And that's just what Paterno did, didn't he?

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Then unless you are open to the idea that McQueary was making this story up out of whole cloth, what in the world do you think McQueary DID see, how in the world do you think this DIDN'T constitute child sexual abuse, and how in the world do you think this WASN'T something that had to be reported to the appropriate civil (non-university) authorities?

I don't believe I've said anything to indicate that what McQueary saw didn't constitute some form of child abuse, or at least attempted child abuse. What I said was that it might not have been penetrative anal sex. This is not a distinction without a difference. Plus, frankly, it's not outside the realm of possiblity that Paterno might have thought that McQueary had it in for Sandusky and was indeed lying for some reason. I'm sure that coaches and assistants get crosswise with each other all the time, and Paterno would have had to give that possibilty at least some consideration.

So, in the end what Paterno did was what anyone in his position and with no more firsthand knowledge than he had should have done, and that is report it to his superiors to be investigated. There is no way at this stage of the game that I'm willing to regard Paterno as a villain in this situation. It may turn out that he is, but for now I'd say the way he has always lived his life suggests that any villainy on his part be proven rather than presumed.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

... Plus, frankly, it's not outside the realm of possiblity that Paterno might have thought that McQueary had it in for Sandusky and was indeed lying for some reason. I'm sure that coaches and assistants get crosswise with each other all the time, and Paterno would have had to give that possibilty at least some consideration. ....

No, he didn't. Strictly speaking, he did what the law requires. The law does not expect him, or any other university officials, to investigate claims like this. They expect university officials to report them so they may be properly investigated.

The outrage is about the failure up and down the line of University staff, Paterno among them. Personally, I think McCreary bears considerably more responsibility than anyone else. He failed to intervene, he failed to call 911, and even though he reported it to his boss, he failed to follow up when it was clear they had buried the report.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut

While Sandusky is obviously a sick, sick individual, the fact that he allowed himself to get caught and appears to have been blatant in so many ways suggests that he may have wanted to get caught. Perhaps a tiny sliver of morality deep down in his subconscious was screaming out: Please stop me!

If only one of these other dipshits actually did something after finding out, some of these kids could have been saved.

The only explanation I can come up with is that when covering up wrongdoings becomes institutionalized, it just becomes SOP no matter how horrible someone's actions are. Maybe OSU covering up student athletes selling jerseys is not all that unrelated to PSU covering up child rape, as far apart as they may appear to be for those of us on the outside. I can't help but compare this to the Catholic Church's long time cover-up of priests abusing thousands of kids.

I've thought all of those same things. At least the Catholic priests took the kids to the rectory or on camping trips. Sandusky had to have been something like a serial killer that leaves clues in an attempt to say, "catch me so I won't continue." As you pointed out, that's where the malfeasance of the PSU Athletic Dept. plays into the whole sordid mess. They could have stopped it but didn't for whatever reason they saw fit to employ at the time. Obviously, they were more concerned about their aura, legacy and reputation than they were about the safety of children being abused by one of their own.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

If I was the AD of a major university and someone came to me and said "I saw this dude who has a cushy retirement job and 24/7 access to all of our facilities naked in the shower with a 10 year old boy doing something with him" I honestly wouldn't be scrutinizing whether maybe the guy who reported it was mistaken and instead of anal rape he was just seeing some 60+ year old naked dude "thrust without penetration" at a little kid, or just "wrestling" with him or whatever.

Sorry, but that's the job of professionals to investigate and find out what happened, it's not the role of the AD to do that. As a member of society someone in that chain of command (if not all of them) needed to report this to the people who are actually equipped to investigate and evaluate these things.

It's my understanding that Paterno did report it to the people who are actually equipped to investigate and evaluate such claims. What I'm attempting to explain is why Paterno didn't instantly jump up and go storming off to make a citizen's arrest of Sandusky and perhaps shoot him on the spot, which is what some of this thread's posters seem to feel he should have done, and that the fact he didn't makes him just as bad as Sandusky.

Seriously, reason has left the building in this thread. If it somehow makes you people feel all warm and fuzzy inside to throw Joe Paterno, Penn State and everyone associated with it under the bus, even after years of support, and consider them as evil as Sandusky himself - which some of you have claimed - then knock yourselves out. But trust me, there's not a hair's breadth of difference between the way you're behaving and the way Nancy Grace does on her show, and that's not a good thing.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

It's my understanding that Paterno did report it to the people who are actually equipped to investigate and evaluate such claims. What I'm attempting to explain is why Paterno didn't instantly jump up and go storming off to make a citizen's arrest of Sandusky and perhaps shoot him on the spot, which is what some of this thread's posters seem to feel he should have done, and that the fact he didn't makes him just as bad as Sandusky.

Seriously, reason has left the building in this thread. If it somehow makes you people feel all warm and fuzzy inside to throw Joe Paterno, Penn State and everyone associated with it under the bus, even after years of support, and consider them as evil as Sandusky himself - which some of you have claimed - then knock yourselves out. But trust me, there's not a hair's breadth of difference between the way you're behaving and the way Nancy Grace does on her show, and that's not a good thing.

No, people are angry because Paterno must have known there was no followup investigation to the allegations, and did nothing more than the bare minimum the law required, knowing that his superiors at the university didn't even do that much.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

No, he didn't. Strictly speaking, he did what the law requires. The law does not expect him, or any other university officials, to investigate claims like this. They expect university officials to report them so they may be properly investigated.

The outrage is about the failure up and down the line of University staff, Paterno among them. Personally, I think McCreary bears considerably more responsibility than anyone else. He failed to intervene, he failed to call 911, and even though he reported it to his boss, he failed to follow up when it was clear they had buried the report.

Do you not see what you're doing here? First of all you claim that Paterno did not have to consider the possibility that McQueary had it in for Sandusky. Upon what do you base that claim? It seems to me that he would have to consider all reasonable possibilities in evaluating McQueary's claim, and he has most certainly seen other instances where one coach or assistant has lied about another. To ignore that possiblity would have been irresponsible.

Secondly, on the one hand you acknowledge that the law required Paterno to report the allegation, which he did, so that the proper authorities could investigate the allegation. And then on the other hand you're excoriating him for not taking the law into his own hands and taking action outside the purview of those same authorities even though he knows less about what happened and has less evidence than they do.

Like I said, reason has left the building.

As for me, I'm out. I've spent too much time on this as it is.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

It's my understanding that Paterno did report it to the people who are actually equipped to investigate and evaluate such claims.

What people were those?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Do you not see what you're doing here? First of all you claim that Paterno did not have to consider the possibility that McQueary had it in for Sandusky. Upon what do you base that claim? It seems to me that he would have to consider all reasonable possibilities in evaluating McQueary's claim, and he has most certainly seen other instances where one coach or assistant has lied about another. To ignore that possiblity would have been irresponsible.

Secondly, on the one hand you acknowledge that the law required Paterno to report the allegation, which he did, so that the proper authorities could investigate the allegation. And then on the other hand you're excoriating him for not taking the law into his own hands and taking action outside the purview of those same authorities even though he knows less about what happened and has less evidence than they do.

Like I said, reason has left the building.

As for me, I'm out. I've spent too much time on this as it is.

I base it on the fact that he has specific legal responsibilities to report, which he did in fact do. And he did nothing more, at least as far as we know now. To many people, that level of integrity and responsibility required more than the minimum. At minimum, he was also aware that his superiors were themselves violating the reporting requirements, and he did nothing about that either.

You're the one who's been talking about his sterling reputation for integrity. And apparently a whole lot of people, including many of the posters here, agreed with you. A reputation is not really a legal concept, except in the narrow sense of some civil lawsuits. It's a social construct, and Paterno had built his over a long career. And now, he's destroyed it, by ignoring a situation that allowed children to be harmed right there in his own premises.

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not, as a reputation is more or less entirely a matter of opinion. This thread is mainly of people who are shocked by his failings, and deeply disappointed in them. And rather than telling us we're a bunch of dumb shits, it would be preferable if you would just STFU and go away and leave people com commiserate in peace.

And I agree, you've spent WAY too much time here. Go get some rest.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

What people were those?

It's his understanding that the University Athletic Director has the authority to investigate and evaluate these sort of claims. I always thought they ran the athletic department and scheduled future games for the volleyball and soccer teams, but apparently where SA lives they investigate child rape claims. Here, we call the police.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

It's his understanding that the University Athletic Director has the authority to investigate and evaluate these sort of claims. I always thought they ran the athletic department and scheduled future games for the volleyball and soccer teams, but apparently where SA lives they investigate child rape claims. Here, we call the police.

This. Apparently, since Paterno met the bare minimum legal requirement to report this, he's off the hook in some people's opinions.

Of course, the moral thing would be to follow up and make sure a real investigation took place. But since it's not required by law, then Paterno didn't do it. The non-campus police were never notified. This is a pattern of at LEAST extreme indifference to the safety and well-being of children, and at the most extreme possibility, a cover-up.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Kolga

This. Apparently, since Paterno met the bare minimum legal requirement to report this, he's off the hook in some people's opinions.

Of course, the moral thing would be to follow up and make sure a real investigation took place. But since it's not required by law, then Paterno didn't do it. The non-campus police were never notified. This is a pattern of at LEAST extreme indifference to the safety and well-being of children, and at the most extreme possibility, a cover-up.

Oh, PLEASE don't start arguing morality with SA, who believes there is no such thing. Reputations apparently DO exist, however.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

No, people are angry because Paterno must have known there was no followup investigation to the allegations, and did nothing more than the bare minimum the law required, knowing that his superiors at the university didn't even do that much.

[steve jobs] Okay, one more thing. [/steve jobs]

Do you not realize what you're saying? People are presuming that Paterno "must" have known, but they don't know that for a fact, do they? No, they don't! Therefore, they can't reasonably conclude that Paterno knowingly chose to do as little as possible (the "minimum the law required", whatever that means. What would you have him do, take the law into his own hands like I said above?), nor can they conclude that he knew his superiors weren't doing their duty. Further, it would not only have been irresponsible for him to have taken matters into his own hands. What would you have had him to do? Shoot the guy? Beat him up? Open himself and the university up to lawsuits for damages by taking the word of one of his coaching assistants as ironclad proof and going after the guy in some other way when in the eyes of the law it boils down to one man's word against another's? Paterno had no legally substantive basis to take further action against Sandusky, and he had no factually substantive basis to take further action against Sandusky. End of story. It wasn't Paterno's job or moral obligation to decide for himself what the truth was and then take matters into his own hands, and anyone who claims it was simply isn't thinking straight.

And now I'm out, so you can all rant and rave unthinkingly based soley on emotion commiserate with each other, and I can get on with my night.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Oh, PLEASE don't start arguing morality with SA, who believes there is no such thing. Reputations apparently DO exist, however.

Never before has so much wrongness dwelt in one person's head.

[Boyo Jim]

Paterno must have known if there was an investigation because it would have involved him and his staff being questioned by the police. It really is as simple as that.

All I would have expected him to do, and McCreary even more so, was to call the police once it became evident that their superiors had not done so. That's it -- nothing else.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Kolga

Never before has so much wrongness dwelt in one person's head.

Seriously, you can find threads on it.

[Gatopescado]

There is no "I" in TEAM!

There is one in Pedophile, however.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Seriously, you can find threads on it.

Oh, must I? Because I think I would find more benefit from slamming my head repeatedly on my desk until blood starts leaking out of my ears.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Kolga

Oh, must I? Because I think I would find more benefit from slamming my head repeatedly on my desk until blood starts leaking out of my ears.

That would be more fun, come to think of it.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

What would you have had him to do? Shoot the guy? Beat him up? Open himself and the university up to lawsuits for damages by taking the word of one of his coaching assistants as ironclad proof and going after the guy in some other way when in the eyes of the law it boils down to one man's word against another's? Paterno had no legally substantive basis to take further action against Sandusky, and he had no factually substantive basis to take further action against Sandusky. End of story. It wasn't Paterno's job or moral obligation to decide for himself what the truth was and then take matters into his own hands, and anyone who claims it was simply isn't thinking straight.

I don't see anybody in this thread claiming that Paterno should have "decide[d] for himself what the truth was and then take[n] matters into his own hands."

The whole point of what we're saying is that Paterno, rather than taking matters into his own hands, had to turn it over to the legally constituted authorities that are empowered to investigate possible crimes. He knew that either Sandusky was engaging in extremely inappropriate intimacies with a child well under age 18, or McQueary was fabricating a total lie. Determining which wasn't his call, but that of the police and the D.A. He needed to either report it to them directly, or make sure his A.D. (his nominal superior, but for all practical purposes his employee) reported it to the cops.

(That doesn't absolve McQueary either, for that matter. He had the responsibility to report this to the police, as did Paterno, as did anyone in the Penn State bureaucracy that was informed of this story by or through Paterno.)